Anthropic’s engagement with the US government

Name: Full interview: Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei on Pentagon feud
Uploaded: 2026-02-28T16:47:47.552366+00:00
Channel: CBS News
Description: Anthropic’s engagement with the US government Anthropic presents itself as highly proactive in supporting US national security.

CBS News

Feb 28, 2026

•

5 min read

YouTube video ID: MPTNHrq_4LU

Source: YouTube video by CBS News — Watch original video

PDF

Anthropic presents itself as highly proactive in supporting US national security. The company says it was the first to place models on the classified cloud and to produce custom models for national security use. Those models are reported to be deployed across intelligence and military applications, including cyber and combat support operations.

The stated motivation is to defend the country from autocratic adversaries like China and Russia. Anthropic frames this engagement as both pragmatic and patriotic: "we have to defend our country. I believe we have to defend our country from autocratic adversaries like China and like Russia. And so we've been we've been very you know we've been very lean forward."

Anthropic’s red lines

Anthropic says it accepts 98–99% of the US government's desired AI use cases, but draws two firm lines it will not cross. These two red lines are domestic mass surveillance and fully autonomous weapons. The company emphasizes that these are longstanding, non-negotiable boundaries: "Our position is clear. We have these two red lines. We've had them from day one."

Red line	Core concern
Domestic mass surveillance	AI enabling mass analysis of data collected by private firms; technology outpacing law and Fourth Amendment interpretations
Fully autonomous weapons	Weapons firing without human involvement; current systems not reliable enough; oversight and accountability gaps

Anthropic frames these limits as tied to American values: the right not to be spied on and the need for human decision-making in war.

The negotiation and its breakdown

Anthropic reports that the Pentagon initially "agreed in principle" to the two restrictions but then presented an ultimatum with a very short negotiation window. The company says it was asked to agree to terms within a three-day period, a 3-day window described as an ultimatum. Anthropic felt the Pentagon’s proposed language failed to meaningfully commit to the restrictions, citing phrases like "if the Pentagon deems it appropriate."

A Pentagon spokesman, Sean Parnell, reiterated a stance of allowing "all lawful use," which Anthropic says did not address its exceptions. The company reports public accusations, including President Trump characterizing Anthropic’s stance as "selfishness" that endangers American lives.

Government actions and designation

Anthropic states that the Department of War designated it a "supply chain risk." The company notes that this type of designation is typically reserved for foreign adversaries and cites Kaspersky Labs as an example of a company formerly designated as a supply chain risk. Anthropic views the designation as unprecedented, punitive, and retaliatory against an American company.

The designation and related statements from the Secretary of Defense and others prompted concerns about overreach. Anthropic describes a Secretary Hegsth (Hagerty) tweet as inaccurate and as exceeding lawful authority, and characterizes the public messaging as designed to create fear, uncertainty, and doubt.

Anthropic’s response and commitments

Despite the dispute and the designation, Anthropic states it remains willing to support the Department of War under its stated red lines. The company says it offered to provide continuity, to prototype autonomous systems in a sandbox, and to facilitate offboarding so a competitor could onboard if necessary. Anthropic claims it has tried hard to reach a deal and remains willing to continue dialogue.

Anthropic stresses that an agreement requires both sides and that it is prepared to serve national security within the limits it has set: "An agreement requires both sides. Um, we for for our side are willing to serve the national security of this country." The company also reports concern about interruption of services if the designation forces sudden removal from systems.

Justification for the red lines

Anthropic grounds its stance in the rapid pace and novelty of AI. The company emphasizes that AI development is on an exponential trend, asserting that the amount of computation for models "doubles every four months." It contrasts AI’s speed with more established technologies like aircraft, arguing that laws and democratic oversight struggle to keep up.

The company argues the two restricted use cases implicate core American values and practical risks. For domestic mass surveillance, Anthropic says the technology is "getting ahead of the law" and that judicial and legislative frameworks have not caught up. For autonomous weapons, the company highlights reliability risks—"the AI systems of today are nowhere near reliable enough to make fully autonomous weapons"—and worries about oversight and accountability if machines perform lethal actions without human judgment.

