In a D.C. Circuit decision, Judge Gregory Katsas and Judge Neomi Rao ruled on Anthropic PBC v. U.S. Department of War. The court determined that while Anthropic's advocacy for AI safety is protected under the First Amendment, there was no causal link between this speech and the Department’s decision to exclude Anthropic from its supply chain. Instead, the exclusion stemmed from Anthropic's refusal to agree to a contract term requiring "all lawful uses" of AI products, which the Department deemed essential for national security. The timeline shows that despite Anthropic's long-standing advocacy since its founding in 2025 and continued public statements advocating for AI use restrictions, the Department only acted against Anthropic when negotiations over this specific contract term broke down.
Written locally by qwen2.5:14b on 2026-10-02,
using this article's own text rather than the other coverage of the
same event (that is the story summary below).
To succeed on such a First Amendment retaliation claim, the plaintiff or petitioner must prove that (1) it engaged in protected speech, (2) the government took materially adverse action against it, and (3) the speech caused the materially adverse action
Anthropic has satisfied the first and second prongs of this test, but not the third. The First Amendment squarely protects Anthropic's advocacy regarding the safe and appropriate use of AI products.
uncertain
Amendment → succeed → products
Moreover, the Department's exclusion of Claude from its supply chain plainly qualifies as a materially adverse action.
asserted
exclusion → qualify → action
However, we can discern no causal connection between the two.
asserted
we → discern → two
Instead, the record makes clear that the Department removed Anthropic from its supply chain not because of its advocacy, but because Anthropic refused to agree to a contract term the Department deemed essential to national security.
asserted
Department → make → security
By its own admission, Anthropic has advocated for use and safety restrictions since its founding: The company describes its own commitment to model safety as "the core of Anthropic's mission," and describes its use restrictions as reflecting "the very purpose for which [the] company was founded" and its "deeply held values."
asserted
company → advocate → which
But throughout 2024 and 2025, the Department never acted adversely to Anthropic.
asserted
Department → act → Anthropic
Instead, it included Anthropic in a $200 million AI contract awarded in July 2025, and it sought to expand its relationship with Anthropic.
asserted
it → include → Anthropic
Additionally, in January 2026, Amodei published a long article calling for "limits" and "safeguards" on the use of AI-powered weapons in democracies.
asserted
Amodei → publish → democracies
But instead of retaliating against Anthropic because of this advocacy, the Department continued to pursue negotiations.
asserted
Department → retaliate → negotiations
Only when the negotiations broke down did the Department take action: On February 24, the Secretary met with Amodei and demanded that Anthropic accept an "all lawful uses" term by February 27.
asserted
Anthropic → break → February
On February 26, Amodei published a final, public refusal to assent to that term.
asserted
Amodei → publish → term
On February 27, the Secretary announced his intention to exclude Anthropic from the Department's supply chain.
asserted
Secretary → announce → chain
And on March 3, he made the formal, written determination required by the Supply Chain Security Act.
asserted
he → make → Act
Among other things, the Secretary denounced Anthropic's "sanctimonious rhetoric," "virtue-signaling," and "Silicon Valley ideology."
asserted
Secretary → denounce → rhetoric
Such rhetoric seldom provides a sound basis for judging the lawfulness of federal executive action.
asserted
rhetoric → provide → action
In any event, for all its flourishes, the Secretary's social media post squarely addresses Anthropic's refusal to provide the "all lawful uses" contractual authorization.
asserted
post → address → authorization
He described Anthropic's behavior as a "textbook case of how not to do business" with the Pentagon.
asserted
He → describe → Pentagon
He reiterated the Department's demand for "full, unrestricted access to Anthropic's models for every lawful purpose in defense of the Republic."
asserted
He → reiterate → Republic
nd he characterized Anthropic's refusal to provide that access as imposing an unacceptable "veto power over the operational decisions of the United States military."
asserted
he → characterize → military
The nub of this dispute was contractual, and the First Amendment did not require the Department to continue a contractual relationship that it viewed as creating a national-security risk.
asserted
it → require → risk
Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson didn't reach the First Amendment question, because she concluded that the action against Anthropic wasn't authorized by statute.
asserted
action → reach → statute
The Aporia
