So the D.C. Circuit’s majority opinion held firm in dismissing Anthropic’s First Amendment challenge.
From the perspective of Judge Gregory Katsas, with Judge Neomi Rao joining, the D.C. Circuit’s opinion issued today in Anthropic PBC v. U.S. Department of War lays out the framework for assessing a First Amendment retaliation claim: a plaintiff must show (1) engagement in protected speech, (2) that the government imposed a materially adverse action, and (3) that the speech was the cause of that adverse action.
Anthropic has demonstrated the first two elements of this test, but not the third. The First Amendment clearly shields Anthropic’s advocacy concerning the safe and proper use of AI products. Moreover, the Department’s decision to remove Claude from its supply chain plainly constitutes a materially adverse action. Yet there is no causal link between the two actions that the record can locate. Instead, the record shows the Department removed Anthropic from its suppliers not due to its advocacy, but because Anthropic refused to accept a contract term the Department deemed essential for national security.
Consider the timeline. Anthropic itself has stated that it has advocated for usage restrictions and safety measures since its founding: the company describes its commitment to model safety as “the core of Anthropic’s mission,” and characterizes its usage limitations as reflecting “the very purpose for which [the] company was founded” and its “deeply held values.” Nevertheless, during 2024 and 2025, the Department did not take any adverse action against Anthropic. Instead, it included Anthropic in a $200 million AI contract awarded in July 2025 and sought to broaden its engagement with Anthropic.
Moreover, in January 2026, Amodei published an extensive article urging “limits” and “safeguards” on the use of AI-powered weapons in democracies. Rather than retaliating against Anthropic for this advocacy, the Department continued negotiations.
It was only once the negotiations collapsed that the Department acted: on February 24, the Secretary met with Amodei and pressed Anthropic to accept an “all lawful uses” term by February 27. On February 26, Amodei issued a public final refusal to agree to that term. On February 27, the Secretary announced his plan to exclude Anthropic from the Department’s supply chain. And on March 3, he issued the formal, written determination required by the Supply Chain Security Act.
Anthropic highlights several pointed statements in the Secretary’s February 27 social media post. Among other remarks, the Secretary criticized Anthropic’s “sanctimonious rhetoric,” “virtue-signaling,” and “Silicon Valley ideology.” Such rhetoric rarely provides a reliable basis for judging the legality of federal executive action.
In any event, regardless of its rhetorical flourishes, the Secretary’s social media post plainly concerns Anthropic’s decision not to provide the “all lawful uses” contract permission. He described Anthropic’s conduct as a “textbook case of how not to do business” with the Pentagon. He reiterated the Department’s demand for “full, unrestricted access to Anthropic’s models for every lawful purpose in defense of the Republic.” And he characterized Anthropic’s refusal to grant that access as imposing an unacceptable “veto power over the operational decisions of the United States military.” The central issue here was contractual, and the First Amendment did not obligate the Department to maintain a contractual relationship that it viewed as creating a national-security risk.
Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson did not resolve the First Amendment question, because she concluded that the action against Anthropic lacked statutory authorization.
