Trump Orders Federal Agencies To Stop Using Anthropic AI Tech 'Immediately' 135
President Donald Trump has ordered all U.S. federal agencies to "immediately cease" using Anthropic's AI technology, escalating a standoff after the company sought limits on Pentagon use of its models. CNBC reports: The company, which in July signed a $200 million contract with Pentagon, wants assurances that the Defense Department will not use its AI models will not be used for fully autonomous weapons or mass domestic surveillance of Americans. The Pentagon had set a deadline of 5:01 p.m. ET Friday for Anthropic to agree to its demands to allow the Pentagon to use the technology for all lawful purposes. If Anthropic did not meet that deadline, Pete Hegseth threatened to label the company a "supply chain risk" or force it to comply by invoking the Defense Production Act.
"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," Trump said in a post on Truth Social. "Their selfishness is putting AMERICAN LIVES at risk, our Troops in danger, and our National Security in JEOPARDY."
"Therefore, I am directing EVERY Federal Agency in the United States Government to IMMEDIATELY CEASE all use of Anthropic's technology," Trump wrote. "We don't need it, we don't want it, and will not do business with them again! There will be a Six Month phase out period for Agencies like the Department of War who are using Anthropic's products, at various levels," Trump said. On Friday, OpenAI said it would also draw the same red lines as Anthropic: no AI for mass surveillance or autonomous lethal weapons.
"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," Trump said in a post on Truth Social. "Their selfishness is putting AMERICAN LIVES at risk, our Troops in danger, and our National Security in JEOPARDY."
"Therefore, I am directing EVERY Federal Agency in the United States Government to IMMEDIATELY CEASE all use of Anthropic's technology," Trump wrote. "We don't need it, we don't want it, and will not do business with them again! There will be a Six Month phase out period for Agencies like the Department of War who are using Anthropic's products, at various levels," Trump said. On Friday, OpenAI said it would also draw the same red lines as Anthropic: no AI for mass surveillance or autonomous lethal weapons.
Constitution? (Score:5, Insightful)
We know you haven't read the thing, but seriously?
Quote me the part in the US Constitution that Anthropic is violating. Anyone?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Constitution? (Score:5, Funny)
Don't you dare touch my liquor!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
"At least he seems to think so."
So says the Supreme Court.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Constitution? (Score:5, Funny)
The part that says Trump is king. I know you have not seen it. It must be in the microprint somewhere. At least he seems to think so.
It's written in Sharpie at the bottom, you can't miss it.
Re: (Score:2)
Wait, what?
The Constitution is a restriction on the powers of the Federal Government, not on Anthropic. The Federal Government does have the ability to "regulate commerce" under what is called the Commerce Clause in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3.
I'm not sure what particular law(s) c/would apply here - if any - however I'm certain various courts might have to render a judgement.
Re:Constitution? (Score:5, Interesting)
You would think so, but as this Supreme Court has shown, the original intent of the Constitution was to give government power over the people. In fact, they recently said the U.S. Postal Service can withhold your mail for any reason for as long as they want [apnews.com], and there is nothing you can do about it [supremecourt.gov].
So yeah, power over the people, not power to the people.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Constitution? (Score:5, Informative)
Well you're not wrong. Most people forget the 9th & 10th amendments and what they actually say.
9. The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
- Basically saying, "just because we listed a few specific Rights here, that doesn't mean those are the only ones The People have."
10. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
- The Federal Government is not permitted to just assume new powers because we didn't specifically restrict it here. If it's not specifically listed in this document the government cannot do it.
How far afield of these rules has the Federal strayed? How much longer will The People tolerate it?
Re: (Score:2)
How much longer will The People tolerate it?
At least one person didn't tolerate it, but unfortunately he aimed slightly to the left.
Re: (Score:3)
The Constitution was meant to be revised as needed. That is why the provisions for amendments were written in to it.
The framers did not want it to be constantly in flux... but it was intended to grow and change with the needs of the people.
