Where policy meets profit: Navigating the new frontier of defense tech startups

In this Help Net Security interview, Thijs Povel, Managing Partner at Ventures.eu, discusses how the firm evaluates emerging technologies through the lens of defense and resilience. He explains how founders from both defense and adjacent sectors are addressing policy shifts, procurement cycles, and dual-use innovation.

Povel also offers guidance for founders on handling slow-moving procurement cycles and proving the business case for resilience solutions.

How do you differentiate between defense-adjacent and non-lethal tech when evaluating companies?

The distinction between defense-adjacent and non-lethal tech has become increasingly blurred with the rise of dual-use technologies. What we do is evaluate based on intended use case, end-user profile, and regulatory context. Defense-adjacent tech includes solutions with both civilian and military applicability, such as cybersecurity, logistics optimization, or advanced sensing. Non-lethal tech, in contrast, is typically engineered to achieve security outcomes without inflicting permanent harm (e.g., crowd control or infrastructure disruption).

Rather than drawing a binary line, we assess each company’s product roadmap, customer base, and export compliance to understand its defense implications. Ultimately, we prioritize technologies that enhance resilience and reduce escalation or proliferation risk.

How much are government policy shifts (e.g., CHIPS Act, EU resilience regulations, NDAA) driving innovation versus private-sector demand?

Government policy initiatives like the CHIPS Act, EU resilience regulations, and the NDAA serve as catalysts, especially in deeptech and strategic infrastructure. These programs offer funding, set strategic signals, and help de-risk early-stage ventures. That said, private-sector demand, from industries under pressure to digitize and secure operations, is a more consistent driver of innovation.

The most transformative outcomes arise when public incentives align with pressing market needs, allowing startups to scale solutions that serve both regulatory mandates and operational priorities. Policy can spark momentum; sustained innovation relies on commercial viability and demand pull.

Do you actively seek founders with experience in defense or intelligence, or are you more drawn to technical talent from adjacent sectors (e.g., logistics, cybersecurity)?

We look for founders who can operate in complex, regulated environments, regardless of whether their background is in defense, intelligence, or adjacent sectors. Domain expertise helps with credibility and navigation of procurement channels, but many of the strongest innovations we’ve seen come from founders who apply insights from logistics, cybersecurity, or industrial automation to security-related challenges. Cross-sector fluency, technical depth, and the ability to build scalable solutions matter more than a single background.

How do you advise portfolio companies to navigate procurement cycles in highly regulated, risk-averse sectors?

Procurement in these sectors is slow-moving and process-heavy, so we advise teams to take a strategic and well-prepared approach. That starts with mapping the full procurement journey from early engagement to contracting and understanding the regulatory expectations at each step. Compliance is critical, and certifications help build trust. Founders should invest in strong relationships across both technical and procurement functions and use pilot projects as a way to prove value and reduce buyer risk. We support our portfolio companies hands-on, drawing on experience with public-private partnerships and EU frameworks to help them move through these cycles effectively.

How do you size the opportunity for resilience tech when the ROI is often tied to avoiding negative outcomes rather than direct revenue generation?

With resilience tech, the value is often in what doesn’t happen—data breaches, operational downtime, and regulatory fines. We work with founders to quantify the financial impact of these risks and position their solutions as a means of avoiding high-cost disruptions. This shift from ROI to risk mitigation reframes the value proposition in business terms. As regulatory scrutiny increases, the cost of inaction becomes harder to ignore, making resilience an essential part of enterprise strategy rather than a “nice to have.”