Former Officials Seek Full D.C. Circuit Review of Anthropic Risk Designation

On October 20, 2026, a bipartisan group of 17 former national security officials filed a brief asking the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to rehear Anthropic’s challenge to the Department of Defense (DOD) designation of the company as a supply-chain risk. The request follows a 2–1 D.C. Circuit decision upholding the designation. The former officials argue that the dispute has significance beyond Anthropic because the ruling may affect how the Pentagon handles suppliers and how defense contractors make technology and sourcing decisions. No new solicitation, award, contract value, or procurement opportunity is identified in the filing signal.

The dispute centers on the government’s proposed use of Anthropic’s Claude models for “all lawful uses.” According to the source reporting, Anthropic objected to potential applications involving mass surveillance of Americans and fully autonomous weapons that could attack targets without human intervention. Negotiations broke down, and the Pentagon designated Anthropic as a supply-chain risk. The former officials contend that the designation was politically motivated and that the government announced its decision before completing the administrative review required under the Federal Acquisition Supply Chain Security Act of 2018 (FASCSA). They point to a formal determination issued by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on March 3, four days after he publicly announced the designation.

The legal stakes are procurement-relevant because FASCSA gives the government authority to address supply-chain risks in federal procurement. The appeals panel found “ample support” for concluding that continued use of Claude by DOD or its contractors presented a national security risk. The former officials dispute the process and warn that leaving the decision undisturbed could establish a precedent for agencies to penalize technology companies over disagreements about product use. Their brief describes the panel decision as validating a “sham process” and argues that the case warrants rehearing because the D.C. Circuit has exclusive jurisdiction over these designations, making its ruling consequential for defense contractors nationwide.

For contractors, the immediate development is a request for rehearing—not a new restriction or contract action announced in this filing. However, organizations using or proposing Anthropic technology for defense work should review where Claude is embedded, how supplier restrictions could affect current or planned work, and what alternatives or continuity measures may be needed. The reporting also notes that Anthropic previously worked with Palantir and Amazon Web Services to deploy Claude inside highly restricted, classified government networks. Stakeholders should monitor the court’s response and the broader litigation before treating the designation’s scope or ultimate effect as settled.

• 17 former officials from both Republican and Democratic administrations filed the rehearing brief on October 20, 2026.
• The request concerns a 2–1 D.C. Circuit ruling that upheld the Pentagon’s supply-chain-risk designation of Anthropic.
• The officials argue the Pentagon announced the designation before completing the administrative process required by FASCSA.
• The reporting says Pete Hegseth issued a formal determination on March 3, four days after publicly announcing the designation.
• The dispute arose from the Pentagon’s demand for “all lawful uses” of Claude and Anthropic’s objections to mass surveillance and fully autonomous weapons applications.
• The appeals panel found “ample support” for DOD’s conclusion that continued use of Claude by the department or its contractors presented a national security risk.
• The former officials warn the ruling could influence how the government treats defense suppliers and contend the case merits full-court review.
• Reporting identifies prior Claude deployments in restricted, classified government networks through collaboration with Palantir and Amazon Web Services.
• Contractors using or proposing Anthropic technology should map dependencies, assess supplier-risk exposure, and track litigation developments; the filing itself is not a new procurement action.
• No solicitation, contract award, or contract value is identified in the available signal.