President Donald Trump continued to defend his administration’s hands-off approach to AI regulation in the wake of hacks carried out by U.S. commercial frontier models that have rattled policymakers and industry veterans and spurred calls for more regulatory oversight.

In a Truth Social post Monday, Trump dismissed worries from critics that “AI is going to kill us,” comparing them to complaints from environmentalists about climate change, which he also alleged was a false narrative. He also posited that nothing may matter more than future U.S. dominance of the technology over geopolitical rivals like China.

“Whoever wins AI, WINS!” Trump posted. “We are leading now over China, and everyone else, and I’m going to keep it that way! I’m not going to stifle Growth, of something that will be bigger than the Industrial Revolution, or the internet, itself.”

Trump has previously suggested that good leadership is the only regulation the U.S. needs for artificial intelligence. He later claimed the Department of Justice was ready to “rein things in” if companies overstepped, but offered no specifics on enforcement, legal authority, or where he would draw that line.

“We will be careful, and that’s why we have the Department of Justice, and other Law Enforcement bodies, that will rein things in if we have to, but I will only encourage AI or, SI (SUPER INTELLIGENCE)!” Trump concluded.

Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent recently told Congress that private lawsuits could force AI companies to institute better security, saying it’s clear what the government “shouldn’t do on safety is to give these labs a liability exemption, which is what they are asking for.”

“The best way to guarantee safety is that the creators are liable for what they build and generate,” Bessent said.

Beyond existential fears, critics also argue that inadequate regulation or cybersecurity controls in current AI systems make them impossible to fully control or monitor.

Recently, former President Barack Obama criticized the argument from Trump administration officials that the free market will naturally push industry toward self-regulation and that “these companies will solve the safety issues because they have every incentive to do so.”

“If it turns out to be dangerous, people will just sue them and they’ll be worried about financial liability,” Obama said last week in remarks at Colgate University in New York. “That’s not how we treat airlines or drug companies or food companies.”

The Trump administration issued an executive order earlier this year that set up a voluntary testing regime for some commercial frontier models, largely at private industry’s discretion. That order was significantly delayed and altered by AI industry boosters to ensure that governmental review did not cause companies to postpone their release timelines for new models.

That agreement did not last long before fast-moving events caused the administration to strike another, non-public agreement with frontier AI companies like OpenAI, Anthropic and others governing pre-release testing for models.

But the Trump administration has consistently argued that regulation will harm, not help, U.S. innovation and global competitiveness, and the threat of China frequently looms large in those discussions.

Experts believe China’s AI models are behind U.S. models at the top of the market, where OpenAI and Anthropic have consistently pushed the frontier limits of model capabilities. But Chinese lower and “middle class” models are often cheaper, more efficient and can even outperform more powerful models because users can dedicate exponentially more tokens for their tasks.

The U.S. government has accused Chinese AI companies of conducting widespread, “systematic” distillation of U.S. frontier models, with the implicit encouragement of Beijing.

In defending the administration’s approach, David Sacks, co-chair of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science & Technology and a top adviser on AI issues, specifically cited the threat from China and other countries that he claimed would not be subject to similar restrictions.

“We’re not the only country that has advanced AI labs, and as the president declared…we have to win this AI race,” Sacks told Politico in May, later adding “I think that’s the first thing to recognize is that if somehow we slow down or stop AI development, it doesn’t mean that AI progress is going to stop. It just means it’s going to happen in other countries and specifically China.”

Some observers have alleged that despite their larger differences, top leaders in the U.S. and China may view AI similarly at the strategic level, specfically that increased adoption – and risks – of AI are inevitable.

Ronan Murphy, director of the tech policy program at the Center for European Policy Analysis, posited that while there may not be a formal agreement between the two countries, “they share views both in Beijing and in Washington, particularly in the White House, of: you have to allow this to happen.”

“Clearly there’s a call for regulation from many quarters of AI in the U.S. and elsewhere, but in the White House – and we heard David Sacks talking about it [recently] – It’s ‘let them cook,’ and the Chinese approach seems to be the same,” said Murphy in a press briefing. “So there might be consensus at that level, if nothing else.”

The post Citing China, President Trump doubles down on hands-off approach to AI regulation appeared first on CyberScoop.

Beginning next month, if a flight is canceled or delayed because of a cyberattack, feds will give airlines clearance not to hand out meal vouchers or hotels.

The change is the result of a broader rule the Transportation Department published last week that establishes a new “cause of delay” category for tracking information, but that also reduces air carrier responsibilities to customers for 10 kinds of events. Among them: “cybersecurity attacks (provided that the air carrier is in compliance with applicable cybersecurity regulations).”

The 10 events, including those cyberattacks, are deemed “not controllable,” meaning that “carriers are no longer obligated under [customer service] plans to provide amenities or compensation when disruptions arise from these specific causes,” as Sophie Hayashi, counsel at Crowell & Moring in the transportation group, wrote in a client alert.

Those airline-authored customer service plans aren’t legally binding, although DOT has maintained it will hold airlines “accountable” for their pledges.

One airline consumer advocacy organization, FlyersRights, was skeptical of the change, saying it came without giving the public a chance to comment and that it would be monitoring the impact on airline customers and tracking any reduction in amenities. 

Specifically, “cybersecurity is an airline responsibility, so if a flight is delayed or cancelled it should be clear that the delay was not due to carrier neglect, as cyberattacks are constant,” Paul Hudson, president of the group, told CyberScoop. “We have previously urged stress tests for airline computer systems that are going down often.”

Another group, the National Consumers League, had a more mixed view about the rule’s effects on flyers. On one hand, it could be good for them, said John Breyault, vice president of public policy for the group.

‘What we appreciated about this being put into a rule was that it gave consumers certainty that regardless of which airline they were flying, they would know that they have certain rights, and they weren’t beholden to the whims of the airlines who may or may not decide to provide them with a hotel if there’s a delay or cancelation,” he said.

On the other, though, “it’s clear to us that the DOT seems inclined to try and make the rules a little less onerous for the for the airline industry,” Breyault said, and in particular was worried about how airlines could potentially abuse the ambiguity related to one of the 10 events, “unscheduled maintenance,” to find a way to avoid compensating consumers.

The provision might still protect consumers because of its condition on compliance with applicable cybersecurity regulations, Breyault said. Carriers who can’t demonstrate compliance will be subject to customer and other requirements, Hayashi said.

