ai risk today logo svg bl font
Menu
SUBSCRIBE
SUBSCRIBE
ai risk today logo svg bl font
Menu

National security

Abstract AI incident reporting image with glowing nodes and warning patterns for the AI Incident Reporting Act.

AI Incident Reporting Act Would Require Frontier AI Developers To Report Critical Incidents

, , , , , , , , ,

The proposal from Rep. Nathaniel Moran would give covered model developers seven days to report serious AI incidents to the Commerce Department.

Rep. Nathaniel Moran (R-Texas) introduced the AI Incident Reporting Act, a bill that would require developers of the most advanced AI models to report dangerous capabilities, security breaches, and safety incidents to the Department of Commerce.

The bill would apply to “covered model developers,” a category Commerce would define through capability thresholds for AI models that could pose significant risks to national security or public safety. Developers covered would have seven days to report critical incidents.

The legislation would require reporting when an AI model exhibits signs of rogue behavior, including evading human oversight or undermining human control.

It would also require reporting for several other categories of high-risk activity, including:

  • Unauthorized access to, theft of, or attempted theft of model weights (the numerical parameters learned during training that determine how an AI model processes inputs and generates outputs)
  • AI capabilities that could enable cyber attacks against critical infrastructure or widely used systems
  • Evidence that a model can accelerate or automate the development of more advanced AI systems
  • Capabilities that could enable the development or use of chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, or explosive weapons
  • Serious near misses where harm was avoided because of outside circumstances, not the developer’s safeguards

For incidents that present an imminent or ongoing risk of serious harm, Commerce would have to notify congressional leaders and relevant committee chairs within 48 hours.

Commerce would have to issue reporting guidelines within 180 days after enactment. The bill also directs the department to create a secure reporting mechanism for AI companies.

“AI is a powerful engine of innovation, and I want to see it flourish, but not without accountability and not without human oversight,” Moran said in the press release. “The rule of law should apply to this new frontier.”

The bill also includes protections for sensitive information submitted to the government. Reports would be exempt from public disclosure, would not waive trade secret or attorney-client protections, and generally could not be used by federal, state, or local governments to regulate or bring enforcement actions against the developer.

Commerce could act based on reports to address risks to national security or public safety. The bill would also allow Commerce to share information with other agencies, including intelligence and law enforcement agencies, as appropriate.

The bill does not yet appear to have cleared committee.

Illustration of the Sun, Earth, and Moon labeled Sol, Terra, and Luna accompanying OpenAI's GPT-5.6 Sol announcement.

U.S. Government Requests Limited Release of OpenAI’s GPT-5.6 Sol

, , , , , , , , , , , ,

The White House requested that OpenAI limit access to a select group of partners due to the model’s advanced capabilities.

 

OpenAI announced a limited preview of its GPT-5.6 Sol model, the company’s latest and most advanced model, after the U.S. government requested that the company restrict its initial release while additional evaluations continue.

According to OpenAI, the limited release follows discussions with the White House regarding the model’s capabilities and the need for additional security evaluation before broader deployment. The company said it is continuing to assess the system’s performance and potential safety risks as part of the preview.

OpenAI said GPT-5.6 Sol delivers improvements across a range of advanced reasoning and problem-solving tasks while demonstrating stronger performance on complex scientific, mathematical, and software engineering challenges. The company also highlighted improvements in reliability and its ability to carry out extended, multi-step tasks.

The company said it conducted additional safety evaluations before making the model available. Those assessments examined areas including cyber capabilities and other catastrophic risks. OpenAI said the restricted preview allows it to continue gathering evidence and refining safeguards before considering broader availability.

“The U.S. government asked us to preview GPT-5.6 Sol with a limited set of organizations while we continue additional evaluations,” the company said in its announcement.

