President Donald Trump on Friday said he was ordering every federal government agency to stop using Athropic AI immediately.

‘THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA WILL NEVER ALLOW A RADICAL LEFT, WOKE COMPANY TO DICTATE HOW OUR GREAT MILITARY FIGHTS AND WINS WARS! That decision belongs to YOUR COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF, and the tremendous leaders I appoint to run our Military,’ Trump began in a lengthy Truth Social post Friday afternoon.

He added, ‘The Leftwing nut jobs at Anthropic have made a DISASTROUS MISTAKE trying to STRONG-ARM the Department of War, and force them to obey their Terms of Service instead of our Constitution. Their selfishness is putting AMERICAN LIVES at risk, our Troops in danger, and our National Security in JEOPARDY.’

The president said he would immediately direct every federal agency to stop using Anthropic technology.

‘We don’t need it, we don’t want it, and will not do business with them again!’ he continued.

There will be a six-month phase out period for agencies such as the Department of War, he added.

‘Anthropic better get their act together, and be helpful during this phase out period, or I will use the Full Power of the Presidency to make them comply, with major civil and criminal consequences to follow,’ he wrote.

He continued, ‘WE will decide the fate of our Country — NOT some out-of-control, Radical Left AI company run by people who have no idea what the real World is all about.’

Earlier this week, Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei refused demands from the Department of War to use its artificial intelligence for ‘all lawful purposes,’ but Amodei said no, concerned over the possibility it could be used for ‘mass domestic surveillance’ or ‘fully autonomous weapons.’

‘The Department of War has stated they will only contract with AI companies who accede to ‘any lawful use’ and remove safeguards in the cases mentioned above. They have threatened to remove us from their systems if we maintain these safeguards; they have also threatened to designate us a ‘supply chain risk’ — a label reserved for US adversaries, never before applied to an American company — and to invoke the Defense Production Act to force the safeguards’ removal,’ Amodei said in a Thursday statement.

He declared that the ‘threats do not change our position: we cannot in good conscience accede to their request.’

Assistant to the Secretary of War for Public Affairs Sean Parnell declared in a post on X that the department does not want to engage in either of those activities but is asking to use Anthropic’s AI for all legal purposes.

‘The Department of War has no interest in using AI to conduct mass surveillance of Americans (which is illegal) nor do we want to use AI to develop autonomous weapons that operate without human involvement,’ Parnell said in the post. ‘Here’s what we’re asking: Allow the Pentagon to use Anthropic’s model for all lawful purposes.’

‘This is a simple, common-sense request that will prevent Anthropic from jeopardizing critical military operations and potentially putting our warfighters at risk. We will not let ANY company dictate the terms regarding how we make operational decisions. They have until 5:01 PM ET on Friday to decide. Otherwise, we will terminate our partnership with Anthropic and deem them a supply chain risk for DOW,’ he noted.

Under Secretary of War for Research and Engineering Emil Michael accused Anthropic and Amodei of lying.

In a post on X, Michael called Amodei ‘a liar’ who ‘has a God-complex.’ 

‘He wants nothing more than to try to personally control the US Military and is ok putting our nation’s safety at risk. The @DeptofWar will ALWAYS adhere to the law but not bend to whims of any one for-profit tech company,’ he asserted.

In another post he asserted, ‘Anthropic is lying. The @DeptofWar doesn’t do mass surveillance as that is already illegal. What we are talking about is allowing our warfighters to use AI without having to call @DarioAmodei for permission to shoot down an enemy drone swarms that would kill Americans.’

‘It is the Department’s prerogative to select contractors most aligned with their vision. But given the substantial value that Anthropic’s technology provides to our armed forces, we hope they reconsider,’ Amodei said in a statement sent on Thursday to Fox News Digital. ‘Our strong preference is to continue to serve the Department and our warfighters — with our two requested safeguards in place. Should the Department choose to offboard Anthropic, we will work to enable a smooth transition to another provider, avoiding any disruption to ongoing military planning, operations, or other critical missions. Our models will be available on the expansive terms we have proposed for as long as required.’

‘We remain ready to continue our work to support the national security of the United States,’ he added.

