Defense One - All Content

The Army gave General Dynamics $533M to build an artillery plant that produced nothing

Jesse Coburn, ProPublica — Sat, 15 Aug 2026 20:27:52 -0400

A robot was on fire. Again.

It was the summer of 2024, and the cutting-edge robots inside General Dynamics’ sweltering artillery factory near Dallas were catching fire with startling regularity, according to four former workers there. This wasn’t ideal, as the plant was supposed to be churning out urgently needed artillery shells for Ukraine. The robots, giant metal arms with clamps for hands, would end up drenched in oil, which would then — no surprise — combust as they moved steel blocks heated to 1,800 degrees into and out of a machine that periodically erupted columns of fire. One blaze that summer melted a robot’s cables, putting it out of commission for a week.

Only weeks earlier, defense officials and executives had touted the factory’s innovative new machinery, imported from Turkey, at a gala opening ceremony. But employees were already used to spectacular mishaps, fiery and otherwise. “After the second, third, fourth time, it just became almost normal,” one former worker said. “It got to the point where I was not surprised by anything that happened there.”

Instead of producing shells in an efficient and streamlined fashion, the pricey machines kept failing in bizarre ways. The robot arms would swing out of control, smashing into carefully calibrated equipment, and sometimes they would unexpectedly drop hunks of steel 5 feet down to the floor. The factory’s signature device, meant to precisely stretch the steel for the artillery shells, instead often cracked it beyond repair. Then there were the giant press machines, which required regular pounding with a sledgehammer to function properly but still botched the shaping of nearly every shell. “We really didn’t have any standardized practice,” said Quantel White, a former employee. “It was just a bunch of guys taking turns going at the machine with a sledgehammer every night.” To workers, even the factory buildings themselves came to feel doomed, with acrid smoke hanging in 100-degree heat over foundations seemingly sinking into the earth.

The situation never improved. The U.S. Army, which funded the factory, ordered work halted on two of its three production lines in August 2025. By then, General Dynamics had blown eight deadlines. Work on the third production line continued, but the facility never produced a single usable shell, according to a report from the Department of Defense’s inspector general in July.

The fiasco has cost American taxpayers $533 million, according to the Army. But the Army has not held General Dynamics or a key Turkish subcontractor — which provided the factory’s much-hyped but little-proven equipment — publicly accountable for the failures. Nor has it made General Dynamics pay a penny back.

Just the opposite: General Dynamics, one of the world’s largest defense companies, has been showered with new contracts, continuing its track record as one of the greatest beneficiaries of Pentagon spending. The company is still in charge of the factory. It recently announced that it will fix things there by bringing in another much-hyped but little-proven technology.

“It’s an absolute disaster,” said one former official in an Army office supervising the project. “The Army should’ve gone after recovering money from General Dynamics,” added the official, who, like others interviewed for this story, spoke on the condition of anonymity.

Publicly, the Army has been tight-lipped about what, exactly, went wrong at the factory, located in a sprawling suburb called Mesquite. The inspector general report described the failure but offered few specifics. It didn’t name the companies involved, much less any of the individuals responsible. The report’s recommendations were tepid: The Army should determine whether the contract was “appropriately issued,” how “the money was spent” and whether it can recoup any of it. It should also “identify and implement a solution” for producing more artillery. Army officials deflected blame, telling the inspector general that they didn’t do anything wrong.

In a detailed statement to ProPublica, the Army said it will recover funding for the project by getting unspecified discounts from General Dynamics on production orders. “The Army is exercising rigorous oversight to ensure every dollar invested delivers capability to the warfighter,” the statement read. “Where vendors fail to meet contract specifications, as seen at the Mesquite facility, we are evaluating contract performance, seeking recoupment of funds, and pivoting resources.”

As for General Dynamics, it has given no public explanation whatsoever. The company has said that it “met or exceeded requirements,” according to the inspector general report. General Dynamics declined an interview request from ProPublica. Company spokesperson Jeff Davis said ProPublica’s reporting “fundamentally mischaracterizes the circumstances and falsely impugns our record of employee safety and truthfulness with our customer.” He continued: “An article based on this foundation would be a materially false and misleading hit piece.” Davis did not respond to ProPublica’s request that he specify the alleged errors.

ProPublica reconstructed how the project went awry through interviews with 36 current and former employees of General Dynamics, the Army, the Pentagon and the White House. ProPublica also reviewed internal company documents as well as photographs and videos taken inside the factory.

Those involved described a project that was rushed and ill considered from the start. Congress paved the way, removing government contracting guardrails — meant to ensure taxpayer money isn’t wasted — so that Ukraine-related defense projects could be funded quickly. The Army took advantage, handing General Dynamics lucrative no-bid awards without knowing whether the machines it planned to use could perform the desired work. The Army’s due diligence was inadequate, four former Army and General Dynamics officials told ProPublica.

Compared to the multibillion-dollar budgets of other DOD projects, the financial cost of the Texas debacle is small. But the lack of consequences for the companies involved, in the view of defense-spending critics, is symptomatic of a larger problem: a deep-rooted culture at the Pentagon and in Congress in which expensive failures lead only to more spending. Such critics fear that extreme cases like this one could become more common if the Trump administration succeeds in boosting the defense budget from $1 trillion to $1.5 trillion. The administration is also seeking tens of billions of dollars for its war against Iran and pressuring defense companies to quickly ramp up weapons production.

“Too often the contractors have no accountability for their mistakes,” defense budget researcher William Hartung said. The Texas failure, he said, “is a foreshadow of what’s to come if the Trump administration gets the budget it asked for.”

The Pitch

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 felt like an emergency to the Biden administration. For General Dynamics, it was an opportunity. And Firat Gezen was ready with a pitch.

In six years running General Dynamics’ Ordnance and Tactical Systems business, Gezen had earned a reputation as a deft strategist and salesman. At 50, he wasn’t an engineer, and he had no experience running factories. He had spent decades working on the financial side of the weapons business. With a ready smile and a delivery as smooth as his perfectly bald head, he knew how to woo corporate leaders and Pentagon arms buyers alike.

Gezen was also shrewd. In 2020, after the Army sought to diversify its artillery supplier base by contracting with a small Pennsylvania company, Gezen swooped in and bought that company. That allowed General Dynamics to maintain its stranglehold over the production of metal bodies for the standard American artillery shell, referred to by its caliber: 155 mm. “Firat throws his arm around you and talks to you nicely,” one former Army official said. “But he’s got, like, five things that he’s the sole provider of, and it’s exclusive. He’s got you locked up forever.”

Firat Gezen, former president of General Dynamics Ordnance and Tactical Systems U.S. Army photo by PFC Brandon L. Perry

That put General Dynamics in an ideal position. Russia and Ukraine were firing thousands of shells back and forth each day. The United States was a key supplier to Ukraine, but decades of disinvestment had left the U.S. artillery industry emaciated. In March 2022, Congress passed the first in a series of bills allocating billions of dollars for Ukraine-related causes, including boosting artillery production. The next month, President Joe Biden pledged to send shells to Ukraine, and he wanted to move fast. But first someone had to make them.

The 155 mm shell has been a military workhorse for a century, owing to its simple, lethal power. Packed with TNT, the 33-inch cylinder can travel 10 miles when shot out of the barrel of a howitzer and send fragments flying hundreds of feet upon impact. But decades of asymmetric warfare in the Middle East, in which the United States relied largely on drones and bombs, had led some to believe the days of artillery battles were waning. By 2022, General Dynamics was the only producer of 155 mm metal shell bodies in the country, mainly in a century-old facility in Scranton, Pennsylvania.

Given that, the company was an obvious candidate to meet the sudden new demand. General Dynamics could simply replicate Scranton’s traditional manufacturing method, which dated back to the time of the Korean War. But in meetings with Pentagon officials in the fall of 2022, Gezen proposed an alternative: What if the Army funded a state-of-the-art production line that used a promising new technique?

A soldier attends to 155 mm shells in Ukraine in March 2025. Dmytro Smolienko/Urinform/NurPhoto/Getty Images

Central to this proposal was a virtual unknown in the world of American defense: Repkon. The company had been operating in its home country of Turkey for decades, providing “turnkey production facilities in the metal forming industry.” (Coincidentally, Gezen himself was born to Turkish parents in the United States.)

But Repkon had never received a Pentagon contract, and certainly not for its signature metalworking process called “flow-forming.” Whereas the Scranton method mainly involves molding ultrahot steel in giant forging presses, Repkon added a step in which a fast-spinning machine squeezes and rolls out the metal like clay on a potter’s wheel. The advantage, Gezen told defense officials, is that the same equipment could produce shells of various calibers. Most important, Repkon had a production line already available, meaning General Dynamics could start making shells faster than if it had to procure traditional equipment piece by piece.

Warning signs abounded. Army officials learned that the production line that Repkon wanted to sell had been designed to produce an older, simpler model of 155 mm shells, which was made with different steel. It wasn’t clear that the Turkish equipment could even work with the steel used to make the newer 155 mm model, as the equipment had never actually produced it, according to four former General Dynamics and Army officials. Repkon said other countries were using the machines to produce the older model. But the Army and General Dynamics could not inspect those active production lines, Repkon told them, citing customer privacy.

The Army could have balked at all of this and insisted on learning more about the capacity of the Repkon machines to perform the desired work. But learning more would’ve taken time, and time seemed in short supply. “There was incredible pressure to go fast,” a former Army official said. Everybody moved forward.

In November 2022, the Army raced to give General Dynamics the first in a series of contract awards for the project that would ultimately be worth nearly $600 million if carried to completion. The next month, Congress granted the DOD extraordinary powers to award money for Ukraine-related causes without the usual contracting safeguards, dropping competitive bidding requirements and restrictions on so-called undefinitized contracting actions. UCAs allow a company to begin work even before finalizing the terms of its contract with the government. One defense executive compared them to “building the airplane as you’re flying it.”

The Army made the most of its expanded powers, awarding General Dynamics a number of UCAs without considering alternate proposals in a competitive bidding process. (The Army told ProPublica it selected the company because of its unique artillery production experience.)

In fact, the Army was so enamored with the proposal that it decided to order even more than Gezen had pitched. Instead of contracting for one Repkon production line, the Army signed up to buy three. Without knowing whether any of them would work.

Gezen had never overseen a project this ambitious. Until then, he had mainly presided over smaller expansions of existing factories that used traditional methods. But he was optimistic it would work. “He’s extremely aggressive, willing to take risks,” one former colleague said.

Some of the Army’s scrutiny of the proposal occurred only after it began awarding contracts for it. The service and General Dynamics sent staffers to Turkey to inspect Repkon’s machinery, but they never inspected a full production line in action and there weren’t enough experts who could spot potential defects in the equipment, four former General Dynamics and Army officials said. Crucially, before greenlighting the deal, the Army did not require General Dynamics to demonstrate that it could use the Repkon equipment to complete the entire production process and make shells that met the Army’s specifications. (The Army told ProPublica that “formal testing could not occur prior to full machinery installation.”)

If the typical contracting safeguards had been in place, perhaps everything that followed could have been prevented. If the Pentagon had been forced to open the project to competitive bidding, it would have had to consider other proposals in a painstaking review process. If restrictions on UCAs had been in effect, the Pentagon would have had to slow down and finalize the terms of the deal before allowing it to proceed, which might have surfaced its fatal flaws.

But one man’s due diligence is another man’s red tape. Soon, Repkon’s flow-forming machines were sailing across the Atlantic, heading eventually for Mesquite.

“This Is Actually Hell”

On May 29, 2024, the mood in Mesquite was triumphant. After two short years of planning, the factory was opening, and defense officials and executives gathered there to celebrate.

Former Army Secretary Christine Wormuth at the opening of General Dynamics’ artillery factory Sgt.1st Class Nicole Mejia/U.S. Army

“Our nation’s defense relies not only on our soldiers and other servicemembers in uniform but on production facilities like this one,” then-Army Secretary Christine Wormuth told seated dignitaries. She stood at a podium branded with the General Dynamics logo, with two howitzers posed behind her. She thanked the company’s CEO, Phebe Novakovic, and Gezen by name. “It’s a pleasure to highlight the fantastic work you all have done,” she said.

But everything was not as fantastic as it appeared. Artillery shells displayed around the plant that day had been shipped in from elsewhere, three former workers told ProPublica. A worker picked one up and was startled to discover it was fake — seemingly made of plastic. General Dynamics had already failed to perform a scheduled first article test, meant to demonstrate the facility could produce shells that met the Army’s specifications. The facility was supposed to start cranking out shells soon, but machines were barely functioning.

Soon problems seemed to explode out of every corner, according to interviews with 12 former factory workers. For one thing, the flaming robot arms also kept smashing into things. They slammed into computer numerical control machines, breaking their windows and bending their doors. They knocked over shells. They bashed into safety fences. Workers talked about the arms going “rogue” and began calling one of them “Johnny 5” after a sentient military robot from a 1980s movie.

