logo
The Trojan Horse Will Come for Us Too

The Trojan Horse Will Come for Us Too

The Atlantic19-06-2025
I stopped using my cellphone for regular calls and text messages last fall and switched to Signal. I wasn't being paranoid—or at least I don't think I was. I worked in the National Security Council, and we were told that China had compromised all major U.S. telecommunications companies and burrowed deep inside their networks. Beijing had gathered information on more than a million Americans, mainly in the Washington, D.C., area. The Chinese government could listen in to phone calls and read text messages. Experts call the Chinese state-backed group responsible Salt Typhoon, and the vulnerabilities it exploited have not been fixed. China is still there.
Telecommunications systems aren't the only ones compromised. China has accessed enormous quantities of data on Americans for more than a decade. It has hacked into health-insurance companies and hotel chains, as well as security-clearance information held by the Office of Personnel Management.
The jaded response here is All countries spy. So what? But the spectacular surprise attacks that Ukraine and Israel have pulled off against their enemies suggest just how serious such penetration can become. In Operation Spiderweb, Ukraine smuggled attack drones on trucks with unwitting drivers deep inside of Russia, and then used artificial intelligence to simultaneously attack four military bases and destroy a significant number of strategic bombers, which are part of Russia's nuclear triad. Israel created a real pager-production company in Hungary to infiltrate Hezbollah's global supply chains and booby-trap its communication devices, killing or maiming much of the group's leadership in one go. Last week, in Operation Rising Lion, Israel assassinated many top Iranian military leaders simultaneously and attacked the country's nuclear facilities, thanks in part to a drone base it built inside Iran.
In each case, a resourceful, determined, and imaginative state used new technologies and data to do what was hitherto deemed impossible. America's adversaries are also resourceful, determined, and imaginative.
Just think about what might happen if a U.S.-China war broke out over Taiwan.
A Chinese state-backed group called Volt Typhoon has been preparing plans to attack crucial infrastructure in the United States should the two countries ever be at war. As Jen Easterly put it in 2024 when she was head of the Cyber and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), China is planning to 'launch destructive cyber-attacks in the event of a major crisis or conflict with the United States,' including 'the disruption of our gas pipelines; the pollution of our water facilities; the severing of our telecommunications; the crippling of our transportation systems.'
The Biden administration took measures to fight off these cyberattacks and harden the infrastructure. Joe Biden also imposed some sanctions on China and took some specific measures to limit America's exposure; he cut off imports of Chinese electric vehicles because of national-security concerns. Biden additionally signed a bill to ban TikTok, but President Donald Trump has issued rolling extensions to keep the platform functioning in the U.S. America and its allies will need to think hard about where to draw the line in the era of the Internet of Things, which connects nearly everything and could allow much of it—including robots, drones, and cloud computing—to be weaponized.
China isn't the only problem. According to the U.S. Intelligence Community's Annual Threat Assessment for this year, Russia is developing a new device to detonate a nuclear weapon in space with potentially 'devastating' consequences. A Pentagon official last year said the weapon could pose 'a threat to satellites operated by countries and companies around the globe, as well as to the vital communications, scientific, meteorological, agricultural, commercial, and national security services we all depend upon. Make no mistake, even if detonating a nuclear weapon in space does not directly kill people, the indirect impact could be catastrophic to the entire world.' The device could also render Trump's proposed 'Golden Dome' missile shield largely ineffective.
