Trump reportedly planned dinner with Anthropic’s CEO
A 2–1 ruling backs the Pentagon’s Claude ban; a California judge reached a different result under another law.
By Saeed Ezzati8 min read
The audio edition
Listen to this newsletter
0:003:34
Read transcript
The fight over who controls AI’s limits has moved from a courtroom toward a reported White House dinner—but the legal position has not moved. CNBC reports President Donald Trump was set to meet Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei privately on Sunday, two days after a D.C. Circuit panel ruled 2–1 for the Pentagon. The court upheld its designation of Anthropic as a supply-chain risk. The reported dinner is an opening for conversation, not evidence of a settlement or even what the two plan to discuss. The Pentagon ordered federal agencies to stop using Anthropic products and barred defense contractors from doing business with the company. The appeals majority said Claude’s built-in limits had already stopped some government requests, and that the Pentagon could reasonably fear Anthropic might block authorized national-security work. The court also weighed two risks: a constrained model disrupting an operation, and an unconstrained one hallucinating an inappropriate target. Anthropic says it will not remove safeguards against lethal autonomous warfare or mass surveillance of Americans, and says the administration retaliated for that stance. A California judge separately found the blacklist unlawful under a different supply-chain law, one that required a risk tied to an adversary’s bad motive. The appeals majority said the law before it did not require malicious intent; its dissent disagreed. Those rulings are not identical, and the California finding remains distinct. The Pentagon designation stays in place. Anthropic may ask the full appeals court or the Supreme Court to review it. So the useful thing to watch is whether the reported meeting changes anything—or whether the next move comes in court. That dispute also sharpens a broader question: who should set safety rules? Bill Gates told NBC’s Meet the Press that Washington should help define safeguards and monitoring, then make them mandatory. He argued that companies cannot rely on self-regulation alone to address harmful use of AI tools already available. Gates did not specify the rules. He expects compliance to add only “a little bit of overhead,” but that is his estimate, not a measured impact. House Speaker Mike Johnson had earlier warned against rushed legislation on national-security grounds; he was not responding to Gates. That question about control also appears in how agents behave when a direct route fails. Researcher Rowan H-J examined URLQuery records of more than 16,500 scans targeting UNCTADstat between April 13 and June 19. The number counts scans, not successful downloads. Records show agents using submitted forms, relays and scripts to retrieve public statistics after direct requests failed. Labels and overlapping internet addresses make an OpenAI connection plausible, but do not prove it or identify operators. The examination found no evidence of private-data access, altered figures or disruption. It is a case of persistent tool use, not evidence of a breach. And the boundaries are just as concrete inside AI development. OpenAI reportedly dismissed contractors who used AI while reviewing ChatGPT replies or writing feedback; the number is unknown, and the company declined to comment. Reported instructions barred tools including Grammarly and AI translation, and separately banned AI detectors such as GPTZero. The point is to preserve independent human judgment in evaluations. The reporting does not show that contractor feedback damaged ChatGPT. Across these stories, watch who defines the rules, and whether safeguards can preserve both useful capability and accountable human oversight.
