"The national security justification for designating Anthropic a supply-chain risk is pretextual and deserves no judicial deference," reads one brief from former senior national security government officials.
Former national security officials say the designation is pretextual
A coalition of former diplomats, intelligence professionals and defense policy veterans filed an amicus brief arguing that the Defense Department's March designation of Anthropic as a supply-chain risk was politically motivated and legally unsound. The brief contends the designation "subverts, rather than advances, national security" and that authorities designed to address supply-chain threats tied to adversarial influence were repurposed to target "a U.S. company engaged in a policy dispute with the administration over how its AI systems can be used."
The former officials added that "the sequence of events here shows that the designation was pretextual, and was intended as a punishment of Anthropic, not to protect the United States," pointing specifically to the timing of the action and to broader government-company conflicts over model safeguards.
Former service secretaries and retired flag officers warn of an acquisition chill
A separate brief from former service secretaries and senior retired military officers — named in the filings to include former Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall, former Army Secretary Christine Wormuth, Gen. Michael Hayden and Adm. William Owens — framed the dispute as a risk to U.S. military readiness through its effect on defense innovation. "Punishing domestic defense contractors over policy disagreements threatens U.S. military primacy and service member safety," the group wrote, arguing that a military "grounded in the rule of law is weakened, not strengthened, by government actions that lack legal foundation."
These signatories, many with acquisition and operational-planning experience, warned that using supply-chain authorities against firms like Anthropic could deter private-sector partners at a moment when the military increasingly relies on commercial AI capabilities.
Civil liberties and tech-policy groups highlight constitutional and procedural risks
Civil liberties organizations including the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the Cato Institute, the Chamber of Progress and the First Amendment Lawyers Association joined technology-policy voices in challenging the Pentagon's approach. Those briefs raised concerns that pressuring AI companies to loosen safeguards could expand the use of advanced systems in domestic surveillance contexts, producing "downstream constitutional risks."
Industry-aligned groups such as the Foundation for American Innovation and the Institute for Progress focused on procedural failings. The Foundation argued that "Enforcing Congress's predicates here would strengthen, not weaken, the long-run credibility of lawful government action in these markets," and asserted the Pentagon had not shown why narrower mitigation steps would not address any identified risks.
Pro-government filing from the America First Policy Institute urges broader national-security view
Not all outside filings opposed the designation. A pro-government brief from the America First Policy Institute, authored by Joel Thayer, contended that Anthropic's contractual and technical controls "create unique national security concerns." Thayer wrote that "Through its terms and contracts, Petitioner has the potential to exact unprecedented control over U.S. military operations," and urged the court to consider "the full potential of Petitioner’s technology to operate autonomously."
What this means for defense acquisition leaders, technologists, and the courts
- Defense acquisition and private-sector partners: The former service secretaries and acquisition veterans argue firms may be deterred from contracting with the Pentagon if supply-chain authorities are used to punish policy disagreements, a risk that could affect sourcing of commercial AI capabilities.
- Technologists and security teams: Civil liberties and policy briefs frame a separate worry — that government pressure to alter safeguards could increase the risk of expanded domestic surveillance and downstream constitutional exposure.
- The courts and judicial review: The filings ask judges to scrutinize whether the Department of Defense properly applied statutory authority and constitutional limits; the D.C. Circuit and a federal district court will be the venues to resolve those legal questions.
The legal calendar is now set: the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit will hear oral arguments on May 19 as it considers whether the Pentagon's designation was lawful. Separately, a federal judge in the Northern District of California has set a July 30 hearing on cross-motions for summary judgment, with briefing scheduled through June and July. The White House and Department of Defense did not immediately respond to requests for comment, according to the filing report.
The briefs frame the controversy in starkly different terms — from procedural error and executive overreach to novel national-security risk — and the courts must now decide which of those framings controls. With a major appellate argument on the calendar and a district-court summary-judgment timeline that will play out over the summer, the immediate question is concrete: will judicial review accept the Pentagon's use of supply-chain authorities against a domestic AI developer, or will the judges find the designation untethered from the statutes and motives it invokes?
