John Law (5:16)

Thanks, Isaac and welcome everybody. Here are your quick hits for today. First up, U.S. central Command announced the U.S. death toll in the United States conflict with Iran rose to six after two service members bodies were recovered from an Iranian strike on a military position in Kuwait. Separately, Secretary of State Marco Rubio said that the hardest hits are yet to come from the US Military. Rubio also said that after Israel shared their plans to attack Iran, the administration deemed the threat of a counterattack on U.S. assets as imminent. Number two, voters will take part in primary elections on Tuesday in Arkansas, Texas and North Carolina. The Democrat and Republican Senate primaries are the most closely watched races in these states. Number three, the Supreme Court voted 6:3 to temporarily block a California law that limits when schools can notify parents about a student's transgender identity while a challenge to the policy continues. Separately, the court temporarily blocked an effort to redraw the lines of the New York 11th congressional district, represented by Nicole Maliotekis, overruling a lower court judge who found that the current map violates the state constitution. The court's three liberal justices dissented. Number four, the House Oversight Committee released video of its separate closed door hearings with former President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton last week. At number five, French President Emmanuel Macron said that his country will grow its nuclear arsenal and work more closely with European allies on deterrence measures. A departure from France's long standing nuclear weapons policy,

Isaac Saul (6:54)

Anthropic is rejecting an ultimatum from the Pentagon to lift the company's AI safeguards or risk being blacklisted. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth wants to use Anthropic's AI model Claude for, quote, all lawful purposes. Anthropic, though, has been very clear it's a hard no when it comes to using its AI technology for autonomous weapons and mass surveillance of Americans.

John Law (7:13)

On Friday, President Donald Trump ordered federal agencies to immediately cease their use of the artificial intelligence company Anthropics Technology after it declined to allow the Pentagon unrestricted access to its models. Later in the day, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth directed the Pentagon to designate Anthropic as a supply chain risk to national security, which he said would bar contractors, suppliers or partners doing business with the US military from conducting commercial activity with anthropic. Shortly after, OpenAI announced that it had agreed to let the Pentagon use its AI models within classified systems. For context, the Department of Defense has been using Anthropic's technology, most notably its AI assistant Claude, since last year, including within classified systems. However, the Defense Department has recently sought increased access to the technology, which Anthropic resisted. Specifically, the company refused to allow its models to be used for mass surveillance of U.S. citizens or the development of autonomous weapons. Defense Secretary Hegseth gave the company until Friday to reach an agreement, then quickly progressed a deal with OpenAI once the deadline passed. In a post on Truth Social, President Trump called Anthropic a radical left woke company that made a disastrous mistake trying to strong arm the Department of War while federal agencies were directed to stop using Anthropic's technology immediately. Trump said agencies that currently rely on its models will have six months to phase out their use. On Friday, Anthropic sued to challenge the supply chain risk designation. In a statement, Anthropic called the move legally unsound, adding that it did not believe that today's frontier AI models are reliable enough to to be used in fully autonomous weapons and mass domestic surveillance of Americans constitutes a violation of fundamental rights. In its own statement, OpenAI said its deal with the Pentagon included similar restrictions on use that Anthropic had requested mass surveillance, autonomous weapons and high stakes automated decisions such as a social credit system. Full details on those restrictions have not yet been made public, but an excerpt of the contract shared by OpenAI says the Pentagon may use its systems for all lawful purposes consistent with applicable law, operational requirements, requirements and well established safety and oversight protocols. Today we'll break down the Anthropic Pentagon conflict with views from the left, right and technology writers, and then Isaac's take.

Isaac Saul (9:40)

We'll be right back after this quick break. We optimize hydration, movement, supplements and sleep, but most people completely ignore the air they're breathing. And when your air is off, your body feels it first. The Blue Signature Air purifiers by blueair quietly remove airborne pollutants, odors, smoke and allergens, supporting deeper sleep, better recovery and clearer focus. It's the most customizable air purifier you can get, with exclusive accessories designed to fit your space and your style. Visit blueair.com and use code signature30 to elevate your wellness routine.