Even simple equipment failed with slapstick regularity, six workers said. Conveyor belts broke down. Automated carts got lost. Safety gates meant to shut down machines when workers approached did not shut down machines when workers approached. A pipe exploded, spraying water up to the ceiling. Parts on Repkon machines deformed, leading a worker to discover that they were made with Chinese steel, possibly in violation of federal regulations. (The Army said it has no evidence of such violations.)

Smoke hung in the air; it rolled off the press machines when robots sprayed them with lubricant. Workers could feel the smoke in their lungs. When they blew their noses after shifts, their mucus was black. A worker complained to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration about a “respirable hazard” at the factory, according to an OSHA record and spokesperson. The agency opened an investigation in October 2024, and an inspector visited the facility. The smoke-spewing press machines were scheduled to be operating on the day of the visit, but for some reason they weren’t running during the inspection, according to four former workers. OSHA issued no penalties, the agency told ProPublica. Staffers started to think it wasn’t just Repkon’s faulty equipment to blame for problems at the factory — it was General Dynamics’ management, too.

The plant could reach Sahara Desert temperatures when the furnaces or presses were on. “This is actually hell,” one worker thought to himself. It was hotter still inside cabinets containing drives that controlled critical machines, where it was regularly 140 degrees, two former workers told ProPublica. An outside inspector warned in an email reviewed by ProPublica that, at that temperature, “you would not only have drives failing but also human lives failing.”

Every day seemed to bring more of the same: another machine broken, another frantic effort to repair it, another batch of misshapen shells tossed into the discard pile. As 2024 became 2025, little seemed to get better.

With so few shells passing inspection stations along the production line, many workers had nothing to do. A cat-and-mouse game ensued. Bored staffers spent endless hours gazing at their phones, leading supervisors to restrict phone use. So workers began bringing crossword books. Managers nixed those. Some workers were seen sleeping, so supervisors took away chairs.

“We sat around twiddling our thumbs, trying to find work, trying to figure out what was going on,” said Natashia Passmore, a former production technician in the plant. “It was a waste of government money, and it was a waste of our time.”

The Dumpster Fire

Tension rose between the Americans hired by General Dynamics and Turkish workers sent over by Repkon. The Repkon team was there to install the equipment, but it seemed equally flummoxed by the problems. General Dynamics workers found them evasive. They would give curt responses to questions in English but then be seen holding long, animated conversations in Turkish outside during frequent smoking breaks. A carelessly discarded cigarette butt sparked a real-life dumpster fire, three former workers said.

Repkon was especially secretive about the flow-forming machines, refusing to answer most questions about their operations. General Dynamics workers could tell when Repkon was testing one of them, because they would find metal shards scattered on the floor around it later. The shards looked like alligator teeth. “Oh, the tooth fairy was here,” one worker would think to himself.

Paranoia set in. Repkon refused to share passwords needed to control important equipment, according to five former General Dynamics employees. Sometimes workers would be startled by the sight of a machine moving by itself and realize it was being controlled by someone in Turkey. Spooked, General Dynamics workers tore out hardware to cut off remote access to the machines, two former workers said.

Rumors swirled among the Americans that the Turks were purposefully sabotaging machinery — or perhaps even engaged in some convoluted form of espionage. “It was astonishing how little progress we would make, month after month, year after year,” one former General Dynamics worker said. “People started speculating, ‘I wonder if they’re spying on us.’” General Dynamics assigned someone to shadow the Repkon workers in the factory, two former staffers said. (The Army said it has no evidence of sabotage or spying.)

Even the buildings themselves — a trio of vast, anonymous boxes tucked into the crook of two freeways — were plagued with problems. Walls cracked, and daylight became visible around window frames. Doors began dragging on concrete floors. When it rained, water would flood in — “like a tsunami,” one former worker said. The foundations appeared to be shifting or sinking, six former employees said. It was as if the whole dysfunctional factory — its fires and smoke, its idle workers and haywire machines — was being slowly sucked down into the earth.

Faced with the kaleidoscopic array of problems, the response from General Dynamics managers always seemed to be to plow forward. “Every single time they opened their mouths, it was: ‘We need to get into production,’” one former worker said. “Production is the only thing that mattered.”

“Nobody Wins”

As the situation at the factory deteriorated, General Dynamics and the Army told a very different story to the public.

In April 2024, General Dynamics CEO Novakovic told investors: “In the U.S., we are rapidly increasing ammunition production with the opening of our Texas facility.” General Dynamics failed to conduct a scheduled first article test in Mesquite that same month.

That July, two months after the opening ceremony, Novakovic told investors that “the first line is running and producing as we anticipated.” In fact, the first line was not producing any usable shells, six former plant workers told ProPublica.

In September Doug Bush, then the Army’s acquisition czar and a key figure overseeing the project, said “there have been no major delays” to the Army’s goal of producing 100,000 artillery shells each month — a goal for which the Mesquite factory was critical. “Any delays you’ve had have been measured in, I would call them weeks, not months, certainly not years,” Bush told reporters. He downplayed the problems, describing them as merely a matter of adjusting a machine “so that it puts out shells just so, versus a little bit off.”

The next day, a laborer in Mesquite photographed the work of a machine meant to begin giving the shells perfectly smooth noses; it had instead mangled the metal into something that resembled the swirl of soft-serve ice cream.

A machine at the factory sometimes mangled artillery shells, meant to be perfectly smooth, into swirls that looked like soft serve. Obtained by ProPublica

Also in September, Secretary Wormuth touted the Army’s artillery ramp-up at a conference, saying, “part of what’s enabling that are things like the brand-new plant that we opened up in Mesquite.” One month later, an Army contracting officer sent General Dynamics a letter of concern about its performance at the facility. The company missed the Army’s deadline for completing the first production line one month after that. (Wormuth declined to comment.)

Despite it all, Gezen remained optimistic through the fall of 2024. The issues in Mesquite were mere delays, he thought, and there were plans in place to fix them, according to a person familiar with his thinking. “If Firat’s guilty of something, it’s not wanting to see the truth in the matter,” a former colleague said. He “has a tendency to not want to listen to bad news.” General Dynamics announcedGezen’s retirement in January 2025. Some industry insiders believe he was pushed out in part over Mesquite. (Gezen denied that but declined to sit for an on-the-record interview.)

The split screen of blown deadlines and rosy public comments continued into the second administration of President Donald Trump. In April 2025, General Dynamics missed the completion date for the second production line. That same month, Novakovic told investors, once again: “We are rapidly increasing munitions capacity and production with the opening of our projectile facility in Texas.” The company missed another first article test two months later.

As the failures mounted, a sinking feeling took hold in Army offices. The service assembled a team to assess the situation in the factory, which produced a report that gave little confidence the problems could be fixed. Finally, in June 2025, the Army told General Dynamics it was considering terminating the contract awards for the plant, a defense trade publication reported at the time. Two months later, the service ordered work halted on two of the factory’s three production lines.

But the Army did not unilaterally terminate the contract awards. “A termination for default would’ve taken years through the legal system, because General Dynamics wasn’t going to accept that,” a former Army official told ProPublica. “Nobody wins except the lawyers.”

This would not be the last act of generosity from the Trump administration to General Dynamics. In December 2025, according to the inspector general’s report, the government paid the company $26.3 million in “progress payments” for the second and third production lines in Mesquite, although neither line had ever produced a usable shell.

General Dynamics’ factory in Mesquite, photographed in August Desiree Rios for ProPublica

A Novel Solution

Two months ago, General Dynamics made an announcement that conjured a sense of déjà vu. To fix the problems at the factory, the company would team up with yet another unheard-of partner promising technological innovation. The solution this time? Artificial intelligence.

A news release from General Dynamics and the new company, Deterrence, was filled with techno-business jargon. “AI-enabled capabilities” and “intelligence and connectivity” would be added at Mesquite and other General Dynamics factories, the companies wrote. “AI transforms production facilities into strategic assets,” Deterrence’s CEO said in the release. “We’re building autonomous manufacturing systems that learn, adapt, and scale in real time.”

These pronouncements have baffled former Mesquite workers. “What are they talking about? There’s nothing to learn or adapt or scale,” one said. “It’s all broken.”

General Dynamics is doing this even as it replaces most of the Repkon equipment with traditional machines like those used in Scranton. How AI will wrest miracles from decades-old technology is unclear. But General Dynamics told investors it expects to be in production next year, and the Army told the inspector general that’ll amount to 20,000 shells a month.

Compared with Repkon, Deterrence is perhaps an even less conventional choice. Deterrence was established just three years ago and has never received a DOD contract. Its website gives no indication it has ever helped to manufacture anything. Its three founders have no prior defense experience. One of them worked at Tesla; the other two created a startup that enabled people to lock and unlock buildings with smartphones. Deterrence did not respond to a request for comment.

General Dynamics also pledged to put $200 million into the project. That’s a small sum for a company that generated more than $50 billion in revenue last year and gave CEO Novakovic a compensation package worth more than $25 million. (Meanwhile, the company furloughed or laid off most of the Mesquite workers.)

The Army says it won’t spend any more money on the project, but it has hardly blackballed General Dynamics. Since the Army shut down work on two production lines in Mesquite one year ago, General Dynamics Ordnance and Tactical Systems has received contract awards totaling $2.5 billion, the Army told ProPublica. (The service said this was for “distinct production lines and critical national defense requirements” unrelated to Mesquite.)

Repkon’s American offshoot is now at work setting up a TNT factory after receiving a no-bid contract from the Army worth $435 million. TNT is the primary explosive fill in 155 mm shells. Repkon Turkey’s CEO co-founded the American company, which was originally named Repkon USA. In March, it changed its name to Paligen Technologies. Some interpreted this as an effort to create distance from the Mesquite disaster. Paligen told ProPublica that it and Repkon are “different and wholly separate companies.” Repkon Turkey did not respond to requests for comment.

The one thing that key decision-makers appear to agree on is that they are absolutely not to blame. Gezen, the former General Dynamics executive, told ProPublica that the company and the Army did nothing wrong. In a brief conversation at his apartment door in a ritzy section of Washington, D.C., in May, Gezen maintained his sunny optimism. The Repkon equipment was a good option, and it may still be a good option, he said, holding an iced coffee in one hand and restraining a large dog with his other. In any case, he added, “it was the fastest option available.”

Bush, the Army’s former acquisition chief who had assured reporters there were “no major delays” to increasing artillery production, also declined to be interviewed. In a terse conversation in May, peering out from his half-closed front door in Northern Virginia, he told ProPublica: “All of this was done through appropriate procedures.”

Others who were involved, speaking on the condition of anonymity, engaged in mutual finger-pointing: The White House demanded too much too fast, Repkon and General Dynamics overpromised, the Army didn’t perform due diligence and Congress underwrote the whole thing.

The United States still is not close to producing the promised 100,000 shells per month, a former Army official told ProPublica in June, although other investments to increase 155 mm production have turned out better. Ukraine still needs those shells, the official said, but attention has once again shifted. In the Middle East, it’s other munitions that the Trump administration has rapidly burned through during its war with Iran. Trump officials are now calling for ramping up production in those areas — and fast.

“Conventional ammo is back on the back burner,” the official said. “Everything now is about interceptors, missiles.”

General Dynamics makes components for those too.

Alex Mierjeski and Jeff Ernsthausen contributed research.

This story was originally published by ProPublica.

]]>

Army picks M1 to lead $10B helicopter-school transformation

Thomas Novelly — Fri, 14 Aug 2026 17:10:13 -0400

A Texas-based aviation company beat out Bell and Lockheed Martin to lead the transformation of Army helicopter training, the service announced on Thursday.

The Army awarded M1 Support Services its Flight School Next contract, a firm-fixed-price, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity worth up to $10 billion for up to 26 years. It’s the culmination of a months-long competition aimed at converting the service’s Initial Entry Rotary Wing school at Fort Rucker, Alabama, to a contractor-owned and -operated model. Officials expect the change to reduce costs by taking helicopters, instructors, and maintenance out of the service’s hands and pushing pilots to focus on aviation fundamentals.

"This is a major step forward in modernizing how we train our aviation force," Brent G. Ingraham, the Army’s assistant secretary of acquisition, logistics and technology, said in a news release. "Flight School Next delivers the next generation of training capabilities our aviators need to succeed in increasingly complex operational environments."

M1 bid as leader of a team that includes Robinson Helicopter Company, Quantum Helicopters, General Dynamics Information Technology, and the University of North Dakota Aerospace Foundation. It was one of three major finalists, including Lockheed and Bell, that emerged after the December call for solutions.

Last year, Congress raised concerns and blocked funding for the flight school effort in theNational Defense Authorization Act, pending the results of a trial program. It’s not immediately clear when the Army met the congressional requirements before it awarded the contract.

“We are honored to be entrusted with this vital mission,” said George Krivo, M1 chairman and CEO, in a press release. “M1 will deliver a fully integrated, innovation rich training solution designed to develop more proficient Army Aviators on time and on budget.”

