Intel / article

U.S. appeals court upholds designation of Anthropic as supply chain risk

Source: cnbc.com
Author: cramer4next
Date: Published Sep 25, 2026

From the Daily Brief

A divided federal appeals panel, 2-1, left in place the Pentagon's designation of Anthropic as a supply chain risk, CNBC reports. The designation governs whether the company can do business with the US Department of Defense, and the ruling means that status stands for now. The report does not settle what further legal options Anthropic has or how the designation will be applied to specific contracts, so both are open questions to watch. For engineering teams, the immediate effect is narrow: this concerns defense procurement, not commercial API access. Organizations that sell into defense, or build on Claude for government customers, should check with their contracting teams whether the designation affects vendor approvals or flow-down requirements on their own projects.

Read the 2026-09-26 Brief →

Context

On September 25, 2026, the D.C. Circuit upheld the Department of War's decision to exclude Anthropic's Claude from its supply chain under the Federal Acquisition Supply Chain Security Act of 2018. The department acted after Anthropic refused to relax contract limits on lethal autonomous warfare and domestic surveillance, and the court's opinion says Anthropic's training-based restrictions had stopped Claude from performing tasks government users requested. The majority held that the statutory definition of supply chain risk turns on what Anthropic does, not why, so malicious intent is not required.

The opinion also explains why Anthropic could have won elsewhere: a Northern District of California decision of August 27, 2026 concerned a different statute, 10 U.S.C. 3252, whose definition requires an adversary and bad motive. The D.C. Circuit said it had no quarrel with that conclusion or with the finding that Anthropic acted without bad motive, but that the much broader definition in 41 U.S.C. 4713 requires none. The two rulings are therefore not a simple reversal, and the D.C. Circuit decision includes a dissent.

Read the source www.cnbc.com