Opinions on the merits vary, but in this instance, the government's actions were undeniably overbearing and unilateral. It is encouraging to see the judiciary successfully function as a check and balance against such executive overreach.
The issue of course is that the Judge can't change the knowledge that the head of the executive doesn't want people down the chain using this product, so they won't. Anthropic is a dead letter in government circles until the next Presidential election.
That may be, but the government doesn't need to declare Anthropic as a "supply chain risk" in order to just not do business with it. A simple clause in all RFPs is all that is needed.
The problem with this declaration by the government is that now any company doing any business with the US government would be effectively forbidden from using Anthropic ANYWHERE within their company, which is a huge deal, because the government does want to vet any vendors' software development practices.
But as long as the Judge in this case pushes back against such an action by the government, that leaves companies free to use Anthropic for their own internal uses. And most companies WILL continue to use them if it makes economic sense.
Perhaps. But certainly those companies will factor in the risk that this is overturned, or that the government pursues other extrajudicial means to punish those who do business with Anthropic.
All things equal, you’d be better off not exposing yourself to risk of financial harm or other punitive measures. Which is the whole point of the government’s action in the first place.
> All things equal, you’d be better off not exposing yourself to risk of financial harm or other punitive measures.
This isn't necessarily true. This is a complex decision; the logic above frames the decision narrowly, with a short-term time horizon. This kind of decision calls for game theory, not merely an individualistic calculus. Appeasing Trump isn't a winning strategy in the long-run. History shows that cooperation (e.g. pushing back) against authoritarianism is often a better strategy. Consumers may reward companies that behave well. Bottom line: you have to game it out -- no one commenting here has done that, I'll bet. So until someone has ... stay agnostic analytically.
The type of contract they had was optional anyway. They could have just not done business with Anthropic in the first place. Really I think this has only promoted their platform as being sane and moral.
That’s fine. They can choose to use whatever model their political hearts desire. the supply chain risk designation means EVERYONE who works with the government isn’t allowed to use Claude. Nearly everyone in tech has some sort of contract with the government.
> the supply chain risk designation means EVERYONE who works with the government isn’t allowed to use Claude.
No, it doesn't. The even more illegal Presidential directive (also a subject of this case and the injunction) asserts that, but the supply chain risk designation itself does not have that effect.
Eh, it’s not going to be transitively problematic for Anthropic the way the supply chain risk designation would’ve been.
Amazon isn’t going to have to divest from Anthropic because of this. Yes, they probably won’t be able to get a contract with Raytheon, but that wasn’t the main risk of being tagged with the supply chain risk designation.
Had this conversation with a friend, but I think as an America you can be very optimistic about the institutional strength of democracy in the country.
People are very pessimistic recently, but if anything, we are seeing that our system works well. A person got into power that a majority voted for, but when he oversteps, the courts and other institutions (even judges and fed reserve chairs he picked!) seem to hold him to the rules.
I get the pessimism, but for the most part, I kinda think the system is working.
lol judges have ruled 100s or 1000s of ICE detentions in various states illegal by now. None of that has stopped ICE from doing what it's doing. This kind of optimism in the law seems naive today because there is no mechanism to actually enforce it. All federal agents have very substantial legal & civil immunity, heads of departments have immunity as well. The head of the legal system is Pam Bondi who isn't even prosecuting child rapists, or Donald Trump who is one.
Even after Kristi Noem ruined countless lives and was responsible for deaths of innocent people, the only consequence she faced is being demoted to some made up job where she still gets paid to do nothing - no fine, no jail, not even being out of work, no accountability, no justice. None of the ICE agents involved have faced any consequences besides a leave either, we don't even know most of their names. The justice system is not working.
People who don't follow the news like most of the tech community are living in some dreamland of a system or treating it as a purely mental battle of optimism/pessimism vs. actually seeing what is happening.
> judges have ruled 100s or 1000s of ICE detentions in various states illegal by now. None of that has stopped ICE from doing what it's doing.
This is a weird one because ICE has lost so many habeas cases, mostly by dropping them, only for the 8th circuit court of appeals (which covers Minnesota) to overturn that the other day:
So this is pretty weird now, legally, since a ton of lower courts have assumed things didn't work this way and the appeals courts are now saying they're wrong.
Trump or various departments of his administration have a 90% success rate with cases at the Supreme Court, as compared to a roughly 55-60% success rate at lower courts. The judiciary can still work, but the highest judiciary in the land is pretty soundly in his pocket. Trump's most significant defeat at the Supreme Court, overturning his signature tariffs policy, was viewed by some as a sign that the Supreme Court remained independent and defiant... but that's pretty clearly not the case, at least not up to this point.
>Are you saying that if all eligible voters were forced to vote, Trump may have lost the popular vote?
I've recently heard a commentary by a man with PhD in international relations* about why has Trump won the elections.
Specialist said that a lot of people who would have voted against Trump didn't vote. That was due to many grave mistakes made by the democrats.
Usually when populists win, it's because the other side blatantly ignores some public issues. This time it was economic hardships, immigration/border control.
There is also the long trend of turning away from the working class and focusing on protecting/supporting the DEI people instead. The working class might feel betrayed and vote against them instead.
"The cost of hubris" - as one of the Minmatar militia missions from Eve online was called.
I hate Trump as much as the next guy but this feels like nitpicking. You're obviously right, but if you choose not to vote then you're implicitly approving of whatever outcome you get.
What are you smoking? The DoD will not be compelled by the judicial branch to contract with a company they believe poses a risk to service member lives during an active war where American lives have been lost. That’s just the way it is, and it should be obvious to you if you have a basic understanding of history or law.
This is a Biden appointee with two years on the job, and this will immediately be taken up by a higher court and blocked until a ruling on the merits is made. It will be appealed. DoD might have to go to the Supreme Court before this is all said and done, but they will win in the end, and this ban will stay in place until that happens.
Did you read the order? It directly addresses your comment:
> More importantly, as discussed above, no one is entitled to conduct business with the Federal Government, see Perkins, 310 U.S. at 127, and irrespective of the challenged actions, DoW and other federal agencies are free to terminate its contracts and agreements with Anthropic, as Anthropic readily admits.
This entire event came about because Anthropic raised concerns with Palantir and the Department around how Palantir used Claude when the Pentagon used Palantir in the Maduro raids.
The pentagon can terminate its direct contract with Anthropic but it does nothing to address the risk that Anthropic poses to the reliability of Palantir’s services, which are (at this point) critical to the way that the Department operates.
People keep repeating this lie and I’m sick of it. The direct usage of Claude by the pentagon is not what they’re trying to address, it’s the usage of Claude by Palantir that they’re trying to address. And this is the legal way for them to do that.
Again, for the third time in this thread, they MAY NOT ask Palantir off the record to just not use Anthropic. This would be extremely illegal and would give Anthropic standing to sue to the government.
Why are you absolutely convinced the government requesting a contractor (Palantir) no longer use a technology they've determined to be unsuitable for their needs would be "extremely illegal", yet demanding every single company engaged in government contracts can no longer use Anthropic for any use whatsoever is totally fine?
I cannot follow the logic there at all. It's like being concerned that asking your neighbor to move their car would be too rude so your solution is to bulldoze their entire driveway. A federal judge evidently disagrees with your legal theory here so perhaps you're off the mark (in fact they specifically call out that the DoD failed to attempt less drastic remedies in violation of the law behind the designation):
Defendants’ designation of Anthropic as a “supply chain risk” is likely both contrary to law and arbitrary and capricious. The Department of War provides no legitimate basis to infer from Anthropic’s forthright insistence on usage restrictions that it might become a saboteur.
There are other serious procedural problems with the government’s actions. Anthropic had no notice or opportunity to respond, which likely violated its due process rights. And the Department of War flouted procedural safeguards required by Congress before entering the supply chain risk designation, including that it consider less intrusive measures.
> Why are you absolutely convinced the government requesting a contractor (Palantir) no longer use a technology they've determined to be unsuitable for their needs would be "extremely illegal", yet demanding every single company engaged in government contracts can no longer use Anthropic for any use whatsoever is totally fine?
Because that’s what the law is! Because 1) 3252 gives them a mechanism to exclude a certain vendor from their supply chain broadly, and 2) singling-out a specific vendor for any other reason (favoritism, corruption, etc.) is not legally permissible under any other law.
You can argue that the law doesn’t make sense, but you can’t argue that the law is not the law?
