Episode 93 - National Defense, Emerging Technologies, and the FY2027 R&D Priorities

The Deep Dive episode discusses the significance of a government memo outlining R&D priorities for fiscal year 2027, emphasizing national defense and emerging technologies. The memo highlights strategic shifts towards mission-driven and economically focused R&D, with key areas including critical and emerging technologies like AI and quantum computing, defense-related applications of robotics and autonomous systems, and ensuring supply chain resilience. Other priorities encompass American energy dominance, national security strengthening, and health and biotechnology advancements, all aimed at maintaining U.S. competitiveness and security. Episode 93, National Defense Emerging Technologies and the FY 2027 R&D Priorities. Welcome to the Deep Dive. Today, we're looking at something that seems pretty dry on the surface, a government spending memo. But trust me, this thing is actually a roadmap, a really important one. Yeah, it absolutely is. It dictates America's innovation and, frankly, national security strategy for, well, the next five years or so. We're talking billions in federal R&D. Exactly. It's about where the money flows, which technologies get the green light, and how America plans to stay ahead. Right. So our main source is Memorandum M2534. It's from the OMB and the OSTP dated September 23, 2025. It lays out the R&D budget priorities for fiscal year 2027. And we're not just looking at the memo in isolation, are we? No, definitely not. We've also got a key follow-up analysis from the National Defense Lab. And they don't mince words. They call this memo a defense blueprint. Defense blueprint, wow. The underlying message in both documents is pretty stark. It's about making sure America's S&T engine stays number one because, well, they actually admit that American dominance is not guaranteed anymore. Okay, so our mission today is to unpack this. We need to get into the five core R&D budget priorities and also these five cross-cutting actions they mentioned. Correct. It's all about a big strategic shift. They want R&D that's mission-driven, aimed at strategic advantage, and really focused on economic growth. And the ambition is huge. The president's vision, quoted right at the start of the memo, talks about conquering the vast frontiers of science and planting the flag on Mars and even far beyond. Yeah, they're definitely setting a high bar. And, you know, it's interesting how they frame it historically. How so? Well, the memo keeps pointing back to past federal R&D successes, like winning World War II, building industries, that kind of thing. The idea now is to recapture that specific focus drive. For R&D, that's what was the phrase? Bold, mission-driven, and unapologetically in service of the American people. That's the direct quote. Okay, unapologetically. And this is where we see a really explicit policy change mentioned, one that's, well, quite political charged. Right. The memo states the administration is realigning the federal R&D portfolio. And it says this follows years of, and again this is their language, unfocused federal investments weighed down by woke ideology and diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives. So that language is obviously significant. What's the practical takeaway from that statement for the actual funding? Well, it signals a major resource shift. It means money is being actively moved away from areas they deem unfocused, likely meaning certain social sciences or DEI-specific programs, and channeled very deliberately into areas with measurable utilitarian output. Utilitarian like? Like defense, energy security, economic competitiveness, things that directly create jobs, boost the economy, or strengthen national security leadership. It's a very strict focus. Got it. So the federal role here is clearly defined. Set these focus priorities, align the incentives across government, academia, industry. Exactly. Because they stress that our competitors, especially China, use these whole-of-nation approaches in science and tech. So the U.S. system needs to work together purposefully. And the government's job is to make sure taxpayer money translates into a strategic advantage, no wasted effort. Precisely. Can't afford it in this environment. Okay, let's dive into those five priority areas. The tech bedrock for the nation as they see it. Right. Pillar number one is critical and emerging technologies. And that really boils down to two main things, artificial intelligence, AI, and quantum information science and technology, QAST. These are the foundations. Absolutely, for the future competitive landscape. Now the details on AI seem quite specific. They're not just saying more AI. They want fundamental research, yes, but also focus on interpretability, controllability, and steerability. Why those particular aspects? That's crucial. They're not just funding smarter AI. They want AI that humans can understand its interpretability and critically control. Steerability means having built-in safety overrides, ensuring humans remain in command, and can trust the AI's output. Okay, controllable, trustworthy AI, and on the applied side. It's about accelerating scientific discovery, improving nuclear energy applications, and interestingly, embodied AI. Embodied AI. You mean like robots, self-driving cars, drones? Exactly. Robotics, autonomous