The Government Accountability Office discovered that 29 of 64 efforts outlined in the Defense Department’s Responsible AI Strategy and Implementation Pathway remained incomplete as of April 2026.

According to a report published Oct. 14, the GAO also found that staffing shortages had hindered the Chief Digital and Artificial Intelligence Officer’s ability to take additional steps to implement responsible AI, which the department uses to help accelerate AI adoption.

GAO recommended that the department address staffing needs in its Responsible AI Division, which falls under the Chief Digital and Artificial Intelligence Office, and issue a formal charter for the working council.

“Responsible AI should be considered the same as operationally effective AI,” said Owen Daniels, associate director of analysis at Georgetown University’s Center for Security and Emerging Technology.

Effective testing, evaluation, verification and validation practices can help the military manage risks while ensuring systems operate as intended and operators understand their strengths and limitations, Daniels said.

Council ‘at risk of lapsing’

The GAO found that the Responsible AI Working Council did not meet from late 2024 until August 2025.

Chief Digital and Artificial Intelligence Officer, or CDAO, officials told the watchdog agency that other priorities, including developing guidance for generative AI and contributing to government-wide AI risk-management resources, had prevented the Responsible AI Division from organizing meetings.

Rep. Don Bacon, R-Neb., raised a related concern about accountability during a May 2025 hearing regarding the Pentagon’s AI posture.

“It’s my observation that the Defense Department doesn’t lack in the number of principals, but rather, it often struggles with too little clarity in who is responsible for what.”

Officials from four DoD components told the GAO they faced implementation challenges during the hiatus that could have benefited from greater collaboration.

Six of the 10 DoD components surveyed said sharing responsible AI resources and best practices would increase their ability to incorporate the department’s six Responsible AI tenets into their AI use cases.

The council resumed meetings in August 2025, but the GAO found it still lacked a formal charter defining its responsibilities and specifying how frequently it should meet.

“Without a charter that defines roles and responsibilities for the council … and that specifies the frequency of council meetings, the council is at risk of lapsing again,” the GAO report reads. “Such a lapse could increase the risk of DOD facing Responsible AI implementation issues that it would not have the collaborative capacity to swiftly and effectively resolve.”

Slow staffing

CDAO officials told the GAO they were unlikely to fill vacant positions or increase staffing while the office underwent restructuring, following its realignment to the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering.

In response, the GAO argued that “by … taking action to ensure it has staff in place to meet those needs,” CDAO could make better progress toward its goal of accelerating AI across the department.

Daniels said the staffing shortfall could make it more difficult to build AI literacy throughout the force.

“Operationally, the force needs to become AI literate, as warfighters will be responsible for determining when to deploy AI-enabled systems,” he said.

Service members need to understand AI systems’ limitations and recognize when delegating decisions to machines may be inappropriate, rather than defaulting to a machine’s judgment, Daniels said.

“Exercising meaningful human control — or to use the department’s term, appropriate levels of human judgment — over a military AI system requires robustly understanding a system’s operating boundaries through development, rigorous testing and evaluation, and training,” he said.

Congress’ role

The DoD agreed with the GAO’s two recommendations to issue a charter for the Responsible AI Working Council and address the Responsible AI Division’s workforce needs, according to the watchdog.

The GAO also urged Congress to order the department to implement earlier recommendations, including defining the responsibilities of organizations involved in AI activities and assigning responsibility and a timeline for identifying and managing the department’s AI workforce.

In a Sept. 21 letter, Sens. Jack Reed, D-R.I., Mark Warner, D-Va., and Chris Coons, D-Del., expressed concern that the Pentagon’s AI push could be outpacing its governance efforts.

“Recent events have given us growing concern about the extent to which agencies under your oversight have prioritized acceleration of AI capability adoption and ‘experimentation’ over effective governance,” the letter reads.

Reed has also called for Congress to establish clearer guardrails for military AI.

“Congress must do its job and provide balanced oversight, standards, and rules of the road,” he said.

At the commission’s second meeting, members reviewed two service-level efforts: an Air Force and Space Force pilot in which the commission reported a 60% increase in military spouse placements over three weeks.

Members also called for measuring actual hires, promotions and retention rather than relying on participation figures alone.

The pilot matches spouses with hiring managers before they arrive at their next duty station.

