All things equal, you’d be better off not exposing yourself to risk of financial harm or other punitive measures. Which is the whole point of the government’s action in the first place.
This isn't necessarily true. This is a complex decision; the logic above frames the decision narrowly, with a short-term time horizon. This kind of decision calls for game theory, not merely an individualistic calculus. Appeasing Trump isn't a winning strategy in the long-run. History shows that cooperation (e.g. pushing back) against authoritarianism is often a better strategy. Consumers may reward companies that behave well. Bottom line: you have to game it out -- no one commenting here has done that, I'll bet. So until someone has ... stay agnostic analytically.
That is not true, even if the supply chain risk designation held. The sad thing is that so many people (myself included) also believed this, because this is what Hegseth said. He was lying. Thanks to another comment further down in this thread that led me to this page that explains what the supply chain risk designation actually does: https://www.justsecurity.org/132851/anthropic-supply-chain-r...
It is hard to believe how few companies seemingly lack even one person with the basic technical skills required to rack up a server or two or find a service that supports verifiable end to end encryption.
The problem with this declaration by the government is that now any company doing any business with the US government would be effectively forbidden from using Anthropic ANYWHERE within their company, which is a huge deal, because the government does want to vet any vendors' software development practices.
But as long as the Judge in this case pushes back against such an action by the government, that leaves companies free to use Anthropic for their own internal uses. And most companies WILL continue to use them if it makes economic sense.