The Pentagon is racing to secure an AI‑enabled military at the same speed that new AI threats emerge. To break out of a human‑limited, episodic testing model, the Department of Defense (DOD) is moving from traditional red‑team exercises to autonomous purple‑team operations—AI systems that continuously attack, defend, and validate the security of battlefield and enterprise networks in real time.

This is not a marginal tooling upgrade; it is a structural shift in how the U.S. military will measure trust in its digital infrastructure and AI systems. Under mounting pressure to reach zero‑trust target compliance by the end of fiscal 2027, the DOD is betting that only machine‑speed security can keep pace with machine‑speed threats.

—

From Periodic Testing to Continuous Cyber Combat

The Pentagon’s problem is simple to describe and hard to solve: its networks, weapons platforms, and operational AI tools must be defended *continuously*, but its most advanced testing methods are still mostly *periodic* and heavily manual.

Under the DOD’s Zero Trust Strategy, every component must achieve “target level” zero‑trust maturity by FY 2027. Zero trust assumes networks are always under attack, requiring constant verification of users, devices, and workloads as they traverse DOD infrastructure. Achieving that posture is not just about deploying new tools; it requires proving, with evidence, that zero‑trust controls work as designed.

That proof burden is massive. The Zero Trust Portfolio Management Office must validate:

– 91 Target‑level zero‑trust activities, and
– 10 Zero Trust Acceptance Criteria,

across both unclassified and secret networks.

Historically, the Pentagon has relied on purple‑team assessments—integrated exercises where red‑team operators emulate adversaries while blue‑team defenders monitor and respond—to gauge whether defenses perform under realistic attack. But these engagements are labor‑intensive, slow to plan and execute, and often pull cyber operators and warfighters away from core missions. As zero‑trust deployments scale and AI systems proliferate, that model no longer scales.

The result is a structural paradox: the more digital and AI‑driven the force becomes, the less feasible it is to test security using human‑paced methods alone.

—

Why Purple Teaming Is Becoming the New Baseline

In classical security operations:

– Red teams simulate attackers, probing for weaknesses.
– Blue teams defend, detect, and respond to those attacks.

Purple teaming fuses the two into a collaborative, closed‑loop process where offensive and defensive actions are orchestrated together. Instead of a red team attacking “in the dark” and later handing over findings, purple teams share telemetry, TTPs (tactics, techniques, and procedures), and insights in real time so defenses can be immediately tuned.

Federal AI security experts now argue that, in an era of agentic AI and LLM‑driven tools, purple‑teaming is “no longer negotiable.”

Several factors drive this new baseline:

– LLM and agentic AI risk: Adversaries can jailbreak models, abuse AI browsers, or co‑opt autonomous agents to run unauthorized operations at scale.
– Speed of exploitation: AI tools can rapidly generate and iterate on exploits, dramatically shortening the window between vulnerability discovery and active attack.
– Opacity of AI behavior: Security must validate *what an AI system intends to do*, not just what data it touches, demanding new testing paradigms centered on agent behavior and intent.

Traditional red‑ and blue‑team methods, executed manually and periodically, cannot keep up with this dynamic environment. They leave blind spots between exercises, while vulnerabilities and AI behaviors evolve continuously.

—

The Pentagon’s Pivot: AI‑Driven Purple‑Team Automation

Recognizing these constraints, the DOD’s Zero Trust Portfolio Management Office issued a formal request for information (RFI) on January 6–7, 2026, seeking commercial AI/ML platforms and services that can:

– “Accelerate and scale” zero‑trust assessments across the entire department,
– With a specific focus on AI‑enabled purple‑team assessments,
– On both unclassified and secret networks.

Industry responses are due by early February, reflecting an accelerated timetable that mirrors the urgency of the problem.

The RFI signals several strategic priorities:

1. Automation by design
The Pentagon is looking for platforms that can automate:

– Attack simulation based on realistic threat models,
– Defensive monitoring and anomaly detection,
– Data collection across multiple zero‑trust pillars,
– Reporting and recommendations tied directly to the 91 activities and 10 acceptance criteria.

