One company’s headache is another’s opportunity.
The White House’s restrictions on access to Anthropic’s new AI models have created winners and losers across the AI industry.
On Friday, US officials restricted access to Anthropic’s cybersecurity-focused models, Mythos 5 and Fable 5, after concluding safeguards designed to prevent misuse of Fable 5 could be bypassed. The restrictions block foreign nationals from accessing the systems. In response, Anthropic shut down access for everyone.
The move has dealt a direct blow to Anthropic. But it may also strengthen the position of AI companies providing more open models that their customers can deploy and control themselves.
Here are the biggest winners and losers.
Mistral
Nathan Laine/Bloomberg via Getty Images
The verdict: Winner.
Why: The French startup has spent more than a year making the case that Europe should not become dependent on American AI providers.
Unlike Anthropic, whose most advanced models are accessed through company-controlled systems, Mistral has championed open-weight models that customers can deploy on their own infrastructure and customize using their own data.
The Anthropic restrictions gave its CEO, Arthur Mensch, a real-world example of the risk he has been warning about.
In an X post on Tuesday, Mensch doubled down on Mistral’s sovereignty pitch, saying the company’s upcoming models would be open-weight because users should be able to “own, inspect, audit, or improve” the AI systems they use.
The timing couldn’t be much better for Mistral.
France announced this week that its domestic intelligence agency would replace Palantir’s AI data tools with those of a French provider, with Prime Minister Sébastien Lecornu warning against “strategic dependencies” on foreign technology.
DeepSeek
VCG/VCG via Getty Images
The verdict: Winner.
Why: Like Mistral, DeepSeek’s open-weight approach may suddenly look more attractive.
Unlike Anthropic’s Mythos 5 and Fable 5 models, which are controlled by the company, DeepSeek’s models can be downloaded, modified, and deployed by customers themselves.
That makes DeepSeek a beneficiary if governments and businesses begin prioritizing control and sovereignty over access to the latest closed models.
The episode also gives China an opportunity to argue that reliance on US AI providers comes with geopolitical risks, giving it a boost in an increasingly narrowing AI race. During an Anthropic event last month, its CEO, Dario Amodei, said Chinese AI models were roughly 6 to 12 months behind leading US AI systems.
Anthropic
Bloomberg/Getty Images
The verdict: Loser.
Why: Anthropic is the company directly affected by the restrictions.
The export controls block foreign nationals, including Anthropic’s own employees, from accessing Mythos 5 and Fable 5, which limits the company’s ability to distribute some of its most advanced systems internationally.
More importantly, the episode highlights a potential weakness of closed AI models. Because Anthropic controls access to its systems, governments can, in turn, exert greater influence over who can use them.
The episode is also the latest headache for Anthropic in a monthslong spat with the White House after the AI firm said its technology should not be used for domestic mass surveillance or fully autonomous weapons systems.
In response, the US government designated Anthropic a supply chain risk, then Anthropic challenged the move in court.
US AI companies with closed models
Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images
The verdict: Short-term winners, long-term losers.
Why: While the restrictions may give a short-term boost to Anthropic’s US rivals, it also raises uncomfortable questions for them down the road.
Companies including OpenAI, Google, and xAI primarily distribute their most advanced models through platforms and services they control.
Meta is a partial exception. While some models in its Llama family are open-weight, the company has increasingly been moving towards closed models that it has tighter control over, such as Muse Spark.
For governments and businesses, the Anthropic episode serves as a reminder that access to AI can ultimately depend on decisions made by providers and the governments that oversee them.
That dynamic could strengthen the appeal of sovereign and open-weight alternatives in Europe and elsewhere.
