The Trump administration’s haphazard and opaque interventions into artificial intelligence security matters could catapult Chinese alternatives into broader acceptance, posing new security risks altogether, a group of Democratic senators wrote to top administration officials Monday.

The five senators said that the administration’s handling has alternated between too passive, such as when OpenAI models escaped testing in the Hugging Face hack last month, and overstepping, such as when the Commerce Department suspended access for any foreign national to Anthropic’s Fable 5 and Mythos 5 in June.

“The Administration’s ad hoc and unpredictable approach undermines U.S. competitiveness, heightening market incentives to adopt open weight models from vendors based in the People’s Republic of China (PRC),” wrote Sens. Kristen Gillibrand of New York, Adam Schiff of California, Mark Warner of Virginia, Chris Coons of Delaware and Mark Kelly of Arizona.

In the Hugging Face hack, the senators wrote that “the Federal Government cannot be passive as these capabilities emerge.”

In the case of the Fable 5 and Mythos 5 suspensions, the senators said that the administration “utilized an infrequently used authority to direct Anthropic to suspend all access to its Fable 5 and Mythos 5 models for foreign nationals (including foreign national employees inside the United States) citing an undisclosed national security concern later described as a narrow jailbreak finding.”

Because Anthropic couldn’t immediately assess users’ nationality, the firm had to disable both models for everyone. The administration and Anthropic negotiated for 18 days behind closed doors before reaching an agreement, the lawmakers complained.

“While the Administration may have been responding to real security concerns to protect the United States, even justifiable interventions can create broader harm if the standards and decision-making processes are opaque, ad hoc, or unpredictable,” they said in their letter to leaders in the White House, Office of the National Cyber Director and departments of State, Treasury and Commerce. “Moreover, when the Executive Branch exercises authority delegated from Congress, such as in the conduct of export control administration, it is essential that it keep Congress fully apprised of its actions and procedures.”

During the time Anthropic was under export controls, the stock price of “an entity-listed Chinese lab” nearly doubled, the senators said. And while Hugging Face was breached, the company “had to” rely on a Chinese open-weight model due to guardrails on U.S. frontier models.

“If American models are perceived as subject to sudden access disruptions based on a black-box U.S. Government process, or as unreliable because U.S. AI labs are overcorrecting in the face of this black-box process, companies and governments in the United States and abroad may hedge by adopting Chinese or other foreign models instead,” the senators contended. “That outcome would undermine U.S. technological leadership while increasing exposure to systems that may carry risks of PRC or otherwise directed censorship, espionage, IP theft, and other supply chain security risks.”

Their letter asked for answers to questions about the standards the administration uses to determine the national security risks a frontier model presents, what legal authorities it will use to invoke restrictions, which agencies are responsible for which decisions and more.

None of the offices or departments the letter was addressed to immediately responded to a request for comment.

The letter follows inquiries at the state level, where 15 attorneys general asked OpenAI for more information regarding the security incident at Hugging Face.

The post Dem senators criticize Trump administration decisionmaking on AI security risks appeared first on CyberScoop.

Democratic senators pressed President Donald Trump’s pick for director of national intelligence on questions of election security and integrity Wednesday, but they didn’t leave his nomination hearing satisfied with the answers.

As is typical for Trump administration nominees, Jay Clayton wouldn’t answer definitively at his Senate Intelligence Committee confirmation hearing whether Joe Biden won the 2020 presidential election, saying only that he was “certified,” while maintaining that he wasn’t an “election denier.”

He said that the Office of the Director of National Intelligence’s responsibilities were “principally” outside the United States. But he claimed varying degrees of ignorance about his predecessor, Tulsi Gabbard, being physically present at an FBI raid of a Georgia election office in January, and wouldn’t comment on its appropriateness.

Democratic senators were also frustrated while trying to pin down Clayton, the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York who served as head of the Securities and Exchange Commission in Trump’s first term, on remarks about mail-in ballots and the California primary election results last month.

Multiple senators, including Mark Warner, D-Va., Angus King, I-Maine and Mark Kelly, D-Ariz., tried to get Clayton to say whether Biden won the 2020 election. The final exchange came with Jon Ossoff, D-Ga.

Clayton protested that he had already answered. “I think I’ve answered the question,” he said. “We can keep doing this.”

Ossoff didn’t agree, telling him, “Well we’re going to keep doing it because you’re not being honest or forthright with the committee.”