systems. Wait a second. Aren't robotics and self-driving cars often purely commercial things? Why is the federal R&D budget doubling down on those specifically? Ah, because that's where the strategy comes together. Think dual use. Drones, advanced robotics, autonomous vehicles, they drive huge economic growth and create high-wage jobs, yes. But those same technologies are directly applicable to advanced military systems, logistics, reconnaissance. Ah, I see. The perfect overlap, economic benefit, and defense relevance. Precisely. It hits both strategic goals. Okay. Now, quantum. Basic science and engineering challenges. What's the key defense angle there? Quantum is all about future-proofing defense. It promises things like secure communications, mathematically unbreakable encryption, and high-precision sensing. Think navigation systems that don't rely on GPS, which, as the defense lab analysis points out, is vulnerable. Right. And this ties into cybersecurity, too. Absolutely. The memo specifically calls out the need for post-quantum cryptography, PQC. Post-quantum cryptography. Sounds heavy. What is that, and why the urgency now? It's essentially developing new encryption methods that even a powerful future quantum computer couldn't break. The urgency is because, well, everyone knows fault-tolerant quantum computers are coming. Maybe not tomorrow, but eventually. And when they do, they could potentially crack most of our current encryption wide open. So, PQC is like a digital shield we need to build before the attack is even possible? Exactly. It's a critical defensive investment. A necessary digital insurance policy, really. Okay. So, AI and quantum are foundational, but they need hardware infrastructure, right? Yep. Which leads to the enabling tech in this first pillar. You got it. Specialized microelectronic semiconductors and resilient communication networks. They're always critical. Always. R&D here is about enabling AI and quantum, sure, but the bigger strategic piece is supply chain resilience. We need continued U.S. leadership and trusted, assured microelectronics, not relying on potentially hostile sources. Makes sense. And networks. Thinking beyond 5G. So, R&D for 6G and future systems, specifically mentioning proliferated space-based networks, and using AI itself to secure those communications. Okay, let's pivot. Priority number two. Unleash American energy dominance and explore new frontiers. Energy security is huge. Absolutely. It's framed as both economic and national security. The mandate covers a wide range, affordable, reliable tech, including fossil fuels, geothermal, hydro, but with a big emphasis on advanced nuclear, both fission and fusion. Advanced nuclear seems like a major focus. What kinds are we talking about? They're calling for development and demonstration of things like microreactors, small modular reactors or SMRs, Generation DV designs, and even fusion energy demonstrators. Fusion is still pretty far out, though, isn't it? It is, but the push is to accelerate that R&D. And tied to energy independence is also critical minerals, R&D finding and processing domestic sources. That's a direct lesson from recent supply chain shock. Right, not relying on others for the basics. And the explore new frontiers part, polar and ocean research. Yeah, but think strategic. Arctic and Antarctic R&D is linked directly to national security, commerce, presence. It's about ensuring the U.S. can observe and operate in those regions. And goes for exploring our exclusive economic zone, even deep sea mining potential. Establishing presence. Got it. Okay, priority three. Strengthening American security. This is the direct defense spending, though they say all R&D has security relevance. Correct. This is targeted. We see specific mention of R&D for advanced military capabilities, offensive and defensive hypersonic weapons, unmanned and autonomous systems, and modernizing the nuclear deterrent. Hypersonics are definitely a hot topic. And notice the mix. Offensive capability, like hypersonics, paired with defensive strength. Which brings us to this rather evocative phrase. The Golden Dome for America. Sounds like something out of Star Wars or maybe Reagan's SDI. How serious is this? Are we talking directed energy missile shields? The name is cinematic, yeah, but the funding push seems serious. They're investing in the underlying S&T for a homeland missile defense concept. It relies on bringing together next-gen sensing, trusted AI for decision-making, better space maneuverability, yes, directed energy weapons, and advanced materials. So maybe not a literal dome, but a multilayered defense system using cutting-edge tech. That seems to be the idea. Investing in the components that might make such a system feasible down the line. It's ambitious R&D. Okay, let's quickly cover the last two priorities. Number four is health and biotechnology. Right, focusing on what they call gold standard science for big health challenges, chronic diseases, Alzheimer's, cancer, leveraging things like next-gen omics and AI for diagnostics and treatments. And there's a security angle here, too. Definitely. Biosecurity, R&D to detect and respond to biological threats, whether they're intentional, accidental, or natural. And a big emphasis on boosting domestic biomanufacturing again, securing supply chains and creating jobs here. Makes sense. And finally, priority five, assure