# Judge Rules DOD Unlawfully Retaliated Against Anthropic

DevFeed: [Judge Rules DOD Unlawfully Retaliated Against Anthropic](<https://devfeed.tech/articles/judge-rules-dod-unlawfully-retaliated-against-anthropic-50671.md>)

Original publisher: [Read original article](<https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2026/09/judge-rules-dod-unlawfully-retaliated-against-anthropic>)

Author: Matthew Guariglia

Published: 2026-09-02T01:13:50Z

Content type: opinion

Language: en

Sources: [Deeplinks](<https://devfeed.tech/sources/deeplinks.md>)

Topics: [anthropic](<https://devfeed.tech/topics/anthropic.md>), [Artificial Intelligence](<https://devfeed.tech/topics/ai.md>), [Claude](<https://devfeed.tech/topics/claude.md>), [national security](<https://devfeed.tech/topics/national-security.md>), [Security](<https://devfeed.tech/topics/security.md>), [Risk](<https://devfeed.tech/topics/risk.md>)

Tags: [ai](<https://devfeed.tech/tags/ai.md>), [anthropic](<https://devfeed.tech/tags/anthropic.md>), [artificial-intelligence](<https://devfeed.tech/tags/artificial-intelligence.md>), [claude](<https://devfeed.tech/tags/claude.md>), [eff](<https://devfeed.tech/tags/eff.md>), [government](<https://devfeed.tech/tags/government.md>), [legal](<https://devfeed.tech/tags/legal.md>), [national-security](<https://devfeed.tech/tags/national-security.md>), [privacy](<https://devfeed.tech/tags/privacy.md>), [product](<https://devfeed.tech/tags/product.md>), [risk](<https://devfeed.tech/tags/risk.md>), [security](<https://devfeed.tech/tags/security.md>), [surveillance](<https://devfeed.tech/tags/surveillance.md>), [technology](<https://devfeed.tech/tags/technology.md>), [weapons](<https://devfeed.tech/tags/weapons.md>)

## AI overview

A federal judge ruled that the U.S. Department of Defense unlawfully retaliated against Anthropic after the company opposed using its AI technology for mass surveillance of Americans and autonomous weapons systems. The ruling found that designating Anthropic a supply chain risk violated the First Amendment, while leaving broader questions about companies' control over product use unresolved.

## Source excerpt

A federal judge has sided with Anthropic on its claims that the Department of Defense illegally retaliated against Anthropic's protected speech by labeling the AI company a "supply chain risk." The judge found that designation, intended to penalize Anthropic for telling the U.S. military it would not allow their technology to be used for mass surveillance of U.S. persons, "constituted unlawful retaliation in violation of the First Amendment." EFF joined a coalition of organizations in filing multiple amicus briefs (here, here) arguing that the Pentagon had trampled on Anthropics First Amendment rights. We agree with the court's decision and applaud the judge for slapping down such an obvious act of illegal and unconstitutional retribution by the Pentagon--even as 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. From the start of this conflict, EFF argued that companies should not be penalized for not wanting to conduct mass surveillance of US persons. Nor do we want to live in a legal system where our susceptibility to surveillance is hashed out and decided in closed-door contract negotiations between a few powerful people at the military and an AI company. Unfortunately, this ruling does little to address the bigger problem: that Congress has abdicated its responsibility to adopt statutory safeguards to protect our privacy, and instead left us reliant on the whims of private companies to decide when they are and are not willing to help the government conduct mass surveillance. In February 2026, the government began threatening to penalize Anthropic unless it backed off its 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. Ultimately, the Department of Defense, deciding that it did not want military contractors dictating what its products could or could not be used for