A federal judge’s decision to block the Trump administration from banning AI firm Anthropic from Department of War use is igniting a debate over whether the ruling pushes courts into national security decision-making.

The ruling, issued late Thursday by U.S. District Judge Rita Lin, a Biden appointee to the Northern District of California, pauses the administration’s broader effort to bar the company while the case proceeds, though it does not explicitly require the Pentagon to use Anthropic. The judge also gave the government one week to appeal.

Under Secretary of War Emil Michael wrote on X that the ruling contained “dozens of factual errors” and was issued “during a time of conflict,” arguing it “seeks to upend the (president’s) role as Commander in Chief” and disrupt the department’s ability to conduct military operations.

A BRAVE MARINE COLONEL TOOK ON THE PENTAGON — AND PAID THE PRICE FOR IT

Michael said the administration views Anthropic as still designated a supply chain risk pending appeal, signaling officials are disputing the scope and effect of the court’s injunction.

Lin said the Pentagon’s move to designate Anthropic as a national security risk was “likely both contrary to law and arbitrary and capricious.”

“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,” Lin said.

“Can a judge order the Department of War to use a vendor that is a security risk? No, but also yes? Judge Lin (Biden N.D. California) tries to stop President Trump/Secretary Hegseth from banning Anthropic. But acknowledges they can choose not to use it?” one X user Eric Wess wrote on the social media platform. 

Others described the ruling as “pure judicial activism” and accused the judge of interfering in a national security decision.

But supporters of the decision — including a bipartisan group of nearly 150 retired federal and state judges — say the administration overstepped, warning the Pentagon’s use of a “supply chain risk” designation appeared improperly applied and could chill free speech and legitimate business activity.

In a March 3 letter, the Pentagon had notified Anthropic it would be designated a supply chain risk to national security. That designation ordered that no contractor, supplier or partner doing business with the United States military may conduct commercial activity with Anthropic.

PALANTIR EXECUTIVE SAYS AI ENABLING RAPID BATTLEFIELD PLANNING AND HIGH-SPEED US STRIKE OPERATIONS

The legal fight follows a broader dispute between the Pentagon and Anthropic over how the company’s AI system, Claude, can be used in military operations. Claude is the only commercial AI system approved for classified use. 

War Secretary Pete Hegseth had warned Anthropic it would face termination of its $200 million contract, awarded in July 2025, or be designated a supply chain risk if it did not allow its AI platform to be approved for all lawful uses. 

Anthropic insisted it would not allow Claude to be used for fully autonomous weapons or mass surveillance of Americans. 

Pentagon officials say such uses already are not permitted, emphasizing that humans remain in the loop for lethal decisions and that the military does not conduct domestic surveillance, but maintain that private companies cannot dictate how their systems are used in lawful operations.

Lin pointed to the breadth of the measures — including a government-wide ban and contractor restrictions — saying they did not appear “tailored to the stated national security concern” and instead “look(ed) like an attempt to cripple Anthropic.

Anthropic welcomed the decision, saying in a statement: “We’re grateful to the court for moving swiftly, and pleased they agree Anthropic is likely to succeed on the merits.”

Hegseth described CEO Dario Amodei and Anthropic of a “master class in arrogance” and a “textbook case of how not to do business with the United States Government” in a Feb. 27 post on X. 

OpenAI has emerged as a key alternative, securing a Pentagon deal to deploy its models on classified systems as tensions with Anthropic escalated. 

Still, Anthropic has not been fully displaced — its Claude system remains deeply embedded in military workflows, and replacing it would take time.

Saudi Arabia and other Gulf allies are showing signs of a quiet but consequential shift in their posture toward Iran, as escalating attacks across the region are testing years of careful balancing between Washington and Tehran.

For much of the past decade, countries like Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) sought to avoid direct confrontation with Iran, maintaining diplomatic and economic ties even while relying on U.S. military backing. But that middle ground is increasingly under strain.

That strategy was designed to keep Gulf states out of direct confrontation. But officials and analysts say Iran’s expanding attacks are narrowing the space for neutrality, pushing some Gulf states closer to Washington.

One of the clearest signs of that shift is a reported move by Saudi Arabia to grant U.S. forces access to King Fahd Air Base in Taif, a western facility not used for American combat operations since the Gulf War era.

HEGSETH BLASTS BRITS, SAYS IRAN’S CHAOTIC RETALIATION HAS DRIVEN ITS OWN ALLIES ‘INTO THE AMERICAN ORBIT’

The shift is also visible across the region. The UAE has severed diplomatic ties with Tehran, shut down Iranian-linked institutions and launched a crackdown on networks tied to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps after a wave of attacks.

