Pentagon’s Public Statements May Backfire in Anthropic Lawsuit

The Pentagon’s public statements about Anthropic, a leading AI company, may have inadvertently given the company a strong case against the government’s attempt to sanction it as a ‘supply chain risk.’

According to legal experts, the statements made by President Donald Trump, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, and other top officials on social media and in the press could undercut what could have been a strong case for the government.

The government’s sanctions against Anthropic came after negotiations between the company and the Pentagon broke down over contract language governing permissible uses. Pentagon officials publicly declared Anthropic an unreliable partner and ordered an end to any use of its products, not only within the Defense Department, but by any contractor working on a defense contract.

Anthropic filed two lawsuits on March 9, one seeking to overturn the Pentagon supply-chain-risk designation and the other to reverse Trump’s government-wide ban.

"Anthropic’s got a strong case, stronger than it should," said Sean Timmons, a former military JAG who now represents troops and veterans against the government. "And the case is strong primarily because the President’s made ‘admissions against interest.’"

Indeed, "if you read Anthropic’s complaints, they lean very heavily on statements by Pentagon officials, both on social media and stuff anonymous officials have been quoted in the press," said Charlie Bullock of the Institute for Law & AI. "Courts do generally give the Pentagon a lot of deference when it comes to national security decisions, and that’s what makes me think the Pentagon has a chance. [But] I would give Anthropic greater than 50 percent odds of securing some kind of preliminary injunction."

The court will have to consider extensive social media postings by Trump, Hegseth, Pentagon Chief Technology Officer Emil Michael, Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell, and even acting Under Secretary of State Jeremy Lewin. Trump denounced "the Leftwing nut jobs at Anthropic," Hegseth spoke of the company’s "arrogance and betrayal," and Michael called its CEO "a liar [with] a God-complex."

"There’s limitations to what the government can do vindictively, and the president often goes on these vindictive tirades on social media," Timmons said. "It might rise to the level of … ‘extreme and outrageous’ targeting that is beyond the scope of permissible due process."

Jessica Tillipman, associate dean for government procurement law at George Washington University, agreed.

"If ever you were going to argue the use of the statute was a pretext … they have statements on the record right now that feel very much like this is a punitive, retaliatory act," she told Breaking Defense. "Trump saying ‘I fired [them] like dogs,’ that’s Exhibit No. 1. [And] when I saw the Secretary’s statement I was like, I’m sure the lawyers for Anthropic could have it framed."

The first opportunity for the administration’s statements to blow back on them in court would come at a key hearing Tuesday afternoon in the Northern District of California. That’s where Anthropic is seeking an injunction to pause Hegseth’s declaration — first posted on X.com — of the company as a ‘supply chain risk’ whose products are unsafe for any contractor to use on any work for the Defense Department.

The relevant statute used by the DoD, Title 10, Sec. 3252, has only been invoked once before, just last year, against a Swiss company. The statute defines ‘supply chain risk’ as ‘the risk that an adversary may sabotage … or otherwise subvert’ key defense technology, which experts said suggests it only applies to foreign adversaries, not US firms.

"The way these statutes are written, it defines ‘supply chain risk’ very narrowly," Bullock told Breaking Defense. While the language doesn’t explicitly distinguish foreign companies from domestic ones, he said, "these statues have never been invoked against an American company before, and I don’t think anyone thought they would be."

Rozenshtein made an even blunter assessment: "Anthropic is just not a supply chain risk as the statute understands it," he told Breaking Defense. "The clear purpose was to prohibit foreign companies that pose a threat of sabotage. Anthropic is a US company that just does not want its product used in certain ways."

Anthropic has also filed a second, parallel lawsuit in the Washington, DC federal circuit court seeking to overturn Trump’s order — posted on Truth Social — ‘directing EVERY Federal Agency,’ not just the Pentagon, to stop using Anthropic ‘immediately’ (albeit over ‘a Six Month phase out period’) and ‘not do business with them again.’ Subsequent, more formal administration statements have justified that ban under a different supply-chain-risk statute, Title 41, Sec. 4713.

Unlike the Title 10 language, Title 41 does not explicitly distinguish between foreign and domestic companies, but experts said it is still unlikely to be applied to a US firm like Anthropic.

"The government’s got a tough case to make," said Timmons. "And the statements made by the President and the Secretary of Defense are not helping their case."

The outcome of the lawsuit will have significant implications for the future of AI development in the US and the role of the government in regulating the industry.

As the court considers the case, experts say that the government’s public statements may ultimately backfire and undermine their own case.