Skip to main content

Jack Poulson

May 5, 2026

AIWI / Case Studies / Jack Poulson

Jack Poulson

Jack Poulson was a senior research scientist at Google who resigned in protest over Project Dragonfly – a search engine prototype being developed for China which would have complied with government censorship and surveillance requirements. Jack spoke out publicly, sending a letter to US senators that raised concerns about the ethical use of AI-powered search and data tools for authoritarian surveillance. He is the founder and Executive Director of the non-profit organization Tech Inquiry.

Read the Press Coverage:

Company

Google

Jurisdiction

US

Year

2018

Issues

Product Safety Risks

Authoritarian Surveillance through AI tools

Channels

Internal → External

Public and Regulatory

Why This Case Matters

Jack gained serious recognition as a whistleblower whose advice was sought at confidential meetings between tech CEOs and senior members from the Department of Defence and intelligence agencies, in discussion of work on weapons systems. He founded Tech Inquiry in 2019 and works as an independent journalist.

After collective action by Google employees, human-rights activists as well as regulatory pushback via senate hearings, Google confirmed that Project Dragonfly had been terminated.

While no policy or legislative changes were made, the case resulted in Google having to attend two US senate hearings. The second, held in December 2018, represented the most high-profile, official questioning of Google leadership about Dragonfly, where CEO Sundar Pichai testified before the House Judiciary Committee.

Support Received

  • Legal Support Unknown

You don’t need to be in a crisis to seek help. Pro bono legal counsel can help you navigate your situation and find the right support.
Explore Your Legal Options →

Timeline

Throughout his two years working at Google, Jack had been concerned about the ethical risks of certain projects, including Project Maven which he – along with many employees – believes was a militarization of corporate AI [1]. However, the ultimate reason he left the company, as outlined in his resignation letter, was due to Project Dragonfly.

Like the majority of Google employees, Jack first heard about the internal project after it was publicly exposed by The Intercept. Codenamed Dragonfly, leaked documents revealed the project was a search engine prototype being developed for China which would have complied with government censorship and surveillance requirements. Websites and search terms would be blacklisted, including on topics such as human rights, democracy, and peaceful protest [2]. There were further reports that the search engine would link users’ searches to their phone numbers – enabling the Chinese government to monitor people’s queries [3].

The prototype, like Google’s existing search engine, also made use of artificial intelligence. As Jack’s work focused on improving the company’s search systems, it could have been integrated into the prototype – without his knowledge or consent [4].  

He raised concerns with his managers, and spent a month asking for clarifications from Google on their “ethical red lines” around Project Dragonfly. After entering into discussions with senior staff, he made the decision to resign. In his exit interview, Jack recalls the parting words he received: “We can forgive your politics and focus on your technical contributions as long as you don’t do something unforgivable, like speaking to the press” [5].

His full resignation letter was publicly published on DocumentCloud, and the case was covered by several media outlets, including The Intercept, Business Insider, Vox, and The Guardian. In his resignation letter, Jack discussed why the project would be a violation of the company’s AI Ethics Principles, which themselves were introduced to clarify decisions associated with the controversial Project Maven. He highlighted one of its sections which claimed Google would not design or deploy AI that gathers or uses information for surveillance which violates internationally accepted norms; and contravenes widely accepted principles of human rights.

Google did not provide direct comment on Jack’s exit from the company, nor the concerns raised in his resignation letter, stating “It is our policy to not comment on individual employees” [6]. However, as the case around Project Dragonfly drew greater media attention, the company made statements clarifying the projects’ exploratory nature and that it was far from being a launchable product in China [7].

Such statements raised scepticism, particularly when an internal memo (written by a Google engineer directly working on the project) surfaced and alleged that development was much further along. Further reports also emerged that Google had been seeking government clearance for the China-based prototype search engine and had already formed a joint venture with a Chinese company.

The Intercept received information from anonymous insiders that when Google leadership discovered the internal memo was being circulated, HR emailed employees who had accessed the memo and ordered them to delete it. Their emails contained ‘pixel trackers’ that notified HR when the messages had been read [8]. 

Jack sent a letter to US senators stating that greater transparency, oversight and accountability of systems designed and deployed by Google were needed. He explained why he had resigned from the company, specifically mentioning Project Dragonfly and highlighted the serious risks associated with it. His concluding comments referenced other employees’ attempts to raise concerns about these risks, and how they were met with company efforts to stop internal discussion on, and further scrutiny of, the project. 