Bahrain, meanwhile, led efforts at the United Nations to pass a Security Council resolution condemning Iranian strikes on Gulf states, while multiple countries — including Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar and Kuwait — have issued coordinated statements denouncing Iran’s actions and asserting their right to self-defense.

These Gulf states are in line with the U.S. view that Iran’s missile development, uranium enrichment programs and support for regional militant groups need to be “addressed and curtailed” but remain opposed to strikes on critical infrastructure inside Iran, a Gulf official told Fox News Digital. 

Qatar has also taken concrete steps in response to Iranian attacks, expelling Iranian military and security attachés and ordering them to leave the country after strikes on critical energy infrastructure. However, Qatar has stopped short of severing full diplomatic ties, maintaining its role as a mediator even as tensions rise.

The Qatari prime minister was in Washington for talks focused on defense cooperation and protecting critical energy infrastructure Thursday, an official briefed on the visit told Fox News. 

King Fahd Air Base’s location, deep inside Saudi territory and farther from Iran’s missile and drone reach, would offer strategic depth the U.S. has not relied on in decades. U.S. military posture in the region has long centered on more exposed bases along the Persian Gulf, including hubs in Qatar and the United Arab Emirates.

Sources familiar with the matter cited in Wall Street Journal reporting said Saudi Arabia agreed to let American forces use the base. The Pentagon and the Saudi embassy declined to comment on the base. 

Combat aircraft routinely operate “dark” with transponders off in potential combat zones, so they would not appear on civilian flight radar. Saudi Arabia’s tightly controlled media environment also means there are few, if any, independent local reports of U.S. aircraft activity at King Fahd Air Base.

“Our primary concern today is to defend ourselves from the daily attacks on our people and our civilian infrastructure,” the Saudi government said in a statement on its posture toward Iran. “Iran has chosen dangerous brinkmanship over serious diplomatic solutions. This harms every stakeholder involved but none more than Iran itself.”

The reported basing shift is one of several signs that Gulf states are recalibrating their position as Iranian attacks escalate across the region.

While Gulf leaders are still stopping short of joining combat operations and continue to pursue diplomatic off-ramps, their actions — from expanding cooperation with U.S. forces to issuing more direct and coordinated condemnations of Iran — suggest growing frustrations with Iranian attacks on their territory. 

President Donald Trump said Thursday that countries across the region —   including Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait and Oman— were “shocked” as Iranian attacks expanded beyond traditional flashpoints.

“They start shooting in Qatar, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Kuwait, Oman,” he said at a Cabinet meeting. “They start shooting at them. And they were — they were. Everybody was shocked, including us. You know why? Because they’re sick. And they had a plan to take over the Middle East.”

Since late February, Iran has fired hundreds of missiles and drones across the Gulf, targeting countries from Saudi Arabia and the UAE to Qatar and Kuwait. After the launch of Operation Epic Fury Feb. 28, Iran warned it would retaliate against U.S. forces and their regional partners, a threat it quickly carried out with strikes on bases and infrastructure across the region.

Years of diplomatic outreach and de-escalation efforts in Gulf capitals failed to shield them from Iranian retaliation. 

Saudi Arabia signed an agreement in 2023 to restore diplomatic ties while the United Arab Emirates maintained economic channels that allowed limited commercial activity to continue.

At the same time, the steps Gulf countries have taken remain measured. 

The United States already operates from bases in Saudi Arabia, including Prince Sultan Air Base, which has served as a hub for U.S. air operations and force protection in the region. But those sites sit closer to the Gulf and are more exposed to Iranian missile and drone threats, while more interior locations like Taif provide greater depth and longer warning times against potential strikes.

“They have to be very careful even now,” former Israeli Defense Forces officer and national security analyst Ehud Eilam told Fox News Digital. “They know that they would have to live with Iran after the war.”

WHY GULF STATES AREN’T JOINING THE WAR AGAINST IRAN — DESPITE ATTACKS ON THEIR SOIL

“They can’t really strike back hard,” said James Robbins, Institute of World Politics dean and former special assistant to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. “They’re small countries, and they’re hard to defend.”

Robbins added that Gulf states face a long-term dilemma, warning that even a weakened Iran would likely regroup and pose a continued threat. 

“Iran will come back,” he said. “They will rebuild … and they will be out for revenge.”

Still, analysts say, Gulf states could expand cooperation with the U.S. if they wanted to. 

12 ARAB AND ISLAMIC COUNTRIES UNITE TO CONDEMN ‘HEINOUS’ IRANIAN ATTACKS

“They could increase the cooperation with the U.S. and Israel as far as air defense, intelligence, cyber and so on,” Eilam said.

They could also join in on a mission to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, through which 20% of the world’s oil typically passes. Shipping operations through the strait have ground to a standstill due to Iranian threats to vessels that attempt to pass.