Americans can expect a major adversary to use drones and AI to go after targets deep inside the United States or allied countries. There is no reason to believe that an enemy wouldn't take a page out of the Israeli playbook and go after leadership. New technologies reward acting preemptively, catching the adversary by surprise—so the United States may not get much notice. A determined adversary could even cut the undersea cables that allow the internet to function. Last year, vessels linked to Russia and China appeared to have severed those cables in Europe on a number of occasions, supposedly by accident. In a concerted hostile action, Moscow could cut or destroy these cables at scale.
Terrorist groups are less capable than state actors—they are unlikely to destroy most of the civilian satellites in space, for example, or collapse essential infrastructure—but new technologies could expand their reach too. In their book The Coming Wave, Mustafa Suleyman and Michael Bhaskar described some potential attacks that terrorists could undertake: unleashing hundreds or thousands of drones equipped with automatic weapons and facial recognition on multiple cities simultaneously, say, or even one drone to spray a lethal pathogen on a crowd.
A good deal of American infrastructure is owned by private companies with little incentive to undertake the difficult and costly fixes that might defend against Chinese infiltration. Certainly this is true of telecommunications companies, as well as those providing utilities such as water and electricity. Making American systems resilient could require a major public outlay. But it could cost less than the $150 billion (one estimate has that figure at an eye-popping $185 billion) that the House of Representatives is proposing to appropriate this year to strictly enforce immigration law.
Instead, the Trump administration proposed slashing funding for CISA, the agency responsible for protecting much of our infrastructure against foreign attacks, by $495 million, or approximately 20 percent of its budget. That cut will make the United States more vulnerable to attack.
The response to the drone threat has been no better. Some in Congress have tried to pass legislation expanding government authority to detect and destroy drones over certain kinds of locations, but the most recent effort failed. Senator Rand Paul, who was then the ranking member of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs and is now the chair, said there was no imminent threat and warned against giving the government sweeping surveillance powers, although the legislation entailed nothing of the sort. Senators from both parties have resisted other legislative measures to counter drones.
The United States could learn a lot from Ukraine on how to counter drones, as well as how to use them, but the administration has displayed little interest in doing this. The massively expensive Golden Dome project is solely focused on defending against the most advanced missiles but should be tasked with dealing with the drone threat as well.
Meanwhile, key questions go unasked and unanswered. What infrastructure most needs to be protected? Should aircraft be kept in the open? Where should the United States locate a counter-drone capability?
After 9/11, the United States built a far-reaching homeland-security apparatus focused on counterterrorism. The Trump administration is refocusing it on border security and immigration. But the biggest threat we face is not terrorism, let alone immigration. Those responsible for homeland security should not be chasing laborers on farms and busboys in restaurants in order to meet quotas imposed by the White House.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Whole Hog Politics: Discontentment, democracy and the promise of Independence Day
Whole Hog Politics: Discontentment, democracy and the promise of Independence Day

