Mistral’s Arthur Mensch directly rebuts Pope Leo on AI in warfare


Three days after the Vatican called for AI to be ‘disarmed’, the Mistral CEO defended his company’s defence-AI work, arguing Europe cannot afford unilateral restraint.


Arthur Mensch, the chief executive of French AI startup Mistral, pushed back directly on Thursday against Pope Leo XIV’s call to “disarm AI,” arguing that European companies cannot afford to step back from defence-AI work when adversaries are actively deploying the technology.

The remarks, made three days after the Vatican published Magnifica Humanitas, the Pope’s first encyclical, mark one of the most direct corporate responses yet to what has rapidly become the Catholic Church’s most consequential intervention on AI.

“We’re all for peace,” Mensch said, “but if you look at our rivals and adversaries in the world, they’re using artificial intelligence. As long as we have adversaries that are threatening, and they are threatening, we do need to have our own capabilities.”

The 💜 of EU tech

The latest rumblings from the EU tech scene, a story from our wise ol’ founder Boris, and some questionable AI art. It’s free, every week, in your inbox. Sign up now!

The Mistral CEO’s framing is the structural defence of military-AI development the European tech sector has been working toward since the Ukraine war, but his decision to articulate it as an explicit rebuttal of a sitting Pope is what makes Thursday’s remarks notable.

The encyclical itself is the document Mensch is responding to. Magnifica Humanitas, the 42,300-word text Leo published on 25 May, calls for the disarmament of AI, the establishment of three binding requirements around any autonomous-weapons deployment, traceability of decisions, meaningful human control over lethal action, and international rules to slow the technological arms race, and explicitly rejects the traditional “just war” theory as “outdated.”

The Pope further argued that military force can be justified only in “self-defence in the strictest sense.” The encyclical is the most direct papal intervention in tech regulation in decades.

Mensch’s position contains its own theological echo. The Pope’s “self-defence in the strictest sense” framing and Mensch’s “adversaries are threatening, so we need our own capabilities” framing are not, strictly speaking, in contradiction.

Both accept the legitimacy of self-defence; both reject offensive use. Where they diverge is on what self-defence requires in 2026. Leo’s position is that the threshold for the introduction of lethal AI is higher than any state has so far articulated.

Mensch’s is that Europe cannot meet credible adversaries with that threshold while those adversaries operate without it.

The commercial backdrop matters here. Mistral has been visibly building a defence-AI portfolio since at least early 2025. The Helsing partnership announced at the Paris AI Action Summit in February 2025 produced joint work on vision-language-action models designed for “a new generation of defence systems.”

Helsing has already deployed AI systems in Eurofighter combat jets, battlefield simulations and Ukraine drone operations. Mistral has separately been pitching for defence contracts with multiple European governments.

Mensch’s public push-back against the Pope is therefore not a hypothetical posture, but a defence of an existing business line that is now under formal moral censure from the Vatican.

The Pope’s influence on the AI policy debate, on the other hand, has been larger than anyone expected six months ago.

Anthropic co-founder Christopher Olah appeared at the encyclical’s launch, lending Silicon Valley validation to the document. The European Commission welcomed it on Monday evening; OpenAI, Google and Microsoft issued formal expressions of respect.

The Vatican is not, in any meaningful sense, a regulatory authority over AI development. What it has produced with Magnifica Humanitas is a moral vocabulary that legislators and policymakers can use, and Mensch’s rebuttal acknowledges, by its existence, how much that vocabulary now matters.

The clean rhetorical contrast obscures a quieter European-policy reality. Brussels is moving toward enforceable AI-warfare frameworks but has not yet codified the kind of binding restrictions Magnifica Humanitas calls for. Member-state governments are simultaneously expanding their defence-AI procurement budgets.

The contradiction is real, and the next year of EU AI Act enforcement, member-state defence spending, and Vatican-aligned policy advocacy will indicate which side wins out.