“Their best mission would be securing the Strait of Hormuz, those types of missions, with whatever sea forces they have, Coast Guard-type forces and their air forces,” he said. 

Even as tensions rise, Gulf leaders have continued to pursue diplomatic off-ramps. 

Saudi Arabia recently hosted regional talks aimed at exploring a potential ceasefire, underscoring that Gulf states are still seeking to contain the conflict even as they bolster their security posture.

For now, Gulf states appear to be navigating a narrowing path, moving closer to Washington as Iranian attacks mount, while stopping short of full military alignment in a conflict that could shape the region long after the fighting ends.

President Donald Trump announced a series of actions Friday aimed at assisting farmers and food suppliers to help cut costs amid rising energy prices, promising a new “golden age” for the agricultural industry. 

Trump shared guidance on farm equipment regulations in an effort to cut costs and increase government loan guarantees for agricultural products, including tractors, among other reforms. 

He said much farm equipment has become unaffordable for many farmers.

“Every day we’re looking for new ways to support our farmers, reduce your costs, and to help lower the price of food for the American family,” Trump said on the South Lawn of the White House. “We’re going to prove that the golden age of American agriculture is right here and right now.”

I’M AN AMERICAN FARMER — EMPTY USDA OFFICES MEANS FEWER FAMILY FARMS

The Biden administration crippled the farming industry, Trump said, with harsh restrictions and a lack of trade deals. 

To help them, Trump said his administration recently used tariff money to give farmers $12 billion in relief. 

“I’m also asking Congress to quickly pass the new farm bill,” he said. “And today, I’m promising to request additional farm relief for our great patriots in the next funding bill.”

AMERICA’S QUIETEST CROP IS SET TO TAKE CENTER STAGE IN TRUMP–XI TALKS

In addition, the Environment Protection Agency (EPA) will alter guidelines around a system designed to limit diesel emissions that will save farmers billions of dollars, Trump said. 

He also announced new guidelines to limit Diesel Exhaust Fluid (DEF) rules, which mandate that modern diesel engines use selective catalytic reduction (SCR) technology to reduce nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions.

“It was a basic disaster,” Trump said. 

Trump also highlighted the EPA’s efforts to boost renewable fuels from agricultural products, while criticizing environmental activists. 

“What they’ve done to you, and the country – what they’ve done to the country – is just incredible,” he said. “They are terrorists.”

Trump also announced new loan guarantees from the Small Business Administration (SBA) for small business in the agricultural industry, including food suppliers, farmers – including vegetable farmers, grain farmers and seed farmers – cattle, pig and poultry producers and grocery wholesalers.

Congressional Democrats consider the Senate-passed plan to end the Homeland Security shutdown a victory, but they’re walking away empty-handed with none of their sought-after reforms to immigration enforcement.

Pushing for sweeping changes to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in the wake of a pair of fatal shootings in Minnesota is why Democrats blocked more than a half-dozen attempts to prevent or end the second-longest shutdown in U.S. history.

But the window of opportunity to secure any reforms slammed shut just after 2 a.m. Friday.

DHS SHUTDOWN BREAKTHROUGH COMES AT COST FOR REPUBLICANS AS FUNDING FIGHTS NEARS END

“I mean, I think that ship has sailed, and they kind of kissed that opportunity goodbye by failing to provide funding for those agencies,” Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., said.

At the onset of the shutdown in early February, Schumer and Democrats presented 10 categories of reforms they wanted to be implemented for ICE and immigration enforcement in order to earn their votes to fund DHS.

The proposals were in response to the fatal shootings of Alex Pretti and Renee Nicole Good and were designed to drastically rein in the power of ICE and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agents.

HOUSE CONSERVATIVES RAGE AGAINST SENATE DHS SHUTDOWN DEAL

Among them were requiring judicial warrants for agents, forcing agents to unmask, requiring agents to display identification, ending roving patrols, preventing agents from operating in certain areas like schools and hospitals, requiring body-worn cameras, increasing oversight of detention centers tied to funding, and several more.

The warrant requirements and unmasking were hard red lines for Republicans and the White House, but throughout negotiations, the GOP made concessions on several others, including limiting immigration enforcement at sensitive locations, allowing congressional oversight of DHS detention facilities, and enforcing the use of visible identification for DHS agents.

Democrats walked away with none of those offers that were on the table, aside from $20 million to purchase body-worn cameras, which was already in the original Homeland Security funding bill.

SCHUMER, DEMS BLOCK DHS FUNDING AGAIN, TRUMP INTERVENES TO PAY TSA AGENTS

“The Dems wanted reforms. We tried to work with them on reforms. They ended up getting no reforms,” Thune said.

