Trump-appointed judges refuse to block Trump blacklisting of Anthropic AI tech

Appeals court denies Anthropic's emergency motion for a stay.

See full article...

 

[Frodo Douchebaggins]

Lay thine eyes upon my field of surprise
See how it lays fallow, barren

 

[Selethorme]

that is a hard sentence to parse...

Trump-appointed judges declined to issue a stay of the supply-chain risk designation.

 

[Sajuuk]

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes.

 

[motytrah]

I think Anthropic will prevail, but the judges, especially MAGA ones, have little concerns about how much cash someone or company bleeds.

 

[anonymouschicken]

that is a hard sentence to parse...

ok... trump in the numerator and denominator cancel... all of these judges are appointed, so that is just multiplying by one, drop that...

refuse ... means block ... so does blacklisting... so this reduces to
"judges block to block of block of anthropic AI tech"

lets define block as -1 for grammatical convenience...
so that simplifies to "judges (-1)^3 anthropic AI tech"... or "judges block anthropic AI tech" ?

It's not that hard. Trump blacklisted Anthropic. These judges, previously appointed by Trump, refused to block that blacklisting.

 

[peachpuff]

Trump: traitors!

 

[Cthel]

Why is it newsworthy or relevant who appointed judges? The whole point of the judicial system is that it's not supposed to matter.

That went out the window when the President started appointing people explicity for their loyalty to him personally.

 

[Fatesrider]

that is a hard sentence to parse...

ok... trump in the numerator and denominator cancel... all of these judges are appointed, so that is just multiplying by one, drop that...

refuse ... means block ... so does blacklisting... so this reduces to
"judges block to block of block of anthropic AI tech"

lets define block as -1 for grammatical convenience...
so that simplifies to "judges (-1)^3 anthropic AI tech"... or "judges block anthropic AI tech" ?

Kinda like those "Don't do drugs" PSA's from the 1980's, I'd say, "Don't do AI's". Perhaps you're overthinking it.

You forget that language isn't reducible to math. One can use language to describe math. But one can't use math to describe language. Language is inherently irrational, and evolves based on consensus, not reason.

Math is inherently logical. Even irrational numbers can be logically explained. But language is learned and UNDERSTOOD, not explained, and very often not logical. Toss in accents and you get a whole new level of irrational.

So please don't embarrass yourself like that again.

 

[Frodo Douchebaggins]

Why is it newsworthy or relevant who appointed judges? The whole point of the judicial system is that it's not supposed to matter.

How's the internet service in the land of ideals and hypotheticals?

 

[Lynchenstein]

I think both parties are well within their rights.

1. Anthropic has the right to limit the use of its products by its customers (including the government)
2. The government has the right to limit its use of Anthropic's products.

They should both go their separate ways. It's clear Anthropic is very successful (arguably even more successful due to its heroic image) even without the government business line.

Except that's now what's happening. Trump designated Anthropic a "supply chain risk," a label typically reserved for foreign adversaries.

 

[Dr Spiff]

Politically appointed judges - what a great idea.

 

[C.M. Allen]

That went out the window when the President started appointing people explicity for their loyalty to him personally.

We should be thankful he's not following Putin's lead, and having judges fall victim to 'mysterious accidents' so he can further stack the deck with more of his spineless, amoral sycophants. Heck, he doesn't even have to maintain that level of pretense, given that SCOTUS itself has already decided that Trump can basically do whatever he wants. I mean, does anyone really think the Republican party would magically grow a spine and impeach him if Trump has some judges assassinated? If anything, they'll double down of their irrational, fanatical loyalty. And then the real 'fun' can begin -- things like mass arrests of those suspected of being 'disloyal', summary executions, etc. Who's going to stop him? The fully militarized police, with their lips already surgically attached to his ass? The FBI? (Protip: the F doesn't stand for 'Federal'.)

 

[Martin Blank]

Katsas and Rao were appointed because they were already Trump mouthpieces. They have repeatedly demonstrated an unwillingness to change this approach.

This does not extend to all Trump-appointed judges or justices. Many of them have ruled against Trump programs or decisions, often in more colorful language not often used by the courts. Those in the DC circuit were not found to have let alleged rioters go any more often than those appointed by other presidents of either party. Gorsuch and Barrett have joined majorities against Trump several times.

Katsas and Rao are probably high on the list of potential replacements for Alito and Thomas. The net result would not change much other than extending the stay of reactionaries on that bench.

 

[RobTheRenderer]

One can only hope that when Trump is no longer in power (and the sooner the better) that at least a few of these MAGAt judges will come to their senses and actually consider law and precedent rather than simply rubber stamping whatever Trump wanted.

Call me a dreamer.

 

[ggalt]

I think both parties are well within their rights.

1. Anthropic has the right to limit the use of its products by its customers (including the government)
2. The government has the right to limit its use of Anthropic's products.

