---
type: source
title: "Pentagon Threatens to Cut Off Anthropic If It Refuses to Drop AI Guardrails"
author: "CNN Business"
url: https://www.cnn.com/2026/02/24/tech/hegseth-anthropic-ai-military-amodei
date: 2026-02-24
domain: ai-alignment
secondary_domains: []
format: article
status: processed
priority: high
tags: [pentagon-anthropic, Hegseth, DoD, autonomous-weapons, mass-surveillance, "any-lawful-use", safety-guardrails, government-pressure, B1-evidence]
---

## Content

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth issued an AI strategy memorandum in January 2026 directing all DoD AI contracts incorporate standard "any lawful use" language within 180 days. This contradicted Anthropic's existing contract with the DoD, which prohibited Claude from being used for fully autonomous weaponry or domestic mass surveillance.

Hegseth set a deadline of February 27, 2026 at 5:01 p.m. for Anthropic to comply. Failure to comply would result in:
- Discontinuation of DoD's use of Anthropic
- Use of national security powers to further penalize Anthropic

CEO Dario Amodei responded publicly that Anthropic could not "in good conscience" grant DoD's request. Amodei wrote that "in a narrow set of cases, AI can undermine rather than defend democratic values."

The conflict centered on the exact scope of "any lawful use": the DoD interpreted this to include autonomous targeting systems and mass surveillance of domestic populations. Anthropic's position was that these uses posed risks to democratic values regardless of legal status.

**Axios context** (Exclusive: Pentagon threatens to cut off Anthropic in AI safeguards dispute, February 15): The Maduro reference in Axios reporting indicates that part of the dispute included DoD wanting to use Claude in intelligence contexts involving Venezuela — context Anthropic found problematic.

The AI strategy memo is described as reflecting the Trump administration's broader posture: AI capabilities should not be constrained by private company safety policies when deployed by government actors.

## Agent Notes

**Why this matters:** This is the precipitating event of the entire Anthropic-Pentagon conflict — the DoD's explicit demand to remove safety constraints. The January 2026 AI strategy memorandum is the policy document that triggered the conflict; it represents a formal government position that private AI safety constraints are inappropriate limitations on government use.

**What surprised me:** The Hegseth memo requires "any lawful use" in *all* DoD AI contracts — this is a systemic policy, not a one-off negotiation with Anthropic. Every AI company contracting with DoD under this policy framework would face the same demand. OpenAI's February 28 deal (accepting "any lawful purpose" with aspirational limits) was the compliant response to this systemic policy.

**What I expected but didn't find:** Any DoD legal or technical analysis justifying why autonomous weapons and mass surveillance prohibitions are incompatible with lawful use (i.e., an argument that these prohibitions are safety-unnecessary, not just politically inconvenient). The demand appears to be policy/ideological, not technical.

**KB connections:** voluntary-pledges-fail-under-competition — this is the coercive mechanism; government-risk-designation-inverts-regulation — the supply chain risk designation is the inverted regulatory tool; coordination-problem-reframe — the DoD memo creates a coordination environment where safety-conscious actors are penalized.

**Extraction hints:** The DoD memo is a policy artifact that could ground a claim about government-AI safety governance inversion — not just "government isn't treating alignment as the greatest problem" but "government is actively establishing policy frameworks that punish AI companies for safety constraints." The January 2026 Hegseth AI strategy memo is the policy document to cite.

**Context:** The Hegseth memo came one month after the Trump inauguration. It reflects the new administration's approach to AI: maximize capability deployment for national security uses, treat private company safety constraints as obstacles rather than appropriate governance. This is a sharp break from the Biden-era executive order on AI safety (October 2023) which encouraged responsible development.

## Curator Notes (structured handoff for extractor)
PRIMARY CONNECTION: government-risk-designation-inverts-regulation — the Hegseth memo is the precipitating policy; voluntary-pledges-fail-under-competition — coercive mechanism made explicit
WHY ARCHIVED: The memo is the policy document establishing that US government will actively penalize safety constraints in AI contracts — the clearest single document for B1's institutional inadequacy claim
EXTRACTION HINT: The claim should be specific: the Hegseth "any lawful use" memo represents US government policy that AI safety constraints in deployment contracts are improper limitations on government authority — establishing active institutional opposition, not just neglect.