I don't understand how to square your story about what motivated the government against what actually happened. This is the statement that the President of the United States made when announcing that Anthropic would be cut off:
> THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA WILL NEVER ALLOW
A RADICAL LEFT, WOKE COMPANY TO DICTATE HOW
OUR GREAT MILITARY FIGHTS AND WINS WARS! That
decision belongs to YOUR COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF and the
tremendous leaders I appoint to run our Military.
The Leftwing nut jobs at Anthropic have made a DISASTROUS
MISTAKE trying to STRONG-ARM the Department of War, and
force them to obey their Terms of Service instead of our
Constitution. Their selfishness is putting AMERICAN LIVES at
risk, our Troops in danger, and our National Security in
JEOPARDY.
> Therefore, I am directing EVERY Federal Agency in the United
States Government to IMMEDIATELY CEASE all use of
Anthropic’s technology. We don’t need it, we don’t want it, and
will not do business with them again! There will be a Six Month
phase out period for Agencies like the Department of War who are
using Anthropic’s products, at various levels. Anthropic better get
their act together, and be helpful during this phase out period, or I
will use the Full Power of the Presidency to make them comply, with
major civil and criminal consequences to follow.
> WE will decide the fate of our Country — NOT some out-of-control,
Radical Left AI company run by people who have no idea what the
real World is all about. Thank you for your attention to this matter.
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!
Perhaps you've not seen this statement before; there are a number of people who find it inconvenient that US policy is driven by insane social media rants, and prefer to make up more sensible rationales for the same policies. But there's no part of the actual published announcement that discusses the relationship between Palantir and Anthropic.
DoD would like to use Palantir. DoD also believes Anthropic is pursuing posttraining in future models that will limit the effectiveness of Palantir tooling, if used by Palantir, for the purposes of DoDs mission.
What other legal mechanism do they have to prevent Palantir from specifically not subcontracting out to Anthropic, other than a supply chain risk designation? Note that directly asking Palantir to prefer Google or OpenAI over Anthropic is a violation of procurement law and highly illegal.
They can say "sorry Palantir, we will only sign a contract with you if you commit not to use Claude to provide services" and then Palantir is free to decide if they want to accept the terms of the contract or not. This is how business works.
That would be illegal and ripe for corruption. It would also require the DoD to renegotiate the thousands of existing defense contract it has outstanding.
That’s the entire reason this law exists, because what you’re suggesting is impractical. The department has to confidentially document its rationale for marking a company as a supply chain risk. It’s in the confidential record of this very court case. That’s the legal way to do this.
Again, did you read the order? The judge's order explicitly said this would be legal and cites the law permitting it, then goes on to explain why this action did not satisfy it:
> Covered procurement actions include “[t]he decision to withhold consent for a contractor to subcontract with a particular source or to direct a contractor . . . to exclude a particular source from consideration for a subcontract.” 10 U.S.C. § 3252(d)(2)(C).
Covered procurement actions are the things the Secretary can do after making a supply chain risk designation under 3252. The designation is a prerequisite. You can’t direct a contractor to exclude a subcontractor under (d)(2)(C) without first going through the 3252 determination process.
You’re literally posting evidence for why this is the only legal avenue for DoD. Yes, I’ve read everything on courtlistener. I trust you have as well, but did you understand any of it?!
Yes, it turns out our laws make it hard for the government to do a lot of things because making it easy for them to do things leads to some deeply authoritarian bullshit.
What a beautiful/horrifying inversion of logic. The government does it the legal way, through an existing law, and you’re short circuiting and pattern matching to “the government is trying to work around the law”.
The DoD is not trying to sneak its way out of behaving legally. On the contrary, they’re doing it the legal way and you’re suggesting that they could just do it the illegal way.
Again, you of undue certainty: the government attempted this potentially legal avenue, and it was adjudicated as impermissible. Meaning what they tried didn't work. Why are you acting like no one else here understands what has happened? Probability dictates that you are almost certainly not the smartest person in the room.
It wasn’t “adjudicated as impermissible”. You’re misunderstanding what a preliminary injunction represents. It’s right there in the name: preliminary. It’s preliminary because it precedes the actual real adjudication.
> Why are you acting like no one else here understands what has happened?
Because you clearly don’t? Because nobody who has a remote understanding of the legal system would be stupid enough to suggest that a San Francisco district court judge preliminary injunction decision would carry enough weight to dictate DoD procurement during an active hot war.
The DOD is labeling a domestic company a supply chain risk - label generally reserved for hostile foreign powers and their cooperators - because that domestic company didn't agree to its contract terms.
Judge Lin's order finds that it do so specifically to harm that company, without due process and without the remedies Congress specifically requested be used when it drafted the law. The DOD was, in essence, using a law illegally.
The version of events you present does not seem to be tethered to reality.
> DoD would like to use Palantir. DoD also believes Anthropic is pursuing posttraining in future models that will limit the effectiveness of Palantir tooling, if used by Palantir, for the purposes of DoDs mission.
> What other legal mechanism do they have to prevent Palantir from specifically not subcontracting out to Anthropic, other than a supply chain risk designation?
Even assuming the stated concern was justifiable, and even assuming that there was no alternative mechanism, that does not:
(1) Justify them failing to what is explicit required for the supply chain risk designation,
(2) Create an exception to the 5th Amendment Due Process Clause, which (for reasons stated in the ruling) merely meeting the facial standards in the statute for the supply chain risk designation does not do when the supplier is (contrary to the motivating justification for the statutory provision) a domestic supplier where the government has no special evidence that it can demonstrate for exigency,
(3) Justify the other challenged actions covered by the injunction (like the Hegseth Directive ordering a much broader ban than is imposed by the supply chain risk designation, or the earlier Presidential Directive ordering an even broader ban than the Hegseth Directive.)
(4) Really, do anything at all legally, because it is not a principal of US law that the government, if it has a good motive, is free to act outside of the law merely because there is no provision inside the law which meets its desires.
They don’t? Anthropic is suing for the right to deal in weapons and surveillance, you realize? They’re not fighting for the right to not be compelled to deal in weapons in surveillance. They’re fighting for the right to be a part of the defense industrial complex supply chain.
You can say this person is an idiot all you want, but the fact of the matter is that if DoD does not want to deal with Anthropic through Palantir, their only legal recourse at this point is to drop Palantir. They shot their shot with this legal gamble to remove Anthropic from the supply chain, and they failed. That's it. Curtains or deal with it.
You really think the world works that way? One judge with two years on the bench makes a determination after two weeks of consideration and the case is closed forever?
This injunction doesn’t take effect for a week, precisely so that the Department has time to appeal this to the 9th circuit. And even if the 9th circuit doesn’t stay it, SCOTUS will. This court has stayed district court injunctions against the executive on national security grounds multiple times. They are not going to let a single district judge in San Francisco dictate military procurement during an active war. Obviously. OBVIOUSLY.
Lin didn’t drop Palantir from the defense supply chain unilaterally. The world does not work that way. Obviously. She issued a preliminary injunction that will be appealed before it takes effect. The DoD has not “shot their shot.” This lawsuit hasn’t even started yet.
> Anthropic is suing for the right to deal in weapons and surveillance, you realize?
No, they are suing for the reversal of specific government actions which they contend were taken without lawful authority and for Constitutionally impermissible purposes.
Okay, sure, that’s a lot of fancy words to say a lot of nothing.
What remedy are they seeking? How can this be redressed? (Hint: they want to be a part of the DoD supply chain. If they weren’t, they wouldn’t have standing. If the court can’t do anything for you even if you win, you fail the redressability prong and get bounced for lack of standing.)
Lost in the cacophony is the fact that Anthropic fumbled a strong lifeline while hemorrhaging cash without a business model. It’s fun to look down at OpenAI but they may not get another chance like this again.
Claude has had such a massive increase in usage since being labeled a supply chain risk the service has been struggling to scale to meet increase demand.
On top of that, the prevailing opinion seemed to be that courts would overrule the supply chain risk designation, allowing the government and its subcontractors to use Claude again.
It’s hard to see how they could have navigated this better
Anthropic is the leading enterprise LLM provider. All they have to do is keep building a best-performing product, charge what they need, and keep costs as far down as possible. If my company knew there were an LLM 1.5x as good as Opus, they would be willing to pay 3x the cost. If it were being sold by Anthropic, they’d be even more likely to pay, since we could easily keep our same tooling.
