FWIW, I covered more of Anthropic’s boundaries (which, if I’m reading you correctly, weren’t actually all that substantial) in this post. I didn’t rehash that here.
But it’s possible he has other boundaries, e.g., hostile nation-state acts, cyberweapons, but those were not explicitly demanded by the DOD/administration. I don’t know. I wasn’t in the room.
In late February, the Trump administration and the Department of Defense took the unprecedented step of declaring Anthropic a supply-chain risk, and cutting the company off from government contracts. I predicted in March that despite the administration’s efforts, Anthropic would not only prevail, but would come out ahead:
Bluntly, Trump needs Anthropic (and by extension, the hyperscalers, VC firms, and sovereign wealth funds [who support Anthropic]) far more than they need him. Even if the courts do side with the administration, Trump still has to contend with all the essential companies who have funded his largesse, and the fact that so many of these donors have a vested interest in Anthropic succeeding. That’s extensity.
No matter how powerful Trump thinks he is, no dictator can afford to piss off the coalition that actually keeps him in power. So, in the end, I don’t think Trump’s theatrics will hurt Anthropic much, because there are far too many big, important essential players who need Anthropic, and who have the leverage and ability to get Trump and Hegseth to blink first.
I mention all this, because on Friday, Dario Amodei met with senior White House officials, in an effort to reach a detente. I thought that was interesting, but what I was missing was the specific leverage point: Claude Mythos. Matija Vidmar explained things nicely.
Suddenly, a few things clicked.Based on their Project Glasswing announcement on April 7, Anthropic has almost certainly been working on its Mythos frontier AI model for months now, and have been testing it before the spat with the administration reached its high-drama phase.
Anthropic believes their model is powerful enough that it needs further evaluation prior to release.[1] Rather than keep that research in-house, they decided to selectively release the model to a handful of security companies (all of whom took stock hits on the April 7 announcement), the Linux Foundation, and tech firms.
Those tech firms, which include AWS, Google, Broadcom, Microsoft, and Nvidia—all have a vested interest in Anthropic’s success. JPMorganChase’s inclusion also isn’t coincidental. Goldman Sachs and Citigroup are also purportedly testing Mythos.
While these companies might stay quiet publicly (to avoid a predictable administration meltdown), it’s near certain that every last one of these companies was fiercely advocating on behalf of Anthropic internally. It’s no coincidence that JD Vance and Scott Bessent met with Anthropic, Google, xAI, and Microsoft a day or so prior to the Mythos drop. A separate meeting between Scott Bessent, Jay Powell and the Wall Street banks occurred a few days later.
I believe Amodei pushed back on the administration’s demands precisely because he knew Mythos presented a risk, and that the administration’s theatrics could only go so far. As I wrote, “Amodei can afford to take a principled stance against the administration not necessarily because the company is braver or more patriotic than other AI companies, but because Amodei knows that Anthropic has extensive reach and leverage.”
It would be politically suicidal for the administration not to back down at this point. Tanking Anthropic because Amodei didn’t kiss the ring sufficiently risks alienating Trump’s coalition (which he can’t afford to lose). Icing out Anthropic from government contracts also creates a genuine national security risk. If CISA or the DOD, or NSA can’t use Mythos to harden their systems, those systems are exposed to threat actors and nation states who are happy to use Anthropic models.
There’s literally no upside for the administration to play a game they can’t win, and I think Anthropic knows this. I suspect that even if Trump doesn’t get it, JD Vance, Scott Bessent, Susie Wiles do.
On March 22, I used FeedForward (my internal research & forecasting engine) to run a forecast on whether Anthropic will still be designated a supply chain risk by the US Government on May 31, 2026.[2] Here’s the current assessment, with increasing/decreasing likelihood measures.
