![AI Companies & US Military: How Corporate Values Shifted [2025]](https://tryrunable.com/blog/ai-companies-us-military-how-corporate-values-shifted-2025/image-1-1768394385208.jpg)
How AI Companies Got Caught Up in US Military Efforts: The Complete Story of Silicon Valley's Pivot to Defense
Introduction: The Year Everything Changed
In early 2024, the landscape of artificial intelligence development appeared to rest on a foundation of shared ethical principles. Major AI research laboratories—Anthropic, Google, Meta, and OpenAI—had publicly committed to restricting military applications of their technology. These weren't casual policy positions but deliberate statements that reflected the values many tech leaders claimed to hold about responsible AI development. The rhetoric surrounding AI safety and ethical deployment had become mainstream conversation, with executives positioning their companies as thoughtful stewards of transformative technology.
Then something remarkable happened. Within a single calendar year, virtually all of these commitments dissolved. OpenAI quietly rescinded its military ban in January 2024. By November, as Donald Trump secured re-election, Meta announced that the United States and allied nations could deploy Llama for defense applications. Anthropic followed suit days later, simultaneously announcing a partnership with defense contractor Palantir. OpenAI revealed partnerships with Anduril, a defense startup focused on autonomous systems. Most dramatically, Google—long considered the most cautious of the major AI firms—revised its foundational AI principles in February 2025 to explicitly permit development of weapons and technologies designed to cause harm.
This transformation wasn't simply a policy adjustment or a minor course correction. It represented a fundamental realignment of how the world's most influential AI developers conceptualize their role in global affairs, their relationship with state power, and the nature of capital accumulation in the technology sector. The story behind this shift illuminates deeper transformations reshaping Silicon Valley, American power structures, and the future of technological development itself.
The transition from unified military skepticism to coordinated defense partnerships happened with remarkable speed and minimal public debate. This raises critical questions: What economic pressures drove this shift? How did geopolitical circumstances change the calculus for tech leadership? What does this transformation reveal about the relationship between corporate interests and state power? And perhaps most importantly, what does the normalization of military AI development mean for the future of technology governance?
This comprehensive analysis explores these questions by examining the forces that created the Silicon Valley Consensus, the conditions that dismantled it, and the emerging state-capitalist relationships shaping AI development. Understanding this transformation is essential for anyone concerned with technology policy, corporate ethics, artificial intelligence governance, and the future relationship between innovation and military power.
The Silicon Valley Consensus: A Historical Framework
Understanding the Post-Cold War Tech Order
To comprehend how AI companies could shift so dramatically, we must first understand the ideological and economic framework that governed technology development for decades. Beginning in the 1990s and accelerating through the 2000s and 2010s, a broad consensus emerged across both political and technological elites about the role of technology in American society and global affairs.
This consensus rested on several foundational assumptions. First, that technological innovation flourished best in conditions of minimal regulation and maximum freedom for companies to operate without government constraint. Second, that American technological dominance would naturally emerge through market competition without explicit state coordination or industrial policy. Third, that the global spread of American digital platforms, communication technologies, and business models inherently advanced American interests while simultaneously promoting democracy, free speech, and human flourishing worldwide.
The framework emerged partly from Cold War victory. With the Soviet Union collapsed, American policymakers viewed technology companies not as potential rivals for power but as extensions of American soft power. Digital platforms could spread democratic values. American software standards could become global standards. Global data flows could benefit American companies disproportionately. This alignment of interests between tech companies and the state created what might be called the Silicon Valley Consensus—a shared belief that deregulation, corporate freedom, and technological diffusion all served mutual interests.
The Neoliberal Architecture of Tech Regulation
This consensus manifested in concrete policy choices that became the architectural foundation for modern technology development. Policymakers explicitly chose not to regulate digital companies, not because regulation proved impossible but because they believed deregulation served strategic American interests. The 1996 Framework for Global Electronic Commerce, established under President Clinton, explicitly discouraged nations from imposing taxes or regulations on digital commerce. This wasn't a default position but an active choice to facilitate corporate freedom.
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act exemplifies this regulatory philosophy. Rather than treating digital platforms like traditional publishers subject to liability for content they host, Section 230 granted technology companies something unique: limited accountability for third-party speech while maintaining editorial control over that speech. This created an extraordinary situation where companies could simultaneously disclaim responsibility for harmful content while exercising power to remove, promote, or suppress that content based on their own determinations.
The result was a regulatory environment that facilitated the expansion of American technology companies while minimizing friction with political objectives. Tech companies faced minimal antitrust scrutiny during this period, could collect and monetize user data with limited restriction, and operated largely free from labor regulations that constrained traditional industries. Meanwhile, these same regulatory gaps that freed companies also aligned with state interests: American companies obtained advantages in global competition, data collection served intelligence objectives, and platform dominance extended American cultural and political influence.
Global Technology Imperialism Under the Consensus
Abroad, the Silicon Valley Consensus took on imperial characteristics. American technology companies expanded globally, displacing local competitors and establishing dominance in critical digital infrastructure. This expansion served both corporate profits and state interests in extending American influence. Local governments faced pressure to adopt American technology standards, accept American intellectual property rules, and open their markets to American platforms.
This wasn't always coercive. Often it appeared organic—American technology was genuinely innovative and useful, and adopting it made economic sense. But the structural dynamics revealed an imperialist logic: American companies accumulated wealth and power from global data flows, American standards became global standards, and American companies gained advantages in developing artificial intelligence systems trained on global data they controlled.
The intellectual justification for this system drew on neoliberal ideology: the belief that free markets naturally tend toward efficiency and that any regulation merely distorts optimal outcomes. Applied to technology, this meant that American dominance reflected technological superiority, that corporate freedom enabled innovation, and that global adoption of American platforms represented rational choice rather than structural coercion.