The Hill

time31 minutes ago

  • The Hill

Whole Hog Politics: Discontentment, democracy and the promise of Independence Day

On the menu: Concern over ICE tactics; Tillis blows up N.C. Senate race; SupCo may throw parties a lifeline; Greene with envy; Hacking into the job market It should surprise no one that democracy isn't very popular these days. Watching Congress cough up a budget bill like an asthmatic house cat with a hairball doesn't exactly fill one with confidence. A recent Pew Research survey looked at how satisfied residents of nations around the globe were with 'the way democracy is working in their country.' Notably, among the residents of 12 mostly wealthy, mostly stable nations — Canada, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, the United Kingdom and the United States — 64 percent of adults said they were dissatisfied, compared to 35 percent who were satisfied. On the one hand, so what? As Winston Churchill said, 'democracy is the worst form of government except for all those other forms that have been tried.' People don't like the way democratic government works, but they're not really supposed to. Democracy is like a lot of good things in life: more valuable for what it prevents rather than what it delivers. If the alternative to self-government is tyranny, then imperfect democracy is a gift to be cherished. That's why Americans should feel more than a little superior on this, the 249th birthday of our democracy — the oldest unbroken one in the world. And yet, compared with the residents of other wealthy nations, Americans are feeling pretty lousy about government by 'We the people.' The same survey found that 64 percent of Americans were dissatisfied, dramatically worse than the countries with which we share the most in common: 23 points worse than Canada, 11 points worse than the United Kingdom, 23 points worse than Germany and 23 points worse than Australia. The trend in the U.S. and among other wealthy nations generally, though, has been downward. In 2017, the average for America's cohort was 49 percent satisfied, 49 percent dissatisfied. Eight years later, it's a spread of almost 30 points. Every country has its own reasons for its frustrations with democracy, including those places like Hungary and South Korea, which of late have been struggling mightily to maintain some kind system that is both functional and democratic. But in the United States, the richest, freest, safest nation in the history of the world, it doesn't seem right. Why does the apex nation feel so crummy about its system of government? Part of it is no doubt a version of affluenza in which Americans have come to see self-government in a Madisonian democracy based on equal rights and equal protections as the default. While we may be the stark exception to the great powers of history, it is normal to us. Like all good things in great supply, we take liberty for granted. But it may also be a misunderstanding of cause and effect. The temptation for Americans for more than a century has been to think that we have freedom and self-government because we are rich and powerful. The truth is that we are rich and powerful because we have freedom and self-government. America is now in its 250th year. One year from today in Philadelphia, we will celebrate that grand achievement: truly the envy of the world. And when we do, one suspects Americans will still be unhappy with their system of government. And again, how could you blame them? Our politics are rotten and our government can barely perform its basic duties. National elections have turned into battles royale in which winners get to spend two or four years trying to punish the other side only for the other side to then get its turn with the shillelagh. Back and forth we go, each time a little meaner and a little more dysfunctional. It should be remembered that this is a perversion of our system, not the system itself. Unlike the residents of other nations that built their systems out of local custom grafted with American-style democracy, this is our own birthright. The declaration made in Philadelphia 249 years ago today that all men are created equal is the inheritance of every American citizen, wherever she or he was born. When we are dissatisfied with our democracy, we don't need a different sort of government, we have to go back to what made us great in the first place. We have the source code if we are willing to reclaim it. To that end, I'd ask that you take a moment in today's celebration to remember the gift that we have been given. What President Calvin Coolidge said in speech celebrating the 150th anniversary of the founding is just as true today: 'No advance, no progress can be made beyond these propositions. If anyone wishes to deny their truth or their soundness, the only direction in which he can proceed historically is not forward, but backward toward the time when there was no equality, no rights of the individual, no rule of the people. Those who wish to proceed in that direction can not lay claim to progress. They are reactionary. Their ideas are not more modern, but more ancient, than those of the Revolutionary fathers.' Amen, amen. Happy Independence Day. May your barbecues, like this newsletter, be whole hog. [Make sure to watch a special episode of 'The Hill Sunday with Chris Stirewalt' this Sunday at 10 a.m. ET on NewsNation and local CW stations as guests including Adm. William McRaven and professor Robert P. George explore practical patriotism for America's 250th year.] Holy croakano! We welcome your feedback, so please email us with your tips, corrections, reactions, amplifications, etc. at WHOLEHOGPOLITICS@ . If you'd like to be considered for publication, please include your real name and hometown. If you don't want your comments to be made public, please