As the Pentagon races to field thousands of Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) by 2027, Silicon Valley drone companies have become the public face of American defense innovation. Prominent startups like Skydio and Anduril have secured billions in contracts and lobbied for restrictions on Chinese competitors such as DJI. But behind this confident posture lies a fragile truth: many of these same firms have been implicated in espionage, internal leaks, and questionable supply practices — a legacy that now shadows the ethics of their ascent.
In July 2025, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced a sweeping directive accelerating drone procurement by expanding the Blue UAS program and cutting red tape. Silicon Valley cheered — valuations surged, and startups positioned themselves as bold protectors of U.S. technological sovereignty.
Yet the industry’s vulnerabilities run deeper than component sourcing or cybersecurity: they reside in human behavior and cultural malpractice.
The Most Dangerous Malware Isn’t Always Digital
Espionage in Silicon Valley often takes place over wine, not wire. Vanity Fair’s 2018 exposé, Inside Silicon Valley’s Spy Wars, revealed how foreign intelligence officers infiltrated startups as interns or contractors. One source disclosed that a Chinese intern “emailed the company out of the blue,” gained access, and quietly extracted code — without attracting law enforcement scrutiny, as the company feared reputational harm.
An intelligence official told Vanity Fair: “People like to believe this stuff happens in dark alleys with briefcases. In reality, it happens over wine, at conferences, or on dating apps.”
In 2025, venture capitalist Katherine Boyle confirmed that these techniques weren’t outdated relics. Speaking on The Shawn Ryan Show, she said “there are more spies in Washington, DC than any other place in America and number two is Silicon Valley,” adding pointedly, “because it’s such an open culture, anyone can come. Anyone can have a coffee and learn about things, infiltrate the culture.
The people-centric nature of these exploits reveals a critical oversight: Silicon Valley’s culture — grounded in personal charisma and access — provided fertile ground for espionage precisely where policies assumed only code or hardware were at risk.
When Insider Threats Explode
Espionage isn’t limited to international operatives. In mid-2025, Bloomberg exposed a mole planted inside HR tech startup Rippling by rival firm Deel. The report detailed burner phones, hidden SIM cards, and a suspicious phone thrown into a canal—methods more suited to intelligence services than software companies.
While this involved HR platforms, the broader implication is clear: companies with access to sensitive personal data, dual-use tech, or government contracts are highly vulnerable. If espionage can thrive in SaaS, what happens when military drone telemetry is on the table?
While Silicon Valley battles insider espionage and social engineering exploits, the threat landscape extends into digital and capital infiltration. Hackers and malicious state-funded actors increasingly seek to compromise supply chains and AI tools embedded in UAS platforms. Yet whistleblowers remain rare, deterred by legal repression and cultural taboo. As Edward Snowden warned in The Guardian:
“My sole motive is to inform the public as to that which is done in their name and that which is done against them.”
That admonition resonates—if even federal contractors feared speaking out, drone startups operating in secretive venture-backed ecosystems are unlikely to surface problems publicly.
Layered on top of this is the murky influence of state-affiliated venture capital. While U.S. firms tout “patriotic capital,” dozens of Silicon Valley investors still maintain ties with Chinese state-backed entities, like Shenzhen Capital Group, whose billions ebb and flow into AI and drone startups globally. A Stanford report estimated $912 billion poured into Chinese government-backed tech investment over the past decade, much of it seeding dual-use platforms potentially repurposed for intelligence gathering.
Together, these forces—digital backdoors, stifled whistleblowing, and capital shaped by foreign priorities—build a complex web of influence behind the scenes. Without reforms that protect transparency and insulate U.S. drone innovation from foreign state leverage, the promise of “American-made” may ring hollow.
Supply Chain Promises with Built-in Contradictions
As espionage threats surfaced, Silicon Valley loudly condemned Chinese competition. Skydio’s CEO, Adam Bry, testified that Chinese firms were “undercutting prices with state support” and claimed Skydio would succeed on the “strength of our products.” Yet until recently, Skydio used Chinese-made components, until China’s Ministry of Commerce sanctioned Skydio over drone sales to Taiwan.
