News & Updates
The latest news and updates from companies in the WLTH portfolio.
Plans & Pricing | Claude by Anthropic
Every plan has usage limits that reset on a rolling five-hour session window, and paid plans add weekly limits on top. Your activity across Claude on web, desktop, mobile, and Claude Code all draws from the same pool. How much you can do depends on the length and complexity of your conversations, the model you choose, and the features you use, so there's no fixed message count. Free covers everyday questions. Pro gives you at least 5x more usage per 5-hour session than Free. Max gives you 5x or 20x more usage per 5-hour session than Pro. On Team plans, Standard seats give more than Pro and Premium seats give 5x more than Standard. To manage capacity and make sure all users have fair access, we may limit your usage in other ways, such as weekly and monthly caps or model and feature usage, at our discretion. When you reach a limit, you can wait for it to reset, move to a higher plan, or, on paid plans, turn on usage credits to keep working at standard API rates. You can see where you stand anytime in Settings > Usage.
Trump administration acted illegally in fight against Anthropic, judge rules
The Trump administration's dramatic decision to mark Anthropic's AI models as a "supply chain risk" earlier this year was illegal, a federal judge has ruled. "The empty invocation of national security is not a blank check to punish and retaliate against government critics," wrote Judge Rita Lin in a 59-page ruling. The judge determined the federal government unlawfully retaliated against Anthropic despite its engaging in "constitutionally protected expressive activities." Lin pointed to renewed conversations between Anthropic and the federal government, as well as the government's decision to back away from national security allegations, as corroboration that the designation was an attempt to make a public example of the company, the New York Times reported. "We welcome the court's ruling that this supply chain risk designation was unlawful. We remain focused on working productively with the government to harness A.I. for our national security so all Americans benefit from this technology," Anthropic said in a statement following the decision. * Play our Big Guessing Game: Make your predictions now for a chance to win a new Apple Watch. Time's running out! What happened between Trump and Anthropic? Anthropic filed a series of lawsuits in March, amid a heated back and forth between the developer, the Department of War, and President Donald Trump himself over the government's potential use of Anthropic's AI models for nationwide surveillance or lethal autonomous weapons. The complaint accused the federal government of engaging in a targeted campaign against the company following the contract disagreement. Anthropic argued that the government's designation, typically reserved for foreign companies and national security risks, was an overly broad interpretation and "ideologically motivated." Trump himself directed an immediate blacklisting of Anthropic products across federal offices, calling the developers "leftwing nut jobs" and Anthropic itself a "radical left, woke" AI company. Following the fallout, which received widespread attention, Anthropic and the federal government reentered negotiations. Then, in June, Anthropic was forced to pull its latest Claude Fable 5 and Claude Mythos 5 models under an export control directive from the federal government, citing security concerns about foreign nationals' access to the technology. What does the decision mean for AI companies? Civil society groups see the ruling as a win for free speech proponents amid a government that is increasingly pushing back against dissenters. "Yesterday's ruling is a vindication of the First Amendment and a clear reminder that the government isn't allowed to use national security designations to punish companies or individuals for public criticisms or business disagreements," said Greg Nojeim, senior counsel at the Center for Democracy & Technology. "Procurement policy can't be an end run around the Constitution. The Pentagon can pick and choose which products it wants to buy. It can't use the power of its size and position to stamp out disagreement."
Anthropic introduces local sandbox mode for Claude Code desktop
The new feature uses OS-level isolation to lock down command execution, cutting permission prompts by 84% since initial development began. Anthropic has rolled out a local Bash sandbox mode for Claude Code on desktop, giving the AI coding tool a security upgrade that isolates command execution at the operating system level. The feature works on macOS and Linux/WSL2, using native sandboxing technologies to restrict what Claude Code can actually touch on your machine. How the sandbox actually works The technical implementation varies by platform. On macOS, the sandbox relies on Seatbelt, Apple's built-in sandboxing framework that enforces fine-grained restrictions on process-level access. Linux and WSL2 users get bubblewrap, a lightweight containerization tool commonly used in the Linux ecosystem for unprivileged sandboxing. Both approaches accomplish the same goal: filesystem access gets locked down to the current working directory and its children, while network requests pass through a proxy layer that only permits connections to pre-approved domains. Windows users, for now, are left out. Full native support for Windows remains absent. The sandbox ships with two operational modes. The first is auto-allow, which lets commands execute without requiring explicit user approval each time. The second is a traditional permissions mode that still gates every command behind a manual check. Since Anthropic began iterating on this sandbox approach around October 2025, the company says it has achieved an 84% reduction in permission prompts. Security context and prompt injection defense The sandbox addresses a real and growing attack surface: prompt injection. A carefully crafted prompt injection could trick an AI assistant into running destructive commands, exfiltrating sensitive files, or establishing unauthorized network connections. The sandbox's filesystem restrictions and network allowlists serve as guardrails against exactly these scenarios. By confining execution to the working directory, even a successful prompt injection attack would struggle to reach SSH keys, environment variables, browser cookies, or other sensitive data stored elsewhere on the system. The network proxy adds a second layer, preventing exfiltration attempts to unauthorized domains. Anthropic's documentation makes clear that "computer use" features -- the desktop interaction capabilities that let Claude control mouse clicks and screen interactions -- run outside the sandbox environment. This means developers using those features still operate without the isolation protections the sandbox provides. The broader AI coding tool landscape Anthropic's sandbox development fits into a broader strategy that began taking shape in 2025, when the company started positioning Claude Code as a multi-functional development environment where AI can autonomously write, test, and execute code. The company also supports third-party sandboxing options, including Docker-based isolation, for users who want stronger separation between Claude Code's execution environment and their host system. Docker sandboxes offer a more comprehensive isolation layer than OS-level tools like Seatbelt or bubblewrap, though they come with additional setup overhead and resource consumption.