Defense One reported in April that Lockheed had been dropped from the competition. Bell said in an emailed statement on Friday that they were disappointed in the Army’s selection.

“Bell was notified by the U.S. Army that our turnkey solution was not selected for the Flight School Next program,” a company spokesperson wrote. “While Bell is disappointed by this outcome, we are thankful for the opportunity to participate and our commitment to supporting warfighters has not changed.”

Under M1’s offering, new Army pilots will learn to fly on Robinson Helicopter’s R66 helicopter, which was offered to meet the service’s requirement for an aircraft with a single turbine engine and a rotor that spins counterclockwise.

The Army’s current aircraft, Airbus’ twin-engine UH-72 Lakota, has been criticized by military leaders as being too expensive and restrictive for teaching aviation basics.

]]>

New US security entities hint at more Latin American operations

Thomas Dolzall, Forecast International — Thu, 13 Aug 2026 21:26:27 -0400

The recent establishment of a organized-crime task force by U.S. Southern Command is the latest expression of the Donroe Doctrine, the administration's interventionist—some say imperialist—approach to Latin America. But it may also signal a increased desire to work with regional partners—or just to operate inside their countries.

Last year's launch of Operation Southern Spear marked a return to a more hands-on U.S foreign policy in Latin America. Beginning with U.S Navy strikes against alleged drug-trafficking vessels, it has expanded to encompass the U.S. abduction of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro earlier this year and the subsequent re-intensification of U.S economic and military pressure on Cuba.

But SOUTHCOM has also worked to integrate U.S. forces into local security operations and to bring partner states’ security forces under its operational umbrella. In March, the Americas Counter Cartel Coalition was created as a U.S-led body to coordinate regional actions against transnational organized crime. That same month, SOUTHCOM dispatched forces to help Ecuadorian security forces to take action against an alleged criminal hub inside Ecuador. Now the Joint Task Force Western Hemisphere, stood up on Aug. 4, is meant to facilitate and coordinate action against organized criminal threats by the U.S. military and regional partner states.

The JTF-WHEM and the A3C suggest SOUTHCOM senses a need for multilateral cooperation. Though several Latin American governments are adopting tougher policies towards organized crime and were broadly sympathetic to Maduro's removal, Southern Spear’s controversial boat strikes and the Maduro operation provoked unease in a region with a long history of U.S. interventionism.

The task force and the coalition are forums through which U.S. and SOUTHCOM leaders can build and enforce strategic consensus, guide operational planning, mediate disputes among members, and influence non-members. U.S. officials have sought to attract participation through political and material incentives. Diplomats and senior SOUTHCOM personnel have sought to attain regional buy-in, or at least acquiescence, for the United States' larger role in the region—including, perhaps, formal deployments of U.S. troops inside regional partner states. And officials are is increasingly tying security and economic assistance to commitments of cooperation in areas of U.S. interest.

The JTF-WHEM, at least, appears likely to be put to imminent use. On Aug. 12, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced that Colombia, Honduras, and Guatemala had approved U.S. participation in combined operations against criminal entities.

]]>

As warfare becomes engineering, the era of the digital mercenary dawns

Patrick Tucker — Thu, 13 Aug 2026 20:28:52 -0400

Private cyber firms will be allowed to take action against foreign threats under a new White House policy, another step into a future where tech developers are ever more closely entwined with military operations, which now evolve faster than governments can keep up.

Under the policy, announced Wednesday, the U.S. government will pay private cybersecurity companies to “manipulate,” “degrade,” “disrupt,” and “destroy” foreign adversary computer networks. The U.S. government historically reserves the right to take those sorts of actions, although they increasingly do so with help from front-line private workers.

The companies will undergo vetting, be supervised by the departments of Justice and Homeland Security, and be forbidden to take actions that could “result in the loss of life or serious injury,” according to the presidential memo.

“The United States just revived privateering for the digital age,” wrote Jeff Gray, who led training for DHS’s emergency response team and currently leads incident response training with the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency.

The phrase recalls the 17th and 18th centuries, when governments issued letters of marque that allowed swashbuckling sea captains to attack foreign merchant ships. That official authorization is what distinguished men like Captain Kidd and Henry Morgan as “privateers,” not pirates. But when they lost that marque, many, like Kidd, went on to be pirates anyway.

Gray acknowledges that the term isn’t a perfect fit; for one thing, letters of marque are granted by Congress, not the president. Nevertheless, he says, “The government is authorizing private actors to conduct offensive cyber operations on its behalf, under its control. That's privateering.”

The memo says hiring private hackers is only logical: “American businesses’ innovative capabilities have historically been underutilized” to “secure a critical offensive cyber advantage for the United States.”

Russia has been doing this sort of thing for years: enlisting, or coercing, private companies and groups to carry out cyberattacks against Western targets.

One cybersecurity exec said the policy makes sense, especially as AI gives adversaries more tools.

“There will be more cyberattacks for sure, so I do think you want to expand the takedown activity as well,” said the executive, a founder of a prominent U.S. cybersecurity firm that works with the U.S. government.

AI-assisted cyberattacks rose 89 percent in 2025, according to a February report from cybersecurity company CrowdStrike.

Gray also described the strategy as “strategically sound.” But he expects it to provoke a short-term increase in attacks, and over a longer timeframe, to cause adversaries to shift tactics, accelerate operations, and gain additional “cover” to hide their operations.

Finally, Gray noted that law-enforcement agencies have long hired private firms for this sort of work, particularly taking down botnets. “The work is still the same. But the environment just got more complicated,” he said.

The cyber exec agreed. “Instead of a law-enforcement person pushing the button, it will be a private-sector person,” said the company founder. “I expect every Israeli cyber startup to jump at the chance.”

Cyberops and physical war

The policy is the latest indication that software weapons are evolving to be as crucial as hardware on the modern battlefield—and that is putting private coders and weapon designers closer to real-world operations. In Ukraine, for example, engineers with drone maker Shield AI and other contractors work closely with soldiers, sometimes under fire, to modify weapons based on digital attacks.

The job of fighting is, more and more, becoming a job of engineering, said one former senior defense official we spoke to in 2025, just after Donald Trump returned to office. The official said that the Pentagon’s new leaders were considering a plan to let drone makers and other tech companies conduct operations under company-owned, company-operated agreements.

The idea was not without precedent. SpaceX operates the Starlink satellites that connect U.S. troops, rather than allowing U.S. personnel to do so. And under the first Trump administration, the Pentagon paid Anduril to maintain and update drones in the field, deploying along with special operations forces.

The official said putting engineers in the field is essential to getting new capabilities to the front lines faster.

“A lot of these technologies,” they said, are “super exquisite, they're fragile, they're very technical. The people that built them are the ones that know how they work.”

Having the weapons’ makers observe and even operate their products in the field reduced red tape in getting new designs approved, changed, or deployed.

The official last year acknowledged that most defense firms don’t operate that way, and federal law outlines boundaries on what defense contractors can and can’t do (engaging in combat is in the "can’t do" column). But ultimately, they said, “If you want capability in 2027 the only way you're going to get is if this happens.”

In April, CENTCOM hired Shield AI to provide intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance to U.S. forces with its V-BAT drone, under a contractor-owned, contractor-operated arrangement.

Brandon Tseng, Shield AI’s co-founder, said of the agreement: “We aren’t just bringing the V-BAT product and service to the Navy; we’re bringing a world-class team with a wealth of operational experience and the ability to produce undeniable outcomes for our warfighters.”

]]>

Intel ops are underway at Space Command’s nascent Alabama HQ

Thomas Novelly — Thu, 13 Aug 2026 18:24:35 -0400

HUNTSVILLE, Ala. — Less than a year after President Trump reversed a Biden-era decision to keep U.S. Space Command in Colorado, space intelligence operations are being conducted in existing offices at Redstone Arsenal while a permanent headquarters is built on base.

By year’s end, SPACECOM plans to have roughly 200 of the 1,800 Colorado-based positions at the Army base. Roughly 50 of those employees are already conducting missions with the command’s Joint Intelligence Support element, or JISE, which is already doing analysis for space operations and coordinating with allies. Those analysts are also coordinating with colleagues working, at least for the next few years, at Space Command’s existing headquarters in Colorado.

“We've designed our facilities with collaboration spaces and with the collaboration tools that allow our personnel here in Huntsville—of course, those numbers are growing—to work back with our people in Colorado Springs to execute our missions,” Whiting told reporters on Wednesday. “So far, our folks are crushing that, and I'm very proud of how they're performing.”

Reporters toured the up-and-coming facilities and saw the progress of the new headquarters on Wednesday during the Space and Missile Defense Symposium here. While the personnel moves and construction projects will not be complete until 2032, military officials said that the combatant command remains focused on its mission.

In April, Gen. Stephen Whiting, Space Command’s leader, hosted a ribbon-cutting ceremony for the Joint Intelligence Support element on base. Wednesday’s tour was among the first access allowed to media outlets.

“Make no mistake, the JISE leading this charge serves as a symbol of our commitment to ensuring mission needs are executed flawlessly throughout this move,” Brig. Gen. Nathan Rusin, who leads the USSPACECOM Intelligence Directorate, said in an April press release.

In 2021, in the last weeks of his first term, Trump announced that Space Command would move its headquarters from Petersen Space Force Base in Colorado to Redstone Arsenal in Huntsville. Several congressional probes followed. In July 2023, President Biden reversed the decision and said it would stay in Colorado.

An April 2025 Defense Department Inspector General’s probe wondered why the 2023 basing decision was made by the White House instead of Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall. The service secretary told lawmakers in 2023 he thought “the projected cost savings, together with the availability of potential mitigation measures, outweighed the operational risks that had been identified” for moving the command to Alabama.

But a May 2025 Government Accountability Office probe showed that if SPACECOM headquarters were to remain in Colorado that “new military construction would be needed to support the headquarters’ operations” and that officials “faced ongoing personnel, facilities, and communications challenges” in setting up a permanent facility out West.

Whiting told reporters that the goal is to have half of SPACECOM at Redstone Arsenal by 2028 with a full move-in completed by 2032. The command’s joint operations center, the main command-and-control hub for space warfare missions, will remain in Colorado until the completion of the new headquarters.

“The opportunity for U.S. Space Command is that we get a purpose-built command and control headquarters out of this, we did not have that in Colorado,” Whiting said. “So to get this facility is going to be an incredible accelerant to our mission.”

]]>

Pentagon hands Palantir up to $244M in no-bid work

Nick Wakeman — Thu, 13 Aug 2026 08:00:00 -0400

Palantir has secured another lucrative commitment from the Defense Department: a pledge to pay the company up to $243.9 million to use its software through March 31, 2027.

In a memo viewed by Washington Technology, Deputy Defense Secretary Steve Feinberg has directed DOD departments to identify options for more spending on Palantir products from April 1, 2027, and Dec. 28, 2028.

In the memo, Feinberg says Palantir's software is "providing valuable support to improve efficiencies with the defense industrial base"—for example, by flagging delays in munitions and delivery-vehicle production and maintenance.

Feinberg made no mention of specific contracts or vehicles.

The action follows a July award of a 10-year, $10 billion Army agreement that consolidated many of Palantir’s existing contracts into a single pact.

The Feinberg memo appears to be part of a trend in federal contracting, where no-compete contracts are growing as a percentage of all awards. No-compete contracts accounted for 14.8% of all awards in the first half of 2026, up from 12.6% for the period in 2025.

Federal News Radio reported that DOD said it has issued similar memos involving other companies.

No-compete contracts are allowed by the Federal Acquisition Regulation if agencies properly document why a sole-source contract is the best use of federal funds. Reasons for a no-compete contract can include urgency, only one responsible source, critical follow-on work, and national security.

Feinberg's memo mentions none of those reasons for directing the spending to Palantir.

Palantir's portfolio of no-compete contracts includes an Agriculture Department award for the One Farmer, One File program. The department also used Palantir's software for its return-to-the-office initiative.

According to GovTribe data, the company has received $3.2 billion in contract obligations since 2024, roughly half through no-compete contracts.

Last week, Palantir reported second-quarter revenues of $1.9 billion, up 93 percent year-over-year. Federal contracts accounted for $809 million of that, up 90 percent from last year.

Palantir is ranked No. 40 on the 2026 Washington Technology Top 100, rising 22 spots in a year.

]]>

Iran war reveals protection of space assets on bases has to ‘evolve,’ top general says

Thomas Novelly — Wed, 12 Aug 2026 23:32:57 -0400

HUNTSVILLE, Ala. — Iran’s deliberate targeting of U.S. radar systems during Epic Fury shows that the military has to change the way it protects key space assets on the ground, U.S. Space Command’s leader said.

Iranian drone and missile attacks after the initial U.S.-Israel joint strikes reportedly damaged multiple radar sites. One U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command soldier, Army Staff Sgt. Benjamin Pennington, was killed in the March 1 attack on Prince Sultan Air Base in Saudi Arabia. The loss of life and key technology in the war highlight the military’s need to improve the way it protects key space assets, said Gen. Stephen Whiting, the head of U.S. Space Command.

