ChatGPT Faces Backlash After OpenAI US Department of Defense Partnership

A single announcement then transformed the atmosphere almost overnight.

Within a matter of days, OpenAI’s flagship AI assistant was hit by furious users, a surge in one-star ratings and widespread app removals after its partnership with the US Department of Defense was revealed.

A weekend that changed attitudes towards ChatGPT

OpenAI’s mobile application had regularly featured in app-store charts, with many people viewing it as an innocuous productivity aid. That view began to unravel at the end of February 2026.

Uninstalls of the ChatGPT app rose sharply from 28 February. Figures reported in France indicated that deletions increased by around 295% over one weekend, a highly unusual jump for a mature mainstream consumer app.

Users did not just walk away quietly. Ratings plunged, with bad reviews rising an estimated 775%, turning app stores into a venting space for frustration and distrust.

Previously, objections to ChatGPT largely centred on hallucinations, bias and subscription costs. This backlash has a different focus. Rather than the product’s technical shortcomings, it targets OpenAI’s ethical and political decisions.

The trigger: a deal with the US Department of Defense

The flashpoint was OpenAI’s announced partnership with the US Department of Defense, which many foreign media outlets still call by its historic name, “the Department of War”.

OpenAI described the arrangement as support for “defence and national security” use cases. Users concerned about AI being deployed in warfare, surveillance or automated decisions in conflict areas immediately saw cause for alarm.

Across social media, long-standing ChatGPT supporters described feeling betrayed. Many said they accepted AI for education, writing and coding, while drawing a firm boundary at links to weapons systems or military intelligence.

For a significant share of the audience, the partnership shattered the idea that ChatGPT was a neutral, civilian tool underpinned by purely benevolent intentions.

The dispute also added to existing doubts about OpenAI chief executive Sam Altman. His leadership has faced repeated scrutiny since the dramatic boardroom conflict of late 2023. To critics, the defence agreement demonstrates that commercial and strategic goals have overtaken the company’s initial safety-first language.

Bad reviews: what users are actually complaining about

From bugs and subscriptions to ethics and trust

Before this incident, critical reviews of ChatGPT’s mobile app commonly referred to free-tier throttling, sign-in problems and GPT-4 access being restricted to subscribers. Those complaints remain, but they are no longer the central issue.

Recent user comments increasingly focus on:

• Anger over the perceived “militarisation” of a civilian AI tool
• Calls for greater transparency around government partnerships
• Concerns that data could be shared with defence or intelligence agencies
• Appeals to boycott the app until ethical assurances are provided

Some reviewers explicitly say that, while they remain impressed by the technology, they will not continue paying for it or keeping it on their phone while such agreements are in force.

A crisis of trust, not merely a UX complaint

The approximately 775% increase in poor ratings suggests users are doing more than expressing minor irritation. They are reconsidering whether the company’s aims match their own values.

Apps often experience rating declines after faults, redesigns or price rises. This reaction followed a corporate announcement instead. That distinction is significant: interface fixes and extra features cannot necessarily mend an ethical divide.

Competitors sense an opening

ChatGPT’s difficulties have naturally created opportunities for competitors. Anthropic’s assistant, Claude, for example, has publicly highlighted that it has not entered into an agreement with the US Department of Defense.

The company has referred to differences of opinion over potential AI uses in surveillance and autonomous weapons, presenting itself as more restrained on military applications.

By distancing itself from defence contracts, Claude presents an alternative for users who want advanced AI without ties to the arms sector.

Other organisations, including open-source projects and smaller start-ups, are also acting quickly to highlight their ethical commitments. Some point to transparent governance, limits on shareholders or explicit prohibitions on offensive military use.

Sam Altman under renewed scrutiny

Sam Altman has long divided opinion in the technology sector. Some admire him as a visionary bringing AI into everyday life, while others accuse him of obscuring the boundary between safety research and forceful commercial growth.

The defence partnership has revived those arguments. Critics say OpenAI has moved away from its founding non-profit purpose and now operates like a conventional contractor competing for government business, especially in strategic areas such as defence.

Supporters respond that national-security work may involve non-lethal uses, including cybersecurity, logistics, simulation and disaster-response planning. They argue that rejecting all dealings with defence organisations would exclude AI from areas where it might avert harm or help stabilise crises.

Concern	Pro-deal argument	Critic argument
Use in warfare	Focus on defensive tools only	Tools can migrate to offensive uses
Data privacy	Contracts can include strict safeguards	Government access risk remains high
Public trust	National security partnerships are normal	Undermines civilian, friendly image of AI

What this means for everyday users

For most people, ChatGPT still functions exactly as it did on screen. It can write emails, create lesson plans and produce code. The algorithms behind users’ conversations have not suddenly become weapons.

The argument instead concerns governance and future direction. In effect, users are asking: if I depend on this tool every day, who ultimately determines where it goes? And what moral limits do they set?

Some people are choosing to continue using ChatGPT while urging OpenAI to disclose more about the partnership, including:

• Explicit restrictions on the forms of military use
• Independent audits of safety procedures
• Public disclosure of government contracts

Others are deleting the app entirely and moving to alternatives with firmer stated positions on defence work, or to local models running on their own devices.

Understanding the risks and trade-offs

When AI companies partner with defence bodies, several interconnected risks arise. Dual-use technology may serve peaceful or violent purposes. A system trained to analyse satellite imagery for humanitarian-aid coordination could equally support targeting systems.

Function creep is another concern. A model initially used for translation or logistics could later be fine-tuned for battlefield simulations. Even where a contract places limits on use at first, political demands or emergencies may weaken those safeguards.

Conversely, refusing all collaboration can also carry consequences. Governments will pursue AI-enhanced capabilities regardless. If organisations more committed to safety decline to participate, less scrupulous rivals could take their place and shape military AI with fewer ethical constraints.

How users can respond in practical ways

Those unsettled by the latest news have several practical choices besides posting a one-star review.

• Compare the privacy policies and ethical commitments of different AI tools
• Use browser versions rather than mobile apps, while limiting data sharing where possible
• Try smaller or open-source models for sensitive work
• Contact providers to request clear military-use policies
• Support research groups and NGOs tracking AI use in warfare

Another option is to divide tasks between tools. Some users now retain a “general-purpose” assistant for harmless material, while using local offline tools for anything involving personal, medical or political information. Separating usage can reduce exposure if a provider’s partnerships change course again.

For many people, the rise in poor ratings and deletions is not so much a final rupture as a warning. It indicates that the public is paying attention to generative AI’s direction, and that ethical boundaries set by users can produce rapid, measurable backlash when they believe those boundaries have been crossed.