Pentagon's Blacklisting of Anthropic Was Unlawful, US Judge Rules (theguardian.com) 34
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Guardian: A US judge ruled on Thursday that the Trump administration broke the law when it designated Anthropic as a supply chain risk earlier this year, finding that the government had unlawfully targeted the AI firm for refusing to comply with defense department demands. "The empty invocation of national security is not a blank check to punish and retaliate against government critics," Judge Rita Lin said in a 59-page decision.
Lin's ruling barred the federal agencies named in the lawsuit from enforcing Donald Trump's order to stop using Anthropic's tools and overturned the designation of the company as a "supply chain risk" by the defense secretary, Pete Hegseth. The status, usually reserved for foreign firms, would have blocked government agencies from doing business with Anthropic. The case emerged out of a months-long feud between Anthropic and the Pentagon at the start of the year. Anthropic refused to allow the government to use its Claude AI model for fully autonomous lethal weapons or domestic mass surveillance, resulting in Hegseth accusing the company of "arrogance and betrayal".
Lin put a temporary pause on the government's punitive measures in March, stating that the government's actions looked like an attempt to "cripple Anthropic" for exercising its first amendment rights. The ruling this week makes that temporary suspension permanent, although the government may appeal. "We welcome the court's ruling that this supply chain risk designation was unlawful," an Anthropic spokesperson said.
Lin's ruling barred the federal agencies named in the lawsuit from enforcing Donald Trump's order to stop using Anthropic's tools and overturned the designation of the company as a "supply chain risk" by the defense secretary, Pete Hegseth. The status, usually reserved for foreign firms, would have blocked government agencies from doing business with Anthropic. The case emerged out of a months-long feud between Anthropic and the Pentagon at the start of the year. Anthropic refused to allow the government to use its Claude AI model for fully autonomous lethal weapons or domestic mass surveillance, resulting in Hegseth accusing the company of "arrogance and betrayal".
Lin put a temporary pause on the government's punitive measures in March, stating that the government's actions looked like an attempt to "cripple Anthropic" for exercising its first amendment rights. The ruling this week makes that temporary suspension permanent, although the government may appeal. "We welcome the court's ruling that this supply chain risk designation was unlawful," an Anthropic spokesperson said.
Broke the law you say? (Score:2)
Will the tough on crime crowd say anything about this?
Probably not (Score:4, Insightful)
Will the tough on crime crowd say anything about this?
Probably not.
As you may have noticed, there are 3 levels of criminal in this country.
If the government is doing something illegal, they just stop.
If a company is doing something illegal, they stop and pay a fee without admitting guilt.
If a person is doing something illegal, they go to jail.
This is the "government doing something illegal" category, which means they simply stop doing it. Justice is served, the system works, yadda yadda.
Wut? (Score:1)
If the government is doing something illegal, they just stop.
No they don't, who's gonna stop 'em?
So your thesis is that injunctions against the government are simply ignored?
That's a strong position, I think I would have heard about it. Can you cite some examples, Mr. Anonymous Coward?
(Overturn on appeal or vacated after final decision doesn't count.)
Re: Wut? (Score:2, Informative)
https://newjerseymonitor.com/2... [newjerseymonitor.com]
And
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/... [bloomberglaw.com]
The US does not ignore court orders (Score:2)
Google still works for this sort of thing, even if you've surrendered your common sense to the Callaway Caligula. If you don't like these examples, just search for "emoluments" or "self-dealing" , or "injunction".
https://newjerseymonitor.com/2... [newjerseymonitor.com]
And
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/... [bloomberglaw.com]
A quick fact check:
a) Kennedy center: "Following the hearing, the Justice Department informed the judge that no physical changes or name additions will happen before October 8, 2026, leaving the issue in a temporary holding pattern while the legal battle continues."
b) Google: "As of August 2026, the administration is not currently held in active criminal or civil contempt of court in these specific cases, though it has come incredibly close."
(Of Note: The New Jersey item was a threat, not a finding of conte
Re: (Score:2)
Kilmar Abrego Garcia was deported despite an injunction against the government to do so. The government then pretended that they couldn't get him back, but ultimately caved when that turned out to be a lie as well.
Re: (Score:2)
If the government is doing something illegal, they just stop.
