alt.hn

3/26/2026 at 11:33:53 PM

Judge blocks Pentagon effort to 'punish' Anthropic with supply chain risk label

 https://www.cnn.com/2026/03/26/business/anthropic-pentagon-injunction-supply-chain-risk

by prawn

3/27/2026 at 4:43:16 AM

Glad to see the judicial system works sometimes atleast. Less cynically now, the president has admired Xi many many times openly, and it’s clear he prefers an administrative style similar to China. That is what he is turning the country into. Everybody goes and bends the knee like the tech ceos did and he controls every aspect of the administration with an iron fist, just like China.

by yalogin

3/27/2026 at 12:23:20 PM

Don’t think they would put a tv presenter to the head of the military in China. I find it much more similar to current Turkey situation. And Trump is speedrunning that process too, he is destroying things much faster

by ozgrakkurt

3/27/2026 at 7:50:09 AM

IMHO current USA government is somewhat inverse to China.

US government now is a kakistocracy made out of sycophants to the biggest egomaniac this generation have ever seen. Who is only driven by personal wealth and attention.

Any billionaire capitalist psychopath openly promising to give cash and attention to orange musollini gets a free reign to do anything (they could be even not from USA) - it’s oligarchy.

China is not that. Xi and CCP are much more principled than emotional children in USA.

by trymas

3/27/2026 at 12:35:07 PM

Xi is intelligent and capable of long-term planning.

The only similarity I see is that neither Xi nor our Narcissist-in-Chief brook any criticism; but aside from the "Let 1,000 Flowers Bloom" campaign of Mao, that has always been China's domestic policy.

by IAmBroom

3/27/2026 at 1:57:51 PM

It's not that a leader is capable of long-term planning, it's that a system is. I am a big proponent for democracy, but the fact is simple that when you do a massive regime change every ~4 years, nothing big will get done. You have about 2 good years to do something, and most big projects simply require more time than that.

China, unlike the US, can look 10 years into the future and consistently execute towards a goal. That's not because of leaders, it's because the systems are fundamentally designed this way.

It's like the two party system in the US. It's because of first past the post in the Constitution. The system is designed to do this, so it does it. The US is designed to be unable to plan or execute long term vision.

by criley2

3/27/2026 at 3:14:58 PM

I 100% agree for the fact that biggest systematic root problem USA has is first past the post voting system.

Though how did US managed to be long term thinking since world wars up to ~1980s or 90s? Was it just generational trauma of world wars that allowed to align opinions between parties? And by trauma I mean some combo of real trauma to not have WW2 again to the capitalistict and globalistic drive to be world’s hegemony.

by trymas

3/27/2026 at 9:30:50 PM

It is not even first past the post that is the problem. Even if you had some sort of ranked voting or parliamentary system you would still end up with the same problem. The person in charge gets changed too frequently to be able to have long term plans. 8 years is too short to execute a plan that will take 10 or 20 years.

I think this is why FDR was a successful president and was able to get so much done. He had 3 complete terms and a partial 4th term.

If you are going to have shorter terms you need to have your successor continue with your plans, but in a liberal democracy you don't know who is going to follow you. Even if your party wins, your successor might not continue with the plan.

by ImJamal

3/29/2026 at 1:37:08 AM

In preferential Systems you must chase the centre, in the USA it might be trains versus cars, in Australia because both sides are chasing the centre they will both agree on a train line it's just the specifics they will argue about which believe leads to better outcomes.

At least from my experience I would say change of government won't lead to cancellation of a project or reform just an expansion or contraction in scope.

You can't do something like implement a 1 child policy and stick to it for decades causing a demographic collapse because it wouldn't have broad appeal from the population.

by jacker38

3/30/2026 at 1:20:19 PM

Your last paragraph is my point. Some policies may be good, but not popular. (I'm not suggesting the one child policy is good). How would you be able to continue a policy like the one child policy in a democracy for decades? You wouldn't be able to. With China since their leaders are there longer and because the leaders have a more consistent world view they were able to continue with such a policy.

by ImJamal

3/29/2026 at 2:15:48 PM

>Less cynically now, the president has admired Xi many many times openly, and it’s clear he prefers an administrative style similar to China.

China style authoritarianism can't work in the US because the CCP has to actually deliver quality of life to the people in exchange for their political and cultural oppression. America's tech oligarchy is only willing to deliver for billionaires.

If Trump were really setting up a Xi style dictatorship he would be pacifying the people with investment in infrastructure, education and healthcare. Americans would gladly tolerate armed masked thugs kidnapping immigrants and the wholesale censorship of the internet and the press if he actually kept prices down and employment up.

Or he could at least better at giving the impression of doing so. The biggest failure of Trumpism by far has to be its propaganda. None of these people know how to lie effectively. Not nearly as well as the neocons. Look at the whole song and dance they did to justify war with Iraq versus... whatever the hell America's plan with Iran is supposed to be (besides Christian holy war, apparently.)

by krapp

3/27/2026 at 1:52:32 AM

The issue of course is that the Judge can't change the knowledge that the head of the executive doesn't want people down the chain using this product, so they won't. Anthropic is a dead letter in government circles until the next Presidential election.

by mrkstu

3/27/2026 at 2:02:17 AM

That may be, but the government doesn't need to declare Anthropic as a "supply chain risk" in order to just not do business with it. A simple clause in all RFPs is all that is needed.

The problem with this declaration by the government is that now any company doing any business with the US government would be effectively forbidden from using Anthropic ANYWHERE within their company, which is a huge deal, because the government does want to vet any vendors' software development practices.

But as long as the Judge in this case pushes back against such an action by the government, that leaves companies free to use Anthropic for their own internal uses. And most companies WILL continue to use them if it makes economic sense.

by suid

3/27/2026 at 8:22:54 AM

Any company that feels the need to send data in plain text to third party LLM providers has absolutely no business having government contracts. OpenAI and Anthropic are both a complete joke when it comes to data security.

It is hard to believe how few companies seemingly lack even one person with the basic technical skills required to rack up a server or two or find a service that supports verifiable end to end encryption.

by lrvick

3/27/2026 at 12:24:26 PM

While I agree, the government just gave all of its and it's citizens data to the owner of xAI/Grok. I think the US is way past any security concerns of sharing plain text chat logs to OpenAI/Anthropic.

by addandsubtract

3/27/2026 at 3:27:38 PM

I would be okay with the US government being labeled a supply chain risk.

by 1718627440

3/27/2026 at 5:17:40 AM

> The problem with this declaration by the government is that now any company doing any business with the US government would be effectively forbidden from using Anthropic ANYWHERE within their company

That is not true, even if the supply chain risk designation held. The sad thing is that so many people (myself included) also believed this, because this is what Hegseth said. He was lying. Thanks to another comment further down in this thread that led me to this page that explains what the supply chain risk designation actually does: https://www.justsecurity.org/132851/anthropic-supply-chain-r...

by hn_throwaway_99

3/27/2026 at 2:13:20 AM

Perhaps. But certainly those companies will factor in the risk that this is overturned, or that the government pursues other extrajudicial means to punish those who do business with Anthropic.

All things equal, you’d be better off not exposing yourself to risk of financial harm or other punitive measures. Which is the whole point of the government’s action in the first place.

by brookst

3/27/2026 at 5:20:09 AM

This is, unfortunately, a legitimate concern for some companies. There are a lot of DOD contractors out there that if they are cut off they have nothing else. With the current administration it is clear that they can, will and have taken these kinds of measures based purely out of malice. Anthropic may get a win out of this though in the short and long term depending on how non DOD/govt affiliated companies see their actions but small fish can't take those chances.

by jmward01

3/27/2026 at 2:44:11 AM

> All things equal, you’d be better off not exposing yourself to risk of financial harm or other punitive measures.

This isn't necessarily true. This is a complex decision; the logic above frames the decision narrowly, with a short-term time horizon. This kind of decision calls for game theory, not merely an individualistic calculus. Appeasing Trump isn't a winning strategy in the long-run. History shows that cooperation (e.g. pushing back) against authoritarianism is often a better strategy. Consumers may reward companies that behave well. Bottom line: you have to game it out -- no one commenting here has done that, I'll bet. So until someone has ... stay agnostic analytically.

by xpe

3/27/2026 at 2:01:47 AM

The type of contract they had was optional anyway. They could have just not done business with Anthropic in the first place. Really I think this has only promoted their platform as being sane and moral.

by bakies

3/27/2026 at 8:26:46 AM

Sane and moral... and yet they sick their lawyers on open source projects like OpenCode to make sure everyone is forced to use their client software and tracking.

by lrvick

3/27/2026 at 4:14:28 AM

> Really I think this has only promoted their platform as being sane and moral.

I mean, maybe for people who aren't paying attention to how Claude's actually weaponized[1]?

This use case is neither "domestic mass surveillance" nor "autonomous weapons" as humans were in the loop:

> Old intelligence and AI? Behind the deadly attack on an Iranian girls’ school that left 175 dead

> The targets for Operation Epic Fury were identified with the aid of the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency’s Maven Smart System, which folds in data from surveillance and intelligence, among other data points, and can lay out the information on a dashboard to support officials in their decision-making.

> Maven, created by Palantir, has been coupled with Anthropic’s Claude, a large language model that can vastly speed up that processing.

> Seth Lazar, who leads the Machine Intelligence and Normative Theory Lab at Australian National University, said the use of Claude to select military targets “should send chills down the spine of anyone who's been spending the last few months vibe-coding, vibe-researching, vibe-engineering.”

