'I find that pretty surprising': Judge astonished by DOJ concessions about Pete Hegseth's legally meaningless 'directive' online

When a California federal judge demanded to know why Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth decided to post something on X with "no legal effect" before designating Anthropic a "supply‑chain risk and threat to national security," a lawyer for the government could only say "I don't know."

The hearing in U.S. District Judge Rita Lin's courtroom on Tuesday afternoon was highly anticipated, as the jurist made no secret in advance what she would ask while scrutinizing the Trump administration's treatment of the AI developer, which maintains that its AI model Claude "cannot safely or reliably be used for autonomous lethal warfare and mass surveillance of Americans."

Among those questions was one about the so-called "Hegseth Directive" — the former Fox News host's Feb. 27 post on X that was "much broader" than the "supply chain risk" determination that followed several days later.

Anthropic came to court seeking a preliminary injunction and the judge needed to know whether Hegseth's post factored into that analysis and, if so, how.

Anthropic and its CEO Dario Amodei have argued that President Donald Trump and his administration launched a "retaliation" campaign aimed at "blacklisting" and destroying an American company because of its "good conscience" stance on the "limitations of its own AI services and important issues of AI safety," citing Hegseth's post as a case-in-point for why injunctive relief was necessary.

In his post, Hegseth blasted the company for its "arrogance and betrayal" in declining to grant the government "unrestricted access to Anthropic's models for every LAWFUL purpose in defense of the Republic," framing that as the "sanctimonious rhetoric of 'effective altruism'" and a "cowardly act of corporate virtue-signaling that places Silicon Valley ideology above American lives."

Then came the directive.

"In conjunction with the President's directive for the Federal Government to cease all use of Anthropic's technology, I am directing the Department of War to designate Anthropic a Supply-Chain Risk to National Security. Effective immediately, no contractor, supplier, or partner that does business with the United States military may conduct any commercial activity with Anthropic. 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 went on, stating the "decision is final."

Lin, appointed by former President Joe Biden in 2023, began her remarks by emphasizing that the question of whether the U.S. military can sever ties with a contractor is usually an easy call, but not in a circumstance like this one, in which First Amendment retaliation claims abound and an "important debate" unfolds.

"I will say that I do think this case touches on an important debate. On the one hand, Anthropic is saying that its AI product, Claude, is not safe to use for autonomous lethal weapons and domestic mass surveillance. Anthropic position is that if the government wants to use its technology, the government has to agree not to use it for those purposes. On the other hand, the Department of War is saying that military commanders have to decide what is safe for its AI to do not a private company," Lin said. "It's a fascinating public policy debate, and it's not my role to decide who's right in that debate. That is Secretary Hegseth's call."

"The Department of War decides what AI product it wants to use and buy, and everyone, including Anthropic, agrees that the Department of War is free to stop using Claude and look for a more permissive AI vendor. I don't see that as being what this case is about," the judge explained. "I see the question in this case as being a very different one, which is whether the government violated the law when it went beyond that after Anthropic went public with this contract in dispute."

Referring to a nonparty's amicus brief that described the Trump administration's action as "attempted corporate murder," the judge opted to use the phrase "attempt to cripple" Anthropic instead.

"And specifically, my concern is whether Anthropic is being punished for criticizing the government's contracting position in the press," Lin added, before grilling DOJ attorney Eric Hamilton about Hegseth's post. "So the question I have for defendants is, is it your position that this directive just had no legal effect at all?"

Hamilton answered that was "basically correct." Throughout the dialogue, the government, the judge, and Anthropic all referred to Hegseth as the secretary of war and his agency as the Department of War (DoW), its name by executive order. The case caption does the same, even though the agency is formally named the Department of Defense by statute.

"Our position is that this is not an action by which rights or obligations are determined or from which legal consequences flow," Hamilton said — a long way of saying the post was toothless. "[A]s we explain in our […] opposition brief, no entity would face liability for noncompliance with the post. This was a social media post announcing that DoW would be taking action."

"The sentence before the sentence that your honor read from says, 'I am directing the Department of War to designate Anthropic' indicating that action is to come. Now it's possible that officials within DoW might rely on this post in taking agency actions, but that would not convert the post into final agency action under the [Administrative Procedure Act] APA," he went on.

Lin followed up by asking Hamilton to confirm that Hegseth's "effective immediately" ban of other U.S. contractors from doing business with Anthropic had "no legal effect at all."

"Correct. That sentence needs to be read with the previous sentence, which talks about taking action to designate Anthropic as a supply-chain risk," Hamilton repeated.

Expressing astonishment, the judge pressed the DOJ attorney to answer whether Hegseth made a "false statement" about what the government intended to do to Anthropic and those who would do business with it.

"So I have to say, I find that pretty surprising that I mean, obviously the statement is front and center in this lawsuit had a pretty big impact on the way the public and Anthropic customers and a whole ecosystem of people reacted to what was about to happen. So are you saying that that sentence 'effective immediately, no contractor with the U.S. military may conduct any commercial activity with Anthropic' it's just not true, it's just a false statement?" Lin pressed.

Hamilton agreed the post by the department's No. 1 "didn't reflect the immediate intent" of the DoW, representing for "clarity" that the government has no intent to terminate contractors who use Anthropic separate and apart from DoW work.

"So, why did Secretary Hegseth say this if it has no legal effect and he didn't intend to cause it to happen?" Lin asked, noting he could have just stated he was designating Anthropic as a "supply chain risk."

"I don't know," Hamilton said with a half-chuckle, reiterating his understanding that Hegseth didn't have the power to go as far as his post did.

Despite the concessions, Anthropic attorney Michael Mongan told the judge that a preliminary injunction was still warranted because its "irreparable" injuries are "mounting."

"This is something that has never been done with respect to an American company," the attorney said.