Reps. Pat Ryan (D-NY), and Rob Wittman (R-VA) set up the caucus in early 2024 to strategically inform legislation to improve the Defense Department’s adoption of modern software and warfighting capabilities.

“This is what happens when you get industry, academia, and members of Congress who refuse to maintain the status quo together in a room. We’re going to keep pushing as hard as we can,” a senior member on Ryan’s team told DefenseScoop on Friday.

Early this year, Ryan and Wittman formally solicited policy proposals and focus areas from stakeholders across industry and academia to puzzle out the reforms. The caucus also set up a unique portal for modernization-related recommendations.

“We need to put disruptive technologies in the hands of warfighters, we need more competition in the defense industrial base, and we need to cut down pointless red tape and bureaucracy. Congress must be relentlessly focused on providing the U.S. military with the capabilities and capacity necessary to deter our adversaries — we cannot afford complacency,” Wittman said in a statement.

The senior House staffer previewed some of the caucus-inspired inclusions and amendments that made it into the massive defense package.

The NDAA includes language that would:

• Accelerate the DOD’s counter-unmanned aerial system operations and authorities to protect military operations and other specific locations around the U.S.
• Add additional reporting requirements to the Authority to Operate (ATO) process and streamline timelines for such approvals
• Require the Pentagon to develop and maintain a virtual sandbox environment for operational testing and development
• Require the secretary of defense to brief Congress on the integration of AI and machine learning across the department
• Empower the Defense Innovation Unit (DIU) to expand outreach and create additional onramp hubs domestically and internationally
• Direct DOD leadership to submit a plan to accelerate the accreditation, construction, and operational use of commercial Sensitive Compartmented Information Facilities (SCIF) accessible to industry
• Seek to streamline and simplify the requirements for a modular open system approach to the design and development of a major weapon system.

“This didn’t happen overnight,” the senior official said. “This was a collaborative process over the course of many months, and it’s truly only just the beginning of what we can accomplish in the future.”

Beyond Ryan and Wittman, they said other members of the caucus who serve on HASC and helped champion these and additional efforts include: Reps. Seth Moulton (D-MA), Chrissy Houlahan (D-PA), Chris Deluzio (D-PA), Don Bacon (R-NE), John McGuire (R-VA), Pat Fallon (R-TX), George Whitesides (D-CA), Maggie Goodlander (D-NH), Wesley Bell (D-MO) and Mark Messmer (R-IN). 

“Stay tuned, because we’re only just getting started,” Ryan said in a statement.

The post House Defense Modernization Caucus pushes authority and acquisition reforms for fiscal 2026 appeared first on DefenseScoop.

Congress funded the F/A-XX project to the tune of $454 million in fiscal 2025. However, the Defense Department wants to slash spending to just $74 million in 2026, according to budget documents viewed by DefenseScoop. Meanwhile, the DOD plans to spend $3.5 billion in the next fiscal year on the Air Force’s next-gen fighter, the F-47.

The 2026 request “slows” the Navy’s program “due to industrial base concerns of two sixth-generation programs occurring simultaneously,” according to the document.

Lawmakers this week expressed concern about the projected cuts.

“We know that in the FY ’25 [continuing resolution] there was $453.8 million … put towards that — I’ll get the number right — and in reconciliation $500 million. So you can see Congress is consistently pushing ahead and saying, ‘This is … where we need to go.’ And we’d be a little surprised if the support for this fell off, especially since we’re looking at the requirements and not seeing any change there,” Rep. Rob Wittman, R-Va., said Thursday during a House Armed Services Committee hearing.

Wittman asked Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Dan Caine, who was testifying during the hearing, if the requirements that military officials previously laid out for that platform are still the same.

“As we look at the threat picture out in the Pacific, the requirements themselves I think are still valid. I think it comes down to a question that many of the folks on the committee have talked about, and that’s the ability [for industry] to produce at a particular time. And I’ll defer to my civilian leaders on the timing and synchronization [of] that program. But we do need, you know, capability that is mobile, whether it’s F/A-XX or others, that enable us to win on the battlefield to the future,” Caine replied.

Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, who was testifying alongside Caine, said the fiscal 2026 budget request “funds the complete design of F/A-XX.”

However, he suggested the Pentagon is reevaluating plans for the program.

“We’re certainly reviewing it — working with the Joint Staff, working with the [combatant commands] — at its application around the globe. So it’s in the mix, but we recognize we need — we also need a capability as quickly as possible for the threats that we face,” Hegseth said.

Navy officials have said the F/A-XX is expected to be extra stealthy, have significantly longer range than the fighter jets that are currently in the fleet, and incorporate artificial intelligence capabilities.

The service also wants the manned jet to be able to team up with advanced drones.

“It will also, with the integration of AI and other technical advantages, allow us to have increased battle space management. And it will be our next platform that, instead of being man in the loop, will truly be man on the loop and allow us to have fully integrated architecture with our unmanned systems that we’re going to be fielding with concepts like the CCAs — whether it’s those collaborative combat aircraft, the small increased mass, or also teaming with larger unmanned vehicles that we may foresee into the future,” Rear Adm. Michael “Buzz” Donnelly, then-director of the air warfare division, N98, in the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, said at the Navy League’s Sea-Air-Space conference in April.

At the same conference, acting Chief of Naval Operations Adm. James Kilby said the Air Force isn’t the only service that needs a sixth-gen fighter for a potential conflict against advanced adversaries like China.

“We need F/A-XX in the United States Navy,” he said. “We’re talking about a fight in the Pacific. We fight together as a joint force, so having that capability is very important for us.”

Many observers had expected the service to award a large development contract to either Boeing or Northrop Grumman in the spring.

However, Secretary of the Navy John Phelan, who stepped into his new role in March, told lawmakers Wednesday that officials continue to look at force structure needs for the future.

“As it comes to next-gen fighters … we’re looking at the full composition of the air wing of the future. And so we have to focus on the capabilities and technologies for years to come that are going to win, and that includes manned and unmanned platforms that we have to look at,” he said during a House Armed Services Committee hearing.

He noted that he also has concerns about the industrial base and how some of the Navy’s other programs are faring.

“I do not have a lot of confidence. All of our programs are in trouble. We have number of companies that are not performing. We’ve got to get those done. So I think looking at this system, sixth-gen is important. And I know it’s important to the admiral [Kilby], he should always give you his best military advice. I think we’re looking at the whole panacea of what we’ve got and then … what makes the most sense to use in the future. And so I think we have to get more confidence in the [industrial] base,” Phelan said.

“This is a system that you know, as I said in my opening statement about readiness, readiness means, like ready, like today and then in the future — and how is that future changing and how do we think about that? And so that’s we’re looking at it, evaluating it, and trying to make sure that we’re not back here in two years saying, ‘We told you it was going to cost X, it’s actually going to be X plus 50, and by the way, it’s going to be late,’” he told the committee.

Rep. Jen Kiggans, R-Va., said the Pentagon shouldn’t be cutting funding for the F/A-XX.

“We need that money for a lot of reasons,” she said at Wednesday’s HASC hearing. “China is … already testing and flying J-50s and J-36 fighters, which is their sixth-generation fighter. The Navy to be competitive with that has got to make that investment.”

The Trump administration has not yet submitted its full fiscal 2026 budget request to Congress. Lawmakers may end up appropriating much more money for the F/A-XX than the Defense Department proposes.

The post Despite proposed cuts, Navy requirements for F/A-XX next-gen fighter ‘still valid,’ Joint Chiefs chairman says appeared first on DefenseScoop.

While largely expressing support for the initiative, lawmakers said they need more info.

“Unfortunately, we still have not received any real information on the Army’s budget request, nor have we received any detailed information on the Army’s Transformation Initiative, or ATI, the secretary and the chief announced over a month ago,” Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Ala., chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, said. “I believe I speak for most of the members of this committee when I say that we share the goal of developing a more modern, agile and well-equipped Army.”

At the end of April, the service announced what it dubbed Army Transformation Initiative, seeking to shrink its headquarters elements, become leaner, cut programs that aren’t efficient and change how it spends, following a directive from Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth for sweeping changes to the service.

