I think there is an important distinction here because even the Government’s own lawyer conceded that a contractor using Claude code is not necessarily a risk.

The nuance is relying on Claude code as part of a DoW delivered or production system. This case puts Anthropic directly into the supply chain. Thus, if Claude is actually part of a DoW-procured capability, Anthropic still controls the model. DoW’s argument is that Anthropic could put something in there to perturb or retard the capability that DoW is after. DC Circuit said the department viewed that as a national-security problem because Anthropic had refused to accept a contract term the department considered necessary.

THEN, because the statute covers IT technology that can be manipulated to not fulfill the mission that the DoW wants/needs it is then by statute a supply chain risk.

No it isn’t see above

[1] https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/opinions/docs/2026/09/26-104...

It’s a risk that persons may otherwise manipulate the operation of a covered technology to deny or disrupt its function. The statute allows the DoW to do this.

Yes they are free to do that. You have to blame Congress for giving them that authority under the Federal Acquisition Supply Chain Security Act and specifically 41 U.S.C. § 4713.

But Claude’s ToS didn’t prohibit use of Claude for sensitive military operation but it was coded to do so. It was part of the government’s evidence

Herein lies the DoW’s point. Anthropic can’t dictate how the DoW conducts business.