Judge Scrutinizes Defense Department's 'Troubling' Action Against AI Developer
A federal judge in San Francisco delivered a sharp rebuke to the Department of Defense during a hearing Tuesday, casting serious doubt on the Pentagon's decision to designate artificial intelligence company Anthropic as a supply chain risk. U.S. District Judge Rita Lin characterized the government's action as "troubling" and suggested it appeared designed to damage the company rather than address legitimate national security concerns.
"It looks like an attempt to cripple Anthropic," Judge Lin stated during proceedings. She pressed government lawyers on whether the AI firm was "being punished for criticizing the government's contracting position," particularly regarding disagreements over the use of AI in autonomous weapons systems and domestic surveillance programs. The designation, typically applied to foreign adversaries, would effectively blacklist Anthropic from doing business with military contractors.
Legal Battle Centers on Retaliation Claims
The hearing focused on Anthropic's request for a preliminary injunction to block the Pentagon's designation, which the company argues will cause "irreparable harm." Anthropic contends the Trump administration retaliated against it for expressing "protected viewpoints" about ethical guardrails for its technology. Contract negotiations between the Pentagon and Anthropic collapsed last month after disputes over these very safeguards.
Judge Lin emphasized that while her court's role isn't to determine appropriate AI uses, it must assess whether the government violated the law through its designation. The legal context includes a directive from President Trump ordering federal agencies to "immediately cease" using Anthropic's products via social media. This broader pattern of executive action against the AI firm forms part of the contentious backdrop.
"What is troubling to me about these reactions is that they don't really seem to be tailored to the national security concern," Lin remarked. "If the worry is about the integrity of the operational chain of command, DOD could just stop using Claude. It looks like defendants went further than that because they were trying to punish Anthropic."
Contradictions Emerge Over Defense Secretary's Social Media Post
A significant portion of the hearing examined whether Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's February 27 social media announcement had legal force. In that post, Hegseth declared "no contractor, supplier, or partner that does business with the United States military may conduct any commercial activity with Anthropic," calling the decision "final."
Justice Department attorney Eric Hamilton contradicted this characterization, telling the court "no entity would face liability for noncompliance with the post" and describing it merely as "a social media announcement that DOD would be taking action." Judge Lin expressed surprise at this position, repeatedly asking if Hegseth's statement was therefore "not true" and potentially a "false statement."
"You're standing here saying, 'We said it, but we didn't really mean it,'" Lin told Hamilton. The DOJ maintained it had clarified the secretary's wording in subsequent court filings. Anthropic's attorney, Michael Mongan, noted these "concessions" came 25 days after Hegseth's public directive, which had been viewed by millions. Mongan argued any reasonable contractor or consumer would interpret the post as a binding order, given its definitive language.
Broader Legal and Political Context
The two sides also clashed over whether the Pentagon fulfilled congressional notification requirements and the definition of "adversary" in relevant statutes. The hearing touched on why the administration pursued the supply chain designation instead of simply terminating its contract with Anthropic, raising questions about procedural regularity.
This case adds to a series of high-profile judicial rebukes of Trump administration legal positions across various departments. Judge Lin has requested Anthropic provide evidence of federal agencies terminating contracts by Tuesday night, with the DOJ given one day to respond. A ruling on the preliminary injunction is expected within days, potentially setting a significant precedent for how the government regulates and interacts with critical technology firms.
