The content of their character was never up for consideration. Under Donald Trump, the only thing that matters is the color of their skin. That’s why almost every single person granted asylum since Trump took office has been white. That’s why Trump has been asking (out loud!) why we keep getting migrants from “shithole” countries (like those located in South America, Africa, and Latin America) rather than blond haired, blue eyed expats from Scandinavian countries whose residents’ lives would become noticeably worse if they chose to move to the US.
The president wraps himself in the flag, delivers a lot of garbled Team USA jingoism, and routinely proclaims we have the best military in the world. But even the people most directly responsible for keeping the US on top of the military game aren’t allowed to remain here if they’re not white.
Jose Serrano, an active duty soldier who served three tours in Afghanistan, said immigration agents arrested his wife April 14 as they attended an appointment with immigration services to take steps toward her permanent residency.
“A person opened the door, escorted us through the hallway, and at the end of the hallway, my wife got arrested,” Serrano said. “Arrested without any order, any warrant … They took away my wife. They don’t tell me anything.”
On top of all this awfulness, this incident shows ICE isn’t actually shifting away from immigration court arrests despite (1) officials saying otherwise, and (2) more importantly, ICE itself supposedly letting officers know that court arrests like these are not allowed under current ICE policy.
The regular awfulness is this: the Trump administration is willing to attack its own military if it means racking up a few more arrests and deportations:
[L]ast April, DHS eliminated a 2022 policy that considered military service of an immediate family member to be a “significant mitigating factor” in deciding whether or not to pursue immigration enforcement. The administration’s new policy states that “military service alone does not exempt aliens from the consequences of violating U.S. immigration laws.”
It’s not just this nation’s relationship with its own military that’s being permanently damaged by Trump’s bigoted war on non-white people. It’s also any future relationships we might have in countries where we’re engaged in combat. When the US began its full withdrawal from Afghanistan, it promised protections to Afghans who worked with the military to provide intelligence or otherwise aided in the US in the decades-long war.
After halting a U.S. resettlement program for Afghans who helped the American war effort, President Trump is in talks to send as many as 1,100 of them to the Democratic Republic of Congo, an aid worker briefed on the plan said Tuesday.
The group includes interpreters for the U.S. military, former members of the Afghan Special Operations forces and family members of American service members. More than 400 children are among them.
The Afghans have been living in limbo in Qatar for over a year. They were taken there after being evacuated by the United States for their own safety because they supported American forces during the war against the Taliban that began in 2001.
Thanks for your help. Now, go fuck yourselves. That’s the message the US is sending to people who aided the US during this war. It’s the kind of message that isn’t likely to score it any allies as it resumes hostilities in the Middle East.
This report says Trump is “in talks” with DRC to pursue this “resettlement” of Afghan allies — one the administration pursues despite the protests of the people who risked their own lives to assist the US during the Afghanistan war.
It’s hard to believe Trump is actually engaged in anything. DRC already has a refugee problem of its own.
More than 600,000 refugees, mostly from the Central African Republic and Rwanda, are currently in Congo, according to the United Nations. Human rights activists say that the country is not equipped to take in more in the midst of fighting with neighboring Rwanda that has displaced even more people because of attacks on refugee camps.
On top of this, many Afghan allies already have family members living in the United States due to previous efforts made by the Biden administration to protect those who aided the US. This forced resettlement in, well, pretty much any African country that agrees to take them divides even more families. It also demonstrates the United States is not to be trusted when it offers favors in return for assistance. All it takes is an election cycle to roll back guarantees and turn trusted allies into just another set of people being moved from “shithole country” to “shithole country” by a bunch of bigots who would rather destroy America than allow any more non-white people to become residents of what used the be the world’s “melting pot.”
On April 17, the U.S. government deported 15 people to the capital of the Democratic Republic of Congo, a deeply impoverished African country that’s been scarred by years of conflict.
The group—comprising men and women from Colombia, Ecuador and Peru—is the first to arrive as part of a secretive migration deal brokered with the Trump administration.
“They took us, they put us on a plane, and they chained us by our hands and feet,” said one Colombian man, sitting on a plastic chair in a shabby hotel near Kinshasa’s airport. The deportees didn’t know their final destination until they were on the plane, he added.
Like El Salvador, I’m sure the DRC is more than happy to take our money to take some people off our hands. And like El Salvador, I’m sure the DRC government doesn’t actually care what happens to any of these people being shoved out of DHS charter flights like so much human refuse. If the US can’t be bothered to care, why should some third party in a developing nation do anything more than allow planes to land so long as the checks keep clearing?
This is what America is now: a place where human rights, civil liberties, and basic human morality are no longer weaved into the fabric of the nation. America is no longer the world’s policeman. It is now the world’s corrupt, racist sheriff.
The Trump administration’s AI policy is two-faced, torn between deregulation and despotism.
In March, the administration released its National AI Legislative Framework, directing Congress to “prevent the United States government from coercing technology providers, including AI providers, to ban, compel, or alter content based on partisan or ideological agendas.” This policy against government interference with AI is consistent with the administration’s purported light-touch approach to regulating the technology—but contrary to its recent actions.
In February 2025, Vice President Vance denounced “excessive regulation of the AI sector,” endorsing a “deregulatory flavor” of AI policy. Several months later, the administration released its AI Action Plan, pledging to “dismantle unnecessary regulatory barriers” and “onerous regulation.”
At first, the Trump administration followed through on this deregulatory promise. Three days into his second term, President Trump revoked an Executive Order from President Biden which established a government-wide effort to regulate and guide the development of the AI industry. Next, as directed by President Trump’s AI Action Plan, the Office of Science and Technology Policy initiated a proceeding to identify federal rules and regulations “that unnecessarily hinder” AI in order to implement “regulatory reform” and “promote” the technology. Last December, the Federal Trade Commission, led by two Trump appointees, set aside a Biden-era enforcement action against Rytr, an AI-powered writing assistant. The FTC explained that, “after reviewing the final order in response to President Trump’s AI Action Plan,” it concluded “the order unduly burdens innovation in the nascent AI industry.”
Despite the laissez-faire gesturing, however, the administration demonstrates a tyrannical impulse to control AI. In the same breath as denouncing excessive regulation, Vice President Vance demanded that “AI must remain free from ideological bias.” President Trump’s AI Action Plan echoed this command, directing AI companies to design their models “to pursue objective truth rather than social engineering agendas.” This rhetoric elides the fact that the First Amendment bars the government from deciding what constitutes “truth.”
In recent months, the administration has sought to exert control over the industry under the guise of combatting so-called “woke AI.” Last July, President Trump issued an Executive Order on Preventing Woke AI in the Federal Government, prohibiting government procurement of AI models unless they are ideologically “neutral,” i.e., “nonpartisan tools that do not manipulate responses in favor of ideological dogmas such as DEI.” In January, Secretary of Defense Hegseth issued a memo instructing the Department of Defense to “utilize models free from usage policy constraints” and banning the DoD from “employ[ing] AI models which incorporate ideological ‘tuning.’”
The memo set the stage for the ongoing dispute between the administration and Anthropic, an American AI company. In July 2025, the DoD contracted with Anthropic to deploy its AI models for national security applications like intelligence analysis, modeling and simulation, operational planning, and cyber operations. In the contract, Anthropic stipulated that the government could not use its models for mass domestic surveillance or to power fully autonomous weapons—arguably violating Hegseth’s rule against usage constraints.
Consequently, in late February, Hegseth threatened to cut ties with Anthropic unless the company allowed the military to use its AI for “all lawful purposes.” When Anthropic refused, President Trump directed federal agencies to “IMMEDIATELY CEASE all use of Anthropic’s technology,” deriding the firm as “A RADICAL LEFT, WOKE COMPANY.” He threatened to “use the Full Power of the Presidency to make [Anthropic] comply, with major civil and criminal consequences to follow.”
The DoD then designated Anthropic a “supply chain risk” under the Federal Acquisition Supply Chain Security Act of 2018, defined as an entity that “may sabotage, maliciously introduce unwanted function, extract data, or otherwise manipulate” the technology it provides “so as to surveil, deny, disrupt, or otherwise manipulate” the use of the technology or the “information stored or transmitted” thereon. The government has never applied this designation to a U.S. company; it is typically reserved for foreign intelligence agencies, terrorists, and hostile actors. As a result, Anthropic may not provide products or services to the DoD, and contractors may not use its products while working on DoD projects.
On March 9, Anthropic sued the administration in federal court, challenging the designation and seeking an injunction blocking its implementation. The company pleaded that the Trump administration has “harm[ed] Anthropic irreparably,” jeopardizing public and private contracts and costing it “hundreds of millions of dollars in the near-term,” as well as attacking “Anthropic’s reputation and core First Amendment freedoms.”
On March 26, the District Court for the Northern District of California sided with Anthropic and granted a preliminary injunction barring a variety of federal agencies from terminating their contracts. The court also blocked the DoD and Hegseth from implementing the supply chain risk designation. U.S. District Judge Rita Lin observed that the Trump administration is “punishing Anthropic for bringing public scrutiny to the government’s contracting position,” which “is classic illegal First Amendment retaliation.” Last week, the administration appealed the ruling to the Ninth Circuit.
Hegseth accused Anthropic of “duplicity,” but it is the Trump administration that has been duplicitous about its approach to AI. Despite championing deregulation, the administration has weaponized the federal government to punish an American AI company for refusing to bend to its will. Abusing the government procurement process to crush domestic AI firms is the opposite of light-touch regulation.
Judge Lin described the Trump administration’s actions against Anthropic as “Orwellian.” The administration has shown its ugly side on AI, and it looks a lot like tyranny.
Andy Jung is associate counsel at TechFreedom, a nonprofit, nonpartisan think tank focused on technology law and policy.
The latest Pew Research Center survey, conducted Jan. 20-26, 2026, finds that most White evangelicals (69%) approve of the way Trump is handling his job as president. And a majority (58%) say they support all or most of his plans and policies.
Let that sink in for a bit. The operative term here is probably “white,” but Trump has been embraced by the evangelical community, despite his being about as far removed from the ideals of Christianity as their arch-nemesis, trans people the Devil. (And let’s not forget I’m talking about the ideals, which are often preached but rarely practiced.)
Here’s how Trump handled Easter morning, one of the holiest (no pun intended) holidays observed by the people most likely to support him no matter what:
President Trump: “Tuesday will be Power Plant Day, and Bridge Day, all wrapped up in one, in Iran. There will be nothing like it!!! Open the Fuckin’ Strait, you crazy bastards, or you’ll be living in Hell – JUST WATCH! Praise be to Allah. President DONALD J. TRUMP”
In Trump’s own words, at 5:03 am on Easter Sunday:
Tuesday will be Power Plant Day, and Bridge Day, all wrapped up in one, in Iran. There will be nothing like it!!! Open the Fuckin’ Strait, you crazy bastards, or you’ll be living in Hell – JUST WATCH! Praise be to Allah. President DONALD J. TRUMP
Now, I have to admit that when I first read this, I thought Trump was announcing some new celebration of US infrastructure before derailing his own train of thought. But it’s definitely not that.
Both sides have threatened and hit civilian targets like oil fields and desalination plants critical for drinking water. Iran’s U.N. mission on social media called Trump’s threat “clear evidence of intent to commit war crime.”
Iran’s military joint command warned of stepped-up retaliatory attacks on regional oil and civilian infrastructure if the U.S. and Israel attack such targets there, according to state television.
The laws of armed conflict allow attacks on civilian infrastructure only if the military advantage outweighs the civilian harm, legal scholars say. It’s considered a high bar to clear, and causing excessive suffering to civilians can constitute a war crime.
While it looks like both sides in this war are willing to strike civilian infrastructure, the United States should be trying to take the high road (the one without war crimes). And if it can’t be bothered to do that, the administration should — at the very least — try to keep the president from publicly saying we’re going to commit war crimes.
But, alas, there’s no one willing to stop him. Pete Hegseth is definitely relishing his unearned role as the Secretary of Defense (“Back to the Stone Age.”) And he appears to be firing anyone who disagrees with things like drone-killing people in international waters and, you know, engaging in war crimes.
Shamefully, they won’t see a drop in support despite Trump threatening war crimes, dropping an F-bomb, and promising to send people halfway around the world to hell, as if he were a god himself. And that’s a damning indictment of an entire segment of Americans who choose to treat their religion as a weapon and want the world to be remade in their own image — something they often accuse Muslims of doing. The irony is lost on them, along with the man they’ve chosen to treat as God’s appointed leader.
We’ve had a lot of low points as a nation, but usually we’ve at least tried to improve. That’s no longer the case. We’re under the rule of people who debase and abuse the nation they claim to love. Happy Fuckin’ Easter, you crazy bastards. Welcome to Hell.
Martha Gellhorn stowed away on a hospital ship to become the only woman journalist to land on Normandy Beach on D-Day. She carried stretchers before writing her harrowing account of the invasion.
The New Yorker’s famously epicurean writer A.J. Liebling subsisted on military rations and came under fire during World War II to describe what it was like for the soldiers and sailors at war.
Syndicated columnist Ernie Pyle died, in a helmet and Army fatigues, among some of the troops whose names and hometowns he carefully included in his dispatches. “At this spot, the 77th Infantry lost a buddy,” read the makeshift sign posted at the place where a Japanese machine gun bullet felled him.
Those reporters told stories of war in all its gore and its glory, its exhilaration and its ennui. Others have laid bare the anxiety and doubts.
Veteran Vietnam correspondent Neil Sheehan broke the story of the Pentagon Papers, which showed how government officials deceived the public about the Vietnam war. Sheehan won a Pulitzer Prize for his book, “A Bright Shining Lie,” which chronicled the war’s impact on idealists who once believed in it, through the story of his relationship with an inside source.
As someone who worked as a Washington correspondent for decades, I worry that these obstacles could limit the number of reporters who have the experience with – and trust of – key sources to do the kind of in-depth, nuanced journalism that a war, with its price in lives and resources, deserves.
Corralling the watchdogs
Generally, war correspondents need the cooperation of the military they are covering to get to the front. For the U.S. press, that requires relationships and credibility at the Pentagon.
Early in 2025, Hegseth ordered major news organizations to give up their desks in the Pentagon press room to MAGA favorites. NPR’s desk went to Breitbart News. Roaming the hallways, where reporters sometimes found sources who would deviate from the company line, became verboten.
Eventually, the area in the Pentagon where reporters were allowed was circumscribed to a single corridor outside the press room – even though the public affairs officers who worked most closely with reporters were in an office on the other side of the 6½-million-square-foot building.
Then Hegseth conditioned the issuance of press credentials on reporters, effectively giving military brass the right to censor or sanitize their reports.
As a result, almost the entire Pentagon press corps, which included outlets ranging from The Associated Press to The New York Times to Fox News and USNI News, which covers the Navy, moved out of the building in October 2025. Some have been invited back for the press briefings Hegseth and Gen. Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, have begun to give on progress of the battle in Iran.
But after the first of these briefings, the Pentagon abruptly banned photographers from attending, reportedly because Hegseth’s staff found some of their images of him to be unflattering.
Secretary on defense
Gone are the off-camera “background” briefings where Department of Defense brass could give trusted reporters greater context and nuance for battlefield decisions. Gone are the impromptu hallway meetings where reporters have, with luck or persistence, picked up information that deviates from an administration’s agreed-upon script.
How might that affect what you, the public, gets to know? It was a combination of an anonymous tip and insider access that led the legendary investigative reporter Seymour Hersh to break the devastating story of My Lai, the American soldiers’ massacre of civilians during the Vietnam War.
At the made-for-TV briefings he does hold, Hegseth devotes most of the session to questions from outlets such as the Epoch Times, The Daily Caller and LindellTV – owned by Mike Lindell, the head of the well-known pillow company.
At one recent briefing, one of the favored new cadre tossed Hegseth a shameless softball. Referring to American troops in the Middle East, the questioner asked: “What is your prayer for them?”
Yet as hostilities drag on, even some among Hegseth’s chosen press corps have begun to ask irksome questions about the war. The normally Trump-friendly Daily Caller ran a less-than-flattering piece about the president berating a reporter for asking about troop deployments.
On March 4, 2026, Hegseth accused journalists of focusing on war casualties to make “the president look bad.” On March 13, Hegseth castigated as “more fake news” CNN’s report that the Trump administration had underestimated the impact of the war on shipping traffic in the Strait of Hormuz.
“The sooner David Ellison takes over that network, the better,” Hegseth concluded, adding fuel to the speculation that a Trump supporter who won a bidding war for CNN’s corporate parent is going to turn the network into a more administration-friendly outlet.
The Trump administration is not alone in its disdain for a free press: Israel has long been notorious for restricting press access from areas where it is conducting military operations.
Leaders of the theocratic Iranian regime are even worse; the country is cited by press freedom advocate Reporters Without Borders as “one of the world’s most repressive countries in terms of press freedom.”