Anthropic also frames these stances strategically: domestic mass surveillance "does not help the US catch up with its adversaries," and the company rejects a "race to the bottom" approach to warfare and policy.

Business impact and legal posture

Anthropic assesses the immediate impact of the supply chain designation as "fairly small," and expresses confidence in its ability to survive the dispute: they expect to be "fine." The company notes that, to date, it has received only public tweets rather than formal documentation of designation. If formal action is taken, Anthropic says it would challenge such actions in court.

Anthropic emphasizes its status as a private company that can choose customers and that there are alternatives in the market: "we are a private company, right? We can choose to sell or not sell whatever we want. There are other providers." The company also warns that forcing sudden removal could set military users back months.

Ideology, neutrality, and bipartisan engagement

Anthropic denies ideological or partisan motivations for its red lines. The company stresses neutrality and even-handedness, saying it speaks on AI policy where it has expertise and avoids general political positions. Anthropic cites participation in events with the President on energy for AI and support for the administration’s AI action plan as examples of bipartisan engagement.

The company frames disagreement with government policy as consistent with patriotic principles: "Disagreeing with the government is the most American thing in the world and we are patriots in everything we have done here." Anthropic maintains that their stance is about principle and democratic values rather than any particular person or administration.

Takeaways

Anthropic says it supports nearly all US AI uses but draws firm red lines on domestic mass surveillance and fully autonomous weapons.
The company reports a negotiation breakdown after a three-day ultimatum and says Pentagon language did not meaningfully accept its exceptions.
The Department of War designated Anthropic a supply chain risk, a step the company describes as unprecedented and punitive against an American firm.
Anthropic justifies its stance by citing AI’s exponential pace, concerns about legal lag, reliability, oversight, and the preservation of democratic values.
Anthropic expects limited immediate business harm, remains willing to work under its terms, and would legally challenge formal adverse actions.

Frequently Asked Questions

Who is CBS News on YouTube?

CBS News is a YouTube channel that publishes videos on a range of topics. Browse more summaries from this channel below.

Does this page include the full transcript of the video?

Yes, the full transcript for this video is available on this page. Click 'Show transcript' in the sidebar to read it.

Helpful resources related to this video

If you want to practice or explore the concepts discussed in the video, these commonly used tools may help.

Ai Ethics Book Recommended

Provides frameworks for evaluating ethical limits in AI deployment and explains why principled boundaries matter for democratic values.

Amazon →

Cybersecurity Textbook

Offers technical grounding in defending systems that host classified models, which is essential to National Security AI deployments.

Amazon →

Data Privacy Books

Explains legal and practical aspects of privacy protections relevant to concerns about domestic mass surveillance.

Amazon →

Links may be affiliate links. We only include resources that are genuinely relevant to the topic.

