Anthropic PBC v. U.S. Department of War
Issue
Whether the federal government's designation of Anthropic PBC as a "supply chain risk" — effectuated through a presidential social media directive, Secretary of War Pete Hegseth's formal letters, and the GSA's removal of Anthropic from USAi.gov — constitutes an unlawful blacklisting that violates Anthropic's constitutional and statutory rights, causing cognizable injury to the company's commercial relationships.
What Happened
Anthropic PBC filed suit against the U.S. Department of War in the Northern District of California, and this document is a supporting declaration by Anthropic's Chief Commercial Officer, Paul Smith, filed March 9, 2026, in connection with what appears to be a motion for preliminary injunctive relief. Smith attests that on February 27, 2026, President Trump directed all agencies to cease use of Anthropic's AI models, and Secretary Hegseth subsequently designated Anthropic a "supply chain risk" via public posts and formal letters dated March 3, 2026, resulting in Anthropic's removal from federal procurement platforms and cascading terminations by government contractors. The declaration catalogs specific, quantified commercial harms — including lost or imperiled contracts exceeding hundreds of millions of dollars across financial services, healthcare, education, and other industries — and argues that the statutory "supply chain risk" framework applies only to foreign adversaries posing national security threats, not to domestic U.S. companies.
Why It Matters
This declaration is significant because it presents a factual record for a court to evaluate whether the executive branch may use national-security-adjacent administrative designations as an instrument to coerce private companies and their business partners — raising potential First Amendment retaliation and unconstitutional conditions questions in the context of AI developers. If the court reaches the merits, its analysis of whether a "supply chain risk" designation can be applied to a domestic AI company could establish important limits on executive authority over AI procurement and signal the degree to which AI developers retain legal recourse against government-directed commercial exclusion.
Related Filings
Other proceedings in the same litigation tracked by this monitor.
How accurate was this summary?