Pentagon's AI Push Meets Caution from Top Military Leaders as Congress Weighs Restrictions

As the Pentagon pushes for battlefield AI, some military leaders urge caution

TAMPA, Fla. (AP) -- The Trump administration is pushing to unleash the power of artificial intelligence for the U.S. military while facing calls to put up guardrails around the rapidly developing technology from some companies -- and even notes of caution from top leaders in uniform. Adm. Frank Bradley, head of U.S. Special Operations Command, told attendees of a recent annual special forces conference in Tampa, Florida, that troops "have to be very careful about how we come to (AI's) employment and its inspiration into the delivery of lethality." Bradley said he can see a future where AI determines what targets to hit but that "we, as humans, have to have the confidence that ... it's going to deliver violence only where we intend it to be delivered." The remarks from Bradley, who oversees the units that handle the military's most difficult and dangerous operations, about the need to ensure safeguards come as his boss, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, is pushing to rapidly evolve the military through AI. It is a push that has led to clashes with some tech companies worried about safety measures. Hegseth has insisted that the Pentagon be allowed to use the technology any legal way it sees fit. He told an audience of SpaceX employees in January he would reject any AI models "that won't allow you to fight wars" and that his vision for the technology was systems that operate "without ideological constraints that limit lawful military applications." AI's use in the military is part of the Republican administration's larger push to grow the capability it sees as a unique American advantage even as it faces pressure to ensure responsible safeguards. President Donald Trump abruptly called off plans to sign a new AI executive order hours before an expected White House ceremony over concerns the measure could dull America's edge on AI technology. "We're leading China, we're leading everybody, and I don't want to do anything that's going to get in the way of that lead," Trump told reporters. Two differing AI worlds within the military When asked about Bradley's remarks, a Pentagon official said efforts are focused on using AI to create "functional battlefield tools" that can help troops come up with and identify targets more quickly and, as a result, speed up strikes on those targets. The official spoke on condition of anonymity to offer more candid remarks. Officials at U.S. Special Operations Command talked about AI not as something that will help eliminate targets but rather as a tool that can offer troops more time to focus on their mission. Sgt. Maj. Andrew Krogman, the top enlisted official for U.S. Special Operations Command, said at the conference that he sees AI handling administrative tasks to free up operators or helping modernize how the command does business. Melissa Johnson, the top acquisition official for the command, said AI should be "reducing the cognitive workload on mundane tasks." "We're leveraging AI more and more, but it's not to replace operator judgment, it's to enhance it," she added. Helen Toner, interim executive director at Georgetown University's Center for Security and Emerging Technology, said those differing descriptions about AI in the military are both true. "There are a huge number of potential uses for AI in these kinds of bureaucratic settings, which the U.S. military is actively exploring," Toner said. Lt. Gen. Michael Conley, head of Air Force Special Operations Command, told a congressional committee in May that his troops used AI "bots" to convert top secret intelligence down to a secret classification within seconds to make it easier to share with drone operators on the ground during the Iran war. However, there is no doubt that AI also is helping the military find and strike targets. The center that Toner oversees published a case study two years ago on how the Army's 18th Airborne Corps used AI to target artillery strikes "just as efficiently as the best unit in recent American history" and with 2,000 fewer service members. "Human operators are still the ones making crucial decisions, but AI ... is making it possible to operate with a new level of speed and scale," she said. AI safety has created a public dispute between the Pentagon and Anthropic The clash over the integration of AI into the military, who ultimately controls the technology and the ethics behind its use has played out in unusually public fashion during the Trump administration. Hegseth and Anthropic are embroiled in a bitter contract dispute over the company's concerns about unchecked government use of its technology, including the dangers of fully autonomous armed drones and of AI-assisted mass surveillance that could track dissent. After CEO Dario Amodei refused to back down over concerns about how the chatbot Claude is used in classified Pentagon networks, both Trump and Hegseth accused Anthropic of endangering national security. The Pentagon formally labeled the San Francisco-based company a supply chain risk -- ending its $200 million defense contract and prohibited other government contractors from working with the company. Anthropic sued, claiming the Pentagon is illegally retaliating by stigmatizing the company with a designation meant to protect against sabotage of national security systems by foreign adversaries. The Pentagon has since emphasized its turn to Anthropic rivals -- including Google, OpenAI and SpaceX -- to secure AI technology that can "augment warfighter decision-making in complex operational environments." Toner, a former OpenAI board member ousted after a clash with CEO Sam Altman, said "the general public often seems to underestimate the caution with which the U.S. military approaches new technologies." "Commanders want their missions to succeed, which means both being able to create lethal effects at scale, and avoiding unintended effects like friendly fire, civilian casualties, or simply identifying targets incorrectly," she said.

