On Monday, OpenAI’s CEO, Sam Altman, remarked that the organization “shouldn’t have hurried” its recent agreement with the U.S. Department of Defense and detailed changes to the contract.

Altman presented what he characterized as a repost of an internal memo on X, stating the company would revise the contract to incorporate new language related to its principles on matters such as surveillance.

This included language to make clear that “the AI system shall not be purposely employed for domestic surveillance of U.S. persons and nationals.”

The memo further stated that “the Department recognizes the limitation to prevent intentional tracking, surveillance, or monitoring of U.S. persons or nationals, including through the acquisition or application of commercially obtained personal or identifiable information.”

These revisions follow the announcement by ChatGPT’s creator that it had reached a new agreement with the Defense Department on Friday, just hours after U.S. President Donald Trump ordered federal agencies to cease using the competing AI firm Anthropic’s tools, and hours before Washington was set to conduct strikes on Iran.

According to Altman, the Defense Department also confirmed that OpenAI’s tools would not be utilized by intelligence agencies like the NSA.

“There are numerous aspects that the technology simply isn’t prepared for, and many fields where we don’t yet grasp the tradeoffs necessary for safety,” Altman mentioned, adding that the organization would collaborate with the Pentagon on technical protections.

The CEO also conceded that he had erred and “shouldn’t have hurried” to finalize the deal on Friday.

“We were honestly attempting to de-escalate situations and avoid a significantly worse result, but I think it just appeared opportunistic and careless,” he noted in the post.

This admission follows a public conflict between Anthropic and Washington regarding safeguards for its Claude AI systems, which concluded without an agreement. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth declared on Friday that the firm would be identified as a supply-chain threat.

After an initial agreement last year, Anthropic became the first AI lab to roll out its models across the Defense Department’s classified network.

The organization later sought assurances that its tools would not be deployed for uses such as domestic surveillance in the U.S. or to operate and advance autonomous weapons without human oversight.

The disagreement started after it was disclosed that Anthropic’s Claude had been utilized by the U.S. military during its mission to capture Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro in January, even though the firm did not publicly contest that application.

OpenAI’s arrangement with the Pentagon occurred immediately after discussions between Anthropic and the Defense Department faltered, although Altman had informed employees in a Thursday memo that OpenAI shared the same “red lines” as Anthropic. The company also stated in a post on Friday that the Defense Department accepted the company’s limitations.

It remains ambiguous why the Defense Department agreed to accommodate OpenAI and not Anthropic, although government officials have criticized Anthropic for allegedly being excessively concerned with AI safety for several months.

The timing of OpenAI’s deal with the Defense Department incited online pushback, with many users reportedly uninstalling ChatGPT in favor of Claude on app stores.

In his post, Altman further addressed the situation, asserting: “In my discussions over the weekend, I emphasized that Anthropic should not be classified as a [supply chain risk], and that we hope the [Department of Defense] grants them the same terms we’ve negotiated.”

Anthropic was established in 2021 by a group of former OpenAI employees and researchers, who departed the company after disagreements regarding its direction. The firm has promoted itself as a “safety-first” alternative.

— CNBC’s Ashley Capoot assisted with this report

The Iranian closure of the Strait of Hormuz is causing significant turbulence in global energy markets, with Asia likely to experience the worst effects.

An official from Iran’s Revolutionary Guards stated Monday that the Strait of Hormuz has been closed and cautioned that any ship trying to navigate the waterway would be attacked, Iranian media revealed.

The Strait, located between Oman and Iran, serves as a crucial channel for global oil transport. Approximately 13 million barrels per day flowed through it in 2025, accounting for roughly 31% of all maritime crude transfers, as per energy consultancy firm Kpler.

A lengthy closure of the Strait would likely result in a spike in oil prices, with some experts predicting oil surpassing $100 per barrel. The global benchmark Brent was most recently up 2.6% at approximately $80 per barrel — nearly 10% higher since the onset of the conflict.

