I think this both overstates and understates the case. The evidence being weak does not invalidate the decision; as the court notes, the government gets substantial deference on matters of national security.<p>The invalidation comes from the fact that this is clearly retaliatory behavior for speech; and the evidence for this is fairly strong since the administration has made public statements to that effect.<p>The evidence being weak means that it is clear that there is no reasonable belief that the cause of action is anything but an attempt to apply a penalty for the use of protected speech.
There are 5th amendment issues too IIRC.
I really hate that republicans have capitalized on the good faith inherent in "national security matters" and are just sprinkling that onto literally everything they want to do to bypass all matters of scrutiny.<p>Need to demolish the white house? Oh national security!
Trans people in the military? NAtioanl security!
Need to make anthropic do exactly what you want them to? Well that sounds like national security to me!<p>The reflecting pool? Urgent national security measure for the 250th.
I dislike it when people claim speech is violence. Like if you're trying to have a conversation on what should be or not - then people claim that it's a violent act to talk about.
Politics is frequently a game of semantic drift. The application of labels with unclear meaning to further dilute meaning or extend it for the purpose of engagement, legal reclassification... it's not engineering and you can't expect well defined terms from people who want power without accountability.
It happens in a lot of ways. People call things violence, terrorism, matters of public health, or war to justify whatever it is they want.
No, this isn't just an overused rhetorical device like all politicians do, those examples are the flimsy legal argument the Trump Admin uses in court, frequently as justification to break the actual letter of the law.
In the 40s the government took control of the whole economy in the name of national security, in the 1860s the government suspended the constitution in the name of national security. None of this is new.
"In the 40s" and "in the 1860s" here are obfuscations of "during WWII" and "during the civil war". Extraordinary actions in the name of national security during a literal civil war or during a time of total war are to be expected. The comparison to other times is not meaningful.
The context of what the nation was facing in the 1860's (the civil war) and 1940's (world war 2) were very materially different than what it faces now.
It's crazy how powerful trans people are. Given the response, they're as powerful as the Civil War and WW2.<p>There's 2.8M trans people in the US. Compared to the Axis powers who mobilized 25-30M personnel, each trans person has the equivalent strength of 9-10 Axis soldiers. Impressive.
"National security matters" was never in good faith.<p>As a concept, it's used as an escape hatch whenever it wants to avoid public scrutiny.
Congress ceding it's authority to the executive branch is an issue of national concern, has been going on for decades, and is definitely not limited to one specific party [1], though I do agree that the current administration has been testing the limits of executive power more than any other that I can recall in my lifetime.<p>[1] <a href="https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/its-time-tear-executive-branchs-blank-check" rel="nofollow">https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/its-...</a>
[flagged]
[flagged]
This is probably as a concise summary as you could get from there:<p>> Defendants have now submitted the administrative record justifying those actions. The record is slim. A four-page memorandum, which post dates two of the three challenged actions, provides the entirety of the government’s rationale. Defendants have now backed away from the thrust of their risk assessment, which relied on Anthropic having backdoor access to its technology once deployed in a national security system. It is now clear that Anthropic undisputedly lacks any such access and that, as Defendants concede, Anthropic’s technology is itself no riskier to the national security than any other “black box” artificial intelligence model
Presumably this is going to lead to anthropic getting a big payday from the US gov for all the time their flagship product was banned and all the users they lost due to it
I don't think there's a law or precedent for that.<p>The Tucker Act allows for a company to claim damages related to the <i>seizure</i> of property. That is not the same as having a product being stopped from 'shipping'[0].<p>Also, despite the US Concept of 'Corporate Personhood', Even the Citizens United decision did not set the bar for civil damages to be awarded for a civil rights violation to a 'corporate personhood'. i.e. While they were ruled to have had their First Amendment Rights Violated, there was no financial compensation to be had. The bar for waiving sovereign immunity for an individual/bureau/branch is very high and AFAICT requires specific action from congress.<p>[0] - The Tucker Act was written in the late 1800s, long before even the concept of Nuclear tech 'Born Secret' doctrine became a thing.
> Even the Citizens United decision did not set the bar for civil damages to be awarded for a civil rights violation to a 'corporate personhood'<p>I'm almost upset at the notion only being invoked. Let's hope we don't see such a precedence emerge, especially around a company touting to be selling "intelligence".
This is about the DoD supply chain risk designation—*not* the export controls.
The case is not about that though
I think the reverse is true. Anthropic gave a generous donation to the 'Trump fund' to make it go away, and so the government intentionally fumbled the case. Now Anthropic can continue to do business without this stench following them around.
The government would just not pay, similar to what trump tried with his rape verdict
The law is too slow. It's like a horse carriage in the age of twitter. Why can't they expedite for special cases? Not even defending Antropic or any company. Just that if a tweet can cause damage in seconds, the law shouldn't be too far behind.
> <i>Why can't they expedite for special cases?</i><p>To a certain extent this exists, but given that SCOTUS has been stacked with GOPers…<p>> <i>The shadow docket is a break from ordinary procedure. Such cases receive very limited briefings and are typically decided a week or less after an application is filed. The process generally results in short, unsigned rulings. In contrast, merits cases take months, include extensive briefing and public oral argument, and result in lengthy written opinions detailing the reasoning of the majority and of any concurring and dissenting justices.</i><p>* <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_docket" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_docket</a>
It's not unusual that the "shadow docket" orders have limited briefings when the extent of the ruling/order is usually procedural, as opposed to ruling on the merits of the case.<p>It should be noted any justice can write a dissent in a "shadow docket" ruling. If a justice finds a ruling incorrect, nothing hides their criticism of it from the light.
The problem is that the <i>rationale</i> is hidden, not that criticism of it is hidden. If the Supreme Court doesn't explain why they make momentous, weighty decisions, that leaves the rest of us with only speculation, both in understanding how the decision should be applied to other cases and evaluating whether the decision made any sense at all.<p>(I agree that there's nothing fundamentally wrong with the even more recent trend of shadow docket decisions that do come with opinions attached, and perhaps law students in the 2030s will learn about the "expedited docket" as a normal way to handle cases.)
This mechanism means that regardless of how awful the Trump admin proposal one SCOTUS justice can "temporarily" unblock it giving no reason at all, and then the "real" merits case can be slow-walked.
Slow-walked, conveniently, until the admin has finished doing whatever the original lawsuit claimed was illegal, and then the government argues it is impossible to undo after the fact.
[flagged]
Absolutely nothing about how the Supreme Court works nowadays has respect for standard process or decorum. It's merely a shield to hide behind when it's convenient, to be ignored when it's useful.
Bush and Obama filed 8 emergency applications across their presidencies (16 years.)<p>The first Trump admin filed 41.<p>Biden filed 19.<p>The second Trump admin filed 32 in 2025 alone.
SCOTUS is not stacked with justices who are <i>just</i> GOPers. There are <i>lots</i> of Republicans who absolutely value the rule of law in this country!<p>The SCOTUS is stacked <i>with reactionaries</i>, people that want to take us back in history. They quite literally undid 60 years of civil rights legislation!<p>This is not a Democrat vs. Republican thing, this is is a very small minority that has taken control of an entire branch of government and is abusing their power.
Mostly, the law is not creating the right incentives. In this case in particular, I don't think it's so much a matter of speed: I suspect the current US admin would still sow the chaos they do to the same degree if it was ruled illegal within a week instead of within months.
You're right: the current administration would find a way because they don't care what the law says. The law, to them, is a system to be hacked when necessary.<p>Many Americans take for granted the idea that the US is a "nation of laws" and that "rule of law" governs above all else. But the reality is this: there is no such thing as a <i>perfect</i> legal system.<p>You can have a strong legal system by design (good oversight, various checks and balances, etc.) but in practice, any system is only as good as the most powerful people are decent and respectful of it.<p>If you have someone in the most powerful position (the executive) who doesn't respect the law and who isn't willing to, with wisdom in his or her heart, exercise restraint with the understanding that protecting the integrity of the system is ultimately more important than getting your way, the law stands no chance.
