Connect with us

Business

Pentagon’s Anthropic bashing rekindles Silicon Valley’s resistance to war

Published

on

Pentagon’s Anthropic bashing rekindles Silicon Valley’s resistance to war

Artificial intelligence powerhouse Anthropic’s battle with the Pentagon has sparked some soul-searching in Silicon Valley that could reshape the tech sector’s complicated relationship with war and the White House.

Anthropic is the San Francisco-based startup behind the chatbot Claude and some of the most powerful AI on the market. In its negotiations with the military, it has demanded guardrails on how its technology is used.

The military said it refused to be beholden to a corporation and pushed back, labeling Anthropic a threat akin to an enemy foreign power and blocking it from some government contracts.

Tech leaders have quietly backed Anthropic, saying that AI isn’t ready for some weapons and that strong-arming companies is counterproductive and antidemocratic. President Trump called Anthropic a bunch of “left-wing nut jobs.”

How this showdown plays out will affect not only Anthropic’s booming business but also the way tech titans and other corporations work with an administration known for lashing out at resisters, said Alan Rozenshtein, an associate professor at the University of Minnesota Law School.

Advertisement

“On the one hand, it could cause the government’s other Silicon Valley suppliers to be more compliant, lest they be treated like Anthropic has been,” he said. “On the other hand, it could lead more companies to avoid doing business with the government at all to avoid the risk of something like this happening to them.”

As some tech trailblazers in recent years have become more comfortable with developing weapons, Southern California has emerged as a hub for defense tech startups. With a long history in defense, it has the factories, engineers and aerospace expertise to turn venture funding and military demand into weapons, satellites and other advanced systems.

The fallout from Anthropic’s showdown with the Trump administration will help determine the local winners and losers in the sector in the coming years.

While many of the key players in tech have been reluctant to join the brawl in a high-profile manner, the positions on different sides are laid out in a court case that Anthropic has pursued to get off the Pentagon’s blacklist.

Anthropic filed the lawsuit in the U.S. District Court in the Northern District of California and a petition for review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on March 9. The company is asking the court to overturn its designation as a “supply chain risk” and block the Trump administration from enforcing the government’s ban on its technology.

Advertisement

“The consequences of this case are enormous,” Anthropic’s lawsuit said. “The federal government retaliated against a leading frontier AI developer for adhering to its protected viewpoint on a subject of great public significance — AI safety and the limitations of its own AI models — in violation of the Constitution and laws of the United States.”

Some of Anthropic’s biggest concerns are that its technology could be used for government surveillance or autonomous weapons. It has been asking for assurances in the wording of its contracts that its AI would not be used for these purposes. While the government said it would not use the tech for those purposes, it was unable to provide Anthropic with the assurance it wanted.

Tech industry groups, Microsoft and workers from Google and OpenAI have backed Anthropic in its legal fight against the Trump administration, adding their own views to its case.

On Tuesday, lawyers for the U.S. government said in a court filing that the Defense Department started to wonder whether Anthropic could be trusted.

“Anthropic could attempt to disable its technology or preemptively alter the behavior of its model either before or during ongoing warfighting operations, if Anthropic — in its discretion — feels that its corporate ‘red lines’ are being crossed,” the government said in the filing.

Advertisement

The Department of Defense and Anthropic declined to comment.

The tech industry has a long, complicated history of working with the military. In the 1960s, the Department of Defense developed the internet’s predecessor, ARPAnet, to help keep military and government computers secure.

For much of this century, the big tech companies, as well as their investors, have often tried to avoid developing or promoting things that helped spy on people or kill them. Google, once known for its motto “Don’t Be Evil,” didn’t renew a controversial Pentagon contract, Project Maven, in 2018 after thousands of workers protested over concerns that AI would be used to analyze drone surveillance footage.

That has changed in recent years as there has been more money to be made in tech fixes for military problems.

Benjamin Lawrence, a senior lead analyst at CB Insights, said that advancements in AI and major events, such as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022, helped fuel a surge in venture capital investment in defense tech.

Advertisement

“It caused a huge shift with a lot of traditional investors looking at defense tech in a more positive light because you have a sovereign democratic nation that was invaded,” he said.

The world’s most powerful tech companies have been partnering with defense tech startups and securing government contracts.

Google has been offering AI tools to civilians and military personnel for unclassified work. The Department of Defense also awarded a $200-million contract to Google Public Sector, a division that works with government agencies and education institutions, to accelerate AI and cloud capabilities.

