Rishi Sunak has taken on part‑time senior advisory roles with both Microsoft and Anthropic — a dual appointment cleared by the UK’s Advisory Committee on Business Appointments but boxed in by strict post‑ministerial restrictions and intense public scrutiny.
Rishi Sunak served as the United Kingdom’s 98th Prime Minister from 25 October 2022 until 4 July 2024 and remains Member of Parliament for Richmond and Northallerton. His post‑premiership appointments to two leading players in the AI ecosystem were publicly disclosed in October 2025 and published alongside formal advice letters from ACOBA (the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments). The letters define what Sunak may and may not do in those roles and set out a two‑year cooling‑off period for certain activities.
These moves place a recent head of government at the formal intersection of high‑stakes AI product development, global regulation, and national procurement — a nexus that has long been fertile ground for political controversy and governance debate. The optics are intensified because Microsoft is simultaneously committing unprecedented capital to the UK’s AI infrastructure while Anthropic positions itself as a safety‑oriented competitor in the frontier model space.
At Microsoft, the remit is framed around broader geopolitical and macroeconomic trends, helping the company to anticipate regulatory or policy shifts across markets where it operates. At Anthropic the emphasis is on global AI safety, regulatory trends and innovation strategy outside the UK. Both firms describe the roles as internally focused and not aimed at influencing UK government policy or procurement directly.
Public‑sector frameworks and large commercial deals are highly visible and politically charged. When a company with multi‑billion‑pound UK engagements hires a former head of government, lawmakers and procurement officers will inevitably ask whether public decisions were made impartially and whether future procurements are free from undue influence. The ACOBA conditions — and the public disclosures — attempt to address those questions. But the only real remedy is demonstrable, auditable separation between advisory input and procurement processes.
The only durable solution is stronger, faster, and more transparent post‑ministerial oversight combined with robust procurement processes and technical contract safeguards. Without that, buying political experience becomes an opaque shortcut to influence rather than a legitimate source of expertise.
However, the political and operational risks are not hypothetical. The combination of Microsoft’s huge UK investment and Anthropic’s frontier‑AI positioning concentrates influence in a way that ACOBA’s letter acknowledges and attempts to mitigate. The test will be implementation: whether Microsoft, Anthropic and Sunak demonstrably maintain the firewalls, public logs, independent attestations and recusal practices necessary to translate written restrictions into reality.
For technical leaders, procurement officers, and policy guardians the prudent stance is clear: insist on contractual clarity, demand auditable technical safeguards, and expect third‑party verification of any ring‑fencing claims. Only verifiable process — not public statements alone — will resolve the tension between harnessing expertise and protecting the public interest.
Rishi Sunak’s appointments are a consequential test case for how democracies manage the boundary between public service and private sector influence in the AI era — and whether existing oversight tools are fit for purpose when geopolitical competition, vast corporate investments and frontier technologies converge.
Source: Windows Central Former UK PM is now advising two huge U.S. AI companies
Rishi Sunak served as the United Kingdom’s 98th Prime Minister from 25 October 2022 until 4 July 2024 and remains Member of Parliament for Richmond and Northallerton. His post‑premiership appointments to two leading players in the AI ecosystem were publicly disclosed in October 2025 and published alongside formal advice letters from ACOBA (the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments). The letters define what Sunak may and may not do in those roles and set out a two‑year cooling‑off period for certain activities. These moves place a recent head of government at the formal intersection of high‑stakes AI product development, global regulation, and national procurement — a nexus that has long been fertile ground for political controversy and governance debate. The optics are intensified because Microsoft is simultaneously committing unprecedented capital to the UK’s AI infrastructure while Anthropic positions itself as a safety‑oriented competitor in the frontier model space.
What the advisory roles actually are
Part‑time, strategic, not operational
Both Microsoft and Anthropic described Sunak’s roles as part‑time senior advisory positions rather than management jobs. The public summaries and ACOBA advice letters emphasise that he will provide high‑level strategic counsel — macroeconomic, geopolitical and safety‑policy perspectives — and will not be involved in day‑to‑day operations, product engineering, or contract negotiation. These descriptions are consistent across corporate statements and the regulator’s published advice.At Microsoft, the remit is framed around broader geopolitical and macroeconomic trends, helping the company to anticipate regulatory or policy shifts across markets where it operates. At Anthropic the emphasis is on global AI safety, regulatory trends and innovation strategy outside the UK. Both firms describe the roles as internally focused and not aimed at influencing UK government policy or procurement directly.
