Trump Admin Using Massive Military Budget as Leverage to Do Culture De-Risking at Ivy League Schools

President Trump has now ordered federal agencies to stop using an AI service called Claude from Anthropic Technologies. The agencies have six months to phase out this tech. This is because Anthropic refused to give the Pentagon unlimited access to the model without guardrails, for example, on mass surveillance or in autonomous weapons. The Pentagon says that using this tech without having full access poses a risk to national security. Joining us now to discuss is Democratic strategist and creator of the Land of And, Jenna Arnold. And we also have our Republican strategist, John Deaton. Thank you both very much for coming on today. John, let's start with you. What do you see as the biggest benefits and risks of AI in national security? Well, I think what the Pentagon's having a problem with right now is a private company dictating decision makings that the commander in chief or the White House should make. Listen, China and Russia don't have the same ethical limitations or constraints. And so their argument is that if you put those ethical handicaps on our military, then we're at a disadvantage. Russia, for example, came out and said, whoever wins the AI race will rule the world. So we have obviously these legitimate concerns of mass surveillance and things of that nature. The Pentagon is saying the only guide should be any lawful purpose, and they're butting heads right now. Jenna, I want to build off that a bit. So Claude is currently the only AI model used for the military's most sensitive work. Meanwhile, we have adversaries like China developing AI with no restrictions. Should that shape how the US approaches AI use? Jack and John, it is lovely to spend this Friday night with both of you talking about this very sexy subject about how China is building their AI, of which we don't know. I totally agree with John that their ethical guardrails might not necessarily live up to our same requirements. But I want to be careful that what Claude is suggesting and requesting isn't manipulated to be some sort of political talking point around wokeness or what is a private company deciding what is ethical. Sam Altman has said that and Elon Musk have both warned that there's huge risks of AI if it's not properly managed. Elon Musk actually saying that AI is more dangerous than a nuclear bomb without a human intervening. My understanding is that Claude is asking or requiring and requesting the same kind of guardrails are put in place that Big Pharma put in place when it comes to their medicine, when it comes to car companies or plane companies installing seatbelts. The idea is that AI is still far too vulnerable and I use the term hallucinate, can hallucinate and can have catastrophic consequences if there isn't a human intervening throughout the process. So whether China, Russia or anybody else is developing something that does not meet my ethical requirements, it doesn't mean that we should too. I want to move on to our last topic, though it is somewhat related. We have the Department of War cutting ties with Ivy League universities starting next academic year. Secretary Hegseth has laid out the reasonings behind the decision. Let's take a look. For decades, the Ivy League and similar institutions have gorged themselves on a trust fund of American taxpayer dollars only to become factories of anti-American resentment and military disdain. They've taken our best and brightest, the men and women who pledged their lives to this nation and subjected them to a curriculum of contempt. They've replaced the study of victory and pragmatic realism with the promotion of wokeness and weakness. We've done a lot coming out from the Pentagon today. Has higher education increasingly fostered a critical and even resentful lens toward America? Do graduates today leave university more discontent with the country than they have in the past? Jack, that is a very, very smart question and a question that there will be many thousands of PhDs written about in the future. I happen to have graduated from one of those colleges. I've written a book about this exact subject and while I am laser focused on the specific areas, I will call them opportunities for our country to do better and at times there are days, there are hours when I feel disappointed in where we are. My commitment to this country has never waned because I'm able to look at history both good and bad and understand how it is that I am in the position that I'm in. My very specific life experience as a white privileged woman does not make me angry or bitter about the state of the country. It just says, okay, this is the state of facts. This is what it is that we have to now move forward with. It would be the same thing as getting a cancer diagnosis and being upset about the cancer diagnosis so you're not going to indulge in what the particular chemo cocktail might be. I agree with John that these kinds of conversations about wokeness, I mean I often laugh, I'm like I'm awake but I'm exhausted and being awake means you're just seeing increasingly more clearly. It's a huge opportunity for us to get even closer to our collective freedom and prosperity for all. It is mind-boggling to me that this administration and these secretaries and the brand in general that MAGA has created is trying to get in the way of what it is that we're also committed to the first few sentences of the Declaration of Independence. John, what does Hegseth mean when he says that some schools have become anti-American? What direction is he trying to steer the future of the Pentagon in? I think what he's trying to get at is that these aren't about budget cuts but more of a cultural and strategic decoupling and you know as someone who served seven years of active duty in the Marine Corps what I would like to see is administration from an administration from going from one extreme to the other extreme. You know the last administration I think went too far and I do think there is legitimate criticisms that they adapted woke ideology into the military but that doesn't mean that we go and we go opposite to another extreme and so these Ivy League schools the administration is using the massive military budget that we have and they're using that financial leverage to do this cultural de-risking. Now we got also to loop it into our previous conversation some of these schools here I'm in Massachusetts, MIT, Harvard these are leading institutions in AI and robotics automation so we don't want to deprive our military leaders of being able to access those institutions at the same time and what we have to do is find a real good balance of where we need to be and quit reacting from one administration to the other to the extremes. That's my personal I couldn't agree more with John that the opportunity that the opportunity cost of taking high-ranking professionals from the military who are studying an advanced degree in whatever might be biology and dare I say anthropology, history, theology these things are really really important when it comes to peace building and war prevention really important whether you agree with it or not like their history is told we have to understand how the stories are laid out so we can address them and in some cases prevent them in the future. It is just this desperation I see on the secretary's part to face his own vulnerability or our collective vulnerability and ignorance is together of things that we might never be proud of but I assure you if there's any ranking officials at any university who are going after a higher degree it's because they want to continue to contribute not because they're going to suddenly be like oh you know what forget it this country it's not worth it going back to Netflix it's not happening it's not happening. All right well Jenna Arnold and John Deaton thank you very much for sharing your time and insights with us today really appreciate it.