Judge Blocks Pentagon's Effort To 'Punish' Anthropic With Supply Chain Risk Label 82
An anonymous reader quotes a report from CNN: A federal judge in California has indefinitely blocked the Pentagon's effort to "punish" Anthropic by labeling it a supply chain risk and attempting to sever government ties with the AI company, ruling that those measures ran roughshod over its constitutional rights. "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," US District Judge Rita Lin wrote in a stinging 43-page ruling.
Lin, an appointee of former President Joe Biden, said she would delay implementation of her ruling for one week to allow the government to appeal. But in her ruling, she made it clear she disapproved of the government's actions, which she said violated the company's First Amendment and due process rights. [...] "These broad measures do not appear to be directed at the government's stated national security interests," she wrote. "The Department of War's records show that it designated Anthropic as a supply chain risk because of its 'hostile manner through the press.'" "Punishing Anthropic for bringing public scrutiny to the government's contracting position is classic illegal First Amendment retaliation," she added. "We're grateful to the court for moving swiftly, and pleased they agree Anthropic is likely to succeed on the merits," an Anthropic spokesperson said after the ruling. "While this case was necessary to protect Anthropic, our customers, and our partners, our focus remains on working productively with the government to ensure all Americans benefit from safe, reliable AI."
Lin, an appointee of former President Joe Biden, said she would delay implementation of her ruling for one week to allow the government to appeal. But in her ruling, she made it clear she disapproved of the government's actions, which she said violated the company's First Amendment and due process rights. [...] "These broad measures do not appear to be directed at the government's stated national security interests," she wrote. "The Department of War's records show that it designated Anthropic as a supply chain risk because of its 'hostile manner through the press.'" "Punishing Anthropic for bringing public scrutiny to the government's contracting position is classic illegal First Amendment retaliation," she added. "We're grateful to the court for moving swiftly, and pleased they agree Anthropic is likely to succeed on the merits," an Anthropic spokesperson said after the ruling. "While this case was necessary to protect Anthropic, our customers, and our partners, our focus remains on working productively with the government to ensure all Americans benefit from safe, reliable AI."
So it was illegal (Score:5, Insightful)
Just like the tariffs they admin does unlawful thing, probably knows it's unlawful and is able to just do it anyway and reap the political benefits (here they were able to smear Anthropic's reputation in the public sphere) and the only consequences they face is "hey, knock it off". The admin got to do their tariffs for over a year even though we all knew it was illegal. No consequences thus far.
God-willing when the new non-GOP admin comes back into power the newly appointed AG will be prosecutor (like Jack Smith) who will investigate and start punishing these people and follow through.
We had a President who tried to unite the nation, put the past behind us, not antagonize the opposition party and his name was Joe Biden. That approach of being the better people, taking the high road obviously did not work so the nice guy approach has to stop. Some people need to go to prison and every member of this cabinet should be barred form holding any future public office.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
BLM broke your brain. They protested outdoors and wore masks. Meanwhile you guys were all drinking juice from the same cup and eating crackers. Hollywood had lots of restrictions in place and kept going because for every movie there are hundreds of crew members who all work and get paid. So yeah keeping employed was pretty important. If loan forgiveness is your thing we can talk about all the rich folks and congress members who had their PPP loans forgiven...
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, centerists usually are not, well, centerests. A bit part of the right wing world view and identity is that they are 'normal', they are the 'majority' and they are the 'real center', kinda like how they are the 'real americans' and, if you press them enough, the 'real chosen race'. "center' has become another word like 'rational/logical'.. they really are not, but the idea that they are is a core part of their identity and way of shutting down discourse since anyone left of them MUST be a radical.
Re: So it was illegal (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Best of the Funny, though the story had many more opportunities.
However if you were trying to persuade a buffoon you didn't get there. That's why buffoons love the YOB so much. They worship their YUGE Orange Buffoon/Baby/Bollocks.
Re: (Score:3)
COVID19 restrictions under Biden(where BLM protests were ok
Ahh yes those BLM of protests of 2021 who could forget.
Motherfucker who was President in the year 2020?!?!
Re:So it was illegal (Score:5, Insightful)
We will then move onto the power grab that was simply forgiving everyone's college debt.
Oh the time where Biden tried to do a thing, the SC said to stop and then he stopped and even when he tried a different way and the courts ruled against it then he respected the court (and said as such) and then stopped it.
Also unlike the tariffs the SC actually stayed the plan until judgement unlike the tariffs where the SC allowed them to just go on. Hmmm, almost like this current court leans a certain way. Hmmm.
