Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

I am directing the Department of War to designate Anthropic a supply-chain risk

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

611–620 of 1001 posts

Re: I am directing the Department of War to designate Anthropic a supply-chain risk

#611

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

labrador wrote: post #544
mh2266 wrote: post #450

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do all of the employees want to move to Europe suddenly? Unless it’s the UK or Ireland, do they speak the local language? If it is the UK or Ireland, do they prefer the weather in California? Do they have children in school or in college locally? Do they have family they’d rather not move 9 time zones away from? Elderly parents they’re taking care of?

They only have to move their headquarters no? Reincorporate in France. Hire Yann LeCun (I like LeCun)

I'm pretty vocal about our collective responsibility to work against the Trump administration, and even I would be hesitant to work as a US employee of a company that fled the country after a dispute with the US military. Seems like an extreme threat to my personal safety for little resistance benefit.

Re: I am directing the Department of War to designate Anthropic a supply-chain risk

#613

Post by woggy »

Vaslo wrote: post #503
LightBug1 wrote: post #225

Hey Hegseth ... ....................../´¯/) ....................,/¯../ .................../..../ ............./´¯/'...'/´¯¯`·¸ ........../'/.../..../......./¨¯\ ........('(...´...´.... ¯~/'...') .........\.................'...../ ..........''...\.......... _.·´ ............\..............( ..............\.............\...

[flagged]

This makes no sense. Do you vote based on principles and policy or do you vote based on the behavior of people who have nothing to do with government?

Re: I am directing the Department of War to designate Anthropic a supply-chain risk

#615

Post by chasd00 »

small_model wrote: post #173
chasd00 wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s not the defense contracts to Anthropic that hurt. It’s not being able to do business with anyone who does business with the DOD that hurts.

[flagged]

This is why when ceos get summoned to testify they are always neutered and hat-in-hand humble. It’s trivial for the us gov to destroy any business unless you reach too big to fail status. Anthropic nor OpenAI is too big too fail yet.

Re: I am directing the Department of War to designate Anthropic a supply-chain risk

#616

Post by IAmGraydon »

tombert wrote: post #224
blibble wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

don't worry it won't be the world's bank for very long

There's an awful lot of momentum with the USD being the world currency. Even if it eventually declines I think it might take decades, if the British pound is anything to go by.

Trump will default on the national debt before the end of his term.

Re: I am directing the Department of War to designate Anthropic a supply-chain risk

#618

Post by tacticalturtle »

thewebguyd wrote: post #242
strongpigeon wrote: post #132

I can't seem to find what being designated a "Supply-Chain Risk to National Security" implies from a legal standpoint. From what I can find, it doesn't seem to be a formal legal status. Curious if anyone knows more.

Basically, if you are a federal contractor, the designation means the DoD can force you to certify that Anthropic tech is not used in the fulfillment of your government work. Because it's just a DoD designation, and an executive order and not added to the NDAA, you can still use Claude for non-government (federal) touching work. So using Claude Code to write software for the DoD is now a no go, you'd be in breach of…

That doesn’t seem to match up with the original tweet though - it sounds a heck of a lot stronger:

> Effective immediately, no contractor, supplier, or partner that does business with the United States military may conduct any commercial activity with Anthropic

Emphasis mine.

And I’m looking at news organizations that presumably have staffs of legal analysts pouring over this stuff, and they also seem to be saying that it can’t be any commercial activity:

> The label means that no contractor or supplier that works with the military can do business with Anthropic.

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/27/us/politics/anthropic-mil...

Re: I am directing the Department of War to designate Anthropic a supply-chain risk

#619

Post by hyperhello »

yodsanklai wrote: post #575
SubiculumCode wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't believe they can change the name to Department of War without an actor Congress. It remains the DoD.

Of all the silly things that Trump did, I think this one is the most reasonable. This has always been a department of war. Calling it defense was propaganda.

Calling it Department of The Armed Forces or Department of Military would be neutral. Putting War in the name is as propaganda-like as Defense.

Re: I am directing the Department of War to designate Anthropic a supply-chain risk

#620

Post by gcanyon »

Teknoman117 wrote: post #534
johnfn wrote: post #357

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The writeup here[1] was pretty clear to me. > *Isn’t it unreasonable for Anthropic to suddenly set terms in their contract?* The terms were in the original contract, which the Pentagon agreed to. It’s the Pentagon who’s trying to break the original contract and unilaterally change the terms, not Anthropic. > *Doesn’t the Pentagon have a right to sign or not sign any contract they choose?* Yes. Anthropic is the one sa…

I just wish there was a stronger source on this. I am inclined to agree you and the source you cited, but unfortunately > [1] This story requires some reading between the lines - the exact text of the contract isn’t available - but something like it is suggested by the way both sides have been presenting the negotiations. I deal with far too many people who won't believe me without 10 bullet-proof sources but get ver…

This administration needs the benefit of the doubt always. This administration deserves the benefit of the doubt never.
Post reply on HN