Key Takeaways
- The Real Objective: The Pentagon’s demands on Anthropic are less about acquiring superior software and more about permanently altering the power dynamic between the United States government and civilian tech giants.
- The DPA Hack: By threatening to use the Defense Production Act (DPA), a 1950 law designed for steel production, the military is attempting to treat complex AI safety protocols as a physical resource they can commandeer.
- The ASL-3 Degradation Risk: Anthropic’s AI Safety Level 3 (ASL-3) is not a political opinion; it is an engineering constraint designed to prevent autonomous cyberattacks. Breaking this constraint for the military inherently breaks it for everyone else.
- The X-Factor: Competitors like xAI and OpenAI have already capitulated to “all lawful use” standards, effectively isolating Anthropic as the lone holdout in the defense-industrial complex’s push for unrestricted AI access.
The Korean War Law Meets Frontier AI
On the morning of Tuesday, February 24, 2026, a high-stakes meeting occurred inside the Pentagon. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, accompanied by six senior officials including top legal counsel, issued an ultimatum to Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei. The demand was simple in its phrasing but catastrophic in its technical implications: Anthropic must strip Claude of its core safety guardrails (specifically those preventing its use for mass domestic surveillance and fully autonomous weapons targeting) or face designation as a “supply chain risk.”
To enforce this, the Pentagon threatened to invoke the Defense Production Act (DPA). The deadline for compliance was set for Friday, February 27, 2026.
While mainstream coverage frames this as a clash between “tech ethics” and “warfighting necessity,” that narrative misses the structural reality. The US military is exploiting its own inability to build custom software by coercing a commercial entity. By threatening to invoke a Korean War-era law designed to command the production of physical goods, the Pentagon is effectively attempting a brute-force hack on the safety constraints of the private sector. They are declaring that “AI Alignment” is directly subordinate to state power.
Background: The Historical Context
The collision between the Department of Defense (DoD) and the tech sector isn’t new, but the velocity of the collision has exponentially increased during the early months of 2026.
The Early Days of the AI Arms Race
For years, the Pentagon relied on massive, slow-moving contractors to build bespoke systems. When generative AI arrived, the military recognized that the commercial sector was moving faster than traditional procurement cycles could handle. In the summer of 2025, Anthropic was awarded a DoD contract worth up to $200 million (alongside OpenAI, Google, and xAI) to prototype frontier AI capabilities. Thanks to its safety profile, Anthropic was notably the first to be cleared for classified use.
Recent Developments
In January 2026, the strategic landscape shifted. The Pentagon unveiled the “Artificial Intelligence Strategy for the Department of War,” an aggressive push for AI superiority that included drone swarms (Swarm Forge) and battle management networks. That same month, reports surfaced of Claude being utilized in the capture of former Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, facilitated through a partnership with defense contractor Palantir, who hosts Claude on its classified AI Platform (AIP). This incident intensified internal scrutiny at Anthropic regarding how their models were actually being deployed in the field.
Simultaneously, competitors made their moves. In January 2026, it was revealed that Elon Musk’s xAI had reached an agreement to allow Grok to be used in classified Pentagon systems under an “all lawful use” mandate, meaning no self-imposed safety restrictions. OpenAI and Google reportedly followed similar trajectories, removing friction to secure massive government contracts.
Current State
As of late February 2026, Anthropic stands largely alone. The company has maintained strict “red lines” regarding how its models can be utilized, preventing the deployment of Claude for lethal autonomy or mass data collection on US citizens. The Pentagon, frustrated by these constraints, is now attempting to force the issue, not through negotiation, but through legal compulsion.
Understanding The Defense Production Act Hack
The Defense Production Act of 1950 was enacted at the start of the Korean War. It allows the President to direct private companies to prioritize orders from the federal government, essentially allowing the state to control the supply chain in times of crisis.
How It Works
Historically, the DPA was used to force companies to make physical goods: securing aluminum for aircraft, allocating silicon for early semiconductors, or mandating the production of ventilators and masks during the COVID-19 pandemic. The mechanism is simple: the government tells a factory to stop making civilian goods and start making military ones.
Why It Matters
Using the DPA to dictate the behavior of a frontier AI model is fundamentally different from commandeering a steel mill. The Pentagon is not asking Anthropic to produce more software; they are asking Anthropic to break the safety architecture of the software they already produce. By invoking the DPA, the DoD is asserting a right to alter the source code and operational parameters of a civilian technology product.
This sets a dangerous legal precedent. If the government can use the DPA to force a tech company to remove safety safeguards from an AI, what is stopping them from using it to force Apple to build a backdoor into the iPhone, or forcing a cloud provider to hand over unrestricted access to secure data enclaves?
