The language appears in the SASC-passed version of the annual defense policy bill for fiscal 2026. While the committee approved the legislation last week, the full text was only released Wednesday.

Specifically, if it becomes law, the legislation would require a report from the Pentagon on the integration of reserve components, namely the National Guard, into the cyber mission force. It would also mandate an implementation plan.

The cyber mission force is comprised of 147 teams — including offensive, defensive and support teams — that the military services provide to U.S. Cyber Command to employ for operations.

Guard units have been used to support or supplement active units in various capacities. In fact, at the outset and creation of the cyber mission force nearly 15 years ago, the Air Force decided to initially take a total force approach to build its contribution, meaning its teams were made up of a mix of active component and Guard members.

Other assistance, most notably, includes Task Force Echo, the biggest Guard cyber mobilization to date with soldiers from 32 states having supported it over a number of years.

Little public information is known about the task force other than it aids full-spectrum cyber operations for Cybercom’s Cyber National Mission Force. While not so-called “trigger pullers,” sources have also indicated the task force provides infrastructure support.

The Guard has also conducted experiments with Cybercom in years past to test what was called the Cyber 9-Line, a tool that allows participating Guard units from their respective states to quickly share incidents with the Cyber National Mission Force, which can provide analysis of discovered malware and offer feedback to the states to help redress the incident, while also potentially taking action against the threat outside U.S. borders.

The Senate Armed Services Committee’s fiscal 2026 policy bill would require a report that provides an assessment of different authorities in each status of the reserve components, with particular focus on the National Guard and authorities under title 32, and how the DOD can use those personnel in such statuses within the cyber mission force.

It should also include an analysis of current and planned efforts to work with the military departments, the National Guard and the adjutants general of each state to develop unique cyber capabilities that address identified operational requirements — and a description of methods to work with those entities to track and identify key skills and competencies that aren’t part of primary military occupational specialties.

Moreover, senators want to see an evaluation of what types of authorities would be most beneficial to maximize the activation and support of the reserve components to cyber operations as well as an evaluation of the existing barriers to or impediments for integration of the reserve components into the cyber mission force.

The Guard has been lauded as an under-tapped and potentially vital resource for the nation in cyberspace. Many of its members work in cybersecurity as their full-time jobs when they’re not in uniform, meaning they oftentimes possess unique skills not always found in the active component.

There have been big pushes in recent years to more tightly integrate these Guard and Reserve forces into the larger DOD cyber enterprise to be able to act as surge capability in the event of a major cyber incident against the nation.

Legislation has also been introduced previously to help clear hurdles — real or perceived — to allow the Guard to respond to cyber threats.

The post Senate bill calls for tighter reserve component inclusion in cyber mission force appeared first on DefenseScoop.

A provision in the committee’s version of the annual defense policy bill, of which an executive summary was released Friday, would require the secretary of defense to review future force employment concepts for cyber operations. The full text of the bill has yet to be released.

Senior congressional officials that briefed reporters Friday pointed to the fact that to date, cyber operations and forces have largely been focused on the strategic level. More and more, there are other avenues to conduct digital actions, officials said, to include tactical cyber.

In fact, the DOD updated its cyber doctrine at the end of 2022 to include for the first time a definition of what it called “expeditionary cyberspace operations,” defined as “[c]yberspace operations that require the deployment of cyberspace forces within the physical domains.”

That recognition was significant given authorities to conduct cyber operations were held at the highest levels of government for many years due to fears that such activities could have unintended consequences or spread into networks beyond the intended targets.

Cybercom owns the offensive cyber capabilities within DOD, and the services conduct offensive cyber operations through Cybercom and the cyber mission forces that each service provides to the command that operate from static, remote locations, mostly focused on IP-based networks.

However, increasingly, there are targets that either aren’t reachable through IP networks or remote access might not be possible. And as DOD has matured its cyber policies, doctrine and capabilities, the reins have begun to loosen up.

Certain factions have sought to use more proximal effects conducted through radio-frequency, which require fewer levels of approval to conduct operations at the very tactical level.  

Several of the services have begun investing in capabilities and forces for their own offensive activities. However, that is mostly in the blended electronic warfare or RF-enabled sphere at the tactical level.

While individual services have started developing and even deploying such forces, all cyber operations must still be connected through Cybercom.

For example, the Army created the 11th Cyber Battalion — which stemmed from the 915th Cyber Warfare Battalion before it — a unit that provides tactical, on-the-ground cyber operations (mostly through RF effects), electronic warfare and information ops. It consists of four companies with over 300 personnel total and five expeditionary cyber teams, which are scalable formations designed to augment units upon request. The Army was recently approved to create another unit called the 12th Cyber Battalion.

The Air Force in the last year or so has developed a concept called Cyber Enabled Air Superiority (CEAS), that aims to use organic Air Force cyber assets to protect its critical missions, such as safeguarding fighter jets from cyberattacks. While the concept is still emerging, the Air Force re-missioned a National Guard unit to initially take charge of the effort.

