by Ram ben Ze'ev
When President Dwight D. Eisenhower delivered his farewell address to the American people on January 17, 1961, just two months before I was born, he warned the nation about the rising threat of the “military-industrial complex.” While this phrase has become a fixture in the American lexicon, the speech itself contained a broader warning that has largely gone unheeded. Eisenhower recognised the risks inherent in any institution that becomes entangled with government interests, whether through contracts, grants, or alliances. His caution extended not only to the military and defence industry but to any sphere that sought to work too closely with the state, including universities, research institutions, and the media.
Yet today, Eisenhower’s warning has taken on new and even more disturbing dimensions. In an era dominated by technology, the rise of powerful tech giants like Google, Facebook, Amazon, and Microsoft has expanded the very nature of the industrial complex he feared. These companies, now integral to the functioning of daily life, wield a level of influence and control over information, privacy, and behaviour that Eisenhower could never have anticipated. They have become part of a vast, interconnected network of public and private power that threatens the very fabric of democracy.
Universities: From Halls of Learning to Research Hubs for Government
Eisenhower’s concerns about universities were clear: he feared that the “free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery,” could become compromised if it became too dependent on government funds. Today, many universities rely heavily on federal grants to conduct research. While this funding has driven innovation, it has also created a subtle yet pervasive influence over academic priorities.
Research agendas often follow the dictates of government interests, favouring projects that align with federal goals. Scholars, who might once have challenged government narratives, are instead incentivised to pursue funding-friendly topics, potentially compromising academic independence. This relationship is further cemented by the revolving door between academia and government, as experts transition between university positions and federal advisory roles.
When universities become dependent on government grants, they risk becoming echo chambers that serve the interests of their benefactors rather than fostering true academic freedom. This compromises their ability to act as independent critics of state power, a role that Eisenhower saw as essential to maintaining a healthy democracy.
Media: From Watchdogs to Partners in Influence
In his farewell speech, Eisenhower also touched on the importance of a free and independent press. The media, he believed, should serve as a watchdog, holding power to account. However, the intertwining of media companies with government and corporate interests has led to a troubling transformation.
Major news outlets rely on advertising revenue and corporate sponsorship, much of which comes from entities with vested interests in maintaining the status quo. Additionally, media conglomerates often have direct ties to government officials, influencing coverage and shaping narratives that align with political and corporate agendas. The blurring of lines between the press and the centres of power threatens the integrity of journalism, turning many outlets into partners rather than adversaries of those they should scrutinise.
This influence is even more pronounced when it comes to national security. The media has frequently taken cues from government agencies, particularly in matters related to war and foreign policy, often amplifying official narratives without critical examination. This compromises the role of journalism as a pillar of democracy and further erodes public trust in traditional news sources.
The Rise of the Tech-Industrial Complex: A New Era of Control
While Eisenhower’s original warning focused on the dangers posed by the military-industrial complex, he could never have foreseen the rise of the tech-industrial complex—a network of technology companies whose influence extends into every corner of society. Silicon Valley has become the new power centre, wielding authority that rivals, and sometimes surpasses, that of governments themselves.
Tech companies have not only become essential partners for government operations, but they also control the platforms that shape public discourse. Companies like Google, Facebook, and Amazon are not just service providers; they are the gatekeepers of information, data, and communication. The algorithms they develop dictate what news we see, which voices are amplified, and which are silenced. Their platforms have become the public square, and their ability to shape narratives is unparalleled.
These companies have also become key partners in government surveillance efforts. With access to vast troves of data on citizens’ movements, habits, and preferences, tech giants have become indispensable to intelligence agencies. This cooperation is often justified in the name of national security, but the result is a surveillance apparatus that goes far beyond what Eisenhower’s generation could have imagined. The commodification of personal data, harvested without meaningful consent, has created a society where privacy is sacrificed at the altar of convenience and profit.
