Anthropic Issues Statement on Secretary of War Pete Hegseth’s Comments, Calls for Clarity

Anthropic’s statement makes clear that the company’s refusal to waive two “narrow exceptions” – mass domestic surveillance of Americans and the use of Claude in fully autonomous weapons – was the catalyst for Secretary of War Pete Hegseth’s X post, which announced a pending supply‑chain risk designation. The firm says it has not received any formal notice from the Department of War or the White House, underscoring a communication gap that could leave contractors uncertain about compliance obligations. According to the company’s February 27 policy release, Anthropic has “supported American warfighters since June 2024” and insists that the two exceptions have “not affected a single government mission to date,” positioning the stance as a matter of safety and civil‑rights principle rather than a bargaining chip.

Legally, the designation hinges on 10 U.S.C. § 3252, which permits the Department of War to label a vendor a supply‑chain risk only insofar as the vendor’s products are used on Department contracts. Anthropic’s legal team argues that the rule “cannot affect how contractors use Claude to serve other customers,” meaning commercial APIs and non‑military deployments would remain untouched. The company therefore expects its existing client base – from startups to Fortune‑500 firms – to continue accessing Claude via claude.ai without interruption, while only Department of War contractors might see usage restrictions on classified work. This narrow reading, if upheld, would limit the practical impact of the designation to a subset of defense‑related contracts rather than a blanket market ban.

The broader significance lies in the precedent the move could set. Anthropic notes that supply‑chain risk labels have historically been reserved for foreign adversaries, never before applied publicly to an American technology firm. If the Pentagon proceeds, it would signal a willingness to wield procurement tools as a lever over corporate policy on contentious AI applications, potentially prompting other vendors to reassess their own exception lists. Industry observers have already flagged the risk of a chilling effect: companies may either acquiesce to broader government use cases or, like Anthropic, brace for legal challenges that could drag on for months, diverting resources from product development and market expansion.

Anthropic’s CEO and co‑founder Dario Amodei have both reiterated a “good‑faith” approach to national‑security negotiations, emphasizing that the firm “supports all lawful uses of AI for national security aside from the two narrow exceptions.” The company’s public posture – thanking “industry peers, policymakers, veterans, and the public” for their support – is designed to rally a coalition that could pressure the Department of War to back down or at least clarify the statutory limits of the risk designation. TechCrunch reported that the Pentagon’s deadline looms, suggesting a possible escalation to formal adjudication, while The Verge highlighted the unprecedented nature of the move, noting that “no amount of intimidation or punishment … will change our position.” Anthropic has signaled its intent to contest the designation in court, a step that could bring the issue before the Federal Circuit and force a judicial interpretation of the supply‑chain risk statute as it applies to AI vendors.

For defense contractors, the immediate takeaway is operational uncertainty. If a supply‑chain risk label is formally adopted, contractors will need to audit their Claude‑related codebases, segregate any usage tied to Department of War contracts, and potentially seek alternative models for classified work. Anthropic’s assurance that “your access to Claude … is completely unaffected” for non‑government customers may mitigate broader market fallout, but the episode underscores a growing friction point between the rapid deployment of frontier AI and the government’s appetite for unfettered access. As the legal battle unfolds, the defense sector will be watching closely to see whether the Pentagon’s stance reshapes procurement policy or remains a singular, contested episode.