The Navy has been building what it calls non-kinetic effects teams that are afloat assets to provide cyber, electronic warfare and other similar capabilities for commanders at sea.

The Marine Corps has developed information units for its Marine Expeditionary Forces that include cyber, intelligence, EW and information-related capabilities.

Cybercom has recognized these capabilities, and command officials have begun exploring ways to utilize them, especially as they can serve as entry points for its high-end operators to access hard-to-reach networks that might not be connected to the internet.

These efforts also fit into the concept of the modern triad, which consists of combining the capabilities of space, cyber and special operations forces to create military packages greater than the sum of their parts. SOF are located in some of the hardest places on earth, giving them the opportunity to get close to targets and potentially providing access and entry points for cyber effects.

Given this growth in the concept, the Senate Armed Services Committee also wants the review to encompass the types of personnel DOD will require to conduct cyber operations of all kinds in the future. To date, that has only really included the cyber mission force. As referenced, this could include a much larger pool across the conventional and even special operations forces beyond the Cybercom enterprise.

The summary of the policy bill states the review would include an assessment of personnel policies that could be needed to support any such evolving cyber force, though committee officials clarified this has nothing to do with discussions surrounding the potential creation of a separate and distinct service, or Cyber Force.

“We have focused a lot of this around how we man, train and equip for very exquisite cyber mission forces. There is a bigger pool of people out there,” an official said. “How are we going to employ that full scope of people and how do we need to adjust the personnel policies to be able to keep that flow of people?”

The post Senate Armed Services Committee wants DOD to explore ‘tactical’ cyber employment appeared first on DefenseScoop.

The provision is part of the annual defense policy bill. The committee released a summary Friday, although the full text of the legislation won’t be released until a later date.

The executive summary of the bill only offers that a provision mandates “a strategy to reestablish a credible deterrence against cyberattacks targeting American critical infrastructure using the full spectrum of military operations.”

A senior congressional official who briefed reporters Friday on the condition of anonymity described the provision as trying to identify a full scope using various methods and full spectrum options to more critically deter adversaries, particularly China, from conducting attacks on critical infrastructure, especially defense critical infrastructure.

An official noted the provision directs DOD toward what the department needs to be doing to more effectively establish a deterrent. Officials in open testimony have indicated a clear concern that Beijing, in particular, continues to attack critical infrastructure.

They singled out Volt and Salt Typhoon by name, noting they’re a growing and more aggressive threat in cyberspace to utilities and critical infrastructure that supports DOD.

Volt Typhoon is one of a number of cyber players from China that have been discovered in U.S. networks, troubling American officials. For its part, Volt Typhoon was discovered inside U.S. critical infrastructure using a technique in the cybersecurity world dubbed “living off the land,” which means it’s using legitimate tools organic to the systems for malicious purposes.

China has become more brazen in intrusions and probes into U.S. and defense networks, particularly in maritime or port environments to potentially limit an American military mobilization response if Chinese leaders decide to invade Taiwan.

Guam, a key U.S. military outpost, has been a top target for Beijing in recent years. Chinese hackers targeted critical infrastructure there, burrowing deep inside a couple of years ago and startling experts who referred to it as one of the largest cyber espionage campaigns against America.  

What has particularly alarmed officials regarding Volt Typhoon is the paradigm shift of Chinese threats moving from espionage and intellectual property theft to holding critical infrastructure at risk.

Salt Typhoon, by contrast, has been found inside networks of telecoms and other companies, likely for the purpose of espionage.

Cyber deterrence has been an elusive policy point for many years. While some academics have pointed to evidence cyber deterrence exists, such as U.S. hesitance to hit back against Russia following its malicious activity in the 2016 election for fear of America’s great digital vulnerability, current and past officials have noted the difficulties of deterrence and how adversaries don’t fear the United States in cyberspace.

Senators recently pressed the Trump administration’s nominee to be the top cyber policy official at DOD on the subject.

“There’s no price to pay for our adversaries. I hope in your counsels within the Defense Department and in the administration you’ll argue for a serious and substantial cyber deterrent stated policy. If it’s not stated, a deterrent doesn’t work,” Sen. Angus King, I-Maine, a fierce critic of perceived weaknesses in cyber deterrence, said at the May hearing.

For her part, Katie Sutton, President Donald Trump’s nominee to be assistant secretary of defense for cyber policy, wrote to senators as part of her confirmation process that a critical part of her role, if confirmed, would be to improve the nation’s defenses and digital deterrent.

“Deterrence is possible in cyberspace and can be made more effective through a combination of denial, resilience, and credible responses. If confirmed, I will review the capabilities we have in our toolkit, integrate military cyberspace capabilities with other tools of national power, and restore deterrence in the cyber domain. One of my core goals as ASD Cyber Policy will be to ensure the Department has the offensive and defensive capabilities and resources necessary to credibly deter adversaries from targeting the United States,” she wrote.