Surveillance Capitalism and Behavioural Control
One of the most insidious aspects of the tech-industrial complex is the emergence of surveillance capitalism—a business model that thrives on the collection and analysis of personal data. This data is used to predict, manipulate, and control consumer behaviour, but it also provides governments with unparalleled insight into the private lives of their citizens. What began as simple tracking for targeted advertising has evolved into a sophisticated network of surveillance that spans every aspect of digital life.
Government agencies now rely heavily on tech companies to provide the infrastructure for intelligence and law enforcement. Predictive policing tools, powered by data analysis, are used to anticipate criminal behaviour before it occurs. Facial recognition technology, often developed by private companies, is deployed in public spaces to monitor citizens in real-time.
These tools, which promise greater security, also pose profound risks to civil liberties, transforming the relationship between the state and its citizens in ways Eisenhower could not have foreseen.
Tech Giants as Sovereign Entities
In many ways, the largest tech companies have become sovereign powers in their own right. With financial resources that rival those of nations, they have the ability to influence legislation, shape international policy, and even negotiate with governments on equal footing.
This concentration of power is unprecedented, and it represents a threat to the traditional balance of power that Eisenhower so feared.
The revolving door between government positions and tech companies is well-documented, creating a web of influence that compromises regulatory efforts and reinforces the status quo. The result is a lack of meaningful accountability—both from governments that are reluctant to regulate their powerful partners and from companies that prioritise shareholder profits over the public good.
The Convergence: A Complex That Encompasses All Sectors
What began as Eisenhower’s military-industrial complex has now evolved into a sprawling web of influence that encompasses universities, the media, and the technology sector. Each of these institutions, once bastions of independence, has become entwined with government interests in ways that compromise their objectivity and undermine their essential functions.
Universities that once questioned authority now seek government grants. Media companies that once served as watchdogs now participate in framing government narratives. Tech giants that promised to “connect the world” have instead created an infrastructure that monitors and manipulates our daily lives. This convergence of interests has created an industrial complex that is not just military or economic, but all-encompassing—a network of influence that touches every aspect of society.
Heeding Eisenhower’s Warning in the 21st Century
The dangers that Eisenhower foresaw have multiplied in ways he could never have predicted. His call for vigilance is more relevant now than ever. As citizens, we must resist the allure of convenience that comes at the cost of freedom, and we must demand accountability from the institutions that shape our world. Here are some steps we can take:
Transparency and Accountability - Universities, media companies, and tech giants must be transparent about their relationships with government entities. Independent oversight bodies should be established to monitor these relationships and enforce accountability.
Breaking Up Monopolies - Concentrated power in the hands of a few tech companies undermines democratic values. Antitrust laws must be strengthened, and meaningful regulations must be enacted to prevent monopolistic practices.
Protecting Privacy and Free Speech - A digital bill of rights is necessary to ensure privacy, data protection, and the right to free speech in the digital age. Individuals should have the power to challenge and understand the algorithms that shape their experiences.
Defending Independent Research - Academic freedom must be protected by reducing the dependence of universities on government funding. Diverse and dissenting perspectives should be encouraged, not stifled.
Reclaiming the Role of the Media - The media must regain its role as an independent check on power, free from corporate and government influence. Supporting diverse and independent journalism is crucial to maintaining a free and open society.
In his farewell address, Eisenhower urged the American people to guard against the “acquisition of unwarranted influence.” Today, 63 years later, this warning should resonate not just as a relic of Cold War-era fears but as a pressing call to action. The industrial complex he warned of has evolved into something far more pervasive and insidious. Our challenge is not only to recognise the risks but to take concrete steps to ensure that the institutions that shape our lives serve the public interest, not the narrow aims of a powerful few.
###
Bill White (Ram ben Ze'ev) is CEO of WireNews Limited, Mayside Partners Limited, MEADHANAN Agency, Kestrel Assets Limited, SpudsToGo Limited and Executive Director of Hebrew Synagogue