Anthropic’s Most Powerful AI Triggers Emergency Wall Street Closed-Door Meeting; Why Was JPMorgan Chase, Holding the “Antidote,” Absent?

This was not a routine financial regulatory meeting. The last time the Treasury Secretary and the Fed Chair jointly summoned bank CEOs in the same room was on October 13, 2008. Paulson and Bernanke unveiled a $250 billion TARP capital injection plan in an attempt to halt an ongoing financial system collapse. This time, the trigger was not the market; it was an AI model.

And this meeting was only the third federal-level regulatory action Anthropic faced within 44 days.

The People in the Lab and the People in the Boardroom Hardly Overlap

Mythos is not uncontrolled and scattered across the world. On April 7th, Anthropic officially released Mythos Preview and simultaneously announced a defensive cybersecurity initiative called Project Glasswing, restricting model access to 12 partner organizations. These 12 include Amazon, Apple, Microsoft, Google, Nvidia, CrowdStrike, Palo Alto Networks, and one financial institution: JPMorgan Chase.

The problem is that the people called in to discuss the risks and the people given the defensive tools are almost entirely different groups.

The five attending bank CEOs collectively manage approximately $9 trillion in assets. None of their institutions are on the Glasswing list; none have access to Mythos. According to Bloomberg, they were called in “to ensure banks understand the potential future risks posed by Mythos and similar models and are taking defensive measures.” However, the core defensive tool, Mythos itself, is unavailable to them.

JPMorgan Chase, the only entity appearing on both lists, had its CEO, Dimon, absent from the meeting.

According to Anthropic’s official website, JPMorgan Chase is the sole financial institution among the 12 founding partners of Glasswing. The bank spends about $600 million annually on cybersecurity and, according to SecurityWeek, has approximately 3,000 cybersecurity personnel. On April 8th, the same day Besant and Powell held the emergency meeting, JPMorgan Chase analysts published a research report bullish on CrowdStrike and Palo Alto Networks, citing the establishment of Glasswing as a key reason.

On one side are five banks called in to discuss the threat, without the tools. On the other side is the only bank that has the tools, whose CEO didn’t attend the meeting, and whose analysts are issuing bullish ratings for the partners. Glasswing creates not just a technological barrier, but an information barrier.

What Happened in 44 Days

Lining up the federal-level regulatory actions Anthropic has faced over the past six weeks reveals a chain reaction unprecedented in both speed and direction.

On February 24th, Defense Secretary Hergeseth issued an ultimatum to Anthropic CEO Amodei: accept the “any lawful use” clause by 5:01 PM on February 27th or face consequences. The core dispute centered on two usage restrictions Anthropic retained in its contract with the Pentagon, prohibiting the use of Claude for mass surveillance and fully autonomous weapon systems. According to CBS News, Hergeseth stated, “America’s warriors should never be held hostage by the ideology of big tech.” Pentagon Chief Technology Officer Emil Michael argued, “At some point, you have to trust your military to do the right thing.”

Anthropic refused. On February 27th, Trump ordered federal agencies to cease using Anthropic products. On the same day, Hergeseth designated Anthropic as a “supply chain risk.”

In the following 44 days, three federal entities almost simultaneously took contradictory actions against Anthropic.

On March 26th, San Francisco federal judge Lin issued a 43-page preliminary injunction, deeming the Pentagon’s actions “troubling” and potentially constituting retaliatory punishment against Anthropic, temporarily halting the enforcement of the supply chain risk designation. According to CNN, the judge wrote in the ruling that the government’s actions “likely violate the law.”

On April 8th, the DC federal appeals court refused to stay the Pentagon’s designation, effectively overturning the San Francisco court’s protection. On the same day, Besant and Powell held that emergency meeting.

One court is protecting the company, another court is supporting sanctions against it, while simultaneously the Treasury and the central bank are discussing it as a systemic risk from a financial stability perspective. The same entity, within the same federal system, is simultaneously being treated as an innovator needing protection and a threat source requiring containment.

Who Was the “Supply Chain Risk” Label Originally For?

“Supply chain risk” is not an ordinary administrative designation. It was originally a tool designed by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to address security threats from foreign communications equipment.

In 2019, Congress and the FCC initiated this designation process against Huawei and ZTE for the first time, citing their ties to the Chinese government, obligations under Chinese law for espionage, and known security vulnerabilities in their equipment. In June 2020, the FCC issued the formal designation order. In 2021, Hikvision, Dahua, and Hytera were added to the list. In 2022, Russia’s Kaspersky was also listed.

According to FCC public records, before Anthropic, all entities listed were foreign companies, and all were foreign companies deemed to have security risks at the technical level.

On February 27, 2026, Anthropic became the first U.S.-based company designated as a “supply chain risk.” According to TechPolicy.Press, the reason for the designation was not technical security vulnerabilities but the breakdown of contract negotiations, with Anthropic refusing to remove AI usage restrictions. According to an assessment by security policy researchers at Northeastern University, this precedent could have a chilling effect on the entire AI industry, as it means that refusing to comply with military usage conditions could invite the highest level of supply chain sanctions.

A sanction tool designed for Huawei was used for the first time against a U.S. company that refused to allow its AI to be used for unrestricted military purposes. The tool is the same, but the logic of its use has completely changed. On May 19th, the DC appeals court will hold oral arguments on this case.

When an AI model is simultaneously the best defensive tool and the greatest systemic threat, existing regulatory frameworks were not designed with any mechanism to handle this duality of “capability as risk.” The process of filling this regulatory gap is now happening in real-time, at a pace of one federal-level event per week.

이 글은 인터넷에서 퍼왔습니다: Anthropic’s Most Powerful AI Triggers Emergency Wall Street Closed-Door Meeting; Why Was JPMorgan Chase, Holding the “Antidote,” Absent?

Related: Gary Yang: AI-Fi Financial Chips and Global Finance After the Openclaw Singularity

tl;dr 1. The Engineering and Historical Significance of Openclaw 2. AI-Fi and Financial Chips 3. The Disruption of Global Finance and the Collapse of Social Management 4. Consensus-less Panic Caused by Multi-level Information Asymmetry 5. The Sequence of Singularities After the Singularity 6. The Fundamental Shift in Global Geopolitical Foundations 1. The Engineering and Historical Significance of Openclaw The engineering significance of Openclaw: The essence of Openclaw is not an intelligent algorithm, but a framework for integrating intelligent tools based on memory files. I’ve seen many interpretations online, none of which I find precise enough. Here, I summarize it into seven layers: Layer 1 Infrastructure (Infra): The hardware devices or cloud services, the very bottom of the entire architecture. Layer 2 Operating System (OS): The operating systems including Linux, iOS,…