They should both go their separate ways. It's clear Anthropic is very successful (arguably even more successful due to its heroic image) even without the government business line.

The issue is that as a "supply chain risk" not only does the government stop doing business with Anthropic, but anyone who supplies goods or services to the government (along with those who supply stuff to those suppliers, etc.) has to stop doing business with Anthropic. It basically can be the death of a company because anyone who does business with the government -- however minimally -- can't do business with Anthropic.

 

[siliconaddict]

We should be thankful he's not following Putin's lead, and having judges fall victim to 'mysterious accidents' so he can further stack the deck with more of his spineless, amoral sycophants.

That is next. They start with the low hanging fruit of what they can get passed within the legal parameters of the law. (And even what can get just hand waved away as they own the DOJ as well.) When that stops working then prepare yourself for what happens next. It could be said that is already happening with all the death threats that judges are getting. It is far worse than what has happen prior to the Orange Shit Stain coming back into power.
Remember even in Nazi Germany you had boot lickers who would justify what Nazi's and the Gestapo did. There will always be a % of people who do that.

 

[bugabuga]

I'm slightly confused by Anthropic's position as they both claim their models are NOT to be used for "mass domestic surveillance" AND models being sold to Palantir that is a shining beacon of mass domestic surveillance. So which one is it?

 

[Sajuuk]

That went out the window when the President started appointing people explicity for their loyalty to him personally.

It went out the window on day zero, because judges are political appointees by definition. All else is a gentleman’s agreement.

 

[approximate_pi]

Katsas and Rao were appointed because they were already Trump mouthpieces. They have repeatedly demonstrated an unwillingness to change this approach.

This does not extend to all Trump-appointed judges or justices. Many of them have ruled against Trump programs or decisions, often in more colorful language not often used by the courts. Those in the DC circuit were not found to have let alleged rioters go any more often than those appointed by other presidents of either party. Gorsuch and Barrett have joined majorities against Trump several times.

Katsas and Rao are probably high on the list of potential replacements for Alito and Thomas. The net result would not change much other than extending the stay of reactionaries on that bench.

Worth noting the difference in his terms.

In Trump’s first term most of his judges were picked based on typical republicans advising and were, if not great, at least typical right of center judges.

In his second term he’s been all about bringing back patronage and installing loyalists above all everywhere possible, including the courts

 

[sonicanatidae]

So, same horse shit. MOAR irreparable damage to a company because President Epstein wants AI to commit war crimes on his behalf.

Never forget what Republicans did.

 

[Sajuuk]

Worth noting the difference in his terms.

In Trump’s first term most of his judges were picked based on typical republicans advising and were, if not great, at least typical right of center judges.

In his second term he’s been all about bringing back patronage and installing loyalists above all everywhere possible, including the courts

Can we not memory-hole Trump's first administration?

They nominated a multitude of literally unqualified people, as defined by the ABA. None of the nominees this time around have been rated as such. Yet, anyway.

 

[MKD]

One can only hope that when Trump is no longer in power (and the sooner the better) that at least a few of these MAGAt judges will come to their senses and actually consider law and precedent rather than simply rubber stamping whatever Trump wanted.

Call me a dreamer.

That depends. Does applying the law help or hinder the (perceived) enemies of Trump and MAGA?

 

[bastard_op]

They need access to the "kill civilians" button.

 

[bastard_op]

Microsoft IS the original supply chain risk.

 

[Sajuuk]

What a mess. First off, I think Anthropic was foolish to think it could dictate how the government uses the tool they paid for. When a company sells the government a vehicle, weapon, or tool, they can certainly hope that the government only uses it within legal boundaries,. But, I've never seen a company jump in and say, "Whoa, Uncle Sam, we're not comfortable with that application! We're going to have to re-possess all the vehicles or hit the kill switch, or we'll suffer public backlash!"
If you're not comfortable with the possibilities, then don't accept a government contract. Those things have juicy, big, numbers, but they come with some pretty serious conditions as well.

Then we have the government's idiocy. Naturally, they can just kill the contract. But calling a U.S. company a "supply risk" is just seeking revenge in an attempt to destroy the business. A "supply risk" is a label for foreign entities that could potentially disable or weaponize the product due to government differences. If you think you can call someone a supply-side risk just because they revoke a feature or make over-demanding claims on how their product is used, then you might as well add Microsoft to that list!

Companies dictate how the US may operate tools all the time. That's how contracts work!

And it's why the military literally can't repair their own shit.

 

[black_box]

Total BS. From Anthropic's California filing:

Matters came to a head in a meeting between Secretary Hegseth and Dr. Dario Amodei, Anthropic’s CEO, on February 24, 2026. Secretary Hegseth presented Anthropic with an ultimatum. He demanded that Anthropic accede to the Department’s demands within four days or face one of two apparently contradictory punishments: either the Secretary would purport to invoke the Defense Production Act to force Anthropic to do as he said, or he would cast Anthropic out of the defense supply chain altogether as a supposed “supply chain risk.” Pentagon officials confirmed in the media that the meeting was not intended to drive resolution, but rather to intimidate Anthropic.

