AI and the Dangerous Fiction of ‘All Lawful Use’

2026-04-16 · Source: Tech Policy Press · Field: Legal & Regulatory — Compliance & Risk Management, Regulatory Affairs & Government Relations · Depth: Intermediate, medium

Summary

The "all lawful use" standard, proposed by the US General Services Administration for civilian AI contracts and previously disputed between Anthropic and the Department of Defense, risks widespread violations of international human rights and humanitarian law. This standard, which would grant governments an "irrevocable, royalty-free, non-exclusive license to use the AI System…for any lawful Government purpose," is problematic because national laws often do not align with international human rights standards, governments may disregard their own laws, and the standard does not scale globally. The dispute between Anthropic and the DOD in February centered on mass surveillance and lethal autonomous weapons. Recent events in Iran and Lebanon have further highlighted concerns about AI-supported decision-making's impact on civilian protection. The article advocates for embedding international human rights standards, such as those outlined in the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, into AI product design, development, and deployment.

Key takeaway

For CTOs and VPs of Engineering evaluating government AI contracts, you should critically assess "all lawful use" clauses. This standard is insufficient to prevent human rights violations and could expose your organization to significant ethical and reputational risks. Prioritize integrating international human rights standards, like the UNGPs, into your AI product development and deployment processes, ensuring due diligence and clear usage limitations are contractually defined to mitigate potential harms.

Key insights

The "all lawful use" standard for government AI contracts risks human rights violations due to misaligned national laws and global scalability issues.

Principles

• National laws may conflict with international human rights standards.
• Governments can disregard their own legal frameworks.
• Human rights due diligence must integrate into AI product lifecycle.

Method

Companies should embed respect for human rights into decision-making by following the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, undertaking due diligence, and integrating risk assessment into product design and deployment.

In practice

• Implement human rights due diligence in AI development.
• Set limits on government use of AI products.
• Restrict product capacity to enable harms.

Topics

• AI Governance
• International Human Rights Law
• Lethal Autonomous Weapons
• Human Rights Due Diligence
• Anthropic-DOD Dispute

Best for: CTO, VP of Engineering/Data, Director of AI/ML, Legal Professional, Policy Maker, AI Ethicist

Related on AIssential

• "All Lawful Use": Much More Than You Wanted To Know — Current US law contains broad loopholes permitting AI use in mass surveillance and autonomous weapons, despite company assurances.
• Amnesty: many mainstream standalone generative AI systems are not merely risky in deployment, but structurally incompatible with international human rights law because of how they are built. — Generative AI's core design, particularly mass data extraction, fundamentally conflicts with international human rights law.
• Inside the Anthropic, OpenAI, and Pentagon AI Public Fight — Disagreement over AI military use highlights a critical tension between "lawful use" and explicit misuse safeguards.
• From Anthropic to Iran: Who sets the limits on AI’s use in war and surveillance? — AI ethics in national security are shaped by contracts and procurement, not just principles.
• OpenAI and Google employees rush to Anthropic’s defense in DOD lawsuit — AI developers are asserting ethical boundaries against government use of their technology for surveillance or autonomous weapons.
• AI Safety Meets the War Machine — AI safety principles are clashing with military operational demands, creating significant contractual disputes.

Open in AIssential →

Editorial summary, takeaway, and curation by AIssential. Original article published by Tech Policy Press.