As Anthropic execs prepare to visit the White House after effectively being ordered to cease offering the company's Mythos 5 and Fable 5 models, the European Commission says the incident is another example of why the EU must achieve technological autonomy.

Anthropic announced on Friday that the US government issued an export control directive that required the AI upstart to prevent any non-US citizens from accessing its cybersecurity models Mythos 5 and Fable 5.

The order meant even some Anthropic staff could not use its models. And as there’s no way to tell if someone on the internet is a US citizen, the order effectively meant that the AI company had to stop making the models available to everyone to ensure compliance.

Anthropic isn't sure why the White House issued the order.

"Our understanding is that the government believes it has become aware of a method of bypassing, or 'jailbreaking,' Fable 5," the company said. "To date, the government has only given us verbal evidence of a potential narrow, non-universal jailbreak, which essentially consists of asking the model to read a specific codebase and fix any software flaws.

"Our understanding is that one potential jailbreak was shared with the government."

The Wall Street Journal reports that the directive was the result of conversations held between Amazon CEO Andy Jassy and US officials, including Treasury secretary Scott Bessent, and Jassy's report of a possible jailbreak. Anthropic executives are set to meet with US officials at the White House this week to gain a fuller understanding of the developments that informed the directive, according to Axios.

Whatever the Trump administration's reason for the order, Mythos and Fable remain unavailable at the time of writing.

A case study for sovereignty

The incident has not gone unnoticed.

Thomas Regnier, spokesperson for the European Commission, said the body is still examining the directive's implications for the EU amid concerns that the US can switch off access to technology that allied partners could soon come to rely on heavily.

"The Commission has taken note of Anthropic's statement regarding the US export control directive on its most advanced models and is assessing its implications, including for users in the European Union," he said.

"We are seeing a new generation of highly capable AI models reach the market. These models offer significant benefits, including for cyber-defence, but they also raise serious cybersecurity concerns that need to be addressed.

"This is a shared challenge, not one confined to a single jurisdiction or company. We believe that contingency measures taken in this light should not be discriminatory against partners.

"This development is a further illustration of why Europe needs to strengthen its technological sovereignty, and it underlines the relevance of the cybersecurity and AI legislation already in place at EU level, including the AI Act, the Cyber Resilience Act, and the NIS2 Directive – as tools to manage exactly this kind of risk on our own terms.

"We are looking closely at the practical consequences of this for European users of these services."

The comments come days after the EU launched its European Technological Sovereignty Package, a slew of measures aimed at sharply reducing its reliance on technology developed by the US and China.

Cybersecurity-specific AI models such as Mythos 5, Fable 5, and OpenAI's GPT-5.5 are still very early in their development, and are not yet available to many organizations, let alone casual users. 

The cost of dependency stays invisible until it's too late

The US directive to prevent foreign nationals from accessing Anthropic's models will nevertheless prompt concerns among global partners and organizations about how a foreign government can simply revoke access to technology on which they may become highly reliant in the future.

For Aled Lloyd Owen, chief of staff at Responsible AI UK, the news of Anthropic restricting access to its models only strengthens the case for the EU's plans to loosen its ties to US tech.

"This is another incident that just proves the rule and proves that [the EU] must move faster and deeper, and really establish that independence as soon as possible," he told The Register.

As for alternatives, Mistral AI is one of the EU's flagship AI development projects. It is widely regarded as a fast, capable, open-source model, but one that lacks the performance of "frontier" models such as those made by Anthropic and OpenAI.

Owen said there is a limit to how quickly the EU can achieve autonomy, but the latest Anthropic story is "quite helpful in a lot of ways."

"It's saying: 'You can't, from a commercial point of view, trust these bodies,' so to some extent, are you willing to sacrifice performance, both perceived and real, for European homegrown models that are not quite there but are certainly driving in that direction, in order to have a more reliable sovereign service?

"So, the ability to shift is both technological, in terms of building effective models and building effective infrastructure, but will also involve weaning European companies from the high-capability overseas models that they're already using."

Kate Hanaghan, chief research officer at TechMarketView, said: "Last week, I was talking to a couple of European integrators about exactly this issue. One framed it as 'The cost of dependency stays invisible until it's too late.'

"For UK enterprises, the risk is now very clear. Depending on a single US frontier provider leaves operations exposed if that access is withdrawn. And this weekend showed it can happen without warning. Ultimately, that leaves Europe to work out what it should, and realistically can, develop for itself."

Voices in the UK echo those in the EU. Kanishka Narayan, minister for AI and online safety, posted on X: "The main lesson: as we debate the future of national security and technological sovereignty, access to AI capabilities is crucial."

I care about sovereign AI because it now decides our security

Separately, he said: "We treat every other threat to our sovereignty with deadly seriousness, but we haven't learned to treat this one in the same way."

"I care about sovereign AI because it now decides our security… it will reshape our economy faster than anything else we've seen in our lifetimes," he added.

The MP went on to say: "I'm not going to pretend there's a simple switch that we can pull. There isn't. Britain needs more AI capability. This is the central political question of our time, and our first duty is to see it clearly before someone else decides the answer for us."

Policy on the run

The order has also angered others, for different reasons.

A group of 54 security and AI experts co-signed an open letter to the US government after the directive was issued, calling on the government to lift the restrictions.

They also asked the government to commit to a more transparent approach to handling AI risk assessments in the future, saying that it should be a more democratic process.

Not all the signatories believe the US should have regulatory control over AI models (Anthropic believes the US rightfully holds the authority to block releases), but they said that materially impactful decisions should be grounded in science and security teams should be given time to prepare.

The letter pointed out that vulnerability researchers and red teams are already relying on these models every day, and decisions to revoke access to them should be made through a democratic process, and should restrict capabilities only to the minimal extent necessary.

"As a result, this action has taken the best models away from defenders, created market uncertainty, and risked America's AI leadership without any real risk to justify it," the signatories wrote.

Who’s next?

In its response to the White House order, Anthropic asserted the allegedly problematic features of Fable and Mythos are also present in other models, including GPT-5.5.

Anthropic has stated from the launch of Fable 5 that it believes developing AI models with perfect jailbreak resistance "does not appear to be possible today," and that no one has developed a universal jailbreak for its models to the best of its knowledge.

It has long advocated for and continues to stand by its defense-in-depth approach to managing risks. ®