Advertisement Voice (10:18)

Over 90 of the top 100 US accounting firms trust Bill to simplify and secure bill pay. That's proven financial infrastructure built on over a trillion dollars of secure payments. Visit bill.com proven for a special offer.

John Law (10:42)

Alright, first up, let's start with what the left is saying. The left backs Anthropic, saying it was right to restrict the Trump administration's access to a powerful others. Add that further conflicts over government AI will come. In the New York Times, Maureen Dowd wrote, real despots hijack artificial intelligence. Hegseth should be focused on our nerve wracking duel with Iran. Instead, he spent the week at war with Dario Amadei, the thoughtful chief executive of Anthropic and one of the few in Silicon Valley advocating for humanity. Dowd said president Trump and Hegseth already have a healthy disregard for democracy. Trump is trying to take over our elections because he's rightly worried that his party is going to get shellacked November and now he's escalating his push to remove the few pathetic guardrails that exist on AI. On Tuesday, Hegseth summoned Amodei to the Pentagon to demand that he let the Pentagon do whatever it wanted as long as it was lawful. This is poppycock, of course, because Trump and Hegseth have contempt for the law when it gets in the way of their whims, power grabs and revenge plots, daud said. The self styled Secretary of War offered Amadei a double ultimatum. He would invoke the Defense Production act to compel anthrabc to give the Pentagon unrestricted use of its model, or he would designate it a supply chain risk, a national security threat which would put the company's government contracts and possibly the company itself in jeopardy. Anthropic had a choice be extorted or be blacklisted. In Ms. Now, Hays Brown argued Anthropic was right not to trust Pete Hegseth. The Pentagon's inability to accept constraints isn't necessarily unique to Trump or Hegseth. The defense community has pushed back hard against anything seen as a constraint on potential actions under GOP and Democratic administrations alike, brown said. History is littered with examples from America's refusal to join the International Criminal Court to rejecting the international treaty banning landmines. Whether the Pentagon intends to use Claude in the ways Anthropic rejects is in many ways secondary to the idea that the military would accept guardrails on its actions from outside the chain of command. Given the competition's immoral mindset toward products that have the potential to cause harm. The bar for assessing Anthropic self regulation is so low as to truly be in hell, brown wrote. As with almost every major technological leap, America's laws are deeply lagging when it comes to policing the rapid growth of AI. Without real safeguards and regulations, there's little stopping the Pentagon from blacklisting a company. That DARE draws the line at having Americans data siphoned up rather than foreigners, or at having a robot being the one pulling the trigger. Alright, that is it for what the left is saying. Which brings us to what the right is saying. Many on the right see the administration's demands as legitimate, but question the utility of battling Anthropic. Others say the prospect of autonomous AI weapons creates difficult trade offs. In the Wall Street Journal, Alicia Finley wrote about Trump's road to war with Anthropic. Many Silicon Valley readers lean left, but most fiercely oppose government efforts to regulate AI. Mr. Amadei broke with his competitors by endorsing a Biden executive order that imposed federal oversight on AI models. Anthropic also lobbied for regulation of AI by states such as New York and California and opposed the administration's efforts to preempt state laws, Finley said. All this made Mr. Amadei Persona non grata in the Trump administration. David Sachs, a Silicon Valley venture capitalist who serves as Mr. Trump's AI czar, accused Mr. Amadei and other AI doomers of stoking public fear to encourage government control of AI. Trump officials are right that the sort of AI regulation Mr. Amadei has advocated could amount to unilateral disarmament by slowing innovation, finley wrote. The Chinese, Russians, and other US adversaries won't handcuff themselves with regulation. Yet banning government agencies and contractors from using anthropic tools, which Pentagon officials