Elon Musk is now enabling the autonomous killbots he once said should never exist
xAI’s acceptance of a controversial deal with the Pentagon marks a significant first step towards AI-powered lethal autonomous weapons and domestic mass surveillance.
5
min read

Elon Musk has a long history of making statements in support of banning lethal autonomous weapons. That record was shattered on Feb. 23, 2026, when Axios reported a story on a deal between the Department of Defense and xAI that would have seismic implications for the AI landscape: The Musk-led company had agreed to allow the Pentagon access to its most advanced model, Grok, for "all lawful purposes,” including military applications. What does this mean in principle? The Pentagon can use xAI’s Grok model for lethal autonomous weapons development and domestic mass surveillance. The Pentagon denies it, but even in their own artificial intelligence strategy, they admit they plan to develop “AI-enabled… kill chain execution.”
This coincided with parallel Pentagon talks with Google, OpenAI and Anthropic over minimal restrictions to their AI models — including for autonomous weapons and mass surveillance. Anthropic has rejected the Pentagon’s demands, saying it is unwilling to loosen restrictions on autonomous weapons and mass surveillance. OpenAI’s Sam Altman publicly backed Anthropic’s position, telling CNBC that he shares Anthropic’s “red lines.” While discussions with Google are ongoing, a contingent of Google employees rallied around a letter of opposition.
xAI, by being the first major AI company to agree to minimal restrictions on its AI model, sets a foreboding precedent — it creates leverage for the Pentagon. It puts significant pressure on the other major AI companies to accept the Pentagon’s demands, which could have far-reaching implications. But it also marks a stunning departure for Elon Musk from his previous principles, a man who was once one of the loudest voices warning about the unacceptable risks that integrating AI into the development of autonomous weapons would create.
Contrary to this week’s events, Musk has a long public track record of endorsing restrictions on autonomous weapons: Among the open letters he signed concerning the issues were a 2015 letter initiated by the Future of Life Institute, calling for a “ban on offensive autonomous weapons beyond meaningful human control.”, and another 2017 Future of Life Institute-led letter to the United Nations, declaring, “Lethal autonomous weapons threaten to become the third revolution in warfare … We do not have long to act. Once this Pandora’s box is opened, it will be hard to close.”
Musk’s record hasn’t been limited to signing on to joint statements and letters; he’s also taken past positions on government surveillance and privacy that contradict xAI’s actions today. When Musk took ownership of X, he stated in an interview that “the degree to which government agencies effectively had full access to everything that was going on on Twitter blew my mind". In a 2023 Supreme Court petition — a continuation of a 2014 lawsuit that Musk continued after acquiring X — the company argued to the Supreme Court that “history demonstrates that the surveillance of electronic communications is both a fertile ground for government abuse and a lightning-rod political topic of intense concern to the public.” When the Supreme Court declined to hear the case, Musk publicly shared his disappointment.
Musk has repeatedly shared his pro-privacy and anti-surveillance views on X: In 2022, he posted, “The world is actually vastly better than Orwell imagined, but there is also vastly more surveillance”. Just last year, in reaction to messages leaked from U.S. intelligence agencies, Musk posted, “I wonder how long this has been going on. These are individuals with the ability to spy on any Americans at will.”
A week before the xAI-Pentagon deal was reported, SpaceX and xAI entered the Pentagon's competition to build autonomous drone swarms — exactly what Musk pledged not to do. A Pentagon official confirmed that the drones will be used for offensive purposes.
All of this paints a confusing picture about what Elon Musk’s intent has been all along. What matters most is the precedent being set by xAI, allowing integration of its models into the most controversial military applications: lethal autonomous weapons and domestic mass surveillance. Fully autonomous weapons systems are still largely in an experimental stage, and it’s not entirely clear what the Pentagon intends to do with these applications. Still, it doesn’t take a lot of imagination to envision a future with a host of bleak outcomes where autonomous weapons are deployed en masse, or dystopian mass surveillance of the public is powered by sophisticated AI.
As noted earlier, even with Anthropic’s rejection of Pentagon demands, there remains a real possibility that Google will bow to Pentagon pressure and agree to allow its models to be used for these controversial military applications. With OpenAI now aligned with Anthropic’s position, and Google’s position still unclear, an emerging industry consensus appears to be forming around these safeguards, making Musk’s xAI a potential outlier. Whatever the outcome, Musk has revealed that under his leadership, xAI will choose money and power over his own principles.
Update on March 2, 2026: Hours after this article was published, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman announced that his company reached an agreement with the Department of Defense to deploy its models on classified networks. Altman said the deal includes prohibitions on domestic mass surveillance and autonomous weapons. Follow-up reporting indicates this almost certainly isn’t the whole case; OpenAI seems to have agreed to ‘all lawful purposes’, which allows the Pentagon to use OpenAI’s models for domestic mass surveillance and autonomous weapons within the boundaries of the law.
Research, updates, and insights from the frontlines of AI accountability.
We lead strategic initiatives to monitor tech companies, counter corporate propaganda.
5
min read
A pro-AI, dark-money group tied to David Sacks appears linked to a new astroturfing campaign
5
min read
SpaceXAI just released Grok 4.5. It may have broken California’s AI law in the process.
5
min read
A Pro-AI Super PAC's Secret Meme Sockpuppets

3
min read
The Midas Project Joins Coalition Warning about xAI’s Track Record in light of SpaceX’s IPO
The Midas Project, alongside a coalition including Encode, Legal Advocates for Safe Science and Technology, and Guidelight AI Standards, released "xAI: The Unpriced Risk in SpaceX's IPO."
Frequently asked questions
Have more questions? Our team is happy to help, contact us.
We engage in a combination of research, outreach, and public advocacy to ensure that AI companies are meeting public expectations, and living up to their past promises, when it comes to ensuring responsible AI development and deployment.
The most important component of our work is helping to identify and disseminate industry best practices for AI development. We review technical literature, regulatory guidance, and case studies to distill concrete measures—such as frontier-model risk assessments, red-teaming requirements, audit regimes, and whistle-blower protections—and advocate for the most important voluntary steps that companies can take today to ensure they are acting responsible.
We also monitor whether companies follow their stated policies and industry norms. When evidence shows back-tracking or inadequate controls, we document these gaps and publicly press for corrective action—mobilizing employees, customers, and civil-society allies until the company adopts the necessary safeguards.
Finally, we publicize our research to help ensure the public is aware of how AI developers stack up on safety and responsibility. We release concise scorecards, incident analyses, and memos so that regulators, investors, and the wider public can see how individual developers perform on safety and responsibility.
Various AI experts including Nick Bostrom and Stuart Russell have compared the development of advanced AI to the myth of King Midas.
According to the legend, King Midas once asked a powerful satyr to make it so that whatever he touched instantly turned into gold. At first, he was thrilled with his new powers. But the King soon discovered that he couldn’t touch food, water, or even his family without instantly turning them to metal. In other words, the sudden attainment of an incredible power with insufficiently well-specified goals and safeguards led to a terrible tragedy.
Much like King Midas, tech companies are now eagerly pursuing incredible wealth and power by developing artificial intelligence, a technology that will change our world forever. But how will we know that it is designed in alignment with our collective human values? If we misspecify even a single goal or safeguard for these systems, how will we prevent them from causing an incredible catastrophe?
In the words of Stuart Russell, “If you continue on the current path, the better AI gets, the worse things get for us. For any given incorrectly stated objective, the better a system achieves that objective, the worse it is.”
The Midas Project is a nonprofit organization founded in early 2024 by Tyler Johnston. Our work is supported by a small core team and a wider base of volunteers and supporters. We are a nonprofit, tax-exempt, 501(c)(3) organization that relies on donations from the public.
No. One of our central values is a pro-technology attitude.
Progress in technology has improved lives for millions of people around the globe (after all, without it, we wouldn’t have penicillin, air conditioning, or the internet). Artificial intelligence is already being used by millions to help improve medicine, education, and overall living standards. We believe this progress should continue, and we hope AI will be a positive force in the world.
However, we are also realists — and skeptical realists at that. We believe advanced AI systems may be a “dual-use” technology that can be used for harm as well. In order to avert social inequality, concentration of power, or AI-driven catastrophes, everybody needs to have a voice at the table when decisions about development and deployment are being made.
Currently, the vast majority of these decisions about the future of AI are being made in shadowy corporate boardrooms with little oversight and accountability. That’s why The Midas Project is committed to raising awareness about the risks of AI, and ensuring that global citizens are given a chance to make their voice heard.
If you’d like to get involved, consider signing up for our newsletter, joining as an official volunteer, or making a charitable donation today.
You can email us at info@themidasproject.com, or reach out via the form on our contact page.