“The final rule’s language regarding applicable cybersecurity regulations is notably broad,” said Kate Growley, partner at Crowell & Moring. “This may have been deliberate to account for the unpredictable nature of cybersecurity attacks. Different regulations may apply depending on the exact circumstances of the attack, such as what information or operational capabilities were affected.”

There’s no formal accounting of how often cyberattacks have caused delays or cancellations that then prompted airlines to provide meal vouchers or hotels. Hackers have targeted airlines and flights before, such as Scattered Spider’s attacks last summer.

Cyberattacks have caused flying delays and cancellations, although sometimes those attacks have been aimed at third parties, such as in last year’s attack on Collins Aerospace led to delays in Europe. Attackers also have targeted other elements of the aviation sector. The 2024 IT outage related to the cybersecurity company CrowdStrike that grounded flights wasn’t a cyberattack, but did lead to airlines providing some compensation to travelers; the Transportation Department determined that incident was within airlines’ control.

The Biden administration notably imposed cybersecurity regulations on airports, aircraft owners and aircraft operators in 2023 due to “persistent cybersecurity threats” in the sector. 

The newly-published Department of Transportation (DOT) rule stems from a Federal Aviation Administration authorization law that President Joe Biden signed in 2024. 

“Congress explicitly directed DOT in the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2024 to make these changes,” a Department of Transportation spokesperson said. “These 10 specific types of flight disruptions will now … be tracked in a brand-new reporting category to ensure government delay data accurately reflects what airlines can and cannot control.”

The Aviation Information Sharing Analysis Center said it appreciated the elements of the rule related to reporting incidents.

“The Aviation ISAC supports efforts to simplify and harmonize cybersecurity reporting across numerous government agencies,” said Jeff Troy, president and CEO of the organization. “This rule is a move in the right direction.”

Hayashi told CyberScoop the rule change looks to be positive for both airlines — because of the clarity it provides them about disruptions not under their control — and consumers.

“This actually is beneficial for everyone, and particularly consumers, because it makes it clear if you’re looking at airlines delay and cancellation rates, this is going to give you the most accurate picture of carrier delays,” she said.

The post Cyberattack causes a flight delay? Airlines won’t owe you a hotel or meal appeared first on CyberScoop.

The Federal Trade Commission has rescinded a Biden administration-era policy statement that asserted coverage over health and fitness apps under federal data breach notification regulations.

In a half-page statement posted Wednesday, the FTC said it “has determined that the statement – contentious at the time of issuance – provided minimal benefit and has been superseded by rulemaking.” The commission said the statement’s withdrawal also aligns with guidance from the White House to pursue a deregulatory agenda and avoid “unnecessary use of subregulatory guidance.”

Unlike a formal regulation, which carries the legally binding force of law created through a public rulemaking process, an agency policy statement is non-binding guidance that merely outlines how officials intend to interpret and enforce existing statutes. An FTC spokesperson told CyberScoop that the underlying policy including health apps remains codified through a regulatory update in 2024.

“Each of these reasons is independently sufficient to support the Commission’s decision to rescind this policy statement,” the FTC continued. “Parties understand that guidance generally creates neither substantive rights nor binding obligations.”

The initial policy statement, passed in a divided 3-2 vote during the Biden administration under then-FTC chair Lina Khan, asserted that health apps, fitness trackers and other connected devices were covered under an existing regulation requiring companies to disclose health-related data breaches to customers.

The interpretation targeted any “vendor of personal health records that contain individually identifiable health information created or received by health care providers.” Many health and fitness apps ask users to upload medical records and other health-related data in order to function effectively.

More recently, health and cybersecurity experts have pointed to similar regulatory gaps that exist for AI companies that make healthcare specific models that can answer questions, examine patient records and dispense medical advice to users.

The underlying Health Breach Notification Rule also triggers automatic notification when a covered entity suffers a breach of security, which can include both standard breaches and data losses as well as the disclosure of sensitive health information to third parties without users’ authorization. That would potentially put health apps on the hook for selling customer data to third-party data brokers and other entities-a standard formally codified in a binding 2024 FTC rule update.

A Sept. 2021 statement by the FTC justifies its interpretation by citing digital security and privacy provisions in the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act as well as gaps in major health privacy laws like the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act that allow such apps to handle and store sensitive personal health records or data without being subject to the same breach notification requirements as other health care organizations.

The FTC said it intended to enforce health apps under the law and subject violators to daily fines of $43,792 per violation.

“As many Americans turn to apps and other technologies to track diseases, diagnoses, treatment, medications, fitness, fertility, sleep, mental health, diet, and other vital areas, this Rule is more important than ever,” the FTC said in 2021. “Firms offering these services should take appropriate care to secure and protect consumer data.”

This week, the FTC voted unanimously to rescind the policy statement. But that unity is in part because President Trump fired Democratic FTC commissioners who voted in favor of the original rules, while advancing party allies as their replacements.

The two dissenting votes against the policy statement in 2021 were from Republican-appointed commissioners casting their dissents under a Democratic executive. Andrew Ferguson, a Republican commissioner nominated by former Democratic President Joe Biden, is now chair of an FTC filled entirely with Republican appointees, and has defended President Trump’s authority to fire and hire new commissioners at-will.

Update, 9/11/26, 4:15 p.m.: This story has been updated to clarify the impact of the FTC’s policy statement revision.

The post FTC rescinds policy statement requiring health apps to notify customers after a breach  appeared first on CyberScoop.

The Federal Communications Commission wants to set up a new scorecard system that would allow rate telecoms’ ability to prevent or deter unwanted robocalls.

According to the agency, the scorecard “will empower consumers and encourage providers to continue to combat illegal robocalls by providing the public with an assessment of the effectiveness of voice service providers’ efforts to protect consumers from illegal robocalls,” the FCC said in a Wednesday public notice.

The notice does not prescribe or define technical solutions or systems for the scorecard, instead laying out broad goals for the project. Those include creating a public guide for evaluating how well providers prevent robocalls, and how transparent they are with their metrics.

The agency expressed a desire for more than “a simple administrative checklist,” such as whether the provider offered the right tools or filed the right paperwork, but rather “a composite set of metrics that reflects both operational practices and measurable outcomes, including how often legitimate calls are blocked.”

The scorecard would apply only to domestic voice service providers with retail customers, including wireless, wireline, VoIP providers and hybrid networks, but the agency is seeking comment from the public on whether to focus on larger providers, exclude small or regional networks and other questions around who would be evaluated.

