It\u2019s little coincidence that the reason Grok is in is the same reason Claude is out.\u00a0<\/p>\n
A few days ago, Musk\u2019s AI company xAI signed<\/a> an agreement that Grok could be used in classified military systems. Previously, only Anthropic\u2019s Claude could be used on things like weapons development and battlefield ops. But Anthropic wouldn\u2019t agree<\/a> to the Department of Defense\u2019s ultimatum that it remove guardrails and limitations on Claude.\u00a0<\/p>\n Related | Hegseth sets alarming conditions for AI company’s contract<\/a><\/p>\n You no doubt have guessed that Musk has no issues with having no guardrails. Musk happily signed the demand that Grok could be used for \u201call lawful use,\u201d a terrifyingly vague term, particularly in an administration that does not at all respect the rule of law. Do you really want the lawful use of your product defined by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth?<\/p>\n The problem for the people who have to use Grok and, apparently, no longer use Claude is that Grok is a shitty AI platform.\u00a0<\/p>\n On Friday, only a few hours before Trump\u2019s temper tantrum, the Wall Street Journal reported<\/a> that officials at several agencies are concerned about Grok\u2019s safety and reliability, and that it is\u2014brace yourself\u2014\u201csycophantic and too susceptible to manipulation or corruption by faulty or biased data.<\/p>\n Even the top official at the General Services Administration, Ed Forst, raised concerns about Grok. Now, Forst is no career civil servant. Instead, he\u2019s a former private equity executive<\/a>, so if he\u2019s freaking out, it\u2019s bad.<\/p>\n But Josh Gruenbaum, a senior official at the GSA who was recruited by Musk\u2019s so-called Department of Government Efficiency, assuaged White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles that Grok\u2019s government platform is separate from its scandal-plagued public one. And apparently, that was good enough for Wiles.<\/p>\n All the high-level love of Grok is not shared by the people who have to use it. The Journal characterized the demand as \u201canemic,\u201d with a source telling the outlet that Grok had been used only in a few instances where people needed to \u201cmimic a bad actor for defensive testing.\u201d<\/p>\n Well, earlier this year, the chatbot was creating nonconsensual sexual images<\/a> on demand, so that definitely seems like it can play the role of \u201cbad actor.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n All of this Grok adoration played out as the government essentially went to war with Anthropic over its desire to maintain some guardrails<\/a> on the use of Claude, forbidding the military from using it for mass domestic surveillance and autonomous weapons.<\/p>\n Related | Oh great, Elon Musk’s pervy AI is about to pollute the Pentagon<\/a><\/p>\n In response, Undersecretary of Defense Emil Michael rage-posted<\/a> on X late Thursday that the head of Anthropic \u201cwants nothing more than to try to personally control the US Military and is ok putting our nation\u2019s safety at risk,\u201d and that the DOD will<\/a> \u201cnot bend to whims of any one for-profit tech company.\u201d<\/p>\n Buddy, settle down. The government\u2019s existing contract<\/a> with Anthropic included those guardrails. But then Whiskey Pete rolled in last month and said all contracts now have to be amended to the \u201call lawful use\u201d standard, which contradicts the limitations in the contract the parties signed.<\/p>\n Since the government has no interest in adhering to its contract, and since Anthropic seemingly withstood the administration\u2019s usual bullying, it changed tactics.\u00a0<\/p>\n Earlier this week, Hegseth threatened<\/a> Anthropic that the government would invoke the Defense Production Act, which would give the military the authority to use Claude however it wants, regardless of what Anthropic wants. However, the Pentagon also threatened<\/a> to designate Anthropic as a \u201csupply chain risk,\u201d meaning anyone who wants to do business with the military could not have any ties to or use of Anthropic and Claude.<\/p>\n As Lawfare pointed out, it isn\u2019t clear how Claude can simultaneously<\/a> be so vital to the interests of the United States that it had to be used in all defense efforts, no matter what, but also so dangerous that no one doing business with the federal government could use it.\u00a0<\/p>\n![\"Defense](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/AP25336635910028.jpg\" "\\"Defense")
\nDefense Secretary Pete Hegseth speaks during a Cabinet meeting at the White House in Dec. 2025.<\/p>\n