{"id":2304,"date":"2026-03-27T05:07:48","date_gmt":"2026-03-27T05:07:48","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/owspakistan.com\/?p=2304"},"modified":"2026-03-27T05:07:48","modified_gmt":"2026-03-27T05:07:48","slug":"anthropic-dod-pentagon-lawsuit-supply-chain-risk-injunction","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/owspakistan.com\/?p=2304","title":{"rendered":"Judge sides with Anthropic to temporarily block the Pentagon\u2019s ban"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n

After Anthropic\u2019s weeks-long standoff with the Pentagon, the company won one milestone: A judge granted Anthropic a preliminary injunction in its lawsuit, which sought to reverse its government blacklisting while the judicial process plays out.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

\u201cThe Department of War\u2019s records show that it designated Anthropic as a supply chain risk because of its \u2018hostile manner through the press,\u2019\u201d Judge Rita F. Lin, a district judge in the northern district of California, wrote in the order<\/a>, which will go into effect in seven days. \u201cPunishing Anthropic for bringing public scrutiny to the government\u2019s contracting position is classic illegal First Amendment retaliation.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

A final verdict could be weeks or months out.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Anthropic spokesperson Danielle Cohen said in a Thursday statement, \u201cWe\u2019re grateful to the court for moving swiftly, and pleased they agree Anthropic is likely to succeed on the merits. While this case was necessary to protect Anthropic, our customers, and our partners, our focus remains on working productively with the government to ensure all Americans benefit from safe, reliable AI.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

\u201cI do think this case touches on an important debate,\u201d Judge Lin said during the Tuesday hearing. \u201cOn the one hand, Anthropic is saying that its AI product, Claude, is not safe to use for autonomous lethal weapons and domestic mass surveillance. Anthropic\u2019s position is that if the government wants to use its technology, the government has to agree not to use it for those purposes. On the other hand the Department of War is saying that military commanders have to decide what is safe for its AI to do.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

On Tuesday, Judge Lin went on to say, \u201cIt\u2019s not my role to decide who\u2019s right in that debate\u2026 The Department of War decides what AI product it wants to use and buy. And everyone, including Anthropic, agrees that the Department of War is free to stop using Claude and look for a more permissive AI vendor.\u201d She added, \u201cI see the question in this case as being \u2026 whether the government violated the law when it went beyond that.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

It all started with a memo<\/a> sent by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on Jan. 9, calling for \u201cany lawful use\u201d language to be written into any AI services procurement contract within 180 days, which would include existing contracts with companies like Anthropic, OpenAI, xAI, and Google. Anthropic\u2019s negotiations with the Pentagon stretched on for weeks, hinging on two \u201cred lines\u201d that the company did not want the military to use its AI for: domestic mass surveillance and lethal autonomous weapons (or AI systems with the power to kill targets with no human involvement in the decision-making process). The rollercoaster<\/a> series<\/a> of<\/a> events<\/a> that followed has included a barrage of social media insults, a formal \u201csupply chain risk\u201d designation with the potential to significantly handicap Anthropic\u2019s business, competing AI companies swooping in to make deals, and an ensuing lawsuit.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

With its lawsuit, Anthropic argues that it was punished for speech protected under the First Amendment, and it\u2019s seeking to reverse the supply chain risk designation.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

It\u2019s rare, and potentially even unheard of until now, for a US company to be named a supply chain risk, a designation typically reserved for non-US companies potentially linked to foreign adversaries. Anthropic\u2019s designation as such raised eyebrows nationwide and caused bipartisan controversy<\/a> due to concerns that disagreeing with a presidential administration could potentially lead to outsized retribution for a business in any sector.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Anthropic\u2019s own business has been significantly affected by the designation, according to its court<\/a> filings<\/a>, which say that it has \u201creceived outreach from numerous outside partners \u2026 expressing confusion about what was required of them and concern about their ability to continue to work with Anthropic\u201d and that \u201cdozens of companies have contacted Anthropic\u201d for guidance or information about their rights to terminate usage. Depending on the level to which the government prohibits its contractors\u2019 work with Anthropic, the company alleged that revenue adding up to between hundreds of millions and multiple billions could be at risk.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

During Tuesday\u2019s hearing, both companies had a chance to respond to Judge Lin\u2019s questions, which were released in a document<\/a> the day prior and hinged on matters like whether Hegseth lacked authority to issue certain directives and why Anthropic was named a supply chain risk. The judge also asked, in her pre-released questions, about the circumstances under which a government contractor could face termination for using Anthropic\u2019s technology in their work \u2014 for instance, \u201cif a contractor for the Department uses Claude Code as a tool to write software for the Department\u2019s national security systems, would that contractor face termination as a result?\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

On Tuesday, the judge also seemed to admonish the Department of War for Hegseth\u2019s X post<\/a> that caused a lot of widespread confusion per Anthropic\u2019s earlier court filings, stating that \u201ceffective immediately, no contractor, supplier, or partner that does business with the United States military may conduct any commercial activity with Anthropic.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

\u201cYou\u2019re standing here saying, \u2018We said it but we didn\u2019t really mean it,\u2019\u201d Judge Lin said during the hearing, later pressing on the question of why Hegseth wrote the above barring contractors from working with Anthropic instead of just simply designating Anthropic as a supply chain risk.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

In a series of questions on Tuesday, Judge Lin asked whether the Department of War plans to terminate contractors on the basis of their work with Anthropic if it\u2019s separate from their work with the department, and a representative for the Department of War responded, \u201cThat is my understanding.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Judge Lin asked, \u201cLet\u2019s say I\u2019m a military contractor. I don\u2019t provide IT to the military. I provide toilet paper to the military. I\u2019m not going to be terminated for using Anthropic \u2014 is that accurate?\u201d The representative for the Department of War responded, \u201cFor non-DoW work, that is my understanding.\u201d But when the judge asked whether a military contractor providing IT services to the Department of War, but not for national security systems, could be terminated for using Anthropic, the representative for the Department of War did not give a concrete answer.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

During the hearing, Judge Lin cited one of the amicus briefs, which she said used the term \u201cattempted corporate murder.\u201d She said, \u201cI don\u2019t know if it\u2019s \u2018murder,\u2019 but it looks like an attempt to cripple Anthropic.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

\u201cWe are continuing to be irreparably injured by this directive,\u201d a lawyer for Anthropic said during the hearing, citing Hegseth\u2019s nine-paragraph X post<\/a>.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

In a recent court filing<\/a>, the Department of Defense alleged that Anthropic could ostensibly \u201cattempt to disable its technology or preemptively alter the behavior of its model either before or during ongoing warfighting operations\u201d in the event it felt the military was crossing its red lines \u2014 a theoretical situation that the Pentagon said it deemed an \u201cunacceptable risk to national security.\u201d The judge\u2019s pre-released questions seem to challenge that statement, or at least request more information on it, stating, \u201cWhat evidence in the record shows that Anthropic had ongoing access to or control over Claude after delivering it to the government, such that Anthropic could engage in such acts of sabotage or subversion?\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

Follow topics and authors<\/strong> from this story to see more like this in your personalized homepage feed and to receive email updates.<\/span><\/p>\n