source:

https://www.hoyerlawgroup.com/what-the-dod-anthropic-dispute...

That contract was already signed and active, the government had already agreed to Anthropic’s terms, and contractors were already cleared to use Claude on the classified networks; only until anthropic started enforcing those pre-existing guardrail clauses (probably for good reason) did Hegseth get pissy.

Guess it should go without saying: if you cannot support clause A.) surveillance of Americans, and clause B.) AI assisted weapons systems, then you are a /supply chain risk/. Lord knows we don’t need heroes here.

But you know, if abiding those terms is a legitimate threat to your supply chain, then why would you agree to those stipulations to begin with ;)

Edit:

So to more respond to your point: big disagree, this can absolutely be used for compliance. The crucial thing you’re missing is that the government /threatened/ to designate them a risk in response to the CEO’s enforcement of the clause. The government gave them a -timeline- to desist and comply… which debases the claim that they are a supply chain risk. The judge is a moron.

The -only- legal argument for the designation is the ugliest one: the fact that Anthropic is willing to play dead canary. “You’re not a supply chain risk a priori, but you’re a supply chain risk for asserting this work violates 1 and 2”

By the way… the same two stipulating terms exist with OpenAI’s contract with them… nudge nudge wink wink