On Friday, after Trump’s announcement, Hegseth claimed Anthropic ‘delivered a master class in arrogance and betrayal as well as a textbook case of how not to do business with the United States Government or the Pentagon.’

He added in a lengthy X post: ‘Our position has never wavered and will never waver: the Department of War must have full, unrestricted access to Anthropic’s models for every LAWFUL purpose in defense of the Republic.’

‘In conjunction with the President’s directive for the Federal Government to cease all use of Anthropic’s technology, I am directing the Department of War to designate Anthropic a Supply-Chain Risk to National Security,’ he added. ‘Effective immediately, no contractor, supplier, or partner that does business with the United States military may conduct any commercial activity with Anthropic. Anthropic will continue to provide the Department of War its services for a period of no more than six months to allow for a seamless transition to a better and more patriotic service.’

The General Services Administration also announced on Friday it was removing Anthropic from USAi.gov and their Multiple Award Schedule (MAS). 

‘GSA stands with the President in rejecting attempts to politicize work dedicated to America’s national security,’ GSA Administrator Edward C. Forst said in a statement. ‘Building resilient, secure, and scalable AI solutions demands alignment, trust, and a willingness to make hard calls. We’re committed to delivering results for Americans, and working with our AI industry partners who fit the bill.’

Anthropic did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital’s request for comment. 

Fox News Digital’s Alex Nitzberg contributed to this report.

When you open a chatbot, stream a show or back up photos to the cloud, you are tapping into a vast network of data centers. These facilities power artificial intelligence, search engines and online services we use every day. Now there is a growing debate over who should pay for the electricity those data centers consume.

During President Trump’s State of the Union address this week, he introduced a new initiative called the ‘ratepayer protection pledge’ to shift AI-driven electricity costs away from consumers. The core idea is simple. 

Tech companies that run energy-intensive AI data centers should cover the cost of the extra electricity they require rather than passing those costs on to everyday customers through higher utility rates.

It sounds simple. The hard part is what happens next.

Get my best tech tips, urgent security alerts and exclusive deals delivered straight to your inbox. Plus, you’ll get instant access to my Ultimate Scam Survival Guide — free when you join my CYBERGUY.COM newsletter.

Why AI is driving a surge in electricity demand

AI systems require enormous computing power. That computing power requires enormous electricity. Today’s data centers can consume as much power as a small city. As AI tools expand across business, healthcare, finance and consumer apps, energy demand has risen sharply in certain regions.

Utilities have warned that the current grid in many parts of the country was not built for this level of concentrated demand. Upgrading substations, transmission lines and generation capacity costs money. Traditionally, those costs can influence rates paid by homes and small businesses. That is where the pledge comes in.

What the ratepayer protection pledge is designed to do

Under the ratepayer protection pledge, large technology companies would:

• Cover the full cost of additional electricity tied to their data centers
• Build their own on-site power generation to reduce strain on the public grid

Supporters say this approach separates residential energy costs from large-scale AI expansion. In other words, your household bill should not rise simply because a new AI data center opens nearby. So far, Anthropic is the clearest public backer. CyberGuy reached out to Anthropic for a comment on its role in the pledge. A company spokesperson referred us to a tweet from Anthropic Head of External Affairs Sarah Heck.

‘American families shouldn’t pick up the tab for AI,’ Heck wrote in a post on X. ‘In support of the White House ratepayer protection pledge, Anthropic has committed to covering 100% of electricity price increases that consumers face from our data centers.’

That makes Anthropic one of the first major AI companies to publicly state it will absorb consumer electricity price increases tied to its data center operations. Other major firms may be close behind. The White House reportedly plans to host Microsoft, Meta and Anthropic in early March to discuss formalizing a broader deal, though attendance and final terms have not been confirmed publicly.

Microsoft also expressed support for the initiative. 

‘The ratepayer protection pledge is an important step,’ Brad Smith, Microsoft vice chair and president, said in a statement to CyberGuy. ‘We appreciate the administration’s work to ensure that data centers don’t contribute to higher electricity prices for consumers.’  

Industry groups also point to companies such as Google and utilities including Duke Energy and Georgia Power as making consumer-focused commitments tied to data center growth. However, enforcement mechanisms and long-term regulatory details remain unclear.

