The New Republic79%
DOJ Stuns Judge With Inability to Answer “Easy Question” in AI Lawsuit 69%
By Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling80%
7/31/2026, 9:40:14 AM
BS Summary: This article contains 17 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Appeal to Emotion, and Pessimism Bias, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 57.1% saturation with 202 hits. Analysis detected 1,048 faulty-reasoning hits from 354 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 56.3% and a BS Rank of 69% (8,054 of 25,564 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 68.50% of the article peer group.
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 barring federal agencies from utilizing the company’s services.
California-based U.S.
District Judge Rita Lin literally spelled out 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 network.
In May, Lin blasted the government for the “Orwellian” 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 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 unconstitutional 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.”
Analysis
Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.