President Donald Trump salutes as he attends a military parade commemorating the Army”s 250th anniversary, coinciding with his 79th birthday, Saturday, June 14, 2025, in Washington, with Secretary of the Army Daniel Driscoll, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, and first lady Melania Trump. (AP Photo/Julia Demaree Nikhinson).
Anthropic, the developer of “Claude,” has escalated its legal battle after Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth labeled the AI model a “supply‑chain risk and threat to national security.” The company is urging the D.C. Circuit to treat an attack on its “good conscience” restrictions like an emergency.
Anthropic and its CEO, Dario Amodei, notably represented by one of the law firms targeted by President Donald Trump’s executive orders to crack down on “lawfare,” asked for a stay of the administration’s “retaliation” campaign just days after initially filing suit in California federal district court.
Anthropic alleged the administration’s punitive “about-face,” “blacklisting,” and “risk” designation violated the First Amendment. The company stood firm on its “judgment that Claude cannot safely or reliably be used for autonomous lethal warfare and mass surveillance of Americans” despite seeking to fulfill a “partnership with the Department” which began in 2024 and “included a 2025 two-year agreement worth up to $200 million[.]”
“The Constitution confers on Anthropic the right to express its views—both publicly and to the government—about the limitations of its own AI services and important issues of AI safety,” the lawsuit said.
Claude has a publicly posted constitution that emphasizes Anthropic’s “intentions” for its “values and behavior,” being “broadly ethical” and “honest” among them. This, the company said, explained why the “Usage Policy” has always been clear about the “two specific restrictions” on the government’s use of Claude.
Unsatisfied with the “RADICAL LEFT, WOKE COMPANY” and its position, the president on Feb. 27 lashed out on Truth Social and threatened to “use the Full Power of the Presidency to make them comply, with major civil and criminal consequences to follow.”
Trump’s cabinet secretary responded accordingly, not only designating Anthropic a national security threat but also declaring “effective immediately, no contractor, supplier, or partner that does business with the United States military may conduct any commercial activity with Anthropic.”
In a lengthy social media post, Hegseth claimed Anthropic’s “sanctimonious rhetoric of ‘effective altruism'” was an attempt to “strong-arm the United States military into submission – a cowardly act of corporate virtue-signaling that places Silicon Valley ideology above American lives.”
“Anthropic will continue to provide the Department of War its services for a period of no more than six months to allow for a seamless transition to a better and more patriotic service,” Hegseth stated.
As a result of the foregoing and more potential harms to come, Anthropic believes there’s ample reason for the D.C. Circuit to launch an “immediate judicial intervention” and put a stop to the “unlawful actions.”
“[M]ultiple customers have contacted Anthropic asking whether they can continue working with it. The Department itself has reached out to Anthropic customers, directing them to end relationships with Anthropic,” the motion said. “As a result, customers have signaled potential cancellations, delays in national-security contract negotiations, and possible suspension or removal of Claude. Even non-defense customers are expressing hesitation about continuing to work with Anthropic. Hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars are at risk.”
Anthropic’s emergency action comes as Hegseth simultaneously tries to defeat other First Amendment retaliation claims at the D.C. Circuit.
One month ago, a district judge preliminarily ruled in favor of Sen. Mark Kelly, D-Ariz., in his lawsuit against Hegseth, finding him “likely to succeed on the merits” that the Trump administration unlawfully retaliated against the senator for “unquestionably protected speech” in a video criticizing the president’s lethal strikes on alleged drug smugglers’ boats in international waters.
Before the injunction, the defense secretary branded Kelly a member of the “Seditious Six” Democratic lawmakers who appeared in that video, accusing him of undermining the chain of command by telling military service members they “can refuse illegal orders.” For that, Hegseth went after the former Navy captain’s retirement rank and pay grade — so far in vain.
After losing the first round, Hegseth taunted Kelly, writing “Sedition is sedition, ‘Captain'” on X. But the secretary’s prospects of reversal on appeal do not appear to have materially improved at the D.C. Circuit since then.