How this could change the economics of AI

AI infrastructure is already one of the most expensive technology buildouts in history. Companies are investing billions in chips, servers and real estate. If firms must also finance dedicated power plants or pay premium rates for grid upgrades, the cost of running AI systems increases further. That could lead to:

• Slower expansion in some markets
• Greater investment in renewable energy and storage
• More partnerships between tech firms and utilities

Energy strategy may become just as important as computing strategy. For consumers, this shift signals that electricity is now a central part of the AI conversation. AI is no longer only about software. It is also about infrastructure.

The bigger consumer tech picture

AI is becoming embedded in smartphones, search engines, office software and home devices. As adoption grows, so does the hidden infrastructure supporting it. Energy is now part of the conversation around everyday technology. Every AI-generated image, voice command or cloud backup depends on a power-hungry network of servers.

By asking companies to account more directly for their electricity use, policymakers are acknowledging a new reality. The digital world runs on very physical resources. For you, that shift could mean more transparency. It also raises new questions about sustainability, local impact and long-term costs.

What this means for you

If you are a homeowner or renter, the practical question is simple. Will this protect my electric bill? In theory, separating data center energy costs from residential rates could reduce the risk of price spikes tied to AI growth. If companies fund their own generation or grid upgrades, utilities may have less reason to spread those costs among all customers.

That said, utility pricing is complex. It depends on state regulators, long-term planning and local energy markets.

Here is what you can watch for in your area:

• New data center construction announcements
• Utility filings that mention large commercial load growth
• Public service commission decisions on rate adjustments

Even if you rarely use AI tools, your community could feel the effects of a nearby data center. The pledge is intended to keep those large-scale power demands from showing up in your monthly bill.

Think your devices and data are truly protected? Take this quick quiz to see where your digital habits stand. From passwords to Wi-Fi settings, you’ll get a personalized breakdown of what you’re doing right and what needs improvement. Take my Quiz here: Cyberguy.com.

Kurt’s key takeaways

The ratepayer protection pledge highlights an important turning point. AI is no longer only about innovation and speed. It is also about energy and accountability. If tech companies truly absorb the cost of their expanding power needs, households may avoid some of the financial strain tied to rapid AI growth. If not, utility bills could become an unexpected front line in the AI era.

As AI tools become part of daily life, how much extra power are you willing to support to keep them running? Let us know by writing to us at Cyberguy.com.

Get my best tech tips, urgent security alerts and exclusive deals delivered straight to your inbox. Plus, you’ll get instant access to my Ultimate Scam Survival Guide – free when you join my CYBERGUY.COM newsletter.

Copyright 2026 CyberGuy.com. All rights reserved.

The United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) abruptly cut off a video statement after the speaker began criticizing several United Nations officials, including one who has been sanctioned by the Trump administration. The video message was being played during a U.N. session in Geneva, Switzerland, Friday morning.

Anne Bayefsky, director of the Touro Institute on Human Rights and the and president of Human Rights, called out several U.N. officials in her message, including U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk and special rapporteur Francesca Albanese, who is the subject of U.S. sanctions.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced sanctions against Albanese July 9, 2025, saying that she ‘has spewed unabashed antisemitism, expressed support for terrorism and open contempt for the United States, Israel and the West.’

‘That bias has been apparent across the span of her career, including recommending that the ICC, without a legitimate basis, issue arrest warrants targeting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant,’ Rubio added.

‘I was the only American U.N.-accredited NGO with a speaking slot, and I wasn’t allowed even to conclude my 90 seconds of allotted time. Free speech is non-existent at the U.N. so-called ‘Human Rights Council,” Bayefsky told Fox News Digital.

Bayefsky noted the irony of the council cutting off her video in a proceeding that was said to be an ‘interactive dialogue,’ an event during which experts are allowed to speak to the council about human rights issues.

‘I was cut off after naming Francesca Albanese, Navi Pillay and Chris Sidoti for covering up Palestinian use of rape as a weapon of war and trafficking in blatant antisemitism. I named the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, Karim Khan, who is facing disturbing sexual assault allegations but still unaccountable almost two years later. Those are the people and the facts that the United Nations wants to protect and hide,’ Bayefsky told Fox News Digital.

