Blog

One of the nation’s leading artificial intelligence firms is negotiating whether it can continue to work with the military, according to people familiar with the discussions, after Pentagon officials called their once-close relationship into question in the wake of January’s raid to capture Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro.

Anthropic’s Claude model is one of a handful of leading AI systems that the Pentagon is using to rapidly build its capabilities in cyberwarfare, improve the performance of its autonomous weapons systems, and increase the efficiency of its personnel.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s team has insisted in recent weeks that the military must have the freedom to use the powerful tools as it sees fit. Officials say other leading AI firms have gone along with the demand. ChatGPT maker OpenAI, Google, and Elon Musk’s xAI have agreed to allow the Pentagon to use their systems for “all lawful purposes” on unclassified networks, a Defense official said, and are working on agreements for classified networks. (The Washington Post has a content partnership with OpenAI.)

The companies did not respond to requests for comment.

But Anthropic — which has sought to position itself as the most safety-minded of the companies — has corporate principles that may keep it from giving the Pentagon carte blanche. Unlike many traditional weapons, powerful AI systems can be deployed in many ways not foreseen by their designers, and the dispute has raised questions about who should have the final say over their use by the military. While Anthropic has not said exactly what its qualms are with the Pentagon’s demands, its chief executive has recently warned of the dangers of autonomous weapons and AI-powered mass surveillance.

In a statement to the Washington Post, Anthropic said it is “committed to using frontier AI in support of U.S. national security.”

“Claude is used for a wide variety of intelligence-related use cases across the government, including the [Defense Department], in line with our Usage Policy,” Anthropic said. “We are having productive conversations, in good faith, with [the Defense Department] on how to continue that work and get these complex issues right.”

Until recent weeks Anthropic had been in an enviable position, with a $200 million contract and its technology uniquely approved for use within the Pentagon’s classified networks. That quickly began to change, Trump administration officials say, following Anthropic’s response to its recent use by the Pentagon in the Maduro operation.

Technology developed by defense firm Palantir and Anthropic’s Claude were used in preparation for the Jan. 3 raid, according a person familiar with the assault, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to share confidential details about the operation. During the raid, scores of Maduro’s security guards and Venezuelan service members were killed.

After the attack, a senior defense official said, an executive from Anthropic discussed the raid with an executive at Palantir, asking whether Anthropic’s tools had been used. The Palantir executive relayed the question to the Defense Department, saying it implied that Anthropic might have disapproved of how Claude had been used, the official said. That prompted department leaders to call into doubt whether the company could be fully relied on.

“They expressed concern over the Maduro raid, which is a huge problem for the department,” one administration official said.

However, Anthropic said it had not discussed any specific operations with the Defense Department nor “discussed this with, or expressed concerns to, any industry partners outside of routine discussions on strictly technical matters.”

The dispute appears to run deeper than any questions over the attack on Venezuela. Hegseth sees AI dominance as a must-have capability and his directives have pressed the military to move fast to embrace the technology. In January, he said that “speed wins” in an AI-driven future, and he has ordered the Pentagon to unblock data for AI to train, while pushing the department to move from “campaign planning to kill chain execution.”

“We must approach risk tradeoffs, ‘equities,’ and other subjective questions as if we were at war,” Hegseth wrote in the January 2026 directive.

Just over two weeks after Hegseth’s directive came down, Dario Amodei, Anthropic’s co-founder and chief executive, published an essay sketching a potential dystopia in which AI empowers a new generation of unstoppable weapons and surveillance tools.

“We should worry about them in the hands of autocracies, but also worry that because they are so powerful, with so little accountability, there is a greatly increased risk of democratic governments turning them against their own people to seize power,” Amodei wrote about swarms of AI-enabled drones.

Such weaponry is likely still many years away, but failing to reach an agreement could quickly have far-reaching consequences for the company.

The Pentagon has suggested that it could be branded a “supply chain risk,” something that would not only impact Anthropic, but any firm that uses the company’s AI. The designation has typically been aimed at Chinese and Russian companies.

“We may require that all our vendors and contractors certify that they don’t use any Anthropic model,” a defense official told the Post.

In the past, firms have been able to have riders in their contracts with the Pentagon indemnifying them from liability if their technology is used in an unlawful way and allowing them to bind the government to only use the technology for lawful purposes.

But it may be unreasonable for firms contracting with the Pentagon to try to set limitations on how their rapidly evolving technology can be applied, said Frank Kendall, who served as Air Force secretary during the Biden administration and oversaw its development of a fleet of autonomous warplanes.

