Anthropic is having a month.

The AI lab finished May by surpassing OpenAI in market share of business spending for the first time, Ramp just revealed. It raised $65 billion at a $965 billion valuation (also besting OpenAI) at the end of May, then waltzed into June by filing confidential paperwork for an IPO, reportedly on the strength of its first-ever profitable quarter.

Then on Friday, the Trump administration renewed its war on the model maker by sending a letter demanding it ban non-Americans, including Anthropic’s employees, from accessing its state-of-the-art models: the limited-release Mythos 5 and the more guarded version of Mythos released to the public three days earlier, called Fable 5.

This essentially forced Anthropic to pull its latest all-powerful model from the market altogether.

Although the White House invoked an obscure export control directive when ordering the ban, the exact cause remains unclear. The chatter was that hackers easily bypassed Fable 5’s guardrails, which were intended to prevent access to Mythos’ capabilities. That model is so good at finding security flaws in software code that Anthropic itself marketed it as dangerous and restricted its public release.

This new drama comes after Anthropic famously refused to allow the government to use its models for mass surveillance of Americans and fully autonomous weapons. As a result, in March, the Trump administration declared the company a supply-chain risk.

That didn’t deter Anthropic’s sales to businesses. Quite the opposite, Ramp’s data shows. Ironically, this latest feud with the Trump administration, which also appears to validate the hubbub over Mythos’ mythological power, may help rather than hurt Anthropic, according to Ramp’s lead economist, Ara Kharazian. Kharazian is the person who compiled the business-spending AI data.

“If anything, it’ll probably boost them,” Kharazian told TechCrunch. “Anthropic’s best month on record, as far as business adoption, was the month that the Department of Defense labeled them a supply-chain risk. There’s a lot of aura that comes with your model specifically being named too dangerous to use.”

Ramp’s data isn’t granular enough for us to see how much of a financial hit the company will take by pulling Mythos and Fable 5 off the market.

Still the data, from more than 70,000 businesses that use its platform, shows that customers heavily use Anthropic’s Opus models and that business use has been growing.

For instance, Ramp reported that Anthropic’s share of AI subscriptions paid for by businesses rose 2.5 percentage points in May to 41%. This compares to OpenAI, which commanded 39.5% of AI subscriptions by its customers, essentially flat from the prior month. (OpenAI still greatly leads Anthropic in overall consumer usage, according to new data from Sensor Tower.)

Beyond subscriptions, the vast majority of what companies spend money on is API calls to the model, which cover token use for activities like coding. Anthropic’s Claude Code has a strong reputation as a powerful AI coding tool.

Ramp can’t always see from the spending data which models most businesses are using. When it can see the model details — in about one-third of transactions — businesses are mostly spending on various flavors of Claude Opus, particularly the later versions. Opus is the model that preceded Mythos and is still openly available.

In fact, in late May, Anthropic released a new version, Opus 4.8.

Mythos had not been on the market for that long, having been released to limited users as of April. And Fable 5 was shut down after a few days.

While we can’t predict how this latest drama with the White House will impact Anthropic’s ability to go public as it hoped to (public-market investors tend to be wary of companies embroiled in controversies with the government), the numbers indicate that Anthropic’s available models are more popular with businesses than ever before.

When the Trump Mobile T1 was announced, it arrived wrapped in the kind of marketing language you’d expect from a product tied to Donald Trump: bold claims, patriotic branding, and plenty of references to American values. What wasn’t immediately clear was what made the phone itself special.

Now, thanks to a detailed teardown and CT scan analysis by iFixit, we appear to have an answer. And it’s not exactly the revelation Trump Mobile was probably hoping for. After peeling back the gold-colored exterior, investigators found what looks remarkably like another smartphone already on the market: HTC’s U24 Pro. That’s awkward for a device marketed as something distinct.

Beneath the gold paint, the similarities pile up quickly

Smartphones often share components — that’s normal. The industry is built on common suppliers, shared manufacturing partners, and reference designs. But what makes the T1 interesting is how little seems to separate it from HTC’s existing hardware.