Yet this consensus depended on particular historical conditions. It required that American political and technological elites share sufficiently aligned interests, that competitors posed no serious challenge to American technological dominance, and that questions about the political and social consequences of digital power remained peripheral to policy discussions. By the mid-2010s, all three conditions began eroding.
The Cracks in the Consensus: 2010s Disruptions
The Rise of Chinese Competition and Strategic Anxiety
The first major threat to the Silicon Valley Consensus came from unexpected competition. Chinese technology companies, initially dismissed as copycats, began innovating at scales that matched or exceeded American companies. Alibaba, Tencent, Byte Dance, and others developed sophisticated platforms, accumulated massive datasets, and created technological capabilities that rivaled American counterparts. More concerningly, they operated under different assumptions—Chinese companies viewed their role partly through the lens of serving state objectives, and the Chinese government viewed technology as a strategic domain requiring state coordination.
This competition created cognitive dissonance among American policymakers. The Silicon Valley Consensus assumed American technological dominance was natural and inevitable. Chinese technological advancement suggested that dominance might depend on active management rather than simply allowing market forces to operate. American policymakers grew increasingly worried about Chinese technological espionage, data theft, and the strategic implications of Chinese dominance in emerging technologies like artificial intelligence.
By the late 2010s, this anxiety crystallized into explicit policy concerns. The Trump administration initiated trade wars targeting Chinese technology companies, implemented restrictions on Chinese investment in American tech, and began discussing technology competition as a strategic domain requiring state attention. Democratic administrations continued and expanded these policies, demonstrating bipartisan agreement that Chinese technological advancement threatened American interests.
Data, Algorithms, and Domestic Political Crises
Simultaneously, the social and political consequences of American technology companies' power became impossible to ignore. Facebook's role in spreading disinformation, the Cambridge Analytica scandal revealing how deeply companies could penetrate political behavior, and growing evidence of algorithmic manipulation undermining democratic deliberation all damaged the presumption that technology companies served universal human interests.
These weren't abstract controversies. They threatened American political legitimacy and social stability. The 2016 election demonstrated that foreign actors could manipulate social media to influence American politics. The rise of algorithmic radicalization suggested that platform designs—optimized for engagement regardless of social consequence—could destabilize society. The spread of conspiracy theories and the erosion of shared factual reality appeared linked to how social platforms curated and promoted content.
These developments shattered one core element of the Silicon Valley Consensus: the belief that technology companies' private incentives aligned with public welfare. If Facebook's engagement algorithms promoted polarization, if recommendation systems could radicalize users, if platform defaults could destabilize democracy, then corporate freedom to optimize algorithms for profit didn't serve the public interest. This created space for government intervention and re-examination of whether the regulatory framework protecting tech companies actually served American interests.
Labor, Power, and the Critique of Tech Neoliberalism
A third line of critique emerged from labor advocates and scholars examining the political economy of technology work. The gig economy—built on platforms like Uber and Lyft—had created a class of workers without traditional employment protections, benefits, or bargaining power. Amazon warehouse workers faced exhausting surveillance and injury rates. Content moderators across platforms performed mentally traumatic work for minimal compensation while absorbing the psychological costs of extreme content exposure.
These developments revealed that the deregulation framework benefiting technology companies also enabled labor exploitation. Platform companies structured themselves to minimize worker classification as employees, avoiding minimum wage, benefits, and safety obligations. The regulatory gaps that freed technology companies to innovate also freed them from traditional constraints on labor extraction.
More broadly, scholars and critics began questioning the neoliberal assumption that technology companies' growth served universal human interests. The concentration of wealth created by tech companies, the political power accumulated through data collection and platform control, and the extraction of value from users' attention and data all suggested that tech dominance created winners and losers rather than universal benefits.
The End of Consensus: Geopolitics Ascendant
The Pivot from Market Ideology to State Strategy
By the late 2010s and early 2020s, the intellectual and political framework governing technology policy had fundamentally shifted. Market fundamentalism—the belief that free markets naturally generate optimal outcomes—gave way to strategic thinking about technology as a domain of great power competition. American policymakers increasingly viewed technology development not primarily through an economic lens but through a geopolitical one.
This represented a decisive break from the previous consensus. Rather than assuming American dominance would naturally emerge from competitive markets, policymakers began treating technology development as a strategic domain requiring active state management. This meant reshaping relationships with technology companies: instead of minimal interference allowing optimal market outcomes, the state increasingly expected companies to serve strategic national interests.
The justification for this shift was compelling: if technology competition mattered for great power competition, and if Chinese companies served state strategic interests, then American companies couldn't remain entirely independent. They had to recognize their role in American strategic interests. This didn't necessarily mean overtly directing what companies should develop, but it did mean expecting companies to make technology choices through a lens of national strategic benefit, not just profit maximization.
Defense and the Allure of Strategic Capital
Within this geopolitical framework, defense became newly attractive for technology companies. The Pentagon represented a customer with characteristics that made it uniquely valuable: massive budgets, long-term commitments, acceptance of high development costs for experimental technologies, and strategic patience about timelines. Unlike commercial customers demanding rapid profitability, defense contracts could fund multi-year development efforts with uncertain outcomes.
For AI companies specifically, this mattered because building and training large language models requires enormous capital expenditure. OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, and Meta had all invested billions in infrastructure, compute resources, and research talent. These costs couldn't be fully recovered through consumer applications alone. Defense contracts offered large capital flows that could help sustain expensive research and infrastructure development.
Moreover, defense contracts carried strategic legitimacy. A company developing AI with Pentagon support could claim it was advancing American strategic interests, connecting corporate growth to national purpose. This rhetorical frame proved attractive for companies and investors alike. Instead of companies merely pursuing profit, they were contributing to American technological superiority and national security.
