Opinion

OPINION|When the Treasury Panics, Listen: Anthropic’s Mythos and the AI Threat Hiding Inside Your Bank

Published

6 months ago

April 10, 2026

The most consequential financial-security meeting of 2026 happened Tuesday. Almost nobody was talking about it.

There is a particular quality to urgency in Washington — a calibrated, deliberate kind, stripped of drama precisely because the stakes are too high for theater. When Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell jointly summon the chiefs of America’s largest banks to a private session on a weekday morning, they are not performing concern. They are managing it.

That is what happened on Tuesday, April 8, 2026, in the marbled corridors of Treasury headquarters on Pennsylvania Avenue. Bessent and Powell assembled a group of Wall Street leaders to make sure banks are aware of possible future risks raised by Anthropic’s Mythos model and potential similar systems, and are taking precautions to defend their systems. Bloomberg The CEOs of Citigroup, Morgan Stanley, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, and Goldman Sachs were present. JPMorgan’s Jamie Dimon was invited but unable to attend. AOL The Treasury declined to comment. The Fed declined to comment. Anthropic had no immediate comment.

In Washington, silence of that particular texture is its own form of communication.

Table of Contents

The Model That Spooked the Regulators

To understand why two of America’s most powerful financial stewards convened an emergency summit with the chiefs of institutions collectively managing trillions in assets, you need to understand what Anthropic’s Claude Mythos Preview actually does — and why it is genuinely different from the parade of large language models that have cycled through headlines since 2022.

Anthropic launched the powerful Mythos model earlier this week but stopped short of a broad release, citing concerns it could expose previously unknown cybersecurity vulnerabilities. The company said the model is capable of identifying and exploiting weaknesses across “every major operating system and every major web browser.” RTÉ Read that sentence again. Every major operating system. Every major web browser. This is not a chatbot that occasionally hallucinates. This is an autonomous vulnerability-hunting engine with the precision of an elite red team and the speed of software.

Unlike typical consumer-facing AI tools, Mythos is geared toward cybersecurity software engineering tasks. Its specialty is identifying critical software vulnerabilities and bugs, but it can also assemble sophisticated exploits. CoinDesk The distinction matters enormously. Most AI models are generative — they produce text, images, code. Mythos is analytical and adversarial, capable of scanning codebases, identifying failure points invisible to human auditors, and constructing the exploits that could weaponize those failures. In the hands of a sophisticated actor — a state-sponsored hacking collective, a ransomware syndicate, a rogue insider — this capability is not a cybersecurity tool. It is a cybersecurity threat.

This marked the first time Anthropic had limited the launch of a new model. Investing.com That fact alone should arrest attention. A company whose business model depends on broad adoption and API revenue made the deliberate, commercially costly decision to gate access. That restraint — unusual in a sector that tends to race toward release — signals something about how seriously Anthropic’s own researchers regard what they have built.

Project Glasswing: An Experiment in Controlled Power

Access to Mythos will be limited to about 40 technology companies, including Microsoft and Google, and Anthropic has been in ongoing talks with the U.S. government about the model’s capabilities. AOL This restricted release program, referred to internally as Project Glasswing, is a deliberate inversion of how AI has historically been deployed: rather than releasing broadly and patching later, Anthropic gave dominant platform holders a head start — not to monetize first, but to defend first. Anthropic released the model to a select group of partners, including Amazon, Apple, and Microsoft, to give them a head start on securing vulnerabilities. Investing.com

ALSO READ : OP-ED: China's Leadership Merry-Go-Round: Is US Pressure Driving the Spin?

It is a genuinely novel approach, and one that deserves more credit than it will likely receive. The logic is sound: if a model can identify zero-day vulnerabilities at machine speed, the most responsible action is to arm defenders before the broader landscape of threat actors can replicate or steal the capability. But Glasswing also exposes a governance gap so wide you could park an aircraft carrier in it.

Who audits the 40 companies with access? What safeguards prevent Mythos from being fine-tuned, transferred, or reverse-engineered? If a Glasswing participant suffers a breach — and given that these are themselves high-value targets, the probability is non-trivial — what is the liability chain? What is the protocol? The answers to these questions do not exist in any regulatory framework currently operative in the United States, the European Union, or anywhere else.