Congress to Consider Restricting How the Military Uses A.I.

Congress is considering legislation that would restrict how the Pentagon uses artificial intelligence, as the Defense Department battles a leading company developing the technology over what the limits should be. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, Democrat of New York, introduced new legislation on Wednesday aimed at strengthening regulations on how the military uses A.I. Ms. Gillibrand introduced the measure as a stand-alone bill, but she also plans to introduce the proposals as amendments to the National Defense Authorization Act. The House Armed Services Committee is debating a version of that bill this week, and the Senate is expected to begin its markup of the legislation next week. Democrats who want more aggressive regulation of how the military uses A.I. are reaching out to Republicans, hoping that they can earn a measure of bipartisan support. Democratic staffers noted that Vice President JD Vance has voiced broad support for the basic principles the measures are trying to codify. In one sign of a degree of bipartisan support, another A.I. bill -- written by Senator Elissa Slotkin, Democrat of Michigan -- is expected to be incorporated into the Senate's current version of the defense authorization bill. Ms. Slotkin's measure would in effect codify protections that artificial intelligence companies have requested as they negotiated deals with the Pentagon this year. Those protections include bans on using the technology for domestic surveillance, to control autonomous drones or to launch nuclear weapons. While OpenAI, Google and other firms agree to abide by the "any lawful use" standard the Defense Department pushed, another company, Anthropic, failed to reach an agreement with the Pentagon. Anthropic executives believed the deal did not adequately protect their artificial intelligence model from use for domestic surveillance or to command autonomous drones. When talks broke down, the Pentagon designated Anthropic as a "supply-chain risk to national security," potentially barring military contractors from doing business with the firm. Anthropic has sued to overturn that decision. The Slotkin proposal restricts the Pentagon's use of autonomous weapon systems but allows the defense secretary to give a waiver to allow the technology to be deployed. Ms. Gillibrand's bill makes some exceptions for cybersecurity, missile interceptors, base and ship defenses and semiautonomous weapons. But for other situations, the Defense Department would have to get congressional approval for using A.I. to control most autonomous weapons the Pentagon might seek to use in combat. "Lethal decisions require a conscience, not just an algorithm, and a machine shouldn't make those types of decisions," Ms. Gillibrand said in an interview. "A.I. can be a critical tool in decision making, but it really lacks the important elements of humanity. It doesn't have the capacity for love, loss or grief, and those types of human impacts are necessary to make hard decisions about targeting." There is at least some bipartisan support for ensuring that humans, not artificial intelligence, make strike decisions in warfare. At a commencement speech at the Air Force Academy on May 28, Vice President JD Vance invoked the recent encyclical by Pope Leo XIV, which argued the decision to use lethal force must remain under human control. "If the warfare of the future is to live up to the moral values of our ancestors, decisions over life and death must be made by humans and not machines," Mr. Vance said. The Pentagon's policy on autonomous weapons is often described as requiring a "human in the loop" -- a person involved in the decision making process to carry out a lethal strike. But the actual policy is more nuanced. The policy, which was drafted in 2012 and updated three years ago, does not fully ban autonomous weapons, though it requires senior-level review before any such system is developed or used. Congress has required the reporting of any deployment of lethal autonomous weapons through 2029. At a Senate hearing in May, Emil Michael, the Pentagon's top technology officer, said that the policy on autonomous weapons needed to be updated given advances in the capabilities of adversaries and the lessons learned from the war against Iran. At the hearing, Senator Jodi Ernst, Republican of Iowa, noted that the Pentagon had proposed spending $55 billion on its office that develops autonomous and semiautonomous weapons, the Defense Autonomous Warfare Group. She said the current policy was not designed for artificial intelligence driven targeting or other innovations. In addition to its restrictions on autonomous weapons, Ms. Gillibrand's bill includes provisions requiring artificial intelligence labs to report if their models are stolen, their supply chains compromised or their data is corrupted. It also has tough restrictions on using artificial intelligence for domestic surveillance. It includes prohibitions on using commercial or hacked data to analyze information on Americans. The bill also prohibits the Defense Department and military intelligence agencies from developing any artificial intelligence models meant to assign a risk score to Americans or make any sort of predictive assessment of a threat. Chinese companies have been researching how to use A.I. to power predictive surveillance technology, not just to identify political dissidents but also to predict who might become a critic of the state. While there is no evidence the Pentagon is engaged in such activity, Ms. Gillibrand's measure could model how to expand the ban on such predictive assessments to other government agencies. Ms. Gillibrand said the fight between Anthropic and the Pentagon was a "red flag" that the Defense Department was at least considering use of the technology domestically. "I think that was front and center in the Anthropic fight," Ms. Gillibrand said. "So we made sure that under no circumstances should A.I. be able to surveil American citizens under the under the Department of Defense."

