Democrats push military AI legislation requiring human oversight after Anthropic-Pentagon dispute

Democrats Want a Military AI Restriction Law Following Anthropic's Pentagon Fallout

Democrats in Congress are pushing to pass bills that would limit the Department of Defense's use of artificial intelligence. This week, Democratic Sen. Adam Schiff from California unveiled the Human Authority in Lethal Operations (HALO) Act, a bill that would require a human commander to have the final say on any course of action taken by autonomous weapon systems. The bill would also mandate detailed record-taking of how military decisions were made and targets were selected for later review, establish protections for whistleblowers, and prohibit the use of AI in some cases involving nuclear weapons and mass surveillance. "The past few months have shown us that there is an urgent need for commonsense guardrails to ensure the Defense Department's use of AI is in line with Americans' national security and privacy priorities," Senator Schiff said in the press release. "My legislation would protect Americans from unlawful domestic surveillance, ensure that humans in the chain of command exercise responsibility for the use of any lethal technology, and maintain strong ethical protections in the deployment of autonomous and semi-autonomous weapons." Artificial intelligence has been a part of warfare for some time now. Militaries around the world employ the help of AI systems for target selection in strikes and mass surveillance, one prominent example being the use of AI by the Israeli army against Palestinians. The United States has also long deployed artificial intelligence in military operations, including in its latest war against Iran. But earlier this year, the use of AI in the military was catapulted to the top of public discourse when an existing deal between the Pentagon and Anthropic fell through, and in an unprecedented move, the AI giant was designated a supply chain risk. Anthropic had allegedly refused to get rid of guardrails in its AI systems that were meant to prevent the DoD from using its models for mass domestic surveillance and completely autonomous weapons, meaning little to no human involvement. Following the fallout of the deal, the Pentagon signed contracts with pretty much all the other major AI companies, including OpenAI, Google, Nvidia, SpaceX, Microsoft, and Amazon Web Services. Meanwhile, Anthropic has challenged the designation in court, though reports say the Trump administration is warming up to the company following the release of Mythos, its latest model advertised as a nightmare for the cybersecurity industry. After the Trump administration's very public breakup with Anthropic, a slew of Democrats came out in support of the AI company and its stance. That list included Sen. Schiff, the author of the HALO Act. "I wish we had more voices like Anthropic out there," Sen. Schiff said at the Punchbowl News Conference in March. Schiff has introduced a range of AI-related bills in the past few months, including proposals to require large data centers to pay for their own power, mandate AI companies to disclose copyrighted work used to train models, and bring AI literacy classes to schools. Now, he is reportedly aiming to tag this bill along to the annual military spending package, aka the NDAA, which must pass by the end of the year at the latest. He is not the only Democrat with a plan like this. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand of New York introduced a very similar bill earlier this month, bringing restrictions to the use of AI in nuclear weapon deployment, domestic surveillance and fully autonomous weapons. All of these and more "high-consequence actions," as the bill defines them, would need approval from a high-ranking DoD official to move forward. Sen. Gillibrand is also reportedly planning on introducing the proposal as an amendment to the NDAA. Then, there's the AI Guardrails Act introduced by Sen. Elissa Slotkin of Michigan back in March. Also aiming for very similar guardrails to Sen. Schiff and Gillibrand's bills, Sen. Slotkin is reportedly preparing to introduce it as an amendment to the NDAA as well. While all three of these bills aim to ensure safety by bringing human oversight to any decision made by AI systems in military settings, that's not where the dangers end. Many AI users tend to suffer from what experts call automation bias, aka believing that an AI system can make more accurate judgments than you because it has access to more information or perhaps reasons in a more efficient way. That, obviously, is not true: the technology is far from perfect, and LLMs are prone to hallucinations or biased thinking. Combine that with the "black box" nature of AI, where users don't have complete insight into how or why the system reasons the way it does, and you have a military AI plan that could still lead to potentially fatal mistakes even with human oversight.

Schiff unveils bill restricting Pentagon AI use without human involvement

Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) introduced a bill Monday that would require human involvement in the Pentagon's use of autonomous or semi-autonomous weapons that rely on AI. The legislation, called the Human Authority in Lethal Operations (HALO) Act, seeks to establish a "clear chain of command" under which a designated commander has the final say over decisions to use force that involve autonomous weapon systems. Pentagon officials would also be required to maintain records of their decision making processes, such as target selection, for review after the fact. "The past few months have shown us that there is an urgent need for commonsense guardrails to ensure the Defense Department's use of AI is in line with Americans' national security and privacy priorities," Schiff said in a statement. "There are good reasons to use AI technology to advance our national security, however - just as with any tool, we cannot depend on technology alone to guide to us, particularly when the risks of harm can be fatal," he continued. His bill would also require a review process for autonomous or semi-autonomous weapon systems, in addition to barring the military from using AI to monitor individuals for constitutional activities, removing human involvement from nuclear weapons deployment and purchasing personal data on Americans from third parties in some cases. It comes as several other Senate Democrats are pushing to add language putting constraints on the military's AI use to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) introduced her own bill last week that would bar the Pentagon from using AI to launch nuclear weapons, surveil Americans and deploy autonomous weapons, which she hopes to offer as an amendment to the NDAA. Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.) also reportedly plans to put her own AI guardrails legislation up as an amendment to the annual defense policy bill. These efforts follow a highly public dispute between the Pentagon and Anthropic earlier this year over the terms of use for the company's AI model.