An interesting feature of Trump 2.0 is that his party has essentially entirely keeled over.<p>Presidents are not historically all powerful within their own parties and the nature of the big tent systems means usually it is fairly difficult to get agreement on everything within a party without some compromise. Trump has managed to defang everybody else in the GOP.
> An interesting feature of Trump 2.0 is that his party has essentially entirely keeled over.<p>The people who called it a cult were basically right. Trump has overwhelming control over republican voters and has proven he can easily end the careers of republican politicians who oppose him. I do not recall a single politician of either party in my lifetime who has held this level of uncritical support.<p>It will be <i>fascinating</i> to see what happens when his grip on the party is removed. None of the current crop of potential successors appears to have even remotely the right kind of support to maintain the coalition. That does not seem surprising, he cannot really abide having someone close to him who looks like a powerful successor because he would see it as a threat. So he will anoint a weakling and the base will fracture.
> So he will anoint a weakling and the base will fracture.<p>Prediction: he will never anoint anyone. He is pathologically incapable of stepping aside, sharing, or caring one iota of what happens to anyone after he dies. He may not even be capable of conceptualizing his own mortality.<p>I fucking hate living in interesting times.
This is true but every recent president has expanded powers, and had their party agree. Due to my age, I first noticed it with Bush then when Obama continued it, it felt weird to be fine with allowing more power in the executive branch when it’s someone you support, because that’ll add to the precedent for the next person who you don’t support. The presidency has come a long way since Washington and Trump 2.0 is a clear result / continuation of what’s been happening for as long as I’ve been paying attention.
Exactly. People forget things like Obama signing a law into existence that allows for the indefinite detention of Americans without trial or charge if you claim they're connected to terrorism. [1] As far as I know that law has not yet been used. However that leads to two issues. (1) It could be at any time. The current issues with Israel are rife for abuse to the point that I'm somewhat surprised it hasn't yet been used.<p>And (2) if the law hasn't been used then WTF did we even consider signing it into power, let alone actually doing it? Something like this should never be done, but if done one would think it would only be in the face of an imminent and urgent need. Instead we seemed to have just casually signed unconstitutional executive tyranny into power 'just in case.'<p>The only way we're ever going to reign in executive power is if one party or the other starts rolling back executive power while they're in power. But when people are in power they seem to convince themselves that it will always be like this, and so when it comes to power all they can say is 'more, more, more.'<p>[1] - <a href="https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/president-obama-signs-indefinite-detention-bill-law" rel="nofollow">https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/president-obama-signs-in...</a>
Nah the GOP never had fangs.<p>They can't even get the SAVE act passed.
For "no fangs" there are an awful lot of people around (or dead) with GOP bite marks these days.<p>The SAVE act status probably has more to do with some Republican legislators who think it will harm their re-election chances by impacting their own supporters.
What on earth are you talking about? Trump invaded multiple American cities. He created an $85 billion federal goon force. He's kidnapped or killed TWO DIFFERENT heads of state. He's destroyed our trade relationships. He's taken inflation from frustrating to existential. He's bulldozing national parks. He's started a brand spanking new forever war. He's utterly corrupted the Supreme Court. He's multiplied the national deficit and debt. He's cut taxes for only the richest. He let Elon tear our institutions to shreds, costing infinitely more money than he "saved" in the process. Our entire federal science and research apparatus is gone. Effing <i>measles</i> is back and killing people. Screw worm is back. Air traffic is falling apart. Trump and his family have made <i>tens of billions</i>.<p>It is going to take literal decades, if it is even possible at all, to repair the damage Trump has done in 18 months.
> He let Elon tear our institutions to shreds, costing infinitely more money...<p>...and lives. Musk is now up there as one of the individuals with the highest kill counts in history - at least 500,000 to 700,000 so far. Analysis suggests that by 2030, this could reach as many as 14 million, including 4.5 million children under age 5. Musk is going to have to come up with his own salute, because he's no longer playing second fiddle to that other guy.<p>Sources, with details of methodology, here: <a href="https://healthjournalism.org/blog/2026/07/how-pulitzer-finalists-traced-the-human-toll-of-usaid-cuts/" rel="nofollow">https://healthjournalism.org/blog/2026/07/how-pulitzer-final...</a>
[dead]
>Many Americans take for granted the idea that the US is a "nation of laws" and that "rule of law" governs above all else. But the reality is this: there is no such thing as a perfect legal system.<p>This is a dying vestige of the greatest generation who passed it onto their boomer kids who blindly believed it despite evidince to the contrary. We're moving back toward a late 19th and early 20th century understanding of how government and laws work.
The harder problem is designing remedies that make illegal government action actually expensive enough to discourage it, without also making officials afraid to make legitimate decisions.
>officials afraid to make legitimate decisions<p>Yeah, god forbid they drive right down the middle of the lane rather than drive right up to the line of what the public will tolerate.<p>There is a direct causative line between government actors feeling like they can get away with unpopular things and the populist politics we've had brewing in this country for the past 20yr. The tea party, the Bernie bros the ron paul era libertarians, even MAGA, they were all ultimately captured by the establishment.<p>The establishment wielding progressive (lowercase p) types would do well to understand that on some level you, the peddlers of government, must cater to the demands of the people, because if you don't eventually the pressure will build until a populist movement you cannot contain comes around and stomps you. And what that could look like is a serious power transfer away from the feds and toward the states. So if your policy goals involve people in other states, which just about all progressives do, this would be bad for you.<p>Which is to say turn down the damn heat on the frog, this is all happening because you're going too fast.
> if your policy goals involve people in other states, which just about all progressives do<p>That does not seem like a feature unique to progressives? Conservatives are trying explicitly to involve other states, they'd happily put us all under the thumb of a Evangelical theocracy if they had the power to do so.
What part of "lowercase p" was unclear?<p>Those jerks in NC to cram Christian values down everyone's throat via the federal government are no different than the jerks in CA who think that if they have to suffer through a low flow shower head some guy in Alton Missouri ought to as well. They're all progressives. We can debate the merits of the directions in which they seek to progress but they're both progressives on a fundamental level. They're seeking to use government to shape society, to what they think is everyone's benefit but in reality that's not so clear.
> What part of "lowercase p" was unclear?<p>The whole thing. I spend way too much time in the politics/political-philosophy rabbit hole, and it still whooshed right by me. I bet you got like a 2% hit rate on people understanding what you meant.
> What part of "lowercase p" was unclear?<p>All of it, apparently, I've never heard the term progressive used to describe conservatives. I gather that you don't like the divergence between the dictionary definition and the practical one? That's valid, but in a discussion it helps to use terms in the most commonly accepted way to avoid that confusion. I don't think modern conservatives are very conservative at all, but I have to stick with the terminology other people understand.
Unclear why you seem to be blaming progressives for Trump.
Agreed. There's little doubt the admin knew they'd lose in court before they did it but they also knew it would still hurt Anthropic and make an example showing what happens to "any vendor who tries to put restrictions on the DoW's use of their product."
The law is normally supposed to repay whatever damage you suffered while the law was running.
I thought I hated Web 2.0/3.0, but "age of twitter" made me actually feel ill.
From recalled beef, to contaminated greens, to the cancer that is twitter, you will forever remember this period of your life as the dreaded... "age of shitter"
age of xitter won't make you feel better.
That's why the exploit of a social media savvy government is to overflow the system with so much slop (literally and figuratively) the law can never catch up. Your bug is their feature.
You are right and yet I continue to be impressed by a court system that can deliver judgment in 3 months whereas in the Netherlands nothing happens in under a year and complex cases always last more than five.
"The wheels of justice turns slowly but grinds finely". Oof!
