> Isn’t it actually quite fair that if you are not compliant with whatever the government wants you to do you will be supplying chain risk?

In the US, government is not in control of business specifics. Certainly the government can regulate businesses, but when the government wants to do business with a company, they don't get to dictate the terms. The government and the company come to a negotiated agreement, and then both abide by the terms of that agreement. Or they don't come to an agreement, and they go their separate ways, and that's the end of it.

This was just a contract dispute, and nothing more. The US government has no legal right to use any companies' products on terms that the US government dictates. (Yes, there are exceptional/emergency cases where they can do this, but that's more a nuclear option, and shouldn't be used lightly.) Consider a different set of circumstances: the US government wants to be able to use Claude at $10 per seat per month, unlimited usage. Should Anthropic be forced to accept these terms? And if they don't, it's reasonable to designate them a supply-chain risk? I don't think so. A dispute over contract terms around acceptable use is no different.

Designating Anthropic a supply-chain risk is about retaliation and retribution, plain and simple. The US government, outside of the Pentagon, could certainly use Anthropic for many different purposes if they wanted to, and it would be fine. But not now: as a supply-chain risk, no one in the US government can use them for any purpose. And this might even be a problem for unrelated companies that use Anthropic products internally, but also want to obtain and work on government contracts.