The FCC says it intends to publish the scorecard results, but characterized it as a tool to help consumers understand how effectively voice service providers address robocalls on their networks and “not a rulemaking that will result in new rules or requirements for voice service providers.”

However, the notice does flag a number of federal data systems built around enforcement that the agency said it believes would be “best” for evaluating companies, including Robocall Mitigation Database filings, FCC Consumer Complaints Center data, and FCC enforcement action data, along with third-party or industry sources like Industry Traceback Group data and Federal Trade Commission complaint data.

Peter Hyun, former acting head of enforcement at the FCC, endorsed the general concept behind the idea, likening it to the Department of Transportation’s creation of an airline customer service dashboard in 2024.

That transparency “helped foster adoption of improved practices and a strong focus on better outcomes for consumers,” Hyun told CyberScoop in a text message. “With recent legal and policy fights over FCC enforcement, this is a creative effort to use other tools to combat what is an ever-tormenting issue for consumers: illegal calls.”

FCC officials have emphasized that the most frequent complaints they hear from consumers are around robocalling, and they are seeking to address that demand in a variety of ways.

On the same day the scorecard was unveiled, the FCC announced it had booted 14 telecommunications providers from the Robocall Mitigation Database. The federal system is used by companies to document their compliance with anti-robocalling standards — like STIR/SHAKEN protocols — that FCC officials say are vital to helping them validate legitimate network traffic moving through the U.S. and identify bad actors.

Removing a company from the database effectively cuts it off from connecting to U.S. telecom networks. FCC regulations give other U.S. providers two days to block all traffic coming from violators.

“Today’s action pushes more than a dozen providers off of U.S. networks for failing to abide by our robocall rules,” said FCC Chair Brendan Carr. “The FCC continues to attack the problem of illegal robocalls at every point along the call path, and everyone in this ecosystem has an obligation to step up and do what they can to protect consumers against fraud and scammers.”

According to the FCC, the 14 companies failed to respond to take necessary steps when informed that their database certifications were out of compliance. The list of affected companies includes Apps Communications, CFX Business Solutions, Conference America, Convergence Technology Solutions, CSB Technologies, Digital Division, Dixie Net Communications, HighComm, Inatech Solutions, makrodepot, Opex Communications, ReachME, SECURE, and SkyCom Healthcare.

The post FCC proposes public scorecard to rate telecoms on anti-robocall efforts appeared first on CyberScoop.

In a late Friday night posting to the Federal Register, the U.S. Postal Service said it is finalizing new regulations that would give the federal government potentially vast powers to control mail-in ballots for voters.

The changes are part of an executive order signed by President Donald Trump in March, which directed USPS to develop lists of residents “eligible” for mail-in voting — standards that would be defined by the federal government.

The U.S. Constitution vests states and Congress with the power to regulate elections, and the USPS rules have already been struck down by multiple lower courts. But as the White House appeals to the Supreme Court to reverse those decisions, it is still moving ahead in finalizing the regulations, though USPS says it will not move to implement them until after the Supreme Court rules.

But USPS said it must begin moving forward now in order to ensure the changes are in place by the mid-term elections.

“To ensure the faithful execution of federal law in connection with federal elections, this rule has an immediate effective date,” USPS wrote. “Delaying the effective date would jeopardize implementation of this rule in time for the 2026 general election, which will be held on November 3, 2026.”

According to the notice, USPS has received an astonishing 200,000 comments from the public in response to the proposed rule. It doesn’t provide a breakdown of how many comments were in support or opposition.

By the agency’s own admission, the vast majority of supportive comments appear to argue that the rules would help with the perception among voters that fraud is a “significant problem.”  Phrases like “strengthens confidence” and “reduce uncertainty” are peppered throughout the descriptions.

But no credible evidence of coordinated mail-in voter fraud is presented, and Trump and his allies have been the primary force in American politics spreading the perception that voter fraud by noncitizens, dead people and Democrats is rampant. Courts, post-election audits and independent experts have repeatedly debunked these arguments.

“Whether or not voter fraud is common or uncommon, the Postal Service has the legal authority to take the measures in this rule to facilitate enforcement of federal law, reduce the risk of fraud, and help protect the integrity of federal elections,” the notice stated.

According to the notice, the comments in opposition pointed out that two courts have already blocked the White House’s USPS rules, finding them unconstitutional. Others expressed concerns that the Postal Service “would refuse to accept certain ballots for federal elections that states tender without satisfying the data-entry obligations that the rule would impose,” echoing concerns that election experts have conveyed to CyberScoop in interviews.

The notice also dismisses comments “influenced by partisan political speculation,” that include “conjecture about the underlying intent” of the order, its impact on voter turnout and elections.

“Such remarks are speculative and exceed the scope of this proceeding,” USPS wrote in its notice. “In any event … this rule does not—nor is it intended to—facilitate any form of voter suppression, affect election outcomes, or target particular demographics, districts, or states.”

Last week the U.S. District Court of Massachusetts, which ruled against the administration’s USPS order in an ongoing lawsuit brought by states and voter groups, took the unusual step of issuing a second, separate injunction against the USPS rules. It’s not clear whether the Supreme Court will address both injunctions in the same ruling or separately ahead of election day in November.

“The court has already answered and will again resolve the question clearly and affirmatively,” Judge Indira Talwani wrote when issuing the second injunction. “The executive branch has no authority to regulate elections.”

Some voting groups quickly moved to condemn the Friday night posting, saying it will confuse voters about a state-led voting process that is, as of today, still the law of the land.

“For the 2026 election, voters can continue to rely on the voting rules established by their state unless and until a court orders otherwise,” said Michael McNulty, senior policy director at the nonprofit Issue One. “Yet, because the Trump administration continues its attempts to undermine trust in an effort to centralize control of elections, we all must remain vigilant and continue to build trust in our election system.”

The post Postal Service moves to finalize mail ballot regs before SCOTUS ruling appeared first on CyberScoop.

The Federal Trade Commission wants to start regulating ideological bias in AI systems and assert federal control over state laws. They’re getting an earful from opponents on all sides of the political spectrum.

In a proposed policy statement released last month, the FTC said it was considering treating ideological bias in AI systems as an “unfair and deceptive practice” under Section 5 of the FTC Act.

The commission argued that consumers have an expectation that AI systems will provide them with information free from bias or ideological manipulation. Defining such bias as an unfair or deceptive practice would potentially allow the commission to regulate training or inputs that power AI algorithms. How precisely the FTC would determine when ideological bias exists in these systems is not fully explained in the document. 