But the United States has historically distinguished itself by making freedom its calling card, even – or perhaps especially – in wartime.
“The news may be good, or bad. We shall tell you the truth,” Voice of America, a U.S. government-launched radio network, promised – in German – in its very first broadcast to Nazi Germany in 1942.
Now, however, the Trump administration, is busy trying to undermine the editorial independence of Voice of America, which broadcasts news to countries that don’t have a free press.
Pentagon reporters are continuing to find ways to get around the propaganda. NPR’s Tom Bowman told me that he takes inspiration from a pep talk he overheard a military source deliver to another reporter crestfallen over the lack of access.
“Quit whining and be a Marine,” the official said. “Go over, under or around the obstacle. Find a way to do it.”
Most reporters and their organizations are doing just that, finding sources outside the administration, like the ones in Congress who told The Hill how much money the war is costing taxpayers per day. And they’re continuing to get information from sources on the inside, like the ones who told The Wall Street Journal that Trump’s military advisers warned him that Iran might block the Gulf of Hormuz, but that he opted for war anyway.
So far, neither Hegseth’s obstacle course nor threats from the White House and the FCC have stopped the press from reporting stories or asking questions that the administration would rather not see or hear.
But restrictions on press freedom have a corrosive effect. We already have seen how Trump, using lawsuits and licensing threats, has used his power to make corporate media owners think twice about pursuing news he doesn’t like.
Seasoned Pentagon reporters will still find ways to get to sources they already have. But Hegseth’s tactic of blocking press access to the military keeps reporters from developing new sources and keeps new reporters from building the relationships they need to become seasoned Pentagon reporters.
Americans have long been able to understand the triumphs and tribulations of American troops at war, and to make intelligent decisions about whether they approve of a war’s cost, because a free press has been able to tell the story – good or bad. That tradition is now at risk.
The expression, “to make a federal case out of something” usually describes making a bigger deal out of something than it should be. But in the case of Anthropic and Hegseth, Trump, and the Department of Defense*, this federal case is actually quite simple: what the government defendants did to Anthropic is beyond the bounds of anything the law or Constitution would allow. It didn’t require some complicated analytical parsing to see the problem with the Administration’s behavior, and the remedy is straightfoward: there’s now an injunction depriving that behavior of any effect (albeit stayed for seven days).
But the government is only restrained as to what it did that was actually illegal. Importantly, the injunction clarifies that to the extent that the government could lawfully stop working with Anthropic, it remained fully able to divorce itself. From the full paragraph on the last page of the preliminary injunction order itself articulating what has been restrained:
This Order restores the status quo. It does not bar any Defendant from taking any lawful action that would have been available to it on February 27, 2026, prior to the issuances of the Presidential Directive and the Hegseth Directive and entry of the Supply Chain Designation. For example, this Order does not require the Department of War to use Anthropic’s products or services and does not prevent the Department of War from transitioning to other artificial intelligence providers, so long as those actions are consistent with applicable regulations, statutes, and constitutional provisions.
As the decision justifying the injunction explains, this case wasn’t about whether and how DOD could use Anthropic and whether Anthropic could have a say in how it was used, which was the issue underpinning the contract dispute between the two. Had it been, then the DOD could have simply walked away from the product. The problem is that the government didn’t just stop doing business with Anthropic; it went further, and it is those actions that broke the law.
The question here is whether the government violated the law when it went further. After Anthropic went public with its disagreement with the Department of War, Defendants reacted with three significant measures that are the subject of this lawsuit. First, the President announced that every federal agency (not just the Department of War) would immediately ban Anthropic from ever having another government contract. That would include, for example, the National Endowment for the Arts using Claude to design its website. Second, Secretary Hegseth announced that anyone who wants to do business with the U.S. military must sever any commercial relationship with Anthropic. That would mean a company that used Claude to power its customer service chatbot could not serve as a defense contractor. Third, the Department of War designated Anthropic a “supply chain risk,” a label that applies to adversaries of the U.S. government who may sabotage its technology systems. That designation has never been applied to a domestic company and is directed principally at foreign intelligence agencies, terrorists, and other hostile actors. [p.1-2]
And the court counts several ways that the government’s actions were likely illegal. At minimum, Anthropic suffered a due process violation for not having notice and an opportunity to respond to the government’s sudden supply chain risk designation, which threatened a cognizable liberty interest the Fifth Amendment protects. (“The record shows that the Challenged Actions threaten to cripple Anthropic by not only stripping it of billions of dollars in federal contracts and subcontracts but also by labeling it as an adversary to the United States and ending its ability to have any commercial relationship with any company that might want to do business with DoW.”) [fuller analysis p.24-29]
The “supply chain risk” designation was also likely “both contrary to law and arbitrary and capricious.” On the first point, there are two statutory paths for designating a vendor a supply chain risk, and this case addressed just one of them—the other will be addressed by the DC Circuit. But it found the government’s claim it was using the statutory authority properly to be wanting: First, Anthropic’s conduct did not meet the statutory definition of a supply chain risk.
On the record before the Court, Anthropic’s conduct does not appear to be within the definition of “supply chain risk” in Section 3252. Section 3252 defines a supply chain risk as limited to “the risk that an adversary may sabotage, maliciously introduce unwanted function, or otherwise subvert . . . a covered system.” 10 U.S.C. § 3252(d)(4). Assuming without deciding that a domestic company can be an “adversary,” the plain text of the statute is directed at covert acts or hacks, not overt positions taken during contract negotiations. Indeed, it is difficult to understand how one could sabotage, maliciously introduce an unwanted function, or subvert an information technology system by publicly announcing usage restrictions or insisting on such restrictions in conversations with DoW. Defendants appear to be taking the position that any vendor who “push[es] back” on or “question[s]” DoW becomes its “adversary.” (Dkt. No. 128 at 41.) That position is deeply troubling and inconsistent with the statutory text. [p.30-32]
And second, those procedural rules the government blew off to invoke the statute, such as the need to notify Congress first, actually mattered. Despite what the government argued at oral argument, that the Congressional notification requirements were only for the benefit of Congress, the court found that they were important safeguards Congress had built into the statute to prevent its abuse and therefore non-optional. (“Section 3252 and its enabling regulations create institutional safeguards—which the Secretary must complete before making a designation—to ensure that its designation is applied properly. The Supply Chain Designation failed to comply with these mandated procedural safeguards.”) [see analysis p.32-34].
In addition, the designation itself was likely arbitrary and capricious. As the court noted early in its decision (emphasis added):
The Department of War provides no legitimate basis to infer from Anthropic’s forthright insistence on usage restrictions that it might become a saboteur. At oral argument, government counsel suggested that Anthropic showed its subversive tendencies by “questioning” the use of its technology, “raising concerns” about it, and criticizing the government’s position in the press. Nothing in the governing statute supports the Orwellian notion that an American company may be branded a potential adversary and saboteur of the U.S. for expressing disagreement with the government.[p. 2; further analysis p.35-37 (“In sum, the contradictory positions, the procedural defects, and the rushed process following a public declaration of the foreordained conclusion all indicate that the actions were arbitrary and capricious.”)]
And then there is the problem at the heart of the matter: that it appears the government is trying to punish Anthropic for daring to criticize it, and that sort of retaliation for speech violates the First Amendment.
The record supports an inference that Anthropic is being punished for criticizing the government’s contracting position in the press. In their announcements, the President and Secretary Hegseth called Anthropic “out of control” and “arrogant,” describing its “sanctimonious rhetoric” as an attempt to “strong-arm” the government. The Department of War’s records show that it designated Anthropic as a supply chain risk because of its “hostile manner through the press.” Punishing Anthropic for bringing public scrutiny to the government’s contracting position is classic illegal First Amendment retaliation. [p.2]
And it violates the First Amendment not only by impinging on Anthropic’s right to speak, but everyone else, who is now deterred from speaking out as well, even on matters of public concern like ethical use of AI, given that the government is now inflicting consequences on those who speak in ways it doesn’t like. To the court, the government’s action looks clearly retaliatory. (“The record shows that Defendants’ conduct appears to be driven not by a desire to maintain operational control when using AI in the military but by a desire to make an example of Anthropic for its public stance on the weighty issues at stake in the contracting dispute.”) [p.19]. A retaliation claim can succeed when (1) the plaintiff was engaged in constitutionally protected activity, (2) the defendant’s actions would “chill a person of ordinary firmness” from continuing to engage in the protected activity, and (3) the protected activity was a substantial motivating factor in the defendant’s conduct—in other words, that what the defendant did was intended to chill speech, and here the court found all these prongs met. [p.20].
On the first, Anthropic was publicly staking out a position on what deployments of Claude are currently unsafe and what rights Anthropic has to allow Claude’s use by the government only with certain safety restrictions, which the court found to be a matter of public concern and thus protected by the First Amendment. (“[T]he record shows that Anthropic and its CEO, Dario Amodei, are a loud and influential voice regarding the capabilities, risks, and safe uses of AI technology.”) [p.20]. As to the second, there was plenty of evidence of speech being chilled:
Anthropic has submitted evidence that the Challenged Actions threaten to cripple the company and chill public debate. See supra Section II.G. Several amicus briefs support this conclusion. A group of 37 individuals working on AI technology assert that the Challenged Actions “chill[] professional debate on the benefits and risks of frontier AI systems and various ways that risks can be addressed to optimize the technology’s deployment.” (Dkt. No. 24-1 at 8.) An industry group of “values-led investors” warns that the Challenged Actions chill speech necessary to allow them to direct their investments to support the “principles and values” they care about. (Dkt. No. 77-1 at 12.) In short, the Challenged Actions easily qualify as ones which would chill a person of ordinary firmness from continuing to engage in further protected speech amici in the case showed how everyone’s speech was being chilled by what the government had done.[p.21]
And as for the third, the government’s behavior clearly resulted from displeasure with Anthropic’s views and the desire to relinquish them.
Secretary Hegseth expressly tied Anthropic’s punishment to its attitude and rhetoric in the press. He stated that “Anthropic delivered a master class in arrogance.” (Dkt. No. 6-21 at 2.) Referring to Anthropic and Amodei, he further stated: “Cloaked in the sanctimonious rhetoric of ‘effective altruism,’ they have attempted to strong-arm the United States military” through their “corporate virtue-signaling” and “Silicon Valley ideology.” (Id.) “Anthropic’s stance is fundamentally incompatible with American principles.” (Id.) The President described Anthropic as “radical left, woke company” and its employees as “leftwing nut jobs,” who “made a DISASTROUS MISTAKE trying to STRONG-ARM the Department of War.” (Dkt. No. 6-20 at 2.) Read in context of these repeated references to rhetoric and ideology, the term “strong-arm” in the Presidential Directive and the Hegseth Directive appears to be characterizing Anthropic as applying public pressure. […] These specific references to Anthropic’s viewpoint and public stance are direct evidence of what motivated Defendants’ decision-making.[p.21-22]
And the government’s defense—that Anthropic’s “contracting position” is conduct, not speech entitled to First Amendment protection, and that Anthropic’s refusal to accept DOD’s terms was what prompted the government’s actions—was unavailing.
First, without reaching the question of whether private contract negotiations alone could constitute protected activity under the First Amendment, the record shows that Anthropic engaged in protected speech when it took public the parties’ contracting impasse and the reasons behind its refusal to agree to DoW’s terms. (See, e.g., Dkt. Nos. 6-7, 6-18.) As already explained, Anthropic’s views on this matter fall within the heart of what the First Amendment protects: “subject[s] of general interest and of value and concern to the public” and “of legitimate news interests.” See Snyder, 562 U.S. at 452–53 (citation omitted). Therefore, to the extent Anthropic publicly discussed its “contracting position,” that speech is protected by the First Amendment.
Next, Defendants argue that even if Anthropic’s public statements constitute protected speech, the contract dispute—not Anthropic’s speech—was the motive and “but for” cause of the Challenged Actions. (Dkt. No. 96 at 22–24.) They point out that although Anthropic and Amodei have long advocated for AI safety, Defendants took the Challenged Actions only after Anthropic refused to remove its usage restrictions. But Defendants’ own actions belie the notion that Anthropic’s contracting position is what drove the Challenged Actions. Anthropic had imposed its usage restrictions from the beginning of DoW’s use of Claude Gov, and no one had ever suggested that this indicated that Anthropic was untrustworthy or a potential saboteur. To the contrary, Anthropic passed extensive vetting at that time and was praised by the government, which had made arrangements to expand the company’s role. It was only when Anthropic publicly discussed its dispute with DoW that Defendants criticized its rhetoric and ideology and adopted the punitive measures at issue.[p.22-23]
Throughout the decision the court observes that if the dispute here were just over the contract, then surely the government would have just stopped using Claude. But it didn’t just do that; it did more. And that more is now enjoined. The February 27 Presidential Directive from Trump “ordering all federal agencies to cease use of Anthropic’s technology” is to have no effect, nor is any agency action (by any agency,** not just the DOD), taken in response to it. No one in the Trump Administration (Anthropic had named pretty much every agency as defendants, so that’s basically how it boils down) may “issu[e] or maintain[] any guidance, directive, communication, or instruction to any officer, employee, contractor, or agent, in furtherance of or implementing the Presidential Directive” or “tak[e] any other action to implement, effectuate, or further the purposes of the Presidential Directive.”
Meanwhile, Hegseth and the DOD are also enjoined from “implementing, applying, or enforcing in any manner” what the court referred to as the Hegseth Directive, issued later on February 27, designating Anthropic a “Supply-Chain Risk to National Security” and “directing that no contractor, supplier, or partner doing business with the United States military may conduct commercial activity with Anthropic.” Nor can it implement, apply, or enforce anything in the March 3 letter DOD sent notifying Anthropic of the supply chain designation and the associated determination formalizing that designation under 10 U.S.C. § 3252. Hegseth and the DOD are also enjoined from “[f]rom issuing or maintaining any guidance, directive, communication, or instruction to any officer, employee, contractor, or agent, in furtherance of or implementing the Hegseth Directive or the Supply Chain Designation [and from] taking any other action to implement, effectuate, or further the purposes of the Hegseth Directive or the Supply Chain Designation.”
* No, it’s not the “Department of War” as unfortunately both parties and even the court called it, for reasons that elude. Perhaps Anthropic feared it would pull a Trump-friendly judge and need to speak the Administration’s language in order to be treated fairly, but such was not the case, at least in this piece of the case in the Northern District of California—maybe it will be different in the second piece of the case in the DC Circuit. But it’s not clear why the court had to humor them; it applies law, and the law, as passed by Congress to create, name, and fund the agency, calls it the Department of Defense, with Hegseth having been appointed to a specific job called the “Secretary of Defense.” If Congress wanted it to be called the “Department of War” it could have named it thus, but it found there were tangible policy reasons not to when it in fact changed its name to the DOD instead. It typifies the Trump Administration’s typical indifference to any law that might happen to govern any of its behavior to ignore it and Congress’s authority to pass it by unilaterally trumping Congress’s wishes and rename it, but no one else needs to indulge yet another of their abuses of power by humoring their choice.
** The Executive Office of the President is not bound by the injunction directly, despite being a named defendant. Nevertheless, “[l]ike all other persons, EOP is barred from acting for, with, by, through, or under authority from any enjoined Defendant, or in concert or participation with any enjoined Defendant, in any manner inconsistent with the preliminary injunction order.” [p.42]
This was extremely wild shit to be happening anywhere, much less in the land of the First Amendment. No sooner had Donald Trump decided it was time to rename the Department of Defense to the Department of War than the head of DoD operations decided it would be sorting news agencies by level of subservience.
Pretending this was all about national security, the Defense Department basically kicked everyone out of the Pentagon’s press office and stated that only those that chose to play by the new rules would be allowed back inside.
Booted: NBC News, the New York Times, NPR. Welcomed back into the fold: OAN, Newsmax, Breitbart. The Pentagon wanted a state-run press, but without having to do all the heavy lifting that comes with instituting a state-run press in the Land of the Free.
Somewhat surprisingly, some of those explicitly invited to partake of the new Defense Department media wing refused to participate. Fox and Newsmax decided to stay out, rather than promise they’d never publish leaked documents. Those choosing to bend the knee were those who never needed this sort of coercion in the first place: One America News (OAN), The Federalist, and far-right weirdos, the Epoch Times. In other words, MAGA-heavy breathers that have never been known for their independence, much less their journalism.
That didn’t stop Hegseth and the department he’s mismanaging from attempting to take a victory lap. And it certainly didn’t stop news agencies like the New York Times from suing over this blatant violation of the First Amendment.
It’s so obvious it only took the NYT four months to secure a win in a federal court (DC) that is positively swamped with litigation generated by Trump’s swamp. (h/t Adam Klasfield)
The decision [PDF] makes it clear in the opening paragraph how this is going to go for the administration and its extremely selective “respect” of enshrined rights and freedoms.
A primary purpose of the First Amendment is to enable the press to publish what it will and the public to read what it chooses, free of any official proscription. Those who drafted the First Amendment believed that the nation’s security requires a free press and an informed people and that such security is endangered by governmental suppression of political speech. That principle has preserved the nation’s security for almost 250 years. It must not be abandoned now.
Amen.
The court notes that in the past, there has been some friction between national security concerns and reporting by journalists. In some cases, the friction has been little more than the government chafing a bit when something has been published that it would rather have kept a secret. In other cases, leaks involving sensitive information have provoked reform efforts on both sides of the equation, seeking to balance these concerns with serving the public interest.
Up until now, any efforts to expel reporters have been limited to backroom bitching. What’s happening now, however, is unprecedented.
Historically, though, even when Department leaders disliked a journalist’s reporting, they did not consider suspending, revoking, or not renewing the journalist’s press credentials in response to that reporting. Julian Barnes, Pete Williams, and Robert Burns—reporters who have spent decades covering the Pentagon—as well as former Pentagon officials, are not aware of the Department ever suspending, revoking, or not renewing a journalist’s credentials due to concern over the safety or security of Department personnel or property or based on the content of their reporting.
This may be new, but the court isn’t willing to make it the “new normal.” It’s the decades of precedent that truly matter, not the vindictive whims of the overgrown toddlers currently holding office.
The Pentagon claims that demanding journalists agree not to “solicit,” much less print data or information not explicitly approved for release by the Defense Department doesn’t reach any further than existing laws governing the handling of classified documents. The court disagrees, noting that the new policy allows the government to conflate the illegal solicitation of classified material with the sort of soliciting — i.e., requests for information, etc. — journalists do every day in hopes of securing something newsworthy.
On top of allowing the government to punish people for things that weren’t previously considered unlawful, the demand for obeisance wasn’t created in a vacuum. Instead, it flowed directly from this entire administration’s constant attacks on the press by the president and pretty much every one in his Cabinet.
The plaintiffs are correct: “The record is replete with undisputed evidence that the Policy is viewpoint discriminatory.” That evidence tells the story of a Department whose leadership has been and continues to be openly hostile to the “mainstream media” whose reporting it views as unfavorable, but receptive to outlets that have expressed “support for the Trump administration in the past.”
The story begins prior to the adoption of the Policy, when—following extensive reporting on Secretary Hegseth’s background and qualifications during his confirmation process—Secretary Hegseth and Department officials “openly complained about reporting they perceive[d] as unfavorable to them and the Department.” Then, in the weeks and months leading up to the issuance of the Policy, Department officials repeatedly condemned certain news organizations—including The Times—for their coverage of the Department. For example, in response to reporting by The Times on Secretary Hegseth’s alleged misuse of the messaging platform Signal, Mr. Parnell posted on X to call out The Times “and all other Fake News that repeat their garbage.” Mr. Parnell decried these news organizations as “Trump-hating media” who “continue[] to be obsessed with destroying anyone committed to President Trump’s agenda.” In other social media posts leading up to the issuance of the Policy, Department officials referred to journalists from The Washington Post as “scum” and called for their “severe punishment” in response to reporting on Secretary Hegseth’s security detail.
It was never about keeping loose lips from sinking ships. It was always about cutting off access to news agencies the administration didn’t like. And once you’ve gotten rid of the critics, you’re left with the functional equivalent of a state-run media, but without the nastiness of having to disappear people into concentration camps or usher them out of their cubicles at gunpoint.
The court won’t let this stand. The new policy violates both the First Amendment and Fifth Amendment (due to the vagueness of its ban on “soliciting” sensitive information). That’s never been acceptable before in this nation. Just because there’s an aspiring tyrant leaning heavily on the Resolute Desk these days doesn’t make it any more permissible.
The Court recognizes that national security must be protected, the security of our troops must be protected, and war plans must be protected. But especially in light of the country’s recent incursion into Venezuela and its ongoing war with Iran, it is more important than ever that the public have access to information from a variety of perspectives about what its government is doing—so that the public can support government policies, if it wants to support them; protest, if it wants to protest; and decide based on full, complete, and open information who they are going to vote for in the next election. As Justice Brandeis correctly observed, “sunlight is the most powerful of all disinfectants.”
The administration will definitely appeal this decision. And it almost definitely will try to bypass the DC Appeals Court and go straight to the Supreme Court by claiming not being able to expel reporters it doesn’t like is some sort of national emergency. It will probably even claim that the fight it picked in Iran justifies the actions it took months before it decided to involve us in the nation’s latest Afghanistan/Vietnam.
But it definitely shouldn’t win. This isn’t some obscure permutation of First Amendment law. This is the government crafting a policy that allows it to decide what gets to be printed and who gets to print it. That’s never been acceptable here. And it never should be.
The boat strike program the Trump administration is engaged in isn’t actually supported by law. Even his own in-house counsel can’t seem to agree on what justification to use. Shortly after being threatened with a little congressional oversight, the Office of Legal Counsel shrugged together a legal memo that basically said that the less of a direct threat boats allegedly carrying drugs to the US posed to US national security, the more easily the people in the boats could be killed.
And it’s not like the strikes are discriminate. They’re based on hunches and the administration’s desire to eradicate any boat it thinks has departed from countries it wants to control, like Venezuela. On top of the lack of legal rationale for initial strikes, there’s evidence the Defense Department engages in double- or triple-tap attacks meant to kill the survivors of the original strike — something that’s extremely handy because it also kills potential litigants.
Those extra strikes are illegal under even the United State’s own rules of engagement. And yet they continue. These strikes may have fallen off the radar due to the deluge of unbelievably horrific shit this administration generates daily, but they’re still happening even if the focus has shifted elsewhere.
Fighting a war on drugs doesn’t actually mean you’re engaged in a literal war — you know, the sort of thing Congress used to get angry about if presidents decided they’d rather not deal with any resistance from the legislative branch when getting their war on. This country engages on “wars” on everything from literacy and hunger (but not this administration) to abstract concepts like “woke” and “transgender everywhere.”
That doesn’t mean the administration can drone strike entities still clinging to DEI initiative. Nor can it blow up shipments of cell phones designed for children’s hands just because it believes these “distractions” are leading to lower reading comprehension scores.
The same goes for the War on Drugs. While there’s value in intercepting shipments and arresting those involved, a military program that kills people just because they might be trafficking drugs (much of which appears to headed to other destinations than the United States) is not only illegal, it’s immoral.
Experts in international and U.S. domestic law told an inter-American human rights organization on Friday that the Pentagon’s campaign of blowing up boats it suspected of smuggling drugs in the Pacific Ocean and the Caribbean was illegal.
[…]
Ben Saul, the U.N. special rapporteur for protecting fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism, accused the United States of “responding with lawless violence that flagrantly violates human rights, in its phony war on so-called narco-terrorism.”
“Drug trafficking is a crime, not war,” said Mr. Saul, a professor of international law. He also said a portrayal of the suspected drug traffickers as being responsible for “speculative drug overdoses” did not constitute a “permissible law enforcement action in personal self-defense or the defense of others.”
Perhaps you’re as cynical as I am. Maybe you see this and wonder what is even the point: some dude said some stuff to the United Nations, which doesn’t mean much now that the Trump administration has decided no other nation or international association of nations has the power to stop it from doing what it wants to do.
Sure, there’s limited utility in statements made to entities the US government is just going to ignore. But don’t let that bury the lede: the Trump administration is engaged in an unprecedented murder program predicated solely on its legally unsupported position that trafficking drugs (to anywhere!) is exactly identical to engaging in terrorist attacks against US citizens.
This is an under-count. There’s no reason to believe the government has released information on every strike, especially since it delayed release of footage showing the military engaging in multiple strikes to murder survivors of its initial boat strike. We may never know the full body count of this extrajudicial killing program. But it’s harrowing to note (as the Times does in its report) that only two rescues of boat strike victims occurred during the last six months, even though the military is obligated — by US law and international law — to attempt to rescue survivors of military attacks it engages in.
The White House is War Crime Central. And now it’s adding to its rap sheet by bombing Iranian schools on top of killing people in international waters. The administration’s response, of course, refused to engage with the allegations made during this conference, choosing instead to claim (1) the Intra-American Human Rights Court (IAHCR) should mind its own business and (2) that it should look at some other cases that don’t involve the Trump administration’s casual human rights violations. You know, the usual stuff: “you’re not the boss of me” + whataboutism.
It’s the State Department pretending you can make a Venn diagram out of humanitarian aid mandates and international human rights laws:
The IACHR lacks the competence to review the matters at issue, which concern the interpretation and application of international humanitarian law, not human rights law, and should not be a pawn in a domestic litigation strategy of the ACLU or any other party.
