The ceremony was scheduled. The CEOs were on the guest list. And then it wasn’t happening.

On Thursday, US President Donald Trump scrapped a planned AI executive order, which had already been delayed multiple times, citing concerns that it might erode America’s competitive edge over China.

“We’re leading China, we’re leading everybody, and I don’t want to do anything that’s going to get in the way of that lead,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office. What he did not say was that the order had been effectively killed by the very industry it was meant to oversee.

Lobbied out in one night

According to Semafor, which first reported the backstory, the White House’s plans were halted after Elon Musk of xAI, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, and venture capitalist David Sacks, who, until recently, was Trump’s AI and cryptocurrency tsar, all spoke directly with Trump between Wednesday night and Thursday morning.

The argument that landed, according to US media, citing sources, was an appeal to the “accelerationist” faction in the administration, including officials at the National Economic Council and staffers in the Vice President’s office.

The order itself was not a sweeping regulatory framework. It would have established a voluntary mechanism for AI developers to engage with federal agencies and submit advanced models for security review up to 90 days before their public release. No licensing regime. No mandatory hold periods. Voluntary.

That was apparently still too much. Trump said he postponed it “because I didn’t like certain aspects of it,” declining to specify which ones. He added that he worried it “could have been a blocker,” a telling phrase from a president who has otherwise positioned AI as a jobs and national security priority.

A vacuum with consequences

The US has yet to pass comprehensive AI legislation. What governance architecture exists has been assembled piecemeal, through executive orders, agency guidance, and voluntary agreements. Earlier this month, the federal Centre for AI Standards and Innovation announced evaluation agreements with Google DeepMind, Microsoft, and xAI, allowing the government to assess models before public availability. That programme continues regardless of Thursday’s non-signing.

But the broader picture is one of regulatory drift. In early March, the Trump administration released a National AI Legislative Framework urging Congress to preempt state-level AI laws that “impose undue burdens,” arguing for a single national standard over what it called “fifty discordant ones.” Congress has not acted on it.

The contrast with China is sharp and increasingly difficult to ignore. Beijing’s State Council issued a 2026 legislative work plan in May outlining plans to accelerate comprehensive AI legislation, deploying language on AI governance in formal planning documents for the first time. The National People’s Congress has listed AI legislation for review for the third consecutive year.

In April, Beijing issued new rules requiring AI companies to establish internal ethics review committees. China is writing rules. Washington is cancelling ceremonies.

Who shapes US AI policy

Thursday’s episode clarified something implicit for months: in the current administration, the effective veto on AI regulation sits with a small group of industry principals who have direct access to the president.

Musk, whose xAI is a direct competitor to OpenAI and Anthropic, has a structural interest in keeping the regulatory field open. Zuckerberg’s Meta has similarly positioned itself as a champion of open-source AI development. Sacks, despite having formally left his White House advisory role in March, evidently retains enough influence to shape executive action.

Separately, Semafor reports that OpenAI has secured White House backing for a parallel effort to push AI regulations at the state level, an interesting manoeuvre given that Trump’s earlier executive order threatened states that enacted AI laws the administration disliked. That the administration appears to be simultaneously discouraging state regulation and endorsing OpenAI’s state-level strategy suggests the policy coherence problem runs deeper than one postponed signing.

The China frame does real work, but in both directions

Trump’s stated reason for pulling back, protecting the US lead over China, is the same logic that has driven every major AI policy decision since he returned to office, from the H200 export licence framework to the Stargate infrastructure programme. It is also the logic that China is watching closely.

At the Trump-Xi summit in Beijing earlier this month, the two leaders agreed to launch an intergovernmental dialogue on AI, according to the Chinese Foreign Ministry. Beijing will have noted that Washington’s internal debate about even voluntary AI oversight was resolved not by policymakers, but by the companies that stand to profit most from the absence of guardrails.

In a report by the South China Morning Post, Lizzi C. Lee, a fellow at the Asia Society Policy Institute’s Centre for China Analysis, noted that both the US and China are grappling with the same underlying question: where should the regulatory frontier sit for frontier AI, particularly as models become more capable of autonomous action and more relevant to cybersecurity.

“I think a separate, potentially more important race is on governance and safety: not about who has the most advanced models, but who can govern powerful AI without choking off innovation,” she said.

The same report highlighted what Kyle Chan at the Brookings Institution put it more simply: “AI safety and regulation can be done in a way that doesn’t compromise innovation.”

Neither argument was enough on Thursday. Whether it becomes enough next time, assuming there is a next time, remains unclear.

(Photo by White House)

See also: The US-China AI gap closes amid responsible AI concerns

Want to learn more about AI and big data from industry leaders? Check out AI & Big Data Expo taking place in Amsterdam, California, and London. The comprehensive event is part of TechEx and is co-located with other leading technology events, click here for more information.

AI News is powered by TechForge Media. Explore other upcoming enterprise technology events and webinars here.

The post Musk and Zuckerberg convinced Trump to scrap AI executive order appeared first on AI News.

To protect enterprise margins, business leaders must invest in robust AI governance to securely manage AI infrastructure.

When evaluating enterprise software adoption, a recurring pattern dictates how technology matures across industries. As Rob Thomas, SVP and CCO at IBM, recently outlined, software typically graduates from a standalone product to a platform, and then from a platform to foundational infrastructure, altering the governing rules entirely.

At the initial product stage, exerting tight corporate control often feels highly advantageous. Closed development environments iterate quickly and tightly manage the end-user experience. They capture and concentrate financial value within a single corporate entity, an approach that functions adequately during early product development cycles.

However, IBM’s analysis highlights that expectations change entirely when a technology solidifies into a foundational layer. Once other institutional frameworks, external markets, and broad operational systems rely on the software, the prevailing standards adapt to a new reality. At infrastructure scale, embracing openness ceases to be an ideological stance and becomes a highly practical necessity.

AI is currently crossing this threshold within the enterprise architecture stack. Models are increasingly embedded directly into the ways organisations secure their networks, author source code, execute automated decisions, and generate commercial value. AI functions less as an experimental utility and more as core operational infrastructure.

The recent limited preview of Anthropic’s Claude Mythos model brings this reality into sharper focus for enterprise executives managing risk. Anthropic reports that this specific model can discover and exploit software vulnerabilities at a level matching few human experts.

In response to this power, Anthropic launched Project Glasswing, a gated initiative designed to place these advanced capabilities directly into the hands of network defenders first. From IBM’s perspective, this development forces technology officers to confront immediate structural vulnerabilities. If autonomous models possess the capability to write exploits and shape the overall security environment, Thomas notes that concentrating the understanding of these systems within a small number of technology vendors invites severe operational exposure.

With models achieving infrastructure status, IBM argues the primary issue is no longer exclusively what these machine learning applications can execute. The priority becomes how these systems are constructed, governed, inspected, and actively improved over extended periods.

As underlying frameworks grow in complexity and corporate importance, maintaining closed development pipelines becomes exceedingly difficult to defend. No single vendor can successfully anticipate every operational requirement, adversarial attack vector, or system failure mode.

Implementing opaque AI structures introduces heavy friction across existing network architecture. Connecting closed proprietary models with established enterprise vector databases or highly sensitive internal data lakes frequently creates massive troubleshooting bottlenecks. When anomalous outputs occur or hallucination rates spike, teams lack the internal visibility required to diagnose whether the error originated in the retrieval-augmented generation pipeline or the base model weights.

Integrating legacy on-premises architecture with highly gated cloud models also introduces severe latency into daily operations. When enterprise data governance protocols strictly prohibit sending sensitive customer information to external servers, technology teams are left attempting to strip and anonymise datasets before processing. This constant data sanitisation creates enormous operational drag. 

Furthermore, the spiralling compute costs associated with continuous API calls to locked models erode the exact profit margins these autonomous systems are supposed to enhance. The opacity prevents network engineers from accurately sizing hardware deployments, forcing companies into expensive over-provisioning agreements to maintain baseline functionality.

Why open-source AI is essential for operational resilience

Restricting access to powerful applications is an understandable human instinct that closely resembles caution. Yet, as Thomas points out, at massive infrastructure scale, security typically improves through rigorous external scrutiny rather than through strict concealment.

This represents the enduring lesson of open-source software development. Open-source code does not eliminate enterprise risk. Instead, IBM maintains it actively changes how organisations manage that risk. An open foundation allows a wider base of researchers, corporate developers, and security defenders to examine the architecture, surface underlying weaknesses, test foundational assumptions, and harden the software under real-world conditions.

Within cybersecurity operations, broad visibility is rarely the enemy of operational resilience. In fact, visibility frequently serves as a strict prerequisite for achieving that resilience. Technologies deemed highly important tend to remain safer when larger populations can challenge them, inspect their logic, and contribute to their continuous improvement.

Thomas addresses one of the oldest misconceptions regarding open-source technology: the belief that it inevitably commoditises corporate innovation. In practical application, open infrastructure typically pushes market competition higher up the technology stack. Open systems transfer financial value rather than destroying it.

As common digital foundations mature, the commercial value relocates toward complex implementation, system orchestration, continuous reliability, trust mechanics, and specific domain expertise. IBM’s position asserts that the long-term commercial winners are not those who own the base technological layer, but rather the organisations that understand how to apply it most effectively.

We have witnessed this identical pattern play out across previous generations of enterprise tooling, cloud infrastructure, and operating systems. Open foundations historically expanded developer participation, accelerated iterative improvement, and birthed entirely new, larger markets built on top of those base layers. Enterprise leaders increasingly view open-source as highly important for infrastructure modernisation and emerging AI capabilities. IBM predicts that AI is highly likely to follow this exact historical trajectory.

Looking across the broader vendor ecosystem, leading hyperscalers are adjusting their business postures to accommodate this reality. Rather than engaging in a pure arms race to build the largest proprietary black boxes, highly profitable integrators are focusing heavily on orchestration tooling that allows enterprises to swap out underlying open-source models based on specific workload demands. Highlighting its ongoing leadership in this space, IBM is a key sponsor of this year’s AI & Big Data Expo North America, where these evolving strategies for open enterprise infrastructure will be a primary focus.

This approach completely sidesteps restrictive vendor lock-in and allows companies to route less demanding internal queries to smaller and highly efficient open models, preserving expensive compute resources for complex customer-facing autonomous logic. By decoupling the application layer from the specific foundation model, technology officers can maintain operational agility and protect their bottom line.

The future of enterprise AI demands transparent governance

Another pragmatic reason for embracing open models revolves around product development influence. IBM emphasises that narrow access to underlying code naturally leads to narrow operational perspectives. In contrast, who gets to participate directly shapes what applications are eventually built. 

Providing broad access enables governments, diverse institutions, startups, and varied researchers to actively influence how the technology evolves and where it is commercially applied. This inclusive approach drives functional innovation while simultaneously building structural adaptability and necessary public legitimacy.

As Thomas argues, once autonomous AI assumes the role of core enterprise infrastructure, relying on opacity can no longer serve as the organising principle for system safety. The most reliable blueprint for secure software has paired open foundations with broad external scrutiny, active code maintenance, and serious internal governance.

As AI permanently enters its infrastructure phase, IBM contends that identical logic increasingly applies directly to the foundation models themselves. The stronger the corporate reliance on a technology, the stronger the corresponding case for demanding openness.

If these autonomous workflows are truly becoming foundational to global commerce, then transparency ceases to be a subject of casual debate. According to IBM, it is an absolute, non-negotiable design requirement for any modern enterprise architecture.

See also: Why companies like Apple are building AI agents with limits

Want to learn more about AI and big data from industry leaders? Check out AI & Big Data Expo taking place in Amsterdam, California, and London. The comprehensive event is part of TechEx and is co-located with other leading technology events including the Cyber Security & Cloud Expo. Click here for more information.

AI News is powered by TechForge Media. Explore other upcoming enterprise technology events and webinars here.

The post IBM: How robust AI governance protects enterprise margins appeared first on AI News.

Anthropic’s most capable AI model has already found thousands of AI cybersecurity vulnerabilities across every major operating system and web browser. The company’s response was not to release it, but to quietly hand it to the organisations responsible for keeping the internet running.

That model is Claude Mythos Preview, and the initiative is called Project Glasswing.

The launch partners include Amazon Web Services, Apple, Broadcom, Cisco, CrowdStrike, Google, JPMorganChase, the Linux Foundation, Microsoft, Nvidia, and Palo Alto Networks. 

Beyond that core group, Anthropic has extended access to over 40 additional organisations that build or maintain critical software infrastructure. Anthropic is committing up to US$100 million in usage credits for Mythos Preview across the effort, along with US$4 million in direct donations to open-source security organisations. 

A model that outgrew its own benchmarks

Mythos Preview was not specifically trained for cybersecurity work. Anthropic said the capabilities “emerged as a downstream consequence of general improvements in code, reasoning, and autonomy”, and that the same improvements making the model better at patching vulnerabilities also make it better at exploiting them. 

That last part matters. Mythos Preview has improved to the extent that it mostly saturates existing security benchmarks, forcing Anthropic to shift its focus to novel real-world tasks–specifically, zero-day vulnerabilities. These flaws were previously unknown to the software’s developers. 

Among the findings: a 27-year-old bug in OpenBSD, an operating system known for its strong security posture. In another case, the model fully autonomously identified and exploited a 17-year-old remote code execution vulnerability in FreeBSD–CVE-2026-4747–that allows an unauthenticated user anywhere on the internet to obtain complete control of a server running NFS. No human was involved in the discovery or exploitation after the initial prompt to find the bug. 

Nicholas Carlini from Anthropic’s research team described the model’s ability to chain together vulnerabilities: “This model can create exploits out of three, four, or sometimes five vulnerabilities that in sequence give you some kind of very sophisticated end outcome. I’ve found more bugs in the last couple of weeks than I found in the rest of my life combined.” 

Why is it not being released?

“We do not plan to make Claude Mythos Preview generally available due to its cybersecurity capabilities,” Newton Cheng, Frontier Red Team Cyber Lead at Anthropic, said. “Given the rate of AI progress, it will not be long before such capabilities proliferate, potentially beyond actors who are committed to deploying them safely. The fallout–for economies, public safety, and national security–could be severe.” 

This is not hypothetical. Anthropic had previously disclosed what it described as the first documented case of a cyberattack largely executed by AI–a Chinese state-sponsored group that used AI agents to autonomously infiltrate roughly 30 global targets, with AI handling the majority of tactical operations independently. 

The company has also privately briefed senior US government officials on Mythos Preview’s full capabilities. The intelligence community is now actively weighing how the model could reshape both offensive and defensive hacking operations. 

The open-source problem

One dimension of Project Glasswing that goes beyond the headline coalition: open-source software. Jim Zemlin, CEO of the Linux Foundation, put it plainly: “In the past, security expertise has been a luxury reserved for organisations with large security teams. Open-source maintainers, whose software underpins much of the world’s critical infrastructure, have historically been left to figure out security on their own.”

Anthropic has donated US$2.5 million to Alpha-Omega and OpenSSF through the Linux Foundation, and US$1.5 million to the Apache Software Foundation–giving maintainers of critical open-source codebases access to AI cybersecurity vulnerability scanning at a scale that was previously out of reach.

What comes next

Anthropic says its eventual goal is to deploy Mythos-class models at scale, but only when new safeguards are in place. The company plans to launch new safeguards with an upcoming Claude Opus model first, allowing it to refine them with a model that does not pose the same level of risk as Mythos Preview. 

The competitive picture is already shifting around it. When OpenAI released GPT-5.3-Codex in February, the company called it the first model it had classified as high-capability for cybersecurity tasks under its Preparedness Framework. Anthropic’s move with Glasswing signals that the frontier labs see controlled deployment–not open release–as the emerging standard for models at this capability level.

Whether that standard holds as these capabilities spread further is, at this point, an open question that no single initiative can answer.

See Also: Anthropic’s refusal to arm AI is exactly why the UK wants it

Want to learn more about AI and big data from industry leaders? Check out AI & Big Data Expo taking place in Amsterdam, California, and London. The comprehensive event is part of TechEx and is co-located with other leading technology events including the Cyber Security & Cloud Expo. Click here for more information.

AI News is powered by TechForge Media. Explore other upcoming enterprise technology events and webinars here.

The post Anthropic keeps new AI model private after it finds thousands of external vulnerabilities appeared first on AI News.

Anthropic's Claude Code CLI had its full TypeScript source exposed after a source map file was accidentally included in version 2.1.88 of its npm package. The 512,000-line codebase was archived to GitHub within hours. Anthropic called it a packaging error caused by human error. The leak revealed unreleased features, internal model codenames, and multi-agent orchestration architecture.