150 retired judges support Anthropic in Pentagon dispute

A group of about 150 retired judges has shown support for Anthropic in its dispute with the Pentagon.

In a document submitted on Tuesday, 149 former federal and state judges asserted that the Department of War's classification of the AI firm as a "supply chain risk" lacked justification.

The judges stated that the department "misread the statute and bypassed required procedures," compelling them to deem the label unlawful.

"On a practical level, there is no attempt to compel the Department to engage with Anthropic," the judges expressed.

"In fact, Anthropic and the Department have already come to terms that the Department is disinterested in Anthropic's offerings as Anthropic presents them."

"Rather, Anthropic is merely requesting not to be penalised as it exits," they added.

The judges determined that the department is at liberty to select its contractors. However, it cannot wield the law to "penalise Anthropic in its interactions with the global community—including other government bodies not related to national defense and private entities."

This brief marks the latest instance in a prolonged exchange between Anthropic and the defense department, now called the Department of War.

On February 27, President Donald Trump directed federal bodies to cease using Anthropic's technology, branding it a "radically left AI company."

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth noted on X that no contractor, supplier, or partner of the US military should engage in commercial activities with Anthropic, labeling it a "national security supply-chain risk."

In response, Anthropic expressed its "deep regret" over the situation later that day, adding, "We believe this labeling is legally flawed and could set a risky precedent for any American business engaging with the government."

Anthropic's attorney mentioned during a March 10 meeting that the department was urging the company's clientele to switch to competitor AI companies, and that blacklisting Anthropic was causing "significant and enduring damage" to the firm.