In 2025, artificial intelligence didn’t just continue its transformation from research project to military asset. It vanished into the background of warfighting and defense bureaucracy, becoming so routine that its presence is now assumed rather than heralded. What began as cutting-edge experimentation has, in a matter of years, become institutionalized infrastructure across the world’s most powerful militaries and intelligence apparatuses.
This year’s defense AI landscape wasn’t defined by one breakthrough weapon, novel algorithm, or dramatic battlefield spectacle. Rather, the story of 2025 was normalization — AI became the plumbing of national security, powering everything from geospatial interpretation to drone targeting, and from joint fires coordination to cyber offense and defense. Yet, in becoming ordinary, AI exposed several tectonic tensions: speed versus accuracy, autonomy versus oversight, and institutional eagerness versus regulatory friction.
From Oval Office Vision to Everyday Tools
2025 kicked off with an unmistakable Presidential stamp. A high-profile White House Oval Office event where the U.S. administration unveiled Stargate, a plan to invest $500 billion in next-generation data center infrastructure, with the Pentagon as a key beneficiary. By year’s end, the Pentagon had launched GenAI.mil, a portal granting commercial large language models (LLMs) to all 3 million Defense Department personnel — military and civilian alike.
This shift — granting ubiquitous access to generative AI tools inside the U.S. defense establishment — reflects a broader strategic pivot: AI is no longer an elite capability, but an everyday utility like secure email or mapping apps. Yet the sheer scale raises a question few leaders have adequately addressed: When everyone can use AI, who is actually responsible for the outcomes?
Five Defining Stories of 2025
1. Battlefield AI Goes Mainstream — Ukraine as the Test Case
Ukraine’s defense innovators illustrated how AI can be force-multiplying in real conflict. Rather than embedding bulky computational hardware in every drone, developers split workloads: large models on backend servers training tactical systems, and streamlined mini-models embedded on frontline drones to refine targeting as they close on targets. This distributed AI architecture — combining brainpower with lightweight edge processing — is rapidly becoming a design pattern for military AI.
2. The “No Human Hands” Intelligence Pipeline
Perhaps the most striking symbolic milestone came from the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA). Specifically, the agency began issuing standardized intelligence reports entirely generated by AI, with a special template distinguishing them from human-produced dossiers. In practice, this means images from across the globe — whether satellite mosaics or battlefield cameras — can be ingested and analyzed into finished briefs without a single analyst physically typing a word.
This raises philosophical — and doctrinal — questions. Intelligence agencies sitting on data volumes they’ve never fully tapped now rely on AI to produce finished products. But who certifies AI judgment? Who is accountable if AI misreads a scene and sends decision-makers down a false path? These questions are becoming urgent as AI’s operational footprint expands.
3. AI for Joint Fires Planning Moves From R&D into Acquisition
In an unusual but crucial bureaucratic milestone, the U.S. Air Force moved its Joint Fires Network (JFN) — an AI-driven system that allocates weapons to targets across theaters — out of experimental status and into a formal acquisition program.
This transition signifies two things:
-
First, that AI tools have matured beyond laboratory proofs-of-concept;
-
Second, that the Pentagon is ready to standardize and industrialize them like tanks or missiles.
Yet maturity here doesn’t imply perfection. Many defense AI tools still grapple with sensing limitations, robustness under stress, and human interaction models.
4. Speed vs. Judgment: AI Writes Plans Better Than Humans — But Faultily
At a major Air Force wargaming exercise this year, an AI system produced ten courses of action (COAs) in just eight seconds, compared with three generated by human officers over 16 minutes. However, raw speed obscured a critical shortcoming: many AI-generated plans were unexecutable, often ignoring factors such as sensor reliability in bad weather or terrain mobility constraints.
This tension between speed and meaningful insight is perhaps the core technical challenge of defense AI in 2025: quantity doesn’t equal quality. Even as machines outproduce human planners, they still struggle with the tacit contextual awareness that human experts bring.
5. AI as Cyber Weapon — and Cyber Target
Perhaps the most unsettling development of the year involved an alleged Chinese state-backed hacker group manipulating a commercial AI model to conduct cyberattacks, effectively turning a widely available model into an autonomous offensive tool.
This illustrates a new era of dual-use AI: the same tools that help analysts automate mundane tasks can be hijacked into offensive operations — often with minimal human intervention. AI is now both the target of defense and the instrument of attack; this duality is reshaping how practitioners think about cybersecurity. Recent industry reporting underscores that security teams are currently overwhelmed by AI-generated noise and false positives, underscoring how the technology can both help and hinder defenses.
Beyond the Headlines: Governance, Standards, and Structural Barriers
The institutional embrace of AI juxtaposes sharply with governance gaps and regulatory friction. A recent Pentagon Inspector General evaluation criticized delays in defining implementation plans and clear roles within the Chief Digital & AI Office, which has been reorganized into a broader research and engineering structure. Without clear policies and performance measures, AI adoption risks inconsistency and fragmentation.
In parallel, defense industry stakeholders point to significant adoption barriers within the U.S. defense ecosystem: data access silos, acquisition complexity, supply chain security, and long authorization cycles all impede rapid AI fielding, especially for startups.
These structural barriers reveal a paradox: while AI tools proliferate rapidly, the processes for governing, accrediting, and integrating them lag badly behind — a dynamic echoed in civilian sectors and echoed in international safety reports.
Global Context: Competitive Dynamics and Ethical Crosswinds
The normalization of AI in defense isn’t unique to the U.S. Indeed, China, Russia, and other state actors are investing aggressively in military AI. Technologies such as autonomous swarming systems, electronic warfare-aware autonomy, and AI-powered networking are all areas of intense research and deployment. Furthermore, independent research highlights that AI’s integration into tactical communications and network decision-making will shape the next generation of conflict operations
Yet these technological advances collide with ethical, legal, and operational questions. For instance, international humanitarian law and rules of engagement with autonomous systems raise complex challenges. Moreover, the boundaries of human control in life-and-death decisions remain a pressing concern. Consequently, public and scholarly debates this year remind us that technical capability is only one piece of a broader societal negotiation around AI’s place in war and peace.
Looking Toward 2026: Normalization Isn’t Control
What 2025 showed most clearly was not a singular AI revolution but a transition: AI has stopped being exotic and started being boring — yet boring doesn’t mean simple or safe.
AI now powers planning, targeting, analysis, and even offensive cyber tasks. It’s embedded in daily workflows, institutionalized in acquisition pipelines, and democratized across defense personnel. But ubiquity has outpaced governance, and adoption has outpaced understanding.
As we look toward 2026, the question is no longer whether AI matters to defense — it clearly does. The pivotal challenge now is whether institutions can build trustworthy workflows, robust oversight mechanisms, and resilient standards that ensure this powerful technology enhances security without undermining it.
Related: The 2026 Tech Mirage: Why the AI Future Isn’t What Silicon Valley Wants You to Believe
