U.S. Army Chief Information Officer Leonel Garciga has issued interim cybersecurity guidance governing the operation and network connectivity of small unmanned aircraft systems, or sUAS, across the service.

The Potomac Officers Club’s 2026 Army Summit on June 18 will highlight how the Army’s transformation efforts are reshaping modernization and contracting priorities, providing industry leaders with insight into the service’s path toward its 2030 goals. Save your seat now!

What Is the Purpose of the Cybersecurity Guidance?

According to the memo issued Feb. 5, the policy establishes interim requirements for operating small UAS, defined as Group 1 and Group 2 systems weighing 55 pounds or less. The guidance is intended to establish new protocols for rapid procurement and fielding of drones while protecting the Department of War Information Network, or DoWIN, from cybersecurity threats.

What Are the Key Cybersecurity Rules?

Under the guidance, O-6 level commanders authorized to procure, test or train with sUAS must follow Army cybersecurity requirements governing network connectivity. Small UAS may not connect to DoWIN without both an authorization to operate and authority to connect. Systems operating in closed-loop or standalone configurations that do not interface with Army networks are exempt from formal authorization, provided other requirements are met.

Platforms on the Defense Innovation Unit and Defense Contract Management Agency Blue UAS Select list receive type-based authorization but still require approval to connect, while all other systems must complete the assess-and-authorize process through the Enterprise Mission Assurance Support Service, or eMASS.

What Systems & Organizations Are Covered by the Guidance?

The Army CIO, acting on behalf of the secretary of the Army, is responsible for setting policy, allocating resources and providing oversight for the Army Cybersecurity Program in accordance with Army Regulation, or AR, 25-2, titled Information Management: Army Cybersecurity, including issuing policy memoranda as needed to clarify or expand existing guidance. The policy applies across all headquarters, Department of the Army elements, Army commands, Army service component commands, direct reporting units and reserve components, regardless of duty status, but excludes small UAS used for intelligence gathering.

The Government Accountability Office is urging Congress to consider giving the Pentagon’s research and engineering office formal budget certification authority, arguing the change is needed to strengthen oversight of the Department of War’s technology investments and improve alignment across the military departments.

In a report published Thursday, GAO said the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering is generally executing its statutory roles—such as issuing the 2023 National Defense Science and Technology Strategy—but faces limitations in managing service-led science and technology efforts and in ensuring those investments align with DOW-wide priorities.

Why Does GAO Want Congress to Expand OUSD(R&E)’s Authority?

According to the watchdog, OUSD(R&E) is constrained in its ability to influence military department research, development, test and evaluation budgets. Officials noted that they often receive only top-line data and are given insufficient time to review detailed department submissions during the annual budget cycle

GAO framed the authority as a mechanism to require earlier and more complete budget submissions for review and to improve visibility into whether service budgets support DOW-wide technology priorities.

However, GAO said the Departments of the Army, Air Force and Navy disagreed with the idea. In its written comments, the DOW raised concerns that the added certification step could delay budget approval, reduce autonomy and increase workload.

What Issues Did GAO Flag in DOW’s Technology Planning and Road Maps?

GAO said the services’ science and technology strategies vary in how current they are and how closely they align with DOW’s S&T strategy, creating a risk that the military departments pursue technologies that do not match DOW’s vision.

The report also said OUSD(R&E) has not issued guidance for developing critical technology area roadmaps. GAO highlighted that without such oversight, road maps provide inconsistent details on infrastructure and the industrial base, undermining their utility for leaders tasked with guiding national investments.

GAO noted that OUSD(R&E) relies heavily on information from the military departments; however, officials estimated the office’s data collection efforts capture only about 70 percent to 80 percent of ongoing technology development projects, limiting oversight and coordination.

What Does GAO Want DOW to Do Next?

GAO made three recommendations to DOW, including directing each military department to develop S&T strategies that align with the National Defense S&T Strategy to the maximum extent practicable, issuing guidance for critical technology area roadmaps and providing guidance on the level of investment needed in each critical technology area to support road map alignment. DOW agreed with those recommendations.

The report comes as DOW’s fiscal year 2026 budget request includes nearly $180 billion for technology management and enhancement.

House Armed Services Committee Chairman Mike Rogers, R-Ala., said he is seeking $450 billion in defense funding through an upcoming reconciliation bill and preparing to use the fiscal year 2027 National Defense Authorization Act to expand the defense industrial base, Breaking Defense reported Wednesday.

In an exclusive interview with the publication, Rogers said he is coordinating with Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Roger Wicker, R-Miss., to secure the funding and has already informed congressional leadership of the plan.

Why Is the $450B in Reconciliation Funding Important to the FY27 Defense Plan?

According to Rogers, the $450 billion figure is required to close the gap between a projected White House defense budget request and President Donald Trump’s FY27 defense spending target of $1.5 trillion.

The HASC chair acknowledged that passing such a measure could be challenging amid narrow Republican margins and a limited legislative window, with Democrats projected to regain control of the House in the upcoming midterm elections.

Despite those challenges, he said the funding increase is necessary to support the Golden Dome missile defense initiative, the Sentinel intercontinental ballistic missile program, the F-47 sixth-generation fighter aircraft and other major defense modernization programs.

How Is HASC Addressing the Defense Industrial Base Expansion in FY27 NDAA?

Rogers said HASC has begun work on the FY27 NDAA and is engaging commercial companies to identify barriers and incentives related to expanding the defense industrial base.

“That’s our question to these folks, and we’ve already started bringing them in and asking them, ‘What can we do to incentivize you to get into the defense production?’” the lawmaker told Breaking Defense. “Taking the traditionals and non-traditionals, what can we do to incentivize you to grow? [For] the primes, what can we do to incentivize you to expand?”

A bipartisan group of House lawmakers has introduced legislation directing the Department of War to establish a nationwide network of regional defense technology hubs to accelerate emerging capabilities and strengthen the defense industrial base, the office of Rep. Wesley Bell, D-Mo., said Tuesday.

Bell introduced the Defense Technology Hubs Act of 2026 along with Deborah Ross, D-N.C., Richard Hudson, R-N.C., and Mark Messmer, R-Ind. 

What Would the Defense Technology Hubs Act Require DOW to Do?

The bill would require the DOW to establish the Defense Technology Hubs Program to designate and support regional hubs focused on emerging defense technologies. These hubs are designed to bridge the gap between development and operational use by fostering collaboration among universities, industry, nonprofits and local governments, while simultaneously driving workforce development and technology transition.

“At a time when our global adversaries are investing heavily in next-generation technologies, America must not just compete, but lead, in research, development, and innovation. That means building innovation capacity in regions across the country,” said Bell, a member of the House Armed Services Committee and the Defense Modernization Caucus.

The Defense Technology Hubs Act of 2026 has been endorsed by Greater St. Louis, a regional economic development organization.

How Does the House Bill Relate to Earlier Senate Action?

The House legislation follows the 2025 Senate introduction of a separate Defense Technology Hubs Act, which authorizes funding over several fiscal years to construct tech hubs in 10 regions across the United States.

That earlier proposal emphasized avoiding duplication of existing programs, setting eligibility standards for designated hubs and preventing participation by foreign entities. The House bill reflects similar goals focused on accelerating technology development and reinforcing the domestic defense innovation base.