NEW YORK (AP) — Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth issued a stark ultimatum to Anthropic this week: open its artificial intelligence technology for unrestricted military use by Friday, or risk losing its government contract. This move highlights ongoing tensions surrounding the role of AI in national security and the government’s authority over private companies.
Officials during the Trump administration previously warned that they could designate Anthropic, the creator of the AI chatbot Claude, as a supply chain risk. They also hinted at the potential invocation of a Cold War-era law known as the Defense Production Act (DPA) to grant the military broader powers to utilize the company’s technology, irrespective of Anthropic’s consent.
Experts have noted that such a use of the DPA would be unprecedented, likely leading to legal challenges. The situation illustrates a broader, contentious discourse about the implications of AI for national security and ethical considerations surrounding its use.
The Defense Production Act, enacted in 1950 by President Harry S. Truman, endows the federal government with expansive authority to direct private enterprises to produce goods and services essential for national defense. Over the decades, the DPA has been invoked not only during wartime but also for domestic emergencies, such as recovery from terrorist attacks and natural disasters.
Among its many provisions, the DPA allows the president to compel companies to prioritize contracts and orders deemed critical for national security, thus ensuring that the private sector can meet the requirements of a military effort or national crisis. Additionally, the act enables the government to offer loans and other incentives to boost production of vital goods, and establish voluntary agreements with private industry.
Joel Dodge, an attorney and director of industrial policy and economic security at the Vanderbilt Policy Accelerator, remarked that the DPA is “one of the government’s most powerful and adaptable industrial policy tools.” However, Anthropic remains unique among its AI counterparts, as it is the last to withhold its technology from a new U.S. military internal network. CEO Dario Amodei has consistently voiced concerns regarding the unchecked application of AI in military contexts, highlighting risks related to fully autonomous armed drones and AI-assisted mass surveillance that could infringe on civil liberties.
The Defense Department is reportedly contemplating the invocation of the DPA to secure greater authority over Anthropic‘s products, potentially coercing the company to tailor its AI systems for military needs, possibly without essential safety features or ethical restrictions. Experts like Dodge caution that such actions would be “without precedent” in the history of the DPA, as the law has never been used to mandate a company produce an unsafe product or dictate its terms of service.
This law has seen varied applications in the past. Both President Trump and President Biden invoked the DPA to ramp up supplies during the COVID-19 pandemic. More recently, in response to the nationwide baby formula shortage in 2022, Biden utilized the DPA to hasten production and facilitate imports. In a 2023 executive order focused on AI, Biden also emphasized utilizing the DPA to require companies to share safety test results with the government, an order Trump rescinded early in his second term.
Earlier administrations have employed the DPA to ensure the continuity of essential services, such as maintaining electricity and natural gas supply during California’s energy crisis. Following Hurricane Maria in 2017, the act was invoked to prioritize contracts for food, bottled water, and restoration of electric systems in Puerto Rico.
The DPA requires periodic reauthorization, which can expand or refine its scope. The next expiration date is set for September 30 of this year, making legislative attention on the matter particularly pertinent as the Pentagon’s demands evolve.
If the Defense Department activates the DPA provisions to prioritize government contracts related to Anthropic, the company has options to resist if the requests do not align with its existing production capabilities or if the terms are deemed unreasonable. Legal experts like Charlie Bullock, a senior research fellow at the Institute for Law & AI, indicate that potential litigation could arise if either party remains unyielding in negotiations.
Interestingly, ongoing tensions exist between the Pentagon’s warning of designating Anthropic as a supply chain risk and implying that its products are so vital to national defense that the DPA must be invoked—an apparent contradiction. Dodge observed that the administration may be relying on various pressures to compel Anthropic to concede by the impending deadline.
Should the administration successfully leverage the DPA, or if Anthropic simply acquiesces to new terms, it could set a concerning precedent regarding government authority over private enterprises, potentially opening “a Pandora’s box” of regulatory implications, Dodge noted.
See also
Tesseract Launches Site Manager and PRISM Vision Badge for Job Site Clarity
Affordable Android Smartwatches That Offer Great Value and Features
Russia”s AIDOL Robot Stumbles During Debut in Moscow
AI Technology Revolutionizes Meat Processing at Cargill Slaughterhouse
Seagate Unveils Exos 4U100: 3.2PB AI-Ready Storage with Advanced HAMR Tech
