What happened
- On September 25, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit rejected, by a 2–1 vote, Anthropic’s petitions against its exclusion from the supply chain of the U.S. Department of War (case 26-1049).
- Judge Gregory Katsas, joined by Neomi Rao, wrote that the Department had ample support to conclude that keeping Claude in its systems was a risk covered by the Federal Acquisition Supply Chain Security Act of 2018.
- The majority also dismissed the due-process and free-speech claims. According to the ruling, the exclusion stemmed from Anthropic’s refusal to accept a clause permitting all lawful uses, not from its advocacy for more regulation.
- Judge Karen Henderson dissented. She argued that, under this reading, any supplier that enforces restrictions already agreed upon can be treated as a threat.
Why it matters
- The court doesn’t say Anthropic sabotaged anything. It says it could: the ability to change how the model responds is enough to qualify as a risk. Every company that sells models has that ability.
- For public-sector buyers in Chile and the region, the precedent shifts the axis of negotiation. A vendor’s usage policies stop working as a guarantee and become a clause the biggest buyer can declare incompatible with its security.
- There’s a Latin American detail in the record. According to the ruling itself, part of the conflict started when Anthropic questioned Palantir about Claude’s role in the January 3 military operation to capture Nicolás Maduro. That question was cited among the background for the risk finding.
The number
180 days. The deadline the Department set in March to remove Anthropic’s products from its systems and bar defense contractors from using them.
Context
On August 27, a federal judge in California struck down a parallel designation issued under a different law and called it retaliation, as we reported when that trial-court ruling came out. The D.C. Circuit says it doesn’t disagree with that conclusion: the law applied in California requires ill intent by an adversary, and the 2018 law, according to the majority, doesn’t. Two courts, two laws, two opposite outcomes on the same facts.
What’s next
- Anthropic told the Associated Press that it respectfully disagrees and is evaluating all options, including further review.
- The exclusion under the 2018 law remains in force in the meantime.
- No timelines announced for a possible en banc review by the Circuit or before the Supreme Court.
Bottom line
Anthropic came into this fight calling for slowing the pace of models and opening its systems to outside auditors. The ruling answers that the control it exercises over Claude is precisely what makes it a risky supplier.
Sources
- Anthropic PBC v. U.S. Department of War, No. 26-1049, U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, September 25, 2026 (PDF)
- Associated Press via WSLS, Anthropic’s statement after the ruling
Edited by Rodrigo Cornejo. How we select and verify: who writes these notes.
