Judge questions Pentagon’s Anthropic supply-chain-risk designation

Lin questioned whether the government had tailored its response to the national-security concern it described.[1] She said the effort to bar Anthropic from government work appeared to be an attempt to cripple the company and punish it for criticizing the government’s contracting position.[1] Lin also questioned whether a company could be designated a supply chain risk simply for insisting on contract terms and asking questions.[1] Her comments indicate skepticism during the hearing, but do not amount to a ruling on the injunction.[1]

Anthropic retained contractual prohibitions on Claude’s use for lethal autonomous warfare and mass surveillance of Americans.[2] The Department asked Anthropic for contractual permission to deploy Claude for all lawful uses.[2] Anthropic was raising concerns to the Department of War about military uses of its technology that were within the usage terms.[1] The dispute therefore involves both the government’s desired contractual flexibility and Anthropic’s limits on certain uses; the hearing evidence does not say that the parties resolved those differences.[2][1]

The administration argued that Anthropic could pose a national-security risk by sabotaging the military through a future software update.[1] One possibility raised was that Anthropic could attempt to add a “kill switch” if it disagreed with how Claude was being used.[1] However, a speaker could not definitively say whether Anthropic had the power to push such an update.[1] Lin acknowledged that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth could limit Anthropic’s national-security applications, while questioning whether the Pentagon went too far by designating the company a supply chain risk.[1]

Lin concluded the hearing without ruling and said she would decide Anthropic’s preliminary-injunction motion within the next few days.[1] The legal backdrop includes a September 25 D.C. Circuit decision upholding the Pentagon’s designation, according to MeriTalk.[3] In a separate related lawsuit, a federal judge ruled against the government, and that ruling remains in effect.[4] These developments concern related litigation, but the evidence provided does not explain how they affect the district court’s pending motion.[1][3][4]