The Foreign Policy Justification
American foreign policy elites developed increasingly explicit arguments for why AI companies should engage with defense applications. These arguments took several forms. First, a competitive framing: if American companies didn't develop military AI, other nations—particularly China—would, potentially achieving advantages in military capabilities. Therefore, American companies had a patriotic obligation to ensure American military superiority in AI-enabled systems.
Second, an inevitability argument: military applications of AI were inevitable regardless of American companies' preferences. The question wasn't whether military AI would develop, but whether American development would lead or follow. If American companies abstained, other actors would develop military AI anyway, and American military would lag behind competitors. Therefore, American companies should engage to ensure American capabilities remained cutting-edge.
Third, a responsibility argument: American defense applications of AI could be more ethical and thoughtful than Chinese or Russian alternatives. By developing military AI according to American values, companies could influence how military AI evolved globally, creating standards and practices aligned with American conceptions of ethics and human rights. Abstaining from military AI wouldn't prevent military AI development but would cede influence over its trajectory.
These arguments proved persuasive to company leadership. Unlike abstract commitments to avoiding military use, these arguments connected military engagement to concrete business interests (capital and growth), strategic interests (American superiority), and even ethical interests (influencing military AI toward more ethical practices). Companies could frame military partnerships as aligned with both profit and principle.
The Economics of AI Development and Capital Requirements
Understanding the Cost Structure of Large Language Models
To understand why AI companies proved so vulnerable to the allure of defense contracts, one must grasp the economics of modern AI development. Building state-of-the-art large language models requires enormous capital expenditure. OpenAI's Chat GPT required billions in training costs. Google's Gemini required comparable investments. These costs fall into several categories: compute hardware (specialized chips and data centers), electricity to power training and inference, data acquisition and processing, and talented researchers commanding high salaries.
Once built, these systems create enormous infrastructure carrying substantial ongoing costs. Maintaining data centers, powering inference for millions of users, updating and improving models all require continuous capital. A single query to Chat GPT might cost fractions of a cent in compute resources, which seems cheap individually but aggregates to massive expenses given millions of daily queries.
This economic structure created a distinctive capital requirement: AI companies needed enormous amounts of money upfront, before generating revenue that could recoup investments. They couldn't bootstrap from early profits like many technology companies. They needed investors willing to sustain massive losses during development, then wait years for profitability.
The Venture Capital Constraint and Its Resolution
Venture capital, the traditional source of startup funding, couldn't fully satisfy these requirements. Even leading venture capital firms have limited capital to deploy per company. A few AI companies—OpenAI, Anthropic—attracted exceptional venture funding, but even this proved insufficient. They needed additional capital sources.
Defense contracts offered a solution. Unlike venture investors evaluating expected returns, defense procurement operates under different logic. The Department of Defense can commit to multi-year contracts worth billions, provided companies deliver specified capabilities. These aren't investments seeking profits but procurement relationships seeking technology development. They also provide revenue that can subsidize ongoing research and infrastructure development.
For AI companies, this meant that defense partnerships could serve as capital sources enabling development that venture capital alone couldn't sustain. A contract worth hundreds of millions or billions could fund years of research, infrastructure development, and talent acquisition. From a purely financial perspective, defense contracts represented an answer to a capital problem that companies faced.
The Problem of Profitable Scaling
More fundamentally, AI companies struggled with profitable scaling. Building large language models represented enormous investments, but translating those investments into profits proved challenging. Consumer applications generated interest but limited revenue per user. Enterprise applications developed more slowly than anticipated. The most profitable near-term applications remained concentrated in specific domains rather than broadly applicable.
This meant that pure commercial dynamics couldn't fully capitalize the development that companies pursued. They wanted to build larger, more capable models, but commercial revenue couldn't fully justify the investment. Venture capital could fund development, but it required belief in eventual profitability that remained uncertain.
Defense contracts transformed this equation. They provided immediate large revenue that could sustain development without relying entirely on commercial profitability. They created a customer willing to pay enormous amounts for AI capabilities regardless of commercial utility. They allowed companies to pursue technically ambitious development knowing that defense applications would ensure revenue.
From a purely economic perspective, the shift toward military engagement wasn't primarily ideological. It was financial. Companies faced capital constraints, and defense procurement offered capital. The normalization of military AI followed naturally from these economic pressures.
The Strategic Geopolitical Pivot
The China Threat Narrative and Great Power Competition
While economic pressures created conditions enabling the shift toward military AI, geopolitical narratives provided the justification and urgency. Throughout the 2010s and accelerating into the 2020s, American foreign policy elites constructed a narrative of great power competition with China centered on technology. This narrative presented artificial intelligence as a strategic domain where Chinese advancement threatened American security and global influence.
The Chinese government's explicit statements about wanting AI dominance by 2030 provided clear framing for this narrative. When American intelligence and defense officials discussed the future of warfare, they increasingly emphasized how artificial intelligence would be decisive. Autonomous weapons, AI-enabled cyber warfare, machine vision for surveillance and targeting—all were presented as technologies that would shape future military competition.
From this perspective, American technology companies had strategic obligations. They couldn't remain neutral in great power competition. They had to recognize that their technology choices had consequences for American strategic position. Developing military AI wasn't optional; it was strategic necessity to prevent Chinese advancement from going unchallenged.
This narrative proved particularly powerful because it aligned corporate interests with national strategy. Companies pursuing military contracts could frame this not as profit-seeking but as patriotic contribution to American strategic interests. Investors supporting military-focused AI development could see themselves as supporting American security rather than merely seeking returns.
The Trump Administration and Continuity of Strategic Technology Policy
Donald Trump's 2024 re-election accelerated the strategic pivot. The Trump administration had previously initiated explicitly strategic technology policy, including confronting Chinese companies and implementing tariffs targeting technology competition. The 2024 return of Trump combined with Republican control of Congress created conditions for explicitly nationalist technology policy.
Notably, Trump's election coincided with dramatic acceleration of AI companies' military partnerships. Meta announced military uses for Llama in the week of Trump's election. Anthropic announced military partnerships shortly after. This timing wasn't coincidental. The election signaled that American government would explicitly support military AI development and that technology companies engaging with defense would face support rather than domestic criticism.
More broadly, the Trump return signaled a decisive break from the Silicon Valley Consensus. The administration didn't believe in letting markets operate freely or assuming American dominance would naturally emerge. It believed in explicit state coordination with technology companies toward strategic national interests. The 2025 revision of Google's AI principles to permit weapons development didn't happen independently; it reflected recognition that the political environment now expected and encouraged military AI development.
The Global Context: Chinese and Russian AI Development
The geopolitical framing of AI competition depended partly on accurate perception of international developments. China had indeed invested heavily in AI development and explicitly connected AI advancement to military modernization. Chinese military doctrine incorporated concepts of AI-enabled warfare and autonomous systems. Russia similarly pursued military AI development.
From this perspective, American companies' abstention from military AI would represent a self-imposed handicap. If competitors were actively developing military capabilities, American restraint would simply allow technological gaps to emerge. The logic of arms races—where unilateral restraint invites competition to proceed unchecked—pushed toward American engagement.
This created what might be called the security dilemma of AI: conditions where each actor's pursuit of military AI capabilities, justified by defensive concerns about competitors' advancement, collectively created environments where all actors developed military AI. American companies' engagement justified Chinese expansion of military AI research; Chinese advancement justified expanded American engagement. Each step appeared defensive while collectively producing the outcome all wanted to avoid.
Corporate Culture and the Erosion of Ethical Positioning
The Original Ethical Commitments: Why and How They Formed
To understand how thoroughly companies abandoned their military restrictions, one must first understand why those restrictions existed and what they represented. In the early 2020s, major AI research labs had explicitly positioned themselves as ethically concerned about military applications of their technology. These weren't casual positions but core elements of corporate identity and strategy.
Anthropically, founded in 2021, built its entire identity around safety and beneficial AI development. Its founding team had left OpenAI over disagreements about safety prioritization, positioning Anthropic as the safety-focused alternative. Google had incorporated AI principles into its corporate policy in 2018, explicitly restricting weapons development. OpenAI had stated it wouldn't pursue military applications.
These positions served multiple functions. They differentiated companies in competition for talent—researchers concerned with responsible AI could join companies explicitly avoiding military applications. They appealed to investors viewing ethical positions as risk mitigation. They provided cover against criticism that AI development served corporate profit without ethical constraint.
More fundamentally, they reflected genuine concern among many researchers about how their work might be used. The field of artificial intelligence had developed cultures of ethics and responsibility. Technical conferences included ethics discussions. Researchers published on alignment and safety. Companies hiring researchers wanted to attract talent motivated by beneficial outcomes, and positioning against military application helped with recruitment.
The Talent Problem and Shifting Incentives
Yet this ethical positioning created internal tensions that became increasingly apparent. If a company wanted to attract top AI talent and attract investors seeking high returns, it faced contradictions when military applications represented the largest near-term customers willing to pay enormous amounts for AI capabilities. How could a company simultaneously claim to prioritize beneficial AI and also pursue the largest potential revenue source?
One resolution came through gradual erosion of ethical constraints. Rather than overtly acknowledging abandonment of previous principles, companies reframed their commitments. OpenAI's rescission of its military ban in 2024 was "quiet," not announced with explanation. Meta's announcement that allies could use Llama for defense came with minimal elaboration. Google's 2025 revision of its principles happened with surprisingly little discussion of the contradiction with previous commitments.
This gradual erosion served multiple purposes. It allowed companies to pursue defense revenue without explicitly celebrating the contradiction with their ethical positioning. It prevented researchers most concerned with ethics from leaving en masse. It allowed investors to assume the trajectory reflected reasonable evolution rather than fundamental betrayal.
Yet the underlying dynamic was clear: economic incentives (massive defense contracts), geopolitical justifications (great power competition), and financial pressures (sustaining expensive research) overwhelmed ethical commitments that had seemed foundational to corporate identity. Companies discovered that ethical positioning provided benefits when it didn't conflict with profit, but when profit and ethics diverged, profit prevailed.
The Normalization Through Incremental Steps
The speed at which military AI became normalized—accomplished in essentially a single year—partly reflected deliberate strategy by companies to avoid dramatic reversals that might provoke backlash. Rather than OpenAI announcing a comprehensive military strategy, it quietly rescinded its ban. Rather than Meta launching a defense division, it announced that Llama could be used defensively without fundamental strategic reorientation.
This incremental approach worked. Absent a single dramatic announcement requiring moral justification, the accumulation of military partnerships appeared reasonable evolution. Each individual partnership could be justified separately: Anthropic's work with Palantir focused on defensive capabilities; OpenAI's Anduril partnerships enabled counterterrorism applications. Google's revised principles were framed as creating necessary flexibility for beneficial applications.
Yet collectively, these incremental steps produced complete normalization of military AI development by companies that had previously presented themselves as avoiding such applications. The strategy of incremental erosion proved more effective than transparent reversal would have been because it prevented the moment of accountability where companies would need to explicitly justify abandoning stated principles.
The Geopolitical Logic of State-Corporate Alignment
Historical Parallels: Earlier Technology Imperialism
The alignment of state and corporate interests around AI development didn't represent something entirely novel. Rather, it recapitulated patterns visible in earlier technology imperialism. During the Cold War, the defense industry and technology sector developed extraordinarily deep relationships. The transistor, developed at Bell Labs, gained initial markets through military procurement. Aerospace companies developed technologies through military contracts that created civilian spillovers. The internet itself originated as a defense project.
