DARPA is out of control

Few organizations embody the darker side of technological advancement like DARPA, the U.S. Department of Defense’s research arm. From stealth aircraft to the foundation of the internet, its innovations have reshaped warfare and infiltrated daily life. As anyone familiar with government agencies might expect, DARPA routinely crosses ethical lines, fueling serious concerns about privacy and control. Its relentless pursuit of cutting-edge technology has turned it into a force for domestic surveillance and behavioral manipulation. The agency operates with near-impunity, seamlessly shifting its battlefield innovations into the lives of ordinary Americans.

This precrime framework carries Orwellian implications.

Precrime predictions and de-banking dystopia

One of DARPA's most unsettling ventures is its development of an algorithmic Theory of Mind, a technology designed to predict and manipulate human behavior by mimicking an adversary's situational awareness. Simply put, this isn’t just spying; it’s a road map for controlling behavior. While it's framed as a military tool, the implications for civilian life are alarming. By harvesting massive amounts of behavioral data, DARPA aims to build algorithms that can predict decisions, emotions, and actions with unnerving precision. Imagine a world where such insights are weaponized to sway public opinion, deepen divides, or silence dissent before it even begins. Some might say we’re already there. Perhaps we are — but it can always get worse. Presented as a matter of national security, this kind of psychological manipulation poses a direct threat to free will and informed consent.

We live in a time when major agencies have shifted their focus inward. Domestic terrorism has become their new obsession. And in this climate, all Americans are fair game. The same surveillance and control mechanisms once reserved for foreign threats are now being quietly repurposed for monitoring, influencing, and manipulating the very people they claim to protect.

Equally alarming is DARPA’s Anticipatory and Adaptive Anti-Money Laundering program. Using artificial intelligence to predict illicit financial activities before they occur may sound like a noble pursuit, but this precrime framework carries Orwellian implications. A3ML casts an expansive surveillance net over ordinary citizens, scrutinizing their financial transactions for signs of wrongdoing. And as we all know, algorithms are far from infallible. They’re prone to bias, misinterpretation, and outright error, leaving individuals vulnerable to misidentification and false accusations. Consider the unsettling idea of being labeled a financial criminal because an algorithm misreads your spending habits. Soon, this won’t just be a hypothetical — it will be a reality.

Things are already bad enough.

Marc Andreessen, in a recent interview with Joe Rogan, highlighted the growing scourge of de-banking in America, where individuals sympathetic to Trump are unfairly targeted. This troubling trend underscores a larger issue: Algorithms, while often portrayed as impartial, are far from it. They’re engineered by humans, and in Silicon Valley, most of those humans lean left. Politically, the tide may be turning, but Silicon Valley remains dangerously blue, shaping systems that reflect its own ideological biases.

Without transparency and accountability, these systems risk evolving into even more potent tools of financial oppression, punishing innocent people and chipping away at the last shreds of trust in public institutions. Even worse, we could end up in a society where every purchase, every transaction, is treated like a potential red flag. In other words, a system eerily similar to China’s is looming — and it’s closer than most of us want to admit.

History’s lessons

These two programs align disturbingly well with DARPA’s history of domestic surveillance, most famously represented by the Total Information Awareness program. Launched after 9/11, TIA aimed to aggregate and analyze personal data on a massive scale, using everything from phone records to social media activity to predict potential terrorist threats. The program’s invasive methods sparked public outrage, leading to its official termination — though many believe its core technologies were quietly repurposed. This raises a critical question: How often do DARPA’s military-grade tools slip into civilian use, bypassing constitutional safeguards?

Too often, I suggest.

Who’s watching the watchers?

The implications of DARPA’s programs cannot be overstated. Operating under a dangerous degree of secrecy, the agency remains largely shielded from public scrutiny. This lack of transparency, combined with its sweeping technological ambitions, makes it nearly impossible to gauge the true extent of its activities or the safeguards — if any exist to prevent abuse.

We must ask how DARPA’s tools could be turned against the citizens they claim to protect. What mechanisms ensure that these technologies aren’t abused? Who holds DARPA accountable? Without strong oversight and clear ethical guidelines, the line between protecting the public and controlling it continues to blur.

Let’s hope someone in Donald Trump’s inner circle is paying attention — because the stakes couldn’t be higher.

DARPA is out of control.