D.C. Circuit upholds Pentagon’s Anthropic supply-chain risk blacklist
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit on Friday denied Anthropic’s petitions for review of the Pentagon’s designation of the Claude maker as a national-security supply-chain risk, in a 2–1 decision that keeps the blacklisting in force for covered Defense work even as a separate California challenge previously undercut a parallel order.
AI-assisted · US Brief desk · Sources listed below
What happened
A federal appeals court in Washington on Friday left standing the Pentagon’s unprecedented blacklisting of Anthropic as a national-security supply-chain risk, denying the Claude maker’s petitions for review in a split decision that deepens the company’s clash with the Trump administration over military use of frontier AI.
What the court did: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit entered judgment denying Anthropic’s petitions for review in consolidated cases Anthropic PBC v. United States Department of War (Nos. 26-1049 and 26-1162), according to the court’s docket. Judge Gregory Katsas authored the 43-page majority opinion; Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson filed an 8-page dissent. Circuit Judge Neomi Rao joined Katsas, producing the 2–1 split reported by CNBC.
Holding in plain terms: CNBC reported that Katsas and Rao rejected Anthropic’s arguments that the Defense Department’s designation was arbitrary, unauthorized, and unconstitutional. Katsas wrote that 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.”
Why it matters
Friday’s merits loss, if it stands, strengthens the Pentagon’s hand to force AI vendors into military-acceptable terms or shut them out of Defense work. It also lands amid a broader fight over whether AI safety restrictions are protected editorial choices or intolerable “operational vetoes” over national-security systems—a question Henderson’s dissent, per the docket, keeps alive even as the majority denied relief.
What’s next
Anthropic’s stated review options (en banc or Supreme Court); whether the San Francisco judgment continues to block the parallel designation; guidance to defense contractors on Claude exclusion; and any new contracting terms the Department offers other frontier labs.
More context
How we got here: In March, the Pentagon designated Anthropic a supply-chain risk after negotiations over how the military could use Claude “spiraled out of control,” CNBC reported—language that tracks earlier Reuters coverage of a dispute over Anthropic’s usage restrictions, including limits related to surveillance and autonomous weapons. The designation, under procurement authorities Congress crafted for covert sabotage threats, bars defense contractors from using Anthropic technology in covered work with the agency.
Two tracks, two courts: The Department relied on two distinct designations, so Anthropic sued in San Francisco and in Washington. CNBC noted that a San Francisco federal judge ruled last month that one designation was illegal, while Friday’s D.C. Circuit decision upheld the second. That split-forum posture means Anthropic still points to a favorable district ruling even as the appellate loss keeps a blacklist pathway alive for Defense contracting.
Company response: “We respectfully disagree with the court’s decision,” an Anthropic spokesperson told CNBC. “Another federal court has already held the government’s parallel designation unlawful. We remain confident in our position and are considering all options, including further review.”
Stakes: Earlier Reuters litigation reporting said Anthropic executives warned the designation could cost the company billions in lost business and reputational harm and that it was the first time a U.S. company had been publicly labeled a supply-chain risk under the obscure statutes at issue. The Justice Department has argued the dispute is about contractual reliability and operational certainty, not punishment for AI-safety speech—claims Anthropic contests as First Amendment retaliation and due-process failures in its filings.
Uncertainty: Full opinion text was not independently excerpted here beyond CNBC’s quotation and the docket’s judgment/opinion/dissent metadata; treat secondary paraphrases of unpublished page-level holdings cautiously until the slip opinion is widely mirrored. Downstream effects on civilian agencies or commercial customers remain speculative. Any Supreme Court or en banc next step is not yet decided.
3 listed sources
- CourtListener docket, Anthropic PBC v. United States Department of War, Nos. 26-1049 & 26-1162 (D.C. Cir.) — Sep 25, 2026 judgment denying petitions for review; opinion by Judge Katsas; dissenting opinion by Judge Henderson; panel Henderson, Katsas, Rao
- CNBC (Ashley Capoot), Sep 25, 2026 — U.S. appeals court upholds Pentagon designation of Anthropic as supply chain risk; Katsas quote on Claude integration as covered national-security risk; March designation after military-use negotiations; dual-court posture; Anthropic spokesperson statement
- Reuters (Jack Queen), Apr 8, 2026 — earlier litigation context: dual Hegseth designations, Anthropic claims on usage restrictions (surveillance/autonomous weapons), First Amendment/due-process theories, and DOJ operational-uncertainty rationale (background only; not today’s merits holding)
References listed by US Brief; a source count is not a verification score.
Editorial sourcing notes
Court outcome and panel lineup follow the D.C. Circuit docket for Anthropic PBC v. United States Department of War (Nos. 26-1049, 26-1162): Sep 25, 2026 judgment denying the petitions for review, with a 43-page majority opinion from Judge Gregory Katsas and an 8-page dissent from Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson (panel: Henderson, Katsas, Rao). Quotation and contractor-impact framing follow CNBC’s Sep 25, 2026 report (Ashley Capoot). Background on why the March designation issued—usage-guardrail talks over Claude in military settings, dual statutory tracks, and a San Francisco ruling against a parallel order—follows CNBC and earlier Reuters litigation coverage; do not invent holdings beyond the denied petitions and the published Katsas/Henderson split. Anthropic’s reaction is from its CNBC statement.
Like US Brief? You can support it with a tip.