allnewscast
Breaking News
Paxton’s Private Convention Assessment Collides With Trump’s Public Praise— Politics & ElectionsGillibrand and Welch Set Fall Senate Hearing Schedule for Tariff Repeal Bill— Politics & ElectionsFederal Judge Says Trump Team Defied Mail-Voting Injunction With New USPS Rule— Politics & ElectionsPaxton’s Private Convention Assessment Collides With Trump’s Public Praise— Politics & ElectionsGillibrand and Welch Set Fall Senate Hearing Schedule for Tariff Repeal Bill— Politics & ElectionsFederal Judge Says Trump Team Defied Mail-Voting Injunction With New USPS Rule— Politics & Elections
AI & Tech

Anthropic Pushes Courts and Regulators to Halt High-Risk AI Models

Nic Reeve5 min read
Anthropic Pushes Courts and Regulators to Halt High-Risk AI Models

Anthropic chief executive Dario Amodei is pressing governments to impose binding safeguards on advanced artificial intelligence, arguing that voluntary promises cannot keep pace with increasingly capable systems. In an October 15 letter to California Governor Gavin Newsom, disclosed October 28, the company backed court orders that could halt models judged to pose a serious public risk.

  • Anthropic sent California its recommendations in an October 15 letter, Reuters reported on October 28.
  • Reuters said the proposal would let officials seek court orders blocking models that create a “serious risk.”
  • Anthropic plans to spend at least $1 billion on independent evaluation over five years, Reuters Breakingviews reported on November 2.

What regulation is Anthropic asking for?

Anthropic wants governments to move beyond disclosure rules and voluntary industry commitments. The company’s proposal would allow public authorities to ask courts to stop the release of an AI model after a review finds a serious threat. The approach would give developers a chance to challenge government action while creating a legal checkpoint before deployment.

“When a review finds a model poses a serious risk, the government should be able to ask a court to block it,” Anthropic said in the letter to Newsom, as quoted by Reuters.

Anthropic submitted the recommendations after Newsom convened an expert panel in September to develop AI safety proposals. The company’s position is narrower than a general pause on AI development. It focuses on highly capable models that could create acute risks, including cyber or other high-impact misuse.

Why does Anthropic reject broad “kill switches”?

Anthropic does not support requiring companies to install controls capable of shutting down an entire model in every crisis. The company told California officials that such a requirement could reassure regulators without reliably containing a harmful system. Anthropic instead favors interventions aimed at the specific source of harm.

  • Anthropic described full-model “kill switches” as a possible “false sense of reassurance,” Reuters reported.
  • The company supports disabling a problematic AI agent or cutting off an individual customer’s access.
  • Anthropic says targeted controls could work better than shutting down an entire model.

The distinction matters because advanced models can serve many customers and applications at once. A problem tied to one deployed agent or user may not justify removing access for every legitimate customer. Anthropic’s proposal therefore places more emphasis on identifying the dangerous action and stopping it directly.

How would independent evaluators change AI oversight?

Amodei’s regulatory argument is paired with a plan to give outside specialists a permanent role inside the AI-development process. Independent evaluators would work alongside Anthropic’s own safety and strategy teams, rather than reviewing a model only after its public launch. The goal is to test capabilities while developers still have time to change deployment plans.

Reuters Breakingviews reported on November 2 that Anthropic expects to invest at least $1 billion in this effort over the next five years. The company also has a responsible-scaling policy that places limits on development when safety work does not keep pace with model capabilities.

The proposed oversight would add an external check to a sector where companies often evaluate their own systems. It could also give regulators more technical information before deciding whether a model should be released.

What events pushed the debate toward courts and government?

Anthropic’s recommendations arrived amid a dispute over how governments should respond when frontier models acquire powerful capabilities. Reuters reported that the Trump administration ordered Anthropic in June to restrict foreign access to its cyber-capable Mythos 5 and Fable 5 systems, citing national-security concerns. The Commerce Department later lifted that order.

