The whole timeline of the dispute was driven by the Department of War, not Anthropic.

Judge as of 2026-02-28 against the documented sequence of events in the dispute between Anthropic and the US Department of Defense/War. True: dated records (official statements, letters, contract actions, credible reporting) show that the deadlines, demands and escalations that set the dispute's pace were initiated or imposed by the Department, with Anthropic only responding. Mostly true: the Department set essentially all key deadlines and escalations, with a minor Anthropic-initiated step that did not affect the timeline. Mixed: both sides meaningfully drove the timing, or the record is split. Mostly false: Anthropic initiated or accelerated significant parts of the timeline, though the Department set some deadlines. False: Anthropic largely drove the timeline.

Set before the research began.

1. E1 Anthropic PBC v. U.S. Department of War and Peter B. Hegseth, No. 26-1049 (consolidated with 26-1162) United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit · 25 September 2026

   “On February 24, the Secretary met with Amodei and demanded that Anthropic accept an “all lawful uses” term by February 27. On February 26, Amodei published a final, public refusal to assent to that term. On February 27, the Secretary announced his intention to exclude Anthropic from the Department’s supply chain.”

2. E2 Anthropic PBC v. U.S. Department of War and Peter B. Hegseth, No. 26-1049 (consolidated with 26-1162) United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit · 25 September 2026

   “But throughout 2024 and 2025, the Department never acted adversely to Anthropic. Instead, it included Anthropic in a $200 million AI contract awarded in July 2025, id. at 32–33, and it sought to expand its relationship with Anthropic.”

3. E3 Trump orders federal agencies to drop Anthropic’s AI The Verge · 27 February 2026

   “At issue is Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei’s refusal of an updated agreement with the US military agreeing to “any lawful use” of Anthropic’s technology, as Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth mandated in a January memo”

4. E4 Statement on the comments from Secretary of War Pete Hegseth Anthropic · 27 February 2026 Own record

   “This action follows months of negotiations that reached an impasse over two exceptions we requested to the lawful use of our AI model, Claude: the mass domestic surveillance of Americans and fully autonomous weapons.”

The D.C. Circuit's account (E1) shows that the Secretary set the key deadline, demanding on February 24 that Anthropic accept an "all lawful uses" term by February 27. It also shows that on February 27 the Secretary announced his intention to exclude Anthropic from the Department's supply chain. Contemporaneous reporting (E3) traces the "any lawful use" demand to a January memo from Hegseth, and the court notes that the Department took no adverse action against Anthropic during 2024–2025 (E2). Anthropic requested two exceptions during months of negotiations (E4), and its February 26 public refusal came before the Department's February 27 deadline (E1). The public refusal was a step Anthropic took before the Department's deadline, which fits "mostly true" rather than "true".