New court filing reveals Pentagon told Anthropic the two sides were nearly aligned — a week after Trump declared the relationship kaput

Core Argument - Anthropic challenges the Pentagon's claim that it poses an "unacceptable risk to national security," asserting that the government's case is based on misunderstandings and unraised claims during prior negotiations [1][2]. Group 1: Legal Proceedings - Anthropic submitted two sworn declarations to a California federal court as part of its lawsuit against the Department of Defense [2]. - A hearing is scheduled for March 24 before Judge Rita Lin in San Francisco [2]. - The dispute originated when President Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced the termination of ties with Anthropic due to the company's refusal to permit unrestricted military use of its AI technology [2]. Group 2: Key Personnel Involved - The declarations were submitted by Sarah Heck, Anthropic's Head of Policy, and Thiyagu Ramasamy, the Head of Public Sector [3]. - Heck, a former National Security Council official, was present at a critical meeting with Defense Secretary Hegseth [4]. - Ramasamy has experience managing AI deployments for government clients at Amazon Web Services and has been instrumental in integrating Anthropic's Claude models into national security settings [9]. Group 3: Claims and Counterclaims - Heck refutes the government's assertion that Anthropic sought approval over military operations, stating that such a demand was never made during negotiations [5]. - She highlights that concerns about Anthropic potentially altering its technology mid-operation were not raised until the government's court filings [6]. - Ramasamy counters the claim that Anthropic could interfere with military operations, explaining that once deployed in a secure system, Anthropic has no access to the technology [10]. Group 4: Security and Compliance - Ramasamy emphasizes that Anthropic employees have undergone U.S. government security clearance vetting, which is required for access to classified information [12]. - He asserts that Anthropic is unique among AI companies in having cleared personnel who developed AI models for classified environments [12]. Group 5: Government's Position - Anthropic's lawsuit argues that the supply-chain risk designation is government retaliation for its views on AI safety, violating the First Amendment [13]. - The government contends that Anthropic's refusal to allow military use of its technology is a business decision, not protected speech, and that the designation is a national security measure [14].