"All Lawful Use": Much More Than You Wanted To Know

Apr 2, 2026

A heated policy clash over whether AI should be allowed for “all lawful use,” with questions about loopholes that could permit mass surveillance or autonomous weapons. A recent supply chain designation and a rapid agreement reshuffle the landscape. The legal and policy gaps that let governments repurpose AI get unpacked, and a list of hard questions to demand clearer safeguards is offered.

Ask episode

AI Snips

Chapters

Transcript

Episode notes

INSIGHT

Why Anthropic Got Branded A Supply Chain Risk

The Department of War labeled Anthropic a supply chain risk after Anthropic refused to allow use of its AIs for mass surveillance and autonomous weapons.
OpenAI then struck an agreement in principle, claiming guarantees against those uses, sparking doubt about weaker or toothless safeguards.

INSIGHT

Legal Guarantees Likely Won't Lock In Protections

ACX readers and the authors conclude OpenAI's promises aren't enough because current law has loopholes and DOW rules can change.
Contract language and claims that terms lock to 'current law' likely won't prevent future loosening.

INSIGHT

How The Law Treats Mass Versus Targeted Surveillance

Mass foreign surveillance is broadly lawful and the executive claims inherent presidential power to authorize it, with courts often declining challenges.
Targeted domestic surveillance requires court permission, but incidental collection of bulk data is permitted then limited to targeted queries.

Get the Snipd Podcast app to discover more snips from this episode

Get the app

Last Friday, Secretary of War Pete Hegseth declared AI company Anthropic a "supply chain risk", the first time this designation has ever been applied to a US company. The trigger for the move was Anthropic's refusal to allow the Department of War to use their AIs for mass surveillance and autonomous weapons.

A few hours later, Hegseth and Sam Altman declared an agreement-in-principle for OpenAI's models to be used in the niche vacated by Anthropic. Altman stated that he had received guarantees that OpenAI's models wouldn't be used for mass surveillance or autonomous weapons either, but given Hegseth's unwillingness to concede these points with Anthropic, observers speculated that the safeguards in Altman's contract must be weaker or, in a worst-case scenario, completely toothless.

The debate centers on the Department of War's demand that AIs be permitted for "all lawful use". Anthropic worried that mass surveillance and autonomous weaponry would de facto fall in this category; Hegseth and Altman have tried to reassure the public that they won't, and the parts of their agreement that have leaked to the public cite the statutes that Altman expects to constrain this category. Altman's initial statement seemed to suggest additional prohibitions, but on a closer read, provide little tangible evidence of meaningful further restrictions.

Some alert ACX readers1 have done a deep dive into national security law to try to untangle the situation. Their conclusion mirrors that of Anthropic and the majority of Twitter commenters: this is not enough. Current laws against domestic mass surveillance and autonomous weapons have wide loopholes in practice. Further, many of the rules which do exist can be changed by the Department of War at any time. Although OpenAI's national security lead said that "we intended [the phrase 'all lawful use'] to mean [according to the law] at the time the contract is signed', this is not how contract law usually works, and not how the provision is likely to be enforced2. Therefore, these guarantees are not helpful.

To learn more about the details, let's look at the law:

https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/all-lawful-use-much-more-than-you