WASHINGTON, September 7 — A federal judge has ruled that the Department of Defense unlawfully retaliated against artificial intelligence company Anthropic for its protected speech, determining that the Pentagon’s designation of the firm as a “supply chain risk” constituted a violation of the First Amendment.
The ruling stems from a dispute that began in February, when the government began threatening to penalize Anthropic unless it abandoned its stated position that it did not want the U.S. military using its AI product Claude for mass surveillance of Americans or to power autonomous weapons systems. The DOD, objecting to what it saw as a contractor dictating acceptable uses of its products, declared Anthropic a “supply chain risk” — a national security designation that prohibits the government and its contractors from using Anthropic’s products in government projects.
The judge determined that the designation was intended to punish Anthropic for telling the U.S. military it would not allow its technology to be used for mass surveillance of U.S. persons. The Electronic Frontier Foundation, a digital rights nonprofit, joined a coalition of organizations in filing multiple amicus briefs arguing that the Pentagon had violated Anthropic’s First Amendment rights.
EFF applauded the court’s decision, stating that the judge “slapped down such an obvious act of illegal and unconstitutional retribution by the Pentagon.” However, the court left open the broader question of whether a company’s choices about how its technology may be used are protected speech in their own right. EFF argued that companies should not be penalized for refusing to conduct mass surveillance of U.S. persons, and criticized Congress for failing to adopt statutory safeguards to protect privacy, leaving citizens reliant on the whims of private companies.
EFF emphasized that the ruling does not address the larger problem of congressional inaction, and urged lawmakers to take privacy protection seriously, stating, “It’s past time for Congress to act.” The case highlights the tension between national security interests and First Amendment protections for corporate speech, as well as the ongoing debate over the use of AI in military and surveillance contexts. What to watch next: whether the Pentagon appeals the ruling, and whether the broader question of corporate speech protections for technology-use policies reaches a higher court.
