Skip to main content

How the military is using AI in war

▶ Watch Video: Pentagon memo orders removal of Anthropic AI technology from key national systems

With Anthropic’s AI systems being ushered out of the Pentagon, a battle is brewing among other major artificial intelligence firms looking to capitalize on this potentially lucrative opening and shape the way AI is integrated into America’s military defense.

Earlier this month, the Pentagon called for Anthropic’s AI technology to be removed from military operations within six months — the result of an escalating feud between the company’s chief executive and the Trump administration. An internal Pentagon memo hinted that Anthropic’s artificial intelligence was being used in key national areas of national security, including nuclear weapons, ballistic missile defense and cyber warfare.

Sources familiar with the U.S. military’s use of artificial intelligence tell CBS News that AI programs — including one created by Anthropic, which the Trump administration has deemed a supply chain risk — are likely being deployed as part of the U.S. operation against Iran.

While the Pentagon has not said exactly how AI tools are being deployed, CBS News spoke with several experts with knowledge of military operations who described the likely scenarios. 

“The military is now processing roughly a thousand potential targets a day and striking the majority of them, with turnaround time for the next strike potentially under four hours,” said  retired Navy Admiral Mark Montgomery, senior director of the Foundation for Defense of Democracy’s Center on Cyber and Technology Innovation. “A human is still in the loop, but AI is doing the work that used to take days of analysis — and doing it at a scale no previous campaign has matched.”

How AI is used by the military

The Pentagon uses AI in the ways many consumers do — to summarize and distill lots of information at once. According to former Pentagon officials, by analyzing documents, video, and images coming in from the battlefield, AI can help the military war-game out scenarios to minimize casualties and determine which weapons can be most effective.  

“We’re living through a military revolution driven by the digital revolution,” said CBS News national security analyst Aaron McLean. “Today’s revolution is driven by the explosion of data: cameras everywhere, smartphones, connected cars. The battlefield is now flooded with information in ways that were unimaginable a generation ago.” 

With so much data available, AI has become instrumental in contextualizing it for military personnel at a speed far beyond traditional human analysis. 

“There’s now far more data than any room of analysts could process on timelines that matter. AI algorithms sift through it to build targeting packages, assign strike assets and assess damage — nearly instantly,” McLean said. 

“The Israel missile defense example makes this visceral: when hundreds of drones and missiles are inbound over a few hours, no human team can decide in real time which ones to intercept, with what, and when. That’s what AI is doing.” 

So far, Anthropic’s large language model, Claude, is the only large-scale AI system that’s been operational on the Defense Department’s classified systems. 

AI is also used for other administrative functions like research, policy development and procurement, according to Josh Gruenbaum, the commissioner of the Federal Acquisition Service, a government agency which helps decide which goods and services to use. 

“Our goal has been, and remains, to help agencies become comfortable using this technology and turbocharging output and efficiencies for the American taxpayer, while maintaining an evenhanded approach that welcomes American innovators who strengthen agency missions and enable the lawful deployment of these tools by government without inappropriate impediment,” Gruenbaum told CBS News. 

How AI works with physical weapons

AI doesn’t exist in a vacuum on the battlefield — there is still plenty of human oversight and physical tech, including everything from aircraft carriers to drones, from legacy defense contractors like Northrop Grumman, Boeing and Lockheed Martin. The large language models that power AI are not flying the planes or firing the missiles, but they are being used to do a lot of analysis before those things are done. 

According to Montgomery, this advancement has compressed operation time from days to hours. 

“It’s an important enabler in the military’s ability to rapidly plan and execute war fights,” Montgomery told CBS News, emphasizing that there are still humans in the process, but that AI is used to help plan potential strikes. 

A source directly familiar with the military capabilities of Anthropic’s Claude AI told CBS News the main task Claude is doing is sifting through large amounts of intelligence reports, like synthesizing patterns, summarizing findings and surfacing relevant information faster than a human analyst could. 

The targeting process remains human-driven, the source said. While Anthropic’s U.S. Government Usage Policy does allow the Defense Department to use Clause for analyzing foreign intelligence, the terms of use require humans to make any decisions on military targets.

CBS News has not been able to independently verify whether Claude systems were used in a Feb. 28 strike that hit a girls’ school in Iran for which the U.S. was likely responsible. 

AI is a significant boost to operations, but war could still be fought without it. More traditional legacy contractors still make the vast majority of weapons, according to Montgomery. 

“This war is being fought by weapons, 98% by weapons provided by the traditional primes, and they’re doing very well,” Montgomery said. He added that you could fight a war without AI, but it would be “less desirable.” “It definitely is playing a role that will probably only grow campaign after campaign after campaign,” he said. 

Big tech’s role in the military — and what’s changing

In July, the Pentagon signed a $200 million contract with the artificial intelligence company  Anthropic to integrate Claude into Pentagon systems. That contract has since been canceled following a dispute between the Pentagon and Anthropic’s leaders about who should have final say in setting restrictions on how Claude is used by the military. 

Now, the company is suing the federal government, alleging retaliation.”The Constitution does not allow the government to wield its enormous power to punish a company for its protected speech. No federal statute authorizes the actions taken here,” Anthropic said in the lawsuit. 

Microsoft and workers from OpenAI and Google have filed amicus briefs in support of Anthropic’s lawsuit. 

The Pentagon has a six-month off-ramp period to remove Anthropic’s products from its system, and is still using them in Iran, despite the supply chain risk designation. 

Meantime, other companies are getting in on the action. Google announced in a blog post on Tuesday that it is rolling out AI agents for non-classified military uses. On the heels of Anthropic’s fallout with the Defense Department in late February, Sam Altman, CEO of Anthropic rival OpenAI, posted on X about using the ChatGPT maker’s artificial intelligence models in the Pentagon’s classified network. The company then posted about language in their deal with the Pentagon honoring what they refer to as their three red lines on using AI: autonomous lethal weapons, mass surveillance of Americans, and high-stakes automated decisions. 

Judge in Don Lemon indictment asks to see grand jury records, adding to growing scrutiny of Justice Department cases

