Anthropic has filed new sworn declarations in a California federal court, disputing the Department of Defense’s claim that the company poses a national security risk.
The filings come ahead of a scheduled hearing on March 24 before Judge Rita Lin in San Francisco, as the legal dispute between the AI firm and the Pentagon intensifies.
Dispute Stems From Breakdown In Negotiations
The case traces back to late February, when President Donald Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said they would cut ties with Anthropic.
The decision followed Anthropic’s refusal to allow unrestricted military use of its AI systems, particularly in areas such as autonomous weapons and surveillance.
Anthropic Says Government Claims Are Inaccurate
In her declaration, Sarah Heck rejected the Pentagon’s assertion that the company sought oversight over military operations.
She stated that Anthropic never requested any role in approving or influencing how its technology would be used in defense settings.
Heck also argued that concerns raised by the government in court filings, including the possibility that Anthropic could interfere with military systems, were not discussed during earlier negotiations.
Timeline Raises Questions About Government Position
Heck highlighted a March 4 email from Pentagon official Emil Michael, sent one day after the government designated Anthropic as a supply-chain risk.
In the email, Michael said both sides were “very close” on key issues, including policies on autonomous weapons and surveillance.
Anthropic’s filing suggests a disconnect between that message and later public statements indicating negotiations had ended.
Technical Claims Disputed By Company Executive
A second declaration from Thiyagu Ramasamy focused on technical arguments made by the government.
Ramasamy said it is not possible for Anthropic to remotely disable or alter its AI systems once they are deployed in secure, “air-gapped” government environments.
He added that any updates would require approval and action by government operators, and that Anthropic cannot access or monitor classified usage.
Security And Hiring Concerns Addressed
Ramasamy also pushed back on claims that hiring foreign nationals presents a risk.
He noted that Anthropic employees working on government-related systems have undergone U.S. security clearance processes, similar to other contractors handling classified work.
Case Centers On Free Speech And National Security
Anthropic argues that the government’s designation of the company as a supply-chain risk amounts to retaliation for its public stance on AI safety, raising First Amendment concerns.
The government has rejected that argument, saying the designation is based on national security considerations and that Anthropic’s position on military use reflects a business decision rather than protected speech.
The outcome of the case could have broader implications for how AI companies engage with defense agencies and define the limits of their technology’s use.
Featured image credits: Heute.at
For more stories like it, click the +Follow button at the top of this page to follow us.