Judge blocks Pentagon from labeling Anthropic a national security risk

[Skye Jacobs]

What just happened? A federal judge in California has blocked the Department of Defense from designating Anthropic as a national security risk. The ruling provides the company with temporary relief as it continues its legal battle with the Pentagon over whether private technology firms can object to how their AI is used in military programs.

In a sharply worded 43-page order, US District Judge Rita F. Lin said the government's actions appeared to be driven by retaliation rather than legitimate security concerns. "The record supports an inference that Anthropic is being punished for criticizing the government's contracting position in the press," Judge Lin wrote. "Nothing in the governing statute supports the Orwellian notion that an American company may be branded a potential adversary and saboteur of the United States for expressing disagreement with the government."

The injunction halts enforcement of a February 27 order from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth labeling Anthropic a "supply chain risk," a designation typically reserved for foreign entities viewed as threats to US national security. The label would have barred Anthropic from selling its systems to federal agencies and potentially from working with other defense contractors.

The ruling also prevents agencies from carrying out a related directive issued after President Trump amplified the designation on social media.

The dispute began during negotiations over a $200 million Pentagon contract focused on artificial intelligence capabilities for defense operations. Anthropic, which has long advocated for guardrails on AI deployment, sought restrictions on how its models could be used in surveillance or autonomous weapons systems. Defense officials resisted, arguing that no private company should dictate how the military applies the technology it acquires.

Shortly after those discussions broke down, the Pentagon labeled Anthropic a supply chain risk. The company responded by filing lawsuits in two federal courts, alleging that the government's actions were both punitive and unconstitutional. It argued that the designation violated its First Amendment rights and inflicted "irreparable harm" on its reputation and business.

Judge Lin agreed that the company had demonstrated a strong likelihood of success on the merits, stating that "government officials cannot use the power of the state to punish or suppress disfavored expression." She added that the Defense Department's decision appeared "arbitrary and capricious" and that "the balance of equities and public interest favor Anthropic."

The temporary injunction, which will take effect unless the Pentagon appeals within seven days, is being closely watched across the technology industry. Microsoft, along with employees of OpenAI and Google, submitted amicus briefs supporting Anthropic's position. Many in the sector view the case as a potential precedent for how the government may treat companies that challenge its use of AI systems in sensitive or military contexts.

At a hearing earlier this week, Judge Lin signaled skepticism toward the Pentagon's assertion that Anthropic could manipulate its own technology "to suit its own interests" in wartime scenarios. "It looks like an attempt to cripple Anthropic," she said.

In a statement following the ruling, Anthropic said it was "grateful to the court for moving swiftly" and reaffirmed that its "focus remains on working productively with the government to ensure all Americans benefit from safe, reliable AI."

The Defense Department has not yet publicly commented on the decision.

Permalink to story:

Judge blocks Pentagon from labeling Anthropic a national security risk

 

[pnntmp]

Anthropic attempted to force the US government to follow rules defined by a single corporation.
If that's not a national security risk, what the fukc is a national security risk?????

We have laws (like the Constitution, remember?) defining what the government can and can't do.
Should we really outsource that to a greedy corporation? That seems really wrong on so many levels ...

 

[Endymio]

Anthropic attempted to force the US government to follow rules defined by a single corporation.
If that's not a national security risk, what the fukc is a national security risk?????

Never fear, the Trump Admin is 19 to 2 in their most recent Supreme Court appearances, and even higher at the appellate level. This will be overturned in a hot minute.

 

[havok585]

@OP

it's called War Department. Also when a liberal judge has the power to block a country's lead military organization says more about the justice system than everything you can imagine.

"In a statement following the ruling, Anthropic said it was "grateful to the court for moving swiftly"" ofc. here you can have some $$$ for favoring us.

 

[pnntmp]

Never fear, the Trump Admin is 19 to 2 in their most recent Supreme Court appearances, and even higher at the appellate level. This will be overturned in a hot minute.

It's comforting to know the Supreme Court adheres to common sense.

 

[wiyosaya]

I guess everyone that commented so far doesn't give a crap about the constitution of the US. It doesn't take stable geniuses to figure out that Pentagon Pete and tRump cannot just dispense any punishment they damn well please.

Then again, stable geniuses are expert at shoveling so I'm not surprised.

 

[wiyosaya]

Never fear, the Trump Admin is 19 to 2 in their most recent Supreme Court appearances, and even higher at the appellate level. This will be overturned in a hot minute.

Just like in investing, past performance is not necessarily an indicator of future returns.