While Salt Typhoon was considered traditional espionage activity, which is virtually impossible to deter, especially given the United States does the same thing, officials are hoping to deter activity like Volt Typhoon in the future.

As Trump was coming back into power for his second term, officials associated with the transition and new administration vowed a top priority would be a more aggressive posture in cyberspace to respond to a bevy of activity against the U.S., namely from China.

The post Senate panel pushing DOD on strategy to deter Chinese cyber activity on critical infrastructure appeared first on DefenseScoop.

The proposed funding is part of a broader $150 billion reconciliation bill unveiled Sunday that’s intended to boost spending on U.S. military capabilities and border security.

“This legislation represents a generational upgrade for our nation’s defense capabilities, including historic investments in new technology,” Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Sen. Roger Wicker, R-Miss., said in a statement. “This is about building the future of American defense, achieving peace through strength, and ultimately deterring war.”

If the bill is passed, sizable investments would go toward kamikaze drones — also known as one-way attack drones or loitering munitions — that are designed to destroy their targets by crashing into them. U.S. Army and Marine Corps leaders are gung-ho about acquiring these types of capabilities after watching their heavy use in Ukraine and other conflicts.

The legislation would pump $1 billion into expanding the kamikaze drone industrial base, provide $50 million to accelerate delivery of one-way attack unmanned aerial systems with “advanced autonomy,” and allocate $145 million for the development of AI capabilities to enable one-way attack UAS and naval systems.

An additional $500 million would be allotted to “prevent delays” in the delivery of “attritable autonomous military capabilities.” The bill did not identify specific systems that lawmakers are concerned about facing potential delays.

The legislation also includes $1.1 billion in funding to expand the small UAS industrial base.

More money would go toward uncrewed maritime platforms, including about $1.8 billion for expansion of medium unmanned surface vessel production; $1.5 billion for expansion of small USV production; $1.3 billion for expansion of unmanned underwater vehicle production; $250 million for the development, production and integration of wave-powered UUVs; and $188 million for the development and testing of “maritime robotic autonomous systems and enabling technologies.”

Another $174 million would be invested in the development of a Test Resource Management Center robotic autonomous systems “proving ground.”

Pentagon officials are also keen on acquiring new capabilities to defeat adversaries’ drones, and the reconciliation bill includes funding for those types of tools.

The legislation would allocate $250 million for the development, production and integration of land-based counter-UAS programs; $200 million for the development, production and integration of ship-based counter-drone programs; and $350 million for the development, production and integration of non-kinetic counter-UAS programs. The term “non-kinetic” in U.S. military parlance generally refers to weapons that aren’t projectiles or missiles, such as electronic warfare, directed energy, or cyber capabilities.

“This legislation is a historic investment of $150 billion to restore America’s military capabilities and strengthen our national defense,” House Armed Services Committee Chairman Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Ala., said in a statement. “Our military’s resources have declined over the years … Our defense industrial base has weakened. America’s deterrence is failing and without a generational investment in our national defense, we will lose the ability to defeat our adversaries.”

The HASC is slated to hold a markup session for the reconciliation bill Tuesday. The legislation will subsequently be sent to the House Budget Committee.

The post Reconciliation bill includes billions for new drone capabilities appeared first on DefenseScoop.

Put forward by HASC Chairman Rep. Mike Rogers of Alabama and SASC Chairman Sen. Roger Wicker of Mississippi, the reconciliation bill would give a $150 billion boost to defense spending. By using the budget reconciliation process, Republican lawmakers are hoping to expedite funding towards 11 high-priority defense issues without threat of a Senate filibuster.

“This legislation represents a generational upgrade for our nation’s defense capabilities, including historic investments in new technology,” Wicker said in a statement. “This is about building the future of American defense, achieving peace through strength, and ultimately deterring war.”

The Golden Dome missile defense shield would receive $24.7 billion to help kick off the massive project, if the legislation is approved.

The vision for the effort was introduced via an executive order signed by Trump in January and looks to field a multi-layered, homeland defense architecture able to defeat a range of missile threats. As outlined in the EO, Golden Dome would comprise both existing Defense Department programs as well as nascent technologies — such as space-based sensors and weapons.

To that end, lawmakers added around $15.6 billion for space systems under “next-generation missile defense technologies,” according to the bill text. That includes $7.2 billion for development and procurement of new space-based sensors, $5.6 billion to develop space-based and boost phase intercept capabilities, and $2 billion for air-moving target indicator satellites.

The bill also puts money towards other emerging technology efforts. If approved, the legislation would add $2.4 billion to development of non-kinetic missile defense effects like electronic warfare and cyber capabilities. In addition, the Pentagon’s Multi-Service Advanced Capability Hypersonic Test Bed (MACH-TB) effort — which aims to accelerate flight testing for hypersonic weapons — would receive $400 million.

As for “layered homeland defense” initiatives, lawmakers are proposing $2.2 billion to accelerate hypersonic defense systems and $1.9 billion for improvements to ground-based missile defense radars. The bill would also add $800 million for expedited development and deployment of next-generation intercontinental ballistic missile defense systems.

