Judge Rules Trump Administration’s Blacklisting of Anthropic Was Illegal

(sarcasm intended)

The recent trip of the Canadian PM to China is but the most visible part of this shift. That's at govt level, but I've seen it happen all the way down to individual level.

US products are typically more expensive here than Chinese. But at least you were buying from a friendly supplier. That distinction is eroding quickly. In my experience it's forced people to try Chinese, and generally been surprised (in a good way) over quality and features.

And yes, the price of oil has focused people much more at the EV market. (Not least because people with an EV already aren't shy about gloating). Pretty much everyone I talk to, who would buy a car "new" tells me their next one will be electric. The tipping point is coming much faster than most people think.

This was predicted in The Economist awhile back, that if the US blocked Chinese imports a tsunami of Chinese goods would flood other countries and now it's happening. Those countries will also, in turn, erect trade barriers, or suffer the devastation that massive Chinese dumping causes.

So it's a nice protest gesture, but it's a cutting off your nose to spite your face gesture.

Then some greedy fools decided they needed more, and started trying to charge more on the way out or on the way in. Now the ones that specialized in the 'must haves' of today have insane leverage over everyone else. Then the 'easy' answer is to prevent those goods from coming into your country.

It's all so incredibly shortsighted, it deflates me.

Cost is a different aspect entirely. A one-dollar scoop of ice cream and a $100 scoop are both good.

You could then try to make laws that countries we import from must abide certain standards, but just gets gamed endlessly. For instance cacao/chocolate makes extensive use of child slavery [1]. There have been numerous lawsuits over this until the Supreme Court ruled in 2021 that you could no longer sue Nestle/Cargill/Hershey/etc over child slavery in their supply lines. They were being sued because their oversight came down to asking, 'Hey you're not using child labor right?' 'Nah.' 'Cheers then, carry on.'

When a company's goal is to not see something, they do a very good job of becoming blind.

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_labour_in_cocoa_producti...

The average hourly rate in the US is $42.50. In Vietnam is is $6.30, in the Philippines it is $5.40[1]

These aren't people living in poverty - they live well.

OTOH environmental legislation costs are harder to come by, but [2] estimates around 10% in a number of case studies. To be specific, that would mean US cost would be $4 less - that's still around 6 times the cost of Vietnam

[1] https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/average-hourly-earnings

[2] https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/report...

Also the US economy is increasingly polarized so averages mislead. The median hourly is a bit under $21. [1] You also need to account for what happened to the economy after we start shipping these affected jobs overseas. That's an entire segment of the economy which is going to influence wages, consumption, and other distributions. I agree wages are always going to be a major factor, but we can also afford a premium because shipping stuff half way around the world isn't free, the broader economic impact of having less control over your supply line is itself also a significant cost, and so on.

[1] - https://data.bls.gov/PDQWeb/le

We're discussing forced child labor, and you conclude "they live well".

It worked for Australia (which has a fairly similar economy to Canada).

It has led to a "Dutch disease" reliance on the resources sector in Australia, but that isn't radically different to the Australian economy before (mostly proportionally more coal & iron ore exports, less wool and grain)

Please, elaborate.

Not to mention, Canada being largely a service and resource extraction economy doesn't even really compete much with China.

Tarifs have existed since forever. Countries use them to protect local industries. But they've always been stable, and industry focused.

Food production for example is worth protecting and Canada has tarifs on imported Dairy. Partnerships exist to protect local industries, promote exports, and give citizens access to cheap goods. It's a complex balance set up over time with lots of nuance and negotiating.

Yes, sometimes tarifs kill a local industry as well. Lack of international competition let's local industry stagnate until it is dead. US ship building is a good example of this, and US Auto makers are trending in this direction. (Banning Chinese EVs is not bolstering the US EV production, it is causing the US manufacturers to ignore that market, and I don't think that ends well.)

Tarifs are a powerful tool when wielded well. Alas right now the US in unstable. Local industries can't rely on tarifs existing next week, never mind 5 years from now. I'm not investing in a local hockey stick factory because the tarif could disappear at any time.

In my country we get cheap solar panels from China. Frankly, let them sell below-cost if they like. (Hint, they're not below cost). We don't make them here, so cheap energy is good for all.