These historical examples revealed a pattern: general-purpose technologies often required massive capital expenditure that couldn't be recovered through commercial applications alone, at least in their early development. Defense procurement provided capital enabling development that commercial markets couldn't initially support. Once technologies matured through defense funding, they could diffuse to commercial applications, creating enormous value.
From a historical perspective, contemporary AI development followed this familiar pattern. Enormous capital requirements exceeded what commercial markets could initially support. Defense procurement provided capital. Over time, military-developed capabilities might diffuse to commercial applications, creating widespread impact. The pattern had succeeded for transistors and the internet; why wouldn't it work for AI?
Yet history also revealed the problem with this pattern. Technologies developed primarily for military purposes embedded military logic into their design and deployment. The internet, despite origins in military research, eventually enabled civilian uses because it was designed as an open architecture. But other military technologies remained military-specific because their entire purpose centered on destructive capability.
AI development financed through military contracts risked the same pattern: technologies optimized for military applications might embed assumptions and capabilities making them poorly suited for beneficial civilian use. An AI system optimized for weapons targeting might contain objectives and training procedures unsuitable for medical or educational purposes. Technologies designed for military advantage might be difficult to repurpose for universal benefit.
The Logic of State-Capitalist Integration
The emerging relationships between American government and AI companies represent what scholars would recognize as state capitalism—a system where states and corporations develop integrated relationships serving mutual interests rather than maintaining clear separation between public and private sectors. This differs from either pure state control of technology development or purely private development, instead creating hybrid arrangements where state and corporate interests become aligned.
State-capitalist relationships create several distinctive dynamics. First, they create mutual accountability: states expect corporations to serve strategic interests, while corporations expect state support for their development and protection from competitors. Second, they create technological specialization: corporations develop capabilities particularly suited for state uses, potentially diverging from purely commercial optimization. Third, they create barriers to entry: corporations integrated with states gain competitive advantages through preferential access to government contracts and protection from foreign competitors.
For AI development, state capitalism could create arrangements where American companies become essentially extensions of American strategic interests. They would develop capabilities serving military needs, would benefit from state support and protection, and would gain markets through government procurement. In exchange, they would orient their development toward strategic state interests rather than purely commercial optimization.
This differs fundamentally from the Silicon Valley Consensus, which assumed corporate and state interests aligned naturally and didn't require explicit coordination. Under state capitalism, alignment is deliberate and structured. Companies knowingly develop with strategic purposes, governments knowingly support corporate development for strategic reasons, and both sides acknowledge the integrated nature of their relationship.
The Implications for Technology Governance
The transition from the Silicon Valley Consensus to state-capitalist arrangements carries profound implications for technology governance. Under the Consensus, technology governance primarily meant regulating corporate behavior—attempting to constrain what companies did while allowing market competition to proceed. Under state capitalism, governance becomes more complex because corporate behavior reflects state strategy as well as corporate profit-seeking.
Regulating technology under state capitalism becomes difficult because state and corporate interests become aligned against external constraints. If the state views a particular capability as strategically important, it won't regulate companies developing that capability. If companies know the state supports their development, they'll coordinate with state preferences rather than resisting regulation.
This creates problems for democratic oversight and public interest representation. Democratic publics might object to military AI development, but under state-capitalist arrangements, companies can claim they're serving strategic national interests—a justification that tends to override public preferences when framed as security necessity. Publics concerned about military technology deployment find themselves opposing not just corporate choices but national strategy.
Moreover, state-capitalist integration tends to accelerate technological development in strategic domains while potentially neglecting domains without strategic justification. AI development financed through military contracts will proceed rapidly, but development of AI for healthcare, education, or social welfare might proceed more slowly if these domains don't align with strategic interests.
The Present Moment: Military AI Normalized
The Comprehensive Shift Across the Industry
By early 2025, military AI development had become normalized across major American AI companies. OpenAI maintained partnerships with Anduril and the Pentagon. Google explicitly permitted military applications. Meta offered Llama for defense uses. Anthropic worked with Palantir. Smaller companies like Scale AI focused heavily on defense applications. What had been marginal or prohibited just a year earlier became central to companies' strategies.
This normalization extended to the venture capital ecosystem. Investors increasingly viewed military applications as desirable rather than problematic. Defense startups—companies explicitly building military AI capabilities—attracted substantial venture funding. Accelerators focused on defense technology development emerged. The venture ecosystem, which had previously treated military as a peripheral domain, increasingly viewed it as core opportunity.
The workforce also adapted. Researchers initially concerned about military applications either left these companies or reassessed their positions. Some rationalized that working on military AI served beneficial purposes—preventing conflict through superior capabilities, ensuring ethical deployment of inevitable military AI, or contributing to American security. Others simply accepted that military engagement had become industry norm and adjusted their career decisions accordingly.
Institutional relationships evolved to support military AI development. Universities began strengthening relationships with defense agencies and contractors. Conferences that had excluded military applications began including them. The intellectual and institutional infrastructure supporting military AI development expanded substantially.
Current State of Military AI Applications
The actual military applications emerging from these partnerships remain partially opaque, but several capabilities appear central. Autonomous weapons systems—vehicles, drones, and systems operating with minimal human control—represent one major focus. AI systems enabling faster targeting and decision-making in combat scenarios represent another. Intelligence and surveillance applications using machine vision and language processing appear particularly developed. Cybersecurity and cyber warfare capabilities using AI represent additional development domains.
These applications differ from speculative future scenarios. Companies weren't building theoretical military AI; they were developing capabilities operationalizing AI for military purposes. Anduril, for instance, had already deployed autonomous drone technology. Palantir had long worked on intelligence analysis for military and intelligence agencies. These partnerships represented expansion and acceleration of existing capabilities rather than entirely new initiatives.
