There are many laws already in place about such things, and the administration doesn't even wave as they "drive by." But that's why the collective effort is so important in a democracy. What we see in Putin, by the way, is different only by being about 3 steps down that same autocratic/totalitarian road.
ADDENDUM: I read yesterday that the (so-called) Justice Department is going after the lower court justices now--(more real heroes). Trump just keeps running into himself (as president of a still viable democracy) every time he does or lies about anything.
Also, notice how Trump puts his "helpers" in the jaws of a vise: one side of the pressure is (1) his set of directives and the other is (2) public outrage and expressions of rejection. If the "red line" is crossed and the light shines back on "T" even for a moment, . . . . toast.
It feels like all of activities of Big Tech need to be reviewed in light of the huge mining deals that are being made to secure access to minerals and metals.
Trump has also authorised Project Vault, a 10 billion dollar loan from the Import-Export Bank of the US to ensure stockpiles are secured.
The minerals and metals concerned mostly are underneath the last of the ancient forests and sacred territories. It also looks like a gold rush to replace Nature's global intelligence system with a machine learning that cannot take care of ecosystems for future generations.
This paper is one of a number of papers that assesses locations of deposits and biodiversity hotspots.
While anything that interferes or blocks Trump and Hesgeth's mad and immoral schemes sounds like to should be applauded there is a wider issue here regarding how (sane) elected governments stand up to the power of big Tech going forward. These companies are already investing 100s of millions in damaging the campaigns of any politician who even dares talk about AI regulation so I think we have to be incredibly careful about doing anything that further consolidates their political power. They can afford to invest in lawfare (not to mention dirty tricks) beyond what most governments can and their antidemocratic intentions are pretty clear. This is a fight between two bad guys.
Hmmm... given as how Microsoft, Google, Meta, Palantir et al, are already well integrated into the USG's military-surveillance state, isn't it a case of shutting the stable door after all the militarised horses have bolted.
It's not just about the DoW, it's about how the tech corps is integrated into the surveillance state, indeed it wouldn't be possible without them and AI software makes it that much easier to parse all data!
" ... [In] 1947 ... President Harry Truman received approval from Congress to create a National Defense Establishment. The NDE eventually took power from the Army and Navy, as well as the newly formed Air Force."
William Bowles: I'm thinking that, with borderless surveillance, the tech people themselves now see themselves as ALSO having skin in the game. What's going to keep THEM from being objects of some totalitarian power junkie's wet dreams and whims?
Every single advance in technology, should, by rights, belong to us all, from the internet to so-called AI. These are, genuinely a product of our entire society and its economy. It's our collective intellectual labour that makes it possible. In fact it's the logical outcome of a socialised economy, if we had one. Name a single piece of software created by a lone individual? It doesn't exist. The Macintosh OS is the distillation of literally thousands of years of human inquiry, the natural laws we have uncovered and embedded in the Mac's so-called Toolbox.
I've wondered about that for 11 years now, but think the tech fat cats believe they're above everyone else and are going to be in charge of surveillance themselves. They don't read enough history to see themselves as vulnerable to be thrown under the bus as many Trump supporters have already been.
Oaktown: Yes, a problem with many facets, (1) an education that focuses on only one specialist field with little or no foundational-life development, e.g., the arts and humanities, history, the social sciences, not as specific threads, but as a whole group that underpins all other fields. (2) the problem of transactional/ hyper-capitalism not as a way to do business in the context of doing life, but as a way of doing life; and (3) linear thinking where, when one imagines oneself as on top (where there is no room for anyone else) and where ideas of equality look to that person like intrusions "from below" or efforts at "replacement," as in "women, blacks, and Jews will not replace us." "Sharing" is a foreign word.