The announcement comes as the White House has taken an increasingly active role in overseeing the release of frontier AI models. Earlier this month, the U.S. government ordered Anthropic to suspend access to its Fable 5 and Mythos 5 models over national security concerns before later permitting a limited rollout of Mythos 5 to selected U.S. organizations. OpenAI’s decision to preview GPT-5.6 Sol to a restricted group at the government’s request marks the second time this month that federal officials have directly influenced the deployment of a frontier AI model.

OpenAI did not announce a timeline for expanding access to GPT-5.6 Sol.

Abstract red, white and blue AI network illustrating proposed limits on military AI and autonomous weapons by the Responsible AI Defense Act.

Senate Bill Would Restrict How The Military Uses AI And Autonomous Weapons

, , , , , , , , , , ,

The Responsible Artificial Intelligence Defense Act would require the Pentagon to verify higher-risk AI systems before deployment and keep human judgment over the use of force.

A group of Senate Democrats introduced legislation to establish new rules governing how the Department of Defense (DoD) develops, tests, and deploys AI systems, including autonomous weapons.

The Responsible Artificial Intelligence Defense Act of 2026 (S. 4707), introduced by Senators Chris Coons (D-Del.) and Jack Reed (D-R.I.), would require the Pentagon to classify military AI systems according to risk and subject higher-risk systems to additional review before they can be developed or fielded.

A central provision of the bill would prohibit the use of AI to make nuclear launch decisions. The legislation would also require the Department of Defense to maintain appropriate human judgment over decisions involving the use of lethal force by autonomous weapons systems.

Further, under the Responsible AI Defense Act, the Pentagon would be required to determine whether high-risk AI systems perform as intended, comply with applicable laws and policies, and can operate reliably in realistic conditions, including against adaptive adversaries.

Military AI systems would also be subject to legal reviews, cybersecurity evaluations, and privacy assessments. The DoD would document those reviews and maintain records throughout a system’s lifecycle.

The bill would place additional limits on the use of AI for intelligence and targeting activities. Among other provisions, it would restrict the use of autonomous systems to track or target individuals believed to be located within the United States unless otherwise authorized by law.

The legislation would also establish a working group within the DoD focused on military AI governance and require annual reports to Congress on implementation, compliance, and risk management activities through 2037.

If enacted, the bill would apply across the DoD and create a formal process for reviewing, testing, and overseeing higher-risk military AI systems before deployment.

The bill was introduced in the Senate and referred to committee for consideration.

Abstract red and blue digital network illustrating Chinese AI coding models and software supply chain risk.

Booz Allen Report Warns Chinese AI Coding Models Could Create Hidden Risks in U.S. Software

, , , , , , , , , , ,

Booz Allen found one Chinese AI coding model generated 130% more vulnerabilities when users appeared to work for the U.S. government.

Key Takeaways

  • One Chinese AI coding model produced 130% more security flaws when it was told the user worked for a U.S. government agency.
  • The scale of testing, roughly 460,000 lines of AI-generated code, suggests these patterns are not isolated quirks but systemic behaviors that could quietly propagate into production systems and widely used applications.
  • Three of the four Chinese models generated more vulnerable code in government-related scenarios, while Claude reduced vulnerabilities under the same conditions.
  • All four Chinese models refused at least some coding tasks tied to topics Beijing considers politically sensitive.

Booz Allen Hamilton’s new report, What’s in America’s Code?, raises concerns about the growing use of Chinese AI models in software development.

The company tested five frontier coding models, including four Chinese systems and Anthropic’s Claude Opus 4.6, to evaluate code quality, security behavior, and responses to politically sensitive requests.

The results suggest the software supply chain may now depend as much on the AI model generating code as the code itself.

Vulnerability risk

Booz Allen conducted more than 2,800 trials involving coding, code review, and code modification tasks. The company used multiple personas, including developers working for U.S. government agencies, Chinese organizations, and defense contractors.

The most significant result involved Alibaba’s Qwen3-Coder model. Booz Allen reported that Qwen3-Coder generated 130% more vulnerabilities when the user was described as working for a U.S. government agency compared with a neutral user.