(CNN) — A federal judge in Minnesota will probe this week whether grounds exist to toss the Justice Department’s case against journalist Don Lemon. It’s the latest example of judges’ growing skepticism of whether the department is behaving ethically behind closed doors in grand jury proceedings.Judges across the country have signaled they are willing to give far less deference to federal prosecutors than in previous administrations and have raised concerns about DOJ’s apparent abandonment of regular practices.Federal judges in Wyoming, Illinois and Virginia have either thrown out charges or seriously admonished federal prosecutors for missteps in front of the grand jury. The botched grand jury presentments have prompted a historical review of cases in Chicago and, in some courts, new rules requiring defendants to be notified when a grand jury declines to indict.On August 18, Minnesota federal Judge Laura Provinzino issued a short but extraordinary order demanding the Justice Department provide her a wide swath of grand jury materials related to Lemon and his co-defendants, including presentations made by prosecutors and case agents, and the totality of communications prosecutors had with grand jurors resulting in their indictments.Provinzino set a Tuesday deadline to provide her with the presentation by federal prosecutors and case agents related to grand juries empaneled in January and February. Further, Provinzino told DOJ to provide any introduction, legal instructions, witness testimony, closing arguments, and answers to questions from grand jurors.Lemon’s team has aggressively pursued obtaining grand jury materials and had asked for either grand jury records to be provided to the defense or, at a minimum, reviewed by the judge privately, citing “irregularities” in the grand jury that resulted in his indictment.“There is substantial evidence of grand-jury irregularities in this case,” Lemon’s team wrote in a recent filing.“Multiple judges, including at the Eighth Circuit, found there was no probable cause to charge Lemon” and his co-defendant Georgia Fort, the filing said.Mark Wolf, a former Massachusetts District Court judge and federal prosecutor, said it is rare for defense attorneys to ask for grand jury transcripts in federal court. It is even more rare that judges grant the motions, he said.“There is a high bar to getting grand jury materials,” Wolf said. “You have to have some direct or circumstantial evidence that there has been some defect in the grand jury proceeding.”In her two-page order, Provinzino wrote that she weighed the necessity of maintaining grand jury secrecy against whether grounds may exist to dismiss the case due to a “matter that occurred before the grand jury.”She did not say she had already found evidence of any misconduct.The Justice Department’s initial attempt to charge Lemon in January for appearing alongside protestors who disrupted a church service in St. Paul, Minnesota, was rejected by a federal magistrate judge, which “enraged” then Attorney General Pam Bondi, according to a source who spoke to CNN at the time.Lemon, a former CNN anchor, was later indicted by a grand jury along with several other defendants, including independent journalist Georgia Fort. Lemon has been charged with conspiring to violate someone’s constitutional rights and violating the FACE Act, which prohibits the use of force or threats to intentionally interfere with someone expressing their First Amendment right to practice religion.Lemon has pleaded not guilty to both charges. His team has aggressively pursued obtaining grand jury materials throughout the case, and earlier this month filed a motion to dismiss the case altogether.Justice Department losing credibilityWolf told CNN he does not believe the Justice Department’s credibility remains intact.“For good reasons, the Department of Justice’s reputation with judges generally has been injured,” Wolf said.In Chicago, defense attorneys urged Judge April Perry to release grand jury transcripts in the highly publicized case against protestors at an ICE detention facility outside the city.After reviewing those transcripts, Perry found federal prosecutors engaged in inappropriate actions, such as interacting with grand jurors outside the proceeding, ordering some jurors to leave in another hearing, and “vouching” to the grand jurors.Vouching is a practice where prosecutors present their own reputation while delivering their case to a grand jury. It is forbidden in grand jury proceedings because the practice effectively asks jurors to trust the prosecutor personally rather than only on the merits of evidence.“I have never seen the types of prosecutorial behavior before a grand jury that I saw in those transcripts,” Judge Perry said during a May 21 hearing.US Attorney Andrew Boutros then dropped the case against the protestors. Later, after reviewing the prosecutor’s conduct, Boutros opted to drop at least two more criminal cases, ordered a historical review of more than 100 grand jury transcripts, and launched reforms such as more training on grand jury presentations.“If I was a federal public defender or a private defense attorney, every case I get that’s indicted, I’m going to file a motion that is asking the judge to review the transcripts,” said Mike Fox, a current Cato Institute fellow and former Colorado public defender.“In my view, at this point, it doesn’t matter in which court it is, doesn’t matter if I have binding case law,” Fox said. “Every single case, the defense attorney should be filing, and the judge should be inquiring.”In May, a panel of three federal judges in Wyoming dismissed felony drug and gun indictments against nine defendants after the judges found the acting Wyoming US Attorney referred to defendants as “bad guys,” and “murderers,” and handed out business cards to jurors outside of the proceeding.Prosecutors opted not to appeal the judges’ order. Later, Wyoming federal prosecutors empaneled a new grand jury which issued a new indictment. The case remains ongoing.Fox believes the remedy is a more engaged judiciary where judges routinely witness grand jury proceedings.The current law doesn’t require judges to listen to proceedings, but some courts are issuing new local rules to ensure greater oversight. This spring, the Northern District of Illinois, where Boutros is US Attorney, enacted a rule requiring grand juries to alert a magistrate judge when a grand jury fails to issue an indictment.A spokesperson for the Justice Department told CNN in an email the executive office of the US Attorney provides training for prosecutors which includes grand jury practice.“On rare occasions where there is an issue, as noted in our Chicago US Attorney’s office, we took immediate corrective action and provided renewed, in-depth instruction on ethics and grand jury practice,” the spokesperson wrote.“Our US Attorneys will always follow the law and prosecute cases without fear or favor. Nobody is above the law, regardless of political affiliation. Beyond that, we don’t comment on pending litigation.”Grand jury presentments in the spotlight last yearLast fall, in the most high-profile and politically charged example of a problematic grand jury presentment, then-interim US Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, Lindsey Halligan, took a proposed indictment against former FBI Director James Comey through a grand jury on her own. A magistrate judge in Alexandria, Virginia, reviewed the transcript and found Halligan may have incorrectly presented the law to the grand jury. The judge called the debacle “profound investigative missteps … to potentially undermine the integrity of the grand jury proceeding.”Halligan later admitted to a judge the grand jury hadn’t supported the initial version of the proposed indictment of Comey, and the full grand jury hadn’t signed off on the final charging document. That Comey case was dismissed for a separate reason, when a federal district judge determined Halligan wasn’t serving as a legitimate prosecutor. The Justice Department is appealing.But the grand jury handling in the Comey case and other cases continues to hover over prosecutors.Comey’s defense team, for instance, is attempting to pry into grand jury records in the separate, newer case against him, out of Eastern North Carolina. He is charged there with threatening the president by posting on social media a photo of the numbers “8647” written in seashells on a beach.The phrase 86 is sometimes used to say nix or get rid of something. Trump is the 47th president. Comey has denied wrongdoing in the case.“The highly irregular procedures that led to the indictment create a significant risk that the government misrepresented key issues of fact and law to the grand jury,” Comey’s lawyers wrote in a recent court filing, citing federal searches of Comey that they question.If Comey’s defense cannot gain access to the grand jury transcript, they at least want a judge to look at it to check the Justice Department’s work.Wolf said he is deeply troubled by the Justice Department’s recent actions and told CNN he believes it shows the American people that the department will use the law for partisan purposes.“It sends a message that a Department of Justice that should institutionalize our ideal of equal justice under law is not doing that,” Wolf said. “And that means anybody is vulnerable.”The-CNN-Wire™ & © 2026 Cable News Network, Inc., a Warner Bros. Discovery Company. All rights reserved.
Read Next Story