What ACOBA requires
ACOBA’s publicly posted letters impose explicit restrictions: a prohibition on lobbying UK ministers or civil servants for two years, an instruction not to draw on privileged government information, and a ban on advising on UK policy or contracts related to the companies during the cooling‑off period. ACOBA also recommended scope limitations and ring‑fencing measures to prevent direct involvement in government‑facing business. Those conditions are routine for senior ex‑officials but are particularly pointed here because of Sunak’s recent AI agenda while in office.Why both companies want him — and what they actually gain
Microsoft: geopolitical foresight and UK market alignment
Microsoft’s strategic calculus is straightforward. The firm operates across government, enterprise and consumer markets and must navigate national security reviews, data‑localisation debates and procurement frameworks. A senior adviser with recent prime‑ministerial experience brings perspective on how political risk and regulatory priorities evolve — insight that helps scenario planning, market entry, and long‑range capital allocation. Microsoft’s own recent commitment to invest heavily in the UK makes political and regulatory foresight commercially valuable.Anthropic: safety credibility and diplomatic access
Anthropic’s brand is built on safety and principled deployment. For a company seeking to expand globally while engaging responsibly with regulators, a public figure who led the UK’s international AI safety convening is an asset. Sunak’s involvement in convening the 2023 AI Safety Summit and helping to launch the UK AI Safety Institute gives him credentials in safety diplomacy that Anthropic — which wants to be seen as a trustworthy steward of frontier AI — is likely to prize.Shared benefits and overlapping value
There is real logic in multiple firms seeking similar policy‑fluent advisers: domain knowledge about statecraft, relationships with international policymakers, and a track record convening multilateral discussions are scarce. A single adviser who understands global governance trends can help companies position products and compliance strategies in ways that anticipate regulation rather than react to it. That said, that same shared access to an ex‑prime minister is precisely what fuels the concerns outlined below.The structural problems: conflicts, perceptions, and enforcement gaps
The revolving‑door problem is real
The appointment highlights the perennial “revolving door” issue: senior public servants moving quickly into paid roles at firms that had been regulated, contracted with, or publicly partnered during their time in office. Even when cooling‑off periods and non‑lobbying clauses are in place, perception matters — a lot. The public may reasonably suspect that firms buy privileged insight or indirect government influence via high‑profile hires, regardless of written safeguards. ACOBA itself flagged that risk when advising on these appointments.Dual advisory roles raise confidentiality and conflict questions
Sunak will advise two organisations that sit at adjacent layers of the AI stack. Microsoft both builds infrastructure, supplies enterprise distribution channels and has deep commercial arrangements with multiple model providers, while Anthropic develops frontier models that compete in the same marketplace. Even with internal “Chinese wall” promises, the practical question remains: how will confidential commercial insights be prevented from crossing between clients or being used to shape competitive strategy? Corporate governance mechanisms will need to be robust, specific and demonstrable.Enforcement limits and ACOBA’s constraints
ACOBA issues advice and publishes letters, but it is not a criminal enforcement body. Its restrictions rely on voluntary compliance plus reputational checks and parliamentary scrutiny. Critics argue the committee lacks coercive powers and that its decisions are often slow and limited to public admonition rather than sanctions. Given the intangible and informal nature of influence — conversations at dinners, introductions, private briefings — the practical limits of enforcement are a serious governance gap.The UK procurement angle: why Microsoft’s scale matters
Microsoft’s announcement in mid‑September 2025 that it would invest roughly $30 billion in UK AI infrastructure and operations over 2025–2028 reframed the commercial stakes inside the UK market. That commitment — a mix of capital expenditure and operational investment — materially increases Microsoft’s commercial footprint and therefore the potential sensitivity around any perceived proximity between the firm and a recent prime minister. Independent coverage and Microsoft’s own corporate statement make this commitment explicit.Public‑sector frameworks and large commercial deals are highly visible and politically charged. When a company with multi‑billion‑pound UK engagements hires a former head of government, lawmakers and procurement officers will inevitably ask whether public decisions were made impartially and whether future procurements are free from undue influence. The ACOBA conditions — and the public disclosures — attempt to address those questions. But the only real remedy is demonstrable, auditable separation between advisory input and procurement processes.
