A federal judge in San Francisco issued a preliminary injunction on Thursday that blocks the Pentagon’s designation of Anthropic as a “supply chain risk” and temporarily halts President Trump’s order that federal agencies stop using the company’s AI model, Claude. The ruling pauses the government’s actions while the court considers Anthropic’s legal challenge on the merits.
U.S. District Judge Rita F. Lin for the Northern District of California wrote that supply chain risk labels are ordinarily aimed at foreign intelligence actors and terrorists, not domestic companies. She said the government could address operational concerns simply by discontinuing use of Claude, and that the broader measures “do not appear to be directed at the government’s stated national security interests.” Lin found the steps taken look more like punishment of Anthropic than legitimate security measures.
The dispute began after Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei said publicly that the company would not allow Claude to be used for autonomous weapons or for surveilling U.S. citizens. The Pentagon argued it has the prerogative to decide how the military uses tools it purchases and viewed Anthropic’s restrictions as making the company untrustworthy. In response, the administration designated Anthropic a supply chain risk and the president directed agencies to cease using Claude.
Anthropic filed two federal suits contending the designation is illegal retaliation for its public stance on AI safety, that it will cause economic harm by excluding Pentagon contractors from doing business with the company, and that the government’s actions violate Anthropic’s First Amendment rights. A diverse set of organizations filed amicus briefs supporting Anthropic, including Microsoft, the ACLU, and groups of retired military leaders.
At a recent hearing, Judge Lin expressed skepticism about the government’s position and signaled she was inclined to issue an injunction, viewing the ban as punishment for Anthropic’s public disagreement with the government. The Pentagon told the court the designation reflected security concerns, including the theoretical possibility that future updates to Claude could pose risks.
In her written order, Lin described the designation as “likely both contrary to law and arbitrary and capricious,” rejecting the notion that the statute authorizes branding an American company “a potential adversary and saboteur of the U.S.” simply for disagreeing with government policy. She also noted the Pentagon had previously praised and vetted Anthropic, and that only after Anthropic raised public concerns about potential military uses did the department announce plans that Lin characterized as efforts to blacklist and permanently cut off the company—conduct she identified as classic First Amendment retaliation.
Anthropic said it appreciated the swift court action and was gratified the judge found the company likely to succeed on the merits. A Pentagon spokesperson declined to comment on ongoing litigation. Legal and policy observers called the decision significant; Jennifer Huddleston of the Cato Institute said the injunction raises broader questions about protecting companies from government retaliation and ensuring due process when government actions could cripple a business.