The Systemic Risk Nobody Has Priced

The meeting at Treasury was not primarily about Anthropic. It was about what Anthropic represents: the arrival of AI capabilities that move faster than the regulatory, legal, and institutional machinery designed to contain them.

Consider the financial system’s exposure. Modern banking infrastructure is built on decades of accumulated code — legacy COBOL systems at regional lenders, middleware connecting trading platforms to clearing houses, authentication layers protecting retail deposits. Much of this code has never been audited by a sophisticated adversary because auditing at scale was prohibitively expensive. Mythos eliminates that constraint. A well-resourced actor with access to comparable capability could, in principle, systematically map the attack surface of an entire national banking system in the time it currently takes a human security team to review a single subsystem.

The episode highlights a fundamental change in how regulators are framing AI risk — not merely as a technological challenge, but as a potential catalyst for systemic events. This has already raised red flags in crypto, where experts are worried that Mythos’ capability of discovering and exploiting zero-day vulnerabilities in real-time at low cost poses risk to the DeFi infrastructure. CoinDesk

The systemic risk framing is the right one — and it is the framing that explains why Powell was in that room. The Federal Reserve’s mandate is financial stability. Historically, stability threats have come from credit cycles, liquidity crunches, and contagion. They are now coming from code. A successful AI-enabled attack on a major custodial bank — one that compromised transaction integrity, corrupted ledger data, or triggered a cascade of failed settlement — would represent a category of financial crisis that no existing playbook addresses. The bazooka of emergency liquidity provision is not particularly useful when the crisis is epistemic rather than financial: when the question is not whether there is enough money, but whether the numbers can be trusted at all.

Anthropic vs. the Pentagon: The Contradiction at the Heart of AI Policy

There is a peculiar irony shadowing this episode. Anthropic has separately been battling the Trump administration in court. The Pentagon had labeled the company as a supply-chain risk, a designation that Anthropic has opposed. Earlier this week, a federal appeals court declined, at least for now, Anthropic’s request that it put a pause to the Pentagon’s designation. Bloomberg Law

Anthropic proactively briefed senior U.S. government officials and key industry stakeholders on Mythos’s capabilities RTÉ — engaging responsibly with the national security community — even as one branch of that same government has labeled the company a security liability. The left hand of the U.S. government calls in Anthropic’s most advanced model to warn bankers about cyber risk; the right hand designates its maker a supply-chain threat. This is not incoherence. It is the natural consequence of applying 20th-century institutional categories to 21st-century technology companies that are simultaneously strategic assets, potential vulnerabilities, and independent actors with their own governance philosophies.

The contradiction will not resolve itself. It requires a policy architecture that does not currently exist — one that can hold together the dual realities that Anthropic’s capabilities are a genuine national asset and that Anthropic’s capabilities require genuine national oversight. Neither a blanket clearance nor a blanket designation captures that complexity.

ALSO READ : What will the post-COVID world look like?

What Bessent and Powell Actually Did — and What It Implies

What Happened	What It Means
Joint Bessent-Powell convening	AI cyber risk is now a financial stability issue, not just a tech policy issue
Bank CEOs summoned mid-week	Speed of response signals real urgency, not regulatory theater
Mythos limited to ~40 companies	Anthropic is self-governing in the absence of formal governance frameworks
Pentagon supply-chain designation	Executive branch is fractured in its AI risk assessment
No public statement from Treasury, Fed, or banks	The regulatory playbook does not yet exist

The convening itself was a significant signal. Bessent and Powell do not share a conference room casually. The joint appearance invested the meeting with the authority of both fiscal and monetary sovereign — the message being that AI cyber risk is no longer a niche technology-sector concern but a macro-prudential one. Banks should be pricing this into their operational risk frameworks. Insurers will follow. Rating agencies will not be far behind.

But signals, however weighty, are not architecture. The meeting produced no public guidance, no regulatory proposal, no framework for how banks should report, manage, or disclose AI-enabled cyber exposures. The CEOs who left Treasury on Tuesday left with warnings — and no rulebook.

