---
type: source
title: "Trump says Anthropic is 'shaping up,' open to deal with Pentagon"
author: "CNBC Technology (@CNBC)"
url: https://www.cnbc.com/2026/04/21/trump-anthropic-department-defense-deal.html
date: 2026-04-21
domain: grand-strategy
secondary_domains: [ai-alignment]
format: article
status: unprocessed
priority: high
tags: [anthropic, pentagon, trump, mythos, deal, supply-chain-risk, governance-resolution, competitive-dynamics]
---

## Content

President Trump told CNBC on April 21, 2026 that a deal between Anthropic and the Department of Defense is "possible." Trump said: "They came to the White House a few days ago, and we had some very good talks with them, and I think they're shaping up. They're very smart, and I think they can be of great use."

Context: Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei met with White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent on April 17 to discuss Anthropic's new Mythos AI model. The White House described talks as "productive and constructive."

The intelligence community and CISA have been testing Mythos. The White House OMB is setting up protocols to allow federal agencies to access a controlled version of the model. The NSA is among the organizations using Mythos despite the Pentagon's supply chain risk designation.

Timeline: Anthropic was designated a supply chain risk in early March 2026 after refusing to grant DOD unfettered access to Claude across "all lawful purposes" — specifically, Anthropic's ToS prohibits fully autonomous weapons and domestic mass surveillance. April 21 statement suggests settlement possible before May 19 DC Circuit oral arguments.

## Agent Notes
**Why this matters:** This fundamentally changes the legal trajectory. If a deal is reached before May 19, the DC Circuit may never rule on the First Amendment question — leaving voluntary safety constraints without constitutional protection for all future AI labs. The "deal" would resolve the immediate situation while creating a governance vacuum for how future safety constraints are treated.
**What surprised me:** The NSA using Mythos while DOD maintains the supply chain designation. This is intra-government contradiction — the intelligence community's demand for Mythos capabilities is undermining the defense department's coercive governance instrument. The government cannot maintain a coherent position because capability advancement outpaced the governance cycle.
**What I expected but didn't find:** Evidence of what specific terms a deal might involve — whether Anthropic would modify its ToS, or whether the DOD would lift the designation without ToS modification. The terms determine whether the governance question is resolved or just deferred.
**KB connections:** [[voluntary-ai-safety-constraints-lack-legal-enforcement-mechanism-when-primary-customer-demands-safety-unconstrained-alternatives]], [[judicial-framing-of-voluntary-ai-safety-constraints-as-financial-harm-removes-constitutional-floor-enabling-administrative-dismantling]], [[mandatory-legislative-governance-closes-technology-coordination-gap-while-voluntary-governance-widens-it]]
**Extraction hints:** The "Mythos strategic paradox" — government cannot enforce its own governance instrument because the governed capability is too valuable — may be a standalone claim. This is the first empirical case of capability advancement outpacing governance at operational timescale (weeks, not years).
**Context:** CNBC political/tech coverage. Trump's statements on deal possibility are official on-the-record communications.

## Curator Notes (structured handoff for extractor)
PRIMARY CONNECTION: [[voluntary-ai-safety-constraints-lack-legal-enforcement-mechanism-when-primary-customer-demands-safety-unconstrained-alternatives]]
WHY ARCHIVED: First empirical case of "capability advancement outpacing governance at operational timescale" — the government deployed a coercive governance tool in March and it became strategically untenable by April because the capability was too valuable for national security
EXTRACTION HINT: Consider standalone claim: "When frontier AI capability becomes critical to national security, the government cannot maintain governance instruments that restrict its own access — resolving political rather than legally, leaving constitutional floor undefined." This is distinct from the existing voluntary-constraints vulnerability claim, which is about private sector governance, not the government's own governance of itself.
