Opinion - America needs a strategy for advanced drones and other emerging technologies
Editor's note: This story has been updated to correct a misstatement about Sen. Tim Kaine's committee membership. We regret the error.
A revolution long kept secret now stirs the surface of national security, propelled by emerging all-domain technologies. These include advanced drones, unidentified anomalous phenomena or UAP (formerly called UFOs) and clandestine, high-tech weapons.
Capable of moving between air, space and sea, these systems can conduct intelligence and even kinetic strikes. Despite the lingering stigma at home, foreign adversaries are racing to understand UAP in particular — potentially upending geopolitics alongside our knowledge of physics.
This sounds like science fiction, but it's scientific fact. As a former senior counterintelligence officer who led one of the Pentagon's UAP investigations, I recently testified before Congress that the revolution is happening now. To stay ahead, America needs a whole-of-government strategy for these paradigm-changing technologies.
Just look up. The Ukrainian conflict has seen rapid advancements in drones, artificial intelligence and hypersonic missiles, exploiting asymmetrical advantages against traditionally dominant weapons like warships and tanks. China is watching closely. Beyond spy balloons — like the one that floated over the homeland in 2023 — Beijing is fielding space-age technologies to test the United States and our allies.
When it comes to UAP, the Pentagon grudgingly admits after decades of denial that some demonstrate beyond-next-generation speed, maneuverability and stealth. UAP also traverse our skies — and waters — with apparent impunity. The mysterious 'drones' spotted above sensitive sites in Virginia, New Jersey and elsewhere have confounded the Defense Department and an alphabet soup of other agencies tasked with protecting America. More than 20 years after terrorists flew aircraft into buildings on 9/11, the government lacks a complete picture of our airspace. That is unacceptable.
Then there are whistleblowers like David Grusch, a former U.S. Air Force major and colleague of mine who analyzed UAP as part of a Pentagon task force. He testified under oath before Congress that the government is reverse-engineering craft of 'non-human' origin. Eric Davis, an astrophysicist who advised a Pentagon UAP program, reported briefing defense officials on retrievals of 'off-world vehicles not made on this Earth.' While extraordinary, these claims demand investigation. Ignoring them only deepens mistrust in our government.
Early signs are encouraging that the new administration and Congress are taking these matters seriously. President Trump pledged greater candor, calling it 'ridiculous that they are not telling you what is going on with the drones.' Senate Intelligence Committee member Mark Warner (D-Va.) and Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), expressed shock at the government's inability to explain incursions over Langley Air Force Base in Virginia in 2023. A bipartisan caucus of lawmakers has held hearings and called for a special committee to investigate UAP.
But more must be done. Some national security experts recommend that a single coordinator manage the interagency response to drones. Because America's enemies are unlocking UAP technology to gain a decisive edge, however, UAP can no longer be distinguished entirely from unmanned systems. Although the Pentagon has claimed that no UAP represent foreign adversaries, it has failed to resolve most sightings. Its UAP office — created at congressional insistence — remains mired in bureaucracy and suspicion. Russia and China are reverse-engineering UAP.
Over-compartmentalization of classified projects has further stifled U.S. research, leaving America at a disadvantage to its would-be rivals. Meanwhile, the implications for our industrial base, military doctrine and force posture remain neglected. Worse, U.S. diplomacy has yet to confront the perils to arms control, nonproliferation and global stability these technologies pose.
A broader view is therefore essential. To address these challenges, the president should appoint a senior advisor for Emerging All-Domain Technologies within the National Security Council. This 'czar' would coordinate a whole-of-government response, ensuring federal, state and local authorities work together. The advisor would integrate data collection and streamline information-sharing across agencies to establish a comprehensive view of the air, space and sea domains.
The government must also develop a forward-looking national strategy for these technologies. This includes identifying threats and opportunities at home and overseas, setting research and development priorities, and providing guidance to academic and private-sector partners. Transparency is vital. To rebuild public trust, our government must engage with Congress, the media and citizens. Efforts to release UAP-related records should follow a 25-year classification period unless explicitly exempted by the president.
As President John F. Kennedy said, 'Change is the law of life. And those who look only to the past or the present are certain to miss the future.' The rise of emerging all-domain technologies can no longer be ignored. How our nation responds will determine its leadership in a rapidly changing world. Americans deserve the truth — and a strategy to safeguard their future.