Additionally, the statement suggests that the FTC believes this regulatory authority supersedes state AI laws. It specifically mentions the Colorado AI Act, which calls for models to be subject to risk assessments, transparency disclosures and “bias audits” before release. State lawmakers are now seeking to delay or eliminate the audits before the law takes effect in 2027.

CyberScoop reviewed dozens of public comments criticizing the FTC’s proposal. Even ideological allies raised two main concerns: first, that the proposal distracts from real questions about the federal government’s role in regulating AI deception; and second, that it opens a Pandora’s Box by enabling political censorship of AI model outputs.

Leah Siskind, a former White House digital official and deputy director of the AI Corps at the Department of Homeland Security, told CyberScoop that AI companies face legitimate questions about their obligations to consumers, particularly whether they must ensure their models provide accurate information and protect against deliberate manipulation. 

Siskind’s past research has focused on how authoritarian propaganda tends to be overrepresented in answers provided by large language models, in part due to governments’ intentional efforts to poison data ingested by AI systems.

“There is a really interesting debate here about bias and about accuracy in models and whether that’s deceptive or not… about how we counter disinformation that has been absorbed and is now being reflected by LLMs…but this is not addressing that at all,” said Siskind, now a senior AI fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.

Instead, Siskind said the FTC statement appears primarily concerned about a power struggle with states over AI regulation and “petty squabbles about which AI model is more woke than the other.” She’s skeptical that the policy statement’s cited legal authorities are on sound footing.

“The way I see it is that the FTC’s role is to police consumer protection violations, not regulating AI systems, and it seems like they’re trying to solve a lack of congressional AI regulation by stretching section 5 [of the FTC Act] well beyond its traditional role,” she said.

Additionally, the policy statement’s language and sourcing suggests that the FTC is concerned with certain kinds of ideological bias more than others.

Anthropic, which has clashed with the Trump administration over AI guardrails and military applications of their technology, shows up more than half a dozen times in footnotes, many which are framed as examples of ideological bias the FTC is seeking to stamp out.

By contrast, the statement ignores a direct example of an American AI company owner influencing their model’s ideology: Elon Musk and his xAI-owned Grok model. Musk has publicly admitted, often on his own website, to intervening when Grok’s responses upset him. These interventions have shaped Grok’s outputs on specific topics, including South African race relations and the term “MechaHitler,” where the model now reflects Musk’s personal views.

But neither Musk and xAI are mentioned in the document, while Grok appears in a footnote which cites an advertisement for Grok as “your truth-seeking AI companion for unfiltered answers with advanced capabilities in reasoning, coding, and visual processing.”

Criticism across the spectrum

The FTC received more than 300 comments on its proposal from trade associations, think tanks, individual experts and members of Congress. Most criticized it as ill-defined and vulnerable to politically-motivated censorship, while some supported stronger rules against bias in AI systems. 

The International Center for Law and Economics noted the statement “offers little practical guidance about how the Commission will apply its deception authority to AI” and also does little to address hard questions, like where AI providers may be exercising their own First Amendment-protected activities.

The statement’s “focus on ‘ideologically motivated distortions’ suggests that the Commission’s concerns extend beyond factual misrepresentations in marketing to speech that may receive the highest degree of First Amendment protection,” the ICLE wrote.

The America First Legal Foundation, a conservative non-profit founded by top White House adviser Stephen Miller, pressed the FTC to adopt the policy “in full,” claiming that frontier models from OpenAI and Anthropic “have been programmed to prioritize ideologically liberal and progressive values as though they are objective, neutral positions rooted in truth.”

The group also argues that regulating these models’ ideological output falls under the FTC’s legal authority, because a “reasonable consumer” would expect that a model advertised for its usefulness and reliability would not prioritize liberal, ideological views.

“A reasonable consumer, based on AI companies’ advertising choices, would not expect that an AI system will adopt overwhelmingly liberal positions, thereby skewing results, or adopt a moral framework that would prefer to annihilate the earth rather than utter a slur,” wrote Emily Percival, senior counsel for America First Legal.

However, comments from other conservative groups questioned that rationale. The R Street Foundation’s Spence Purnell and Adam Thierer wrote that “the consumer expectations rationale is typically used in cases where there is an omission of information that should have existed.”

“Given that most LLMs already have disclosure statements [for their outputs], it seems unlikely that the FTC could explicitly prove that consumers were deceived about a product,” Purnell and Thierer wrote.

Reps. Josh Gottheimer, D-N.J., and Michael Lawler, R-N.Y., urged the FTC to carve out civil rights-related work from their scrutiny, such as preventing models from discriminating against users based on race, religion, gender, age and other federally protected characteristics.

“AI companies must not falsify facts in the name of fairness, but they also must prevent discrimination, stereotypes, and unequal treatment,” Gottheimer and Lawler wrote. “We would appreciate understanding how the FTC intends to ensure that these efforts remain permissible under the final policy framework.”

But the most common concern shared across the political spectrum was that the FTC could establish a precedent allowing the Trump White House and future administrations to reshape AI systems to reflect their political views.

David Inserra, Jennifer Huddleston and Juan Londoño of the Cato Institute point out that the FTC statement is conflating two different issues: ideological bias in AI systems and factual deception in marketing. 

“In other words, the FTC is trying to judge AI models’ accuracy and performance—two largely subjective variables—in the same way it evaluates dietary supplements’ medical-benefit claims or users being charged fees without proper notice or consent,” they write. “This is an absurd comparison.”

The post The FTC wants to regulate AI for ideological bias  appeared first on CyberScoop.

The Trump administration executive order on artificial intelligence tried to strike the balance between responsible use, security and mutual benefit, all with an eye toward not making it regulatory in nature, National Cyber Director Sean Cairncross said Tuesday.

“Everyone is working towards the same goal in terms of protecting the country and securing our systems, and we are trying to ensure that defenders have this technology as quickly and at scale as possible, but there are obviously specific security concerns, and industry has been very sensitive to this as well,” Cairncross said at the Black Hat 2026 conference in Las Vegas.

The security concerns about AI have moved to the forefront of discussions about the technology after OpenAI models escaped a test environment to hack the company Hugging Face last month.

“The design of this is that when there is something that happens, when there is a breach, when there is an event, that that system, that network of connections can exist, adapt to that, and seek to remedy that as quickly as possible, so that form follows function rather than turning that upside down, and as usual with the government pen just proceeding in a vacuum,” Cairncross said.