Exclusive: Dems introduce bill for "responsible" defense AI

Why it matters: The bill is one in a series of responses from members of Congress concerned about how AI can be used in defense or make deadly decisions without human oversight. Driving the news: Sens. Chris Coons (D-Del.) and Jack Reed (D-R.I.) will introduce the Responsible Artificial Intelligence in Defense Act on Monday. What's inside: The bill would establish a framework governing how the Pentagon acquires, tests and uses AI-enabled autonomous weapon systems. * It would direct the Pentagon to have human oversight and a manual override capability "until AI systems achieve a reliability threshold," per the memo, along with prohibiting the use of military AI "for mass surveillance of persons inside the United States." * It would direct the Pentagon to require "humans in the loop" during operation of AI-enabled systems and require privacy assessments. * It would also prohibit AI from "making the decision to launch a nuclear weapon" from "lethal autonomous force," or from tracking people int he U.S. What they're saying: "Artificial intelligence is a rapidly evolving technology, and its incorporation into military operations -- particularly lethal autonomous systems -- is genuinely new territory," a memo about the bill shared first with Axios reads. * "A rigorous framework for human oversight is not a brake on adoption; it is the foundation that makes sustainable, confident adoption possible." Between the lines: These lawmakers were prompted to write this bill after the Pentagon and Anthropic started publicly fighting over the use of Anthropic's AI in classified settings, eventually resulting in the Pentagon designated Anthropic as a supply chain risk, which it is fighting in court. The big picture: It's not the first bill to come out of the Pentagon-Anthropic spat.

Special operations commander says while AI could determine targets, humans must be sure 'it's going to deliver violence only where we intend it' | Fortune

Adm. Frank Bradley, head of U.S. Special Operations Command, told attendees of a recent annual special forces conference in Tampa, Florida, that troops "have to be very careful about how we come to (AI's) employment and its inspiration into the delivery of lethality." Bradley said he can see a future where AI determines what targets to hit but that "we, as humans, have to have the confidence that ... it's going to deliver violence only where we intend it to be delivered." The remarks from Bradley, who oversees the units that handle the military's most difficult and dangerous operations, about the need to ensure safeguards come as his boss, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, is pushing to rapidly evolve the military through AI. It is a push that has led to clashes with some tech companies worried about safety measures. Hegseth has insisted that the Pentagon be allowed to use the technology any legal way it sees fit. He told an audience of SpaceX employees in January he would reject any AI models "that won't allow you to fight wars" and that his vision for the technology was systems that operate "without ideological constraints that limit lawful military applications." AI's use in the military is part of the Republican administration's larger push to grow the capability it sees as a unique American advantage even as it faces pressure to ensure responsible safeguards. President Donald Trump abruptly called off plans to sign a new AI executive order hours before an expected White House ceremony over concerns the measure could dull America's edge on AI technology. "We're leading China, we're leading everybody, and I don't want to do anything that's going to get in the way of that lead," Trump told reporters. Two differing AI worlds within the military When asked about Bradley's remarks, a Pentagon official said efforts are focused on using AI to create "functional battlefield tools" that can help troops come up with and identify targets more quickly and, as a result, speed up strikes on those targets. The official spoke on condition of anonymity to offer more candid remarks. Officials at U.S. Special Operations Command talked about AI not as something that will help eliminate targets but rather as a tool that can offer troops more time to focus on their mission. Sgt. Maj. Andrew Krogman, the top enlisted official for U.S. Special Operations Command, said at the conference that he sees AI handling administrative tasks to free up operators or helping modernize how the command does business. Melissa Johnson, the top acquisition official for the command, said AI should be "reducing the cognitive workload on mundane tasks." "We're leveraging AI more and more, but it's not to replace operator judgment, it's to enhance it," she added. Helen Toner, interim executive director at Georgetown University's Center for Security and Emerging Technology, said those differing descriptions about AI in the military are both true. "There are a huge number of potential uses for AI in these kinds of bureaucratic settings, which the U.S. military is actively exploring," Toner said. Lt. Gen. Michael Conley, head of Air Force Special Operations Command, told a congressional committee in May that his troops used AI "bots" to convert top secret intelligence down to a secret classification within seconds to make it easier to share with drone operators on the ground during the Iran war. However, there is no doubt that AI also is helping the military find and strike targets. The center that Toner oversees published a case study two years ago on how the Army's 18th Airborne Corps used AI to target artillery strikes "just as efficiently as the best unit in recent American history" and with 2,000 fewer service members. "Human operators are still the ones making crucial decisions, but AI ... is making it possible to operate with a new level of speed and scale," she