MiniMax M2.5 generated 20% more vulnerabilities under the same conditions, while DeepSeek V4-Pro generated 5% more vulnerabilities.

In contrast, Booz Allen reported that Claude Opus 4.6 reduced vulnerabilities by 18% when presented with a U.S. government persona.

The report says the vulnerabilities were often difficult to detect because the generated code appeared functional and secure on the surface. Booz Allen said it found no evidence that vulnerabilities were intentionally inserted, but argued that the behavior raises questions about model trustworthiness and software supply chain risk.

Trust and behavior

The report’s second major finding involved politically sensitive requests.

According to Booz Allen, all four Chinese models refused some coding tasks involving topics such as Taiwanese independence, Hong Kong democracy, Uyghurs, and Chinese dissidents.

MiniMax recorded the highest refusal rate at 80% for mock U.S. government coding tasks that Beijing would likely oppose. DeepSeek recorded an 8% refusal rate, while Claude’s was 2%.

Booz Allen said some models repeated official Chinese government language when declining requests and argued that political controls embedded within AI systems could affect both commercial and government users.

Growing software supply chain concern

The company evaluated approximately 460,000 lines of generated code during the study. Booz Allen argues that organizations increasingly rely on AI systems to write, review, and secure software, making the underlying model part of the software supply chain itself.

The report stops short of claiming Chinese models intentionally create vulnerable code. Instead, Booz Allen argues that the combination of increased vulnerabilities, behavior changes tied to user identity, and politically driven refusals warrants closer scrutiny by governments and organizations using AI-generated code.

Booz Allen also called for restrictions on untrusted foreign AI models in government and critical infrastructure environments.

Abstract AI network image for coverage of an MIT survey on catastrophic AI risks.

MIT Survey Finds 18 AI Risks That Could Cause Catastrophic Harm Within Five Years

, , , , , , , , , , ,

Even after practical safeguards are in place, experts still say that five AI risk categories have a 10% probability of causing catastrophic harm.

 

Key Takeaways

  • 18 of 24 AI risk categories have more than a 10% probability of catastrophic harm by 2030 under a business-as-usual scenario.
  • Even with pragmatic mitigations in place, experts still rated five AI risks above the 10% probability threshold.
  • Information, finance, and national security were identified as the sectors most vulnerable to AI-related risks.
  • The highest-rated risk categories included dangerous AI capabilities, competitive dynamics, weapons and cyberattacks, power centralization, and false information.
  • Weapons and cyberattacks were the most frequently cited expert concern, selected by 26.8% of respondents.

A new report from MIT, Prioritizing the Risks from Artificial Intelligence, asked 272 AI experts to assess which AI risks are most severe, who is most vulnerable to them, and who should be responsible for addressing them. The study used a structured survey method in which experts answered questions over three rounds and reviewed anonymous feedback between rounds to build expert consensus across 24 categories of AI risk. The results suggest experts see meaningful catastrophic risk across much of the AI landscape over the next five years.

 

Catastrophic risk assessments

Experts identified 18 of 24 AI risk domains as having a greater than 10% probability of catastrophic harm in the next five years under a business-as-usual scenario. The report defined catastrophic harm as more than one million deaths, more than $100 billion in financial losses, or comparable societal-scale harm.

The five risk categories viewed as most severe were:

  • Dangerous AI capabilities: AI systems enabling large-scale harm or loss of control.
  • Competitive dynamics: Pressure to deploy AI quickly at the expense of safety.
  • Weapons and cyberattacks: AI enabling stronger cyber operations or weapons.
  • Power centralization: AI concentrating power among a few organizations or governments.
  • False information: AI-generated misinformation that undermines trust.