Rogers told Army Chief of Staff Gen. Randy George and Secretary of the Army Daniel Driscoll at Wednesday’s HASC hearing that the committee wants to see the service’s “homework” given the significance of what leaders are trying to do.

“We need to see your homework. An overhaul this significant should be based on a thorough assessment of requirements. And it should include a detailed blueprint of the specific changes being proposed and how the Army plans to implement them. We need to see those assessments and blueprints,” he said. “We also need you to provide us a timeline for implementing ATI. These details will help Congress understand, evaluate, and ultimately fund, your transformation efforts.”

That concern was shared by other top members of the committee as well.

“I want to applaud both of you publicly for diving into that very difficult subject. It needs to be done. Now, the chairman is right, the details need to be worked out, but there is no question that the nature of warfare is changing dramatically. How do we adjust our force to meet those challenges?” Rep. Adam Smith, D-Wash., the panel’s ranking member, said. “Your efforts in that are broadly supported by this committee. Devil’s in the details, but you’re headed in the right direction and we look forward to working with you to make some of those changes.”

Others expressed dismay regarding how the Army has presented the reform effort and requested more details from leadership.

“Like many of my colleagues, I am frustrated by how the Army has decided to roll out this Army Transformation Initiative. It doesn’t matter which side of the aisle that we’re on here, we all want to make sure that the Army is lethal, it is ready to meet the challenges of today and tomorrow,” Rep. Eric Sorensen, D-Ill., said. “However, you chose to give us a plan with few details, with no budgeting and a failure to answer a lot of our questions. Now we’re hearing about how this plan will be implemented from my own constituents, not from leadership. The Army and Congress have always had a better relationship than that.”

When service leaders announced their intentions for reforms, they stated that they were aimed at better posturing the service to deter China in the Pacific theater. But some on the Hill want them to be more forthcoming.

“The Army Transformation Initiative has generated more questions than answers in the department’s attempt to deliver critical warfighting capabilities, optimize our force structure and eliminate waste and obsolete programs,” Rep. Derek Tran, D-Calif., said. “In particular, I am concerned with how the ATI positions the Army to better counter a near-peer adversary like the People’s Republic of China. China’s ability to rapidly field new capabilities can be attributed to its centralized political and military decision-making, state-directed industrial base, incremental fielding of new systems and their blatant theft of foreign intellectual property, all with little to no public oversight.”

When asked for a timeline for details of what the service is proposing, Army Secretary Dan Driscoll told the committee that the transformation will be an iterative process and that there won’t be a single date for everything in the initial batch of transformation.

“We will be hopefully doing what the best companies in America do and learning as we go,” Driscoll said, noting some efforts are in progress. He promised to share details as soon as “reasonable drafts” are in place.

He said many of the cuts to obsolete programs will be reflected in the forthcoming fiscal 2026 budget.

“We’re obviously continuing with FY25 [spending] because that’s what we were directed to do with our budget,” George said, adding that they’re canceling Humvees and haven’t asked to purchase new ones.

HASC members said they wanted to ensure that the Army was making transformation choices based on real policy decisions that will help the service counter battlefield threats more effectively rather than being purely rooted in budgetary constraints.

“If budget is driving policy, you’re going to have a problem by this committee. If policy is being driven first and budget is a consequence, then we’re going to be open ears,” Rogers said. “But you can’t just try to make your policy or your construct fit a number that’s arbitrary. We need you to let us know what you need and then let us worry about funding it, because that’s what we’re here for. Just know that there’s other people that see this same way you do, which is why we need a budget so we can talk about these things. But I can’t overstate, we are not going to be hostile to dramatic changes if it’s being driven by the need for change and not just to meet some budget number that somebody’s handed to you.”

The post Congress wants to see Army’s ‘homework’ on transformation initiative appeared first on DefenseScoop.

“This is something that, when they say ‘incidents happen,’ it innovates us and urges us to make the requirement, and make the devices, and make the technology available. So, this is something that we are taking as a priority,” Katie Arrington, the senior official performing the duties of Pentagon CIO, told lawmakers Thursday.