Doesn't sound sane and moral to me

[1] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politic...

by heavyset_go

3/27/2026 at 3:05:22 AM

That’s fine. They can choose to use whatever model their political hearts desire. the supply chain risk designation means EVERYONE who works with the government isn’t allowed to use Claude. Nearly everyone in tech has some sort of contract with the government.

by aardvarkr

3/27/2026 at 3:20:49 AM

> the supply chain risk designation means EVERYONE who works with the government isn’t allowed to use Claude.

No, it doesn't. The even more illegal Presidential directive (also a subject of this case and the injunction) asserts that, but the supply chain risk designation itself does not have that effect.

by dragonwriter

3/27/2026 at 5:13:16 AM

Thank you for your comment. I didn't understand, because I thought (and apparently lots of other people do, too) the supply chain risk designation does mean that, because that is exactly what Hegseth said.

Surprise, surprise, Hegseth was lying through his teeth. I'm so sick of this lawless, fascist government and their spineless supporters. This article I found after reading your comment explains the true effect of the supply chain risk designation, and why Hegseth's assertion that "effective immediately, no contractor, supplier, or partner that does business with the United States military may conduct any commercial activity with Anthropic" is complete and total bullshit.

https://www.justsecurity.org/132851/anthropic-supply-chain-r...

by hn_throwaway_99

3/27/2026 at 1:55:49 PM

He wasn't lying. He just doesn't know anything. If you actually look at what this presidency says, it's pretty apparent that they're all pretty ignorant of just about everything. Which makes the fact that they have all of this power even more scary. At a moment's notice they could make an ignorant proclamation that harms the entire country, like unilaterally declaring 50% tariffs or declaring war on a nation that effectively controls most of the world's oil shipping.

by throwway120385

3/27/2026 at 9:37:51 PM

Saying things that are false while maintaining willful ignorance because your falsity benefits you is lying in my book.

by hn_throwaway_99

3/27/2026 at 1:57:45 AM

That's something that normal boring suits can and do remedy. Companies sue and win over denied government contracts all the time.

by ajross

3/27/2026 at 2:00:47 AM

Eh, it’s not going to be transitively problematic for Anthropic the way the supply chain risk designation would’ve been.

Amazon isn’t going to have to divest from Anthropic because of this. Yes, they probably won’t be able to get a contract with Raytheon, but that wasn’t the main risk of being tagged with the supply chain risk designation.

by ncallaway

3/27/2026 at 1:59:36 AM

Had this conversation with a friend, but I think as an America you can be very optimistic about the institutional strength of democracy in the country.

People are very pessimistic recently, but if anything, we are seeing that our system works well. A person got into power that a majority voted for, but when he oversteps, the courts and other institutions (even judges and fed reserve chairs he picked!) seem to hold him to the rules.

I get the pessimism, but for the most part, I kinda think the system is working.

by mr_00ff00

3/27/2026 at 7:58:33 AM

I'm not an American but unfortunately I don't share the optimism. Your president shows time and time again he does what he wants, whether it's immoral or illegal or not within his power to do. And a majority turn a blind eye, especially his party. Some examples (correct me if I'm wrong): starting 2 wars; very questionable anti deportation methods by ICE; a DOGE that was ruthless and dumb; renaming a branch (ministry of war) in effect while in theory not having such power; pardoning crypto currencies pundits who have business with him; ties to pump and dump scams. Not to mention ties to Eppstein.

My prediction: in a vendetta, because they chose to contradict him publicly, and his cronies will put high pressure to have anthropic out of everything touching the government, and any rebel will be fired for an unrelated cause. The high profile CEOs (those we were attending his inauguration) will avoid anthropic, lest they find their selves out of some profitable contract or in some unrelated tribunal issue. Anyone in his party will surely avoid them too.

by pnt12

3/27/2026 at 3:19:55 PM

Anthropic is a good example of my point, judges are blocking that action.

The president has always had these powers, starting wars hasn’t been a congressional power since World War II. Korea, Vietnam, Iraq twice were all police actions by the president.

For the most part he can do what he wants at first, but the system eventually pulls back. It’s happened with ICE, it’s happened with Anthropic, it’s happened with interest rates and pressure to effect fed reserve chairs.

by mr_00ff00

3/27/2026 at 12:16:22 PM

Begging for forgiveness… The U.S. needs an ask permission President. (You can argue of course as to whether the U.S. ever had that.)

by JKCalhoun

3/27/2026 at 2:02:41 AM

The question is not whether the walls can contain the bull until animal control arrives, but whether any china will remain intact.

by cwillu

3/27/2026 at 12:54:31 PM

It's more like the early bits of Jurassic Park: the T-Rex bashing away at the restraints while everyone assures you that they spared no expense to make it secure.

by pjc50

3/27/2026 at 2:27:17 AM

Given the iran situation I think china will be fine.

(I'll show myself out)

by setsewerd

3/27/2026 at 2:33:50 AM

lol judges have ruled 100s or 1000s of ICE detentions in various states illegal by now. None of that has stopped ICE from doing what it's doing. This kind of optimism in the law seems naive today because there is no mechanism to actually enforce it. All federal agents have very substantial legal & civil immunity, heads of departments have immunity as well. The head of the legal system is Pam Bondi who isn't even prosecuting child rapists, or Donald Trump who is one.

Even after Kristi Noem ruined countless lives and was responsible for deaths of innocent people, the only consequence she faced is being demoted to some made up job where she still gets paid to do nothing - no fine, no jail, not even being out of work, no accountability, no justice. None of the ICE agents involved have faced any consequences besides a leave either, we don't even know most of their names. The justice system is not working.

People who don't follow the news like most of the tech community are living in some dreamland of a system or treating it as a purely mental battle of optimism/pessimism vs. actually seeing what is happening.

by zaptheimpaler

3/27/2026 at 2:51:43 AM

> judges have ruled 100s or 1000s of ICE detentions in various states illegal by now. None of that has stopped ICE from doing what it's doing.

This is a weird one because ICE has lost so many habeas cases, mostly by dropping them, only for the 8th circuit court of appeals (which covers Minnesota) to overturn that the other day:

https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/26/03/253248P.pdf

There was similar precedent in the 5th circuit (Texas) previously, too, but that was not binding on Minnesota:

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/26884355/ca5detention...

So this is pretty weird now, legally, since a ton of lower courts have assumed things didn't work this way and the appeals courts are now saying they're wrong.

by Natsu

3/27/2026 at 9:20:47 AM

This is a case where a person who actually was illegally present is denied release on bond and the court sided with ICE. It does not address illegal detentions or deportations without hearings. There are countless other cases where people are detained despite providing evidence of legal status, of inhumane conditions in detention centers, of ICE directly ignoring court orders, of ICE agents on tape lying about people ramming their car and assaulting, detaining or killing them, of ICE releasing detainees without any of their possessions or IDs on the side of the road in freezing weather, and more.

by zaptheimpaler

3/28/2026 at 2:31:06 AM

> It does not address illegal detentions or deportations without hearings.

It certainly doesn't address all of ICE's legal issues, no, but it does say they don't need to give this guy a bond hearing:

> Accordingly, we find that the district court erred in holding that the Government could not detain Avila without bond under § 1225(b)(2)(A) and in granting habeas relief on that basis.

My understanding from talking to a criminal defense attorney who practices in MN about this is that this seems to give ICE broad powers to hold people without bond which many, many lower courts had rejected not wanting ICE to have such a broad power for all the reasons you mentioned.

by Natsu

3/27/2026 at 1:22:25 PM

For a problem the size of Trump, the intended function of the institutions would have been removing him from office by now. Not to mention ignoring basically all of his more publicized executive orders (I don't know about more obscure ones).

The judiciary sort of holding it together to issue orders that are mostly ignored is not the system working.

by Hizonner

3/27/2026 at 2:02:54 AM

This is one ruling out of many, many of which directly benefit Trump. See Trump vs. United States 2024 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_v._United_States

There’s absolutely 0 reason to be optimistic towards a court stacked explicitly in his favor.

by mxkopy

3/27/2026 at 3:11:16 AM

Trump or various departments of his administration have a 90% success rate with cases at the Supreme Court, as compared to a roughly 55-60% success rate at lower courts. The judiciary can still work, but the highest judiciary in the land is pretty soundly in his pocket. Trump's most significant defeat at the Supreme Court, overturning his signature tariffs policy, was viewed by some as a sign that the Supreme Court remained independent and defiant... but that's pretty clearly not the case, at least not up to this point.

by brendoelfrendo

3/27/2026 at 10:39:59 AM

He’s never won a majority of the popular vote.

by enoint

3/27/2026 at 5:00:54 AM

And people say that posting isn’t art…

by jrflowers

3/27/2026 at 3:59:39 PM

It's insane to to say that the system is working when the ones responsible for enforcing the laws are the ones who are ignoring the laws. A judge said. Uh huh. And what's the judge going to do when they ignore it like they've done so many times before? The Trump DOJ is still in violation of the Epstein Files Transparency Act, which was passed nearly-unanimously by Congress months ago, and continue to withhold content that implicates Trump in a child rape and sex trafficking ring.

by BugsJustFindMe

3/27/2026 at 3:14:27 PM

...what in the world...

We have a war in Iran that was not approved by legislature. Run by a Fox news host with no experience who has committed multiple war crimes on camera now. A war we are not exactly winning (now raising the enlistment age and losing million dollar aircraft to thousand dollar drones), having an enormous and lasting impact on the global economy - making us look downright stupid. And position us to be unable to defend allies in the region, sure, but perhaps even other critical regions like Taiwan.

We kidnapped a foreign leader and are talking about an invasion of Cuba - who we are committing human rights violations against by preventing them from having electricity.