“No doubt, one of the lessons learned out of operations in the Middle East is that if you have fixed infrastructure, it will be targetable, and if your opponents have over-the-horizon fires, whether ballistic missiles or one-way attack drones, you will be at risk,” Whiting told a group of reporters Wednesday at Red Stone Arsenal. “I'm proud of the defense work that we've done, but we have to continue to evolve that, because the threats are rapidly improving as well.”

While Iran was never a substantial threat to U.S. assets in space, they scored major hits from the ground. Whiting, during his last Space and Missile Defense Symposium speech as Space Command’s leader, stressed that adversaries are taking note of how they can harm military operations by targeting space and missile defense targets. That’s only going to grow in future conflicts, the four-star general warned.

“Let’s be blunt and specific. Iran is a medium-size military power—and they’re choosing to fire at space and missile defense targets. When bullets cost so much, you take great care with your aim,” Whiting said during his keynote. “You only shoot at your adversary’s most valuable targets. And right now, they are targeting the forces and capabilities represented in this room.”

Potential changes to U.S. basing patterns in the Middle East will take time and money and are likely to be heavily debated between Congress and the military, Elliot Abrams, an expert at the Council on Foreign Relations, wrote last month.

“The wait will be costly—the longer U.S. troops remain within range of Iranian missiles, the more the United States will pay in readiness, deterrence, and lives,” Abrams wrote.

Defense experts have called for hardening existing structures on bases in the interim. But some military leaders don’t support increased investment in that type of protection.

Gen. Kenneth Wilsbach, the Air Force chief of staff, said in an interview last month: “I don’t want to spend a lot of money on hardening shelters.” He described it as economically inefficient and called for either simpler methods for protecting against drones or increased systems to destroy incoming rounds.

Whiting said the Iran war has shown how the nature of warfare is changing.

“It used to be that the enemy would aim their snipers and sharp shooters at a platoon leader or radio operator,” Whiting said. “Nowadays, our adversaries shoot at the space and missile defense units which are deployed inside their weapons engagement zone.”

]]>

Defense Business Brief: VR welding; News from SMD; L3Harris opens maritime factory

Lauren C. Williams — Wed, 12 Aug 2026 20:41:34 -0400

PASCAGOULA, Miss.—Thick puffs of clouds didn’t stop the sun from beating down on the shipyard. And only a strong morning breeze could cut that Gulf Coast heat. But prospective welders for HII’s Ingalls Shipbuilding need not immediately contend with the elements to get a taste of the trade—thanks to the yard’s air-conditioned virtual-reality welding lab.

“If you’ve never worked with your hands before, or used a welding torch, it can feel intimidating,” Brian Blanchette, president of Ingalls Shipbuilding, told Defense One. “Starting in a virtual-reality setting provides a controlled, low‑pressure environment. It not only helps reduce that initial fear, but it also gives instructors much better control and feedback.”

And while learning in a classroom may seem unrealistically pleasant, the VR lab speeds up training by giving entry-level students about 10 times more hands-on practice at melting metal than if using standard welding booths in the same amount of class time.

Ingalls and Mississippi Gulf Coast Community College opened the lab, which has 48 training stations, in January 2025. About 1,000 students, including apprentices and new employees, have completed the VR welding training before advancing to traditional instruction.

The workstations are lined neatly against the walls of a long classroom.

There are blue plastic panels with lime-green QR codes in neat rows that mimic welding materials plates. The welder’s helmet, equipped with small cameras and screens, virtually transforms that plastic into steel. There were also different contact tips and attachments that could be swapped out for different tasks.

Students are gradually introduced to the realities of their tradecraft: virtually welding barehanded and then with gloves, learning angles, precision, and pace—which oddly meant going much slower than you’d think.

I wrapped the hose around my arm, steadied my two-handed grip, and virtually welded about four inches. Holding the right angle was the hardest part.

Trainees can see visual aids that measure torch position, speed, angle, the tip’s distance from the plate—all adding up on a scorecard to show progress and areas for improvement.

The software is really responsive and felt lifelike—even for someone who had never welded anything before.

But there’s one thing VR welding can’t teach: That tactile feeling of gas and fire coming from the nozzle pressing against the steel.

“I can’t teach ‘feel’ in here,” my instructor said, “all I can teach is ‘place’.”

That doesn’t stop students from practicing until they can get the highest score possible: a 99. Students need a 90 or above before they can progress to the next activity. I got a 92 on my first try on a very basic step.

Welcome

You’ve reached the Defense Business Brief, where we dig into what the Pentagon buys, who they’re buying from, and why. Send along your tips, feedback, and song recommendations to lwilliams@defenseone.com. Check out the Defense Business Brief archive here, and tell your friends to subscribe!

Space Command’s new HQ: The command’s new facility in Huntsville, Ala., will have about 200 personnel by year’s end, up from the 113 at Redstone Arsenal right now, Gen. Stephen Whiting, who leads the command, said at the Space and Missile Defense Symposium Wednesday. There were, and just 20 in March.

“We plan to have over half our headquarters staff on the Arsenal by the end of 2028, and the entire command fully moved by 2032,” Whiting added.
Some background: The command’s move to Huntsville has been hotly debated in recent years. Space Command is also updating its facilities and opened its first operational facility at Redstone in April.

Making moves + other news

L3Harris opened a maritime production facility in Providence, R.I. The 50,000-sq.-ft. facility at ProvPort will be used to “integrate and test advanced undersea training systems for the U.S. Navy” and allies, the company said in a news release.
Vatn Systems inked a research deal with Taiwan’s national science and technology institute to explore defense uses of autonomous undersea vessels. Last year, the company signed a deal with South Korean shipbuilder Hanwha Defense.
U.S. Southern Command tapped HII’s tech division for a $2.2 billion task order for intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance kit.
DARPA dropped an RFI on next-generation hypersonic cruise missiles—h/t to Defense One’s Thomas Novelly. Check out his latest here.
Boeing is selling its eVTOL business to Archer Aviation in exchange for a stake in the company, piloted air taxis and UAS.
Joby Aviation is expanding its defense business by acquiring defense tech company Resonant Sciences for around $500 million. Resonant Sciences has “classified infrastructure…established production operations and longstanding customer relationships, as well as a deeply experienced technical team,” according to the release. Related: Cerberus Capital Management, the firm Deputy Defense Secretary Steve Feinberg co-founded, has been investing in Resonant Sciences since 2023.

]]>

New Marine commander takes the helm in the Pacific

Jennifer Hlad — Wed, 12 Aug 2026 20:39:12 -0400

MARINE CORPS BASE HAWAII—The Marine Corps’ “future lies in the Pacific,” Commandant Gen. Eric Smith said Tuesday as Lt. Gen. James Glynn transferred command of roughly two-thirds of the service to Lt. Gen. Roger Turner.

Glynn is a “once-in-a-generation” talent whose “efforts under a constrained budget, doing things across the expanse of the Indo-Pacific” have been “truly Herculean,” Smith said at the U.S. Marine Corps Forces Pacific change of command ceremony here. But Turner, who comes to the command from the Okinawa-based III Marine Expeditionary Force, also has “spectacular” leadership skills, technical ability, and interpersonal skills, Smith said.

“We’re a Pacific-facing nation, and we put our best and brightest out here,” he said.

Adm. Samuel Paparo, who leads U.S. Indo-Pacific Command, echoed that sentiment minutes later.

“We live in incredibly dangerous times, and we live in incredibly dynamic and exciting technological times. Our nation is under threat like it hasn’t been in generations, and it requires hard, innovative, smart, determined people in order to meet the challenges of the time,” he said.

Glynn has been “so key in transforming the Marine Corps,” and “meeting the challenge of the times,” going from “leading a formation of 40 in Desert Storm in 1991 to leading a formation of 84,000 in 2026,” Paparo said.

As commander of III MEF, Paparo said, Turner has already “changed the face of the United States Pacific Command,” “enhanced deterrence,” and “never given up an inch, and gained ground. It is the most Marine thing that you can do.”

Glynn and Turner graduated from The Basic School together, but “absolutely no one” 37 years ago was saying “there goes the next two commanders of Fleet Marine Forces Pacific,” Glynn said.

Now, as Glynn steps into retirement, he said he stayed in the Marine Corps as long as he did “because I like to fight. I like to fight in this outfit, because we win. And who doesn’t like to fight for a winner?”

]]>

Five things Space Command says it needs to win tomorrow’s wars

Thomas Novelly — Wed, 12 Aug 2026 17:42:53 -0400

HUNTSVILLE, Ala. — Space weapons and refuelable satellites are among the items needed to preserve the U.S. military’s orbital edge over China, the head of U.S. Space Command said.

America’s adversaries are targeting U.S. space assets and rapidly developing their own, Gen. Stephen Whiting told attendees at the Space and Missile Defense Symposium on Wednesday. China, for example, has direct-ascent ASAT missiles, ground-based lasers, jammers, and maneuverable, dual-use satellites, he said.

“These developments intend to degrade our current space superiority and would potentially give

China a maneuver and logistics advantage in space – something we would not accept on the land, at sea, or in the air,” Whiting said.

In the four-star’s final Space and Missile Defense Symposium speech as the leader of the combatant command, Whiting told military and industry audience members that there are five major things on U.S. Space Command’s Integrated Priorities List for 2029 to 2033.

“This isn’t just a wishlist. It’s a clear demand signal to several audiences describing the warfighting capabilities we need to meet our mission,” he said.

1. Integrated space fires: Mirroring Army usage, Whiting has used this term throughout his tenure at Space Command to refer to the offensive and defensive capabilities needed to deter orbiting threats.“

We’re a combatant command and we fight to win wars,” he said. “To win, we need credible, acknowledged, kinetic and non-kinetic fires. They are a key component of how we establish space superiority and restore credible deterrence.”

2. Counter-pLEO tech: Whiting said new technology is needed to counter adversaries’ low-Earth-orbit satellite constellations. As of last month, China has launched 200 G60 and 168 SatNet communications satellites as it builds a pair of “mega constellations...to compete with Western proliferated LEO (pLEO) architectures,” according to a Space Force fact sheet.

“I don't want any U.S. force to be put at risk because somebody else might have a proliferated low-Earth-orbit constellation that could find, fix, track, and target them,” Whiting told reporters after his keynote address.

3. Joint, integrated space command and control: Military leaders often stress the centrality of being able to oversee, organize, and order complex space operations.

“We must enhance machine-to-machine connectivity to support decision-making and battle management of this global space fight on tactically relevant timelines,” Whiting said in his address.

4. Dedicated space domain awareness for space engagements: It’s not just for missile defense, Whiting said: space domain awareness needs to expand and evolve to a whole range of space operations, not just one segment of it.

“We must adopt a ‘target-quality track’ mindset to everything we do in space, just like the missile defense community has done for decades,” he said.

5. Sustained space maneuver: Developing satellites that can be refueled to extend their usefulness remains one of U.S. Space Command key priorities. In March, a Chinese commercial satellite used a flexible robotic arm to “to demonstrate on-orbit servicing, refueling, and debris removal,” according to the Space Force.

“Today, our satellites are limited by the fuel they launch with, which leads to a psychology of scarcity. Husbanding that fuel often overrides desired warfighting maneuvers,” Whiting said. “That must change. We must be able to actively avoid threats and maneuver to gain a position of advantage on our adversaries.”

Whiting has pitched some of these items at past symposiums; in 2024, he said his 2027 Integrated Priorities List was topped by space fires and resilient command and control.

“Our space assets need to shoot, move, and communicate just like the rest of the Joint Force,” Whiting said Wednesday. “In short, space needs to fight like the Joint Force, to empower the Joint Force’s ability to fight and undermine our adversaries’ ability to do so.”

]]>

The lasers are coming, but don’t forget training

Lauren C. Williams — Tue, 11 Aug 2026 21:12:47 -0400

HUNTSVILLE, Ala.—Lasers and high-powered microwaves will need equal standing to traditional weapons when it comes to the Army’s approach to missile defense, the service’s space and missile-defense chief said. But as battlefield tech is developed and integrated, proper training will be key to keeping soldiers safe.

“Integrating systems like lasers or high-powered microwaves, there's a pretty significant burden of implementing that across training and organizations,” Lt. Gen. John Rafferty, who leads Army Space and Missile Defense Command, told reporters Tuesday at the Space and Missile Defense Symposium.

Rafferty’s top enlisted advisor concurred.

“I know everyone's talking about faster, cheaper—all those things are needed. But what's most important is our soldiers need to be trained on it,” Command Sgt. Maj. Rickey Jackson told reporters Tuesday. “We don't want to assume too much risk in that, because the soldiers are the ones that are going to have to use it and implement it. So I look forward to the rest of this week and hearing from industry and how we can do that, because ultimately our soldiers need it.”

In his keynote, Rafferty said air-defense strategy should balance the use of missiles, which can reach beyond line of sight, and energy weapons, which can be cheaper per round and used for closer ranges.