She shed new light on those and other near-term plans during a House Armed Services subcommittee hearing about the DOD’s current IT and AI posture.

Reports first emerged in March that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth shared high-stakes military operational plans in a group chat — via the encrypted but unclassified texting app Signal — with several of his counterparts in the Trump administration and an American journalist (who unveiled the ordeal after he was accidentally added to the group chat). Cybersecurity advocates, former military officials and members of Congress immediately raised concerns about the messages and warned that sharing classified or sensitive information on non-government platforms about planned military operations could put servicemembers’ lives at risk.

With support from President Donald Trump, Hegseth repeatedly pushed back on criticism about his Signal use — and news reports have since surfaced that the SecDef has texted in multiple other chats on the app, where Pentagon business was discussed. 

In April, the Pentagon inspector general opened an investigation into Hegseth’s participation in transferring details about impending military operations on unclassified networks. Officials involved are also reviewing whether DOD’s official policies and procedures were followed and if records retention requirements were met.

“The way we have traditionally communicated is going into a [Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility, or SCIF] and having a high-side communication, and that has been the way we have worked it for many, many, many, many years. And we’re evolving. The technology is evolving. And I will just say that it is [up to] my office, along with many others, to ensure that we come up with a real capability in real-time to allow that communication to go forward. It’s paramount,” Arrington said.

“And I’m not really fond of voice [communications]. I think that there’s enough microphones and people out there in the world that I really like the idea of text messaging and ensuring that our elite senior leaders can communicate effectively away from their offices, because the government doesn’t [just] function within the building, within the Pentagon, or within the White House, or within this building itself,” she added.

Earlier this week, Trump named Kirsten Davies to serve as the DOD’s next CIO in a permanent capacity. Until she takes the helm, Arrington is currently wearing dual hats as acting CIO and chief information security officer. During Trump’s first term, Arrington served as the department’s CISO for acquisition and sustainment. In 2021, under the Biden administration, it was disclosed that her clearance was suspended as “a result of a reported Unauthorized Disclosure of Classified Information and subsequent removal of access by the National Security Agency.” Public details are sparse, but a lawsuit associated with the scandal was settled between Arrington and the DOD in 2022.

At the hearing on Thursday, she told lawmakers that — behind one other “classified endeavor” — finding a way for senior government leaders across agencies and the White House, as well as members of Congress, “to have true secure communications on a day-to-day basis” is considered the “number two priority” in her office.

“That’s what I’m doing right now, sir, because it is paramount for me,” Arrington reiterated.

She didn’t expand on what the unfolding efforts to accelerate secure texting options currently entail. In her written testimony, Arrington pointed to one key modernization initiative that will involve producing an enterprise-wide Mission Partner Environment to underpin secure information exchanges between U.S. officials and international allies at various classification levels.

“My office’s job is to make sure that we do better for both you, the secretary of defense, the deputy, the president — everyone across the board — it’s a forcing function. It is something that is a priority for our office to make sure that we have that in rapid time. I would be more than happy to give you a classified brief on all of the efforts that we’re doing to ensure security of communications,” Arrington told lawmakers at the hearing.

The post Post-Signalgate, Pentagon CIO prioritizes secure platforms for sensitive instant messaging 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.

An amendment to the fiscal 2025 defense policy bill proposed by Rep. Don Bacon, R-Neb., which passed the committee late Wednesday night, would direct the secretary of defense to designate the Joint Force Headquarters-DOD Information Network as a subordinate unified command under U.S. Cyber Command.

JFHQ-DODIN is a subordinate headquarters under Cybercom responsible for protecting and defending the Pentagon’s network globally.

“There is broad agreement on the committee that DOD’s cyber defense mission should have an organizational structure and resource priority commensurate with its significant responsibilities,” Bacon, who is also the new chairman of the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Cyber, Innovative Technologies and Information Systems, said in a statement to DefenseScoop. “As we looked at options, we felt the obvious move was to mirror what the Department did for the offensive side which elevated the Cyber National Mission Force to a subordinate unified command in 2022. The leadership of the Department has been clear on the mission improvements they’ve seen since CNMF was elevated so it was just a matter of applying that same logic to the defensive side of the mission.”