While U.S. drone firms have lobbied to restrict DJI under national security concerns, the company has not been criminally charged in the United States and continues to operate globally across commercial, civilian, and humanitarian sectors. In July 2025, congressional leaders invoked Section 1709 of the FY 2025 National Defense Authorization Act, urging the Office of the Director of National Intelligence to initiate a formal review into DJI and Autel’s national‑security risks — with an automatic import ban set if no action is taken by the December 23 deadline. DJI responded: “We welcome and embrace any opportunities to demonstrate our privacy controls and security features. We stand ready to cooperate with any rulemaking processes or investigations.” The company added that “more than six months have passed, and that process still hasn’t begun,” warning that rushed timelines “risk undermining the integrity of the process altogether.”
A Weapons Turn Without Warning
“We will not put weapons on our drones and will oppose fully autonomous lethal weapons systems.”
— Skydio Engagement and Responsible Use Principles, 2019
In June 2025, the U.S. Army quietly removed an X‑platform post showcasing the first live‑grenade drop from a Skydio X10D drone. The tweet bluntly asked, “Have you ever seen a drone drop a GRENADE?”—accompanied by footage of troops preparing and executing the munition release. Its subsequent deletion—widely noted by observers—underscored the unease surrounding the public normalization of weaponized drone capabilities.
“We wouldn't work with a company that plans to put weapons on its drones.” — Adam Bry, CEO and co-founder of Skydio, in an interview with DroneLife (2019)
This incident illustrates a growing rift between institutional transparency and battlefield pragmatism. The U.S. Army’s readiness to both conduct and then scrub public evidence of drone-delivered explosives emphasizes how the ethical line between innovation and militarization is blurring—often well after the actions are under way.
Hardening Security Without Choking Innovation
Some firms have responded with internal reforms. Companies like OpenAI have adopted biometric authentication and zero-trust data access protocols. Others are vetting VC funds and employee networks more carefully to avoid foreign interference.
Still, these reforms carry their own risks. National security advocates warn that over-correcting may alienate foreign-born engineers or choke off innovation in the name of compliance. “Hardening our supply chain is right,” said one former official. “Rigging the market, not so much.”
The True Cost of Protectionism
DJI’s lobbying activity suggests a company in survival mode: over the last five years, it has spent nearly $7 million lobbying Congress and federal agencies. In 2023 alone, it spent more than $1.5 million fighting provisions in the National Defense Authorization Act and opposing bipartisan attempts to restrict its market access.
By comparison, U.S. companies like Skydio have spent far less, while simultaneously forming coalitions like the Partnership for Drone Competitiveness to lobby against Chinese rivals. The difference in tactics reflects a shifting landscape: one where lobbying—not innovation—is increasingly used to determine which companies are permitted to compete.
Reclaiming Credibility Requires Facing Hard Truths
The U.S. drone ecosystem sits at a precarious crossroads. Silicon Valley’s entry into defense work brings unprecedented speed and scale—but also unprecedented ethical risks. If firms want to claim the mantle of national security partners, they must align their internal conduct with their external rhetoric.
That means addressing insider threats, resisting mission creep, and avoiding lobbying that seeks to engineer monopoly by fear rather than fact.
Because the real test of patriotism in tech isn’t a flag on the marketing deck — it’s what a company does when no one is watching.
THE ZERO LUX is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Originally published in DroneXL by Sean Campbell. The piece was later removed without notice. The Zero Lux republishes it in full—as the truth doesn’t disappear just because it makes some people uncomfortable.
We see in total darkness.
Sources for verification:
- Vanity Fair, “Inside Silicon Valley’s Spy Wars” (2018)
- Politico, “How Silicon Valley Became a Den of Spies” (2018)
- Bloomberg, “Spying Scandal Spirals Between Billion-Dollar Startups” (2025)
- The Shawn Ryan Show, interview with Katherine Boyle (2025)
- The Verge, “Skydio’s New X2 Drone Is Made for the Military” (2020)
- U.S. Army, “Soldiers Test sUAS-Borne Live Fire Grenade Drops” (2025)
- Skydio, “Engagement and Responsible Use Principles” (2019)
- Public lobbying data and disclosures (DJI, Skydio)
- The Guardian, Snowden interview (2013)
- Stanford CISAC report on China’s Venture Capital Statecraft (2024)
- The War Zone, “Army Touting Grenade-Dropping Drone Shows Just How Alarmingly Behind The Curve It Still Is” (2025)
- DroneLife, “Interview: Skydio CEO Adam Bry” (2019)