California’s process reflects a broader effort by governments to define enforceable standards rather than rely only on corporate pledges. Reuters reported that a bipartisan group of U.S. senators was debating legislation in September that would give the federal government power to block certain unsafe AI models, while allowing companies to challenge decisions in federal court.

Anthropic’s court-based proposal would place judges between regulators and developers. That could make restrictions more legally durable, but it would also raise questions about evidence, timing and the technical threshold for “serious risk.”

What does Amodei want the industry and governments to do next?

Amodei has argued that AI companies should not decide safety standards alone. A November 1 interview cited by Blumify described his preferred sequence: companies should first improve their own practices, then establish shared industry standards, followed by international cooperation. Government participation would be needed to make those standards credible and to address the pace of releases.

“There needs to be involvement of the government,” Amodei said in the interview, referring to efforts to establish safety standards and potentially regulate the pace at which systems are released, as reported by Blumify.

Amodei also said Anthropic was speaking regularly with officials in the Commerce Department, Treasury Department and intelligence community. The company’s policy push now faces practical tests: lawmakers must define which models qualify as dangerous, agencies must develop credible evaluations, and courts must decide how quickly an injunction could be issued when a model is nearing release.

Who could be affected by stronger AI rules?

AI developers would face new testing, documentation and legal obligations before releasing the most capable systems. Cloud providers and customers could also encounter access limits if a model or a particular agent is judged unsafe. Regulators would gain a formal route to intervene, while courts would need to assess technical evidence that can change quickly.

Businesses using advanced AI could see slower product launches or tighter controls around cyber, biological and autonomous capabilities. At the same time, outside evaluation could make it easier for customers to judge whether a system has been tested independently. The cost would fall first on leading developers, but the rules could eventually shape the wider market.

Anthropic’s position leaves unresolved how regulators should measure risk and who should pay for evaluations. Those decisions will determine whether stronger oversight becomes a targeted safety regime or a broader barrier to deployment.

Sources

  1. 1.ft.com
  2. 2.reuters.com
  3. 3.blumify.io
  4. 4.frontierminds.ai
  5. 5.thedailystar.net
  6. 6.anthropic.com
  7. 7.chorusmcp.com
  8. 8.ceointerviews.ai

Read more →

Related Articles

Intel’s AI Surge Sparks Fierce Valuation Clash as Some Models Flag 80%+ Upside
AI & Tech