Still, Schumer and congressional Democrats scored a political victory of sorts, with the legislation carving out funding for ICE and the border protection arm of CBP.

Republicans, however, front-loaded immigration enforcement funding last year with $75 billion over the next several years and plan a similar move using the same budget reconciliation process to extend funding for up to a decade.

And with a rebellion against the legislation fomenting among House Republicans — who are widely unhappy with immigration enforcement not being funded right away — all parties could be taken back to square one.

“This is exactly what we wanted,” Schumer said after the Senate advanced the bill. “This is what we asked for, and I’m very proud of my caucus. My caucus held the line.”

President Donald Trump on Friday signed an executive order directing federal officials to ensure Transportation Security Administration (TSA) employees receive back pay during the ongoing Department of Homeland Security (DHS) shutdown.

Trump described the situation as an “emergency,” citing severe strain on airport security operations. 

“Accordingly, I hereby direct the Secretary of Homeland Security, in coordination with the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, to use funds that have a reasonable and logical nexus to TSA operations to provide TSA employees with the compensation and benefits that would have accrued to them if not for the Democrat-led DHS shutdown, consistent with applicable law, including 31 U.S.C. 1301(a),” Trump said.

This is a breaking news story. Please check back for updates.

A Democratic House candidate running in a battleground seat in southwestern Iowa linked faith to political violence while warning against religion in public life, according to unearthed audio reviewed by Fox News Digital.

“We have seen religion and political violence showing up more and more in our public spaces,” Democratic candidate Sarah Trone Garriott said in a 2023 speech at a Methodist church. “It’s something that is just very in our faces and something that we’re very concerned about, and something that feels very threatening right now at this time.” 

Trone Garriott, a state legislator and Lutheran minister, is running to defeat Rep. Zach Nunn, R-Iowa, in November’s midterm elections. Prior to launching a House bid, Trone Garriott fashioned herself as a fierce opponent of Christian nationalism — a term some conservatives have argued that critics use to paint some Christians as prone to violence and hostile toward democracy.

In the speech, Trone Garriott said it was “a good thing to talk about religion and politics together” and spoke positively about living out one’s faith in their community. However, she repeatedly voiced discomfort about seeing public Christian displays and suggested it was something to be rooted out.

AMERICA’S CHURCHES UNDER SIEGE AS VIOLENCE INCREASINGLY INVADES SACRED GROUND

An image of a woman holding a sign with the phrase “one nation under God, indivisible” found in the Pledge of Allegiance, according to Trone Garriott, was one of several “pretty uncomfortable ways that faith and political power have collided.” The Iowa Democrat also called attention to Christian displays at one of President Donald Trump’s rallies and during the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol.

“This is not a Christian nation. It’s a nation for all of us,” Trone Garriott told the church congregants. “Spaces and proceedings need to be for all people, and we need to work on reminding folks of that.”

As a state senator, Trone Garriott said she intentionally sought out opening prayers that were not from the “White American Christian variety,” but from atheist, secular and other non-Christian perspectives.

Trone Garriott also spoke critically of parental rights in education and private Christian schools. She charged that both stemmed from racist opposition to the integration of public schools when parents desired to create a “White enclave” for their children.

“So maybe some of these things sound familiar today,” Trone Garriott said in her remarks. “It’s nothing new.”

The Iowa Democrat then proceeded to tie White men to her criticism of legislation barring biological males from women’s sports or preventing children from reading sexually explicit material. She notably opposed a bill keeping men out of women’s sports while serving in the state Senate.

“It’s really couched in the language of there’s a threat against women and White men are responsible to protect women from threats,” Trone Garriott said. 

Trone Garriott’s campaign did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

DEMOCRAT RISING STAR CALLED OUT FOR ‘CREEPY’ COMMENT ABOUT TRANSGENDER CHILDREN

Nunn, who is seeking a third term in November, slammed Trone Garriott’s comments in the resurfaced video in a statement to Fox News Digital.

“I was raised around Iowans who go to church every week and show up for their neighbors,” Nunn said. “Sarah Trone Garriott can’t walk into a church without delivering a lecture about how their faith is threatening and their schools are racist.”

“She’s made it clear that the values Iowa families live by every single day are the ones she’s running against,” he added.

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), House Democrats’ campaign arm, said Trone Garriott is working to unify Iowans in the 3rd Congressional District and condemns political violence.

“Sarah is a mom and minister who has served her community as a hospital chaplain and a parish pastor — public display of her faith has been a guiding force in Sarah’s life and continues to be to this day,” DCCC spokesperson Katie Smith said. “Sarah has always condemned political violence however it rears its ugly head and will always work to bring Iowans together.”

The nonpartisan Cook Political Report rates the contest for the Republican-held seat as a “toss-up.”