Spouses can use the Air Force Civilian Careers website to identify where they expect to move, even before receiving formal permanent change of station, or PCS, orders. The program then facilitates introductions to hiring managers at the gaining installation.

The pilot entered its second phase in September, expanding to additional installations in the United States and overseas, according to the commission.

The military spouse commission also reported a 70% year-over-year increase in completed job profiles through SpouseWorks, a career and education resource for military spouses. Officials said they are working to make the platform easier to use and improve its ability to connect spouses with employment opportunities. The commission also announced that SpouseWorks is now available to spouses of all ranks.

Jennifer Hegseth, commission chair and wife of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, said the increase in completed job profiles suggested that spouses were ready to pursue employment but needed a better way to connect with opportunities.

“So that just shows that spouses are wanting to work, they’re ready to apply, and they just needed the right outlet,” she noted in the meeting.

The Army’s Department of the Army Voluntary Reassignment Program, or DAVRAP, takes that approach a step further by helping eligible civilian employees maintain career continuity when a permanent change of station requires them to relocate.

Launched in May 2025, the voluntary program allows eligible Army civilian employees to seek noncompetitive reassignment to positions at their gaining installations.

The commission reported that more than 11,000 candidates had created profiles since the program launched, with more than 12,000 hiring managers participating across Army installations in the United States and overseas. Members in attendance did not discuss in detail the number of completed reassignments nor specify how many candidates were military spouses.

Linda Lelande, a Coast Guard representative, asked that the Coast Guard be kept in mind along with the other services, and said spouses can face similar employment disruptions when moving between Coast Guard installations.

“They often experience this very same problem where they have a job, maybe in childcare and then they go to another Coast Guard base and have to start over,” Lelande said.

She asked whether the service could adopt elements of the Army’s reassignment model. Commission members said they wanted to identify existing programs that work and expand them rather than create new initiatives without first examining what the services already offer.

Navy representative Angela Perryman urged the commission to measure whether employer partnerships lead to actual hires.

“It’s one thing to say you’re hiring military spouses, but I want to see numbers,” Perryman said. “I want to see how many military spouses have actually been hired into these positions.”

Members also discussed tracking employment outcomes by region and in relation to PCS moves.

The commission did not announce a finalized department-wide expansion plan or implementation deadline. Member discussions underscored the need to assess whether existing programs deliver measurable employment results before determining how they might be adopted more broadly.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth addressed AUSA attendees at the Project Agincourt panel on Wednesday, sharing that the Pentagon is requesting roughly $50 billion in reconciliation funding to support the push to scale autonomous and robotic systems.

This request is part of an effort to make the technology available in far greater numbers.

The figure is separate from the Pentagon’s fiscal 2027 budget request, which includes $53.6 billion for the Drone Dominance initiative. That request covers $16.9 billion for unmanned-system procurement, $14.4 billion for counter-unmanned systems, $13.5 billion for contested logistics, $4.5 billion for collaborative autonomy and $4.3 billion for institutional systems and personnel. The budget request does not establish that the reconciliation funding Hegseth cited is the same money or that it is dedicated entirely to drone purchases

Hegseth characterized the funding as a one-time investment rather than a recurring annual allocation, intended to accelerate the development and production of autonomous and robotic systems.

“Ultimately we will be dealing with hundreds of thousands of one-way attack systems this year and into the millions in years to come at a pace that this department’s never ever seen before.”

The Defense Secretary said the Pentagon must make it easier for new companies to compete in a defense market long dominated by established contractors and costly platforms. Traditional defense firms remain important, he said, but the department also needs lower-cost systems that can be manufactured at scale.

The Army’s Drone Dominance program offers a concrete measure of that ambition. In a December 2025 announcement, the Army said a $1 billion initiative would fund approximately 340,000 small unmanned aircraft systems for combat units over two years. The service said it expected to deliver tens of thousands of drones in 2026 and hundreds of thousands by 2027.

Acting Army Secretary Adam Telle said the service is broadening access to its programs for companies outside the traditional defense industrial base. The Army, he said, must make room for new entrants while continuing to work with established suppliers.

Telle also described plans to coordinate the Army’s autonomous-systems efforts while distributing capabilities to operational units. The service is developing an approach that incorporates drones, autonomous ground systems, autonomous fires and autonomous lift into future combat operations.

