undefined | Better HN

0 pointstacticalturtle3mo ago0 comments

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...

0 comments

2 comments · 2 top-level

tacticalturtleOP3mo ago

Ok Looking at Anthropic’s response they agree with the parent response:

> Secretary Hegseth has implied this designation would restrict anyone who does business with the military from doing business with Anthropic. The Secretary does not have the statutory authority to back up this statement. Legally, a supply chain risk designation under 10 USC 3252 can only extend to the use of Claude as part of Department of War contracts—it cannot affect how contractors use Claude to serve other customers.

https://www.anthropic.com/news/statement-comments-secretary-...

Looks like the NYT might have gotten it wrong…

voganmother423mo ago

Wait the liars who lie and don’t care about the law, lied and don’t care about the law?

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse