Anthropic Wins Court Challenge Against Pentagon Supply-Chain Risk Label

A federal judge in California has ruled that the U.S. government’s designation of Anthropic as a supply-chain risk was unlawful, giving the AI company an early victory in its legal battle with the Pentagon.

U.S. District Judge Rita Lin said the government’s actions against Anthropic violated constitutional protections, including First Amendment rights and Fifth Amendment due process requirements. The court ruling described the designation as arbitrary and unsupported.

The dispute began after Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth and President Donald Trump labelled Anthropic a supply-chain risk and directed federal agencies, including those outside the Defence Department, to stop working with the company.

The conflict followed disagreements over how the military could use Anthropic’s Claude AI models. Anthropic had established limits around certain applications, including fully autonomous weapons and mass surveillance of U.S. citizens. The Pentagon argued that it should be able to use AI systems it purchased without restrictions beyond legal requirements.

Judge Lin said the government’s actions appeared connected to Anthropic’s public criticism of certain military uses of its technology. She also pointed to inconsistencies in the government’s position, including continued interest in working with Anthropic on other projects.

The judge noted that the Pentagon had continued pursuing a relationship with Anthropic and that the government had worked with the company’s newer AI model, Mythos, for cybersecurity purposes.

Lin also said Anthropic does not have backdoor access to its technology after providing systems to the Department of Defence. She wrote that national security concerns cannot be used to justify punishing companies that disagree with government policies.

Anthropic welcomed the ruling, saying it remains focused on working with the government to support national security applications of AI.

The company filed lawsuits against the Department of Defence in March in California and Washington, D.C. While the California case has produced this ruling, the separate Washington, D.C., lawsuit is still ongoing.