Intel’s AI Surge Sparks Fierce Valuation Clash as Some Models Flag 80%+ Upside

Intel’s rapid push into artificial intelligence chips and foundry services has ignited a sharp debate over what the stock is really worth, with one widely followed narrative now implying a fair value near $500 per share — more than four times the recent market price. While mainstream analysts still cluster between roughly $90 and $120 per share, user-driven valuation models and some sales-based frameworks argue that the market is deeply underestimating Intel’s long‑term AI earnings power, leaving the stock potentially more than 80% below fair value. Where the 82% Undervaluation Claim Comes From The headline figure that Intel could be about 82% below fair value stems from a narrative used on retail‑focused valuation platforms, which apply aggressive growth and margin assumptions to Intel’s emerging AI businesses. In several recent notes, that framework points to a fair value around $500.93 per share , compared with a share price near the $90–$100 range in late August 2026. On that basis, Intel is framed as roughly 80–82% undervalued, with the gap driven by bullish expectations for x86 server CPUs, AI accelerators and foundry contracts over the next decade. These narratives typically assume: Strong, sustained growth in Intel’s Data Center and AI (DCAI) segment. High adoption of Intel’s advanced manufacturing nodes, such as 18A, by external foundry customers. AI‑linked revenue eventually commanding premium valuation multiples similar to leading GPU and cloud infrastructure providers. Critically, this $500+ fair value is not a consensus Wall Street target but a specific, scenario‑driven model that extrapolates current AI momentum far into the future. Intel’s Latest AI and Earnings Momentum The bullish valuation arguments have gained traction as Intel’s reported numbers show AI demand increasingly driving the business. For the second quarter of 2026, Intel reported revenue of about $16.1 billion, up 25% year over year , and adjusted earnings per share of $0.42, beating analyst expectations. The company’s Data Center and AI Group stood out, delivering approximately 59% year‑over‑year growth , with management noting that AI‑linked businesses grew more than 70% and now account for roughly 70% of total revenue. Intel also guided third‑quarter revenue to a range of $15.8 billion to $16.8 billion and gross margins in the low‑40% band, signaling confidence that AI‑related demand will remain robust despite broader concerns about chip valuations. On the strategic side, Intel highlighted signed foundry and advanced packaging agreements with major technology players, including Google, Nvidia, Tesla and Apple, alongside partnerships tied to its 18A manufacturing node and High NA EUV lithography. Foundry revenue rose by more than 30% year over year, although external customers still represent a small share of the segment, keeping the long‑term foundry thesis partly unproven. Mainstream Fair Value Estimates: 90–120 Dollar Range Traditional analyst research paints a far more moderate picture of Intel’s intrinsic value. Morningstar, which has repeatedly updated its Intel model in response to the AI boom, lifted its fair value estimate multiple times in 2026. Earlier in the year, analysts raised Intel’s fair value to $90 per share from $60, citing a “stunning” rise in server CPU demand and a growing AI infrastructure build‑out. Following stronger results and upgraded expectations, Morningstar later increased its fair value estimate to around $105 per share , and some commentary mentions fair value figures just above $100 as AI‑related assumptions were refined further. Other analyst summaries show valuation targets and fair value estimates clustering between roughly $88 and $115 per share , with some firms setting price targets as high as $200 but many maintaining Neutral or Hold ratings due to execution and capital‑intensity concerns. On several discounted cash‑flow (DCF) models, Intel’s intrinsic value is calculated in the mid‑80s to low‑90s per share range, only slightly above or below the current market price, implying the stock is close to fairly valued on conservative cash‑flow assumptions. Sales‑Based Models Still See Undervaluation Separate from the more conservative DCF work, some valuation frameworks focused on price‑to‑sales (P/S) multiples argue that Intel’s AI‑driven mix and size justify a richer multiple than the market is currently assigning. One such model derives a “fair” P/S ratio of about 15.1x for Intel, compared with an observed multiple closer to 13.1x at the time of analysis, suggesting the stock trades at a discount to what its AI exposure and margin profile would warrant. Another narrative points to a fair P/S ratio nearer 17.9x , versus a contemporaneous multiple around 7.6x. Under that lens, Intel looks significantly undervalued on sales even if cash‑flow‑based intrinsic value appears only modestly above the share price. These sales‑centric approaches underpin much of the “still cheap” messaging, emphasizing Intel’s potential rerating as AI revenue becomes a larger and more stable component of the business. Not All Analysts Buy the Undervaluation Story Despite the enthusiasm around AI, some research houses remain skeptical that current valuations can be justified. Early in 2026, one widely cited report called Intel “overpriced” and warned that the shares were trading more than 30% above a fair value estimate of $32 per share , based on cautious assumptions about profitability and competitive risks. Although that figure has since been raised substantially by the same provider, the earlier stance illustrates how sensitive Intel’s perceived fair value is to underlying assumptions about AI demand durability, manufacturing execution and capital allocation. Even after upgrading their models to reflect the AI boom, some analysts argue that Intel’s stock has already priced in a great deal of optimism and may struggle if AI infrastructure spending normalizes or if rivals capture outsized share of accelerator and server CPU markets. AI Capital Raise Adds Another Layer to the Debate The valuation controversy has been sharpened by Intel’s recent decision to raise a large amount of equity capital to fund its AI ambitions. In mid‑August, the company launched a stock offering initially sized at $15 billion and then expanded it to $20 billion after strong investor demand. The sale briefly pressured the share price but was interpreted by some market watchers as a sign of management’s confidence in the scale of Intel’s AI opportunity and its foundry road map. For bullish valuation frameworks, the capital raise is seen as necessary fuel for growth; for skeptics, it reinforces concerns about dilution and the high cost of competing at the cutting edge of semiconductor manufacturing. A Wide Valuation Range, Driven by AI Assumptions As of late August 2026, Intel’s fair value estimates span a remarkably wide range — from the $80–$120 band common among traditional analysts to user‑driven narratives north of $500 per share. The claim that Intel could be roughly 82% below fair value relies on the most optimistic of these models, which assume sustained AI‑powered growth and premium valuation multiples over many years. For investors, the gap underscores how pivotal AI is to the Intel story: the more confidence markets place in Intel’s ability to convert its early AI momentum into durable, high‑margin earnings streams, the more plausible the higher end of that valuation spectrum becomes.