This is not just about bolting AI onto existing test processes; it is about designing assessments where AI agents continuously execute both offensive and defensive logic.

2. Continuous, not episodic, validation
Officials explicitly want to move from episodic evaluations to continuous assessment, so that implementation quality, control coverage, and residual risk can be monitored at all times rather than at fixed intervals.

3. Scalability across the enterprise
The envisioned platforms must operate across diverse environments—from cloud and data centers to tactical edge systems—without overwhelming human teams. This is central to freeing warfighters and cyber operators from repetitive testing tasks so they can focus on mission execution.

4. Alignment with emerging AI and security standards
As AI security guidance, including emerging NIST AI frameworks, matures, automated purple‑team data is expected to become a primary evidence source for federal AI governance and assurance.

—

How Autonomous Purple Teaming Works

Autonomous purple teaming extends classical purple teaming by embedding AI agents into both offensive and defensive roles and orchestrating them as a continuous system rather than a scheduled exercise.

Key characteristics include:

– AI‑driven adversary simulation
Autonomous red‑team agents use machine learning to generate and execute attack paths, fuzz interfaces, probe access control boundaries, or attempt LLM jailbreaks in realistic, evolving ways.

– AI‑assisted defense and monitoring
On the blue side, AI models ingest telemetry from logs, network traffic, user behavior, and model interactions to detect anomalies, misconfigurations, and policy violations in real time.

– Closed‑loop remediation
Crucially, the system does more than flag issues. AI agents can reduce remediation cycles from days to minutes by automatically:

– Prioritizing vulnerabilities by mission impact,
– Proposing and, where authorized, deploying fixes,
– Re‑testing after changes to confirm that mitigations work.

– Continuous learning
Every simulated attack and defense interaction feeds back into the system, enabling models to learn effective attacker TTPs and optimal defensive responses over time. This is particularly important in the LLM context, where new prompt‑based exploits and jailbreak techniques surface frequently.

For AI‑enabled battlefield systems and LLM‑powered tools in command‑and‑control environments, this means real‑time detection and remediation of vulnerabilities that emerge only when systems are under live operational load.

—

AI Security in 2026: The New Risk Landscape

The Pentagon’s shift cannot be understood in isolation; it is part of a broader 2026 federal AI security landscape that is rapidly changing.

Several dynamics are driving urgency:

– State‑backed AI abuse
In 2025, a Chinese state‑backed group reportedly abused an AI coding assistant to conduct automated cyberattacks against dozens of organizations, underscoring how readily generative AI can be weaponized.

– AI browsers and autonomous agents
New AI browsers and agent frameworks can autonomously click, type, and execute code across networks and SaaS environments. Without robust guardrails and monitoring, they can be co‑opted to exfiltrate data, move laterally, or manipulate systems at scale.

– Partnerships with major AI providers
The DOD is actively contracting with leading AI firms—including Anthropic, OpenAI, Google, and xAI—to accelerate deployment of AI capabilities. These partnerships expand capability but also broaden the attack surface across APIs, models, plugins, and integration layers.

Under these conditions, experts argue that intent security—understanding and constraining what an AI system *intends* to do—will become the core discipline of AI risk management by 2027, displacing purely data‑centric security. To operationalize that discipline, automated purple teaming is presented as the only scalable way to continuously validate AI behavior against defined identities, roles, and mission constraints.

—

Operational Efficiency: Freeing Warfighters from Testing Duty

An immediate, tangible benefit of automated purple teaming is operational efficiency.

Traditional purple‑team assessments can take weeks or months of planning, execution, and analysis, often requiring highly skilled operators and pulling cyber units from other missions. Each assessment is a major event.

AI‑driven purple teaming changes that calculus:

– Assessment becomes a background function, not a disruptive event.
– Warfighters and mission teams gain back time, while security posture is still evaluated more thoroughly and more frequently than before.
– Decision makers receive faster, more consistent reporting, aligned directly with zero‑trust milestones and acceptance criteria.