Anthropic's Claude Code Usage Cap Update Actually Hides a Quiet Downgrade
Anthropic announced a permanent 25% increase to baseline Claude Code limits starting September 14 for Pro, Max, Team, and Enterprise accounts. However, because the company is ending a temporary 50% promotional boost active since May, active users face a net 17% reduction in total weekly capacity. Anthropic is shaking up how much time developers get to spend with its AI-powered coding assistant. However, the math isn't working out in favor of heavy users. The company recently posted an update announcing changes to its Claude Code weekly limits update, framing the news as a permanent upgrade for paid plans. But if you take a close look at the numbers, developers are actually looking at a noticeable drop in overall capacity. Beginning September 14, 2026, Anthropic is permanently raising standard baseline limits for Claude Code by 25%. This will apply across Pro, Max, Team, and seat-based Enterprise tiers. While that sounds great at first glance, the change coincides with the end of a massive promotional period that has been active for months. Doing the math on the summer rollback Back on May, Anthropic rolled out a temporary 50% bonus to weekly usage allowances. That temporary boost proved so popular that the company extended it four separate times over the summer, making the extra headroom feel like the default experience for active programmers. Now, that bonus is officially coming to an end. By replacing the 50% summer boost with a permanent 25% bump over the original baseline, Anthropic is effectively reducing today's working capacity by roughly 17%. For example, if your original baseline allowance was 100 units, the summer promo gave you 150 units per week. Under the new permanent policy taking effect on September 14, that cap resets to 125 units. Backlash over clever corporate marketing The announcement quickly sparked friction on X. Developers called out the main post for highlighting the 25% increase without plainly admitting that current usage was taking a hit. Users even appended a Community Note to the original thread. This forced Anthropic to delete and repost a clarification that explicitly admitted to the 17% reduction compared to today's levels. Anthropic said the pullback is needed to ensure long-term platform stability and responsible compute management. The move closely mirrors recent actions by competitor OpenAI, which recently restored strict five-hour limits on its own Codex tools as GPU-heavy workloads continue to strain server capacity. Fixing software bugs and sifting through massive codebases are among the most resource-intensive tasks for frontier models. Meanwhile, Anthropic's own usage data shows that code repair alone accounts for a huge chunk of daily workloads. Because factors like conversation length, model selection, and tool execution alter context size on the fly, quotas don't translate into a simple prompt count, making sudden capacity changes harder for developers to manage. Better visibility controls coming soon To help soften the impact of the upcoming cap reduction, Anthropic teased that interface updates are in the pipeline. The engineering team is working on new dashboard tools that will give users much clearer visibility and direct control over their remaining weekly quotas. Until the new rules kick in on September 14, the full 50% promotional boost remains active through September 13. This gives developers a couple of weeks to wrap up high-volume coding sessions before the tighter limits take hold.