About 20% of the world’s liquefied natural gas exports from the Gulf are also in jeopardy, especially those originating from Qatar and transported via the Strait of Hormuz, according to Kpler. Qatar, one of the leading global LNG suppliers, halted its production on Monday following Iranian drone strikes on its facilities in Ras Laffan Industrial City and Mesaieed Industrial City.

“In Asia, Thailand, India, Korea, and the Philippines are the most susceptible to rising oil prices, due to their high dependency on imports, while Malaysia may benefit comparatively as an energy exporter,” Nomura indicated in a note on Monday.

Here’s how those dependent on Gulf energy and shipments through the Strait of Hormuz are poised to be affected.

South Asia: immediate physical strain

South Asia would encounter the most severe disruptions, particularly concerning LNG supplies, analysts noted.

Qatar and the UAE make up 99% of Pakistan’s LNG imports, 72% of Bangladesh’s, and 53% of India’s, based on Kpler figures.

With restricted storage and procurement options, Pakistan and Bangladesh are particularly at risk. For instance, Bangladesh is already grappling with a significant structural gas deficit. According to the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis, the nation is facing a daily shortfall exceeding 1,300 million cubic feet.

“Pakistan and Bangladesh have limited storage and procurement flexibility, so any disruption would likely lead to rapid demand destruction in the power sector rather than vigorous spot bidding,” Katayama remarked.

India faces the highest combined risk in the area. “Over half of its LNG imports are tied to the Gulf, and a considerable portion is Brent-indexed, so a crude surge driven by Hormuz would simultaneously increase oil import expenses and LNG contract prices. This creates a dual physical and financial challenge,” he stated.

Moreover, approximately 60% of India’s oil imports come from the Middle East, as per UBP. A protracted blockade would thus exacerbate both energy import costs and current-account pressures.

China: significant exposure but adequate buffer

A closure of Hormuz would challenge China’s energy security, though stockpiles and alternative supplies provide some cushioning.

The nation is the largest crude oil importer globally and acquires over 80% of Iranian oil, according to Kpler.

About 30% of its LNG imports are sourced from Qatar and the UAE, and roughly 40% of its oil imports traverse Hormuz, estimates UBP.

“China is substantially exposed but somewhat adaptable,” Kpler’s Katayama commented.

According to Kpler, China’s LNG reserves as of late February stand at 7.6 million tons, providing short-term coverage. However, should the disruption extend, China would need to compete for Atlantic cargoes, tightening the Pacific basin, Katayama added. In such a scenario, price competition across Asia could intensify even if Beijing manages to avoid outright shortages.

Saudi Arabia has ramped up crude loadings in recent weeks, and strategic petroleum reserves held by major importing nations like China could provide temporary relief to the market, Rystad Energy indicated in a note on Sunday.

UBP stated that while China is a significant net energy importer in the region, it is not necessarily the most exposed to potential supply shocks.

The Middle East supplies 75% of Japan’s oil imports and about 70% of Korea’s, according to UBP.

In terms of LNG, their Gulf exposure is less than that of South Asia. South Korea sources 14% of its LNG from Qatar and the UAE, while Japan sources 6%, as per Kpler’s estimates.

Even in the absence of outright shortages, price impacts could be significant. “Economies with high energy import dependence such as Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan are more susceptible to supply disruptions,” said Shier Lee Lim, lead macro and FX strategist of APAC at payment platform Convera.

Inventories are also constrained. Korea holds approximately 3.5 million tons of LNG, and Japan around 4.4 million tons in reserves, sufficient for roughly two to four weeks of steady demand, according to Kpler.

South Korea’s net oil imports constitute 2.7% of GDP, with Nomura identifying it as among the most vulnerable regarding current-account stability.

In much of Southeast Asia, the primary impact is cost inflation rather than an immediate shortage, stated industry experts.

Buyers of spot-reliant LNG would encounter significantly higher replacement costs as Asia competes with Europe for Atlantic cargoes, noted Kpler’s Katayama.

Thailand, in particular, stands out as a major loser in terms of oil prices in Nomura’s analysis because the external impact is substantial and immediate: it has the highest net oil imports in Asia at 4.7% of GDP, and every 10% increase in oil prices exacerbates the current account by approximately 0.5 percentage points of the nation’s GDP.