AI as a geopolitical asset, export controls and the US military’s confrontation with Anthropic

AI as a Geopolitical Asset: Export Controls and the US Military’s Confrontation with Anthropic

In 2026, artificial intelligence has solidified its position as a critical component of strategic infrastructure in the global great-power competition. Countries and corporations alike recognize that control over advanced AI technologies equates to influence, sovereignty, and security. As a result, AI development is increasingly intertwined with geopolitics, export restrictions, and data sovereignty initiatives.

AI as Strategic Infrastructure in Great-Power Competition

AI capabilities now underpin national security, economic dominance, and technological sovereignty. Major nations are investing heavily to build indigenous AI ecosystems, reduce reliance on foreign hardware and data, and develop autonomous systems that can operate in contested environments.

• Regional sovereignty initiatives are gaining momentum. India, for example, is rapidly establishing its own AI compute ecosystems, including domestic GPU farms and regional chip fabrication hubs in collaboration with TSMC and Samsung. This strategy aims to diversify supply chains and diminish reliance on external sources, especially given export restrictions on Taiwanese semiconductors. Similarly, Middle Eastern countries like Abu Dhabi are investing heavily in sovereign AI infrastructure aligned with regional strategic interests.

• Data sovereignty laws and export controls are central to these efforts. The U.S. has implemented strict export restrictions on advanced semiconductors and AI models to prevent proliferation to adversaries. These measures are intended to safeguard technological advantages but also risk disrupting supply chains and inflating costs.

• Data control and international regulation are further complicated by diplomatic efforts. The U.S. has instructed diplomats to lobby against foreign data sovereignty laws, aiming to maintain open access to global data flows critical for AI training and innovation. Conversely, countries like China and India are pushing for regional control over AI data and infrastructure, seeking to assert independence and strategic autonomy.

Export Controls, Data Sovereignty, and Geopolitical Tensions

The geopolitical landscape is marked by a tug-of-war between open development and national sovereignty. While international bodies like the World Economic Forum emphasize global cooperation on AI governance, national interests often lead to competing frameworks.

• Export restrictions on semiconductors, especially Taiwanese chips, are a key point of tension. These restrictions aim to limit China's and other adversaries' access to cutting-edge AI hardware but risk creating supply shortages that could slow innovation worldwide.

• Regional initiatives are also a response to these restrictions. India’s push to develop its own GPU farms and chip fabrication facilities exemplifies efforts to build independent AI ecosystems. The Middle East’s investments reflect a desire to establish regional dominance and reduce reliance on Western or Chinese supply chains.

The Pentagon–Anthropic Confrontation over Military Use

Amid this landscape, the U.S. military's approach to AI deployment is becoming a focal point of tension, exemplified by the ongoing confrontation with Anthropic, a leading AI startup.

• The Pentagon’s stance emphasizes strict safeguards, guardrails, and operational protocols for AI systems used in defense contexts. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has given Anthropic a deadline to open its AI models—particularly Claude—for military applications or risk losing military contracts. The military’s concern centers on security risks, operational reliability, and supply-chain vulnerabilities.

• Anthropic’s position resists overreach, challenging the Pentagon’s supply chain risk designations and safeguards requirements in court. The company advocates for a balanced approach that allows innovation and autonomy while addressing security concerns, but tensions persist. Reports indicate that Anthropic has refused to fully bend to Pentagon demands, citing legal and operational objections.

• Market and security implications are significant. The Pentagon’s ultimatum and Anthropic’s resistance highlight broader debates about AI governance: should military and government AI systems be tightly controlled to prevent misuse, or should innovation be prioritized to maintain strategic advantage? The conflict has already caused market volatility, with some firms like IBM experiencing stock drops following revelations of Pentagon–Anthropic disputes.

Conclusion

AI’s evolution into a strategic asset has transformed it into a central element of international power dynamics. Countries are racing to build indigenous ecosystems, enforce export controls, and assert data sovereignty—each action shaping the future of global AI governance. Meanwhile, confrontations like the Pentagon–Anthropic standoff underscore the delicate balance between innovation, security, and sovereignty.

Success in this multipolar AI future will depend on strategic agility, international cooperation, and robust security frameworks. As nations and corporations navigate these complex dynamics, AI’s role as both a technological and geopolitical lever will only intensify, defining the contours of global influence for years to come.