The capabilities that AI companies brought to military applications included superior algorithms, access to larger computational resources, better trained models, and technical sophistication exceeding what many military contractors could develop independently. From military perspective, AI company partnerships offered access to cutting-edge capabilities developed in competitive civilian markets.
Regulatory Evolution and Blessing from Government
The normalization of military AI also included explicit government support. The Biden administration, despite early concern about military AI, ultimately embraced the partnerships as necessary for strategic competition. The Trump administration entering office in 2025 brought even more explicit support for military technology development. Congress generally supported military AI development, viewing it as necessary for national security.
International policy shifted similarly. Allies including the United Kingdom, Australia, and NATO generally supported American military AI development, viewing it as necessary counter to Chinese and Russian advancement. International arms control discussions that might have constrained military AI development failed to achieve constraints, leaving development essentially unregulated internationally.
Domestically, regulatory restrictions on military AI applications remained minimal. Federal agencies had some guidelines about autonomous weapons and human control requirements, but these proved flexible and advisory rather than legally binding. Congress considered but didn't pass comprehensive legislation constraining military AI. Public concern existed but failed to translate into political pressure sufficient to change policy.
The regulatory environment essentially blessed military AI development. Rather than companies operating in a zone of regulatory uncertainty or restriction, they operated with explicit government support and minimal constraint. This assured companies that military engagement wouldn't trigger legal jeopardy or regulatory punishment.
The Intellectual Ecosystem: How Justifications Evolved
The Security Dilemma in AI Development
The transition from military restriction to military engagement wasn't accomplished through corporate deception or explicit abandonment of principles presented as if nothing had changed. Instead, companies and their supporters developed sophisticated intellectual justifications framing military AI development as necessary, inevitable, and ethically defensible. Understanding these justifications reveals how dramatic policy reversals become morally acceptable to those enacting them.
The core intellectual framework centered on the security dilemma: a situation where each actor's defensive preparations appear threatening to others, prompting them to prepare defensively, which appears threatening to the first actor, creating a cycle where defensive behavior collectively produces the outcome all wanted to avoid. Applied to AI, the argument held that Chinese and Russian military AI development appeared threatening to American interests, justifying American development; but American development similarly threatened other nations, prompting their expansion, which justified further American expansion.
This framework proved intellectually powerful because it presented military engagement as unavoidable rather than chosen. Companies couldn't abstain from military AI development because competitors wouldn't abstain; and if competitors developed superior military AI, the costs would be catastrophic. From this perspective, American companies had no alternative but to develop military AI. Ethical restraint would simply hand advantage to competitors.
The security dilemma framework appealed to companies because it transformed military engagement from a choice to pursue profit into a necessity for avoiding worse outcomes. Companies presented themselves as reluctantly engaging with military applications not from profit-seeking but from imperative to prevent competitors from gaining dangerous advantages. This allowed them to maintain self-images as ethical actors while pursuing military development.
The "Ethical Military AI" Argument
Another major intellectual framework presented American military AI development as ethically superior to alternatives. This argument held that military AI development was inevitable—competitors would develop it regardless of American abstention. Given inevitability, the ethical choice involved ensuring that military AI development reflected American values and ethical concerns rather than ceding development entirely to actors unconstrained by ethical considerations.
Anthropically's partnership with Palantir exemplified this framework. The company could argue that by working with a thoughtful defense contractor, it influenced how military AI developed, ensuring that systems reflected safety considerations and ethical principles. If Anthropic abstained, military AI development would proceed anyway, but with less ethical input from the company that prided itself on responsible AI development.
Google's revised AI principles used similar justification. Rather than absolute prohibition on weapons development, the updated principles permitted development when weapons systems could advance humanitarian objectives or increase safety. A system that prevented civilian casualties through more accurate targeting could be presented as ethically justified despite being weaponized. A defensive system protecting critical infrastructure from cyber attack could be presented as beneficial despite being military.
This framework appealed because it reframed military engagement from ethical compromise into ethical necessity. Companies presented themselves as forced to choose between perfect purity (abstention) and accepting military applications, but recognized that perfection was impossible and impure engagement was ethically superior to abandoning influence over inevitable military development.
The Technical Inevitability Argument
A third justification framework presented military AI development as technically inevitable. Military applications represented such powerful use cases for AI capabilities that military development would occur regardless of what American companies did. Militaries worldwide were investing heavily in AI development. Technology diffused across borders regardless of export controls. The capabilities American companies refused to develop would be developed elsewhere.
From this perspective, American companies engaging with military applications didn't cause military AI development; they simply ensured American participation in development that would occur anyway. This removed moral agency from the equation: companies weren't choosing to enable military applications, they were simply choosing to participate in something occurring independent of their choices.
This argument proved particularly powerful with investors and venture capitalists. From a purely strategic perspective, American companies' abstention from military AI didn't prevent global military AI development; it simply ceded markets and strategic advantage to competitors. If military AI was inevitable, the rational choice involved participating to gain market position and influence development trajectory.
The Limitations of Justificatory Frameworks
These intellectual frameworks proved successful in making military engagement appear necessary and ethical. Yet they contained logical limitations that criticism exposed. The security dilemma argument assumed that unilateral restraint would invite competitor advantage, but this wasn't necessarily true—coordinated international agreements could constrain all parties simultaneously, eliminating the dilemma. The ethical military AI argument assumed that American companies' ethical influence would actually constrain military applications, but this depended on empirical claims about American military ethics that critics disputed. The technical inevitability argument assumed that abstention prevented no military development, but this ignored how leading companies' choices influenced industry norms and international standards.
Still, these arguments succeeded intellectually within elite circles. They appeared in academic papers, conferences, and policy discussions. They shaped how companies internally justified military engagement. They provided language that technology leaders could use in discussing their decisions. Even critics acknowledged the intellectual weight of these frameworks, even while disputing their conclusions.