‘It is an outrage that I am silenced and singled out for criticism on the basis of naming names.’

Bayefsky’s statement was cut off as she accused Albanese and Navi Pillay, the former chair of the U.N. Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory; and Chris Sidoti, a commissioner of the U.N. Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory. She also slammed Khan, who has faced rape allegations. Khan has denied the sexual misconduct allegations against him.

Had her video message been played in full, Bayefsky would have gone on to criticize Türk’s recent report for not demanding accountability for the atrocities committed by Hamas Oct. 7, 2023.

When the video was cut short, Human Rights Council President Ambassador Sidharto Reza Suryodipuro characterized Bayefsky’s remarks as ‘derogatory, insulting and inflammatory’ and said that they were ‘not acceptable.’

‘The language used by the speaker cannot be allowed as it has exceeded the limits of tolerance and respect within the framework of the council which we all in this room hold to,’ Suryodipuro said.

In response to Fox News Digital’s request for comment, Human Rights Council Media Officer Pascal Sim said the council has had long-established rules on what it considers to be acceptable language.

‘Rulings regarding the form and language of interventions in the Human Rights Council are established practices that have been in place throughout the existence of the council and used by all council presidents when it comes to ensuring respect, tolerance and dignity inherent to the discussion of human rights issues,’ Sim told Fox News Digital.

When asked if the video had been reviewed ahead of time, Sim said it was assessed for length and audio quality to allow for interpretation, but that the speakers are ultimately ‘responsible for the content of their statement.’

‘The video statement by the NGO ‘Touro Law Center, The Institute on Human Rights and The Holocaust’ was interrupted when it was deemed that the language exceeded the limits of tolerance and respect within the framework of the council and could not be tolerated,’ Sim said.

‘As the presiding officer explained at the time, all speakers are to remain within the appropriate framework and terminology used in the council’s work, which is well known by speakers who routinely participate in council proceedings. Following that ruling, none of the member states of the council have objected to it.’

While Bayefsky’s statement was cut off, other statements accusing Israel of genocide and ethnic cleansing were allowed to be played and read in full.

This is not the first time that Bayefsky was interrupted. Exactly one year ago, on Feb. 27, 2025, her video was cut off when she mentioned the fate of Ariel and Kfir Bibas. Jürg Lauber, president of the U.N. Human Rights Council at the time, stopped the video and declared that Bayefsky had used inappropriate language.

Bayefsky began the speech by saying, ‘The world now knows Palestinian savages murdered 9-month-old baby Kfir,’ and she ws almost immediately cut off by Lauber.

‘Sorry, I have to interrupt,’ Lauber abruptly said as the video of Bayefsky was paused. Lauber briefly objected to the ‘language’ used in the video, but then allowed it to continue. After a few more seconds, the video was shut off entirely. 

Lauber reiterated that ‘the language that’s used by the speaker cannot be tolerated,’ adding that it ‘exceeds clearly the limits of tolerance and respect.’

Last year, when the previous incident occurred, Bayefsky said she believed the whole thing was ‘stage-managed,’ as the council had advanced access to her video and a transcript and knew what she would say.

Frigid negotiations between the White House and Senate Democrats appear to be thawing, with the Trump administration submitting what it calls a ‘serious’ offer to reopen the government.

‘Yesterday, the White House made another serious counteroffer,’ a White House official told Fox News Digital. ‘Democrats need to make a move to end the shutdown before more Americans are harmed by a lack of funding for critical services like disaster relief.’

It’s the second offer from the White House in an ongoing back-and-forth that has left the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) without funding for two weeks. 

With lawmakers away from Washington, D.C., for the weekend, the shutdown will stretch into a third week.

The latest development comes after a week of stalled negotiations between Senate Democrats and the administration, along with concerns that an off-ramp from the shutdown remained out of reach.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., both acknowledged receiving the offer in a joint statement Friday.

‘We have received the White House’s counteroffer and are reviewing it closely. Democrats remain committed to keep fighting for real reforms to rein in ICE and stop the violence,’ they said. 