They do. It's called a preliminary injunction, which Anthropic obtained back in March. And this current decision is "summary judgement" which is another way to expedite a court case.<p>injunction in question: <a href="https://assets.bwbx.io/documents/users/iqjWHBFdfxIU/rYKRX7EU4j5U/v0" rel="nofollow">https://assets.bwbx.io/documents/users/iqjWHBFdfxIU/rYKRX7EU...</a><p>Such an injunction is granted when a party can show they have "irreparable harm" if not for the injunction and would likely succeed on the merits of the case.<p>> Anthropic has submitted concrete, non-speculative evidence of the ongoing harms to its liberty interests. Within days, many large enterprise customers signaled that publicly doing business with Anthropic over competitors was not worth it. (Dkt. No. 6-4 ¶ 16.) Three government contractor customers terminated their contracts with Anthropic, or were instructed to do so by Defendants; three deals valued at over $180 million fell apart despite being on the verge of closing; potential partners demanded additional protective contractual provisions such as
unilateral termination; customers asked to cut short their contracts or reduced their amount, in some instances specifically mentioning the Challenged Actions; and others switched from Claude to competing generative AI tools. (Dkt. No. 6-4 ¶¶ 11–19; Dkt. No. 6-3 ¶ 33.) Anthropic’s Chief Financial Officer, Krishna Rao, projects that, depending on how broadly Anthropic’s customers interpret the Challenged Actions, Anthropic could lose between hundreds of millions and multiple billions of dollars in 2026 revenue. (Dkt. No. 6-5 ¶ 6.) Moreover,
Defendants do not contest that Anthropic will be unable to obtain compensatory relief from the government, making its economic harm likely irreparable. E. Bay Sanctuary Covenant v. Biden, 993 F.3d 640, 677 (9th Cir. 2021); California v. Azar, 911 F.3d 558, 581 (9th Cir. 2018).<p>The current decision discussed in the article was also expedited since it is Anthropic winning a motion for summary judgement.<p>That is, before a trial even happens to assess who is correct about a factual dispute, parties are allowed to try to win entirely on legal grounds. The judge assumes everything the United States alleges is true, then sees if Anthropic would win anyways.<p>From the current decision:<p>> Under the APA, an agency action must be set aside and held unlawful if it is “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion,” “in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short of statutory right,” or “without observance of procedure required by law.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A), (C), (D). Anthropic has shown that the Hegseth Directive and the Supply Chain Designation were in excess of statutory authority, contrary to law, and arbitrary and capricious.
Doesn't every company and person consider their case special?
It's less slow in countries that aren't extremely litigious and backed up with frivolous cases, underfunded in staff, with excessive penalties and racial profiling causing overflows of cases and convictions for minor offenses, resulting in the world's largest prison population and the world's most backed up legal system.
[dead]
>Why can't they expedite for special cases?<p>They can, the preliminary injunction is a thing that can be invoked very quickly to stop actions before the law decides.<p>Anthropic didn't suffer any irreparable harm and they're free to seek damages if they wish, but they won't because it doesn't really matter to them. This whole mess has just been advertising that has kept them in the headlines and very likely has been more beneficial than harmful.
<p><pre><code> Anthropic didn't suffer any irreparable harm
</code></pre>
This is a fast paced business environment where one company being explicitly disallowed by the government could create long-lasting damage. How many institutions might have gone with the safer OpenAI and will not revisit the decision?
I'm pretty convinced Anthropic was intentionally antagonizing the government in order to get high level attention, media coverage, and government contacts to hep "fix" the problem. Far from irreparable harm it was a marketing stunt.
> Anthropic didn't suffer any irreparable harm<p>Factually wrong. Many people on defense contracted projects (you can find at least a few of those in every big company you have heard of) are banned from using Anthropic models. They need to use GPT, Gemini or something else. That is a LOT of business lost.
I don’t know how you can say that. Anthropic’s reputation was destroyed by this, and A LOT of business deals happened before this injustice was corrected.
You sure they didn't lose governmental contracts because of it?<p>Also, the current administration doesn't care much about the law but what Trump and his people like and dislike. They made it very clear that they don't like Anthropic, so they won't get any contracts now, this ruling doesn't really matter until Trump is out of office.<p>None of this provable, of course.<p>They even fired people for investigating the storm on the Capitol. The message was pretty clear: we don't care about the law or what your job is, if you do something we dislike we retaliate, so you better become corrupt and stop caring as well or quit now on your own terms.
but they literally obtained a preliminary injunction back in March.
Law was not in effect yet, and now it’s repealed. Cest la vie.
Judge rules horse must return to barn.
So can they now sue the government and recoup their inflated theoretical losses to be paid out of tax revenue? It feels like any outcome here will have no negative effect on the major players actually involved.
At this point, does precedent even matter? Based on recent rulings, I feel like this exact scenario could play out again and the result would be the exact same.
Good for Anthropic for standing up for themselves but think of the masses of companies that decided not to take the risk. The tone was definitely set at Trump's inauguration with all the tech execs front and center on display. They knew that if they didn't play ball Trump would use government power against them.<p>Law firms blackmailed into doing pro bono work for Trump's pet causes, intelligence analysts not able to tell the truth, energy companies giving up wind leases and switching to fossil fuels. And of course the constant shakedowns for cash.
> energy companies giving up wind leases and switching to fossil fuels<p>If only it were them "giving up" leases -- we *paid them billions* to halt developments.
It's a shame companies like Google immediately folded instead of standing with them. <a href="https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/iKm2FhpWkuuBojm82/why-i-left-google-deepmind" rel="nofollow">https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/iKm2FhpWkuuBojm82/why-i-left...</a><p>In his recent interview Emil Michael (DoW undersecretary, "AI czar") even mentions that the Anthropic case served as motivation for Google folding.<p>It is a shame that Google's leadership is so spineless. On the minuscule off-chance any of those VPs are reading HN - you are bad and you should feel shame for increasing x-risk for a percentage point of profit.
Don't forget OpenAI, whose CEO bragged gleefully about taking the contract Anthropic refused to sign since it granted the DoW the ability to build Skynet (autonomous weapons) and a Chinese-style mass domestic surveillance system using their models.
Didn't google give up "not being evil" a long long time ago? Are you really surprised?
Just because you expect someone to do a bad thing doesn't mean you shouldn't shame them when they actually do the bad thing.
Google does plenty of evil. This has nothing to do with the slogan.<p>"Don't be evil" was never removed. But even if it was, the idea that Google just was champing at the bit to do all this evil but was held back by the pesky slogan is ridiculous.
> It is a shame that Google's leadership is so spineless.<p>This is wrong, just like the article you linked. Google has been a proud member of the military industrial complex for many years.<p>Alex Turner is naive when he thinks big psychopath corporation may have internal regulations to protect us from big psychopath government. He's somewhat deluded when he thinks this is a new problem and he personally has power against this. The only way we workers can enforce some level of ethics is via powerful unions (with strikes/sabotage), not as lonely individual "threatening" to leave the company.<p>I'm sorry he had to learn this the hard way. There's still plenty of time for you to realize that no or few company will grow a spine, because that's not what companies do, what they are for, or what they're directed to do (except maybe a small mom and pop shop).
> They knew that if they didn't play ball Trump would use government power against them.<p>And that friends, is capital-F Fascism.
It was a master stroke in international politics though, the US created an arms race towards sovereign ai, small models, and self-hosting - exactly like they wanted to.<p>(sarcasm intended)
The Iran war and SoH crisis has been great for EV uptake outside of the US. In combination with the US AI apartheid, it has been a huge boost for Chinese EVs and Chinese AI adoption.
And trade. The last 18 months the US has shown itself to be a unreliable trade partner. Lots of companies are looking at diversifying both markets and supply chains.<p>The recent trip of the Canadian PM to China is but the most visible part of this shift. That's at govt level, but I've seen it happen all the way down to individual level.<p>US products are typically more expensive here than Chinese. But at least you were buying from a friendly supplier. That distinction is eroding quickly. In my experience it's forced people to try Chinese, and generally been surprised (in a good way) over quality and features.<p>And yes, the price of oil has focused people much more at the EV market. (Not least because people with an EV already aren't shy about gloating). Pretty much everyone I talk to, who would buy a car "new" tells me their next one will be electric. The tipping point is coming much faster than most people think.