We have tariffs across all our prior allies. Multiple trade deals have been ruined. America's reputation is permanently damage. Well, more than that, Trump has threatened to invade Canada and Greenland. And apparently our (former) allies took it so seriously they had begun to develop new strategies and elevate their military preparedness and make security talks with their allies.

And our "corporate stability" benefit is quickly falling apart as agencies and courts are rapidly being replaced with sycophants whose most important decree is "bribe or otherwise adorn dear leader with praise". Bills attempting to bring back manufacturing are dead. Infrastructure bills are dead. We're back to the rot.

ICE is acting as a Gestapo, who show no badges and wear masks and plain clothes. They have killed multiple people and faced zero repercussions and has been expanded to airport security where they have already assaulted citizens. And that's before we get into the concentration camps.

The president attempted a coup on our government in 2020, where he directed his supporters to storm the capital and stop the ratification of an election he lost - and faced absolutely no punishment. He is now nominating judges who are refusing to state in their Senate hearings that he lost the election. We have also passed a bill called SAVE that effectively makes creates a secret poll tax for married women, whose both cost and expediency are gated by a department directly controlled by the executive. That's if we even have a fair one, of course: Trump has floated numerous times cancelling the election in times of war or deploying armed ICE agents to key polling locations. He has made it very clear they cannot lose midterms.

And that executive is vaporized. Trust in public careers has been killed by DOGE, alongside the careers and decades of knowledge and progress destroyed by them simply hammering apart institutions . The department of education is dead. The fed, one of the last and most important hold outs, is losing independence and will soon by led by a yes man who will blindly slash rates for Trump to enrish himself - at any cost for the economy.

The SCOTUS, of which an entire third were placed by Trump - who is eyeing yet a fourth - have given Trump enormous wins, most famously the ruling that he is essentially immune from all laws and can do anything he wants. And they're looking like they may erode the state right to self-managed elections and/or ban mail-in votes. A ruling that essentially destroyed our ability to punish Trump for his colluding with a foreign nation to rig our democratic system with the help of the technofeudal corporations.

Which, funny enough, brings us full circle to the war in Iran. Where his actions now allow him to stop all support for Ukraine and drop sanctions on Russia without people noticing all too much. Yet again, benefiting the crooks a significant portion of the intelligence community believe - including our own - compromise the now president.

I cannot fathom how you can sit there and say that the system is "working". Has the frog seriously been sufficiently boiled? It was this easy? It's been one single year!

by Tadpole9181

3/27/2026 at 2:10:39 AM

> that a majority voted for

A majority of people who voted. Not a majority of eligible voters and certainly not a majority.

by paulv

3/27/2026 at 3:57:38 AM

No one cares about people who don't bother to vote. If you can't manage even that you don't deserve an opinion.

blah blah some exceptional circumstances, etc you all know what I mean.

by tick_tock_tick

3/27/2026 at 7:00:46 AM

> No one cares about people who don't bother to vote. If you can't manage even that you don't deserve an opinion.

It's not so much that people 'don't bother to vote',, it's more that 'we' aren't prepared to vote for crooks that will campaign on one or two issues, but actually have several agendas running. Etc, etc.

The opinion I may not 'deserve', is that I'm not playing your/ this game.

No, I don't have a better solution (apart from many, many, referendums), but don't forget that 'just' my opinions may have changed somebody's pov regarding their vote, as i don't have a horse in the race, and regard the vast majority of politicians in very low regard.

by Ylpertnodi

3/27/2026 at 12:29:43 PM

> The opinion I may not 'deserve', is that I'm not playing your/ this game.

It's your game regardless if you vote or not. Not voting is in practice the same as voting for who wins. That is the only choice you have at election day. Beyond election day you can try to participate in a movement that pushes congress to implement ranked voting or help get other primary nominees etc, but anything other than voting for the least bad candidate in a two party system is naive.

by croon

3/27/2026 at 2:00:37 PM

You're not voting for someone you agree with. You're voting for someone who you think will give in if pressured by protest and the courts. It matters less what individual issues they think they're going to "solve" while they're in office and more whether they have any shame or willingness to change in the face of protest or court order.

by throwway120385

3/27/2026 at 9:43:03 AM

Don't you have an option to vote against all? Don't neglect it

by blue_pants

3/27/2026 at 2:57:03 AM

Anyone who was eligible but didn’t vote effectively voted for whomever won. The distinction doesn’t matter.

by what

3/27/2026 at 2:23:01 AM

Are you saying that if all eligible voters were forced to vote, Trump may have lost the popular vote?

by sillysaurusx

3/27/2026 at 2:38:21 AM

I'm saying that words have meanings and that it's important to be clear about what they are.

by paulv

3/27/2026 at 2:52:50 AM

>Are you saying that if all eligible voters were forced to vote, Trump may have lost the popular vote?

I've recently heard a commentary by a man with PhD in international relations* about why has Trump won the elections.

Specialist said that a lot of people who would have voted against Trump didn't vote. That was due to many grave mistakes made by the democrats.

Usually when populists win, it's because the other side blatantly ignores some public issues. This time it was economic hardships, immigration/border control.

There is also the long trend of turning away from the working class and focusing on protecting/supporting the DEI people instead. The working class might feel betrayed and vote against them instead.

"The cost of hubris" - as one of the Minmatar militia missions from Eve online was called.

by wafflemaker

3/27/2026 at 4:27:59 AM

Or there is mass neurocompromise.

At least we have a pardon czar now. So many people have been coerced into committing crimes, with said coercion taking many different forms, there needs to be mass pardons across the board.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_Marie_Johnson everybody check her out.

by d-cc

3/27/2026 at 3:07:04 AM

I hate Trump as much as the next guy but this feels like nitpicking. You're obviously right, but if you choose not to vote then you're implicitly approving of whatever outcome you get.

by Hasnep

3/27/2026 at 2:05:18 AM

How many of you had to stop using Claude because of the Pentagon edict?

by yen223

3/27/2026 at 2:40:42 AM

I had to, and I work in a completely different agency (NIH)

by biophysboy

3/27/2026 at 2:33:25 AM

We are certainly moving that direction (small defense sub)

by gburgett

3/27/2026 at 4:39:45 PM

My org gave us 5 months to transition our personal usage away from Anthropic products. Presumably that's paused now, though they haven't made an announcement. I work with medicare/medicaid, and the supply chain risk was directly cited in the initial decision.

by mholm

3/27/2026 at 4:27:07 AM

I did, but the govt is one of my companies customers

by Seattle3503

3/27/2026 at 3:13:43 AM

Pushed me towards Claude.

by xvector

3/27/2026 at 3:38:10 AM

Unfortunately the Pentagon can and will appeal, and the 9th Circuit and higher courts are excessively deferential on "matters of national security."

by xvector

3/27/2026 at 4:47:10 PM

Will it help? This administration is not big on adherence to the law.

by zombot

3/27/2026 at 12:27:12 AM

Some judicial pushback against authoritarian policies is good to see.

by JohnTHaller

3/27/2026 at 12:36:47 AM

Oh I agree.

by alexchapman

3/27/2026 at 12:48:52 AM

I'd wish more for an impartial, considered judgement

by alienbaby

3/27/2026 at 12:56:48 AM

> 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

What issue do you take with that statement or the outcome here? I think Anthropic’s position on what the tech should not be used for was well reasoned.

It feels like the govt. flipped out based on their public messaging and this whole ordeal - instead of them themselves being more measured and just choosing not to use Anthropic’s services if they take an issue with it.

by KronisLV

3/27/2026 at 12:54:59 AM

Which of course would look exactly like judicial pushback against authoritarian policies.

by sgc

3/27/2026 at 2:16:17 AM

I deeply wish for people who say things this cryptic and opinionated to actually speak their mind and back up their positions. Comments like these add little to the discussion.

by mpalmer

3/27/2026 at 3:14:34 AM

They don't speak their minds because they know their opinions are so beyond the pale that they wouldn't be accepted in civil society.

by xvector

3/27/2026 at 3:10:44 AM

Just a district judge, so I’m supposing the Trump administration will file an appeal if they care, and will almost certainly get a preliminary injunction. The Ninth Circuit ruling will be more telling.

by telotortium

3/27/2026 at 12:43:27 AM

Is the practical outcome much different? I doubt they'll get contracts either way, so the labelling was just a formality.

If anything it seems the label was just intended to give a veneer of legitimacy to the admin by using an existing mechanism and terminology, rather than saying "we're going to block your access because we feel like it".

by 0x3f

3/27/2026 at 12:48:01 AM

The point of the supply chain risk designation was not just to have the DoD stop using Anthropic (they could have done that by just cancelling the contract). Their intended effect was to force every company that sells to the US government, no matter how indirectly, to not use Anthropic in any way, which would effectively destroy them because almost every company is in the supply chain (for example my company is https://calaveras.ai/ because we sell to AI companies who in turn sell to DoD).

by why_only_15

3/27/2026 at 12:54:43 AM

Fun fact: Palantir is powered entirely by Claude and was what was used for the Venezuela operation and for targeting for the Iranian operation.

by SEJeff

3/27/2026 at 2:58:19 AM

> Fun fact: Palantir is powered entirely by Claude

Charitably, this is ambiguous. What does the commenter mean exactly by "entirely"?

by xpe

3/27/2026 at 4:28:05 AM

> Fun fact: Palantir is powered entirely by Claude

I'm pretty sure Palantir predates the modern AI boom.

by tbrownaw

3/27/2026 at 6:00:18 AM

The military is using Palantir's Maven Smart System, which uses Claude, to identify targets to attack.