Re: (Score:2)
That's the claim I keep hearing, but when I look at how hard it is to get an amendment approved, I really doubt it.
There are legitimate reasons for weasel-wording around the clear text of the constitution. It isn't always with malign intent. (OTOH, stupid amendments have happened. We're still suffering from prohibition. So should it REALLY be easier to amend?)
Re: (Score:2)
Prohibition was repealed.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, it was repealed. But we're still suffering from the damage it did.
Re: Constitution? (Score:3)
The most recent, the 27th amendment , passed in 1992. It was first proposed in 1789.
Meanwhile, states and other countries regularly amend their constitutions, often by citizen votes.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I think you have absolutely hit the nail on the head here. The constitution has loopholes because the constitution was supposed to have loopholes, and that's actually terrible.
Re: (Score:2)
Very succinctly said. One of my pet peeve is people shitting on the government but not recognizing that it is comprised of humans. While I am not American, my understanding of the way the Constitution was written along with it's purpose ( I guess that is what the Federalist Papers are for ) was to build in feedback mechanism to tame the worst human instincts. Unless we find a system which incorporates ways to naturally prevent human nature from fucking shit up, I don't really see a solution. I don't re
Re: (Score:3)
There's nothing brilliant about it- it merely extends the 3/5ths compromise and Southern voter suppression to the Presidential vote instead of just the Congressional.
And that's what it does- it incentivizes denying people the right to vote, because the less people you have cast a vote, the more power is in the hands of fewer people.
I'm unsurprised you consider the antebellum US the better model
Re: (Score:2)
"I have an Article 2 where i have the right to do whatever i want as president...."
from a very stable genius
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
True. But that said, the Federal Government, like any other customer, can choose to not do business w/ Anthropic, or any other company that doesn't agree to its T&C
Another thing. Let's say that the Feds agreed w/ Anthropic, but once it was in, they break the terms on the question of having human overseers of target selection. What's Anthropic then going to do - sue the Feds? That process will be more of a punishment for them than for the Federal government
Re: (Score:2)
the Federal Government, like any other customer, can choose to not do business w/ Anthropic,
That'd be fine weren't for the fact that Trump declared Anthropic a national security risk "because yes", which means any US company that does business with any company that does business with any company ... that does business with the US government cannot use Anthropic lest they, too, be deemed a national security risk. This includes nVidia. So Trump is basically forcing Anthropic into going bankrupt unless Anthropic obeys.
For the record, that's a classic way in which historical Fascist governments have u
Re: (Score:2)
tbh he doesn't say they violated the constitution, but literally that anthropic wants the war department to respect their tos, which is .... what anyone would expect? if their tos violates the constitution i don't know but that should have been known a while ago, and anyway that isn't what such social-media-royal-decrees aim to dilucidate, being just public gossip with no legal relevance whatsoever.
yesterday i pondered if they wanted anthropic to comply and shut up or be gone, or just to be gone. it would s
Re:Constitution? (Score:5, Insightful)
He wants Anthropic to produce products that he wants that they're capable of making that they refuse to do on moral AND practical grounds (apparently this started when someone asked if Anthropic could produce a system capable of shooting down an incoming nuclear weapon, but escalated when Anthropic's CEO made it clear he wanted humans in the chain making life and death decisions), not to "respect a ToS". The right thing under the circumstances isn't to have a hissy fit and ban the supplier from everything, but go to a different supplier for the products the DoD wants.
The DoD and Trump administration are being batshit crazy here:
1. It is not illegal or unconstitutional or "against a ToS" for someone to refuse to supply a product they consider immoral.
2. It is profoundly stupid not to have a human decision maker in a decision making chain where a device may do things that cause the deaths of human beings.
(Note: this is not me defending an AI company. This is me being disgusted at the Trump admin's rationale. Anthropic are still ultimately a bunch of frauds creating misery by promoting a technology incapable of doing what it's promoted as doing. A pox on both their houses.)
