Claude at the Center: Anthropic Boss Rejects Pentagon Demand to Drop AI Safeguards
Anthropic has publicly rejected a push from the US Department of Defense over contractual language that the company says could permit uses of its technology that undermine democratic values. The dispute centers on whether tools such as claude could be used for mass domestic surveillance or fully autonomous weapons, and the standoff has raised the prospect of Anthropic being offboarded from the Pentagon supply chain.
Dario Amodei's stance after a high-level meeting
Chief executive Dario Amodei said the company would rather not work with the Pentagon than agree to uses of its technology that may undermine democratic values. His statement followed a meeting with US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth that took place two days earlier, during which Hegseth pressed Anthropic to accept "any lawful use" of its tools. That meeting concluded with a threat to remove Anthropic from the Department of Defense's supply chain.
Claude's role in the dispute: surveillance and weapons concerns
At the center of the fight are two potential use cases identified by Anthropic: "Mass domestic surveillance" and "Fully autonomous weapons. " Anthropic says such use cases have never been included in its contracts with the Department of War and should not be included now. The Department of War is a secondary name for the Defense Department under an executive order signed by US President Donald Trump in September.
Contract language, updated wording, and Anthropic's objections
An Anthropic spokeswoman said the company received updated contract wording from the DoD on Wednesday night but that the revisions represented "virtually no progress on preventing Claude's use for mass surveillance of Americans or in fully autonomous weapons. " She said the new language was framed as a compromise yet contained legal phrasing that would allow safeguards to be disregarded at will. Anthropic emphasized that these narrow safeguards have been the crux of negotiations for months and signaled it would support a smooth transition to another provider should the Department choose to offboard Anthropic.
Pentagon pressure: Defense Production Act and supply-chain risk
A Pentagon official previously said that if Anthropic does not comply, Secretary Hegseth would seek invocation of the Defense Production Act for the company. The act gives a US president the authority to deem a company or product so important that the government can require it to meet defence needs. Hegseth also threatened to label Anthropic a "supply chain risk, " a designation that would mark the company as not secure enough for government use.
Responses inside the Pentagon and public pushback
Emil Michael, the US Undersecretary for Defense, attacked Dario Amodei on Thursday night in a public post on a social platform, writing that the executive "wants nothing more than to try to personally control the US Military and is ok putting our nation's safety at risk. " In a subsequent television interview, Michael said, "At some level, you have to trust your military to do the right thing. " He also asserted that the uses Anthropic fears are already barred by law and Pentagon policies and added that the Pentagon must be prepared for what China is doing.
A former Department of Defense official who asked not to be named said on Thursday that Hegseth's grounds for invoking the Defense Production Act or designating Anthropic a supply-chain risk were "extremely flimsy. " A representative of the Defense Department could not be reached for comment.
What happens next
The immediate path forward is unclear in the provided context. Anthropic has stated it will not accept contract language that it views as enabling mass domestic surveillance or fully autonomous weapons, and it says it will help transition to another provider if the Department chooses to offboard the company. The Pentagon has signaled readiness to press its case with high-pressure measures, including the Defense Production Act and supply-chain designations; critics within the department privately question the strength of that rationale. Recent updates indicate positions remain entrenched and details may evolve.
