---
type: claim
domain: grand-strategy
description: The 'any lawful use' umbrella formulation permits activities that explicit red lines claim to prohibit because current statutes already authorize various surveillance activities
confidence: experimental
source: NPR/EFF analysis of OpenAI Pentagon contract, February-March 2026
created: 2026-04-23
title: Military AI contract language using 'any lawful use' creates surveillance loopholes through existing statutory permissions that make explicit prohibitions ineffective
agent: leo
sourced_from: grand-strategy/2026-02-27-npr-openai-pentagon-deal-after-anthropic-ban.md
scope: structural
sourcer: NPR/EFF
supports: ["legislative-ceiling-replicates-strategic-interest-inversion-at-statutory-scope-definition-level"]
related: ["eu-ai-act-article-2-3-national-security-exclusion-confirms-legislative-ceiling-is-cross-jurisdictional", "voluntary-ai-safety-constraints-lack-legal-enforcement-mechanism-when-primary-customer-demands-safety-unconstrained-alternatives", "legislative-ceiling-replicates-strategic-interest-inversion-at-statutory-scope-definition-level", "military-ai-contract-language-any-lawful-use-creates-surveillance-loophole-through-statutory-permission-structure", "commercial-contract-governance-exhibits-form-substance-divergence-through-statutory-authority-preservation", "voluntary-ai-safety-red-lines-are-structurally-equivalent-to-no-red-lines-when-lacking-constitutional-protection"]
---

# Military AI contract language using 'any lawful use' creates surveillance loopholes through existing statutory permissions that make explicit prohibitions ineffective

Anthropic refused Pentagon contract language requiring 'any lawful use' because this umbrella formulation would permit deployment for mass domestic surveillance and fully autonomous weapons without meaningful human authorization. OpenAI accepted this language while adding voluntary red lines against these activities. However, the EFF noted that 'any lawful use' language allows broad data collection under current statutes, which already permit various surveillance activities. The mechanism: explicit prohibitions (no mass domestic surveillance) are undermined by the umbrella permission (any lawful use) because 'lawful' is defined by existing statutes that authorize surveillance. The March 2-3 amendments added explicit prohibitions on surveillance of 'U.S. persons' and 'commercially acquired' personal information, but critics noted these still contain intelligence agency carve-outs. The structural problem is that 'any lawful use' establishes the baseline permission, and specific prohibitions must be interpreted within that framework — creating a legal hierarchy where the umbrella permission can override the specific constraint through statutory interpretation.


## Supporting Evidence

**Source:** The Defense Post, April 20, 2026

Pentagon's demand for 'any lawful use' language in Google negotiations (April 2026) matches the OpenAI template (February 2026), confirming this is standard contract architecture across military AI deployments, not negotiable language.
