---
type: source
title: "White House moves to give US agencies Anthropic Mythos access"
author: "Bloomberg Technology (@Bloomberg)"
url: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-04-16/white-house-moves-to-give-us-agencies-anthropic-mythos-access
date: 2026-04-16
domain: grand-strategy
secondary_domains: [ai-alignment]
format: article
status: unprocessed
priority: high
tags: [anthropic, mythos, federal-agencies, OMB, pentagon, supply-chain-risk, governance-contradiction, national-security]
---

## Content

The White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is setting up protocols to allow major federal agencies to access Anthropic's Claude Mythos AI model. This is occurring simultaneously with:
- The Pentagon's active supply chain risk designation of Anthropic (as of March 2026)
- The DC Circuit case challenging that designation (oral arguments scheduled May 19)

The NSA is among organizations using Mythos. The intelligence community (IC) and CISA have been testing it. CISA does NOT have Mythos access, per a separate Axios report, due to Anthropic's decision to restrict public release given Mythos's "unprecedented ability to quickly discover and exploit security vulnerabilities."

The OMB protocols would give agencies access to a "controlled version" of Mythos. Anthropic provided Mythos Preview access to 40+ companies and organizations for testing.

## Agent Notes
**Why this matters:** This is the clearest case yet of a governance instrument being undermined from within: the same government that deployed the supply chain designation is simultaneously routing access to the designated company's most advanced model through a different agency channel. OMB facilitating access while DOD maintains a ban is institutional incoherence — governance failure at the intra-government coordination level, not just government-industry coordination.
**What surprised me:** That CISA specifically does not have Mythos access — and the reason is cybersecurity concerns, not the DOD designation. Anthropic restricted Mythos distribution due to its attack capabilities. The most cybersecurity-focused civilian agency is excluded while the NSA (offensive capability user) has access. This inversion of who gets access reflects the offensive/defensive asymmetry in cyber governance.
**What I expected but didn't find:** Whether OMB's protocols include any equivalent to Anthropic's ToS restrictions (no autonomous weapons, no mass surveillance). If OMB is facilitating access without requiring compliance with those restrictions, the deal being negotiated may involve ToS modification by omission.
**KB connections:** [[voluntary-ai-safety-constraints-lack-legal-enforcement-mechanism-when-primary-customer-demands-safety-unconstrained-alternatives]], [[judicial-framing-of-voluntary-ai-safety-constraints-as-financial-harm-removes-constitutional-floor-enabling-administrative-dismantling]]
**Extraction hints:** "Governance instrument undermined from within" — the OMB/DOD contradiction is a pattern worth capturing. Could extend or enrich the "voluntary constraints" claim.
**Context:** Bloomberg is primary business news. This story comes from reporting on OMB briefings, high credibility.

## Curator Notes (structured handoff for extractor)
PRIMARY CONNECTION: [[voluntary-ai-safety-constraints-lack-legal-enforcement-mechanism-when-primary-customer-demands-safety-unconstrained-alternatives]]
WHY ARCHIVED: The OMB-facilitated access while DOD maintains designation is the strongest evidence that even coercive governance instruments (supply chain designation) cannot be sustained when the capability is strategically necessary — capability advancement at operational timescale outpaces governance cycle
EXTRACTION HINT: This source combined with the CNBC Trump deal story is the evidence base for the "Mythos strategic paradox" claim. Don't extract separately — extractor should look at both together.