“The military’s function is the application of violence, and if you’re going to give anything to the Defense Department, it’s likely going to be used to help kill people,” Kendall said.

The administration has held that its actions — which also include U.S. strikes on alleged drug boats in the Caribbean, its deployment of active duty troops on U.S. soil, and its decision to use lethal force in Minneapolis, killing two U.S. citizens — have been lawful. But the Trump administration has also fired many of the independent military and Justice Department lawyers who would have had the ability to challenge the legality of those usages.

“If you’re worried about this administration doing unlawful things, you should just not work with them,” Kendall said.

The Pentagon has been integrating AI into some of its weapons systems for years but never at the speed at which it is now. That’s partly driven by its competition with China and evolving threats like hypersonic missiles — where a human’s reaction time can be inadequate.

But there’s also been an emphasis on making sure AI’s unpredictable learning could be fenced in.

At Edwards Air Force Base in 2024, the Air Force flew its first AI fighter jet in dogfights — and the jet, an F-16 that carried the AI in a computer in the back, was already besting elite test pilots by shaving milliseconds off turns and maneuvers. Even then, there was a human in the loop, a test pilot inside the jet who could disengage the AI as needed — and the AI itself was kept in a system that was not connected to any networks. As the Air Force moved forward withe the AI, it said making sure the data it learned on was clean was the priority, to avoid security risks.

In 2023, the Biden administration instructed the Pentagon that any AI use in systems would require levels of review, anti-tamper mechanisms, and safeguards to ensure that humans would retain the decision on use of force.

That policy is still in force but will be reviewed as needed, the administration official told the Post.

As the U.S. Justice Department demurs from new inquiries linked to the Epstein files, the approach by European authorities stands in stark contrast. On the other side of the Atlantic, governments are promising to hold the wealthy, powerful, and politically connected to account.

Under public scrutiny, officials in Britain, France, Norway, and beyond have opened a flurry of investigations and independent commissions to look into evidence of potential crimes in more than 3 million files related to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein that were released last month by congressional order. In three weeks, the revelations have prompted resignations, raids, and other legal actions, none more notable than the detention Thursday of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, the younger brother of King Charles III, on suspicion of misconduct in office.

“Nobody is above the law,” British Prime Minister Keir Starmer said on television shortly before the arrest.

Starmer delivered that statement even as the tide of accountability knocked at the door of 10 Downing Street. Communications made public in the files showed that Peter Mandelson, a former British ambassador to the United States selected by Starmer, maintained closer ties to Epstein than previously disclosed. Those revelations sparked a flurry of calls for Starmer’s resignation — including from within his own Labour Party.

The fallout in Britain comes as a former Norwegian prime minister, a former French minister, and other prominent figures on the continent face new investigations in what is fast shaping up to be a European exercise in accountability.

As the Trump administration has portrayed Europe as in decline, some observers see the European response as evidence of the relative robustness of the rule of law in the continent’s democracies, compared with the concentration of power in Trump’s America.

“In Norway and across Europe, the instinct has been transparency and formal investigations,” said Julie E. Stuestøl, a member of Norway’s parliament who serves on its justice committee. “In the U.S., it looks more like containment.”

She added, “The contrast is striking.”

Senior Democratic lawmakers in Washington are comparing the broad legal action across the Atlantic to the muted response in the United States.

“The DOJ’s handling of the Epstein files is a travesty,” Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D., N.Y.) said in a post on X. “The White House press secretary says, ‘We are moving on.’ But, in France, the Paris prosecutor’s office just opened two investigations based on new leads from the released files. And in Britain, former prince Andrew has been arrested over ties to Epstein. When will there be justice in America?”

Some analysts point out that the Epstein case has roiled the United States for years while the impact in Europe has been more of a slow burn that ignited with the release of the latest files.

“One interpretation is that accountability still means something more in Europe than in America,” said Nathalie Tocci, director of the Rome-based Institute for International Affairs. “A less generous interpretation is that it is a newer shock in Europe than in the U.S.”

The disclosures shook the country “to its core,” said Stuestøl, the Norwegian lawmaker whose party advocated for an independent commission. “People are tired of elites protecting elites behind closed doors,” which has made objections to the proposal untenable, she said.

Epstein pleaded guilty in 2008 to two charges of soliciting prostitution, including one involving a minor. He was arrested on federal sex trafficking charges in 2019 and died in federal custody later that year. His death was ruled a suicide. Judges and lawmakers say that over decades, Epstein abused, trafficked and molested scores of girls, many of whom have come forward in court and in other public forums.