I recently bought a BambuLab 3D printer.<p>Designed and made in China.<p>Right from the unpacking to first print the experience was top Apple-style quality.<p>Indeed I was agreeably surprised.
Its Apple'esque. The edge are still rough, and I don't trust their sketchy antics. People buy Apple because they earned that trust among their customer base. Is the device better than competitors, in my opinion yes but they are more along the lines of Samsung and not Apple.<p>Caveat: (Yes I know geeks here will say apple users are just dumb and want a status symbol....they'll never get it)
So was my Prusa and they don't violate the GPL or lock me into their ecosystem.<p>To each their own I guess.
My comment was not say Prusa is inferior, but just to mention that "Made in China" today is really not like the "Made in China" of the 1970s.<p>BTW I know nothing about 3D printers, but the Bambulab was recommended to me by a German friend who lives in Germany and is all about open-source ... He had printers since a long time and knows the ecosystem very well.<p>He told me the BambuLab printer was better for me because less tinkering, and much cheaper, at similar quality... which is what i was looking for.<p>We both are embedded systems engineers who work with Linux daily, so I trusted him. The results I get from the printer do not disappoint.<p>However I totally get the Prusa vibe. Just not for my specific use case.<p>To each his own indeed !
I doubt the Canadians want their economy flooded with Chinese goods ("dumping" - selling goods at less than cost) - which destroys local industry.<p>This was predicted in The Economist awhile back, that if the US blocked Chinese imports a tsunami of Chinese goods would flood other countries and now it's happening. Those countries will also, in turn, erect trade barriers, or suffer the devastation that massive Chinese dumping causes.<p>So it's a nice protest gesture, but it's a cutting off your nose to spite your face gesture.
Accusations of Chinese dumping are cheap and easy to make, but the evidence is pretty mixed.<p>Most actual cases have been of raw materials (eg steel, yarn) and industrial chemicals.<p>I think this is a long way from the alleged "tsunami of Chinese goods".<p>It's also worth noting that many Chinese manufactured goods would mostly substitute for US manufactured goods (eg cars). That's actually the whole point.
The thing people tend to handwave about China's manufacturing prowess is that they have spent the last 25-ish years getting <i>really</i> good at 'making things to a spec' at a cost in-line with their labor market, being bolstered by their government's approach at Economy planning (i.e. subsidizing certain industries, required partnership agreements when foreign companies want to use that labor market to build things).<p>The quality of the product you get, like always, is about what people are willing to pay. The big difference is that the current cost of labor/material inputs there, is low enough that you can get the same or often better quality for less.<p>I wouldn't call <i>that</i> dumping. And to be clear, yeah they've done dumping in some cases.<p>But when we look at what's happened in the last 8 months or so around various AI SaaS-ish offerings, one could argue that plenty of US companies have done 'dumping with extra steps'. (And that's not even the first time necessarily, e.x. the DoorDash Pizza Arbitrage thought experiment...)<p>> It's also worth noting that many Chinese manufactured goods would mostly substitute for US manufactured goods (eg cars).<p>Heck, GM was (although they are moving it due to the Tariffs AFAIR) building the Buick Envision (Compact CUV) in China and shipping it to the US for sale. GM Announced in January that they'd move production to the US by 2028.<p>Similar for The Lincoln Nautilus (Midsize CUV), The current Gen is built in China and they only in the last month announced that they would move production back to the US... by 2030.
Garlic dumping. Those little socks of 4 or 5 bulbs sold for a dollar-something are from China (notice the tops are chopped off so they cant sprout.) I buy domestic garlic because it's fucking stupid to import something that's so easy to grow.
China is accused of dumping cars too:<p><a href="https://euobserver.com/226294/eu-warns-europes-car-industry-in-mortal-danger-from-subsidised-chinese-dumping/" rel="nofollow">https://euobserver.com/226294/eu-warns-europes-car-industry-...</a>
Selling at a loss to capture market share, isn't that part of every SV startup? What makes it so bad in this case?
It's not "so bad in this case". The domestic version is called "predatory pricing" and is illegal. In practice, it's easier to raise anti-dumping complaints than predatory pricing cases, both because the producers don't vote in your country and because the complaint doesn't have to be proven in a court of law.
Heavy subsidies by the state.
If they have happy customers buying them is the dumping just a shibboleth for just "they're taking our national companies market share"
That is a very short term perspective. National companies often employ locally and pay taxes and have a stake in your long term interest.<p>A hostile power - and China to the US is a hostile power - has no such stake. Quite the opposite.
There are differences in labour and environmental laws that I do actually want a tariff to equalize.<p>If we have standards and laws it’s unfair to allow outsourced competition to skirt them and collect the savings. That’s a recipe for disaster.
It showed up in Africa along some of the Belt and road initiative items. Lined with Chinese sellers, Raising chickens and selling Chinese goods.
I'm Canadian, the auto industry here died the moment trump started all of this tarrif talk in February, it just hasn't gotten cold yet.<p>Because of the tarrif and trade war our local industries will struggle and collapse, there's nothing we can do about that - they were dependent on US trade partners and markets, the Canadian market is much smaller. We have massive productivity issues, there's little chance we'll successfully build our own auto industry.<p>In the interim buying more from China doesn't really hurt us, and sends a strong signal to the remaining people who care about foreign policy in Washington that there are penalties to treating allies like enemies.<p>I used to really strongly oppose Chinese expansion and the rise of cheap products getting dumped everywhere - I still do, but I oppose the US admin more; and at least they're stable and clear about what they want
It would be cool to have a native Canadian car company to defend and the only argument you can make for Chinese car dumping is that you dont want the only car companies remaining in the world to be Chinese. Thats a possibility yes since China has 100+ car companies, the population is overall declining in most western countries and there are already too many car companies for a shrinking pie of customers. But from Canada's point of view: they have already been threatened enough that im sure those remaining ford,gm and stellantis jobs might be gone eventually...so whats left? Maybe Canada can demand BYD open a car factory in Canada.
I'll be rude/bold enough to say that Canada's ability to argue around 'in-country' made goods has been eroded for decades;<p>I will admit I'm going to point to a specific example; Canadian Bike makers have been able for at least a decade to get an unpainted frame from Taiwan/China/Etc, components from wherever, but so long as they <i>painted the frame in canada</i> and did final assembly in Canada... 'Made in Canada' alongside all of the tariff exemptions that came with that.<p>> But from Canada's point of view: they have already been threatened enough that im sure those remaining ford,gm and stellantis jobs might be gone eventually...<p>Guess you didn't hear about Brampton in the news, the Stellantis plant there might be on the chopping block...
Yeah Canada has natural limitations bigger countries like the US does not have but still, I wonder if good negoiation and maybe a changing situation in regards to the US's declining prospects might allow Canada to swing a bit higher in the future and demand something like this. There is a skilled workforce in place as well so maybe that changes the calculus.
Hence the concept of trade partnerships. No country makes everything, and yes, there's lots of competition.<p>Tarifs have existed since forever. Countries use them to protect local industries. But they've always been stable, and industry focused.<p>Food production for example is worth protecting and Canada has tarifs on imported Dairy. Partnerships exist to protect local industries, promote exports, and give citizens access to cheap goods. It's a complex balance set up over time with lots of nuance and negotiating.<p>Yes, sometimes tarifs kill a local industry as well. Lack of international competition let's local industry stagnate until it is dead. US ship building is a good example of this, and US Auto makers are trending in this direction. (Banning Chinese EVs is not bolstering the US EV production, it is causing the US manufacturers to ignore that market, and I don't think that ends well.)<p>Tarifs are a powerful tool when wielded well. Alas right now the US in unstable. Local industries can't rely on tarifs existing next week, never mind 5 years from now. I'm not investing in a local hockey stick factory because the tarif could disappear at any time.<p>In my country we get cheap solar panels from China. Frankly, let them sell below-cost if they like. (Hint, they're not below cost). We don't make them here, so cheap energy is good for all.<p>The US negativity to Chinese goods seems to be around dumping (which happens, but not much), around quality (frankly much of it is very good) or around human rights. (Cause, you know, we bombed Iran to promote human rights...)<p>I don't think Americans will suddenly love China. But the rest of the world is getting very cosy very quickly.
