As artificial intelligence has become a central focus of high-level diplomatic negotiations, a stark disparity is emerging in who gets access to some of the most powerful—and potentially dangerous—cybersecurity tools in development. While Anthropic has begun letting Mythos users share cybersecurity threats with others who may face similar vulnerabilities, the European Union has been unsuccessfully petitioning Anthropic to grant access to its advanced Mythos model for cybersecurity purposes, highlighting how private AI companies are making decisions about critical infrastructure protection with minimal democratic oversight.
The unequal access to these tools underscores a broader shift in how artificial intelligence development is reshaping global power dynamics. When Donald Trump traveled to Beijing for a historic summit last week, AI was one of the central topics of his discussions with Xi Jinping. The president brought along some of the United States' most powerful AI executives, including Elon Musk and Nvidia's Jensen Huang—a stark illustration of how AI labs have become major geopolitical actors in their own right, often operating with more influence over critical technology policy than traditional democratic institutions.
The Cybersecurity Gap
Anthropic announced Mythos in early April as a model with the ability to rapidly find and exploit bugs throughout the internet. The technology represents exactly the kind of dual-use capability that demands careful governance: it could help organizations patch critical vulnerabilities before malicious actors exploit them, or it could be weaponized to launch devastating cyberattacks. Yet the decision about who gets access rests almost entirely with private companies rather than elected officials or international bodies.
Anthropic and OpenAI have not released these cybersecurity models to the public out of fear they will be used by criminals or terrorists. That caution is understandable. But the consequence is that companies and government bodies alike are hungering for access so they can use the tools to patch bugs and protect their infrastructure. The EU's unsuccessful petitions reveal how this private gatekeeping leaves some of the world's most economically significant regions dependent on the goodwill of U.S.-based corporations for access to tools essential to their cybersecurity.
Regulatory Uncertainty and Political Pressure
The Trump administration is reportedly weighing the possibility of testing or even licensing the most powerful AI models before their public release—moves the White House once called "dangerous" and "onerous." White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles is said to be spearheading Trump's AI policy and has written a rare post on X vowing to keep Americans safe from AI cyberattacks by ensuring "the best and safest tech is deployed rapidly to defeat any and all threats."
A White House official told The Atlantic that "any policy announcement will come directly from the President," leaving the regulatory framework uncertain even as the stakes grow higher. Meanwhile, dozens of members of Congress have signed letters to the White House on AI regulation this month alone, signaling growing concern among lawmakers that the current ad-hoc approach to AI governance is inadequate.
The tension is clear: policymakers recognize that advanced AI capabilities require some form of oversight and coordination, yet the current system allows private companies to make unilateral decisions about access that have profound implications for national security, economic competitiveness, and international equity.
Why This Matters:
The Mythos situation reveals a fundamental governance gap in how transformative technologies are being developed and deployed. When critical cybersecurity tools are controlled by private corporations with minimal public accountability, decisions about access inevitably reflect corporate interests rather than broader public welfare or democratic representation. The EU's inability to secure access to tools it needs for infrastructure protection demonstrates how this arrangement can disadvantage entire regions and undermine the principle that governments should have meaningful say in technologies affecting their citizens' security. As AI becomes increasingly central to geopolitical competition—as evidenced by its prominence in Trump's Beijing summit—the question of who controls access to these tools, and through what democratic process, becomes essential to both national security and international equity.