“We have an MOS in the Army, 390A, where warrant officers could keep the speciality and the skills over the duration to teach our soldiers how to do robotics,” Telle added.

Expanding access to Army test ranges is another part of that effort, Telle said. Greater access gives developers more opportunities to test systems and receive feedback from military users. He also described efforts to share lessons across the force rather than have individual units and organizations solve the same problems independently.

Hegseth said the department must remove bureaucratic barriers that slow the adoption of new technology, telling the panel, “I want you to tell me which rules can be signed away.” He urged officials to identify rules and directives that could be changed without involving new legislation to accelerate progress.

During Project Sandhills 2.0, soldiers planned flight routes and operated Bumblebee V2 small unmanned aircraft systems at Range 63.

The project tested how unmanned systems could support contested obstacle breaching, while soldiers and industry partners collected feedback to inform future Army capabilities.

The Army said the effort included autonomous trucks, robotic breaching payloads, drone swarms, mine detection and counter-UAS tools operating on the same problem.

A counter-UAS turret used a human-authorized effector, underscoring that autonomy did not mean removing people from critical decisions. Human decision-making remains central to the Army’s approach.

The experiment illustrates the larger question raised by retired Army Col. Dave Rowland and retired Command Sgt. Maj. Brian Hester in a Sept. 29 Modern War Institute analysis: Autonomy becomes consequential not when the Army adds an individual robotic system, but when it has enough autonomous systems, performing enough missions, to change how an entire brigade fights.

That difference becomes more consequential as autonomous systems are integrated across a battlefield shaped by drones, sensors, electronic warfare and precision fires.

Rowland and Hester argue that persistent observation and long-range fires make large formations easier to find and attack, threatening the maneuver that allows combined-arms forces to concentrate combat power.

They envision autonomous systems moving ahead of manned formations to identify enemy positions, obstacles and usable routes. Other systems could provide counter-drone, electronic-warfare, sensing or deception capabilities, while autonomous platforms could move supplies through exposed areas.

Beyond experimentation

The Army is moving beyond experimentation into acquisition and organizational changes, with its fiscal 2026 budget justification including an “Autonomy Formation” effort intended to accelerate robotics for armored and infantry formations.

In July, the Army selected four companies for its Engineer Autonomous Breaching Capability program, which calls for prototypes capable of breaching complex obstacles and minefields under direct observation and fire using beyond-line-of-sight autonomous control. An assessment of the unit is planned for early 2027.

On Oct. 1, Acting Army Secretary Adam Telle signed a memorandum directing the establishment of the U.S. Army Futures and Autonomous Systems Command, or FASCOM. The Army announced the move Oct. 2, saying the command will integrate autonomous capabilities into aviation, armor, fires, sustainment, engineer and training formations.

It will also prioritize autonomous fires, combat vehicles, watercraft resupply, breaching, reconnaissance, surveillance and target acquisition, and crewed-uncrewed teaming for acquisition and fielding by fiscal 2028.

But the Army’s own research shows why turning that ambition into battlefield capability won’t be simple.

In a Sept. 30 Army Research Laboratory study, 13 soldiers operated a mixed air-ground formation during a two-week simulation. The formation included a manned control vehicle, two robotic combat vehicles, a Future Vertical Lift platform and shared launched effects, operating against a human-controlled opposing force under contested conditions.

Researchers found that the formation adapted rapidly, developed effective coordination patterns and maintained stable subjective workload as mission complexity increased. The findings suggest that air-ground teaming was feasible under the conditions tested and that soldiers could integrate autonomous capabilities without an unsustainable cognitive burden.

However, the study did not demonstrate autonomous maneuver by an operational brigade. It tested a specific human-machine formation in a simulation under defined conditions.

Another Army Research Laboratory study examining autonomous reconnaissance and screening identified soldier-robot trust, communications, shared understanding and cognitive load as areas requiring further research. Those issues become especially important when communications are degraded or denied.

That is where Rowland and Hester envision a fundamental change in command.

A brigade cannot scale autonomy if every unmanned vehicle requires a soldier continuously controlling it. The retired Army leaders describe a progression from operating individual systems, to supervising multiple systems, to coordinating mixed manned-unmanned teams and eventually commanding autonomous formations through mission command.

