May 21, 2026 · 1 hr 45 min · 9 segments
On May 19, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral argument in Anthropic’s lawsuit against Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and the Department of Defense for its designation of the AI company as…
The Secretary's supply chain risk designation defied congressionally mandated procedures, exceeded statutory limits, and violated the Constitution.
For the first time ever, the Secretary turned a powerful national security authority against an American company, and he did so to gain leverage in a contract dispute.
But the record now establishes that the Secretary's own risk analysis was built on a mistake, that Anthropic has the technical capability to manipulate Claude after deployment in classified environments.
Our declarations establish that is-- that's factually incorrect, and the Secretary's brief does not defend it.
He now says his true concern is the ability to train Claude before deployment.
There are many problems with that-
Before you drill into this, sor-sorry to start with a curveball, but you have a pending motion for reconsideration, and, uh, the government promised action on that by a day or two ago.
Uh, did you hear anything on that?
Do you think that the pendency of the reconsideration motion creates any jurisdictional or reviewability problems for us under...
We have something called an incurably premature doctrine.
And, uh, probably the easiest answer is I, um, I think that argument's forfeited.
The finality doctrine under the APA on which the inc-incurable prematurity, uh, is a, uh, is a desc-- is a doctrine that can be waived.
It doesn't speak to this court's subject matter jurisdiction.
Um, and I think more-- I think there's also not just a forfeiture answer, Your Honor, which is that the text of thirteen twenty-seven is distinct from the APA's finality provision in that it triggers the time for us to seek judicial review from receiving notice of the covered procurement action.
It doesn't speak of finality.
So to the extent that doctrine is a gloss on the API's-- APA's finality requirement, we don't think it applies here.
In any event, we think that argument is forfeited.
Okay.
Um-
Can I ask you another jurisdictional question?
Please.
The Secretary's supply chain risk designation defied congressionally mandated procedures, exceeded statutory limits, and violated the Constitution.
For the first time ever, the Secretary turned a powerful national security authority against an American company, and he did so to gain leverage in a contract dispute.
But the record now establishes that the Secretary's own risk analysis was built on a mistake, that Anthropic has the technical capability to manipulate Claude after deployment in classified environments.
Our declarations establish that is-- that's factually incorrect, and the Secretary's brief does not defend it.
He now says his true concern is the ability to train Claude before deployment.
There are many problems with that-
Before you drill into this, sor-sorry to start with a curveball, but you have a pending motion for reconsideration, and, uh, the government promised action on that by a day or two ago.
Uh, did you hear anything on that?
Do you think that the pendency of the reconsideration motion creates any jurisdictional or reviewability problems for us under...
We have something called an incurably premature doctrine.
And, uh, probably the easiest answer is I, um, I think that argument's forfeited.
The finality doctrine under the APA on which the inc-incurable prematurity, uh, is a, uh, is a desc-- is a doctrine that can be waived.
It doesn't speak to this court's subject matter jurisdiction.
Um, and I think more-- I think there's also not just a forfeiture answer, Your Honor, which is that the text of thirteen twenty-seven is distinct from the APA's finality provision in that it triggers the time for us to seek judicial review from receiving notice of the covered procurement action.
It doesn't speak of finality.
So to the extent that doctrine is a gloss on the API's-- APA's finality requirement, we don't think it applies here.
In any event, we think that argument is forfeited.
Okay.
Um-
Can I ask you another jurisdictional question?
Please.
The rest of this transcript — segmented and speaker-labeled, so you land on the exact moment something was said
Search every transcript — by keyword, by phrase, or by meaning, across every show Radar indexes
Trends — what is surging across podcasts, measured against its own baseline
Alerts — when a name you follow appears in a newly indexed episode
No account is needed to search Radar.