Summarize another video

Full Transcript YouTube

We appreciate you taking the time. You
are Daario Amade, the CEO of Anthropic.
Is that right?
>> That's correct. Yeah.
>> Great. Well, I my first question to you
is why won't you release Anthropics AI
without restrictions to the US
government?
>> Yeah. So, you know, we should maybe back
up a bit for a little bit of context.
So, um you know, Anthropic actually has
been the most lean forward of all the AI
companies in working with the US
government and working with the US
military. We were the first company to,
you know, put our models on the
classified cloud. We were the first
company to make uh custom models for uh
national security purposes. We're
deployed across the intelligence
community and the military for
applications like cyber um you know
combat support operations, various
things like this. And you know the
reason we've done this is you know I I
believe that we have to defend our
country. I believe we have to defend our
country from autocratic adversaries like
China and like Russia. And so we've been
we've been very you know we've been very
lean forward. We have a substantial you
know uh um uh public sect team um public
sector team. Uh but uh you know I have
always believed that you know as we
defend ourselves against our autocratic
adversaries we have to do so in ways
that defend our democratic values and
preserve our democratic values. And so
we have said to the department of war
that we are okay with all use cases
basically 98 or 99% of the use cases
they want to do except for two that
we're concerned about. One is domestic
mass surveillance. There we're worried
that you know uh things may become
possible with AI that weren't possible
before. An example of this is something
like taking um uh uh um data collected
by private firms, having it bought by
the government, and analyzing in mass
via AI. That actually isn't illegal. Um
it was just never useful before the era
of AI. So there's this way in which
domestic mass surveillance is get is
getting ahead of the law. The the the
technology is advancing so fast that
it's out of step with the law. That's
case number one. Case number two is
fully autonomous weapons. This is not
the partially autonomous weapons that
are used in Ukraine or or you know could
potentially be used in Taiwan today.
This is the idea of making weapons that
fire without any human involvement. Now
even those I think that you know they
you know our adversaries may at some
point have them. So perhaps you know
they may they may at some point be
needed for the defense of democracy. But
we have some concerns about them. First,
the AI systems of today are nowhere near
reliable enough to make fully autonomous
weapons. Um, you know, anyone who's
worked with AI models understands that
there's a basic unpredictability to them
that in a purely technical way we have
not solved. And there's an oversight
question, too. If you have a large army
of drones or robots that can operate
without any human oversight, where there
aren't human soldiers to make the
decisions about who to target, who to
shoot at, that that presents concerns
and we need to have a conversation about
about how that's overseen and we haven't
had that conversation yet. And so we
feel strongly that, you know, for for
you know, those two use cases should uh
should not be allowed. The Pentagon has
told us that they have agreed in
principle to these two restrictions and
they wanted to strike a deal. Why
couldn't an agreement be reached?
>> So, there were you know there there were
kind of several stages of this all done
quickly and kind of all uh you know
determined by the kind of three-day you
know the the the kind of very limited
3-day window that they gave us, right?
They gave us an ultimatum to, you know,
to agree to their terms in 3 days or um,
you know, be designated a supply chain
risk or defense production act. I guess
we'll get to that later. Um, but uh,
during that time um, there were there
were a few back and forths. You know, at
one point they sent us um language that,
you know, appeared on the surface to uh
meet our terms, but it had all kinds of
language like if the Pentagon deems it
appropriate or you know uh or you know
or to do anything to do anything in line
with laws. So it didn't actually concede
in any it didn't actually concede in any
meaningful way. And and there were
further steps of it that that also did
not concede in any meaningful way. We
have wanted to strike a deal since the
beginning. If you want to get a sense of
the Pentagon's position of it, the
Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell the day
before tweet, you know, he reiterated
their position. We only allow all lawful
use and this was the same as when they
sent they sent us they sent us their
terms. So, um they they have not
exceeded and and in in in in they have
not in any way um agreed agreed to our
exceptions in any meaningful way. The
president posted today in response to
the situation, "Their selfishness,"
referring to anthropic, is putting
American lives at risk, our troops in
danger, and our national security in
jeopardy. Is what do you think? What's
your response? So, you know, uh, in in
the statement we issued yesterday and
also in the one we issued today, we said
that we were willing even if even if the
Department of War or even if the Trump
administration takes these unprecedented