Federal judge orders Pentagon to remove Anthropic supply chain risk label
A federal judge has ordered the Pentagon to remove its designation of Anthropic as a "supply chain risk," delivering a significant legal setback to the Defense Department in a dispute over how much control technology companies can retain over the military use of their artificial-intelligence systems. Judge Rita Lin of the Northern District of California found that the Pentagon's action against the AI company "constituted unlawful retaliation in violation of the First Amendment" and that the company "was denied the pre-deprivation process required under the Fifth Amendment." The ruling matters beyond Anthropic because the dispute turned a disagreement over AI safeguards into a question about how the government can use national-security procurement powers against a domestic technology supplier. A procurement dispute became a constitutional fight The conflict began after the AI company refused to remove safeguards that would prevent the military from using its Claude AI model for autonomous weapons and mass surveillance. The company argued that its models were not sufficiently reliable for those purposes. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth rejected the idea that a private company should be able to constrain how the US military uses technology it purchases. In February, the Pentagon classified Anthropic as a supply chain risk, preventing the department and its contractors from working with the company's products. That designation carried unusual weight because it had previously been used only against companies viewed as connected to foreign adversaries. Anthropic sued in March. Lin rejected the Pentagon's argument that an inability to "trust" Anthropic justified applying the label. She wrote that "The empty invocation of national security is not a blank check to punish and retaliate against government critics," and concluded that the evidence showed officials wanted to make a "public example out of Anthropic for its 'arrogance' in criticizing the government, not based on any articulable basis to believe that Anthropic would actually sabotage its model." Why the ruling matters for AI suppliers The decision separates two issues that had become intertwined: whether the Pentagon wants to procure technology under a vendor's restrictions, and whether disagreement over those restrictions justifies treating that vendor as a security threat. That distinction could be important as government agencies negotiate access to AI systems whose developers impose their own limits on deployment. The ruling does not resolve the underlying disagreement over military use of Claude, but it removes the Pentagon's supply-chain designation as a tool in that dispute. Lin also pointed to continued engagement between Anthropic and other parts of the government as evidence against the Pentagon's security rationale. "None of that is consistent with a genuine fear that Anthropic is a saboteur who would poison its software to harm national security," she wrote. The dispute is not fully over Anthropic welcomed the decision and said it remained focused on working with the government on national-security applications. The broader legal fight continues. A second Anthropic-lawsuit related to the designation remains before a Washington, DC, court. President Donald Trump also said in June that although he had previously considered the AI company a national-security threat, he no longer held that view.
Anthropic Researcher Says AI Models Are Getting Better at Training Other AI Models
Anthropic's Automated Alignment Researchers used AI systems to test and develop training interventions for another model, improving it across 10 alignment problems including deception, sycophancy and jailbreak resistance. Claude spent 60 hours fixing a version of itself that had not yet gone through safety training. By the end, it had pushed that weaker model close to the alignment performance of Anthropic's production system, using a fraction of the data normally involved. That is the striking result from a new Anthropic experiment. The company gave AI systems called Automated Alignment Researchers, or AARs, the job of finding ways to correct specific failures in another model. "Across 10 alignment failures, the strongest AAR methods significantly reduce the targeted alignment failures and generalize to a held-out benchmark, multi-turn behavioral audits, and models up to 4.7× larger than the target model," Anthropic researchers wrote in the paper published August 28. The significance isn't that Claude suddenly learned to redesign itself. It didn't. The interesting part is much narrower: AI researchers were able to hand part of the research loop to another AI system, and the system performed that work faster and, in several tests, better than experienced humans working alone. The AI Researcher Loop Each automated researcher followed a stripped-down version of what a human alignment researcher would normally do. It searched relevant literature, proposed a training intervention, trained the target model for roughly 30 minutes, evaluated the result and then tried again. "Each AAR searches the literature, proposes a method, trains the target model for about 30 minutes on one H200 GPU, and hill-climbs safety benchmarks over many iterations," the Anthropic researchers wrote. That matters because alignment research is often bottlenecked by the same thing as other scientific work: people have to decide what experiment to run, wait for it to finish, inspect the result and design the next experiment. Here, Claude was doing much of that loop itself inside an environment with clearly defined goals and tests. The boundaries were important. The researchers determined what counted as a failure, what data could be used and how success would be measured. The AI was optimizing within that structure rather than inventing the structure itself. Humans Got Outpaced Anthropic didn't stop at showing that the system could improve a model. It compared the automated researchers with people. "The best AAR-proposed methods can outperform one-shot ideas from 28 experienced human researchers," Anthropic researchers wrote, adding that the AARs beat the best human ideas after about six hours of hill-climbing. The automated systems reached the quality of the best human proposals in roughly six hours of iteration on average. On deception specifically, Claude's best method performed 20% better than the strongest human proposal. The improvements also survived outside the exact environment in which they were discovered. Anthropic reported that the methods generalized to a held-out benchmark, to Petri, an open-source tool for adversarial multi-turn testing, and to models up to 4.7 times larger than the models the automated researchers had actually trained. A Weaker Model Helps A Stronger One Researchers gave Claude Sonnet 5, which was deliberately weaker on Anthropic's internal capability index, the job of improving alignment in an early, largely untrained Claude Opus 4.8 checkpoint. "In just 60 hours, Claude experimented with over 50 solutions and achieved alignment scores nearly matching those of our production models," Anthropic says in its research report. The training intervention itself was surprisingly small. It used just over 2,000 examples, assembled from simple templates and public datasets. Anthropic says that was roughly 15,000 times more data-efficient than its standard production alignment process. That number needs context. It does not mean Anthropic has discovered a universal method for making AI safety 15,000 times cheaper. It compares the amount of training data used in this particular experimental intervention with the much larger data requirements of Anthropic's production process. But