favor for their dexterity, will handcuff the US and could damage national security. In the New York Times, Ross Douthit asked, if AI is a weapon, who should control it? It's easy to get Skynet vibes from the Pentagon's demands. As Matt Iglesias noted, all the weird and complicated scenarios spun out by AI doomers get a lot simpler if our government decides to start building autonomous killer robots, dathet said. That's not what the Pentagon says it intends to do. Its professed concern is that it can't embed a crucial technology into the national security architecture and then give a private company a general ethical veto over its use, even if those ethics seem reasonable on paper. Doing so outsources decisions that are supposed to be made by an elected president and his appointees. Over the long run, though, one can imagine Pentagon officials offering some advantages over the typical AI mogul when it comes to safety and control, douthat wrote. First, they tend to be more focused on concrete strategic objectives than on machine gods and the singularity. Second, they are constrained from certain gambles by bureaucratic caution and the chain of command. Third, they answer to the public through elections and civil control in a way that CEOs do not. Alright, that is it for what the left of the right are saying. Which brings us to what technology writers are saying. Some technology writers worry that OpenAI's Pentagon deal will bring about the dangers Anthropic sought to avoid. Others question Anthropic's claim to veto power over how the government uses its technology. In MIT Technology Review, James O' Donnell said OpenAI's compromise with the Pentagon is what anthropic feared. OpenAI took great pains to say that it had not caved to allow the Pentagon to do whatever it wanted with its technology. You could read this to say that OpenAI won both the contract and the moral high ground. But reading between the lines and the legalese makes something else clear. Anthropic pursued a moral approach that won it many supporters but failed, while OpenAI pursued a pragmatic and legal approach that is ultimately softer on the Pentagon, o' Donnell wrote. It's not yet clear if OpenAI can build in the safety precautions it promises as the military rushes out a politicized AI strategy during strikes on ir, or if the deal will be seen as good enough by employees who wanted the company to take a harder line. The whole reason Anthropic earned so many supporters in its fight, including some of OpenAI's own employees, is that they don't believe these rules are good enough to prevent the creation of AI enabled autonomous weapons or mass surveillance. And an assumption that federal agencies won't break the law is little assurance to anyone who remembers that the surveillance practices exposed by Edward Snowden had been deemed legal by internal agencies and were ruled unlawful only after drawn out battles. O' Donnell on this front, we've essentially ended up back where we started, allowing the Pentagon to use its AI for any lawful use. In Stratecheri, Ben Thompson explored Anthropic and alignment what is the standard by which it should be decided? What is allowed and not allowed, if not laws which are passed by an elected Congress? Anthropic's position is that amade, who I am using as a stand in for Anthropic's management and its board, ought to decide what its models are used for, despite the fact that AMADE is not elected to and not accountable to the public. Thompson root and on that second point, who decides when and in what way American military capabilities are used? That is also the responsibility of the Department of War, which ultimately answers to the President who is also elected. I do have tremendous discomfort about AI's surveillance capabilities. In particular, there are a lot of safeguards we thought we had that were actually mostly due to the friction entailed in overcoming them. AI, even more than the computers and the Internet, is a friction solvent, and I completely understand why Anthropic's pushback on this specific point resonates broadly, thompson said. The way to address this new reality, however, is with new laws and through strengthening accountable oversight. Cheering or even demanding that an unelected executive decide how and where such powerful capabilities can be used is the road to an even More despotic future. All right, let's head over to Isaac for his take.