"the tech people themselves now see themselves as ALSO having skin in the game"
"the tech fat cats believe they're above everyone else and are going to be in charge"
Maybe it will come down on who has the best answer for the question "You, and which army?" Seriously, as a big fan of the "Carmen McCallum (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carmen_Mc_Callum)" series of (serious) comic books, I wonder if or when we reach a point where the industry has more military pull than the government. Looking at you, USA, with all your militias.
As regards surveillance, what is needed are new laws to protect privacy and prevent the near-unregulated surveillance and data-broking to provide extensive profiles of every individual. This is being weaponized by the US government for law enforcement of both citizens and tourists, with CBP demanding to view your social media (must be all public) on entry to the country and refusing entry if they don't like what they see. If you don't have a social media presence, no entry.
As for safety, again, this needs to be encoded in law. As Congress doesn't act, it should default to states, despite what the AI industry demands. Industry minds need to be focused. Sadly, this is going to be needed at a time that safety elsewhere is being rolled back, from chemicals in industry, agricultue and food, as well as gross pollutants from GHG emissions and particulates. This state of affairs is what happens when wealth inequality becomes extreme, and individuals and companies can buy the laws they want and rig the system to maintain their power.
Really? If you don't have a social media presence, no entry? And here I thought I'd be protected because I don't have a smart phone or social media presence. Now they'll punish you unless you do?
"Now they'll punish you unless you do?" I believe this is the case now at US borders, where not having any internet presence makes you automatically suspicious.
In fact at "Heise News" in Germany there was a whole video on how to cloak and fake your personal information in case you are planning to visit the US.
In extremis, I believe so. It mostly applies to non-citizens reentering the US and tourists. This doesn't mean that they won't try to do the same to citizens either. Miller is already ramping up the issue of making Liberals and non-Trump voters "enemies" and putting them in detention. You have no doubt read about citizens placed in detention until a lawyer has a judge force their release. Intimidation tactics, like showing Galileo the torture instruments to keep him silent.
If enough Republicans would break ranks, we could end this. Can Trump refuse to sign bills unless he gets his way with the SAVE Act to harm [what's left of] our democracy? If he gets his way with this, what other bills can he refuse to sign unless he gets his desired bills passed, especially if the Ds regain the House and possibly the Senate?
I'm aware. Everything they try on immigrants is a trial balloon they will apply to anyone whom they see as a threat to their power unless we resist and thwart them. I'm still not getting a smart phone; I saw this coming decades ago and am sorry I was proven correct.
The timing of the filing is significant. Two separate lawsuits, in Northern District of California and the DC Circuit, with a First Amendment argument at the center. The complaint calls the government's actions "unprecedented and unlawful."
What gives this legs: every institution that has fought back against this administration's retaliatory executive orders has won in court. Four law firms challenged Trump's EOs targeting legal representation — Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, WilmerHale, Susman Godfrey — and every single one won. Judges ruled every order unconstitutional, and the DOJ abandoned defense. Harvard challenged the $2.2 billion funding freeze and won, with the judge calling the antisemitism rationale "a smokescreen for a targeted, ideologically-motivated assault."
Meanwhile, the firms that capitulated (Paul Weiss $40M, Skadden $100M, Willkie Farr $100M) gave away money and principles for nothing. Columbia paid $200M.
The legal consensus on the supply chain designation is about as close to unanimous as legal analysis gets: Lawfare says it won't survive, Just Security calls it "pretextual and unlawful," former CIA Director Hayden and 30+ retired military leaders signed a letter calling it a "dangerous precedent."
Anthropic is betting that the pattern holds: fight back, win.
If the reports that Claude had a role in selecting the target that killed those Iranian schoolchildren are true, the non-techies at the DOD would hopefully be appalled even if any other LLM would likely produce the same or worse results. In that case, blacklisting Anthropic on a 'supply chain risk' pretext would be exactly that: a pretext. The lawsuit looks well-merited either way. Unfortunately, nobody without high-level security clearance will know the full truth.
