Markwayne Mullin nomination to be DHS secretary narrowly clears Senate committee with support from Democrat Fetterman

(NEW YORK) — OpenAI CEO Sam Altman told employees at an all-hands meeting that the company doesn’t “get to make operational decisions” about how its artificial intelligence technology is used by the Pentagon, according to a source familiar with the meeting.

“So maybe you think the Iran strike was good and the Venezuela invasion was bad,” Altman said in Tuesday’s meeting, according to the source. “You don’t get to weigh in on that.”

The comments came days after OpenAI announced they had reached an agreement with the Pentagon to deploy their models on their classified network, hours after the deal between Anthropic and the Pentagon fell apart.

OpenAI is best known as the company behind generative AI chatbot ChatGPT, while Anthropic is responsible for the chatbot Claude.

At the center of the fight between Anthropic and the Department of Defense is the question of who gets to control how AI is used by the military: the companies that make the technology or the government that deploys it?

Anthropic was the first AI company to be used on classified networks and its technology is widely considered the most advanced. The talks fell apart over Anthropic’s red lines: they were against their models being used for fully autonomous weapons or mass surveillance of Americans. The Pentagon argued they needed its technology for all lawful use cases.

The department, which was informally renamed as the Department of War via executive order last year, addressed the red lines in a social media post last week.

“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,” spokesperson Sean Parnell wrote. “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.”  

The Pentagon set a deadline of 5 p.m. last Friday for Anthropic to acquiesce to its demands or be essentially blacklisted. With negotiations at an impasse, Trump ordered the government to stop using the company’s products and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth declared Anthropic would be designated a “supply chain risk”, essentially cutting the American company off from government work.

According to a source, Anthropic still has not received a notification from the government about being designated a supply chain risk, outside of Hegseth’s tweet announcing it.

The breakdown in talks came hours before the U.S. launched strikes in Iran. According to multiple reports, Anthropic’s AI models were used for the U.S. operation in Iran.  

Anthropic is not commenting on those reports. In response, a Pentagon spokesperson tells ABC: “The Department declines to comment citing operational security.”

When OpenAI announced its deal with the Pentagon, Altman said it shared the same red lines as Anthropic.

“Two of our most important safety principles are prohibitions on domestic mass surveillance and human responsibility for the use of force, including for autonomous weapon systems,” he said in a statement. “The DoW agrees with these principles, reflects them in law and policy, and we put them into our agreement.”

Days later, amid an onslaught of criticism, Altman said in a post this week that the company “shouldn’t have rushed” its deal with the Pentagon, saying that “it just looked opportunistic and sloppy.”

Altman unveiled an adjusted agreement with the Pentagon that he says provides stronger guarantees that the military won’t use OpenAI’s systems for domestic surveillance.

“We are going to amend our deal to add this language, in addition to everything else: ‘Consistent with applicable laws, including the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, National Security Act of 1947, FISA Act of 1978, the AI system shall not be intentionally used for domestic surveillance of U.S. persons and nationals,'” he wrote in a statement.

“There are many things the technology just isn’t ready for, and many areas we don’t yet understand the tradeoffs required for safety. We will work through these, slowly, with the DoW, with technical safeguards and other methods,” he added.

OpenAI says they believe their contract has even “better guarantees” than what Anthropic had originally signed with the Pentagon.

“This language makes explicit that our tools will not be used to conduct domestic surveillance of U.S. persons, including through the procurement or use of commercially acquired personal or identifiable information,” the company wrote in a statement. “The Department also affirmed that our services will not be used by Department of War intelligence agencies like the NSA. Any services to those agencies would require a new agreement.”

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Members of the House Oversight Committee are set to depose a key member of Jeffrey Epstein’s inner circle who for more than two decades had a critical role managing his personal, financial and legal affairs.

Darren Indyke served as Epstein’s longtime attorney since the mid-1990s.