The Governance Gap and How to Begin Closing It

The Mythos episode crystallizes three failures that policymakers now have no excuse for ignoring.

First, the pre-release consultation gap. Anthropic did the right thing in briefing U.S. officials before releasing Mythos. But that consultation was informal, voluntary, and ad hoc. The EU AI Act’s tiered risk framework is imperfect, but it at least establishes mandatory pre-market assessment for high-risk systems. The United States has no equivalent. A model capable of autonomously discovering and exploiting zero-days across every major OS and browser is, by any reasonable definition, a high-risk system. Its release should trigger a formal, structured national security review — not a phone call.

Second, the systemic-risk classification vacuum. The Fed can designate non-bank financial institutions as systemically important. It cannot currently designate AI models as systemically risky. That gap is now visible and consequential. What is needed is not a new agency but a clear cross-agency mandate — Treasury, CISA, the Fed, the OCC — with authority to classify certain AI capabilities as requiring coordinated disclosure, pre-release review, and sector-specific defensive preparation.

Third, the liability architecture. If a bank suffers losses traceable to an AI-enabled attack using capabilities derived from or analogous to a commercially released model, who bears what responsibility? The current answer — whatever tort law eventually produces — is wholly inadequate for systemic risks. Liability frameworks that can price and allocate AI-era cyber risk are not a luxury. They are a precondition for insurability and, ultimately, for financial stability.

A New Era of Risk — and Responsibility

There is a version of this story that ends badly: a race between capability development and governance in which capability wins by a decisive margin, and the first major AI-enabled financial system attack comes before any of the above frameworks exist. That version is not inevitable, but it requires active work to prevent.

The Tuesday meeting at Treasury was, in its way, a hopeful sign. It suggests that the United States’ most senior financial authorities understand, at least viscerally, that the risk is real and that the clock is running. It suggests that some version of public-private coordination is possible, even in a regulatory environment that remains deeply fragmented.

Anthropic has previously disclosed that it consulted with U.S. officials ahead of Mythos’ release regarding both its defensive and offensive cyber capabilities. CoinDesk That consultation should become a standard, not an anomaly. The release of any AI system with demonstrated offensive cyber capabilities — the ability to identify and exploit zero-days at scale — should automatically trigger a mandatory interagency review, sectoral briefings for affected industries, and a public risk disclosure, however carefully worded.

What Bessent and Powell did on Tuesday was, in the truest sense, firefighting. The fire is real. But what the financial system needs is not better firefighters. It needs buildings that are harder to burn.

The Mythos moment is a clarifying one. It tells us, with unusual precision, that the era of AI as a productivity story is over. The era of AI as a security story — a national security story, a financial security story, a systemic stability story — has arrived. Policymakers who treat it otherwise are not being optimistic. They are being negligent.

Discover more from The Monitor

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Related Topics:AI china economy news opinion startups US

Up Next

Trump Says War ‘Very Close’ to End, But Iran’s New Shipping Threat Signals a Dangerous Final Act

Don't Miss

Trump’s ‘Civilisation Will Die’ Warning: Kharg Island Strikes and the Global Oil Shock

Click to comment

News

Legal Pioneer and Defender of Justice: The Life, Works, and Legacy of Navi Pillay

Published

4 days ago

October 10, 2026

Abdul Rahman

On October 9, 2026, the Norwegian Nobel Committee announced Navanethem “Navi” Pillay as the laureate of the 2026 Nobel Peace Prize. Recognized for her lifelong efforts to uphold international legal frameworks, advance human rights, and ensure accountability for war crimes and genocide, Pillay stands as one of the most transformative jurists of the modern era.

From her beginnings as a working-class defense attorney in apartheid-era South Africa to serving at the highest levels of global judicial institutions, Pillay’s career reflects a commitment to the rule of law as the foundation for global peace.

1. Early Life and Legal Education

Navanethem Pillay was born on September 23, 1941, in Durban, South Africa, into a working-class Tamil South African family. Growing up under the institutionalized racial segregation of apartheid, she experienced firsthand the systemic inequalities embedded in the legal and social systems of the time.