This government contract was a very small part of anthropic revenue. Almost negligible. Their 2026 revenue is projected to be $14 billion to $20 billion. This contract was $200M over 2 years.
It's fun to say that Anthropic doesn't have a business model, but clearly they do. Hopefully they can achieve it while maintaining their standards, even if in the eyes of some that's 'fumbling a strong lifeline'.
OpenAI smells desperate, and is already understood to be overextended. It isn't Anthropic that retired their flashy video gen platform, ceding competitive ground to Google.
Just a district judge, so I’m supposing the Trump administration will file an appeal if they care, and will almost certainly get a preliminary injunction. The Ninth Circuit ruling will be more telling.
Is the practical outcome much different? I doubt they'll get contracts either way, so the labelling was just a formality.
If anything it seems the label was just intended to give a veneer of legitimacy to the admin by using an existing mechanism and terminology, rather than saying "we're going to block your access because we feel like it".
The point of the supply chain risk designation was not just to have the DoD stop using Anthropic (they could have done that by just cancelling the contract). Their intended effect was to force every company that sells to the US government, no matter how indirectly, to not use Anthropic in any way, which would effectively destroy them because almost every company is in the supply chain (for example my company is https://calaveras.ai/ because we sell to AI companies who in turn sell to DoD).
> Fun fact: Palantir is powered entirely by Claude
Haha what, OpenAI has been in bed with them and their models used by them since before Anthropic was even a thing. Claude will just have been picked because they considered it the strongest at the task at that point in time.
The pushback isn't that they use Anthropic, it is that you stated they used it "entirely", which is not true.
Yes Anthropic is a priority model in their ecosystem and they are deeply embedded with both tech and staff, but they are not the one as indicated and sourced in my reply above.
This is not really possible. My guess is that the government is not willing to spend the necessary quantity of money to get e.g. Amazon or Google to divest of Anthropic and stop providing them computing resources.
The point is that if DoD's supply chain restriction does what Hegseth seems to want, all contractors involved with Anthropic would have to divest. That includes Amazon and Google, who are both DoD contractors who provide massive quantities of capital and compute to Anthropic. It's irrelevant that Anthropic provides Claude through Palantir.
I'm not sure that's how the supply chain risk thing works. AFAIK, it has to be part of the supply chain for the products delivered to the DoD to count. I don't think just because Amazon is unrelatedly involved with Anthropic, this forces them to sever that relationship. I'm not sure if Hegseth thinks otherwise, but it's entirely possible that he is wrong or that being wrong is expedient to his threats.
I believe you are correct, but they could still weaponize it by requiring the contractors to document proof of not using Anthropic products and can drag that out as long as they want to.
No you don’t understand, they can’t accomplish the same by an informal policy.
Both Google and Amazon are government contractors. With the designation, they might have had to divest their positions in Anthropic and be unable to serve their models.
> I'm not sure that's how the supply chain risk thing works. AFAIK, it has to be part of the supply chain for the products delivered to the DoD to count. I don't think just because Amazon is unrelatedly involved with Anthropic, this forces them to sever that relationship. I'm not sure if Hegseth thinks otherwise, but it's entirely possible that he is wrong or that being wrong is expedient to his threats.
How would they implement such a policy? Amazon, Google, etc. aren't realistically going to terminate all business with Anthropic based on an informal policy that the DoD won't write down.
Same as they already pressure these companies. Remove access to the admin thus giving them unfavorable terms on other issues compared to their rivals. Tell them as much in private and what they can do to rectify it. That's this admin's whole modus operandi, is it not? There's a reason all the CEOs clamor to go to the relevant WH events.
A CEO's time isn't that valuable. Even if you count an amortized fraction of their total compensation, sending them to a White House event for an evening is orders of magnitude less costly than giving up access to the best software development tools.
This whole event was precipitated by Palantir using Claude in the Maduro raid, and news of this surprising Anthropic and resulting in them asking questions and maybe suggesting in private discussions that they took issue with this and wanted to introduce more posttraining limits on the ways their model was used by the department. This has been widely reported and I don’t think anyone is really disputing that.
If that’s true, then what you’re suggesting is absurd. Because it’s not enough for the pentagon to merely stop contracting with Claude, because that was never the problem in the first place from their risk model. Their problem was they had a prime contract with Palantir for their wargaming service, and Palantir subcontracted with Anthropic as an LLM provider. So if DoD ceased to contract with Anthropic directly, it would have no impact on the risk that Anthropics new posttraining limits potentially posed to their mission insofar as they are reliant on Palantir and it’s services and there would be nothing preventing Palantir from continuing to contract with Anthropic.
I have to ask, what other tool do you think they have to protect themselves from this? You can argue that these guardrails from Anthropic are useful and important and DoD should just accept that, and that’s fine, but it really is (and ought to be) the departments decision about whether they’re comfortable with that or not. It’s their call. They have access to information on our adversaries that the public doesn’t. And they’re the ones responsible when lives are lost. And if they’re not comfortable with trusting service member lives to a specific post trained Opus 4.6 model, I’m not sure what other avenue they have to solve that problem across their entire prime contracting space other than a supply chain risk designation.
Any sort of backroom dealings where they whisper off the record to defense CTOs that they have a problem with anthropics leadership and would prefer that they sub out to OpenAI or Gemini instead for LLM services would be totally illegal and a violation of procurement law. So they definitely can’t do that. A supply chain risk designation is the only real tool they have to single out a single company.
One thing worth noting: Anthropic is a PBC, which is a new corporate structure that makes it relatively unaccountable to traditional profit motives. But those traditional profit motives are precisely the carrot that the DoD relies on dangling in front of the industry to motivate companies toward its mission. Traditional for profit companies are lead by people who have a fiduciary responsibility to maximize profit by serving the government. The entire procurement process relies on companies being motivated by profit and competing through bids. But PBCs are specifically designed to remove that incentive structure from their decision making, which makes them entirely unalike every other defense contractor which is publicly traded and can be held legally responsible by shareholders for putting personal beliefs above increasing shareholder value. That sounds like… exactly the kind of thing you don’t want in your military supply chain.
> Any sort of backroom dealings where they whisper off the record to defense CTOs that they have a problem with anthropics leadership and would prefer that they sub out to OpenAI or Gemini instead for LLM services would be totally illegal and a violation of procurement law. So they definitely can’t do that.
It doesn't seem they'd be subject to any kind of effective enforcement to me
I believe designating an entity a supply chain risk has far deeper implications than the DoD avoiding that entity, and goes as far as a lawful prohibition for any contractor of the USG being also prohibited from using or working with the entity so designated. Ironically enough, if the comments in this discussion are true that Palantír uses Claude, Palantír would've also been prohibited as well.
I think that's what the common reporting implies, but I'm not confident that it's true. My understanding is that a supply chain risk must specifically be involved in the supply chain, hence the name. It may be that the admin hypes up their powers for the purposes of instilling fear, but as evidenced by this very post, they can be wrong.
The Supply Chain Risk label requires every single company in the supply chain of a product or service provided to the US Government to either drop Anthropic or get dropped themselves. This is not just suppliers, but also includes suppliers of suppliers all the way down. This is a much larger chunk of the economy (approaching 100%) than the Pentagon/DOW.
Aaand that would get challenged in court, remember they had to get Congress to create this designation in the first place because it is not de-facto legal for the USG to discriminate between individuals or corporations.
> Nothing in the governing statute supports the Orwellian notion that an American company may be branded a potential adversary and saboteur of the U.S. for expressing disagreement with the government
What issue do you take with that statement or the outcome here? I think Anthropic’s position on what the tech should not be used for was well reasoned.
It feels like the govt. flipped out based on their public messaging and this whole ordeal - instead of them themselves being more measured and just choosing not to use Anthropic’s services if they take an issue with it.
I deeply wish for people who say things this cryptic and opinionated to actually speak their mind and back up their positions. Comments like these add little to the discussion.
So much for all that alarmism a month ago. Just got to be patient and wait for cooler heads to prevail. Or it goes to show how Anthropic handled it well, by making their case as persuasively and assertively without delay as they had done.
This is entirely procedural. This preliminary injunction does not take effect for a week (eg: the order does not take effect for another week and the ban stays in place in the interim), which is done precisely to give the DoD the time to appeal to a higher court, whereupon this preliminary injunction order will very likely be reversed/blocked until the lower court has time to rule on the merits.
