The Battle Over Wireless Spectrum: National Defense vs. Commercial Innovation

The electromagnetic spectrum, a critical yet invisible resource, has become the center of a heated debate between the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) and the wireless industry. At stake is a significant portion of wireless spectrum currently held by the DOD for national defense purposes—such as radars, signals intelligence, and other military applications. While the DOD views this spectrum as essential to maintaining warfighting capabilities, the wireless industry has argued that the Pentagon is hoarding far more than it needs, stifling the growth of 5G and emerging 6G technologies that could drive economic innovation in the United States. Caught in the crossfire is a question of balance: how can the U.S. safeguard its national security while unlocking the commercial potential of this finite resource?

The wireless industry has long coveted the DOD’s spectrum holdings, seeing them as a key to expanding next-generation networks. With 5G already transforming industries and 6G on the horizon promising even greater leaps in connectivity, the demand for spectrum has never been higher. Industry advocates argue that the DOD’s allocations exceed what is necessary for defense purposes and that reallocating even a portion of this spectrum could fuel economic growth without compromising national security. Some voices within the defense community agree, suggesting that modern technologies and spectrum-sharing innovations could allow for dual use, benefiting both military and civilian sectors.

However, not everyone in the defense establishment shares this view—most notably General Mark Milley, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Milley emerged as a staunch opponent of spectrum reallocation during his tenure, leading what has been described as a concerted DOD resistance to commercial encroachment. His influence was particularly evident in a series of actions that delayed efforts to open up the spectrum. Milley supported a legislative pause on spectrum reallocation until the Pentagon could conduct a study on the feasibility of sharing its holdings. Unsurprisingly to critics, the resulting study concluded that spectrum sharing posed too great a risk to defense operations, effectively stalling momentum for reform.

Milley’s opposition didn’t stop there. In a move that raised eyebrows in Washington, he issued a memo directly challenging Joe Biden’s Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin’s endorsement of legislative language that would have set the stage for a future sale of Pentagon spectrum. This memo, described by Senator Mike Rounds as “unprecedented,” underscored Milley’s deep reservations about relinquishing control. Rounds later confirmed that Milley’s concerns were a driving force behind the DOD’s reluctance, while a Senate Republican Commerce Committee spokesperson went further, pinpointing Milley as the leader of the Pentagon’s broader opposition to spectrum sharing.In a February 2025 press release, Texas Senator Ted Cruz echoed a stance similar to that of Senator Rounds, Cruz asserted that for years, U.S. government officials, particularly Pentagon bureaucrats under the leadership of Mark Milley, have maintained that they are optimizing every megahertz of spectrum and must retain full authority over their extensive spectrum allocations.

The standoff has left policymakers grappling with a complex dilemma. On one hand, the DOD’s mission to protect national security cannot be understated—spectrum is the backbone of critical military systems, and any disruption could have far-reaching consequences. On the other hand, the wireless industry’s case is compelling: in an era of rapid technological advancement, tying up spectrum in underutilized defense applications could hinder U.S. competitiveness on the global stage. The tension has sparked calls for a more transparent and data-driven approach to determine how much spectrum the DOD truly needs and whether innovative solutions, like dynamic spectrum sharing, could bridge the gap.

Milley’s resistance has not gone unchallenged. Critics argue that his stance reflects an outdated mindset, one that prioritizes absolute control over adaptability. They point to advancements in technology that could allow the DOD to maintain its capabilities while freeing up bandwidth for commercial use.

Proponents of reallocation also highlight the economic stakes, noting that expanded 5G and 6G networks could create jobs, boost innovation, and strengthen U.S. leadership in telecommunications—a strategic priority in its own right. As of March 23, 2025, the issue remains unresolved, with the DOD and the wireless industry at an impasse. General Milley’s tenure may have ended, but his legacy as a fierce defender of the Pentagon’s spectrum holdings continues to shape the debate. Moving forward, lawmakers and defense officials will need to weigh the merits of Milley’s caution against the promise of commercial progress, especially given the fact that Milley’s own behavior has arguably damaged US national security.

On September 17, 2021, Congressman Byron Donalds signed a letter addressed to then-Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, seeking clarification regarding reported phone calls between General Mark Milley and Chinese General Li Zuocheng. According to reports, on October 30th, 2020, General Milley allegedly assured General Li that the United States had no intention of attacking China and, in the event of a potential attack, promised to provide advance warning. The letter further states that General Milley made a second call to General Li on January 8th, 2021, to alleviate China’s concerns following the events of January 6th at the U.S. Capitol. Notably, the January 6th Committee later sought to obtain General Milley’s call records with China, with the apparent intent of building a case portraying former President Donald Trump as an unstable and belligerent leader, rather than investigating Milley’s actions. These actions prompted President Trump to accuse General Milley of committing Treason.

On Tuesday, January 21st, 2025, President Trump fired Mark Milley from his role on the National Infrastructure Advisory Council. Additionally, President Trump revoked General Milley’s security clearance on January 29th, 2025, citing concerns over the general’s national security decisions and his inappropriate phone calls with Chinese generals. Given the fact that Milley’s own security clearance was revoked by a US President over his treasonous actions and assistance of China, he is the last person who should be taken seriously as an authoritative source as it relates to whether or not the DOD should allow for the public commercial use of some of the additional wireless spectrum the DOD is in possession of.

The outcome will not only determine the future of wireless innovation but also test the U.S.’s ability to adapt its national security framework to the demands of a rapidly evolving technological landscape. For now, the spectrum remains a battlefield—one where the lines between defense and opportunity are increasingly blurred.