1. United States
2. Ind.
3. Letter

Senator, I am writing to express firm opposition to any effort—whether formal or exploratory—to direct a private AI company such as Anthropic to build or support a centralized surveillance system targeting U.S. citizens. Recent reporting and public discussion referencing proposals associated with Pete Hegseth raise serious constitutional and civil liberty concerns. The creation of a “master” AI-enabled surveillance platform would fundamentally alter the balance between state power and individual rights in the United States. The core issues are straightforward: 1. Fourth Amendment Protections A system designed for broad monitoring, predictive profiling, or mass data aggregation risks normalizing suspicionless surveillance. Constitutional protections against unreasonable search and seizure must not be diluted by technological capability. 2. Centralization of Power A unified AI surveillance architecture would concentrate unprecedented analytical authority within the executive branch. History shows that surveillance authorities expand in scope once infrastructure exists, regardless of original intent. 3. Chilling Effects on Speech and Association The perception that advanced AI tools are continuously mapping behavior, relationships, and communication patterns would suppress lawful dissent, political participation, and open discourse. 4. Corporate–Government Entanglement Compelling or pressuring a private AI firm to build such infrastructure erodes trust in U.S. technology companies and sets a precedent that innovation pipelines can be redirected toward domestic monitoring. 5. Strategic and Cybersecurity Risk A centralized intelligence dataset on American citizens would become a high-value target for hostile states and non-state actors. Breach risk alone should disqualify this concept. National security is essential. However, security frameworks must remain bounded by constitutional guardrails. Broad domestic surveillance enabled by frontier AI systems is not a proportional or defensible response to modern threats. I request the following: - Public clarification of whether any federal agency has sought or intends to seek AI-enabled mass surveillance capabilities. - Legislative safeguards explicitly prohibiting centralized AI systems for generalized domestic monitoring. - Oversight hearings examining the intersection of advanced AI models and civil liberties protections. The United States should lead in AI innovation without normalizing internal surveillance architectures that resemble the systems we criticize abroad. I appreciate your attention to this matter and expect strong oversight to ensure constitutional boundaries are preserved. Respectfully