Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by AlexCoventry 48 days ago
The Trump administration's handling of Anthropic showed that regardless of what the contract or the law says or means, they will severely penalize any vendor who refuses their demands. And OpenAI stepped right into that relationship immediately after the administration showed that. So either they were signing up for a supply-chain risk designation and whatever other punishments the Trump administration dreams up, or they're complying.

If this sounds crazy to you, though, I'd like to know, and understand why. I miss ChatGPT/Codex.
1 comments
int3trap 46 days ago
> regardless of what the contract or the law says

That is not really established. The Anthropic issue was specifically about DoD use and Anthropic's military use restrictions. What the Trump admin did was bad and coercive but its not proof that contract terms and law are irrelevant. For instance, why not just use eminent domain if they don't care about contracts and want whatever they want?

> either they were signing up for a supply-chain risk designation and whatever other punishments the Trump administration dreams up, or they're complying

Couldn't OpenAI have negotiated different terms, accepted a narrower scope, or drawn different red lines? Their public DoD terms still exclude things like mass domestic surveillance and autonomous weapons outside human control. Do you not believe that or believe it doesn't matter at all? Either of those is problematic to the conclusions that follow from them.

I also think the whole argument implies something about Anthropic's position that's not as clean in reality. NSA is already using Mythos despite the Pentagon dispute, and Anthropic is still talking to the administration. Trump even said they were "shaping up" recently.

Isn't it also a possibility that one company negotiated poorly and took a position of perceived moral authority that Trump et al threw a hissy fit over and over reacted to? That's happened countless times with this admin and is far more likely in my opinion given Anthropic hasn't cut all ties and continues to try and work out a contract.

I wholeheartedly agree the current administration is dangerous. I just don't think the conclusion "OpenAI must be complying with the same demands Anthropic refused" follows from what we've seen. And I think there are plenty of other far more plausible conclusions to draw from the events.

link
AlexCoventry 46 days ago
> For instance, why not just use eminent domain if they don't care about contracts and want whatever they want?

They were threatening Anthropic with the Defense Production Act[1], which almost comes to the same thing as eminent domain, forcing the provision of goods and services instead of forcing relinquishment of property.

> Do you not believe that or believe it doesn't matter at all?

I don't think it matters at all. The Trump administration is full of scofflaw bullies. Their threats against Anthropic are actually relatively tame, compared to their bullying of Minnesota and the horrific human-rights violations they've committed against immigrants, despite multiple court orders trying to rein them in. Anyone doing business with them is either enthusiastically complying, has some kind of hold over them beyond law or contract, or is setting themselves up for harsh punishment.

> I also think the whole argument implies something about Anthropic's position that's not as clean in reality.

Anthropic software is embedded in military and intelligence services, and that takes time to wind down. My understanding is that it will take months.[2] So yeah, it's a messy, time-consuming divorce, but the origin of the conflict is actually very clear cut.

The NSA has two sides, defensive and offensive. Given Anthropic's approach to restricted release of Mythos, I assume they're releasing it to the defensive side. Anthropic has always taken the position that they're willing to help secure the US, they're just not willing help turn it into a tyranny. Apparently someone has convinced Trump and Hegseth that there's more at stake with Mythos than looking tough on a dissident company.

> Isn't it also a possibility that one company negotiated poorly and took a position of perceived moral authority that Trump et al threw a hissy fit over and over reacted to?

Not really. It's the Trump administration which has negotiated poorly, by capriciously pushing its counterparty around, trying to force it into illegal/immoral/dangerous activity.

> Trump even said they were "shaping up" recently.

He's also repeatedly said he has a workable deal with the Iranians. Do you trust his claims about any of his counterparties?

> And I think there are plenty of other far more plausible conclusions to draw from the events.

I'd be interested in your interpretation.

[1] https://www.axios.com/2026/02/24/anthropic-pentagon-claude-h... https://archive.ph/iQebR

[2] https://federalnewsnetwork.com/defense-news/2026/03/dod-conf...

link