AI in military and defense: the corporate’s survival

Views: 175

AI is being deployed in many political economy and governance’s spheres, including national security. The defence sector, as a critical component of the broader national security, encompasses military intelligence and sovereignty. AI’s applications in defence range from autonomous weapons systems and drones to cybersecurity, military training and real-time data processing: recently the two substances clashed in a fierce battle and the AI survived in substance, morality and ethics. 

Background
Artificial Intelligence models are rapidly transforming military and defense sectors, moving from experimental technologies to central components of modern warfare, with global investment in this area expected to surge. AI is used to enhance decision-making, optimize logistics, improve situational awareness, and manage autonomous systems, effectively acting as a “force multiplier”. The digital innovations offer sectoral’s advancements aimed at improving situational awareness, autonomous systems and ability to rapidly process vast amounts of data; in these ways the AIs are contributing to strengthening nation-wide military and intelligent capabilities.
While the international organisations, including the UN, have begun discussing the regulation of AI in the military, true global consensus is difficult to reach: e.g. the US emphasized a “responsible” AI strategy focusing on accountability and human oversight, while other nations, such as France and China, are creating specialized agencies for military AI development. However, some observers worry that the drive for speed in the AI adoption to sensitive intelligence and military sectors may conflict with the so-called “safety-first” approaches.
Recently, following a fallout between OpenAI’s rival Anthropic and the US Department of War, DoW (former defense ministry), some concerns aroused over the use of the Anthropic’s model Claude for mass surveillance and in fully autonomous weapons. Generally, the issue has raised questions over how AI models could be used in military operations and how much power rests with governments and private digital companies.
Reference to: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c3rz1nd0egro

Some general key AI applications in military shall be mentioned in the outset, such as:
= Autonomous systems and drones: AI enables drones and, in future, large flying tools (swarms), e.g. unmanned aerial and ground vehicles to operate, navigate and identify targets with a minimal human intervention.
= Intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance: AI analyzes massive datasets from satellites, drones and social media to identify threats (such as in the US “Project Maven”, which detects, tracks and classifies targets in real-time. Already in April 2017, the former US Department of War) initiated digital applications to accelerate the adoption of machine learning and data integration in military intelligence workflows, focusing on applying computer vision for processing images and videos for intelligence purposes.
= Predictive maintenance and logistics: AI reduces equipment downtime by anticipating failures (e.g. saving only in the US up to $5 billion annually) and optimizing supply chains and route planning, as well as reducing fuel delays by up to 25%.
= Cybersecurity and electronic warfare: AI detects anomalies in network traffic to prevent cyberattacks and analyzes the electromagnetic spectrum for effective jamming of enemy communications.
= Command and control: AI-powered decisions can support national governing and “commanding systems” information processing through faster and better-informed ways.
Reference to the European Parliament analytical reports in: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2025/769580/EPRS_BRI(2025)769580_EN.pdf