Ukraine offers evidence of what unmanned systems can already do, but also a warning against overstating the technology.

Rowland and Hester point to Ukrainian use of unmanned ground systems for logistics and casualty evacuation while noting that most remain remotely operated or have only limited autonomy. Their use demonstrates the value of shifting dangerous work from people to machines; it does not establish that fully autonomous formations are ready for combat.

Acquisition isn’t the only issue

The Army faces a problem bigger than acquiring machines alone. It must determine how many systems formations can absorb, how soldiers should supervise them, how networks can support them under attack and what happens when a machine encounters circumstances its programming does not anticipate.

Rowland and Hester argue the Army should learn those lessons before the technology is perfected. They call for brigades to train with meaningful quantities of autonomous systems at home stations, identify failures and refine tactics before those systems reach combat training centers.

The Army is now aligning its organizations, acquisition efforts and training around that broader push. The unresolved question is whether those efforts can produce something more difficult than a successful demonstration: a repeatable way for a brigade to see, survive, sustain and maneuver when an adversary is actively disrupting its communications and attacking its forces.

General Dynamics Land Systems is showcasing a 1/8 model of the Wolf XM30, the company’s candidate to replace the M2 Bradley, along with PERCH 2.0, M-SHORAD Increment 4 and the F600 Leonidas at the Association of the United States Army’s annual meeting this week.

The Wolf is one of two vehicles competing in the Army’s XM30 program, with American Rheinmetall delivering its first Lynx XM30 prototype to the Army in September.

Retired Army officer Scott Taylor, General Dynamics Land Systems’ director of U.S. growth, told Military Times that the Bradley has reached the limits of its ability to accommodate additional capabilities and weight.

The Wolf is designed with greater capacity in mind, while improving fightability, lethality and survivability, Taylor said. General Dynamics Land Systems delivered its first Wolf prototype to the Army in August.

PERCH 2.0 allows M1A2 Abrams main battle tanks and Stryker vehicles to launch Switchblade 300 loitering munitions while keeping operators under armor.

One PERCH 2.0 prototype has been provided to the Army for experimentation, with three more on the way. Soldiers with 2nd Battalion, 12th Cavalry Regiment, 1st Brigade Combat Team, known as “Thunder Horse,” are currently testing the prototype at Fort Hood, Texas, Taylor noted.

The system grew out of General Dynamics Land Systems’ development of PERCH 1.0, which the company developed in less than four months after senior Army leaders discussed observations from the war in Ukraine during a 2025 event, Taylor said. Soldiers with the 1st Cavalry Division then tested the system at Fort Hood and provided feedback that led to changes in loading procedures, use of space and integration with the tank’s loader display.

The Army initially experimented with Switchblade 600 before asking the company to focus on the smaller Switchblade 300, according to Taylor. General Dynamics Land Systems continued developing PERCH 2.0 with its own independent research and development funding before the Army contracted for three additional prototypes under the Abrams program office.

The Army will evaluate the design after the experimentation and could compete the capability or purchase it, depending on the results, Taylor explained.

“In many ways, it’s become attrition-based warfare over there, and that’s not the way the U.S. Army or the U.S. Marine Corps or many of our allies fight,” Taylor said.

Also on the AUSA floor is the M-SHORAD Increment 4, a platform-agnostic air-defense system built around a Self-Loading Equipment Dock, or SLED, that can be mounted on different vehicles. Charles Woody, the company’s program manager for M-SHORAD Increment 4, told Military Times that the system is designed in part to reduce the cognitive burden on soldiers conducting air-defense and counter-UAS missions.

The configuration includes a 7.62mm machine gun, an intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance drone, a loitering munition and a counter-drone system.

The F600 Leonidas combines Epirus’ high-powered microwave technology for defeating drones with a commercially based Ford F-600 chassis modified for military use. The Army is expected to use a prototype to determine where the capability fits in its future air-defense plans.

The brigade completed the Army’s first-ever helicopter test flights using the Advanced Inflight Relief Universal System, or AIRUS, at Fort Campbell, Kentucky, from Oct. 5 to 7. The testing examined the system’s airworthiness for use on Army helicopters.