This case means nothing since the administration can simply say well we’re gonna treat them that way, even if they aren’t officially labeled and if you’re doing business with them, we’re gonna cancel your contract. Mob tactics don’t extend to the courtroom..
I completely disagree with the idea that a court not allowing the Secretary of Defense to bankrupt a company for disagreeing with him means it's wrong to be alarmed that he tried. It remains extraordinarily alarming that the guy who runs the US military thinks anyone who tries to stop him from doing what he'd like is a threat.
I think the verdict has been in for years now that there is nothing that Americans will mobilize against if it’s only the principles of freedom and liberty on the line. I think it will take being poked with a rather large stick to see some movement. Crippling the economy might be that stick. Unfortunately we all get to suffer their idiocracy.
As I've told people in the past, what you have to understand is that the First Amendment gives Americans wide latitude to mobilize in ways which don't code as mobilization. There's a nationwide protest scheduled for Saturday based on the premise that Trump is a tyrant and we the people won't let him do what he wants. But it's legal and common for people to say that; indeed, it's even legal to say (and I do say) that Trump should be overthrown. So what would be "mobilization" in a lot of places is just another weekend.
I don't understand what the analogy means in this context. Do I think that it's illegal or impossible to oppose the US government? No, I do so routinely.
That’s the least concerning thing about Hegseth. The “warrior of God” rhetoric and the fact that he publicly wants to start word war 3 in the name of Jesus should be way more prominent in the public conversation.
> Please don't post insinuations about astroturfing, shilling, brigading, foreign agents, and the like. It degrades discussion and is usually mistaken. If you're worried about abuse, email hn@ycombinator.com and we'll look at the data.
They're specifically referring to the dead comments from new users in this thread, so it's not insinuation. They're pointing out a higher-than-normal quantity of shill bots flocked to this thread.
The fact that the comments are dead means the system is working as intended, but it's not unreasonable to point out the nature of the comments.
The mistake is thinking that an organic entity won't reject causality when it interferes with their politics.
The interesting thing here is that this isn't an always-on feature. You can actually see the process on a person's face. I was delighted by the recent DOGE depositions because the video quality is good enough to see the guy's eyes stop moving and glaze over.
Sadly, Portland is a backwater logging outpost and no one outside the PNW gives a shit about Portland or could place it on a map. I'm sorry, it's true.
I wouldn't call something a non-story just because the ultimate end-goal was mitigated. The fact that it was attempted is a story, especially when it's a meta commentary on story about trying the same thing _officially_.
Eh. The actors that use these features use a shotgun approach. The result is you see a bunch of dead comments and assume the system is working as intended, while a couple of the less inconspicuous comments persist. This happens frequently on specific topics.
As many, many people more intelligent and good-faith than you have pointed out, the government is free to stop using Anthropic‘s services at any time: nobody disputes that. What they are not free to do is impose a corporate death sentence because their contract counterparty wouldn’t submit to forceful changing of terms they had previously both agreed on.
As everyone will see it for what it is when Hegseth reports for his prison sentence. I regret that you see American democracy protecting itself as a plot by "the Left", and hope you'll have the wisdom to abandon ship before the aspiring autocrats drag you down with them.
>was refuse to perform certain categories of service?
Anthropic wanted to have the power over what the government could or couldn't do. If there was any false positive on something that was supposed to be allowed the government would have to work with Anthropic and get permission from them to do something they are allowed to do. This to me is the risk that Anthropic was giving to the government. If Anthropic expresses that they want this level of power over what the military can do I think that such intention can justify being a risk. That is how it relates to my comment.
Yes, anthropic wanted that power through a legal agreement. Not by spying on the pentagon , or training their AI model to lie to them etc, which seems more appropriate for supply chain risk. The government in this case can just cancel its legal agreement with Anthropic and move on, which was always its expected move. Trying to unilaterally destroy Anthropics business for a contractual disagreement is not fair and I’m glad the judicial is pushing back.
Anthropic wanted power over what the government would do with the servers Anthropic runs. That's not weird and that's not being a risk. It's normal business negotiation.
This is not about the usage restrictions in the agreement. As shown by OpenAI's agreement getting similar restrictions. It is about Anthropic's attitude in how Anthropic has the ultimate power in its usage. If RTX started demanding that they should be the ones to decide who Tomahawk missiles can be used on when they are launched. And RTX said that the government should file a support ticket to appeal a decision, then I would not be surprised that such actions could lead to considering them to be a supply risk. Even if it was just part of "business negotiation." It is the mindset that the other company has which clearly is showing signs of risk.
What the court found is that Anthropic demanded no such thing. The government lied and claimed that they did as part of their attempt to punish Anthropic.
Yes, they can work with someone else. Marking them as a supply risk is one way they can avoid using them and instead use someone else for their needs. So now it seems like we are in a limbo where the government knows that Anthropic is a risk to work with, but they can't official put them on a list that states that.
Well, you could also say what's the point of laws when courts can interpret them however they like? There's never a neat answer in such multi-valent systems, is there?
To act as a safety valve against foreign companies acting as proxies for an adversary. Not for use against an American company that won't let you retroactively violate already agreed to terms. Anthropic isn't jeopardizing the supply chain, they simply will not let the Government force them into providing services they otherwise wouldn't.
Opinions on the merits vary, but in this instance, the government's actions were undeniably overbearing and unilateral. It is encouraging to see the judiciary successfully function as a check and balance against such executive overreach.
> successfully
Time will tell
The issue of course is that the Judge can't change the knowledge that the head of the executive doesn't want people down the chain using this product, so they won't. Anthropic is a dead letter in government circles until the next Presidential election.
That may be, but the government doesn't need to declare Anthropic as a "supply chain risk" in order to just not do business with it. A simple clause in all RFPs is all that is needed.
The problem with this declaration by the government is that now any company doing any business with the US government would be effectively forbidden from using Anthropic ANYWHERE within their company, which is a huge deal, because the government does want to vet any vendors' software development practices.
But as long as the Judge in this case pushes back against such an action by the government, that leaves companies free to use Anthropic for their own internal uses. And most companies WILL continue to use them if it makes economic sense.
Perhaps. But certainly those companies will factor in the risk that this is overturned, or that the government pursues other extrajudicial means to punish those who do business with Anthropic.
All things equal, you’d be better off not exposing yourself to risk of financial harm or other punitive measures. Which is the whole point of the government’s action in the first place.
> All things equal, you’d be better off not exposing yourself to risk of financial harm or other punitive measures.
This isn't necessarily true. This is a complex decision; the logic above frames the decision narrowly, with a short-term time horizon. This kind of decision calls for game theory, not merely an individualistic calculus. Appeasing Trump isn't a winning strategy in the long-run. History shows that cooperation (e.g. pushing back) against authoritarianism is often a better strategy. Consumers may reward companies that behave well. Bottom line: you have to game it out -- no one commenting here has done that, I'll bet. So until someone has ... stay agnostic analytically.
The type of contract they had was optional anyway. They could have just not done business with Anthropic in the first place. Really I think this has only promoted their platform as being sane and moral.
That’s fine. They can choose to use whatever model their political hearts desire. the supply chain risk designation means EVERYONE who works with the government isn’t allowed to use Claude. Nearly everyone in tech has some sort of contract with the government.
> the supply chain risk designation means EVERYONE who works with the government isn’t allowed to use Claude.
No, it doesn't. The even more illegal Presidential directive (also a subject of this case and the injunction) asserts that, but the supply chain risk designation itself does not have that effect.
That's something that normal boring suits can and do remedy. Companies sue and win over denied government contracts all the time.
Eh, it’s not going to be transitively problematic for Anthropic the way the supply chain risk designation would’ve been.
Amazon isn’t going to have to divest from Anthropic because of this. Yes, they probably won’t be able to get a contract with Raytheon, but that wasn’t the main risk of being tagged with the supply chain risk designation.
Had this conversation with a friend, but I think as an America you can be very optimistic about the institutional strength of democracy in the country.
People are very pessimistic recently, but if anything, we are seeing that our system works well. A person got into power that a majority voted for, but when he oversteps, the courts and other institutions (even judges and fed reserve chairs he picked!) seem to hold him to the rules.
I get the pessimism, but for the most part, I kinda think the system is working.
The question is not whether the walls can contain the bull until animal control arrives, but whether any china will remain intact.