said. AI safety has created a public dispute between the Pentagon and Anthropic The clash over the integration of AI into the military, who ultimately controls the technology and the ethics behind its use has played out in unusually public fashion during the Trump administration. Hegseth and Anthropic are embroiled in a bitter contract dispute over the company's concerns about unchecked government use of its technology, including the dangers of fully autonomous armed drones and of AI-assisted mass surveillance that could track dissent. After CEO Dario Amodei refused to back down over concerns about how the chatbot Claude is used in classified Pentagon networks, both Trump and Hegseth accused Anthropic of endangering national security. The Pentagon formally labeled the San Francisco-based company a supply chain risk -- ending its $200 million defense contract and prohibited other government contractors from working with the company. Anthropic sued, claiming the Pentagon is illegally retaliating by stigmatizing the company with a designation meant to protect against sabotage of national security systems by foreign adversaries. The Pentagon has since emphasized its turn to Anthropic rivals -- including Google, OpenAI and SpaceX -- to secure AI technology that can "augment warfighter decision-making in complex operational environments." Toner, a former OpenAI board member ousted after a clash with CEO Sam Altman, said "the general public often seems to underestimate the caution with which the U.S. military approaches new technologies." "Commanders want their missions to succeed, which means both being able to create lethal effects at scale, and avoiding unintended effects like friendly fire, civilian casualties, or simply identifying targets incorrectly," she said.The Trump administration is pushing to unleash the power of artificial intelligence for the U.S. military while facing calls to put up guardrails around the rapidly developing technology from some companies -- and even notes of caution from top leaders in uniform. Adm. Frank Bradley, head of U.S. Special Operations Command, told attendees of a recent annual special forces conference in Tampa, Florida, that troops "have to be very careful about how we come to (AI's) employment and its inspiration into the delivery of lethality." Bradley said he can see a future where AI determines what targets to hit but that "we, as humans, have to have the confidence that ... it's going to deliver violence only where we intend it to be delivered." The remarks from Bradley, who oversees the units that handle the military's most difficult and dangerous operations, about the need to ensure safeguards come as his boss, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, is pushing to rapidly evolve the military through AI. It is a push that has led to clashes with some tech companies worried about safety measures. Hegseth has insisted that the Pentagon be allowed to use the technology any legal way it sees fit. He told an audience of SpaceX employees in January he would reject any AI models "that won't allow you to fight wars" and that his vision for the technology was systems that operate "without ideological constraints that limit lawful military applications." AI's use in the military is part of the Republican administration's larger push to grow the capability it sees as a unique American advantage even as it faces pressure to ensure responsible safeguards. President Donald Trump abruptly called off plans to sign a new AI executive order hours before an expected White House ceremony over concerns the measure could dull America's edge on AI technology. "We're leading China, we're leading everybody, and I don't want to do anything that's going to get in the way of that lead," Trump told reporters. Two differing AI worlds within the military When asked about Bradley's remarks, a Pentagon official said efforts are focused on using AI to create "functional battlefield tools" that can help troops come up with and identify targets more quickly and, as a result, speed up strikes on those targets. The official spoke on condition of anonymity to offer more candid remarks. Officials at U.S. Special Operations Command talked about AI not as something that will help eliminate targets but rather as a tool that can offer troops more time to focus on their mission. Sgt. Maj. Andrew Krogman, the top enlisted official for U.S. Special Operations Command, said at the conference that he sees AI handling administrative tasks to free up operators or helping modernize how the command does business. Melissa Johnson, the top acquisition official for the command, said AI should be "reducing the cognitive workload on mundane tasks." "We're leveraging AI more and more, but it's not to replace operator judgment, it's to enhance it," she added. Helen Toner, interim executive director at Georgetown University's Center for Security and Emerging Technology, said those differing descriptions about AI in the military are both true. "There are a huge number of potential uses for AI in these kinds of bureaucratic settings, which the U.S. military is actively exploring," Toner said. Lt. Gen. Michael Conley, head of Air Force Special Operations Command, told a congressional committee in May that his troops used AI "bots" to convert top secret intelligence down to a secret classification within seconds to make it easier to share with drone operators on the ground during the Iran war. However, there is no doubt that AI also is helping the military find and strike targets. The center that Toner oversees published a case study two years ago on how the Army's 18th Airborne Corps used AI to target artillery strikes "just as efficiently as the best unit in recent American history" and with 2,000 fewer service members. "Human operators are still the ones making crucial decisions, but AI ... is making it possible to operate