Thread

U.S. appeals court upholds designation of Anthropic as supply chain risk

499 points · 900 comments · cramer4next

prometheus1992 · 1790355337 · focus · HN ↗
This smells like corruption to me.
OpenAI has hacked several prominent entities and is allowed to do business as usual but Anthropic putting guardrails on the military's usage of AI is the national security threat while Pentagon itself said that over reliance on AI lead to that attack on school in Minab.
I have also learned that OpenAI's president is a big maga donor and now I am thinking of cancelling my OpenAI membership todau and signing up with Anthropic again.
Edit - i am not a OAI hater and i don't hate anyone. I am just saying Anthropic is kinda getting bullied and OAI is not being punished enough for their actions. It is time for me to support Anthropic (with my $$$) instead of OAI.
1. pixl97 · 1790355462 · focus · HN ↗
  Oh, 100%. You'll see OAI getting protected against lawsuits by the government while any missteps from Anthropic will be met with federal disapproval.
  1. dgellow · 1790371429 · focus · HN ↗
    Yep, it’s obvious, in-your-face corruption
2. saadn92 · 1790355525 · focus · HN ↗
  Glad I canceled my subscription with them then. MAGA support is a no-no for me
  1. davidmurdoch · 1790356380 · focus · HN ↗
    [dead]
    0cf8612b2e1e · 1790356576 · focus · HN ↗
    With principles?
    If you find a person/company/agent odious, why would you want to financially support them?
  2. NDlurker · 1790356382 · focus · HN ↗
    Greg Brockman donated something like a million dollars to a MAGA super PAC. Check his wiki page
    segmondy · 1790356504 · focus · HN ↗
    $25,000,000.00
  3. [deleted] · 1790356538 · focus · HN ↗
    [deleted]
  4. amelius · 1790359697 · focus · HN ↗
    Isn't every subscription costing them money, still?
    dgellow · 1790371575 · focus · HN ↗
    No need to pay, you can waste their money via the free tier
3. [deleted] · 1790355548 · focus · HN ↗
  [deleted]
4. CamperBob2 · 1790355559 · focus · HN ↗
  Not just "a big MAGA donor," the biggest single contributor. Greg Brockman donated $25 million.
  I get downvoted every time I point out that this was entirely rational. This, downvoters, is why it was entirely rational. Does that mean I agree with it? Of course not. But investments are made to pay off, and this one certainly has for OpenAI.
  1. UncleOxidant · 1790355740 · focus · HN ↗
    Didn't Musk contribute ~10x that in '24?
    CamperBob2 · 1790356012 · focus · HN ↗
    Actually, on further research, what I have wrong here is that Brockman was the largest single donor to the MAGA PAC after the election, contributing $25 million in September 2025 [1].
    Which if anything seems worse.
    1: <a href="https://www.theverge.com/ai-artificial-intelligence/867947/openai-president-greg-brockman-trump-super-pac" rel="nofollow">https://www.theverge.com/ai-artificial-intelligence/867947/o...
    NDlurker · 1790356686 · focus · HN ↗
    Wow! As a North Dakotan, I am appalled. I thought Doug Burgum was the biggest disappointment from our state but looks like I was wrong.
    wand3r · 1790357144 · focus · HN ↗
    Yeah, it surprised me when I found out. I can intellectually understand why average people choose MAGA and try and be somewhat understanding even if I find it distasteful. My conclusion is that if you aren't personally worth at least $5M or have the direct phone number of someone who can get a Trump admin official on the phone, then it was probably a bad choice.
    Of those who meet that criteria, and especially those with MUCH more money and closer connections, it actually is an extremely smart choice. However, it represents a level of reprehensible naked self-dealing and complicity that I simply can't condone. It really is comparable to the looting if public goods and coffers during and after the fall of the USSR. Nationalism and patriotism are dead.
  2. swingboy · 1790358639 · focus · HN ↗
    I'm wondering how much was to push towards supporting Israel during the college campus protests and any future (at the time) conflict with Iran and it's proxies post October 7th like a lot of other Jewish million/billionaires such as Bill Ackman that typically supported Democrats or liberal causes. Brockman doesn't seem to have anything publicly stating he's Jewish but "Brockman" has English/German/Jewish origins and his mother's maiden name was Feldman.
5. bigyabai · 1790355601 · focus · HN ↗
  Enough to make you wonder how the rest of FAANG stays in the fed's good graces.
  1. multiplegeorges · 1790356145 · focus · HN ↗
    They all gave $1M to the inauguration, among other things, that's how. The corruption is out in the open.
    cogman10 · 1790356454 · focus · HN ↗
    They literally lined up to shower trump with gifts after the inauguration. Tim Cook gave trump a 24K gold bar with an easily detachable plaque so as to not have just given him a gold bar.
    frumplestlatz · 1790358550 · focus · HN ↗
    There is no available information on the quantity of gold in that base …
    … but I sincerely doubt Apple gave a ~$1M “gold bar” to a political leader, in front of cameras, using a patently transparent ploy like “it’s just a detachable base”.
    That would be a phenomenally stupid and obvious violation of bribery law.
    And if Trump does keep it as a personal gift, it will be included in a financial disclosure report.
    delecti · 1790359213 · focus · HN ↗
    This demonstrates a lot of faith in institutions which really ought have lost the benefit of the doubt. The ruling in Snyder v US has significantly raised the burden of proof for bribery charges, and it's easy to find examples of Trump enriching himself in office.
    cogman10 · 1790359341 · focus · HN ↗
    I never said it was worth $1M. But it's not infeasible that it's over $100k in value as just an couple of ounces of gold are $10k.
    > That would be a phenomenally stupid and obvious violation of bribery law.
    Nope, that's how crazy weak the US bribery laws are. The only time they really sort of kick in is when it's done on behalf of a foreign nation.
    To be convicted of current US bribery laws, you essentially need a written note that says "I am giving you this so you can in an official capacity pass this piece of legislation". McDonnell v. United States gutted any sort of accountability for bribery.
    But further, Trump v. United States (2022) has granted the president extra immunity so long as he's doing things in an "official capacity".
    It's a violation of what bribery laws should be, but not what they actually are.
    > And if Trump does keep it as a personal gift, it will be included in a financial disclosure report.
    Or what? You think his personal lawyer who heads the DoJ is going to prosecute him?
    [deleted] · 1790356643 · focus · HN ↗
    [deleted]
    davidw · 1790357808 · focus · HN ↗
    Easily the most corrupt administration in my lifetime of 50+ years.
  2. blitzar · 1790356294 · focus · HN ↗
    Showers of gold
  3. salawat · 1790356580 · focus · HN ↗
    We already know thanks to Snowden, or did you completely ignore the dump on how the IC hooks into the American tech sector?
6. enraged_camel · 1790355616 · focus · HN ↗
  Katsas and Rao, both Trump appointees, tag-teamed again. Trump automatically wins whenever they get a case.
7. paul7986 · 1790355748 · focus · HN ↗
  [dead]
  1. drop_star · 1790356494 · focus · HN ↗
    Keep your perv glasses at home weirdo
    paul7986 · 1790356697 · focus · HN ↗
    [dead]
    rolosa · 1790357020 · focus · HN ↗
    Who cares? Your glasses are cancer.
    paul7986 · 1790359591 · focus · HN ↗
    I still enjoy wearing them i dont care what others say as Im using them as intended along with the millions of other smart glass wearers. You really think all 20 million smart glasses wearers are all being creeps - caring to film random strangers? Thats a miniscule population who has no life and who are loner/weirdos! But that's a good narrative for the general public who always fights new technology.
    In time one of the big tech will solve the pervert issue by randomizing / anonymizing every face in your photos that's not in your personal network. Once this is done / achieved no one will call them pervert glasses anymore. Im surprised Meta hasnt done this already! They really should!
    drop_star · 1790367423 · focus · HN ↗
    Whatever pervert. Everyone who sees you where them thinks your a pervert and its true. Id slap em off your pervert face.
    paul7986 · 1790372016 · focus · HN ↗
    ok whatever lets jump ahead five to ten years and you and or everyone around you will be wearing smart glasses
    maleldil · 1790374044 · focus · HN ↗
    So you recognise that today the pervert issue is real?
    paul7986 · 1790374333 · focus · HN ↗
    umm yeah if you read above i offered a technological solution and others can be offered too. Apple will be releasing their own glasses and I bet if they are smart will offer such.
8. simonw_simonw_ · 1790356041 · focus · HN ↗
  [dead]
9. gyanchawdhary · 1790356306 · focus · HN ↗
  [dead]
  1. prometheus1992 · 1790356511 · focus · HN ↗
    Thanks for the encouragement. It's hard to come by these days on the internet. I never really used twitter even before elon bought it. I don't use any social media, maybe except hanging out on HN often.
10. a3w · 1790356671 · focus · HN ↗
  So you claim: If a similar thing would be filed against OpenAI, it would stand up in court.