The bull comparison is a bit unfair to the bull, who didn't break any china at all in MythBusters https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xzw2iBmRsjs
Given the iran situation I think china will be fine.
(I'll show myself out)
lol judges have ruled 100s or 1000s of ICE detentions in various states illegal by now. None of that has stopped ICE from doing what it's doing. This kind of optimism in the law seems naive today because there is no mechanism to actually enforce it. All federal agents have very substantial legal & civil immunity, heads of departments have immunity as well. The head of the legal system is Pam Bondi who isn't even prosecuting child rapists, or Donald Trump who is one.
Even after Kristi Noem ruined countless lives and was responsible for deaths of innocent people, the only consequence she faced is being demoted to some made up job where she still gets paid to do nothing - no fine, no jail, not even being out of work, no accountability, no justice. None of the ICE agents involved have faced any consequences besides a leave either, we don't even know most of their names. The justice system is not working.
People who don't follow the news like most of the tech community are living in some dreamland of a system or treating it as a purely mental battle of optimism/pessimism vs. actually seeing what is happening.
> judges have ruled 100s or 1000s of ICE detentions in various states illegal by now. None of that has stopped ICE from doing what it's doing.
This is a weird one because ICE has lost so many habeas cases, mostly by dropping them, only for the 8th circuit court of appeals (which covers Minnesota) to overturn that the other day:
https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/26/03/253248P.pdf
There was similar precedent in the 5th circuit (Texas) previously, too, but that was not binding on Minnesota:
https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/26884355/ca5detention...
So this is pretty weird now, legally, since a ton of lower courts have assumed things didn't work this way and the appeals courts are now saying they're wrong.
This is one ruling out of many, many of which directly benefit Trump. See Trump vs. United States 2024 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_v._United_States
There’s absolutely 0 reason to be optimistic towards a court stacked explicitly in his favor.
Trump or various departments of his administration have a 90% success rate with cases at the Supreme Court, as compared to a roughly 55-60% success rate at lower courts. The judiciary can still work, but the highest judiciary in the land is pretty soundly in his pocket. Trump's most significant defeat at the Supreme Court, overturning his signature tariffs policy, was viewed by some as a sign that the Supreme Court remained independent and defiant... but that's pretty clearly not the case, at least not up to this point.
> that a majority voted for
A majority of people who voted. Not a majority of eligible voters and certainly not a majority.
No one cares about people who don't bother to vote. If you can't manage even that you don't deserve an opinion.
blah blah some exceptional circumstances, etc you all know what I mean.
Anyone who was eligible but didn’t vote effectively voted for whomever won. The distinction doesn’t matter.
Are you saying that if all eligible voters were forced to vote, Trump may have lost the popular vote?
I'm saying that words have meanings and that it's important to be clear about what they are.
>Are you saying that if all eligible voters were forced to vote, Trump may have lost the popular vote?
I've recently heard a commentary by a man with PhD in international relations* about why has Trump won the elections.
Specialist said that a lot of people who would have voted against Trump didn't vote. That was due to many grave mistakes made by the democrats.
Usually when populists win, it's because the other side blatantly ignores some public issues. This time it was economic hardships, immigration/border control.
There is also the long trend of turning away from the working class and focusing on protecting/supporting the DEI people instead. The working class might feel betrayed and vote against them instead.
"The cost of hubris" - as one of the Minmatar militia missions from Eve online was called.
I hate Trump as much as the next guy but this feels like nitpicking. You're obviously right, but if you choose not to vote then you're implicitly approving of whatever outcome you get.
What are you smoking? The DoD will not be compelled by the judicial branch to contract with a company they believe poses a risk to service member lives during an active war where American lives have been lost. That’s just the way it is, and it should be obvious to you if you have a basic understanding of history or law.
This is a Biden appointee with two years on the job, and this will immediately be taken up by a higher court and blocked until a ruling on the merits is made. It will be appealed. DoD might have to go to the Supreme Court before this is all said and done, but they will win in the end, and this ban will stay in place until that happens.
Did you read the order? It directly addresses your comment:
> More importantly, as discussed above, no one is entitled to conduct business with the Federal Government, see Perkins, 310 U.S. at 127, and irrespective of the challenged actions, DoW and other federal agencies are free to terminate its contracts and agreements with Anthropic, as Anthropic readily admits.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.46...
This entire event came about because Anthropic raised concerns with Palantir and the Department around how Palantir used Claude when the Pentagon used Palantir in the Maduro raids.
The pentagon can terminate its direct contract with Anthropic but it does nothing to address the risk that Anthropic poses to the reliability of Palantir’s services, which are (at this point) critical to the way that the Department operates.
People keep repeating this lie and I’m sick of it. The direct usage of Claude by the pentagon is not what they’re trying to address, it’s the usage of Claude by Palantir that they’re trying to address. And this is the legal way for them to do that.
Again, for the third time in this thread, they MAY NOT ask Palantir off the record to just not use Anthropic. This would be extremely illegal and would give Anthropic standing to sue to the government.
Why are you absolutely convinced the government requesting a contractor (Palantir) no longer use a technology they've determined to be unsuitable for their needs would be "extremely illegal", yet demanding every single company engaged in government contracts can no longer use Anthropic for any use whatsoever is totally fine?
I cannot follow the logic there at all. It's like being concerned that asking your neighbor to move their car would be too rude so your solution is to bulldoze their entire driveway. A federal judge evidently disagrees with your legal theory here so perhaps you're off the mark (in fact they specifically call out that the DoD failed to attempt less drastic remedies in violation of the law behind the designation):
> Why are you absolutely convinced the government requesting a contractor (Palantir) no longer use a technology they've determined to be unsuitable for their needs would be "extremely illegal", yet demanding every single company engaged in government contracts can no longer use Anthropic for any use whatsoever is totally fine?
Because that’s what the law is! Because 1) 3252 gives them a mechanism to exclude a certain vendor from their supply chain broadly, and 2) singling-out a specific vendor for any other reason (favoritism, corruption, etc.) is not legally permissible under any other law.
You can argue that the law doesn’t make sense, but you can’t argue that the law is not the law?
I don't understand how to square your story about what motivated the government against what actually happened. This is the statement that the President of the United States made when announcing that Anthropic would be cut off:
> THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA WILL NEVER ALLOW A RADICAL LEFT, WOKE COMPANY TO DICTATE HOW OUR GREAT MILITARY FIGHTS AND WINS WARS! That decision belongs to YOUR COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF and the tremendous leaders I appoint to run our Military. The Leftwing nut jobs at Anthropic have made a DISASTROUS MISTAKE trying to STRONG-ARM the Department of War, and force them to obey their Terms of Service instead of our Constitution. Their selfishness is putting AMERICAN LIVES at risk, our Troops in danger, and our National Security in JEOPARDY.
> Therefore, I am directing EVERY Federal Agency in the United States Government to IMMEDIATELY CEASE all use of Anthropic’s technology. We don’t need it, we don’t want it, and will not do business with them again! There will be a Six Month phase out period for Agencies like the Department of War who are using Anthropic’s products, at various levels. Anthropic better get their act together, and be helpful during this phase out period, or I will use the Full Power of the Presidency to make them comply, with major civil and criminal consequences to follow.
> WE will decide the fate of our Country — NOT some out-of-control, Radical Left AI company run by people who have no idea what the real World is all about. Thank you for your attention to this matter. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!
Perhaps you've not seen this statement before; there are a number of people who find it inconvenient that US policy is driven by insane social media rants, and prefer to make up more sensible rationales for the same policies. But there's no part of the actual published announcement that discusses the relationship between Palantir and Anthropic.
No one is forcing the DoD to contract with a company.
DoD would like to use Palantir. DoD also believes Anthropic is pursuing posttraining in future models that will limit the effectiveness of Palantir tooling, if used by Palantir, for the purposes of DoDs mission.
What other legal mechanism do they have to prevent Palantir from specifically not subcontracting out to Anthropic, other than a supply chain risk designation? Note that directly asking Palantir to prefer Google or OpenAI over Anthropic is a violation of procurement law and highly illegal.
What other mechanism do they have?
They can say "sorry Palantir, we will only sign a contract with you if you commit not to use Claude to provide services" and then Palantir is free to decide if they want to accept the terms of the contract or not. This is how business works.
That would be illegal and ripe for corruption. It would also require the DoD to renegotiate the thousands of existing defense contract it has outstanding.