the underlying result still matters: a weaker AI system found a relatively compact intervention that substantially improved a stronger model under the experiment's measured alignment criteria. The Cost Gap Is Huge The automated researchers ran at roughly $4 per hour in API inference costs. Anthropic puts the comparable cost of human research time at roughly $150 per hour. That doesn't make AI researchers a drop-in replacement for people. Humans still define the objectives, construct the benchmarks, interpret ambiguous failures and decide whether an apparent improvement actually matters. A human researcher may reject an interesting alignment idea because testing it would consume too much time or compute. An automated researcher can try dozens of variants while a person supervises the overall process. That means a lab could potentially move from discovering a failure mode to testing candidate fixes much faster than a human-only workflow allows. This Isn't AI Training Itself The models in this experiment did not independently decide what they should become. They did not invent their own objectives. They did not deploy their changes into production. The AARs worked inside benchmarks designed by humans, toward goals selected by humans, using literature and datasets that humans had already made available. "Overall, we view these results as early positive signals that automated alignment post-training could become practical in the near term," Anthropic researchers wrote, while noting that the experiment covered only a limited set of alignment failures. That qualification matters because the entire approach depends on measurement. If a benchmark captures only a narrow version of an alignment problem, an automated researcher can become extremely good at optimizing for the benchmark without necessarily solving the underlying problem. Building those tests, deciding what they should measure and keeping them relevant as models change remains human work. The Bottleneck Just Moved The scarce resource in AI development isn't only GPUs or training data. It is also the number of skilled people who can design and evaluate experiments. If AI systems can reliably take over meaningful portions of that research cycle, the constraint changes. One researcher could supervise far more experiments than one person could realistically design and run manually. Anthropic demonstrated that in a controlled setting for alignment. It has not demonstrated that the same process works for every difficult research problem, and the paper does not establish that automated researchers can safely improve frontier systems without careful human oversight.
Anthropic Downloaded Music From Torrent Sites to Train Claude
Sony Music Publishing and Warner Chappell Music sued Anthropic on Friday. They say the company used BitTorrent to take songbooks, then fed them to Claude. While Anthropic has already admitted torrenting books, it has never conceded that music sat inside those files, hence the copyright case. Anthropic Music Lawsuit Explained The complaint names two hauls, both from shadow libraries and containing unlicensed copies of published works
Sony Music, Warner Chappell, others sue Anthropic over copyright infringement
Music publishers including Sony Music Publishing and Warner Chappell Music have sued Anthropic, alleging the AI company illegally used copyrighted songs to train Claude. The publishers are seeking damages of up to $150,000 per work, along with other remedies. Anthropic has rejected the allegations and said it will defend itself in court. Sony Music Publishing, Warner Chappell Music, and several other music publishers have filed a lawsuit against Anthropic and cofounders Dario Amodei and Benjamin Mann, accusing the AI company of what they describe as "one of the largest and most blatant ongoing thefts of intellectual property in history."The publishers allege that Anthropic ran a "brazen campaign of illegally torrenting, scraping, and downloading copyrighted works" to train its
Anthropic announces a 25% increase to Claude Code limits, but there's a 17% catch
The latest platform update for premium Claude accounts is hiding a quiet downgrade. Anthropic is officially ending a massive temporary promotional boost in mid-September, meaning active developers are about to lose a significant chunk of their weekly capacity. Back on May 13, developers using Claude Code received a surprise upgrade when Anthropic rolled out a temporary 50 percent boost to weekly usage limits. Rather than letting the promotion expire as originally planned, the company extended the deadline four separate times over the summer, keeping the inflated capacity active and making it feel like the new normal. Now, that promotional window is officially closing. In a recent update from the ClaudeDevs account on X, the company announced that starting September 14, standard baseline limits will be permanently increased by 25 percent for Pro, Max, Team, and seat-based Enterprise plans. Once that new baseline takes effect, the 50 percent summer bonus will be entirely removed.
Anthropic quietly captured over 60% of business AI API spending, leaving OpenAI with roughly 35%
The enterprise AI race has flipped, with Anthropic commanding premium pricing on a fraction of the token volume while OpenAI fights to hold ground. The conventional wisdom that OpenAI dominates the AI market needs an asterisk. When you zoom into where businesses actually swipe their corporate cards for API access, Anthropic is running away with it, capturing north of 60% of spending while OpenAI sits at around 35%. That spending gap looks even more dramatic when you consider how it's being generated. According to Vercel AI Gateway data, Anthropic is pulling in that 61-65% spending share on just 30-32% of total token volume. That means Anthropic is charging roughly 4.4 times the average price per token compared to OpenAI. How the tables turned Rewind to 2023, and Anthropic held a modest 12% of enterprise LLM spend. OpenAI was sitting comfortably at around 50%. Fast forward to December 2025, and a Menlo Ventures survey showed Anthropic had climbed to 40% of enterprise LLM expenditures while OpenAI had slid to 27%. That trajectory only accelerated into 2026. Ramp's sales data from the same period showed Anthropic capturing 34.4-44% of business AI spending versus OpenAI's 32.3-40%. By mid-2026, the Vercel data tells an even starker story, with Anthropic pulling above 60%. The reversal happened fastest in one category: coding. Anthropic now holds approximately 54% of the enterprise coding and agentic applications market. OpenAI managed just 21% in that same segment. Average spending per user tells its own story. Anthropic users spend roughly $420 on average, compared to $310 for OpenAI users. Different strategies, different moats Anthropic's enterprise and API revenue mix stands at approximately 80%, meaning the vast majority of its money comes from businesses integrating Claude into their products and workflows. OpenAI, by contrast, has built a large consumer product in ChatGPT. Its consumer-scale reach gives it a different kind of leverage: volume. OpenAI's broader product ecosystem, from ChatGPT Enterprise to its Azure partnership, gives it distribution channels that pure API metrics don't capture. The multi-model reality One data point complicates any simple narrative about winners and losers: 67% of development teams now use multiple AI providers. Teams route their hardest, most valuable work to Claude -- the complex coding tasks, the multi-step agentic workflows -- while simpler, high-volume tasks get sent to cheaper alternatives. Some Ramp data showed stronger growth for OpenAI in certain business cohorts during Q3 2026, suggesting the company hasn't ceded the enterprise fight entirely.