  That is still not corruption, yet. Also in Germany it is the executive branch which controls who is sued or policed by the stately organs.
  So favorism can be passed down this way, but not we are not at corruption yet. If reciprocity is expected, then you could call it that. Or could perhaps even file for negligence in treating all other company actors the same, especially if you are Anthropic yourself.
  Still, I blame the US voters as much as the current administration if the later is just clowns and thieves.
  Also, IANAL and HN discussing US things is always foreign to me.
  1. sanktanglia · 1790356950 · focus · HN ↗
    Not at corruption yet? The entire us government is corrupt now not sure what you are going on about
  2. [deleted] · 1790357153 · focus · HN ↗
    [deleted]
  3. jaggirs · 1790357321 · focus · HN ↗
    If the president favors one party over another with no clear benefit to the voters, that is very indicative of corruption. If his organization is also getting donations from said party, it is even more certain to be corruption.
    You argue that the courts are not corrupt, hence there is no corruption. Without considering the president.
11. simonsarris · 1790356738 · focus · HN ↗
  These are just very different things. OAI "hacking" anything isn't OAI telling the US Gov what they can and cannot do with their product. Maybe along all kinds of axes, one is more alarming than the other, but it's a canard in this topic.
  1. prometheus1992 · 1790356956 · focus · HN ↗
    >> These are just very different things.OAI "hacking" anything isn't OAI telling the US Gov what they can and cannot do with their product.
    OAI hacking the chinese government will definitely raise alarms in DC and will be bad for national security. Just because the country that was hacked (australia) is a weaker one doesn't mean the underlying action is not troubling.
    gruez · 1790357175 · focus · HN ↗
    >OAI hacking the chinese government will definitely raise alarms in DC and will be bad for national security.
    That seems like it's too easy to abuse as a cudgel for whatever companies you vaguely hate. Is ExxonMobil a "supply chain risk" because the effects of climate change might cause geopolitical ructions in the next decade?
    prometheus1992 · 1790357678 · focus · HN ↗
    Hate is a pretty strong word here. I don't hate OAI. I am a paying subscriber. All I am saying is maybe its time to switch, show support for Anthropic because it is kinda getting bullied right now and the OAI is not getting enough punishment for their illicit actions. Is it too hard to understand?
    simonsarris · 1790364827 · focus · HN ↗
    That does not, in itself, suggest they are a supply chain risk. It might label them a national security risk. And you might have your own creative definitions of every word related to supply chains. But we are talking about supply chain risks as the US Gov understands them.
12. mahboi · 1790356788 · focus · HN ↗
  There's no contradiction there. Pentagon doesn't want Anthropic deciding the guardrails on their own.
  1. sfink · 1790369574 · focus · HN ↗
    Then the Pentagon shouldn't sign a contract with them. (Or in this case, they shouldn't try and fail to renegotiate the terms of an already signed contract, and then retaliate in order to get their way.)
13. gruez · 1790356984 · focus · HN ↗
  >OpenAI has hacked several prominent entities and is allowed to do business as usual but Anthropic putting guardrails on the military's usage of AI is the national security threat while Pentagon itself said that over reliance on AI lead to that attack on school in Minab.
  Right, because "supply chain risk" designation is as it pertains to them being a supplier to the military, not a overall assessment of their standing as a corporate citizen. Not to mention that the administration wants to go full steam ahead when it comes to AI development, so there's no internal contradiction here.
  1. solenoid0937 · 1790367472 · focus · HN ↗
    SCR explicitly refers to sabotage. Where is Anthropic sabotaging the US government?
    DOW wanted to change the contract after the fact. Anthropic refused. That is not sabotage.
  2. handoflixue · 1790374780 · focus · HN ↗
    I do feel like "this company hacked the Australian government" is perhaps relevant when considering how much the military should trust them. Like, that seems very relevant when assessing the risks to the government military.
14. aftbit · 1790357118 · focus · HN ↗
  Most favored companies are a common feature of fascism.
  1. gruez · 1790357367 · focus · HN ↗
    Like such national champions like Airbus and Volkswagen right?
    kennywinker · 1790357501 · focus · HN ↗
    Is this a joke? Volkswagen was literally created by the nazi party.
    gruez · 1790357849 · focus · HN ↗
    So what does that say about the current German state, given that it's still a national champion? Not to mention airbus being an EU champion.
    kennywinker · 1790359270 · focus · HN ↗
    I guess I don't know what "national champion" means. Do they receive different legal treatment from other similar companies? If so, that would be a worrying signal. A common feature of fascism being present doesn't mean you've definitely got fascism, but it does raise a pretty big red flag.
    gruez · 1790369870 · focus · HN ↗
    >I guess I don't know what "national champion" means.
