Open the Airwaves
Hegseth’s straight talk on DoD spending should be applied to spectrum access.
Roslyn Layton is a technology policy economist.
President Trump’s Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth, has provided some welcome transparency to American taxpayers around the opaque (and enormous) spending at the Pentagon. But that straight talk shouldn’t end with the balance sheet. Americans desperately need accountability from DoD for its use spectrum, the airwaves which enable communications for everything from 5G Wi-Fi networks to airplanes and satellites. The military sits on 60% of the so-called spectrum beachfront, the prime frequencies between 3-8.5 GHz, that are most desirable for both government and business efforts. These frequencies have properties which enable speedy throughput of data over long distances, making them ideal for connecting Americans with mobile broadband. However, only a fraction is available today for US consumers, and there is no pipeline of frequencies to meet growing consumer demand. The Federal Communication Commission’s (FCC) authority to auction spectrum expired March 9, 2023. Pentagon leaders have blocked legislative efforts restoring that authority if identified bands for consumers are included.
Hegseth’s straight talk marks a sharp departure from scripted statements of his predecessors. “We want you, the American people—the taxpayers—to understand why we’re making the decisions that we’re making here,” noted the former TV news anchor in the first minute of his statement. His impromptu remarks, posted on YouTube, garnered some 350,000 views to date, making it one of the most viral videos ever posted by the Pentagon. The sentiment of some 4,300 comments posted to the video was that Hegseth’s transparency is refreshing, regardless of the policy.
Prior Pentagon leaders practiced “strategic ambiguity” on many critical economic and national security issues tied to the work that the agency does. One such example is spectrum. Unbeknownst surely to most Americans, the US military is the single largest holder of federal spectrum, a bequest following the 1927 Federal Radio Act. This federal spectrum configuration has changed little in a century.
The armed forces have accumulated a myriad of radar, weapons, and communications systems running on different frequencies and technologies, many of which are obsolete. While the Pentagon has studied whether more frequencies could be released to the public, it is reluctant to rationalize them, citing complexity and cost. DoD does not disclose the entirety of its spectrum holdings, nor is it required to use them efficiently. Hegseth’s commitment to transparency could go a long way for the American people if extended to spectrum.
The long-running impasse between budget hawks and defense hawks in Congress reflects the classic zero-sum question of “guns vs. butter.” Yet, a nation’s smart allocation of spectrum provides both economic and military advantage. For example, China aligns spectrum to support its industrial base, from the manufacture of Huawei network equipment and devices to mobile applications like TikTok and Temu, projecting geopolitical power through technological adoption. DeepSeek, a disruptive competitor to American artificial intelligence (AI) platforms, was incubated on China’s integrated 5G-cloud ecosystem running on the 3 GHz band and was released on January 20 to score a point on President Trump’s Inauguration.
This doesn’t require a novel approach. Most nations align spectrum for commercial purposes along a standard set of frequencies to benefit consumers and create economies of scale for technology providers. Many upgrade military systems and refarm spectrum for commercial use. The US is a spectrum island, so to speak, with the military occupying much of the beachfront, which is better suited for commercial applications, whereas military radar can function in other bands. For example, 30 countries operate full power 5G networks in the lower range the US military currently dominates. Our military operates in these foreign theaters alongside the country’s domestic 5G, yet the Pentagon claims such coexistence is impossible in the U.S.
The inefficiency of federal spectrum management mirrors past policy failures. The first spectrum auction, proposed in 1959, was delayed until 1994 because of bureaucratic resistance. Yet, spectrum auctions have become a standard government revenue model around the world, even earning their American designers a Nobel Prize. 5G represents a small fraction of all frequencies in the US, but its American providers have driven 42-fold improvement in spectral efficiency. With no frequencies in the pipeline for wireless broadband, consumers are likely to experience slowdowns and degradations within two years.
America’s earlier military ‘spectrum superiority’ proved decisive in several conflicts, including the Gulf War. However, we are no longer in this strong position. Indeed, the President’s recent “Iron Dome for America” executive order implies that existing strategies, including the reliance on outdated radar and spectrum configurations, do not provide first strike deterrence and are vulnerable to electromagnetic pulse attacks, which can shut down the electric grid. A superfast Chinese hypersonic weapon travelling at Mach 5 could hit our nation before our current defense is triggered to stop it.
The Iron Dome provides a much-needed opportunity for a spectrum reboot. This could be a win-win for military and spectrum modernization. The relevant mid-band frequencies could bring in $100 billion if auctioned, and provide fiscally responsible investment to the Pentagon in lieu of deficit spending.
Those closest to the technology and its governance understand that more than just straight-talk is required to reinvigorate our defense base. As Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) Roger Wicker has pointed out, military modernization is part and parcel of growing the American economy; a hybrid industrial and innovation base can both power goods and services for the economy and provide state-of-the-art weapons for the battlefields of the future. But we don’t have the resources to do so. His 21st Century Peace Through Strength plan calls for an additional $55 billion in military spending in 2025 for upgraded equipment, better training, and infrastructure investments. The recent SASC hearing called for defense and acquisition reform, in part, so that the military can access innovation enabled by 5G. In other words, having more spectrum for 5G will serve the military and the economy.
Republican Senators generally support defense investment, but expect Pentagon accountability. Chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee Ted Cruz is worried that that “Pentagon bureaucratic inertia” deterred $100 billion in spectrum revenues that could have fueled investment, job creation, and resources to pay for a secure border and stronger military. “I am open to compromise on what the aggregate pipeline target number should be, but zero is objectively unreasonable. And no institution should be afforded blind deference—especially not one that can’t even pass an audit and claimed that leaving billions in tanks, helicopters, and weapons in Afghanistan was more efficient than bringing them home,” he declared.
Amid the rise of DOGE, other conservatives are similarly concerned about outlays not being put to good use. Senator Marsh Blackburn rejoined, saying that the Pentagon was “squatting” and “hoarding” essential frequencies for economic competition with China.
But on spectrum in particular, there appears to be some evolving, bipartisan consensus. Senators from both parties support an inventory of the Pentagon’s spectrum holdings and classified briefings. Meanwhile, Congress should fast-track the Spectrum Pipeline Act just introduced in the House, mirroring a Senate bill from Cruz and Thune proposed last year, which allocates licensed and unlicensed frequencies, restores auction authority, and greenlights equipment purchases with auction proceeds.
Hegseth has offered the transparency that Americans deserve on how the Pentagon spends taxpayers’ money. Spectrum is no different; it’s an asset for which DoD must account, one in competition with the interests of ordinary Americans. The airwaves belong to the American people; they are on loan to the Pentagon for a purpose. Hegseth must bring the same straight-talk on spectrum. It’s the job of Congress and the administration to ensure resources are used optimally.
Hegseth has an enormous opportunity to shoot straight and expose the truth on spectrum once and for all: DoD can be more efficient with its spectrum without compromising national security and can free up frequencies for commercial use. American taxpayers can win on both fronts.