[thewebguyd]

> completely understandable decision from a neutral third party PoV.

Except it's not, really. If Anthropic/Claude doesn't mean the DoD's need, they can and should just put out an RFP for other LLM providers. I'm sure there's plenty of others that'd happily forgo their morals for that sweet government contract money.

No US company has to provide services to the DoD or any other branch of government. It's not "veto power" it's being selective of who you do business with, which is 100% legal.

[tgma]

I don't understand your point here. Looks like what you suggest is exactly what is happening. US government did not ban Anthropic from conducting business in the US. They just don't want them to influence their own supply chain, 100% legal as you say.

[SatvikBeri]

If the government just banned all government agencies from working with Anthropic, that would be reasonable. But they didn't. They're banning any company that works with the military from working with Anthropic in any way, using a law that has never been invoked against an American company.

[techblueberry]

The governments supply chain is like 80% of the US

[pron]

The US government is applying severe sanctions against a US company that does not "influence their supply chain". Donald Trump believes the economy is great and at the same time declares economic emergencies to justify doing certain things. It could be true that Anthropic's products are useless for the DoD because of the products' safeguards, but that doesn't mean they're a risk to the US government.

As to this being 100% legal, I'm not so sure (not a lawyer). It might not be a criminal offese, but there's a whole category of abuse of power that this may fall under if Anthropic is put under a certain status without real justification. Many powers given to the executive branch are not absolute and can't be applied arbitrarily, but require justification. Anthropic might be able to sue the government for declaring them a "supply-chain risk" without sufficient justification. E.g. they could claim that not being sufficiently patriotic in the eyes of the administration does not constitute a risk, and that since their not the sole supplier of the tech, they were not trying to strong arm the government to do anything.