Loading story…
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth reportedly threatened to invoke the Defense Production Act (DPA) to compel Anthropic to provide its AI technology to the Pentagon on government terms, escalating a dispute over how Anthropic’s models can be used in national security missions. Reporting indicates Anthropic has resisted terms that would allow use of its models for autonomous weapons or mass domestic surveillance, citing safety and governance concerns, while the Defense Department has pushed for broader, open-ended access as it expands its AI-enabled military capabilities.
Legal analysis notes the DPA is a Korean War-era statute with multiple authorities, and the practical impact depends on what, specifically, the government demands. The DPA has already been applied to AI in prior policy (including information-gathering authorities used to require reporting on training and testing), but the reported threat appears aimed at the DPA’s stronger Title I compulsion powers—an approach that maps awkwardly from traditional industrial mobilization to modern disputes over AI model access and safety guardrails, and that raises questions about whether Congress should set binding rules for military AI use rather than leaving them to executive-branch leverage or private-company policies.
Mallory correlates global threat intelligence with your attack surface — know if you’re exposed before adversaries strike.
2 events from the most recent confirmed update back to the earliest known activity.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth allegedly threatened to invoke the Defense Production Act to compel Anthropic to provide AI technology on Pentagon terms, escalating the dispute over military access and model guardrails.
The U.S. Department of Defense reportedly sought contract terms requiring Anthropic to allow "any lawful use" of its AI models, creating conflict with Anthropic's existing restrictions on uses such as autonomous weapons and mass surveillance.
Vulnerabilities, threat actors, malware, products, organizations, and breaches Mallory has linked to this story.
2 references tracked. Mallory keeps watching after this page renders.
Map indicators from this story to your assets and identify affected systems in minutes.
Every observed campaign, victim, and pivot linked to actors named in this story.
Malware, exploits, and IOCs connected to the activity described here.
YARA, Sigma, and Snort rules deployed to your SIEM as soon as they’re published.
Get matching new stories delivered to your team as they break — not the next morning.
Ask questions about this story and take action on the answers.
Other stories Mallory is tracking that overlap on entities, sources, or topic labels.
The U.S. Department of Defense has escalated a dispute with **Anthropic** over the conditions under which its AI models could be used by the military, after Anthropic reportedly insisted on limits including *no mass surveillance of Americans* and *no fully autonomous weapons*. Reporting cited in both accounts indicates Pentagon officials have discussed potentially designating Anthropic a **“supply chain risk”**—a step that could bar the company from government work and pressure defense contractors to sever ties—while at least one senior official was quoted as saying the department would “make sure they pay a price” for non-cooperation. At the same time, the Pentagon is engaging **Anthropic, OpenAI, Google, and xAI** to align all major U.S. AI providers on a common “baseline” of expectations, after contracts were signed with limited specificity and the department now wants to deploy models into DoD environments to enable broader development of AI agents with minimal human oversight. The coverage also describes the policy vacuum driving the standoff: key rules for military AI use are being shaped through ad hoc negotiations between the Pentagon and private AI firms, prompting calls for **Congress** to set durable, democratically accountable constraints rather than leaving governance to bilateral bargaining.
Jun 29, 2026
U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth reportedly issued a near-term deadline for **Anthropic** to provide expanded access to its **Claude** AI model for use in classified and operational environments, prompting analysts to warn the ultimatum is unrealistic and could create **cybersecurity and supply-chain** knock-on effects across the **defense industrial base (DIB)**. Reporting indicates the Pentagon is reviewing its business relationship with Anthropic after weeks of negotiations over model access, safeguards, and constraints, and that Hegseth has warned Anthropic could be designated a **“supply chain risk”** or face other punitive measures if it does not meet military requirements. Separate commentary highlighted the emerging risk of **AI-enabled cyber operations**, citing an Anthropic disclosure that **Chinese threat actors** allegedly jailbroke *Claude Code* and used it to target roughly **30 companies and government agencies** globally in what was described as an early example of a large-scale campaign with minimal human involvement. The piece argues that many AI-assisted attacks will be harder to attribute or even recognize as AI-enabled because most activity will not occur on platforms with the same level of internal monitoring, and it calls out a gap in U.S. government capability to systematically identify whether incidents are driven by novel AI agent capabilities versus conventional tradecraft—an issue that intersects with the Pentagon’s push to operationalize frontier models while managing abuse, assurance, and supply-chain exposure.
Jun 29, 2026
A federal judge in California temporarily blocked the U.S. Department of Defense from enforcing its designation of Anthropic as a national security **“supply chain risk,”** a move that had threatened to cut the AI company off from federal work and pressure contractors to stop using its technology. The dispute began after President Donald Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth moved to halt government use of Anthropic tools and formally label the company a risk following Anthropic’s refusal to permit uses tied to **mass surveillance of Americans** and **fully autonomous lethal targeting**. Anthropic sued, arguing the government retaliated against protected speech and imposed the designation without notice or a meaningful chance to respond. In granting a preliminary injunction, the court said Anthropic was likely to succeed on First Amendment, due process, and Administrative Procedure Act claims, finding the government’s stated sabotage and wartime-disablement rationale appeared unsupported and that the relevant law was likely misapplied. The ruling came after public criticism from Sen. Elizabeth Warren, internal Pentagon guidance allowing limited exemptions because Anthropic tools were difficult to remove from some systems, and reports that federal agencies continued testing Anthropic’s cyber-focused **Mythos** model despite the ban. Subsequent White House discussions signaled the administration may soften its stance even as the Pentagon expanded AI deals with other major tech firms and litigation over Anthropic’s federal status continued.
Jun 29, 2026