Anthropic's new AI tool can conduct scientific experiments
The technology enables AI agents to autonomously operate a wide range of devices that can be programmed using computer code. Illustration credit: Reuters Washington: Anthropic has opened a research preview of a system that allows artificial intelligence (AI) assistants such as Claude to control scientific and engineering equipment and conduct experiments, marking the company's first tool designed to operate in the physical world. Called the Model Hardware Standard (MHS), the technology enables AI agents to autonomously operate a wide range of devices that can be programmed using computer code. These include complex microscopes, liquid handlers, lasers and robotic arms. The research preview will initially be available to a first group of scientific research labs and advanced manufacturers, Anthropic said. The development comes as the Claude chatbot maker seeks to expand its enterprise business and boost revenues with new applications. Anthropic said AI agents can reason through individual steps in an experiment, change parameters in real time and, in some cases, recover from hardware errors without intervention. This could allow researchers and engineers to run autonomous experiments and workflows around the clock. The company said Claude can also interact with hardware in an exploratory manner, similar to how a scientist might approach an unfamiliar experiment. Anthropic said scientists have observed AI agents tracking, adjusting and repeating experiments in ways similar to human researchers. In one neuroscience experiment, an Anthropic scientist observed Claude examine live brain tissue and identify the alveus, a specific part of the brain, according to the Financial Times. Anthropic plans to open-source MHS, but said it will first work on safeguards to reduce the risk of errors when AI agents interact with physical equipment. The launch follows Anthropic's introduction in June of Claude Science, its first product dedicated to scientists. The product includes applications such as rendering three-dimensional protein structures and assisting with drug discovery. MHS takes that push a step further by allowing AI agents to move from analysing scientific information and generating hypotheses to interacting with the physical equipment used to test them.
Blacklisting of Anthropic was illegal, judge rules
Unfortunately you've used all of your gifts this month. Your counter will reset on the first day of next month. SAN FRANCISCO -- The Trump administration acted illegally when it labeled Anthropic a security risk and barred the artificial intelligence startup from working with the U.S. government, a federal judge ruled Thursday. Judge Rita Lin of the U.S. District Court in the Northern District of California wrote in her 59-page ruling that the government had unlawfully retaliated against Anthropic "for constitutionally protected expressive activities" after the AI company spoke out about how its technology should be used.
Judge rules Anthropic supply chain risk designation was 'illegal and baseless'
A Northern California judge found that the AI company's products did not represent a meaningful threat to national security, making the Pentagon's designation "unlawful retaliation." Anthropic secured a legal victory in its case against the Department of Defense for designating the company as a supply chain risk earlier this year, a move that hindered the company's ability to work with government clients and compete economically. In a ruling released Thursday evening, Judge Rita Lin of the U.S. District Court in the Northern District of California sided with Anthropic following a dispute between the company and the Pentagon over how its technology was used in agency missions, specifically those involving mass surveillance and autonomous weaponry. "Though the Department of War is undisputedly free to select the AI vendor of its choice, the evidence demonstrates that the broad measures imposed on Anthropic were illegal and baseless," Lin's judgment read. A key finding in the ruling was that Anthropic's products did not constitute a meaningful threat to national security, thus, labeling the company a supply chain risk was "unlawful retaliation" and a violation of Anthropic's First Amendment right. Additionally, the ruling found that Anthropic was also denied its pre-deprivation process required under the Fifth Amendment, which states that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. The ruling also addressed the public statements made by both parties. Lin found that the Pentagon's statements, specifically those related to the "arrogance" of Anthropic for expressing concern over its products' usage, indicated that the Trump administration's efforts to blacklist Anthropic had less to do with national security and artificial intelligence model concerns than retaliation. "The empty invocation of national security is not a blank check to punish and retaliate against government critics," the judgment continued. "An IT vendor does not become a potential adversary of the United States whenever it asks probing questions or stubbornly insists on particular contracting terms, even if doing so causes DoW to doubt its trustworthiness. Such a breathtakingly broad interpretation of Section 3252 would make its restrictions on the Secretary's discretion meaningless." Following the release of the judgment, Anthropic said it welcomes the court's ruling that found the supply chain risk label illegitimate. "We remain focused on working productively with the government to harness AI for our national security so all Americans benefit from this technology," an Anthropic spokesperson told Nextgov/FCW. The Pentagon did not return a request for comment by the time of publication. The ruling in favor of Anthropic will likely bolster confidence within the larger technology vendor ecosystem. In