Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper analyzes the intersection of frontier AI export controls and cybersecurity, highlighting how a few firms dominate the production of advanced AI models and the implications of national regulations on their distribution. It details a significant U.S. policy change in June 2026 that required licenses for the export of advanced AI models, leading to a rapid withdrawal of these models globally due to impractical administration. The authors argue that access to frontier AI is increasingly integral to national cyber defense strategies, yet true sovereign capability remains elusive for most states, necessitating a multi-faceted approach to AI governance and security.
Access to frontier AI is becoming a critical component of national cyber defense, yet only a few states can realistically achieve true sovereignty over these technologies.
A small number of firms based in two states produce the most capable frontier AI models. The governments of those states have shown both the legal power and the political will to decide which other countries may use these systems. In June 2026 the United States required a leading developer to obtain licences before releasing its most advanced models to any foreign person, including foreign nationals resident in the United States. The affected models were withdrawn worldwide at short notice, partly because the restriction proved impractical to administer. This followed within months of the first documented case of a largely autonomous, AI-run cyber espionage campaign, and coincided with mounting evidence that frontier models alter the economics of both cyber attack and cyber defence. This article examines how these two developments interact, and situates them within the unusual market dynamics now driving large-scale AI development. It argues that access to frontier AI is becoming part of national cyber defence, that such access can be revoked, and that the obvious remedy of sovereign capability remains only partly feasible for all but a handful of states. Drawing on evidence about training costs, the concentration of computing power and the support offered by national AI programmes, it asks what sovereignty can realistically mean for small and middle powers, and for large powers as well. The article proposes a layered strategy: negotiated access guarantees, sovereignty at the level of inference, hedging with open-weight models, pooled regional capability, sustained talent development and continued investment in basic cyber resilience. The open-weight hedge proves at once more capable and more politically exposed than is commonly assumed. Much of the near-term risk lies in how capable models are deployed and contained rather than in their apparent performance.