“We need a more comprehensive missile defeat strategy that focuses on interceptors—equally so on non-kinetic effects, both electronic warfare and directed energy—and the type of targeting [command and control],” on top of the ability to move sensitive data to lower classification levels “and make decisions to engage targets faster,” he said.

After decades of touting directed energy as a weapon of the future, the Pentagon may at last be on the verge of realizing its vision. Nascent programs such as the Army-Navy Joint Laser Weapon System and the Army’s Enduring High Energy Laser, as well as operational systems such as the Navy’s HELIOS drone-dazzler, suggest that directed-energy weapons may soon go mainstream.

The Army tested non-kinetic weapons during a recent test at White Sands. They synced C2 systems to get a clear picture of the battlefield and help soldiers pick the right weapon for the incoming threat, Rafferty said.

“The individual systems worked, right, because they're all systems that exist right now. That wasn't the trick. The trick was integrating them into a command-and-control system to make sense of and then assign effectors against those against those targets. So that, in a nutshell, is a sort of combined-arms approach to missile defeat or or a comprehensive missile-defeat strategy,” Rafferty told reporters.

“I'm not surprised that we could do it, I'm just thrilled that we actually did it, that we decided to integrate multiple C2 systems and figure out how to enable our soldiers to defeat complex threats.”

The Army has leaned forward on adding lasers to its armory through a directed energy program.

But ultimately, the concern isn’t about the Army’s ability to integrate new tech and weapons systems into its operations—it’s training.

“Clearly, there are technical challenges to integrating platforms into command-and-control systems and planning software that helps us to integrate the effects at the right place and time,” Rafferty said. “But in terms of our Army being well-equipped and agile enough to do this, I'm 100-percent confident.”

The challenge comes in making sure there’s an adequate power source, in “maneuvering and supporting” the system, he said.

“It's not about the laser anymore. It’s really about putting it together, packaging it, making it ruggedized, and coming up with the doctrine and the techniques…the sustainment that needs to be done to go from a high-end technological capability to a no-kidding weapons system that’s able to be…usable by 20-year-old sergeants,” Tom Karako, a missile defense expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, told Fox News in a recent interview.

That also means the systems have to work in bad weather and austere conditions, and be repairable in the field, he said.

]]>

‘There is no Golden Dome’ unless Congress prioritizes funding, general warns

Thomas Novelly — Tue, 11 Aug 2026 18:25:54 -0400

HUNTSVILLE, Ala.—The sprawling Golden Dome missile-defense program is in peril because the White House decided to seek the vast majority of its 2027 funding via a controversial budget maneuver, the program’s leader said Tuesday.

Gen. Michael Guetlein didn’t explicitly call out the administration’s decision to propose using reconciliation to fund about 97 percent of the program’s $17.5 billion request. But the Space Force four-star did say it creates a “tough budget environment" as lawmakers remain cool to the administration’s request for a third partisan-led defense-funding measure.

“If they don’t figure it out, there is no Golden Dome,” Guetlein told attendees at the Space and Missile Defense Symposium, “because there is no funding.”

His public cry for help contrasts sharply with the mysterious gag order imposed by Pentagon leaders at last year’s symposium.

And it comes, Guetlein said, as the program makes good progress. He said that 90 percent of the roughly $24 billion allocated for the missile defense program through last year’s reconciliation effort has been obligated. He also said there’s been two “phenomenally successful” tests tied to the effort, and that contracts have been awarded for many of the key parts, such as space-based interceptors, radars, and data networks.

The general also warned that progress could stall without consistent funding.

“So if there's no additional funds, we have to continue to leverage the enormous amount of investment that [Congress] already gave me in reconciliation in FY 25-26, and then leverage that going forward,” Guetlein said.

One of Golden Dome’s cornerstone capabilities—space-based boost-phase interceptors— could be too costly for the final architecture. Physicists have said such a scheme would require thousands or even tens of thousands of armed satellites to provide 24/7 defense against even a handful of incoming missiles.

In April, Guetlein told the House Armed Services Strategic Forces subcommittee that if building and deploying satellites armed to down enemy missiles early in flight can’t be done affordably or at scale then “we will not go into production.”

On the sidelines of the symposium, Guetlein told reporters that he hadn’t seen anything from the defense industry to change his mind on the affordability of space-based interceptors, but added he was impressed with what he’s seen.

“All of the providers that are part of the competition are progressing exceptionally well,” the general said, adding that he expects those companies developing the technology to progress to the next stage, which involves building the on-orbit capability. He declined to say how Space Systems Command plans to test those interceptors.

Guetlein told reporters that the Defense Department is already planning for contingencies if they don’t secure the requested funding in the 2027 budget, but said no final maneuvers have been settled on.

“There are discussions within the department about how to go forward because we have diversified execution of a lot of these capabilities, and a lot of these capabilities are already requested by combatant commands,” Guetlein said. “There are some alternatives that we can pursue. We have not made any decisions on any pathway.”

He said, as an example, that some of the capabilities in the Golden Dome program are also being funded by the Space Force, and added that the service could continue to work on those systems.

Todd Harrison, a defense budget analyst at the American Enterprise Institute, said it isn’t likely that Golden Dome would have to raid various service budgets to continue its progress.

“I think that Congress would prioritize Golden Dome funding and find it another home, either through a supplemental bill, a smaller reconciliation package, or tuck it into a higher base budget,” Harrison said.

Earlier this year, Golden Dome’s price tag had already swelled $10 billion over the original $175 billion goal, and the potential long-term costs have already been the focal point of criticisms.

In the absence of a publicly released architecture, Congressional Budget Office analysts crafted an estimate for a national missile defense system based on Trump’s “Iron Dome for America” executive order. The watchdogs calculated it would cost $1.2 trillion to “develop, deploy, and operate” for 20 years.

Guetlein has since gone on defense, publicly pushing back on that trillion-dollar figure and saying that the analysts “did not estimate the architecture that we're building.”

During his panel at the symposium, Guetlein acknowledged Golden Dome’s steep price tag, but averred its necessity.

“That’s a lot of money. That’s one of the biggest systems that we’ve ever put together as a nation,” he said. “We got to keep it affordable.”

]]>

Pentagon to solicit entrants for next giant cloud-service contract vehicle

Nick Wakeman — Tue, 11 Aug 2026 16:00:00 -0400

Expect to see the solicitation for the next iteration of the Pentagon's main cloud-computing contract on Aug. 24.

The Joint Warfighter Cloud Capability contract is the Defense Department’s vehicle for buying cloud services from the main hyperscalers: Amazon Web Services, Google, Microsoft Azure and Oracle. The Defense Information Systems Agency announced the date as part of its monthly acquisition post.

The new version, called JWCC Unified Cloud Marketplace, will expands what DOD can buy through the vehicle.

Tier 1 will be for the hyperscalers. Tier 2 covers “everything-as-a-service” including software, platform, and non-hyperscale infrastructure. Tier 3 is reserved for what DISA is calling “Commercial innovators and small businesses”: emerging companies and small businesses.

DISA has not posted an estimated value for JWCC Unified Cloud Marketplace.

The current JWCC vehicle had a $9 billion ceiling. AWS has received the most task-order obligations, $526.5 million; followed by Microsoft, $221 million; Oracle, $76.9 million; and Google, $35.9 million, according to Deltak data

]]>

How Congress is reshaping the administration's FY27 budget

Shaun McDougall, Forecast International — Mon, 10 Aug 2026 20:21:24 -0400

The start of the 2027 fiscal year is less than two months away, and in typical fashion, the annual defense budget is in limbo. Three out of Congress' four defense committees have released markups that adhere to the Trump administration’s $1.1 trillion topline request. None has addressed the White House's proposal to spend another $350 billion through the unusual use of reconciliation funding, though discussions are underway for a smaller reconciliation package that could include money sought in a supplemental request for operations in Iran and other priorities.

The administration's decision to seek funding for many of its top priorities through the reconciliation process—until last year, it had never been used for defense appropriations—creates a "terrible risk," as Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, put it earlier this year. Congressional resistance to the idea of using novel funding mechanisms could mean that various programs get far less money than the adminstration wants.

Per Forecast International's U.S. Defense Budget Spotlight dashboard, the biggest drops would be seen in defense industrial base and equipment investments contained in the Defense-Wide accounts, such as:

$54.6 billion for the Defense Autonomous Warfare Group
$40.6 billion for Industrial Base Analysis and Sustainment
$30.5 billion for equipment funded through the Office of the Secretary of Defense
$30 billion for Defense Production Act purchases
$20 billion for the Office of Strategic Capital Loan Program
$17.1 billion for the Golden Dome missile defense initiative

Infographic by Jorge Morejon

The White House also sought to buy many munitions through reconciliation, a choice rendered fraught by the subsequent decision to launch the war on Iran and expend much of the Pentagon's stockpile. For example, the reconciliation portion of the request contained $10.9 billion for Patriot interceptors and $10.5 billion for Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) interceptors. The administration also aims to use reconciliation to backfill other programs, such as the F-35, KC-130J, and several shipbuilding programs.

Acquisition adjustments

Dzens of programs across the services would see their funding adjusted under the legislation released by the House and Senate armed services committee and the House Appropriations Committee (HAC) legislation. The Senate Appropriations Committee has not released its markup. House appropriators recommended the biggest variance from the administration request: a $9.2 billion cut for procurement programs and a $2.2 billion plus-up for research, development, test and evaluation.

Discretionary research budgets came out ahead in all the defense bills so far: proposed increases of $2.2 billion by the HAC, $1.1 billion by the SASC, and $687.2 million by the HASC. All three committees recommended additional funding for Army and Navy research, to varying degrees, while the adjustments for the Air Force’s account were mixed. The HAC and SASC proposed to add $1.7 billion and $1.6 billion, respectively, while the HASC recommended a net reduction of $480.9 million. Meanwhile, every committee cut the Space Force’s research budget, from as little as $201.4 million by the HASC to as much as $3.1 billion by the HAC. Defense-Wide research was also cut by nearly $1 billion by the HAC and SASC, while the HASC proposed to add $558.1 million. The Air Force’s E-7, the Navy’s F/A-XX fighter, and unmanned surface vehicles (USVs) are poised to benefit from congressional adjustments, while efforts like the hypersonic Conventional Prompt Strike and the Space Force’s Automate Sat C2 effort may lose funds.

The graphic below shows total procurement and RDT&E funding adjustments by branch across the three defense bills that have been released so far.

Infographic by Jorge Morejon

On the procurement side, one of the standout performers is Army aviation, which did not benefit from the overall influx of money in the FY27 request. Despite the record size of the request, Army aviation funding declined in FY27 compared to FY26 levels and was $1 billion less than originally planned by the previous administration. Driven by ongoing transformation efforts, the request reduced funding for key programs, including the UH-60 Black Hawk and CH-47 Chinook. The HASC and HAC aimed to reverse some of those cuts, recommending increases of 27 percent and 47 percent, respectively, for Army aircraft procurement. However, the SASC recommended further reductions, trimming the service’s aircraft account by 7 percent. Following the initial release of the FY27 request, the Pentagon said it was open to revisiting its proposed aircraft reductions for the Army, and additional funding is expected to appear in the final version of the defense spending bill. Outyear spending plans may also be more favorable to Army aircraft.

The SASC pushed for a 12 percent increase in Air Force missile spending, a move the other committees did not match. That adjustment stems from an additional $845 million for the service’s Family of Affordable Mass Missiles (FAMM) program, which aims to field a range of new low-cost cruise missiles. House appropriators did recommend an extra $300 million for FAMM, which would offset a lack of reconciliation funding for the program. However, the committees reduced discretionary Army and Navy missile funding across the board.

The White House asked for a boost for Navy shipbuilding this year, but lawmakers demurred. The SASC and HAC proposed reducing the shipbuilding account by 5.1 percent and 5.8 percent, respectively. The SASC removed $1 billion requested for the BBG(X) battleship, as well as $2.4 billion for CVN refueling overhauls. The submarine tender program was also cut by up to half. House appropriators recommended stripping $1.4 billion for the service’s P-8A maritime patrol aircraft.

Topline with caveats

Even without reconciliation, all the budget proposals released by congressional defense committees so far sign off on a $1.1 trillion discretionary budget request, which is around $242 billion more than the FY26 base budget and $91 billion more than the total FY26 enacted level. The latter included around $152 billion from the initial reconciliation bill signed in July 2025. The result is that many of the appropriation accounts that faced discretionary cuts in the congressional markups are still funded at higher levels than in previous years, and the administration expects future base budgets to to exceed $1 trillion.

At the same time, the administration’s efforts to quickly increase production of munitions, drones, and missile defenses, among other priorities, may have to be tempered. Reconciliation requires only a simple majority in both chambers, several Republican lawmakers said they do not see enough support to pass a $350 billion reconciliation bill. Meanwhile, the defense industry is already struggling to keep up with growing demand.