America's continued space dominance. This ties back to that Mars quote from the intro. Exactly. Investments to build capability for human missions, moon, and Mars. That means tech for long-duration travel, habitation using local resources up there. And the defense side of space. Focus on resilient national security space systems. The key words here are trusted space autonomy, letting satellites operate more independently, and tactically responsive space. Tactically responsive space, what does that mean in practical terms? It means speed. If an adversary damages or destroys a key satellite, we need the capability to launch a replacement or maybe a countermeasure really fast. Think hours or days, not the months or years it can take now. Using commercial launch helps here. It's about maintaining capability no matter what. Resilience. Okay, so those are the five big spending buckets. But the memo also talks about fixing the system itself, right? These five cross-cutting actions to usher in the golden age of American innovation. Yes. These are about revitalizing the whole S&T enterprise. Action one is implementing and supporting gold standard science. Gold standard science. It's about rigor. Prioritizing replication studies, better statistical validation. Basically, pushing back against questionable or irreproducible research. They also want agencies to clearly label funding. Is it basic research, applied research, or experimental development? More transparency. Okay, rigor and transparency. Second action. Building the S&T workforce of the future. Pretty straightforward investing in high-quality STEM education, creating pathways into these jobs, and even using tech like AI to help students and teachers. Good. Expand and make accessible world-class research infrastructure. Investing in shared facilities, specialized tools, massive computing and data resources, and interestingly, expanding autonomous experimentation facilities. Labs run by AI. Essentially, yeah. Using AI to design and run experiments much faster than humans can. Accelerating discovery. Fourth action. Revitalizing the ecosystem. Right. Exploring new ways to fund research, cutting red tape to make it easier to get federal tech into the private sector tech transfer, and a big one. Protecting critical R&D from theft by competitors. Espionage is a major concern. And the final action. Focus on high-value research efforts, basically telling agencies, make sure your R&D aligns tightly with your core mission. Consolidate programs. Focus on getting meaningful results that actually benefit the public. Less diffuse spending, more targeted execution. Okay, let's bring in that National Defense Lab analysis again. They see this whole package as a defense blueprint for competing with nations like China and Russia. What do they say about the role of private companies in all this? They are very clear. Commercial integration is no longer optional. The private sector isn't just for selling products later. It's crucial for applied research itself. They bring speed, scale, innovation the government sometimes lacks. Any specific examples mentioned? Yeah. They point to companies like Maxar, SpaceX, and Skyfi, saying these companies are already extending federal capabilities, especially in things like ISR, intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance. Skyfi gets a specific nod for delivering AI-driven space analytics and decision support for ISR. So, relying much more heavily on the commercial sector. The Defense Lab's own recommendations must reflect that urgency, then. They absolutely do. They recommend things like setting up formal frameworks to integrate commercial ISR data into national defense systems. They also want resilience requirements mandated in federal contracts, things like redundancy. And didn't they mention that crypto deadline again? Yes, reinforcing the point we discussed. The Defense Lab explicitly calls for mandating the implementation of post-quantum cryptography across all federal systems by 2030, a hard deadline. That shows you how seriously they view that quantum threat. So, putting this all together, what does this mean for you, the listener? Well, it means the FY 2027 R&D budget plan is a highly focused strategic mobilization of science and tech. It's doubling down on AI, quantum, advanced nuclear space. And it explicitly links this R&D push not just to economic prosperity, but to achieving and maintaining a decisive strategic edge over global competitors. It's a response to that whole-of-nation competition idea. Okay. So, we've seen this budget really prioritizes two kinds of capabilities. On one hand, you have the sort of software AI for better decisions, quantum for secure comms. On the other hand, you have the hardware things like hypersonic missiles, directed energy for that golden dome concept, advanced nuclear reactors. Here's something to think about. If you had to pick one, which area do you think offers the most decisive strategic advantage against competitors in, say, the next five years? Is it the software side, the AI and quantum, or the hardware side, the hypersonic? I mean, which one? This has been another episode of Deep Dive, brought to you by National Defense Lab. For more information about this topic and others, please visit our Deep Dive podcast page on NationalDefenseLab.com. Thank you for listening. NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology