The retaliation against Anthropic by labeling them a supply chain risk is indeed illegal. Congress authorized DoD to label companies as supply chain risks under very specific circumstancesāthe goal is to prevent foreign adversaries from infiltrating their components into our weapons systems. Hegseth flagrantly abused this power in a contract dispute with an American company. Anthropic has sued, and they will win in court.
In the meantime, the question is whether American companies who do business with both DoD and Anthropic will comply with the illegal decree. Will those companies cut off their business with Anthropic?
Having Congress stand up for the law will strengthen the spines of those companies. That is why I believe contacting your representatives is helpful on the margin.
Cool, makes sense. To be clear, I think contacting representatives is helpful! I wasnāt trying to question that.
I donāt know anything about the Congress authorisation so will defer on that. Iāll just say that if the legality is in dispute rather than unambiguous/āsettled, then using the word illegal might be counterproductive/āpolarising, whereas āunprecedentedā seems unambiguously true.
The retaliation against Anthropic by labeling them a supply chain risk is indeed illegal. Congress authorized DoD to label companies as supply chain risks under very specific circumstancesāthe goal is to prevent foreign adversaries from infiltrating their components into our weapons systems. Hegseth flagrantly abused this power in a contract dispute with an American company. Anthropic has sued, and they will win in court.
In the meantime, the question is whether American companies who do business with both DoD and Anthropic will comply with the illegal decree. Will those companies cut off their business with Anthropic?
Having Congress stand up for the law will strengthen the spines of those companies. That is why I believe contacting your representatives is helpful on the margin.
Cool, makes sense. To be clear, I think contacting representatives is helpful! I wasnāt trying to question that.
I donāt know anything about the Congress authorisation so will defer on that. Iāll just say that if the legality is in dispute rather than unambiguous/āsettled, then using the word illegal might be counterproductive/āpolarising, whereas āunprecedentedā seems unambiguously true.