Thank you to Small Wars Journal for the breakdown of USSOCOM’s testimony to the House Armed Services Committee
Both Lawmakers and witnesses emphasized that SOF remain a high-return, low-cost force that provides asymmetric advantages across competition and conflict. However, rising operational tempo and expanding mission requirements have outpaced resources, reducing purchasing power and straining modernization efforts. The hearing underscores the need for sustained investment, modernization, and institutional reform to ensure SOF can operate effectively in increasingly contested and complex environments.
Hearing Highlights
SOF Readiness, Tempo, and Modernization Priorities (29:01)
Chairman Jackson: “Admiral Bradley, I know you’ve only been in command for a little over five months now, and I suspect you are most likely still assessing various aspects of the command, but what would you say the top three challenges are this fiscal year to sustain your three SOF lines of effort, which are win, people, and transform? And what do we need to do here in Congress to help you succeed in that?”
Adm. Bradley: “Our first priority is always to maintain readiness for the current threats that are out there… and the demands on that have been a 300% increase over these last 5 years. That pace continues. You’ll remember a year ago when General Fenton was testifying and I was here supporting him as we were telling the story. That pace of growing usage but diminishing resources was causing us to have to eat into our modernization budget to cash flow those current operations. That’s still the case. And so today, the modernization priorities are very similar to those from a year ago. Number one, to project force into increasingly contested environments where our adversaries are posing threats against us. Number two is to take advantage of the fact that there is this ubiquitous information environment, ubiquitous technical surveillance. Many people see it as a threat. It certainly is, but it’s also an advantage, an opportunity that we could leverage. The cyber and the virtual domain are critical maneuver spaces that we must take advantage of. Another aspect of the rapidly evolving character of warfare is the emergence of abundant lethal autonomy. That is a threat that we have to contend with, but it’s also one that we can leverage. And so that’s also an area that we will be looking to prioritize modernization. And finally, this is the foundation, our people must continue to be our foundation, ensuring they are trained, ready, supported, and educated for the future.”
SOCOM Budget, Authorities, and Modernization Challenges (31:43)
Chairman Jackson: Secretary Anderson, you’ve been in the seat a few months less than Admiral Bradley, and I’m sure you’re still assessing your priorities as well. SOCOM’s budget has been relatively flat for the past decade. In your combined written statement, you state that SOCOM comprises only 3% of the joint force and less than 2% of the department’s budget, delivering an outsized strategic value. I personally believe SOCOM’s budget needs to increase to a steady state of at least $20 billion a year. How are you using your secretary-like position to advocate for a higher budget for SOCOM? What do you think the future budget looks like? And how do you quantify this outsized strategic value in your budget submission?”
Derek Anderson: “having that service-like ability allows us to work with the other military departments hand in hand, specifically when we talk about the resources not only that we are being provided but the other services are being provided. It gives us an opportunity to go service to service from chief to chief and have those conversations about modernizations and where we might be overlapping or where we can combine forces… our operators that are operating on the ground not only utilize the technology internal to the department but also train by, with, and through our partners and the technology they have. That is an absolutely critical part of ensuring that we are staying up to speed with technology. That investment is absolutely crucial. And one of the other priorities I’d like to highlight is the preservation of the force and family program. That investment absolutely increases our readiness and allows us to take care of our soldiers, sailors, and airmen.”
Civilian Harm, Accountability, and Strategic Legitimacy (39:05)
Rep. Crow: “Secretary Anderson, on February 28th there was a girls elementary school in Iran that was struck. Public reports say that 175 civilians, many of them children, were reportedly killed or wounded. It’s my understanding that there’s been a preliminary investigation. Is that investigation complete? And was there a 156 that came out of that?”
Derek Anderson: “Congressman, to answer your second question first, the incident is being investigated by CENTCOM. I would not want to get ahead of the investigation. In a closed setting, I’m happy to provide details, but it is currently being investigated. The investigating officer is a general officer outside of the CENTCOM chain of command, so there will be an unbiased, impartial investigation conducted. And to your point, there is no strategic benefit for the United States or the department in civilian harm. That is what makes us different from our adversaries. We continue to ensure civilian harm is mitigated throughout the entire process, from training at the ground level through senior leadership.”
Autonomy, AI, and Human Control in Lethal Operations (42:18)
Rep. Crow: “You mentioned lethal autonomous drones. Our adversaries are using them, and there has been debate about removing a human from the kill chain. Are you saying there has been a decision to allow lethal autonomous authority with drones?”
Adm. Bradley: “Congressman, I believe we employ lethal capability that has an amount of autonomy in it every day. Any of our IR-guided missiles has an amount of that baked into it.”
Rep. Crow: “Is there a human in the kill chain?”
Adm. Bradley: “There is always a human in the kill chain.”
SOF Global Presence and Countering Irregular Threats (49:24)
Rep. Train: “How central are special operations forces to countering activities below the threshold of armed conflict?”
Adm. Bradley: “There are more than 6,500 SOF operators and enablers deployed in 80 different countries, building and sustaining those relationships. Our ability to illuminate that malign behavior and make our partners aware of it is a critical way to help undermine our adversaries’ actions.”
Demand, Force Strain, and Modernization Tradeoffs (50:46)
Rep. Train: “Does demand for special operations forces currently exceed sustainable levels?”
Adm. Bradley: “They are asking for more than we have to offer. This last year was about 70 different asks that we could not satisfy. We are able to sustain because we only do the things we are able to sustain. That said, the reduction in buying power over the last several years has limited our ability to modernize, and that is the critical determiner for the future.”
Information Warfare and Strategic Competition in Africa (46:03)
Rep. Scott: “What specific risk does this create for U.S. national security in Africa?”
Adm. Bradley: “One of the critical things in the information space is to leverage the high ground, which is the truth. In almost every case, our adversaries are leveraging malign influence against the population’s interests. What we can do to be most effective is tell the truth and highlight that.”
Future Conflict and Operating in Contested Environments (52:12)
Rep. Train: “What is the greatest strategic risk facing the special operations enterprise?”
Adm. Bradley: “The ability to project force into increasingly contested environments where U.S. national interests are threatened is the characterization of the next most dangerous crisis. That is why we have made our ability to do that our top modernization priority.”