measures against us, this kind of supply
chain designation that's normally used
against foreign adversaries, we have
said that, you know, even if they take
these extreme actions, we'll do
everything we can to support the
Department of War to provide its
technology for as long as it takes. to
offboard us and and onboard, you know, a
competitor who's willing to do these
things that that that we are not that we
are not willing to do
>> prepared to exit.
>> Yeah. So, so we have offered continuity.
We're actually deeply concerned about
this. We're deeply concerned about the
the kind of interruption of service,
which is exactly what's happening when
we're designated a supply chain risk,
right? When we're designated a supply
chain risk, they say like, you know, you
have to be off all of our systems. And
I've talked to people on the ground,
uniform military officers, who say this
is essential. Not having this will set
us back six months, 12 months, maybe
longer. And so that's why we've tried so
hard to try to get it to try to to try
to get a deal. But again, the 3-day
ultimatum, the risk to designate us a
supply chain. The whole timeline has
been driven by the Department of War,
not by us. We are trying to provide
continuity. We are trying to provide the
services we are trying to provide. We
are trying to reach a deal here.
>> So then what does this mean for the
safety of Americans?
>> Yeah. You know, I would I would say a
couple things. Um you know, in in the
short run, it means and you know, it's
it's it's up to the Department of War.
You know, we're still trying to reach a
we're still trying to reach a deal with
them. We're still trying to talk to
them. You know,
>> are they talking with you?
>> You we've we've we've received various
communications. We haven't seen anything
that you know that that satisfies our we
haven't seen anything that satisfies our
concerns. Um but you know I I mean that
just in the broad sense that we are
still you know we are still interested
in working with them as long as it is in
line with our red lines. Um
>> but it sounds like you're still really
far apart and now Secretary Hegath has
determined you all a supply chain risk
and said what he's said. So, do you
think it's possible at this point to
come to an agreement?
>> You know, I look, an agreement requires
both sides. Um, we for for our side are
willing to serve the national security
of this country. We are willing to
provide our models to all branches of
the government, including the Department
of War, the intelligence community, you
know, the more civilian branches of the
government under the terms that we've
provided, under our red lines. We are
always willing to do that, right? you
know, we're we're you know, you know, we
don't we don't take offense here. The
the reason we're providing our
technology in this way is that we want
to support the, you know, national
security of the United States. We're not
doing it, you know, for the sake of
Pentagon officials. We're not doing it
for the sake of a particular
administration. We're doing it because
it's good for the national security of
the United States, and we're going to
continue to do that. Why do you think
that it is better for Anthropic, a
private company, to have more say in how
AI is used in the military than the
Pentagon itself?
>> So, first I would say, and I think this
is an important point, no one on the
ground has actually to our knowledge run
into the limits of any of these uh of
any of these exceptions. These are,
excuse me, these are 1% of use cases and
and ones that that we have seen no
evidence on the ground have been done.
Now, now again, I can't say what their
plans are that we don't know. Um, but
but we have no evidence that these use
cases um have actually have actually run
into trouble. We've spread across the
Department of War and uh other parts of
the government um without without
running into any of these problems. Now,
in terms of these one or two narrow
exceptions, I actually agree that in the
long run, we need to have a democratic
conversation. In the long run, I
actually do believe that it is
Congress's job. If for example domest
there are possibilities with domestic
mass surveillance, government buying of
uh you know bulk data that has been
produced on Americans, locations,
personal information, political
affiliation to build profiles and it's
now possible to analyze that with AI.
The fact that that's legal, that seems
like, you know, the judicial
interpretation of the fourth amendment
has not caught up or the laws passed by
Congress have not caught up. So in the
long run we think Congress should catch
up with where the technology is going
but Congress is not the fastest moving
body in the world and for right now we
are the ones who see this technology on
the front line. I would expect that the
Department of War I would expect them to
be thoughtful about these issues to you
know to to proactively you know think
think about these issues and so I would
have expected them not not to have any
concern and you know for us to have a
for us to have a conversation but I
think in the absence of that um you know
you know we need to look at the
technology we need to look at what it's
capable of in terms of reliability and
we need to look at the ways in which
it's getting ahead of the law and and in
which it's escaping the intent of the