And for even more unity I'll present Biden's sith lord speech from Sep 1st 2022
Now, I want to be very clear — (applause) — very clear up front: Not every Republican, not even the majority of Republicans, are MAGA Republicans. Not every Republican embraces their extreme ideology. I know because I’ve been able to work with these mainstream Republicans.
Ohhhhh so divisive you big fat baby.
Re:So it was illegal (Score:5, Informative)
Biden and other corporate-friendly Democrats are the center. Certainly right of Elizabeth Warren and Ro Khanna. Biden is equal to or possibly left of Kamala Harris.
Even Bernie is somewhat moderate depending on how you measure him. He's certainly not New Left, as he eschews multicultural identity politics. While mainstream democrats play nice with corporate donors while simultaneously carrying water for intersectional grievance groups.
A true left wing party doesn't really exist in the US. Certainly nothing strictly socialists or marxist is main stream. And even being pro-labor has become a liability when it comes to fund raising these days. Instead of left you get welfare capitalism, a moderate position, and now called Progressive. Even Democratic Socialists are few and far between despite being a "big tent" group that tends to focus equally on social issues as labor issues without. Members might espouse anti-capitalist slogans during protests, being at least true to DSA roots, in practice the party does not hold any significant anti-capitalist platform.
P.S. I'm fine if you're all pro-capitalist. I made a lot of money off capitalism. I'm just willing to admit that rationally speaking, there are problems with it as a system. Especially without putting some guard rails in place. People are not well-represented when money buys political influence. And when wealth concentrates under a few, future generations have even less of a chance to wrestle their government back into the hands of the people.
Re: (Score:2)
There is an 'absolute' left, and 'relative' left. Anything left to GOP is 'relative' left nothing to do with socialist/communist absolute left. But these terms are intentionally mixed upfor political game .
Now, magats are all in 3rd dimension below the left/right plane to both, orthogonal, in their own lala 'great' land.
abandoning reality (Score:4, Interesting)
Mostly it's just an arbitrary game. Like one side wants to attack rich white people (capitalists, industrialists, old money, new money, etc) and the other side wants to scapegoat immigrants or LGBTQ+. Lots of populist appeal with both tactics. And it's all pretty standard practice for politicians to point fingers in any direction except at themselves. For some reason we trucked along like this for the 20th century, most of us openly pointing out that it's a big scam. And then at some point, people decided to start believing politicians. And that's when things really started turning to shit.
I'm pretty old school, regardless of my left/right politics. Hold your representative's feet to the fire. Remember every day that government's moral right comes exclusively through the consent of the governed. That the tax payers and voters can hold the power whenever they are prepared to agree to take it. Peacefully at the ballot box as long as there is a right to vote. Less desirable ways if thing go really astray (if history is any guide)
Shortly after this country realizes the We the People are barely more than government property is when history repeats itself and things really turn bad. Fascism cannot endure, but the human cost of its removal is tremendous. Best to plan ahead and side-step unstable political and social systems that tend to end in terrible violence.
MAGAts is a loser movement. The people on the very bottom of MAGA, the ones who consume the radio and TV and Internet propaganda, were losers before they got political. And I suppose their hope is if their side wins, that they will finally get the respect they feel they deserve. But the problem with conmen is they are not good to their word. MAGA is going to find themselves abandoned, like a rally attendee left behind by the campaign bus at the end of the evening.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Just like everyone on the internet is 'rational' and 'logical', while anyone who disagrees with them is 'emotional' or 'political'
Re:So it was illegal (Score:5, Insightful)
As a centrist myself
Sorry but it's 2026 and this just means embarrassed conservative.
Biden constantly reached out to conservatives, he made sure to say that it was "not all Republicans", he worked in a bipartisan manner on legislation on the infrastructure bill, he was ready to sign the very conservative Lankford immigration bill. He appointed a very moderate AG who didn't immediately bring the hammer down on Trump (his fatal mistake IMO) and even with the very obviously illegal Mar-A-Lago documents case the National Archives gave Trump over an entire fucking year to just give the shit back and Trump basically forced their hand to go raid to get it.
Sorry but the Biden era was extending a hand of good faith to Republicans to come back from the brink of psychopathy and all they did was slap it and digress into their worst impulses even more.
No more, Republicans want to act like children then they need to be disciplined like children.
Re: (Score:2)
When the pendulum swings away from MAGA control there will be a blood bath reckoning in this country. France 2.0
That already happened, under Biden, and it wasn't a bloodbath, it was four perfectly boring years of nothing to talk about but egg prices.
Re: (Score:2)
Your characterization of Biden being a "uniter" though, is exaggerated. Biden came down very forcefully on the liberal side of the fence, on every hot-button issue that divided (and divides) Democrats from Republicans. As a centrist myself, I personally despair of either party truly deciding to work with the other.
