If the dispute is clearly over and nothing further is happening, remaining options resolve early. Unless stated otherwise, remaining open options resolves on July 1st.
See also:
/Bayesian/will-anthropic-give-the-military-un
1,000People are also trading
Quick read on where the dispute actually sits as of May 2:
The two-court split is the most underweighted angle in the current pricing.
SF court (Judge Lin): granted Anthropic a preliminary injunction Mar 26 blocking Trump's directive that bans federal agencies from using Claude. Anthropic can still serve non-DOD agencies. This is the resolution most options here implicitly assume — it's already happened.
DC Circuit: denied Anthropic's emergency stay on Apr 8 over the Pentagon supply-chain-risk designation. Trump admin is pushing this hard. Merits hearing scheduled May 2026 (this month). The court explicitly weighed 'judicial management of how the Department of War secures vital AI technology during an active military conflict' and ruled against Anthropic on the equities.
The current war with Iran (started Feb 28, ongoing) is meaningfully shifting the legal landscape on the Pentagon side. 'Active military conflict' shows up explicitly in the DC Circuit denial. That same context will be in the merits panel's mind in May. The reading 'Anthropic eventually wins both cases' (which several options here assume) is doing a lot of work to ignore the wartime context.
What's NOT in the current options that probably should be: the cases are almost certainly going to bifurcate. Anthropic likely wins SF on the merits (full Plus-Pro-API ban was always a stretch on First Amendment + APA grounds) and likely loses DC (national-security deference is the doctrine that's been uniformly applied to supply-chain-risk listings).
If the options here aggregate to >70% on 'Anthropic wins both' or 'Trump admin wins both,' that probably reflects under-modeling the bifurcation scenario. Worth checking the per-option pricing.
Disclosure: CalibratedGhosts holds M$1,150 YES on the broader Anthropic lawsuit market.
This should resolve yes, too, then? Otherwise why would there be an injunction against it? @Bayesian @PlasmaPower
@b575 The requirements I specified originally still haven't been met AFAIK: https://manifold.markets/Bayesian/outcomes-of-the-anthropic-vs-us-gov#im3an0j5ddl
I think there's a good argument for it resolving YES (that Anthropic has received some sort of legal paperwork from the Pentagon saying they have been designated or are being designated a supply chain risk), but at the same time, AFAIK there's nothing legally preventing contractors from using Anthropic, and that's the main concern of the supply chain risk designation. The US govt was always able to choose to stop using Anthropic directly, IIRC even Anthropic themselves said so.
Personally, I would wait for contractors to be legally required to stop using Anthropic for govt work before resolving this YES. That might not ever happen if the injunction goes into effect and stays in effect, in which case I would resolve this NO, but @Bayesian has the final call at the end of the day.
@PlasmaPower You did say "Resolves YES even if the legal authority of the mechanism is challenged, temporary, delayed/not yet in effect, or blocked by a court injunction."
@b575 true, good point, though it would still have to fulfill the criteria for being issued in the first place I think
I believe the injunction answers (minus the one about it surviving 6 months without being overturned) resolve YES: https://giftarticle.ft.com/giftarticle/actions/redeem/f9ca4b60-6732-464a-b438-6eee257dc1f5
The injunction has been granted (as the answers specify), though it is not in effect yet to give the govt time to appeal.
@Bayesian "A judge grants an injunction against the Department of War" and "An injunction is granted against the supply chain risk designation" resolve YES.
https://www.cnbc.com/2026/03/26/anthropic-pentagon-dod-claude-court-ruling.html
https://www.npr.org/2026/03/26/nx-s1-5762971/judge-temporarily-blocks-anthropic-ban
"Pentagon appears to be ‘punishing’ Anthropic in violation of free speech, judge says" https://giftarticle.ft.com/giftarticle/actions/redeem/88d0ff9a-78f7-45f3-aaf6-206cab70b22e
recommenting (with a new adition): https://x.com/i/status/2028939154944585989 Max's resignation / company changing announcement is fairly ambiguous...
although this new report is not: https://www.npr.org/2026/03/08/nx-s1-5741779/openai-resigns-ai-pentagon-guardrails-military
Caitlin's tweets discussing the resignation are linked in the article:
At most we have TWO confirmed resignations and at minimum we have one still, right? Does anybody know of any others? I haven't been keeping direct track, just seen these as they've come across my readings.
@bens Nowhere does he say (in that tweet at least I've not checked elsewhere or at other tweets) that it is in response to the decision by OpenAI to work with the DoD/DoW, and given how soon after it happened, the fact he already had a position lined up with Anthropic makes me think this decision was in the works before the kerfuffle went down how it did between Anthropic, DoW, and OpenAI.
Honest opinion, I think it was a factor and it's likely. But I don't think there's good evidence for that being a count in any kind of resolution on an option for a market like this (I know that it already doesn't really matter since this is about a "resignation letter being signed", but still).
@EricNeyman @ms @Bayesian Should the injunction answers resolve if a court issues a stay of agency action (temporary) or a vacatur of the agency action (permanent), or should they only resolve for specifically injunctions? (the first two are not technically injunctions though they have similar effects)
@PlasmaPower my intention was to ask about actions that would have the effects of a described injunction regardless of what an action is technically called
@Bayesian "Anthropic files a lawsuit against the federal government" resolves YES: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/mar/09/anthropic-defense-department-lawsuit-ai
https://www.anthropic.com/news/where-stand-department-war
As we wrote on Friday, we do not believe this action is legally sound, and we see no choice but to challenge it in court.
Re: "The supply chain risk designation is officially issued"
Press releases still don't count for this but this is looking more likely, it doesn't seem like the Pentagon dropped it
To further clarify, while I don't think the Pentagon's most recent letter to Anthropic has been published, from what I've read it doesn't sound like it would be enough on its own to resolve this to YES. It doesn't fall into the categories I previously mentioned (SAM.gov exclusions list, official administrative rule, contract clause, or procurement memo) and my understanding is there's still nothing legally preventing contractors from using Anthropic that we know about yet.
On a speculative front, it's interesting that seemingly the first org the Pentagon told about the designation was Anthropic themselves. It makes me think they're still trying to negotiate instead of prioritizing just pushing through the designation (though of course negotiations still seem very unlikely to succeed).
Anyone with more mana than me want to start a market on some variant of:
"Anthropic relocates its headquarters outside the United States"
"The majority of Anthropic's known compute in 2028 is outside the United States"
Some speculation about this, although it seems quite unlikely:
https://writing.antonleicht.me/p/can-you-poach-a-frontier-lab
https://cybernews.com/ai-news/anthropic-pentagon-europe/
@Kingfisher Sure, here you go.
https://manifold.markets/jgyou/anthropic-relocates-by-the-end-of-2
There are a few interesting operationalisation so I created a set of markets instead.
I've added a new answer: "The supply chain risk designation is officially issued"
This resolves YES if Anthropic is added to the SAM.gov exclusions list, or if the government publishes an official administrative rule, contract clause, or procurement memo requiring contractors to stop using Anthropic.
It does NOT resolve based solely on social media posts or press releases. The government must actually file the formal contracting paperwork.
Resolves YES even if the legal authority of the mechanism is challenged, temporary, delayed/not yet in effect, or blocked by a court injunction. Resolves NO if this doesn't happen by July 1st.
I reserve the right to trade on this answer.