Besides efforts related to Golden Dome, the reconciliation bill proposes additional funds towards other key defense priorities such as shipbuilding and munitions production capacity. Notably, lawmakers also allocated around $14 billion towards rapid fielding of emerging capabilities — including small unmanned aerial systems, command-and-control technologies and attritable weapon systems — as well as improving integration with the commercial sector.

“This legislation is a historic investment of $150 billion to restore America’s military capabilities and strengthen our national defense,” Rogers said in a statement. “America’s deterrence is failing and without a generational investment in our national defense, we will lose the ability to defeat our adversaries. With this bill, we have the opportunity to get back on track and restore our national security and global leadership.”

HASC will hold a markup session for the reconciliation bill on Tuesday where members can submit amendments, after which it will be sent to the House Budget Committee.

The post Lawmakers propose $25B to fund Trump’s Golden Dome missile defense shield appeared first on DefenseScoop.

Caine is more of a mystery than some previous nominees for the post who held more high-profile positions prior to being picked for the job. He recently retired from the Air Force as a three-star and he’s never served as a combatant commander, service chief or vice chief, although he held a variety of roles during his long military career.

Trump surprised many in February when he announced Caine as his choice for chairman after firing Gen. Charles “CQ” Brown, who had been elevated to that position by President Joe Biden.

The commander-in-chief officially submitted Caine’s nomination to the Senate March 10, and the nominee has been meeting privately with lawmakers in the run-up to Tuesday’s hearing.

Caine’s oral and written testimony will offer the public and members of the national security community more insights into his thinking on a variety of defense issues.

Here are a few of the hot topics that may come up when the nominee goes under the spotlight:

SignalGate

There is bipartisan concern among lawmakers about a recent incident that came to light when it was revealed by the Atlantic magazine’s editor-in-chief Jeffrey Goldberg that he was included in a message chain on Signal — an encrypted but unclassified messaging app — where some of the president’s closest advisers discussed forthcoming strikes targeting Houthi militants in Yemen. The group included Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, CIA Director John Ratcliffe, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, national security adviser Michael Waltz and other officials.

Some have dubbed the controversy “SignalGate”.

Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Roger Wicker, R-Miss., and Ranking Member Jack Reed, D-R.I., sent a letter last week to the Pentagon’s acting inspector general requesting a probe of the incident and raising questions about the use of unclassified networks to discuss sensitive and classified information and sharing such info with people who don’t have proper security clearance.

Although Caine wasn’t involved in the controversial Signal chat, he may be asked his opinions on the use of certain information technologies by DOD officials for communications and related security issues.

Current and former defense officials told DefenseScoop last week that SignalGate underscores a need for secured chat options for government and military insiders.

AI and autonomous weapons

Caine will have a forum at the hearing to air his views on the Defense Department’s modernization initiatives, which are wide-ranging and include new weapons platforms as well as software, networking tools and other enablers.

Of particular interest to some will be his perspective on using artificial intelligence and highly autonomous systems for military applications.

Pentagon leaders are keen on developing and deploying AI capabilities for back-office functions and battlefield operations. However, there have been longstanding concerns about the risks involved with allowing military platforms — particularly lethal ones — to have a large degree of autonomy.

The Defense Department defines an autonomous weapon system as “a weapon system that, once activated, can select and engage targets without further intervention by an operator. This includes, but is not limited to, operator-supervised autonomous weapon systems that are designed to allow operators to override operation of the weapon system, but can select and engage targets without further operator input after activation.”

Meanwhile, the military is also exploring generative AI technology, including large language models.

For example, the Defense Information Systems Agency is launching an experimental cloud-based chatbot for U.S. Indo-Pacific Command that will allow users to test the tool on classified networks.

However, there are concerns in the national security community and elsewhere about the potential downsides of genAI, including the risk of “hallucinations” where models produce inaccurate, misleading or biased results that could create problems for the humans who are trying to leverage them.

Caine may offer his views on the best use cases for AI and any guardrails that he feels are important to mitigate risks.

DOGE

The Pentagon, like other federal agencies, is pursuing controversial Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) efforts, which include cuts to programs and the workforce.

Pentagon leadership is aiming to reduce DOD’s civilian workforce by 5-8 percent — or upwards of 50,000 employees — via multiple pathways.

On March 28, Hegseth signed a new memo about “Initiating the Workforce Acceleration and Recapitalization Initiative.” The SecDef is reopening the deferred resignation program and also offering early retirement to eligible civilian workers as he seeks to “maximize participation.”

Hegseth has also instituted a civilian hiring freeze — while allowing for some exemptions — and the department intends to fire certain probationary workers.

The Pentagon chief has said he wants to reinvest the savings from these efforts into high-priority warfighting capabilities.

Caine will likely be asked for his views on DOGE and other personnel issues, which could include how he thinks any savings should be reinvested and which parts of the workforce should be protected from cuts.