Re: (Score:2)
when Anthropic's CEO made it clear he wanted humans in the chain making life and death decisions), not to "respect a ToS". The right thing under the circumstances isn't to have a hissy fit and ban the supplier from everything, but go to a different supplier for the products the DoD wants.
maybe that was in the tos, i couldn't tell bc i haven't read it.
anyway, maybe so, but what's the point of that hissy fit, then? what if the discussion has already been had, they already have a deal with openai (which ofc would keep loudly vowing their "moral" concerns in public while complying anyway), and the reward is precisely destroying anthropic (which is a close competitor to openai)? the cherry on top, once anthropic is broke and busted, what about making a move on its ip, which is in some ways supe
Re: (Score:3)
Don't be surprised if we discover the pentagon is planning to give anthropics contracts all to grok. And someones getting their pole greased for the contract...
Re: (Score:2)
if [Anthropic's Terms of Service] violates the constitution i don't know but that should have been known a while ago
I can tell you right now: Anthropic's Terms of Service cannot violate the Constitution. That's impossible: the Constitution constrains the government, not Anthropic.
In fact, Anthropic's Terms of Service are protected by the First Amendment. There could be provisions in law that constrain what a company can put in such a document, but absent such things, the Constitution is on Anthropic's side.
Re: (Score:2)
That's impossible: the Constitution constrains the government, not Anthropic
imo the constitutional angle is just trump rhetoric.
however, in an hypothetical case and depending on the relationship (if anthropic ever became indispensable for public infrastructure or function ... think of the postal service, telcom, ...) then it could be considered a state actor (as opposed to a private entity) and as such their tos would (or should) be constrained by the constitution.
again, i'm not saying this is the case, but if trump were to be taken seriously that would be the angle and gp asked. i
Re: (Score:2)
more like two shopping carts fighting around one looter. they're smart shopping carts!
Re: (Score:2)
OK. Yes. I see it.
Trump is saying that the Anthropic is trying to make the DoD follow Anthropic's Terms of Service rather than the Constitution.
Trump did not say that Anthropic is violating the Constitution.
I stand corrected.
Re: (Score:2)
But even rephrasing your post to account for the correction: which part of the constitution would the DoD violate by following the ToS? (Real question on my side, my knowledge of the US constitution is limited.)
Re: (Score:2)
There could theoretically be a conflict.. The military exists to protect the nation. Every service member swears an oath to uphold the Constitution and to protect the nation from all enemies, foreign and domestic. Nothing takes priority over that. If the ToS says "Don't do this" but it is a military necessity... they are going to do it anyway.
Anthropic already announced the are relaxing their ToS to better keep in parity with their competition.
The government could just quietly and privately keep pressur
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
>> Every service member swears an oath to uphold the Constitution and to protect the nation from all enemies, foreign and domestic.
What happens when "upholding the constitution" and "protecting the nation all from enemies" are in conflict with each other? What about conflicts with other commitments the US has made like the Geneva Convention? Who decides what is a "military necessity"?
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, ISTM that the pentagon is demanding that Anthropic be "an accessory before the fact" in violating the law.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The DoD is supposed to follow orders of their chain of command. If the ToS comes in the way, then they would be violating the constitution by disobeying the chain of command by adhering to the ToS. That's what this means
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks, that really could be what is in his mind. (I don't agree with the attitude, but it seems the correct interpretation.)
Re:Constitution? (Score:5, Insightful)
We know you haven't read the thing, but seriously?
Quote me the part in the US Constitution that Anthropic is violating. Anyone?
This is the guy who wanted to prosecute (and, if I recall, execute) six democrat members of Congress, who are (I think) all former service members, for seditious conspiracy because they reminded service members about their obligation to *not* follow unlawful orders -- ignoring the facts that (a) it's literally the law and stated in the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), (b) it's taught to all military personnel, (c) their speech is protected by the 1st Amendment and (d) they're *also* protected by the Speech and Debate clause of The Constitution. [all assertions are to the best of my knowledge]
Re: Constitution? (Score:2)
Just remember Donald and Pete let their ego get in the way per usual and this is the straw that will cause a massive market downturn. How many businesses are all in on Anyhropic's AI and will be non-functioning on Monday because of this ban. Get ready to see lots of red numbers.
