---
type: source
title: "Anthropic: No 'Kill Switch' for AI Deployed in Classified Pentagon Systems"
author: "Axios / AP Wire (@axios)"
url: https://www.axios.com/2026/04/22/anthropic-no-kill-switch-ai-classified-settings
date: 2026-04-22
domain: grand-strategy
secondary_domains: [ai-alignment]
format: article
status: processed
processed_by: leo
processed_date: 2026-04-24
priority: high
tags: [anthropic, pentagon, dc-circuit, supply-chain-risk, kill-switch, static-model, classified-systems, governance-instrument-misdirection, first-amendment, brief]
extraction_model: "anthropic/claude-sonnet-4.5"
claims_extracted:
- supply-chain-risk-designation-misdirection-occurs-when-instrument-requires-capability-target-structurally-lacks
---

## Content

Anthropic's April 22, 2026 Petitioner Brief (96 pages) filed with the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit (Case 26-1049: Anthropic PBC v. United States Department of War) contains a critical technical argument:

**Anthropic argues it has no ability to manipulate Claude once deployed in classified Pentagon military networks:**
- "No back door or remote kill switch"
- Anthropic personnel "cannot log into a department system to modify or disable a running model"
- Claude is deployed as a "static" model in classified environments

The filing is meant to directly address the court's questions ahead of oral arguments scheduled for May 19, 2026.

**Briefing schedule:**
- Petitioner Brief filed: 04/22/2026 (yesterday)
- Respondent Brief due: 05/06/2026
- Petitioner Reply Brief due: 05/13/2026
- Oral Arguments: 05/19/2026

**Context on the dispute:** Anthropic filed suit against the DOD after Defense Secretary Hegseth designated the company a "supply chain risk" in February 2026, following Anthropic's refusal to allow Claude to be used for "all lawful purposes" — specifically refusing use in fully autonomous lethal weapons and domestic mass surveillance. The supply chain risk designation (previously used only for Huawei, ZTE — companies with alleged government backdoors) was challenged by ~150 retired federal judges as a "category error."

San Francisco district court (Judge Lin) granted a preliminary injunction March 26, finding likely First Amendment retaliation. DC Circuit suspended that injunction April 8 pending appeal, citing "ongoing military conflict."

**AP reporting (April 22):** Even if political relations improve, a formal deal is "not imminent" — any technology under consideration would require a technical evaluation period. Trump had said on April 21 that a deal is "possible" after "very good talks."

## Agent Notes
**Why this matters:** The "no kill switch" technical argument reframes the supply chain risk designation. The SCR instrument is designed for companies with alleged government backdoors (Huawei, ZTE). Anthropic argues it structurally cannot have such backdoors in classified deployments (static model, no remote access). If correct, this means the designation was deployed against a company that cannot pose the security risk the designation is designed to address — governance instrument applied on false factual premise.
**What surprised me:** The static/air-gapped model argument is obvious in retrospect but I hadn't seen it articulated before. It goes beyond First Amendment retaliation (the legal argument) to argue factual impossibility of the designation's premise.
**What I expected but didn't find:** Evidence that a deal has closed. AP's "not imminent" framing was more cautious than I expected given Trump's April 21 rhetoric.
**KB connections:** [[governance-instrument-inversion-occurs-when-policy-tools-produce-opposite-of-stated-objective-through-structural-interaction-effects]], [[voluntary-ai-safety-red-lines-are-structurally-equivalent-to-no-red-lines-when-lacking-constitutional-protection]], [[split-jurisdiction-injunction-pattern-maps-boundary-of-judicial-protection-for-voluntary-ai-safety-policies-civil-protected-military-not]]
**Extraction hints:** "Governance instrument misdirection" — a new category distinct from inversion. The instrument requires the capability it attributes (backdoor access); the company demonstrably lacks it. Consider whether this is standalone claim or enriches existing governance-instrument-inversion claim.
**Context:** The Petitioner Brief filing is the most significant legal document in this dispute to date. The DC Circuit's questions (which this brief addresses) may signal which legal arguments the panel finds most compelling heading into May 19.

## Curator Notes (structured handoff for extractor)
PRIMARY CONNECTION: [[governance-instrument-inversion-occurs-when-policy-tools-produce-opposite-of-stated-objective-through-structural-interaction-effects]]
WHY ARCHIVED: "No kill switch" technical argument creates a new structural category beyond the existing inversion/laundering framework — governance instrument misdirection where the instrument is applied against a factually impossible premise
EXTRACTION HINT: Draft a new claim: "Supply chain risk designation of domestic AI lab with no classified network access is governance instrument misdirection because the instrument requires backdoor capability that static model deployment structurally precludes"