As Epstein for years attempted to avoid scrutiny while orchestrating a notorious sex trafficking operation, Indyke — together with accountant Richard Kahn — allegedly helped him navigate legal issues and formed part of the financier’s inner circle. Indyke allegedly helped facilitate at least three sham marriages between Epstein’s victims and withdrew hundreds of thousands of dollars in cash for Epstein, according to one lawsuit, and attested to Epstein’s character when he faced legal scrutiny. 

“Knowing that they would earn millions of dollars in exchange for facilitating Epstein’s sex abuse and trafficking, Indyke and Kahn chose money and power over following the law,” alleged one lawsuit that Indyke and Kahn agreed to settle with no admission of wrongdoing.

Neither man has been charged with any crimes. They both deny any wrongdoing and say they were unaware of Epstein’s crimes while working for him. 

The deposition Thursday comes as the House Oversight Committee attempts to zero in on members of Epstein’s inner circle to better understand how the disgraced financier was able to commit decades of crime with seeming impunity.

Following higher profile depositions of people like billionaire Leslie Wexner as well as Bill and Hillary Clinton, the questioning of both Indyke and Kahn arguably presents the committee with their strongest opportunity to learn more about Epstein’s life and crimes.

“I was not aware of the nature or extent of Epstein’s abuse of so many women until after Epstein’s death,” Kahn told lawmakers last week, according to his prepared remarks. “However, it pains me to think, and I deeply regret, that I may have unknowingly assisted Epstein in any way.”

Executor of Epstein’s Trust 
In a will signed two days before he was found dead in a Manhattan jail cell, Epstein named Kahn and Indyke as the co-executors of his estate and bequeathed them $25 million and $50 million, respectively. At the time of his death, Epstein’s estate was valued as much as $650 million. It was last valued at approximately $127 million, according to an October 2025 court filing, after paying out multiple settlements to Epstein’s victims.

As co-executors of Epstein’s estate, Indyke and Kahn recently agreed to settle a proposed class-action lawsuit brought by Epstein’s victims that accused them of “facilitation, participation, and concealment of Epstein’s illegal conduct” for their own financial gain.

According to the lawsuit, both men helped “structure Epstein’s bank accounts and cash withdrawals to give Epstein and his associates access to large amounts of cash in furtherance of sex trafficking.”

“The Epstein Enterprise would not have existed for the duration it did and at its scope and scale, without the collaboration and support of others. No one, except perhaps Ghislaine Maxwell, was as essential and central to Epstein’s operation as these Defendants,” the lawsuit alleged.

The settlement did not include an admission of wrongdoing and still needs to be approved by a judge.  Though the lawsuit was brought against them personally, the $25-35 million settlement would be paid by Epstein’s estate, according to the settlement terms.

“Neither Mr. Indyke nor Mr. Kahn socialized with Mr. Epstein, and both men reject as categorically false any suggestion that they knowingly facilitated or assisted Mr. Epstein in his sexual abuse or trafficking of women, or that they were aware of his actions while they provided professional services to him,” an attorney for the men told ABC News in December. 

Allegedly arranged sham marriages
In a lawsuit filed by government of the U.S. Virgin Islands, Indyke and Kahn were alleged to have helped facilitate at least three sham marriages created to secure immigration status for some of Epstein’s victims, further securing control of the women and ensuring they could remain in the United States. 

“The victims were coerced into participating in these arranged marriages, and understood that there would be consequences, including serious reputational and bodily harm, if they refused to enter a marriage or attempted to end it,” the complaint alleged.

According to a civil lawsuit filed in 2019 by an anonymous accuser, one woman alleged that Epstein’s longtime attorney — not explicitly named as Indyke in the lawsuit — helped prepare the legal paperwork for the marriage, going as far as arranging photographs “to give the appearance that the marriage was legitimate.”

“When the victim inquired about getting divorced … Indyke tried to talk her out of a divorce and threatened that she would lose Epstein’s protection,” a 2024 lawsuit alleged. 

Files released earlier this year by the Department of Justice appeared to reference some of the marriages allegedly arranged by Indyke and Kahn.