Combatant command reorg

The U.S. military has seven geographic combatant command: Indo-Pacific Command, European Command, Central Command, Africa Command, Northern Command, Southern Command and Space Command.

The other CoComs include Cyber Command, Special Operations Command, Strategic Command and Transportation Command.

Multiple media outlets have reported that Pentagon officials are considering consolidating some of the combatant commands, including folding together U.S. European Command and U.S. Africa Command as well as Southern Command and Northern Command — among other organizational changes — as a cost-cutting measure.

Wicker and others have expressed concerns about such reports. It would be surprising if members of the Senate Armed Services Committee didn’t ask Caine for his views on how such a reorganization of the CoComs and other components would impact readiness and U.S. military capabilities.

America’s role on the world stage

As chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, one of Caine’s most important tasks would be to provide the president advice on international conflicts and tensions.

At Tuesday’s hearing, he’ll have an opportunity to offer his thoughts on various geopolitical hotspots — from the war in Ukraine to tensions with China in the Pacific.

Caine’s confirmation process is taking place as the Pentagon is trying to prepare for a potential fight with the People’s Liberation Army, a highly advanced adversary. Some U.S. officials are concerned that Chinese forces may try to invade Taiwan sometime in the next few years. In such a scenario, the United States could be draw into a major war in the region.

However, the American military is also being tasked to conduct operations in the Middle East against groups like the Houthis and ISIS. Meanwhile, tensions are running high with Iran after Trump recently threatened to bomb the country if it doesn’t reach a deal regarding its nuclear program.

The Trump administration is also pushing Europeans to take on more of the leadership burden in NATO as Washington seeks to focus more on the Indo-Pacific and the homeland. At the same time, it’s pressuring Ukraine to reach a peace agreement with Russia, but some lawmakers, including Wicker, are wary of Moscow’s intentions.

Meanwhile, Trump has expressed interest in annexing Greenland and asserting American control over the Panama Canal. And closer to home, U.S. troops have been deployed to the border with Mexico to bolster security and the administration has designated drug cartels as foreign terrorist organizations.

Historically, as uniformed military officers, members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff have been expected to be apolitical and nonpartisan. Nevertheless, Caine may face questions from lawmakers trying to gauge his level of support for the MAGA and America First movements.

Reed, the top Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, previewed a potential line of questioning during an appearance on ABC News’ “This Week” in February.

“There are obviously a great many questions that we’re going to raise with him, but I think we have to give him the opportunity to make his case and also to make clear that he is going to be willing to speak truth to power, willing to give his best military advice to the president, not just tell the president what he wants to hear — and also to be open and share with the Congress the facts on the ground, not be a political spokesperson for the president. So those are part of the issues that we’ll address as we go forward,” Reed said.

Barring a disastrous permanence at the hearing, Caine is expected to garner enough votes to get confirmed. Republicans have a majority in the Senate with 53 GOP members. Apart from Hegseth, who narrowly won confirmation in January, Trump’s nominees for top Pentagon posts during his second term have been confirmed by comfortable margins during final voting, including his picks for deputy secretary of defense, secretary of the Army and secretary of the Navy.

The post 5 hot topics Dan ‘Razin’ Caine might address during his confirmation hearing Tuesday appeared first on DefenseScoop.

Troy Meink — who worked at the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) prior to his nomination — also told lawmakers that the department must move faster on innovating new technologies, while also improving acquisition processes for onboarding new capabilities.

“One of the first things I plan to do is take a holistic look at all the modernization and all the readiness bills that we have coming. And then I will put together and advocate for what resources I think are necessary to execute all of those missions,” Meink said Thursday during his confirmation hearing with the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Both during his testimony and in responses to advance policy questions prior to the hearing, Meink emphasized that the Air Force is at an inflection point as it works to upgrade key systems and capabilities across all of its core mission areas.

The service is responsible for modernizing two legs of the nuclear triad with its new B-21 Raider stealth bomber and its replacement for the aging Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missile system known as the LGM-35A Sentinel. Other high-cost efforts include the Air Force’s next-generation fighter platforms — such as the F-47 and Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA) drones — new command-and-control capabilities and intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) systems.

Managing those efforts with ongoing readiness and maintenance requirements would be his top priority — and a significant challenge — if confirmed, Meink told lawmakers.

“We also need to balance today’s requirements with the need to modernize and maintain future readiness, deterrence and lethality,” Meink wrote in his written responses to lawmakers’ questions. “Manage short-term risk to readiness to modernize and prepare our forces for mid-to-long term and enduring strategic missions as well as acute and persistent threats.”

Meink also pledged to improve the Air Force’s ability to innovate on new technologies for warfighters, adding that his previous experience at the NRO and in other leadership positions at the Pentagon would help him do so.

“I spent the last decade increasing competition and expanding the industry base, which has significantly accelerated delivery capability and at a lower cost. I intend to bring that same drive for innovation to the department,” he said.