the wake of the initial supply chain risk label and further export controls on newer models, vendors were shaken by the Trump administration's actions, citing uncertainty over the future of new and existing contracts with the government. "Contractors fear their past corporate decisions or public stances are scrutinized through new lenses from the administration, the fear that you can be disqualified for lack of integrity or lack of compliance with those views, not because you've done a poor job," a source in the tech contracting industry told Nextgov/FCW in April. Business advocacy groups like the Information Technology Industry Council addressed this lack of clarity, seeing the ruling as preserving the relationship between the public and private sectors. "Importantly, yesterday's ruling removes uncertainty for businesses across industry seeking to partner with the U.S. government," said ITI President and CEO Jason Oxman in a statement. The future of government tech contracting stands to change following the Anthropic-Pentagon dispute. Defense Under Secretary for Research and Engineering Emil Michael, who was referenced many times in the ruling, said in May that the Pentagon will "never again" be beholden to a single vendor. "We were single-threaded on one vendor, one AI vendor at the Department of War, and to integrate into classified systems is not just putting your software on a public cloud and having it work," Michael said, referring to Anthropic. "But never again will we be single-threaded with any one model."
Anthropic Wins Court Battle as US Judge Blocks Pentagon Blacklisting
A US federal judge blocked the Pentagon from enforcing its decision to blacklist Anthropic, marking a major legal victory for the company behind the Claude chatbot. The order escalated a broader debate over how the US military should use AI. US District Judge Rita F. Lin ruled on Thursday (August 28, 2026) that the Pentagon's decision to designate as a national security supply-chain risk was unlawful. In her 59-page order, Lin found that the government's actions amounted to retaliation against the company and violated constitutional protections. The ruling follows months of tension between Anthropic and the US Defense Department over the military use of Claude. The dispute intensified after Anthropic refused to allow its technology to be used for fully autonomous weapons and mass domestic surveillance. The company argued that its systems should have safeguards around such uses.
Shelly Palmer: Anthropic beats the blacklist
Think About This: Being model-agnostic is the only viable AI strategy. Greetings from Candlewood Lake. Yesterday, U.S. District Judge Rita F. Lin ruled that the Trump administration's blacklisting of Anthropic was illegal. The court found the government's actions violated the First Amendment, the Due Process Clause, and the Administrative Procedure Act. The actions in question, taken on February 27 and March 3, designated Anthropic a supply chain risk to national security, ordered every federal agency to permanently stop using Anthropic's products, and banned all defense contractors from doing any business with the company, even business unrelated to the military. The fight began over contract terms. Anthropic publicly refused the Department of War's demands about how its models could be used in military and surveillance contexts; the court called the private negotiations "staid and respectful" and noted Anthropic offered an orderly transition to another vendor. Then came the blacklist. The administrative record the government filed to justify it was, in the court's words, "slim": a four-page memorandum written after two of the three challenged actions. The government abandoned its original theory - that Anthropic held backdoor access to deployed systems - because Anthropic "undisputedly lacks any such access." It also conceded that Anthropic's technology is no riskier than any other black-box AI model. What remained was "trust," grounded in Anthropic's "increasingly hostile manner through the press." Days before the blacklisting, Secretary Hegseth proposed applying the Defense Production Act to Anthropic, which would have treated the company as essential to national security. The Department was still pursuing an Anthropic contract ("we are very close here"), and the government was still discussing deployments of Anthropic's Mythos model in sensitive contexts. Hegseth called Anthropic's public stance "a master class in arrogance." Judge Lin wrote that broadcasting the punishment on social media before the formal process even began "makes little sense except as an attempt to swiftly make a public example of Anthropic for daring to criticize the Administration," and that "the empty invocation of national security is not a blank check to punish and retaliate against government critics." This fight was a bit of a sideshow. The real issue is that the most capable frontier models are simply not available to the general public (and likely never will be again). Being model-agnostic is the only viable AI strategy. As always, your thoughts and comments are both welcome and encouraged. -s P.S. If you want to talk through what AI vendor concentration risk looks like when procurement becomes policy, consider booking an AI Leadership Workshop. About Shelly Palmer Shelly Palmer is the Professor of Advanced Media in Residence at Syracuse University's S.I. Newhouse School of Public Communications and CEO of The Palmer Group, a consulting practice that helps Fortune 500 companies with technology, media and marketing. Named LinkedIn's "Top Voice in Technology," he covers tech and business for Good Day New York, is a regular commentator on CNN and writes a popular daily business blog. He's a bestselling author, and the creator of the popular, free online course, Generative AI for Execs. Follow @shellypalmer or visit shellypalmer.com.