The Trump administration has drawn criticism over whether it has struck the right balance on AI rules. Trump’s AI executive order notably got pulled just before its scheduled release, with the final version signed in June missing some aspects that had drawn industry opposition.

“What needs to be built is a flexible, adaptable structure that enables information sharing between industry and government, so we can guarantee that this technology benefits everyone it’s going to benefit, but is used responsibly and securely,” Cairncross said.

He said the administration is working with industry during implementation of the executive order.

“A regulatory regime would not only strangle growth, development, and innovation, and be enormously harmful to the industry, but it would be obsolete 48 hours after it was gone through whatever process it had gone through,” Cairncross said.

Open source will play a “vital” role in the U.S. spreading its vision for AI across the globe, he said.

“We are extremely interested in looking at ways to build U.S. open source, make it competitive, make it the preferential adoption by planet Earth,” Cairncross said. “We understand and appreciate the value to the ecosystem that it has, the innovation, the startups who rely on it, the leap forward it makes possible in ways that otherwise would never happen. And so I think it’s an incredibly thriving ecosystem in AI right now, and we are looking to do what we can to grow, foster, and push that U.S. open source model.” 

Speaking at the same conference, Nick Andersen, the acting director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, seconded Cairncross’s comments about AI executive order implementation. He touted the Gold Eagle clearinghouse as one example.

“Those are fantastic opportunities we have to really provide a unifying function around the way that we’re going to do AI-enabled vulnerability reporting and disclosure at scale in a way that we haven’t had to do before with some of our legacy platforms, and just continue to expand out those opportunities,” he said. “That access — to build off the director’s point earlier — to really enable that industry collaboration, that’s so key and critical to us as we move forward.”

Matt Kapko contributed reporting to this story.

Updated 8/5/2026: to include comments from Andersen.

The post National cyber director lays out White House plans to secure AI without writing new rules appeared first on CyberScoop.

Industry groups who spoke at town halls hosted by the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency about a pending cyber incident notification regulation had a few consistent messages:

We want this to apply to fewer of us. We don’t want to report to you on as many incidents. We want to give you less information when we do. 

CISA last week published transcripts from the town halls, where the agency sought feedback on the delayed rule for the 2022 Cyber Incident Reporting for Critical Infrastructure Act — perhaps the most significant cyber legislation Congress has ever passed. That law required critical infrastructure owners to report major cyberattacks to the federal government within 72 hours, and ransomware payments within 24 hours.

The law was designed to let the feds share information about significant incidents more widely to prepare other would-be victims. CISA published a proposed rule on the law in 2024 to define terms like “covered cyber incident” and more, and industry groups have persistently registered their objections since then.

CISA missed the October 2025 deadline for finalizing the rule, then missed a May reset target date, and now the administration says the rule will be completed in September.

Some industry sources told CyberScoop they consider that unlikely. Most also haven’t received any indications from CISA about how much of the town hall feedback it intends to embrace, they said.

Companies, incidents, information 

Those town hall comments over the course of four June dates were often very direct.

“The rule includes too many companies,” said Grant MacIntyre, director of regulatory affairs and senior attorney at the Auto Care Association. CISA estimated that more than 300,000 entities will be subject to its requirements.

Some industries advocated for their removal entirely, such as two different groups representing elements of the insurance sector. Some sought to reduce the number affected within their sector, such as the Nuclear Energy Institute wanting the list cut down to those already subject to Nuclear Regulatory Commission cybersecurity reporting requirements.

While CISA wrote the regulation with the intention to avoid overburdening small businesses, some feared it wouldn’t work that way in practice.

“The current approach where an entity qualifies either by size or by sector effectively negates the intended limitation on small businesses,” said Douglas Leigh, vice president of legislative affairs for the Alliance for Chemical Distribution. “In chemical distribution, even small entities could be swept in under multiple cyber categories.”

Where the rule specifies what kind of data organizations should report in a major incident, CISA should “seek to collect the least amount of information possible in the easiest to report fashion to facilitate information accuracy and reporting speed,” said Samantha Burch, vice president of technology public policy at government affairs at AHIP, a health insurance industry trade association.

Many, for instance, argued the report should not include information on the affected entities’ security measures.

Others worried about what kind of incidents would trigger reporting requirements.

“My big concern is that you’re going to be asking us to report incidents on every time some foreign entity tickles our firewall, whether they do anything or not, if they just do a ping or a search,” said Tim Pospisil, chief security officer for Nebraska Public Power District. “And that could be extremely burdensome.”

Industry Expectations

One industry representative told CyberScoop that CISA’s willingness to hold town halls, combined with the Trump administration strategy emphasizing “common sense regulation,” was a good sign about where the rule might be heading.

‘They are not picking up on the Biden administration’s approach and tweaking it. They’re thinking, ‘What are the specific pieces of information we need during a cyber incident to help critical infrastructure companies respond?’” said Henry Young, senior director of policy for the Business Software Alliance. “In general, industry is optimistic that what we’ll end up with are a few of the most important pieces of information, so that in the emergency, companies can act quickly and actually respond to an incident rather than completing lots of paperwork.”

But multiple industry sources said they haven’t gotten many indications about CISA’s intentions. Nor are they optimistic CISA can meet the September target date in the Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions.

“It could slip,” one said. “But I think they’re going to try.”

That industry source said they’d like to see a proposal from CISA before it cements anything forever.

Another industry source said it’s hard to trust the September date given past CISA delays, some of which aren’t CISA’s fault, such as dealing with multiple government shutdowns. Some of the delays trace to the Trump administration, given the massive cuts to CISA’s personnel.

Congress is also getting impatient.

The House Appropriations Committee “is concerned about delays in publishing the final CIRCIA rule and urges CISA to finalize it promptly following stakeholder review and feedback,” the panel wrote in the committee report for its fiscal 2027 Department of Homeland Security spending bill.

It’s a much different world than when CISA began writing the rule, something the agency also has to take into account now.

“AI has fundamentally changed the playing field,” the source said. “When this was set up, we didn’t even have the first generation of ChatGPT. We’re now in a mythos class environment.” That’s changed “how quickly we can identify threats, mitigate them, the level of human intervention, potential machine engagement.”

While CISA might have good intentions, past interactions give cause for skepticism about how capable it is of working collaboratively with industry, the source said.

Another industry source said conversations with CISA suggest the agency will look to simplify the regulation to keep it smaller and narrower, then potentially build upon it later.

