This summer Secretary of Defense (now War) Pete Hegseth announced the rollout of a new United States strategy for drone dominance.
The message was simple: the U.S. is moving aggressively to regain drone dominance, and the Pentagon is shifting its culture from bureaucratic restraint to battlefield readiness. This posture marks a fundamental change in military procurement, strategy, and readiness with implications for future warfare. It would be hard to find someone who has worked in government acquisitions to argue with the notion that by the time the tech or purchase is approved, you’re already behind. For better or for worse, our adversaries do not have our same constraints.
In conflicts like the war in Ukraine, mass-produced drones have become the most consequential battlefield innovation in a generation, and they continue to show up throughout this conflict. This technology has been utilized in both surveillance and in delivering precise and deadly strikes at scale, including on Russia’s oil refineries, which is in part how Russia is funding this war. Russia’s imposition into Poland last week also utilized this technology. Considering a war which has now cost over 1.5 million casualties, the benefits for the warfighter are apparent. The technology has also been successfully, and covertly, used by Mossad and Israeli forces during the 12-day war with Iran.
A posture of a cautious, bureaucratic approach to drone warfare, guided by internal regulatory constraints, has prevented the U.S. from staying ahead of the curve on the rapidly evolving demands of the modern battlefield. President Trump’s Executive Order (E.O.) 14307 – Unleashing American Drone Dominance, released in early June, indicated the ways in which drones are already positively impacting other U.S.-based industries. While much of the E.O. focused on the Department of Transportation and the Federal Aviation Administration, it sparked conversations on the use of drone technology, and U.S. production. Although several attempts were made to bolster the U.S. lead in technological development in warfare, the issue of procurement layered with red tape, imposed risk-averse policies, and regrettably slowed innovation, restricting frontline access to small, lethal drones.
The technologies’ impact on warfare is clear, and the U.S.’ previous flat-footed posture posed grave risks, which are now being expeditiously dealt with. Hegseth and company were correct to put renewed focus on drone capabilities in high gear. While the U.S. hesitated on the efficacy of the new technology, adversaries surged ahead. U.S. adversaries now manufacture millions of low-cost drones annually, exploiting speed and scale in ways the American military was ill-prepared to counter en masse. Any time the U.S. adopts a posture of defense, rather than offense, the warfighter is left at a disadvantage in both safety and training. The Secretary knows this, and so does the Department of War.
The lag in drone development and integration left U.S. forces critically vulnerable in a domain we once pioneered but failed to fully embrace. This isn’t just the opinion of those in industry, the latest Weapon Systems Annual Assessment, conducted by the Government Accountability office, showed that the Department of Defense (DOD) “continued to struggle with delivering innovative technologies quickly and within budget.”
However, hope is not lost.
Hegseth’s doctrine on drones and technological advancement means a focus on rescinding restrictive procurement rules, delegating decision-making from bureaucracy to battlefield commanders, favoring American-made drones, using private capital to boost domestic drone manufacturing, and emphasizing low-cost, AI-powered, but highly effective, drone platforms, and implementing a “process race” to out-innovate global competitors. We’re already seeing this play out.
Due to the U.S. commitment to bolstering a free-market society that rewards innovation, there is no nation that designs or produces defense technologies at the level of consistent sophistication as the U.S. This is evident in every era of military technology from missiles and fighter-jets to lasers and defense systems – the U.S. now has the chance to bear its grit in a new arms race, once again.
For the warfighter, this means the integration of drone warfare into regular combat training, ensuring that a future for wars with drones embodies a culture of battlefield realism and is at the center of tactical operations. We need cyber-fluent, drone-fluent, warfighters.
For national security, this means regaining the technical edge against adversaries and dissuading those adversaries through clear demonstrations of U.S. capabilities, and a willingness to employ them.
For industry, this means the expansion of a strategic defense manufacturing base into a new era of arms. This signals to private investors that the Pentagon is serious about drones and the market for innovation in that sector is open.
Lethality, speed, and innovation are central to the mission. The DoW’s push is not simply about hardware, but about shifting our mindset. While debates exist on whether the future of the battlefield is unmanned, if it is, the U.S. intends to lead it.
Taylor Hathorn is a visiting fellow at Independent Women. She has over 10 years of experience in cybersecurity, policy, public relations, and non-profit management.