 

[Endymio]

I guess everyone that commented so far doesn't give a crap about the constitution of the US. It doesn't take stable geniuses to figure out that Pentagon Pete and tRump cannot just dispense any punishment they damn well please.

Then again, stable geniuses are expert at shoveling so I'm not surprised.

Fun fact: Obama still holds the record for most unconstitutional acts as judged by the US Supreme Court: more than Reagan, Bush 43, Bush 45, and Trump all combined.

And please stop the nonsense about it being "unconstitutional" to label a vendor unreliable, especially when they've already gone on record as restricting your ability to use their products. If you disagree, please cite the specific text from the US Constitutional that applies here.

"In a statement following the ruling, Anthropic said it was "grateful to the court for moving swiftly"" ofc. here you can have some $$$ for favoring us.

Oh, the judge wasn't bribed -- he simply wanted to virtue-signal his membership in the 2020s version of the Weather Underground -- opposing the administration by utterly disregarding the law.

 

[Au Contraire]

"likely" and "Appeared to be"

Seems to me that the judge is using personal opinion rather than fact as a basis for the ruling. What are the judge's credentials? Is it probable that she was influenced by lawyer speak? And what are their national security credentials?

 

[maxxcool7421]

Anthropic attempted to force the US government to follow rules defined by a single corporation.
If that's not a national security risk, what the fukc is a national security risk?????

We have laws (like the Constitution, remember?) defining what the government can and can't do.
Should we really outsource that to a greedy corporation? That seems really wrong on so many levels ...

Anthropic :: ''dont murder innocent people with our AI"
you :: "kill kids now or ill ban you in the USA"

 

[wizardB]

Pretty easy to pick out the TDS sufferers in this room.

 

[daffy duck]

what the fukc is a national security risk?????

Kegseth is the national security risk. Maybe try harder.

 

[wiyosaya]

Fun fact: Obama still holds the record for most unconstitutional acts as judged by the US Supreme Court: more than Reagan, Bush 43, Bush 45, and Trump all combined.

Yes, I know. However, fun fact: Buh, buh, buh, buh, buh, Obama just doesn't cut it as a justification for Pentagon Pete and/or Dementia Don.

And please stop the nonsense about it being "unconstitutional" to label a vendor unreliable, especially when they've already gone on record as restricting your ability to use their products. If you disagree, please cite the specific text from the US Constitutional that applies here.

Anthropic was exercising its constitutional right (1st Amendment) to trial, and petition for Redress. Pentagon Pete and Dementia Don deeming Anthropic "Evil" doesn't make Anthropic Evil, and Anthropic has a constitutional right to defend itself in court. I know your homeland operates by unquestionable decree, but not the US.

I'm sure that Trump, in the sense that executive orders as derived from article II of the constitution which requires a president to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, will take the unconstitutional title away from all previous presidents, combined, including Obama, by the time Trump's presidency ends. Perhaps you should have added Until Trump, in your "fun fake self-cited fact" about Obama.

And executive orders are subject to Judicial Review.

And, Fun fact: Obama issued an average of 35 executive orders a year. Less than any other president in the past century except one - https://legalclarity.org/barack-obama-executive-orders-a-legal-overview/ So I guess that make your "Fun Fact," Fake.

Oh, the judge wasn't bribed -- he simply wanted to virtue-signal his membership in the 2020s version of the Weather Underground -- opposing the administration by utterly disregarding the law.

You have your sexes mixed up. Re-read the article. But wait, would that make you woke or misogynist?

Pretty easy to pick out the TDS sufferers in this room.

Yes, I agree, it is easy to pick out those suffering from Trump Disciple Syndrome.

 

[Endymio]

Anthropic was exercising its constitutional right (1st Amendment) to trial, and petition for Redress.

You're confused. Anthropic has no constitutional right to force the US military to purchase its products...even if it hadn't placed absurd restrictions on their use. Nor were they being vindictively punished. The administration could have banned the entire government from using Anthropic products, or even prevented their use by the general public. Instead, what they did was eminently reasonable.

In fact, the absurdity of your 'logic' here is beyond my ability to express. The entire point of the security risk designation is to prevent the military from relying upon products that may not be available during periods of war or national emergency. Anthropic literally admitted this was the case. Already, literally half the software and firmware the military uses today can be construed to "operate lethal weaponry in an autonomous or semi-autonomous manner". If we replaced that with Anthropic products, they'd literally have the ability to disable our entire national defense at the flick of a switch.

