As newly confirmed Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth settles into his position at the Pentagon, he faces a complex and pressing dilemma: how to navigate the ongoing conflict over the electromagnetic spectrum, particularly within the mid-band frequencies critical for military operations.
The Spectrum Landscape
The mid-band spectrum, specifically between 1 GHz and 6 GHz, is considered the “Goldilocks” zone—ideal for both military communications and commercial wireless services. The Department of Defense (DoD) has historically argued that this spectrum is vital for satellite communications, radar operations, and navigation systems. However, this essential bandwidth is highly coveted by commercial enterprises aiming to deliver high-speed wireless services to both civilian and military clients.
The crux of the issue lies in the fact that spectrum usage cannot be shared simultaneously by multiple entities without causing interference, which could severely disrupt crucial military operations. “It is a zero-sum game,” stated John Sherman, former DoD chief information officer. He emphasized the challenge posed by the finite nature of spectrum and the competing demands for its use.
An Urgent Discussion on Spectrum Sharing
The spectrum debate is not merely theoretical; it has real-time implications for U.S. forces actively engaged in operations around the world. For instance, the Navy’s Aegis AN/SPY radar utilizes the 3.1-3.5 GHz band to protect vessels in critical operational environments. This dependence on mid-band frequencies illustrates the necessity for the DoD to maintain access to the spectrum when required.
Despite the complexities, there is potential for spectrum sharing between the military and commercial sectors. An agreement reached in 2015 between the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) allowed for limited sharing in the 3.55 to 3.65 GHz band, known as the Citizens Broadband Radio Service (CBRS). The DoD has explored advanced dynamic spectrum sharing as a viable option, but any arrangement must prioritize military access and mitigate interference risks.
Governing Bodies and Decision Making
The NTIA and the FCC are the main regulatory bodies overseeing U.S. spectrum policy. The NTIA’s Office of Spectrum Management is tasked with allocating spectrum to federal agencies, while the FCC administers commercial spectrum use. Forums such as the Interdepartment Radio Advisory Committee (IRAC) and the Interagency Spectrum Advisory Council (ISAC) facilitate coordination among federal agencies regarding spectrum use.
Although the DoD possesses a certain degree of authority within these groups, it rarely invokes its national security prerogative in discussions about spectrum allocation. Historically, tensions have arisen when the NTIA and FCC disagree over spectrum usage, particularly concerning DoD’s hold on mid-band frequencies.
Conflict Resolution Procedures
The coordination process established between NTIA and FCC is designed to preemptively address conflicts. Should disagreements arise that cannot be resolved at the working level, they may be escalated to the principals involved, including potentially the White House. However, the president’s ability to intervene in FCC matters is limited, as the FCC operates independently.
In extreme cases of unresolved disputes, the NTIA can resort to legal action to block FCC decisions, a rare occurrence exemplified by the ongoing Ligado case.
Potential Shifts with New Leadership
With the transition to a new administration, Hegseth may find that efforts to negotiate spectrum sharing face significant challenges. The Trump administration previously favored commercial interests in the spectrum debate, as reflected in the FCC’s support for initiatives like Ligado, which faced backlash from the DoD and other federal agencies.
Current FCC chair Brendan Carr has shown support for widening commercial access to the spectrum and could influence future decisions. The composition of Congress has also shifted, with the Senate Armed Services Committee now having members who align more closely with commercial interests rather than staunch DoD supporters.
Conclusion
As Secretary Hegseth confronts these pressing spectrum challenges, he must balance the competing priorities of national security and commercial interests. Finding middle ground could be essential in ensuring both military readiness and sustained technological advancement, making this one of the critical issues of his tenure at the Pentagon.