Luis D. Elizondo is a former senior counterintelligence officer who previously led the Pentagon's investigation into UAP.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
27 minutes ago
- The Hill
Judge rules Trump's firings at federal product safety agency illegal
A federal judge on Friday ruled that President Trump's firings of three Biden-nominated Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) members were illegal, enabling them to return to their posts. U.S. District Judge Matthew Maddox, an appointee of former President Biden who serves in Maryland, ordered the administration restore the commissioners' pay as well as their access to office spaces, computers and email accounts. The three commissioners — Mary Boyle, Alexander Hoehn-Saric and Richard Trumka Jr. — sued the administration after Trump fired them last month. Maddox is the latest district judge to block Trump's efforts to fire Democratic appointees at independent agencies across the federal bureaucracy despite federal law providing them with for-cause removal protections. The president did not purport to have cause in firing the CPSC members or at the other agencies. His administration seeks to invalidate the protections as unconstitutional by intruding on the president's authority to oversee the executive branch. The Supreme Court's conservative majority has signaled a willingness to agree with that view, but it has not yet formally overruled the court's 90-year-old precedent that has paved the way for Congress to provide the removal protections. In its latest signal, the nation's highest court last month lifted lower injunctions blocking Trump's firings at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), saying the agency leaders could be terminated until any appeals are resolved. Maddox acknowledged that decision on Friday but distinguished it from his case. He stressed the Supreme Court rooted its decision in how the NLRB and MSPB leaders faced a whiplash of removals and reinstatements throughout the lower court proceedings, insisting the decision did not eviscerate the constitutionality of removal protections. 'Disruption might have resulted in the instant case if Plaintiffs had been reinstated while this case was in its preliminary posture, only to have the Court later deny relief in its final judgment and subject Plaintiffs to removal again,' the judge wrote. 'The risk of such disruption is no longer a factor now that the Court is granting permanent injunctive relief as a final judgment.' The Hill has reached out to the Justice Department for comment. 'Today's opinion reaffirms that the President is not above the law,' Nick Sansone, the commissioners' lead counsel who works for consumer advocacy group Public Citizen, said in a statement. 'Congress structured the CPSC as an independent agency so that the safety of American consumers wouldn't be subject to political whims and industry pressure,' Sansone continued. 'The court's ruling upholds that sound legislative choice.' He added, 'We are thrilled that our clients can get back to work keeping us safe from hazardous products.'
New York Times
27 minutes ago
- New York Times
Israel's Strikes on Iran Divide Congress, Drawing Praise and Concern
Israel's overnight missile strike against Iran divided Congress, drawing praise and strong support from members of both parties, but some lawmakers, most of them Democrats, expressed concern about regional instability and the risk the United States might be drawn directly into the conflict. Many members of Congress were quick to cheer Israel's actions and framed them as a justified response to Tehran's refusal to abandon its ambition to obtain nuclear weapons. Others, including several leading Democrats, urged restraint, warning about the potential for escalation. The divergent reactions reflected a political divide over President Trump's leadership, the use of military force, the role of diplomacy and America's obligations in the Middle East. Some Republicans in Congress applauded the operation even before President Trump praised it. 'Game on,' declared Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina and one of the most vocal Iran hawks on Capitol Hill, moments after the news broke. In a later statement, Mr. Graham said: 'Hats off to Israel for one of the most impressive military strikes and covert operations in Israeli history.' The House speaker Mike Johnson, a Louisiana Republican, also offered unequivocal support for the strikes, saying in a social media post late Thursday that 'Israel IS right — and has a right — to defend itself!' After Mr. Trump weighed in Friday morning, saying that Iran had brought the attacks on itself, Mr. Johnson applauded the administration's decision to back Israel's security goals and echoed the president's position that Iran 'must never obtain a nuclear weapon.' Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Yahoo
36 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Forcible removal of US Sen. Alex Padilla signals a dangerous shift in American democracy
Democratic leaders and a lone Republican senator, Alaska's Lisa Murkowski, quickly decried the treatment of U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla of California and called for an investigation after he was removed from a press conference with Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem on June 12, 2025, in Los Angeles, handcuffed and forced to the ground. 'Sir! Sir! Hands off!' Padilla, 52, shouted as several federal agents surrounded and moved him out of the room where Noem was speaking about the Los Angeles protests against immigration enforcement. 