The Pentagon's new AI strategy explicitly states that military exercises and experiments failing to adequately integrate AI will be targeted for budget cuts. This threat of financial penalty creates a powerful, top-down incentive for reluctant bureaucratic elements to adopt new technologies.
Related Insights
The critical national security risk for the U.S. isn't failing to invent frontier AI, but failing to integrate it. Like the French who invented the tank but lost to Germany's superior "Blitzkrieg" doctrine, the U.S. could lose its lead through slow operational adoption by its military and intelligence agencies.
The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) creates an "AI Futures Steering Committee" co-chaired by top defense officials. Its explicit purpose is to formulate policy for evaluating, adopting, and mitigating risks of AGI, and to forecast adversary AGI capabilities.
Leading AI companies, facing high operational costs and a lack of profitability, are turning to lucrative government and military contracts. This provides a stable revenue stream and de-risks their portfolios with government subsidies, despite previous ethical stances against military use.
The military lacks the "creative destruction" of the private sector and is constrained by rigid institutional boundaries. Real technological change, like AI adoption, can only happen when intense civilian leaders pair with open-minded military counterparts to form a powerful coalition for change.
The Department of War's top AI priority is "applied AI." It consciously avoids building its own foundation models, recognizing it cannot compete with private sector investment. Instead, its strategy is to adapt commercial AI for specific defense use cases.
The Pentagon's Chief Digital and AI Officer (CDAO) is now authorized to demand data from any department component. Denials must be justified to the Undersecretary of War within seven days, effectively breaking down long-standing data silos by creating a high-level, rapid escalation path.
The Department of Defense (DoD) doesn't need a "wake-up call" about AI's importance; it needs to "get out of bed." The critical failure is not a lack of awareness but deep-seated institutional inertia that prevents the urgent action and implementation required to build capability.
To persuade risk-averse leaders to approve unconventional AI initiatives, shift the focus from the potential upside to the tangible risks of standing still. Paint a clear picture of the competitive disadvantages and missed opportunities the company will face by failing to act.
Relying solely on grassroots employee experimentation with AI is insufficient for transformation. Leadership must provide a top-down motion with resource allocation, budget, and permission for teams to fundamentally change workflows. This dual approach bridges the gap from experimentation to scale.
When facing top-down pressure to "do AI," leaders can regain control by framing the decision as a choice between distinct "games": 1) building foundational models, 2) being first-to-market with features, or 3) an internal efficiency play. This forces alignment on a North Star metric and provides a clear filter for random ideas.
