On September 25, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit denied Anthropic’s petitions challenging the Pentagon’s exclusion of Claude under 41 U.S.C. § 4713. The 2–1 decision left that exclusion in force for covered Department of War systems and procurement. Read the court’s opinion.
Why Emil Michael defended the designation
Emil Michael, the Department of War’s Under Secretary for Research and Engineering, said Anthropic’s contract and its model principles could allow Claude to refuse tasks or override human judgment in sensitive military work. That is Michael’s explanation for the designation.
The court’s reasoning focused on the Department’s assessment that restrictions on Claude could disrupt or deny functions the Department considered necessary. The majority concluded that the Department had support for treating Claude’s continued integration into its systems, including through contractors, as a statutory supply-chain risk. It did not make a general finding that Claude independently takes operational control. The recorded interview with Michael contains his account of the model’s behavior.
The ruling concerns a specific federal procurement exclusion, with its reach defined by Department systems and covered work.
Two legal actions, two statutes
The D.C. Circuit’s decision and the California ruling concerned separate designations under different laws. The appellate opinion recounts that the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California set aside a designation under 10 U.S.C. § 3252 on August 27, 2026. The D.C. Circuit later ruled on the distinct exclusion under 41 U.S.C. § 4713.
| Statute | Court and date | Outcome |
| 41 U.S.C. § 4713 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, September 25, 2026 | Anthropic’s petitions were denied 2–1; the exclusion remained in force. |
| 10 U.S.C. § 3252 | U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, August 27, 2026 | The separate designation was set aside. |
The D.C. Circuit described § 3252 as narrower, requiring an adversary and bad motive. Its reading of § 4713 did not require proof of bad motive. Those different statutory tests help explain why the two cases had different outcomes.
What the exclusion covers
The § 4713 action applies to Department of War systems and covered procurement, including contractor work for the Department. It does not decide Anthropic’s unrelated commercial work or separate actions involving civilian agencies.
On March 3, 2026, Secretary Pete Hegseth made the formal § 4713 determination. The Department’s March 6 instruction called for removal from its systems as soon as practical and set 180 days as an outer limit, including for covered contractor work. The appellate opinion describes that instruction and the scope of the procurement action.
Michael’s account of the provider transition
Michael said the Pentagon completed a transition to other AI providers within six months, with alternatives deployed on classified networks. That is his account of the transition; the court’s 180-day outer limit was the removal schedule in the Department’s March 6 instruction.