with a new level of speed and scale," she said. AI safety has created a public dispute between the Pentagon and Anthropic The clash over the integration of AI into the military, who ultimately controls the technology and the ethics behind its use has played out in unusually public fashion during the Trump administration. Hegseth and Anthropic are embroiled in a bitter contract dispute over the company's concerns about unchecked government use of its technology, including the dangers of fully autonomous armed drones and of AI-assisted mass surveillance that could track dissent. After CEO Dario Amodei refused to back down over concerns about how the chatbot Claude is used in classified Pentagon networks, both Trump and Hegseth accused Anthropic of endangering national security. The Pentagon formally labeled the San Francisco-based company a supply chain risk -- ending its $200 million defense contract and prohibited other government contractors from working with the company. Anthropic sued, claiming the Pentagon is illegally retaliating by stigmatizing the company with a designation meant to protect against sabotage of national security systems by foreign adversaries. The Pentagon has since emphasized its turn to Anthropic rivals -- including Google, OpenAI and SpaceX -- to secure AI technology that can "augment warfighter decision-making in complex operational environments." Toner, a former OpenAI board member ousted after a clash with CEO Sam Altman, said "the general public often seems to underestimate the caution with which the U.S. military approaches new technologies." "Commanders want their missions to succeed, which means both being able to create lethal effects at scale, and avoiding unintended effects like friendly fire, civilian casualties, or simply identifying targets incorrectly," she said. The Trump administration is pushing to unleash the power of artificial intelligence for the U.S. military while facing calls to put up guardrails around the rapidly developing technology from some companies -- and even notes of caution from top leaders in uniform. Adm. Frank Bradley, head of U.S. Special Operations Command, told attendees of a recent annual special forces conference in Tampa, Florida, that troops "have to be very careful about how we come to (AI's) employment and its inspiration into the delivery of lethality." Bradley said he can see a future where AI determines what targets to hit but that "we, as humans, have to have the confidence that ... it's going to deliver violence only where we intend it to be delivered." The remarks from Bradley, who oversees the units that handle the military's most difficult and dangerous operations, about the need to ensure safeguards come as his boss, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, is pushing to rapidly evolve the military through AI. It is a push that has led to clashes with some tech companies worried about safety measures. Hegseth has insisted that the Pentagon be allowed to use the technology any legal way it sees fit. He told an audience of SpaceX employees in January he would reject any AI models "that won't allow you to fight wars" and that his vision for the technology was systems that operate "without ideological constraints that limit lawful military applications." AI's use in the military is part of the Republican administration's larger push to grow the capability it sees as a unique American advantage even as it faces pressure to ensure responsible safeguards. President Donald Trump abruptly called off plans to sign a new AI executive order hours before an expected White House ceremony over concerns the measure could dull America's edge on AI technology. "We're leading China, we're leading everybody, and I don't want to do anything that's going to get in the way of that lead," Trump told reporters. Two differing AI worlds within the military When asked about Bradley's remarks, a Pentagon official said efforts are focused on using AI to create "functional battlefield tools" that can help troops come up with and identify targets more quickly and, as a result, speed up strikes on those targets. The official spoke on condition of anonymity to offer more candid remarks. Officials at U.S. Special Operations Command talked about AI not as something that will help eliminate targets but rather as a tool that can offer troops more time to focus on their mission. Sgt. Maj. Andrew Krogman, the top enlisted official for U.S. Special Operations Command, said at the conference that he sees AI handling administrative tasks to free up operators or helping modernize how the command does business. Melissa Johnson, the top acquisition official for the command, said AI should be "reducing the cognitive workload on mundane tasks." "We're leveraging AI more and more, but it's not to replace operator judgment, it's to enhance it," she added. Helen Toner, interim executive director at Georgetown University's Center for Security and Emerging Technology, said those differing descriptions about AI in the military are both true. "There are a huge number of potential uses for AI in these kinds of bureaucratic settings, which the U.S. military is actively exploring," Toner said. Lt. Gen. Michael Conley, head of Air Force Special Operations Command, told a congressional committee in May that his troops used AI "bots" to convert top secret intelligence down to a secret classification within seconds to make it easier to share with drone operators on the ground during the Iran war. However, there is no doubt that AI also is helping the military find and strike targets. The center that Toner oversees published a case study two years ago on how the Army's 18th Airborne Corps used AI to target artillery strikes "just as efficiently as the best unit in recent American history" and with 2,000 fewer service members. "Human operators are still the ones making crucial decisions, but