Trump administration illegally retaliated against Anthropic, judge rules

A US federal judge has declared that the Department of Defense unlawfully retaliated against AI startup Anthropic by labeling the company a supply chain risk, according to court documents. Anthropic challenged the designation, contending that Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth overstepped his authority in imposing the label. The lawsuit arose after Anthropic declined to permit the military to employ its AI models for activities such as surveillance or autonomous weapons.

US District Judge Rita Lin dismissed the Pentagon's actions as not only unlawful but also baseless in her judgment. She reasoned that invoking national security concerns does not grant carte blanche to penalize and retaliate against governmental dissenters. Anthropic expressed satisfaction with the ruling. The company has emphasized its commitment to productive collaboration with the government to harness AI for the nation's security, ensuring benefits for all Americans.

During the legal proceedings, Judge Lin observed that the Department of Defense had unlawfully compelled companies doing business with the US military to boycott Anthropic. The Pentagon's designation of Anthropic as a supply-chain risk in February marked the first instance of an American company receiving such classification. Anthropic's lawsuit contended that the government's actions were unprecedented and unlawful.

Anthropic argued that its AI models were unsuitable for military applications due to reliability concerns and that it objected to their use for domestic surveillance, deeming it a breach of individual rights. The company further contended that it opposed the military's control over its technology. Anthropic claimed that the Pentagon's refusal to accept new contract terms raised apprehensions regarding potential misuse of the AI technology.

Judge Lin further remarked that the government's objective was to undermine Anthropic and suppress public discourse on the military's utilization of AI. This, she concluded, constitutes classic First Amendment retaliation. The BBC has reached out to the Pentagon and the White House for further comment on the matter.