That’s the entire reason this law exists, because what you’re suggesting is impractical. The department has to confidentially document its rationale for marking a company as a supply chain risk. It’s in the confidential record of this very court case. That’s the legal way to do this.
Again, did you read the order? The judge's order explicitly said this would be legal and cites the law permitting it, then goes on to explain why this action did not satisfy it:
> Covered procurement actions include “[t]he decision to withhold consent for a contractor to subcontract with a particular source or to direct a contractor . . . to exclude a particular source from consideration for a subcontract.” 10 U.S.C. § 3252(d)(2)(C).
I strongly suggest reading the order. I have included the link again: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.46...
You can’t be serious…
Covered procurement actions are the things the Secretary can do after making a supply chain risk designation under 3252. The designation is a prerequisite. You can’t direct a contractor to exclude a subcontractor under (d)(2)(C) without first going through the 3252 determination process.
You’re literally posting evidence for why this is the only legal avenue for DoD. Yes, I’ve read everything on courtlistener. I trust you have as well, but did you understand any of it?!
This site keeps getting dumber and dumber.
Yes, it turns out our laws make it hard for the government to do a lot of things because making it easy for them to do things leads to some deeply authoritarian bullshit.
What a beautiful/horrifying inversion of logic. The government does it the legal way, through an existing law, and you’re short circuiting and pattern matching to “the government is trying to work around the law”.
The DoD is not trying to sneak its way out of behaving legally. On the contrary, they’re doing it the legal way and you’re suggesting that they could just do it the illegal way.
Again, you of undue certainty: the government attempted this potentially legal avenue, and it was adjudicated as impermissible. Meaning what they tried didn't work. Why are you acting like no one else here understands what has happened? Probability dictates that you are almost certainly not the smartest person in the room.
It wasn’t “adjudicated as impermissible”. You’re misunderstanding what a preliminary injunction represents. It’s right there in the name: preliminary. It’s preliminary because it precedes the actual real adjudication.
> Why are you acting like no one else here understands what has happened?
Because you clearly don’t? Because nobody who has a remote understanding of the legal system would be stupid enough to suggest that a San Francisco district court judge preliminary injunction decision would carry enough weight to dictate DoD procurement during an active hot war.
The DOD is labeling a domestic company a supply chain risk - label generally reserved for hostile foreign powers and their cooperators - because that domestic company didn't agree to its contract terms.
Judge Lin's order finds that it do so specifically to harm that company, without due process and without the remedies Congress specifically requested be used when it drafted the law. The DOD was, in essence, using a law illegally.
The version of events you present does not seem to be tethered to reality.
> DoD would like to use Palantir. DoD also believes Anthropic is pursuing posttraining in future models that will limit the effectiveness of Palantir tooling, if used by Palantir, for the purposes of DoDs mission.
> What other legal mechanism do they have to prevent Palantir from specifically not subcontracting out to Anthropic, other than a supply chain risk designation?
Even assuming the stated concern was justifiable, and even assuming that there was no alternative mechanism, that does not:
(1) Justify them failing to what is explicit required for the supply chain risk designation,
(2) Create an exception to the 5th Amendment Due Process Clause, which (for reasons stated in the ruling) merely meeting the facial standards in the statute for the supply chain risk designation does not do when the supplier is (contrary to the motivating justification for the statutory provision) a domestic supplier where the government has no special evidence that it can demonstrate for exigency,
(3) Justify the other challenged actions covered by the injunction (like the Hegseth Directive ordering a much broader ban than is imposed by the supply chain risk designation, or the earlier Presidential Directive ordering an even broader ban than the Hegseth Directive.)
(4) Really, do anything at all legally, because it is not a principal of US law that the government, if it has a good motive, is free to act outside of the law merely because there is no provision inside the law which meets its desires.
Why are they entitled to have a mechanism to force a private company to deal in weapons and surveillance?
They don’t? Anthropic is suing for the right to deal in weapons and surveillance, you realize? They’re not fighting for the right to not be compelled to deal in weapons in surveillance. They’re fighting for the right to be a part of the defense industrial complex supply chain.
Idiot.
You can say this person is an idiot all you want, but the fact of the matter is that if DoD does not want to deal with Anthropic through Palantir, their only legal recourse at this point is to drop Palantir. They shot their shot with this legal gamble to remove Anthropic from the supply chain, and they failed. That's it. Curtains or deal with it.
You really think the world works that way? One judge with two years on the bench makes a determination after two weeks of consideration and the case is closed forever?
This injunction doesn’t take effect for a week, precisely so that the Department has time to appeal this to the 9th circuit. And even if the 9th circuit doesn’t stay it, SCOTUS will. This court has stayed district court injunctions against the executive on national security grounds multiple times. They are not going to let a single district judge in San Francisco dictate military procurement during an active war. Obviously. OBVIOUSLY.
Lin didn’t drop Palantir from the defense supply chain unilaterally. The world does not work that way. Obviously. She issued a preliminary injunction that will be appealed before it takes effect. The DoD has not “shot their shot.” This lawsuit hasn’t even started yet.
> Anthropic is suing for the right to deal in weapons and surveillance, you realize?
No, they are suing for the reversal of specific government actions which they contend were taken without lawful authority and for Constitutionally impermissible purposes.
Okay, sure, that’s a lot of fancy words to say a lot of nothing.
What remedy are they seeking? How can this be redressed? (Hint: they want to be a part of the DoD supply chain. If they weren’t, they wouldn’t have standing. If the court can’t do anything for you even if you win, you fail the redressability prong and get bounced for lack of standing.)
No, Anthropic is suing for the right to not be labeled a supply chain risk for a failed contract negotiation.
Nothing in their suit, or this ruling, says the DoD has to buy things from them.
Whose supply chain? A supply chain risk to whom?
If they are comfortable without being in that supply chain, whoever’s supply chain that is (exercise to the reader), why are they suing?
Lost in the cacophony is the fact that Anthropic fumbled a strong lifeline while hemorrhaging cash without a business model. It’s fun to look down at OpenAI but they may not get another chance like this again.
Claude has had such a massive increase in usage since being labeled a supply chain risk the service has been struggling to scale to meet increase demand.
On top of that, the prevailing opinion seemed to be that courts would overrule the supply chain risk designation, allowing the government and its subcontractors to use Claude again.
It’s hard to see how they could have navigated this better
Anthropic is the leading enterprise LLM provider. All they have to do is keep building a best-performing product, charge what they need, and keep costs as far down as possible. If my company knew there were an LLM 1.5x as good as Opus, they would be willing to pay 3x the cost. If it were being sold by Anthropic, they’d be even more likely to pay, since we could easily keep our same tooling.
This government contract was a very small part of anthropic revenue. Almost negligible. Their 2026 revenue is projected to be $14 billion to $20 billion. This contract was $200M over 2 years.
On top of that, Palantir has been designated as a multi year contract and they use Anthropic under the hood.
It's fun to say that Anthropic doesn't have a business model, but clearly they do. Hopefully they can achieve it while maintaining their standards, even if in the eyes of some that's 'fumbling a strong lifeline'.
OpenAI smells desperate, and is already understood to be overextended. It isn't Anthropic that retired their flashy video gen platform, ceding competitive ground to Google.
whatever you say boss
I assume the court case [1] is referring to 10 U.S. Code § 3252 [2]?
[1] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72379655/134/anthropic-...
[2] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/3252
Just a district judge, so I’m supposing the Trump administration will file an appeal if they care, and will almost certainly get a preliminary injunction. The Ninth Circuit ruling will be more telling.
How many of you had to stop using Claude because of the Pentagon edict?
I had to, and I work in a completely different agency (NIH)
Invert the question:
https://techcrunch.com/2026/03/06/claudes-consumer-growth-su...
We are certainly moving that direction (small defense sub)
Pushed me towards Claude.
Unfortunately the Pentagon can and will appeal, and the 9th Circuit and higher courts are excessively deferential on "matters of national security."
Is the practical outcome much different? I doubt they'll get contracts either way, so the labelling was just a formality.
If anything it seems the label was just intended to give a veneer of legitimacy to the admin by using an existing mechanism and terminology, rather than saying "we're going to block your access because we feel like it".
The point of the supply chain risk designation was not just to have the DoD stop using Anthropic (they could have done that by just cancelling the contract). Their intended effect was to force every company that sells to the US government, no matter how indirectly, to not use Anthropic in any way, which would effectively destroy them because almost every company is in the supply chain (for example my company is https://calaveras.ai/ because we sell to AI companies who in turn sell to DoD).