Supported by her community, Pillay attended the University of Natal, earning a Bachelor of Arts in 1963 and a Bachelor of Laws (LL.B.) in 1965. In 1967, she became the first woman of color to set up a private law practice in Natal Province. Faced with restrictions that prevented non-white lawyers from accessing judge’s chambers or using court libraries, she focused her early legal practice on defending anti-apartheid activists, political detainees, and trade unionists.

She later pursued advanced legal studies in the United States at Harvard Law School, completing a Master of Laws (LL.M.) in 1982 and a Doctor of Juridical Science (S.J.D.) in 1988. Her doctoral research focused on international human rights law and judicial independence.

ALSO READ : What will the post-COVID world look like?

2. Fighting Apartheid and Pioneering Institutional Reform

During the height of apartheid, Pillay represented political prisoners held on Robben Island, including members of the African National Congress (ANC) and the Black Consciousness Movement. Her defense strategies challenged state-sanctioned detention without trial, police brutality, and torture.

Key Contributions to Rights and Gender Equality

Co-founder of Equality Now (1992): Pillay co-founded the international non-governmental organization Equality Now, which advocates for the civil, political, and economic rights of women worldwide.
High Court Appointment (1995): Following South Africa’s transition to democracy under President Nelson Mandela, Pillay was appointed as the first Black woman judge on the South African High Court in 1995.

3. Key Global Appointments and Legal Achievements

Institutional Role	Tenure	Primary Focus & Notable Achievements
Judge & President, International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR)	1995–2003	Presided over landmark cases establishing sexual violence as an act of genocide (Jean-Paul Akayesu case).
Judge, International Criminal Court (ICC)	2003–2008	Served in the Appeals Division during the foundational years of the court’s operations.
UN High Commissioner for Human Rights	2008–2014	Championed global campaigns on women’s rights, LGBT rights, combatting caste discrimination, and protecting journalists.
Chair, Independent UN Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory	2021–Present	Mandated to investigate violations of international humanitarian and human rights law in the region.
Ad Hoc Judge, International Court of Justice (ICJ)	Present	Appointed in high-profile international litigation, including the Gambia v. Myanmar genocide proceedings.

Landmark Precedents Set

Defining Rape as Genocide: In the 1998 Jean-Paul Akayesu ruling at the ICTR, Pillay and her fellow judges issued a ruling establishing that systematic sexual violence and rape committed during conflict constitute acts of genocide under international law.
Media Responsibility in Atrocities: In the 2003 ICTR Media Case, she presided over the trial that held media executives accountable for incitement to genocide, setting a key precedent for international criminal law regarding hate speech and mass communication.

ALSO READ : TIKTOK's global growth and expansion : a bubble or reality ?

4. The 2026 Nobel Peace Prize Recognition

The Norwegian Nobel Committee awarded the 2026 Nobel Peace Prize to Navi Pillay on October 9, 2026.

"The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided to award the Nobel Peace Prize for 2026 
to Navanethem 'Navi' Pillay for her efforts to promote peace and international law."
— Official Announcement, Norwegian Nobel Committee (October 2026)

The Committee highlighted her career-long defense of legal principles, human dignity, and international accountability during periods of geopolitical instability. With this award, Pillay became the fifth South African citizen—and the first Black South African woman—to receive the Nobel Peace Prize.

Official Sources & References

Discover more from The Monitor

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Elections

Analyzing the Republican Voter Enthusiasm Gap: Turnout Metrics and Polling Data

Published

4 days ago

October 9, 2026

Abdul Rahman

Polls and primary turnout show Republicans trailing on enthusiasm ahead of the 2026 midterms. Here’s what the data shows, where it’s weaker, and what could change.