A normal person would see these concepts as nearly completely overlapping. This administration is not normal. It’s a collective of inhumane people with an inordinate amount of power. And from what’s seen here, it’s clear the body count in international waters will only continue to rise.
Of course, you’re supposed to try and have some subtlety in this so the public isn’t fully aware of the con. But the Trump administration doesn’t do subtlety.
Last week Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth apparently got upset by the fact Trump’s war in Iran isn’t going very well. Poor Donald clearly didn’t understand the evolving nature of modern and inexpensive drone warfare (despite all the brutal evidence in Ukraine), and has gotten the country bogged down in precisely the sort of clusterfuck the fake populist pretended he opposed last election season.
Even our soggy corporate press has occasionally been making this clear to the public, something that upsets Pete Hegseth very much. Hegseth apparently got particularly upset with CNN recently insisting that the Iran War had “intensified.” It made him so upset that he openly pined for the moment when Larry Ellison (and his nepobaby son) control CNN, so they can cheerlead for war:
Hegseth: "Some in the press can't stop. Allow me to make suggestions. People look at the TV and they see banners, 'Mideast War Intensifies.' What should it read instead? How about, 'Iran increasingly desperate.' More fake news from CNN. The sooner David Ellison takes over that network, the better"
It’s very clear that the U.S. right wing won’t be satisfied until the entirety of U.S. media is owned by a handful of rich right wingers like Larry Ellison and Elon Musk, allowing them to create a North Korea bullhorn of daily, uniform propaganda that does nothing but lavish praise upon them. To build something like that here in the States requires a level of subtlety they’re simply not capable of:
Donald Trump is now just openly bragging about interfering in the media. He's the president. He's running a truck over the first amendment here.
Democrats historically suck on media policy and reform (even the progressive wing of the party is fairly incompetent on the subject), so you can’t expect much help there.
But there are several things working in our favor, including America’s sheer size (it’s very difficult to maintain the kind of control they’re looking for), our diversity, the decentralized nature of the modern internet, and the fact that most of the nepobabies (David Ellison) and brunchlords (Bari Weiss) integral to their plans appear to have absolutely no Earthly idea what they’re actually doing.
For example, all the debt Ellison has adopted from the purchase of CBS and Warner Brothers is going to force them to engage in massive, unprecedented cost cuttings and layoffs, making it hard to maintain informational control and build an effective, ratings-grabbing propaganda operation (even if Bari Weiss knew what she was doing, which she assuredly does not).
And the public still has agency. Larry Ellison can buy TikTok and Elon Musk can buy Twitter, but they can’t control the flow of the public as they flee to other, less white supremacist, right wing friendly alternatives. It’s sheer hubris to think they can maintain information control in a country this massive and diverse, and there will be some useful entertainment value in watching them set money on fire trying.
Images from the missile strike in southern Iran were more horrifying than any of the case studies Air Force combat veteran Wes J. Bryant had pored over in his mission to overhaul how the U.S. military safeguards civilian life.
Parents wept over their children’s bodies. Crushed desks and blood-stained backpacks poked through the rubble. The death toll from the attack on an elementary school in Minab climbed past 165, most of them under age 12, with nearly 100 others wounded, according to Iranian health officials. Photos of small coffins and rows of fresh graves went viral, a devastating emblem of Day 1 in the open-ended U.S.-Israeli war in Iran.
Bryant, a former special operations targeting specialist, said he couldn’t help but think of what-ifs as he monitored fallout from the Feb. 28 attack.
Just over a year ago, he had been a senior adviser in an ambitious new Defense Department program aimed at reducing civilian harm during operations. Finally, Bryant said, the military was getting serious about reforms. He worked out of a newly opened Civilian Protection Center of Excellence, where his supervisor was a veteran strike-team targeter who had served as a United Nations war crimes investigator.
Today, that momentum is gone. Bryant was forced out of government in cuts last spring. The civilian protection mission was dissolved as Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth made “lethality” a top priority. And the world has witnessed a tragedy in Minab that, if U.S. responsibility is confirmed, would be the most civilians killed by the military in a single attack in decades.
Dismantling the fledgling harm-reduction effort, defense analysts say, is among several ways the Trump administration has reorganized national security around two principles: more aggression, less accountability.
Trump and his aides lowered the authorization level for lethal force, broadened target categories, inflated threat assessments and fired inspectors general, according to more than a dozen current and former national security personnel. Nearly all spoke on condition of anonymity for fear of retaliation.
“We’re departing from the rules and norms that we’ve tried to establish as a global community since at least World War II,” Bryant said. “There’s zero accountability.”
Citing open-source intelligence and government officials, several news outlets have concluded that the strike in Minab most likely was carried out by the United States. President Donald Trump, without providing evidence, told reporters March 7 that it was “done by Iran.” Hegseth, standing next to the president aboard Air Force One, said the matter was under investigation.
The next day, the open-source research outfit Bellingcat said it had authenticated a video showing a Tomahawk missile strike next to the school in Minab. Iranian state media later showed fragments of a U.S.-made Tomahawk, as identified by Bellingcat and others, at the site. The United States is the only party to the conflict known to possess Tomahawks. U.N. human rights experts have called for an investigation into whether the attack violated international law.
The Department of Defense and White House did not respond to requests for comment.
Since the post-9/11 invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, successive U.S. administrations have faced controversies over civilian deaths. Defense officials eager to shed the legacy of the “forever wars” have periodically called for better protections for civilians, but there was no standardized framework until 2022, when Biden-era leaders adopted a strategy rooted in work that had begun under the first Trump presidency.
Formalized in a 2022 action plan and in a Defense Department instruction, the initiatives are known collectively as Civilian Harm Mitigation and Response, a clunky name often shortened to CHMR and pronounced “chimmer.” Around 200 personnel were assigned to the mission, including roughly 30 at the Civilian Protection Center of Excellence, a coordination hub near the Pentagon.
The CHMR strategy calls for more in-depth planning before an attack, such as real-time mapping of the civilian presence in an area and in-depth analysis of the risks. After an operation, reports of harm to noncombatants would prompt an assessment or investigation to figure out what went wrong and then incorporate those lessons into training.
By the time Trump returned to power, harm-mitigation teams were embedded with regional commands and special operations leadership. During Senate confirmation hearings, several Trump nominees for top defense posts voiced support for the mission. Once in office, however, they stood by as the program was gutted, current and former national security officials said.
Around 90% of the CHMR mission is gone, former personnel said, with no more than a single adviser now at most commands. At Central Command, where a 10-person team was cut to one, “a handful” of the eliminated positions were backfilled to help with the Iran campaign. Defense officials can’t formally close the Civilian Protection Center of Excellence without congressional approval, but Bryant and others say it now exists mostly on paper.
“It has no mission or mandate or budget,” Bryant said.
Spike in Strikes
Global conflict monitors have since recorded a dramatic increase in deadly U.S. military operations. Even before the Iran campaign, the number of strikes worldwide since Trump returned to office had surpassed the total from all four years of Joe Biden’s presidency.
Had the Defense Department’s harm-reduction mission continued apace, current and former officials say, the policies almost certainly would’ve reduced the number of noncombatants harmed over the past year.
Beyond the moral considerations, they added, civilian casualties fuel militant recruiting and hinder intelligence-gathering. Retired Gen. Stanley McChrystal, who commanded U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan, explains the risk in an equation he calls “insurgent math”: For every innocent killed, at least 10 new enemies are created.
U.S.-Israeli strikes have already killed more than 1,200 civilians in Iran, including nearly 200 children, according to Human Rights Activists News Agency, a U.S.-based group that verifies casualties through a network in Iran. The group says hundreds more deaths are under review, a difficult process given Iran’s internet blackout and dangerous conditions.
Defense analysts say the civilian toll of the Iran campaign, on top of dozens of recent noncombatant casualties in Yemen and Somalia, reopens dark chapters from the “war on terror” that had prompted reforms in the first place.
“It’s a recipe for disaster,” a senior counterterrorism official who left the government a few months ago said of the Trump administration’s yearlong bombing spree. “It’s ‘Groundhog Day’ — every day we’re just killing people and making more enemies.”
In 2015, twodozen patients and 14 staff members were killed when a heavily armed U.S. gunship fired for over an hour on a Doctors Without Borders hospital in northern Afghanistan, a disaster that has become a cautionary tale for military planners.
“Our patients burned in their beds, our medical staff were decapitated or lost limbs. Others were shot from the air while they fled the burning building,” the international aid group said in a report about the destruction of its trauma center in Kunduz.