The industry’s allegiance with the White House and its military ambitions was strengthened with the arrival of the second Trump administration. Many of the top executives of the tech world have been supporting and advising Trump.

The recent strong-arming of one of the thought leaders of the AI revolution, however, has given many pause. Some of the resistance echoes the earlier era when the tech industry was suspicious of how governments would use its innovations.

Advertisement

The tech industry finds itself in a tricky spot after Anthropic’s clashes with the Pentagon. In late February, the public feud escalated after Trump assailed Anthropic and ordered government agencies to stop using its technology. His administration labeled Anthropic a “supply chain risk,” prompting the company to sue.

Trump’s actions could jeopardize hundreds of millions of dollars in contracts it has with private parties, according to Anthropic’s lawsuit. Federal agencies have started to cancel contracts.

Last week, tech industry groups such as TechNet, whose members include Anthropic, Meta, OpenAI, Nvidia, Google and other major companies, said in an amicus brief that blacklisting an American company “engenders uncertainty throughout the broader industry.”

“Treating an American technology company as a foreign adversary, rather than an asset, has a chilling effect on U.S. innovation and further emboldens China’s efforts to export its own government-backed AI technology,” the brief said.

Microsoft has also backed Anthropic, urging the court to temporarily block Trump from blacklisting the AI company. Labeling Anthropic as a supply chain risk means that Microsoft and other government suppliers will have to use “significant resources” to determine how excluding Anthropic would affect their contracts.

Advertisement

The U.S. government said in its filing that its concerns with Anthropic focus on its conduct and are unrelated to its speech. But Anthropic and the tech industry say the move would hurt their businesses.

In addition to Trump’s harsh criticism of the company, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth accused Anthropic of delivering a “master class in arrogance and betrayal.”

Anduril’s founder, Palmer Luckey, backed the Pentagon’s position, stating that it should be elected officials, not corporate executives, making military decisions. Anthropic countered, stating in a blog post it “understands that the Department of War, not private companies, makes military decisions.”

As this battle plays out, some experts say Anthropic would probably have an upper hand in court.

In its lawsuit, Anthropic said the Trump administration violated a law for labeling a company a supply chain risk, noting it doesn’t have ties to a U.S. “adversary,” such as China or Iran.

Advertisement

Anthropic also said the Trump administration retaliated against the company for its speech and other protected activities, violating the 1st Amendment.

“They’re just lashing out,” said Rozenshtein of the University of Minnesota Law School. “I think that’s a lot of what this is.”

Business

Devin Nunes Departs Trump Media After 4 Years as C.E.O.

Published

on

Devin Nunes Departs Trump Media After 4 Years as C.E.O.

President Trump’s social media company, which has consistently lost money and struggled with a flagging share price, announced Tuesday that it was replacing Devin Nunes as its chief executive officer.

The announcement offered no reason for the sudden departure of Mr. Nunes, a former Republican congressman from California. Mr. Trump had tapped him to run the company, Trump Media & Technology, in late 2021.

The announcement was made in a news release by the president’s eldest son, Donald Trump Jr., who is a company board member and oversees a trust that controls his father’s 115-million-share stake in Trump Media. President Trump is not an officer or director of the company.

Mr. Nunes said in a statement on Truth Social, which is Trump Media’s flagship product, that it was an “appropriate time” for a new leader with experience in media and mergers to “steer Trump Media through its current transition phase.”

Trump Media has incurred hundreds of millions in losses, and its shares have performed poorly since the company went public by completing a merger with a cash-rich special purpose acquisition company, or SPAC, in March 2024. The stock, which ended its first day of trading around $58 a share, closed Tuesday at $9.82.

Advertisement

Shares of Trump Media trade under the symbol DJT, which are President Trump’s initials. Truth Social has emerged as the main social media platform for Mr. Trump to communicate his policy decisions and opinions to the world.

Last year, Trump Media took in $3.7 million in revenue and recorded a $712 million net loss.

In December, Trump Media announced a plan to merge with TAE Technologies, a fusion power company. The all-stock deal, which was valued at $6 billion at the time, would create one of the first publicly traded nuclear fusion companies.

Trump Media said in February that it was considering spinning off its Truth Social platform in a merger with another cash-rich SPAC, Texas Ventures Acquisition III Corp.

Mr. Nunes is being replaced on an interim basis by Kevin McGurn, who has been an adviser to Trump Media since the end of 2024. Mr. McGurn, a former executive at Hulu, the streaming service, was listed in a recent regulatory filing as the chief executive of Texas Ventures.