But China wants to make everything, that is the problem. It might also be the case that we misunderstand the state of the Chinese economy quite a bit. I heard an argument by an economist that the situation is mainly explained by the real estate crash. That was a ginormous event but the government basically just denied any big consequences. That did kill the credit market for a long time. Now Chinese consumer have little money to spend and China is forced to export their products, no matter the price to keep things going.
> But China wants to make everything<p>As long as a typical Chinese person is happy with a standard of living that is far below what an American expects, China will be way cheaper on labor.<p>For most products, labor is a significant cost.<p>For a lot of consumers, price is more important then where it's made. Maybe not what they say they think is important but when they actually decide. As a result, China will make almost everything, along with the rest of south east Asia.<p>Basically, the lower price for products comes at the cost of exporting your own jobs. One is easy to reason about when making a purchase decision, the other is indirect and abstract. Which is why the former wins
Use joint ventures just as China does.
Selling below price to capture a market is now somehow BAD? Isn’t this the bread & butter of cutthroat capitalism? Isn’t it something we do endlessly? But when the Chinese do it its “dumping”?
Oh no! Cheap goods and services! Maybe some other governments will be smart enough to not let a <i>massive influx of nearly free stuff</i> make everyone materially worse off. In fact it seems like only a completely idiotic system would make people worse off for having more free stuff.
>Pretty much everyone I talk to, who would buy a car "new" tells me their next one will be electric. The tipping point is coming much faster than most people think.<p>People say a lot of things. If the infrastructure isn't there, it will end up like the US. I'm not sure Canadian EV infrastructure is up to snuff compared to China or even Europe. In the US a lot of people tried electric and now I am finding again and again, for many of these people, the next car after their EV is a gas car. Because poor implementation of the charging experience has put a bad first experience in many peoples minds. In the US K shaped economy, there are enough people that can stomach higher gas prices, and the lower portion of the K shaped economy has an even worse EV infrastructure or otherwise cannot afford most EVs(used or new) anyway.
For a lot of people the infrastructure is an outlet in our garage. Going to the gas station is a novelty and just for snacks. Road trips are a few times a year and not a dealio at all. A PHEV is a nice sweet spot.<p>It's 2026 and we are still debating this? There are a range of use cases for the population. We have semis, F350s towing landscape trailers, motorcycles, bikes, evs, NEVs, etc.<p>Pick what you think will work best for your use case and iterate. Global political posturing doesn't move you anywhere.
>It's 2026 and we are still debating this?<p>You can debate all you want. If I have learned anything this past decade, its the internet has little bearing on how real life turns out. Just look at the sales numbers. In the US they are now slightly declining after years of steady growth. I watch auto industry shows that talk about how executives who bet their reputations on the EV transition at places like Ford and GM now stand with destroyed careers because the demand was just not there and billions of wasted capital that had to be written down.<p>A car company has to sell a product that the masses will buy. It turns out for the US (and I suspect Canda as well) that product is currently hybrids. It gets the fuel cost down for people while allowing them to not give up on what they come to expect.
Move and more people are realizing the reliance on fossil fuels is determinant to national security. EV and renewable sources of energy improve national security. I applaud those that have become enlightened.<p>My next vehicle will be fully EV, not Tesla, once my current one dies.
> I'm not sure Canadian EV infrastructure is up to snuff<p>Canada needs a whole lot less EV infrastructure than the US since so much of the population lives along a narrow band. Once you cover the trans-Canada highway, you've covered ~90% of long distance trips.
Perhaps, and I am open to being wrong about this. What about range anxiety in extremly low temperatures? We have all heard the stories of so many Teslas operating above the artic circle and other Tesla propaganda but day to day, do EVs stack up to Canadian environmental demands? Model 3 owenrs (including one of Telsa's largest former cheerleaders) had numerous problems withs its California based design in cold winters (ex. frozen door handles).<p>Maybe the eventual chinese sodium batteries will solve some of these issues.
Well yes... the current US admin gets blame for not seemingly understanding the market right now(or bungled elsewhere giving the Chinese a lucky break) but i'm sure the massive oversupply in Chinese EVs didn't hurt either. China has 100+ car comapnies that are all in the jungle right now trying desperately to survive. Most won't make it and when the victors emerge, other car companies may not be ready for these warriors that survived. One of the ways to get rid of excess inventory: dump it elsewhere.
> The Iran war and SoH crisis has been great for EV uptake<p>Trump has been the best promoter of electrical vehicle here in Europe.<p>He 'helped' his Arabian allies twice, first he brought war to their countries and then he made sure that people wouldn't need their oil anymore (at least much less).<p>With allies like that you don't need enemy lol.
Hell, it's been decent (relatively) for pushing EV adoption within the US, too, in addition to renewable energy. This is not the first time that I've wondered if Donald Trump isn't secretly still a democrat at heart.
No wonder in China they call Trump "the nation builder".
And now I think we're going to see a surge of vegetarianism in the U.S.<p>Good show!
Truly a flawless strategy: convince every government and large company on earth that depending on US-hosted AI is a geopolitical risk.
Similarly the war created unstoppable momentum towards decarbonization.
You can beat the rap but not the ride
IANAL, so I can't comment on the legal merits of any of it.<p>From a practical/business perspective, I can see the government's position. It's very simple and it makes sense. Here's an analogy that I think is apt:<p>We use Solidworks, Altium Designer and JetBrains tools for our work. Imagine a scenario where each of these companies has license terms that restrict their use to certain domains or types of products they --for whatever reason; it does not have to be political-- do not agree with. Further imagine that the restrictions are different for each product, creating a virtual mine field of sorts.<p>Now imagine that every supplier adopts this philosophy over time; hardware, software, tools, components, fabricators, contractors, consultants, etc.<p>Well, very soon you will have to conclude that the only job you will be able to do is drive for Uber, if that.<p>The DoD/DoW is massive and massively multidisciplinary. They simply cannot afford to have vendors create no-go mine fields for them. It quickly becomes an unmanageable pain in the ass.<p>So, yeah, under those circumstances, I would not touch Anthropic with a ten foot pole duct-taped to another ten foot pole. It simply would not be a reasonable decision to work with them.
It's entirely reasonable for the USG to say "we don't want to use a product with guardrails". Plenty of people have gotten annoyed with Fable and done exactly that!<p>But to prohibit <i>anyone else</i> from using it is a much bigger and more questionable step.
If Domino's Pizza offered to deliver pizza to the Pentagon but declined in their terms of service to deliver pizza-box-shaped packages to Tehran, do you think it would be a fair and proportionate response for the DoD to ban anyone in the defense supply chain from ever ordering pizza from Domino's?
Which is very different to labelling them a national security risk instead of just not awarding them contracts.
> unlawfully retaliated<p>Can it be at all lawful to retaliate though?
Anthropic may win this but strategically it was just plain stupid. Mythos was blocked for just enough time for OpenAI to just catch up with Sol and get lots of enterprise customers.
Mythos development was never blocked. And this case wasn't even about mythos.
Strategically, America was the loser here, not Anthropic.
As much as I dislike this administration's actions, why? Doesn't the Department of Defense get discretion to contract for whatever reasons it likes, as long as they think it serves public interests?<p>If Pete Hegseth, who is albeit highly incompetent, decides that Anthropic's values don't match with those of the DoD, isn't that entirely his call to make? Unless there's very specific circumstances at play, Hegseth is at least a public official, and gets to decide to do what he thinks is best for the public. Although he is wrong and Anthropic is right, no judge should force the government to use Anthropic products.<p>Does anybody have the legal analysis? I'm (clearly) not a lawyer, but I'm more interested for now in the question of whether this is allowed rather than whether it's morally right (it's obviously not).