Fun fact: Palantir is powered entirely by Claude and was what was used for the Venezuela operation and for targeting for the Iranian operation.
> Fun fact: Palantir is powered entirely by Claude
Charitably, this is ambiguous. What does the commenter mean exactly by "entirely"?
> Fun fact: Palantir is powered entirely by Claude
Haha what, OpenAI has been in bed with them and their models used by them since before Anthropic was even a thing. Claude will just have been picked because they considered it the strongest at the task at that point in time.
It's crazy to see this kind of misinformation.
Palantir maven uses Claude. This is not misinformation, but fact.
https://www.reuters.com/technology/palantir-faces-challenge-...
>Palantir maven uses Claude
The pushback isn't that they use Anthropic, it is that you stated they used it "entirely", which is not true.
Yes Anthropic is a priority model in their ecosystem and they are deeply embedded with both tech and staff, but they are not the one as indicated and sourced in my reply above.
> Palantir is powered entirely by Claude
"Microsoft is powered entirely by OpenAI" because a single one of their things uses it. No it isn't.
I understand that, but I suspect the admin will now just have an informal, not-written-down policy that does exactly the same thing.
This is not really possible. My guess is that the government is not willing to spend the necessary quantity of money to get e.g. Amazon or Google to divest of Anthropic and stop providing them computing resources.
I believe Palantir are the only ones providing gov with Claude access
The point is that if DoD's supply chain restriction does what Hegseth seems to want, all contractors involved with Anthropic would have to divest. That includes Amazon and Google, who are both DoD contractors who provide massive quantities of capital and compute to Anthropic. It's irrelevant that Anthropic provides Claude through Palantir.
I'm not sure that's how the supply chain risk thing works. AFAIK, it has to be part of the supply chain for the products delivered to the DoD to count. I don't think just because Amazon is unrelatedly involved with Anthropic, this forces them to sever that relationship. I'm not sure if Hegseth thinks otherwise, but it's entirely possible that he is wrong or that being wrong is expedient to his threats.
I believe you are correct, but they could still weaponize it by requiring the contractors to document proof of not using Anthropic products and can drag that out as long as they want to.
How is an unwritten policy about suppliers of suppliers of suppliers going to affect a million companies?
No you don’t understand, they can’t accomplish the same by an informal policy.
Both Google and Amazon are government contractors. With the designation, they might have had to divest their positions in Anthropic and be unable to serve their models.
No informal rule accomplishes that.
I don't think that's true, as I stated elsewhere:
> I'm not sure that's how the supply chain risk thing works. AFAIK, it has to be part of the supply chain for the products delivered to the DoD to count. I don't think just because Amazon is unrelatedly involved with Anthropic, this forces them to sever that relationship. I'm not sure if Hegseth thinks otherwise, but it's entirely possible that he is wrong or that being wrong is expedient to his threats.
How would they implement such a policy? Amazon, Google, etc. aren't realistically going to terminate all business with Anthropic based on an informal policy that the DoD won't write down.
Same as they already pressure these companies. Remove access to the admin thus giving them unfavorable terms on other issues compared to their rivals. Tell them as much in private and what they can do to rectify it. That's this admin's whole modus operandi, is it not? There's a reason all the CEOs clamor to go to the relevant WH events.
A CEO's time isn't that valuable. Even if you count an amortized fraction of their total compensation, sending them to a White House event for an evening is orders of magnitude less costly than giving up access to the best software development tools.
This whole event was precipitated by Palantir using Claude in the Maduro raid, and news of this surprising Anthropic and resulting in them asking questions and maybe suggesting in private discussions that they took issue with this and wanted to introduce more posttraining limits on the ways their model was used by the department. This has been widely reported and I don’t think anyone is really disputing that.
If that’s true, then what you’re suggesting is absurd. Because it’s not enough for the pentagon to merely stop contracting with Claude, because that was never the problem in the first place from their risk model. Their problem was they had a prime contract with Palantir for their wargaming service, and Palantir subcontracted with Anthropic as an LLM provider. So if DoD ceased to contract with Anthropic directly, it would have no impact on the risk that Anthropics new posttraining limits potentially posed to their mission insofar as they are reliant on Palantir and it’s services and there would be nothing preventing Palantir from continuing to contract with Anthropic.
I have to ask, what other tool do you think they have to protect themselves from this? You can argue that these guardrails from Anthropic are useful and important and DoD should just accept that, and that’s fine, but it really is (and ought to be) the departments decision about whether they’re comfortable with that or not. It’s their call. They have access to information on our adversaries that the public doesn’t. And they’re the ones responsible when lives are lost. And if they’re not comfortable with trusting service member lives to a specific post trained Opus 4.6 model, I’m not sure what other avenue they have to solve that problem across their entire prime contracting space other than a supply chain risk designation.
Any sort of backroom dealings where they whisper off the record to defense CTOs that they have a problem with anthropics leadership and would prefer that they sub out to OpenAI or Gemini instead for LLM services would be totally illegal and a violation of procurement law. So they definitely can’t do that. A supply chain risk designation is the only real tool they have to single out a single company.
One thing worth noting: Anthropic is a PBC, which is a new corporate structure that makes it relatively unaccountable to traditional profit motives. But those traditional profit motives are precisely the carrot that the DoD relies on dangling in front of the industry to motivate companies toward its mission. Traditional for profit companies are lead by people who have a fiduciary responsibility to maximize profit by serving the government. The entire procurement process relies on companies being motivated by profit and competing through bids. But PBCs are specifically designed to remove that incentive structure from their decision making, which makes them entirely unalike every other defense contractor which is publicly traded and can be held legally responsible by shareholders for putting personal beliefs above increasing shareholder value. That sounds like… exactly the kind of thing you don’t want in your military supply chain.
> Any sort of backroom dealings where they whisper off the record to defense CTOs that they have a problem with anthropics leadership and would prefer that they sub out to OpenAI or Gemini instead for LLM services would be totally illegal and a violation of procurement law. So they definitely can’t do that.
It doesn't seem they'd be subject to any kind of effective enforcement to me
Anthropic would definitely have standing to sue if it was ever expressed in writing and leaked.
I believe designating an entity a supply chain risk has far deeper implications than the DoD avoiding that entity, and goes as far as a lawful prohibition for any contractor of the USG being also prohibited from using or working with the entity so designated. Ironically enough, if the comments in this discussion are true that Palantír uses Claude, Palantír would've also been prohibited as well.
I think that's what the common reporting implies, but I'm not confident that it's true. My understanding is that a supply chain risk must specifically be involved in the supply chain, hence the name. It may be that the admin hypes up their powers for the purposes of instilling fear, but as evidenced by this very post, they can be wrong.
It's a strong signal that the government cannot strong arm privates.
Though of course that would require the government to respect the rule of law
The Supply Chain Risk label requires every single company in the supply chain of a product or service provided to the US Government to either drop Anthropic or get dropped themselves. This is not just suppliers, but also includes suppliers of suppliers all the way down. This is a much larger chunk of the economy (approaching 100%) than the Pentagon/DOW.
Yes, but
> I suspect the admin will now just have an informal, not-written-down policy that does exactly the same thing.
That doesn't make any sense. You can't apply an informal policy to the entire supply chain.
Aaand that would get challenged in court, remember they had to get Congress to create this designation in the first place because it is not de-facto legal for the USG to discriminate between individuals or corporations.
There are multiple designations, any part of government, defense applications, not allowed.
For example, in certain outcomes, Anthropic may not be used by the Pentagon, but still be used by the IRS.
Some judicial pushback against authoritarian policies is good to see.
Oh I agree.
I'd wish more for an impartial, considered judgement
> Nothing in the governing statute supports the Orwellian notion that an American company may be branded a potential adversary and saboteur of the U.S. for expressing disagreement with the government
What issue do you take with that statement or the outcome here? I think Anthropic’s position on what the tech should not be used for was well reasoned.
It feels like the govt. flipped out based on their public messaging and this whole ordeal - instead of them themselves being more measured and just choosing not to use Anthropic’s services if they take an issue with it.
Which of course would look exactly like judicial pushback against authoritarian policies.
I deeply wish for people who say things this cryptic and opinionated to actually speak their mind and back up their positions. Comments like these add little to the discussion.
