Pentagon Told Anthropic They Were 'Nearly Aligned' After Trump Declared Relationship Kaput

New court filings reveal contradictions in the government's case against the AI company.

Mar. 21, 2026 at 1:40am by Ben Kaplan

Got story updates? Submit your updates here. ›

Anthropic has submitted sworn declarations to a California federal court pushing back on the Pentagon's assertion that the AI company poses an "unacceptable risk to national security." The declarations argue the government's case relies on technical misunderstandings and claims that were never raised during months of negotiations. They also reveal that a week after the Pentagon finalized its supply-chain risk designation against Anthropic, a top official said the two sides were "very close" on the issues the government now cites as national security threats.

Why it matters

This case highlights the growing tensions between the government and the tech industry over the development and use of AI technology, especially when it comes to national security and defense applications. It raises questions about transparency, communication, and the decision-making process within the Pentagon.

The details

Anthropic's declarations were filed alongside the company's reply brief in its lawsuit against the Department of Defense. They were submitted by Sarah Heck, Anthropic's Head of Policy, and Thiyagu Ramasamy, the company's Head of Public Sector. Heck refutes the government's claim that Anthropic demanded an approval role over military operations, stating this was never discussed during negotiations. Ramasamy disputes the government's technical claims about Anthropic's ability to interfere with military operations, explaining that once Anthropic's technology is deployed, the company has no remote access or control. The declarations also reveal that on March 4, a top Pentagon official told Anthropic's CEO the two sides were "very close" on the issues now cited as national security threats.

  • On February 24, Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei met with Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Under Secretary Emil Michael.
  • On March 4, a day after the Pentagon finalized its supply-chain risk designation against Anthropic, Under Secretary Michael emailed Amodei saying the two sides were "very close" on the issues cited as national security threats.
  • Two days later, on March 6, Michael posted on X that there was "no active Department of War negotiation with Anthropic."
  • A week after that, on March 13, Michael told CNBC there was "no chance" of renewed talks with Anthropic.

The players

Anthropic

An artificial intelligence company that is embroiled in a legal dispute with the U.S. Department of Defense over the use of its technology.

Sarah Heck

Anthropic's Head of Policy, who previously worked at the National Security Council under the Obama administration.

Thiyagu Ramasamy

Anthropic's Head of Public Sector, who previously managed AI deployments for government customers, including classified environments, at Amazon Web Services.

Pete Hegseth

The U.S. Defense Secretary who publicly declared the government was cutting ties with Anthropic.

Emil Michael

The Pentagon's Under Secretary who communicated with Anthropic's CEO about the two sides being "very close" on key issues.

Got photos? Submit your photos here. ›

What they’re saying

“At no time during Anthropic's negotiations with the Department did I or any other Anthropic employee state that the company wanted that kind of role.”

— Sarah Heck, Head of Policy, Anthropic

“Once Claude is deployed inside a government-secured, 'air-gapped' system operated by a third-party contractor, Anthropic has no access to it; there is no remote kill switch, no backdoor, and no mechanism to push unauthorized updates.”

— Thiyagu Ramasamy, Head of Public Sector, Anthropic

What’s next

A hearing is scheduled for Tuesday, March 24, before Judge Rita Lin in San Francisco to discuss Anthropic's lawsuit against the Department of Defense.

The takeaway

This case highlights the complex and often opaque relationship between the tech industry and the government when it comes to emerging technologies like AI. It raises questions about transparency, communication, and the decision-making process within the Pentagon, especially when national security is at stake.