Full support for the lawsuit too. Worth reading alongside your "no heroes" post from yesterday: a $2,600/year Claude Max subscriber documented exactly what you described — the gap between Anthropic's public principles and internal conduct with its own paying developer community. The company that deserves to win this lawsuit is the same company that C&D'd its own open-source ecosystem. Both can be true: https://aiwithapexcom.substack.com/p/after-nearly-a-year-on-claude-max
Johathan Grudin et al: There was/is an interview on MSNOW this evening (03-09-26) (Stephanie Ruhle) with Jake Ward, a long-term tech journalist, where he talked about "the un-democratic moment we are in right now." He reported that Congress is apparently involved in crickets while Emil Michael, the undersecretary of war in charge of AI at the Pentagon, (formerly with UBER), went on a podcast (instead of before Congress) with three hugely wealthy venture capitalists (his good buddies) in a kind of key briefing on AI and war to those capitalists.
Congress is asleep at the wheel, and the Trump administration is taking over the keys while, at the same time, throwing the U.S. Constitution under the bus at every turn, Congress by omission of their duties, and the Administration by their utter corrupt and careless interests.
With that in mind, and from that interview, my take on Anthropic SEEMINGLY back-and-forth loss of ethical spine is more complicated than it sounds. My guess is that the tech people--even some of the employees of Open AI and now all those firms who are lobbying Congress and standing behind Anthropic and writing amicus briefs--are doing what they can to moderate and step into a power/ethical vacuum left open by Congressional do-nothings, and where the tech people EARLIER assumed (par normal) that "the government" was operative and wouldn't break their own existing rules or fail to step in to put up regulations and guardrails for whatever tech they ended up selling to the Pentagon.
THEN, (too late) many tech people CAME TO THE REALIZATION that, in the case of the moral neanderthals and law breakers of THIS ADMINISTRATION and their obvious planning, the AI stuff was (OMG!) going to be used for what MOST PEOPLE would consider as nefarious mob mentality activities including egregiously anti-Constitutional raw power-moves at every turn via the biggest power-grab the world has ever seen.
The present situation MAY have come from just plain lack of awareness of the present political situation, and the extreme lass of balance, that so obviously rubs against most of our sense of ethics, but more probably, our sense of still not understanding how serious the politics has become, and so many in tech are trying to mediate the call to do what is right (and safe) in an extremely complex situation--while the legitimate power of: a truly democratic government exits to stage right.
I don't know what the mind-mechanisms are that have gone down for Anthropic, but I'd put a little money on the above scenario if it came to it. I do know that way too many people in the United States, who are busy doing everything but paying attention to what's going politically and have taken their good time finally realizing just how horrible the present political situation is.
Not a fan of Anthropic, but this is an arbitrary punishment of a company, which didn't comply with executive whim. On this issue, I stand with Anthropic.
The US is in part already long beyond the point that lawsuits and the rule of law are powerful tools, The Trump administration often simply ignores what the courts say, the Justice Department of course won’t act on any referral. At this point only Congress can act and the GOP consists of a collection of MAGA-adepts and chickens.
The habit of this administration is to go ahead and act and then posture as "too bad, done is done," or worse, "try and stop me." "Beat that dead horse."
It's pointless, even stupid, to think they won't just say what the tech people want to hear then use their increasing power to roll the tank of government over everyone concerned. I'm glad they are at least showing GROUP resistance--I think that's what everyone in a democracy who wants to keep it, are charged to do "when the going gets tough." Those companies, like some of the law firms and universities who have stood up, HAVE great power and can show the way for and gather in the power of so many whose individual acts do not wield the same kind of force.
Here's another powerful but flawed idea they presently use--they claim that the courts and the so-called "rogue woke judges," cannot "tell the president what he can and cannot do," pretending to have their noses out of joint, blah blah blah.
The administration's flaw is that their whole argument rests on their own DISREGARD FOR THE RULE OF LAW. The courts aren't "telling the president what to do or not." It's their job: They are telling Trump et al WHAT THE LAW IS and how he/they are breaking it . . . a major difference. Their contempt of the judges and so of the law tells us all we need to know about their fascist intentions.