They don't speak their minds because they know their opinions are so beyond the pale that they wouldn't be accepted in civil society.
So much for all that alarmism a month ago. Just got to be patient and wait for cooler heads to prevail. Or it goes to show how Anthropic handled it well, by making their case as persuasively and assertively without delay as they had done.
This is entirely procedural. This preliminary injunction does not take effect for a week (eg: the order does not take effect for another week and the ban stays in place in the interim), which is done precisely to give the DoD the time to appeal to a higher court, whereupon this preliminary injunction order will very likely be reversed/blocked until the lower court has time to rule on the merits.
It’s not really unexpected.
This case means nothing since the administration can simply say well we’re gonna treat them that way, even if they aren’t officially labeled and if you’re doing business with them, we’re gonna cancel your contract. Mob tactics don’t extend to the courtroom..
I completely disagree with the idea that a court not allowing the Secretary of Defense to bankrupt a company for disagreeing with him means it's wrong to be alarmed that he tried. It remains extraordinarily alarming that the guy who runs the US military thinks anyone who tries to stop him from doing what he'd like is a threat.
I think the verdict has been in for years now that there is nothing that Americans will mobilize against if it’s only the principles of freedom and liberty on the line. I think it will take being poked with a rather large stick to see some movement. Crippling the economy might be that stick. Unfortunately we all get to suffer their idiocracy.
As I've told people in the past, what you have to understand is that the First Amendment gives Americans wide latitude to mobilize in ways which don't code as mobilization. There's a nationwide protest scheduled for Saturday based on the premise that Trump is a tyrant and we the people won't let him do what he wants. But it's legal and common for people to say that; indeed, it's even legal to say (and I do say) that Trump should be overthrown. So what would be "mobilization" in a lot of places is just another weekend.
You don’t think the horses are not already out of the barn and long gone?
I don't understand what the analogy means in this context. Do I think that it's illegal or impossible to oppose the US government? No, I do so routinely.
That’s the least concerning thing about Hegseth. The “warrior of God” rhetoric and the fact that he publicly wants to start word war 3 in the name of Jesus should be way more prominent in the public conversation.
It’s all a big PR campaign. They will reveal shortly that they used Claude as their legal team.
meta, but the comment pattern in this thread strongly suggests inorganic support for the government's position.
> Please don't post insinuations about astroturfing, shilling, brigading, foreign agents, and the like. It degrades discussion and is usually mistaken. If you're worried about abuse, email hn@ycombinator.com and we'll look at the data.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
They're specifically referring to the dead comments from new users in this thread, so it's not insinuation. They're pointing out a higher-than-normal quantity of shill bots flocked to this thread.
The fact that the comments are dead means the system is working as intended, but it's not unreasonable to point out the nature of the comments.
The mistake is thinking that an organic entity won't reject causality when it interferes with their politics.
The interesting thing here is that this isn't an always-on feature. You can actually see the process on a person's face. I was delighted by the recent DOGE depositions because the video quality is good enough to see the guy's eyes stop moving and glaze over.
Are you suggesting there is a government conspiracy to influence this dusty corner dive bar of the Internet?
Are there tech workers who don't know what HN is? It's a pretty reasonably sized social media site.
At my previous job at a well known, established large tech company - I didn't find anyone who had heard of HN.
Not about people using HN. But even being aware the site exists.
I'm reminded of that episode of Portlandia where the mayor was obsessed with thinking the city was bigger and more important than it actually is.
I don't think I overstated it. Tech workers is a small piece of the global population.
Portland OR has a higher GDP than Vancouver BC.
Sadly, Portland is a backwater logging outpost and no one outside the PNW gives a shit about Portland or could place it on a map. I'm sorry, it's true.
I had no idea what hn was until about 2 years ago. This would be 8 years into a career in tech… there are dozens of us.
Can you be more specific? I see a lot of uninformed takes, but no specific bias. Do you mean downvotes?
If you turn on the thing that shows 'dead' comments, there is a larger than normal number here.
Indeed, and the dead comments (from new users!) overwhelmingly favor the government position.
But, this is a non-story, because those comments were correctly killed precisely so they wouldn't clog up this thread.
I wouldn't call something a non-story just because the ultimate end-goal was mitigated. The fact that it was attempted is a story, especially when it's a meta commentary on story about trying the same thing _officially_.
Do you think it's more likely a government influence operation, or a single dipshit lazily pasting LLM slop?
Could be organic dipshits with little to offer the discussion. That's the most common case in my view.
Said dipshits tend have an unnecessarily high degree of self regard.
They're definitely highly regarded.
Veiled slurs aren't funny and don't contribute anything to HN.
Eh. The actors that use these features use a shotgun approach. The result is you see a bunch of dead comments and assume the system is working as intended, while a couple of the less inconspicuous comments persist. This happens frequently on specific topics.
i think the military should be able to do what it wants
last i checked the german military is held down by stupid obligations forced onto it by its government that make it both inefficient and obsolete
As many, many people more intelligent and good-faith than you have pointed out, the government is free to stop using Anthropic‘s services at any time: nobody disputes that. What they are not free to do is impose a corporate death sentence because their contract counterparty wouldn’t submit to forceful changing of terms they had previously both agreed on.
The Left’s ability to “manufacture procedural outcomes” is fading; everyone sees this for what it is.
As everyone will see it for what it is when Hegseth reports for his prison sentence. I regret that you see American democracy protecting itself as a plot by "the Left", and hope you'll have the wisdom to abandon ship before the aspiring autocrats drag you down with them.
I'm sure the contracts will start rolling in now.
What's the point of a supply chain risk distinction if you can't mark a company as a risk if they express that they will be a risk?
Is this question supposed to have anything to do with the situation at hand, where what they did was refuse to perform certain categories of service?
>was refuse to perform certain categories of service?
Anthropic wanted to have the power over what the government could or couldn't do. If there was any false positive on something that was supposed to be allowed the government would have to work with Anthropic and get permission from them to do something they are allowed to do. This to me is the risk that Anthropic was giving to the government. If Anthropic expresses that they want this level of power over what the military can do I think that such intention can justify being a risk. That is how it relates to my comment.
Yes, anthropic wanted that power through a legal agreement. Not by spying on the pentagon , or training their AI model to lie to them etc, which seems more appropriate for supply chain risk. The government in this case can just cancel its legal agreement with Anthropic and move on, which was always its expected move. Trying to unilaterally destroy Anthropics business for a contractual disagreement is not fair and I’m glad the judicial is pushing back.
Anthropic wanted power over what the government would do with the servers Anthropic runs. That's not weird and that's not being a risk. It's normal business negotiation.
This is not about the usage restrictions in the agreement. As shown by OpenAI's agreement getting similar restrictions. It is about Anthropic's attitude in how Anthropic has the ultimate power in its usage. If RTX started demanding that they should be the ones to decide who Tomahawk missiles can be used on when they are launched. And RTX said that the government should file a support ticket to appeal a decision, then I would not be surprised that such actions could lead to considering them to be a supply risk. Even if it was just part of "business negotiation." It is the mindset that the other company has which clearly is showing signs of risk.
What the court found is that Anthropic demanded no such thing. The government lied and claimed that they did as part of their attempt to punish Anthropic.
The military can work with someone else's product or use a bit of their trillion-dollar budget to come up with their own.
Yes, they can work with someone else. Marking them as a supply risk is one way they can avoid using them and instead use someone else for their needs. So now it seems like we are in a limbo where the government knows that Anthropic is a risk to work with, but they can't official put them on a list that states that.
They actually don't need to sanction Anthropic as a "supply risk" in order to not contract with them, and doing so is obviously an insane overreach.
Can you explain how Anthropic is a risk to work with?
Well, you could also say what's the point of laws when courts can interpret them however they like? There's never a neat answer in such multi-valent systems, is there?
I recommend reading the law on which this action was based.
The "mark" was capricious and vindictive. That's at the heart of why it was injuncted.
Google the "arbitrary and capricious" legal standard. And try to stick to the facts about Anthropic's actions.
What's the point of the Constitution when the government can ignore it at their discretion?
Freedom Treater.
To act as a safety valve against foreign companies acting as proxies for an adversary. Not for use against an American company that won't let you retroactively violate already agreed to terms. Anthropic isn't jeopardizing the supply chain, they simply will not let the Government force them into providing services they otherwise wouldn't.