Anthropic, the creator of the AI model “Claude,” has intensified its legal confrontation following Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s assertion that the AI represents a “supply-chain risk and threat to national security.” The company is appealing to the D.C. Circuit to treat the challenge to its “good conscience” limitations as an urgent matter.

Leading the charge is Anthropic and its CEO, Dario Amodei, represented by a law firm previously targeted by executive orders from former President Donald Trump aimed at curbing “lawfare.” Shortly after launching their lawsuit in California federal district court, they requested a halt to what they describe as the administration’s retaliatory measures, according to a recent report.

Anthropic contends that the administration’s punitive reversal, “blacklisting,” and designation of “risk” infringe upon the First Amendment. Despite aiming to maintain a partnership with the Department, which initiated in 2024 with a potential $200 million deal over two years, the company remains resolute that Claude is unsuitable for autonomous lethal warfare and mass surveillance of American citizens.

The lawsuit underscores that Anthropic is constitutionally entitled to convey its perspectives—both publicly and to the government—on the limitations of its AI services and the crucial matter of AI safety.

Claude is governed by a public constitution that outlines Anthropic’s commitment to ethical values and transparency. This document clarifies why the company’s “Usage Policy” consistently delineates two specific restrictions on the government’s employment of Claude.

Displeased with what he termed a “RADICAL LEFT, WOKE COMPANY,” the president took to Truth Social on February 27, threatening to wield the “Full Power of the Presidency” to enforce compliance, warning of severe civil and criminal repercussions.

Trump’s cabinet secretary responded accordingly, not only designating Anthropic a national security threat but also declaring “effective immediately, no contractor, supplier, or partner that does business with the United States military may conduct any commercial activity with Anthropic.”

In a lengthy social media post, Hegseth claimed Anthropic’s “sanctimonious rhetoric of ‘effective altruism’” was an attempt to “strong-arm the United States military into submission – a cowardly act of corporate virtue-signaling that places Silicon Valley ideology above American lives.”

“Anthropic will continue to provide the Department of War its services for a period of no more than six months to allow for a seamless transition to a better and more patriotic service,” Hegseth stated.

As a result of the foregoing and more potential harms to come, Anthropic believes there’s ample reason for the D.C. Circuit to launch an “immediate judicial intervention” and put a stop to the “unlawful actions.”

“[M]ultiple customers have contacted Anthropic asking whether they can continue working with it. The Department itself has reached out to Anthropic customers, directing them to end relationships with Anthropic,” the motion said. “As a result, customers have signaled potential cancellations, delays in national-security contract negotiations, and possible suspension or removal of Claude. Even non-defense customers are expressing hesitation about continuing to work with Anthropic. Hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars are at risk.”

Anthropic’s emergency action comes as Hegseth simultaneously tries to defeat other First Amendment retaliation claims at the D.C. Circuit.

One month ago, a district judge preliminarily ruled in favor of Sen. Mark Kelly, D-Ariz., in his lawsuit against Hegseth, finding him “likely to succeed on the merits” that the Trump administration unlawfully retaliated against the senator for “unquestionably protected speech” in a video criticizing the president’s lethal strikes on alleged drug smugglers’ boats in international waters.

Before the injunction, the defense secretary branded Kelly a member of the “Seditious Six” Democratic lawmakers who appeared in that video, accusing him of undermining the chain of command by telling military service members they “can refuse illegal orders.” For that, Hegseth went after the former Navy captain’s retirement rank and pay grade — so far in vain.

After losing the first round, Hegseth taunted Kelly, writing “Sedition is sedition, ‘Captain’” on X. But the secretary’s prospects of reversal on appeal do not appear to have materially improved at the D.C. Circuit since then.