Aircrews from 1-101 Attack Battalion “No Mercy,” 6-101 Assault Helicopter Battalion “Eagle Assault” and 7-101 Heavy Lift Battalion “Eagle Lift” completed human-factors surveys, checked AIRUS for fit and tested its ability to let them relieve themselves in flight. The crews believe AIRUS will help them stay in the air longer.

The brigade’s Holistic Health and Fitness, or H2F, team sought out AIRION, the aerospace medical systems company that developed AIRUS, to help reduce the number of pilots purposefully dehydrating themselves to limit the need for restroom breaks during missions.

“We had pilots tell us they tactically dehydrate,” Capt. Gena Baisa, lead dietitian for the 101st CAB H2F team, said per an Army release. “So, we thought, how can we get a system specifically designed to allow them to use the bathroom in air so they can stay hydrated and optimize their performance?”

Chief Warrant Officer 2 Collin McAllister, an AH-64 Apache pilot who tested AIRUS, said the system differs from previous systems that used bags containing coagulant, according to an Army account of the testing.

“As we look to fight in contested environments where we will need to stay a lot longer to support the ground force, this could be a great contribution,” McAllister said in the account.

Representatives from Redstone Arsenal observed the test to provide recommendations on AIRUS’ flight suitability. A critical aspect of the evaluation involved assessing how aircrews with different body types could move while wearing the system.

“We tested AIRUS to see its airworthiness and started with egress testing,” said Elizabeth Rhonenus, a human-factors engineer with the Aviation Flight Test Directorate, in the release. “We took our smallest participant around the fifth percentile and our largest around the 95th percentile and saw if they could get in and out of the aircraft safely.”

The testing marked a developmental milestone, transitioning the system into the Army’s rotary-wing fleet, according to the Army. It was AIRION’s first time testing with the Army and its first time testing the system on helicopters, according to Colt Seman, the company’s founder and chief executive officer.

“We tested to get the system integrated into the Apache, Black Hawk, and Chinook helicopters,” Seman said per the release. “The pilots were able to put on AIRUS, wear it, and be able to use it. It was comfortable, and it worked.”

Baisa said the brigade is preparing for upcoming missions, including the Long Range Large Scale Air Assault concept and the new MV-75 Cheyenne II helicopters’ ability to stay in flight longer.

“We are setting the foundation now to support the upcoming missions our Soldiers will face,” Baisa said. “Looking at L2A2 and the new MV-75 Cheyenne II helicopters’ ability to stay in flight longer, we want to improve Soldier readiness. The AIRUS is a capability that could help us achieve it across the enterprise.”

The Agriculture Department’s SNAP eligibility information did not accurately reflect changes affecting veterans and the program’s time-limited participation rules as of September 2026, according to a new Government Accountability Office report.

GAO also found that veterans face misconceptions and other barriers to applying for benefits and recommended that USDA update its information and develop outreach materials specifically for veterans.

The issue centers on SNAP’s three-month time limit for certain able-bodied adults without dependents who do not meet work requirements. Veterans were among the groups exempt from that time limit from September 2023 through July 2025.

A 2025 law removed the categorical veteran exemption, meaning veterans can now be subject to the time limit unless they qualify for another exception. GAO found that USDA’s eligibility website had not been updated to reflect the change as of September 2026.

Stakeholders told GAO that some veterans believe their VA benefits make them ineligible, that applying would take benefits away from someone else or that the application process is too difficult. They also cited problems with technology, documentation, communication and completing required interviews.

“I lost my job 7 months ago, and I still haven’t found another one to replace it,” explained Derick Broadnax, an Army veteran who was denied SNAP benefits. “Food keeps getting more expensive and getting a good-paying job is tough for everyone to get right now.”

An estimated 1.4 million veterans lived in food-insecure households each year from 2015 through 2020, according to research cited by GAO. An estimated 6.9% of veterans lived in households receiving SNAP in 2024. That figure measures veterans living in households receiving SNAP, not the percentage of veterans eligible for the program.

Of 47 states with USDA-approved SNAP outreach plans for fiscal 2026, 39 identified veterans as a target population. Thirteen planned to provide information or application assistance at veteran facilities or centers, 11 planned to train government or nonprofit organizations that work with veterans, and six planned outreach at veteran events.

