Statement from Faith Family Technology Network on Moral Guardrails in Artificial Intelligence

We, the undersigned members of Jewish, Christian, and Muslim communities, write to express our deep concern over the U.S. government's campaign to compel AI companies to remove fundamental ethical safeguards, and to mete out unprecedented punishment on those who do not comply.

We write together because what is at stake transcends any one faith tradition: the sanctity of human life, the right to privacy and dignity, and the freedom of conscience itself. These are values sacred to all our traditions and enshrined in the founding documents of this nation.

The Context

As people of faith who are deeply engaged in the world of technology, we are not naïve to AI’s complicated ongoing effects on society, or the deep concern that we feel about the technologies AI firms are developing. At the same time, it is of vital importance that the moral deliberations being conducted within AI firms and the moral principles they put forward not be overridden by governments seeking to eke out any and every benefit from these imperfect technologies.

Anthropic, a leading AI company, contracted with the Department of War to develop military technologies. The company drew a line in two places: (1) its technology must not be deployed for mass surveillance of American citizens, and (2) its technology must not be used for fully autonomous weapons systems that can kill human beings without human involvement in the choice of target and decision to kill. Despite full knowledge of these conditions, the Department of War demanded they be removed, insisting on access for "all lawful purposes."

On February 27, 2026, the Department of War designated Anthropic a "supply chain risk" (SCR)--a designation heretofore reserved for companies under the control of foreign adversaries in wartime. Even most Chinese companies are not designated as SCRs; Anthropic is an American company based in San Francisco. Furthermore, the Department went beyond any previous SCR designation, insisting, likely contrary to the law, that all Department contractors cease any commercial relationship with Anthropic, even if unrelated to military work, essentially economically canceling Anthropic given how ubiquitous the DoW is as a counterparty. That same day, President Trump escalated by directing every federal agency to "immediately cease" using Anthropic's technology, threatening "major civil and criminal consequences.”

We recognize that the question of whether private companies should impose policy constraints on military technology is a legitimate one on which people of conscience will disagree. But the government had far less drastic options available — canceling the contract, issuing new procurement guidance, pursuing legislation. The unprecedented decision to economically destroy a private company for a principled stance goes beyond the question of the balance of private and public power, into the territory of vindictive intimidation.

On the substance of those principles, what the Department demanded was the removal of the only contractual safeguards preventing the use of this technology for mass surveillance and autonomous killing, at a time when we know these tools still frequently hallucinate.   While many of us feel Anthropic has also acted contrary to important moral principles, those that they chose to defend here are core to the preservation of human dignity and religious liberty.

Our Concern

While we recognize that decisions regarding national security ordinarily rest with the national sovereign, and that in a pluralistic society governments must retain discretion to take actions that will not command the moral assent of all their members, it is essential, if society is to maintain its moral health, that every reasonable accommodation be made to deeply held convictions of conscience. This is true even in the case of corporations, which, while creatures of the state, nonetheless consist of and are led by human individuals, accountable to their Creator for the use of the tools they build. 

The dispute before us, however, is not between our government and a rogue company using its market power to impose unreasonable conditions on our public representatives. It is not even a dispute over a matter of deep moral ambiguity. At stake are questions of fundamental morality that transcend political and theological differences, and that should concern every believer and every person of good will.

While we look forward to the day when the most fundamental principles of human dignity in relation to AI are codified in the laws of the land, until then we are called as witnesses to them and in that witness to make common cause with their defenders, however flawed. When the actions of private companies fundamentally contradict the laws of God, we will always stand for the efforts of the state, however imperfect, to restrain them. But when the state does the same, we will stand by the rights of conscience, however imperfect are those that exercise them.

Our Position

As Jews, Christians, and Muslims, we affirm the following principles:

1. Freedom of conscience is sacred in all our traditions and in the American tradition, and the government is attacking it. The rabbis of the Mishnah recognized freedom to make moral choices as a core human value (Avot 3:15).  The Christian tradition holds that conscience is the voice of God within each person, a guide that no earthly authority may compel one to violate. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states "The citizen is obliged in conscience not to follow the directives of civil authorities when they are contrary to the demands of the moral order, to the fundamental rights of persons or the teachings of the Gospel" [CCC 2242]. The Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, taught: "There is no obedience to any created being if it involves disobedience to the Creator” (Musnad Ahmad). Freedom of conscience is also foundational to the American experiment; it is the value that animates the First Amendment and that the Supreme Court has called the "fixed star in our constitutional constellation." When a person or organization identifies wrongdoing, refusing to participate is not merely a right. It is an obligation. The government's actions against Anthropic strike at the heart of all these traditions.

