Anthropic has strong case against Pentagon blacklisting, legal experts say

tartoran 41 points 8 comments March 11, 2026
www.reuters.com · View on Hacker News

Discussion Highlights (3 comments)

nomel

It appears the author entirely omitted the quotes where the legal experts actually suggest this. Here are all the quotes, from the article: > "It's not at all clear that the statute can even apply to an American company where there's no foreign entanglement," > "These are basically safety protocols. You can debate whether these protocols are acceptable or not, but they run directly counter to the risk that the law is designed to regulate > "A lot of things Hegseth has said and the Pentagon has done undermine their case and suggest there was personal animus and bad blood between the parties, and that the Pentagon had it out for Anthropic, > The government was simultaneously threatening to use the (Defense Production Act) to force Anthropic to sell its services, using its services in active military operations, and saying it's too dangerous to use them in government contracts, ... Not all of these things can be true Authors description: > Jack Queen covers major lawsuits against the Trump administration involving urgent questions of executive power and how their resolution could affect the law and the legal profession in the years to come.

conception

The thing is with mob tactics none of this matters. Who cares if it’s illegal what they did? They just go to another company and say hey if you want this government contract, you can’t work with them. I’m sure they might sue but after a year or two of the case going, who knows what other damage has been done when you don’t follow the rule of law or are bound to it having a judgment against you is meaningless.

hermit_dev

I think honestly this has helped more than hurt Anthropic from a PR and marketing perspective. Sure it was a huge contract no doubt and obviously the government knows how good Claude is, but I applaud them for sticking to their guns. Despite Anthropic making some questionable choices (for example even though they announced it, saying that they will start training on user data starting last year unless you explicitly opt out was a bit out if left field for them among other things), it must have been some crazy stuff they were asking to do.

Semantic search powered by Rivestack pgvector
3,471 stories · 32,344 chunks indexed