US Military Seeks Full Claude AI Access as Anthopic Resists Pentagon Pressure

A growing standoff between the US Department of Defense and artificial intelligence company Anthropic is highlighting a major global debate: how far advanced AI should be used in military operations.

Anthropic, the developer of the Claude AI model, is facing pressure from US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to remove usage restrictions so the Pentagon can deploy the system more broadly across classified military networks. Reports indicate the company is unlikely to meet a government deadline to loosen its safeguards.

The dispute centers on whether Claude should be allowed unrestricted military use. Anthopic has drawn clear boundaries, refusing to permit applications such as autonomous weapons, mass surveillance of civilians, or AI-driven targeting without human oversight. Company leadership has described these areas as ethical red lines.

Claude is already a critical asset in US national security operations. It is currently one of the few advanced AI systems approved for classified environments and has been used across intelligence and defense agencies. Its ability to analyze secure data and assist with complex decision-making has made it strategically valuable.

However, Pentagon officials argue that military operations must be governed by US law and constitutional frameworks rather than corporate policies. Defense leaders want the flexibility to use AI tools for any lawful mission, including intelligence analysis, battlefield decision support, and surveillance operations.

According to reports, the Pentagon has warned that if Anthropic refuses to comply, it may label the company a “supply chain risk,” a move that could prevent defense contractors from using its technology. Another option under consideration is invoking the Defense Production Act, which would compel the company to prioritize national defense requirements.

The conflict reflects broader tensions between national security agencies and technology companies. While the military seeks rapid AI integration to maintain strategic advantage, developers are increasingly concerned about misuse, ethical risks, and long-term consequences of weaponized AI.

Anthropic has maintained that safety guardrails are essential to prevent dangerous applications and maintain public trust. Critics within defense circles, however, argue that restrictions could limit operational effectiveness and slow innovation in a rapidly evolving global AI race.

The dispute comes at a time when advanced AI is becoming central to geopolitical competition. Governments worldwide are accelerating efforts to integrate AI into defense and intelligence systems, while also debating safeguards to prevent misuse.

With both sides holding firm positions, the outcome of this standoff could shape how artificial intelligence is deployed in military operations worldwide — and define the balance between national security needs and ethical AI governance.