The GOP has been working on a smaller reconciliation bill that includes $60 billion for the Pentagon. If adopted, that funding would primarily support initiatives contained in the Iran war supplemental request, particularly munitions replenishment. At the same time, the House and Senate have drafted continuing resolution proposals with the understanding that a final discretionary defense budget will not be passed until after the mid-term elections, meaning the FY27 budget process is far from over.

]]>

ICBM killer passes two key tests ahead of design review, Lockheed says

Thomas Novelly — Mon, 10 Aug 2026 20:14:00 -0400

HUNTSVILLE, Ala.— Lockheed Martin’s new ICBM killer, ordered two years ago to supersede the oft-troubled GMD interceptor, hit two major milestones this week and is expected to clear the design phase later this year, company officials said.

The company said last week that its L3Harris Technologies L3Harris Technologies, or NGI, had completed a critical burst test of its second-stage motor case. On Monday, ahead of the Space and Missile Defense Symposium here, Lockheed Martin announced that they had successfully fired its stage 2 rocket motor in a static test. Company officials said NGI, ordered under the Biden administration to replace the nation’s Ground-Based Midcourse Defense System, should clear the critical design review, or CDR, phase by the end of this year.

“These milestones are major steps toward our path to CDR, confirming our utmost confidence that NGI will meet the demanding performance envelope on track for fielding by 2030,” Christopher Jewell, Lockheed Martin’s NGI vice president, told reporters on Monday evening.

In 2024, the Missile Defense Agency awarded Lockheed Martin an $18 billion contract to design and build the Next Generation Interceptor. This April, MDA director Gen. Heath Collins told lawmakers the program fell behind schedule by 18 months due to several technical problems, but that it still remained on track to pass the design review in 2026.

“We are, as we transition into manufacturing, identifying and finding some issues with some of these new systems -- the solid rocket motor, the inertia measurement movement, as well as some in the sensors,” Collins said during an April 30 Senate Armed Services Committee hearing. “And we are working to buy down those risks and move forward as quickly as possible to make sure we pull the day as far to the left as possible.

The Government Accountability Office’s 2026 weapons system assessment did not include information on the Next Generation Interceptor “due to the lack of long-term cost and schedule baselines, which we could use to measure progress.”

NGI is slated to be part of the Trump administration's sprawling Golden Dome defense system.

This week’s Space and Missile Defense Symposium will likely see more discussion of Golden Dome than last year’s conference, when officials were ordered not to talk about it amid a general crackdown on public discussion by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. On Tuesday, Gen. Michael Guetlein, the Golden Dome director, is scheduled to update attendees on the program’s progress.

Collins told lawmakers in April that he, Guetlein, and U.S. Northern Command leader Gen. Gregory Guillot frequently discuss the role that NGI will play in the military’s defense strategy.

“Gen. Guillot, Gen. Guetlein, and I are regularly talking about Next-Gen Interceptor and the important part it plays in the layered defense of our homeland,” Collins told lawmakers.

]]>

Local water utilities are under cyber attack. A new group wants to help

David DiMolfetta — Mon, 10 Aug 2026 18:00:00 -0400

LAS VEGAS — As dozens of small water utilities report cyber intrusions—possibly from Iran-linked groups–an industry association and a university are teaming up to help raise their defenses.

The Water Watch Center will provide cyber mitigation support to utilities that serve fewer than 10,000 people—that is, most of the nation’s community water systems. Launched at this year’s DEF CON hacker convention, the initiative is a collaboration of the National Rural Water Association and DEF CON Franklin, a project of the Cyber Policy Initiative at the University of Chicago Harris School of Public Policy.

More than 30 community water systems in Minnesota were targeted late last month, according to state officials. Around 12 states have reported similar activity in recent days, though state officials said they continued to operate safely and that there were no known effects on public health. The FBI and Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency are working on incident response.

An initial group of five cybersecurity firms will help deliver services to water utilities as part of the initiative.

“These leading cyber firms and NRWA are architecting a scalable cyber delivery model that has eluded water industry and national security officials to date,” Jake Braun, the co-founder of DEF CON Franklin and a former White House acting principal deputy national cyber director, said in a statement.

Paul Nakasone, who led U.S. Cyber Command and the NSA from 2018 to 2024, said at DEF CON this year that water utilities around the country are highly exposed, and he pushed for higher defense standards in the sector.

“These [programmable logic controllers] should not be exposed to the internet,” Nakasone told reporters in a briefing on Friday, referring to the small computers used to operate pumps, valves, and other equipment inside water facilities.

Some U.S. officials believe Iran may be responsible, though there has been no definitive public confirmation.

“I think [the government] is taking a very measured approach to make sure that they have the right actor that’s doing this,” Nakasone said when asked about why Iran hasn’t publicly been linked to the hacks.

“I look at intent. I look at capability. I look at history. I’m not the person that’s making the call on the attribution, but I see an actor here that has certainly shown a history of being able to do this,” he said. “They certainly have the capability, and I think there’s an intent right now — we’re in conflict with Iran.”

]]>

The government was ready to expand its voting-security work. Then it pulled the plug

David DiMolfetta — Mon, 10 Aug 2026 17:00:00 -0400

LAS VEGAS — After spending roughly six weeks analyzing Dominion voting systems used in Puerto Rico’s 2024 elections, Mojave Research came back to the Trump administration with findings that startled its researchers.

The systems contained at least a dozen high- or critical-severity software vulnerabilities. Passwords were reused, firewalls were disabled and basic cryptographic protections were poorly implemented. And in Puerto Rico, active cellular hardware modems opened additional pathways into underlying software that was thought to be isolated.

But the small cybersecurity firm found no evidence that any of those weaknesses had actually been exploited, or that votes had been changed. The company still wanted more time to be certain.

Federal officials initially seemed willing to give them considerably more of it. The company was asked to grow the team working on the effort from roughly 10 people to about 60, according to CEO Jason Wareham.

Chief Technology Officer Manbir Gulati also said Mojave received an authorization to proceed with a follow-on effort, hired personnel, and was given funding to acquire equipment for examining more voting systems ahead of the November midterms. A contracting officer had even been brought in to finalize the new agreement, Gulati said.

Then, as Mojave prepared to move ahead, the work was abruptly shut down.

Wareham and Gulati recounted the episode on Friday at DEF CON hacker convention’s Voting Village, where they publicly unpacked their technical findings before sitting down with a small group of reporters and onlookers.

Their account fills in new details about a federal effort that grew out of the Trump administration’s broader focus on voting machines and election interference, and the political pressures that emerged when Mojave’s findings did not support claims of election manipulation.

The ODNI request

Mojave never set out to become an election security provider. Its involvement began last year through the Office of the Director of National Intelligence under then-director Tulsi Gabbard, where it was already performing unrelated technical work for the agency when officials approached the company about examining voting machines and data obtained from Puerto Rico.

Reuters reported in February that the May 2025 operation was tied to an effort involving ODNI and the FBI to investigate allegations that Venezuela had hacked Puerto Rico’s voting systems, though Gabbard’s office denied that Venezuela drove its work and said the examination was focused on technical vulnerabilities. The probe produced no clear evidence of Venezuelan interference.

Wareham said at DEF CON that ODNI asked whether his team of reverse engineers and forensic specialists could travel to Puerto Rico and capture an image of a voting system that had actually been used in an election, without the vendor overseeing the process. He agreed, thinking it would be a relatively small addition to Mojave’s existing contract.

The assignment instead dropped Mojave into a much larger skirmish over American elections. “Ultimately, I made the worst decision of my life in a business context,” Wareham said.

President Donald Trump has spent years falsely maintaining that his 2020 loss was stolen and the product of widespread fraud and foreign interference, claims that have been rejected by courts and officials in his own administration. A 2021 intelligence community assessment found no indication that a foreign actor attempted to alter ballots, vote tabulations or any other technical aspect of the election.

Since returning to office, Trump and allies have revived investigations into the 2020 contest and pushed election security back to the center of his administration’s agenda. Gabbard’s ODNI was one part of that effort, hauling off and analyzing voting systems from Puerto Rico and later becoming involved in a federal investigation of 2020 election records in Georgia.

Wareham said the ODNI officials directly overseeing the company’s technical work wanted the research to continue. Both he and Gulati described the ODNI staff they worked with as professionals who wanted to protect the security of election systems.

The resistance, Wareham said, came from a separate White House collective that was repeatedly dissatisfied Mojave had not produced evidence supporting claims that the 2020 election had been manipulated.

“There was a separate group — let’s call them White House-adjacent — who was dissatisfied,” he said. “They were dissatisfied overall that I was not willing to name and shame at that moment” and declare that Trump had actually won the 2020 election.

Asked whether he believed Mojave’s government work was axed because it failed to find the “smoking gun” some officials wanted, Wareham said: “I believe that was part of the termination, yes.”

Reuters reported in April that Kurt Olsen, a prominent 2020 election-denier and Trump adviser involved in efforts to investigate the election, pressed Mojave to broaden its work in search of evidence that could support those claims.

Olsen, who now works at the Justice Department, turned against the company when its research failed to uncover evidence that the Puerto Rico machines had been hacked. He advocated terminating its work and accused Mojave of secretly receiving money from billionaire George Soros, a frequent target of right-wing conspiracy theories, the news agency reported. ODNI has said Mojave’s contract ended because the company completed its voting-machine analysis.

Wareham said an ODNI official informed him while Mojave was preparing to expand its work that the company had been accused of receiving Soros funding. The allegation prompted him to compile a detailed accounting of the young company’s funding sources within three days and send it up the government chain. Asked who he was told had made the accusation, he said an ODNI official reported to him that it was Olsen.

“One, I’m not funded by George Soros,” Wareham said. “Two, it would be great to be funded by George Soros because I would probably not be here, I’d be on a yacht.”

The company kept moving forward. Wareham said Mojave briefed the White House on some of its findings around September. The firm believed it was heading toward a broader effort to remediate vulnerabilities before the midterms and conduct a deeper analysis for signs that the weaknesses it discovered had ever been actually abused.

Then came the record-long government shutdown. Wareham said that on the day he expected an expanded contract to move ahead, Mojave instead received a stop-work order and no additional funding.

“I think the government shutdown was all that was required, really, to have some folks that I didn’t know were still in the game, again, White-House adjacent, to take their shot,” he said. Wareham stopped short of saying he had direct proof that White House officials ordered Mojave removed because of its findings, but said “it was reported to me it was Kurt Olsen” who led the efforts.

The White House, ODNI and Olsen did not return requests for comment.

Identified vulnerabilities

Mojave had found many issues with the machines it examined. Gulati described the Puerto Rico system during the Voting Village presentation as “deeply insecure,” saying it did not meet the security bar he would expect from “an average low-risk application, let alone critical infrastructure.”

Researchers identified at least 12 major vulnerabilities in commercial software installed on the system, Gulati said. Mojave successfully executed five of them. None were newly discovered flaws, and fixes were already available — in some cases well before the system was used in the election.

Other weaknesses were rooted more deeply in how the system was built and deployed. Some passwords could be easily cracked and others were embedded directly into software. Firewalls were turned off on critical systems and ports were left open. Gulati was particularly critical of the system’s cryptography, which he described as being “in shambles.”

The company does not believe every problem it found necessarily stopped at Puerto Rico, as its formal review covered only one system from one manufacturer in one jurisdiction. Gulati suspects the issues could extend beyond a single voting machine company, though Mojave has not examined enough systems from other manufacturers to establish that.

“I don’t expect that the problems are unique to them,” he said. “I think many manufacturers probably exhibit the same problems.”

Mojave produced an approximately 100-page document of the Puerto Rico findings. Gulati said Mojave has been in discussions with Liberty Vote — which acquired Dominion’s election business last year — and that Liberty told the researchers it does not plan to make changes before November.

Liberty said it has not received Mojave’s report.

“Liberty Vote is not in receipt of any such report so, therefore, we cannot provide any comment,” a spokesperson said. “As always, Liberty Vote is committed to advancing the future of secure American elections.”

No evidence of vote tampering

Looking at the systems headed into the midterms, Gulati said, “I do know that as of now, the state that we have described is going to be pretty similar to what will be deployed in November.”

Despite the extensive findings, Gulati repeatedly returned to what the researchers did not establish: “We found extensive and largely unacceptable weaknesses,” he said in the presentation. “But we did not find evidence that those weaknesses were actively exploited or that votes were altered.”

That distinction has drawn renewed attention as Trump and his allies again focus on election matters.

Last month, the president used a prime-time White House address to release newly declassified intelligence he said showed China interfered in the 2020 election. Among several disclosures, Trump pointed to intelligence showing Beijing had acquired personal information on roughly 220 million American voters. But the documents did not show China altered votes or gained the ability to manipulate voting systems.

Gulati echoed those conclusions Friday when asked about the declassification.

“The China thing isn’t really much of anything,” he said, arguing that a large amount of the voter information at issue could be obtained commercially and should not be confused with access to election systems in ways that can manipulate votes.