Man, everyone would take "centrists" a lot more seriously if they'd actually NAME the polarizing hot-button issues of the day when you do the hand wavy both sides schtick, and stop acting like "centrist" is an excuse to not have a rational opinion on anything yourself.
Just come out and say it, windmills, vaccines, egg prices, bathroom governance, confirm everyone's suspicions. You have to say it though, your own words, what did Biden do, the great divider of hot buttons.
Both sides think centrists are fuckin
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, I can name some of the hot-button issues.
Abortion on demand, transgender surgeries for minors, religious expression of business owners and public school students, the specific level of COVID restrictions.
Do you deny that these are hot-button issues, and that neither side gives an inch when it comes to these?
Re:So it was illegal (Score:5, Interesting)
Why would the GOP willingly give up power? They've gone all-in on this man, much of the GOP's very survival depends on not letting Democrats back into power. 2026 is going to be a huge surprise to Democrats that thought we are still following "established norms".
Classic autocrat behavior is to get every industrial leader under you. Scratch each other's backs, and shut down any opposition to the arrangement. I know I'll take crap here for bringing up Mussolini, but what do you all think the odds are that we'll soon have a Department of Corporations not unlike Italy's old Minister of Corporations?
Re:So it was illegal (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh they won't give it up willingly and they have every incentive to keep acting authoritarian with Trump-ian rhetoric and actions. That incentive needs to be broken and punishment is exactly what's needed to do that. If Republicans suddenly know that acting like amoral sociopaths will net them prison or political exile than we've created a deterrent.
what do you all think the odds are that we'll soon have a Department of Corporations
I mean, DOGE? Also they didn't need to do it, they were able to leverage the existing agencies by gutting them and replacing the leadership with loyalists. The FCC is a perfect example, the current commissioner is threatening entertainers and license holders while wearing Trump lapel pins. The concept of independent agencies is out the windows.
This was all in Project 2025 and our media also failed by letting Trump just lie about it during the campaign when it was clearly transparent he supported the measures in there.
Re: (Score:2)
We had a President who tried to unite the nation, put the past behind us, not antagonize the opposition party and his name was Joe Biden.
Pity he died in office and nobody bothered to replace him.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Next (Score:2)
Trying to figure out a common streak here and failing, miserably failing....
Re: (Score:2)
factual errors? (Score:3)
"There are dozens of factual errors in the 42 page judgment" according to the Defense Department’s chief technology officer, Emil Michael. But "He did not specify or describe the errors he said were present."
Re: factual errors? (Score:5, Funny)
They are beautiful errors, the biggest errors you've ever seen. And you're a horrible person. Next!
Re: (Score:2)
Brilliant! Thanks for the laugh - wish I still had mod points.
Re: (Score:2)
Emil Michael is using alternative facts.
Re: (Score:2)
"There are dozens of factual errors in the 42 page judgment" according to the Defense Department’s chief technology officer, Emil Michael. But "He did not specify or describe the errors he said were present."
I watched a video talking about the state of disarray in the DOJ in New Jersey; all the good lawyers have quit and none of their replacements have any good legal experience. This makes me expect that the rest of the prosecutors in this Clown Administration are equally bad.
The greatest national security risk (Score:5, Insightful)
is sitting in the oval office as we speak. And he is there because the people of the United States wanted him there.
Therefore, the greatest national security risk to the United States of America is the american people themselves.
Trump is just a symptom. He is not immortal, and when he finally kicks the bucket, the american people will simply replace him with the next grifter in line which will tell them what they want to hear.
Re:The greatest national security risk (Score:5, Insightful)
> Trump is just a symptom. He is not immortal, and when he finally kicks the bucket, the american people will simply replace him with the next grifter in line which will tell them what they want to hear.
There's the risk of that. The bigger problem is that he's basically the face the Republicans are hiding behind. Project 2025, one of the most extremist political agendas in modern American history, is a Republican, not a Trump thing. And they're using Trump to get it done.
And as long as the Republicans and corporatists own most of the outlets of information people use, and run propaganda and disinformation campaigns promoting culture wars et al, it'll continue.
At this point there are very few directions things can go in that would lead to sane governance in America, and some involve outside involvement which I'm reluctant to write anything that would encourage or give the appearance of encouraging. But I can see it happening after the insanity of the last few months and the invasions of multiple countries.
Re:The greatest national security risk (Score:5, Informative)
And as long as the Republicans and corporatists own most of the outlets of information people use, and run propaganda and disinformation campaigns promoting culture wars et al, it'll continue.
You really said a mouthful there. From my Canadian perspective, it's utterly shocking to watch American news and to see even the supposedly liberal media soft-peddling current events. And when I hear average American citizens being interviewed, and see the fathomless ignorance many of them have regarding what's going on even in their own country - never mind in the rest of the world - I feel as though I'm watching a parody.
