Timing is everything in business, and Anthropic appears to be playing the long game. Even as the company finds itself locked in court battles with federal agencies, it is aggressively expanding its presence in Washington. The AI firm announced this week that it will open its first office in Washington DC this spring, whilst simultaneously tripling the size of its public policy team and launching a new research body called the Anthropic Institute.
The moves reveal a deliberate strategy to weather the current political storm and position itself for influence over the regulatory landscape that will eventually govern artificial intelligence. It is a canny calculation: lose the immediate fight with the Pentagon, but win the long-term war over AI policy.
Context matters here. The Trump administration ordered federal agencies and military contractors to halt business with Anthropic after the company refused to let the Pentagon use its technology without restrictions, with some agencies already beginning to offboard the tools. The Pentagon designated Anthropic a supply chain risk, meaning companies must stop using Claude in cases directly tied to the department.
This unprecedented move came after months of increasingly tense negotiations. The Pentagon wanted to use Anthropic's AI for 'all lawful purposes', but the company wanted assurances that its tool would not be used for mass surveillance of US citizens or autonomous weapons. The Pentagon insisted they could not allow a private company to dictate how they use tools in a national security emergency.
It is easy to see why Anthropic looked intransigent. Supply chain risk designations are usually reserved for foreign adversaries that pose a national security risk. The government's decision to invoke it against an American company over policy disagreements represented what Anthropic argues is an unconstitutional use of executive power. Anthropic filed lawsuits asking courts to undo the supply chain risk designation, block its enforcement and require federal agencies to withdraw directives to drop the company, saying the lawsuits are not meant to force the government to work with Anthropic, but prevent officials from blacklisting companies over policy disagreements.
Here is where the contradiction becomes interesting. Whilst Anthropic fights for its survival in federal contracts, it is simultaneously making long-term bets on influence and legitimacy. The company announced the establishment of the Anthropic Institute, a new internal think tank which will aim to explore the extensive implications of AI, including what changes to employment and economies occur, whether AI enhances safety or creates new risks, how its values may influence ours, and if we can maintain oversight.
Co-founder Jack Clark is transitioning to lead this think tank with the title head of public benefit, after serving for over five years as head of public policy. The public policy division, which saw its size triple in 2025, will now be managed by Sarah Heck, formerly in charge of external affairs. Anthropic will also establish its anticipated office in Washington, DC, with the public policy team continuing to address topics such as national security, AI infrastructure, energy, and 'democratic leadership in AI.'
This reorganisation sends a mixed signal. On one hand, Anthropic is signalling confidence in its long-term mission by elevating research over immediate policy advocacy. Clark has spent over five years as head of public policy, and will now focus on research. On the other hand, by tripling its policy team and opening a DC office, the company is making a clear bet that access and lobbying power matter.
Both sides have legitimate points, which is precisely why this dispute is so intractable. The Pentagon has a genuine interest in deploying the best available AI tools without restrictions in a conflict. Anthropic has a genuine interest in preventing its technology from being used in ways that undermine democratic values. Defense Undersecretary Emil Michael said he would be open-minded: 'I have a responsibility to the Department of War, and if there was a way to ensure that we had the best technology, I have no ego about it.' This suggests room for negotiation remains, even amid the litigation.
The real question is whether Anthropic's courtroom argument and lobbying strategy can achieve what it could not in Pentagon negotiations: a resolution that preserves both national security and the company's autonomy over its own products.
For more on this story: Read about Anthropic's legal challenge to the Pentagon's supply chain designation, and learn more about the company's official statement on the dispute.