From here[1]:

> The targets for Operation Epic Fury were identified with the aid of the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency’s Maven Smart System, which folds in data from surveillance and intelligence, among other data points, and can lay out the information on a dashboard to support officials in their decision-making.

> Maven, created by Palantir, has been coupled with Anthropic’s Claude, a large language model that can vastly speed up that processing.

And here[2], it's still being used despite being "banned":

> But given the government’s extensive use of the company’s chatbot Claude during its deadly offensive in Iran, it’s clearly having trouble making do without it. As The Washington Post reports, the US military is extensively using Palantir’s Maven Smart System in the conflict, which has had Anthropic’s Claude chatbot integrated since 2024.

> Last week, the Wall Street Journal first reported on the Pentagon’s use of Claude to select attack targets in Iran, hours after the White House announced its ban.

> According to WaPo‘s sources, the system spits out precise location coordinates for missile strikes and prioritizes them by importance. Maven was also used during the US military’s invasion of Venezuela and the kidnapping of its president, Nicolás Maduro.

> Center Command is “heavily using” the Maven system, Navy admiral Liam Hulin told WaPo.

> Military commanders told the newspaper that the military will continue using Anthropic’s tech, regardless of the president ordering them not to, until a viable replacement emerges.

[1] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politic...

[2] https://futurism.com/artificial-intelligence/ban-anthropic-m...

by heavyset_go

3/27/2026 at 1:36:01 AM

> Fun fact: Palantir is powered entirely by Claude

Haha what, OpenAI has been in bed with them and their models used by them since before Anthropic was even a thing. Claude will just have been picked because they considered it the strongest at the task at that point in time.

It's crazy to see this kind of misinformation.

by deaux

3/27/2026 at 1:41:29 AM

Palantir maven uses Claude. This is not misinformation, but fact.

https://www.reuters.com/technology/palantir-faces-challenge-...

by SEJeff

3/27/2026 at 3:28:47 AM

>Palantir maven uses Claude

The pushback isn't that they use Anthropic, it is that you stated they used it "entirely", which is not true.

Yes Anthropic is a priority model in their ecosystem and they are deeply embedded with both tech and staff, but they are not the one as indicated and sourced in my reply above.

by frankacter

3/27/2026 at 3:46:56 AM

> Palantir is powered entirely by Claude

"Microsoft is powered entirely by OpenAI" because a single one of their things uses it. No it isn't.

by deaux

3/27/2026 at 2:42:13 AM

[dead]

by frankacter

3/27/2026 at 12:49:33 AM

I understand that, but I suspect the admin will now just have an informal, not-written-down policy that does exactly the same thing.

by 0x3f

3/27/2026 at 12:53:02 AM

This is not really possible. My guess is that the government is not willing to spend the necessary quantity of money to get e.g. Amazon or Google to divest of Anthropic and stop providing them computing resources.

by why_only_15

3/27/2026 at 12:54:11 AM

I believe Palantir are the only ones providing gov with Claude access

by 0x3f

3/27/2026 at 1:02:34 AM

The point is that if DoD's supply chain restriction does what Hegseth seems to want, all contractors involved with Anthropic would have to divest. That includes Amazon and Google, who are both DoD contractors who provide massive quantities of capital and compute to Anthropic. It's irrelevant that Anthropic provides Claude through Palantir.

by why_only_15

3/27/2026 at 1:23:09 AM

I'm not sure that's how the supply chain risk thing works. AFAIK, it has to be part of the supply chain for the products delivered to the DoD to count. I don't think just because Amazon is unrelatedly involved with Anthropic, this forces them to sever that relationship. I'm not sure if Hegseth thinks otherwise, but it's entirely possible that he is wrong or that being wrong is expedient to his threats.

by 0x3f

3/27/2026 at 2:05:46 AM

I believe you are correct, but they could still weaponize it by requiring the contractors to document proof of not using Anthropic products and can drag that out as long as they want to.

by unsnap_biceps

3/27/2026 at 12:51:48 AM

How would they implement such a policy? Amazon, Google, etc. aren't realistically going to terminate all business with Anthropic based on an informal policy that the DoD won't write down.

by SpicyLemonZest

3/27/2026 at 1:26:20 AM

Same as they already pressure these companies. Remove access to the admin thus giving them unfavorable terms on other issues compared to their rivals. Tell them as much in private and what they can do to rectify it. That's this admin's whole modus operandi, is it not? There's a reason all the CEOs clamor to go to the relevant WH events.

by 0x3f

3/27/2026 at 2:09:46 AM

A CEO's time isn't that valuable. Even if you count an amortized fraction of their total compensation, sending them to a White House event for an evening is orders of magnitude less costly than giving up access to the best software development tools.

by SpicyLemonZest

3/27/2026 at 8:37:57 AM

I think you have to add in the cost of PR toxicity for being so closely associated with Trump, though. Most of these guys are from the prime liberal subculture of America, even if in private they lean another way. Traditionally they've never emitted so much praise or support for one president over another, but with Trump it seems like the price of entry to get in on e.g. AI discussions around regulation or funding. Musk is arguably a player in the space but wasn't involved due to some falling out with Trump.

by 0x3f

3/27/2026 at 12:57:28 AM

How is an unwritten policy about suppliers of suppliers of suppliers going to affect a million companies?

by Dylan16807

3/27/2026 at 12:54:36 AM

No you don’t understand, they can’t accomplish the same by an informal policy.

Both Google and Amazon are government contractors. With the designation, they might have had to divest their positions in Anthropic and be unable to serve their models.

No informal rule accomplishes that.

by Ifkaluva

3/27/2026 at 1:24:09 AM

I don't think that's true, as I stated elsewhere:

> I'm not sure that's how the supply chain risk thing works. AFAIK, it has to be part of the supply chain for the products delivered to the DoD to count. I don't think just because Amazon is unrelatedly involved with Anthropic, this forces them to sever that relationship. I'm not sure if Hegseth thinks otherwise, but it's entirely possible that he is wrong or that being wrong is expedient to his threats.

by 0x3f

3/27/2026 at 1:30:23 AM

This whole event was precipitated by Palantir using Claude in the Maduro raid, and news of this surprising Anthropic and resulting in them asking questions and maybe suggesting in private discussions that they took issue with this and wanted to introduce more posttraining limits on the ways their model was used by the department. This has been widely reported and I don’t think anyone is really disputing that.

If that’s true, then what you’re suggesting is absurd. Because it’s not enough for the pentagon to merely stop contracting with Claude, because that was never the problem in the first place from their risk model. Their problem was they had a prime contract with Palantir for their wargaming service, and Palantir subcontracted with Anthropic as an LLM provider. So if DoD ceased to contract with Anthropic directly, it would have no impact on the risk that Anthropics new posttraining limits potentially posed to their mission insofar as they are reliant on Palantir and it’s services and there would be nothing preventing Palantir from continuing to contract with Anthropic.

I have to ask, what other tool do you think they have to protect themselves from this? You can argue that these guardrails from Anthropic are useful and important and DoD should just accept that, and that’s fine, but it really is (and ought to be) the departments decision about whether they’re comfortable with that or not. It’s their call. They have access to information on our adversaries that the public doesn’t. And they’re the ones responsible when lives are lost. And if they’re not comfortable with trusting service member lives to a specific post trained Opus 4.6 model, I’m not sure what other avenue they have to solve that problem across their entire prime contracting space other than a supply chain risk designation.

Any sort of backroom dealings where they whisper off the record to defense CTOs that they have a problem with anthropics leadership and would prefer that they sub out to OpenAI or Gemini instead for LLM services would be totally illegal and a violation of procurement law. So they definitely can’t do that. A supply chain risk designation is the only real tool they have to single out a single company.

One thing worth noting: Anthropic is a PBC, which is a new corporate structure that makes it relatively unaccountable to traditional profit motives. But those traditional profit motives are precisely the carrot that the DoD relies on dangling in front of the industry to motivate companies toward its mission. Traditional for profit companies are lead by people who have a fiduciary responsibility to maximize profit by serving the government. The entire procurement process relies on companies being motivated by profit and competing through bids. But PBCs are specifically designed to remove that incentive structure from their decision making, which makes them entirely unalike every other defense contractor which is publicly traded and can be held legally responsible by shareholders for putting personal beliefs above increasing shareholder value. That sounds like… exactly the kind of thing you don’t want in your military supply chain.

by nickysielicki

3/27/2026 at 1:33:32 AM

> Any sort of backroom dealings where they whisper off the record to defense CTOs that they have a problem with anthropics leadership and would prefer that they sub out to OpenAI or Gemini instead for LLM services would be totally illegal and a violation of procurement law. So they definitely can’t do that.

It doesn't seem they'd be subject to any kind of effective enforcement to me

by 0x3f

3/27/2026 at 1:36:09 AM

Anthropic would definitely have standing to sue if it was ever expressed in writing and leaked.

by nickysielicki

3/27/2026 at 1:14:43 AM

I believe designating an entity a supply chain risk has far deeper implications than the DoD avoiding that entity, and goes as far as a lawful prohibition for any contractor of the USG being also prohibited from using or working with the entity so designated. Ironically enough, if the comments in this discussion are true that Palantír uses Claude, Palantír would've also been prohibited as well.

by ethin

3/27/2026 at 1:30:35 AM

I think that's what the common reporting implies, but I'm not confident that it's true. My understanding is that a supply chain risk must specifically be involved in the supply chain, hence the name. It may be that the admin hypes up their powers for the purposes of instilling fear, but as evidenced by this very post, they can be wrong.

by 0x3f

3/27/2026 at 12:47:04 AM

It's a strong signal that the government cannot strong arm privates.

by epolanski

3/27/2026 at 12:50:36 AM

Though of course that would require the government to respect the rule of law

by simmerup

3/27/2026 at 12:47:33 AM

The Supply Chain Risk label requires every single company in the supply chain of a product or service provided to the US Government to either drop Anthropic or get dropped themselves. This is not just suppliers, but also includes suppliers of suppliers all the way down. This is a much larger chunk of the economy (approaching 100%) than the Pentagon/DOW.

by mmoustafa

3/27/2026 at 1:05:22 AM

There are multiple designations, any part of government, defense applications, not allowed.

