Defense Paper Series 2025

This series of SCSP advisor papers urges the 2025 National Defense Strategy to prioritize cybersecurity, AI-enabled autonomy, acquisition reform, adaptation, shipbuilding, allied technology cooperation, and industrial modernization.

Authors

The Honorable James Langevin

Published

September 18, 2025

Length

4 pages

Reading time

4 min read

Key Findings

The series argues that the next National Defense Strategy should preserve cybersecurity as a strategic pillar, including defensive and offensive cyber capabilities, outcome-based metrics, zero-trust baselines, software supply chain security, and cyber integration into exercises.
One paper states that AI and data talent pipelines should be protected from episodic budget pressure through dedicated funding, role-specific billet targets, baseline literacy requirements, credentialing, and expanded validation, test, evaluation, and red-teaming capacity.
The autonomy paper recommends a lifecycle framework for AI-enhanced autonomous systems that links design, legal review, testing, doctrine, training, operational command and control, tactical employment, sustainment, and retirement.
The technology implementation paper argues that DoD already has access to core AI technologies and should shift from a research-centric approach toward mission-focused implementation in real warfighting processes.
The adaptation paper describes an adversary learning and adaptation bloc involving China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea, and recommends that DoD cultivate a faster, risk-tolerant institutional learning culture with AI-supported analysis where appropriate.

Overview

The Defense Paper Series 2025 is a collection of six discussion papers by SCSP advisors on priorities for the forthcoming National Defense Strategy. The papers use policy argumentation, background analysis, operational examples, and recommendations to assess how the Department of Defense should sustain military advantage amid great-power competition. Across the series, contributors argue that the NDS should keep cybersecurity central to readiness and lethality, expand AI and data workforce pipelines, and adopt a full lifecycle framework for AI-enhanced autonomous systems. Other papers call for moving AI from research to fielded implementation, empowering tactical-edge innovation, reforming acquisition through separate pathways for major platforms and commercial dual-use technologies, and building a culture of rapid learning to counter an adversary adaptation bloc involving China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea. The shipbuilding paper argues that U.S. maritime power requires both near-term investment in shipyards and workforce capacity and longer-term use of advanced manufacturing, software, and federated production networks. The series’ policy relevance lies in its recommendations for making the NDS more measurable, implementation-focused, adaptive, and aligned with emerging military technologies, allied cooperation, and industrial-base constraints.

AI is only as effective as the people who build, govern, and employ it.
The Honorable James Langevin

Recommendations

Preserve cybersecurity as a strategic pillar with clear, outcomes-based metrics and sustained investment. The NDS should underscore the importance of both defensive and offensive cyber capabilities.
Protect AI and data talent pipelines from episodic budget pressure. Restore and grow dedicated funding lines for the AI workforce, with year-over-year increases in scholarships.
Institutionalize continuous learning by mandating baseline AI and data literacy. Create advanced training tracks for operators, intelligence analysts, logisticians, and program managers.
Include concrete measures to deepen cooperation with allies and partners. Establish allied artificial intelligence and data exchange programs and shared certification frameworks.

From the report

This Defense Paper Series, written by some of our Senior Advisors, provides a number of practical advices for the 2025 National Defense Strategy team at the U.S. Department of War. The views and opinions expressed in this paper are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views or positions of SCSP.

Documents

Publication

Published by the Special Competitive Studies Project. Co-publishers and external authors, where they exist, are credited in the byline above.

Explore more SCSP analysis

Browse the library