"New and escalating cyber threats on the battlefield demand a change to our current approach," Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand said in an emailed statement to Defense One, framing a proposal that would create a dedicated "Cyber Force" as the next armed service branch.
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand’s amendment to the 2027 NDAA
The amendment Gillibrand is spearheading would establish a Cyber Force as a new service branch under the Department of Defense, and her office confirmed the proposal places that branch under the Army. The measure is being offered as a markup amendment to the Senate’s 2027 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). Details of the amendment — including organization, authorities, and command relationships — have not been released publicly.
A Cyber Force placed under the Army
The amendment proposes the Cyber Force sit under the Army in a model likened in the source to how the Space Force and Marine Corps are organized under the Air Force and Navy, respectively. Supporters argue a dedicated service would better generate forces for both offensive and defensive cyber operations; critics fear that, if nested inside the Army, cyber would be deprioritized within a service already responsible for large, complex missions. As one former military official warned, "The Army is the largest service by far... 'we'll put it under because it'll be easy for the Army to just put in another force.'"
Think tanks, numbers, and a planned June report
Advocates and research organizations have been actively developing proposals. A 2024 Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) report estimated a Cyber Force could muster about 10,000 personnel and require a budget on the order of $16.5 billion. In August 2025 the FDD and the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) announced a commission on Cyber Force Generation; a joint report from those organizations is scheduled to be released next month, according to the source.
House lawmakers have also been involved in parallel discussions. Rep. Pat Fallon told CSIS earlier this year that "a ‘Cyber Force is inevitable’ and ‘we’re going to get this done.’" The source reports Fallon’s office did not respond to multiple requests for comment about a potential amendment.
Pentagon reforms, CYBERCOM 2.0, and Katie Sutton’s view
The proposal arrives amid recent Pentagon reforms aimed at strengthening existing structures. Last year, the Pentagon rolled out "CYBERCOM 2.0," described in the report as policy changes to improve recruiting, training, and missions at U.S. Cyber Command. Katie Sutton, the assistant defense secretary for cyber policy and principal cyber advisor to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, defended those reforms at a January Senate hearing and emphasized that a renewed Cyber Command and a separate Cyber Force could coexist.
“I do think one of the most common misconceptions about Cyber Command is that it is a debate between Cyber Command 2.0 and a cyber force, and they are actually separate debates that I believe both need to be had, and we need to look closely at the pros and cons of both,” Sutton told the Senate Armed Services Committee.
The source also links advocacy for a separate service to broader administration objectives: supporters say a Cyber Force would align with the White House’s counterterrorism strategy calling for “offensive cyber operations against those planning to kill Americans,” and notes that President Donald Trump and Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Dan Caine have acknowledged the expanding role of cyber effects in operations in Iran and Venezuela, as previously reported by Defense One and sister publications.
What this means for policymakers, the Army, and U.S. Cyber Command
- Policymakers in the Senate and House: The amendment must survive multiple committee edits and bicameral negotiations to reach the final NDAA. Lawmakers already commissioned the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine in the 2025 NDAA to study "alternative organizational models for the cyber forces of the Armed Forces"; those findings have not been released, and the new FDD/CSIS report is timed to influence this debate.
- The Army: If the Cyber Force were placed under the Army, Army leaders would face decisions about force generation, resourcing, and integration with existing missions — precisely the concern voiced by a former military official who warned that cyber could remain a secondary priority inside the service.
- U.S. Cyber Command: Pentagon efforts to revamp Cyber Command through CYBERCOM 2.0 are explicitly presented as potentially complementary to a separate service. Cyber Command’s recruitment, training, and mission posture will be central to any delineation of responsibilities between an operational command and a force-generating service.
Advocates, from retired flag officers to lawmakers, argue the time is ripe to act; critics caution that organizational choice will shape priorities, not just structure. The amendment’s fate now hinges on committee deliberations, whether the administration signals support, and how congressional conferees react when the Senate and House versions of the NDAA converge — all before the FDD/CSIS report arrives in June.