Adam Schiff Wants Humans, Not AI, Making Life-And-Death Military Decisions - Palantir Technologies (NASDA

Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) introduced legislation to impose new safeguards on the Defense Department's use of artificial intelligence (AI), including limits on domestic surveillance and requirements for human control over lethal decisions. Schiff Pushes AI Guardrails On Monday, Schiff announced the proposal in a post on X, arguing that stronger oversight is needed as AI becomes more integrated into military and defense operations. "There's an urgent need for guardrails around the Defense Department's use of AI, to ensure that it is consistent with our national security and privacy," Schiff wrote. The California Democrat said his bill would "protect Americans from unlawful domestic surveillance" and "insist that humans make the final decision on the use of force by autonomous weapons systems." Pentagon AI Clash Over Killer Robots And Military Tech Earlier, the White House and Pentagon clashed over Anthropic's AI systems, with the Defense Department blacklisting the company over surveillance and autonomous weapons concerns while ordering its removal from military use. President Donald Trump suggested a possible deal and signaled a more flexible approach to the company's future role in federal AI contracts. Nobel laureate Geoffrey Hinton warned that autonomous weapons could make warfare more likely by reducing human costs that deter conflict, saying traditional war deterrents weaken when "dead robots" replace human casualties. Disclaimer: This content was partially produced with the help of AI tools and was reviewed and published by Benzinga editors. Photo courtesy: Lev Radin on Shutterstock.com Market News and Data brought to you by Benzinga APIs To add Benzinga News as your preferred source on Google, click here.

Democrats Roll Out Wave of AI Bills as Voter Concerns Mount | PYMNTS.com

The latest proposal comes from Sen. Adam Schiff (D-CA) who this week unveiled legislation that would impose new restrictions on the Pentagon's use of AI in military systems, The Wall Street Journal reported. The bill would require meaningful human control over AI-enabled weapons systems, prohibit certain uses of AI in connection with nuclear weapons, and establish new transparency and review requirements for Defense Department deployments of the technology. Schiff's proposal is part of a broader surge of AI-related legislation emerging from congressional Democrats. Recent proposals from Sens. Mark Kelly (D-AZ), Kirsten Gillibrand, (D-NY), and Elissa Slotkin, (D-MI) have similarly focused on oversight of advanced AI systems and safeguards surrounding their deployment. The growing legislative activity offers an early indication of the regulatory agenda major AI developers could face in a future Democratic-controlled Congress. The recent flurry of proposals reflects increasing political pressure from constituents who are encountering AI's effects firsthand. Concerns range from powerful AI models capable of conducting cyberattacks to fears that automation could displace workers, particularly recent college graduates entering the job market. At the same time, public opposition to the rapid expansion of AI infrastructure has intensified as communities push back against the construction of large data centers that consume significant amounts of electricity and water. "We're no longer anticipating these impacts. They're here," Schiff told the Journal, adding that "AI could very well be the dominant issue in the next presidential election." The growing political salience of AI is also evident on the campaign trail. Mallory McMorrow, a Democratic Senate candidate in Michigan who has proposed a tax on companies using AI, told the Journal that voters increasingly raise the issue at public events. "It feels like we are hitting a cultural tipping point," she said. Much of the recent legislative momentum can be traced to the continuing fallout from Anthropic's highly publicized dispute with the Pentagon. The AI developer, which has frequently advocated for stronger AI safeguards, spent months seeking assurances that its Claude models would not be used for domestic surveillance or autonomous weapons systems. Defense Department officials rejected the request, arguing that existing Pentagon policies already prohibit such uses. The disagreement nevertheless exposed broader concerns among lawmakers about whether existing military safeguards are sufficient as increasingly capable AI systems are integrated into defense operations. Schiff's bill seeks to codify requirements that a human decision-maker retain full discretion over the use of AI-enabled weapons and would expand congressional and public visibility into Pentagon AI programs. The defense-focused proposals are only one part of a broader Democratic AI agenda, however. Schiff has separately proposed legislation that would require AI companies to disclose copyrighted works used to train models and would force developers to bear more of the electricity costs associated with operating large-scale data centers. Other Democrats have floated new taxes on AI companies, while Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) has advocated far more aggressive intervention, including a government investment fund that would acquire significant ownership stakes in AI companies. Sanders has also proposed a federal moratorium on new data-center construction amid growing concerns about power consumption and utility costs. Although many of the Democratic proposals face long odds under the current Republican-controlled government, the debate highlights a broader shift in Washington. Both the Trump and Biden administrations have wrestled with how aggressively to regulate AI, and the White House recently took steps to expand oversight through a new executive order. Meanwhile, major AI developers increasingly appear to be preparing for a future in which federal regulation becomes unavoidable.