Congressional Democrats have spent much of the week accusing the White House of not taking the negotiations seriously, while Republicans contend their counterparts are asking for too much.

Schumer and Senate Democrats earlier this week blocked another attempt by Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., and Republicans to fund DHS using the original compromise funding bill.

‘It seems like the Democrats concluded this is maybe good politics for them. It’s not for the people whose lives are affected on a daily basis,’ Thune said earlier this week. ‘So, we’ll keep pressing to try and get folks to the table. But I think the White House — you know — they continue to exchange paper and trade paper and all that, and hopefully they’ll find a sweet spot.’

Democrats want stringent reforms to Immigration and Customs Enforcement, including requiring agents to obtain judicial warrants and identify themselves during enforcement actions, changes Republicans and the administration say are red lines.

Democrats argue the White House has not shown the urgency they would have expected, given that an agency central to President Donald Trump’s immigration agenda has been shuttered for nearly three weeks.

‘They haven’t indicated that they’re concerned about the closure of DHS,’ Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., told Fox News Digital. ‘They’ve been slow to come back on the proposals that the Democrats have made.

‘And no one has ever explained why there should be only one police force in the entire country that should not have to follow the same kind of rules as everyone else.’

Pakistan’s defense minister declared an ‘open war’ with Afghanistan on Friday after the two sides exchanged heavy fire along their shared border on Thursday, according to multiple reports.

Defense Minister Khawaja Mohammad Asif said in a post on X that Pakistan had hoped the Taliban would bring stability after NATO’s withdrawal, but instead accused the group of turning Afghanistan ‘into a colony of India’ and ‘exporting terrorism.’

‘Our patience has now run out. Now it is open war between us,’ he said.

The clashes came after the Taliban said it launched retaliatory strikes on Pakistani military positions, while Islamabad said it was responding to unprovoked fire in the area.

Reuters reported that both forces clashed for more than two hours along their roughly 2,600-kilometer (1,615-mile) border, threatening a ceasefire that had been agreed to in 2025 after fighting.

Thursday’s flare-up came after Pakistani forces carried out airstrikes inside Afghanistan earlier this week, with Taliban officials saying the strikes killed at least 18 people, Reuters reported Feb. 24.

Pakistan said it targeted militant hideouts and rejected claims that civilians were targeted.

The Taliban described an ‘extensive’ military operation against Pakistani army positions in response to the strikes.

‘In response to repeated provocations, extensive preemptive operations have been launched against Pakistani military positions along the Durand Line,’ Taliban spokesperson Zabihullah Mujahid wrote on X.

 In a separate statement, he said ‘specialized laser units’ were operating at night.

Taliban military spokesman Mawlawi Wahidullah Mohammadi also said in a video shared with Reuters that the ‘retaliatory operation’ began Thursday evening.

Mujahid said ‘numerous’ Pakistani soldiers had been killed and some were also captured. Reuters said it could not independently verify those claims.

In another post on X, Mujahid said, ‘The cowardly Pakistani army has bombed some places in Kabul, Kandahar, and Paktia. Praise be to God, no one was harmed.’  

Pakistan has since rejected the Taliban’s account. 

The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting said on X that the Afghanistan Taliban’s ‘unprovoked action along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border’ was given an ‘immediate and effective response.’

The ministry said Taliban forces had ‘miscalculated and opened unprovoked fire on multiple locations’ along the border in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province.

The post said the fire was being met with an ‘immediate and effective response by Pakistan’s security forces.’

‘Early reports confirm heavy casualties on the Afghan side with multiple posts and equipment destroyed,’ the ministry said. 

‘Pakistan will take all necessary measures to ensure its territorial integrity and the safety and security of its citizens.’

Pakistani security sources also told Reuters that 22 Taliban personnel had been killed, and several quadcopters were shot down.

The fighting follows Pakistan’s accusations that the Taliban is sheltering TTP militants behind a surge in violence and suicide attacks. 

The Afghan Taliban denies the claim. A day before February’s strikes, Pakistani officials said they had ‘irrefutable evidence’ that militants were launching attacks from Afghan soil, Reuters reported.