Anthropic is (almost) Not a Supply Chain Risk - DTNS 5342

**Jason Howell** (0:08)
This is the Daily Tech News for Friday, August 28th, 2026 We tell you what you need to know, give you the important context, and help each other understand.

**Huyen Tue Dao** (0:17)
Today, Anthropic is now one step closer to not being a supply chain risk in the US, but it's not out of the woods yet.

**Jason Howell** (0:25)
No, it is not. We'll talk about that. I'm Jason Howell.

**Huyen Tue Dao** (0:28)
I'm Huyen Tue Dao.

**Jason Howell** (0:29)
Let's start with what you need to know with a big story.
All right. So let's set the scene a little bit. Give you a little refresher, because it's been a little while. This is a story we've talked about a lot in the past, but just to kind of bring you up to date. Back in March, the US Department of Defense designated Anthropic a supply chain risk, you may remember, which means that it threatens, or so they say, US national security. Anthropic wanted the Department of Defense to agree not to use its products, like Claude, for fully autonomous weapons or domestic mass surveillance. They said, no, we don't want to use for that. The first is not yet possible, and the second is already illegal, but the Department of Defense didn't want limits on the contract that might constrict it further than the law, let's say. So the department was concerned that Anthropic might actually degrade its products and endanger military missions. Well, snap forward to now, in the US district, Judge Rita Lin found that the Department of Defense violated the First Amendment by designating Anthropic A supply chain risk, quote, based on a desire to make a public example, those were her words, out of the company. The judge called it unlawful retaliation.
Judge Lin wrote that the decision was not founded on an articulable basis. That's a word that I just never use. So I appreciate Judge Lin for putting it into my vocabulary.
Said, quote, defendants claim that because of Anthropic's increasingly hostile manner through the press, and its criticism of the Department of War's views on AI use, defendants cannot trust Anthropic to ensure the integrity of its models. Neither the Constitution nor the federal statute invoked by defendants allows them to impose sweeping penalties based principally on Anthropics critique of the administration's views. End quote. Judge Lin also determined that Anthropic was denied due process. That would be a violation of the Fifth Amendment because the decision was arbitrary and capricious. Among the evidence Judge Lin relied on was the government's continued use of Anthropic products and collaboration on the Mythos models rollout. The judge also determined that Anthropic undisputedly lacks any backdoor access to its technology, allaying concerns that Anthropic might be able to degrade the product at will and on a whim and endanger military missions as a result. So the Department of Defense used two designations of supply chain risk, and this case was just about one of them. So this is really important to know. This is not the end of the story. The other designation is being contested currently in a court in DC. This was in California. In that one, Anthropic is also arguing the Department of Defense did not follow proper federal procurement law when making the designation. Anthropic will still be designated a supply chain risk until that other case is resolved. So that's a lot of background. Kind of keep you up to date. And I think a lot of people are, especially people who are critics of this happening to Anthropic looking at like the potential, what it says about influence over models, at least here in the US and would other companies be under the same kind of approach in the eyes of the law. This is one step forward, but it's not an entire like it, they haven't moved beyond it yet. There's still more to be said on this story.

**Huyen Tue Dao** (4:23)
Yeah. I do think it's interesting. I will just put my cards on the table. I'm very, as limited as my legal knowledge is, this seems to make sense to me that companies do. I mean, I don't know all the laws, but of course, like we've had many cases where corporations in and of themselves do have First Amendment rights. Usually, that has to do with political spending and other things like religious expression. But I mean, of course, them as a corporation stating that we wouldn't want to do this or we wouldn't want to do that with their own products does seem to fit. So it seems like the right tech, at least from that perspective.
I do like the idea of the articulable basis. It feels like you got to be able to tell us why, y'all. Yes, exactly. Yeah, like in a precise way, tell us why.