OpenAI Aligns With Anthropic, Declares Shared Red Lines on Military AI Use

OpenAI’s public endorsement of Anthropic’s “red lines” comes as the Pentagon tightens its grip on AI contracts, forcing the industry to confront a clash between national security demands and corporate safety policies. In a Thursday‑night internal memo, Sam Altman outlined OpenAI’s intent to negotiate a classified‑systems deal that would bar the use of its models for domestic mass‑surveillance and for fully autonomous weapons without human oversight, mirroring the restrictions Anthropic has placed on its Claude model (Wall Street Journal, cited by NPR). Altman told CNBC that “the few red lines” he shares with Anthropic are “legal protections” that should remain intact, even as the Department of Defense pushes for “all lawful purposes” access to AI tools (NPR, Feb. 27).

Anthropic’s standoff with the Defense Department has sharpened the policy debate. The Pentagon gave Anthropic a deadline of 5:01 p.m. ET on Feb. 26 to lift safeguards that prevent Claude from being used for U.S. domestic surveillance or for fully autonomous weapons, warning that failure could forfeit a contract worth up to $200 million (NPR). The agency also hinted at invoking the Korean War‑era Defense Production Act and labeling Anthropic a “supply chain risk,” moves that could blacklist the firm from future government work (NPR). Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei rebuffed the pressure, stating the company “cannot in good conscience accede” to the request and emphasizing that “the Department of War, not private companies, makes military decisions” (NPR). Bloomberg’s coverage adds that the dispute is less about a single clause and more about whether AI firms can retain any moral or safety‑related guardrails when dealing with the federal government (Bloomberg, Feb. 26).

OpenAI’s alignment with Anthropic may complicate the Pentagon’s leverage. While OpenAI, Google, xAI and Anthropic all hold DoD contracts, Anthropic was the first to be cleared for classified‑system deployment, giving it a strategic foothold (NPR). If OpenAI adopts the same red‑line framework, the Defense Department could lose a bargaining chip that it has used to pressure Anthropic, potentially forcing a broader renegotiation of AI contracts across the sector. Altman’s memo, which the Wall Street Journal first reported, indicates that OpenAI is seeking “exclusions preventing use for surveillance in the U.S. or to power autonomous weapons without human approval” (Wall Street Journal, cited by NPR). Such language, if accepted, would set a precedent that could limit the Pentagon’s ability to mandate unrestricted AI use across its procurement pipeline.

Industry analysts see the development as a litmus test for the future of AI governance. Bloomberg notes that the Pentagon’s insistence on “unfettered” access reflects a broader push by the Trump administration to accelerate military AI adoption, even at the cost of corporate safety standards (Bloomberg). Conversely, the “red lines” championed by Anthropic and now echoed by OpenAI signal a growing consensus among leading AI firms that certain applications—particularly autonomous lethal systems and domestic surveillance—cross an ethical threshold that should not be overridden by contractual pressure. If the DoD proceeds with the Defense Production Act or blacklists non‑compliant vendors, it may trigger a market shift toward firms willing to accept tighter government oversight, potentially reshaping the competitive landscape that has so far favored OpenAI’s rapid commercialization.

The immediate impact on OpenAI’s bottom line remains uncertain. The company’s most recent revenue report showed $3.4 billion in annualized sales, driven largely by enterprise subscriptions and API usage (The Information, 2024). A negotiated deal that embeds strict usage exclusions could limit the scope of future defense contracts, which historically have been lucrative for AI providers. However, Altman argues that “working with the military…as long as it complies with legal protections” is essential for maintaining credibility with both regulators and the broader public (NPR). By publicly aligning with Anthropic’s stance, OpenAI may be positioning itself as a responsible partner, hoping to preserve long‑term access to government markets while avoiding the reputational fallout that could accompany unrestricted military deployments.

What remains unclear is how the Pentagon will respond to two of its biggest AI suppliers now sharing the same red‑line framework. If the department proceeds with threats to invoke the Defense Production Act against Anthropic, it may find itself in a standoff not only with one vendor but with a coalition that includes OpenAI, potentially forcing a policy recalibration at the highest levels of defense procurement. The outcome will likely set the tone for how AI safety commitments are balanced against national security imperatives in the years ahead.