2. Killing is a grave moral act that must never be fully delegated to machines. All three of our traditions hold human life to be sacred. Both Judaism and Christianity teach that all human beings are created in the image of God (b’tselem Elohim / imago Dei). Jesus taught that not even a sparrow is forgotten before God, and that human beings are worth immeasurably more (Luke 12:6–7). While the Christian tradition affirms that the use of lethal force may sometimes be justified in the protection of the innocent, it remains a grave moral act for which humans must assume direct responsibility before God. The Quran states: "Whoever kills a soul, it is as if he has killed all of humanity; and whoever saves a soul, it is as if he has saved all of humanity" (5:32); the rabbis of the Mishnah claimed the very same. If we outsource the decision to take a life to machines that have no conscience, no moral accountability, and no capacity for mercy, we risk entering a world in which no person is forced to confront the monumental cost of ending a human life. This is a recipe for more violence. Therefore, every life taken must be a decision borne by a human conscience, not an algorithm.

3. Mass surveillance of citizens violates the dignity God granted to every human being. The Quran explicitly prohibits spying within one's own community: "Do not spy on one another" (49:12). Judaism and Christianity also recognize the importance of privacy’s role in upholding human dignity and the common good. What is at issue here is not intelligence gathering against foreign adversaries, but the mass surveillance of a government's own citizens. Whether conducted by humans or by AI, this violates principles deeply rooted in all our traditions. That a government would punish a company for refusing to enable it should concern every American.

4. "Legal" does not mean "ethical," and "all lawful purposes" is not a meaningful constraint. All three of our traditions recognize that not everything legal is morally good; all three expect people to hold themselves to a standard higher than the law itself. History has shown repeatedly that governments redefine what is "legal" to suit immediate aims. For seven years, the United States deemed torture legal by internal memo, in defiance of every international convention and common decency. What is "lawful" can be redefined in secret, without public debate, and remain in effect for years before anyone finds out. It is truly frightening to consider what the military could secretly deem "legal" in its use of AI. Conscience exists precisely for the moments when the law fails.

5. This sets a dangerous precedent for any organization that tries to follow its conscience. If a company can be banned from government, publicly vilified, and threatened with criminal prosecution for exercising its corporate conscience on the most basic ethical questions, few  will survive to exercise that conscience again. This does not just affect AI companies. It affects every organization -- including religious ones -- that may one day need to say no to the government. The precedent being set here extends far beyond AI and far beyond any single company.

Our Call

We call on:

• The President to reaffirm his commitment to the values of freedom of conscience enshrined in the First Amendment, and to rescind his executive actions against Anthropic.

• The U.S. Congress to enact legislation protecting companies exercising freedom of conscience from government retaliation, ensuring that no organization can be punished for refusing to participate in activities it believes to be harmful.

• The Department of War to withdraw its "supply chain risk" designation against Anthropic and cease its campaign of intimidation against companies that maintain moral governance.

• Other technology companies to exercise their own corporate consciences to prevent a race-to-the-bottom by accepting the real associated costs, including refusing to profit from or comply with the illegally expansive SCR designation.

• The American public to recognize the gravity of this moment, to make their voices heard, and to stand with companies that best support their values.

• People of faith to speak out. Our traditions command us to enjoin what is right and forbid what is wrong. When a company takes a principled stand at great cost to itself, our faiths do not allow us to stand by in silence.

America’s political leaders, particularly in the White House, have claimed that the United States needs to win the AI race against our authoritarian adversary China. Beating China requires far more than scaling the American AI industry and integrating it into our national defense. It demands, above all, that we shape our use of AI according to the principles that have carried this nation through trial after trial. Freedom of conscience, the rights of American citizens, and the moral vision of our religious communities are vital to maintain, or the price of winning the AI race will be the soul of our great nation.

We believe this moment represents a grave test. The question is not whether our government has the power to compel compliance. It is whether a free society will protect the right of its members to follow their conscience, even when that conscience is inconvenient. Our traditions are unanimous: it must.

*Note: the Department narrowed its position hours after this statement was released, confirming the designation applies only to Claude's use as a direct part of DOW contracts — not to broader commercial relationships. Anthropic is challenging the designation in court (Where things stand with the Department of War \ Anthropic).