SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
");background-position:center;background-size:19px 19px;background-repeat:no-repeat;background-color:var(--button-bg-color);padding:0;width:var(--form-elem-height);height:var(--form-elem-height);font-size:0;}:is(.js-newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter_bar.newsletter-wrapper) .widget__body:has(.response:not(:empty)) :is(.widget__headline, .widget__subheadline, #mc_embed_signup .mc-field-group, #mc_embed_signup input[type="submit"]){display:none;}:is(.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper) #mce-responses:has(.response:not(:empty)){grid-row:1 / -1;grid-column:1 / -1;}.newsletter-wrapper .widget__body > .snark-line:has(.response:not(:empty)){grid-column:1 / -1;}:is(.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper) :is(.newsletter-campaign:has(.response:not(:empty)), .newsletter-and-social:has(.response:not(:empty))){width:100%;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col{display:flex;flex-wrap:wrap;justify-content:center;align-items:center;gap:8px 20px;margin:0 auto;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col .text-element{display:flex;color:var(--shares-color);margin:0 !important;font-weight:400 !important;font-size:16px !important;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col .whitebar_social{display:flex;gap:12px;width:auto;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col a{margin:0;background-color:#0000;padding:0;width:32px;height:32px;}.newsletter-wrapper .social_icon:after{display:none;}.newsletter-wrapper .widget article:before, .newsletter-wrapper .widget article:after{display:none;}#sFollow_Block_0_0_1_0_0_0_1{margin:0;}.donation_banner{position:relative;background:#000;}.donation_banner .posts-custom *, .donation_banner .posts-custom :after, .donation_banner .posts-custom :before{margin:0;}.donation_banner .posts-custom .widget{position:absolute;inset:0;}.donation_banner__wrapper{position:relative;z-index:2;pointer-events:none;}.donation_banner .donate_btn{position:relative;z-index:2;}#sSHARED_-_Support_Block_0_0_7_0_0_3_1_0{color:#fff;}#sSHARED_-_Support_Block_0_0_7_0_0_3_1_1{font-weight:normal;}.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper.sidebar{background:linear-gradient(91deg, #005dc7 28%, #1d63b2 65%, #0353ae 85%);}
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
"Neither taxpayers nor the Congress should buy the hype surrounding these new technologies without careful oversight and scrutiny."
A new report released Monday sounds the alarm on the growing influence of profit-hungry venture capital firms that are promoting weapons systems powered by artificial intelligence, a rapidly emerging technology that experts and watchdogs warn could be an
existential threat to humanity if not strongly and properly regulated.
The
report, published by the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, cautions that venture capital (VC) firms and their allies in Washington, D.C. are "determined to move full speed ahead on the development and deployment of weapons based on AI and other technological innovations, despite many unanswered questions about the costs and risks involved."
Michael Brenes and William Hartung, the report's authors, implore Congress to pursue concrete policy actions to regulate the torrent of VC money flowing into the development of AI-powered military technology—so-called "miracle weapons"—as the Pentagon actively courts Silicon Valley startups.
Citing data from PitchBook, The Financial Timesreported last year that "U.S. venture investment in defense startups surged from less than $16 billion in 2019 to $33 billion in 2022."
The Quincy Institute report observes that "the surge in VC investment in emerging arms technology is being spearheaded by a handful of firms and individuals," including "the Founders Fund, started by Peter Thiel, who is also the co-founder of PayPal and the arms technology firm Palantir; and Andreesen Horowitz, whose 'American Dynamism Fund' invests in notable emerging tech firms like Anduril and Shield AI."
"Given the risks of catastrophic malfunction and hair-trigger wars conducted with minimal human input, we need a vigorous national debate before moving full speed ahead on military applications of AI and other emerging technologies," Hartung, a senior research fellow at the Quincy Institute, said in a statement Monday.
Brenes, a nonresident fellow at the Quincy Institute, said that "hugely consequential decisions" about the role of AI in U.S. military technology and operations "cannot be driven by narrow considerations of corporate profit."
"Neither taxpayers nor the Congress should buy the hype surrounding these new technologies without careful oversight and scrutiny," said Brenes. "Otherwise, we will see yet another round of cost overruns for systems that do not work as advertised."
