The statute defines a supply chain risk as “the risk that an adversary may sabotage, maliciously introduce unwanted function, or otherwise subvert” a covered system. It says adversary, not foreign adversary.

Even so, this designation had never previously been applied to a domestic company. The Pentagon applied it to Anthropic after a dispute over how it could use its AI. To me, the circumstances suggest the designation was used to punish Anthropic for refusing the Pentagon’s terms.

It was clearly retaliatory and because of that unlawful.

OK, explicitly designed to be used against adversaries. So the government is explicitly designating Anthropic as an adversary of the United States of America (a domestic adevarsary, not foreign, sure, GP was wrong on that part).

And the reason Anthropic is an adversary of the USA? They have a clause in their license agreement that their products must not be used in surveillance or military targeting decisions.

> Wow, explicitly means it is directly defined in the statue. Which it isn't.

This is some radical new definition of "explicit" that hasn't caught up to public usage nor the dictionary.

In normal parlance, explicit just means that someone involved in the crafting, at some point, stated "I am writing this bill for X reasons". There's often quite a lot of evidence about that, which is not contained in the statue itself.