Are you reading things before agreeing with them? Or thinking about them? It doesn't seem obvious these things are contradictory at all. That Politico reports so doesn't make it the case.
It is clear that the DPA can be invoked for companies posing risks to national security:
> On October 30, 2023, President Biden invoked the Defense Production Act to "require that developers of the most powerful AI systems share their safety test results and other critical information with the U.S. government" when "developing any foundation model that poses a serious risk to national security, national economic security, or national public health."
Furthermore, it should be quite obvious that companies very important for national security can act in manners causing them to be national security risks, meaning a varied approach is required.
Have you read the DPA? How did you come to your inclusions on its intent? How do you think Biden stretched the definition here?
There is nothing in the DPA implying companies it is applied to can't be acting in a hostile manner, or that it can't be applied when security interests of the US are being threatened. Of course they have no reason to state such a distinction repeatedly in law (claiming it doesn't apply to adversarial companies....), but 50 USC 4566 applies clearly when acts are being made against national interest (this pertains to foreign investment, which isn't the nature of the Anthropic rift, but shows clearly the DPA contains laws with intent of preventing adversarial action against the US).
Even without knowing the intent of the behaviour, it should be quite clear that companies that are vital to national security are more likely to be supply chain risks. Amodei's direct words were:
> These latter two threats are inherently contradictory: one labels us a security risk; the other labels Claude as essential to national security.
Being a security risk and essential to national security are not "inherently contradictory".
Nicely put. In other words: Department of Morons.