“Good morning Jeffrey! We are going now to get marriage license,” an unidentified individual wrote Epstein in 2013. “She is asking if it’s possible to meet with you? Because she has some questions.”  

Withdrawing thousands in cash 
Court filings as well as documents released by the Department of Justice suggested that both Indyke and Kahn played integral roles in managing Epstein’s wealth and overseeing his regular expenses, including alleged payments to women.

According to the Virgin Islands lawsuit — which was settled by the Epstein estate with no admission of wrongdoing — Indyke and Kahn allegedly arranged payments from Epstein’s personal, corporate and nonprofits bank accounts to victims. That lawsuit alleged that Epstein — together with Kahn and Indyke — managed more than 140 different bank accounts.

According to documents released by the DOJ, Indyke served as an officer for many of the holding and shell companies related to Epstein’s real estate and financial holdings.

A 2020 settlement between Deutsche Bank and the New York state financial regulator also suggested that an attorney for Epstein — who sources told ABC News is Indyke — methodically withdrew cash for Epstein in a manner they said intentionally avoided scrutiny.

Limiting the withdrawals to $7,500 in cash — the maximum amount permitted and below the threshold to trigger concerns — Indyke allegedly withdrew hundreds of thousands of dollars for Epstein over four years. While the transactions were below the $10,000 limit to trigger an alert to the Treasury Department, a report by New York State’s Department of Financial Services faulted Deutsche Bank for ignoring red flags about Epstein’s bank accounts.

Jail visits and a character reference 
After securing a plea deal in Florida, Jeffrey Epstein was visited in jail frequently by Indyke, according to visitor logs maintained by the Palm Beach Sheriff. Indyke also helped secure a lenient work-release program for Epstein by vouching for his employment, allowing Epstein to leave the jail for up to 16 hours a day, ABC News reported in 2021.

Prior to Epstein’s plea deal, Indyke also attested to Epstein’s character. According to a letter sent from defense lawyers to prosecutors in Florida, Indyke vouched for Epstein’s character and claimed that Epstein provided financial and emotional support to his family.

“Although Jeffrey was adamant that we owed him nothing, Jeffery honored us by agreeing to be the godfather of our children,” the letter quoted Indyke. 

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — The historic treaty binding the U.S. and Russia to limit their deployment of the world’s most dangerous nuclear weapons lapsed overnight with no clear indication from Washington or Moscow on whether new talks would take place.

President Donald Trump, who in September appeared to be warming to the idea of renewing the treaty, backtracked last month, saying he would be comfortable allowing it to expire and hoped any new agreement would involve other parties.

“You probably want to get a couple of other players involved, also,” Trump told the New York Times.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio said Wednesday that any new arms control pact should include China, even though Beijing’s nuclear stockpile is dramatically smaller than that of the U.S. and Russia and any ceiling a deal might set would not be symmetrical to China’s arsenal.

“The president’s been clear in the past that in order to have true arms control in the 21st century, it’s impossible to do something that doesn’t include China, because of their vast and rapidly growing stockpile,” Rubio said.

Dmitry Peskov, the spokesperson for Russian President Vladimir Putin, confirmed the agreement was expiring Thursday.

“We view this negatively and regret this development,” he said, adding an offer from Putin to extend the deal went unanswered.

Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Lin Jian said his country would not take part in a trilateral arrangement.

“The nuclear forces of China and the U.S. are not on the same level at all, and it is neither fair nor reasonable to ask China to join the nuclear disarmament negotiations at this stage,” he said.

Last remaining arms control agreement

The New START treaty, which was struck between President Barack Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev in 2010 and went into effect the following year, was the last remaining arms control pact in force between the two nations, limiting the deployment of nuclear-capable weapons systems like intercontinental ballistic missiles and bombers — and placing a limit on the number of nuclear warheads which could be activated.

The U.S. and Russia have remained under the numeric limits of the treaty, whose “whole value” is “to have predictability between the United States and Russia,” said Rose Gottemoeller, a former State Department official who served as America’s chief negotiator on New START.