The internal layout reportedly mirrors the U24 Pro almost component-for-component. Are the camera placement differences visible from the outside? Apparently, little more than cosmetic adjustments. The flash assembly wasn’t relocated internally; instead, a longer cable was used to make it appear different from the exterior. Even the speaker system appears unchanged. The only noticeable variation is a slightly altered grille pattern machined into the chassis.

Think of it like buying a sports car only to discover it’s the same sedan underneath with a new paint job and different wheels. Technically, it looks different. Mechanically, it’s telling a different story. The display tells a similar tale. While the Trump Mobile marketing materials list slightly different screen dimensions, teardown findings suggest the panel is effectively the same one used in HTC’s device. The deeper researchers dug, the harder it became to find meaningful distinctions.

Motherboard layouts match, component placement matches, screw locations match, and even the anti-tamper stickers sit in the same places. At that point, that’s basically shared DNA.

The “Made in America” question remains complicated

The more fascinating part of the teardown isn’t actually the HTC connection — it’s what the findings reveal about Trump’s broader manufacturing claims. For months, the phone has been wrapped in messaging emphasizing its American identity. Yet the hardware itself paints a more complicated picture.

According to the teardown analysis, the T1 appears to rely heavily on the same global supply chains that power virtually every Android phone on the market. Researchers believe many of the device’s components trace back to existing production lines in China, which would make sense given the phone’s rapid development timeline and aggressive pricing. There is one notable exception: the battery.

Unlike most smartphone batteries, which are typically sourced from China, the T1’s battery reportedly comes from a Philippine manufacturer. It also offers a larger capacity than the HTC model, though that gain comes at a trade-off. Charging speeds are capped at 30 watts, while the HTC U24 Pro supports 60W charging. Still, one battery component doesn’t fundamentally change the bigger picture.

Building smartphones domestically is extraordinarily difficult. The challenge isn’t just assembling parts; it’s creating an entire ecosystem of suppliers, manufacturing expertise, tooling, logistics, and skilled labor. That’s why even companies with vastly greater resources than Trump Mobile rely on international supply chains. The reality is that “assembled in America” and “made in America” are very different claims. The former may involve putting together imported components on U.S. soil. The latter requires a far deeper domestic manufacturing footprint that very few consumer electronics products can genuinely achieve.

A familiar phone wearing a different badge

Perhaps the most surprising conclusion from the teardown is that the T1 isn’t necessarily a bad value. In fact, based purely on specifications, it compares fairly well with the HTC device it’s believed to be derived from. Buyers aren’t paying dramatically inflated prices for weaker hardware, which is often the fear when celebrity branding enters the equation; the bigger issue is transparency.

Consumers were led to believe they were getting something uniquely American, distinctly different from what was already available. The teardown suggests the reality is far less dramatic: a largely existing smartphone design dressed up with a new identity and a patriotic marketing campaign.

That’s not unusual in the smartphone industry. White-label devices and ODM partnerships have existed for years. Smaller brands frequently license designs from manufacturing partners rather than creating phones from scratch. What’s unusual is how aggressively the T1 was marketed as something special. After all the talk about American pride, domestic production, and a new vision for smartphones, the teardown’s conclusion feels almost anticlimactic. The Trump Phone wasn’t hiding a revolutionary new design; it was actually hiding an HTC phone and not particularly well.

President Trump signed a national security presidential memorandum on Friday ordering the US military and intelligence agencies to accelerate their adoption of cutting-edge AI. The directive, NSPM-11, establishes a framework for “rapid onboarding of the most advanced AI models from multiple vendors.” It also bars any company from disabling, degrading, or modifying an AI system that warfighters depend on without prior government approval.

That vendor restriction is the most striking provision. It means an AI company cannot pull a deployed model from military use unilaterally, even if the company has safety concerns about how it is being used. The clause lands directly in the context of the Pentagon’s ongoing feud with Anthropic, which was blacklisted as a supply chain risk after refusing to allow its Claude models to be used for autonomous weapons or mass surveillance.