The core issue is that it went beyond just not picking a vendor. They labeled anthropic as a supply chain risk. This banned the use of their software for the whole government (and contractors IIRC).
I’m not a lawyer either but I think the introduction section of the ruling seems to address your questions in a somewhat accessible manner. Specifically the last two paragraphs of the intro section.<p><a href="https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.465515/gov.uscourts.cand.465515.250.0.pdf" rel="nofollow">https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.46...</a>
The short answer is that there's Federal law on how contracts are awarded and the criteria used to exclude vendors.<p>For other things that have gone to court see DoD JEDI and the NASA HLS.
Judges at this level often do things like this, and given it was brought in California likely the next level would also block the administration. That said, the Supreme Court has been pretty clear that the executive branch has broad and the only authority to designate supply chain risk. That said, they do need to justify it, not sure they did it well enough here, but this is far from an impartial judge.<p>Also, judges are political appointees -- This one has ruled against the Trump administration repeatedly and it's why this case was brought here. She was appointed by Joe Biden, was born/lives/works in the Bay Area and has a track record.
The trump administration has a long track record of doing illegal things that were struck down in countless courts across the country, so the more likely scenario is that this is yet another mark on that record. This isn't even the first one this week.<p>As for your legal arguments, it doesn't seem like they are currently correct, but I guess things can always change.
Good. Before, there were questions. Now, there's precedence. Thanks for taking one for the team, Anthropic!
Like so many of this administration's actions, unfortunately...
But I guess Anthropic will not be compensated?
Lots of that going around in this administration
Add it to the "but no one's going to do anything about it" pile
Unlawful means absolutely nothing these days.
I don’t know, the $166B in refunds returned to importers after the IEEPA tariffs were ruled unlawful by the Supreme Court seem pretty meaningful
Meaningful as a mega transfer of tax revenue from citizens to corporations, which for all we know was the whole point.
Ya, but that's only going to the corporations. I doubt they are going to send the rest of us a check.
Meaningful for who though, the common person in the country?
Not for stopping damage to the end-payers of those fees.<p>Great for fleecing those end-payers, however.
Congress is supposed to hold the Executive branch accountable. They deliberately refuse to do so because keeping their cult in power is all that matters to them.
It's the Gish gallop applied to a legal/legislative system - it just can't keep up with the sheer volume of cases that would need to be brought to curtail even the worst of it and that's assuming that if/when it eventually gets in front of the supreme court that that "august" body actually does curtail it.
Yes - because the system is trying to prevent the flood by piling up sticks instead of removing the source of water.<p>It's in failure mode (intentionally, is my read) because while it might eventually declare "x is not legal" at no point is it discouraging the people who did X (and have now also done y, z, 1, 2, and 3 - all also likely illegal) because there is zero actual accountability at the personal level.<p>If your house is flooding from a broken pipe... you don't bail. You turn the water off.
Steve Bannon, who advised the 45 administration, called that tactic "flood the zone with shit".<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_the_zone" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_the_zone</a><p><a href="https://archive.ph/BfuVs" rel="nofollow">https://archive.ph/BfuVs</a>
Of course it does. For those trying to hold the administration to account, there's all sorts of laws.<p>Can't indict the President for unlawful acts during his term. Can't post pictures online about the President. Can't lawfully protest against ICE agents abducting people off the street.
Right, like the student debt forgiveness. We hate the ones we disagree with and we love the ones we agree with.
Debt forgiveness was dumb too. It normalized capricious government handouts for volitional actions. After the Corinthian shutdown there was little excuse for taking on massive debt for BS degrees.
Why do you assume there’s debt involved? Whether BS or not, people with degrees have higher earnings (~2x on average according to the FED) and pay higher taxes (more than 2x on average); it’s very much in the government’s financial interest for more people to have degrees.
That suffers from the stereotype fallacy. Some majors have huge ROI while others leave graduates very frustrated with their prospects. Not everyone will benefit from a degree. Not all degrees are financially sound.<p>If people think that all majors tend near the average, they are mistaken. Some do very well, others are of dubious value to a career. Averages hide ugly realities.
How was it dumb?<p>You have a generation of Americans who were told repeatedly and often in their teenage years that if they wanted to be able to compete in the global job marketplace, they'd need, at the very least, a bachelor's degree.<p>As it turns out, employers were going to offshore those jobs and cut those wages regardless of your education. The value of degrees was wildly over-inflated compared to the economic reality, particularly after the Great Recession and COVID. The result has been an entire generation of people who aren't able to attain the same life milestones as their parents' generation, which is inherently destabilizing to a society. Corinthian Colleges wasn't the main perpetrator of this; the entire system was. By their shutdown in 2015, most people born between 1980 and 1995 were out of college and were paying massive loans to legitimate schools.<p>When you have a party (in this case, the federal government) obtaining something of value (student loan interest payments) via statements that are materially not true, there's a word for that: fraud.<p>Student loan forgiveness was a targeted effort on the behalf of a lending institution's head officer - in this case, the President of the United States - to try and renegotiate the terms of the loan serviced by that institution as to give some remedy to the problem.<p>This would have required a write-down of the foregone payments that would be approximately equal to what the US government spends on providing OASDI checks to retirees for one year, and most retirees do not rely on OASDI checks to avoid homelessness, starvation, or other destitution. It's basically a bonus that you get for living over the age of 65, at this point being paid in part by loans taken out by the US government that will have to be paid off long after the recipients of that money are dead.
I dont know what you mean there. There is literally no symmetry between the two. Not in the case of how Biden administration reacted to cases they lost. And also not in the supreme court treatment - it ideological and political goals are pretty clear at this point, although not always pro-Trump.
I get irrational angry by logical and nonsensical statements. When I read this: “ Pentagon says private companies should not be able to constrain military action.” I am screaming: But they can fucking how what THEY want to sell to anybody! Setting terms for THEIR side is NOT constraining military action, unless military suddenly has totalitarian power over everybody !
"The empty invocation of national security is not a blank check to punish and retaliate against government critics."
Will it matter? Trump and his gang of criminal owns the Supreme Court and are happy to flout the law in a move fast a break things approach all the time. (See also the stupid gaudy ballroom) This win a pyrrhic one at best.
Sure, but who in Trump's DOJ is going to prosecute Trump? Separation of powers my ass.
When this administration is done we need to amend the constitution to hold politicians legally and financially responsible for intentionally lying and intentionally breaking the law. This was obviously illegal on its face and yet there is no consequence to pushing the norms.
I don't think that'd require a Constitutional amendment, would it?
I don't think "more rules" is the answer. There needs to be people in our government who have integrity, who can apply pressure and take risk. It's the people, not the constitution. The last 1.5 years is evidence that legality doesn't mean anything without people willing to take action.
Start with the Supreme Court, who determined “official acts” are to be presumed legal. With no standards test for what qualifies as an official act or not.
While we're at it, term limits for everyone. All levels of the judiciary and legislature.
This still makes my blood boil. Even then people didn't seem to care (maybe they didn't understand) and we're all collectively just going along with it.
We already have the tools. The problem is that the corrupt oligarchs have the money that is considered equivalent to speech. Start with fixing that problem and other problems become solvable.
Nothing means anything without consequences. You can write all the amendments you want, but if they intentionally disable and dismantle all means of holding them accountable, the Constitution doesn't mean anything. They can't even follow the plain text of blatantly clear amendments like the 14th.
Presumably taxpayers will pay for it one way or the other.
Could you tell us why the politicians - who are the only ones who have the power to amend the Constitution - would be interested in doing that?
Even a fairly corrupt politician might believe that they are <i>less</i> corrupt than the other guy, and would be able to use the law as a weapon to get an even bigger slice of the cake. Or, still more likely, they would believe that "I get my fair share, you're a petty self-dealer, he is blatantly corrupt" and that the law would not be used against <i>their</i> perfectly open and above-board win-win deals, only against <i>that other guy's</i> filthy looting.<p>But that aside, as noted upthread, it doesn't actually require an amendment, it just requires the existing Congresscritters to do their dang jobs. Not holding my breath.
