Many technology companies developing tools for humanitarian aid also supply the same core systems to military and intelligence agencies, blurring the line between life-saving assistance and warfare support. This overlap raises concerns about trust and impartiality in crisis responses, particularly as affected populations rely on these technologies during emergencies.
Dual-use technology in aid and defense
Dual-use refers to goods and systems designed for both civilian and military purposes. However, this concept has evolved beyond an incidental overlap to a deliberate strategy: companies develop general-purpose data platforms capable of serving humanitarian logistics and battlefield intelligence alike.
Palantir exemplifies this dual-use dynamic. Since 2019, the World Food Program (WFP) has partnered with Palantir to improve real-time data integration for delivering food and cash assistance. Despite WFP’s humanitarian goals, critics from human rights and technology sectors have raised concerns about Palantir’s extensive defense contracts, including its Maven system, which the US Department of Defense designated as a core military capability in 2026. Maven supports thousands of targeted battlefield strikes by analyzing combat data, illustrating how the same technology can underpin both aid distribution and lethal military operations.
Impact on humanitarian trust and neutrality
Humanitarian aid depends heavily on perceptions of neutrality and independence. When aid organizations use technology closely tied to military or intelligence functions, their impartiality can be questioned, putting civilians and aid workers at risk. A British surgeon’s testimony highlighted troubling reports from Gaza, where drones allegedly targeted injured civilians after airstrikes, underscoring the danger of conflating humanitarian presence with military surveillance.
Satellite imagery services also exhibit this dual-use challenge. UNOSAT provides critical disaster response analysis, but commercial satellite companies such as Maxar serve both humanitarian and national security needs. In 2025, the US government temporarily restricted Ukraine’s access to Maxar satellite data, demonstrating how geopolitical decisions can limit humanitarian information access.
Private infrastructure and geopolitical leverage
Starlink, marketed for disaster connectivity, has become crucial in Ukraine but also illustrates risks of dependency on private technology providers. The Belfer Center documented concerns that Starlink access has been politicized during military offensives, showing how reliance on commercial services can influence conflict outcomes unpredictably.
Similarly, Planet provides daily monitoring for NATO intelligence while facilitating humanitarian disaster response. Such overlapping roles complicate the governance of aid technologies and raise ethical questions about allowing the same infrastructure to serve both protection and surveillance functions.
Recommendations for governance and transparency
Humanitarian organizations are urged to require full disclosure of vendors’ dual-use roles and incorporate strict purpose limitations in contracts. Policies should explicitly prohibit downstream military use of humanitarian data, mandate data retention limits, and allow independent audits to ensure compliance.
Furthermore, the aid sector should develop exit strategies and interoperable standards to reduce dependence on dual-use platforms, enabling humanitarian operations to migrate away if partnerships compromise neutrality.
These measures seek to ensure that humanitarian deployment of technology is governed by ethical standards rather than serving as a reputational cover for broader military applications.
Why it matters
As humanitarian aid increasingly relies on advanced data systems, the blending of civilian and military uses threatens the essential trust and neutrality critical to effective crisis response. Without transparent governance, affected communities may view humanitarian technology with suspicion or fear, undermining aid delivery and endangering civilians and staff.
Ensuring clarity about how dual-use technologies are employed and establishing safeguards can help maintain the independence of humanitarian actors and prevent their tools from facilitating harm.
Background
The Oslo Guidelines provide longstanding protocols cautioning against humanitarian dependence on military assets. The current challenge updates this concern for a digital age, where data platforms, satellite connectivity, and analytics have become central to both aid and warfare.
With governments integrating contracts that blur lines between defense and humanitarian functions, such as those held by Palantir and Starlink operators, the aid community faces urgent pressure to rethink standards for vendor partnerships and operational autonomy.
Sources
This article is based on reporting and publicly available information from the following source:
Read more AI Regulation stories on Goka World News.