A group of 17 former senior national security officials urged the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to reconsider a ruling upholding the Pentagon’s designation of artificial intelligence (AI) company Anthropic as a supply chain risk. They said that the decision could undermine national security and discourage AI developers from adopting safety safeguards.
In an Oct. 20 court filing, the officials argued that the Pentagon’s designation was politically motivated and failed to follow required administrative procedures. They warned that allowing the ruling to stand could set a precedent for federal agencies to penalize technology companies over disagreements about how their products are used.
“If the panel decision stands, this Court will validate a sham process that not only weakens national security but gives this and future administrations authorization to punish any company that falls out of favor,” the officials wrote.
The filing was signed by former Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines; former national security advisers Jake Sullivan and Susan Rice; former Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman; and former Department of Homeland Security Under Secretary Suzanne Spaulding, among others.
The officials served in Republican and Democratic administrations in roles experience spanning defense procurement, intelligence, cybersecurity, and national security policy.
The D.C. Circuit’s 2-1 ruling rejected Anthropic’s challenge under the Federal Acquisition Supply Chain Security Act of 2018 (FASCSA), which gives the government authority to address supply chain risks in federal procurement.
The court found that the Defense Department had “ample support” for concluding that continued use of Anthropic’s Claude AI model by the department or its contractors presented a national security risk.
The dispute began when the Pentagon sought to use Claude for “all lawful uses.” Anthropic objected to two potential applications – mass surveillance and fully autonomous weapons.
After negotiations broke down, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth directed the Pentagon to designate Anthropic as a supply chain risk. Anthropic challenged the designation, alleging unlawful retaliation, while the Trump administration defended the action as a national security measure.
The former officials argued that the Pentagon announced its decision before completing the administrative review required under FASCSA.
“The designation decision came first, with rationales supplied after the fact – conclusion first and justification later is the hallmark of pretext,” the officials wrote.
Hegseth issued the formal determination on March 3, four days after publicly announcing the designation.
According to the former officials, a legitimate supply chain risk determination requires agencies to identify a specific national security threat, assess potential consequences, consider alternatives, and document their reasoning before taking action.
They argued that the Pentagon failed to complete those steps before designating Anthropic.
Beyond those procedural concerns, the officials warned that the ruling could limit the federal government’s access to advanced AI capabilities as the United States competes with China for technological leadership.
The filing points to the Pentagon’s continued interest in Anthropic’s Claude Mythos model, which has advanced cybersecurity capabilities, as an example of the potential national security costs of excluding the company from federal procurement.
The officials also warned that the designation could discourage AI developers from establishing safeguards governing how their technologies are deployed.
“No company can make good on this commitment to ensure its products are developed safely if any safeguard DOD dislikes invites a supply-chain risk designation,” the brief states.
The officials argued that the consequences could extend beyond Anthropic, affecting how other AI developers negotiate with the federal government over the use of their technologies.
The filing also argues that the Pentagon violated Anthropic’s First Amendment rights by retaliating against the company for its public statements and positions on AI safety.
The officials cited Hegseth’s criticism of Anthropic’s “sanctimonious rhetoric,” “virtue-signaling,” and “Silicon Valley ideology” as evidence that the designation was influenced by the company’s expressed views.
The brief also points to a separate ruling by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, which granted Anthropic summary judgment on Aug. 27 on its First Amendment, due process, and Administrative Procedure Act challenges to the designation.
The former officials are asking the full D.C. Circuit to rehear the case and reconsider the panel’s decision.