AI ... is making it possible to operate with a new level of speed and scale," she said. AI safety has created a public dispute between the Pentagon and Anthropic The clash over the integration of AI into the military, who ultimately controls the technology and the ethics behind its use has played out in unusually public fashion during the Trump administration. Hegseth and Anthropic are embroiled in a bitter contract dispute over the company's concerns about unchecked government use of its technology, including the dangers of fully autonomous armed drones and of AI-assisted mass surveillance that could track dissent. After CEO Dario Amodei refused to back down over concerns about how the chatbot Claude is used in classified Pentagon networks, both Trump and Hegseth accused Anthropic of endangering national security. The Pentagon formally labeled the San Francisco-based company a supply chain risk -- ending its $200 million defense contract and prohibited other government contractors from working with the company. Anthropic sued, claiming the Pentagon is illegally retaliating by stigmatizing the company with a designation meant to protect against sabotage of national security systems by foreign adversaries. The Pentagon has since emphasized its turn to Anthropic rivals -- including Google, OpenAI and SpaceX -- to secure AI technology that can "augment warfighter decision-making in complex operational environments." Toner, a former OpenAI board member ousted after a clash with CEO Sam Altman, said "the general public often seems to underestimate the caution with which the U.S. military approaches new technologies." "Commanders want their missions to succeed, which means both being able to create lethal effects at scale, and avoiding unintended effects like friendly fire, civilian casualties, or simply identifying targets incorrectly," she said.

The Pentagon is pushing for AI on the battlefield. This top military leader is urging caution

Two differing AI worlds within the military When asked about Bradley's remarks, a Pentagon official said efforts are focused on using AI to create "functional battlefield tools" that can help troops come up with and identify targets more quickly and, as a result, speed up strikes on those targets. The official spoke on condition of anonymity to offer more candid remarks. Officials at U.S. Special Operations Command talked about AI not as something that will help eliminate targets but rather as a tool that can offer troops more time to focus on their mission. Sgt. Maj. Andrew Krogman, the top enlisted official for U.S. Special Operations Command, said at the conference that he sees AI handling administrative tasks to free up operators or helping modernize how the command does business. Melissa Johnson, the top acquisition official for the command, said AI should be "reducing the cognitive workload on mundane tasks." "We're leveraging AI more and more, but it's not to replace operator judgment, it's to enhance it," she added. Helen Toner, interim executive director at Georgetown University's Center for Security and Emerging Technology, said those differing descriptions about AI in the military are both true. "There are a huge number of potential uses for AI in these kinds of bureaucratic settings, which the U.S. military is actively exploring," Toner said. Lt. Gen. Michael Conley, head of Air Force Special Operations Command, told a congressional committee in May that his troops used AI "bots" to convert top secret intelligence down to a secret classification within seconds to make it easier to share with drone operators on the ground during the Iran war. However, there is no doubt that AI also is helping the military find and strike targets. The center that Toner oversees published a case study two years ago on how the Army's 18th Airborne Corps used AI to target artillery strikes "just as efficiently as the best unit in recent American history" and with 2,000 fewer service members. "Human operators are still the ones making crucial decisions, but AI ... is making it possible to operate with a new level of speed and scale," she said. AI safety has created a public dispute between the Pentagon and Anthropic The clash over the integration of AI into the military, who ultimately controls the technology and the ethics behind its use has played out in unusually public fashion during the Trump administration. Hegseth and Anthropic are embroiled in a bitter contract dispute over the company's concerns about unchecked government use of its technology, including the dangers of fully autonomous armed drones and of AI-assisted mass surveillance that could track dissent. After CEO Dario Amodei refused to back down over concerns about how the chatbot Claude is used in classified Pentagon networks, both Trump and Hegseth accused Anthropic of endangering national security. The Pentagon formally labeled the San Francisco-based company a supply chain risk -- ending its $200 million defense contract and prohibited other government contractors from working with the company. Anthropic sued, claiming the Pentagon is illegally retaliating by stigmatizing the company with a designation meant to protect against sabotage of national security systems by foreign adversaries. The Pentagon has since emphasized its turn to Anthropic rivals -- including Google, OpenAI and SpaceX -- to secure AI technology that can "augment warfighter decision-making in complex operational environments." Toner, a former OpenAI board member ousted after a clash with CEO Sam Altman, said "the general public often seems to underestimate the caution with which the U.S. military approaches new technologies." "Commanders want their missions to succeed, which means both being able to create lethal effects at scale, and avoiding unintended effects like friendly fire, civilian casualties, or simply identifying targets incorrectly," she said.

