Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

Just before leaving the White House, in January 1961, President Eisenhower famously warned against the “military-industrial complex”, describing how defence firms and military officials colluded to unduly shape public policy. Joe Biden, 64 years later, dedicated his own parting message to similar themes. He evoked a new oligarchy — a “tech-industrial” complex that sucks power into Silicon Valley at the expense of the American people.

Biden was obviously alluding to the warm ties between Donald Trump and Big Tech billionaires like Elon Musk. Yet if the outgoing President’s critique rings hollow, not least given his own administration’s closeness to corporate interests, there is some truth to his claims. The burgeoning ties between Big Tech and the US government really are reshaping the country’s future, and they’re likely to receive a massive boost under Trump.

As he begins his second term, Trump’s links to the tech industry are vividly clear. Musk, to give one example, pledged substantial funds to Trump’s campaign. He was duly named co-lead of the new Department of Government Efficiency, a role that enables him to directly influence federal budget decisions. Not to be outdone, all the major tech firms have donated millions to Trump’s inauguration fund, with everyone from Jeff Bezos to Tim Cook enjoying front-row seats on Monday. This signals a major political realignment among Silicon Valley elites, traditionally a hotbed of liberal progressivism. Earlier this month, for instance, Zuckerberg announced he would remove fact-checkers from his platforms.

However, this is about more than mere political opportunism, picking a winner and adapting to the new political landscape. Nor can this cosiness be understood simply by what Trump has promised the billionaires: notably taking a more hands-off approach to crypto and AI. What’s unfolding here is part of a much larger story, one that blends Eisenhower’s military-industrial past with Biden’s tech-industrial present. Welcome, then, to America’s techno-military future. With private sector giants behind it, the US security state will become more deadly than ever, even as their reliance on federal contracts exposes both the hypocrisy of the tech bros and the continuity of Trump’s policy programme.

“No company epitomises techno-militarism better than Palantir.”

This isn’t a totally new phenomenon: industry’s ties to government, rooted in Cold War militarism, were exactly what Eisenhower feared back in the Sixties. What’s different now, though, is the way American military and intelligence capabilities have been outsourced to Big Tech. Consider Amazon, a major provider of cloud computing services to both the Department of Defense and the CIA. No less striking, Amazon has actively developed AI tools for logistics optimisation and battlefield analysis, further embedding itself in defence operations. Its competitors have moved in a similar direction too. Google’s foray into military technology includes Project Maven, which uses AI to analyse drone footage for surveillance and targeting. Despite internal protests, forcing Google to withdraw from the project, the company continues to provide critical cloud services to government agencies.

Microsoft, for its part, has secured numerous defence contracts, including developing the Integrated Visual Augmentation System for the US Army. A $22 billion scheme, it enhances the situational awareness of troops via augmented reality. Though it’s traditionally boasted fewer links to the Pentagon, Meta has lately entered the field too, making its Llama large language model available for military customers. This last example underscores how Big Tech firms are leveraging cutting-edge AI tools for military ends, further blurring the lines between private innovation and US foreign policy.

Nor are the Big Tech firms alone here, with a new wave of smaller companies emerging in their wake. They call themselves Little Tech — though they’re actually worth billions of dollars, with their wealth often secured through lucrative defence contracts. One example: SpaceX’s Starlink satellite system has become indispensable for US military operations, providing secure, reliable internet in conflict zones including Ukraine. Musk’s outfit is also developing a constellation of bespoke spy satellites for intelligence agencies, further strengthening its role in national security. Anduril, founded by Palmer Luckey, does similar work. Initially gaining attention for its migrant-detecting surveillance towers, it has expanded to build autonomous drones alongside missiles, robots and other defence technologies.

Yet no company epitomises techno-militarism better than Palantir. Established by Peter Thiel, who received early funding from the CIA’s venture capital arm, he’s developed his company in close partnership with several US intelligence agencies. One Palantir product, Gotham, integrates surveillance and reconnaissance data to provide insights for counterterrorism and battlefield intelligence. Another programme, Foundry, offers logistics and supply chain management. These systems are proving useful in the field: they’ve helped Ukraine fight Russia and Israel target Hamas fighters in Gaza.

No less important, this new generation of techno-militarists is also shaping public discourse. Their leaders, notably Thiel and Luckey, are known for unapologetically embracing an aggressive neo-imperialist ideology that glorifies war and violence as fundamental expressions of patriotic duty. “Societies have always needed a warrior class that is enthused and excited about enacting violence on others in pursuit of good aims,” Luckey explained in a recent talk. “You need people like me who are sick in that way and who don’t lose any sleep making tools of violence in order to preserve freedom”. Alex Karp, the CEO of Palantir, has made similar claims, arguing that to restore legitimacy and strengthen national security, the US should make its enemies “wake up scared and go to bed scared” — something which could be achieved by collective punishment.

What unites these self-styled techno-warriors is their belief that the US must use technology, especially AI, to assert their country’s global dominance — a development they incidentally stand to profit massively from. The obvious target here is China, which Thiel and the rest see as an existential threat to US hegemony. Crucially, they argue that the traditional defence behemoths, as well as the Big Tech monopolists, are ill-suited to the task, not least because of their cumbersome corporate structures.

Last year, Palantir even published a manifesto attacking the Pentagon’s established contracting practices. Among other things, it said the Department of Defense must encourage competition and speed up development — naturally by further opening up to Little Tech. This represents nothing less than a declaration of war against legacy contractors, especially once you recall that Palantir and Anduril are reportedly in talks with about a dozen competitors, including SpaceX and ChatGPT maker OpenAI, to jointly bid for contracts from the US’s colossal $850 billion defence budget.

At any rate, this activity underscores the hollowness of the libertarian and anti-statist ideology espoused by tech bros like Thiel. As much as they may claim to oppose big government, the truth is the techno-military complex is wholly dependent on the state: to cannibalise foreign markets, channel funding from security agencies — and, of course, to wage wars. As Little Tech’s ideological guru, indeed, Thiel has cultivated extensive ties with Magaworld, donating $15 million to JD Vance’s 2022 Senate campaign, who for his part went on to invest in Anduril.

Whoever wins the looming civil war between Big Tech and its more abrasive cousin, it’s clear that the techno-military complex will shape not only the new administration — but also American society, exacerbating the growing interdependence between state power and corporate interests. Perhaps most striking of all, though, is what the techno-military complex says about Trump’s policy platform. The new President has presented himself as an anti-interventionist, and as a candidate of peace, yet his administration is closely aligned with companies reliant on perpetuating US militarism. The techno-warriors’ fixation on China exemplifies this dynamic, as tension with the People’s Republic offers ample opportunities to high-tech defence firms. As long as corporations that thrive on war continue to exercise influence over American foreign policy, it’s unlikely the country will ever be able to kick its war-hungry tendencies.

The growing power of the techno-military complex has domestic implications too. The surveillance technologies developed by firms like Palantir can obviously be deployed at home as well as abroad — as indeed they already have been. In 2009, after all, JPMorgan used a Palantir programme called Metropolis to monitor employee data, including emails and GPS locations, to spot signs of discontent. Once again, figures like Thiel parrot libertarianism while profiting from authoritarian surveillance technologies, a contradiction poised to haunt the new administration. It’s early days, but it doesn’t take an Eisenhower to guess which way these tensions will work out.

Original article: UnHerd