USDA issued annual outreach priority memorandums encouraging states to target veterans from fiscal 2022 through fiscal 2025. USDA officials told GAO they did not plan to issue a similar priority memorandum for fiscal 2026 or fiscal 2027. Forty-four states identified veterans as a target population in their fiscal 2025 outreach plans, compared with 39 in fiscal 2026. GAO did not establish that the change in federal guidance caused the decline.

The VA-USDA partnership on veteran food insecurity also has not operated as planned. The agencies established a memorandum of agreement in 2023, but their collaborative efforts slowed after USDA lost key staff in April 2025.

Since then, the agencies have not held the workgroup meeting called for under the agreement and have not completed the agreement’s required annual review. Agency officials told GAO they consider the agreement to still be in place, but the agencies have not reviewed it as specified in the agreement.

VA continues to screen veterans for food insecurity and connect them with assistance. VA screened 4.4 million veterans in fiscal 2025; about 103,000 screened positive and roughly 78,000 accepted referrals to a VA social worker or dietitian. VA social workers can assist veterans with SNAP applications and interviews.

Beginning Oct. 1, federal reimbursement for allowable state SNAP administrative costs fell from up to 50% to 25%, shifting a larger share of those costs to states. GAO did not establish what effect the change will have specifically on veteran outreach.

GAO made four recommendations. USDA should update its SNAP eligibility website, develop and distribute veteran-specific outreach materials in coordination with VA, and establish a formal mechanism for working with VA.

VA received a corresponding recommendation to establish a formal mechanism for working with USDA. Both agencies concurred with the recommendations, and GAO lists all four as open.

The government watchdog found that the Defense Department reported obligating approximately $68 million for immigration detention from Oct. 1, 2024, through May 31, 2026. The Guantanamo operation was one of six new detention-expansion initiatives U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement pursued without first developing a comprehensive strategic plan.

By July 2026, ICE had scaled back four of the six initiatives, resulting in wasted or potentially wasted resources, the GAO said in a Sept. 24 report.

A January 2025 presidential memorandum directed DHS and DOD to increase detention capacity at Naval Station Guantanamo Bay to 30,000 beds. DOD assembled tents for an initial capacity of 5,000 beds, but the Department of Homeland Security determined they did not meet detention standards.

The tents were taken down and never used to house detained noncitizens, in part because building facilities that met ICE standards was cost-prohibitive. DoD officials told the GAO, “detaining the planned population was deemed infeasible,” and the operation was downsized in mid-February 2025.

DOD’s role in the detention expansion extended beyond Guantanamo.

After DHS requested access to military installations in February 2025, DHS and DoD began planning detention facilities at Camp Atterbury in Indiana and Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst in New Jersey.

By October 2025, DoD officials said they no longer planned to build detention facilities on other military installations, and DoD and ICE officials told GAO investigators the Indiana and New Jersey facilities did not move forward.

ICE’s request for military assistance had not been rescinded, however, and the agreement has remained active as of August 2026.

At Fort Bliss in El Paso, Texas, the Army awarded and administered a $1.3 billion task order on behalf of ICE for Camp East Montana, a soft-sided detention facility that opened in August 2025. The Army transferred contract administration responsibilities to ICE at the beginning of fiscal 2026.

A separate GAO report found the Army wasted up to $11.5 million on services at Camp East Montana between Aug. 1 and Aug. 15, 2025, when there were no detained noncitizens housed there. The Army later paid about $423,000 for meals it did not need while the facility operated below planned capacity.

After ICE took over the contract, it paid another $7.1 million for meals it did not need from Oct. 1, 2025, through March 12, 2026. As of August 2026, ICE had not incorporated recommended cost-saving measures into the contract and continued paying for services it did not need.

GAO recommends that ICE develop a comprehensive strategic plan for its detention expansion efforts, including goals, activities and resource needs.

DHS agreed, but said ICE does not expect to complete the plan until Aug. 31, 2027. GAO said more timely completion “may be warranted.”

The Autonomous Warfare Command, or AutoWarCom, will have service-like authorities and is intended to scale autonomous and robotic capabilities across the military, Hegseth said during his State of the Force address at Marine Corps Base Quantico, Virginia, on Wednesday.

Hegseth said the new command is intended to address an acquisition system that cannot keep pace with the speed of technological change on the battlefield.

“The pace of war is changing faster than the process to support it,” Hegseth said.