"With defense startups growing in number, and enticing military and political leaders, it will be exacerbated in an era of 'big tech.'"
The new report comes amid sustained outrage over the U.S. tech giant Google's AI partnership with Israel, which has used artificial intelligence in its devastating military assault on Gaza.
The report also comes months after the Biden administration announced its "Replicator" initiative, a project the Pentagon characterized as an attempt to counter China with an "AI-empowered military."
"Since we need to break through barriers and catalyze change with urgency, we've set a big goal for Replicator: to field attritable autonomous systems at a scale of multiple thousands, in multiple domains, within the next 18 to 24 months," Deputy Defense Secretary Kathleen Hicks said in a speech last year.
Hicks' remarks drew immediate alarm from watchdog organizations, which have criticized the Pentagon's lack of transparency surrounding its AI efforts.
In March, a coalition of groups spearheaded by Public Citizensent a letter to the Pentagon warning that "autonomous weapons are inherently dehumanizing and unethical, no matter whether a human is 'ultimately' responsible for the use of force or not."
"Deploying lethal AI weapons in battlefield conditions necessarily means inserting them into novel conditions for which they have not been programmed, an invitation for disastrous outcomes," the letter reads. "'Swarms' of the sort envisioned by Replicator pose even heightened risks, because of the unpredictability of how autonomous systems will function in a network. And the mere ambiguity of the U.S. position on autonomous weapons risks spurring a catastrophic arms race."
The Quincy Institute report specifically calls on Congress to "establish a revamped Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) that could provide oversight of the industry and ensure that Silicon Valley startups do not manufacture promises that cannot be delivered."
The report also urges Congress to shutter the revolving door between the federal government and military contractors, which gives private companies further influence over consequential policy outcomes.
"This is not a new problem," the report acknowledges. "But with defense startups growing in number, and enticing military and political leaders, it will be exacerbated in an era of 'big tech.' Republican Representative Mike Gallagher recently announced that he was joining Peter Thiel's Palantir after resigning from Congress. This is while Gallagher promotes belligerent views on China in mainstream outlets like Foreign Affairs, arguing that the United States is in the throes of a 'New Cold War' with China that must be won by 'rapidly increasing U.S. defense capabilities to achieve unmistakable qualitative advantages over Beijing.'"
"It will be up to interested members of Congress, working with the administration, to craft specific proposals and regulations to manage the role of private money in the development of emerging military technologies," the report states.
Arms industry researcher William Hartung argued the U.S. should focus on "the human consequences" of its weapons transfers instead of bragging about them.
An arms industry analyst criticized the U.S. State Department on Wednesday for bragging that American weapons sales surged to record levels in fiscal year 2023 as Israel continues to use U.S.-made bombs and other munitions against civilians in the Gaza Strip.
Earlier this week, the State Department announced that "the total value of transferred defense articles and services and security cooperation activities conducted under the Foreign Military Sales system was $80.9 billion" between October 1, 2022 and September 30, 2023, prior to the start of Israel's latest war on Gaza.
"This is the highest annual total of sales and assistance provided to our allies and partners," the department said in a statement, emphasizing the message with bold font. The "fact sheet" highlights the sale of Apache helicopters to Poland, battle tanks to Kuwait, helicopters to Qatar, and F-35 aircraft and munitions to South Korea.
The surge in arms sales last year led top U.S. defense contractors to boost their profit outlooks for 2024.
William Hartung, a senior research fellow at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, called the State Department's celebration of record weapons transfers "tone deaf" amid mounting concerns over Israeli forces' use of American arms to commit atrocities in Gaza.
"Leaving aside the dispute about whether Israel is committing genocide or 'just' widespread war crimes, its military activities have killed over 26,000 Gazans, displaced 1.9 million people, and hindered the delivery of medical and food aid," Hartung wrote. "This could not be, and is not, in line with U.S. law or the Biden administration's stated policies."
On Monday, as Common Dreamsreported, a group of Democratic lawmakers and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) demanded that the State Department explain its rationale for bypassing Congress twice to expedite the sale of arms to Israel, including 155mm artillery shells that humanitarian groups have described as "inherently indiscriminate" when used in densely populated areas like Gaza.
A State Department spokesperson dismissed the lawmakers' concerns during a press briefing on Tuesday, insisting that the arms transfers followed established procedures for "emergency" circumstances.
The U.S. is far and away Israel's top arms supplier. An Amnesty International investigation released last month found that Israeli forces used U.S.-made munitions to carry out airstrikes on a pair of homes in the Gaza Strip, killing more than 43 people—including 19 children.
Amnesty is one of more than a dozen leading human rights organizations calling on the U.S. and other Western nations to impose an arms embargo on Israel, warning that "Israel's bombardment and siege are depriving the civilian population of the basics to survive and rendering Gaza uninhabitable."
"A good start would be to withhold further transfers to Israel as leverage to force a cease-fire in Gaza."
Hartung stressed Wednesday that Israel "has been routinely exempted from U.S. human rights strictures with respect to its use of U.S.-supplied weapons." Earlier this month, the U.S. Senate killed a Sanders-led resolution that would have required the State Department to produce a report on how the Israeli government is using American weaponry in the Gaza Strip.
"To make matters worse," Hartung wrote, "the Biden administration has made it harder for Congress and the public to know what weapons it is supplying to the Israeli military by circumventing congressional notification requirements and providing weapons from stockpiles without reporting on what is being taken and transferred."
Hartung argued that "instead of bragging about the enormous value of U.S. arms transfers and providing a sanitized view of their impacts, the Biden administration should take a hard, cold look at the risks of unrestrained arm exports on the reputation and security of the United States, as well as the human consequences of their use by U.S. allies."
"A good start," he added, "would be to withhold further transfers to Israel as leverage to force a cease-fire in Gaza."
"The revolving door is a problem because it creates the appearance—and in some cases the reality—of conflicts of interest in the making of defense policy and in the shaping of the size and composition of the Pentagon budget."
A report published Wednesday revealed that the vast majority of four-star U.S. military officers who have retired over the past five years went to work for the arms industry, a revolving door that drives soaring profits and near-record military spending.
The report—entitled March of the Four–Stars: The Role of Retired Generals and Admirals in the Arms Industry—was published by William D. Hartung, a senior research fellow at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, and intern Dillon Fisher. They found that 26 of 32 four-star generals and admirals who retired between June 2018 and July 2023 "went to work for the arms industry as board members, advisers, executives, consultants, lobbyists, or members of financial institutions that invest in the defense sector."
"Too often when it comes to military spending and policy, special interests override the public interest."
Fifteen of the retired officers were hired as board members or advisers for small and medium–sized weapons contractors, while five took similar jobs at one of the top 10 arms companies. Five retired four–star officers became arms industry consultants, five were hired as lobbyists for weapons companies, and four joined financial firms that invest in the arms sector.
"Employing well-connected ex-military officers can give weapons makers enormous, unwarranted influence over the process of determining the size and shape of the Pentagon budget, to the detriment of our national security," Hartung said in a statement. "Too often when it comes to military spending and policy, special interests override the public interest. The revolving door is a major contributor to this process."
According to the report:
Among the most prominent four–stars who have gone through the revolving door are former head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Joseph Dunford, who joined the board of Lockheed Martin five months after leaving the military; Gen. Mike Murray, former head of the U.S. Army Futures Command, who went on the boards of three defense tech firms—Capewell, Hypori, and Vita Inclinata; Gen. Terrence O'Shaugnessy, former head of the U.S. Northern Command, who is now a senior adviser to Elon Musk at SpaceX...; Gen. Richard D. Clarke, former commander of U.S. Special Operations Command, who joined the boards of General Dynamics, defense tech firm Shift5, and drone maker General Atomics; and Gen. John W. Raymond, former head of the U.S. Space Command, who went on to be a managing partner at Cerberus Capital Management.
The report's recommendations include:
"The revolving door is a problem because it creates the appearance—and in some cases the reality—of conflicts of interest in the making of defense policy and in the shaping of the size and composition of the Pentagon budget," Hartung and Fisher wrote. "The role of top military officials is particularly troubling, given their greater clout in the military and the government more broadly than most other revolving door hires. Their influence over policy and budget issues can tilt the scales towards a more militarized foreign policy."
The new report comes amid soaring profits for weapons-makers, near-record levels of U.S. military spending, and increasing American domination of global arms exports.
As one arms industry executive said at last month's Defense and Security Equipment International trade show in London, "War is good for business."