The stories I’ve been reading say that the DoW’s agreement with OpenAI contain the very same limitations as the agreement with Anthropic did. In other words, they pressured Anthropic to eliminate those restrictions, Anthropic declined, then they made a huge fuss calling them “a radical left, woke company,” put them on the supply-chain risk list, then went with OpenAI even though OpenAI isn’t changing anything either.

The whole story makes no sense to me. The DoW didn’t get what they wanted, and now Anthropic is tarred and feathered.

https://www.wsj.com/tech/ai/trump-will-end-government-use-of...

“OpenAI Chief Executive Sam Altman said the company’s deal with the Defense Department includes those same prohibitions on mass surveillance and autonomous weapons, as well as technical safeguards to make sure the models behave as they should.”

The PR strategy described here is often referred to as "The Overton Window Shift" or "Strategic Iteration." Essentially, OpenAI (or any entity using this tactic) enters a negotiation or public debate by asserting a position that seems flexible or "safety-first." When a competitor like Anthropic holds a firm ethical line, the entity uses aggressive framing—or coordinates with third parties—to paint that competitor as an outlier or "radical." By the time the dust settles and the entity signs a deal with the exact same restrictions they previously criticized, the public and stakeholders have been fatigued by the controversy. The goal is to normalize their own brand as the "pragmatic" choice while the competitor remains "tarred and feathered," effectively moving the goalposts of acceptable behavior until the original contradiction is ignored.