specify. NUTRITIONAL INFORMATION Trump Job Performance Average Approval: 42 percent Average Disapproval: 53.2 percent Net Score: –11.2 Change from one week ago: ↑ 1.2 points Change from one month ago: ↓ 3.4 points [Average includes: Marist College 43 percent approve – 52 percent disapprove; Emerson College 45 percent approve – 46 percent disapprove; Quinnipiac University 41 percent approve – 54 percent disapprove Ipsos/Reuters 41 percent approve – 57 percent disapprove Gallup 40 percent approve – 57 percent disapprove] Majority concerned about ICE raids How would you describe the actions of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in enforcing immigration laws? Do you think they have: Gone too far: 54 percent About right: 26 percent Not gone far enough: 18 percent [Marist College poll of 1,381 adults nationally, June 23-25] ON THE SIDE: LAST DAYS OF THE RAJ IN MAGAZINELAND NYT: 'As the longtime editor in chief of Vanity Fair, Graydon Carter was accustomed to big expenses … But in early 2001, he wondered if he had gone too far. Annie Leibovitz, the magazine's chief photographer, had run up a $475,000 bill on a cover shoot involving 10 world-famous actresses — Nicole Kidman, Penélope Cruz, Sophia Loren — and an elaborate stage set, complete with a mantelpiece and a genuine John Singer Sargent painting, which was flown from Los Angeles to New York to London. ('It was like Vietnam, the expenses,' Mr. Carter recalled.) Now, he needed to tell his boss, S.I. Newhouse Jr., the billionaire owner and patron of Condé Nast, about the latest line item on his tab. … 'Well, I think we just shot the most expensive cover in magazine history.' A pause. 'What's the good news?' 'It looks like a $475,000 cover.' It was the equivalent of roughly $850,000 today. Mr. Newhouse was fine with it.' PRIME CUTS Tillis's exit supercharges N.C. Senate race: The Hill: 'Sen. Thom Tillis's (R-N.C.) decision to not seek reelection to another term has scrambled the field for what will be one of the most competitive Senate races in the country next year. The North Carolina Senate race was already going to be one of the most-discussed contests of the 2026 midterms as one of the two main targets for Democrats hoping to at least narrow the Republican majority in the body. But with Tillis out, the race appears set to become even more hotly contested as big names on both sides of the aisle are floated as potential candidates, including Lara Trump and former Gov. Roy Cooper (D). … 'I think it's changed the calculus tremendously because … Tillis was going to be not impossible but difficult to beat,' said North Carolina Democratic strategist Doug Wilson. … Democrats previously acknowledged the challenge they would face in defeating Tillis for a third term but expressed hope, especially if the popular former two-term Gov. Cooper enters the race. Cooper has been considering a bid, but the North Carolina-based NBC affiliate WRAL reported that he won't decide for at least a few more weeks.' Sherrill opens big lead in New Jersey as Trump influence looms large: New Jersey Globe: 'Democrat Mikie Sherrill has a 20-point lead over Republican Jack Ciattarelli in the New Jersey governor's race, with President Donald Trump figuring prominently in voters' decisions, according to a Rutgers-Eagleton Poll released this morning. Sherrill leads Ciattarelli, 51%-31%, with 13% undecided. When leaners are included, Sherrill's lead grows to 56%-35%. … More than half of New Jersey (52%) say Trump's presidency is a major factor in who they'll support for governor, while 18% call it a minor factor and 30% say it won't affect them at all. 'Trump's influence appears to be more of a benefit to Sherrill right now, given key groups more likely to support her are also more likely to claim the president is a factor in their vote choice, while those more supportive of Ciattarelli do not.' … 'While Trump's endorsement may have helped in the primaries, these numbers are an early sign that the endorsement may play differently when it comes to the general.'' Super PACs beware: SupCo could restore flow of campaign cash to parties: Washington Post: 'The Supreme Court will hear a significant campaign finance case next term that will examine whether it violates the Constitution to restrict the amount of money that political parties can spend in coordination with individual candidates on advertising and other communications. The case has the potential to reshape election spending in a major way. The restrictions being challenged were established in the early 1970s during the Nixon era to try to prevent donors from contributing to parties as a way to skirt limits on direct giving to candidates. Richard H. Pildes, a New York University law professor, said ending the limits could shift the balance of financial might from outside groups that have come to dominate campaign spending to political parties that were once the major players. 'It would at a minimum open up more opportunities for political parties to work with their campaigns,' Pildes said. 