The AI celebrity launched yesterday, and today Americans can’t even use it themselves?

A “jailbreak” has triggered a curtain of iron that’s accelerating its descent.

Imagine this scene:

You spent dozens of dollars on the latest smart speaker, capable of chatting, coding, making PowerPoints—
the entire Silicon Valley is praising it as a “semi-godlike genius.”

On the third day after launch, you’re about to use it to write a paper.
Open the app—login. Refresh.

“Server cannot connect.”

It’s not because of network fluctuations causing you to miss an entertainment feature.
It’s because your passport’s nationality was flagged by the U.S. government, and you’ve been kicked off the user list.

Even foreign technical staff sitting inside the AI company’s office building are no exception.

This isn’t a scene from a sci-fi movie, but what happened on the evening of June 12, U.S. time.

On June 9, Anthropic released their latest Claude Fable 5 and Mythos 5 models, hailed as “unprecedentedly powerful.”
Wall Street hadn’t even had time to write the first round of review reports.

Two days later, on June 11, the U.S. Department of Commerce notified Anthropic overnight: export controls are in effect immediately.

The controls don’t look at whether you’re inside the U.S. or not—just your passport.
Within the U.S.—access is prohibited; outside the U.S.—access is prohibited.
Even Anthropic’s own foreign employees are no exception.

Wait a minute. Foreign employees too?
That’s right. Even if you’re working in the office developing Fable 5, if you don’t hold a U.S. passport, you can’t access the models you helped create.

A world-leading AI product, shut down just three days after launch.
The CEO was ordered to stop all foreign access within 90 minutes—technically impossible, so they took the entire system offline worldwide, leaving no trace.

This isn’t a technical debate. It’s naked political censorship.

The “iron curtain” of export controls has been pulled over the world’s largest AI models for the first time.
The U.S. government claims to have found a “jailbreak” vulnerability in Fable 5—able to bypass security and generate harmful content.

But Anthropic combed through all technical reports and loudly denied:
“We only found a few minor vulnerabilities; other open models can do the same without bypassing security.”

The question is, who cares about the truth?

But what truly split Silicon Valley today isn’t the vulnerability itself, but this huge step—
Will export controls turn from a “one-time crisis response” into a “permanent policy tool”?

This debate exploded after Anthropic’s incident, dividing Silicon Valley into two hardcore camps.

One side, represented by White House AI advisor David Sacks, is a staunch believer in “security first.”
He angrily criticized: “Anthropic has long branded itself as a ‘security-first’ champion, but when it’s their turn, they prioritize maintaining consumer-grade model services. Now with export controls, it’s entirely their own fault.”

Translate this: You all keep shouting “AI is too fast, too dangerous, must slow down for safe development”—and when an export control order is actually issued, you turn around and say you’re innocent?
You can’t demand “safety first” to suppress competitors, then turn around and deny when you fall into the trap yourself.

The other side, led by a16z co-founder Marc Andreessen, is a “regulation equals stifling innovation” advocate.
He posted that “U.S. government regulation of AI is killing garage startups, destroying the Silicon Valley ecosystem, and pushing innovators into an insurmountable compliance abyss.”
He even sarcastically said, “If the U.S. government had stopped all new technologies in the name of safety back then, we might still be riding horses now.”

He argues that safety is necessary, but using powerful tools like export controls to “one-size-fits-all” restricts future steps.
Fable 5 was taken offline successfully—so will any AI product with so-called “vulnerabilities” in the future be shut down under the guise of “national security”?

This choice will determine whether a young team’s future AI development is about “making better products” or “writing thicker risk reports.”

But what I want to tell you is: no matter how fierce the quarrel between the two camps, the true answer is already faintly emerging.
The normalization of export controls may come much faster than we think.

Don’t be naive to think export controls are just a one-off exception targeting specific models.
The shutdown of Fable 5 isn’t an isolated incident; it’s just the tip of the iceberg.

In January 2026, the U.S. Department of Commerce shifted its export review policy for advanced chips like H200 to “case-by-case review” from “presumed denial.”
On the surface, it’s a loosening, but with added conditions: 25% tariffs, 50% quantity limits, third-party testing, and strict customer background checks.

By May 31, the U.S. further tightened extraterritorial jurisdiction—high-end chips exported to Chinese-funded overseas subsidiaries now require licenses, raising compliance costs again.

Come June, the export controls directly targeted already launched commercial AI models—this time, “jailbreak vulnerabilities,” next time, “generating errors.”
Whenever the U.S. government wants to ban a product, they always find a reason, don’t they?

This isn’t the prelude to AI regulation; the symphony of AI regulation has already begun.

And for us in the crypto world, the impact of this event might be even more direct and fierce than expected.

After the export control order was issued, an interesting movement immediately emerged in the crypto market—funds flooded into decentralized AI infrastructure tokens.
TAO’s price surged over 13% in 24 hours, and the weekly net inflow into decentralized AI tracks reached $2.87 billion.

The logic is simple: centralized AI models can be forcibly taken offline by the government at any time, while decentralized AI networks distributed across nodes and tokenized governance can’t be shut down at a single point.
While Anthropic is forced to delete code worldwide to comply with export controls, Wall Street is re-pricing the value of decentralized AI narratives.

CoinFund founder Brukhman hit the nail on the head:
“Anthropic’s actions confirm that AI models are the biggest target of government control.”

In short: centralized AI will be strangled, decentralization is the way out.

What happens next?
Anthropic has sent top technical teams to Washington on June 13-14 to seek solutions, including discussions on vulnerability fix timelines, phased access restoration plans (initially open to Five Eyes countries), and ongoing government vulnerability sharing channels.

Sacks admitted: “The government wants Anthropic to resolve security issues quickly, so export controls will be lifted, and Fable will be fully re-released.”

But this is just a temporary crisis resolution—there will be more next time.

Ask yourself: when Fable 5 is developed under the government’s “security channel” to produce a “vulnerability-free, jailbreak-free, security-risk-free” weakened version, how is it different from the free products of competitors in the market?

So I want to say:

Don’t think AI export controls are just America’s business.
Using export control clauses, every term can be interpreted as “involving national security,” gradually sealing off the global AI development path.
From “jailbreak vulnerabilities” to “harmful content generation,” every excuse pushes us further away from the original goal of “an open internet.”

When a group dressed as politicians sets up export control lists in Washington, it will eventually erode the passion of young developers, swallow the innovation of small labs, and narrow the AI industry’s runway to an entrance only a few politicians and their #我的Gate交易时刻 friends can access.