Silicon Valley’s military turn


A photo provided by the US Army showing a training exercise in Blackstone, Virginia, using a 2020 prototype of augmented reality headgear for soldiers. Meta recently said it is making virtual reality glasses with Anduril, a defence tech start-up, to train soldiers for battle. — US Army/The New York Times

IN June, at Joint Base Myer–Henderson Hall in Arlington, Virginia, four current and former executives from Meta, OpenAI and Palantir stood on stage and raised their right hands.

In front of a military audience, they swore an oath to support and defend the United States.

It wasn’t a cameo.

The US Army had created a new technical innovation detachment, and the executives were being formally inducted as lieutenant-colonels in the unit, known as Detachment 201.

Their job: advise on emerging technologies that could change the face of combat.

“We desperately need what they are good at,” Secretary of the Army Daniel Driscoll said. “It’s an understatement how grateful we are that they are taking this risk to come and try to build this out with us.”

The executives have since gone through basic training.

That ceremony was no one-off. In the Trump era, the US military hasn’t merely courted Silicon Valley. It has successfully recruited it.

Over the past two years, leaders who once insisted their companies should steer clear of weaponry have plunged headfirst into the defence sector.

Meta, Google and OpenAI – all of which previously had policies explicitly banning the use of artificial intelligence for weapons – have quietly removed that language.

Defence-related start-ups have surged and venture capital investment in the ­sector jumped 33% last year to US$31bil, according to McKinsey.

A cultural shift is under way, reshaping a sector once squeamish about the Penta­gon.

“A decade ago, people were talking about ‘connecting the world’ and ‘do no evil’,” Andrew Bosworth, Meta’s chief ­technology officer and one of Detachment 201’s new lieutenant-colonels, said at a tech conference in San Francisco.

“Now the tides have turned... There’s a much stronger patriotic underpinning than I think people give Silicon Valley credit for.”

The driving forces

Several pressures have combined to push Silicon Valley into the military’s embrace.

The mounting rivalry with China over technological leadership has concentrated minds in Washington and California alike.

The wars in Ukraine and Gaza have shown how decisive drones and AI- assisted weapons have become.

At the same time, Trump’s domestic ­poli­cy package earmarks a record defence budget for 2026, including major spending on autonomous systems.

For venture capitalists, that is a bonanza. For some engineers, it is a moral minefield.

Once they build autonomous drones or AI models for weapons systems, they lose control over how the technology is used.

Three engineers at Google and Meta said the debate inside their companies has become increasingly fraught: will these systems save lives on the battlefield, or take more?

“These Silicon Valley companies are hypercompetitive, and in their drive to get into these defence sectors, there isn’t a lot of pausing to think,” said Margaret O’Mara, a University of Washington ­historian who studies the tech industry.

A return to roots

In many ways, this shift isn’t a break from Silicon Valley’s past but a return to it.

In the 1950s, the Department of Defence poured money into early computing and electronics firms to counter the Soviet Union.

The Pentagon was one of the region’s earliest backers.

That long history faded from view ­during the 2010s, when working with the US government became a flashpoint.

In 2018, more than 4,000 Google emplo­yees protested against Project Maven, a Pentagon initiative to use Google’s AI to analyse drone footage.

Workers declared that Google “should not be in the business of war”.

The company backed away from the contract and withdrew from bidding for a separate US$10bil cloud deal, known as Jedi.

Google then published AI principles ­forbidding work on “weapons or other technologies whose principal purpose or implementation is to cause or directly facilitate injury to people”. Other firms ­followed suit.

There were exceptions

Palantir’s chief executive, Alex Karp, pushed aggressively for deeper tech–military collaboration.

He sued the army in 2016 to force it to evaluate Palantir’s software – and won.

The ruling set a precedent for other defence-focused start-ups.

Proud to engage

Now the pendulum has swung.

In January 2024, OpenAI removed wording that prohibited using its models for “weapons development” and “military and warfare”.

Months later, it announced a partnership with Anduril, a fast-rising defence firm, to build AI systems for counter- drone operations.

“We have to, and are proud to, and ­really want to engage in national security areas,” OpenAI chief executive Sam Altman said.

The company would help develop AI “supporting the US and our allies to uphold democratic values around the world and keep us safe”.

Meta followed suit, revising its policies last year to allow its AI to be used in military settings.

In May, it announced a collaboration with Anduril to build virtual-reality training tools for soldiers.

Google made the same turn in February. In a blog post, the company declared: “We believe democracies should lead in AI deve­lopment.”

The Defence Department’s enlistment of the four tech executives – Bosworth, Palan­tir CTO Shyam Sankar, OpenAI chief product officer Kevin Weil and Bob McGrew, an adviser at Thinking Machines Lab and formerly OpenAI’s chief research officer – signals just how far the Valley’s mindset has shifted. — ©2025 The New York Times Company

This article originally appeared in The New York Times

Follow us on our official WhatsApp channel for breaking news alerts and key updates!
Copyrights And Copyright Violations; Drones (Pilotless Planes); Carter , Ashton B; Hayward (Calif); New York Times; Suits And Litigation (Civil); Law And Legislation; Democracy (Theory And Philosophy); Ethics And Official Misconduct; Cemeteries; Trump , Donald J; California; Wearable Computing; Lockheed Martin Corporation; General Dynamics; Luckey , Palmer; United States; Artificial Intelligence; Karp , Alex; Factories And Manufacturing; Brin , Sergey; Airbnb; Virtual Reality (Computers); Cuban , Mark; Data Mining And Database Marketing; Google Inc; Vance , J D; One Big Beautiful Bill Act (2025); Russia; Skydio Inc; Labor And Jobs; Defense Department; Andreessen Horowitz; China; Oculus Vr Inc; Arlington National Cemetery; Mergers , Acquisitions And Divestitures; Arms Trade; Stanford University; Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency; Defense And Military Forces; Computer Vision; Enterprise Computing; Ukraine; Censorship; Page , Larry; Presidents And Presidency (Us); United States Politics And Government; Virginia; United States Marine Corps; War And Armed Conflicts; Altman , Samuel H; Microsoft Corp; Stocks And Bonds; Politics And Government; United States Defense And Military Forces; Conventions , Fairs And Trade Shows; University Of Washington; Two Thousands (Decade); Cuba; Venture Capital; Russian Invasion Of Ukraine (2022); News And News Media; Anduril Industries Inc; Innovation; Openai Labs; Appointments And Executive Changes; Startups; Reserves (Military); Palantir Technologies; Business; San Francisco (Calif); Glass; Northrop Grumman Corporation; Doordash (Mobile App); Meta Platforms Inc; General Dynamics Corp; Washington (Dc); E Commerce; Elections; United States Army; Social Media; Entrepreneurship; Corporations; Thinking Machines Lab; Rhode Island; Defense Contracts; Cloud Computing; Global Warming; Travel And Vacations; Facial Recognition Software; Y Combinator; Executive Orders And Memorandums; Computers And The Internet; Arlington (Va); National Security Agency; Government Contracts And Procurement; Thiel , Peter A

Next In Focus

Europe’s defenceless corner
The Vatican’s eternal artisans
The agony of rising from ruins
Locked away for months
Breaking the fear barrier: Why the Gulf states should reset ties with Tehran
Activating shield mode
Break the barriers
Sustaining women in the workforce means rethinking care and policy
Banking on a stable future
Beyond the numbers

Others Also Read