US diplomats to rebut narrative of a US ‘kill‑switch’ over technology

The United States has instructed its diplomats to counter claims that Washington can unilaterally restrict access to American technology products, according to an internal State Department cable obtained by Reuters. The document frames debates over digital sovereignty as efforts to limit US technology companies’ global market access.

The cable, authored by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, argues that temporary safety measures such as requiring a 30-day testing period before releasing certain advanced AI models should not be characterised as a government ‘kill switch’. It also states that no mechanism exists allowing the US government to remotely disable American technology products.

The document describes “digital sovereignty” initiatives as measures that restrict US technology firms through market-access limitations, localisation requirements, network usage fees or local content moderation obligations. It instructs US diplomats to challenge such policies in discussions with foreign governments.

The cable also refers to the White House’s June 2026 decision to to block non‑US residents from accessing Anthropic’s advanced AI models Mythos and Fable on national security grounds, as well as an executive order requiring a 30-day cybersecurity testing period for certain frontier AI systems before public release.

Diplomats were instructed to present American AI products as the global benchmark and to argue that building competing frontier AI systems from scratch would be inefficient. The guidance also emphasised the strength of US AI infrastructure and supply chains.

European policymakers disputed the State Department’s position. MEP Christophe Grudler argued that the temporary Anthropic restrictions demonstrated that the United States effectively possesses a “kill switch” over strategically important technologies, while MEP Aura Salla warned that Europe should not rely on access that could be withdrawn by a foreign government.

Edward Fishman of the Council on Foreign Relations said he understood the national security rationale behind the Anthropic restrictions but argued that the administration’s broader use of economic coercion made the State Department’s message difficult to sustain. The State Department declined to comment on the cable, and the White House did not respond to Reuters’ request for comment.

Why does it matter?

The reported guidance illustrates how access to advanced AI models is becoming a matter of international diplomacy rather than simply commercial competition. As governments increasingly view frontier AI as strategic infrastructure, questions about who controls access to these technologies are becoming closely linked to debates over digital sovereignty and economic security.

The differing US and European interpretations also highlight a growing transatlantic divide. While Washington presents restrictions on advanced AI as targeted national security measures, some European policymakers see them as evidence of strategic dependence on foreign technology providers. That debate is likely to influence future discussions on sovereign AI capabilities, cloud infrastructure and technology governance.

Would you like to learn more about AI, tech, and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our chatbot!