“The men and women who defend our nation deserve the best, most secure and most reliable AI in the world,” said Michael Kratsios, director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy.

The memo also directs Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth to issue an updated directive on autonomous weapon systems within 90 days. That update would revise DoD Directive 3000.09, the foundational Pentagon policy governing when and how autonomous and semi-autonomous weapons can be used, including requirements for human judgment before lethal force is applied.

There are stated limits. The memo prohibits defence agencies from creating or releasing AI models designed to “censor free speech, embed ideological bias or conduct unlawful surveillance against the American people.” But it does not define those terms or explain how compliance would be enforced.

The directive follows Tuesday’s executive order that established a voluntary 30-day review window for frontier AI models before public release. Together, the two documents outline a dual approach: light-touch regulation for the commercial sector and aggressive adoption for the military.

The “multiple vendors” language signals a shift away from single-provider dependency. Until recently, Anthropic was the only AI vendor approved for classified military use. After the Pentagon signed classified deals with Nvidia, Microsoft, and AWS, the administration is now formalising a multi-vendor approach.

The memo makes accountability central. Commanders, directors, and agency heads remain responsible for ensuring AI is used in line with its stated obligations. Annual reviews of key guidance across the national security enterprise are required to keep pace with the AI frontier. Whether those reviews will be meaningful or performative remains an open question.

President Donald Trump said on Friday that he’s spoken to AI companies about striking deals “where the American people can benefit from the success of AI.”

Trump does not seem to have mentioned specific companies in his comments, but OpenAI is a likely candidate, especially after CNBC reported that the Trump administration has indeed been discussing an equity stake with the AI company.

CNBC said some of that equity could be used to seed a “Public Wealth Fund” recently proposed by OpenAI. As outlined by the company, proceeds from the fund “could be distributed directly to citizens, allowing more people to participate directly in the upside of AI-driven growth, regardless of their starting wealth or access to capital.”

According to Bloomberg, when reporters on Air Force One asked Trump about the idea, he replied that he’s been talking to AI executives about “concepts where pieces could be given to the American public, where the American public essentially becomes a partner with the companies.”

Bloomberg also reports that CEO Sam Altman has been discussing the idea of a government stake in major AI companies since early 2025.

This seems to align with Trump’s broader interest in government ownership of for-profit companies — most notably, with the government taking a 10% stake in struggling chipmaker Intel last year.

The idea has also found some traction on the left, with Senator Bernie Sanders this week proposing a one-time, 50% tax that companies like OpenAI, Anthropic, and xAI (which is part of SpaceX) would pay in the form of stock.

With all of those businesses potentially going public this year, Sanders argued this tax would “give the public a direct role in determining the future of this technology” and “guarantee that the trillions of dollars potentially generated by A.I. are used to improve the lives of all of us.”

David Sacks, an investor and podcaster who recently stepped down from his role as Trump’s AI and crypto czar, posted that he can see why Sanders’ idea resonates, “including with many on the right,” but warned it would actually “accelerate the corporate-government fusion we’re already sliding toward.” (Sacks now co-chairs the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology.)

Elsewhere on social media, former Microsoft employee Dare Obasanjo suggested, “The groundwork is already being laid for a government bailout of OpenAI.”

President Trump signed an executive order on Tuesday establishing a voluntary framework for government review of frontier AI models before public release, ending weeks of internal White House conflict over how aggressively to regulate the technology. The order, titled “Promoting Advanced Artificial Intelligence Innovation and Security,” was signed privately without the usual livestream or public ceremony, a contrast with the fanfare that typically accompanies presidential AI announcements.

The final version is substantially narrower than the draft Trump rejected on 21 May, when he scrapped a planned signing ceremony over concerns that the order “could dull America’s edge on AI technology.” The original draft proposed a 90-day mandatory pre-release review period and would have given the government formal evaluation authority over frontier models. The signed version asks companies to voluntarily submit models 30 days before release and participate in a collaborative framework rather than submitting to mandatory testing.

