Morning Report

March 10, 2026 — PM Anthropic Special Report

Mar 10, 2026

03010 AM Anthropic TT·0310 March ANTHROPIC AI CLAUDE DOD News Update daily AM YT

Anthropic PBC v. Department of War (DoD) · 26-cv-01996

The Department of Defense demanded that Anthropic strip the safety limits from its AI — the ones that prevent it from targeting American citizens and running lethal drone strikes without any human in the loop — and when Anthropic refused, the government declared it a national security threat.

Anthropic, a public benefit corporation (PBC) operating the Claude AI, was in contract negotiations with the DOD when the department demanded full removal of Anthropic's usage policy — specifically: allowing Claude to surveil U.S. citizens and deploy lethal autonomous drone warfare without human oversight. Anthropic refused, citing its PBC mission (building a safer AI ecosystem), the fact that Claude's models make mistakes, and its own ethical guidelines. The President ordered all agencies to cease using Claude and cancel contracts with Anthropic. Secretary Hegseth accused Anthropic of "arrogance and betrayal" and designated it a "supply chain risk to national security." Anthropic filed a complaint and TRO request on March 9 alleging First and Fifth Amendment violations and APA violations. Google and OpenAI employees filed personal amicus briefs arguing that unfettered AI access without human oversight was dangerous to the public interest. Bryan covered the March 10 status hearing (Judge Lin, San Francisco, available via Zoom) live, noting this might be the only public hearing given the DOD's likely move to close future proceedings.

status hearing.

Constitutional question: Whether the government can use national security designation and contract cancellation to coerce a private company into enabling surveillance of American citizens and autonomous lethal AI systems — and whether a company's refusal to facilitate those activities is constitutionally protected.

Montgomery v. Caribe · 24-1238

[See 0304_SCOTUS.md — oral argument recap; this episode included a follow-up reference to the pending SCOTUS decision.]

No new substantive update in this episode; the case was mentioned in the context of oral argument week wrap-up. See 0304_SCOTUS.md for full entry.

See 0304_SCOTUS.md.

Constitutional question: See 0304_SCOTUS.md.

← March 6, 2026 — Aloha Friday March 13, 2026 — Aloha Friday the 13th →