Employee revolt once forced Google to back off on military contracts. But, in the wake of a new Pentagon AI contract, their leverage appears limited

Google inks a major contract to help the Pentagon use AI. Hundreds of employees sign an open letter opposing the deal. The company’s leadership initially digs in its heels. Several employees resign in protest. As the employee revolt builds, Google’s management reverses course and opts not to renew the lucrative military relationship.

That was 2018. Back then, Google was the Pentagon’s partner on Project Maven, a Pentagon initiative that used AI to analyze drone surveillance footage as part of targeting workflows. And employee backlash not only forced the company to give up on Project Maven, it made Google wary of any projects to help the U.S. defense industry.

Flash forward eight years, and history seems, at first glance, to be repeating itself. Google has followed OpenAI and xAI in agreeing to allow its Gemini AI models to be used inside the U.S. military’s classified networks for “any lawful purpose.” When news of the likely deal leaked, close to 600 employees signed an open letter opposing it. But Google’s leadership has again dug in its heels.

This time, however, things may out quite differently than they did with Project Maven. Current and former Google employees tell Fortune the leverage that once allowed technology workers to influence significant sway over the company’s policies has eroded. Gone are the days when threats of resignations and a petition signed by thousands were enough to sway Mountain View’s position.

Rather than give in to employee pressure, Google seems to be doubling down on its controversial deal with the Pentagon, first reported by The Information last week, telling staff in a memo that it “proudly” works with the U.S. military and plans to continue to do so.

Recommended Video

Unlike with Project Maven, Google can also fall back on the argument that it is hardly the only company to agree to allow its AI models to be used in classified U.S. military systems for “any lawful purpose”—and on the contention that failing to agree to such language could present significant legal and business risks to the company. OpenAI and xAI have both agreed to similar contract terms, as have Nvidia, Microsoft, and Amazon. Only the AI lab Anthropic has refused to agree to these terms, resulting in the Pentagon ordering the military and all defense contractors to stop using Anthropic’s products within the next six months and labeling it a “supply chain risk.” Anthropic has been challenging that designation in court.

While Google has struck a defiant tone, internal backlash appears to be mounting, with several employees criticizing the deal publicly.

“I spent the last 2 months trying to prevent this,” Alex Turner, a research scientist at Google DeepMind, the unit that builds the company’s Gemini models, said in a post on X. “Google affirms it can’t veto usage, commits to modify safety filters at government request, and aspirational language with no legal restrictions. Shameful.”

Tensions between tech workers and management over military applications are not new, particularly when AI systems risk being used in warfare, but Google’s own stance has been gradually shifting in ways that alarm critics. In the wake of the Project Maven controversy, for example, Google published a set of AI principles pledging not to develop AI for weapons or for surveillance that violates internationally accepted norms. But, in February 2025, the company updated those principles and removed that explicit pledge from its public website.

Laura Nolan, a former Google employee who resigned over Project Maven, told Fortune it is unsurprising that employees working on a general-purpose technology, such as AI, would be uneasy about their work contributing to military targeting systems.

“These are not people who are necessarily expecting to work at a defense constructor as suddenly they are,” she said. However, she also said that workers today have less influence than they once did, as cost-cutting and layoffs across the tech sector have weakened employee leverage and made collective organizing more difficult.

“The companies want to redirect money into AI, and they think that this may even be able to replace engineers,” Nolan said. “Staff in tech have also never been particularly well organized because historically, it’s been a good business to be in and staff have normally been treated very well,” she said.

Google also appears to have learnt lessons from the Project Maven controversy.

“One of the things the company learnt from the Maven incident was they very much started to crack down on internal communication, they decommissioned a lot of the internal mailing lists, and they decommissioned the internal social network,” she said. “It is harder to organize internally now.”

The only organized pushback from employees so far is primarily an open letter to management protesting the use of the tech in military situations, which has now amassed around a thousand signatures, according to one Google DeepMind researcher who sp