> Unfortunately for Anthropic, the Constitution does not require the government to purchase goods or services from a company that has made a public declaration that it will not allow its AI models (specifically Claude) to be used for mass domestic surveillance or to power fully autonomous weapons, if such a declaration goes against the government's contract requirements.

Obviously, if the contract requirements themselves are lawful, the government has the power to purchase only those goods and services that meet the requirements, and to not purchase those that do not.

But that's irrelevant, because the "supply chain risk" designation is not needed if the government is merely trying to assure that the good and services in a contract meet the requirement of the contract, it is a separate legal provision with separate purposes that would be superfluous for the purpose described.

If the government is using the "supply chain risk" designation as a backdoor way to rewrite all previously-entered, still-in-force defense contracts to retroactively add new requirements incompatible with the use of Anthropic software given their limitations on the service Anthropic is willing to provide, that also is not what the "supply chain risk" designation exists for, and, even if were to seem facially within the statutory purpose of the authority, would raise 5th Amendment takings issues.

> If a supplier wants to retain such control and restrict functionality, deeming them a supply-chain risk seems appropriate

Anthropic provides their product under specific terms, if the government doesn't accept those terms then there's no deal, simple as that. That's how basic contracts work, not sure why you think that has anything to do with a supply chain risk.