The U.S. has accused Russia of violating the treaty after Moscow suspended inspection and verification mechanisms during the COVID-19 pandemic, but Washington never accused the Russians of failing to adhere to the limits.

“The fact of the legally binding treaty limits [itself] has placed the brakes on any Russian attempt to build up the deployed systems,” said Gottemoeller, adding the U.S. has intelligence capabilities to unilaterally understand whether Russia is breaking promises under the treaty.

In September, Russian President Vladimir Putin offered the U.S. a one-year extension of New START, which Trump initially called a “good idea.”

But the U.S. never officially responded, according to Yuri Ushakov, Putin’s foreign policy aide.

In a statement to ABC News, The White House said that “the President will decide the path forward on nuclear arms control, which he will clarify on his own timeline.”

Russia and China have demonstrated increasing nuclear capabilities in recent years, a NATO official told ABC News. For its part, Russia has adopted a “posture of strategic intimidation” in its nuclear rhetoric, the official added.

Putin has flexed Russia’s muscles on nuclear arms over the past year, touting emerging technologies like its Poseidon system, a nuclear-armed and nuclear-propelled torpedo that travels underwater. Tactical nuclear arms like the Poseidon system were not covered by New START’s provisions.

“Restraint and responsibility in the nuclear domain is crucial to global security,” the NATO official said.

A “handshake” agreement?

Putin’s offer in the fall amounted to what would be a “handshake between the two presidents to preserve the limits of the treaty” even after the treaty itself formally expired, said Gottemoeller, who was under secretary of state for arms control and international security when the deal was originally struck and later became NATO’s deputy secretary general.

While the administration has pointed to China as a reason to forgo New START in favor of a broader deal, Gottemoeller said a one-year stopgap deal would actually help the U.S. pursue its arms control agenda with Beijing.

A one-year extension “makes sense for one very important reason,” she said. “We need to keep the Russians under control over the coming year, while we try to plan and prepare for what we’re going to do to respond to the … Chinese nuclear buildup.”

Gottemoeller and Lynn Rusten, another former U.S. official who helped negotiate the New START treaty, told ABC News a trilateral deal with the Chinese would not make practical sense, since China’s 600 nuclear-capable weapons are dwarfed by Russian and American stockpiles that are each more than 4,000.

A Pentagon report in December assessed the Chinese stockpile could rise to more than 1,000 in 2030.

The State Department did not respond to an inquiry about diplomatic channels for new arms control agreements with either Beijing or Moscow.

The president, who said he had an “excellent” call Wednesday with Chinese President Xi Jinping, did not say whether nuclear arms were mentioned.

Change won’t be immediate

The early days of a world without the last remaining treaty limiting the world’s largest nuclear powers will not be immediately changed, the former officials said.

“I don’t think we’re going to wake up tomorrow and be in a completely different world,” said Rusten, who led the U.S. government’s interagency process during talks over New START. “But I do think there’s going to be some mirror imaging. So if one country starts to build up its forces beyond New START limits, the other is almost sure to follow.”

The U.S. will have to “plan and prepare” for the reality after New START, given the Russians have more experience and defense capacity — including “hot warhead production lines” in support of its war in Ukraine, said Gottemoeller.

Rusten said the U.S.’s understanding of Russia’s arsenal will “atrophy,” a risk over the long run.

“Over time, we’re going to have a less and less precise picture of exactly how many Russian nuclear forces there are and where they are,” she said.

The U.S. and Russia — and the U.S. and the Soviet Union before that — cooperated on arms control for decades, managing to carve out the issue from other diplomatic issues which frayed the rivals.

In a statement marking the end of New START, the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation said decades of diplomacy between Washington and Moscow “helped reduce the global nuclear arsenal by more than 80% since the height of the Cold War.”

“Now,” the statement said, “both Russia and the United States have no legal obstacle to building their arsenals back up, and we could find ourselves reliving the Cold War.”

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.