Top Pentagon AI official sold millions in Perplexity stock, new filings show

The top Pentagon official overseeing military artificial intelligence policy, who reaped profits earlier this year of up to $24 million selling his private investment in Elon Musk’s AI company, has now sold his holdings in another AI firm for between $5 million and $25 million, according to records seen by the Guardian. Federal financial disclosure forms report ranges of dollar values rather than specific figures.

Emil Michael sold his Perplexity stock in a transaction reported in recent financial disclosures, the Guardian reported exclusively. The sale follows an earlier Guardian report from April that revealed Michael had profited handsomely from his investment in Musk’s xAI in January, with a gain of between 400% and 4,800%.

The disclosures add to scrutiny of Michael, whose role involves shaping US military AI policy, including acquisition strategies and ethical guidelines for autonomous systems. Critics have questioned whether such large personal financial interests in leading AI companies are compatible with impartial decision-making on contracts, regulations and strategic direction.

Why This Matters

Questions about potential conflicts of interest at the top of US defence AI governance could undermine public and allied trust in Pentagon technology decisions.
The large financial stakes in multiple AI firms held by the official overseeing military AI policy highlight the blurring lines between private sector investment and public service in the defence technology sector.
These revelations may trigger calls for stronger ethics rules and divestment requirements for senior Pentagon officials with ties to AI companies.

Background

Emil Michael serves in a senior Pentagon role overseeing military artificial intelligence policy. Prior to government service, he was a business executive with ties to the technology sector, including a former role at Uber. Federal employees are required to file periodic financial disclosures that reveal stock holdings and transactions, but ethics rules governing permissible investments while in office can vary depending on the specific position and agency. The Pentagon has faced previous scrutiny over officials with financial ties to defence contractors, but the rapid growth of AI investment and start-ups has created new potential conflicts.

Key Perspectives

Ethics watchdogs and good-government groups: They argue that large personal profits from AI companies while setting military AI policy creates an inherent conflict of interest, and call for full divestment or recusal from relevant decisions. Pentagon and Michael's representatives: They would likely note that the financial disclosures are public and that Michael has complied with all ethics requirements, and that his investment decisions are separate from his official duties. Defence technology proponents: Some may argue that having officials with private-sector experience and expertise is beneficial for making informed policy, and that strict divestment rules could deter qualified people from public service.

What to Watch

Whether the Pentagon inspector general or ethics office opens a formal review of Michael's financial holdings.
Any congressional hearings or legislation proposed to tighten ethics rules for senior defence AI officials.
Disclosure of further stock transactions by Michael or other senior Pentagon officials with AI company investments.

ZOTPAPER