Key Takeaways

A Washington Post-Ipsos poll conducted July 8 to 13, 2026, found Democrats ahead 48% to 45% among registered voters, but ahead by about eight points among voters who say they are absolutely certain to vote.
Democrats have outpaced Republicans in primary turnout. As of late June, about 12.6 million votes had been cast in Democratic House primaries, compared with 8.6 million in Republican primaries, according to a Washington Post analysis cited by commentators.
Analysis of six states that held comparable primaries in 2022 and 2026 found the Republican-to-Democratic turnout ratio moved toward Democrats in every case.
Special elections since 2025 have shown Democrats running ahead of their 2024 presidential margins, though special elections draw low turnout and are not reliable predictors.
Enthusiasm is a leading indicator, not a result. Historically, the gap between stated enthusiasm and votes cast has been large, and the November outcome depends on who actually turns out.

Search Intent Summary

Readers searching this topic usually want to know whether Republicans are less motivated to vote in 2026, what the numbers show, and how much weight to give them. This article reviews the polling, primary turnout, and special election evidence, then sets out the strongest arguments on each side.

What “Enthusiasm” Measures

Political scientists use several overlapping measures. Pollsters ask respondents how enthusiastic they are about voting, how certain they are to vote, and whether they consider the upcoming election more important than past ones. Each measure captures something different, and results vary by question wording.

The key distinction is between opinion and turnout. Enthusiasm tells you how motivated a group feels. Turnout tells you how many people actually vote. Historically, the two do not always match, and the party with lower enthusiasm can still turn out strongly if its voters are organized and its contests are high-stakes.

What the Polls Show

The broadest signal comes from national surveys. In a February 2026 Washington Post-ABC News-Ipsos poll, 47% of registered voters planned to back Democrats and 45% Republicans. The gap was sharpest among younger voters. The poll found that 51% of 18-to-39-year-olds who voted for Donald Trump in 2024 said they were certain to vote, compared with 77% of Harris voters in the same age group.

By July, the Washington Post-Ipsos poll had narrowed the overall margin. Democrats led 48% to 45% among registered voters, down from a five-point edge in May. The enthusiasm gap, however, had widened. The same survey showed Democrats’ lead expanding to about eight points among those who said they were absolutely certain to vote.

Other measures point the same way. A Post-ABC poll found 73% of Democrats said the upcoming midterms were more important than past midterms, compared with 52% of Republicans. In the same survey, 72% of Republicans said they would definitely vote. A Marquette University Law School poll found 28% of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents described themselves as “very enthusiastic” about voting in the midterms.

These results should be read carefully. A generic-ballot lead of a few points is well within polling error, and the enthusiasm gap is a difference between two groups’ stated motivation, not a measured vote.

ALSO READ : A Soft Landing in Sight? The Fed's Calculated Gamble and the Road Ahead for the U.S. Economy

Primary Turnout: The Stronger Signal

Primary turnout is a more concrete measure than survey responses, because it counts actual ballots. Primary electorates are small and self-selected, so they are not a clean preview of a general election. Still, they show who is showing up when the stakes are visible.

Commentary citing a Washington Post analysis reported that by late June 2026, about 12.6 million ballots had been cast in Democratic House primaries, compared with 8.6 million in Republican primaries. Democrats set turnout records in several states, including Wisconsin, Michigan, Texas, and Georgia, according to the same analysis.

The statistician Charles Stewart III, of MIT’s Election Data and Science Lab, compared turnout in the six states that held statewide primaries in both 2022 and 2026: Arkansas, Illinois, Nebraska, North Carolina, Ohio, and Texas. In every one, the ratio of Republican to Democratic primary turnout moved toward Democrats. In his analysis, Democratic turnout rose while Republican turnout fell. Stewart also noted that primary turnout is not always predictive of general election outcomes, and that many factors influence it.

Those findings are not uniform. Closed primary systems, contested races, and candidate quality all shape turnout. A competitive Republican primary in one state can boost that party’s turnout even when enthusiasm elsewhere is weak.

Special Elections: A Pattern, With Caveats

Special elections have produced consistent Democratic overperformance. An analysis by The Down Ballot, reported in a column that cited it, examined 110 special elections since January 2025 and found Democrats running an average of 12.5 points ahead of their 2024 presidential margins. In 2025, Decision Desk HQ found an average overperformance of about 20 points in US House specials.