    <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_champions" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_champions
    >Do they receive different legal treatment from other similar companies? If so, that would be a worrying signal. A common feature of fascism being present doesn't mean you've definitely got fascism, but it does raise a pretty big red flag.
    They definitely get assistance from the government. Where that crosses into "different legal treatment" is up to you, though personally I think the distinction (if any) isn't really worth much. The original claim was "Most favored companies", not "are totally exempt from the law". In the case of openai, it's not really clear whether any laws have been broken, because despite all the cries over "they hacked people!", the question of intent would make any prosecution tricky. Not to mention there's similar cries about AI companies in general violating copyright laws, so if the implication is that openai gets to break laws scott free but anthropic doesn't, that really falls flat.
    kennywinker · 1790373432 · focus · HN ↗
    The crux of the issue isn’t hacking - all the big US labs have hacked someone now (<a href="https://www.felonybench.com/" rel="nofollow">https://www.felonybench.com/)and none have faced charges. It also isn’t copyright violations, they all seem equally guilty and equally uncharged.
    The issue is openai and anthropic both make similar products in similar ways and yet only one has been designated a “supply chain risk” for entirely opaque reasons that based on timing are probably just “they didn’t kowtow correctly”.
    The gov putting their finger on the scales for the company that showed the most deference to them is not a good sign for democracy.
15. CobrastanJorji · 1790357134 · focus · HN ↗
  You're way overthinking this. The administration told Anthropic to let them do something, Anthropic said no, and then they got pissy and started throwing rocks and wouldn't back down because the defining trait of this administration is that they walk into stupid positions and then refuse to back down because backing down would make them look weak and wrong.
  You're ascribing complex motives to toddlers.
  1. kennywinker · 1790357369 · focus · HN ↗
    This kind of partisanship is corruption. The legal system is being corrupted to serve political ideologies.
  2. boredatoms · 1790357430 · focus · HN ↗
    Thats 100% corruption
    (Hmm did you edit your reply?)
16. [deleted] · 1790357640 · focus · HN ↗
  [deleted]
17. rkagerer · 1790357656 · focus · HN ↗
  For clarity, you don't mean corruption of the court, but corruption of the administration for what you view as unequal enforcement, right?
  1. sfink · 1790369429 · focus · HN ↗
    Not the OP, but personally I'd say both: unequal enforcement by the administration, and an incorrect and politically motivated decision by the court.
18. Razengan · 1790359867 · focus · HN ↗
  Or they could be playing Good Cop / Bad Cop
19. toufka · 1790369097 · focus · HN ↗
  A large portion of the president's daughter's net worth is in OpenAI via Thrive Capital [1]
  [1] <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2026/02/25/thrive-capital-openai-joshua-kushner.html" rel="nofollow">https://www.cnbc.com/2026/02/25/thrive-capital-openai-joshua...
20. janalsncm · 1790373954 · focus · HN ↗
  Anthropic was designated long before the July OAI hacks. Also the appeals court isn’t re-assessing the DoD in light of new evidence, they are deciding whether it was constitutional for the DoD to blacklist Anthropic in the first place.
  1. handoflixue · 1790374667 · focus · HN ↗
    > Anthropic was designated long before the July OAI hacks.
    I think the point is that, if the DOD was working off a coherent philosophy, the company that has a rap sheet for hacking multiple targets, including the Australian government, is probably also a risk.
    And if "hacking the Australian government" isn't enough to qualify as a threat to national security, then it's probably mudslinging to suggest that Anthropic is a threat.
    janalsncm · 1790388489 · focus · HN ↗
    Alternative explanation:
    1) The designation has nothing to do with hacking, either from Anthropic or otherwise. The dispute is about Anthropic barring the DoD from using Claude to develop autonomous weapons and conduct domestic surveillance.
    2) The DoD does not care about any of the hacking OpenAI does as long as the DoD can do what they want with ChatGPT.
    3) Historically, the US government has been interested in hacking other nation states, friendly and not. So OpenAI being able to hack Australian systems is a selling point.
21. onetimeusename · 1790440669 · focus · HN ↗
  I think you're making an assumption about what the military wants to do with AI. Based on things I have put together, they want an AI without guardrails for various reasons I won't go into. In fact, it's a security risk to have guardrails, given what I think at least one intended use is. I wouldn't jump to conclusions about corruption as the first explanation because this is vastly more complex than that.

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.