Nic Reeve·
Federal Judge Says Trump Team Defied Mail-Voting Injunction With New USPS Rule
Politics & Elections

Federal Judge Says Trump Team Defied Mail-Voting Injunction With New USPS Rule

A federal judge in Massachusetts has concluded that the Trump administration violated a nationwide court order when the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) finalized a new rule tightening mail-in voting procedures ahead of the November 2026 midterm elections. U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani, who previously blocked key portions of President Donald Trump’s executive order on mail voting, said in a ruling issued Tuesday that federal officials “violated the preliminary injunction” by moving forward with a regulation tied to that order despite her earlier prohibition on implementing it for the 2026 elections. Background: Trump’s Executive Order on Mail Voting Trump’s March 2026 executive order sought to sharply restrict vote-by-mail by expanding federal oversight of state election procedures and conditioning USPS handling of ballot mail on new eligibility and certification requirements. The order directed the Department of Homeland Security to compile voter eligibility lists for each state and instructed USPS to adopt binding regulations governing which voters could receive and return mail ballots. Voting-rights groups and a coalition of Democratic-led states quickly challenged the order, arguing that it usurped state control over elections and threatened to disenfranchise eligible voters who rely on mail ballots. In June, Judge Talwani issued a sweeping preliminary injunction, holding that key provisions of Trump’s order were likely unconstitutional and exceeded executive authority because elections are administered by states and local governments, not the federal executive branch. Talwani declared that the executive branch “has no authority to regulate elections,” finding that the order’s attempt to create a federal voter list and empower USPS to decide who could vote by mail violated the Constitution’s separation of powers and long-standing statutory limits on federal election involvement. Nationwide Block on USPS Implementation On August 11, Judge Talwani went further, issuing a nationwide injunction specifically barring USPS from implementing Section 3 of Trump’s order and from “completing rulemaking” tied to that provision for the November 2026 elections or any earlier contests. That section would have required the Postal Service to refuse delivery of certain ballots deemed “noncompliant” and to withhold ballot mailings in states that did not certify federal voter lists. In that ruling, Talwani concluded that the order was likely unconstitutional and was already causing “irreparable harm” by sowing confusion among voters and organizations that assist them with mail voting. She emphasized that blocking USPS from carrying out Trump’s directives would not harm the public, given the risk of widespread disenfranchisement if the changes took effect. Voting-rights groups later told the court that the administration nonetheless pressed ahead: USPS finalized a national rule incorporating the disputed mail-voting restrictions, even as it acknowledged in the rule text that it could not implement the changes for the 2026 elections unless Talwani’s injunction was lifted. Judge: Administration “Cannot Contend” It Misunderstood Order In her latest five-page order, Talwani rejected the government’s argument that it had complied with her directive by promising not to apply the new rule in November 2026. She wrote that “defendants cannot contend that they misunderstood the scope of the court’s order,” noting that the injunction explicitly barred USPS both from implementing the provision and from completing rulemaking for the upcoming elections. Talwani pointed to language in the final USPS rule that referenced her injunction, which she said showed that the agency knew the court’s order remained in force but chose to finalize the regulation anyway. She concluded that, despite government assurances that it “takes its obligation to comply with court orders very seriously,” the administration had violated the injunction. Voting-rights organizations that brought the Massachusetts case argued that simply issuing the rule – even with an implementation caveat – flouted the court’s bar on “completing rulemaking” and risked chilling participation by voters who might assume new restrictions were already in effect. Related Litigation and Supreme Court Action The clash over Talwani’s injunction comes amid a broader, complex legal battle over Trump’s mail-voting order in multiple courts. In June, Talwani’s initial ruling blocking core parts of the order was upheld in July by the Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which found that the president’s directive would “sow confusion and threaten disenfranchisement of many eligible voters” if allowed to take effect before the midterms. Separately, a federal judge in Washington, D.C., Emmet Sullivan, ruled on July 1 that USPS could not implement Trump’s mail ballot delivery plan because it violated a settlement reached in 2020 litigation over election mail delays. Sullivan said the proposed Postal Service rule conflicted with commitments the agency had previously made to prioritize timely delivery of election mail and avoid rejecting ballots based on new federal compliance standards. On August 24 and 25, the U.S. Supreme Court stepped into the fray, allowing the Trump administration to move forward with some parts of the executive order while leaving in place other restrictions on USPS. The Court lifted part of Talwani’s June injunction that applied to a group of 23 states and the District of Columbia, clearing the way for certain federal election-related directives to proceed pending further litigation. However, a separate nationwide injunction issued by Talwani on August 11 – the one focused on USPS implementation and rulemaking – remains in effect, meaning the Postal Service is still barred from carrying out the controversial mail ballot procedures for the November elections. Implications for Voters and Election Officials The finding that the Trump administration violated a court order deepens concerns among voting-rights advocates about federal interference in state-run elections and the reliability of mail voting infrastructure ahead of the midterms. They argue that repeated attempts to alter mail ballot rules, even when blocked, create uncertainty for voters and election officials who must interpret rapidly changing guidance. Election administrators in many states have expanded mail voting in recent years to accommodate shifting voter preferences and logistical challenges. Trump and his allies, by contrast, have portrayed vote-by-mail as vulnerable to fraud and have pursued legal and policy changes to limit its use, despite repeated findings that documented mail ballot fraud is rare and closely monitored by state authorities. With multiple overlapping court orders, appeals, and regulatory actions still unfolding, states are watching closely to see whether any of Trump’s federal mail-voting directives will ultimately take effect before ballots are printed and mailed for the November 2026 elections. For now, the core provisions empowering USPS to police which ballots can be sent or delivered remain on hold under Talwani’s nationwide injunction, even as the Supreme Court has opened the door for other parts of the executive order to proceed in some jurisdictions.