'More expansively, it could lead to political parties regaining some of the ground they lost to the Super PACs over the last 20 years.'' SHORT ORDER Detroit Mayor Mike Duggan to run as an independent in attempt to succeed Whitmer — NBC News Stampede starts to replace longtime Rep. Dwight Evans in deep-blue Philly district — Pennsylvania Capital-Star Dems take the safe bet in Virginia, picking former Connolly aide to succeed late congressman — Associated Press New poll finds Adams trailing behind Silwa — The Hill Republican overperforms in San Diego special election — Newsweek TABLE TALK Narrator: It was actually over 'There's no way that [Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.)] has the votes in the House for this [reconciliation bill]. I think it's far from over.' — Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) in an interview hours before the House voted to advance the legislation. MAILBAG 'I've seen various headlines about various political folks wanting to arrest New York City wunderkind [Zohran Mamdani]. But on what legitimate legal basis? Is there a whiff that he's done anything wrong on his immigration paperwork? An article on that might be helpful as New York City voters make up their minds on the three top current candidates. As well it might be integrated with a deep dive into the various criminal allegations against [Mayor Eric Adams] and ex-Governor [Andrew Cuomo].' — David Tomsovic, San Diego Mr. Tomsovic, In the ledger of moral bankruptcy that describes Woodrow Wilson's time as president, there are many contenders for what might be the very worst thing he did: Jailing the women protesting for suffrage, screening a pro-Klan movie at the White House, pumping out fake news through a propaganda newspaper, etc. But the worst is probably jailing his political opponents and using the Justice Department to harass and intimidate dissenters. Wilson's government imprisoned Eugene Debs, the Socialist candidate for president along with many other opponents of World War I. The argument from President Trump and some in his party is that Mamdani's opinions and policies are sufficient to merit denaturalizing the Democratic nominee for mayor of New York City. Revoking a political opponent's citizenship from a country where he has lived since age 7 is tantamount to exile, a very czarist kind of thing to do. Those in power argue that only immigrants with desirable views should be allowed to stay, even those who have earned and maintained their citizenship. On one hand, we can assume that this is mostly trolling. Trump loves nothing more than saying what is supposed to be forbidden. And if it lets him leverage up another politician's social media heat, so much the better. But we must always remember the continuum of Trump rhetoric by which strange things become serious policy: It's a joke to own the libs; it's meant to be taken seriously but not literally; promises made, promises kept. So far, it's surely helping Mamdani in a city where, by some estimates, 40 percent of residents are immigrant. Trump is little loved in his hometown, so Mamdani being able to say that he is standing up to Trump and drawing Trump's ire is probably a very helpful thing politically. But we should keep an eye on this one. Republicans who complained about 'lawfare' targeting the former and future president after his 2020 defeat should be the most opposed to any such interventions, and yet, here we are. All best, c 'Have you read any Ross Thomas? His brand of wit and cynicism is, to me, unmatched in most of the political thrillers (the works of Charles McCarry notably excepted) from the 1960s to today. 'The Seersucker Whipsaw' (1967), about an American southerner sent to run (read: rig) an electoral campaign in Africa is my favorite, but the best title goes to 1970's 'The Fools in Town Are On Our Side,' which comes from a delightful Mark Twain quote in which he declares that that constituency 'is a big enough majority in any town.' Reading an old Ross Thomas paperback makes me feel weirdly comforted in our own wild political times.' — Drew Beardslee, Grand Ledge, Mich. Mr. Beardslee, I have not, but you can bet that as soon as I read your favorable comparison to McCarry it went right into my shopping cart! My love of what I still think of as 'detective stories' probably had deeper roots in my childhood, but I will never forget the summer in college that I discovered and devoured everything by James Ellroy. McCarry came later, but once I had finished 'Shelley's Heart,' I was off to the races. My quibble, though, is about the use of the word 'cynicism.' I don't see McCarry's Paul Christopher or McCarry's other 'good guys' as cynical, certainly not about themselves. These stories, like Ellroy's, are about people who are willing to do the right thing even when the rest of the world has gone wrong. They have codes and they live by them, even at great costs. If you want cynics, read John le Carré. Thanks much for the recommendation. I will report back! All best, c You should email us! Write to WHOLEHOGPOLITICS@ with your tips, kudos, criticisms, insights, rediscovered words, wonderful names, recipes, and, always, good jokes. Please include your real name — at least first and last — and hometown. Make sure to let us know in the email if you want to keep your submission private. My colleague, the star-spangled Meera Sehgal, and I will look for your emails and then share the most interesting ones and my responses here. Clickety clack! FOR DESSERT: HE APPLIED ONLINE TechRadar: 'A man has pleaded guilty to hacking multiple organizations only to promote his own cybersecurity services. Nicholas Michael Kloster, a 32-year-old from Kansas City, was indicted in 2024 for breaching three organizations, including a health club and a Missouri nonprofit organization. During the incident, Kloster emailed business owners claiming responsibility for the attacks, and offering consulting services to prevent future cyberattacks, and his fate will soon be determined. In one case, Kloster accessed a gym's systems by breaching a restricted area. He manipulated the system to remove his own photo from the member database before reducing his monthly membership fee to $1. He then explained to the business owner that he had bypassed login credentials for security cameras and accessed router settings.' Chris Stirewalt is the politics editor for The Hill and NewsNation, the host of 'The Hill Sunday' on NewsNation and The CW, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and the author of books on politics and the media. MeeraSehgalcontributed to this report.