Mensch, on Thursday’s evidence, has chosen to bet his company’s public posture on the defence-procurement side of that argument.



Source link

Leave a Reply

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

Get our latest articles delivered straight to your inbox. No spam, we promise.

Recent Reviews


Ghost CMS flaw abused to push ClickFix attacks on hundreds of sites

Pierluigi Paganini
May 25, 2026

Threat actors are actively exploiting a security flaw, tracked as CVE-2026-26980, in Ghost CMS that was fixed months ago in real attacks against unpatched websites. According to Qianxin, the campaign has already affected more than 700 sites, including well-known organizations and universities.

The vulnerability is an SQL injection issue in Ghost’s Content API that can let an attacker read data from the database without logging in. In the worst case, this can expose the Admin API key, which can allow attackers to take over the site.

That key matters because it can be used to change published content. In this campaign, attackers used it to edit articles on compromised Ghost sites and insert malicious JavaScript at the end of pages. The goal was not just defacement, but to turn trusted websites into launch points for further malware delivery.

“After an in-depth investigation and analysis, we determined that this was not a targeted intrusion against the customer, but rather a large-scale poisoning campaign by an in-the-wild attack group targeting Ghost CMS. Although CVE-2026-26980 was publicly disclosed as early as February 19, a large number of users did not patch and upgrade in time, providing an opportunity for attackers.” reads the advisory published by Qianxin. “At least two groups are currently actively conducting such poisoning operations, and some sites have even become the target of competition between the two parties, with different malicious code being implanted one after another within a single day.”

The inserted code led visitors through a two-step chain. First, the page loaded a remote script that checked the browser and decided what the visitor should see. Then real victims were redirected to a fake verification page that looked like a normal “I’m human” check.

This is where the ClickFix part began. The page told users to press Windows+R, paste a command, and hit Enter. In practice, that command downloaded and started a malware payload on the victim’s machine. It was a classic social engineering trick: make the user do the dangerous part themselves.

Qianxin says the first signs of this activity appeared in early May. The malicious code found in the campaign had a compilation date of February 16, the same day Ghost announced the fix for CVE-2026-26980. That suggests the attackers moved quickly once they saw how many sites had not been updated.

The affected websites cover a wide range of sectors. Roughly half are personal blogs or independent sites, but the list also includes technology blogs, AI sites, media outlets, crypto projects, and educational institutions. Qianxin researchers say victims include sites linked to Harvard, Oxford, and DuckDuckGo.

The attack chain was also designed to be flexible. The loaders could fetch different payloads depending on the target, and the operators changed infrastructure several times.

“entire attack process has obvious five-stage characteristics of “CMS Takeover → Page Poisoning → Two-stage Loading → Social Engineering Lure (FakeCaptcha/ClickFix) → Malware Delivery”, and the entire process is highly automated: bulk vulnerability scanning → automatic key extraction → bulk injection → dynamic C2 distribution.” states the report.

In some cases, they switched domains after detection, keeping the campaign alive even when part of the chain was blocked.

“Through feature scanning of publicly accessible pages, we have cumulatively identified more than 700 poisoned victim domains, and have proactively contacted the sites for which contact information could be obtained, notifying them of the poisoning.” continues the report.

Qianxin also believes at least two different groups are involved. In some cases, the same site was hit more than once, with one attacker replacing the code left by another. That makes the campaign harder to clean up and shows how attractive compromised Ghost sites have become for abuse.

For site owners, the advice is straightforward. Ghost should be updated immediately, all credentials should be rotated, and site logs should be reviewed for suspicious admin API activity. Any injected scripts should be removed from the database itself, not just from the visual editor. Visitors who may have reached a poisoned site should also be warned.

The report includes Indicators of Compromise (IoCs) for the attacks observed by the researchers.

Follow me on Twitter: @securityaffairs and Facebook and Mastodon

Pierluigi Paganini

(SecurityAffairs – hacking, Ghost CMS)







Source link