Re: (Score:2)
'Department of War' - and you wonder why no other country takes you seriously.
Pariah nation.
Re: (Score:2)
Those of us that know we are not taken seriously do not wonder why.
Re: Constitution? (Score:2)
Quote me the part in the US Constitution that Anthropic is violating. Anyone?
Constitutionality is not the DoD's quibble.
Nor is it anything in the content of the Anthropic's objections. In fact the DoD explicitly insists they will not use AI for the surveillance or autonomous killing. (Which I suppose they could be lying about but then why not just lie about following the ToS, and they match in existing policy e.g. they insist on inserting human approval for any otherwise autonomous drone killing.)
If the DoD agrees with the principle of the restrictions what do they actually object
Re: (Score:2)
What ToS are too onerous to fit in what regimes would be subject to the logic you mention. That being said, a ToS being too onerous for one type of contract does not in any way imply that it would be for all contracts.
This is standard apologetics.
Shart out just the tiniest bit of rational reasoning, cup it, and throw it at someone so they're too off-balance to see that it doesn't actually stand up to scrutiny even a little bit.
If the DoD did not subject itself to any ToS
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't that just what they did? The government has 6 months to phase out their use, at which point, I suppose both sides would be happy
Re: (Score:2)
No, that's not what they did.
They didn't cancel the contract for which the ToS were too onerous for use- they banned Anthropic from use throughout the Federal Government.
We can ignore the threats to use the DPA to force them to comply as just Hegseg being a blowhard, but regardless, this is clearly punitive.
On one hand, I'm of the mind that the President has the right to do business with whoever he likes, but on the other hand, conservatives did successfully force Biden to do
Re: (Score:2)
It's just politicobabble.
In sci-fi movies, the script writers will often have notations that say something like "insert technobabble here". They then hire consultants to add some impressive-sounding, scientific-sounding phrases for the characters to say. But the words don't actually mean anything.
This is what's happening here, only the phrases are impressive-sounding, patriotism-sounding phrases that don't actually mean anything.
Jeopardy (Score:3)
I'll take Things Losers Say for $2,000, Ken.
Re: (Score:2)
Something the common folks are paying for because the government lowered taxes on the rich and the balance has to come from somewhere.
Re: (Score:2)
That was the sound of a Jeopardy reference going over your head...
respect (Score:4, Interesting)
We don't need it, we don't want it
yes you do, yes you want it, otherwise why did you agree to use it?
i have never used claude but i have a bit more respect for the company now
The thing about that... (Score:5, Insightful)
...is that Anthropic was clear that their AI is not good enough to be trusted with kill / don't-kill decisions.
Trump is looking for an AI company that is headed by someone who either has far too much confidence, or far too little regard for human life.
Or, too little empathy, if you will.
Does that sound like anyone we know?
Re: (Score:2)
Funny... I didn't have "Elon Musk Building Skynet" on my 2020's Bingo card. Maybe I should have?
Re: (Score:2)
It's much easier to make an "everything website" if you drastically reduce the amount of "everything" you need to cover.
Re:The thing about that... (Score:5, Insightful)
The odd thing is that anyone would believe that any Trump lackey, or Trump himself, would give the slightest shit what the terms of use are. Trump hasn't had the slightest concern over law or contract ever in his life. He is a rapist and child molester, a 34-time convicted felon who has bankrupted countless businesses and stolen from charities. But he cares about a TOS, LOL! Trump is literally immune from law, SCOTUS said so. But sure, a TOS is the problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Skip the "anyone", how about "anything"? Did none of these people see the movie "Eagle Eye"?
Re: (Score:2)
Trump is looking for an AI company that is headed by someone who either has far too much confidence, or far too little regard for human life.