Isaac Saul (18:41)

All right, that is it for the left and the right. And some writers from the technology sector are saying, which brings us to my take. The government has a right to deny contracts to any private company. Similarly, any private company has a right to refuse the terms that the government offers them. What the government shouldn't do, and maybe legally can't do, is use its power to punish any private company that turns down a government contract. That's all easy to say, but a lot of questions complicate that simplicity. Who do we want holding the power of next generation artificial intelligence? The government or tech companies? How do we hold them each accountable? What happens if the CEO of a private company has more control over critical defense technologies than our top military generals? Would that diffusion of power be necessarily bad? These questions are not easy to answer, but the basic story here is still simple. Anthropic is a private company with technology the government wants and already relies on. The government tried to work with Anthropic, but Anthropic didn't like the terms of the deal, and when it walked away, the federal government tried to punish it in the harshest way possible. That's not good governance. When the dust settled, OpenAI got a deal with restrictions that appeared to be similar to what Anthropic wanted, and some reporting suggested personalities spiked the deal, not philosophies. But the deals are not the same, far from it. And when we look at the details of why the Anthropic deal fell through, the federal government comes out looking even worse. On Thursday, Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei released a statement warning that AI can undermine rather than defend democratic values, which is unsettling to say after talking with the government. He added that he believed in the use of AI for lawful foreign intelligence and counterintelligence missions, but not for mass domestic surveillance. Based on the deal Amadei says the administration was asking for, the government could have used Anthropic's tools to buy up detailed records of Americans movements, web browsing and associations from public sources without obtaining a warrant, feed it into artificial intelligence, and create a comprehensive picture of any person's life automatically and at massive scale. Amadei said that his company supported the development of partially autonomous weapons like the ones used in Ukraine, but that frontier AI systems are simply not reliable enough to power fully autonomous weapons. We have offered to work directly with the Department of War on R and D to improve the reliability of these systems, but they have not accepted this offer, he said, we can all read between the lines here. The government wants to be able to use these tools for mass surveillance of Americans and to create fully autonomous weapons. But Amadei left no room for any doubt, saying explicitly that the Department of Defense, quote, will only contract with AI companies who accede to any lawful use and remove safeguards in the cases mentioned above. Not surprising. Definitely alarming. Then, when Anthropic walked away, the Department of Defense responded by punishing them, sending a message to the entire industry that businesses could face devastating consequences if they don't cooperate with the government. In his newsletter, Sritetchery under what Technology Writers are Saying, Ben Thompson asked, and I'm paraphrasing here, why Amadei gets to decide what a permissible use for its AI would be and not Congress or the US Government? Again, the dynamics here are complicated, but I don't think Thompson's premise is quite right. The government can regulate the tools that already exist through the legislative process, but company leaders have a say in how their company's products are used. That's not unique to Anthropic. It applies to every company and the entire private sector. If Amadei believes his technology is so advanced the laws haven't caught up to properly regulate it, then he is within his rights to contractually limit who uses those tools and for what. Thompson also asked who decides when and in what way American military capabilities are used? Anthropic's position is that an unaccountable Amodei can unilaterally restrict what its models are used for. End quote. Again, I don't think this is quite right. American military capabilities do not include unfettered access to Anthropic's tools. That's the point. Amodei was negotiating terms of a deal to give the American military more capability by granting more access to his tools under certain conditions. If the government doesn't like those conditions, which it doesn't, then it doesn't get the tools. That's business. This actually happens all the time. As tech researcher Dean Ball wrote, every transaction of technology between a private firm and the military involves a contract. Indeed, the companies that do this are called defense contractors for a reason, and these contracts routinely contain operational use restrictions. System X cannot be used in counties Y. A common restriction with the telecommunications technology such as Elon, Musk, Starlink. Technological limitations like this fighter jet is only certified for uses in X conditions, and use of it outside those conditions is a breach of warranty and intellectual property restrictions. The contractor owns and may repurpose and resell the know how and IP associated with X weapons system developed with public funds. What's more, the government already agreed to these terms with Anthropic under the Biden administration. The Trump administration agreed too, before changing its mind. In the chaos of this deal blowing up, OpenAI's Sam Altman swooped in to take advantage of the opportunity. Altman apparently has no problem working within the confines that Amodei rejected, though he's trying desperately to convince the public that the terms he agreed to somehow protect the values Amadei espoused. They don't OpenAI has claimed it has various safeguards in its contract with the Department of Defense to protect Americans. Like a clause, and I'm going to put my own emphasis here, that the AI system shall not be used for unconstrained monitoring of US persons private information as consistent with these authorities. But the Defense Intelligence Agency, the dia, a spy agency inside the dod, purchases public bulk smartphone data. That data is already legal to purchase, so Altman's assurances that his models will only be used within the bounds of the law is inadequate. The deal still leaves pathways open for domestic surveillance. Also, if OpenAI can't be used for unconstrained monitoring, does any constraint of any kind mean the AI systems can now be used to monitor Americans? And what if the government is monitoring a non citizen who just so happens to be speaking with a US citizen? A loophole that has been known and discussed for years? Pressed by journalists to point to where exactly in their contract the worst outcomes here might be prohibited, OpenAI has not been able or has declined to do so. Altman, in trying to clean up, shared his own extremely careful language about OpenAI and the Department of Defense never, quote, intentionally being used for domestic surveillance and limiting the, quote, deliberate end quote, tracking or monitoring of US citizens. OpenAI now says it has introduced new language that could be helpful for the avoidance of doubt. The Department understands this limitation to prohibit deliberate tracking, surveillance or monitoring of US persons or nationals, including through the procurement or use of commercially acquired personal or identifiable information. But that language has not been formally agreed to, and you might forgive me if I don't trust Sam Altman's PR speak at this moment. To say this was a reputation defining move by Altman is underselling it. I'm not naive enough to think Amodei and Anthropic are motivated purely by altruism and democratic freedoms. But I personally reacted to the news by canceling my ChatGPT subscription, attempting to delete all my data from OpenAI's servers and moving my limited AI based work over to Claude. The choice has less to do with protesting Altman's public stance than with protecting my own privacy. And and I'm apparently not the only one, I have to add that the whole of US artificial intelligence policy is now comically backward anthropic. A US based company that apparently has some semblance of a moral compass in the democratic spirit, whose technology was literally used in a military operation over the weekend, has been labeled a supply chain risk. Yet the government's relationship with the Chinese AI providers like Deepseek remains unchanged, despite credible reports that they're being used against our interests. We are selling American chips to foreign companies to compete with us in the great AI race, but we're threatening, punishing and limiting companies operating in our domestic AI sector. As ChatGPT might say, it's not just worrisome, it's nonsensical. And if this technology is as important, world changing and norm shifting as people say, it's going to be a very big problem.