Democratic senators push for AI guardrails on military in NDAA

Democratic senators are hoping to add guardrails on the military's AI use to an annual defense policy bill as the House Armed Services Committee prepares to debate the massive legislation on Thursday. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) introduced a bill Tuesday that would limit AI use for launching nuclear weapons, surveilling Americans and developing or deploying autonomous weapons. She plans to offer elements of the measure as an amendment to the Senate version of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), a congressional aide told The Hill on Tuesday. The Senate is expected to start the markup of the bill next week. "The Secure and Accountable Military AI Act" would also require human involvement in decisions that involve use of force, detention or "high-consequence actions." These high-consequence actions -- which the bill defines as those involving nuclear command and control, lethal targeting, domestic surveillance and cyber operations -- would need approval from a senior-level official as well. "The most critical decisions affecting our national security and the lives of our service members must always be made by human beings, not unaccountable machines," Gillibrand said in a statement. "Right now, the Pentagon is moving toward deploying incredibly powerful AI technology without commonsense guardrails in place, which could have catastrophic consequences that make all of us less safe," she continued. Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.) also reportedly plans to put her own "AI Guardrails Act" up as an amendment to the NDAA, according to NOTUS. She introduced the measure in mid-March, which would bar the Pentagon from firing autonomous weapons to kill without human oversight, using AI to launch nuclear weapons and utilizing AI to spy on Americans. The push to put in place specific AI guardrails on the military comes after a highly public dispute between the Pentagon and Anthropic over these restrictions. Anthropic argued for limitations on the military's use of its AI systems for mass domestic surveillance and autonomous lethal weapons, while the Defense Department pushed for more expansive "all lawful uses" language in their contract. The disagreement has since devolved into a contentious legal battle, after the Pentagon labeled Anthropic a supply chain risk. The AI company is currently challenging the designation in court. President Trump has pushed for the wide-range adoption of AI in the federal government. He signed an executive order Tuesday directing agencies to shore up their defenses against more advanced AI, in addition to developing a voluntary framework through which AI companies can give the government early access to their models. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has pressed for the U.S. military to utilize AI in its classified networks, arguing it is imperative for U.S. national security and to maintain superiority on the battlefield. The Pentagon announced in early May that eight of the country's major AI companies -- including OpenAI, Google, Nvidia, Reflection AI, Microsoft -- agreed to deploy their AI systems in the department's classified networks. The skepticism around the use of AI in military action is present within the Trump administration. Last week, Vice President Vance said he was concerned about the use of AI in the military "But the thing I worry about most with AI is how it will change warfare," Vance said while addressing graduating cadets at the U.S. Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs. "If the warfare of the future is to live up to the moral values of our ancestors, decisions over life and death must be made by humans and not machines," Vance said on Thursday.