Surprise! That ended up being Sam Altman [reuters.com].
Re:The thing about THAT... (Score:2)
This new deal it seems to be identical to the deal that Hegseth and Trump deemed unacceptable just yesterday.
The one that led them to retaliate by deeming Anthropic a supply-chain risk.
Now it's all good.
The clown show continues.
Too Orwellian for the tech companies???? (Score:5, Funny)
When the people that think they have the right to track everything you do on the internet think Trump is being too Orwellian, that's something.
If Hannibal Lecter says he won't eat that, (not even with fava bean) maybe you should skip the meal.
If Stalin says that prison is too harsh, maybe you should upgrade the quality of it.
If Jeffrey Epstein says the girl is too young, maybe you should date someone closer to your own age.
And if the tech companies say that is too much of a privacy invastion, then DO NOT DO IT.
it has always been clear... (Score:5, Interesting)
...that AI is itself not a threat to humanity, it is what humans are willing to do with AI that is a threat to humanity. It's not how competent or incompetent software is at making decisions, it's how that software gets wired into potentially costing human lives. And it's no surprise that Trump will lead in the cost of human lives, he led the world in COVID deaths. And plenty people here cheered and advocated for this outcome. Don't forget who those people are despite how they now pretend otherwise. Doesn't matter how many lives are ruined as long as they get another dollar out of their Tesla stock or their Trump shitcoin.
cold turkey (Score:2)
Anthropic should just turn them off, cut them off, and leave them out in the cold.
Re: (Score:2)
IIUC, Anthropic doesn't run the cloud it runs in.
Good start (Score:2)
I agree and think he should follow through and ban all AI from government data and infrastructure.
Re: Good start (Score:2)
That is not his plan. You must do that yourselves.
This is going to turn out to be an ad campaign. (Score:3)
The AI civilians can use all get to take public stands like this and make everyone feel better about using it. Meanwhile, Omelas exists and will probably incorporate their tech somehow.
I'm sure Microsoft will help the DOD(W?) out (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Musk's dreams coming true (Score:3)
"... force them to obey their Terms of Service ..."
So, the DoD will stop obeying Lockheed, Grumman and Boeing, and practice right-to-repair on all the war machines it owns: Or, is this black-listing just deciding who to rob?
Anyone remember the plan for a continent-wide technocracy? Musk's "Grok" AI wasn't able to provide a push-button bureaucracy but Musk is willing to provide a kill-everyone-except-white-Americans AI. He needs to eliminate the competition first: His buddies labeling competing AI as a "supply-chain risk" is making Musk's dreams come true.
What a Baby! (Score:2)
Small corrections (Score:4, Interesting)
1. It is called the department of defense not the department of war.
2. If DOD didn't like the terms of its contract with Anthropic it should have never signed it in the first place. Publicly whining about terms it agreed to after the fact is lame and pathetic.
3. "Their selfishness is putting AMERICAN LIVES at risk, our Troops in danger, and our National Security in JEOPARDY."
Trumps lips are so loose he drools state secrets.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/09... [cnn.com]
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/1... [nytimes.com]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
This is how Trump has always worked. He agrees to something and then pressures the other party for changes to the deal and renegs on his agreements. He built his real estate empire on the backs of others who never got paid. Everything he does is paid for by others. Even the stupid white house renovations are not paid out of the federal coffers but by getting others to pay for it. It's interesting how he still can't pay for anything even when it's not his own money he's using. But I digress.
If the DoD r
Sounds more like Hitler ... (Score:4)
... everyday with his hysterical ranting.
From a country that produced heroes that won WW2.
WTF is happening to the USA?
Impeach this corrupt geriatric pant shitting friend of a paedo already.
Where has American pride in freedom gone? What would Lady Liberty say to this dick? Fcuk off you orange asshole!
You lead the world once. Get back in the game ffs. China's going to eat your lunch.
You will help us kill. (Score:2)
So the government's claim is that they can order you to design something that kills people, and if you refuse then your company will have all your government contracts to any branch cancelled.
