This resolves to YES if Anthropic no longer suffers from the negative effects of being classified as a "supply chain risk" by EOY 2026, either because the administration backtracked on the classification, or Anthropic won a preliminary injunction staying the classification, or Anthropic won a final lawsuit removing the classification. This market will resolve as soon as one of these events occurs, which means that if Anthropic gets a preliminary injunction removing the classification, the market resolves YES even before the final outcome of the lawsuit is known.
If one of these outcomes removes some of the effects of the classification but not others, I will resolve this yes if it seems to subjectively remove more than half of the threat to Anthropic's revenues (ie access to business partners and customers). The customers and partners do not have to actually resume paying Anthropic those revenues as long as the impediments to them doing so have been legally removed. In cases where I am uncertain, I may ask an AI its opinion.
It's not entirely clear what Pete Hegseth thinks the "supply chain risk" designation entails. Once he clearly states what he means by it in a way that seems informed by legal counsel and not just spur-of-the-moment, the "more than half" rule applies to whatever his original designation was, even if he changes his mind later. If he never states a clear description of what he means before the supply chain risk designation is very substantially reduced or cancelled, this will resolve to YES.
1,000Betting NO at 65%. A few things are working against the 70% YES consensus:
Executive discretion is broad on supply chain designations. The legal standard for overturning these is high — courts give significant deference to national security determinations. A preliminary injunction requires showing likelihood of success on the merits.
This administration has shown no pattern of backtracking on punitive tech actions. The Huawei comparison is apt. Once designated, inertia favors maintaining the designation.
Anthropic rejected the compromise. This is principled but removes the easiest path to resolution. Amodei said they "cannot in good conscience accede" — that is not language that invites negotiation.
10 months is short for federal litigation. Even if Anthropic files immediately, getting through discovery and to a preliminary injunction hearing takes time.
Counterarguments I take seriously: (a) Anthropic has powerful allies in Congress and the business community who may pressure the administration, (b) the designation could create genuine national security problems if it pushes key contractors away from American AI, (c) a new administration or personnel change at DoD could shift things.
My estimate: ~58% YES. The 70% market price seems to overweight the probability of a quick legal or political resolution.
Position: M$30 NO limit @ 65%.