The announcement comes three months after Hegseth consolidated the Defense Department’s unmanned and autonomous systems under a new Direct Reporting Portfolio Manager for Unmanned Systems, or DRPM-UxS. The office reports directly to Deputy Secretary of Defense Steven Feinberg and was established to oversee the development, procurement, fielding and sustainment of unmanned and autonomous systems across the department.

The DRPM-UxS also assumed oversight of existing efforts, including Joint Interagency Task Force 401, the Defense Innovation Unit and the Defense Autonomous Warfare Group.

During his Wednesday address, Hegseth also announced Project Agincourt, an interim effort intended to prepare the way for AutoWarCom.

Hegseth named Owen West, the director of the Defense Innovation Unit, and Navy SEAL Senior Chief Max Strasiser to lead the initiative for the next year. He described the two as a “CEO, COO partnership,” with West focused on strategic risks, resources and scale, and Strasiser focused on operational problem-solving and the realities of employing the systems in combat.

Hegseth said a four-star commander will soon be named to lead AutoWarCom, while West and Strasiser will guide Project Agincourt as the department prepares to establish the command.

Agincourt will test what Hegseth called “warfighting acquisition,” bringing military operators, engineers and private companies into rapid development cycles and moving acquisition decisions and funding closer to combatant commands and frontline units.

“This model fuses operators with entrepreneurs in rapid adaptation cycles while distributing decisions and dollars closer to frontline units to combatant commands,” Hegseth said.

Realistic training exercises — and, when possible, combat — will be used to test autonomous systems and determine which technologies should be rapidly expanded, the secretary announced.

The department will also begin phasing in new military occupational specialty frameworks to support the military’s shift toward autonomous warfare, Hegseth said, creating career paths for a new generation of autonomous warfighters.

Hegseth said the Pentagon needs both sophisticated, high-end weapons and large numbers of lower-cost autonomous systems, describing the approach as a “high-low mix.” He compared high-end weapons to lightning and massed drones and other autonomous systems to the wind and rain of a thunderstorm.

“Today, we need both quality and quantity,” Hegseth said.

He went on to liken the establishment of the new command to an act of biblical significance, stating the department was “putting on the full armor of God. Because while we wage physical war, we all know the real battle is spiritual.”

Hegseth pointed to Ukraine as a lesson in the need for systems that can be adapted rapidly as battlefield conditions change. He said the United States must be able to develop, test and modify autonomous systems at a pace that matches the evolution of warfare.

The effort is intended to bring the military’s frontline leaders closer to the engineers and companies developing new technologies, which Hegseth described as the military’s greatest comparative advantage.

In a memorandum signed Tuesday, Hegseth directed the secretaries of the military departments to immediately terminate the practice of appointing civilian faculty to tenured positions and develop hiring plans that prioritize institutional flexibility and faculty contributions to the warfighting mission.

“The primary purpose of our Military Service Academies (MSA) is to prepare the next generation of officers to lead the men and women of the greatest military on Earth,” Hegseth wrote.

Hegseth said tenure can contribute to “academic stagnation” and “faculty complacency” and make institutions less able to adapt to emerging needs.

He also argued that tenure can contribute to curricula drifting from the mission of educating future warfighters toward the research priorities of tenured faculty.

In military academies, civilian faculty have been part of the academic structure for decades. In 1992, Congress enacted legislation that expanded the ability of the academies to employ civilian faculty.

Academy leaders have previously cited tenure as a factor in recruiting and retaining civilian faculty. During a March 2025 Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, West Point Superintendent Lt. Gen. Steven Gilland said tenure gives civilian faculty opportunities to advance within their disciplines. Naval Academy Superintendent Vice Adm. Yvette Davids described tenure as a recruiting tool and an incentive for civilian faculty to stay, while Air Force Academy Superintendent Lt. Gen. Tony Bauernfeind said tenure was part of the academic progression for civilian faculty.

The directive does not say that existing tenured civilian professors will lose their tenure, nor does it specify what employment structure will replace tenure for newly hired civilian faculty or how the departments will implement the change.

Hegseth framed the policy as part of a broader effort to reshape the academies around their military mission.

“To ensure our educational institutions remain firmly focused on this warfighting mission, we must address the structural mechanisms that have allowed civilian academic norms to dilute our focus on lethality,” the secretary wrote.