Some prominent figures in the United States have resigned from their jobs or lost business after the documents revealed their relationships with Epstein, but none is known to have faced criminal charges. In Washington, efforts to hold people accountable for their involvement with Epstein have at times also fallen along partisan lines.

President Donald Trump in November called on the Justice Department to examine the relationships between Epstein and several prominent Democrats, including former President Bill Clinton. Attorney General Pam Bondi tapped federal prosecutors in Manhattan to take on the job, but the Justice Department has not announced charges related to the inquiry.

“I can’t talk about any investigations, but I will say the following, which is that in July, the Department of Justice said that we had reviewed the files, the Epstein files, and there was nothing in there that allowed us to prosecute anybody,” Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche said in an interview with CNN’s Dana Bash earlier this month. “The entire world can look at and see if we got it wrong.”

British authorities have not detailed the allegations against Mountbatten-Windsor, formerly known as Prince Andrew, whom police released Thursday night after officials searched two addresses in Norfolk and Berkshire. The new Epstein documents include photographs that appear to show Mountbatten-Windsor, who has denied any wrongdoing, crouched over a woman on a floor. They also indicate that he provided confidential government materials to Epstein at a time when the former prince was representing Britain as a trade envoy. The actions came months after he was stripped of his royal titles as a result of his ties to Epstein.

The British government is considering whether to introduce legislation that would remove Mountbatten-Windsor from the line of royal succession “regardless of the outcome of the police investigation,” the BBC reported Saturday, citing Defense Minister Luke Pollard. Mountbatten-Windsor is eighth in line to the throne.

Following the arrest, King Charles III issued a statement assuring the British public that the “the law must take its course” in the investigation of his brother.

“There is a great irony that in the year we are celebrating the 250th anniversary of the birth of the American republic, the British monarchy is one that gives us a lesson in democracy,” said Dominique Moisi, a senior analyst of international affairs for the Institut Montaigne, a Paris-based think tank.

Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre said he supports investigating the links between prominent Norwegians and Epstein. Like other European leaders, Støre is under pressure to respond to voter outrage over the documents, which have implicated a global network of celebrities and politicians.

“I think it has been quite shocking for people to get this insight into this world and the connection between people with power. And how it has affected people without power, who have been abused and subjected to assault,” Støre told Norwegian public broadcaster NRK.

Earlier this month, former Norwegian prime minister Thorbjørn Jagland was charged with aggravated corruption over Epstein links. Police have searched residences of Jagland, who formerly chaired the Norwegian Nobel Committee. Authorities also said they are investigating whether Jagland received gifts, travel, or loans tied to his positions, including as head of the Council of Europe, the continent’s highest human rights watchdog.

The moves against him came as it emerged that he had planned visits to Epstein’s homes in Paris and New York, and that Epstein had visited Jagland’s residence in Strasbourg, France. Jagland, who has denied criminal liability and said he would cooperate with authorities, could face up to 10 years in prison.

Also this month, Norwegian diplomat Mona Juul resigned in the face of corruption charges after Norwegian media reported that Epstein left her children millions of dollars in his will. Authorities are looking into Epstein’s links to Juul and her husband, who played a role in back-channel talks between Israeli and Palestinian negotiators that led to the Oslo accords. Juul has denied criminal liability.

Scandal hit the country’s stoic monarchy, too: Documents revealed that Norwegian Crown Princess Mette-Marit had stayed at an Epstein property in Palm Beach, Fla., and exchanged scores of messages with the disgraced financier. Her name appears repeatedly in the files, including after Epstein’s 2008 conviction for soliciting sex from a minor. The crown princess has expressed “deep regret” over her connection to Epstein.

Authorities in Latvia and Lithuania opened investigations into the possible trafficking of young women and girls by Epstein. In Slovakia, the documents brought down Miroslav Lajčák, the prime minister’s national security adviser, who resigned over email exchanges with Epstein.

In France, Paris prosecutor Laure Beccuau announced two new investigations related to the Epstein files, one focused on sex trafficking and the other on financial crimes. French authorities were already looking into former French culture minister Jack Lang and his daughter over allegations of tax fraud and receiving money from Epstein. That inquiry followed an investigation by French news outlet Mediapart, which detailed close ties to Epstein.

Beccuau is calling for yet-unknown victims of Epstein to come forward.