law. Those are some very narrow areas,
but I think that they're important.
These are things that are fundamental to
Americans, right? The the the the the
right not to be spied on by the
government, right? The the right for our
military officers to make decisions
about war themselves and not turn it
over completely to a machine. These are
these are fundamental principles. But in
the name of fundamental principles, why
should Americans trust you, the CEO of a
private company to make these decisions
instead of the federal government?
>> Well, I would give I would give two
answers to that. One, you know, a a a
you know, we are we are a private
company, right? We can choose to sell or
not sell whatever we want. There are
other providers. if the DOW, the
government, you know, doesn't like the
services we provide or or or or the way
that we make them, they can use another
contractor. This would have been the
normal way to handle this, right? Just
to say I would have disagreed, but I
would have respected them if they said
DO, we don't want to work with
Enthropic. Our principles are not
aligned with yours. We're going to go
with one of the other models. But
they've both extended that to parts of
the government beyond the DO and tried
to punitively revoke our contracts
beyond DO and they've done this supply
chain designation thing which basically
says that if you're part of a uh if
you're if you're another private company
who has military contracts, you can't
use entropic in in you can't use
anthropic in a way that touches those
military contracts. So they're reaching
in to the behavior of private
enterprise. And it's very hard to
interpret this in any way other than
punitive. To our knowledge, the supply
chain designation has never been applied
to an American company. It has only been
applied to ad you know advers like you
know Kasperski Labs which is a Russian
cyber security company that you know
that is you know suspected of suspected
of ties to the Russian government
Chinese chip suppliers um you know being
being lumped in with them it it feels
very punitive and inappropriate given
the amount that we've done for US
national security. So you say you've
done so much for US national security.
You're adhering to these two
restrictions that you want to keep. Do
you think that Anthropic knows better
than the Pentagon here?
>> We don't. Look, you know, I I one of the
things about a free market and free
enterprise is different folks can
provide different products under
different principles. Remember, this
isn't just about terms of use. This
isn't just about, you know, this is what
our model is legally allowed to do. Our
model has a personality. It's capable of
certain things. It's able to do certain
things reliably. It's able to not do
certain things reliably. And I think we
are a good judge of what our models can
do reliably and what and what they
cannot do reliably. And I think we do
have a good view into how the technology
again is getting ahead of the law. And I
but I would say over I would say again I
I I actually agree with you that this is
not tenable in in the long term. I don't
think the right long-term solution is
for a private company and the Pentagon
to argue about this. I think Congress
needs to act here and we are thinking
about that. We are thinking about what
Congress could do to impose some of
these guard rails that don't hinder our
ability to defeat our adversaries, but
that you know allow us to defeat our
adversaries in a way that's in line with
the values of in line with the values of
our country. But as you know, Congress
doesn't move fast. No. So, you know, I
think I think I think in the meantime,
we do need to draw a line in the sand.
>> So, until Congress acts, you're saying
you are going to hold firm here. But
there are so many other companies out
there that do business with the US
government. Boeing builds aircraft for
the US military. Boeing doesn't tell the
US military what to do with that
aircraft. How is this any different?
>> Again, I would say two ways that it's
different. One, I would point again to
the newness of the technology. Right?
when a technology is wellestablished
then uh you know the the you know I you
know I mean there are lots of technical
things about aircrafts but but you know
I think I think you know a general has a
pretty good understanding of like how an
aircraft works like aircrafts have been
around for a long time
>> but there's plenty of innovation inside
the aerospace industry
>> sure but not at the pace that not at the
pace that we see with AI AI is moving so
fast I've talked often about how AI is
on an exponential trend every the models
the you know the the the the the amount
of computation that goes into the models
doubles every four months. Uh we have
never seen anything like this pace of
innovation.
>> But if that pace continues a pace yes
then the US government will never be
caught up. So how does that logic apply
if you have long argued that you want to
work with the US government to provide
you know the appropriate national
security if it's going to be such a fast
development for the foreseeable future
Congress can't catch up
>> then why turn your back
>> I think there's only I think there's
only catching up once right so the pace
of the technology is fast the issues
that arise are few but very important
again we we only have two of these
domestic mass surveillance, fully