Confidence: 5% (updated 2026-04-17)
Increasing likelihood:
Mythos creating normalization pressure—Treasury Secretary Bessent’s characterization of Mythos as strategically important, combined with White House plans for agency access and Treasury CIO seeking Mythos access, suggests the government may need to modify or lift the designation to utilize the technology for national security purposes
Pentagon’s practical needs—Wall Street CEOs summoned by Bessent and Powell to discuss Mythos cybersecurity applications, with major banks (JPMorgan, Goldman Sachs, Citigroup) reportedly testing it, indicates government is prioritizing defensive cybersecurity capabilities over the ban
Expedited litigation timeline—May 19 oral arguments in the DC Circuit supply-chain risk case, create possibility of ruling before May 31, though extremely tight
Political optics of inconsistency—Government simultaneously praising Anthropic’s strategic value while maintaining supply chain risk label creates unsustainable tension
Decreasing likelihood:
Appeals Court definitively ruled against emergency relief—DC Circuit panel refused to block the supply-chain risk designation, with explicit reasoning citing “judicial management of how, and through whom, the Department of War secures vital AI technology during an active military conflict”
Court split confirms prolonged litigation—San Francisco judge found DOD likely acted in bad faith and ordered removal, but DC Circuit’s opposite ruling means resolution requires higher court intervention, extending timeline
Trump-appointed judges’ reasoning—The DC panel (including Gregory Katsas, former Trump deputy counsel, and Neomi Rao from OMB) emphasized national security deference and military conflict context, suggesting even favorable procedural arguments won’t overcome security claims
No evidence of settlement negotiations—Despite the normalization signals, no articles indicate active DOD-Anthropic settlement discussions.
In short, what we’re witnessing is extensity in action. It’s not just a question of what AI model some agency uses for its internal chatbot. It’s about what happens when a single company becomes so integral that it can push back against the traditional levers and forces (regulatory, political, economic, or otherwise) that govern behavior.
Though some, like Devansh have called out the media for blindly parroting Anthropic’s press release and not, the primary sources, CVEs, exploit code, etc. He dug into those details and suggested that many of the capabilities might just be hype.
I ran a separate forecast on whether they would still be kept out of government contracts, notwithstanding the supply chain risk designation. I have much higher odds (43% chance vs. the community’s 75% chance) of that being the case, but even those odds are decreasing.
@StanislavKrym Great questions! Honestly, I have mixed views on this, but my central position is that age verification and bans are unlikely to be effective in the way they’re being presented. However, I do think it will be extremely effective at eroding privacy and anonymity online (and a leading source of future data breaches). But I don’t think it will fundamentally protect kids.
To be candid, I don’t think protecting kids was the driving motivation for many of the proponents. Governments, and especially the facial recognition and age-verification providers, who lobbied heavily for these laws, want data, and it’s much easier to garner support if efforts are wearing the cape of protecting kids/fighting terrorism vs. admitting that they’re keen to build a database of everyone’s biometric info.
As to your second question, I think you’re right to a certain extent, and that’s what makes tech extensity different from classical horizontal monopolies. Tech extensity doesn’t require a single entity to set or control the market. The network effects, as they are, come from the fact that to function in society at all, you’ll eventually be forced to use one of the hyperscalers, because their products will be everywhere. I explore what this might look like in another post on my blog (https://insights.priva.cat/p/the-ladder-to-nowhere-how-openai). Kulveit, Douglas, Ammann, et al., discuss a related idea in their Gradual Disempowerment article.[1]
Data portability is useful, but I don’t think it will solve the underlying problem. To analogize, you have ‘data portability’ with respect to the internet, in the sense that you can migrate your data offline to a filing cabinet. But migrating your data doesn’t make life easier, because so much of the systems in our lives depend on the internet.
To your last point: I’m not sure I follow exactly? If a button could be pressed, and the tech powers were constrained (or better still, roadblocks were put up to protect agency, autonomy, choice, etc.) that would act as a bulwark against companies enshittifing by adding friction. It’s similar to how data silos in government prevent or at least slow down unconstrained data abuses.
For example, I think the experts are correct to predict that there will be a tax shortfall in the US, after DOGE dismantled data silos and disregarded privacy protections that previously kept the IRS from sharing data with ICE.
Am I missing a larger point?
I wasn’t aware of this when I wrote this piece in February. @Katalina Hernandez shared it with me yesterday, but there are overlaps with my larger point. I have … some thoughts on why their approach misses the mark, however.
With respect, I’m not sure you fully read the post. I called out the existing contract specifically, though I did not mention the dollar amount.
I also mentioned the fact that Anthropic was unique in that it ran in the classified environment. I quoted Anthropic’s language explicitly.
Given that, I don’t think we’re actually in disagreement here, unless you’re objecting to my tone or something not related to the substance of my piece, in which case, there’s nothing more I have to say.