Trump’s Anthropic Ban Is Lawless. Congress Must Respond with a Law. - Tech Policy Press
The standoff between Anthropic and the Pentagon over whether the AI company poses an unacceptable risk to national security heads to a San Francisco federal courtroom Tuesday afternoon, and Anthropic is coming in with what may be its sharpest argument yet: the governments own internal communications appear to undercut the case it is making in public.
The hearing before Judge Rita Lin will consider Anthropic request for a preliminary injunction that would pause the Defense Departments supply-chain risk designation while the underlying lawsuit plays out. Anthropic filed two sworn declarations Monday from Sarah Heck, its Head of External Affairs, and Thiyagu Ramasamy, its Head of Public Sector, laying out what the company says are central falsehoods in the governments filing.
The most consequential detail is a March 4 email from Under Secretary of Defense Emil Michael to Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei. The message, which Anthropic attached to Heck declaration, was sent the day after the Pentagon formally designated Anthropic a supply-chain risk: Michael wrote that the two sides were very close on the two issues the government now cites as evidence of that risk Anthropic positions on autonomous weapons and mass surveillance of Americans.
That email is hard to read alongside what Michael said publicly in the days that followed. On March 5, Amodei published a statement saying Anthropic had been having productive conversations with the Pentagon. The next day, Michael posted on X that there was no active Department of War negotiation with Anthropic. A week later, he told CNBC there was no chance of renewed talks.
Anthropic says the governments current rationale was never raised during the actual months of negotiations. Heck, who was present at the February 24 meeting where Amodei sat down with Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, said in her declaration that at no time did any Anthropic employee state that the company wanted an approval role over military operations a claim she calls a central falsehood in the governments filings.
The deeper context is that Anthropic is arguing the supply-chain risk designation itself was procedurally improper. The tool is supposed to protect against risks that an adversary might sabotage systems used for national security. Anthropic contends the government cannot use it to punish a company for its public positions on AI safety or its refusal to authorize uses it considers irresponsible. The company filed its lawsuit arguing the directive violates the First Amendment, the Fifth Amendment due process clause, and the statutory procedures Congress wrote for these designations.
Several outside groups have weighed in. The App Association, a trade group reportedly funded by Apple, filed in support of Anthropic, arguing the vague scope of the designation leaves small software suppliers exposed to arbitrary agency interpretations. A range of AI researchers and legal scholars have filed separate amicus briefs on both sides.
What to watch for after Tuesday: if Judge Lin grants the injunction, the practical effect is limited but the signal is significant. The underlying case could take months or years to resolve. In the meantime, a ruling in Anthropic favor would give the company legal cover to continue its government contracts while the definition of what counts as a supply-chain risk in the AI era gets worked out in court.