Prior to being tapped by Trump in January to serve as the next secretary of the Air Force, Meink spent four years as principal deputy director of the NRO — the spy agency responsible for intelligence space systems. He was also previously the organization’s director of geospatial intelligence systems and held numerous other positions focused on the space domain.

Meink said growing the Space Force would be among his top priorities if he’s confirmed.

“Space is critical. This is actually one of the areas that we’re most challenged, I believe,” Meink said in response to questions from Sen. Deb Fischer, R-Neb. “From the rapidly evolving threat from China and others — both the direct threat to our systems, as well as the threat those systems pose to operations across the department in general.”

However, Sen. Kevin Cramer, R-N.D., probed Meink on rumors that the Space Development Agency (SDA) is planning to cancel contracts for Tranche 2 and Tranche 3 of the transport layer in the Proliferated Space Warfighter Architecture (PWSA) and instead award a sole-source contract to SpaceX for its Starshield capability. Cramer added that, if true, such plans would mean at least eight mid-sized space vendors would not be allowed to bid on the contracts.

Meink’s alleged ties to Elon Musk’s SpaceX have come under scrutiny in recent weeks, but the nominee claimed that he was unaware of any considerations to replacing current contracts with Starshield but would investigate them if he’s confirmed.

Northrop Grumman, Lockheed Martin and York Space Systems are on contract to build some of the satellites under the Tranche 2 transport layer, while a separate contract previously awarded to York and Tyvak Nano-Satellite Systems is being re-competed following a protest bid. The agency is currently gearing up to formally begin bidding for Tranche 3 of the transport layer this year.

“One of the things that I’ve pushed for — particularly over the last 10 years — is to expand competition and expand the industry base,” Meink said. “That ends up almost always with the best result, both from capability and cost to the government.”

In a statement to DefenseScoop, a Department of the Air Force spokesperson said the department and the Space Force are working with the Office of the Secretary of Defense to review all acquisition programs under the fiscal 2026 budget process, and that no decision has been made regarding Tranche 2 and Tranche 3 of the transport layer.

“The DAF and [Space Force] are committed to the efficient use of taxpayer dollars and maximizing the delivery of capability to the joint warfighter,” the spokesperson said. “We look forward to sharing the status of our acquisition programs with our stakeholders in Congress and elsewhere when the FY26 budget is delivered in the coming months.”

The post Trump’s Air Force secretary nominee pledges ‘holistic look’ at service modernization efforts appeared first on DefenseScoop.

His confirmation hearing, scheduled for April 1, will be Caine’s most high-profile public appearance since Trump plucked him from relative obscurity after firing Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Gen. Charles “CQ” Brown and announcing his intent to nominate Caine to replace him.

Trump officially submitted his nomination to the Senate on March 10.

If confirmed, Caine would become a four-star general and Trump’s top military adviser amid international conflicts and a major modernization push by the Defense Department to acquire new AI capabilities and other high-tech systems, as well as buy software and other tools more rapidly. The Pentagon is also in the midst of DOGE reviews, hiring freezes and efforts to reduce the DOD’s civilian workforce by more than 50,000 people.

Caine was an unconventional choice to take on the U.S. military’s top role. He had already retired from the military and didn’t hold a four-star rank before being tapped.

Trump has praised Caine for his efforts to combat the ISIS terrorist group during his first administration.

“He’s a real general, not a television general,” Trump said in February during remarks at an investment summit in Miami. “We have the greatest military in the world, but we don’t have the greatest top, top leadership.”

The nominee is a Virginia Military Institute graduate and former F-16 fighter pilot, who held a variety of roles during his decades-long military career. His last assignment was associate director for military affairs at the CIA, which ended in December 2024, according to his Air Force bio.

Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I., the top Democrat and ranking member on the Senate Armed Services Committee, said during an appearance on ABC News’ “This Week” in February that he wasn’t familiar with Caine, who will be subject to “careful review” by the committee.

“There are obviously a great many questions that we’re going to raise with him, but I think we have to give him the opportunity to make his case and also to make clear that he is going to be willing to speak truth to power, willing to give his best military advice to the president, not just tell the president what he wants to hear — and also to be open and share with the Congress the facts on the ground, not be a political spokesperson for the president. So those are part of the issues that we’ll address as we go forward,” Reed said.

Barring a poor performance at the hearing or unflattering revelations about his prior conduct, it’s likely that Caine will be confirmed. Trump’s most controversial nominee for a top Pentagon post during his second term, Pete Hegseth, narrowly won confirmation as secretary of defense in January despite unanimous opposition from Democrats in the Senate.

After recently meeting with Caine, Sen. Jim Banks, R-Ind., a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, issued a statement saying the nominee had his full support and would help “Make Our Military Great Again” as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

The post Dan ‘Razin’ Caine, Trump’s nominee for chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, set to testify at confirmation hearing appeared first on DefenseScoop.

