Tech leader: Pentagon’s AI plan should drive acquisition of commercial tech solutions

Mark Dalton, the free market-oriented R Street Institute’s senior policy director of technology and innovation, focused on the plan’s “model objectivity” requirement, which he said “conflates legitimate technical needs with political positioning. Military AI does need factually accurate outputs, but defining and measuring objectivity is far more complex than this directive suggests. What does objectivity mean when assessing adversary intentions or recommending targeting priorities?”

Hegseth said in the memo:

Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion and social ideology have no place in the DoW, so we must not employ AI models which incorporate ideological “tuning” that interferes with their ability to provide objectively truthful responses to user prompts. The Department must also utilize models free from usage policy constraints that may limit lawful military applications. Therefore, I direct the CDAO to establish benchmarks for model objectivity as a primary procurement criterion within 90 days, and I direct the Under Secretary of War for Acquisition and Sustainment to incorporate standard “any lawful use” language into any DoW contract through which AI services are procured within 180 days. I also direct the CDAO to ensure all existing AI policy guidance at the Department aligns with the directives laid out in this memorandum.

But Dalton said, “The 90-day timeline for establishing benchmarks is unrealistic for such a fundamentally difficult challenge.”

“Further,” Dalton said, “the ‘any lawful use’ contract language combined with CDAO’s authority to direct data release effectively eliminates the concept of data ownership within DoD. If a contractor can use intelligence data for any lawful purpose, and CDAO can override denial of data access, what does it mean for the intelligence community to ‘own’ their data?”

According to Dalton, “This creates serious accountability problems. If AI trained on intelligence data gets compromised or misused, who’s responsible — the intelligence component that generated it, CDAO that directed its release, or the contractor who used it under ‘any lawful use’ authority? The document treats data ownership as bureaucratic obstruction when it’s actually a governance structure ensuring appropriate use and accountability.”