I think America's approach to education has a lot to answer for. Sadly, even my own province's education system seems to be drifting that way. Gee - I wonder if it's just a coincidence that our Premier is a knuckle-dragging nepo-baby whose allegiance is to property developers and (allegedly) to organized crime.
When I lived in Canada.... (Score:3, Interesting)
You know, it's funny. During the 2 1/2 years I lived/worked in Canada (British Columbia, under an NDP provincial government), I had the same view of Canadians and their politicians. What I observed was how the party in power was enabled to rule without many constraints. At that time, the US legislative gridlock made me tell my Canadian friends, "Better no government than bad government." But with Trump's success issuing EOs, Congress' willingness to go along, and the active support of the Supreme Court,
Re: (Score:3)
The parliamentary system has one thing going for it. The prime minister must also be elected as a lawmaker, so he has skin in the legislative game, and can't just say off the wall garbage. He has to appease his party, including back benchers, and any coalition participants. And like you say, he or she is vulnerable to a non-confidence vote.
In all democratic countries democracy really tends to break down at the lowest and most important levels. The things that impact peoples' daily lives the most originate
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Less than 50% of the votes cast were cast for Trump in 3 separate general elections. That means only a minority of the people wanted him there. A gullible, easily misled minority. Or as Trump would say, suckers and losers.
This is not true. Because whatever your personal motivations, the mathematical result of you not voting is that you are voting for whatever majority comes out in the end. And because only a minority voted against Donald Trump, a majority either voted directly for him or was ready to accept his election win.
You misread or misunderstood the statement. Nothing was said or had anything to do with those who didn't vote.
Shameless (Score:2)
[Defense Department’s chief technology officer, Emil Michael] indicated the Pentagon plans to appeal, calling the ruling a “disgrace”
These people have no shame.
Re:Shameless (Score:5, Funny)
Trump: "Appeal immediately!"
Re: (Score:2)
If that were true then why not get a "team player" the first time? This judge has a Harvard Law degree.
Re: (Score:2)
Plenty of people with an (R) in front of their names graduate from "woke" Harvard.
Re: (Score:2)
Who knew? (Score:2)
I'm just surprised it has taken so long.
Read the ruling on CourtListener (Score:2)
https://storage.courtlistener.... [courtlistener.com]
IANAL, but it sure seems to me the administration lost on all of the claims (except for one or two where the judge said, "I don't need to go here, because I've already made it moot.")
Now there's still the other case on this, which is in the DC Court of Appeals, addressing one specific law where the recourse is that venue. Briefs are due in April, so the first hearing will probably be in May. Track that case here: https://www.courtlistener.com/... [courtlistener.com]
Spot on, and ... (Score:3)
"Punishing Anthropic for bringing public scrutiny to the government's contracting position is classic illegal First Amendment retaliation, ..."
If there's one thing this Administration really doesn't like, it's public scrutiny - any scrutiny really. /cynical
Right outcome, wrong reasons (Score:1)
Not 'punishment'. But 'not fit for use'. That is, in fact, what Anthropic says.
Anthropic says its artificial intelligence product, Claude, is not ready for safe use in fully autonomous lethal weapons or the mass surveillance of Americans.
OK. Then you don't win the bid. Assuming that the DoW worded their acquisition RFQ properly. Also, if a third party uses Claude and wishes to bid on a DoW supply contract, Anthropic's resistance to being involved in such business may put that potential third party supplier in legal risk. The DoW has a right to proactively warn future partners about such a conflict. Hence the "supply chain risk".
One of the amicus briefs described these measures as "attempted corporate murder." They might not be murder, but the evidence shows that they would cripple Anthropic.
Anthropic is taking potentially unw
Re:Right outcome, wrong reasons (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: Right outcome, wrong reasons (Score:3)
It is still the Department of Defense. The executive branch has no authority to change the name of anything created by Congress. You canâ(TM)t even get the basics right. There is no tortious claim to be made over a vendor agreeing to another vendorâ(TM)s terms of use. Repeating that claim does not make it true. That is a basic part of negotiating a contract, which any third-party vendor can choose to sign or not.
Corporations now have constitutional rights. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
This thing was never about "dangers to defense." The original contract was signed and had clear terms that humans would always have the final say. The DoD unilaterally wanted to change those terms and Anthropic said no. In reasonable times this might result in Anthropic simply losing the contract; plenty of other companies including OpenAI are perfectly happy to sign under the new terms. To declare them a supply chain risk as punishment was unprecedented and illegal apparently.
Anthropic was never a dang