A U.S. federal court has issued a landmark ruling, declaring the Department of Defense's actions against Anthropic unlawful. Judge Rita Lin ruled that designating the AI developer as a "supply chain threat" and the associated restrictions violate fundamental constitutional rights. The verdict took effect immediately, although the Trump administration retains the right to appeal.
The court's key argument — the dispute with the Pentagon concerned not the technical parameters of the Claude chatbot or the company's ability to fulfill government contracts, but its public stance on permissible AI use cases. In the judge's view, such actions are a direct retaliatory measure for an expressed viewpoint, contradicting the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Additionally, it was noted that Anthropic was not given the opportunity to review the allegations in advance and contest them, violating the due process guarantees enshrined in the Fifth Amendment.
The Core of the Conflict
The source of the disagreement was the terms of use of the company's models by the military. Anthropic allowed the use of Claude in the realm of national security but categorically refused to lift bans on mass surveillance of U.S. citizens and fully autonomous weapons systems. As early as February, the agency issued an ultimatum, demanding the removal of all restrictions for "any lawful purposes" and threatening inclusion on a "blacklist." After CEO Dario Amodei's refusal, the threat was carried out, followed by Trump's order to cease federal agencies' use of Anthropic's technologies within six months.
This conflict resonated throughout the industry. OpenAI CEO Sam Altman publicly urged the military not to include Anthropic on the sanctions list and later admitted that certain aspects of his own agreement with the Pentagon were mistaken. Notably, despite the formal restrictions, Anthropic's technologies continued to be used — in April, the U.S. National Security Agency utilized the Mythos model.
The court's decision sets an important precedent that could cool the ardor of agencies attempting to use administrative levers to pressure technology companies. However, it is worth understanding: this is only one battle in a larger war over the ethical boundaries of AI and national security. The question of how deeply the military can intrude into developers' policies remains open, and I expect an appeal from the administration is only a matter of time. The industry will be closely watching the further development of this case, as its outcome will determine the balance of power between the state and private companies for years to come.