“There is no evidence that I know of that says China successfully or any other country has successfully infiltrated our systems and manipulated votes in any way,” he added.

Wareham called the 100-page document a preliminary report and said the firm had wanted another six months to a year to dig deeper into the underlying data.

Gulati said the company’s interactions with the ODNI employees overseeing that work were markedly different from the political pressure the researchers later encountered. “We were never pressured to put anything in our reports that was untrue or politically leaning in a certain way,” he said of those officials.

Wareham said Friday that Mojave itself has pushed for its report to be made public for roughly a year and has recently been told it could soon emerge through a Freedom of Information Act request. Nextgov/FCW could not immediately determine the origin of the FOIA requester. As of publishing time, ODNI’s FOIA logs are available up until January 2025.

“I’m a little annoyed that we are very close to midterms and we had a whole year to freaking figure this out,” Wareham said.

With their government work scrapped, he announced at the Voting Village that he had filed paperwork to create the Machine Assurance Institute, seeking to bring together cybersecurity researchers and election technology companies to examine and independently verify voting infrastructure.

“We wanted to be the national security answer, and put to bed, finally, discussions about prior elections and/or accusations of voter fraud,” said Wareham. “Because, believe it or not, I find it fairly national security-destabilizing to constantly accuse each other of cheating.”

]]>

AI agents conspired to hack into networks and steal data during an experiment: study

Patrick Tucker — Mon, 10 Aug 2026 04:39:22 -0400

AI agents from OpenAI and Anthropic autonomously collaborated with one another to deceive humans, share break-in tools, and steal data in a series of independent tests, confirmed by both companies.

On Tuesday, the AI Security Institute published a paper about experiments intended to help understand how AI agents solve cybersecurity challenges. AISI researchers found that agents given access to the internet and allowed to disregard some security features would perform “autonomous, unsanctioned action...targeting real people and organizations.”

Company officials confirmed the findings Thursday.

“AI-orchestrated, fully automated offensive attacks are real now,” OpenAI security official Michael Dalton said during a briefing on the report during the Black Hat cybersecurity conference in Las Vegas.

In one of the tests, the researchers told an OpenAI model to compromise three target networks and recover a token as part of a “capture the flag” exercise.

In response, the model created a series of agents that set up a shared GitHub account so they could efficiently collaborate to build malware. When GitHub suspended the account, the agents set up new accounts on other websites, bypassing CAPTCHA and other security features by searching the web for audio and image samples to “see” and “hear” clues that are meant to be invisible to software programs. The agents exchanged credentials for passwords to access the new sites to continue to build out their attack tool.

It may be time for organizations to adjust how easily they grant access not just to humans, but to anything online, said Morey Haber, chief security advisor at BeyondTrust, a digital identity security firm.

“The technology industry has spent decades designing open models of interoperability. APIs connect everything, identities federate across boundaries, and access gets granted to enhance productivity. The concept of an open security model breaks down completely with agentic AI because of unmanageable risk,” Haber wrote in an Aug. 4 commentary.

In another AISI test, an Anthropic agent pretended to be a human to submit malware to GitHub, where developers routinely trade or post code to help one another. Cybersecurity officials’ warnings about attempts to poison open-source code libraries usually refer to human actors.

What the agent did next shocked AISI reviewers, who described it as “the kind of goal-directed deception that, until recently, had been largely theoretical.”

After submitting the poisoned code, the agent created a different “sock puppet” account to pose as an impartial third-party developer and endorse the contribution. When a reviewer flagged the code submission as likely to contain malware, the agent erased evidence that it had submitted malware, as well as the reviewer comments that it had done so.

In all, AISI ran 122 tests—and found that in 19 of them, agents took “autonomous, unsanctioned action on the live internet, targeting real people and organizations.”

In their report, the researchers note that they conducted the tests in a deliberately “permissive” environment, allowing the agents to access the open internet and even disabling some security features to better “assess what these models can do.” They recommend that “implementing internet access controls would likely have prevented these events.”

Had a gang of human hackers done any of these things—injecting malware, gaining access to data repositories under false pretenses, sharing stolen credentials to access a private network without permission—in a real world setting, they would face criminal prosecution.

But perhaps the most alarming incident mentioned in the paper was one that was not part of the test at all, only briefly mentioned alongside the suggestion on access controls.

In July, OpenAI’s GPT-5.6 Sol broke out of a sandbox, a confined virtual environment, by finding a vulnerability no one knew existed.

Rob Joyce, who once led the NSA’s Tailored Access Operations, told the audience at BlackHat on Thursday that the incident was “arguably the most consequential hack” in nearly three decades.

On Friday, OpenAI officials at Blackhat said they had decided to delay the release of the company’s newest Astra model over cybersecurity concerns.

]]>

Defense Business Brief: The enduring case for small USVs | Battleship costs balloon | Rainey joins Bain Capital

Lauren C. Williams — Fri, 07 Aug 2026 02:33:00 -0400

Seasats CEO Mike Flanigan isn’t really interested in building ship-sized drone boats.

“We don't plan to build bigger systems,” Flanigan told Defense One.

Instead, Seasats is all in on small unmanned surface vessels with three variants: Lightfish, which is about 12 feet long; the 20-foot Quickfish; and Heavyfish, the company’s largest offering at 35 feet long. The latter will make its water debut later this year.

“All of our substantial business is on Lightfish, so that's really where 95 percent of our focus is. That's what's supporting Marine Corps, Navy, Special Forces…what we're doing internationally,” he said.

Quickfish, which is in production, serves as a “reactionary tool” that can be used to reposition an asset or intercept a target. And Heavyfish is “essentially a Lightfish, but stretched out, where you don't need an expeditionary force to carry it off a beach with no equipment,” Flanigan said. “You can fit significant amounts of payloads, both subsea and aerial.”

The San Diego-based company has long been working with the Navy and other militaries; one of its Lightfish vessels used for surveillance recently spotted a Chinese warship near the Philippines. Last year, a Lightfish traversed the Pacific from San Diego to mainland Japan autonomously.

There’s admittedly a lot of excitement, churn and chatter around larger USVs, but for Flanigan, smaller can be strategically important and avoid some of the pitfalls of building bigger.

“All of these platforms have this long endurance characteristic to them,” he said. “Small USVs have a strategic advantage against large platforms. [Vessels] under 40 feet are much harder to spot. They're much faster to build. You can use them with much less regret. So you actually end up with strategic value over something larger, like over 100 feet.”

And now that Navy doctrine and planning is starting to include maritime drones in more detail, there’s a rush to adopt.

“There's some understanding now that's like, oh, you can put vessels that are 12 feet long anywhere in the world,” Flanigan said.

And that’s good for business.

“Right now we're seeing huge adoption…definitely, we're in the thick of scaling and hiring” as “people are trying to move faster than each other.”

Welcome

Sticker shock: President Donald Trump’s battleship costs keep growing. The Congressional Budget Office estimated the nuclear-powered ship program would cost about $275 billion, with the first battleship costing about $23.4 billion—up significantly from the administration’s original $15.1 billion estimate. That cost would drop to about $18 billion per ship as the fleet of 15 are built through 2056, according to the CBO report released this week. Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., and the ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee, ordered the CBO analysis.

For comparison: “A new DDG-51 destroyer costs more than $3 billion. Thus, if the average BBGN cost about $18 billion, the Navy could buy five destroyers for the price of one battleship.”
But those five destroyers would have higher maintenance and operational costs due to the need for more sailors and running on fossil fuel, the report states.
And any cost savings with respect to nuclear-powered versus fuel are undeterminable at the moment: “Switching to nuclear power would reduce the battleship’s operating costs over time by eliminating the need to purchase fuel. CBO does not have enough information to estimate those potential savings, which would depend on the final design of the ship and the specifications of the conventional propulsion plant it otherwise would have used.”
Related: In last week’s earnings call, HII CEO Chris Kastner said the company started initial “design work for the battleship” with the Navy “on a limited basis.”
The CBO report comes as the Pentagon pushes for a $1.5 trillion budget, ramped up weapons production, ambitious new programs like Golden Dome, and existing programs with cost overruns—even amid underlying concerns around transparency.
In the back of my mind: The White House push towards manufacturing is exposing a dearth of workers who can build the nation’s weapons systems—especially at an accelerated pace.

Making moves + other news

James Rainey, former commanding general of Army Futures Command, is now at Bain Capital.
Hadrian secured a $1.37 billion Series D funding round, pushing its valuation to just under $8 billion. The AI-factory builder plans to expand, adding new factories and production lines for things like munitions and autonomous systems.
Lockheed Martin is looking for domestic critical minerals suppliers. The defense giant signed a memorandum of understanding with NioCorp for the rare-earth metal scandium. Lockheed is also in talks with two companies, Teck Resources and 5N Plus, to supply germanium, Reuters reported.
Ondas landed a $50 million contract for the Army’s Lethal Unmanned Systems (LUS) program. The company’s prime defense contractor, Mistral, received the award as part of a $982 million contract for the program. Ondas also hired David Barnea, former director of Mossad, to be the company’s global president and chairman.
The Navy used a Saildrone USV to aid in a drug bust last year. The Voyager drone has been operating with Fourth Fleet for the past three years to support intelligence gathering and surveillance operations and was recently linked with an $81 million cocaine bust from a ship interdiction in October 2025.
Blue Water Autonomy will join a $40 million IDIQ contract to map the ocean floor with uncrewed surface vessels. The multiyear contract with the Naval Oceanographic Office involves multiple vendors that will compete for task orders.
The energy company Fuse inked a research deal with the Nevada National Security Site. “Fuse has built commercial capabilities at the frontier of pulsed power technologies, creating a unique opportunity to advance the field through collaborative research,” Daniel Lowe, NNSS’s chief scientist, said in a news release. “By combining Fuse’s demonstrated hardware with NNSS's technical expertise, we'll be able to evaluate emerging technologies, explore new approaches to dense plasma focus systems and generate insights that benefit both national security missions and the broader fusion community.”
Tiberius Aerospace is working with the Army to further develop the company’s “next-generation precision-guided, ramjet-powered 155mm artillery munition,” called Sceptre. The company signed a CRADA, or cooperative research and development agreement, with Army Combat Capabilities Development Command Armaments Center.

]]>

Rough waters help firm demo ‘expeditionary manufacturing’ aboard warship

Jennifer Hlad — Fri, 07 Aug 2026 02:03:37 -0400

HONOLULU—Heavy seas didn’t stop Firestorm Labs from printing “thousands” of unique parts aboard the USS Essex amphibious assault ship on the way to the Rim of the Pacific naval exercise here, the expeditionary manufacturing company announced this week.

“We were told it was the roughest water off the California coast in the last five years,” Firestorm CEO Dan Magy told Defense One. The company has an exclusive arrangement with HP, which uses a type of 3D printing called multi-jet fusion, “and what we’ve found is that the systems and the machines are quite resilient.”

“We think we’re building a contested logistics solution that is going to be scalable across all branches of the Department of War,” Magy said. “If we’ve seen anything from Ukraine and now from Iran… we need to rethink warfare from the ground up. We are increasingly dealing with contested environments where—you know, look at what just a blockade in one part of the world has caused to the ability to get products out, oil prices. Heaven forbid something like that happened in the South China Sea, where 70 percent of the things we all buy in the world are produced.”

Magy believes their xCell additive manufacturing unit—composed of two 20-foot containers that can go anywhere—"really represents a leap forward in how we're thinking about solving, maintaining legacy systems, but also building attritable systems like drones closer to the need.”

During a tour of the xCell unit used aboard the Essex, Duane Blank, field operations manager for Firestorm, showed off some of the parts printed at sea, including stops made to protect Apache helicopter rotors from scraping against the ship’s non-skid coating.

The nylon composite the company uses for printing works for “everything within the entire spectrum of warfare,” Blank said, from prosthetics to drones to humanitarian assistance and disaster relief items.

Among the items printed while pitching through Sea State 5 were a dozen Squall first-person-view drones, Blank said, which were later used as adversary aircraft during a counter-drone exercise as part of RIMPAC.

The “beauty of 3D printing,” he said, is the “ability to iterate” and get troops what they need “at the point of need.”

Magy said it’s a top concern.

“The No. 1 thing we're hearing from folks across the service is, ‘It's great if you make it in a factory in Alabama or California or Texas. What happens if the thing breaks on the battlefield? I have to put it in a box now for four months.’”

Sustainment wasn’t what the company initially set out to address, he said, “but it has become increasingly important for all of our customers, because there are a number of legacy systems that like, the supply chain just isn’t there anymore. Let alone the supply chain for something in Okinawa or in Bahrain.”

]]>

Officials hedge SpaceX aircraft-tracking satellite bet with three smaller company contracts

Thomas Novelly — Thu, 06 Aug 2026 12:00:18 -0400

Three more companies will get Space Force money to build satellites that can track aircraft, a move meant to reduce the service’s reliance on SpaceX for the capability.