Is Anthropic a supply chain risk or essential enough to be forced to comply with the defense production act? It makes zero sense for both to be true.

From this latest ruling:

There are weighty governmental and public interests on the other side of the ledger. Most obviously, granting a stay would force the United States military to prolong its dealings with an unwanted vendor of critical AI services in the middle of a significant ongoing military conflict. As the Department explains, Anthropic has now conclusively barred uses that the Department recently deemed essential.

Anthropic is not "unwanted", the government literally asked for "more" of their product. This whole mess is because the government wanted to use Anthropic services for "lethal autonomous warfare without human oversight" and "surveillance of Americans en masse" and Anthropic said no. Nothing is stopping the government from pursuing those particular services / use cases from another vendor.

Moreover, the Department relies on Anthropic to provide regular updates to Claude, which contains built-in “safeguards” designed to prevent uses that Anthropic considers harmful.

That's fine. Find another vendor for those uses. You're complaining about not getting a service you never had to begin with.

In our view, the equitable balance here cuts in favor of the government. On one side is a relatively contained risk of financial harm to a single private company. On the other side is judicial management of how, and through whom, the Department of War secures vital AI technology during an active military conflict.

"In re NTE Conn., LLC" was cited in this order, was also about a single company, and they won their stay. The How and To Whom are already defined in the statutes. The government was required to obtain recommendations/risk assessments, provide notice to Anthropic, let Anthropic rebut with their own evidence, then make another determination in writing. It's not supposed to happen quickly.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/41/4713

They skipped all that for "urgent national security interests" in part (c) but that is obviously not being pursued in good faith given prior publications about the negotiations (Feb 16, 2026).
https://www.axios.com/2026/02/16/anthropic-defense-department-relationship-hegseth

The California lawsuit had a ton of evidence for the retaliation aspect. Are they ignoring that or was it not presented in this case as well?

 

[IJustLookLikeThatGuy]

That went out the window when the President started appointing people explicity for their loyalty to him personally.

Objection.
Request that time frame be moved back to when Mitch McDumbass started stealing SCOTUS nominations.

 

[lurknomore]

We should impeach judges who portray as too dumb to understand the difference between "I won't use your product" and "I dictate that nobody who wants to sell to the government can use your product".

Also:

in the middle of a significant ongoing military conflict

I'm so tired of National Security and Undeclared War being used constantly by the executive as reasons to bypass the laws and common sense, and I'm thoroughly pissed at the judges letting them always get away with it !
The US is constantly fighting someone (usually for the wrong reasons), so that's not a good excuse ! The Emperor might as well dissolve the Senate, since he's got Super Emergency War Powers any time he unilaterally decides to blow up someone under some unreviewable pretense !

 

[s73v3r]

I think both parties are well within their rights.

2. The government has the right to limit its use of Anthropic's products.

That’s not what’s happening here and you know it

 

[s73v3r]

Do we really have to do the "[President]-appointed judge" thing?

Are they always just lock-step with the president that appointed them? Nope.

And yet, here they are, voting in lock step with Trump despite not having the law on their side

 

[acastanza]

Donald Trump is a domestic terrorist and traitor against the United States. He needs to be removed and prosecuted, and every appointment he's made at every level of the government including - especially, even - the judiciary, revoked.

 

[s73v3r]

What a mess. First off, I think Anthropic was foolish to think it could dictate how the government uses the tool they paid for.

No. In non dictatorships, companies are allowed to set terms with the government all the time.

 

[Martin123]

What a mess. First off, I think Anthropic was foolish to think it could dictate how the government uses the tool they paid for.

The government can use the tool they paid for in any way that they want, it's just that in some cases the output of the tool wouldn't be what they wanted it to be or the tool would "refuse" to do certain tasks. A normal administration would then ask them to ship a modified tool with different behavior, which Anthropic could then either agree to or not.

Instead, this administration wanted to blackmail Anthropic into modifying the tool by threatening to label them as a "supply chain risk" despite them also simultaneously apparently being "essential to US security".

Think of it like the government buying some Swiss army knife and then, because they couldn't be bothered to check in the first place, realising that it doesn't come with an Allen key function. Would you find it normal if they then threatened to label Victorinox a supply chain risk just because they refused to produce a custom-made knife with an Allen key?

 

[SubWoofer2]

Blanche said the “military needs full access to Anthropic’s models if its technology is integrated into our sensitive systems. Military authority and operational control belong to the Commander-in-Chief and Department of War, not a tech company.”

When the military do not have a problem using a tool that hallucinates targets

(but the toolmakers do, because war crimes).