Anthropic and the US Department of War
The US military sectors, including the Pentagon, for decades have been willing to deploy AI models that could “fight wars without limits”; they, actually, often used various digital providers’ assistance in various quai-military purposes. However, as leading AI companies mentioned recently, there were “some red lines that could not be crossed”: i.e. that was exactly that turned Anthropic and military into huge confrontation and dispute.
The dramatic dispute between Anthropic and the DoW this February culminated in the AI’s company designation as a “supply chain risk” and choosing other digital service’s supplier. The high visibility of this quarrel is a symptom of a much broader issue: the challenge of regulating, governing and scrutinizing the use of AI for defense and military contexts.
According to Anthropic, the company has worked “proactively” to deploy its models to the DoW, and the company stated to “believe deeply in the existential importance of using AI to defend the US and defeat its adversaries.”
The company also said that it has been against the following AI usage in the company’s contract with the DoW: a) if the “cases would undermine, rather than defend, democratic values”; and b) if the “cases are outside of the bounds of what today’s technology can safely and reliably do”. However, E. Michael, the DoW Under Secretary, reflecting Anthropic’s stance, said that the company wanted the “final word” over the military uses of AI. Peter Hegseth, the DoW Secretary followed suit and posted, among other accusations, that “Anthropic delivered a master class in arrogance and betrayal… in how not to do business with the US Government or the Pentagon”. He then added that the DoW “must have full, unrestricted access to Anthropic’s models for every lawful purpose in defense”. President Trump posted about Anthropic that many were surprised by the DoW’s public reactions and the company’s “supply chain risk” designation. For those closely following the Trump Administration’s latest moves on AI, however, the decision was more predictable. DoW’s Secretary Pete Hegseth also clarified what responsible AI meant in the DoW: “gone were days of equitable AI… that constrained and confused the employment of digital technology; effective immediately, responsible AI at the DoW means objectively truthful AI capabilities employed securely and within the laws governing the activities of the department”. And he added; “we will not employ AI models that won’t allow to fight wars”.
Source and citation from: https://www.techpolicy.press/how-to-think-about-the-anthropic-pentagon-dispute/

Digital vs. governance: acute struggle
Thus, February 2026 is likely to be remembered by historians as the inflection point when participating sides “moved into some sort of accelerated timeline on AI-related developments”, not necessarily with respect to the technology itself. However, numerous recent AI reports have predicted that the impact of superhuman AI over the next decade “would be enormous, exceeding that of the Industrial Revolution”, and revealing a scenario that represented “best guess” about the trend’s extrapolations, wargames, expert feedback, experience at OpenAI and previous forecasting successes.
Instructing the federal government not to use Claude and designating the company behind it, as a supply chain risk, the DoW implied suggesting some moves that could force divestment in Anthropic from Nvidia, Amazon, Google and other companies that contract with the federal government. Presently, the US military sector is actively using the Elon Musk’s Grok AI model that has been however reportedly considered to be too unreliable for classified and intelligent settings.
More on Grok and X in: https://www.integrin.dk/2026/01/28/contemporary-issues-in-the-eu-digital-transition-grok-x/

Anthropic is going to take its case to court, while the government could still sign the deal with the OpenAI and “unbanning Claud”. The intersection of AI and governance’s politics opens a new page in public AIs deployment; e.g. the Twitter’s poll in February 2026 noted that the digital transition and AIs would be vital in 2028 electoral process in the US.
In July 2025, President Trump signed an executive order titled “Preventing Woke AI in the Federal Government,” and the implementation’s section includes: “making exceptions as appropriate for the use of LLMs in national security systems.” Also, the US AI Action Plan (published in July 2025), contained the country’s strategy to win the AI’s global race; it states: “As our global competitors race to exploit these technologies, it is a national security imperative for the United States to achieve and maintain unquestioned and unchallenged global technological dominance.” Source: https://www.ai.gov/action-plan

     Note. The US Artificial Intelligence Action Plan recommends that the executive branch take a series of actions to propel the entire AI system, including AI developers, data centers, energy sources and semiconductors. Despite a strong emphasis on reducing regulatory burdens, the plan identifies some areas where standards, security and restrictions are appropriate, including export control enforcement for advanced AI computation. For companies with AI equities, these policy recommendations represent significant opportunities, as well as enhanced expectations or restrictions, that may warrant further review to determine the impact on such companies and how to comply or respond.
Citation from: https://www.hklaw.com/en/insights/publications/2025/07/americas-ai-action-plan-whats-in-whats-out-whats-next

