Appeals court upholds Trump administration's ban on Anthropic AI technology

A US appeals court has backed the Trump administration's decision to blacklist Anthropic technology, finding that the government acted within its legal authority despite the AI company's refusal to remove safety restrictions from its Claude model.

The 2-1 ruling from the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit acknowledged the stakes involved, noting that the case raises "profoundly difficult questions about the appropriate military uses of an almost unimaginably powerful new technology."

The competing concerns#

The court framed the dispute as a clash between two serious risks. On one hand, overly constrained AI systems could fail during critical military operations. On the other, unrestricted AI models might make harmful targeting errors in warfare scenarios. According to the panel, President Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth bear responsibility for weighing these competing dangers, and the court found they acted within their authority under the Supply Chain Security Act.

"In doing so here, the Secretary did not transgress any limits on his authority under the Supply Chain Security Act or the Constitution," the judges wrote. The court rejected Anthropic's challenge to the blacklist order.

How we got here#

Anthropic initiated legal action in March after Trump and Hegseth directed federal agencies to cease using the company's products and instructed defense contractors to halt all dealings with the firm. This latest setback follows an earlier April decision in which the same court refused to block the blacklist via emergency motion.

The two judges voting against Anthropic—Gregory Katsas and Neomi Rao—were both appointed during Trump's first administration. Katsas previously served as deputy counsel to the president, while Rao worked in the Office of Management and Budget.

What's next#

Anthropic signaled it may not accept the ruling. A company spokesperson told CNBC: "We respectfully disagree with the court's decision. Another federal court has already held the government's parallel designation unlawful. We remain confident in our position and are considering all options, including further review." The company could seek review by all judges on the appeals court or petition the Supreme Court.