Advertisement

The Trump Media release announcing the management change provided no update on the merger with TAE Technologies or the proposed SPAC deal for Truth Social.

Continue Reading

Business

Netflix plans to buy historic Radford Studio Center

Published

on

Netflix plans to buy historic Radford Studio Center

Streaming entertainment giant Netflix is in negotiations to buy the historic Radford Studio Center lot in Studio City.

Netflix plans to purchase the Los Angeles studio that has been home to generations of landmark television shows, including “Gunsmoke” and “Seinfeld,” according to two people with knowledge of the pending deal who were not authorized to speak about it publicly.

The studio’s previous operator, Hackman Capital Partners, defaulted on a $1.1-billion mortgage in January. Investment bank Goldman Sachs took over the property and is in talks with Netflix to sell it for between $330 million and $400 million.

Representatives for Hackman and Netflix declined to comment on the planned sale.

Advertisement

Culver City-based Hackman Capital Partners and Square Mile Capital Management teamed up to buy the Radford Avenue property from ViacomCBS in 2021 with a winning bid of $1.85 billion, after a competitive battle for the 55-acre studio beloved by the television industry.

At the time, the staggering price tag underscored the value — and scarcity — of TV soundstages in Los Angeles as content producers scrambled for space to shoot TV shows and movies to stock their streaming services. It was one of the largest-ever real estate transactions for a TV studio complex in Los Angeles.

Since then, production has substantially declined in Southern California. L.A. continues to battle the loss of production to other states and countries, as well as the lingering effects on the industry of the pandemic and the 2023 dual writers’ and actors’ strikes. Cutbacks in spending at the major studios after a surge in streaming-fueled TV production have further damped film activity in the region.

Founded by silent film comedy legend Mack Sennett in 1928, the lot became known as “Hit City” in the decades after World War II as popular TV shows such as “Leave It to Beaver,” “Gilligan’s Island,” “The Mary Tyler Moore Show,” “The Bob Newhart Show” and “Will & Grace” were made there. The storied lot gave the Studio City neighborhood its name,

Netflix, which has a market cap of about $455 billion — more than double that of Walt Disney Co. — has maintained its dominance in the global streaming business with more than 325 million subscribers.

Advertisement

The Los Gatos-based company has production offices worldwide, including facilities in Albuquerque, Brooklyn, London, Madrid and Toronto.

Netflix had secured an $82.7-billion deal to buy Warner Bros. studios and streaming services in December, but withdrew from the bidding war in late February after Paramount Skydance offered $31 a share. As part of the switch, Netflix was paid a $2.8-billion termination fee.

Continue Reading

Business

Kevin Warsh, Trump’s Pick to Lead Fed, Faces Senate at Tricky Moment

Published

on

Kevin Warsh, Trump’s Pick to Lead Fed, Faces Senate at Tricky Moment

Kevin M. Warsh, President Trump’s pick to lead the Federal Reserve, has spent years refining his pitch for why he should get one of the most powerful economic jobs in the world.

At his confirmation hearing on Tuesday, he will have to convince Senate lawmakers that he is ready to step into the role, which has become politically explosive amid Mr. Trump’s relentless attacks on the institution and its current chair, Jerome H. Powell.

Mr. Warsh, who is scheduled to testify before the Banking Committee at 10 a.m., plans to commit to being “strictly independent” on decisions related to interest rates, according to his prepared remarks. He also plans to tell lawmakers that he is unbothered by Mr. Trump’s incessant calls for substantially lower borrowing costs. And he will use his opening statement to underscore his focus on disrupting the “status quo” at an institution he said just last year was in need of “regime change.”

“In a time that will rank among the most consequential in our nation’s history, I believe a reform-oriented Federal Reserve can make a real difference to the American people,” he plans to tell lawmakers, adding: “The stakes could scarcely be higher.”

Mr. Warsh, 56, faces significant hurdles to winning confirmation. He has broad support among Republicans, who control the Senate and can confirm him along party lines. Yet his candidacy has stalled because of an ongoing investigation by the Justice Department into Mr. Powell and his handling of the Fed’s headquarters renovations.

Advertisement

Mr. Powell’s term as chair ends May 15, but Mr. Warsh looks increasingly unlikely to be in place by then. That’s because Senator Thom Tillis of North Carolina — a Republican on the Banking Committee who has expressed support for Mr. Warsh — has vowed to block any attempt to confirm a new Fed chair until the legal threats into Mr. Powell are resolved. For Mr. Tillis, the investigation is a blatant attempt to coerce Mr. Powell into lowering rates, undermining the Fed’s independence and confirming the politicization of the Justice Department.