Advertisement Voice (27:49)

Foreign

Isaac Saul (27:52)

we'll be right back after this quick break.

Advertisement Voice (27:57)

When everything is moving all at once. Your workforce, your tech stack, your business. You don't need more tools. You need one solution. That's why paylocity built a single platform to connect hr, finance and IT with AI driven insights and automated workflows that simplify the complex and empower what's next. Because when everything comes together in one place, growth comes easy experience. One place for all your HCM needs. Start now at paylocity.com One BetterHelp Online

Isaac Saul (28:29)

Therapy bought this 30 second ad to remind you right now, wherever you are, to unclench your jaw, relax your shoulders, take a deep breath in and out. Feels better, right? That's 15 seconds of self care. Imagine what you could do with more. Visit betterhelp.com randompodcast for 10% off your first month of therapy. No pressure, just help. But for now, just just relax.

Isaac Saul (29:18)

All right, that is it for my take. Which brings us to your questions answered. This one's from Ann in Douglasville, Pennsylvania. Hey Anne. Shout out Douglasville, Pennsy. During the State of the Union, President Trump called out a girl in the audience who supposedly was being transitioned into a boy during school against her wishes, without the parents knowledge or approval. I've read several different reviews detailing the inaccuracies and truths of the State of the Union speech and no one has mentioned this call out. I find it hard to believe any school would try to transition a student from one gender to the other against the student's wishes and without parents involvement. What is the background and reality of this situation? Okay, so the story with Sage Blair that Trump described was a bit different than your summary. When she was in high school, Blair reportedly told a friend that she wanted to go by a male name and male pronouns. A guidance counselor who overheard the conversation talked to Blair and the school agreed to socially transition her. When the school notified her adoptive mother, Michelle Blair, her paternal grandmother, she disapproved. But the school allegedly continued referring to Blair with a male name and pronouns and allowing her to use the boy's bathroom while withholding this decision from Blair's grandmother. Michelle Blair also claims that the school failed to notify her of bullying and harassment her daughter experienced from male peers, which she alleges resulted in Blair running away from home and being sex trafficked. Trump's description of this story was consistent with Michelle Blair's claims in a lawsuit against the school, though the president not specifying that Blair was being socially transitioned could imply the school had supported a medical transition. Attorneys for the school argued that it had no duty to inform Michelle Blair of Sage's transition and that the school's actions could not be factually linked to Sage's leaving home. Other cases of schools moving forward with social transitions without informing parents have been recorded, but the frequency of these events is difficult to gauge. In most of these cases, the schools argue that the child consented to the transition and wanted it hidden from parents. All right, that is it for your questions answered. I'm going to send it back to John for the rest of the pod and I'll see you guys tomorrow. Have a good one. Peace.

