Pentagon Official Reaffirms Anthropic Supply Chain Risk Designation

A senior Pentagon official on September 3, 2026 said Anthropic remains a designated supply chain risk to national security, days after a federal judge ruled that the Department of War’s blacklisting of the artificial intelligence company was unlawful.

Under Secretary of War Emil Michael stated in a post on X that “Anthropic is still a designated Supply Chain Risk at @DeptofWar and for the Defense Industrial Base,” adding, “Thank you for your attention to this matter!” Michael, the Under Secretary of War for Research and Engineering, authored the March memorandum that justified the original designation.

The statement reaffirms the department’s public position despite an August 27, 2026 ruling by U.S. District Judge Rita F. Lin of the Northern District of California, which granted summary judgment to Anthropic and found the supply chain risk designation and related government actions illegal.

The Court Ruling Against the Designation

In a 59-page order on cross motions for summary judgment, Judge Lin found that the government’s actions constituted unlawful retaliation in violation of the First Amendment, that Anthropic was denied due process under the Fifth Amendment, and that the designation violated the governing statute and was arbitrary and capricious.

The order described the government’s administrative record as “slim” and concluded that the challenged actions “were based on a desire to make a public example out of Anthropic for its ‘arrogance’ in criticizing the government, not based on any articulable basis to believe that Anthropic would actually sabotage its model.” The court stated that “the broad measures imposed on Anthropic were illegal and baseless,” while noting that the Department of War “is undisputedly free to select the AI vendor of its choice.”

Summary judgment was granted in Anthropic’s favor on its First Amendment claim, its Due Process Clause claim, and its Administrative Procedure Act challenges to the designation, though the court entered judgment for the government on an ultra vires separation of powers claim and on certain claims concerning agency defendants that took no relevant action. A final judgment was entered the same day, and the case was terminated.

How the Dispute Began

The conflict traces to negotiations over the military’s use of Anthropic’s Claude models. According to the court order, the Department of War informed Anthropic in fall 2025 that it must remove all usage restrictions and agree to allow Claude’s use “for all lawful uses.” Anthropic agreed to eliminate most restrictions but refused to drop two: prohibitions on lethal autonomous warfare and mass surveillance of Americans.

On February 27, 2026, President Trump posted on Truth Social directing every federal agency to cease all use of Anthropic’s technology. Shortly afterward, Secretary of War Pete Hegseth posted on X that he was “directing the Department of War to designate Anthropic a Supply-Chain Risk to National Security,” and that “no contractor, supplier, or partner that does business with the United States military may conduct any commercial activity with Anthropic.”

Anthropic received a formal letter on March 4, 2026 confirming the designation, citing 10 U.S.C. § 3252. The statute defines a supply chain risk as “the risk that an adversary may sabotage, maliciously introduce unwanted function, or otherwise subvert” a national security system. In a March 5, 2026 statement, CEO Dario Amodei said the company did “not believe this action is legally sound, and we see no choice but to challenge it in court.” Amodei stated that the designation’s scope was narrow and that “the vast majority of our customers are unaffected,” because it applied only to the use of Claude “as a direct part of contracts with the Department of War.”

Anthropic filed suit on March 9, 2026. On March 26, 2026, Judge Lin issued a preliminary injunction enjoining the challenged actions, restoring the status quo that existed before them. The government appealed the preliminary injunction to the Ninth Circuit on April 2, 2026, but that appeal was later stayed at the parties’ mutual request.

The Statutory Framework

The supply chain risk authority derives from 10 U.S.C. § 3252, which allows the Secretary of War to exclude a source as a supply chain risk from procurements involving national security systems. The court order noted that Congress enacted the provision in 2010 out of concern that “the globalization of the information technology industry” left the department vulnerable to attacks on its systems, and that the law’s implementing instructions described the relevant risk as “sabotage or subversion” by “foreign intelligence, terrorists, or other hostile elements.”

The court found that Anthropic’s conduct did not meet the statutory definition, concluding that the law “is directed at covert acts or hacks, not overt, public positions regarding contract terms.” The order also found that Secretary Hegseth failed to make the required written determination that “less intrusive measures are not reasonably available,” and that the risk assessment was prepared by Under Secretary Michael rather than by the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence as department regulations require.

Ongoing Litigation

Despite the California ruling, Anthropic continues to face a parallel case it filed in the District of Columbia, where the government invoked a separate statutory basis for a supply chain risk designation. The Ninth Circuit appeal of the preliminary injunction has been stayed pending a ruling from the D.C. Circuit in that related case.

The court order documented that even after the designation, government officials continued discussions with Anthropic about collaboration on its newer Mythos model, and that the White House “discussed opportunities for collaboration” with the company in April 2026. The order found those actions “inconsistent with any genuine belief that Anthropic is an adversary of the United States.”

Michael’s September 3 statement indicates the department maintains the designation publicly while the remaining litigation proceeds.