At a Thursday hearing, a federal judge said the Trump administration has not presented sufficient evidence to justify designating Anthropic as a supply‑chain risk and to ban the federal government from using the company’s technology.
Bloomberg and Axios were among the first outlets to report the development.
Origins of the dispute and the parties' positions
The dispute arises from stalled contract negotiations between Anthropic and the Department of Defense (DOD). Anthropic has stated it does not want its artificial intelligence to be used for mass surveillance of Americans or for targeting or firing decisions involving lethal weapons, arguing the technology is not ready for those applications.
The Pentagon countered that a private company should not dictate how the military uses technologies and said it would employ the tools in what it described as lawful ways.
Government arguments and the judge’s response
The government also argued that Anthropic’s public criticism of the DOD justifies the ban. U.S. District Judge Rita Lin called that line of reasoning “really troubling,” warning it could set a precedent for retaliating against federal contractors who publicly disagree with the administration.
The DOD further suggested Anthropic might be able to disable or alter its AI models during warfighting operations. Experts have said that claim lacks supporting evidence. Judge Lin agreed, stating she saw no proof that Anthropic could modify a delivered model or “flip some kind of kill switch.”
Legal proceedings and next steps
Thursday’s hearing was part of one of two lawsuits Anthropic filed against the DOD in March challenging the ban and the supply‑chain risk designation. The other case is being heard in Washington. Judge Rita Lin, who temporarily blocked the ban in March, is now considering whether to make that injunction permanent.
Her observation at the Thursday hearing was that the government’s presented evidence, as it stands, does not suffice to uphold a designation and prohibition with the serious operational and contractual consequences at stake.
