Court Denies Anthropic's Motion Against Blacklisting by Trump Administration

A federal appeals court has declined Anthropic's emergency request to halt the Trump administration's blacklisting of the AI company, though it agreed to expedite the case with oral arguments scheduled for May 19. The decision was made by a panel of judges appointed by Republicans, including Trump appointees Gregory Katsas and Neomi Rao. Anthropic claims its First Amendment rights were violated when it refused to allow its AI models to be used for autonomous warfare and surveillance, leading to its blacklisting by Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.

The court acknowledged that Anthropic might suffer irreparable harm, primarily financial, but noted that the company's speech had not been chilled. Meanwhile, a separate lawsuit in California resulted in a preliminary injunction favoring Anthropic, with the judge labeling the blacklisting as retaliatory and unconstitutional. The Trump administration is appealing this decision.

The DC Circuit court's ruling did not delve into the merits of the case, highlighting the complexity of defining supply-chain risks and national-security interests. Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche praised the decision as a victory for military readiness, emphasizing the need for military access to Anthropic's technology.

Anthropic expressed gratitude for the expedited process and confidence in ultimately proving the blacklisting unlawful. The company remains focused on collaborating with the government to ensure AI benefits for all Americans.

The relationship between Anthropic and the Department of Defense has soured, with the department now known as the Department of War, criticizing Anthropic's refusal to allow certain uses of its technology. The court sided with the government, citing the importance of military operations over the financial harm to Anthropic.

The Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA) raised concerns about the Pentagon's blacklisting process, warning against political motivations in federal procurement. The CCIA argues that such actions could harm US innovation and competition.