{"id":53174,"date":"2020-01-30T10:18:28","date_gmt":"2020-01-30T10:18:28","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/staging.sightlinemg.com\/defensenews\/uncategorized\/2020\/01\/30\/theres-a-sovereignty-movement-in-tech-with-big-consequences\/"},"modified":"2026-08-07T23:49:32","modified_gmt":"2026-08-07T23:49:32","slug":"theres-a-sovereignty-movement-in-tech-with-big-consequences","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/staging.sightlinemg.com\/defensenews\/smr\/cultural-clash\/2020\/01\/30\/theres-a-sovereignty-movement-in-tech-with-big-consequences\/","title":{"rendered":"There\u2019s a \u2018sovereignty movement\u2019 in tech, with big consequences"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/atype-video-jwplayer>
One would think that the role of venture capital in defense would be simple, and that firms would be lining up to invest. But in reality, that’s not the case.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n

SIMI VALLEY, Calif. \u2014 For the last few years the Pentagon and technology community<\/a> have muddled through efforts to improve cooperation, eliminating barriers to entry.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But even as these efforts happen in the United States, so do they around the globe. Allies are in some cases forging their own path that doesn\u2019t rely so heavily on the U.S. And countries that may not have the ability to invest in their own tech development are looking elsewhere \u2014 sometimes with potential geopolitical ramifications.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For the second year in a row, Defense News hosted a roundtable discussion in California to discuss the state of the Pentagon\u2019s efforts to engage with the commercial tech community \u2014 this year digging into the challenges and opportunities that come with investment in defense development.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Click here for all the stories and videos from Culture Clash 2.0: An Economic Crossroads.<\/b><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

During that discussion, Trae Stephens, chairman of Irvine, California-based Anduril Industries and partner at venture capital firm Founders Fund, provided an international snapshot.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Here are the highlights.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As we look at Pentagon efforts to better engage with the tech community, are there lessons to be learned by what\u2019s happening internationally? Or is the U.S. further along?<\/b><\/p>\n\n\n\n

We shouldn\u2019t forget that we followed the lead of the U.K. They started [the Government Digital Service] before we did. That was their idea. They\u2019ve been incredibly innovative with trying to get out front with special forces and deploying new capabilities into production very rapidly. There\u2019s a lot of lessons that we\u2019ve learned there.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

There\u2019s another edge case in Israel. Israel has the unique setup of mandatory conscription, which means that for at least a few years, once a person reaches adulthood, [the military] has perfect access to the talent pool. They\u2019re able to do innovative things inside of the government that other nations that don\u2019t have mandatory conscription can do.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And third is France. [French President Emmanuel] Macron has been incredibly vocal recently. He started to talk a lot about the importance of building up a European defense alliance for technology and the importance of sovereign technology. What that means is that there is literally a movement inside the French government to clone Palantir because they don\u2019t want to have U.S. companies having the keys to the kingdom.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

So they want to ensure control of their own data. <\/b><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Who knows how successful these things will be? But it is interesting that there\u2019s a strong sovereignty movement that\u2019s happening in Europe<\/a> that we didn\u2019t see 10 years ago. There are probably all sorts of diagnosis you could make of the causes of that, but it\u2019s kind of fraying at the edges of NATO. [U.S. President Donald] Trump said that Syria was their neighborhood, not our neighborhood, so I think [allies in Europe] are starting to feel the pressure to take ownership of these things more than they did before.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

We talk a lot about trade war with China. There is a trade tension as well between the U.S. and our allies in Europe right now.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As an investor, do you have any interest in putting money behind international tech efforts?<\/b><\/p>\n\n\n\n

I would, sure. The key thing for me is the eyes on them. In a place where there\u2019s a democracy \u2014 where the constituents make decisions about ethical uses and following international treaties and sustaining rule of law, I think these are places where I would not only be willing to [invest] but also where I feel we have a duty to [do so] for upholding those values.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Now, there are other countries, of course, that are as aspirational, but it\u2019s deeply at odds with their government. In those cases, I think we need to think long and hard about the implications of those nations taking a leadership [role] in the technologies that we\u2019re trying to develop. As we\u2019ve seen over the course of history with chemical [and] biological weapons, nuclear weapons, all sort of military technologies: Who holds the power holds the keys to setting international norms for how those technologies are used.<\/p>\n\n\n\t