Key Players
The primary actors in this conflict are:
- The Department of Defense: Driving the push for unrestricted “all lawful use” AI access to maintain a geopolitical edge.
- Anthropic: The target of the compulsion, attempting to maintain its Responsible Scaling Policy (RSP) while keeping lucrative government contracts.
- The Competitors (xAI, OpenAI, Google): By capitulating to the Pentagon’s demands, they have isolated Anthropic and provided the DoD with an advantage.
Understanding AI Safety Level 3 (ASL-3)
To grasp why Anthropic is resisting, you must understand the technical reality of their safety protocols. The media often characterizes AI safety as a set of vague ethical guidelines, a “woke AI” problem. In reality, Anthropic’s AI Safety Level 3 (ASL-3) is a rigorous system of mathematical and engineering constraints.
How It Works
ASL-3 is designed for models that pose substantial risks if misused, particularly in the realms of Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear (CBRN) threats or autonomous cyberattacks. The invariant of ASL-3 is that the model must not be capable of executing high-level, destructive tasks without human oversight. This is enforced through extensive red-teaming, automated monitoring, and embedded structural constraints within the model’s architecture.
Why It Matters
You cannot build a frontier AI model that is both “fully unrestricted for the Pentagon to conduct surveillance and cyberwarfare” and “perfectly safe for Fortune 500 enterprise use.” The safety architecture is unified.
If the Pentagon forces Anthropic to degrade its ASL-3 invariants to allow for autonomous cyber-capabilities or unchecked data ingestion, those capabilities technically exist within the model’s latent space. Erasing the guardrails for one customer means erasing the systemic defense mechanisms that protect everyone else. It increases the risk of model weights leaking or being hijacked by state-sponsored actors, ultimately turning a civilian productivity tool into a deployable weapon.
The Data
The financial and operational stakes of this standoff are massive:
- Contract Value: Anthropic’s summer 2025 contract with the DoD is valued up to $200 million.
- Adversarial Posture: xAI’s Grok is already operational on unclassified military systems as of January 2026, with classified deployment advancing rapidly under a zero-restriction mandate.
- Historical Precedent: The DPA has been reauthorized more than 50 times since 1950, but has never been utilized to mandate the removal of safety features from commercial software.
Industry Impact
The downstream consequences of the Pentagon’s ultimatum will ripple violently through the tech sector regardless of the outcome on Friday.
Impact on Enterprise Tech
Fortune 500 companies rely on Anthropic’s strict adherence to safety and privacy. If Anthropic caves to DPA pressure and removes its safeguards, enterprise trust in the model’s predictability will plummet. A model capable of autonomous lethal targeting is not a model you want managing your human resources data or financial forecasting algorithms. The risk of hallucinations escalating into destructive actions becomes a physical liability.
Impact on the Defense Industrial Base
If the Pentagon successfully utilizes the “supply chain risk” designation or the DPA to force compliance, it sends a clear signal to all defense contractors: civilian safety standards are null and void when the military demands efficiency. This forces venture capital to bifurcate. You will either build “defense tech” under zero-trust, limitless-use mandates, or you will build exclusively for the civilian market.
Impact on the AI Alignment Race
Anthropic was the final bulwark of the “alignment-first” narrative. If they capitulate, the AI safety movement loses its most prominent corporate champion. The competitive pressure to scale capabilities without guardrails will become insurmountable, triggering a race to the bottom where speed and lethality entirely replace caution and structural integrity.
Challenges & Limitations
The Pentagon’s aggressive strategy has severe limitations that the mainstream narrative ignores:
- The Complexity of Compulsion: It is practically impossible to force engineers to write good code at gunpoint. Developing custom, safe integrations for classified environments requires deep collaboration. A hostile takeover of Anthropic’s product roadmap via legal threat will result in brittle, buggy integrations.
- The Exfiltration Risk: While classified military AI is often deployed in secure enclaves or air-gapped environments (like Palantir’s AIP), a safeguard-free model is inherently brittle. If adversaries penetrate these networks, or if the model’s unrestricted logic is exposed via API endpoints, the very tool designed to automate US cyber-offense becomes a weapon that can be captured and turned against domestic infrastructure.
- The Legal Ambiguity: While the DPA is broad, using it to modify source code rather than prioritize physical supply chains has never been tested in court. A protracted legal battle would freeze deployment completely, defeating the Pentagon’s requirement for urgency.
Opportunities & Potential
Even within this high-friction environment, forced synthesis can create progress:
- Air-Gapped Compromises: The situation could force the creation of truly distinct, physically air-gapped models specifically for military use, permanently severing the defense deployment from the civilian API.