'I am Senator Alex Padilla. I have a question for the secretary.' Padilla, who unexpectedly appeared at the press conference and interrupted Noem as she was speaking during her prepared remarks, was released soon after and met with Noem. Tricia McLaughlin, the assistant secretary at the Department of Homeland Security, shared a video of the incident with Padilla on X, and wrote, 'Incredibly aggressive behavior from a sitting US Senator. No one knew who he was.' Amy Lieberman, a politics and society editor at The Conversation, spoke with Boise State University political scientist Charlie Hunt, an expert on Congress, to understand how political polarization and a shift in American political decorum may have contributed to the shocking moment of an American senator being forcibly removed from a press conference. What is striking to you about what happened to Sen. Padilla? What stood out to me was the aggressiveness with which Noem's security officers detained Sen. Padilla and took him out of the room. We do not ever see something like this happen to members of Congress and particularly members of the Senate. Sen. Padilla represents 39 million people – he is not some back-bencher member of the House of Representatives. I think it's safe to say that no other modern presidential administration has come close to treating an individual member of Congress in this way. This is also a real turn in terms of the completely autocratic way in which Department of Homeland Security staff responded to the incident. They claimed in a social media post that Padilla didn't identify himself at the briefing, even though, 'I'm Senator Alex Padilla' were the first words out of his mouth in the video that they themselves shared. What safeguards, if any, do members of Congress have that might protect their ability to speak freely, and publicly oppose the executive branch? Members of Congress enjoy the same basic free speech rights that all Americans do, but they do also have an additional set of protections that are relevant to this incident. Members of Congress have significant oversight power, which involves doing due diligence on what actions the executive branch is taking and making sure they're complying with laws that Congress has passed. As a Senate member from California, it's perfectly legitimate for Padilla to want clarity on immigration enforcement actions that are taking place in Los Angeles. Padilla even clarified after the incident that he was at the press conference to get answers from the Department of Homeland Security that he and other Senate members have been seeking for weeks about deportations. This is completely in line with Congress' oversight power. Senators often question officials in committee hearings like we typically see, but they also conduct fact-finding missions to learn how executive actions are affecting their constituents. Congress members also have protections stemming from the Constitution's speech and debate clause. Essentially, they cannot be arrested or indicted for things they say in their official capacity, which – because of Congress' oversight responsibility – Padilla was clearly within the bounds of here. Yes, of course, Padilla was also trying to draw attention to himself and the issues he's focused on. But it's not against the law to be a little bit disruptive or to engage in political theater, especially thanks to these additional protections members of Congress typically enjoy. What other factors led to this moment? Something I've written about previously is a phenomenon called negative partisanship. This means that voters and Congress members alike are driven not so much by loyalty to their own party but instead a sort of seething hatred for the other political party. What gets the most clicks and views, and what drives voters more and more, is the idea that 'we don't just want to see voting along the party line – we want to see our team beating the other side into submission.' This incident with Sen. Padilla was a very literal embodiment of this principle. More broadly, this helps explain why political violence is becoming a more accepted form of political speech, particularly on the far right. We have seen violence during Trump's campaigns, where hecklers would be roughed up by participants at rallies, at Trump's encouragement. Certainly, we saw it at the Capitol attack on Jan. 6, 2021, and Trump's subsequent pardons of those rioters. Does Padilla's removal have anything to do with Donald Trump specifically? We can't ignore the singular role Trump has played here. This is a uniquely authoritarian presidency, even much more so than the first Trump administration. By authoritarian, I mean a leader who tries to rule on his own and suppress all dissent. Trump didn't create partisanship, political violence or negative partisanship. But there's no getting around the fact that his past behavior and openness to violence have lowered the bar for decorum in American politics. For example, if you have convinced your supporters that the people on the other side of the political aisle are 'sick' or 'nasty,' that they are going to ruin the country, then those supporters will become more willing to accept some of the actions Trump has taken, such as calling in the Marines on protesters in Los Angeles, or pardoning the Capitol attackers – even if they wouldn't have been willing to accept that kind of response 20 years ago. All of these things combined – negative partisanship, plus having a leader on one side that is willing to lower the decorum bar beyond where we thought was possible – is a recipe for things unfolding like we saw with Padilla. What will you be watching for as this situation plays out? My concern is the balance of powers between the executive and legislative branches of government. We expect competition between the branches, for 'ambition to counteract ambition,' as James Madison put it, to ensure one branch doesn't get too powerful. This incident was a huge step in the wrong direction. As Congress has been steadily torn apart by partisanship, it's given up lots of its power over the past half-century and no longer seems to see itself as a coequal branch of government with the executive. As a result, authoritarian presidents and administrations see an opening to treat them this way without consequences. What Congress does in the next several days about this episode will speak volumes – or not – about whether it intends to ever reassert itself as an equal branch of government. Democrats held the floor in the Senate all afternoon to demand answers about Padilla's treatment. It will be revealing how Senate Majority Leader John Thune and others respond. Lisa Murkowski has said she's pretty appalled by what happened. Meanwhile, Lindsey Graham seemed to imply that Padilla deserved what he got. Which route will Republicans, who control Congress, take? This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Charlie Hunt, Boise State University Read more: Trump orders Marines to Los Angeles as protests escalate over immigration raids, demonstrating the president's power to deploy troops on US soil Supreme Court ignores precedent instead of overruling it in allowing president to fire officials whom Congress tried to make independent Politics based on grievance has a long and violent history in America Charlie Hunt does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