The US negativity to Chinese goods seems to be around dumping (which happens, but not much), around quality (frankly much of it is very good) or around human rights. (Cause, you know, we bombed Iran to promote human rights...)

I don't think Americans will suddenly love China. But the rest of the world is getting very cosy very quickly.

Most actual cases have been of raw materials (eg steel, yarn) and industrial chemicals.

I think this is a long way from the alleged "tsunami of Chinese goods".

It's also worth noting that many Chinese manufactured goods would mostly substitute for US manufactured goods (eg cars). That's actually the whole point.

https://euobserver.com/226294/eu-warns-europes-car-industry-...

Trump has been the best promoter of electrical vehicle here in Europe.

He 'helped' his Arabian allies twice, first he brought war to their countries and then he made sure that people wouldn't need their oil anymore (at least much less).

With allies like that you don't need enemy lol.

Good show!

They can, the preliminary injunction is a thing that can be invoked very quickly to stop actions before the law decides.

Anthropic didn't suffer any irreparable harm and they're free to seek damages if they wish, but they won't because it doesn't really matter to them. This whole mess has just been advertising that has kept them in the headlines and very likely has been more beneficial than harmful.

  Anthropic didn't suffer any irreparable harm

Also, the current administration doesn't care much about the law but what Trump and his people like and dislike. They made it very clear that they don't like Anthropic, so they won't get any contracts now, this ruling doesn't really matter until Trump is out of office.

None of this provable, of course.

They even fired people for investigating the storm on the Capitol. The message was pretty clear: we don't care about the law or what your job is, if you do something we dislike we retaliate, so you better become corrupt and stop caring as well or quit now on your own terms.

Anthropic’s reputation was enhanced by this

Fixed that for you.

However it is true that there were some defence contractors who probably took Codex deals instead of Claude deals when this happened.

Factually wrong. Many people on defense contracted projects (you can find at least a few of those in every big company you have heard of) are banned from using Anthropic models. They need to use GPT, Gemini or something else. That is a LOT of business lost.

To a certain extent this exists, but given that SCOTUS has been stacked with GOPers…

> The shadow docket is a break from ordinary procedure. Such cases receive very limited briefings and are typically decided a week or less after an application is filed. The process generally results in short, unsigned rulings. In contrast, merits cases take months, include extensive briefing and public oral argument, and result in lengthy written opinions detailing the reasoning of the majority and of any concurring and dissenting justices.

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_docket

It should be noted any justice can write a dissent in a "shadow docket" ruling. If a justice finds a ruling incorrect, nothing hides their criticism of it from the light.

Basically lie so much and so fast that the fact checkers can't keep up. It also helps when their voter base literally couldn't care less about "truth".

Many Americans take for granted the idea that the US is a "nation of laws" and that "rule of law" governs above all else. But the reality is this: there is no such thing as a perfect legal system.

You can have a strong legal system by design (good oversight, various checks and balances, etc.) but in practice, any system is only as good as the most powerful people are decent and respectful of it.

If you have someone in the most powerful position (the executive) who doesn't respect the law and who isn't willing to, with wisdom in his or her heart, exercise restraint with the understanding that protecting the integrity of the system is ultimately more important than getting your way, the law stands no chance.

Presidents are not historically all powerful within their own parties and the nature of the big tent systems means usually it is fairly difficult to get agreement on everything within a party without some compromise. Trump has managed to defang everybody else in the GOP.

And (2) if the law hasn't been used then WTF did we even consider signing it into power, let alone actually doing it? Something like this should never be done, but if done one would think it would only be in the face of an imminent and urgent need. Instead we seemed to have just casually signed unconstitutional executive tyranny into power 'just in case.'

The only way we're ever going to reign in executive power is if one party or the other starts rolling back executive power while they're in power. But when people are in power they seem to convince themselves that it will always be like this, and so when it comes to power all they can say is 'more, more, more.'

[1] - https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/president-obama-signs-in...

They can't even get the SAVE act passed.

The SAVE act status probably has more to do with some Republican legislators who think it will harm their re-election chances by impacting their own supporters.