A U.S. military investigation found that multiple human and systems errors had resulted in the strike team mistaking the building for a Taliban target. The Obama administration apologized and offered payouts of $6,000 to families of the dead.
Human rights advocates had hoped the Kunduz debacle would force the U.S. military into taking concrete steps to protect civilians during U.S. combat operations. Within a couple years, however, the issue came roaring back with high civilian casualties in U.S.-led efforts to dislodge Islamic State extremists from strongholds in Syria and Iraq.
In a single week in March 2017, U.S. operations resulted in three incidents of mass civilian casualties: A drone attack on a mosque in Syria killed around 50; a strike in another part of Syria killed 40 in a school filled with displaced families; and bombing in the Iraqi city of Mosul led to a building collapse that killed more than 100 people taking shelter inside.
In heavy U.S. fighting to break Islamic State control over the Syrian city of Raqqa, “military leaders too often lacked a complete picture of conditions on the ground; too often waved off reports of civilian casualties; and too rarely learned any lessons from strikes gone wrong,” according to an analysis by the Pentagon-adjacent Rand Corp. think tank.
Released in 2019, the review Mattis launched was seen by some advocacy groups as narrow in scope but still a step in the right direction. Yet the issue soon dropped from national discourse, overshadowed by the coronavirus pandemic and landmark racial justice protests.
During the Biden administration’s chaotic withdrawal of U.S. forces from Afghanistan in August 2021, a missile strike in Kabul killed an aid worker and nine of his relatives, including seven children. Then-Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin apologized and said the department would “endeavor to learn from this horrible mistake.”
That incident, along with a New York Times investigative series into deaths from U.S. airstrikes, spurred the adoption of the Civilian Harm Mitigation and Response action plan in 2022. When they established the new Civilian Protection Center of Excellence the next year, defense officials tapped Michael McNerney — the lead author of the blunt RAND report — to be its director.
“The strike against the aid worker and his family in Kabul pushed Austin to say, ‘Do it right now,’” Bryant said.
The first harm-mitigation teams were assigned to leaders in charge of some of the military’s most sensitive counterterrorism and intelligence-gathering operations: Central Command at MacDill Air Force Base in Tampa, Florida; the Joint Special Operations Command at Fort Bragg, North Carolina; and Africa Command in Stuttgart, Germany.
A former CHMR adviser who joined in 2024 after a career in international conflict work said he was reassured to find a serious campaign with a $7 million budget and deep expertise. The adviser spoke on condition of anonymity for fear of retaliation.
Only a few years before, he recalled, he’d had to plead with the Pentagon to pay attention. “It was like a back-of-the-envelope thing — the cost of a Hellfire missile and the cost of hiring people to work on this.”
Bryant became the de facto liaison between the harm-mitigation team and special operations commanders. In December, he described the experience in detail in a private briefing for aides of Sen. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., who had sought information on civilian casualty protocols involvingboat strikes in the Caribbean Sea.
Bryant’s notes from the briefing, reviewed by ProPublica, describe an embrace of the CHMR mission by Adm. Frank Bradley, who at the time was head of the Joint Special Operations Command. In October, Bradley was promoted to lead Special Operations Command.
At the end of 2024 and into early 2025, Bryant worked closely with the commander’s staff. The notes describe Bradley as “incredibly supportive” of the three-person CHMR team embedded in his command.
Bradley, Bryant wrote, directed “comprehensive lookbacks” on civilian casualties in errant strikes and used the findings to mandate changes. He also introduced training on how to integrate harm prevention and international law into operations against high-value targets. “We viewed Bradley as a model,” Bryant said.
Still, the military remained slow to offer compensation to victims and some of the new policies were difficult to independently monitor, according to a report by the Stimson Center, a foreign policy think tank. The CHMR program also faced opposition from critics who say civilian protections are already baked into laws of war and targeting protocols; the argument is that extra oversight “could have a chilling effect” on commanders’ abilities to quickly tailor operations.
To keep reforms on track, Bryant said, CHMR advisers would have to break through a culture of denial among leaders who pride themselves on precision and moral authority.
“The initial gut response of all commands,” Bryant said, “is: ‘No, we didn’t kill civilians.’”
Reforms Unraveled
As the Trump administration returned to the White House pledging deep cuts across the federal government, military and political leaders scrambled to preserve the Civilian Harm Mitigation and Response framework.
At first, CHMR advisers were heartened by Senate confirmation hearings where Trump’s nominees for senior defense posts affirmed support for civilian protections.
Gen. Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, wrote during his confirmation that commanders “see positive impacts from the program.” Elbridge Colby, undersecretary of defense for policy, wrote that it’s in the national interest to “seek to reduce civilian harm to the degree possible.”
When questioned about cuts to the CHMR mission at a hearing last summer, U.S. Navy Vice Adm. Brad Cooper, head of Central Command, said he was committed to integrating the ideas as “part of our culture.”
Despite the top-level support, current and former officials say, the CHMR mission didn’t stand a chance under Hegseth’s signature lethality doctrine.
The former Fox News personality, who served as an Army National Guard infantry officer in Iraq and Afghanistan, disdains rules of engagement and other guardrails as constraining to the “warrior ethos.” He has defended U.S. troops accused of war crimes, including a Navy SEAL charged with stabbing an imprisoned teenage militant to death and then posing for a photo with the corpse.
A month after taking charge, Hegseth fired the military’s top judge advocate generals, known as JAGs, who provide guidance to keep operations in line with U.S. or international law. Hegseth has described the attorneys as “roadblocks” and used the term “jagoff.”
At the Civilian Protection Center of Excellence, the staff tried in vain to save the program. At one point, Bryant said, he even floated the idea of renaming it the “Center for Precision Warfare” to put the mission in terms Hegseth wouldn’t consider “woke.”
By late February 2025, the CHMR mission was imploding, say current and former defense personnel.
Shortly before his job was eliminated, Bryant openly spoke out against the cuts in The Washington Post and Boston Globe, which he said landed him in deep trouble at the Pentagon. He was placed on leave in March, his security clearance at risk of revocation.
Bryant formally resigned in September and has since become a vocal critic of the administration’s defense policies. In columns and on TV, he warns that Hegseth’s cavalier attitude toward the rule of law and civilian protections is corroding military professionalism.
Bryant said it was hard to watch Bradley, the special operations commander and enthusiastic adopter of CHMR, defending a controversial “double-tap” on an alleged drug boat in which survivors of a first strike were killed in a follow-up hit. Legal experts have said such strikes could violate laws of warfare. Bradley did not respond to a request for comment.
“Everything else starts slipping when you have this culture of higher tolerance for civilian casualties,” Bryant said.
Concerns were renewed in early 2025 with the Trump administration’s revived counterterrorism campaign against Islamist militants regrouping in parts of Africa and the Middle East.
Last April, a U.S. air strike hit a migrant detention center in northwestern Yemen, killing at least 61 African migrants and injuring dozens of others in what Amnesty International says “qualifies as an indiscriminate attack and should be investigated as a war crime.”
Operations in Somalia also have become more lethal. In 2024, Biden’s last year in office, conflict monitors recorded 21 strikes in Somalia, with a combined death toll of 189. In year one of Trump’s second term, the U.S. carried out at least 125 strikes, with reported fatalities as high as 359, according to the New America think tank, which monitors counterterrorism operations.
“It is a strategy focused primarily on killing people,” said Alexander Palmer, a terrorism researcher at the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies.
Last September, the U.S. military announced an attack in northeastern Somalia targeting a weapons dealer for the Islamist militia Al-Shabaab, a U.S.-designated terrorist group. On the ground, however, villagers said the missile strike incinerated Omar Abdullahi, a respected elder nicknamed “Omar Peacemaker” for his role as a clan mediator.
After the death, the U.S. military released no details, citing operational security.
“The U.S. killed an innocent man without proof or remorse,” Abdullahi’s brother, Ali, told Somali news outlets. “He preached peace, not war. Now his blood stains our soil.”
In Iran, former personnel say, the CHMR mission could have made a difference.
Under the scrapped harm-prevention framework, they said, plans for civilian protection would’ve begun months ago, when orders to draw up a potential Iran campaign likely came down from the White House and Pentagon.
CHMR personnel across commands would immediately begin a detailed mapping of what planners call “the civilian environment,” in this case a picture of the infrastructure and movements of ordinary Iranians. They would also check and update the “no-strike list,” which names civilian targets such as schools and hospitals that are strictly off-limits.