autonomous weapons. We need to have a
conversation with Congress to help them
understand some some of the risks
associated with it. Again, this is the
most American thing in the world. No one
wants to be spied on by the US
government. No one wants to be spied on
by the US government.
>> At the exact same time, some of our
greatest adversaries have technology
that is either quickly catching up to us
or will eventually do so. perhaps
already caught up. And so our if our
military is critical to defending the
American people and critical to our
democracy, freedom, the republic,
why
stay in this position and say no, we're
not going to cooperate.
>> You know, again, that's an abstract
that's an abstract argument, but let's
look at the actual two uses. Domestic
mass surveillance does not help the US
catch up with its adversaries. Domestic
mass surveillance is is you know is an
abuse of the government's authority even
where it's technically legal. So that
one we can rule out. Um fully autonomous
weapons there I actually am concerned
that we may need to keep up it. you know
it's it's it's not you know the
technology is not ready and so we are
not as I said we are not categorically
against fully autonomous weapons we
simply believe that the reliability is
not there yet and that we need to have a
conversation about oversight and we have
offered to work with the department of
war to help develop these technologies
to prototype them in a sandbox but they
weren't interested in this unless unless
they could do whatever they want right
from the beginning. And and and and so
you know again we we need to balance the
existential need. No one has emphasized
it more than me to defeat our
adversaries. But we need to fight we
need to fight in the right way. You know
this is like saying there are plenty of
countries adversaries commit war crimes.
Shouldn't we commit war crimes as well?
I'm not saying this amounts to war
crimes. What I'm saying is that the the
the the essence of our values is that we
have to find a way to win in a way that
preserves those values. We can't just be
a total race to the bottom. We we you
know, we have to have some principles
and these are very few. This technology
can radically accelerate what our
military can do. I've talked to
admirals. I've talked to generals. I've
talked to combatant commanders who say
this has revolutionized what we can do.
And and and these are just the very
limited use cases we've deployed so far.
And and and so why harp on the 1% of use
cases that are against our values when
we can pursue the 99% of use cases that
are in favor of our that that that
advance our democratic values and that
defend this country. and and we can even
try to study that last 1% of use cases
to understand if there is a way to do
them consistent with our values. That is
our position and I think that's very
reason.
>> Give me one or two examples of what
could go wrong.
>> So the the kind of thing that we I there
there are two classes of things that I
can imagine could could go wrong. One
again is around this idea of reliability
which is just it targets the wrong
person. It shoots a civilian. It doesn't
show the judgment that a human that a
human soldier would show. Um, uh,
friendly fire or shooting a civilian or
just the wrong kind of things. We don't
want to sell something that we don't
think is reliable and we don't want to
sell something that could get our own
people killed or that could get innocent
people killed. Second is this question
of oversight. If you think about it, you
know, you you human soldiers, there's,
you know, there's a whole chain of
accountability that assumes a human uses
their common sense. Suppose I have an
army of 10 million drones all
coordinated by one person or a small set
of people. Can't you know, I think it's
easy to see that there are
accountability issues there, right? That
that that you know, concentrating power
that much doesn't work. It it doesn't
mean we shouldn't have this fleet.
Again, I don't know. Maybe we need it at
some point because our adversaries will
have it, but we need to have a
conversation about accountability, about
who is holding the button and who can
say no. And I think that's very
reasonable.
>> President Trump has called Anthropic a
left-wing woke company. Is this decision
at all driven by ideology? I look I
can't speak for what you know I can't
speak for what other parties are doing
and what they're doing
>> but you and here in anthropic
>> yeah look we we but we we I think have
tried to be very neutral we speak up on
issues of AI policy where we have
expertise we don't we don't have views
we don't think about general political
issues and we try to work together
whenever there's common ground for
example I went to an event in
Pennsylvania with the president, with
Senator McCormack um about provisioning
energy, provisioning enough energy to uh
power our AI models in provision our AI
models in the US. I spoke to the
president. I you know I I I I expressed
that I you know agreed with many aspects
of what he's doing. We also did a pledge
around um you know using using AI for
health and we've done a number of other
things when the AI action the
administration's AI action plan when the
administration's AI action plan came out
we said that there were you know many
perhaps most aspects of it that we
agreed with. So this idea that we've
somehow been partisan or that we haven't
been evenhanded we've been studiously
even-handed. Um and and again we can't
control if someone even even the
president you know has has an opinion
about us that's not under our control.
What's under our control is that we can
be reasonable we can be neutral and we
can stand up for what we believe.
>> 1 to 10 will there be an agreement with
the federal government on this in the
future or do you think this is over?
>> Look I I I have no crystal ball for our
part. Our position is clear. We have
these two red lines. We've had them from
day one. We are still uh you know we are
still advocating for those red lines.
We're not going to move on those red
lines. If we can get to the point with
the department where you know where you
know we can see things the same way then
perhaps there could be an agreement for
our part and for the sake of US national
security. We we you know we we continue
to want to make this work. Um but uh you
know again it takes two parties to have
an agreement. If you had a moment with
the president right now tonight, what
would you say to him?
>> You know, I again I would say we are
patriotic Americans. We have done
everything we have done has been for the
sake of this country, for the sake of
supporting US national security. Our
leaning forward in deploying our models
with the military was done because we
believe in this country. We believe in
uh defeating our autocratic adversaries.
We believe in defending America. The red
lines we have drawn we drew because we
we we we believe that crossing those red
lines is is contrary to American values
and we wanted to stand up for American
values. And when we were threatened with
supply chain designation and defense
production act which are unprecedented
intrusions into the private economy by
the government. We we exercised our
classic first amendment rights to speak
up and disagree with the government.
Disagreeing with the government is the
most American thing in the world and we
are patriots in everything we have done
here. We have stood up for the values of
this country.
>> Do you think Anthropic can survive this
as a business? you know, uh when when
the president when um uh um Secretary
Hegsth uh tweeted out the supply chain
designation, he said something that was
inaccurate, that far exceeds their
lawful authority. He said that any
company that has a military contract
can't do business with Enthropic at all.
That is not what the law said. We put
out a statement that uh pointed to the
law. All the law says is that as part of
its military contracts, any company
cannot use anthropic as part of those
military contracts? That is a very that
is a much more limited impact.
>> So you're confident that Anthropic can
survive this?
>> Not not only survive it, we're going to
be fine. The the impact of this
designation is fairly small. Now, the
nature of the tweet that the secretary
put out was designed to create
uncertainty, was designed to create a
situation where people believed the
impact would be much larger, was
designed to create fear, uncertainty,
and doubt, but we won't let that
succeed.
>> We will be fine.
>> Critics call this an abuse of power.
What the Pentagon is doing and what the
White House is doing. Do you believe
this is an abuse of power? You know,
again, I would return to the idea that
this is unprecedented.
>> But is it an abuse of power?
>> You know, this has never happened
before. This designation has never
happened before with an American
company. And I think it was made very
clear in some of their statements, in
some of their language, that this was
retaliatory and punitive. I don't I
don't I don't know what else what else
to call it, retaliatory and punitive.
>> So, will you take legal action? We we
I've I've I've stated I've stated in our
statement again, all we've received is a
tweet. We haven't received an actual
supply chain design. You know, there's
there's been no actual action by the
government. There's just been tweets
saying what they're going saying what
they claim they're going to do.
>> You haven't received any formal
information.
>> We haven't received any formal
information whatsoever. All we've seen
are tweets from the president and tweets
from Secretary Hegsth. when when when
when we receive some kind of formal
action, we will look at it. We will
understand it and we will challenge it
in court.
>> What do you think that says about their
ability to navigate major national
security issues if this is the way that
you say they're communicating with you?
>> Again, you know, I I I don't want to
make that I don't want to make this
about this particular administration. I
don't want to make this about particular
people. We are trying to do whatever we
can to support US national security.
That's why we're committed to trying to
find a deal. If we can't find a deal,
that is why we're committed to to
offboarding in, you know, in a in a
smooth way that allows our war fighters
to continue to be supported as they as
they go into conflicts. And that's why
we're committed to standing up to uh you
know, actions that we think are not in
line with the values of this country.
It's it's not about any particular
person. It's not about any particular
administration. It's about the principle
of standing up for what's right.
>> Dario Amade, CEO of Anthropic. Thank you
very much. Thank you so much for having
me.