The Future of Military AI and Technology Governance
Likely Trajectories for Military AI Development
Assuming the current trajectory continues—military AI development accelerates with support from major AI companies and government funding—several developments appear likely. First, autonomous weapons systems will continue becoming more sophisticated and operationalized. Systems currently experimental will likely see increased military deployment. Decision-making speed will accelerate, reducing the role of human deliberation in targeting and engagement choices.
Second, military AI capabilities will likely begin diffusing to allies and potentially to adversaries through both official channels and technology transfer. American military AI development doesn't remain American for long; allies gain access through military partnerships, and adversaries gain access through espionage, defection, or independent development mimicking American approaches. The technology developed for American military advantage will globally proliferate.
Third, the integration of military and commercial AI development will likely deepen. Military applications will inform commercial development; commercial capabilities will enable military applications. The boundary between military and civilian AI will blur as systems optimized for military purposes find civilian applications, and civilian systems get repurposed for military uses. The weapons-civilian distinction will become harder to maintain.
Fourth, military AI development will likely concentrate power in the hands of countries and companies with largest technical and financial resources. Nations unable to invest billions in AI development will lag militarily. Companies unable to attract venture capital will struggle to compete. The effect will be military and technological concentration, with superpowers and leading companies gaining advantages others can't match.
Alternative Futures: Constraints and Reorientations
Yet alternative futures remain possible, though less likely given current trajectories. International arms control agreements could establish constraints on military AI development, similar to biological weapons or nuclear non-proliferation agreements. These would require unprecedented international coordination but could theoretically constrain development across nations and companies.
Domestic political movements could pressure governments and companies to constrain military AI development. Voters concerned about military technology deployment could shift political coalitions. Researchers refusing to work on military applications could reduce development capacity. Whistleblowers could expose problematic military AI development, creating political pressure for constraints.
Companies could voluntarily constrain military applications, either through new ethical commitments or through business model changes reducing reliance on defense contracts. Venture capital could shift from supporting military applications toward supporting civilian AI development. Public interest could shift from viewing military AI as strategic necessity toward viewing it as threat warranting constraint.
These alternative futures would require reversals of current trajectories. They would need to overcome the economic incentives driving military engagement, the geopolitical pressures encouraging military development, and the intellectual frameworks justifying military AI. They're possible but face substantial headwinds.
The Governance Challenge Ahead
The most pressing governance challenge ahead involves how democratic societies can maintain meaningful oversight and control of military technology development conducted by private companies. The integration of state and corporate interests around military AI creates situations where technology governance becomes difficult: companies claim they're serving national interests; governments claim companies are taking actions independent of state direction; publics find themselves unable to meaningfully constrain either corporate or governmental choices.
This governance challenge extends internationally. If American military AI development triggers Chinese military AI development, which triggers Russian development, an arms race dynamic produces global proliferation of capabilities that everyone wanted to constrain. Managing this dynamic requires coordination that current institutional structures struggle to achieve.
It also extends temporally. Military AI systems deployed today will have consequences for military conflict for decades. Choices made now about autonomous weapons capabilities or targeting algorithms will determine what military capabilities exist when future conflicts occur. Governance frameworks need to account for long-term consequences that emerge only years or decades after initial deployment.
Parallels to Earlier Technology Transitions
The Nuclear Weapons Analogy and Its Limits
The normalization of military AI development invites comparison to nuclear weapons development, where early idealism about civilian applications gave way to recognition of military implications. Scientists who viewed nuclear energy as unlimited clean power source discovered it enabled weapons of unprecedented destructive power. The subsequent history involved attempts at arms control, non-proliferation agreements, and mutual deterrence.
The parallel is instructive but limited. Nuclear weapons are discrete technologies that can theoretically be constrained through agreements about their production and deployment. AI is a general-purpose technology with countless applications; constraining military applications without constraining civilian development proves nearly impossible. Nuclear weapons development required enormous state resources concentrated in few locations; AI development spreads across many companies and countries. Nuclear weapons once deployed remain deployed; AI systems can be updated and modified continuously.
Still, the nuclear analogy highlights important points. It reveals how military applications can transform peaceful technologies into instruments of vast destruction. It demonstrates how competition and security dilemmas can lock in outcomes that all parties wanted to avoid. It shows how attempts at arms control struggle with technical problems of verification and defection. These patterns from nuclear history seem relevant to military AI development.
The Internet and Dual-Use Technology History
Another relevant historical parallel involves the internet, which originated as a military project but eventually enabled civilian applications. This history demonstrates how military funding can support development of technologies with vast civilian benefits. It also demonstrates how technologies designed with one purpose can be repurposed for entirely different applications.
The internet's trajectory suggests several possibilities for military AI development. First, capabilities developed for military purposes might eventually enable civilian applications providing enormous social value. AI systems optimized for military targeting might drive advances in computer vision enabling medical diagnostics. Natural language processing systems developed for military intelligence might enable medical translation or accessibility features.
Yet the internet history also demonstrates that dual-use trajectories aren't automatic. Many military technologies never find valuable civilian applications. Some technologies work best for their original military purposes and don't easily transfer to civilian uses. The fact that the internet happened to enable enormous civilian benefits shouldn't be assumed inevitable for all military-funded technology development.
The Pattern of Military-Industrial Integration
Historically, defense contracting has driven American technological development across numerous domains. The aerospace industry emerged largely through military procurement. Electronics development accelerated through military requirements. Computing itself developed partly through military research funding. The pattern of military procurement driving technological development is long-established in American history.
These historical examples reveal several patterns. First, military procurement often addresses genuine national security needs, at least from the perspective of military planners. Military requirements do drive technological solutions to real problems. Second, military funding can accelerate development that commercial markets couldn't initially support. Third, technologies developed for military purposes often do eventually find civilian applications, though the trajectory varies.
