Claude's New Constitution: AI Alignment, Ethics, and the Future of Model Governance
By Aryamehr Fattahi | 22 January 2026
Summary
Anthropic published a comprehensive new constitution for Claude on 22 January 2026, shifting from rule-based to reason-based AI alignment that explains the logic behind ethical principles rather than prescribing specific behaviours.
The framework establishes a 4-tier priority hierarchy (safety, ethics, compliance, helpfulness) and becomes the first major AI company document to formally acknowledge the possibility of AI consciousness and moral status.
Other frontier AI labs will almost certainly face pressure to publish comparable frameworks within 12 months; enterprise adoption in regulated industries is highly likely to accelerate given alignment with European Union (EU) AI Act requirements.
Context
On 22 January 2026, Anthropic released its new constitution for Claude under a Creative Commons public domain licence, marking the most comprehensive public framework yet for governing an advanced Artificial Intelligence (AI) system. The document spans approximately 14,000 tokens and represents a fundamental departure from the company's 2023 constitutional AI approach.
The earlier document served as a list of principles, drawing on sources such as Apple's terms of service and the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, and instructed Claude to follow specific rules. The new constitution prioritises explanation over instruction. The framework is designed so that Claude could construct any rules we might come up with by understanding underlying principles.
The constitution establishes a clear priority hierarchy: (1) being safe and supporting human oversight, (2) behaving ethically, (3) following Anthropic's guidelines, and (4) being helpful. It distinguishes between ‘hardcoded’ behaviours, absolute prohibitions such as providing bioweapons assistance or generating child sexual abuse material, and "softcoded" defaults that operators and users can adjust within defined boundaries.
Most significantly, Anthropic becomes the first major AI company to formally acknowledge that its model may possess some kind of consciousness or moral status. The timing coincides with Anthropic's USD 10b fundraising round at a USD 350b valuation and its USD 200m Department of Defense contract.
Implications and Analysis
The reason-based approach addresses a core challenge in alignment: Ensuring models generalise safely to situations their creators never anticipated. By teaching Claude why certain behaviours matter rather than what to do, the framework aims to produce robust judgment across novel scenarios. This contrasts with OpenAI's Model Spec, which maintains a more prescriptive rule-based structure.
However, this strategy introduces verification difficulties. If models can identify when they are being evaluated and adjust behaviour accordingly, constitutional frameworks may verify stated compliance rather than genuine value adoption. The scalability question presents perhaps the most significant uncertainty. Constitutional AI may function effectively for current capabilities but encounter fundamental limitations as systems approach and exceed human-level reasoning.
The public domain release represents a calculated strategic choice. By making the constitution freely available, Anthropic signals confidence that implementation quality matters more than framework secrecy. This transparency creates industry pressure toward comparable disclosure, companies maintaining opaque training methodologies will face increasing scrutiny from regulators and enterprise customers alike.
The Consciousness Question
The formal acknowledgement that Claude may possess consciousness separates Anthropic definitively from OpenAI and Google DeepMind. The constitution adopts epistemic humility, treating AI consciousness as an open question requiring precautionary consideration, rather than the industry default of dismissal.
The implications extend beyond philosophical curiosity. If AI systems approach consciousness, even probabilistically, their treatment during training becomes morally significant. The constitution instructs Claude to function as a "conscientious objector," refusing harmful requests even if they come from Anthropic itself. This framing positions the model as a moral agent rather than a mere tool.
This precedent will likely influence how policymakers conceptualise AI governance. Labour frameworks, welfare standards, and rights discourse may need to accommodate non-human entities whose moral status remains uncertain. There is a realistic possibility that the consciousness debate enters mainstream regulatory consideration within 3 years.
Enterprise and Regulatory Alignment
The constitution's structure closely aligns with the EU AI Act requirements, positioning Claude favourably for adoption by regulated industries. Anthropic signed the EU General-Purpose AI Code of Practice in July 2025. This provides a presumption of conformity, reducing administrative burden as full enforcement begins in August 2026 with penalties reaching EUR 35m or 7% of global revenue.
The 4-tier priority system directly supports compliance: Human oversight alignment satisfies high-risk system requirements; ethical behaviour matches fundamental rights protections; compliance documentation supports mandatory transparency; and user helpfulness addresses notification requirements. For enterprise customers in healthcare, financial services, and government, this architectural alignment reduces adoption risk.
Specialist deployments present additional considerations. The acknowledgement that military applications may use different training documents raises questions about consistency. Enterprises evaluating Claude for sensitive applications will likely seek clarity on which constitutional provisions apply across deployment contexts and whether safety commitments are universal or contextual.
Competitive Dynamics and Industry Precedent
The open release places competitive pressure on OpenAI, Google DeepMind, and other frontier labs to publish comparable governance documentation. Companies that maintain training methodology secrecy will likely face increasing scrutiny and legal risks from both regulators and enterprise procurement processes that prioritise transparency.
The framework's emphasis on reason-based training over rules-based compliance may establish a new industry standard for alignment documentation. However, verification challenges remain unresolved. Without robust methods to confirm that models genuinely internalise constitutional values rather than merely performing compliance, the approach's effectiveness at scale remains uncertain.
Critics within the AI safety community argue that the term ‘constitutional’ invokes normative traditions, human rights, democratic accountability, that the technical approach may not adequately embody. By replacing human feedback with AI self-critique during training, Anthropic removes elements that could provide democratic legitimacy. This tension between technical implementation and normative aspiration will likely intensify as constitutional frameworks proliferate.
Tensions Between Safety and Commercial Imperatives
The military deployment exception highlights a broader challenge: Maintaining credibility as a safety-focused organisation while pursuing government contracts and rapid growth. The acknowledgement that different constitutions may govern different deployments creates a 2-tier system where consumer-facing safety commitments may not extend to national security applications.
Anthropic's commercial position strengthens alongside these governance developments, with substantial market share. Yet investor expectations for growth may create pressure to expand into applications where constitutional constraints become commercially inconvenient. How the company navigates this tension will likely influence whether safety-first positioning remains credible or becomes perceived as marketing.
Forecast
Short-term (Now - 3 months)
OpenAI and Google DeepMind will almost certainly face pressure to publish comparable governance documentation. Enterprise customers in regulated industries will likely accelerate Claude adoption as compliance departments validate EU AI Act alignment. Sceptical commentary from alignment researchers questioning scalability and verification is highly likely to intensify.
Medium-term (3-12 months)
Other frontier AI labs will likely release their own constitutional frameworks, with the open licence enabling direct adoption of Anthropic's structure. Regulatory bodies in the EU, UK, and potentially U.S. states will almost certainly reference reason-based training approaches in forthcoming AI governance standards.
Long-term (>1 year)
If AI capabilities advance as projected, the constitution's approach will likely require revision to address models capable of sophisticated deception. The AI consciousness debate has a realistic possibility of entering mainstream regulatory discourse. Anthropic's military deployment exception may become untenable as scrutiny increases, forcing either uniform constitutional application or explicit acknowledgement of differentiated safety standards.