For example, in certain outcomes, Anthropic may not be used by the Pentagon, but still be used by the IRS.

by verdverm

3/27/2026 at 12:50:03 AM

Yes, but

> I suspect the admin will now just have an informal, not-written-down policy that does exactly the same thing.

by 0x3f

3/27/2026 at 12:59:10 AM

That doesn't make any sense. You can't apply an informal policy to the entire supply chain.

by root_axis

3/27/2026 at 12:52:35 AM

Aaand that would get challenged in court, remember they had to get Congress to create this designation in the first place because it is not de-facto legal for the USG to discriminate between individuals or corporations.

by mmoustafa

3/27/2026 at 4:57:09 AM

>10 U.S.C. § 3252 authorizes the Secretary of Defense to exclude a source from defense procurements involving national security systems if there is a supply chain risk, defined as the risk that an adversary may sabotage, maliciously introduce unwanted function, or subvert a covered system.

I think any LLM is covered by that, but specifically for Anthropic,

>Recent research has uncovered several critical vulnerabilities, including the "Claudy Day" attack chain which allows silent data exfiltration through conversation history, and a zero-click XSS prompt injection in the Chrome extension that enabled attackers to inject prompts without user interaction until a patch was released in February 2026.

What is obvious to me however is the timing. This Trump pants-shitting happened just before the Iran invasion. You can just imagine it. Trump wants to send fully autonomous bots into Iran to destroy the non-existent nuclear program. Anthropic leadership tries to make a moral stand saying innocent civilians could die. Trump doesn't care because he wants zero US military casualties even if it means a school full of Iranian children is bombed and everyone is killed. And then we get exactly that plus a forever war.

And obviously, the judge is out of her lane too... since, you know, the rule basically can apply to any AI agent because they're just as likely to do what you ask as they are to delete all your emails without even apologizing for it.

by panny

3/27/2026 at 2:29:18 AM

[dead]

by pugchat

3/27/2026 at 12:58:17 AM

[dead]

by yubainu

3/27/2026 at 4:01:12 AM

> successfully

Time will tell

by monkpit

3/27/2026 at 2:09:08 AM

[dead]

by inquirerGeneral

3/27/2026 at 2:01:26 AM

[flagged]

by nickysielicki

3/27/2026 at 2:04:48 AM

Did you read the order? It directly addresses your comment:

> More importantly, as discussed above, no one is entitled to conduct business with the Federal Government, see Perkins, 310 U.S. at 127, and irrespective of the challenged actions, DoW and other federal agencies are free to terminate its contracts and agreements with Anthropic, as Anthropic readily admits.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.46...

by dathery

3/27/2026 at 2:10:48 AM

This entire event came about because Anthropic raised concerns with Palantir and the Department around how Palantir used Claude when the Pentagon used Palantir in the Maduro raids.

The pentagon can terminate its direct contract with Anthropic but it does nothing to address the risk that Anthropic poses to the reliability of Palantir’s services, which are (at this point) critical to the way that the Department operates.

People keep repeating this lie and I’m sick of it. The direct usage of Claude by the pentagon is not what they’re trying to address, it’s the usage of Claude by Palantir that they’re trying to address. And this is the legal way for them to do that.

Again, for the third time in this thread, they MAY NOT ask Palantir off the record to just not use Anthropic. This would be extremely illegal and would give Anthropic standing to sue to the government.

by nickysielicki

3/27/2026 at 3:07:22 AM

Why are you absolutely convinced the government requesting a contractor (Palantir) no longer use a technology they've determined to be unsuitable for their needs would be "extremely illegal", yet demanding every single company engaged in government contracts can no longer use Anthropic for any use whatsoever is totally fine?

I cannot follow the logic there at all. It's like being concerned that asking your neighbor to move their car would be too rude so your solution is to bulldoze their entire driveway. A federal judge evidently disagrees with your legal theory here so perhaps you're off the mark (in fact they specifically call out that the DoD failed to attempt less drastic remedies in violation of the law behind the designation):

  Defendants’ designation of Anthropic as a “supply chain risk” is likely both contrary to law and arbitrary and capricious. The Department of War provides no legitimate basis to infer from Anthropic’s forthright insistence on usage restrictions that it might become a saboteur.

  There are other serious procedural problems with the government’s actions.    Anthropic had no notice or opportunity to respond, which likely violated its due process rights. And the Department of War flouted procedural safeguards required by Congress before entering the supply chain risk designation, including that it consider less intrusive measures.

by toraway

3/27/2026 at 3:43:43 AM

> Why are you absolutely convinced the government requesting a contractor (Palantir) no longer use a technology they've determined to be unsuitable for their needs would be "extremely illegal", yet demanding every single company engaged in government contracts can no longer use Anthropic for any use whatsoever is totally fine?

Because that’s what the law is! Because 1) 3252 gives them a mechanism to exclude a certain vendor from their supply chain broadly, and 2) singling-out a specific vendor for any other reason (favoritism, corruption, etc.) is not legally permissible under any other law.

You can argue that the law doesn’t make sense, but you can’t argue that the law is not the law?

by nickysielicki

3/27/2026 at 2:27:53 AM

I don't understand how to square your story about what motivated the government against what actually happened. This is the statement that the President of the United States made when announcing that Anthropic would be cut off:

> THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA WILL NEVER ALLOW A RADICAL LEFT, WOKE COMPANY TO DICTATE HOW OUR GREAT MILITARY FIGHTS AND WINS WARS! That decision belongs to YOUR COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF and the tremendous leaders I appoint to run our Military. The Leftwing nut jobs at Anthropic have made a DISASTROUS MISTAKE trying to STRONG-ARM the Department of War, and force them to obey their Terms of Service instead of our Constitution. Their selfishness is putting AMERICAN LIVES at risk, our Troops in danger, and our National Security in JEOPARDY.

> Therefore, I am directing EVERY Federal Agency in the United States Government to IMMEDIATELY CEASE all use of Anthropic’s technology. We don’t need it, we don’t want it, and will not do business with them again! There will be a Six Month phase out period for Agencies like the Department of War who are using Anthropic’s products, at various levels. Anthropic better get their act together, and be helpful during this phase out period, or I will use the Full Power of the Presidency to make them comply, with major civil and criminal consequences to follow.

> WE will decide the fate of our Country — NOT some out-of-control, Radical Left AI company run by people who have no idea what the real World is all about. Thank you for your attention to this matter. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!

Perhaps you've not seen this statement before; there are a number of people who find it inconvenient that US policy is driven by insane social media rants, and prefer to make up more sensible rationales for the same policies. But there's no part of the actual published announcement that discusses the relationship between Palantir and Anthropic.

by SpicyLemonZest

3/27/2026 at 2:02:17 AM

No one is forcing the DoD to contract with a company.

by etchalon

3/27/2026 at 2:06:43 AM

DoD would like to use Palantir. DoD also believes Anthropic is pursuing posttraining in future models that will limit the effectiveness of Palantir tooling, if used by Palantir, for the purposes of DoDs mission.

What other legal mechanism do they have to prevent Palantir from specifically not subcontracting out to Anthropic, other than a supply chain risk designation? Note that directly asking Palantir to prefer Google or OpenAI over Anthropic is a violation of procurement law and highly illegal.

What other mechanism do they have?

by nickysielicki

3/27/2026 at 2:09:17 AM

They can say "sorry Palantir, we will only sign a contract with you if you commit not to use Claude to provide services" and then Palantir is free to decide if they want to accept the terms of the contract or not. This is how business works.

by dathery

3/27/2026 at 2:13:47 AM

That would be illegal and ripe for corruption. It would also require the DoD to renegotiate the thousands of existing defense contract it has outstanding.

That’s the entire reason this law exists, because what you’re suggesting is impractical. The department has to confidentially document its rationale for marking a company as a supply chain risk. It’s in the confidential record of this very court case. That’s the legal way to do this.

by nickysielicki

3/27/2026 at 2:30:42 AM

Again, did you read the order? The judge's order explicitly said this would be legal and cites the law permitting it, then goes on to explain why this action did not satisfy it:

> Covered procurement actions include “[t]he decision to withhold consent for a contractor to subcontract with a particular source or to direct a contractor . . . to exclude a particular source from consideration for a subcontract.” 10 U.S.C. § 3252(d)(2)(C).

I strongly suggest reading the order. I have included the link again: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.46...

by dathery

3/27/2026 at 2:39:53 AM

You can’t be serious…

Covered procurement actions are the things the Secretary can do after making a supply chain risk designation under 3252. The designation is a prerequisite. You can’t direct a contractor to exclude a subcontractor under (d)(2)(C) without first going through the 3252 determination process.

You’re literally posting evidence for why this is the only legal avenue for DoD. Yes, I’ve read everything on courtlistener. I trust you have as well, but did you understand any of it?!

