Loading story…
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.
Mallory correlates global threat intelligence with your attack surface — know if you’re exposed before adversaries strike.
20 events from the most recent confirmed update back to the earliest known activity.
Anthropic asked the U.S. Court of Appeals to temporarily block the supply-chain-risk designation while litigation proceeds. The company argued the government skipped required process and that the designation was already causing irreparable reputational and business harm.
Microsoft submitted an amicus brief supporting Anthropic and urging a halt to enforcement of the Pentagon's designation. It argued the move was an unprecedented and overly broad use of supply-chain-risk authorities that could force costly removals of embedded Anthropic technology.
Lawmakers said they were exploring changes to the fiscal 2026 NDAA to better govern advanced AI use in military operations after the Anthropic dispute. The discussion focused on clarifying acceptable uses and human oversight requirements for defense AI systems.
U.S. Indo-Pacific Command officials said the sudden loss of a key AI model created disruption and reinforced the need for a model-neutral architecture. Their remarks showed the procurement fight was already affecting military AI operations and planning.
Anthropic separately filed a petition in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit seeking judicial review of the Pentagon's supply-chain-risk determination under FASCA. The company argued the action exceeded statutory authority and violated the First and Fifth Amendments and the APA.
Anthropic sued in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging the government unlawfully retaliated against it for maintaining AI-safety restrictions. The complaint challenged the blacklist, contract cutoffs, and alleged due-process and First Amendment violations.
Major technology industry voices, including the Information Technology Industry Council, publicly warned that using supply-chain-risk authorities against Anthropic could set a damaging precedent across the defense industrial base. The dispute also drew congressional attention, including inquiries about AI use on Americans' personal data.
A group of 35 former military officials, industry advocates, and private-sector leaders sent a March 5 letter asking Congress to investigate the Pentagon's treatment of Anthropic. The signatories argued the supply-chain-risk designation was retaliatory and called for statutory limits on AI use in surveillance and autonomous weapons.
The House Financial Services Committee voted 16-25 against an amendment that would have barred agencies from blacklisting firms that refuse to deploy high-risk technology in harmful ways. The proposal was introduced in direct response to the Pentagon-Anthropic conflict.
The Department of Defense notified Anthropic that it was applying a supply-chain-risk determination to the company's products and services, effective immediately. The action barred defense contractors from using Anthropic technology in work connected to the U.S. military.
On March 2, Lawfare held a live discussion examining the Pentagon's supply-chain-risk designation of Anthropic, its legal implications, and possible consequences. The event reflected growing public and policy scrutiny of the government's action.
Departments including Treasury, State, and HHS confirmed they were stopping or winding down use of Anthropic tools in response to the White House order. Agencies began shifting toward alternatives such as OpenAI and Google offerings while planning for a six-month transition.
After the Anthropic negotiations collapsed, OpenAI said it reached an agreement with the Pentagon to deploy its models on classified networks. OpenAI said the arrangement included limits on domestic mass surveillance and required human responsibility in uses involving lethal force.
Following Trump's directive, the General Services Administration said it would remove Anthropic from key procurement vehicles including the Multiple Award Schedule and USAI.gov, and terminate Anthropic's OneGov deal. This operationalized the federal phaseout across civilian buying channels.
President Donald Trump directed all federal agencies to immediately cease using Anthropic technology and begin a six-month phaseout, including in classified environments. The order escalated the Pentagon dispute into a government-wide procurement action.
Anthropic said it would not, 'in good conscience,' allow Claude to be used for mass domestic surveillance or fully autonomous weapons without human involvement. The company said it remained open to defense work if those two safeguards were preserved.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth reportedly gave Anthropic a deadline of February 27, 2026 to accept broader Pentagon terms for Claude's use. He also threatened measures including invoking the Defense Production Act and labeling Anthropic a supply-chain risk if talks failed.
Axios-reported details said the Pentagon asked two major defense contractors to determine how dependent they were on Anthropic's Claude. The move was described as an early step in evaluating whether Anthropic could be treated as a supply-chain risk.
The Department of Defense and Anthropic spent weeks negotiating expanded access to Claude for classified and operational environments. The core dispute was Anthropic's insistence on preserving limits against mass surveillance of Americans and fully autonomous weapons.
A January AI strategy memo from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth reportedly required Defense AI procurements to include 'any lawful use' language and favored models free of vendor usage-policy constraints. This set the policy backdrop for the later clash with Anthropic over contractual guardrails.
Vulnerabilities, threat actors, malware, products, organizations, and breaches Mallory has linked to this story.
44 references tracked. Mallory keeps watching after this page renders.
nextgov.com
Open sourcebankinfosecurity.com
Open sourcelawfaremedia.org
Open sourcegovinfosecurity.com
Open sourcevulnu.com
Open sourcelawfaremedia.org
Open sourcebankinfosecurity.com
Open sourcegovinfosecurity.com
Open sourceMap 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.
Anthropic alleged that three China-based AI labs—**DeepSeek, Moonshot AI, and MiniMax**—used roughly **24,000 fraudulent accounts** to generate more than **16 million interactions** with Claude in a coordinated effort to extract the model’s advanced reasoning, coding, and tool-use capabilities. The company said it linked the activity through IP correlations, request metadata, and infrastructure indicators, and warned that large-scale unauthorized distillation could remove safety guardrails and enable copied capabilities to be used in offensive cyber operations, disinformation, intelligence collection, and mass surveillance. Anthropic said it shared its findings with U.S. government entities and industry partners, while noting it had no evidence that the Chinese government directly coordinated the campaigns. The allegations surfaced as Anthropic remains in a separate high-stakes dispute with the U.S. Department of Defense, which on June 4 refused to reverse the company’s designation as a supply-chain risk. Anthropic is challenging the Pentagon’s March blacklisting after Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth invoked emergency powers following failed talks over limits on Claude’s use for domestic surveillance and autonomous weapons. Federal attorneys told the court the procedural dispute over administrative remedies is now moot because the secretary has denied reconsideration, and reporting indicates a majority of the appellate panel appeared inclined to let the designation stand while the case proceeds.
Jun 29, 2026
Anthropic drew heightened scrutiny from security and policy communities over how its **AI safety and governance commitments** are evolving and how its models are being positioned for sensitive use cases. A Help Net Security analysis reported that Anthropic’s updated *Responsible Scaling Policy (RSP) 3.0* represents a structural shift from maintaining absolute risk below fixed thresholds to a more **relative, competitor-dependent** posture—implying Anthropic may be less willing to pause or constrain capability development if peers do not. The same reporting also noted Anthropic’s launch of *Claude Code Security* as a move that unsettled parts of the cybersecurity market and raised questions about trust and vendor assurances in security-adjacent AI offerings. In parallel, Lawfare reported the Pentagon labeled Anthropic a **national security risk** tied to usage restrictions Anthropic imposed on a military contract, while also describing reporting that the U.S. military used Anthropic’s *Claude* model in initiating operations in Iran less than a day later—highlighting the tension between policy concerns and rapid military adoption of frontier AI. Separately, Anthropic announced the creation of the **Anthropic Institute**, a research unit intended to study long-term societal impacts and risks from advanced AI; the company stated its models can already discover severe cybersecurity vulnerabilities and argued that governments and industry will face near-term governance challenges as capabilities accelerate.
Jun 29, 2026
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