By now, much has been written about Anthropic’s dispute with the US government, to the point that it has its own Wikipedia page. The center of the dispute focuses on Anthropic’s reticence to allow the US Department of Defense free rein to use its core AI product Claude across surveillance and autonomous weapon developments. Everything came to a head once it was reported that Claude was used in the US invasion of Venezuela in February of this year.
An Open but Undecided Public
We set out to understand US public sentiment around the topic since the story was moving so quickly and touching an area of intense public interest, AI. In March, we surveyed 1,000 US respondents on what was happening between the DoD and Anthropic, and how AI is currently being used by the US military. Interestingly, most Americans are open to AI becoming further integrated into US defense. But, they are still deciding whom to trust, how much influence companies should have, and whether “ethical” positioning makes an AI firm more credible or more risky.
The Anthropic dispute has produced split media reactions. Some critics framed the company as unreliable or politically motivated, while others praised Anthropic for holding a consistent ethical line. That split is exactly why this is a communications issue as much as a policy or procurement one. This is a great reminder that communications has to work as both a sword and a shield: a tool to build trust, traction, and market share, but also a tool to defend the business when ethics, politics, and contracting priorities collide.
For companies in the defense technology space, the data shows that the public is open to modernization and expects the military to keep pace. In the survey, 53% say the US military adopts new technology somewhat or very quickly, 44% think the US is ahead of peer militaries in tech adoption, and 80% are at least moderately confident the military can keep up with fast-changing technology. AI also ranks near the top of national security priorities at 27%, behind cybersecurity at 32%. That creates an opening for companies that can clearly articulate where they fit and why they matter.
Anthropic as a Flashpoint: Control, Risk, and Corporate Responsibility
But acceptance is not the same as trust, and that is where the marketing and communication challenge becomes clear. When asked about the ethical and moral implications of AI, 45% agree that investing in AI technologies is ethical, yet only 36% agree that AI companies are trustworthy while 23% disagree. That gap shows that the public comfort with AI as a category is stronger than trust in the companies building AI products. For defense, that distinction matters even more than it would in other sectors, because government buyers and defense decision-makers are not just evaluating innovation or product fit. They need to understand the company’s judgment, reliability and whether its stated values will create additional risk.
The Trust Deficit: Acceptance Without Confidence
The Anthropic-related findings seem to increase the relevance of that takeaway. On the question of labeling Anthropic a supply-chain risk, 48% approve, 24% disapprove, and 28% are unsure. On restricting Department of Defense use of Anthropic AI, 38% think that would improve readiness, 19% say it would have no real impact, and 14% think it would weaken readiness. At the same time, 61% say private AI companies should have a major or limited say in decisions about military AI use, compared with only 24% who say government alone should decide. Americans don’t believe that technology companies should be forced to completely give up a say in how their products are used, but they are signaling that those companies need to explain their role, values, and guardrails more clearly.
The Sword: Communications as a Driver of Trust and Influence
That is the “sword” that I mentioned earlier. Strong communications can convert passive acceptance into active trust. In Anthropic’s case, the dispute centered on whether usage restrictions would remain part of the company’s relationship with the DoD. When those restrictions became a point of conflict, the fight moved quickly from contract terms to the public narrative. The vital communications “sword”, in this case, would put Anthropic on the front foot in positioning guardrails as a deliberate operating model, not indecision. If that case is made well, ethical positioning can strengthen trust instead of being weaponized against the company.
The Shield: Defining Your Narrative Before Others Do
Conversely, the marketing and communications “shield” matters just as much. Our data shows that 56% worry at least somewhat that the Anthropic case could discourage technology companies from speaking up about dangerous military uses. That suggests the public sees a real chilling effect when ethical stances become procurement liabilities. If a company waits until a crisis to explain its moral framework, it is already playing defense. The better strategy is to make it clear via marketing and communication efforts early and often so customers, policymakers, and the public understand it before critics or governments define it for them.
That broader trust problem is showing up outside our survey as well. In September of last year, Pew Research Center reported that Americans are more concerned than excited about the increased use of AI in daily life, reinforcing the idea that public acceptance of AI remains conditional rather than settled. The Washington Post’s reporting on the attempted firebombing tied to anti-AI sentiment against OpenAI CEO Sam Altman shows how quickly the AI debate can become emotionally charged and volatile. And Anthropic’s own recent news on its newest model, Mythos, raises the stakes further. The company reports that the model has identified thousands of zero-day vulnerabilities across major operating systems, browsers, and other important software, making it the kind of breakthrough that can trigger both admiration and backlash if the public story is not handled carefully.
If defense technology companies want growth during a time of expansive military spending across the globe, they need marketing and communications that clearly demonstrate what their brand stands for (and sometimes against). In a market where public support exists but trust is still being negotiated, marketing and communications is not a wrapper around the product story. It is part of the product story.