If those in the administration don't know what they are doing, then they are supremely ignorant; and if they DO know, then they are trying to manipulate the (apparent) ignorance of the electorate, aka they are gaslighting the people of the United States. I want to vomit every time I hear that BS about the courts overreaching into the executive branch's power.
"They are telling Trump et al WHAT THE LAW IS and how he/they are breaking it"
This is the one-line summary of the situation even a republican voter should be able to accept and respect. If you cannot accept that, you need to be removed from the democratic process.
The interesting tension: we want aggressive regulation of AI companies' capabilities and safety, but we also need predictable rule of law. You can't regulate something fairly if the government gets to move the goalposts arbitrarily. The legal clarity from this lawsuit might actually matter more than the immediate outcome.
Arbitrary exclusion from government contracts kills innovation. You need policy disagreement to be possible without retaliation—whether it's AI companies questioning military decisions or anyone else pushing back on executive action. The moment punishment becomes personal rather than systematic, you've broken the social contract that lets dissent happen in the open.
it’s about the principle that you shouldn’t be able to arbitrarily exclude a legit american company punitively on a whim.
There are many laws already in place about such things, and the administration doesn't even wave as they "drive by." But that's why the collective effort is so important in a democracy. What we see in Putin, by the way, is different only by being about 3 steps down that same autocratic/totalitarian road.
Guess what those three steps are?
ADDENDUM: I read yesterday that the (so-called) Justice Department is going after the lower court justices now--(more real heroes). Trump just keeps running into himself (as president of a still viable democracy) every time he does or lies about anything.
Also, notice how Trump puts his "helpers" in the jaws of a vise: one side of the pressure is (1) his set of directives and the other is (2) public outrage and expressions of rejection. If the "red line" is crossed and the light shines back on "T" even for a moment, . . . . toast.
Hope you're right about that last word.
Oh Captain my Captain. 🤣
it is outrageous - pure evil, imo.
Full support.
It feels like all of activities of Big Tech need to be reviewed in light of the huge mining deals that are being made to secure access to minerals and metals.
Trump has also authorised Project Vault, a 10 billion dollar loan from the Import-Export Bank of the US to ensure stockpiles are secured.
https://dialogue.earth/en/business/what-does-the-us-pursuit-of-critical-minerals-mean-for-the-global-south/
The minerals and metals concerned mostly are underneath the last of the ancient forests and sacred territories. It also looks like a gold rush to replace Nature's global intelligence system with a machine learning that cannot take care of ecosystems for future generations.
This paper is one of a number of papers that assesses locations of deposits and biodiversity hotspots.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378021000820
This one gives examples from minerals and metals associated with renewable energies:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-17928-5
This one looks at the minerals needed for expanding AI related technological systems:
https://fpanalytics.foreignpolicy.com/2025/07/18/artificial-intelligence-critical-minerals-supply-chains/
Thanks for your substack. Very helpful.
While anything that interferes or blocks Trump and Hesgeth's mad and immoral schemes sounds like to should be applauded there is a wider issue here regarding how (sane) elected governments stand up to the power of big Tech going forward. These companies are already investing 100s of millions in damaging the campaigns of any politician who even dares talk about AI regulation so I think we have to be incredibly careful about doing anything that further consolidates their political power. They can afford to invest in lawfare (not to mention dirty tricks) beyond what most governments can and their antidemocratic intentions are pretty clear. This is a fight between two bad guys.
That's why I'm vetting all candidates for those who renounce dark money and super PACs from Big Tech crypto bros.
Hmmm... given as how Microsoft, Google, Meta, Palantir et al, are already well integrated into the USG's military-surveillance state, isn't it a case of shutting the stable door after all the militarised horses have bolted.
