US government limits access to Anthropic's powerful AI models

On March 4, Anthropic received a letter from the Department of War designating it a 'supply chain risk to America's national security.

EC
Ethan Calder

June 13, 2026 · 3 min read

The US Capitol building under a digital overlay, symbolizing government control over advanced AI technology and national security concerns.

On March 4, Anthropic received a letter from the Department of War designating it a 'supply chain risk to America's national security.' This designation immediately preceded a government order to shut down its most powerful AI models, Fable 5 and Mythos 5. This swift action marks a new level of federal intervention into advanced technology development.

Anthropic champions AI safety and responsible development, yet its advanced models have been deemed a national security supply chain risk by the U.S. government. This tension reveals a growing divide between industry innovation and state control over critical technologies.

The precedent set by this intervention suggests a future where advanced AI development will be increasingly subject to national security oversight, potentially stifling innovation and international collaboration in the name of control.

The Government's Directive: Limiting Access to Key AI Models

  • The U.S. government ordered Anthropic to immediately shut off access to its AI models Claude Fable 5 and Claude Mythos 5, according to TechCrunch.
  • The Commerce Department issued a directive to Anthropic to limit access to its most powerful AI models to US nationals only, as reported by Forbes.
  • Anthropic is complying with a directive to suspend foreign nationals from accessing Fable 5 and Mythos, Forbes confirmed.

These directives, while varying in reported scope, collectively nationalize access to powerful AI models. The conflicting reports—full shutdown versus US-only access—expose the government's fluid and perhaps uncoordinated approach to controlling critical technology. Regardless, the outcome is clear: geopolitical control now dictates AI development.

Why Anthropic Was Designated a 'Supply Chain Risk'

The Department of War's March 4 designation of Anthropic as a supply chain risk to national security, confirmed by Anthropic, bypassed traditional civilian regulatory bodies. This direct military-level intervention sets a new, aggressive standard for AI oversight.

This designation redefines advanced AI models as critical national security assets, subject to stringent government oversight. The action implies an imminent threat from these models, shifting focus from general safety concerns to specific supply chain vulnerabilities.

Anthropic's Advanced Models and Their Market Presence

Fable 5 and Mythos 5 are priced at $10 per million input tokens and $50 per million output tokens, as reported by Bankinfosecurity. These models represent Anthropic's most advanced offerings for consumer and enterprise use.

Despite Anthropic's commercial success and internal safety assurances, the government's national security concerns took precedence. This intervention proves that market availability and pricing are secondary to perceived national security interests.

Implications for Anthropic and the Broader AI Landscape

This unprecedented intervention will severely impact Anthropic's revenue streams and development roadmap. The government's action forces a re-evaluation of global strategies and safety transparency for all AI companies.

The Department of War's direct involvement establishes a new era where advanced AI models are treated as critical infrastructure. They are now subject to immediate state control, bypassing traditional market forces.

Frequently Asked Questions

What are Anthropic's internal safety assessments for Fable 5?

Anthropic reported that Fable 5 sessions triggered no fallback more than 95% of the time, indicating robust internal safety protocols, according to Bankinfosecurity. This internal assessment directly contradicts the government's external 'supply chain risk' designation. It forces a critical question: What specific, undisclosed criteria did federal intervention rely on?