I'm sure that Trump, in the sense that executive orders as derived from article II of the constitution which requires a president to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, will take the unconstitutional title away from all previous presidents,

Nice try, but I sincerely doubt you can name even one such act that actually was unconstitutional. Certainly not the 112+ total that Obama racked out --- which would have been much higher still, had not most of the pending court cases been rendered moot in 2017.

And, Fun fact: Obama issued an average of 35 executive orders a year. Less than any other president in the past century except one

Which makes the fact that so many out of that total were blatant constitutional violations so much worse.

 

[obsidian76]

@OP

it's called War Department. Also when a liberal judge has the power to block a country's lead military organization says more about the justice system than everything you can imagine.

"In a statement following the ruling, Anthropic said it was "grateful to the court for moving swiftly"" ofc. here you can have some $$$ for favoring us.

Only Congress can change the legal name of the Department of Defense, as that has not happened it makes sense that reports on a court ruling like this, the legal name is used.

 

[pnntmp]

Anthropic :: ''dont murder innocent people with our AI"
you :: "kill kids now or ill ban you in the USA"

Well that's a truly id1otic interpretation, but the government has to kill bad people from time to time. Mainly so that bad people don't kill you first.

Do you seriously think that Anthropic, which is just one greedy corporation, should make these decisions, and not the people we elected?

How about outsourcing social security to Microsoft?

 

[wiyosaya]

You're confused. Anthropic has no constitutional right to force the US military to purchase its products...even if it hadn't placed absurd restrictions on their use. Nor were they being vindictively punished. The administration could have banned the entire government from using Anthropic products, or even prevented their use by the general public. Instead, what they did was eminently reasonable.

No, they don't and that was not what this article was about. This article is about Pentagon Pete and Dementia Don deeming Anthropic "a naitonal security risk." Since Pentagon Pete and Dementia Don did this underhandedly, Anthropic had a right to take it to court. As I said before, Pentagon Pete and Dementia Don cannot brand anyone "evil" and expect them to sit and take it.

In fact, the absurdity of your 'logic' here is beyond my ability to express. The entire point of the security risk designation is to prevent the military from relying upon products that may not be available during periods of war or national emergency. Anthropic literally admitted this was the case. Already, literally half the software and firmware the military uses today can be construed to "operate lethal weaponry in an autonomous or semi-autonomous manner". If we replaced that with Anthropic products, they'd literally have the ability to disable our entire national defense at the flick of a switch.

Interesting. And somehow, that's Anthropic's fault? Sounds to me like yet another mis-step of the presidency of Dementia Don. Shame on them for not vetting Anthropic and its products before they decided they would use them.

Nice try, but I sincerely doubt you can name even one such act that actually was unconstitutional. Certainly not the 112+ total that Obama racked out --- which would have been much higher still, had not most of the pending court cases been rendered moot in 2017.

I don't have to. The Courts have named them. Particularly the Supreme Court and its decision that Dementia Don's Tariffs as decreed in Dementia Don's executive order, were and are unconstitutional.

In fact, I doubt you can name any order coming from Obama that was unconstitutional.

And even the average Conservative knows that many of Dementia Don's actions as president are illegal.

Perhaps you should pay attention to the news and take note that when Impeachment of Dementia Don was mentioned at CPAC, the crowd applauded the possibility of the impeachment of Dementia Don.

Which makes the fact that so many out of that total were blatant constitutional violations so much worse.

You can argue all you want about this. Personally, I think you don't like being challenged just like Dementia Don.

Its about time those on the right realize that Dementia Don's supporters are abandoning him and about to throw him to the wolves after they flush him down his Gold Toilet.

 

[Endymio]

And somehow, that's Anthropic's fault? Sounds to me like yet another mis-step of the presidency of Dementia Don. Shame on them for not vetting Anthropic and its products before they decided they would use them.

Get your facts straight. Anthropic announced these restrictions **after** it received $200M in DoD funding. Not that it even matters ... the restriction makes the products useless for military purposes. So please explain what warped logic leads you to believe the military should buy them anyway?

In fact, I doubt you can name any order coming from Obama that was unconstitutional.

You lose. There are over 100 such, and I can name over a dozen from memory alone, starting with DACA, where Obama decided to violate his oath of office and stop enforcing federal immigration law. Then we move onto Obamacare, when he forced millions of Americans to purchase insurance against their will. The illegal spying on over 100 journalists who printed anti-Obama articles; the Chrysler bailout, in which Obama violated the due process and takings clause; the political profiling done by his IRS, and many, many others.

 

[ZedRM]

This will be overturned in a hot minute.

Very doubtful.