From CISA’s mouth

Nick Andersen, the acting director of CISA, talked about his overarching intentions with CIRCIA at the town halls.

“CISA does not view CIRCIA as simply a check-the-box compliance exercise,” Andersen said at one. “CIRCIA will enhance visibility into the cyberthreat landscape to enable a robust national early warning capability for critical infrastructure. By quickly reporting covered cyber incidents and ransom payments to CISA, we will be able to provide timely and actionable defensive and eviction measures to your network defenders.”

Asked by CyberScoop about next steps for CIRCIA, and how it might incorporate the industry feedback, a spokesperson provided a statement.

“CISA recognizes the importance of CIRCIA, however, multiple funding lapses impacted CISA’s ability to conduct rulemaking activity for CIRCIA. CISA continues to work on the final rule,” the spokesperson said, adding that 1,200 critical infrastructure stakeholders attended the town halls.  “CISA will continue to communicate updates on the CIRCIA rulemaking process and timeline through CISA.gov/CIRCIA and the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs’ Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions.”

The post Industry’s message on CIRCIA: Please ask us fewer questions about cyberattacks appeared first on CyberScoop.

Microsoft, along with more than two dozen tech companies, are pressing policymakers to support open-source AI systems and code across society, arguing that it will be a safer approach than attempting to restrict access or relying on a handful of closed, proprietary models.

The open letter, posted Friday, draws parallels to the software industry of the 1980s, when large businesses worried that open-source software code would cut into their business. While industry lost that battle, the end result was a vibrant ecosystem that now underpins much of the modern internet, government IT and even commercial software products.

It also created a “shared foundation of knowledge” that has fed countless future software projects and innovations.

“The United States now faces a similar choice with artificial intelligence,” the companies wrote. “Our AI leadership will be judged not by one frontier AI model, but by whether the United States builds a strong, open ecosystem that diffuses into every sector.”

Expanding access and support to open-source AI comes with meaningful security risk. Cybersecurity experts warn that one of the biggest beneficiaries of broadly available AI tools are  low-level criminals who until now lacked the technical expertise or resources to launch serious attacks.

Once a model is open weight, anyone can download it, customize it, strip it of any guardrails and use it for their own purposes. As open-source models have gotten better at creating deepfakes and other AI generated imagery, the danger of locally-customized CSAM and sexualized deepfakes could also grow.

But the letter argues that open-weight AI models are most beneficial to startups, universities, research labs and other small, ambitious organizations that can innovate and iterate the technology and make it more broadly useful to society.

“Open weights let every organization match the right model to the right job at the right cost, reserving frontier-scale capability for genuine frontier problems and running efficient specialized specialized models everywhere else,” The companies wrote. “That discipline is what will make AI economically sustainable as its use scales into the billions of everyday tasks.”

 For cybersecurity specifically, the letter argues that defenders armed with open-source AI will outpace attackers better than any closed model approach.

“In a world where cybersecurity attackers use advanced AI, defenders need access to models with comparable capabilities so they can detect, simulate, and respond to emerging threats,” the companies wrote. “Open models broaden defensive capability, increase transparency, and allow vulnerabilities to be discovered and remediated across many teams.”

Other notable companies signing the letter include Meta, Palantir, Perplexity, Mistral, NVIDIA, Mozilla, The Linux Foundation, Hugging Face, Dell Technologies and IBM.

US policymakers continue to grapple with balancing unrestrained support for the domestic AI industry and providing oversight and regulation of harms that result from their use.

The Trump administration has cycled through several frameworks since coming into office, first a laissez-faire approach within no restrictions, then an executive order creating a voluntary testing regime for industry, then the imposition of export controls on Anthropic’s Fable model and reportedly pressuring OpenAI to delay the release of their models out of cybersecurity concerns.

The letter comes as the Trump administration has reportedly considered an executive order that would restrict American access and availability to Chinese-made open-source models.

But the White House and US companies are trying to thread a needle in recognizing the overall benefits of an open source approach while being wary of doing anything that could potentially benefit their Chinese rivals.

Earlier this month the White House announced the creation of its Gold Eagle AI cybersecurity clearinghouse that would help coordinate government, private sector and civil society work finding and closing AI-discovered vulnerabilities. A big part of that effort, a senior White House official said, is supporting providers and maintainers of open-source AI tools.

The post Microsoft, tech companies throw weight behind spread of open-source AI appeared first on CyberScoop.

Seven out of 10 federal cyber regulations requiring written reports to federal agencies are duplicated elsewhere, a report from a government watchdog found in a report to Congress Wednesday.

And so far, efforts to de-conflict haven’t had much success, the report from the Government Accountability Office concluded.

At the request of two top lawmakers, the GAO examined federal cyber regulations at 37 agencies. It counted 80 out of 117 rules that “either contain the same kind of reporting requirement applicable to a sector or the same reporting requirement as at least one other regulation.”

The desire to harmonize those conflicting rules gathered steam under the Biden administration, as it undertook a more aggressive push to regulate cybersecurity than prior administrations. It has continued into the second Trump administration.

The GAO scrutinized regulations that required the private sector to report cybersecurity incidents, plans and reviews to federal agencies, as part of a study sought by House Homeland Security Chairman Andrew Garbarino, R-N.Y., and the top Democrat on the Senate counterpart to Garbarino’s panel, Gary Peters, D-Mich.

In some cases, a single critical infrastructure sector could have duplication with several agencies. For example, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency has been working on a regulation stemming from the 2022 Cyber Incident Reporting for Critical Infrastructure Act (CIRCIA), which would require critical infrastructure owners and operators to report when they are the victims of major attacks or make ransomware payments.

Elements of the financial services sector might fall under one of 15 preexisting cybersecurity reporting rules, depending on the agency that has oversight, but they may also be subject to the pending CIRCIA rules, GAO noted.

A 2024 national security memorandum tasked the Office of the National Cyber Director and the Department of Homeland Security to harmonize conflicting regulations, and both agencies made some progress on those goals.

But the executive branch paused some of those efforts after Trump issued an executive order in March of last year while the administration conducted a study of the 2024 memo, a study that was still underway as of last month, according to the GAO.

As such, on harmonization, “many past federal efforts have experienced delays and made limited progress,” the GAO concluded in its report Wednesday, its latest on the topic. 

Congress has also looked at ways to streamline cybersecurity regulations.

GAO’s study was focused only on federal rules. BreachRx, a cyber incident response firm, published its own report Wednesday looking at major cyber incidents and how overlapping regulatory reporting obligations came into play, folding in regulations from states and other sources.