One key question is whether the school was on the no-strike list. It sits a few yards from a naval base for the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. The building was formerly part of the base, though it has been marked on maps as a school since at least 2013, according to visual forensics investigations.
“Whoever ‘hits the button’ on a Tomahawk — they’re part of a system,” the former adviser said. “What you want is for that person to feel really confident that when they hit that button, they’re not going to hit schoolchildren.”
If the guardrails failed and the Defense Department faced a disaster like the school strike, Bryant said, CHMR advisers would’ve jumped in to help with transparent public statements and an immediate inquiry.
Instead, he called the Trump administration’s response to the attack “shameful.”
“It’s back to where we were years ago,” Bryant said. If confirmed, “this will go down as one of the most egregious failures in targeting and civilian harm-mitigation in modern U.S. history.”
We’ve been covering the ongoing saga of the Trump administration’s attempt to destroy Anthropic for the sin of having modest ethical guidelines around its AI technology.
The short version: Anthropic said it didn’t want its AI making autonomous kill decisions without human oversight. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth responded by declaring the company a supply chain risk—a designation designed for foreign adversaries, not San Francisco companies with ethics policies—and ordering every federal agency to purge Anthropic’s technology. Now Anthropic is back at the negotiating table with the same people who just tried to kill it.
On Thursday, Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei published a new statement about “where things stand” with the Defense Department. And it is… something. It reads like what happens when a serious person at a serious company has to write a serious document in an environment that has gone completely insane—and the result is a press release that, under any previous administration, would have been recognized as deeply alarming corporate groveling, but which now just kind of… slides into the news cycle as another Thursday.
The statement is titled “Where things stand with the Department of War.” Not the Department of Defense. The Department of War. Yes, Trump and Hegseth have spent hundreds of millions of dollars renaming the Defense Department, but it’s not up to them. It’s up to Congress. According to the law, it’s still the Department of Defense, and anyone using the name Department of War is clearly sucking up to the administration. It’s all theater.
Amodei uses the fictitious name throughout his statement. Every single reference. “Department of War.” This is a company that six days ago was being praised for standing on principle, and its CEO can’t even bring himself to use the department’s legal name because the administration insists upon everyone using the cosplay version. Before you even get to the substance, the document has already bent the knee. He’s negotiating with people who branded him a national security threat, and he opens by adopting their preferred terminology like a hostage reading a prepared script.
From there, the statement proceeds through a series of passages that are individually rational and collectively dystopian. Take this section:
I would like to reiterate that we had been having productive conversations with the Department of War over the last several days, both about ways we could serve the Department that adhere to our two narrow exceptions, and ways for us to ensure a smooth transition if that is not possible. As we wrote on Thursday, we are very proud of the work we have done together with the Department, supporting frontline warfighters with applications such as intelligence analysis, modeling and simulation, operational planning, cyber operations, and more.
“We are very proud of the work we have done together with the Department”—the department that is currently trying to destroy the company over a contractual dispute. The department whose secretary called Anthropic’s stance “a master class in arrogance and betrayal” and “a cowardly act of corporate virtue-signaling that places Silicon Valley ideology above American lives.” The department that declared Anthropic a supply chain risk to national security—again, a designation designed for hostile foreign infiltration of military systems, not for a San Francisco company that said “maybe a human should be in the loop before the robot decides to kill someone.”
And here’s Dario, proudly listing all the ways Anthropic has served these same people. “Supporting frontline warfighters.” This is the language of a Pentagon press release. Six days. It took six days to go from “we have principles about autonomous weapons” to “we are very proud of supporting frontline warfighters with cyber operations.”
This may be a rational decision from a company trying to stave off a ridiculous fight, but the real story is that they feel the need to act this way.
Then there’s the apology. Earlier this week, an internal Amodei memo leaked in which he described OpenAI’s rushed Pentagon deal as “safety theater” and “straight up lies,” and noted that the key difference between the two companies’ positions was that OpenAI “cared about placating employees” while Anthropic “actually cared about preventing abuses.” It was blunt. It was competitive. It also appeared to be accurate—OpenAI subsequently rewrote its contract to address many of the concerns Amodei identified.
But accuracy is apparently a liability now:
I also want to apologize directly for a post internal to the company that was leaked to the press yesterday. Anthropic did not leak this post nor direct anyone else to do so—it is not in our interest to escalate this situation. That particular post was written within a few hours of the President’s Truth Social post announcing Anthropic would be removed from all federal systems, the Secretary of War’s X post announcing the supply chain risk designation, and the announcement of a deal between the Pentagon and OpenAI, which even OpenAI later characterized as confusing. It was a difficult day for the company, and I apologize for the tone of the post. It does not reflect my careful or considered views. It was also written six days ago, and is an out-of-date assessment of the current situation.
He is apologizing for the tone of an accurate description of events because the accurate description made the people trying to destroy his company unhappy. He notes it was “a difficult day for the company”—the day the President of the United States directed every federal agency to cease using your technology and the Defense Secretary branded you a threat to national security. Yeah, I’d call that a difficult day. And on that difficult day, Amodei accurately described what was happening, and now he has to say sorry for it because the accurate description “does not reflect my careful or considered views.”
Translation: the careful and considered view is that you don’t say true things out loud when the administration is watching and deeply focused on punishing you.
And then we arrive at the closing:
Our most important priority right now is making sure that our warfighters and national security experts are not deprived of important tools in the middle of major combat operations. Anthropic will provide our models to the Department of War and national security community, at nominal cost and with continuing support from our engineers, for as long as is necessary to make that transition, and for as long as we are permitted to do so.
Anthropic is offering to provide its AI models to the military at nominal cost—essentially a discount—while simultaneously preparing to challenge the supply chain risk designation in court. The company is saying: “We believe your action against us is illegal, we will fight it in court, and also here’s our technology at a steep discount, please don’t hurt us anymore.”
And the framing: “Our most important priority right now is making sure that our warfighters… are not deprived of important tools in the middle of major combat operations.” This is Anthropic fully adopting Hegseth’s rhetoric—the exact framing that was used to justify the attack on them in the first place. Hegseth’s entire argument was that Anthropic’s ethical guidelines were depriving “warfighters” of critical tools. And now Anthropic is echoing that language as though it were their own concern all along. The “warfighters” language is especially rich given that this administration keeps tap dancing around the question of whether we’re actually “at war” with Iran—apparently we have warfighters who aren’t fighting a war.
The statement closes with what might be the single most remarkable sentence:
Anthropic has much more in common with the Department of War than we have differences. We both are committed to advancing US national security and defending the American people, and agree on the urgency of applying AI across the government. All our future decisions will flow from that shared premise.
Remember, this company was founded by people who left OpenAI specifically because they thought AI safety was being treated as an afterthought. Their entire brand, their entire reason for existing, was the proposition that there are some things AI should not be used for without significant guardrails. “Anthropic has much more in common with the Department of War than we have differences” is the kind of sentence you write when survival has replaced principle as the operating framework.
Every individual decision in this statement is probably the rational play. Using the administration’s preferred name costs nothing. Apologizing for the memo reduces friction. “Warfighter” language signals alignment. These are survival tactics, and they’re being deployed by someone who appears to have no good options.
That’s the actual horror. This is what the “good” decisions look like in an authoritarian world.
Under any previous administration—Democrat or Republican—a company telling the Defense Department “we’d prefer our AI not make autonomous kill decisions without human oversight” would have been a mostly unremarkable negotiating position. It might have been a deal breaker for that particular contract. The two sides might have parted ways. What would not have happened is the Secretary of Defense going on social media to accuse the company of “betrayal” and “duplicity,” the President directing all federal agencies to stop using the company’s products, and the company’s CEO subsequently having to write a public groveling statement apologizing for having accurately described the situation while pledging free labor to the government that attacked him.
And every AI company watching this—every tech company of any kind—is absorbing the lesson. Tell the administration “no” on even the most modest ethical point, and this is what follows: a week of chaos, a supply chain risk designation, your CEO apologizing for telling the truth, and a press release pledging your technology to the military at cost while you simultaneously sue to stay alive.
As I wrote last year, authoritarian systems are fundamentally incompatible with innovation. They produce exactly this kind of environment—one where the rational move for a company is to grovel in public while fighting in court, to adopt the language of the people attacking you, and to apologize for having been right. The AI bros who supported Trump because Biden’s AI plan involved some annoying paperwork should take a long look at this statement and ask themselves whether this is the “pro-innovation” environment they were promised.
Because right now, the most “pro-innovation” thing happening in American AI is a hostage note written in business casual—and everyone pretending it’s just a press release.
