Judge freezes Trump admin move against AI firm, fueling battle over security authority
A federal judge’s decision to block the Trump administration from banning AI firm Anthropic from Department of War use is igniting a debate over whether the ruling pushes courts into...
By Fox News · Fox News
A federal judge ’s decision to block the Trump administration from banning AI firm Anthropic from Department of War use is igniting a debate over whether the ruling pushes courts into national security decision-making. The ruling, issued late Thursday by U.S. District Judge Rita Lin, a Biden appointee to the Northern District of California, pauses the administration’s broader effort to bar the company while the case proceeds, though it does not explicitly require the Pentagon to use Anthropic. The judge also gave the government one week to appeal. Under Secretary of War Emil Michael wrote on X that the ruling contained "dozens of factual errors" and was issued "during a time of conflict," arguing it "seeks to upend the [president’s] role as Commander in Chief" and disrupt the department’s ability to conduct military operations. Michael said the administration views Anthropic as still designated a supply chain risk pending appeal, signaling officials are disputing the scope and effect of the court’s injunction. Lin said the Pentagon’s move to designate Anthropic as a national security risk was "likely both contrary to law and arbitrary and capricious." "Nothing in the governing statute supports the Orwellian notion that an American company may be branded a potential adversary and saboteur of the U.S. for expressing disagreement with the government," Lin said. A BRAVE MARINE COLONEL TOOK ON THE PENTAGON — AND PAID THE PRICE FOR IT "Can a judge order the Department of War to use a vendor that is a security risk? No, but also yes? Judge Lin (Biden N.D. California) tries to stop President Trump/Secretary Hegseth from banning Anthropic. But acknowledges they can choose not to use it?" one X user Eric Wess wrote on the social media platform. Others described the ruling as "pure judicial activism" and accused the judge of interfering in a national security decision. But supporters of the decision — including a bipartisan group of nearly 150 retired federal and state judges…