Ex-security officials urge full appeals court to rethink Anthropic Pentagon ruling

What the former officials are asking

As MeriTalk reported, a group of 17 former senior national security officials has asked the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to take another look at a recent decision. That decision, issued by a three-judge panel, upheld the Pentagon's move to label Anthropic a supply chain risk. The group filed its brief on Oct. 20.

The signers come from both Republican and Democratic administrations and have worked in defense buying, intelligence, cybersecurity and policy. They include Avril Haines, who led national intelligence; Jake Sullivan and Susan Rice, who each served as national security adviser; Wendy Sherman, a onetime deputy secretary of state; and Suzanne Spaulding, who held a senior Homeland Security post.

Their core argument is that the label was driven by politics and that the Pentagon skipped steps the law requires. They also warn the ruling could become a template for punishing companies that fall out of favor.

How the fight started

The conflict began when the Pentagon wanted to use Anthropic's Claude model for any lawful purpose. Anthropic objected to two possible uses: mass surveillance and fully autonomous weapons, meaning weapons that act without a person making the final call.

Talks broke down. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth then directed the department to designate Anthropic a supply chain risk. Anthropic sued, saying the move was unlawful retaliation. The Trump administration defended it as a national security step.

The panel sided with the government by a 2-1 vote. It rejected Anthropic's challenge under the Federal Acquisition Supply Chain Security Act of 2018, a law that lets the government deal with supply chain risks in federal purchasing. The judges found the Defense Department had solid grounds to conclude that using Claude, whether by the department or its contractors, posed a national security risk.

The case that process was backwards

The former officials say a real risk finding follows a sequence. An agency names a specific threat, weighs the possible consequences, considers alternatives, and writes down its reasoning, all before acting. In their account, the Pentagon did none of that in time.

They point to the calendar. Hegseth announced the designation publicly, and the formal determination came on March 3, four days later. The brief argues that reasons were supplied afterward, and says that conclusion first and justification later is the hallmark of pretext, according to the officials. Pretext means a stated reason that hides the real one.

The filing also argues the government violated Anthropic's First Amendment free-speech rights. It cites Hegseth's criticism of Anthropic's rhetoric, which he called sanctimonious and virtue-signaling, as evidence that the company's public views on AI safety shaped the decision.

Why they say the stakes go beyond one company

The brief makes two broader warnings. The first is about access. As the U.S. competes with China on technology, the officials say shutting a leading AI developer out of federal buying could cost the government useful capabilities. They note that the Pentagon has continued to show interest in Claude Mythos, an Anthropic model with advanced cybersecurity abilities, as an example of what exclusion could cost.

The second is about incentives. If any safeguard the Pentagon dislikes can trigger a risk label, the officials say, companies cannot credibly promise to build products safely. That could change how other AI developers bargain with federal agencies over how their tools are used.

The newsletter's earlier framing holds: this is an argument from named critics, not a settled outcome. The full court has not yet said whether it will rehear the case.

A split in the courts

The brief also leans on a separate case. On Aug. 27, a federal district court in Northern California gave Anthropic a summary judgment, a ruling made without a full trial, on its claims of First Amendment, due process and Administrative Procedure Act violations. The Administrative Procedure Act sets the rules agencies must follow when making decisions.

So one court has sided with Anthropic on the designation, while the appeals panel in Washington has backed the Pentagon under a different law. The former officials are asking the full D.C. Circuit to reconsider the panel's ruling.