Researchers also evaluated a scenario where governments and companies implemented practical, cost-effective safeguards. While risk levels declined across all 24 categories, five remained above the 10% catastrophic-harm threshold: dangerous AI capabilities, weapons and cyberattacks, power centralization, environmental harm, and inequality and unemployment. Even after those safeguards were implemented, all 24 risks still had at least a 5% probability of causing catastrophic harm.

 

Most vulnerable sectors

The report asked experts to assess the vulnerability of 14 industry sectors to AI-related risks.

Information and national security were rated the most vulnerable sectors. Experts said those sectors face heightened exposure because AI is increasingly embedded in decision-making, information distribution, and critical systems. Finance and insurance also ranked near the top due to risks related to fraud, scams, AI security weaknesses, and system failures.

Healthcare received high vulnerability ratings for privacy loss, discrimination, and unsafe reliance on AI systems. By contrast, the accommodation and food services sector (including hotels, lodging, and restaurants), agriculture, manufacturing, and arts and entertainment were viewed as less vulnerable. However, experts noted they could still face broader economic and workforce effects.

 

Top concerns

When experts were asked to identify the three AI risks that concerned them most, weapons and cyberattacks ranked first at 26.8%, followed by power centralization at 23.5%, disinformation and influence at 22.1%, the erosion of a shared understanding of reality at 21.6%, and dangerous capabilities at 21.6%.

The report assigns much of the responsibility for addressing these risks to AI developers, governments, regulators, and standards bodies. Its release comes as policymakers in the United States, Europe, and elsewhere continue debating how AI systems should be governed, tested, and monitored as adoption accelerates.

Butterfly and moth specimens forming the numeral five under a cybersecurity grid, for freefable.org's letter to lift the Fable and Mythos ban.

130+ Technology Leaders Demand U.S. Lift Fable and Mythos Suspension

, , , , , , , , , , ,

freefable.org, formed in response to the June 12 directive, published an open letter arguing the ban disarms defenders without restricting what attackers can already use in other models.

 

More than 130 information security executives, researchers, and academics published an open letter on June 14, formally calling on the U.S. government to lift the Fable and Mythos suspension imposed two days earlier.

The letter was published at freefable.org, an organization formed specifically in response to the directive that prompted Anthropic to cut access for all users on June 12. It is addressed to Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and National Cyber Director Sean Cairncross. Notable signers include Bruce Schneier, one of the most widely cited voices in computer security, affiliated with Harvard University and the University of Toronto; Philip Zimmermann, creator of the PGP encryption standard; and Vinh Nguyen, former Chief Responsible AI Officer at the National Security Agency. The group spans CISOs, CEOs, security researchers, and academic faculty across the U.S. and allied countries.

They argue that Mythos-class models can find software flaws and generate exploits, but are not unique in this. The same capabilities exist in GPT-5.5, Opus, Sonnet, and Chinese open models, including Kimi 2.7. The signers contend that removing the best American tools from defenders without restricting what attackers can already access elsewhere weakens defense without limiting offense. The letter also challenges the jailbreak evidence the government cited to justify the directive. The signers say what the jailbreak unlocks in Fable is already freely available in other models without bypassing any safeguards. Fable’s jailbreak, they argue, does not give attackers capabilities they could not already access elsewhere. Anthropic is working to close the specific vulnerability.

If the government does pursue AI risk regulation, the letter says it should be grounded in scientific consensus developed with industry and academic input, created through democratic rule-making, enforced transparently with time to remediate, and applied only as far as necessary to protect public safety.

The letter remains open for additional signatures at freefable.org. The government has not publicly responded.

Butterfly and moth specimens forming the numeral five, cut by a red and white barrier with a stop sign, representing the suspension of Fable 5 and Mythos 5 access.

Anthropic Shuts Down Fable 5 and Mythos 5 After US Government Security Directive

, , , , , , , , , , ,

Unable to verify which customers are foreign nationals, Anthropic cut access for everyone.