“I’m not going to condone bad decision-making and bad behavior,” Mr. Tillis told reporters on Monday in reference to the Justice Department’s lack of evidence of any wrongdoing.

The department has vowed to continue its investigation, despite numerous legal setbacks.

“I think ultimately, he will be confirmed,” Senator John Kennedy of Louisiana, another Republican on the committee, told reporters on Monday. “I just don’t know what decade.”

Mr. Warsh’s ascent would mark a homecoming for the Wall Street financier, who served as a Fed governor from 2006-11.

Advertisement

Since leaving the Fed, he has amassed assets worth well in excess of $100 million, according to financial disclosures submitted before his hearing. Those have drawn scrutiny because Mr. Warsh repeatedly invoked “pre-existing confidentiality agreements” to avoid disclosing the details behind several of his investments. He has said he would divest a substantial amount of his assets before taking the job.

The global financial crisis dominated Mr. Warsh’s first tenure at the Fed, thrusting him into the middle of discussions about how the central bank should respond to the threat of bank failures, turmoil in financial markets and a painful recession that followed. Mr. Warsh, then the youngest-ever member of the Board of Governors, was initially supportive of the Fed’s efforts to shore up financial markets by buying enormous quantities of government bonds and expanding its balance sheet to ease strains in financial markets and support growth by keeping market-based rates low.

But he soon soured on subsequent efforts to buy more bonds and resigned in protest. That experience has stuck with Mr. Warsh, who has made a smaller balance sheet a pillar of his plans if he takes over as chair.

Mr. Warsh would also be likely to usher in changes to how the Fed communicates its policy views, having expressed misgivings about its strategy of providing so-called forward guidance, or hints about how interest rates may change in the future to guide expectations. He has also suggested that policymakers across the Fed system should speak far less. Mr. Powell held a news conference after each rate decision, or eight a year, and delivered speeches with regularity. Mr. Trump’s pick to join the Fed last year, Stephen I. Miran, often speaks multiple times a week.

“Once policymakers reveal their economic forecast, they can become prisoners of their own words,” Mr. Warsh said in a speech last year. “Fed leaders would be well served to skip opportunities to share their latest musings. The swivel-chair problem, rhetorically waxing and waning with the latest data release, is common and counterproductive.”

Advertisement

What is far less clear is how much Mr. Warsh would heed the president’s demands for lower interest rates. Mr. Trump said he would not pick someone for chair who did not support lower borrowing costs.

Mr. Warsh sought in his opening statement to downplay the costs of a president’s voicing his opinions about rates, saying central bankers must be “strong enough to listen to a diversity of views from all corners, humble enough to be open-minded to new ideas and new economic developments, wise enough to translate imperfect data into meaningful insight and dedicated enough to make judgments faithfully and wisely.”

Earlier this year, many officials at the Fed saw a path to gradually lower rates as the impact of Mr. Trump’s tariffs faded and inflation restarted its slide back toward 2 percent after almost of year of stalling out. The war in Iran — and the energy shock it has unleashed — has upended those forecasts, however, prompting officials to turn wary about lowering rates.

Mr. Warsh will face questions on Tuesday about the economic impact of the war and how it has changed his thinking around the Fed’s ability to lower rates. While at the Fed, he was known as an inflation hawk who often argued against providing policy relief for fear that it could stoke price pressures. He also said the Fed should aspire to engage in rule-based policymaking that stems from formulas that prescribe how officials should set rates based on levels of inflation and employment.

While campaigning to be chair, Mr. Warsh embraced the need for rate cuts, arguing that there was a path for lower borrowing costs because of his plans to shrink the balance sheet, which would lift longer-term rates that then could be offset by lowering short-term ones. He also argued that higher productivity from the boom in artificial intelligence could unleash higher growth without stoking inflation, which could give the Fed more space to lower rates than otherwise would be the case.

Advertisement

In his opening statement, Mr. Warsh made clear, however, that a failure to bring down inflation, which has been stuck above the Fed’s 2 percent target for roughly five years, would strictly be the Fed’s fault, suggesting that he would shoulder the blame if he did not bring it back down during his tenure.

“Inflation is a choice, and the Fed must take responsibility for it,” he will tell lawmakers.

Megan Mineiro contributed reporting.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending