The Sultans of Silicon Valley exercise massive influence over how we work, what we see and hear, what we buy, and whom we vote for.
If the recent debacle over restrictions on Starlink and Starshield services in Ukraine is any indication, soon Big Tech could also decide who lives, who dies, and the outcome of global conflicts.
We still don’t fully know who gave the order to slow down Kyiv’s drones, or on whose authority; only that Donald Trump and Elon Musk have both announced their disdain for Volodymyr Zelensky.
But then, why are we surprised? America has spent decades encouraging companies to innovate, beat their competitors, and rake in the profits. No wonder they’re now supplying systems that armies can’t fight without.
The problem comes when governments and militaries realize they're no longer the only ones in control of the weapons they wield.
Defense Gets a Software Update
The military-industrial complex has never been what one would call a paragon of moral decency. Major defense contractors spend fortunes lobbying Washington, cultivate relationships with Pentagon officials, and work tirelessly to protect and increase their share of the budget.
But once a weapons system has been paid for by the government and transferred to the military, it’s largely out of their hands. Governments buy the equipment, and elected officials and military commanders decide when, where, and against whom to use it.
...
"Nobody has to call the CEO of Lockheed Martin to say we’re about to bomb Iran—can we use your jets?" Sharon Weinberger, editor-in-chief of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists and author of Valley of Death: How Big Tech Is Fueling the Future of War, told Newsweek. "I don't want to be in the position of defending the good old defense companies of old, but the difference is that they have had and have guardrails on their behavior."
That arrangement is being upended. Modern warfare is heavily reliant on satellite communications, cloud infrastructure, battlefield software, and, of course, artificial intelligence—the stuff produced by Big Tech rather than traditional defense primes.
These technologies aren't material assets like artillery shells or tanks that are simply delivered and handed over. The companies behind them often remain intimately and continuously involved in their operation.
"Defense has moved from buying equipment to subscribing to capability, and subscriptions come with a landlord," Daniel Newman, CEO of the Futurum Group, told Newsweek. "When you sell a radio, you're a contractor. When you run the network that radio depends on, every day and in real time, you're part of the operation whether you want to be or not."
As we've seen in Ukraine, this grants the developer an unprecedented degree of sway over how their product is used; particularly when there are no clear alternatives.
Billionaire’s Playground
Elon Musk and SpaceX constitute the most conspicuous example of this dystopian evolution of corporate power—partly due to Ukraine’s reliance on Starlink, but mostly because the CEO has a habit of broadcasting his political opinions to millions of followers on a social media platform he owns.
Musk, who clearly also fancies himself a foreign policy expert, declared earlier this month that it was time for Ukraine’s prime minister "to go." He subsequently acknowledged restricting Ukraine's use of Starlink, arguing Kyiv had violated the service's terms.
It apparently didn’t matter that Ukraine had used the service for four and a half years without issue, or that Poland pays tens of millions of dollars annually for the service on Kyiv’s behalf; Musk’s political opinion was the deciding factor.
One wonders whether Taiwan’s reluctance to adopt Starlink has anything to do with the Tesla CEO’s business interests in China.
Musk is far from the only billionaire whose commercial empire is becoming increasingly entangled with national security, though. Palantir, Anduril, Microsoft, Google and a growing roster of technology firms supply the AI systems and digital infrastructure underpinning America’s military capabilities—and those of its allies.
"The reason why you have Musk and others in that position is that technologies that were once the preserve of government can now be developed by private companies, with private capital," Weinberger told Newsweek. "There is enough venture capital that the companies can build this on their own without relying on government funding."
"These are businesses that are ultimately focused on generating revenue, and their commercial interests may not always align with the national security mission," Chris Nyhuis, CEO of cybersecurity firm Vigilant, told Newsweek.
"When a provider has the technical ability to change, restrict, or interrupt a capability that military operations depend on, especially if that decision is because they no longer agree with what that country is doing, that creates real leverage. Whether they choose to exercise it is a different question."
What Did You Expect?
This should hardly come as a shock. If anything, it’s proof the system is working exactly as designed.
America’s particularly potent brand of capitalism encourages entrepreneurs to compete, and rewards the victors handsomely. Musk is incentivized to make the best satellite communication service possible—his company can hardly be blamed for doing such a good job.
...
There’s nothing inherently wrong with a company or its CEO placing restrictions on how their technology can be used, either; provided these are agreed upon before the technology is deployed by a government or its military.
"Corporate responsibility covers lawful use, safety and the terms you sign. It doesn’t extend to rewriting those terms mid-operation," Newman said. "If a provider has limits, they belong in the contract before the first terminal ships, not after the mission is underway."
The responsibility for establishing those boundaries, securing access, and ensuring that a military isn't left helpless at the whim of a private supplier ultimately lies with the authorities.
There are some signs that officials are catching on.
After Anthropic refused to remove contractual safeguards against using its Claude AI models for mass domestic surveillance and fully autonomous weapons, the Trump administration ordered federal agencies to stop using the technology. The Pentagon also moved to incorporate competing AI providers into its classified systems, reducing its dependence on any single company.
None of this will be of any comfort to Kyiv. Ukraine is fighting for its survival with critical military technology, but is forced to play a guessing game over who retains ultimate control of it.
As more militaries become dependent on privately operated networks, the potential for enormously consequential decisions to be made outside the traditional chain of command—and with little accountability—will only grow.
The tech bros are doing what is expected of them. It’s the politicians at home and abroad who should be wondering just how much authority they’ve surrendered along the way, and doing something about it.