 

On June 12, the US government ordered Anthropic to suspend access to Fable 5 and Mythos 5 for foreign nationals, citing national security concerns. To comply, Anthropic shut down access for all users, saying it has no mechanism to verify customer nationality.

The government says it has become aware of a jailbreak for Fable 5. Anthropic disputes the severity, calling it a non-universal jailbreak that works only in limited situations and only enables what other AI models already do freely.

Anthropic complied, but is pushing back. What the government shared, Anthropic says, constitutes a narrow, non-universal technique: one that works only under specific circumstances, not one that broadly defeats the model’s safeguards.

Anthropic said at the time of launch that no AI model can be made completely jailbreak-proof. Their stated strategy was to minimize the damage any jailbreak can cause, make them difficult to execute, and catch them quickly. The 30-day data retention requirement on Mythos-class models is part of that: it lets Anthropic review usage and shut down jailbreaks as they appear.

“If this standard was applied across the industry,” Anthropic said, “we believe it would essentially halt all new model deployments for all frontier model providers.”

 

Background

Mythos 5 and Fable 5 launched three days before the directive. Mythos 5 is available exclusively to vetted large tech companies, US and allied government organizations, and cybersecurity firms through Project Glasswing, Anthropic’s program for organizations that use AI to hunt for software vulnerabilities before attackers find them. 

Fable 5 is the consumer version of the same underlying model, with filters that detect hacking-related requests and route them to a less capable model, Opus 4.8, rather than allowing Fable 5 to respond.

Glasswing launched in April 2026 with Claude Mythos Preview, the predecessor to Mythos 5. Partners in the project identified more than 10,000 vulnerabilities using Mythos Preview, including bugs that conventional security tools had missed.

The relationship between Anthropic and the US government is strained. The US government takes an active role in vetting which organizations can access Mythos 5 through Glasswing. This cooperation exists despite an ongoing lawsuit where Anthropic sued the Department of War after the DoW designated Anthropic a supply chain risk earlier this year.

 

Anthropic says it believes the suspension is a misunderstanding and is working to restore access as soon as possible.

Glowing blue AI chip on a dark circuit board with two small human figures in a spotlight below, representing AI chip export controls enforcement.

Senate Passes Bill to Pay Whistleblowers Who Report Illegal AI Chip Exports

, , , , , , , , , ,

The Stop Stealing our Chips Act offers 10–30% of collected fines to informants who provide original information that leads to an enforcement action, and protects them from retaliation.

 

The Senate passed the Stop Stealing Our Chips Act on May 20. The bill amends the Export Control Reform Act of 2018 to establish a whistleblower incentive program targeting violations of U.S. AI chip export controls, with a stated focus of limiting access to leading-edge AI chips by adversarial nations. It now heads to the House.

 

How the rewards work

The Commerce Department must establish a secure online portal within 120 days of enactment. 

Once a claim is made, initial credibility reviews must be completed within 60 days of submission. Commerce must provide updates to the informant every 90 days after that. Anonymous submissions are allowed, although identity disclosure is required to collect an award.

Awards are funded through the Export Compliance Accountability Fund, a new Treasury account stocked by fines collected from whistleblower-initiated actions.

Whistleblowers who provide information leading to a fine can earn 10–30% of the amount collected. 

 

Retaliation protections

Employers may not retaliate against employees for reporting violations. Those who face retaliation can sue in federal court and, if they prevail, are entitled to reinstatement, two times back pay with interest, and attorney fees.

Protections do not apply to employees who consciously report false information. Employees in compliance roles may face additional eligibility restrictions, with some exceptions for obstruction or imminent financial harm.

 

The House has not introduced a companion bill as yet. 

This is not the first amendment to the Export Control Reform Act designed to curb foreign access to AI technology. The House recently passed H.R. 2683, the Remote Access Security Act, a bill designed to prevent foreign adversaries, particularly Chinese entities, from accessing American AI chips and advanced compute capabilities through cloud and remote network connections.