Trump Administration Refuses to Rule Out Further Crackdown on AI Company Anthropic

Trump Administration Keeps Door Open for Escalating Action Against Anthropic

The Trump administration has refused to rule out additional punitive measures against artificial intelligence company Anthropic, signaling that the ongoing conflict between the AI startup and the federal government is far from over.

During a videoconference hearing on Tuesday, Justice Department attorney James Harlow bluntly told US District Judge Rita Lin that he was "not prepared to offer any commitments" on whether the government would refrain from further action against the company. The statement came as reports emerged that President Trump is in the final stages of drafting an executive order that would formally prohibit federal agencies from using any of Anthropic's products — a move that was first reported by Axios and confirmed by a White House source not authorized to speak publicly on the matter.

Lawsuits Filed After Government Labels Anthropic a Security Risk

Tuesday's court appearance grew out of one of two federal lawsuits Anthropic filed against the Trump administration on Monday. The company alleges that the government unconstitutionally designated it a supply-chain risk, effectively turning it into an outcast within the technology industry. According to Anthropic, the consequences have been severe — billions of dollars in potential revenue are now in jeopardy as existing clients walk away from deals and prospective customers demand renegotiated terms.

The company is now seeking a preliminary court order to suspend the risk designation and prevent the administration from taking any further retaliatory steps.

Court Hearing Scheduled Amid Mounting Business Losses

Tuesday's session focused on determining the timeline for a full preliminary hearing. Anthropic's legal team, represented by WilmerHale attorney Michael Mongan, expressed urgency in moving quickly to limit ongoing damage to the company's operations. Mongan indicated he would accept an April hearing date only if the administration agreed to pause any additional action — a commitment the government refused to make.

"The actions of defendants are causing irreparable injuries, and those injuries are mounting day by day," Mongan told the court.

Following the government's refusal, Judge Lin moved the hearing date to March 24 in San Francisco — earlier than originally planned but still later than Anthropic had hoped. The judge acknowledged the high stakes on both sides, stating she wanted to rule on a complete record despite the expedited circumstances.

A parallel lawsuit filed in Washington, DC, remains on hold while Anthropic pursues an administrative appeal with the Department of Defense — a process widely expected to be unsuccessful.

The Root of the Dispute: Military Use of AI Technology

The conflict between Anthropic and the Pentagon has been building for months. At its core, the dispute centers on Anthropic's refusal to authorize the military's unrestricted use of its AI technology for any lawful purpose. The company expressed concern that such broad authorization could enable mass surveillance of American citizens or allow the launching of missiles without direct human oversight. The Defense Department, however, maintains that decisions about how it deploys technology fall entirely within its own authority.

Legal Experts Say Administration Is Overstepping

A number of legal scholars with backgrounds in constitutional law and government contracting argue that the administration's actions against Anthropic follow a troubling pattern of weaponizing legal mechanisms to punish entities perceived as politically unfriendly — a list that has grown to include universities, media organizations, and prominent law firms.

Harold Hongju Koh, a Yale Law School professor who previously served in the Obama administration, sees the Anthropic case as part of a broader and unmistakable trend.

"If this is a one-off, you might give the president some deference," Koh said. "But now, it's just unmistakable that this is the latest in a chain of events related to a punitive presidency."

David Super, a constitutional law professor at Georgetown University Law Center, took direct aim at the Pentagon's legal reasoning, arguing that the provisions used to sanction Anthropic were originally crafted to guard against enemy sabotage — not to discipline contractors who refuse to comply with every government demand.

"It is an absurd stretch of the English language to equate 'does not agree to every demand of Pete Hegseth' with 'sabotage,'" Super said, referring to the secretary of defense. He also noted that the Supreme Court has consistently pushed back against this kind of legal overreach, citing recent rulings against presidential tariffs and earlier decisions invalidating actions by the Biden administration.

Tech Industry Left in Uncertainty

While the legal battles play out, companies that depend on Anthropic's Claude suite of AI tools are wrestling with difficult practical questions about whether to seek alternative solutions. Meanwhile, rival AI giants OpenAI and Google are reportedly moving ahead with their own Pentagon contracts, stepping into the void left by Anthropic — despite internal pressure from their own employees to resist government demands over technology use.

Zohra Tejani, a partner at law firm Seyfarth Shaw who advises technology companies navigating federal contracts, believes Anthropic may ultimately succeed in having the supply-chain-risk label removed and could eventually restore many of its business relationships. However, she cautioned that winning back the trust and contracts of the current administration would be a far steeper climb.

A Warning Shot to the Entire AI Industry

Beyond Anthropic's immediate situation, legal and industry experts warn that the government's aggressive stance could have a chilling effect across the broader AI sector. Even if the courts ultimately side with Anthropic, the damage done to its reputation and revenue — combined with the resources required to fight the legal battle — may deter other technology companies from standing up to government pressure.

"The Pentagon is sending a message to every other AI company: If you defy the Pentagon, you risk nationalization and heavy-handed government intervention," said Christoph Mlinarchik, a former Pentagon contracting officer who now advises federal suppliers. "The Pentagon does not want to cede veto or moral authority to contractors, no matter the flavor of technology."

For the Trump administration, this outcome — a tech industry walking on eggshells — may represent a strategic victory in its own right, regardless of how the courts eventually rule.