Is Elon Musk Too Embedded in US National Security?
Elon Musk enterprises are deeply embedded in the US national security establishment, most notably via SpaceX’s space ventures, but now via its xAI subsidiary and its Grok AI. The Department of War’s/Defence’s set-to with Anthropic demonstrates that an AI enterprise’s interests can potentially conflict with the Department, which could pose a security issue if the enterprise attempted to hold it up by restricting use in some way. The same risk could arise with Grok.
The embedded documents, prepared by @LibertyLynx and I, analyzes in detail the holdup potential for Grok. The basic conclusion is that the DoW has access to multiple AI providers, and can switch out at short notice–but not immediately. That matters, because in war, mere moments can count (what Patton called “the unforgiving minute”), meaning that even a fleeting withholding or even degradation of Grok (or another AI) could have dire consequences. In an optimistic case, a switch out would take 96 hours–pretty much the time that the ground campaign in Desert Storm lasted. A military eternity, in other words. That is, there are acute “temporal specificities.”
As the US military becomes more reliant on AI, especially for operational functions (e.g., targeting), the model relied on will become a potential single point of failure. As we analyze in the attached documents, failures can arise for purely technological reasons, or because of human interference with employment of the models–the latter being the holdup problem.
The reason that the Pentagon attempted to axe Anthropic was that the company demanded the power to withhold deployment of its models for purposes that it deemed incompatible with company values. That is, a deployed model posed holdup risks that the Pentagon deemed unacceptable.
It is troubling enough to extend someone as mercurial and megalomaniacal as Musk serious holdup power that the Pentagon assumed unacceptable in the case of Anthropic. If Anthropic’s values are problematic, what about Musk’s?
What is even more troubling is that Musk is deeply embedded in China. Specifically, Tesla is very dependent on China, to an extent that is barely appreciated in the United States–in large part because Musk hardly says anything about it, in contrast to his pontifications on pretty much every other subject known to man.
A majority of Tesla production is in China. Tellingly, Tesla’s output per unit of fixed assets is far higher in China than in the US. Moreover, Tesla gets appreciable funding from China. It hardly seems prudent to give an individual with such conflicting interests as Musk control over a vital defense function that requires complete reliability 24/7, and which is characterized by acute temporal specificity.
There is a fundamental economic challenge here. The government does not have a comparative advantage in developing these models, and is inherently reliant on the developers for continuous support of their operation. But given the specificity of these assets, what contracting and governance mechanisms can be put in place to protect the government against opportunistic behavior by the model developers? It’s an inherently daunting challenge, and those challenges are particularly acute when the counterparty is one of the world’s most egregious opportunists who is known for using his leverage to benefit himself. Of all the people to give leverage to . . .
Some problems could be mitigated by requiring Musk to sever his China connections. That would change his incentives, but would not change him.
Our research also raises questions about how disinterested Secretary of War/Defense Hegseth and his Chief Technology Officer, Emil Michael, were in their Anthropic decision, and their subsequent embrace of Grok.
The embedded documents analyze these issues in detail, and highlights issues that have received too little attention amidst the ongoing hype over space, digital data centers, and AI. Not that those are unimportant, and will the the subject of future similar posts.
Is it too cynical to suppose that the main lesson from the Dept of War’s taking an interest in AI is that they should have done so fifteen years ago?
Comment by dearieme — September 14, 2026 @ 8:43 am
I can’t agree with your assessment professor. “Mercurial and Megalomaniac” are subjective descriptions. He seems to me to follow through and stick with projects that interest him. As far as Tesla in China, they stole his lunch and ate it in front of him. But then, that was no different than what they did to hundreds of other companies who drooled over a cheap workforce and a huge market. More fool they. I believe there was more to his long term strategy in locating in China than simply cheap labor and a huge market. Back then he needed the heft of a Chinese operation to propel Tesla in the U.S. Simply my opinion. As far as the attached documents go, they might as well have been written in French.
Comment by Donald Wolfe — September 14, 2026 @ 12:24 pm
We survived years of Biden, Brennan, and Clapper too embedded in U.S. national security. Not to say Mille, Wray, and Majorkas.
Musk is a comparative cake-walk.
Comment by Pat Frank — September 15, 2026 @ 5:59 pm
‘Patton called “the unforgiving minute”’ And there was me thinking that Kipling had said it.
“As the US military becomes more reliant on AI, especially for operational functions (e.g., targeting)”: given a fiasco or two in Iran, that might better read “more reliant on AI, especially for operational failures (e.g., targeting)”. Still, nothing works perfectly. Then again, I can’t think of another technology that has become famous for “hallucinating” and I must say that my experience of Google’s AI is that it has repeatedly lied to me.
Comment by dearieme — September 16, 2026 @ 4:15 am
All kinds of mil tech gives all kinds of unforgiving minutes – SCOT on HMS Sheffield etc etc (sheesh, even a rifle can jam). Why the focus on AI?
“Our research”?? Seems a bit away from your core area of expertise, or have you finally retired?
Given’s AI increasing prevalence in the military arena, has anyone thought to ask it how the US should extricate itself from the Iranian sh*tfest? Professor Martin Rees was prescient at a lecture I attended (I know!!) when he said his was way more fearful of human stupidity than artificial intelligence.
Comment by David Mercer — September 19, 2026 @ 2:05 am
“Professor Martin Rees”: is that the madman who used to be Astrologer Royal? I do believe it is.
Comment by dearieme — September 19, 2026 @ 6:45 am
Yes, even madmen have fleeting moments of lucidity. Alas Trump’s are pretty much non-existent nowadays.
Comment by David Mercer — September 19, 2026 @ 11:49 am
@7, says the guy who passes over in silence that his every PM from Tony Blair to the present has been incompetent, insane, or treasonous.
That his government imprisons thousands every year for publicly detesting Islam or criticizing the unimpeded in-migration of tribalist men, by the thousands, who detest the UK and its tradition of civility and freedoms.
That flying the Union Jack is considered worthy of police attention.
That the high-priestess of Canterbury, Dame Sarah Mullally, on Sept. 11, exactly the 25th anniversary of the World Trade Tower Islamic destruction derby, gave the Hubert Walter Award for Reconciliation and Interfaith Cooperation to Hafiz Muhammad Tahir Mehmood Ashrafi, an acolyte of Osama Bin Laden, wisher of Sharia upon the UK, wannabe imposer of Islam on pain of death. That guy, that day.
The BBC picture has her smiling in the presentation to him rewarded for oppression, and worse, in the company of women imprisoned in burka and hijab.
Only to withdraw the award 3 days later in embarrassment. Not because she actually thought the better of it. But because she was exposed for the surrender-monkey she is.
Says the guy with no ethical standing to defame Trump.
Comment by Pat Frank — September 20, 2026 @ 2:58 pm
@8 Where do you get your microcosm of UK news from, Pat? Does Fox have a weekly 10 second segment, or do you use AI to distill our news to its vacuum residue, based on your very specific prejudices and misconceptions?
Also, why start at Blair? I hated all of our PMs prior to him too.
Comment by David Mercer — September 23, 2026 @ 3:56 pm