Communist China is especially dangerous because, unlike other adversaries, it is able to compete with and potentially surpass the United States economically. Many of my colleagues in Congress have appropriately pointed out the urgency with which the United States needs to modernize our economy with the most state-of-the-art technology, a key component of which is building out a robust 5G telecommunications infrastructure. Information flow is increasingly central to our highly digitized economy, and the importance of a modern, optimized 5G telecommunications network is vital. I agree with my colleagues that we need to dominate next-generation wireless technologies to stay ahead of our adversaries and advance strong economic growth. Economic power is military power — just ask the totalitarian adversaries the United States has left on the dust heap of history.

You will find no disagreement in the halls of Congress on the importance of building out America’s 5G infrastructure. Many are frustrated with the slow pace at which the Federal Communications Commission and Congress have been moving to restore spectrum auction authority and open up more spectrum bands for commercial use. Unfortunately, when it comes to how to reach that goal, some are willing to sell Department of Defense (DOD) capabilities for short term economic gain. This would be just as disastrous to our national security in the long run as not developing our 5G networks. 

Many of our military’s most important radar systems operate on the 3.1-3.45 gigahertz (GHz) band of the spectrum, referred to as the lower-3 band. These radars are essential to homeland defense missions and protecting our troops overseas. Right now, Arleigh Burke-class destroyers are conducting missile defense missions off the coasts of the United States and protecting our deployed forces in the Red Sea against sophisticated Houthi missile and drone attacks. The Navy’s Aegis Combat System relies heavily on the lower-3 band, using radars to track threats and guide weapons to targets. Forcing the DOD to vacate or share those portions of the spectrum would cost taxpayers dearly — the Navy alone estimates that it would cost them $250 billion to migrate their systems to other bands of the spectrum, and that would take time we do not have with the looming threat of a belligerent Communist China.

Furthermore, on January 27, 2025, President Trump issued a potentially game changing Executive Order directing the DOD to develop and build an “Iron Dome Missile Defense Shield for America.” Before the Senate Armed Services Committee this month, General Guillot, the Commander of Northern Command charged with protecting our homeland, confirmed that NORTHCOM needs unfettered access to portions of the spectrum, and that any Iron Dome for America concept is dead on arrival if the DOD has to vacate the lower-3 band and other crucial portions of the spectrum. In short, the binary choice many in the telecommunications industry are lobbying Congress to make would kill President Trump’s Iron Dome for America and continue to leave the U.S. homeland exposed to an array of long-range strike threats ranging from intercontinental ballistic missiles to cruise missiles to hypersonic weapons. The American people should not accept this. I agree with President Trump’s vision, and therefore want to safeguard the DOD spectrum necessary for developing and deploying an Iron Dome for America, ranging from point defense up to a space-based layer.

Advocates for restricting DOD’s use of the lower-3 band or portions of the 7 and 8 GHz band of spectrum argue that Communist China has been willing to build out some of their 5G infrastructure on those bands. However, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) can arbitrarily turn off or blow out commercial use and infrastructure of any portion of the spectrum whenever they want with no recourse for civilian users, and provide their military primacy in spectrum use. Certainly, that is not a situation the U.S. telecommunications industry is interested in.

The telecommunications industry should abandon its quest to restrict the DOD’s use of the lower-3 band or require it to share all or a portion of the band — a course of action which would materially damage the national security of the United States. The DOD has developed exquisite radars on this portion of the spectrum precisely because of the unique physics there which enable them to function so effectively. There is a reason the CCP is actively advocating that other countries around the world build out their 5G infrastructure on the lower-3 band. It is to limit the capabilities of our most capable radars.

The twofold path forward must be (1) an aggressive pursuit of spectrum sharing technology for use throughout the spectrum (not just the critical lower-3 band), and (2) a thorough and candid assessment of what portion, if any, of the 7 and 8 GHz band of spectrum can be auctioned off to industry without harming national security. From there, Congress can give the spectrum auction authority necessary. This should happen quickly as 5G expansion remains a priority.  

As the United States engages in this competition with Communist China with a renewed vigor under the Trump administration, it is imperative that we not trade national security for economic prosperity. Now is not the time to degrade our military capabilities, especially those capabilities needed to defend our homeland from attack. We never want to send our troops into a fair fight. We want to give them every possible advantage to prevail with minimum losses. That includes crucial bands of the electromagnetic spectrum. I look forward to working with my colleagues to find a solution to the ever-increasing demand for spectrum usage, while acknowledging our need to restrict certain portions for national security.

Sen. Mike Rounds, R-S.D., is a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, chair of the SASC Subcommittee on Cybersecurity, and also serves on the SASC Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities and the SASC Subcommittee on Strategic Forces.

The post Protection of spectrum by Congress also protects Trump’s Iron Dome from shortsighted 5G policy appeared first on DefenseScoop.

A report accompanying the panel’s version of the fiscal 2025 National Defense Authorization Act, which was released this week, highlighted members’ concerns about where things stand.