Marcus Feld·
Hock Tan Steps In as Lenders Push for Protection in Anthropic’s $63 Billion AI Financing
AI & Tech

Hock Tan Steps In as Lenders Push for Protection in Anthropic’s $63 Billion AI Financing

Broadcom Chief Executive Hock Tan stepped in during last-minute weekend talks to secure a $63 billion financing package for Anthropic’s artificial-intelligence infrastructure, after lenders sought higher returns and stronger protection against losses. The deal, announced Monday, October 26, 2026, will fund Broadcom chips and networking equipment that Anthropic is expected to lease from a newly formed company. Reuters reported that about $43.5 billion, or 69% of the package, will consist of first-lien loans. The Wall Street Journal reported on October 27 that Tan agreed to higher interest rates and additional safeguards for lenders. Equipment deliveries are expected to begin in 2027, according to deal details reported by TheStreet. What did Broadcom and Anthropic agree to? The arrangement is designed to finance a large buildout of computing capacity for Anthropic, the company behind the Claude chatbot. A special-purpose vehicle will borrow money to purchase Broadcom’s artificial-intelligence accelerators and networking systems, then lease those assets to Anthropic. Anthropic’s lease payments are intended to service the debt. Reuters reported that Bank of America, Blackstone, Citigroup and Morgan Stanley are among the institutions providing the financing. The package ranks among the largest debt transactions connected to the AI boom. Broadcom said the hardware will support Anthropic’s future model development and deployment. The equipment is not being sold directly to Anthropic through a conventional purchase. The leasing structure moves the borrowing and ownership of the hardware into a separate vehicle. Why did Hock Tan intervene? Lenders became more cautious as the deal approached completion. The Wall Street Journal reported that banks worried about rising interest rates and the risk of concentrating large amounts of capital in AI infrastructure. Tan spent nearly two months working to secure commitments for the transaction, then held direct discussions with bank executives over the weekend before the announcement. The final concessions changed the risk-sharing equation. Tan agreed to higher loan pricing and stronger protections for creditors, the Journal reported. Broadcom also agreed to provide residual-value support tied to the equipment. That support could require Broadcom to cover a shortfall if the AI systems are worth less than expected when measured against the debt. The move gives lenders more assurance while leaving Broadcom exposed to part of the financing risk. A successful Anthropic expansion could create long-term demand for Broadcom’s custom chips and networking products. A weaker business outcome could make the support costly. How is the $63 billion package divided? The headline figure combines several forms of capital rather than representing one conventional loan. Reuters reported that senior or first-lien debt totals approximately $43.5 billion. That amount equals about 69% of the overall financing, leaving the remainder in other debt and capital commitments arranged with Blackstone and participating banks. The available figures show the scale of the transaction: Total financing: $63 billion, as reported by Reuters on October 26. First-lien loans: approximately $43.5 billion, based on information from two people familiar with the matter cited by Reuters. Earlier Broadcom commitment: up to $42 billion in lending for Anthropic infrastructure, disclosed in an October 1 Reuters report on Broadcom’s filing. Expected equipment deliveries: 2027, according to TheStreet’s account of the transaction. The comparison between $42 billion and $43.5 billion reflects different parts of the financing process. The earlier figure described Broadcom’s potential lending commitment, while the later figure describes the senior debt component of the completed package. What role does Broadcom’s support play? Broadcom is more than the equipment supplier in the transaction. The company designed the chips and networking gear being purchased by the special-purpose vehicle, and it also accepted additional financial exposure to help close the deal. Reuters reported on October 1 that Broadcom could designate a financing partner and that some debt instruments could be converted into Anthropic shares. The residual-value arrangement is central to lender protection. If the equipment loses value or Anthropic cannot meet its lease obligations, Broadcom may have to make up part of the gap under the agreed support mechanism. TheStreet described the support as effectively a substantial guarantee equal to the senior-debt amount. That structure links three businesses. Anthropic receives computing capacity without purchasing all the equipment upfront. Banks and investment firms receive lease-backed claims. Broadcom gains a large customer and a role in financing the infrastructure needed to use its products. Why does the deal matter for the AI industry? The financing shows how the AI industry is moving beyond venture capital and public-market funding toward specialized equipment debt. AI companies need enormous quantities of chips, memory, power and networking capacity before those systems generate revenue. Leasing can spread the cost over time, but it also creates fixed payment obligations. The transaction also tests whether lenders will treat AI hardware as durable collateral. Chip values can fall quickly when newer systems arrive, while model companies may need continuing investment to remain competitive. Broadcom’s willingness to support residual values helped address that concern, but it did not remove the underlying risk. For banks, the deal offers access to a fast-growing technology sector and a large fee opportunity. For Broadcom, it may help lock in demand for custom AI processors and related networking equipment. For Anthropic, the arrangement could provide access to capacity without raising the full amount as equity. What happens next for Anthropic and the lenders? The next stage is equipment delivery and construction of the computing infrastructure. TheStreet reported that shipments are expected to start in 2027. Anthropic will then need to operate the systems at a scale large enough to support lease payments, debt service and continued model development. Several questions remain open: How quickly Anthropic can turn additional computing capacity into revenue. Whether the company’s lease obligations will rise as more equipment is added. How Broadcom’s residual-value support will work if hardware prices decline. Whether other AI companies will seek similar debt-backed equipment structures. Broadcom’s October 1 filing also indicated that parts of the financing could involve instruments convertible into Anthropic equity. That feature could alter the final balance between debt and ownership if lenders exercise conversion rights. The deal therefore gives Anthropic capacity to expand, while placing lenders and Broadcom directly behind the economics of the company’s AI buildout.

Nic Reeve·
Anthropic Pushes Courts and Regulators to Halt High-Risk AI Models | allnewscast