Reflections on The Washington Post’s 2026 Building America Summit and the Future of Autonomous Weapons. Charlotte Griffin. Boston College.
Last Thursday, June 11, 2026, during my first week interning at Creative Investment Research, I had the distinct privilege to attend the Washington Post’s Building America Summit. The full-day event took place at the Post’s main offices in DC and served as the kickoff of the news outlet’s multi-media Building America initiative. During his introductory remarks, Matt Murray, executive editor of the Washington Post, remarked that the central question to be answered was “How America builds for the future that’s in front of us?” Those invited to tackle this question were leaders from both the public and private sectors, in the areas of defense, energy, manufacturing, education, and more.
Across these various conversations, I noticed several core throughlines that came up time and time again. The most prolific of these topics was artificial intelligence and how to respond to our rapidly accelerating digital age. In all areas, these professionals were hyperaware of the importance of understanding and implementing AI with the goal of using this technology to solve the problems of today and tomorrow. Additionally, they shared how artificial intelligence is already being used to automate defense systems, increase efficiency within government agencies, and lead to new breakthroughs in gene editing.
Two talks from the day stood out to me. Firstly, was a discussion with Emil Michael, the Under Secretary of War (Defense) for Research and Engineering. Michael strongly emphasized the need for increased efficiency in the defense procurement system by providing “faster yes’s and no’s” to bidding companies. Notably, he spoke favorably about investing heavily in the development and deployment of autonomous military drones. His argument in favor of these types of weapons is that they are inexpensive, mass-producible, and limit the risks placed on American servicemembers.
Later in the day, Christian Brose, President of the military technology company Anduril, shared his organization’s progress towards mass production of the very autonomous drones Emil Michael previously spoke strongly in favor of. Brose spoke triumphantly about the Arsenal-1 facility Anduril is developing. Arsenal-1 is planned to be a hyperscale manufacturing facility for unmanned defense systems. Given the massive scale of this factory, when it is fully constructed Anduril projects these autonomous implements will be made faster and cheaper than their competitors and revolutionize the American fighting force. When Brose was asked why he chose to work in this sector, he remarked that his previous position on Capitol Hill led to his belief that the US had lost its military dominance over China, and that he wanted to reverse that trend.
What struck me from the conversations with both Michael and Brose was the unchallenged notion that autonomous weapons are an objectively positive military innovation. While they were speaking, I kept waiting for a question from the interviewer regarding the possible downsides or moral implications of these unmanned systems. This question never came. Instead I heard a discussion regarding the supposedly limitless potential and promise of these burgeoning technologies. It is understandable that these invited guests only spoke highly of the projects that they are working tirelessly on. However, I hold some reservations about the lack of pushback in these discussions of such powerful weapons.
Some major concerns regarding a wide scale implementation of autonomous military systems are a deemphasizing of human judgement and the emergence of an accountability gap. When (not if) artificially intelligent military technologies make and contribute to deadly mistakes that result in civilians or US troops losing their lives, who bears that responsibility? These machines have the capacity to “think” and act independently, meaning that we are placing an immense degree of trust and power into the “hands” of these algorithm-run inventions.
Two talks from the day stood out to me. Firstly, was a discussion with Emil Michael, the Under Secretary of War (Defense) for Research and Engineering. Michael strongly emphasized the need for increased efficiency in the defense procurement system by providing “faster yes’s and no’s” to bidding companies. Notably, he spoke favorably about investing heavily in the development and deployment of autonomous military drones. His argument in favor of these types of weapons is that they are inexpensive, mass-producible, and limit the risks placed on American servicemembers.
Later in the day, Christian Brose, President of the military technology company Anduril, shared his organization’s progress towards mass production of the very autonomous drones Emil Michael previously spoke strongly in favor of. Brose spoke triumphantly about the Arsenal-1 facility Anduril is developing. Arsenal-1 is planned to be a hyperscale manufacturing facility for unmanned defense systems. Given the massive scale of this factory, when it is fully constructed Anduril projects these autonomous implements will be made faster and cheaper than their competitors and revolutionize the American fighting force. When Brose was asked why he chose to work in this sector, he remarked that his previous position on Capitol Hill led to his belief that the US had lost its military dominance over China, and that he wanted to reverse that trend.
What struck me from the conversations with both Michael and Brose was the unchallenged notion that autonomous weapons are an objectively positive military innovation. While they were speaking, I kept waiting for a question from the interviewer regarding the possible downsides or moral implications of these unmanned systems. This question never came. Instead I heard a discussion regarding the supposedly limitless potential and promise of these burgeoning technologies. It is understandable that these invited guests only spoke highly of the projects that they are working tirelessly on. However, I hold some reservations about the lack of pushback in these discussions of such powerful weapons.
Some major concerns regarding a wide scale implementation of autonomous military systems are a deemphasizing of human judgement and the emergence of an accountability gap. When (not if) artificially intelligent military technologies make and contribute to deadly mistakes that result in civilians or US troops losing their lives, who bears that responsibility? These machines have the capacity to “think” and act independently, meaning that we are placing an immense degree of trust and power into the “hands” of these algorithm-run inventions.
Additionally, a concern that I hold is that given the limited on the ground personnel involvement in the deployment of autonomous aerial weapons, leaders will then have lower thresholds for determining when to launch attacks globally. While the risk is lower for Americans, in the places where these drones are ordered to strike there remains the potential for unintended casualties. Whether munitions are deployed by a manned fighter jet or an Anduril autonomous drone, the lives they take are human. This means our leaders must maintain strict scrutiny and standards to ensure that our dominant military force is playing by the rules and respecting the sanctity of civilian populations abroad.
The discussion over autonomous weapons and their implementation is one that I expect will grow in intensity over the next few years. What we must keep in mind moving forward is that innovation is essential, but we cannot lose sight of our morality in the pursuit of efficiency.
The discussion over autonomous weapons and their implementation is one that I expect will grow in intensity over the next few years. What we must keep in mind moving forward is that innovation is essential, but we cannot lose sight of our morality in the pursuit of efficiency.