It's not just about the DoW, it's about how the tech corps is integrated into the surveillance state, indeed it wouldn't be possible without them and AI software makes it that much easier to parse all data!
DOD. NOT DOW. Please don't adopt these Nazis' Orwell speak.
Why? Is it not the Department of War.
It is NOT. It's just what chicken hawks like Kegseth and Bone Spurs started calling it. Only Congress can change the name. It is the Department of Defense: https://www.militarytimes.com/veterans/military-history/2025/09/17/why-truman-changed-the-war-department-to-the-department-of-defense/
" ... [In] 1947 ... President Harry Truman received approval from Congress to create a National Defense Establishment. The NDE eventually took power from the Army and Navy, as well as the newly formed Air Force."
William Bowles: I'm thinking that, with borderless surveillance, the tech people themselves now see themselves as ALSO having skin in the game. What's going to keep THEM from being objects of some totalitarian power junkie's wet dreams and whims?
Not a damn thing, unless we act, collectively, to stop them
. . . and once something so big becomes systematized, it's almost impossible to cure the beast without also killing it.
Every single advance in technology, should, by rights, belong to us all, from the internet to so-called AI. These are, genuinely a product of our entire society and its economy. It's our collective intellectual labour that makes it possible. In fact it's the logical outcome of a socialised economy, if we had one. Name a single piece of software created by a lone individual? It doesn't exist. The Macintosh OS is the distillation of literally thousands of years of human inquiry, the natural laws we have uncovered and embedded in the Mac's so-called Toolbox.
I've wondered about that for 11 years now, but think the tech fat cats believe they're above everyone else and are going to be in charge of surveillance themselves. They don't read enough history to see themselves as vulnerable to be thrown under the bus as many Trump supporters have already been.
Oaktown: Yes, a problem with many facets, (1) an education that focuses on only one specialist field with little or no foundational-life development, e.g., the arts and humanities, history, the social sciences, not as specific threads, but as a whole group that underpins all other fields. (2) the problem of transactional/ hyper-capitalism not as a way to do business in the context of doing life, but as a way of doing life; and (3) linear thinking where, when one imagines oneself as on top (where there is no room for anyone else) and where ideas of equality look to that person like intrusions "from below" or efforts at "replacement," as in "women, blacks, and Jews will not replace us." "Sharing" is a foreign word.
"the tech people themselves now see themselves as ALSO having skin in the game"
"the tech fat cats believe they're above everyone else and are going to be in charge"
Maybe it will come down on who has the best answer for the question "You, and which army?" Seriously, as a big fan of the "Carmen McCallum (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carmen_Mc_Callum)" series of (serious) comic books, I wonder if or when we reach a point where the industry has more military pull than the government. Looking at you, USA, with all your militias.
Hah! 'Cept it ain't no joke
As regards surveillance, what is needed are new laws to protect privacy and prevent the near-unregulated surveillance and data-broking to provide extensive profiles of every individual. This is being weaponized by the US government for law enforcement of both citizens and tourists, with CBP demanding to view your social media (must be all public) on entry to the country and refusing entry if they don't like what they see. If you don't have a social media presence, no entry.
As for safety, again, this needs to be encoded in law. As Congress doesn't act, it should default to states, despite what the AI industry demands. Industry minds need to be focused. Sadly, this is going to be needed at a time that safety elsewhere is being rolled back, from chemicals in industry, agricultue and food, as well as gross pollutants from GHG emissions and particulates. This state of affairs is what happens when wealth inequality becomes extreme, and individuals and companies can buy the laws they want and rig the system to maintain their power.
Really? If you don't have a social media presence, no entry? And here I thought I'd be protected because I don't have a smart phone or social media presence. Now they'll punish you unless you do?
"Now they'll punish you unless you do?" I believe this is the case now at US borders, where not having any internet presence makes you automatically suspicious.
In fact at "Heise News" in Germany there was a whole video on how to cloak and fake your personal information in case you are planning to visit the US.