Special elections are a useful signal but a weak forecast. They draw low turnout, usually from the most motivated voters, and they are held under conditions that differ from a midterm. Analysts have noted that Democrats overperformed in special elections before the 2024 presidential race, then lost the national popular vote. Special elections can show shifts in motivation without predicting how a broader electorate will vote.

The Republican Case

Republicans and some analysts offer several counterarguments, and they deserve a fair hearing.

Enthusiasm is not the same as turnout. Republicans have historically turned out reliably in midterms when their voters were motivated by specific issues or candidates, and the party’s organizational infrastructure is strong.

Low-turnout special elections and primaries can exaggerate the energy of whichever side is more engaged in a given contest, and Democratic primary turnout partly reflects contested races that drew heavy spending.

Polls of enthusiasm can shift quickly. A few months before an election is a long time, and a single event, such as a major policy action or a change in the economic outlook, can reshape voter motivation.

The party also argues that its message on the economy and taxes resonates with voters who may not register strongly in polling. In the July Post-Ipsos poll, the top concern among voters was the economy, and some Republicans have argued their affordability messaging will close the gap as the election approaches.

The Democratic Case

Democrats point to the same data as evidence of an energized base. They argue that primary turnout records, special election swings, and the enthusiasm gap show a motivated electorate.

ALSO READ : 🚨 The Great Scramble: Where to Find the Viral Starbucks Bearista Bear Cups and Prep for Red Cup Day 2025!

Democratic strategists also argue that the war with Iran, rising gasoline prices, and cost-of-living pressures have hurt the incumbent party. Pricing and economic concerns dominate voter priorities, according to the Post-Ipsos poll. The Post poll noted that more than 70% of Democrats regard voting as more important this year than before.

What to Watch Before November

Several indicators will show whether the gap is real or temporary.

Watch whether enthusiasm translates into actual turnout in the fall. Early voting and absentee data in competitive states will be more reliable than polls.

Watch the composition of turnout. A widening gap among younger voters, the group the February poll singled out, would matter more than overall numbers.

Watch Republican primary turnout in states that still have contests, and compare it with 2022 benchmarks.

Watch the economic and foreign policy environment. Gasoline prices, inflation, and the status of the Iran conflict all feed into voter priorities, as covered in our Iran policy analysis and the crude oil article.

Practical Takeaways

For readers following the midterms, the most useful habit is to weight actual turnout data above survey enthusiasm when assessing the outlook, and to treat both as indicators rather than predictions. Enthusiasm polls are a useful early signal, but they often change before voting.

For campaigns and analysts, the data points to the importance of turnout operations in the weeks before the election, regardless of which party’s enthusiasm numbers look stronger.

This article describes the evidence and the arguments on each side. It does not forecast the outcome of the midterms.

Future Outlook

The enthusiasm gap is a clear signal in the data so far, particularly in primaries and specials. Whether it turns into a general election advantage depends on turnout operations, on how the economy and foreign policy evolve, and on how many voters decide late. Those questions remain open.

Frequently Asked Questions

Are Republicans less enthusiastic about voting in 2026?

Several national polls show lower stated enthusiasm among Republicans than Democrats, including a Washington Post-Ipsos poll from July 2026 and a Marquette University Law School poll. Enthusiasm measures vary by question, so no single poll settles the question.

Does primary turnout predict the midterms?

Primary turnout is a useful signal but not a reliable forecast. It reflects who participates in primaries, which are smaller and more self-selected than general elections. Changes in turnout relative to earlier cycles can indicate shifts in motivation, but they do not determine outcomes.

Do special elections predict general election results?

Special elections show trends in voter motivation, but they draw low turnout and occur under different conditions than midterms. In 2024, Democrats overperformed in special elections before losing the national vote. Treat them as one input among many.

What is the enthusiasm gap?

The enthusiasm gap is the difference between parties in how motivated their supporters say they are to vote. Pollsters measure it by asking how enthusiastic or certain respondents are to vote. It is a measure of stated motivation, not a measure of votes.