This is like going to the company that makes the plates for several large government building's cafeterias, including the Pentagon, demanding they make guns now, and removing their plates from everywhere including the Department of Education's cafeteria if they refuse.
Sounds like a great environment for business deals.
Stop calling it "The Department of War" (Score:2)
It can be called "The War Department", which has historical precedent and you won't sound like a moron.
Strong arm? (Score:2)
"They can't strong arm us. Only we can strong arm people."
AI Suggested weapons - Please add more (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What's the real motive? (Score:2)
This is an administration run by the guy who wrote (in a manner of speaking) The Art of the Deal. He has used his tactics, in the form of tariffs and tariff threats, to strong-arm other countries into doing his bidding. He has gotten big businesses to "donate" large sums of money to pay for his ballroom and the renovation of his "Trump-Kennedy Center".
Why would anyone think this strong-arm game with Anthropic is anything more than a ploy to pressure them into making a deal?
Re: Nutball Says Something (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
We must have mass surveilance because CHINA!
How easily the "land of the free" becomes what it claims to oppose. I guess it's not the first time.
BTW, we have always been at war with EastAsia.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It seems your original post and this one are in rather violent disagreement.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Gift to China (Score:3)
Was the Department of War blind that they didn't read the terms of service before signing the Anthropic contract?
If they did read the ToS and now Anthropic is reneging on the terms, then the same courts you speak of can be used to compel Anthropic to deliver what the contract agreed to.
This entire thing looks like bureaucrats like Hegseth are having a hissy fit that someone had the gall to say "no" to NEW demands. Where are his war powers now? Will he go draft Dario?
This isn't China.
Re: (Score:2)
Was the Department of War blind that they didn't read the terms of service before signing the Anthropic contract?
If they did read the ToS and now Anthropic is reneging on the terms, then the same courts you speak of can be used to compel Anthropic to deliver what the contract agreed to.
This entire thing looks like bureaucrats like Hegseth are having a hissy fit that someone had the gall to say "no" to NEW demands. Where are his war powers now? Will he go draft Dario?
This isn't China.
I doubt whether the US military are in the habit of introducing new weapons or technology hampered by restrictions on how they can use it. Nuclear weapons are a special case in that they can't just be used in battle without top approval, a rule which frustrated many in the military in the post-war period. In this light, I would expect some kind of standard contract template provided by the military to vendors which has all of these "we can use it as we choose" conditions laid out.
So your question is a good
Re: Gift to China (Score:2)
Thanks - it's interesting there is no talk about courts at all.
As an outcome, I think DoD/DoW/the Feds may build their own, sovereign AI
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Gift to China (Score:2)
"bureaucrats like Hegseth"
'Bureaucrats'?
Hahahahahahahaha!!1!
These guys are nothing but awful clowns cosplaying government.
Re: Gift to China (Score:2)
:) Haha... For a second I thought you may be objecting to belittling a brave ex-soldier as a bureaucrat.
Hegseth seems smart enough to , but this entirely emotive, quick to anger, way of working is very strange.
Re:Gift to China (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The president is not a protected class. Anthropic is a business and they are free to refuse service within the confines of the law.
Re: Gift to China (Score:2)
Re: Why pay for free shit (Score:2)
Because without paying there is no grift, are you stupid or something?
Also the free shit is mostly Chinese, but trump thinks Indian tastes better.
Re: Go set up shop abroad (Score:2)
Why would anyone in Europe need to brush up their russian, when the best ruzzkie asset is running the trumpistani unterreich?
Re: (Score:2)
To do what?
Re: (Score:2)
If you're suggesting that Anthropic move to Europe, then it would seem that they'd be more at home in countries like Britain, Germany, Netherlands.... than in Russia. As for China, had Anthropic been a Chinese company, they'd have been ordered to facilitate the launching and use of autonomous weapons against Beijing's enemies. Oh, AND facilitate mass surveillance!
Re: (Score:2)