The people who called it a cult were basically right. Trump has overwhelming control over republican voters and has proven he can easily end the careers of republican politicians who oppose him. I do not recall a single politician of either party in my lifetime who has held this level of uncritical support.

It will be fascinating to see what happens when his grip on the party is removed. None of the current crop of potential successors appears to have even remotely the right kind of support to maintain the coalition. That does not seem surprising, he cannot really abide having someone close to him who looks like a powerful successor because he would see it as a threat. So he will anoint a weakling and the base will fracture.

This is a dying vestige of the greatest generation who passed it onto their boomer kids who blindly believed it despite evidince to the contrary. We're moving back toward a late 19th and early 20th century understanding of how government and laws work.

Yeah, god forbid they drive right down the middle of the lane rather than drive right up to the line of what the public will tolerate.

There is a direct causative line between government actors feeling like they can get away with unpopular things and the populist politics we've had brewing in this country for the past 20yr. The tea party, the Bernie bros the ron paul era libertarians, even MAGA, they were all ultimately captured by the establishment.

The establishment wielding progressive (lowercase p) types would do well to understand that on some level you, the peddlers of government, must cater to the demands of the people, because if you don't eventually the pressure will build until a populist movement you cannot contain comes around and stomps you. And what that could look like is a serious power transfer away from the feds and toward the states. So if your policy goals involve people in other states, which just about all progressives do, this would be bad for you.

Which is to say turn down the damn heat on the frog, this is all happening because you're going too fast.

That does not seem like a feature unique to progressives? Conservatives are trying explicitly to involve other states, they'd happily put us all under the thumb of a Evangelical theocracy if they had the power to do so.

injunction in question: https://assets.bwbx.io/documents/users/iqjWHBFdfxIU/rYKRX7EU...

Such an injunction is granted when a party can show they have "irreparable harm" if not for the injunction and would likely succeed on the merits of the case.

> Anthropic has submitted concrete, non-speculative evidence of the ongoing harms to its liberty interests. Within days, many large enterprise customers signaled that publicly doing business with Anthropic over competitors was not worth it. (Dkt. No. 6-4 ¶ 16.) Three government contractor customers terminated their contracts with Anthropic, or were instructed to do so by Defendants; three deals valued at over $180 million fell apart despite being on the verge of closing; potential partners demanded additional protective contractual provisions such as unilateral termination; customers asked to cut short their contracts or reduced their amount, in some instances specifically mentioning the Challenged Actions; and others switched from Claude to competing generative AI tools. (Dkt. No. 6-4 ¶¶ 11–19; Dkt. No. 6-3 ¶ 33.) Anthropic’s Chief Financial Officer, Krishna Rao, projects that, depending on how broadly Anthropic’s customers interpret the Challenged Actions, Anthropic could lose between hundreds of millions and multiple billions of dollars in 2026 revenue. (Dkt. No. 6-5 ¶ 6.) Moreover, Defendants do not contest that Anthropic will be unable to obtain compensatory relief from the government, making its economic harm likely irreparable. E. Bay Sanctuary Covenant v. Biden, 993 F.3d 640, 677 (9th Cir. 2021); California v. Azar, 911 F.3d 558, 581 (9th Cir. 2018).

The current decision discussed in the article was also expedited since it is Anthropic winning a motion for summary judgement.

That is, before a trial even happens to assess who is correct about a factual dispute, parties are allowed to try to win entirely on legal grounds. The judge assumes everything the United States alleges is true, then sees if Anthropic would win anyways.

From the current decision:

> Under the APA, an agency action must be set aside and held unlawful if it is “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion,” “in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short of statutory right,” or “without observance of procedure required by law.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A), (C), (D). Anthropic has shown that the Hegseth Directive and the Supply Chain Designation were in excess of statutory authority, contrary to law, and arbitrary and capricious.

Can it be at all lawful to retaliate though?

Not just for accountability sake, but if that gentleman could come back in here and outline what he thinks is going on that would be quite interesting.

More than 50% of voters voted for Trump. Even today >30% (of everyone) think he's doing a good job. (Ie about equal to the voters in absolute number terms). Lots of people believe eat he is doing is legal simply because he is doing it.

Only 49.8% voted for Trump in the 2024 US election.