Discover more from The Monitor

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

AI

Pakistan Warns UN Security Council of AI Risks to Global Peace and Equality

Published

3 weeks ago

September 24, 2026

Abdul Rahman

UNITED NATIONS — September 24, 2026: Pakistan has warned the United Nations Security Council that the rapid and insufficiently regulated development of artificial intelligence could deepen global inequality while creating new risks to international peace and security.

Speaking during a Security Council briefing on “Artificial Intelligence and International Security,” Pakistan’s Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Senator Mohammad Ishaq Dar called for stronger international safeguards, regulatory frameworks and governance mechanisms to address the risks associated with increasingly powerful AI systems.

Dar emphasized that the international community needs coordinated action to establish guardrails around artificial intelligence, particularly as AI technologies become increasingly relevant to military decision-making, information systems and national security.

Pakistan Calls for International Guardrails on Artificial Intelligence

Pakistan’s intervention comes as governments and international institutions increasingly debate how AI should be governed across borders.

Dar stressed the importance of restraint and confidence-building measures in the military domain, particularly because AI-assisted systems could compress decision-making timelines and increase the danger of miscalculation.

The concern is significant because artificial intelligence is no longer confined to civilian applications. AI is increasingly being examined in relation to cyber operations, intelligence analysis, autonomous systems, information warfare and other security-sensitive areas.

The United Nations has also warned that AI can create substantial risks when technological development moves faster than international governance.

The UN’s existing AI framework emphasizes responsible, accountable, transparent and human-centered development, while calling for effective human oversight of AI systems.

Why AI Is Becoming a Security Council Issue

The Security Council has previously considered artificial intelligence as a potential factor affecting international peace and security, but the technology has developed rapidly since those early discussions.

A recent analysis by the independent Security Council Report identified several security implications, including AI’s ability to facilitate malicious cyber activity, accelerate the creation and distribution of misinformation and disinformation, and influence military operations.

The organization also highlighted concerns surrounding increasingly autonomous weapons systems, shortened decision-making timelines and questions about human oversight and accountability.

These concerns help explain why AI has moved beyond being primarily a technology-policy issue and increasingly become a subject of international security diplomacy.

The challenge for governments is that AI can simultaneously create opportunities and risks.

AI could help countries identify emerging conflicts, improve humanitarian operations, monitor ceasefires and analyze large quantities of information. At the same time, poorly governed systems could amplify security threats or make already complex conflicts more difficult to manage.

Pakistan Highlights the Global Inequality Dimension

Pakistan’s message to the Security Council went beyond military applications.

Dar also emphasized the need for AI development to be representative, transparent and inclusive, reflecting concerns among developing countries that the benefits of advanced artificial intelligence could become concentrated among a relatively small group of technologically advanced states and companies.

That concern is already reflected in the United Nations’ Global Digital Compact.

The Compact calls for closing digital divides, expanding access to the benefits of the digital economy and strengthening international governance of artificial intelligence. It specifically calls for full and equal representation of countries, including developing nations, in international AI governance.

ALSO READ : Democracy: A colonial hangover

This makes AI access and governance part of a broader development question.

Countries with advanced computing infrastructure, large datasets, sophisticated research institutions and substantial private-sector investment are positioned differently from nations that remain dependent on imported technologies and have limited domestic AI capacity.

If that gap widens, AI could potentially reinforce existing economic and technological inequalities rather than reduce them.

UN Framework Already Calls for Inclusive AI Governance

The debate at the Security Council is taking place alongside a broader UN effort to develop international mechanisms for AI governance.

The Global Digital Compact, adopted as part of the Pact for the Future, established a framework for international cooperation on digital technologies and AI.

The United Nations has subsequently established an Independent International Scientific Panel on Artificial Intelligence and a Global Dialogue on AI Governance.

The first annual Global Dialogue took place in Geneva in July 2026, bringing together governments and other stakeholders to discuss international cooperation, AI opportunities and emerging risks.

The UN says the dialogue is intended to ensure that AI governance reflects the priorities of all nations rather than only those with the greatest technological capabilities.

For developing countries such as Pakistan, this process provides an avenue to raise questions about technological access, capacity-building, data governance and participation in international rule-making.

AI and Military Decision-Making Raise Particular Concerns

One of the most sensitive areas in the AI debate is military decision-making.

AI can process enormous volumes of information far faster than humans. That capability could potentially assist military planners and governments, but it also raises questions about what happens when decisions involving force are increasingly influenced by automated systems.

A shorter decision-making cycle can create pressure to respond before human officials have fully evaluated the available information.

That is why Pakistan’s emphasis on restraint and confidence-building is significant in the context of international security.

The broader UN position has also stressed the importance of retaining meaningful human control over decisions involving the use of force.

The central issue is not simply whether AI should be used in security applications, but how governments can establish accountability when AI-assisted systems contribute to consequential decisions.

Disinformation Adds Another Layer of Risk

AI-generated content presents another challenge for governments and international organizations.

Generative AI can make it easier to create convincing text, images, audio and video at scale. In a conflict environment, such capabilities could complicate efforts to distinguish authentic information from manipulated material.

The UN has identified misinformation and disinformation among the major concerns surrounding artificial intelligence, particularly where manipulated content can affect public trust, human rights or humanitarian operations.

For international institutions, the problem is therefore both technological and political: governments must develop mechanisms capable of addressing harmful AI-generated content without undermining legitimate expression or access to information.

Global AI Governance Is Becoming More Urgent

The current Security Council discussion reflects a larger international shift.

AI governance is no longer being discussed solely in terms of innovation, investment and economic competitiveness. Governments are increasingly considering questions involving national security, international stability, human rights, development and inequality.

ALSO READ : What is the future of education?

The United States and China, for example, continue to compete technologically while also discussing mechanisms for AI safety and communication.

Meanwhile, the UN is developing a more inclusive multilateral framework intended to give countries a role in shaping international AI governance.

That creates an important distinction between AI development and AI governance.

The first concerns how quickly capabilities advance. The second concerns the rules, safeguards and institutions that determine how those capabilities are developed and deployed.

What Pakistan’s Position Means for Developing Countries

Pakistan’s intervention highlights an issue that is likely to remain central to future AI negotiations: who gets to shape the rules governing artificial intelligence?

Developing countries have an interest not only in managing AI-related risks but also in ensuring access to the technology’s potential benefits.

The UN’s Global Digital Compact recognizes the need for capacity-building, technology cooperation and support for developing countries to access, develop, use and govern AI systems.

That approach is particularly relevant as AI becomes increasingly connected to education, healthcare, agriculture, financial services, public administration and economic productivity.

Without adequate access to computing infrastructure, skills, data and investment, developing countries could find themselves primarily consuming technologies designed elsewhere.

Pakistan’s call for representative and inclusive AI governance therefore places technological development and international security within the same broader conversation.

The Challenge Ahead: Rules That Keep Pace With Technology

The Security Council’s latest discussion illustrates the central difficulty confronting policymakers.

Artificial intelligence is developing faster than many traditional regulatory processes can respond.

International rules must address security risks without unnecessarily blocking beneficial innovation. They must also account for differences between developed and developing countries while maintaining fundamental principles such as human rights, transparency and accountability.

The United Nations’ emerging governance architecture is an attempt to address that challenge through scientific assessment, international dialogue and greater participation by countries around the world.

Pakistan’s intervention adds another voice to that debate, particularly on the consequences of unequal access to AI capabilities and the risks associated with AI-assisted military decision-making.

Conclusion

Pakistan’s warning at the UN Security Council underscores the increasingly international character of the artificial intelligence debate.

The issue is no longer simply how quickly AI can advance. It is also about how the technology is governed, who participates in setting the rules, how military risks are controlled and whether the benefits of AI are distributed broadly enough to avoid deepening existing inequalities.

As AI becomes more deeply integrated into security, economies and public institutions, international cooperation will become an increasingly important part of managing both its opportunities and its risks.

For Pakistan and other developing countries, the emerging global AI governance system will be particularly important because the rules established today could influence access to technology, economic opportunities and participation in future international decision-making for years to come.