The House just did our patriotic duty to deliver tax relief and uphold our values
The House just did our patriotic duty to deliver tax relief and uphold our values

The Hill

timean hour ago

  • The Hill

The House just did our patriotic duty to deliver tax relief and uphold our values

This July 4, as Americans gather with friends and family to celebrate our independence, House Republicans are celebrating something in addition: progress. Real, tangible, patriotic progress. The passage of President Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill Act is a return to American values, and it couldn't come at a better time. This legislation is about putting the American people and freedom first — freedom from high taxes, from bloated bureaucracy, and from a government that has stopped working for the people. It's about restoring the American Dream and giving every family the chance to build a better future. The One Big Beautiful Bill Act is a declaration that we still believe in the values that founded this country: self-reliance, personal responsibility, and limited government. We're putting the American worker first. We're saying loud and clear that the dignity of work still matters. It expands the Child Tax Credit, giving parents more flexibility and freedom to provide for their children. It extends the 2017 tax cuts, preventing what would be the largest tax hike in a generation. No American should be saddled with higher taxes, and the 'one big beautiful bill' gets it done. As families light fireworks and honor our independence, they will know that their government is finally on their side. Republicans are not just standing on the sidelines; we're leading with purpose. While Democrats focus on fringe agendas, Republicans are focused on kitchen table issues: taxes, work, and affordable living. Every provision in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act is built to help families thrive. That's not just good policy, it's the right thing to do. It's a celebration of American resilience, entrepreneurship, and the spirit of self-determination. Every House Democrat voted against this bill. They rejected relief for working families. They rejected work requirements. They voted to allow illegal immigrants to receive taxpayer funded healthcare. They rejected common sense. And we will make sure each one of them has to answer for it. This bill is a reflection of our highest ideals. This is patriotism in action: standing up for families, fighting for opportunity, and refusing to let the American Dream die. We are proud of what we've accomplished, and we're not done yet. This July 4, House Republicans celebrate more than our history. We celebrate our future — a future built on freedom, responsibility, and prosperity for all. Richard Hudson represents North Carolina's 9th Congressional District and serves as the chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee.

The US needs to reinvent manufacturing for the AI age, or risk losing out to China, Marc Andreessen warns
The US needs to reinvent manufacturing for the AI age, or risk losing out to China, Marc Andreessen warns

Business Insider

timean hour ago

  • Business Insider

The US needs to reinvent manufacturing for the AI age, or risk losing out to China, Marc Andreessen warns

Marc Andreesen believes America is at a profound turning point — and it can either lead the next industrial revolution powered by AI, or fall behind in a world dominated by "Chinese robots." In a conversation at the Reagan Library's Economic Forum on Thursday, the billionaire venture capitalist and Andreesen Horowitz cofounder argued that the path to future growth lies not in nostalgia for old factory jobs but in reindustrializing America around next-generation manufacturing, especially in robotics. "I think there's a plausible argument — which Elon also believes — that robotics is going to be the biggest industry in the history of the planet," Andreesen said, referring to CEO Elon Musk. "It's just going to be gigantic." "There's going to be billions, tens of billions, hundreds of billions of robots of all shapes, sizes, descriptions running around doing all kinds of things, and those robots need to be designed and built." But if the US doesn't take the lead, he warned, it risks "living in a world of Chinese robots everywhere." Manufacturing's long fall Andreesen's case comes amid a . In 1947, manufacturing made up over 25% of the US GDP. By 2017, it had plunged to under 12%, according to data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis shared by the American Enterprise Institute. Employment figures are even more stark. Manufacturing accounted for nearly 33% of all US jobs in 1947, but had dropped to about 8% by the end of 2024, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Tariffs have been the Trump administration's preferred solution to this decline, but industry experts and Wall Street have said that won't be enough. A May report from Wells Fargo estimated that the US needs $2.9 trillion in capital investment to regain 1979 manufacturing job levels, calling it an "uphill battle." Goldman Sachs analysts echoed that sentiment in June, warning that tariffs can't overcome China's advantages of cheaper labor and government subsidies. Only a surge in technological innovation, they wrote, can reverse the "long-run stagnation" in productivity. Meanwhile, US manufacturers are struggling to fill the roles already available. In an April 2024 report, the Manufacturing Institute and Deloitte found the US could need 3.8 million new manufacturing workers by 2033, but half of those jobs could remain unfilled due to skill shortages. Build what's next — or be left behind Andreesen proposes a different vision: use AI to transform what manufacturing means. Rather than bringing back low-cost labor, he called for massive investment in "alien dreadnought" factories — hyper-automated factories producing robotics, drones, EVs, and AI-enabled machines that he believes could revitalize rural America and make the US the leader in embodied AI. "We shouldn't be building manufacturing lines that have people sitting on a rubber mat for 10 hours screwing screws in by hand," he said. "We should be building what Elon calls alien dreadnought factories," he said. Elon Musk has repeatedly used the term, including in 2016 and in 2020, to describe his vision for highly automated, roboticized Tesla factories, particularly for Model 3 production. Andreesen argued that this reinvention would not only reverse decades of deindustrialization but also help solve broader problems, from national security to wage stagnation to the urban-rural divide. "We have to do we have to do this because it's necessary from a national security standpoint. We have to do it because we need the economic growth. We have to do it because we need an answer for the entire population of the country, not just the cities," he said. "And we have to do it because if we don't do it, China's going to do it — and we don't want to live in that world."

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store