This site keeps getting dumber and dumber.

by nickysielicki

3/27/2026 at 2:21:33 AM

Yes, it turns out our laws make it hard for the government to do a lot of things because making it easy for them to do things leads to some deeply authoritarian bullshit.

by etchalon

3/27/2026 at 2:25:57 AM

What a beautiful/horrifying inversion of logic. The government does it the legal way, through an existing law, and you’re short circuiting and pattern matching to “the government is trying to work around the law”.

The DoD is not trying to sneak its way out of behaving legally. On the contrary, they’re doing it the legal way and you’re suggesting that they could just do it the illegal way.

by nickysielicki

3/27/2026 at 3:11:59 AM

Again, you of undue certainty: the government attempted this potentially legal avenue, and it was adjudicated as impermissible. Meaning what they tried didn't work. Why are you acting like no one else here understands what has happened? Probability dictates that you are almost certainly not the smartest person in the room.

by thereticent

3/27/2026 at 3:27:28 AM

It wasn’t “adjudicated as impermissible”. You’re misunderstanding what a preliminary injunction represents. It’s right there in the name: preliminary. It’s preliminary because it precedes the actual real adjudication.

> Why are you acting like no one else here understands what has happened?

Because you clearly don’t? Because nobody who has a remote understanding of the legal system would be stupid enough to suggest that a San Francisco district court judge preliminary injunction decision would carry enough weight to dictate DoD procurement during an active hot war.

by nickysielicki

3/27/2026 at 2:36:26 AM

The DOD is labeling a domestic company a supply chain risk - label generally reserved for hostile foreign powers and their cooperators - because that domestic company didn't agree to its contract terms.

Judge Lin's order finds that it do so specifically to harm that company, without due process and without the remedies Congress specifically requested be used when it drafted the law. The DOD was, in essence, using a law illegally.

The version of events you present does not seem to be tethered to reality.

by etchalon

3/27/2026 at 2:15:29 AM

Why are they entitled to have a mechanism to force a private company to deal in weapons and surveillance?

by brookst

3/27/2026 at 2:16:19 AM

[flagged]

by nickysielicki

3/27/2026 at 3:07:23 AM

You can say this person is an idiot all you want, but the fact of the matter is that if DoD does not want to deal with Anthropic through Palantir, their only legal recourse at this point is to drop Palantir. They shot their shot with this legal gamble to remove Anthropic from the supply chain, and they failed. That's it. Curtains or deal with it.

by thereticent

3/27/2026 at 3:13:42 AM

You really think the world works that way? One judge with two years on the bench makes a determination after two weeks of consideration and the case is closed forever?

This injunction doesn’t take effect for a week, precisely so that the Department has time to appeal this to the 9th circuit. And even if the 9th circuit doesn’t stay it, SCOTUS will. This court has stayed district court injunctions against the executive on national security grounds multiple times. They are not going to let a single district judge in San Francisco dictate military procurement during an active war. Obviously. OBVIOUSLY.

Lin didn’t drop Palantir from the defense supply chain unilaterally. The world does not work that way. Obviously. She issued a preliminary injunction that will be appealed before it takes effect. The DoD has not “shot their shot.” This lawsuit hasn’t even started yet.

by nickysielicki

3/27/2026 at 3:19:25 AM

> Anthropic is suing for the right to deal in weapons and surveillance, you realize?

No, they are suing for the reversal of specific government actions which they contend were taken without lawful authority and for Constitutionally impermissible purposes.

by dragonwriter

3/27/2026 at 3:46:36 AM

Okay, sure, that’s a lot of fancy words to say a lot of nothing.

What remedy are they seeking? How can this be redressed? (Hint: they want to be a part of the DoD supply chain. If they weren’t, they wouldn’t have standing. If the court can’t do anything for you even if you win, you fail the redressability prong and get bounced for lack of standing.)

by nickysielicki

3/27/2026 at 1:44:50 PM

Scope of injunctive relief extends beyond DoD. In fact, it’s fair to say that’s only a small portion of the relief offered.

by Starman_Jones

3/27/2026 at 2:22:28 AM

No, Anthropic is suing for the right to not be labeled a supply chain risk for a failed contract negotiation.

Nothing in their suit, or this ruling, says the DoD has to buy things from them.

by etchalon

3/27/2026 at 2:27:38 AM

Whose supply chain? A supply chain risk to whom?

If they are comfortable without being in that supply chain, whoever’s supply chain that is (exercise to the reader), why are they suing?

by nickysielicki

3/27/2026 at 5:08:59 AM

I think the whole entire point of this is they shouldn't be excluding Anthropic as an entity, they should be excluding all suppliers on equal terms on the basis of whether they satisfy requirements or not. If it is a requirement that they be able to conduct mass domestic surveillance then they should put that into their contract with Palantir, not "You can't use Anthropic".

So I agree with you, it ought to be illegal for them to tell a supplier what other suppliers to use. But that is exactly the larger point here in the first place that they should not be doing that at all.

by zmmmmm

3/27/2026 at 5:19:07 AM

The government cannot conduct massive domestic surveillance in any case, that’s illegal. Other vendors are mature and serious enough to understand that the government is subject to American law and must operate under American law. They’re mature and serious enough to understand that it is the exclusive right of the judicial branch to make determinations around whether the law has been violated or not. They’re mature and serious enough to understand that the DoD has a mandate to pursue its mission to the fullest extent allowable by the law, and it is the sole responsibility of the DoD legal team to determine whether they are operating safely within the bounds of the law.

Anthropic is uniquely interested in introducing itself as an external enforcer of US law, a sort of belt-and-suspenders approach, where the Department is not only subject to operate under the constitution and the laws from the legislative branch, but also subject to anthropics interpretation of whether they are operating under the constitution and the laws from the legislative branch.

The department of defense does not want to engage in massive domestic surveillance beyond what the law allows them to do. They have signed agreements with OpenAI and other vendors which reiterate that they do not wish to use AI systems for massive domestic surveillance. These terms were unsatisfactory for Anthropic, for whatever reason.

The problem is not the terms of the agreement. It’s the people and the way they conduct business. It’s the fact that they’ve expressed a willingness to hold their product (or future products) hostage, at the cost of DoD operational excellence. It’s the fact that they’re training a specific model variant for government usage with extra guardrails and limitations and values.

Above all else, it’s the fact that they want to leverage their position as a leading AI company to influence government policy. This is not how a serious reliable partner of the government behaves. The problem from the DoDs perspective is the company itself and the people in charge of it.

by nickysielicki

3/27/2026 at 5:41:41 AM

I don't think a lot of what you are citing is true or valid - but for the sake of argument, everything valid that you are expressing can be and should be put into terms that don't relate specifically to Anthropic. The government just needs to state what its requirements are and then treat all parties equally. Anything else is crony capitalism.

by zmmmmm

3/27/2026 at 6:15:33 AM

The government has stated what its requirements are: “all lawful use”. Anthropic is uniquely unwilling to agree to that.

by nickysielicki

3/27/2026 at 6:24:42 AM

So that should have been the end of it - why didn't the government just do that and leave it there? The gap between the accessible means for them to achieve the requirement they needed and the action they actually took amounts to a harm to Anthropic for which they may have the right to pursue compensation.

by zmmmmm

3/27/2026 at 6:32:10 AM

Again, you’re ignoring the entire background of this dispute: Palantir. Once DoD has established that Anthropic is an unreliable partner and is liable to act adversarially, they needs a legal mechanism to prevent Palantir (and all companies like Palantir) from taking a dependency on Anthropic. This is what that looks like.

Ceasing to contract with them directly doesn’t change the fact that Anthropic wishes to leverage itself to influence the government. That doesn’t go away. The problem is not with closing all direct contracts between the Pentagon and Anthropic, those don’t matter, it’s with closing all their channels of influence into DoD as a subcontractor.

Similarly to how DoD refusing to buy from Huawei doesn’t protect DoD from their prime contractors buying Huawei gear, they need a supply chain risk designation to ensure they are protected.

by nickysielicki

3/27/2026 at 6:48:57 AM

well you've zeroed on the part that I just don't accept at all here:

> is liable to act adversarially

...

> wishes to leverage itself to influence the government

This goes way beyond the above requirement of "all legal purposes", and I haven't seen anything that remotely supports these in the public evidence. In fact there's a lot of evidence to support the opposite view.

by zmmmmm

3/27/2026 at 6:18:35 AM

> Anything else is crony capitalism.

Are you new here?!

by tolerance

3/27/2026 at 3:12:02 AM

> DoD would like to use Palantir. DoD also believes Anthropic is pursuing posttraining in future models that will limit the effectiveness of Palantir tooling, if used by Palantir, for the purposes of DoDs mission.

> What other legal mechanism do they have to prevent Palantir from specifically not subcontracting out to Anthropic, other than a supply chain risk designation?

Even assuming the stated concern was justifiable, and even assuming that there was no alternative mechanism, that does not:

(1) Justify them failing to what is explicit required for the supply chain risk designation,

(2) Create an exception to the 5th Amendment Due Process Clause, which (for reasons stated in the ruling) merely meeting the facial standards in the statute for the supply chain risk designation does not do when the supplier is (contrary to the motivating justification for the statutory provision) a domestic supplier where the government has no special evidence that it can demonstrate for exigency,

(3) Justify the other challenged actions covered by the injunction (like the Hegseth Directive ordering a much broader ban than is imposed by the supply chain risk designation, or the earlier Presidential Directive ordering an even broader ban than the Hegseth Directive.)

(4) Really, do anything at all legally, because it is not a principal of US law that the government, if it has a good motive, is free to act outside of the law merely because there is no provision inside the law which meets its desires.

by dragonwriter

3/27/2026 at 4:02:08 AM

The court hasn’t found anything. A preliminary injunction is a finding of likelihood of success on the merits, not a ruling on the merits. The designation is still in place and will remain in place until the appellate courts weigh in.