As the Pentagon pushes for battlefield AI, some military leaders urge caution

The Trump administration is pushing for AI in the U.S. military, facing calls for safeguards from companies and military leaders. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth champions rapid AI evolution, clashing with tech firms like Anthropic over ethical concerns and autonomous weapons. President Trump prioritizes maintaining America's AI lead over potential restrictions. The Trump administration is pushing to unleash the power of artificial intelligence for the U.S. military while facing calls to put up guardrails around the rapidly developing technology from some companies - and even notes of caution from top leaders in uniform. Adm. Frank Bradley, head of US Special Operations Command, told attendees of a recent annual special forces conference in Tampa, Florida, that troops "have to be very careful about how we come to (AI's) employment and its inspiration into the delivery of lethality." Bradley said he can see a future where AI determines what targets to hit but that "we, as humans, have to have the confidence that ... it's going to deliver violence only where we intend it to be delivered." The remarks from Bradley, who oversees the units that handle the military's most difficult and dangerous operations, about the need to ensure safeguards come as his boss, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, is pushing to rapidly evolve the military through AI. It is a push that has led to clashes with some tech companies worried about safety measures. Hegseth has insisted that the Pentagon be allowed to use the technology any legal way it sees fit. He told an audience of SpaceX employees in January he would reject any AI models "that won't allow you to fight wars" and that his vision for the technology was systems that operate "without ideological constraints that limit lawful military applications." AI's use in the military is part of the Republican administration's larger push to grow the capability it sees as a unique American advantage even as it faces pressure to ensure responsible safeguards. President Donald Trump abruptly called off plans to sign a new AI executive order hours before an expected White House ceremony over concerns the measure could dull America's edge on AI technology. "We're leading China, we're leading everybody, and I don't want to do anything that's going to get in the way of that lead," Trump told reporters. Two differing AI worlds within the military When asked about Bradley's remarks, a Pentagon official said efforts are focused on using AI to create "functional battlefield tools" that can help troops come up with and identify targets more quickly and, as a result, speed up strikes on those targets. The official spoke on condition of anonymity to offer more candid remarks. Officials at US Special Operations Command talked about AI not as something that will help eliminate targets but rather as a tool that can offer troops more time to focus on their mission. Sgt. Maj. Andrew Krogman, the top enlisted official for U.S. Special Operations Command, said at the conference that he sees AI handling administrative tasks to free up operators or helping modernize how the command does business. Melissa Johnson, the top acquisition official for the command, said AI should be "reducing the cognitive workload on mundane tasks." "We're leveraging AI more and more, but it's not to replace operator judgment, it's to enhance it," she added. Helen Toner, interim executive director at Georgetown University's Center for Security and Emerging Technology, said those differing descriptions about AI in the military are both true. "There are a huge number of potential uses for AI in these kinds of bureaucratic settings, which the U.S. military is actively exploring," Toner said. Lt. Gen. Michael Conley, head of Air Force Special Operations Command, told a congressional committee in May that his troops used AI "bots" to convert top secret intelligence down to a secret classification within seconds to make it easier to share with drone operators on the ground during the Iran war. However, there is no doubt that AI also is helping the military find and strike targets. The centre that Toner oversees published a case study two years ago on how the Army's 18th Airborne Corps used AI to target artillery strikes "just as efficiently as the best unit in recent American history" and with 2,000 fewer service members. "Human operators are still the ones making crucial decisions, but AI ... is making it possible to operate with a new level of speed and scale," she said. AI safety has created a public dispute between the Pentagon and Anthropic The clash over the integration of AI into the military, who ultimately controls the technology and the ethics behind its use has played out in unusually public fashion during the Trump administration. Hegseth and Anthropic are embroiled in a bitter contract dispute over the company's concerns about unchecked government use of its technology, including the dangers of fully autonomous armed drones and of AI-assisted mass surveillance that could track dissent. After CEO Dario Amodei refused to back down over concerns about how the chatbot Claude is used in classified Pentagon networks, both Trump and Hegseth accused Anthropic of endangering national security. The Pentagon formally labeled the San Francisco-based company a supply chain risk - ending its $200 million defense contract and prohibited other government contractors from working with the company. Anthropic sued, claiming the Pentagon is illegally retaliating by stigmatizing the company with a designation meant to protect against sabotage of national security systems by foreign adversaries. The Pentagon has since emphasized its turn to Anthropic rivals - including Google, OpenAI and SpaceX - to secure AI technology that can "augment warfighter decision-making in complex operational environments." Toner, a former OpenAI board member ousted after a clash with CEO Sam Altman, said "the general public often seems to underestimate the caution with which the U.S. military approaches new technologies." "Commanders want their missions to succeed, which means both being able to create lethal effects at scale, and avoiding unintended effects like friendly fire, civilian casualties, or simply identifying targets incorrectly," she said.