Yes but then the government can decide that the widget, which can suddenly and arbitrarily break and cause havoc because it doesn't work according to the government's desired spec, is risky to use and advise their other vendors to avoid it. And now we've caught up to today's story.

So we agree that everything is fine here, and that the only unreasonable position is that the military should pay for or endorse a supplier that tells the military to "fuck off". Yes?

If I agree to sell widgets to the government that meet certain agreed-upon specifications, and then I elect to forego those earlier agreements and tell them to fuck off, then that's different.

Is that what happened here?

I reject the premise that the military can't request a change to the spec of military equipment they purchase. Obviously it was foolish to sign a contract that added any more restrictions than "all lawful purposes".

Huh? I'm trying to learn here. I don't have a dog in this race. :)

Suppose a buyer and myself agree on a contract for the production and purchase of 60,000 widgets of design C. Sometime later, they decide that they don't want design C widgets and insist upon design G instead. The buyer is in breach of contract -- not me.

Now, changes do happen. Buyers (people, businesses, and governments alike) can and often do decide to go in a different direction. It's the kind of thing that happens every day.

A new contract (or quite often, an amendment such as a change order) can be drawn up and -- if we can agree on the terms -- maybe I'll be producing design G widgets and everyone is happy. That also happens every day.

But one party (even the military) can't just unilaterally alter the terms of the deal, and I'm not obligated to agree to the new change at all.

At any given time, I can't be compelled to produce design G widgets unless I've previously agreed to produce design G widgets. That's illegal.

(Unless it has been made legal. We've definitely legislated that before, such as with the Defense Production Act in WWII that forced manufacturers to produce things like military trucks instead of other things like civilian cars.

But that definitely doesn't happen every day, and we aren't operating under those kinds of laws today as I write this in 2026. It can change -- and it can indeed change very rapidly -- but it has not yet changed.)

Actually, that is not what is happening here. What is happening here is that the govt is saying "Okay, we will not buy your widgets. Also, anyone who _does_ buy your widgets, regardless of what they are doing with them, we the government will not do any business with them." Which is waayyyy beyond just not buying widgets. That is outright retaliation and using your power to attempt to destroy a company.

... No?

The government signed a contract with Anthropic, then changed their minds and decided they don't like the terms of the agreement that they had already voluntarily signed, and then they designated Anthropic a supply chain risk.

It's like ordering a pizza to the Pentagon, and then saying "actually we made a mistake with our order; we want that pizza delivered to Venezuela, please do that". And then when Dominos politely says that's outside of their service area, you call them a threat to national security, say they're trying to dictate terms, and ban them from ever doing business with any of your vendors ever again.