Judge orders Trump administration to nix its ban on using Anthropic’s AI

The Trump administration likely broke the law when it banned the government from using the artificial intelligence tool Claude and forbade any contractors from doing business with its creator, Anthropic PBC, a federal judge ruled Thursday.

U.S. District Judge Rita Lin, a Biden appointee to the court in California, ordered the government to cancel the categorical ban on working with Claude. She put her ruling on hold for seven days to give the administration a chance to appeal.

She said she’s not mandating the government do business with Anthropic or use Claude, but she said the government broke the rules when it blacklisted Anthropic.

“These broad measures do not appear to be directed at the government’s stated national security interests,” she wrote. “If the concern is the integrity of the operational chain of command, the Department of War could just stop using Claude. Instead, these measures appear designed to punish Anthropic.”

The case arose out of a dispute between the firm and the Defense Department.

Anthropic said it didn’t want its AI tool, Claude, used for autonomous warfare or mass surveillance of Americans.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said those were decisions for the government to make, not a private firm.

President Trump ordered the federal government to cease all contracts with the firm, and Mr. Hegseth ordered defense contractors to cease use. He also cited Anthropic’s “hostile” approach to the Trump administration in designating the firm a “supply chain risk.”

Judge Lin said that was an abuse of the supply chain laws, and treated those who complained about government policy as adversaries.

Administration lawyers had said Anthropic’s reticence about complying with the government’s demands for AI raised the risk that the firm could try to sabotage or subvert Claude.

Judge Lin, though, said the supply chain law is meant to combat covert acts and technical sabotage, and does not cover these kind of public policy debates.

“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,” she wrote.