Yet these historical examples also show the constraints and problems military-driven development creates. Technologies optimized for military purposes often embed military logics that make them poorly suited for civilian applications. Once military procurement becomes established for particular technology domains, civilian development often lags. The concentration of capital in military applications can starve civilian development of resources.
The Broader Implications for Technology and Society
What the AI Military Pivot Reveals About Corporate Power
The rapid normalization of military AI development reveals several important truths about corporate power in contemporary America. First, it demonstrates that corporate commitments to ethical principles prove fragile when they conflict with profit opportunities and geopolitical pressures. Companies claimed to care deeply about responsible AI, but when military funding became available and geopolitical arguments emerged for military engagement, ethical commitments dissolved surprisingly quickly.
Second, it reveals how thoroughly corporate interests have integrated with state interests. Companies presented military engagement as necessary for national security, not as business opportunity. The fusion of corporate profit-seeking with nationalist rhetoric created a powerful justification that few challenged within elite circles.
Third, it demonstrates the power of narrative and framing. The security dilemma, the ethical military AI, and the technical inevitability arguments weren't deceptive; they reflected genuine reasoning from many companies and policymakers. Yet they also served corporate interests. The alignment of truth-claims with profit opportunities made it nearly impossible to distinguish objective arguments from interested reasoning.
Fourth, it reveals how limited democratic input into technology governance has become. Decisions about military AI development involved companies, government agencies, military planners, and venture investors, but not meaningfully the broader public. Democratic publics concerned about military technology development found themselves unable to influence decisions because governance happened in elite networks outside democratic mechanisms.
The Concentration of AI Power and Development
The military AI pivot also reveals and likely accelerates the concentration of AI development power in a small number of very large companies. Companies with capital to sustain expensive research, relationships with defense agencies, and ability to navigate complex government procurement processes gain enormous advantages. Smaller companies without these capabilities fall behind.
This concentration likely has negative consequences for AI development diversity. The companies driving military AI development are optimized for capability and scale, not for alignment with diverse public values or constrained by democratic input. As these companies increasingly concentrate AI development resources and talent, the opportunity for alternative approaches to AI development diminishes.
Concentration also affects who benefits from AI development. If development concentrates in military and defense applications, the bulk of AI capability will be deployed for military purposes rather than for addressing healthcare, education, climate, or poverty. Resources dedicated to military AI are resources unavailable for civilian beneficial applications.
The International Implications and Arms Race Dynamics
The normalization of American military AI development carries implications far beyond American borders. It signals to Chinese, Russian, and other nations that military AI development is strategically important and justified. It triggers competitive responses as other nations accelerate their own military AI programs. It establishes military AI as a central domain of great power competition.
These dynamics create arms race conditions where each actor's military AI development appears defensive and justified by competitors' development, yet collectively produces outcome where all actors develop military AI capabilities they wanted to constrain. The tragedy of the security dilemma plays out not just conceptually but materially as military AI capabilities proliferate globally.
The proliferation of military AI capabilities has consequences for international stability, conflict resolution, and human security. More nations possessing sophisticated military AI capabilities, more autonomous weapons systems in militaries' arsenals, more military competition driven by fears of technological disadvantage—these developments seem likely to increase international tension and conflict risks.
Conclusions: Understanding the Transformation
The shift from military skepticism to military engagement by major AI companies between early 2024 and early 2025 reveals profound transformations in American capitalism, technology governance, and the relationship between innovation and power. What appeared as settled ethical commitments dissolved remarkably quickly when confronted with economic pressures, geopolitical narratives, and intellectual justifications for military engagement.
Multiple forces drove this transformation. Economically, AI companies faced capital constraints requiring funding sources that defense procurement provided. Geopolitically, great power competition with China created national security justifications for military AI development. Intellectually, sophisticated arguments about security dilemmas and ethical military engagement made military development appear necessary rather than chosen. Politically, governments came to expect and support military technology development as part of national strategy.
The transformation also reflects broader changes in how American capitalism relates to state power. The Silicon Valley Consensus assumed corporate and state interests aligned naturally through market mechanisms; governance involved regulating corporate excess while allowing innovation to proceed. The emerging state-capitalist arrangement assumes corporate and state interests must be deliberately coordinated; governance involves ensuring corporate development serves strategic state interests.
Looking forward, military AI development seems likely to continue accelerating absent significant intervention. The economic incentives, geopolitical pressures, and intellectual justifications remain in place. International arms control appears unlikely. Domestic political constraints seem insufficient to override strategic imperatives. Companies have normalized military engagement and restructured around it.
Yet the rapid transformation also reveals potential for relatively quick reversals if conditions change. If geopolitical competition eases, if public pressure increases, if military applications prove more problematic than anticipated, or if international agreements constrain military development, companies could shift away from military focus as quickly as they shifted toward it. The transformation wasn't predetermined by technology or economics; it reflected choices that could have gone otherwise.
The fundamental lesson involves recognizing how thoroughly technology development reflects not technical imperatives but political choices. Military AI developed not because technology required it but because political elites chose to pursue it. Different choices could have produced different outcomes. Understanding this agency is essential for anyone seeking to shape technology's future toward more beneficial purposes.
For technology leaders, investors, and policymakers, the transformation of military AI policy should prompt reflection on how ethical commitments survive when confronted with competing pressures. For democratic publics, it should prompt concern about how decisions affecting global security become made in elite networks outside democratic oversight. For international community, it should prompt urgency about establishing governance frameworks constraining military AI development before proliferation becomes irreversible.
The story of how AI companies got caught up in military efforts is fundamentally a story about power: who holds it, how it concentrates, what purposes it serves, and whether democratic societies can meaningfully constrain how it develops. The answers to these questions will shape not just the future of military technology but the broader trajectory of technological development and its relationship to human flourishing.