What the order does

The executive order establishes three main mechanisms. First, a voluntary pre-release review framework in which AI developers can engage the government to determine whether models under development qualify as “covered frontier models,” provide access for up to 30 days before planned release, and collaborate on selecting “trusted partners” for early access. The framework is explicitly voluntary, meaning companies can decline to participate without penalty.

Second, the order creates an AI cybersecurity clearinghouse within 30 days, coordinated by the Treasury Secretary, the National Cyber Director, the NSA, and CISA. The clearinghouse will scan for software vulnerabilities, validate discoveries, and coordinate remediation and patch distribution, a direct response to the Mythos crisis that demonstrated how AI-discovered vulnerabilities can outpace existing disclosure and patching processes.

Third, federal agencies are directed to develop benchmarks for assessing AI models’ cybersecurity capabilities and to strengthen the government’s own security defences against AI-enabled threats. The order also addresses AI safety research, though the specific provisions are less prescriptive than what the original draft contained.

What was cut

The differences between the scrapped draft and the signed order reflect the victory of the pro-industry faction within the White House. The 90-day mandatory review was reduced to a 30-day voluntary window. The formal government evaluation authority was replaced with a collaborative framework. The reporting requirements for companies developing powerful models, which would have echoed provisions in Biden’s repealed AI executive order, were softened to avoid what industry allies characterised as regulatory overreach.

Silicon Valley’s objections to the original draft were decisive. AI companies argued that mandatory pre-release testing would slow American innovation, create a competitive disadvantage relative to Chinese firms facing no equivalent requirements, and establish a precedent for government gatekeeping of technology deployment. The signed order addresses those concerns by making participation voluntary and framing the government’s role as collaborative rather than regulatory.

The gap it leaves

The voluntary framework means the order’s effectiveness depends entirely on whether AI companies choose to participate. Companies already engaged in pre-release testing with CAISI, including Google, Microsoft, and xAI, may continue or expand that cooperation. Companies that view government review as commercially disadvantageous or that are racing to ship products can simply opt out.

The EU’s AI Act, entering full enforcement in August, provides a stark contrast: mandatory requirements, statutory authority, and penalties for non-compliance. The Trump order establishes norms and creates institutional infrastructure (the cybersecurity clearinghouse, the benchmark development process) but relies on goodwill rather than obligation.

For the White House, the quiet signing may be the point. The order gives the administration a policy document it can reference when asked about AI oversight, creates structures that could be strengthened later, and avoids a public confrontation with an AI industry whose leaders are among the administration’s most visible supporters. Whether a voluntary framework is adequate for a technology that can discover 10,000 zero-day vulnerabilities in a month is the question the order deliberately leaves unanswered.

President Donald Trump signed an executive order on Tuesday designed to give the government a chance to review powerful AI models before they are released. 

The order asks certain AI companies to voluntarily submit their new models to the government for testing or evaluation 30 days before releasing the products to the public. A previous draft of the order had called for a voluntary review up to 90 days in advance, though AI industry insiders had pushed for something closer to a two-week window.

Trump had been slated to sign the more demanding version of the order in late May, but delayed after industry pushback, including from venture capitalist and former White House AI czar David Sacks. The president said at the time that he didn’t want to do anything to get in AI firms’ way of leading against China. 

“Nothing in this section shall be construed to authorize the creation of a mandatory governmental licensing, preclearance, or permitting requirement for the development, publication, release, or distribution of new AI models, including frontier models,” reads the order, published Tuesday. 

Trump had planned to sign the EO with a bevy of Silicon Valley’s top CEOs in attendance, but ended up signing the current version privately.

In addition to the voluntary governmental AI model review, the EO directs the Department of Justice to treat crimes like AI-assisted hacking and unauthorized access as a high-priority enforcement area. 

This isn’t the president’s first EO on AI. Last December, Trump signed an order directing the development of “one rulebook,” or a national AI policy framework, intended to preempt state AI laws.