The Rise of Sovereign Access Networks

By: Naomi Corbi This article investigates the rise of sovereign access networks (SANs)—specifically, the AERIE system—and their potential integration into U.S. national security architecture. Originating from the architectural security firm SAFE, AERIE represents a highly advanced, privately operated network of autonomous, crisis-resilient compounds designed for elite clientele. These systems often outmatch government infrastructure in terms of survivability, redundancy, and technological sophistication.

The increasing prevalence of private resilience networks raises critical questions for democratic governance, particularly concerning the delegation of emergency capabilities to non-state actors. While SANs may enhance overall resilience, they also risk undermining state legitimacy, public trust, and civil-military unity during disasters or geopolitical crises.

Using historical analogs—such as Cold War Continuity of Government (COG) programs and post-9/11 homeland security reforms—this paper outlines both the promise and the peril of SANs. It ultimately recommends the formation of a National Security Council Task Force on Private Resilience, which would coordinate audits, voluntary registration, and public engagement frameworks for such systems. This approach seeks to integrate private innovation into national security without compromising democratic principles or constitutional oversight.

The Rise of Sovereign Access Networks

Across the last two decades, global instability has created growing demand for resilient, autonomous systems designed to operate during catastrophic disruptions.

Natural disasters, pandemics, cyberattacks, and geopolitical turmoil have exposed the fragility of state-run infrastructure. In this vacuum, a new class of private resilience infrastructure has emerged—sovereign access networks (SANs)—with the AERIE system as a leading example.

Developed by SAFE, a high-security architectural firm with ties to the U.S. Department of Justice, AERIE blends hardened physical infrastructure with AI-enabled logistics, biometric security, and off-grid autonomy. What began as elite security consulting has evolved into a global network of privately owned, underground facilities capable of maintaining operations independent of national systems for weeks or months. For wealthy clientele, AERIE represents not just survival—but continuity.

While this elite solution may offer benefits, it presents a serious policy dilemma. These privately managed networks, operating in parallel to state efforts, challenge traditional notions of state sovereignty, democratic accountability, and national preparedness. If private clients are better protected than government agencies or the general public, who ultimately bears responsibility in times of crisis?

This article argues that the United States must develop a formal strategy to regulate, coordinate, and leverage SANs. These systems are not simply luxury bunkers—they are emerging nodes of command, control, and communication. Ignoring their impact would be a strategic oversight. Integrating them properly into the national security framework, however, could yield immense resilience dividends.

II. Background on AERIE and the Evolution of SAFE

To understand the emergence of sovereign access networks, we must begin with the evolution of the firm that pioneered them: SAFE (Security Architecture for Extremes). Originally established in the early 2000s, SAFE began as a consulting and design firm that specialized in fortifying critical infrastructure—especially for clients in law enforcement and the intelligence community. The firm’s early contracts with the Department of Justice focused on securing high-risk detention and interrogation facilities in the post-9/11 security climate.

During this period, SAFE developed expertise in EMP shielding, biometric access control, layered perimeter security, and hardened data centers. However, as geopolitical risks expanded to include climate change, pandemics, and digital infrastructure sabotage, elite clients demanded solutions that extended beyond facility protection. They sought continuity.

In response, SAFE began designing private crisis response environments—self-contained living and operational spaces capable of autonomous functioning in degraded environments. This evolution culminated in the creation of AERIE (Autonomous Emergency Resilience Infrastructure Enclave), a proprietary network of bunkers, satellite links, drone fleets, and AI-controlled logistics centers. What distinguished AERIE from traditional bunkers was its networked logic: each site was built not merely to shelter but to sustain decision-making, mobility, communication, and high-function operations during global crises.

A typical AERIE installation includes:

•            Subterranean, blast-resistant compounds with bio-sealed air filtration and autonomous energy systems.

•            Independent communications arrays, often connected to low-Earth orbit satellite constellations, bypassing public telecoms.

•            Robotic support infrastructure, including automated kitchens, medical suites, and drone resupply depots.

•            Redundant AI-controlled security systems that eliminate the need for on-site personnel in many cases.

By 2023, a Forbes investigation estimated SAFE's AERIE program to be valued at over $300 million, with facilities operating in the U.S., Switzerland, New Zealand, and the UAE. Clients include tech billionaires, former intelligence officials, and CEOs of Fortune 500 companies. SAFE markets AERIE not merely as a security solution but as a form of operational sovereignty—a capacity to continue influencing global affairs from within a crisis-secure node.

Importantly, the AERIE program reflects the blending of public-sector experience and private-sector innovation. Many of its lead architects are former military engineers, intelligence planners, or cybersecurity professionals. Their designs borrow from Cold War-era Continuity of Government (COG) protocols but adapt them with private capital, luxury, and cutting-edge technology.

The result is a new form of resilience infrastructure that operates outside traditional chains of command or legal oversight. While governments continue to build continuity plans tied to fragile public systems, AERIE’s clients can effectively opt out—moving to self-sufficient command centers while national systems potentially collapse.

The implications of this shift are profound. In an interconnected, crisis-prone world, who gets to be sovereign? And can the United States afford to ignore a growing parallel architecture of continuity?

III. Historical Precedents in National Security Integration

While SANs like AERIE are novel in design and ownership, the U.S. has long engaged in efforts to ensure operational continuity under duress. A closer look at historical national security precedents helps us understand how these emerging systems might be integrated—without compromising democratic legitimacy or public trust.