As Bacon referenced, last year, the Pentagon elevated the Cyber National Mission Force — its elite cadre of teams responsible for defending the nation from cyberattacks — to a sub-unified command. This decision signified CNMF’s importance within the department for the mission it performs. While officials said the elevation didn’t mean CNMF would necessarily receive new resources or personnel anytime soon, in practical terms, it signified maturity of the group and will provide a better resource pipeline for personnel from the services — as it will be able to more clearly and with more authority direct the training requirements it needs from the services.   

What was not clear from the legislation is if it would sever the so-called dual-hat relationship in which the Defense Information Systems Agency and JFHQ-DODIN are led by the same person. DISA serves as a combat support agency providing critical IT services to warfighters and is much bigger than JFHQ-DODIN.

Other aspects of the relationship could complicate a possible elevation of JFHQ-DODIN.

Despite the separate reporting chains of command — JFHQ-DODIN to Cybercom and DISA to DOD’s chief information officer — command and control of each group can be complicated and competing in many cases.

DISA also has several directorates and divisions while JFHQ-DODIN’s staff has remained relatively small and has relied frequently on contractor support.

Lawmakers on both sides of Congress have recently raised the prospect of elevating JFHQ-DODIN.

“It’s my understanding that when the nation faces a cyberattack, there are two forces under your operational control that respond: the cyber national mission force and the Joint Force Headquarters-DOD Information Network. As you know, in 2022, the cyber national mission force was elevated to be a sub-unified command … How has this elevation helped Cybercom’s operational readiness to respond to attack?” Sen. Jacky Rosen, D-Nev., asked at a congressional hearing last month. “Would also elevating the DOD Information Network to a sub-unified command enable Cybercom to be more resilient in future cyberattacks?”

Others on the House side have raised similar issues.

“In December 2022, SECDEF officially elevated Cybercom’s defensive arm, cyber national mission force to a sub-unified command. The logic was that it would provide greater enabling resources for this critical mission set. With how much adversary activity we have witnessed against DOD networks, it would appear that your defensive arm Joint Force Headquarters could similar benefit,” Rep. Morgan Luttrell, R-Texas, said during another congressional hearing in April.

For his part, Cybercom commander, Gen. Timothy Haugh told lawmakers that such an elevation could be in the cards as part of a holistic evaluation of the future of the command.

The provision put forth by Bacon would also make clear that JFHQ-DODIN is the “lead organization for the network operations, security, and defense of the Department of Defense Information Network.”

The bill must still pass the full House and be reconciled with the Senate version before becoming law.

The post House bill directs Pentagon’s network defense arm to become subordinate unified command appeared first on DefenseScoop.

In 2016, State Department officials in Havana, Cuba, started reporting experiences with mysterious, unexplainable medical symptoms impacting their capacities to serve. Intelligence and military staff operating in the U.S., Russia, Serbia, Vietnam, India, Colombia, France, Taiwan and other nations have since recorded similar complications associated with such anomalous health incidents (AHI), or what is now also referred to as “Havana syndrome.”

Often, those suffering from AHI report severe dizziness, headaches, nausea, vertigo, hearing loss, vision problems, anxiety, cognitive difficulties, fatigue and memory loss. 

The precise cause of Havana syndrome still remains unclear, but experts have suggested that a microwave weapon or directed-energy device could be a possible source. Five U.S. intelligence agencies previously concluded in their own federal assessment that the primary cause was likely not a U.S. adversary. However, the New York Times reported on Monday that the House Intelligence Committee has moved to look into the handling of that investigation and possibly challenge those conclusions.

The members of Congress behind this new bill noted in their announcement that the National Defense Authorization Acts for fiscal 2022 and fiscal 2023 included provisions mandating interagency coordination on AHI, and explicit reporting requirements for the State Department — but not the Pentagon.

