Source Details

{
    "source_type": "extension",
    "content_hash": "b6a5a483d46bea9988d0ad60d51b287741a3b9b94d7a862a99e8c884b4790277",
    "submitted_via": "chrome_extension",
    "extension_version": "1.0.18",
    "original_url": "https:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2026\/09\/25\/technology\/anthropic-trump-ruling.html?emc=edit_nn_20260926&nl=the-morning&segment_id=227102",
    "parsed_content": "Trump AdministrationN.I.H. GrantsGreenland DealDefense of A.I.Voting by MailApproval RatingAdvertisementSKIP ADVERTISEMENTSupported bySKIP ADVERTISEMENTTrump Administration\u2019s Blacklisting of Anthropic Was Legal, Judges RuleThe Pentagon had \u201cample support for its conclusion\u201d that the A.I. company\u2019s products could pose a national security risk, according to a Washington appeals court.Listen \u00b7 4:44 min Share full articleAnthropic chief executive Dario Amodei.Credit...Manuel Orbegozo for The New York TimesBy Sheera FrenkelSept. 25, 2026Sign up for the On Tech newsletter. Get our best tech reporting from the week. Get it sent to your inbox.The Trump administration acted legally and constitutionally when it labeled the artificial intelligence start-up Anthropic a security risk and barred the company from working with the U.S. government, a federal appeals court in Washington ruled on Friday.In a 51-page decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit said the Pentagon had \u201cample support for its conclusion\u201d in February that the A.I. company\u2019s products could pose a national security risk.In addition, the court wrote, Anthropic\u2019s First Amendment rights were not violated because the Pentagon labeled the company a risk based on terms of a government contract and not the start-up\u2019s outspokenness.\u201cWe reject\u201d Anthropic\u2019s challenges, the court wrote. The decision was made by a three-judge panel, with one judge dissenting.AdvertisementSKIP ADVERTISEMENTThe ruling leaves Anthropic, which makes the Claude chatbot and has become one of the highest-profile A.I. companies in the world, in an awkward position. The San Francisco company had filed two lawsuits on March 9 in response to the Trump administration\u2019s move to label it a security risk after a contentious dispute over how A.I. could be used in war.In the other lawsuit, which was filed in the U.S. District Court in the Northern District of California, Judge Rita Lin ruled last month that the government had unlawfully retaliated against Anthropic \u201cfor constitutionally protected expressive activities\u201d after the A.I. company spoke out about how its technology should be used.But the ruling on Friday from the Washington court means that Anthropic remains barred from working with the Pentagon.An Anthropic spokeswoman said the company was reviewing the court\u2019s decision and was \u201cconsidering all options.\u201d The start-up could appeal or ask that the ruling be reviewed by the full panel of 11 judges who sit on the federal appeals court.The Pentagon did not immediately respond to a request for comment.The Trump administration and Anthropic have been embroiled in a fight for months. The two sides came to blows at the start of the year over a $200 million contract to provide the Pentagon with A.I. technology on classified systems.AdvertisementSKIP ADVERTISEMENTAnthropic insisted that its technology not be used in mass surveillance of Americans or for autonomous lethal weapons. The Pentagon said a private company could not establish policy for the U.S. government.The two sides could not come to an agreement. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth then announced that Anthropic was a \u201csupply chain risk,\u201d a formal designation that had previously been used only against foreign companies that the government deemed a national security risk. The designation meant no contractor or supplier that works with the military can do business with Anthropic.Anthropic argued that the designation cost it billions of dollars in lost business and damaged \u2060its reputation ahead of a highly anticipated initial public offering. It also said that it was being punished for speaking up and that its First Amendment rights were violated. The company soon took its case to the two courts in California and Washington. In Friday\u2019s ruling, the federal appeals court in Washington concluded the government had acted reasonably when it found that Anthropic could manipulate its own technology to limit how it was used by the Pentagon.\u201cIt is undisputed that Anthropic can and does control how Claude responds \u2014 or fails to respond \u2014 to user prompts,\u201d the court wrote. When Anthropic delivered \u201cnew versions of the model\u201d to the Pentagon, it could add new controls without the government\u2019s knowledge, the court added.AdvertisementSKIP ADVERTISEMENTThe judges said they were not persuaded by Anthropic\u2019s argument that the company could offer tests and demonstrations that would prove its A.I. model could follow commands given to it by the Pentagon.It was ultimately too risky for the government to trust that Anthropic\u2019s A.I. would not refuse a command, causing important military functions to fail, the judges said.Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson, who was part of the three-judge panel, published a dissenting opinion on Friday saying the government interpreted the law about supply chain risks too broadly.\u201cI cannot agree that this is the scenario the Congress had in mind\u201d when it put in place the laws defining which companies could be labeled a supply chain risk by posing a national security risk, she wrote.AdvertisementSKIP ADVERTISEMENT",
    "published_at": "2026-09-25T16:36:46+00:00",
    "author_name": "Sheera Frenkel",
    "site_name": "The New York Times",
    "section": "Technology",
    "publisher": "The New York Times Company",
    "ai_headline": "Trump Administration\u2019s Blacklisting of Anthropic Was Legal, Judges Rule",
    "ai_simplified_title": "Judges Rule Trump Administration Blacklisting of Anthropic Legal",
    "ai_excerpt": "A federal appeals court ruled the Trump administration acted legally in labeling A.I. start-up Anthropic a security risk, barring it from government work. The court found the Pentagon had ample support for its conclusion and Anthropic's First Amendment rights were not violated.",
    "ai_subject_tags": [
        "Artificial Intelligence",
        "National Security",
        "Legal Ruling",
        "Government Contracts",
        "First Amendment",
        "Trump Administration",
        "Anthropic"
    ],
    "ai_context_type": "News",
    "ai_context_details": {
        "tone": "informative",
        "perspective": "neutral",
        "audience": "general",
        "credibility_indicators": [
            "expert_quotes",
            "legal_documents_cited"
        ]
    },
    "ai_source_vector": null,
    "ai_confidence_score": 0.9999999999999999,
    "ai_extraction_metadata": {
        "extracted_at": "2026-10-01T00:02:27.011678Z",
        "ai_model": "gemini-2.5-flash",
        "extraction_method": "automated",
        "content_length": 5176,
        "metadata_prompt_body_chars": 5176,
        "metadata_prompt_truncated": false,
        "url": "https:\/\/nytimes.com\/2026\/09\/25\/technology\/anthropic-trump-ruling.html",
        "existing_metadata": {
            "author_name": null,
            "published_at": null,
            "domain_name": "nytimes.com",
            "site_name": null,
            "section": null,
            "publisher": null
        },
        "openai_refusal_gemini_fallback": false
    }
}

{
    "extracted_at": "2026-10-01T00:02:27.011678Z",
    "ai_model": "gemini-2.5-flash",
    "extraction_method": "automated",
    "content_length": 5176,
    "metadata_prompt_body_chars": 5176,
    "metadata_prompt_truncated": false,
    "url": "https:\/\/nytimes.com\/2026\/09\/25\/technology\/anthropic-trump-ruling.html",
    "existing_metadata": {
        "author_name": null,
        "published_at": null,
        "domain_name": "nytimes.com",
        "site_name": null,
        "section": null,
        "publisher": null
    },
    "openai_refusal_gemini_fallback": false
}