Anthropic recently filed two sworn declarations in a California federal court, directly challenging the Pentagon's assertion that the AI firm presents an "unacceptable risk to national security." The company contends that the government's legal arguments are founded on technical misinterpretations and allegations that were never brought up during the extensive negotiation period preceding the current dispute.
These declarations accompanied Anthropic’s reply brief in its ongoing lawsuit against the Department of Defense, submitted in anticipation of a hearing scheduled for Tuesday, March 24, before Judge Rita Lin in San Francisco.
The genesis of this conflict can be traced to late February, when President Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth publicly announced the termination of their relationship with Anthropic, following the company's refusal to grant unrestricted military access to its AI technology.
The individuals who provided these declarations are Sarah Heck, Anthropic’s Head of Policy, and Thiyagu Ramasamy, who leads the company’s Public Sector division.
Ms. Heck brings significant experience, having previously served as a National Security Council official in the Obama administration's White House, prior to roles at Stripe and then Anthropic, where she now oversees government relations and policy. Notably, she was personally in attendance at the pivotal February 24 meeting, where Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei met with Defense Secretary Hegseth and the Pentagon’s Under Secretary Emil Michael.
Within her declaration, Heck directly addresses what she characterizes as a fundamental misrepresentation in the government's submissions: the assertion that Anthropic sought an approval authority over military operations. She firmly states this claim is untrue, quoting, “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.” Furthermore, she highlights that the Pentagon’s apprehension regarding Anthropic’s potential to disable or modify its technology during an operation was never discussed during negotiations, surfacing only for the first time in the government's court documents, thereby denying Anthropic any prior opportunity for rebuttal.
A particularly noteworthy detail in Heck’s declaration reveals that on March 4 — merely one day after the Pentagon formally concluded its supply-chain risk designation against Anthropic — Under Secretary Michael sent an email to Amodei, indicating that both parties were “very close” on the very two issues the government now presents as proof of Anthropic’s national security threat: its stances on autonomous weapons and the mass surveillance of American citizens.
This email, included by Heck as an exhibit, carries further significance. Just two days later, despite Amodei stating that the company was engaged in “productive conversations” with the Pentagon, Michael publicly declared on X that “there is no active Department of War negotiation with Anthropic.” A week following this, he informed CNBC that there was “no chance” of renewed discussions. Heck's argument seemingly underscores this discrepancy: if Anthropic’s position on these two specific issues truly constitutes a national security threat, then why was a Pentagon official asserting that the two sides were nearly in agreement on those very points only days after the designation was finalized?
Thiyagu Ramasamy contributes a distinct area of expertise to the legal proceedings. Prior to his tenure at Anthropic in 2025, he dedicated six years to Amazon Web Services, where he oversaw AI deployments for government clients, including those within classified environments. At Anthropic, he is recognized for establishing the team responsible for integrating its Claude models into national security and defense frameworks, notably including the $200 million contract awarded by the Pentagon last summer.
Ramasamy’s declaration specifically counters the government’s assertion that Anthropic could theoretically disrupt military operations by deactivating or modifying its technology, a scenario he states is not technically feasible. He clarifies that once Claude is deployed within a government-secured, “air-gapped” system managed by a third-party contractor, Anthropic loses all access. He emphasizes that there is no remote kill switch, no hidden backdoor, and no way to push unauthorized updates. He dismisses any notion of an “operational veto” as fictional, explaining that any modification to the model would necessitate the Pentagon’s explicit approval and direct action for installation. Furthermore, Anthropic, he asserts, cannot even monitor what government users input into the system, much less extract any data.
Additionally, Ramasamy challenges the government’s contention that Anthropic’s employment of foreign nationals constitutes a security risk. He highlights that Anthropic personnel undergo U.S. government security clearance vetting, the identical rigorous background check process mandated for access to classified information. He further states in his declaration that, “to my knowledge,” Anthropic stands as the sole AI company where cleared personnel have actually developed the AI models intended for operation in classified environments.
Anthropic’s lawsuit posits that the supply-chain risk designation — an unprecedented action against an American company — represents governmental retaliation against the company’s publicly articulated positions on AI safety, thereby infringing upon its First Amendment rights.
In a comprehensive 40-page filing earlier this week, the government unequivocally rejected this interpretation. It argued that Anthropic’s refusal to permit all lawful military applications of its technology was a business choice, not a form of protected speech, and that the designation was a direct national security imperative, rather than punitive action for the company's perspectives.
The legal proceedings involving the Pentagon are not the only item on Anthropic’s court agenda for this coming Tuesday. In a separate development on Friday, a federal judge issued a tentative ruling that Reddit’s lawsuit against the company — which alleges Anthropic unlawfully scraped its content to train its AI models — should be remanded to state court, where Reddit initially lodged the complaint last June. A hearing to finalize this particular decision is also set for Tuesday.
The Editorial Staff at AIChief is a team of professional content writers with extensive experience in AI and marketing. Founded in 2025, AIChief has quickly grown into the largest free AI resource hub in the industry.