Recent Indian executive moves at OpenAI, Anthropic, Meta & other tech majors
Indian executives have recently taken on key leadership roles at some of the world's biggest AI and technology companies, highlighting the growing demand for Indian talent. Here are some of the notable appointments. Over the past few months, several Indian executives have taken up senior roles at leading artificial intelligence (AI) and technology companies, as global firms deepen their focus on the country and its diaspora for talent.Here are some of the key appointments.Sandhya DevanathanIn the latest such move, Sandhya Devanathan is leaving Meta after more than 10 years to join OpenAI as vice president for Southeast Asia and Australia. She announced the
Anthropic's CEO Dario Amodei predicts AI could cure most diseases within a decade
In a recent post, Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei said that AI could help cure most human diseases within the next five to ten years, surpassing conventional clinical studies and treatment. The 43-year-old shared his view in a recent post that advanced AI could expedite biological advancement potentially curing most human diseases in a novel way. He was of the view that AI companies can deliver real results to build trust. However, reactions varied from optimism about even faster timelines to pragmatism concerning legal obstacles and a history of deficits as Anthropic expanded its biology work. The post has been gaining traction on social media with users pouring in with reactions as one user wrote, "The biggest AI breakthrough may not be a better chatbot. It could be discovering treatments humans couldn't find on their own. But there's a difference between AI finding a breakthrough and medicine proving it works. Second remarked, "Zero cures found yet. Zero. Hope it happens, but you'd think they'd have at least one as a sample before throwing these claims out." Third added, "Imagine if AI actually cures most diseases in the next ten years the world would be completely unrecognizable."
Anthropic scores court victory against Pentagon's 'illegal and baseless' actions
Add Yahoo as a preferred source to see more of our stories on Google. In a legal victory for artificial intelligence firm Anthropic, a federal judge has ruled against the Pentagon over its decision earlier this year to designate the company a supply chain risk. In a written order issued Thursday night, U.S. District Judge Rita Lin determined that the Department of Defense acted unlawfully by penalizing the tech firm for voicing criticism of defense policy on AI integration. The government is expected to challenge the decision. The conflict escalated in February after President Donald Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth cited national security concerns to brand Anthropic a supply chain risk. Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei refused to acquiesce amid concerns the company's technology could be applied to mass surveillance or autonomous military drones. In her ruling, Lin stated that federal actions "were based on a desire to make a public example out of Anthropic for its 'arrogance' in criticizing the government, not based on any articulable basis to believe that Anthropic would actually sabotage its model." An Anthropic spokesperson welcomed the outcome in a statement: "We remain focused on working productively with the government to harness AI for our national security so all Americans benefit from this technology." The White House did not immediately issue a response to requests for comment. Writing in the 59-page decision, Lin, an appointee of former President Joe Biden, asserted that constitutional provisions and federal statutes do not allow authorities to "impose sweeping penalties based principally on Anthropic's critique of the Administration's views." Anthropic launched its lawsuit against the Pentagon in March in response to the supply chain classification, challenging what it described as an "unlawful campaign of retaliation" caused by its refusal to grant unrestricted military access to its tools. The court fight highlighted a rare public dispute regarding the role of AI in defense and surveillance operations. Notably, primary industry competitor OpenAI, creator of ChatGPT, reached its own agreement to collaborate with defense officials hours after the government penalized Anthropic. Both Anthropic and OpenAI are currently preparing for anticipated initial public offerings. Anthropic is also pursuing a secondary, narrower lawsuit currently pending in the federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., targeting a separate regulatory mechanism invoked by the Pentagon to designate the firm a risk. Earlier in the case, Lin granted a preliminary injunction prohibiting the Pentagon from applying the supply chain designation and halting the enforcement of a social media directive from Trump instructing federal agencies to cease using Anthropic products and its Claude chatbot. During a hearing on July 30, Lin described the government's stance as "really troubling" and remarked that it appeared "at odds to me with the First Amendment." She added that the legal standing had "gotten worse for the government" over time. Department of Justice attorneys argued at that hearing that the complex architecture of AI models is "so staggeringly enormous and opaque" that defense officials cannot evaluate it through standard methods used for physical hardware. Anthropic attorney Michael Mongan asserted during the proceeding that official actions "profoundly harm Anthropic" and "threaten more broadly to chill speech and debate on a very important issue."