“The committee believes that the most effective counter-unmanned aerial systems (UAS) capabilities for the joint force are those using software-defined technologies of autonomy, artificial intelligence (AI), and machine learning,” they wrote, noting that U.S. Special Operations Command has been using such technologies to rapidly deploy cutting-edge counter-UAS capabilities in combat environments. That includes multi-modal sensing capabilities and vertical take-off and landing, AI-driven autonomous air vehicles that can defeat “Group 3” drones — a category of UAS that includes loitering munitions, which are also known as kamikaze drones or one-way attack drones.

Industry has been developing cutting-edge systems, like Anduril’s Roadrunner-M, that are designed to perform air defense missions.

“The committee is concerned by the obstacles to transitioning these innovative capabilities from SOCOM to conventional forces,” and “the committee is concerned that the Services have not budgeted to sustain and expand these types of critical capabilities,” lawmakers noted in the report.

The legislation would require the acquisition executives for the Army, Navy and Air Force to provide separate briefings to the armed services committees on the Hill by Jan. 31, 2025, on their plans to “resource, transition, and scale advanced, AI-enabled, combat-validated UAS defeat capabilities to conventional forces within their department.”

The wording in the provision is very similar to a House-passed version of the annual defense policy bill, which makes it more likely that this type of directive will be included in the final version of the NDAA that comes out of the House-Senate conference process.

Autonomous air vehicles and tracking capabilities aren’t the only high-tech, drone-killing tools that lawmakers want to see the Defense Department prioritize and accelerate for fielding. They’re also keen on directed energy systems, a category of weapons that includes high-energy lasers and high-power microwaves.

DE tools are seen as a more cost-effective way of defeating large numbers of inexpensive drones, on a cost-per-shot basis, than many of the missiles or “kinetic” interceptors in the U.S. military’s arsenal.

In recent years, batches of UAS have been launched against Ukrainian forces and infrastructure by Russia, against U.S. Navy ships and commercial vessels in the Red Sea by the Houthis, and against American troops in the Middle East by other Iranian-backed groups.

“The committee remains concerned about the threat posed by low-cost attritable aerial drones, especially the threat that drone swarms pose to our forces. The committee notes that conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East clearly demonstrate the utility and proliferation of low-cost attritable aerial drone systems and believes that more must be done to protect U.S. servicemembers from that threat. The committee welcomes the resulting increase in focus of the Department of Defense (DOD) on exploring the use of directed energy systems to defeat these threats at a low cost per engagement,” lawmakers wrote in the report for the SASC version of the policy bill.

“The committee encourages DOD to prioritize rapidly developing and acquiring directed energy systems to defeat large drone swarms and believes that the Department should utilize all available rapid acquisition pathways to develop and acquire directed energy counter drone swarm systems,” they added.

The Pentagon has been experimenting with these types of weapons and deployed some of them overseas, but not on a scale that some officials and advocates would like to see.

The Army has sent a 50-kilowatt laser system to the U.S. Central Command area of responsibility in the Middle East. Doug Bush, the service’s acquisition chief, said officials are getting important feedback from the effort.

“I think we’re learning a lot about the challenges of integration of that powerful laser system … on a vehicle versus doing it at a fixed site or versus doing a lower-power laser on a vehicle like a Stryker. So I think the learning that’s going on, though, is absolutely informing the [program objective memorandum] decisions being made, budget decisions being made right now in terms of what is most likely to succeed first in the directed energy realm. You know, beyond that, the fact that it’s deployed and being used by real soldiers, again, that’s just the best test we can have. I can’t get into more detail on effectiveness right now because of just security concerns,” Bush told reporters in June.

Meanwhile, Epirus has delivered prototypes derived from its Leonidas system to support the Army’s Indirect Fire Protection Capability-High-Power Microwave (IFPC-HPM) initiative. The Navy is also experimenting with the technology.

Some U.S. military leaders have expressed frustration that more DE systems haven’t been fielded. Other Defense Department officials have noted that there are still challenges to overcome, including command-and-command issues.

The SASC version of the NDAA would direct the secretary of defense to provide a briefing to the House and Senate armed services committees by Feb. 1, 2025, on all the department’s initiatives to develop and procure DE weapons that could defeat large numbers of enemy drones in a single engagement.

This week, SASC Chair Jack Reed, D-R.I., and Ranking Member Roger Wicker, R-Miss., announced that the committee’s NDAA was filed for the full Senate’s consideration.

“I am glad that this year’s NDAA makes important progress in a number of areas, including … significant support for technologies like counter-drone defenses and AI,” Reed said in a statement, before noting that he had to vote against the passage of the legislation because it includes authorization for a funding increase that can’t be appropriated without busting spending caps.

“I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate and House to find practical ways to strengthen this year’s defense bill,” he said.

In a statement, Wicker said he was “encouraged that many of my colleagues have joined me in the conversation about the need to invest more in our national defense. I look forward to discussing the peace through strength vision I have laid out in the months to come. This year’s NDAA results are a testament to the tradition of bipartisanship, vigorous debate, and good working order on which this committee prides itself.”

The post Senators amplify concerns about pace of fielding AI-enabled counter-drone systems appeared first on DefenseScoop.