“I’ve spoken directly with public servants, including from Virginia, impacted by anomalous health incidents. These Americans include U.S. diplomats, servicemembers, intelligence officers, and civilian personnel. As a former CIA case officer and member of the U.S. House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, I believe that lawmakers and the Pentagon must better understand the extent of these incidents and develop a strategy to address the issue,” Rep. Abigail Spanberger, D-Va., said in a statement.

Spanberger introduced the new bill last week alongside Reps. Brad Wenstrup, R-Ohio, Rick Crawford, R-Ark., Don Bacon, R-Neb., and Trent Kelly, R-Miss., and it was subsequently referred to the House Armed Services Committee.

Text of the Initiating Imperative Reporting on Anomalous Health Incidents Act (or IIR on AHI Act) was shared with DefenseScoop.

Specifically, the legislation would direct Pentagon officials to supply lawmakers in both chambers of Congress with new information regarding all the confirmed or suspected cases of AHI affecting DOD employees and military service members. Details such as the total number of officials that have been impacted to date (broken down by military occupational specialty), the location of the incidents, and the time frame when they occurred, would need to be incorporated. 

Defense officials would be required to participate in that briefing by March 1, 2025. 

Further, the bill also would direct the DOD to supply an updated strategy to guide how it can protect and treat personnel for AHI effects moving forward.

“Usually where there is smoke, there is a fire and since 2016 we’ve seen too many documented cases of unexplained medical symptoms affecting our diplomats and intelligence officers stationed around the world. We need to hear from the Department of Defense about how many this has affected and what they are doing to treat and better protect our people stationed overseas,” Bacon said. 

The post Lawmakers question how ‘Havana syndrome’ is affecting DOD appeared first on DefenseScoop.

According to a summary of the fiscal 2024 National Defense Authorization Act released by the committee, which it finalized yesterday, the provision directs “an independent assessment of creating a Cyber Force or further evolving the existing force development and management model.”

Committee personnel briefing reporters Friday noted there has been considerable discussion and proposals on the prospect of an independent cyber force or service both inside and outside the DOD. This assessment would be neutral and balanced and the suggestion is the DOD use the National Academy of Public Administration to do it.

The full bill’s language has not been released yet.

For over a decade, there have been rumblings that cyber needs its own service given its importance and high specialization. Within the past year, those rumblings have gotten louder with more outside groups and even members of Congress questioning military officials on the prospect of an independent cyber force.

This provision is one of the first real such salvos that opens the door to the possibility of an independent cyber service, which would be the seventh uniformed military service following the creation of the Space Force – which sits within the Department of the Air Force much like the Marine Corps sits inside the Department of the Navy – in 2019.

This provision also follows an item released by the House Armed Services Committee last week in the chairman’s mark that reflects the priorities of the committee’s chairman and includes input from other members directing the comptroller general to review the DOD’s management of cyber operations.

The reasoning behind last week’s item was to determine redundancies and duplication regarding how the services organize, train and equip the cyber warriors they present to Cybercom and, in some ways, was thought of as a companion to assessing the feasibility of an independent cyber service.

“There is a robust infrastructure within each service that establishes curriculums, funding profiles, manning rosters, upon which cyberspace operations are built. In practical terms, that means that there are four independent teams across the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines conceiving and implementing cyber training requirements,” a senior House Armed Services Committee aide told DefenseScoop at the time.

In prior years, lawmakers have danced around the issue of an independent cyber service, mandating the DOD include an assessment of the costs, benefits and values of establishing a uniformed cyber service in the 2022 cyber posture review, as well as a separate examination of the current cyber enterprise; how the services should man, train and equip for cyber; if a single military service should be responsible for basic, intermediate and advanced cyber training of the cyber mission force; and if the DOD should create a separate service.

Members of Congress have not been pleased with how DOD has responded to these assessments and reports — and in some cases, not providing assessments — leading to the need for an independent assessment.

The issue of an independent cyber service has started to gain steam recently given concern among former military personnel and Congress regarding readiness issues of the cyber mission force teams each service provides to U.S. Cyber Command to conduct cyber operations.