They actually had laws supposed to act as stop guard against corruption and executive lawlessness. Supreme court systematically dismantled them.<p>And by supreme court, I mean right wing justices specifically. Who got there thanks to their heritage foundation connections. Which made project 2025.
You just need the rule of law for that. It helps to not elect blatantly corrupt people as president.
This is impossible until a critical mass of voters across every state starts putting competence and integrity ahead of their pet issue and populism. If you actually want to start making headway in this direction you have to stop voting for candidates in either of the main parties. The parties are probably not salvageable. Find a third party candidate with these qualities and vote for them and convince as many people as you can to vote for them.<p>If we can't do that then we are just stuck as a body politic.
Realistically, the option that will actually work for you is to fight within Democrat primaries. The absolute best case is you get a Mamdani. (Note this means accepting a bit of populism, because ultimately it's a popularity contest). Third parties are going nowhere due to the coordination problem.<p>(NB: this is meaningfully different in the UK which has really multi-party elections despite Westminster elections being FPTP)
A both-sides guy! How original!<p>Choose the worst Democratic politician currently in office and please explain what they’ve done or said that is in any way comparable to what the Republican Party is doing.
This can happen if we start a 50 propaganda campaign with regular TV and radio ads across the nation
Does anything matter if it's illegal or not when it comes to the current government? This is not a flamewar im interested from a practical perspective if things like this has any effects at all in practice.
IDK.<p>I'm seeing the gov capitalize on the lag time of the US judicial system reacting authoritatively to illegal gov behavior.<p>To me this is a continuation of a Win At All Costs strategy.
Yes, Kilmar Abrego Garcia is back in Maryland, as one example.
Government has three branches for this reason, so yes everything matters if it is illegal.
It de-risks defense contractors working with Anthropic on other projects. The most aggressive interpretation of the blacklist is that Lockheed Martin was not allowed to use Anthropic to develop their own products, and that's not on the table anymore.
Note that this is a ruling on (just) one of two independent lawsuits, as stated in the article.
There are several hundred federal judges, and cases like this can be brought before virtually any of them. As a consequence at least one judge has ruled practically every single action by the Trump administration is illegal. These rulings are typically overturn at some point in the appeals process up to the Supreme Court, which has mostly upheld them as legal.
> As a consequence at least one judge has ruled practically every single action by the Trump administration is illegal.<p>Because he is a shameless crook who heads up a corrupt administration<p>> These rulings are typically overturn at some point in the appeals process up to the Supreme Court, which has mostly upheld them as legal.<p>Gee I wonder why that is!!
It did what it was supposed to - punish an entity that dared not do what the government told them to. It doesn't matter if anthropic gets a payday out of it, the administration doesn't get hurt by that and won't learn any lessons. We need to hold individual politicians and functionaries accountable
There was a guy in the comments of the first article on this topic, who claimed to be an expert on this law and was adamant that the decision by the Trump admin was perfectly legal.<p>Not just for accountability sake, but if that gentleman could come back in here and outline what he thinks is going on that would be quite interesting.
It’s possible this could go before multiple judges who won’t all agree with this particular one.
Yeah but this was supposedly "Cut and dry" and no one familiar with the law could possibly mistake it, and it was all media manipulation that made it seem like there was a case where there wasnt one.
It's also possible the Trump admin has people commenting online.
You can hear the Department of War's pov on this controversy from the All-In Podcast here:<p><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gzwRflcLPAA&t=2479s" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gzwRflcLPAA&t=2479s</a><p>Super interesting pov from the person who recommended the supply risk designation.
"When the president does it, that means that it is not illegal."
"It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is"
Clinton, being a lawyer, asked for a definition of "sex". The definition given to him did not include oral sex. When a lawyer asks you for a definition of a word, then you are getting screwed.
The modern Trump version is: "If a president does something which he believes will help him get elected in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment." - Trump's legal defense during his first impeachment.
So what if it’s illegal, what can be done about it, the corruption is so extreme there will be no recourse.<p>I hope I’m wrong…
You're not wrong. The United States has a legal system and not a justice system. Having spent many years of my life involved 'adjacently' with the system, I'd say it's actually a rigged, sadistic system.
What the current regime has brought to light is that WAY too much of the American "checks and balances" are based on "trust me bro" and "a person with morals just wouldn't do that". Zero penalties for doing the wrong thing.<p>People can just go in front of a congressional hearing and ... lie. Just plain faced bold provable lies. Nobody can call them a liar because of The Code, but there's also no penalty for them for lying, zero.
[flagged]
Sure, and what are you going to do about it? The current government is above laws.
And NOT a damned thing will be done to punish the administration for these obvious illegal actions.<p>And they'll continue to do so, because it takes months to unwind this shit, and the damage was done immediately.
Most of what Trump does is illegal.
Actually they made a law saying the president can do whatever he wants.
No, it didn't say that. It didn't stop the media from repeating it a thousand times, though. In the future, go directly to the supreme court decisions and read them for yourself rather than having other people tell you what to think. We are absolutely in a time rich with other people telling you exactly what you should think and feel about a thing.
Not in those words, but the decision did give <i>absolute immunity</i> from criminal prosecution and civil damage suits for all core official acts and presumptive immunity for all acts "performed within the outer perimiter of his official responsibility". It also severely restricted the ability to gather evidence for acts that do not fall within this scope.<p>This is extremely broad, and not unreasonable to summarize as the president being able to do whatever they want without fear of criminal/civil consequences.<p>Suggesting that everyone should read the 120 page, highly technical decision and come to their own conclusions is not helpful.
That's what the syllabus is for. It's the first few pages of the decision, for the convenience of the average American. We're also in the age of AI though, so you can feed the PDF in and have it extract the essential decisions. They're generally good enough now that they won't inject hallucinations into primary source material when asked to extract information.<p>Separation of powers of the various branches of government is very bipartisan. The supreme court opinion largely re-emphasizes how this operates in practice within this particular scenario, because they had never had to detail it out before.<p>President Trump is the most attacked US president in American history. Full stop. There has never been a president in history that faced more litigation, libel, defamation, disinformation or assassination attempts. This is simply the first time the question had to be asked how the constitution applies in these scenarios.<p>These rules would have applied to previous presidents as well, so even though people like to say all new rules are being created just for Trump, it really is very much just an expression of the already understood constitution.
[dead]
A lot of what the President does is ineffectual. And this is speaking with generality, including Presidents Obama, Biden, Clinton, et. al.<p>The modern method of "ruling by Executive Order/Action" is a clever political ruse. It garners a lot of attention to decree an EO on some wedge issue, doesn't it? It stirs the pot quite effectively, even if the EO isn't, in fact, effective to do anything at all.<p>Ruling by EO is a way to keep campaign promises. It's a way to assuage constituents and donors and benefactors, "hey, I'm doing what you wanted from me!" and it's a way to keep ahold of the narrative. What it isn't, is effective governance. The USA is not ruled by decree. The EOs, if they are on subjects that are normally the remit of the judicial or legislative branch, may not do much, if anything at all. The President can say he's meddling with the national budget; the media can say he's meddling; the citizens can all complain that he's meddling, but only Congress can actually do budgetary things. The "#nokings" protests are attacking a straw man, because the USA has no king indeed. We uphold the Constitution in this house.<p>A lot of EOs simply get blocked or countermanded or never take effect, and remain as Presidential Suggestions or Presidential Wishful Thinking entirely. And nobody notices when they fizzle: they only notice when the pen hits paper and they supposedly take effect. They fulfill his promises. They galvanize the base. They assuage benefactors.<p>Don't be fooled, though. Ruling by EO is simply another layer of lawfare. It's not effective governance and it's not intended to be. It's intended to confuse and beguile you. What is it that Sun Tzu and Saul Alinsky said about having power? Check on that first.
What happens if the president ignores the budget and spends money how <i>he</i> wants?
