EVIAN-LES-BAINS, FRANCE – JUNE 17: US Secretary of State Marco Rubio attends a working lunch with G7 leaders, G7 outreach partners and global technology CEOs on innovation and artificial intelligence during the G7 Summit on June 17, 2026 in Evian-les-Bains, France. Leaders from the Group of 7 (G7) countries convened in Evian, France, near the Swiss border, to discuss peace and security challenges for Ukraine and Europe, the situation in the Middle East and other geopolitical issues. (Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)
Getty Images
America’s effort to allay fears of an AI kill switch may be giving foreign governments another reason to create one of their own. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio reportedly told US diplomats to convince overseas governments and companies that Washington cannot arbitrarily cut them off from US technology, according to a diplomatic cable reviewed by Reuters. The cable directed officials to dispute claims that the temporary security restrictions amount to a kill switch and to push back against digital-sovereignty programs that favor local infrastructure over U.S. platforms.
Discussion points argued that temporary pauses for security testing should not be treated as evidence of a kill switch. They called on diplomats to defend American platforms and challenge foreign digital sovereignty programs that restrict American companies or require local infrastructure. The State Department declined to comment on the cable, Reuters reported.
Essentially, the secretary of state wants diplomats to reassure foreign buyers about American technology. Fable’s recent Anthropic cutoff and Samsung’s reported interest in Mistral shows why foreign governments and businesses are increasingly skeptical.
The impact of turning off the model
On June 12, the US government banned non-US residents from using Anthropic’s more advanced Mythos and Fable models for national security reasons. Anthropic responded by suspending access worldwide, as it could not immediately verify the nationality of each user. The restriction lasted only a few weeks, but its political effect was greater. Asian tech executives have promoted local alternatives with recent model releases that compete convincingly with the best models from OpenAI and Anthropic, and European lawmakers have renewed calls for greater independence from American platforms.
The US State Department’s efforts try to separate tight security restrictions from the idea that US officials can disable foreign clients at will. But the damage may already be done. A CIO choosing an AI provider does not need proof of a permanent kill switch. An abrupt government shutdown might be enough. Banks, defense agencies, manufacturers and health systems cannot deal with access to consumer streaming subscription models. Once AI is inside research, logistics or customer operations, continuity becomes part of the product.
Capital shift in open and dominant models
In a sign of the shift towards open models, Samsung is discussing an investment in French artificial intelligence company Mistral as part of a funding round that could value the startup at around 20 billion euros, Reuters reported, citing the Financial Times. Reuters described the potential investment as hundreds of millions of euros, but the Financial Times put it closer to 1 billion euros. All of this is preliminary, however, and has not been publicly announced or verified.
Mistral offers a reliable alternative. It develops European models, supports private development and has become a central part of France’s effort to build domestic artificial intelligence capacity. Microsoft recently agreed to spend billions of dollars on Mistral’s European computing infrastructure, allowing Azure customers to use the French company’s data centers and giving regulated industries another route beyond infrastructure controlled solely by the United States.
While the funding isn’t proof that Anthropic’s spinoff prompted Samsung to seek a stake in Mistral, they do reveal the same strategic calculation. European and Asian companies want access to advanced models that are less vulnerable to political decisions made in Washington.
The reassurance campaign could fail
In addition to trying to reassure foreign customers and governments, the cable reviewed by Reuters also asks US diplomats to resist foreign programs based on digital dominance, including localization rules and policies that make it harder for US tech companies to serve overseas markets.
This causes even more reasons for hesitation when we put the models of the American company in the middle of the most important artificial intelligence systems. US officials claim the right to limit advanced technology for national security reasons. At the same time, they are asking foreign governments not to shield themselves from the consequences of these restrictions.
Certainly, foreign governments and companies clearly see the contradiction. If advanced AI is sensitive enough for Washington to control, it may be too sensitive for another country to rent entirely from Washington. This continues to put AI at the center of geopolitical positioning and strategy.