What a horror show. I'm still not getting a smart phone; they've turned into addiction mechanisms and spying devices.
In extremis, I believe so. It mostly applies to non-citizens reentering the US and tourists. This doesn't mean that they won't try to do the same to citizens either. Miller is already ramping up the issue of making Liberals and non-Trump voters "enemies" and putting them in detention. You have no doubt read about citizens placed in detention until a lawyer has a judge force their release. Intimidation tactics, like showing Galileo the torture instruments to keep him silent.
If enough Republicans would break ranks, we could end this. Can Trump refuse to sign bills unless he gets his way with the SAVE Act to harm [what's left of] our democracy? If he gets his way with this, what other bills can he refuse to sign unless he gets his desired bills passed, especially if the Ds regain the House and possibly the Senate?
I'm aware. Everything they try on immigrants is a trial balloon they will apply to anyone whom they see as a threat to their power unless we resist and thwart them. I'm still not getting a smart phone; I saw this coming decades ago and am sorry I was proven correct.
The timing of the filing is significant. Two separate lawsuits, in Northern District of California and the DC Circuit, with a First Amendment argument at the center. The complaint calls the government's actions "unprecedented and unlawful."
What gives this legs: every institution that has fought back against this administration's retaliatory executive orders has won in court. Four law firms challenged Trump's EOs targeting legal representation — Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, WilmerHale, Susman Godfrey — and every single one won. Judges ruled every order unconstitutional, and the DOJ abandoned defense. Harvard challenged the $2.2 billion funding freeze and won, with the judge calling the antisemitism rationale "a smokescreen for a targeted, ideologically-motivated assault."
Meanwhile, the firms that capitulated (Paul Weiss $40M, Skadden $100M, Willkie Farr $100M) gave away money and principles for nothing. Columbia paid $200M.
The legal consensus on the supply chain designation is about as close to unanimous as legal analysis gets: Lawfare says it won't survive, Just Security calls it "pretextual and unlawful," former CIA Director Hayden and 30+ retired military leaders signed a letter calling it a "dangerous precedent."
Anthropic is betting that the pattern holds: fight back, win.
If the reports that Claude had a role in selecting the target that killed those Iranian schoolchildren are true, the non-techies at the DOD would hopefully be appalled even if any other LLM would likely produce the same or worse results. In that case, blacklisting Anthropic on a 'supply chain risk' pretext would be exactly that: a pretext. The lawsuit looks well-merited either way. Unfortunately, nobody without high-level security clearance will know the full truth.
Full support for the lawsuit too. Worth reading alongside your "no heroes" post from yesterday: a $2,600/year Claude Max subscriber documented exactly what you described — the gap between Anthropic's public principles and internal conduct with its own paying developer community. The company that deserves to win this lawsuit is the same company that C&D'd its own open-source ecosystem. Both can be true: https://aiwithapexcom.substack.com/p/after-nearly-a-year-on-claude-max
Johathan Grudin et al: There was/is an interview on MSNOW this evening (03-09-26) (Stephanie Ruhle) with Jake Ward, a long-term tech journalist, where he talked about "the un-democratic moment we are in right now." He reported that Congress is apparently involved in crickets while Emil Michael, the undersecretary of war in charge of AI at the Pentagon, (formerly with UBER), went on a podcast (instead of before Congress) with three hugely wealthy venture capitalists (his good buddies) in a kind of key briefing on AI and war to those capitalists.
Congress is asleep at the wheel, and the Trump administration is taking over the keys while, at the same time, throwing the U.S. Constitution under the bus at every turn, Congress by omission of their duties, and the Administration by their utter corrupt and careless interests.
With that in mind, and from that interview, my take on Anthropic SEEMINGLY back-and-forth loss of ethical spine is more complicated than it sounds. My guess is that the tech people--even some of the employees of Open AI and now all those firms who are lobbying Congress and standing behind Anthropic and writing amicus briefs--are doing what they can to moderate and step into a power/ethical vacuum left open by Congressional do-nothings, and where the tech people EARLIER assumed (par normal) that "the government" was operative and wouldn't break their own existing rules or fail to step in to put up regulations and guardrails for whatever tech they ended up selling to the Pentagon.