Some say the Anthropic agreed to cooperate with the US military sector, but its legal team did not seem to take Trump’s actual AI implementation plan seriously. After the controversy became public, the company’s officials resumed to the CBS News that it might be better to think that the Anthropic as a private company that would not like being caught up with current AI capabilities and risks, including the military use.
Thus, the Anthropic’s red lines seemed better for defending American values and core AI governance challenge when national defense and military purposes are involved. But the US President has said he would direct every federal agency to immediately stop using technology from AI developer Anthropic: “We don’t need it, we don’t want it, and will not do business with them again!” Trump wrote in a Truth Social post at the end of February 2026.
It would make Anthropic the first US company ever to publicly receive such treatment; the company said that it “would challenge any supply chain risk designation in court”.
Source and citations from: https://www.anthropic.com/news/statement-department-of-war

Digital agenda in governance: options
Anthropic has explored concerns recently about the government’s efforts potentially using its AI tools, like Claude, in what it described as “mass surveillance” and “fully autonomous weapons”. Hegseth and the Pentagon have insisted that Anthropic agreed to “any lawful use” of its tools and technology; both Trump and Hegseth announced their decisions against Anthropic on social media, with the defence secretary saying on X that Anthropic would be “immediately” designated as a supply chain risk, prohibiting any business with the military.
Anthropic reacted that it had yet to hear anything directly from the White House or the military “on the status of negotiations”. Nevertheless, the company said being designated a supply chain risk “would both be legally unsound and set a dangerous precedent for any American company that negotiates with the government”. Besides, “no amount of intimidation or punishment from the Department of War will change our position on mass domestic surveillance or fully autonomous weapons”, the company added.
Anthropic’s tools will be phased out of all government work over the coming months, Trump said. Prior to Trump’s pronouncement, Anthropic had said that, if the US DoW chose to stop using the company’s tools, the company would “work to enable a smooth transition to another provider”. Yet, Trump berated the company on his Truth Social platform, saying Anthropic “better get their act together”, otherwise he would use “full power of the Presidency to make them comply, with major civil and criminal consequences to follow”. In fact, Anthropic has been in use by the US government and military since 2024 and was the first advanced AI company to have its tools deployed in government agencies doing classified work.
Citations from: the BBC’s site: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn48jj3y8ezo

     Note. Artificial general intelligence, AGI is in action: the OpenAI, Google DeepMind, and Anthropic have all predicted that AGIs will arrive within the next 5 years; e.g. Sam Altman said that OpenAI was “setting its sights on superintelligence in the true sense of the word” with a “glorious future”. AGI is a hypothetical form of AI that can understand, learn and apply knowledge across many different fields at the same and at higher level than humans. Unlike current narrow AIs models, the AGI can solve unknown, complex problems and adapt to new situations without specific training.

    Bottom-line. The deliberate military ostracism of a famous digital company cannot terminate the AIs transition within the governance and public sectors, though some problems remain. Despite the US DoW’s “labelling” Anthropic’s Claude model as a “supply chain risk”, the Microsoft remained that the model was still available for customers, including other Anthropic products through such platforms as M365 and GitHub Copilots.
Microsoft has had a broader digital and AI strategy: it has invested $5 bln in Anthropic and latter would spend $30 bln in Mic’s Azure Cloud services.
Reference: Times of India.com. 7 March 2026.

    Our conclusion. It might be said -preliminary- that the AI-governance tandem in future seemed often frustratingly vague; in this article we tried to be as concrete as possible, even though the connections between the two are going to be more active and fruitful. Among numerous possible future scenarios there are, actually two feasible: either a “slowdown” or an “active race”. Taking into account the conservative AI-2027 scenario as just a recommendation, we tried to make a predictive outcome and encourage our readers to debate and formulate possible scenarios, in a hope to spark a broader conversation about where and how the digital technologies and AI models can “cooperate” with the governing structures and elites.
References to: = https://www.reddit.com/r/singularity/comments/1o75dst/the_ai_2027_scenario_how_realistic_is_it/; = https://www.natesilver.net/p/anthtropic-open-ai-department-of-war; https://ai-2027.com/footnotes#footnote-4. Plus: https://ai-2027.com/research/ai-goals-forecast