|
Anthropic Takes The Pentagon To Court This Week. Here’s What Could Happen.
Could Anthropic make its way back into a multi-billion dollar opportunity with the U.S. government? A federal judge could grant it temporary relief this week.
|
| |||||||||||||||
 |
On Tuesday, a federal judge in California will hear Anthropic’s argument to freeze the supply-chain risk designation the government slapped on it after it refused to grant the Pentagon the right to use its Claude models for domestic surveillance or autonomous warfare. The hearing is a key next step in Anthropic’s parallel lawsuits against the U.S. government, with one filed in California’s northern district and another in Washington, D.C.
Even as the case gains momentum, the Trump administration is already exploring new ways to force companies to scrap their AI safety and privacy protocols. Over the weekend, a new report from The Lever detailed a proposal that would require AI vendors to make their tech available for “any lawful government purpose” even if a company objects.
Ahead of this week’s hearing, filings from Anthropic, the government, and third parties help paint a picture of what’s at stake and the kind of legal arguments to expect. Here’s a brief primer:
The legal arguments:f
Winning a preliminary injunction, which would freeze the government’s order to strip Anthropic out of all U.S. federal agencies, requires showing four things: Anthropic will have to show it’s likely to win the full case, that it would experience irreparable harm without the injunction, that it has more to lose than the government if the preliminary injunction is denied, and that the injunction would be in the public’s interest.
Anthropic’s case hinges on four main arguments:
Its refusal to allow Claude for autonomous weapons and mass surveillance is protected by the First Amendment.
The company’s Fifth Amendment protections were violated when the government blacklisted it without adequate notice or due process.
Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth exceeded his statutory authority by misusing a law reserved for foreign adversaries, by acting arbitrarily.
President Trump’s government-wide directive goes beyond his authority, citing older cases from the 1950s and 1990s and more recent decisions like a court ruling Trump lacks authority to impose tariffs.
For the government to prevent an injunction, it’ll need to show Anthropic’s refusal to sign a contract term is commercial conduct and not protected speech. Lawyers will also argue the government has broad authority to choose its vendors and set contract terms as it sees fit. They’ll also need to show Anthropic’s privileged access to Claude creates a genuine national security risk, including the possibility it could alter the model’s behavior during active military operations.
Continued below: Anthropic’s chances of winning and what happens next…
Stop Phishing Cold. Secure Every Identity with Yubico. (sponsor)
 |
Is your organization still relying on vulnerable, mobile-based MFA? It’s time to move beyond the security gaps of the past.
Yubico provides the gold standard in phishing-resistant authentication through device-bound passkeys. Our hardware-backed security keys offer a seamless, user-centric experience while eliminating the risk of account takeovers. Trusted by 19 of the top 20 global tech companies, Yubico empowers you to deploy a true zero-trust architecture at scale.
Download our latest guide, “Getting Started with Passwordless,” to learn how to future-proof your digital identity strategy today. Start leading with the highest level of assurance.
Anthropic’s chances of winning:
Anthropic’s path for an early injunction is plausible. The company’s filings cite recent cases including Sen. Mark Kelly’s recent lawsuit against Hegseth, where a court ruled the government’s retaliation for his political speech was unconstitutional. (That case is still under appeal.)
Various filings suggest the law is on Anthropic’s side. Last week, a bipartisan group of nearly 150 retired federal and state judges filed an