Each of the military services is responsible for providing personnel for a set number of teams to U.S. Cyber Command, which then employs those forces in operations for the other geographic combatant commands. But each service has its own identity, culture, and way of classifying and providing forces to Cybercom with many arguing that this has been to the detriment of cyber warriors given they are soldiers or airmen or sailors first, with a focus on cyber second.

Such an approach has led to readiness shortfalls across the force, most notably within the Navy, given how it has historically approached its cyber force.

Opponents of a cyber force say the current model hasn’t had enough time to prove if it works or not. The cyber mission force was officially created in 2013 — three years after the creation of Cybercom itself — and only reached full operational capability in 2018. The DOD has also authorized growth for the cyber mission force in the next five years.

Moreover, Cybercom is set to inherit enhanced budget control in October, which will give it full financial oversight and ownership of capabilities, requirements and force structure.

The post Senate Armed Services Committee directs independent assessment for creating a Cyber Force appeared first on DefenseScoop.

A provision in the mark for the fiscal 2024 National Defense Authorization Act by the Cyber, Information Technologies and Innovation subcommittee would rename the position of undersecretary of defense for research and engineering — a post currently held by Heidi Shyu — and change it to “undersecretary of defense for technology integration and innovation.”

In addition to serving as the Pentagon’s CTO, the undersecretary would also be responsible for “establishing policies on, and supervising, all elements of the Department relating to the identification of commercial technology for potential use by the Department and integration of such technology into the armed forces (and the Department),” the legislation states.

Both lawmakers and officials at the Pentagon have long admitted to difficulties in bringing new and innovative commercial tech into the department’s acquisition system. Often, promising capabilities fail to move past prototyping and into production due to the Pentagon’s bureaucratic and slow-moving processes — a phenomenon known as the “valley of death.”

In response, initiatives have been stood up across the DOD to help bridge gaps between the commercial world and the Pentagon.

Under the proposed legislation, the undersecretary of defense for technology integration and innovation would serve as the principal advisor to the secretary of defense on all commercial innovation and integration in the Pentagon, while implementing policies and procedures related to acquiring commercial products, commercial components and commercial services, per the preference under section 3453 of U.S. Code Title 10.

The undersecretary would also be responsible for promoting modular open system architecture approaches in acquisition in order to “encourage increased competition and the more frequent use of commercial technology within the Department,” the legislation states.

It also adds the duty of “providing for an alternate path to integrate commercial technology into the Department that does not include applying the Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System process to the acquisition of technology that readily exists in the commercial sector.” That task would be performed alongside the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. 

In addition, lawmakers added qualifications to the role to include not only a civilian with a background in technology or science, but also someone with experience in “private or venture capital, commercial innovation or prototype-to-production transition” and “managing complex programs and leveraging public-private capital partnerships.”

At the same time, a separate provision in the subcommittee mark would shake up the organizational and management structure for the Defense Innovation Unit (DIU), which aims to facilitate and accelerate the Pentagon’s adoption of commercial tech for military purposes.

‘‘The Director of the Defense Innovation Unit shall report directly to the Secretary of Defense without intervening authority and may communicate views on matters within the responsibility of the Unit directly to the Secretary without obtaining the approval or concurrence of any other official within the Department of Defense,” the mark states.

The Silicon Valley-based organization currently reports to Shyu’s office. The Pentagon named Doug Beck, a former vice president of Apple, as DIU’s new director in April. 

The provision requires the secretary to conduct an assessment of whether or not DIU is appropriately staffed to conduct its mission, as well as send a report to Congress about plans to address any staffing shortfalls and the funding required to do so.

The legislation did not clarify, however, how DIU’s elevated position within the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the newly defined roles for the proposed undersecretary of defense for technology integration and innovation would be reconciled.

Members of the subcommittee did not immediately respond to DefenseScoop’s request for comment. The Office of the Secretary of Defense would not comment on ongoing legislation. The Defense Innovation Unit also did not respond to requests for comment. 

The subcommittee is scheduled to mark up the policy bill on Tuesday.

The post Legislators call for reorganizing Pentagon’s R&D office, shifting focus to commercial tech integration appeared first on DefenseScoop.