Credibility and political baggage
Past controversies matter in optics
Sunak’s record contains episodes that make optics sensitive. Reporting in 2022 about Akshata Murty’s non‑domicile tax status and its potential tax advantage drew heavy media attention; independent outlets quantified the scale of potential advantage and the public backlash prompted voluntary changes in her tax reporting. Similarly, earlier revelations that Sunak held a U.S. green card until October 2021 prompted scrutiny of his residency status while in ministerial roles. Those episodes do not invalidate his policy experience, but they shape public reception of any high‑visibility private appointments and are frequently invoked by critics.Philanthropy softens the frame but doesn’t remove structural risk
Sunak has pledged to donate all earnings from the Microsoft and Anthropic roles to The Richmond Project, a numeracy charity he co‑founded. That commitment reduces the appearance of private enrichment but does not eliminate reputational questions about access, influence, or whether the advisory role confers commercial advantage on the firms involved. Donations change incentives but not networks.Technical implications for enterprise customers and engineers
Multi‑model orchestration and data governance
Microsoft’s enterprise strategy increasingly relies on multi‑model orchestration — routing workloads to different model providers depending on cost, latency and suitability. That architecture creates real compliance and auditability challenges: provenance of training data, cross‑cloud inference paths, and legal obligations when user data touches third‑party models. These technical risks are independent of personnel appointments but will be scrutinised when high‑level advisory hires appear to blur the line between supplier and policymaker. Enterprise IT teams must insist upon loggable, auditable data flows and contractual guarantees when vendors provide model orchestration services.Vendor transparency and contractual remedies
Technical teams should bake governance into contracts:- Demand machine‑readable provenance and audit trails for model calls.
- Require data residency and export controls that reflect your regulatory exposure.
- Insist on breach notifications and independent attestation of compliance with any ring‑fencing promises.
What good governance would look like — a practical checklist
Companies, policymakers and watchdogs can take concrete steps to reduce the risks that follow high‑profile appointments.- Public scope statements: publish a granular remit of the adviser’s allowed activities and a calendar of public engagements.
- Documented firewalls: mandate strict access controls inside corporate systems so the adviser cannot view procurement teams, bid desks, or contract negotiations.
- Regular compliance attestations: third‑party audits every six months verifying the adviser has not breached cooling‑off restrictions.
- Longer cooling‑off for sensitive sectors: extend the standard two‑year ban in areas touching national security or significant public procurement.
- Mandatory recusal: require written recusal from any matter that could plausibly intersect with decisions made during the adviser’s time in office.
Political and strategic trade‑offs
For companies
Hiring a former head of government accelerates institutional awareness of the geopolitical and regulatory environment. It can smooth introductions and help shape corporate strategy to avoid surprises. But it also invites scrutiny that can harm brand trust if not managed transparently. The trade‑off is reputational versus strategic intelligence value.For former ministers
Engagement with industry is a natural post‑public‑service path and can allow ex‑officials to remain influential in shaping global challenges like AI safety. The reputational cost comes when the adviser’s role appears to trade on recent political capital in ways that cannot be fully ring‑fenced. Donating remuneration helps optics but does not remove the policy risk; scrupulous compliance and public discipline are indispensable.Wider implications for democratic governance and the AI race
The Sunak appointments underline larger systemic tensions: governments want industry investment and technical expertise, while societies expect the public interest to be guarded. In a fast‑moving global AI competition, firms will increasingly seek political fluency to unlock markets and influence standards. That dynamic raises hard questions about how democratic systems preserve policy independence while utilising private sector expertise.The only durable solution is stronger, faster, and more transparent post‑ministerial oversight combined with robust procurement processes and technical contract safeguards. Without that, buying political experience becomes an opaque shortcut to influence rather than a legitimate source of expertise.
Final assessment — measured benefits but watch the implementation
There is a defensible argument for Sunak advising Microsoft and Anthropic: his experience convening international AI safety discussions and his knowledge of geopolitical risk are scarce and valuable. If the roles remain narrowly scoped, publicly documented, and rigorously audited, the advice he provides could help shape safer, more resilient industry practices.However, the political and operational risks are not hypothetical. The combination of Microsoft’s huge UK investment and Anthropic’s frontier‑AI positioning concentrates influence in a way that ACOBA’s letter acknowledges and attempts to mitigate. The test will be implementation: whether Microsoft, Anthropic and Sunak demonstrably maintain the firewalls, public logs, independent attestations and recusal practices necessary to translate written restrictions into reality.
For technical leaders, procurement officers, and policy guardians the prudent stance is clear: insist on contractual clarity, demand auditable technical safeguards, and expect third‑party verification of any ring‑fencing claims. Only verifiable process — not public statements alone — will resolve the tension between harnessing expertise and protecting the public interest.
Rishi Sunak’s appointments are a consequential test case for how democracies manage the boundary between public service and private sector influence in the AI era — and whether existing oversight tools are fit for purpose when geopolitical competition, vast corporate investments and frontier technologies converge.
Source: Windows Central Former UK PM is now advising two huge U.S. AI companies