AI and National Security Syllabus Supplement

Congress must ban demands for payment to the government for national-security related approvals and prohibit companies from making these payments.

The Iran War and the public rupture between DoD and Anthropic point to a fundamental imbalance in current military AI.

The real test will be whether clearer policy guidance, legal authorities, and institutional structures follow the Trump administration's Cyber Strategy for America.

Stakeholders have a narrowing window to shape what comes next with highly autonomous cyber-capable AI agents—before capabilities increase further and incentives harden.

Do data centers qualify as lawful military objectives? If so, under what circumstances are they subject to attack? And what precautions must be taken before targeting them?

As the Grok case demonstrated, AI harms will continue to unfold without trusted channels between governments, industry and civil society.

Surveys how the 2025 ICRC GC IV Commentary integrates technology into its analysis of specific rules, while raising concerns about its treatment of data as property.

The 2026 REAIM Summit demonstrated the ongoing misalignment between global initiatives, industry narratives around AI capabilities, and the realities of military AI use.

The Trump administration’s salvo against Anthropic is invalidated by statutory limits, First Amendment freedoms, and the Constitution’s absolute bar against bills of attainder

Abuse of a tailored national security authority to resolve an ideological dispute playing out over DoD’s desire to change its contractual terms should not be taken lightly. 

The U.S. withdrawal from international cyber organizations will hamper intelligence sharing, coordinated response, and joint capabilities.

The Grok case suggests that effective AI regulation may come not from comprehensive AI-specific frameworks, but from applying existing harm-based laws to new capabilities.