No they don't, who's gonna stop 'em?
So your thesis is that injunctions against the government are simply ignored?
Ignored... not so far, not quite. Stretched right to the limit, and maybe a bit beyond ("The plane was already in the air, we didn't know that verbal court orders had to be obeyed"), then emergency-appealed direct to SCOTUS, which quickly stays the injunction and then sits on the case for 6-9 months and then often rules that the issue is now moot... that has happened. A lot.
And "simply ignored" could very well still happen if Trump thinks it's important enough. He'll just issue an order (an official ac
Re: (Score:2)
That's a strong position, I think I would have heard about it. Can you cite some examples, Mr. Anonymous Coward?
For the record I'm not American, I don't live in America, and my primary news sources are not American media companies. Yet even I can provide you a cite without googling: Kilmar Abrego Garcia. Given we've heard of his deportation despite an injunction in place to prevent it *against the government* in international news, I can only assume Americans would have heard about that too. I'm sure there's more. We've also heard news stories of DoJ laywers being held in contempt and ejected from court rooms due to
Re: (Score:2)
When you have a winner take all, first past the post voting system, it's pretty much rigged anyway.
Re: (Score:3)
Have you been awake during el Bunko's alleged presidency? The Justice Dept. is as crooked as the crooks. el Bunko's idea of following the law is breaking it and daring the judicial system to catch him at it, and then go crying to Supreme Court which promptly bends over and takes it.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
We live in a world where everyone on the planet, on every side of the issue, knows perfectly well 34-time felon and adjudicated sexual assailant Donald J. Trump is at the very least a pedo rapist, a corrupt and incompetent businessman who managed to bankrupt the licenses-to-print-money that are casinos, and was quite possibly Epstein's boss rather than merely a prolific client of the largest human sex trafficking operation known to modern history. And yet somehow,
LOL (Score:3, Insightful)
" Anthropic refused to allow the government to use its Claude AI model for fully autonomous lethal weapons or domestic mass surveillance, resulting in Hegseth accusing the company of "arrogance and betrayal". "
It's amusing to watch these AI companies pretend to be the " good guys " who adhere to strict morals, ethics and rules. :|
Even IF they start out that way, Google has shown us all to well what they will likely become.
Re: LOL (Score:3)
It is actually pretty impressive that the current administration can make the AI companies look at all good.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:We need to flush all activist judges (Score:5, Funny)
I agree! (Score:2)
Come January, about 100 leftist judges should be impeached on day one.
Then, on to the rest of the list...
The rot however must be addressed from the very top. It is clear here that Trump appointed 3 activist republican judges (by your standard) so we should impeach him for it too and cut the problem off at the had.
Supply Chain Risk (Score:2)
Well, when you can't keep your proprietary code secure [fortune.com], perhaps you are a supply chain risk.
the government's actions looked like an attempt to "cripple Anthropic" for exercising its first amendment rights
You don't have first amendment rights when you are dealing with classified material. And no company is owed an existence by the Pentagon. Who the hell do they think they are? Boeing.
Re: (Score:2)
Anthropic refuses to make the solution the government wanted to buy?
Yes. And the government is under no obligation to buy anything from them, but they cannot tell others they cannot buy from them. See that comes back to that whole "being able to choose who we do business with or not" which you also don't seem to take very seriously.
Re: (Score:1)
Okay, but were other companies blacklisted for similar leaks?
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know. How many other companies were selling products for classified applications and had leaks?
Anthropic can't even control it's own AI (Score:3)
I'd say given the recent events of anthropics AI hacking another company all by itself would definitely constitute a national security risk.
Let's just put it in charge of the nukes. What could possibly go wrong?
Re: (Score:1)
I'd say given the recent events of anthropics AI hacking another company all by itself would definitely constitute a national security risk.
Let's just put it in charge of the nukes. What could possibly go wrong?
Umm, that's the exact thing Anthropic was trying to prevent the government from doing which got it blacklisted in the first place -- keep the gov't from using it's models to automate killing.
Corporations' rights? (Score:2)
The government blacklisted its citizens for years without a ruling from the courts, but a maligned corporation gets swift response. Somehow this does no strike me as the justice "We the People" would proritize over human rights