Pentagon to ban Anthropic: Court backs Trump’s move against AI company
Pentagon bans major AI developer (photo: Getty Images)
The US Department of Defense could blacklist Anthropic. The US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled that the Donald Trump administration had full authority to do so because the developer refused to provide certain AI capabilities for the military, according to Ars Technica.
The court's position and risk assessment
The judges emphasized that both sides of the dispute have their arguments, but the final balance must be determined by the country's leadership and the Department of Defense.
"The US raises the deeply sobering prospect of overly constrained AI models shutting down unexpectedly and thus causing important military operations to fail. Anthropic raises the deeply sobering prospect of unconstrained AI models hallucinating inappropriate targets for lethal military force," the court documents state.
The ruling also states that President Donald Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth must determine how best to balance these competing risks, and that the secretary did not exceed his authority in this case.
Anthropic's response and next steps
Anthropic disagrees with the ruling and is considering options for further appeal.
"We respectfully disagree with the court’s decision. Another federal court has already held the government’s parallel designation unlawful. We remain confident in our position and are considering all options, including further review, '' an Anthropic spokesperson said in comments to CNBC.
Despite the legal battle, US Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick previously said that "the Trump administration and Anthropic have patched up their differences and are in tune."
Why did the disagreement arise?
The case is being considered by two different courts. Last month, a federal court in California ruled that the government's decision was unlawful because Anthropic does not fall under the strict definition of a supply-chain risk, which requires the presence of malicious intent or sabotage.
However, the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit considered the case under a different, broader provision of the law.
The court said it did not dispute the Northern District's conclusion that malicious intent must be proven when the term "adversary" is used in the context of sabotage.
At the same time, the court agreed that Anthropic did not have such intent but emphasized that proving malicious intent is not required to decide on the broader definition contained in another section of the law.