Interesting. I wonder how those who were laid off by the Government feel about this. Or those who are harmed by ICE Agents. Maybe those who are stuck in limbo because their visas aren’t going to be renewed.<p>You’re point about /effective/ governance makes sense. To that I agree, often the EOs are overturned or have little affect.<p>However, the damage EOs cause is very real, lasting, and can be disastrous. For example Trumps tariffs, while ineffective at their (stated) goal, were eventually overturned. But the damage they caused will be very long lasting. Supply chains are organic, they respond to outside forces, when those forces cause them to shift and change. Rarely do they on their own shift back.
The opinion is quite straightforward, and the evidence on the government's side was entirely nonsense, essentially.<p><a href="https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.465515/gov.uscourts.cand.465515.250.0.pdf" rel="nofollow">https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.46...</a>
[dead]
[dead]
[flagged]
Everyone is, yes, that's how rule of law works.
You've got that warhammer 40k "innocence proves nothing" mindset.
Ok, let’s say I buy that. Why was Anthropic singled out?
[flagged]
[dead]
[flagged]
[flagged]
I know most will see this as a good thing, and perhaps in this case it is, but I think it's generally concerning that people can vote for leaders who effectively can't do anything significant.<p>I understand this community largely disagrees with Trump, but the only people who win overall from these scenarios are people who support the status-quo and don't like the idea of a leader having significant power to change things. Any leader who is elected on a mandate to govern differently will face similar legal challenges.<p>I'm also not saying there's no place for legal challenges either, but there is a balance to be found there. The idea the Pentagon can't blacklist a US company for whatever reason it wants just seems absurd to me regardless of whether this specific ruling is good or bad.
> I think it's generally concerning that people can vote for leaders who effectively can't do anything significant<p>There's been a ton of this sort of discussion over the past three hundred years, and the consensus which was particularly strong in the Federalist Papers was explicitly that there should be no _one_ person with significant, arbitrary powers.
I support the status quo in comparison to Donald Trump being allowed to use Claude for automated weapons and mass domestic surveillance, yeah
> but I think it's generally concerning that people can vote for leaders who effectively can't do anything significant.<p>The people vote for a lot more than just the president. This isn't the president's job. That's what the judge says, not that nobody can do it, just the president/executive can't.<p>The people also vote for the people who's job it is to have done the same thing but legally.
Trump wasn't elected on a mandate to govern differently, he was elected because the DNC is a shambling corpse of a party that is paid to lose.<p>Due to some decisions made to protect """free speech""" - specifically, the free speech of moneybag men - capital interests are free to puppet our two parties around with abandon. The DNC in particular saw the new fundraising environment as an opportunity to completely sell out and ignore voters, and they're now hilariously unpopular <i>with their own base</i> despite being nominally in opposition to one of the least popular presidents of all time.<p>The environment this creates is one in which electoral politics is less than useless: it is actively harmful to the exercise of power on behalf of the people. We are actually seeing unusually high levels of activism in this country, and we actually do have a lot of issues with bipartisan support from voters. People don't want data centers built in their backyard, they don't want Flock building a private Stasi, they want the child rapists running our country to be brought to justice, they want right-to-repair, etc. But all of those issues are also antipartisan: they have bipartisan opposition from politicians, because they all imperil the funding sources you need in order to get into office. Compare the things MAGA people are saying to the things Trump is saying and you'll see the split.<p>I think you might have also mischaracterized the ruling. The Pentagon is still allowed to sanction supply chain risks, it just has to provide an actual reason for doing so. The Trump administration (really, just Pete Hegseth) tried to sanction Anthropic with no evidence. The actual reason was simple and straightforward: Anthropic had principles other than "doing what Pete Hegseth wanted" and everyone in this administration demands absolute and unfettered loyalty. I can see the value in "governing differently" but this government isn't just "different", it's demonstrably worse even on its own terms.
[flagged]
This would likely be overturned if the federal government needs to push it. At the time Anthropic was saying publicly that they oppose certain actions and their model is restricted in certain ways. The executive branch viewed that as a risk and has the ultimate say over it's vendors, regardless of the judges ruling. The supreme court has been pretty clear on this.<p>This is also a reminder that, contrary to popular understanding, judges are indeed political appointees. This one was appointed by Joe Biden, works in the Bay Area and definitely has a political bias in both the track record and in activism.<p><a href="https://grokipedia.com/page/Rita_F._Lin" rel="nofollow">https://grokipedia.com/page/Rita_F._Lin</a>
No fine imposed on the Trump Administration corporation (doing business as the federal government of the US of A)? Does the current legal system allow Anthropic to sue for loss of revenue, reputational damage, etc.?
I don't agree. When anthropic contractually stopped the US government from using the platform for certain purposes that they could not prevent the average user from pursuing they created a de facto national security risk.<p>Prevent everyone from doing it or don't prevent anyone. You can't single out and cripple only one country.<p>I don't imagine that this was Anthropic's intent anyway. They were just trying to say that it shouldn't be used for warfare. Respectable, but short sighted considering that they couldn't stop other people from using it for that same purpose.
You’re free to not agree with the law but you should know sometimes there are consequences for acting on that belief.
> When anthropic contractually stopped the US government from using the platform for certain purposes that they could not prevent the average user from pursuing they created a de facto national security risk.<p>Anthropic had two red lines: 1) no lethal autonomous warfare without a human in the loop, and 2) no mass surveillance of Americans. How is that something the average user is capable of? How are those red lines creating a national security risk?<p>These were not special terms for the U.S. government, they were a part of the usage policy since 2024. Governments are not in the same class as the average user, their capability and potential for misuse of the service is not comparable. There is no reason why the U.S. government should dispute those terms, and their reaction was dystopian.
>These were not special terms for the U.S. government<p>Are they going to sue in Iran?<p>>How is that something the average user is capable of?<p>Do you really not know? Must be nice.<p>>How are those red lines creating a national security risk?<p>It's a policy banning nations (national) from using a technology as a weapon (security).<p>>There is no reason why the U.S. government should dispute those terms, and their reaction was dystopian.<p>Yeah it's dystopian! They are using it as a weapon. They told us that. Anthropic obviously knew that they would. They have a policy about it, because the tech itself is dystopian!
> When anthropic contractually stopped the US government from using the platform for certain purposes that they could not prevent the average user from pursuing they created a de facto national security risk.<p>The 'national security risk' is imaginary and exists solely in the minds of the government morons in charge of AI policy
[dead]
Since SCOTUS is stacked, it really doesn't matter.
Before bashing Trump for not liking Anthropic, people should consider the consequences of having the judiciary decide what software companies the government can and cannot use.<p>You might get a petty win against the current administration, but lose big when next time a judge decides that $random_department must use Oracle for ERP and not SAP for example because Oracle has better lawyers and wants money from the government. You get the idea.
This is good, generally, for government overstepping especially in the case of targeted domestic restrictions (and what amounts to anti-competitive blackmail in my opinion)<p>BUT! The judge’s opinion that “The empty invocation of national security is not a blank check to punish and retaliate against government critics," is actually false. In the current administration it’s absolutely a blank check to punish and retaliate and I’m not sure under which authority a federal judge would stop them at this point.<p>Current Supreme Court had made it clear they don’t have many controls here…<p>Furthermore, Anthropic isn’t likely to recover any funds after this. So what if it happens to your small hardware startup? It’s a terrible precedent for Hegseth to set, and will lead to future harm. But he’s not the brightest bulb. Keep on talking up “Lethality” buddy… :/
<a href="https://san.com/cc/no-the-nsa-wasnt-hacked-by-ai-heres-what-actually-happened/" rel="nofollow">https://san.com/cc/no-the-nsa-wasnt-hacked-by-ai-heres-what-...</a><p>If this article is accurate, it sounds like Mythos via Anthropic had proven itself to be a security risk. This explains the dual speak around it being both essential and a supply chain risk, since if it were hacked by another country it would compromise security.<p>Not being any riskier than any other "blackbox" AI is still sufficiently dangerous and I suppose the difference, without knowing more about what the government tested, was that they knew Mythos could do these things as they had evaluated it themselves.