# DOJ Stuns Judge With Inability to Answer “Easy Question” in AI Lawsuit > Source: > Published: 2026-07-31 16:40:14+00:00 The Trump administration is not making its case against Anthropic. A federal judge flamed the government during a hearing Thursday, noting that Justice Department attorneys had failed to provide evidence “justifying” the Defense Department’s decision to class the AI company as a national security risk, or Donald Trump’s subsequent [order](https://federalnewsnetwork.com/artificial-intelligence/2026/02/anthropic-refuses-to-bend-to-pentagon-on-ai-safeguards-as-dispute-nears-deadline/?readmore=1) barring federal agencies from utilizing the company’s services. California-based U.S. District Judge Rita Lin [literally spelled out](https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.465515/gov.uscourts.cand.465515.242.0.pdf) the questions she would ask the government’s attorneys via a legal notice earlier this week, but the DOJ still failed to impress. Lin remarked at the outset of the hearing that, “if anything, it seems like the record in some ways has gotten worse for the government,” according to the [Law & Crime](https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/judge-surprised-pete-hegseths-doj-lawyer-cant-give-a-yes-when-asked-if-its-illegal-to-terminate-contracts-of-anyone-whos-ever-criticized-trump/) network. In May, Lin blasted the government for the “[Orwellian](https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/judge-smacks-down-pete-hegseth-after-grilling-trump-admin-lawyer-in-court/)” way that Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth attempted to sever ties with the AI contractor after Anthropic refused to grant the Pentagon unrestricted use of its AI bot, Claude, for military purposes. At the time, the president and Hegseth claimed that Anthropic had gone “WOKE” for arguing that Claude [could not safely or reliably](https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/27781370-anthropic-v-dow/?q=mass&mode=document#document/p4) be used for “autonomous lethal warfare and mass surveillance of Americans.” “Having reviewed the record that the parties have submitted on the cross motions for summary judgment, it appears to me to be largely the same as the record that I assessed at the preliminary injunction stage,” Lin said Thursday. “I don’t see additional evidence from the government really justifying what it did.” She added that she found it “really troubling” that the Trump administration was taking a position that “seems at odds to me with the First Amendment,” in “threatening to take away contracts from anyone who might do business with them” by “labeling them as subversive.” Lin even posed a hypothetical question: whether it would be constitutional for the government to terminate “every defense contract with anyone who’s ever publicly criticized President Trump.” When DOJ lawyers hedged, Lin said, “I’m surprised that you can’t give a yes to what seems to be an easy question.”