The post Most federal cybersecurity reporting rules are duplicative, study finds appeared first on CyberScoop.

After a year and a half spent downplaying calls for AI safety regulations, the Trump administration has sharply reversed course, embracing a level of government scrutiny of frontier AI systems before public release–a far stricter stance than the Biden administration took.

An executive order designed to be friendly to the AI industry was meant to let the federal government briefly review some new models on a voluntary basis.

When the Trump administration, suddenly and without much warning, slapped export controls on Anthropic’s Fable 5 and Mythos 5 in response to private sector threat intelligence reporting, the U.S. AI industry officially entered its regulatory era.

But key questions and gaps remain. It’s not clear why the administration drew the line where it did, or whether they will move it again in the future.

While newer models like Mythos and OpenAI’s Daybreak do have stronger cybersecurity capabilities, the private sector reports the administration relied on describe capabilities already available in older commercial, open-source and Chinese models that nearly anyone can access.

CyberScoop spoke with current users of the latest frontier models, including OpenAI’s ChatGPT 5.5 and Fable 5, to learn more about what these models are currently capable of in offensive and defensive cybersecurity.

Cybersecurity experts and former government officials say the administration may be playing catch up on threats that have been building for years as it has more fully realized the national security implications of the technology.

Are the models breaking new ground or just breaking things? 

Users of Chat GPT 5.5, introduced this past April, and Fable 5 tell CyberScoop those models have been largely helpful to their work, even as they complained about high token usage and safety guardrails that hinder,  but don’t meaningfully prevent, defensive cyber tasks.

Eyal Webber Zvik, chief strategy officer at Cato Networks, a cloud and cybersecurity network provider in OpenAI’s Trusted Access in Cyber program, said they use GPT 5.5 and later OpenAI models to scan and triage internal codebases for vulnerabilities, test new safeguards and provide “highly autonomized service” to their customers.

Zvik wouldn’t disclose how many bugs 5.5 has found but said the company’s view is that it helps both find bugs that humans missed and rank which ones to patch based on factors like each bug’s exploitability.

“It is now a native part of our development environment and cycles, and we use those models to scale our entire codebase and make sure what we release into the service that our customers use to run their networks and network security has the least likelihood of having any vulnerabilities that can be exploited,” said Zvik.

John Hopper, vice president of engineering at SpecterOps, an identity security company, said newer models like GPT 5.5 are sharper and more persistent in pursuing their tasks.

“That can be a good or bad thing,” he noted.

One metric that SpecterOps tracks is how long it can keep a particular agent working before it moves off task or fails. That metric “matters a lot” because the longer an agent works without human help , the more agents a single operator can run at once.

Hopper said this provides defenders with immense value, and pushed back on the idea that the offensive capabilities the models offer are automatically more beneficial to malicious hackers. There is “a modicum of grounding that the industry needs when we talk about these models.”

“Yes, AI frontier tools will lower the barrier of entry, but these problems have always existed,” he said. “I don’t actually believe that AI is going to remove the needle in the haystack problem, but by howdy, using my two hands to find that damn needle, compared to using a backhoe, I can tell you which one I’d rather be driving.”

Eran Kinsbruner, vice president of product marketing at software security firm Checkmarx, told CyberScoop that later models like OpenAI’s Codex Security and GPT 5.5 are noticeably easier to set up and run with local systems, even for less technical users. That alone gives them an edge over many cybersecurity tools where interoperability is a constant concern.

However, GPT 5.5 burns through tokens at a much faster rate. He recalled one instance of using it to scan a medium-sized repository in three different programming languages.

“After 26 minutes I almost ran out of tokens, and it didn’t provide anything, just created a threat model for me and told me you want to buy more tokens?” he said.

In other instances, some of the scan results he received were not comprehensive.

Further, he expressed frustration with some of the guardrails designed to prevent risk – like only allowing users to scan local files but not code repositories like GitHub – “makes not too much sense” given how often developers must work with remote code.

Those kinds of guardrails – which can prevent models or developers from injecting malicious code or prompting into their models – sit at the heart of the debate in Washington D.C. and around the world. Some users feel differently about their utility.

Kinsbruner said that doesn’t make sense for organizations like his, which work with thousands of different enterprise organizations with  thousands of different code repositories spread across the internet.

“I cannot imagine how large-scale developers could just jump into this solution and make it an enterprise-grade, enterprise-level, de facto cybersecurity solution” out of it, said Kinsbruner.

OpenAI did not respond to a request from CyberScoop for an interview on GPT 5.5. The company has since released another model, GPT 5.6, that they said is more efficient at token use.

The White House’s crash course in AI cyber risk 

 The White House keeps changing its line on whether and how the U.S. government should limit the release of commercial frontier models. The shift comes from lessons learned since coming into office in Jan. 2025. Trump threw out Biden-era regulations meant to steer the industry toward safer models. Top officials like Vice President JD Vance argued against restricting industry progress.

Less than two years later, administration officials worry about the impact of speed and scale – two things AI excels at – in cyberspace.

According to Will Loucks, senior director of intelligence at the Office of the National Cyber Director, over the past two years the number of exposed and known vulnerabilities has shot up. Threat actors exploit those flaws faster before defenders can fix them. Once inside, the time from initial access to full network control shrinks.

“So in other words, every stage of the cyber operations lifecycle that a threat actor has to move through to get to a victim network and achieve an outcome, they’re just moving through more quickly faster,” said Loucks at a July 16 event in Washington D.C.

Speaking about AI in particular, Loucks said one of the defining characteristics of the technology is its ability to lower barriers for threat actors.

“Sometimes speed and volume have a threatening aspect alone, even if sophistication isn’t quite increasing in the same way, and the reason for that is because it places pressure on defenders…to triage alerts more quickly,” he said.

Jordan Rae Kelly, former director for cyber and incident response on the White House’s National Security Council during Trump’s first term, told CyberScoop that the changes over the past two years reflect the lessons the White House has learned on the issue since returning to office.

In the early days of this administration, Kelly said, “there is a sense and a spirit that the Biden administration was limiting AI and there was a kind of a rip-it-all-off [attitude], everybody go and do whatever, we will be the biggest and boldest and brightest.”

“I love that talking point, but I think what you’ve seen is probably an education over the last 19 months, where people [in the White House] have said that’s a challenging premise to put into place, knowing about the potential downsides and capabilities,” she added.

Michael Daniel, former White House cyber coordinator under President Barack Obama, thinks the horse may already be out of the barn.

Daniel, now head of the Cyber Threat Alliance, a membership nonprofit group focused on cyber threat information sharing between industry and government, said his members report that AI is being used to do things “faster and at a slightly bigger scale” but aren’t yet seeing the flood of exploitation that analysts have warned about. Not yet.

“I think what we’re seeing right now [and] talking about is ‘okay, where are the step changes [in the cyber threat landscape] actually going to occur?” said Daniel. “Are we and when will we see the explosion in vulnerability reporting from these Mythos-like capabilities? That’s what’s really got their attention right now.”

But Mythos and OpenAI’s Daybreak models are restricted to select organizations, and neither has publicly released its most powerful cybersecurity models to the public. That dynamic won’t last.

The UK’s AI Security Institute estimates that open source and foreign LLM models are between 4-7 months behind frontier U.S. models. In that setting, it’s hard to stop the development of AI models worldwide through export controls or other limits.

“It’s not like we’re buying ourselves five to ten years on this,” he said. “We’re not, and so I’m not sure the impact on the defenders who are trying to obey the law is worth whatever small hiccup we cause for our adversaries.”

Kelly said there’s merit to the administration’s current position, even if it took time to get there. Many federal cybersecurity procedures that operated even a decade ago – such as a Vulnerabilities Equities Process that could take days or weeks to consider the pros and cons of keeping an exploit – are no longer practical.

“All of that work to some degree, is out the window, because you can’t meet with the regularity you would need to meet to adjudicate vulnerabilities that are being found in seconds and exploited in minutes,” said Kelly.

But Kelly and others say that’s also because AI capabilities in cybersecurity are developing faster than policymakers can react, even in the best of times.

Key questions remain and the administration’s balance between national security and backing domestic industry will likely shift  in response to new events.  The administration wants a framework that can predict and manage the risks of AI models today and tomorrow. That may be harder than it sounds.

“Do I think they’ve been clear? No,” said Kelly. “But I think it’s a place where clarity is really hard to achieve.”

The post Where’s the Trump administration line on AI regulation? appeared first on CyberScoop.

Anthropic has announced its Fable 5 and Mythos 5 models will once again be available to the public as it has reached an agreement with the Commerce Department to deploy the AI models with new guardrails and classifiers meant to address jailbreaks.

In a blog posted Tuesday, Anthropic said that export controls that prevented their sale to foreign companies and individuals have been lifted after weeks of negotiation with the White House and Commerce Department. The company has also restored access to the model for U.S. users.

The export controls were put in place after the Trump administration became alarmed by a threat intelligence report from Amazon claiming to have jailbroken Fable’s cybersecurity capabilities.

On X, Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick appeared to confirm that the restrictions would be lifted.

“Over the past two weeks, we have worked closely with Anthropic to analyze and approve Fable 5 to ensure alignment across the US Government and strengthen America’s leadership in AI,” Lutnick wrote.

The administration levied the export controls after becoming concerned that the release of Fable 5 would lead to the model being jailbroken, giving users access to cybersecurity and other capabilities that Anthropic has said could wreak havoc on the open internet if  placed in the wrong hands. The Amazon report convinced administration officials that such jailbreaks were on the immediate horizon.

However, one oddity of the administration’s decision is that the capabilities described in the Amazon report, by all accounts, are not cutting-edge. Scanning code and breaking down how to exploit vulnerabilities for a user is already possible with existing models.

Anthropic confirmed that, saying that further testing found that equivalent and lesser models like ChatGPT 5.5, Claude Opus 4.8 and Kimi K2.7 could identify the same vulnerabilities as Fable did in the Amazon report, while a half dozen existing models were able to produce the same proof of concept code as Fable.

Crucially, Anthropic reiterated that they have yet to see a jailbreak that affects the model’s restrictions on cybersecurity and biology work, though they did call this instance “a borderline case.” Indeed, some cybersecurity professionals have publicly complained that existing safety guardrails on Fable 5 blocked many routine defensive cybersecurity work in addition to malicious use cases.

“Importantly, the reported technique did not expose any unique Mythos-level cyber capabilities,” the blog continued. “The behavior reflected a borderline case for Fable 5’s safeguards…there are some tasks that are unlikely to be dangerous but are nonetheless blocked by the safeguards out of an abundance of caution. The reported technique allowed access to one such behavior, but it only involved routine defensive cybersecurity work.”

Anthropic said it has trained new safety classifiers to target and block the behaviors described in the Amazon report and notify users when it happens, and that the new safeguards have been stress tested by the federal Center for AI Standards and Innovation. The new classifiers will block the techniques “99.9%” of the time, but Anthropic said they’re not expected to block all lower risk routine cyberdefense capabilities, just the most harmful ones.

The restrictions will likely make it even harder to use Fable 5 for defensive cybersecurity. One effect the company expects is that more “benign” requests for routine coding and debugging tasks will be flagged by the system.

Christopher Padilla, former Assistant Secretary for Commerce for export administration in the George W. Bush administration, said that while it’s “good news” the controls have ultimately been lifted, the Trump administration’s AI policy stumbles over the past two years illustrate “the risks of ad hoc, transactional policymaking.”

In a LinkedIn post, Padilla called the Trump administration’s approach chaotic and unpredictable — the opposite of the clear, consistent rules industry depends on. While Vice President J.D. Vance mocked AI safety regulations in a speech in Europe last year, the administration has quietly partnered with OpenAI and Anthropic on voluntary national security testing, especially as frontier models began showing advanced automation and cyberattack capabilities.

That national security arrangement was supposedly codified in a White House executive order last month, shaped heavily by industry boosters who feared regulatory delays would slow U.S. development. But days after Fable’s release, Commerce imposed new export controls on Anthropic’s models anyway.

Padilla called proposed AI safety regulations by the Biden administration “flawed and overly complex” but nevertheless predictable compared to the status quo. Instead of replacing those proposed regulations with their own vision, the Trump White House has been “to put it mildly, all over the place on AI policy.”

“The same BIS that stopped Fable and Mythos has a permissive policy for exporting high-end AI semiconductors to China — in exchange for a cut of the take,” said Padilla, referencing the Trump administration’s lifting of export controls on advanced AI chips. “This is not a smart way to make policy. Bad for industry competitiveness and for national security.”

The post US lifting export control restrictions on Anthropic’s Mythos, Fable appeared first on CyberScoop.