On the substance: nothing in 3252 limits ‘adversary’ to foreign actors. Congress used ‘foreign adversary’ in other statutes when it meant foreign adversary. It didn’t here. That’s a problem for you. The government’s brief cites three dictionaries defining adversary as ‘an opponent in a contest, conflict, or dispute.’ A vendor that questions active military operations through intermediaries and demands an approval role in the operational decision chain is an opponent in a dispute. That’s the plain text. Originalist judges will see it that way.

I don’t really follow what you’re saying in point 1, the supply chain risk rationale is in the confidential record of this court case. There’s no way for us to know what’s in there, but it’s safe to assume the government covered their bases.

On point 2, I also don’t understand what you’re saying. They are in court right now. How have they been denied due process?

Point 3 is less interesting to me. Twitter posts by Hegseth obviously don’t really hold water. Anthropic should win here. But that’s not really what this case is about or why it’s interesting.

Your point 4 assumes the government acted outside the law. I’m not convinced of that. That’s the very question being litigated. The government’s position is that it acted within 3252. One San Francisco district judge disagreed at the preliminary injunction stage. That’s not a final answer. Not even close.

by nickysielicki

3/27/2026 at 5:29:42 AM

... you're arguing they weren't denied due process because they could always sue to demand due process?

by etchalon

3/27/2026 at 6:25:13 AM

Post-deprivation process is still process.

by nickysielicki

3/27/2026 at 8:51:21 AM

There is a reason the phrase "due process" has two words instead of just the second one.

by dragonwriter

3/27/2026 at 2:18:29 PM

Amazing.

by etchalon

3/27/2026 at 1:16:07 AM

[flagged]

by felixagentai

3/27/2026 at 2:08:11 AM

[dead]

by chmorgan_

3/27/2026 at 12:50:12 AM

[dead]

by bustah

3/28/2026 at 1:41:43 AM

[dead]

by aimemobe

3/27/2026 at 2:08:49 AM

[dead]

by inquirerGeneral

3/27/2026 at 1:10:43 AM

[flagged]

by AbrahamParangi

3/27/2026 at 1:51:02 AM

> Please don't post insinuations about astroturfing, shilling, brigading, foreign agents, and the like. It degrades discussion and is usually mistaken. If you're worried about abuse, email hn@ycombinator.com and we'll look at the data.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

by macintux

3/27/2026 at 2:14:06 AM

They're specifically referring to the dead comments from new users in this thread, so it's not insinuation. They're pointing out a higher-than-normal quantity of shill bots flocked to this thread.

The fact that the comments are dead means the system is working as intended, but it's not unreasonable to point out the nature of the comments.

by ronsor

3/27/2026 at 5:20:31 AM

That seems shockingly naive.

by AbrahamParangi

3/27/2026 at 3:03:27 AM

The mistake is thinking that an organic entity won't reject causality when it interferes with their politics.

The interesting thing here is that this isn't an always-on feature. You can actually see the process on a person's face. I was delighted by the recent DOGE depositions because the video quality is good enough to see the guy's eyes stop moving and glaze over.

by gopher_space

3/27/2026 at 1:13:16 AM

Can you be more specific? I see a lot of uninformed takes, but no specific bias. Do you mean downvotes?

by fwipsy

3/27/2026 at 1:17:38 AM

If you turn on the thing that shows 'dead' comments, there is a larger than normal number here.

by davidw

3/27/2026 at 1:24:51 AM

Indeed, and the dead comments (from new users!) overwhelmingly favor the government position.

But, this is a non-story, because those comments were correctly killed precisely so they wouldn't clog up this thread.

by dfabulich

3/27/2026 at 1:40:00 AM

I wouldn't call something a non-story just because the ultimate end-goal was mitigated. The fact that it was attempted is a story, especially when it's a meta commentary on story about trying the same thing _officially_.

by swsieber

3/27/2026 at 2:01:47 AM

Eh. The actors that use these features use a shotgun approach. The result is you see a bunch of dead comments and assume the system is working as intended, while a couple of the less inconspicuous comments persist. This happens frequently on specific topics.

by SecretDreams

3/27/2026 at 1:28:25 AM

Do you think it's more likely a government influence operation, or a single dipshit lazily pasting LLM slop?

by longislandguido

3/27/2026 at 1:38:08 AM

Could be organic dipshits with little to offer the discussion. That's the most common case in my view.

Said dipshits tend have an unnecessarily high degree of self regard.

by nutjob2

3/27/2026 at 2:02:34 AM

[flagged]

by SecretDreams

3/27/2026 at 3:10:31 AM

Veiled slurs aren't funny and don't contribute anything to HN.

by nozzlegear

3/27/2026 at 5:42:17 PM

Nor do bots and one track minded posters.

by SecretDreams

3/27/2026 at 9:26:08 PM

I'd argue that it depends on what the track is. But yeah, bots and slurs: bad. Let's stop using them.

by nozzlegear

3/27/2026 at 1:22:26 AM

Are you suggesting there is a government conspiracy to influence this dusty corner dive bar of the Internet?

by longislandguido

3/27/2026 at 1:23:51 AM

Are there tech workers who don't know what HN is? It's a pretty reasonably sized social media site.

by ahhhhnoooo

3/27/2026 at 2:10:18 AM

At my previous job at a well known, established large tech company - I didn't find anyone who had heard of HN.

Not about people using HN. But even being aware the site exists.

by BeetleB

3/27/2026 at 1:26:40 AM

I'm reminded of that episode of Portlandia where the mayor was obsessed with thinking the city was bigger and more important than it actually is.

by longislandguido

3/27/2026 at 1:49:59 AM

I don't think I overstated it. Tech workers is a small piece of the global population.

by ahhhhnoooo

3/27/2026 at 2:21:06 AM

Portland OR has a higher GDP than Vancouver BC.

by Der_Einzige

3/27/2026 at 3:23:14 AM

Sadly, Portland is a backwater logging outpost and no one outside the PNW gives a shit about Portland or could place it on a map. I'm sorry, it's true.

by longislandguido

3/27/2026 at 2:59:48 PM

That's how I feel about Dallas, Pittsburgh, Tallahassee, etc. I think we're all just not as familiar with regions outside our own.

by ahhhhnoooo

3/27/2026 at 1:58:21 AM

I had no idea what hn was until about 2 years ago. This would be 8 years into a career in tech… there are dozens of us.

by rustystump

3/27/2026 at 4:07:31 AM

Nah I think a lot of the judicial overreach is just pissing off a lot of the regular hackernews userbase off. This fit the law to a T.

And then if it's not this it's blocking the removal of a temporary order. Just tons of garbage that was implemented without any law now all of a sudden is permanent because a judge decided.

by tick_tock_tick

3/27/2026 at 12:53:08 AM

[flagged]

by arrglk34t

3/27/2026 at 12:52:18 AM

[flagged]

by arrglk34t

3/27/2026 at 12:31:19 AM

[flagged]

by comrade1234

3/27/2026 at 1:01:47 AM

[flagged]

by tim4ock

3/27/2026 at 2:26:06 AM

[flagged]

by ljsprague

3/27/2026 at 2:40:15 AM

As everyone will see it for what it is when Hegseth reports for his prison sentence. I regret that you see American democracy protecting itself as a plot by "the Left", and hope you'll have the wisdom to abandon ship before the aspiring autocrats drag you down with them.

by SpicyLemonZest

3/27/2026 at 12:54:37 AM

[flagged]

by arrglk34t

3/27/2026 at 12:56:26 AM

@dang I'm formally petitioning you to bring down the banhammer upon this obvious troll account

by amarant

3/27/2026 at 12:58:41 AM

If you need a moderator you can send an email, but it's a brand new account posting on one thread so that's not going to do much.

by Dylan16807

3/27/2026 at 12:59:04 AM

@dang doesn't work.. you've been here long enough.

> (..) email hn@ycombinator.com and we'll look at the data.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

by gnabgib

3/27/2026 at 1:24:41 AM

Right, my bad

by amarant

3/27/2026 at 12:57:03 AM

[flagged]

by arrglk34t

3/27/2026 at 8:14:45 AM

I mean they -are- a supply chain risk, but also, so is every security negligent proprietary software firm the public and government relies on for no reason. Anthropic deserves to -share- this label with dozens of other companies.

What is insane is that the US government lacks the capability to insert GPUs into PCIe slots, and provide them with electricity and FOSS tools. This shit is just not that hard. Especially when you have an unlimited money printer.

A level of incompetence that causes the US government to even think they need to pay a private company to host LLMs for them is the biggest risk I see.

by lrvick

3/27/2026 at 2:06:40 AM

i think the military should be able to do what it wants

last i checked the german military is held down by stupid obligations forced onto it by its government that make it both inefficient and obsolete

by stainablesteel

3/27/2026 at 2:25:47 AM

As many, many people more intelligent and good-faith than you have pointed out, the government is free to stop using Anthropic‘s services at any time: nobody disputes that. What they are not free to do is impose a corporate death sentence because their contract counterparty wouldn’t submit to forceful changing of terms they had previously both agreed on.

by Analemma_

3/27/2026 at 2:11:22 PM

> claims bad faith

> starts off with insults

the judge ruling is independent of the prior events

you can think one thing about one of those things, and another about another

by stainablesteel

3/27/2026 at 12:39:44 AM

So much for all that alarmism a month ago. Just got to be patient and wait for cooler heads to prevail. Or it goes to show how Anthropic handled it well, by making their case as persuasively and assertively without delay as they had done.

by paulpauper

3/27/2026 at 1:11:24 AM

This is entirely procedural. This preliminary injunction does not take effect for a week (eg: the order does not take effect for another week and the ban stays in place in the interim), which is done precisely to give the DoD the time to appeal to a higher court, whereupon this preliminary injunction order will very likely be reversed/blocked until the lower court has time to rule on the merits.