THEN, (too late) many tech people CAME TO THE REALIZATION that, in the case of the moral neanderthals and law breakers of THIS ADMINISTRATION and their obvious planning, the AI stuff was (OMG!) going to be used for what MOST PEOPLE would consider as nefarious mob mentality activities including egregiously anti-Constitutional raw power-moves at every turn via the biggest power-grab the world has ever seen.
The present situation MAY have come from just plain lack of awareness of the present political situation, and the extreme lass of balance, that so obviously rubs against most of our sense of ethics, but more probably, our sense of still not understanding how serious the politics has become, and so many in tech are trying to mediate the call to do what is right (and safe) in an extremely complex situation--while the legitimate power of: a truly democratic government exits to stage right.
I don't know what the mind-mechanisms are that have gone down for Anthropic, but I'd put a little money on the above scenario if it came to it. I do know that way too many people in the United States, who are busy doing everything but paying attention to what's going politically and have taken their good time finally realizing just how horrible the present political situation is.
Not a fan of Anthropic, but this is an arbitrary punishment of a company, which didn't comply with executive whim. On this issue, I stand with Anthropic.
The US is in part already long beyond the point that lawsuits and the rule of law are powerful tools, The Trump administration often simply ignores what the courts say, the Justice Department of course won’t act on any referral. At this point only Congress can act and the GOP consists of a collection of MAGA-adepts and chickens.
The habit of this administration is to go ahead and act and then posture as "too bad, done is done," or worse, "try and stop me." "Beat that dead horse."
It's pointless, even stupid, to think they won't just say what the tech people want to hear then use their increasing power to roll the tank of government over everyone concerned. I'm glad they are at least showing GROUP resistance--I think that's what everyone in a democracy who wants to keep it, are charged to do "when the going gets tough." Those companies, like some of the law firms and universities who have stood up, HAVE great power and can show the way for and gather in the power of so many whose individual acts do not wield the same kind of force.
Here's another powerful but flawed idea they presently use--they claim that the courts and the so-called "rogue woke judges," cannot "tell the president what he can and cannot do," pretending to have their noses out of joint, blah blah blah.
The administration's flaw is that their whole argument rests on their own DISREGARD FOR THE RULE OF LAW. The courts aren't "telling the president what to do or not." It's their job: They are telling Trump et al WHAT THE LAW IS and how he/they are breaking it . . . a major difference. Their contempt of the judges and so of the law tells us all we need to know about their fascist intentions.
If those in the administration don't know what they are doing, then they are supremely ignorant; and if they DO know, then they are trying to manipulate the (apparent) ignorance of the electorate, aka they are gaslighting the people of the United States. I want to vomit every time I hear that BS about the courts overreaching into the executive branch's power.
"They are telling Trump et al WHAT THE LAW IS and how he/they are breaking it"
This is the one-line summary of the situation even a republican voter should be able to accept and respect. If you cannot accept that, you need to be removed from the democratic process.
Just like Trump trying to ban big law firms from doing business against the government. He thinks he is king instead of court jester
"...instead of court jester" who isn't even remotely funny. A deranged, senile, sociopathic creep.
The interesting tension: we want aggressive regulation of AI companies' capabilities and safety, but we also need predictable rule of law. You can't regulate something fairly if the government gets to move the goalposts arbitrarily. The legal clarity from this lawsuit might actually matter more than the immediate outcome.
Arbitrary exclusion from government contracts kills innovation. You need policy disagreement to be possible without retaliation—whether it's AI companies questioning military decisions or anyone else pushing back on executive action. The moment punishment becomes personal rather than systematic, you've broken the social contract that lets dissent happen in the open.