The administration's June 12 export control order against Anthropic effectively compelled the company to pull its most advanced AI systems—Mythos 5 and Fable 5—from public access. Officials argued these models could enable adversaries to launch unprecedented cyberattacks on U.S. critical infrastructure. The order barred Anthropic from making the models available to foreign companies or nationals, even those physically inside the United States.
Unable to restrict access based on nationality, Anthropic withdrew both models entirely. Days later, OpenAI voluntarily limited the release of its GPT-5.6 model under similar government pressure, fearing a formal export ban. The administration partially lifted the Mythos 5 ban weeks later, allowing limited access to select U.S. users. By June 30, it informed Anthropic that licenses were no longer required for Mythos or Fable. Anthropic released Fable publicly but kept Mythos restricted to “select U.S. organizations.” On July 8, the administration approved a “wide release” of OpenAI’s GPT-5.6.
Congress designed export controls for foreign policy and national security purposes, but in this case, the administration clearly used them to force a consumer product recall. Officials initially asked Anthropic to voluntarily remove the models and coordinate on fixes, describing export controls as a “last resort.” Anthropic claims it was given just 90 minutes to comply. The result, according to one source, is “a de-facto licensing regime” with no guarantee of continued approval. As Martin Chorzempa of the Peterson Institute noted, “You have no idea whether the U.S. government is just going to shut off your access to any future models.” Even after restoring access, the administration reserved the right to reimpose license requirements.
Jessica Tillipman, associate dean for government procurement law at George Washington University, argues that the dispute over whether these models posed a real cybersecurity threat is “precisely what a fair process is meant to resolve, not a 90-minute ultimatum.” However, law professor Alan Z. Rozenshtein contends that the Export Control Reform Act of 2018 may legally permit the government to operate this “kill switch for frontier AI models” without due process. While questions remain about whether providing AI model access legally constitutes an “export,” the statute clearly authorizes Commerce Department officials to issue secret, binding “is informed” letters requiring licenses.
The export control regime is explicitly exempt from the Administrative Procedure Act’s public notice and comment requirements, meaning injured parties cannot challenge government actions as arbitrary and capricious. Using this authority to suddenly create an AI model kill switch that no one anticipated is a textbook example of the arbitrary regulatory power the APA was designed to prevent. This undermines U.S. tech companies abroad, which can no longer credibly guarantee continued AI model access to customers. A centrist French presidential candidate recently described this secret authority as America’s Strait of Hormuz. Until transparent, accountable processes govern these decisions, U.S. AI companies risk being seen as unreliable partners worldwide.
As Congress debates AI regulation to reduce consumer and catastrophic risks, it should also reform the export control statute to prevent secret, arbitrary actions like this. Affirmatively applying APA protections would be a straightforward fix. Additionally, since the administration effectively used the statute as a product recall, policymakers could look to the recall rules of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the Consumer Product Safety Commission for a model. The key is to require the government to prove its case publicly and provide accountable review.
In exposing the dangerously open-ended authority of the export control statute, the administration has inadvertently made the case for reform crystal clear. Congress must act now. For more on how regulatory overreach affects national security, see China's LineShine Supercomputer Shows Limits of US Export Controls. The erosion of due process in government actions is also evident in Immigration Courts Gutted: Due Process Under Attack as Judges Fired, Replaced by Deportation Officers. Meanwhile, the Congressional Budget Process Is the Real Shark Eating U.S. Finances highlights another area where procedural reforms are desperately needed.
