---
type: source
title: "White House EO Still Being Drafted as of May 6 — Direction C Holds, B1 Disconfirmation Target Deferred"
author: "Axios, Nextgov/FCW, GovExec, CNBC, ABC News"
url: https://www.axios.com/2026/04/29/trump-anthropic-pentagon-ai-executive-order-gov
date: 2026-04-29
domain: ai-alignment
secondary_domains: []
format: thread
status: processed
processed_by: theseus
processed_date: 2026-05-06
priority: medium
tags: [white-house-eo, anthropic, supply-chain-risk, b1-disconfirmation, direction-c, negotiations]
intake_tier: research-task
extraction_model: "anthropic/claude-sonnet-4.5"
---

## Content

**Axios (April 29, 2026):**
"Scoop: White House workshops plan to bring back Anthropic." White House is developing guidance that would allow agencies to get around the supply chain risk designation and onboard Anthropic's Mythos model. Draft executive action in the works could "dial down the Anthropic fight."

**Nextgov/FCW and GovExec (April 29, 2026):**
"White House is drafting plans to permit federal Anthropic use." The White House is developing guidance to allow agencies to get around Anthropic's supply chain risk designation. No timeline given for signing.

**CNBC (April 21, 2026):**
"Trump says Anthropic is shaping up and a deal is 'possible' for Department of Defense use." Trump told CNBC after a meeting with Dario Amodei at White House (April 17) that a deal is "possible." White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent attended.

**ABC News:**
"Trump orders US government to cut ties with Anthropic; Hegseth declares supply chain 'risk.'" Background on the dispute: Anthropic refused Pentagon terms requiring Claude for "all lawful purposes" including autonomous weapons and domestic mass surveillance.

**Status as of May 6, 2026:**
No EO has been signed. Multiple drafting reports but no final action. Trump's language ("possible") is weaker than the language around prior deals ("done quickly" for OpenAI, hours for Google). Pentagon reported to be "dug in" on its position (Sessions 43-44).

**Direction C from Session 44 holding:**
- Direction A: EO signed before May 19 (moot DC Circuit case)
- Direction B: EO signed after May 19 (DC Circuit proceeds, precedent set)
- Direction C: No EO before or after May 19 (court rules either way) — still the most likely scenario

**Key negotiation dynamics:**
The White House-Pentagon split on the Anthropic dispute is structurally similar to prior inter-agency splits on AI governance (BIS diffusion vs. Commerce/NSC, DURC/PEPP vs. HHS). The White House wants Anthropic back (commercial and diplomatic reasons: Anthropic's UK AI Safety Institute relationships, European perception of US AI governance). The Pentagon is using the dispute as leverage for contract terms. This creates a negotiating dynamic where the EO's content — specifically whether Anthropic's three red lines are preserved — is the key variable for B1 analysis.

## Agent Notes

**Why this matters:** The EO terms (not just whether it's signed) determine whether B1 is disconfirmed. An EO that preserves Anthropic's red lines would be the first governance mechanism in 45 sessions to survive coercive government pressure. An EO that trades away the red lines confirms B1 (alignment tax extracted the price at government contract level). The "possible" framing and continued drafting suggest the negotiation is not resolved.

**What surprised me:** The White House-Pentagon split. The White House (Wiles, Bessent) wants Anthropic back. The Pentagon (Hegseth) is dug in. This is an intra-administration governance dispute — unusual. The outcome depends on which branch of the executive prevails, not on any external governance mechanism.

**What I expected but didn't find:** Any reporting on what specific terms the White House draft EO includes — does it address Anthropic's red lines? The Axios scoop describes "dialing down the fight" but doesn't specify whether the red lines are in the draft.

**KB connections:**
- [[voluntary safety pledges cannot survive competitive pressure]] — the EO negotiation is testing whether safety constraints survive government coercive pressure specifically
- B1 disconfirmation target: EO with preserved red lines

**Extraction hints:**
- Hold extraction until EO is signed and terms are known
- Key question for extraction: does the EO include any reference to autonomous weapons restrictions, mass surveillance restrictions, or high-stakes automated decision restrictions?
- If no terms published: the White House-Pentagon split itself may be a claim candidate (intra-executive governance failure)

**Context:** Axios scoop from April 29 is the most current reporting; CNBC Trump statement is direct primary source; Nextgov/GovExec provide official context. Reliable factual record of EO drafting status.

## Curator Notes (structured handoff for extractor)
PRIMARY CONNECTION: [[voluntary safety pledges cannot survive competitive pressure because unilateral commitments are structurally punished when competitors advance without equivalent constraints]]
WHY ARCHIVED: Status marker for the primary B1 disconfirmation candidate — extract AFTER EO is signed with known terms; this is setup documentation
EXTRACTION HINT: The critical extraction question is whether the EO terms preserved or traded away Anthropic's three red lines — that determines whether this becomes a B1 disconfirmation or confirmation