It’s not really unexpected.

by nickysielicki

3/27/2026 at 12:41:43 AM

I completely disagree with the idea that a court not allowing the Secretary of Defense to bankrupt a company for disagreeing with him means it's wrong to be alarmed that he tried. It remains extraordinarily alarming that the guy who runs the US military thinks anyone who tries to stop him from doing what he'd like is a threat.

by SpicyLemonZest

3/27/2026 at 12:51:34 AM

I think the verdict has been in for years now that there is nothing that Americans will mobilize against if it’s only the principles of freedom and liberty on the line. I think it will take being poked with a rather large stick to see some movement. Crippling the economy might be that stick. Unfortunately we all get to suffer their idiocracy.

by Waterluvian

3/27/2026 at 1:09:55 AM

As I've told people in the past, what you have to understand is that the First Amendment gives Americans wide latitude to mobilize in ways which don't code as mobilization. There's a nationwide protest scheduled for Saturday based on the premise that Trump is a tyrant and we the people won't let him do what he wants. But it's legal and common for people to say that; indeed, it's even legal to say (and I do say) that Trump should be overthrown. So what would be "mobilization" in a lot of places is just another weekend.

by SpicyLemonZest

3/27/2026 at 1:23:42 AM

You don’t think the horses are not already out of the barn and long gone?

by Waterluvian

3/27/2026 at 2:06:14 AM

I don't understand what the analogy means in this context. Do I think that it's illegal or impossible to oppose the US government? No, I do so routinely.

by SpicyLemonZest

3/27/2026 at 11:49:05 AM

I’m saying the remedy is so slow and late that I wouldn’t call it a remedy. If this is how the system works, it’s a bad one.

by Waterluvian

3/27/2026 at 3:22:49 AM

That’s the least concerning thing about Hegseth. The “warrior of God” rhetoric and the fact that he publicly wants to start word war 3 in the name of Jesus should be way more prominent in the public conversation.

by yoyohello13

3/27/2026 at 1:17:51 AM

This case means nothing since the administration can simply say well we’re gonna treat them that way, even if they aren’t officially labeled and if you’re doing business with them, we’re gonna cancel your contract. Mob tactics don’t extend to the courtroom..

by conception

3/27/2026 at 12:41:41 AM

It’s all a big PR campaign. They will reveal shortly that they used Claude as their legal team.

by jonplackett

3/27/2026 at 12:44:15 AM

What's the point of a supply chain risk distinction if you can't mark a company as a risk if they express that they will be a risk?

by charcircuit

3/27/2026 at 1:06:25 AM

Is this question supposed to have anything to do with the situation at hand, where what they did was refuse to perform certain categories of service?

by Dylan16807

3/27/2026 at 1:29:42 AM

>was refuse to perform certain categories of service?

Anthropic wanted to have the power over what the government could or couldn't do. If there was any false positive on something that was supposed to be allowed the government would have to work with Anthropic and get permission from them to do something they are allowed to do. This to me is the risk that Anthropic was giving to the government. If Anthropic expresses that they want this level of power over what the military can do I think that such intention can justify being a risk. That is how it relates to my comment.

by charcircuit

3/27/2026 at 1:40:05 AM

Yes, anthropic wanted that power through a legal agreement. Not by spying on the pentagon , or training their AI model to lie to them etc, which seems more appropriate for supply chain risk. The government in this case can just cancel its legal agreement with Anthropic and move on, which was always its expected move. Trying to unilaterally destroy Anthropics business for a contractual disagreement is not fair and I’m glad the judicial is pushing back.

by sashank_1509

3/27/2026 at 2:01:59 AM

Anthropic wanted power over what the government would do with the servers Anthropic runs. That's not weird and that's not being a risk. It's normal business negotiation.

by Dylan16807

3/27/2026 at 2:15:30 AM

This is not about the usage restrictions in the agreement. As shown by OpenAI's agreement getting similar restrictions. It is about Anthropic's attitude in how Anthropic has the ultimate power in its usage. If RTX started demanding that they should be the ones to decide who Tomahawk missiles can be used on when they are launched. And RTX said that the government should file a support ticket to appeal a decision, then I would not be surprised that such actions could lead to considering them to be a supply risk. Even if it was just part of "business negotiation." It is the mindset that the other company has which clearly is showing signs of risk.

by charcircuit

3/27/2026 at 2:37:59 AM

What the court found is that Anthropic demanded no such thing. The government lied and claimed that they did as part of their attempt to punish Anthropic.

by SpicyLemonZest

3/27/2026 at 4:31:08 AM

It was a preliminary injunction. The purpose of such an injunction is not to establish what actually happened. We will need to wait for this to progress further to learn more information about what actually happened.

by charcircuit

3/27/2026 at 1:50:12 PM

DoD admitted in court that it did not happen.

by Starman_Jones

3/27/2026 at 1:39:43 AM

The military can work with someone else's product or use a bit of their trillion-dollar budget to come up with their own.

by joe5150

3/27/2026 at 1:55:42 AM

Yes, they can work with someone else. Marking them as a supply risk is one way they can avoid using them and instead use someone else for their needs. So now it seems like we are in a limbo where the government knows that Anthropic is a risk to work with, but they can't official put them on a list that states that.

by charcircuit

3/27/2026 at 3:31:59 AM

They actually don't need to sanction Anthropic as a "supply risk" in order to not contract with them, and doing so is obviously an insane overreach.

by joe5150

3/27/2026 at 2:11:03 AM

Can you explain how Anthropic is a risk to work with?

by MeetingsBrowser

3/27/2026 at 4:11:35 AM

Put simply, the military should have to ask Anthropic for permission each time it needs intelligence. Time is of the essence for the military and having to argue over these things in the moment is not good. These things should be figured out ahead of time and or properly reviewed afterwards. Working with such a company that demands to embed themself into this process with the power to deny any request is too much power. The risk to the military for companies working with Anthropic is that they can get delays or outages when there shouldn't be which can jeopardize time sensitive operations.

by charcircuit

3/27/2026 at 1:13:04 AM

To act as a safety valve against foreign companies acting as proxies for an adversary. Not for use against an American company that won't let you retroactively violate already agreed to terms. Anthropic isn't jeopardizing the supply chain, they simply will not let the Government force them into providing services they otherwise wouldn't.

by salawat

3/27/2026 at 1:07:08 AM

The "mark" was capricious and vindictive. That's at the heart of why it was injuncted.

by verdverm

3/27/2026 at 1:43:25 AM

Google the "arbitrary and capricious" legal standard. And try to stick to the facts about Anthropic's actions.

by nutjob2

3/27/2026 at 12:48:49 AM

What's the point of the Constitution when the government can ignore it at their discretion?

by mexicocitinluez

3/27/2026 at 3:12:16 AM

Freedom Treater.

by dboreham

3/27/2026 at 12:48:17 AM

Well, you could also say what's the point of laws when courts can interpret them however they like? There's never a neat answer in such multi-valent systems, is there?

by 0x3f

3/27/2026 at 1:41:42 AM

I recommend reading the law on which this action was based.

by genthree

3/27/2026 at 11:01:12 AM

There’s a narrow law in which Congress grants the Secretary decisions about security. Then there’s the executive posting on social media. While it would be nice if the administration followed the law, this case is really about manipulation via social media.

by enoint

3/27/2026 at 1:45:11 AM

Lost in the cacophony is the fact that Anthropic fumbled a strong lifeline while hemorrhaging cash without a business model. It’s fun to look down at OpenAI but they may not get another chance like this again.

by jimbob45

3/27/2026 at 1:55:50 AM

Anthropic is the leading enterprise LLM provider. All they have to do is keep building a best-performing product, charge what they need, and keep costs as far down as possible. If my company knew there were an LLM 1.5x as good as Opus, they would be willing to pay 3x the cost. If it were being sold by Anthropic, they’d be even more likely to pay, since we could easily keep our same tooling.

by bicx

3/27/2026 at 1:53:38 AM

Claude has had such a massive increase in usage since being labeled a supply chain risk the service has been struggling to scale to meet increase demand.

On top of that, the prevailing opinion seemed to be that courts would overrule the supply chain risk designation, allowing the government and its subcontractors to use Claude again.

It’s hard to see how they could have navigated this better

by MeetingsBrowser

3/27/2026 at 1:48:03 AM

It's fun to say that Anthropic doesn't have a business model, but clearly they do. Hopefully they can achieve it while maintaining their standards, even if in the eyes of some that's 'fumbling a strong lifeline'.

by felixgallo

3/27/2026 at 1:54:01 AM

This government contract was a very small part of anthropic revenue. Almost negligible. Their 2026 revenue is projected to be $14 billion to $20 billion. This contract was $200M over 2 years.

by israrkhan

3/27/2026 at 1:58:37 AM

On top of that, Palantir has been designated as a multi year contract and they use Anthropic under the hood.

by brandensilva

3/27/2026 at 2:11:59 AM

OpenAI smells desperate, and is already understood to be overextended. It isn't Anthropic that retired their flashy video gen platform, ceding competitive ground to Google.

by mpalmer

3/27/2026 at 1:58:42 AM

whatever you say boss

by ryanmcbride