Star gate
Executive summary
The phrase “Stargate” refers to two very different U.S. efforts separated by decades: a Cold War-era psychic-research program (commonly called Project Stargate) that ran from the 1970s through the 1990s, and a 2025-era commercial–government AI infrastructure venture also named “Stargate” or Stargate LLC; both have attracted controversy, very different claims of purpose, and competing narratives about value and risk [1] [2]. This analysis separates the historical record of psychic experiments from the contemporary $500 billion AI infrastructure project, summarizes what is documented about each, and flags where reporting and interests shape the public story [3] [4].
1. The Cold War “Project Stargate”: what the record shows
Project Stargate began as a series of classified efforts in the 1970s to test remote viewing and other psychic claims for intelligence use, involved contractors such as the Stanford Research Institute, and operated under various code names—Sun Streak, Grill Flame, Scanate—before consolidation under the “Stargate” label; it was primarily overseen by military and intelligence agencies including the DIA and later surfaced in declassified CIA files [1] [5] [3]. Over roughly two decades the program cost millions (reported totals vary by source), produced ambiguous and often non-actionable results, and was publicly acknowledged and closed in the mid-1990s amid skepticism about scientific validity and embarrassment within the defense establishment [3] [5].
2. Why Project Stargate mattered—beyond the eyebrow-raising headline
The psychic program mattered not because it proved ESP but because it revealed how national-security institutions will explore fringe ideas when they fear being outpaced by an adversary—particularly the Soviet Union during the Cold War—illustrating a pragmatic if sometimes scientifically weak approach to perceived threats and intelligence gaps [3] [6]. Contemporary analyses emphasize that the evidence produced by remote viewers was typically vague and insufficient for reliable intelligence, which shaped the decision to declassify and terminate the program once risk–benefit assessments and scientific critiques accumulated [3] [5].
3. The 2025 Stargate: a $500 billion AI infrastructure venture and its stated goals
In January 2025 a new “Stargate” was announced as a large-scale AI infrastructure joint venture—incorporated as Stargate LLC and involving actors such as OpenAI, SoftBank, Oracle and MGX—with founders and White House publicity claiming an intent to invest up to $500 billion over several years to build nationwide data-center capacity and related power infrastructure, with an initial $100 billion deployment and projects starting in Texas (Abilene) [4] [2] [7]. Public statements frame the effort as securing U.S. AI leadership, creating jobs, and delivering strategic national-security capability, while partners emphasize private capital and industry-led operation rather than direct government subsidy [2] [4] [8].
4. Controversies, competing accounts, and implicit interests
Reporting about the 2025 Stargate blends factual announcements with contested claims: proponents portray a patriotic industrial-scale investment led by major tech and finance players, while critics warn that hundreds of billions could divert public priorities, that terms of access and exclusivity to the infrastructure are disputed, and that financial structures (equity vs. debt) and vendor advantages—such as Oracle, NVIDIA, and others—raise questions about whose commercial and geopolitical power will be enhanced [4] [9] [7]. Different outlets and corporate statements offer varying emphases—OpenAI’s announcement highlights job creation and U.S. leadership [2], while investigative coverage flags potential concentration of control and the role of emergency-declaration powers touted by political actors to speed buildout [4] [10].
5. Connecting the two “Stargates”: name, narrative, and media dynamics
The reuse of the name “Stargate” ties the projects in public imagination even though they are substantively unrelated—the Cold War program tested psychic claims while the 2025 venture is a capital-intensive AI infrastructure consortium—and that naming choice has both rhetorical and cultural power, evoking grand ambition and inviting skepticism that historical memory amplifies [4] [1]. Coverage and commentary often leverage the old Project Stargate as an evocative cautionary tale about hubris and secrecy, which can skew debate over the new Stargate’s real technical, economic, and regulatory stakes; available reporting documents the new project’s scope and partners but leaves open substantive questions about governance, access, and long-term public costs that have yet to be resolved in public records [2] [7].