Today ainotis

Policy28 Sep 2026Lead storyThat day's edition

Appeals court upholds Pentagon supply-chain risk label on Anthropic

The DC Circuit ruled 2-1 on September 25, 2026 that the Department of War had ample support to treat Claude in its systems as a national-security risk.

Check our sources · 1 source, 3 claims
U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit: “We reject these challenges. The Department had ample support for its conclusion that the continued integration of Claude into the…” U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit: “We reject these challenges. The Department had ample support for its conclusion that the continued integration of Claude into the…” “ We reject these challenges. The Department had ample support for its conclusion that the continued integration of Claude into the Department’s information systems, by the Department or its contractors, presented a statutorily covered national-security risk.” U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
www.govinfo.gov, quoted / Anthropic PBC v. United States Department of War, No. 26-1049 · source · Quoted under the quotation exception; no licence granted

Key points

  1. The DC Circuit decided the case on September 25, 2026, ruling 2-1 against Anthropic; Judge Katsas wrote for the majority with Judge Rao, and Judge Henderson dissented.
  2. The court held the Department had ample support to conclude that continued use of Claude in its systems, by the Department or its contractors, was a covered national-security risk.
  3. The Department acted after Anthropic refused to relax contract terms barring use of Claude for lethal autonomous warfare or domestic surveillance.

What it means for you

Our view

The court accepted the Department of War reasoning that Claude inside its systems, whether used by the Department or by its contractors, can be a covered national-security risk, and one judge dissented. The claims we checked concern the Department and its contractors, so they say nothing about other customers.

They do show that a vendor's contract terms on military use can end up deciding whether a supplier may be used at all. If you are a contractor to the Department, ask your legal team whether Claude appears in any system you deliver, and check what your contracts say about model suppliers.

This part is our reading of the facts above. It adds no fact of its own.

Your reaction

One press adds one. We count a number for each notice and day, never who pressed it.

Check our sources

1 source, 3 claims. We opened the source and checked every sentence above against it.

1 Anthropic PBC v. United States Department of War, No. 26-1049U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 25 Sep 2026 · 3 claims Open the source

  1. The DC Circuit decided the case on September 25, 2026, ruling 2-1 against Anthropic, with Judge Katsas writing for the majority joined by Judge Rao, and Judge Henderson dissenting.

    Argued May 19, 2026 Decided September 25, 2026 ... Before: HENDERSON, KATSAS, and RAO, Circuit Judges. Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge KATSAS. Dissenting opinion filed by Circuit Judge HENDERSON.

  2. The court held that the Department had ample support for its conclusion that continued integration of Claude into Department information systems presented a statutorily covered national-security risk.

    We reject these challenges. The Department had ample support for its conclusion that the continued integration of Claude into the Department’s information systems, by the Department or its contractors, presented a statutorily covered national-security risk.

  3. The exclusion followed a dispute after Anthropic declined to relax contract terms barring use of Claude for lethal autonomous warfare or domestic surveillance.

    The Department made this decision after Anthropic refused to relax contractual prohibitions on the use of Claude for lethal autonomous warfare or domestic surveillance.

Nothing appears on this site that we have not opened and linked.

Filed under