He sent the letter two days before the US congressional hearing on Examining the Safeguards for Consumer Data Privacy, which was part of a broader and ongoing series in 2018. The hearing sought to examine privacy policies of leading tech firms and discuss approaches to more effective safeguarding. Google’s Chief Privacy Officer testified at the hearing, and under questioning described Project Dragonfly as exploratory and that the company was not close to launching a China search product. Jack’s letter to the senate was included in the official congressional record (pp.91-92), and was cited in media coverage of the hearing.

Outcomes

For the Whistleblower

Jack gained serious recognition as a whistleblower through publicly discussing his resignation and subsequent issuance of the letter to US senators. The media reported on Jack as an individual who had taken considerable risk to highlight ethical issues in AI and surveillance. 

His rise as a tech critic was aided by the press coverage he received after his public disclosure of information related to Project Dragonfly. He has given talks and interviews focused on exposing hidden ties between major tech companies, government and military agencies, and surveillance systems; and advocating for greater accountability and transparency within the tech industry. His advice was also sought at confidential meetings between tech CEOs and senior members from the Department of Defence and intelligence agencies, in discussion of work on weapons systems [9].

In 2019, he founded Tech Inquiry – a non-profit organization that primarily researches contracts, funding relationships, and partnerships between tech companies and government/military agencies. Jack’s investigative work is credited by major news outlets and has become a resource for journalists. One of his major findings, through an analysis of federal contract records, uncovered that Amazon and Microsoft won government military contracts worth $50m when Google pulled out of Project Maven [10].

While running Tech Inquiry as Executive Director on a volunteer basis, Jack works as an independent journalist. His articles have been published in major news outlets, and he is the author of All-Source Intelligence, a Substack newsletter that focuses on “the intersection of technology and national security” and supporting society against related abuses [11].

Consequences faced:

Note:

This is AIWI’s interpretation of the consequences faced by the individual based on publicly available information, as stated in our methodology.

For the Case

Disclaimer: though these outcomes are not solely consequences of Jack blowing the whistle, his actions brought public attention to the case and influenced widespread discussion about Project Dragonfly. 

In the months that followed the leaks about Project Dragonfly and Jack’s resignation, pushback intensified from Google employees and human-rights activists. Six other (unnamed) employees were alleged to have quit over the company’s lack of transparency on the issue [12]. 

Over 1,400 Google employees publicly signed an internal petition warning that the project violated company principles, while over 300 employees signed an open letter calling for the project’s complete withdrawal [14]. Amnesty International sent an open letter to Google’s CEO which was signed by academic individuals as well as multiple human-rights groups. 

Google issued public statements and sent a response to Amnesty International’s open letter, repeating that the work was exploratory and that full privacy/security reviews would be required before any launch [15]. Their response was viewed as inadequate by many across the globe, including over 60 human- and digital-rights groups, who continued to call for Dragonfly’s termination [16], [17].

Further tip-offs to media alleged that Google had sidelined privacy and security teams out of the project, though this was publicly contested by others such as the company’s director of security and privacy who said she “saw no sidelineing whatsoever” [18], [19]. Google also issued a formal statement in response, saying privacy reviews weren’t negotiable.

No government action was taken against Google after the US Senate hearing. However, the hearing amplified public scrutiny and many remained sceptical about Google’s testimony. In December 2018, Google’s CEO Sundar Pichai testified before the House Judiciary Committee for a hearing on Transparency & Accountability: Examining Google and its Data Collection, Use, and Filtering Practices. He told the Committee that work on the project remained “limited” [20]. This represented the most high-profile, official questioning of Google leadership about Dragonfly since the Senate hearing. 

By late December, work on the project was widely reported as stalled inside Google. Several outlets reported that internal clashes (including privacy/security teams being “left in the dark”) meant the project had to be “effectively ended”, though some media coverage indicated that work may have continued into early 2019 [21], [22], [23]. 

In July 2019, Google’s VP for Government Affairs and Public Policy told the US Senate Judiciary Committee, “we have terminated Project Dragonfly” [24]. Though no commitment was made to not working on censorship projects in China in future, the Google executive did testify that any decision to re-enter the China search market would be made in consultation with key stakeholders [25].

Your concerns matter and deserve expert answer

If you see something concerning, it’s already worth a confidential conversation. AIWI can help you find clarity with the support of our expert network. Confidential, anonymous and on your terms.

Get a confidential consultation →

Next Post
Close Menu