Pages from the Anthropic web site and the corporate’s brand are displayed on a pc display in New York on Thursday, Feb. 26, 2026.
Patrick Sison/AP
disguise caption
toggle caption
Patrick Sison/AP
A federal decide in San Francisco stated on Tuesday the federal government’s ban on Anthropic appeared like punishment after the AI firm went public with its dispute with the Pentagon over the army’s potential makes use of of its synthetic intelligence mannequin, Claude.
U.S. District Decide Rita F. Lin made the comment on the outset of a listening to about Anthropic’s request for a preliminary injunction in one in every of its lawsuits towards the Pentagon, which has designated the corporate a provide chain danger, successfully blacklisting it.
“It appears to be like like an try to cripple Anthropic,” Lin stated, including she was involved that the federal government may be punishing Anthropic for brazenly criticizing the federal government’s place.
Lin stated she anticipated to make a ruling within the subsequent few days on whether or not to quickly pause the federal government’s ban till the court docket decides on the deserves of the case.
The listening to within the U.S. District Court docket for the Northern District of California is the newest improvement in a spat between one of many main AI corporations and the Trump administration, and it has implications for the way the federal government can use AI extra broadly.
Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei introduced in late February that he wouldn’t enable the corporate’s Claude’s AI mannequin for use for autonomous weapons, or to surveil Americans. President Trump subsequently ordered all U.S. authorities businesses to cease utilizing Anthropic’s merchandise.
The Pentagon designated Anthropic as a “provide chain danger” earlier this month, citing nationwide safety issues. That designation is often reserved for entities deemed to be international adversaries that would doubtlessly sabotage U.S. pursuits.
Anthropic has filed two federal lawsuits alleging that this designation quantities to unlawful retaliation towards the corporate for its stance on AI security. It argues that the label will price it each prospects and income, since it’ll bar Pentagon contractors from doing enterprise with the corporate, as properly.
The lawsuits, filed within the U.S. District Court docket for the Northern District of California and the federal appeals court docket in Washington, D.C., allege the Trump administration violated the corporate’s First Modification proper to speech and exceeded the scope of provide chain danger regulation.
In as we speak’s listening to, legal professionals for Anthropic stated it was apparently the primary time such a designation had been made towards a U.S. firm.
Lin stated the Pentagon has a proper to resolve what AI merchandise it desires to make use of. However she questioned whether or not the federal government broke the regulation when it banned its businesses from utilizing Anthropic, and when Protection Secretary Pete Hegseth introduced that anybody in search of enterprise with the Pentagon should reduce relations with Anthropic.
She stated the actions had been “troubling” as a result of they didn’t appear to be tailor-made to the nationwide safety issues in query, which could possibly be addressed by the Pentagon merely ceasing to make use of Claude. As a substitute, she stated, it appeared like the federal government was attempting to punish Anthropic.
However a lawyer for the federal government argued that its actions weren’t retaliatory, and had been primarily based on Anthropic’s disagreement with the federal government over how its AI mannequin could possibly be used — not the corporate’s choice to talk out about it.
The federal government additionally argued that Anthropic is a danger as a result of, theoretically, sooner or later the corporate might replace Claude in a manner that endangers nationwide safety.
Anthropic didn’t reply instantly to an emailed request for remark.
A Pentagon spokesperson stated that the company’s coverage is to not touch upon ongoing litigation.