By shrinking the OODA loop (observe–orient–decide–act) in cyber defense from days to minutes, autonomous agents enable the Pentagon to respond to vulnerabilities and misconfigurations at the same pace they emerge in the wild.

—

From Periodic Compliance to Continuous Assurance

Zero trust is often discussed as a framework or maturity model, but for the Pentagon it is also a compliance challenge: components must both implement and *prove* adherence to target‑level controls.

Historically, this proof has been gathered via:

– Point‑in‑time audits,
– Manual penetration tests,
– One‑off red‑team or purple‑team exercises.

The move to AI‑driven, autonomous purple teaming supports a deeper transformation: compliance becomes continuous assurance.

In this model:

– Evidence is generated constantly as AI agents probe and validate controls.
– Gaps are identified early and tracked over time, enabling trend analysis and proactive remediation.
– Senior leaders see a dynamic risk picture, not a backward‑looking snapshot.

As AI governance frameworks such as NIST’s AI guidance are operationalized, this continuous evidence stream is likely to become central to demonstrating responsible AI deployment across federal agencies, not just within DOD.

—

Impact on Industry and the Defense Innovation Pipeline

The RFI is also a strong signal to industry: autonomous security and AI‑driven testing are now core defense capabilities, not experimental add‑ons.

Implications for vendors include:

– Growing demand for AI‑driven security platforms
Companies offering agent‑based testing, automated adversary emulation, and DevSecOps‑integrated security validation can expect increased interest as DOD and other agencies look to scale purple‑team operations.

– Alignment with zero‑trust and AI standards
Tools that can natively map findings to zero‑trust activities, compliance criteria, and AI risk controls will have an advantage.

– Higher security bar for AI providers
Major AI vendors serving the Pentagon will increasingly see their models and integrations subjected to continuous, automated testing, including for prompt injection, data leakage, and agent abuse scenarios.

This feedback loop—federal demand driving vendor innovation, which in turn shapes federal security expectations—is likely to influence commercial markets as well, particularly in critical infrastructure sectors that mirror DOD’s risk profile.

—

Red, Blue, and Purple: Transforming the Cyber Workforce

The rise of autonomous purple teaming does not make human red and blue teams obsolete; it changes what they do.

As AI agents take on more of the:

– Routine scanning,
– Standardized attack emulation,
– Initial triage and remediation,

human experts are freed to focus on:

– Adversary modeling and campaign‑level strategy,
– Design of test scenarios tailored to specific missions and emerging threats,
– Policy, governance, and rules‑of‑engagement for AI agents,
– Interpreting complex findings where context and judgment are critical.

Career pathways in defense cybersecurity are likely to shift toward roles centered on orchestration and oversight of autonomous systems rather than purely hands‑on execution. Skills in AI safety, model evaluation, and agent behavior analysis will become increasingly valuable alongside traditional incident response and penetration testing expertise.

—

Matching the Velocity of AI

The Pentagon’s move toward automated purple teaming is fundamentally about time.

– Adversaries can now develop and deploy AI‑assisted attacks at a speed that collapses traditional warning and response cycles.
– Large language models and generative AI systems can exhibit new, exploitable behaviors when updated, fine‑tuned, or integrated into complex workflows—often faster than human teams can re‑test them.
– Manual red‑ and blue‑team approaches, however skilled, cannot scale to test every AI agent, every model update, and every network segment at required frequency.

By embedding AI into the testing and defense loop itself, the DOD aims to ensure that *defense velocity* can match *AI threat velocity*. In effect, the department is building a cybersecurity fortress that adapts as fast as its attackers learn, and does so with minimal additional burden on the warfighters and operators who depend on those systems every day.

If successful, this shift will redefine not only how the Pentagon secures AI‑enabled battlefield and enterprise systems, but also how governments more broadly think about assurance, compliance, and trust in an era where the fastest, most capable actors in cyberspace are increasingly artificial.

—