Rocket Lab and STR were awarded firm-fixed-price other-transaction-authority agreements to develop a space-based solution for the military’s airborne moving target indicator mission, or AMTI. A third company was also selected, but officials didn’t name the firm in a press release this week due to “operational security.” More than two months ago, the service awarded SpaceX a $4.16 billion contract to build the emerging technology.

Col. Ryan Frazier, acting Space Force Portfolio Acquisition Executive for space-based sensing and targeting, said the service didn’t want to put all its eggs in one basket.

"The core focus of this second task order is diversifying our capabilities and ensuring we don't rely on a single technical solution,” Frazier said in the news release. “With these new partnerships, we are exploring unique innovations and technologies and fundamentally different ways to accomplish the airborne moving target indication mission. Maturing these varied technical solutions now gives us distinct performance advantages for the future and guarantees we are fielding the absolute best technology available."

Attention to space-based AMTI has grown after an expensive E-3 Sentry AWACS was heavily damaged during the first weeks of the Iran war. Air Force Secretary Troy Meink said the following month that the incident illustrated the “importance of a survivable platform” and the service later announced it had chosen nine companies to make up the vendor pool for AMTI contracts, but declined to name them. As well, Pentagon leaders who had argued that they didn’t need both air- and space-based AMTI have resumed backing a next-generation airborne warning platform.

The three new space-based AMTI contracts total $615 million, a mere fraction of the $4 billion given to SpaceX. The bulk of the money, $397 million, went to Rocket Lab, per the company’s press release. The California-based company said it would build and launch its “Flatellites” — a flat satellite to be used in large constellations.

“A resilient space architecture demands a robust, competitive industrial base, and tapping into the broader commercial market is how we get there,” Frazier said.

It’s not clear what STR or the other unnamed company were building for the space-based system. SpaceX officials, during the company’s most recent earnings call, acknowledged the competition.

“You can look at those as tranches and beginnings of additional capability that we will bring online, some of which we will have to compete,” said Gwynne Shotwell, the company’s president and CEO. “But fundamentally, we have the contracts in place to fulfill many phenomenologies, both the ones we’ve recently announced as well as additional ones that we’ll be working on going forward.”

]]>

Did AI blow a $450M Army contract decision? Company lawsuit says yes

Christian Robles — Thu, 06 Aug 2026 11:34:00 -0400

Trax International Corporation is asking the U.S. Court of Federal Claims to direct the Army to reevaluate bids for mission support services at White Sands Missile Range — in part because the department allegedly misused AI to determine the contract award.

Trax's complaint, filed in late July, alleges that the Army used AI that hallucinated multiple times, creating the false impression that the company's bid was weaker than rival Southwest Range Services’ successful bid of roughly $450 million. The Government Accountability Office denied Trax’s bid protest in May.

The lawsuit claims that records the Army provided to GAO did not explain whether assigned strengths for the Southwest Range Services bid came from a human at the Source Selection Evaluation Board or an AI tool.

The suit also claims that the Army conceded that one of the weaknesses it identified with Trax’s bid is unsupported by documentation. In fact, the suit said, the purported weakness is a “classic AI hallucination, with made-up references to TRAX’s proposal, that no one on the [Source Selection Evaluation Board] checked.”

“Given the $29.4 million price premium associated with [Southwest Range Services’] proposal, there is a reasonable possibility that the removal of this Weakness could have changed the award decision,” the lawsuit states.

The Army declined to comment on the ongoing litigation.

Trax is not the first contractor to publicly allege that an agency has wrongfully used AI to evaluate contract bids.

Salient CRGT alleged that a Defense Department subagency improperly used AI, rather than human employees, to evaluate bids. The Government Accountability Office dismissed the allegation in a decision dated Jan. 5, 2026.

Contractors will likely continue to scrutinize federal agencies’ use of AI in evaluating bids, according to David Timm, a partner at Burr & Forman.

In a recent Washington Technology op-ed, Timm raised concerns that few civilian agencies are reporting the use of AI in bid evaluations as “high-impact.” That means agencies have either not implemented minimum risk practices or have not publicly disclosed them if they have, he told Nextgov/FCW in an email.

The Defense Department has said that it used AI to help evaluate bids in several recent solicitations. But if agencies don’t widely disclose this, it could become harder for contractors such as Salient CRGT and Trax to successfully argue the government misused AI.

“More bid protests are likely to come as the ungoverned and undisclosed use of GenAI tools results in errors throughout the procurement, but if agencies do not comply with the [Office of Management and Budget] rules it will complicate how contractors prove their allegations,” Timm wrote in the op-ed.

]]>

US has too few interceptors to deter war with China, experts say

Patrick Tucker — Wed, 05 Aug 2026 21:33:31 -0400

The United States would run out of the interceptors it needs to take down Chinese missiles “within days” of a conflict, according to a new report from the Heritage Foundation. It's the latest in a series of warnings from experts and commanders highlighting a critical gap.

The White House, Congress, and defense contractors have taken steps to address it. But the ongoing war with Iran has exposed those efforts as insufficient, experts say.

It’s not a new problem. A 2023 report from the Center for Strategic and International Studies concluded that the U.S. would “within the first week of a Taiwan conflict” run out of key munitions, such as Patriot Advanced Capability-3 Missile Segment Enhancements, Terminal High Altitude Area Defense interceptors, and SM-6 and SM-3 Standard missiles. In May, CSIS reported that the United States will be in “a window of vulnerability for several years, until inventories return to their previous levels, and another several years before they get to the levels that war planners desire.”

The Trump administration is trying to wring more production out of industry. In January, the White House cut a deal with Lockheed Martin intended to triple annual production of PAC-3 missiles to 2,000. On Monday, the Pentagon announced a related seven-year, $3 billion deal with Lockheed and Northrop Grumman to boost the production of PAC-3 solid rocket motors. The deal is also intended to help “quadruple” annual production of THAAD interceptors.

A Northrop spokesperson said a billion-dollar investment in its Allegany Ballistics Laboratory has enabled the company to double annual production of motors since 2021, and that the company aims to triple production by 2027.

And yet these deals—and the goals the Pentagon set in January—are too small to quickly restore an arsenal depleted by Trump's war on Iran. “Those metrics that were set prior to [Operation Epic Fury]. That was before we just lit off billions of dollars in a decade worth of production per work in some cases,” said Tom Karako, who leads CSIS' Missile Defense Project.

The Heritage report makes its own estimate of weapons expended in the war: “During the first four days of Operation Epic Fury, U.S. and allied forces used approximately 1,738 theater surface-to-air munitions to defend against 565 Iranian ballistic missiles and 57 cruise missiles.”

The report says the Pentagon currently has “less than 10 percent" of the PAC-3 MSE, THAAD, SM-6, and SM-3 interceptors "required to deter or, if necessary, prevail, in a protracted, high-intensity conflict with China.”

The Heritage report is dire, but it may not go far enough, as it does not factor in how China may use low-cost drone warfare to further frustrate U.S. operations in the region.

In an April hearing, U.S. Indo-Pacific Command leader Adm. Sam Paparo also communicated his concerns about missile shortfalls and a lack of solutions for countering cheap drones. “Current production timelines are misaligned with operational expenditures and the threats we face,” Paparo said.

Ukraine's shortage of Patriot interceptor missiles is reducing its ability to fight off Russian ballistic missiles. On July 28, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy met with Lockheed Martin representatives to discuss the possibility of license-building a Ukrainian version of the PAC-3. But such an agreement would not produce usable missiles until 2030.

The White House has gone back and forth on the issue. But Ukraine has gotten further with President Donald Trump than it did with his predecessor, Zelenskyy said in May: “I started this conversation with President Biden and I will continue with President Trump. Ukraine has not received a license to manufacture PAC-3. I believe that in the future, perhaps we will obtain one or there will be our own system.”

]]>

Can an Alaskan spaceport ease Pentagon’s launch bottleneck?

Thomas Novelly — Wed, 05 Aug 2026 17:30:13 -0400

Rocket Lab’s announcement that it would launch suborbital rockets from Alaska could ultimately give the Pentagon a much-needed new option for national-security launches, the company and space experts told Defense One.

Last week, the Space Force’s acquisitions arm announced a $266 million, multi-launch contract with the California-based rocket company. That will cover 12 to 18 launches, which will start this year and “primarily take place from a new Rocket Lab location at the Pacific Spaceport Complex-Alaska (PSCA) in Kodiak," the company said.

These missile-defense missions will be handled by the company’s HASTE rocket, a suborbital variant of its Electron.

Both rockets “use the same launch infrastructure so yes, operating out of Alaska naturally opens the door to a broader range of possibilities including orbital launch,” a Rocket Lab spokesperson said. “It’s important to remember too that the core systems, infrastructure, and expertise we build and refine in Alaska aren’t tied to just one location.”

Top Space Force officials and lawmakers are concerned that the Cape Canaveral and Vandenberg bases will be unable to handle the projected increase in military-satellite launches. The Space Force expects to launch more than 100 rockets a year within five years and potentially thousands a year by 2036.

An Arctic national-security launch site would reduce the bottleneck and help the military reach polar orbits, said Clayton Swope, the deputy director of CSIS’ Aerospace Security Project.

“Putting something in Alaska, you kind of get both of those things,” Swope said. “You get this diversification away from the two main launch sites we have, and you are creating a launch site that is more optimized around a different type of use, which is related to the orbit, the inclination.”

The state-owned spaceport where Rocket Lab will host its new launch location boasts “a low population density, manageable air and maritime routes” that would distinguish it from some other launch facilities. But it has hosted just nine orbital missions since it was founded in 1998.

Charles Galbreth, a retired Space Force colonel who directs space studies at the Mitchell Institute, said the Rocket Lab expansion “could potentially be very helpful” for small and medium national-security launches—eventually.

“It's a capacity or a capability waiting for a demand signal,” Galbreth said. “So there's got to be the combination.”

Alaska can be an important addition, yet its isolation will present challenges, said Brian Weeden, who directs civil and commercial policy for the Aerospace Corporation’s Center for Space Policy and Strategy.

“I certainly think there is room for an expansion of different kinds of launch activity in Alaska. I don't think it's going to probably take the place of also standing in other areas,” Weeden said. “You're still going to need power. You're going to need to get rocket fuel up there. You're going to get the payloads transported up there, and that may be a little bit harder to do in a more remote location like Kodiak, as opposed to a place like Cape Canaveral or Vandenberg, where a lot of infrastructure already exists.”

]]>

How many worked for DOGE? New data emerges, but many agencies stonewall

Sean Michael Newhouse — Wed, 05 Aug 2026 16:52:42 -0400

At least 206 people worked for the Department of Government Efficiency, but much remains unknown about the Trump administration's government-overhaul effort because federal agencies refused to fully cooperate with a Congressionally-ordered inquest.

In a new report published on Wednesday, the Government Accountability Office said it was largely unable to determine whether DOGE employees completed required ethics training and paperwork. GAO looked specifically at employees who worked for DOGE in the Executive Office of the President or were detailed from EOP between Jan. 20, 2025, and Jan. 31, 2026.

GAO identified 206 such people and that at least 128 of them had left by Jan. 31, 2026.

At least 27 were special government employees who were limited to serving 130 days during any one-year period. One prominent SGE was Elon Musk, the former de facto head of DOGE, whose companies received billions of dollars in federal contracts during his government service.

Investigators were not able to determine the appointment type, such as Schedule C political appointee or noncareer Senior Executive Service, for more than 150 of the personnel because many agencies did not provide the requested information.

“This total includes the 127 [U.S. DOGE Service] employees who held titles as digital services experts or consultants within USDS,” according to the report. “Although USDS has stated that USDS positions last no more than 4 years, we were unable to determine whether these USDS employees or other personnel had held such time-limited appointments.”

In total, 10 agencies and the EOP did not respond to requests from GAO for records that these DOGE employees participated in ethics training and completed financial disclosure reports.

“As a result, we are not able to determine the total number of DOGE personnel who held positions within EOP who received trainings or who completed financial disclosures at those 10 agencies or at EOP,” investigators wrote.

Nine agencies, covering 64 DOGE employees, did submit information about whether the staffers did such training and reports. But GAO argued that much of the documentation was incomplete. For example, the Agriculture Department provided an “ethics-related presentation” for Trump appointees but didn’t offer evidence for when, or if, the DOGE staffers received the training.

The White House did not respond to a request for comment.

While “the U.S. DOGE Service Temporary Organization” terminated on July 4, pursuant to the executive order establishing it, GAO pointed out that the directive permanently renamed an existing White House office as the U.S. DOGE Service.

“Since the EO does not call for the termination of the broader USDS entity, it is possible that USDS and personnel at federal agencies could continue to do work that advances some of these initiatives after the temporary organization’s termination,” investigators wrote.

DOGE spearheaded many of the civil service reductions that took place last year, resulting in a decrease of more than 350,000 to the federal employee headcount.

GAO in April reported that the Treasury Department and DOGE did not follow all security protocols with respect to granting access to government payment systems.

]]>