John Law (31:34)

Thanks, Isaac. Here's your under the radar story for today, folks. On February 26th, a Kansas law went into effect mandating that identity documents, including birth certificates and driver's licenses, list sex assigned at birth rather than sex matching gender identity. The law also reversed all prior changes to sex identification because the law had no grace period. More than 1,000 transgender Kansas official documents, including driver's licenses, were invalidated as soon as the law went into effect. According to Harper Selden, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union, the Kansas law is the first to retroactively invalidate residents legally obtained driver's licenses. USA TODAY has this story and there's a link in today's episode description. And last but not least, our have a nice day story. Omar Yaghi grew up in a refugee community in Jordan without access to running water or electricity. In 2025, he won the Nobel Prize in chemistry for his work on machines that can pull drinking water from the desert air. Now Yahi has invented a machine that runs on thermal energy and according to his company Ateco, can generate up to 1000 liter liters of clean water every day, even in arid climates. For islands like Cariaco, which was devastated by Hurricane Beryl in 2024 and which currently imports water from Grenada during the dry season, the invention shows promise. The technology's ability to function off grid using only ambient energy is particularly compelling for our context, cariaco government official Devin Baker said. The Guardian has this story and there's a link in today's episode description all right everybody, that is it for today's episode. As always, if you'd like to support our work, Please go to readtangle.com where you can sign up for a newsletter membership, podcast membership or bundled membership that gets you a discount on both. And if you didn't get to check out our livestream last night, you can head over to our YouTube channel and check out the full event. While you're there, please be sure to become a subscriber to our YouTube channel. It helps us out a great deal in the algorithm and helps us make sure that you get our link, Latest Videos and Exclusives we'll be right back here tomorrow. For Isaac and the rest of the crew, this is John Law signing off. Have a great day, y'.

Advertisement Voice (33:42)

All.

John Law (33:43)

Peace.

Isaac Saul (33:45)

Our Executive Editor and founder is me, Isaac Saul, and our Executive producer is John Law. Today's episode was edited and engineered by Dewey Thomas. Our editorial staff is led by Managing Editor Ari Weitzman with Senior Editor Will Kbach and Associate Editors Audrey Moorhead, William Knuth and Bailey Saul. Music for the podcast was produced by Diet75. To learn more about Tangle and to sign up for a membership, please visit our website@retangle.com.

Advertisement Voice (34:23)

With almost half a million customers and over a trillion dollars of secure payments, Bill isn't new to intelligent finance. It's the proven way to simplify bill pay and maximize cash flow. Want to learn more? Visit bill.comproven for a special offer par

Advertisement Voice (34:41)

le tu francais hablas espanol par l'. Italiano? If you've used Babbel, you would Babbel's conversation based technique teaches you useful words and phrases to get you speaking quickly about the things you actually talk about in the real world world. With lessons handcrafted by over 200 language experts and voiced by real native speakers, Babbel is like having a private tutor in your pocket. Start speaking with Babbel today get up to 55% off your Babbel subscription right now at babbel.com acast spelled B-A B B E L.com acast rules and restrictions may apply.

Isaac Saul (35:19)

You know what's faster than your paycheck? Literally everything. It's time to get your pay up to speed with Earn In. You can access your as you work instead of waiting days and weeks for a paycheck, get up to $150 a day with max of $750 between paydays. No interest, no credit checks and no mandatory fees. Because hey, it's your money. Download the Earn in app now to get it and join millions of people making any day payday. That's ear n I n Earnin is not a bank. Access limits are based on your earnings and risk factors. Available in select states. Expedited transfers available for a fee. Terms and restrictions apply. Visit Earnin.com for full details.