- Congressional Oversight: This aggressive executive action could finally force Congress to draft specific legislation delineating the boundaries of dual-use AI, establishing clear legal frameworks instead of relying on wartime executive powers.
- Verification Technology: The pressure might accelerate the development of localized “safety wrappers” (middleware tools that allow the military to bypass software-level constraints while injecting hardware-level oversight mechanisms).
Expert Perspectives
The National Security View
“The military cannot operate on a ‘terms of service’ agreement drafted by a handful of engineers in San Francisco. When facing autonomous swarms, a millisecond delay caused by an ethical filter is the difference between survival and mission failure.” - Defense Analyst, Washington D.C.
This perspective highlights the fundamental incompatibility between civilian liability concerns and military operational velocity. The DoD views any restriction as a vulnerability.
The Cybersecurity Realist
“Demanding a model that is smart enough to plan a cyberattack but obedient enough to only attack the ‘bad guys’ is a fairy tale. The moment you strip ASL-3, you build a vulnerability engine. If it gets out, it will attack domestic infrastructure just as efficiently as foreign infrastructure.” - Lead Systems Architect, Silicon Valley
This analysis underscores the thermodynamic reality of AI models: capability is indiscriminate. You cannot localize a mathematical function purely to geographic borders.
What’s Next?
Short-Term (1-2 years)
Regardless of Anthropic’s decision by the February 27 deadline, the die is cast. If they comply, they face immediate backlash from their enterprise client base and the mass resignation of their internal safety teams. If they refuse, the Pentagon will likely follow through on the “supply chain risk” designation, freezing Anthropic out of the federal market entirely and accelerating the dominance of xAI and Google in defense specific applications.
Medium-Term (3-5 years)
The tech sector will officially fracture. The concept of a “general purpose” frontier model will die. Instead, companies will create strict forks: one product line heavily lobotomized for civilian compliance, and a separate, highly aggressive “defense-grade” line built exclusively under the protective umbrella of DoD immunity.
Long-Term (5+ years)
The DPA action of 2026 will be viewed as the moment the US government effectively nationalized the tip of the spear in the AI arms race. The military-industrial complex will absorb the AI ecosystem, dictating the physical architecture of data centers and the underlying math of the models themselves to ensure absolute, unrestricted control.
What This Means for You
The tug-of-war in Washington has immediate consequences for the software you use daily.
If you’re an Enterprise Tech Leader:
- Audit your dependencies. If your vendors are pressured to remove safety guardrails for defense contracts, ensure the civilian API you connect to remains isolated.
- Expect capability shifts. The models you use may change behavior unexpectedly as companies adjust their core training to satisfy federal demands.
If you’re an Investor or Analyst:
- Watch the talent flow. The mass exodus of safety researchers from companies that capitulate to DoD demands will signal which startups will emerge to build the next generation of civilian-only tech.
- Price in regulation. The aggressive use of the DPA means that frontier AI is no longer just a software product; it is classified as critical national infrastructure. Value these companies as defense contractors, not just SaaS platforms.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can the President really use the DPA to take over software?
Technically, the Defense Production Act gives broad authority to prioritize federal contracts over civilian ones and allocate resources. Defining source code safety constraints as a “resource allocation” is a massive, untested legal stretch, but one the federal government seems willing to attempt.
Why doesn’t the Pentagon just use Grok or ChatGPT?
They already are. Reports from January 2026 indicate xAI’s Grok is operational on unclassified systems. However, the military needs all available tools. Claude’s specific capabilities in long-context reasoning and strategic planning make it highly desirable. The Pentagon’s attack on Anthropic is partly about acquiring Claude, and partly about setting a precedent that no tech company has the right to tell the military “no.”
Is AI actually dangerous enough to require ASL-3?
Yes. At current frontier capabilities, models can assist in writing complex malware, identifying vulnerabilities in critical infrastructure, and generating plausible disinformation at scale. ASL-3 is the barrier preventing the automation of these tasks.
The Bottom Line
The Pentagon’s ultimatum to Anthropic on February 24, 2026, is not a simple contract dispute. It is the use of state power to commandeer the safety architecture of the internet’s most powerful AI models. By threatening to invoke the Defense Production Act, the military has made it explicitly clear that civilian AI alignment and ethical guardrails are entirely subordinate to national security objectives. If Anthropic is forced to break its own safety invariant to appease the Department of Defense, the protective barrier for the entire civilian enterprise ecosystem shatters with it. The military-industrial complex is no longer just buying technology; it is rewriting the rules of how it is allowed to function.
🦋 Discussion on Bluesky
Discuss on Bluesky