Who Benefits from a Trump Crackdown on Anthropic?

Anthropic’s decision to pull two of its newest AI models from the market came after a direct export control order from the Trump administration, sparking a heated conversation about AI policy, digital sovereignty, and the future of advanced technology regulation. On a recent episode of TechCrunch’s Equity podcast, Sean O’Kane, Rebecca Bellan, and I broke down what actually triggered the administration’s actions and what this could mean for the broader AI ecosystem.

Sean pointed out that Anthropic’s relationship with the Trump administration has been notably rocky, setting it apart from other leading AI labs. That tension, he suggested, may be a key factor in why the company faced this crackdown while its rivals might not face the same level of scrutiny. But Rebecca added a crucial layer: a group of leading cybersecurity experts has signed an open letter urging Trump to revoke the order, arguing that pulling these advanced cybersecurity tools from U. S. network defenders is actually dangerous.

We also explored whether this controversy could ultimately benefit Anthropic. As Rebecca put it, “Everybody loves a bad boy.” The company’s models might gain an even more powerful mystique in the public eye.

Here’s an edited version of that conversation.

Rebecca Bellan: As many listeners know, the U. S. government forced Anthropic to pull its two newest models offline,Fable 5 and Mythos 5, the latter of which was available to existing Mythos users, while Fable 5 was more public-facing. The government sent a letter last Friday citing “national security concerns,” but no specifics were provided, and the report hasn’t been made public. Anthropic was told to ensure the models couldn’t be used by foreign nationals, which left the company with little choice but to pull them entirely. “We don’t know when someone’s a foreign national,” they said. “A lot of our own employees are foreigners.”

Reports suggest the White House was tipped off by Amazon researchers who allegedly found a way to bypass Fable 5’s guardrails. Amazon CEO Andy Jassy raised those concerns directly with the White House, and the situation spiraled from there.

Sean O’Kane: This all happened very quickly, especially for a Friday afternoon rolling into the weekend. And it coincided with the administration’s attempts to negotiate a treaty for the war it started in Iran.

Rebecca: Friday evening for us in New York. They love a distraction.

Sean: Stepping back, Anthropic’s relationship with the Trump administration has been uniquely strained compared to other leading AI labs. That dynamic likely played a role here. Do you think this will have implications for other companies? Would the administration be less inclined to cut off one of Anthropic’s competitors?

Anthony Ha: Part of the context is that both reporting and independent security experts suggest the actual security risk from Anthropic isn’t that unique. A lot of this seems to stem from the administration and Anthropic simply not getting along. Whatever risks exist, they’re blown out of proportion because the two sides can’t have a civil conversation. For other companies, that might be advantageous,you can say, “We just don’t get these guys mad at us, so we can do what we want.” But it’s also not a great regulatory landscape to rely on hoping they don’t get mad.

Rebecca: On one hand, it feels retaliatory. After the government labeled Anthropic a supply chain risk, and with a big lawsuit between them, it seems like the White House is looking for any excuse to pummel Anthropic. Cybersecurity researchers agree. They say this should never have triggered an export control order. They’ve signed an open letter asking Trump to revoke it, arguing that pulling these advanced cybersecurity capabilities from U. S. network defenders is dangerous. Anthropic itself noted that similar jailbreaks could be found in several other AI models.

Cynically, you wonder: Are they pausing Anthropic so others can catch up? But at the same time, some say Anthropic had this coming. They’ve been saying, “This is too dangerous for anyone to use, but not us,we’re the good guys.” They’re talking out of both sides of their mouth. A week before Fable came out, they were saying, “We need to slow down AI. It’s getting dangerous.” Then, boom, “Here’s our most insane, super powerful model. Go off.”

Anthony: In some ways, this is a microcosm of the broader AI debate. People like Sam Altman and Jensen Huang say, “Let’s lower the temperature. Why is everyone mad at us?” Well, you spent the last couple of years saying you’ve built a God machine that will take jobs away from everyone. It’s not a shock that people don’t feel great about it. And there’s something about how Anthropic talks about Mythos,calling it the most powerful model ever, too dangerous to release to the public. If you take that seriously, you’d expect incredible scrutiny.

I do wonder if this could actually benefit Anthropic. We ran some Ramp analysis showing that the last big blow-up between Anthropic and the Trump administration was good for the company in some ways. Downloads of Claude shot up. People who had thought of ChatGPT as the default AI assistant suddenly saw Claude as the more responsible, more “resistance” option. So while Anthropic is stressed about this, it could again make their models seem even more powerful.

Rebecca: Definitely. “We’re so dangerous.” Everyone loves a bad boy, right? Everyone’s thinking, “It’s the most powerful model, even Trump says so. Of course, I’ve got to get my hands on it.”