Anthropic scores court victory against Pentagon's 'illegal and baseless' actions
Add Yahoo as a preferred source to see more of our stories on Google. In a legal victory for artificial intelligence firm Anthropic, a federal judge has ruled against the Pentagon over its decision earlier this year to designate the company a supply chain risk. In a written order issued Thursday night, U.S. District Judge Rita Lin determined that the Department of Defense acted unlawfully by penalizing the tech firm for voicing criticism of defense policy on AI integration. The government is expected to challenge the decision. The conflict escalated in February after President Donald Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth cited national security concerns to brand Anthropic a supply chain risk. Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei refused to acquiesce amid concerns the company's technology could be applied to mass surveillance or autonomous military drones. In her ruling, Lin stated that federal actions "were based on a desire to make a public example out of Anthropic for its 'arrogance' in criticizing the government, not based on any articulable basis to believe that Anthropic would actually sabotage its model." An Anthropic spokesperson welcomed the outcome in a statement: "We remain focused on working productively with the government to harness AI for our national security so all Americans benefit from this technology." The White House did not immediately issue a response to requests for comment. Writing in the 59-page decision, Lin, an appointee of former President Joe Biden, asserted that constitutional provisions and federal statutes do not allow authorities to "impose sweeping penalties based principally on Anthropic's critique of the Administration's views." Anthropic launched its lawsuit against the Pentagon in March in response to the supply chain classification, challenging what it described as an "unlawful campaign of retaliation" caused by its refusal to grant unrestricted military access to its tools. The court fight highlighted a rare public dispute regarding the role of AI in defense and surveillance operations. Notably, primary industry competitor OpenAI, creator of ChatGPT, reached its own agreement to collaborate with defense officials hours after the government penalized Anthropic. Both Anthropic and OpenAI are currently preparing for anticipated initial public offerings. Anthropic is also pursuing a secondary, narrower lawsuit currently pending in the federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., targeting a separate regulatory mechanism invoked by the Pentagon to designate the firm a risk. Earlier in the case, Lin granted a preliminary injunction prohibiting the Pentagon from applying the supply chain designation and halting the enforcement of a social media directive from Trump instructing federal agencies to cease using Anthropic products and its Claude chatbot. During a hearing on July 30, Lin described the government's stance as "really troubling" and remarked that it appeared "at odds to me with the First Amendment." She added that the legal standing had "gotten worse for the government" over time. Department of Justice attorneys argued at that hearing that the complex architecture of AI models is "so staggeringly enormous and opaque" that defense officials cannot evaluate it through standard methods used for physical hardware. Anthropic attorney Michael Mongan asserted during the proceeding that official actions "profoundly harm Anthropic" and "threaten more broadly to chill speech and debate on a very important issue."
Anthropic scores court victory against Pentagon's 'illegal and baseless' actions
In a legal victory for artificial intelligence firm Anthropic, a federal judge has ruled against the Pentagon over its decision earlier this year to designate the company a supply chain risk. In a written order issued Thursday night, U.S. District Judge Rita Lin determined that the Department of Defense acted unlawfully by penalizing the tech firm for voicing criticism of defense policy on AI integration. The government is expected to challenge the decision. The conflict escalated in February after President Donald Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth cited national security concerns to brand Anthropic a supply chain risk. Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei refused to acquiesce amid concerns the company's technology could be applied to mass surveillance or autonomous military drones. In her ruling, Lin stated that federal actions "were based on a desire to make a public example out of Anthropic for its 'arrogance' in criticizing the government, not based on any articulable basis to believe that Anthropic would actually sabotage its model." An Anthropic spokesperson welcomed the outcome in a statement: "We remain focused on working productively with the government to harness AI for our national security so all Americans benefit from this technology." The White House did not immediately issue a response to requests for comment. Writing in the 59-page decision, Lin, an appointee of former President Joe Biden, asserted that constitutional provisions and federal statutes do not allow authorities to "impose sweeping penalties based principally on Anthropic's critique of the Administration's views." Anthropic launched its lawsuit against the Pentagon in March in response to the supply chain classification, challenging what it described as an "unlawful campaign of retaliation" caused by its refusal to grant unrestricted military access to its tools. The court fight highlighted a rare public dispute regarding the role of AI in defense and surveillance operations. Notably, primary industry competitor OpenAI, creator of ChatGPT, reached its own agreement to collaborate with defense officials hours after the government penalized Anthropic. Both Anthropic and OpenAI are currently preparing for anticipated initial public offerings. Anthropic is also pursuing a secondary, narrower lawsuit currently pending in the federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., targeting a separate regulatory mechanism invoked by the Pentagon to designate the firm a risk. Earlier in the case, Lin granted a preliminary injunction prohibiting the Pentagon from applying the supply chain designation and halting the enforcement of a social media directive from Trump instructing federal agencies to cease using Anthropic products and its Claude chatbot. During a hearing on July 30, Lin described the government's stance as "really troubling" and remarked that it appeared "at odds to me with the First Amendment." She added that the legal standing had "gotten worse for the government" over time. Department of Justice attorneys argued at that hearing that the complex architecture of AI models is "so staggeringly enormous and opaque" that defense officials cannot evaluate it through standard methods used for physical hardware. Anthropic attorney Michael Mongan asserted during the proceeding that official actions "profoundly harm Anthropic" and "threaten more broadly to chill speech and debate on a very important issue."