“Isn’t it humiliating to be unable to answer this question?” he asked. “To have to indulge the president’s delusions? We know, you know, everybody in this room knows the truthful answer to that question. Why can you not give it?”

Earlier Clayton had said, “I’m not an election denier,” but repeatedly wouldn’t answer “yes” or “no” on whether Biden won in 2020.

That matters because of the DNI’s role, Kelly said, and it was worrying that Clayton was seeking to avoid upsetting Trump, who has maintained despite all evidence that he lost the 2020 election.

“It’s not about softening the edges when the truth is unpleasant,” Kelly said. “It’s about delivering information.”

Clayton discussed the DNI’s role on election security at greater length in pre-hearing written answers.

“I understand that the DNI, as head of the Intelligence Community, has substantial statutory authority to address national intelligence threats to U.S. elections,” he said. “In particular, the Director is responsible for the integration of national intelligence, which may include foreign intelligence threats to U.S. election activity. I also understand that Intelligence Community elements are authorized to cooperate with and provide appropriate intelligence and technical support to law enforcement agencies and that as head of the Intelligence Community, the DNI has oversight of those activities.”

A CNBC interview last month inspired some of the Democrats’ questions. Clayton said in response to questions about the California primaries that “On the integrity side, we’re doing an absolutely terrible job. And the American people are right to question it.” 

He said mail-in ballots present an “opportunity for fraud,” despite studies showing exceptionally low rates of fraud using that method, and said “mail-in ballots being used by one group and not another… honestly and dishonestly” was a “question that everyone is now asking.”

Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., asked him about what group Clayton was referring to.

“”I would like to see where you’re pulling those quotes from. I’ve been very careful about my remarks on this,” Clayton answered. “I’d like to see the whole passage.”

In his questionnaire, when asked if “it would be inappropriate for a DNI to comment publicly about unsubstantiated claims regarding mail-in-ballots and election fraud,” Clayton answered that “If confirmed as DNI, any representations I make to the public, including about elections, will be informed by timely, objective national intelligence.”

Ossoff also had a tense exchange with Clayton when asking him about Gabbard’s appearance at the Fulton County office raid. Gabbard has said she was there because Trump asked her to be, in what subsequently became a highly publicized appearance because of questions about what the DNI would be doing at a law enforcement raid.

“I was made aware of it by you yesterday,” Clayton said.

Ossoff responded skeptically: “The first time you learned that Director Gabbard was present at that raid was in my office yesterday?”

Said Clayton: “It was the first time that in my recollection I’ve thought about it recently.”

“What?” Ossoff replied.

Warner, the top Democrat on the committee, told Clayton “I trust you” but it “strains credulity” that he wasn’t aware of Gabbard being at the raid.

“To be clear, the ODNI’s role is principally outside of the United States,” Clayton said.

On other topics, in his opening remarks, Clayton touted his SEC work on cybersecurity. In his questionnaire he said he would work to facilitate cyberthreat information sharing from his office.

He told Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., that he would evaluate whether the DNI should devote more resources to cybersecurity with federal government cyber experts being pushed out since Trump came back to office. Many Republicans are pushing to further reduce the size of Clayton’s office, contending it has become bloated beyond Congress’ original intentions as a coordinating body.

He said he supported renewal of Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which gives the executive branch controversial spying powers that Congress recently allowed to expire.

Trump has threatened to block renewal unless lawmakers advance his priority election bill. He said he will study how to “minimize the detrimental impact to our national security caused by the lapse in 702 authorities.” Some Democrats, meanwhile, have resisted action on the law until Trump’s pick for acting DNI Bill Pulte is gone, citing his prior efforts to investigate officials as head of the Federal Housing Finance Agency and lack of intelligence experience.

Because the GOP controls the Senate, Clayton is likely to get confirmed as DNI as long as no Republicans emerge in opposition. Wednesday’s hearing revealed no significant Republican objections.

Intelligence Chairman Tom Cotton, R-Ark., touted Clayton’s experience prosecuting terrorism cases and more.

“Jay Clayton has worked hand in glove with our intelligence agencies and counterterrorism personnel to lock up criminals who threaten our national security,” Clayton said. “I encourage my colleagues to join me and get Mr. Clayton’s nomination over the finish line.”

The post Dems press DNI nominee Jay Clayton on election security questions, but leave dismayed appeared first on CyberScoop.