The Government Must Not Force Companies to Participate in AI-Powered Surveillance

The Northern District of California granted Anthropic's motion for a preliminary injunction on March 24, 2026. The court found that the government's actions were not designed to protect national security but rather to punish the company. It described the move as classic illegal First Amendment retaliation for bringing public scrutiny to the government's contracting position. The dispute began when Anthropic refused to let the government use its technology to spy on Americans. The Department of Defense responded by designating the company a supply chain risk. Anthropic asked the court to block the designation, arguing that the First Amendment does not permit the government to coerce a private actor to rewrite its code to serve official ends. The Electronic Frontier Foundation, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, and other public interest organizations filed a brief in support of the motion. They stated that the development and operation of large language models involve multiple expressive choices protected by the First Amendment. Requiring a company to remove guardrails means compelling different expression. The public record shows the supply chain risk designation was intended to punish the company for pushing back and for statements by its chief executive about artificial intelligence and surveillance. The organizations noted that the company's concerns about government use of the technology are well founded. The Department of Defense acquires vast amounts of personal information from commercial entities, including physical location, social media, and web browsing data.