Defense and National Security Correspondent John T. Seward has in-depth reporting from the Surface Navy Association conference in Arlington, Virginia, where key U.S. allies detailed their plan to revolutionize the way they buy autonomous vehicles.

Military attaches from the United Kingdom, Australia and Sweden discussed the immediate need for those AI-equipped uncrewed vehicles. Instead of waiting decades for one-off weapons with governments fronting the cash to develop them, the group expressed urgency in co-funded prototypes that can deploy in months.

Australia is already doing it. Australian defense officials say they “co-developed and co-funded” a contract with defense-technology business Anduril for its Ghost Shark, an extra-large uncrewed underwater vehicle.

Sweden is working with defense manufacturer Saab on an uncrewed underwater vehicle set to start sea testing later this year. And the British Navy is looking to field more autonomous capability, especially for observation of the strategic corridor between Greenland, Iceland and the U.K.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth laid out an aggressive approach to AI integration this week. Barriers to progress, he told an audience at SpaceX’s Starbase launch site in Texas, are now viewed as “operational risks.”

The widely anticipated speech from the Pentagon chief underscored the Trump administration’s broader view of AI integration in the military and beyond, one that includes less regulation and more experimentation and risk tolerance. To that end, Mr. Hegseth said Cameron Stanley, a former executive at Amazon Web Services, would serve as the Pentagon’s next chief digital and artificial intelligence officer.

The secretary also announced the creation of a “barrier removal SWAT team,” which will have the authority to waive certain requirements and identify issues that are slowing development. Taken together, all of those developments seemingly pave the way for the Pentagon to move rapidly and aggressively in 2026 to integrate AI all across the nation’s military.

The Pentagon aims to order 30,000 small, expendable drones next month as part of its landmark Drone Dominance Initiative. Conflicts such as the Russia-Ukraine war have proven the battlefield value of those drones, and Mr. Hegseth has stressed the U.S. cannot be left behind.

But what happens to domestic drone production if there isn’t a major war raging somewhere in the world? Will that same attitude toward massive domestic production continue even during peacetime?

On the latest episode of the Threat Status weekly podcast, Peter Newell, former director of the Army’s Rapid Equipping Force and co-founder of BMNT, explains why he believes dronemakers must find a broader customer base outside of the Pentagon or risk seeing a major downturn in business during periods of relative peace around the world.

“My concern is when there’s no war, and if there’s ever a peaceful resolution to the conflict in Ukraine, the learning over drone warfare is going to drop off at a significant rate because there’s no mass conflict out there where we’re testing and learning and doing things,” he said. “Quite frankly, being at war is the best proving, testing ground for technology there ever is. When we don’t have that demand signal anymore, it’s going to be really hard to defend buying drones in mass.”

A group of Republican senators this week urged the Trump administration to ban Chinese nationals from Energy Department laboratories and facilities, saying that they pose a threat and could steal critical national security information on the U.S. high-priority AI development program.

In a letter to Energy Secretary Chris Wright, the senators pushed for the expulsion of thousands of Chinese nationals or resident aliens who work in or visit Energy facilities. The lawmakers said those individuals’ links to the Beijing government will undermine the Trump administration’s Genesis Mission, a Manhattan Project-like effort to achieve American dominance in AI.

As many as 3,200 Chinese nationals were approved in recent years for access to national laboratories, along with their information and technology. Security vetting of the Chinese is insufficient and can overwhelm the Energy Department’s intelligence and counterintelligence screeners. Vetting also would be unable to identify the scientists and their affiliations with the 98 million-member Chinese Communist Party, the letter said. The letter was organized by Arkansas Sen. Tom Cotton, chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee.

Fred Fleitz, a former CIA analyst and chief of staff for the White House National Security Council, makes the case that the unfolding protests across Iran are different from past demonstrations. This time, he argues, the collapse of the Iranian regime is in sight.

And the U.S. can and must take tangible steps to help the Iranian people finally bring about a change in Tehran, Mr. Fleitz writes in a Washington Times op-ed.

“The U.S. should pressure its allies in Europe and the Middle East to express their strong support for the demonstrators and condemn the regime’s violent efforts at suppression,” Mr. Fleitz writes. “The U.S. could undermine the Iranian regime’s ability to crush the protests. It could offer cash incentives to regime leaders who defect or refuse orders to use violence against demonstrators. It could conduct cyberattacks against the regime, jamming government and military communications. It could look out for and intercept any arms shipments sent to Iran from Russia, China or North Korea.”

• Jan. 15 — Surface Navy Association National Symposium, Surface Navy Association

• Jan. 15 — The Future of U.S. Foreign Assistance, Center for a New American Security

• Jan. 15 — 10 Conflicts to Watch in 2026, Chatham House

• Jan. 20 — The Future of Biosafety: Confronting Gain-of-Function Research, The Heritage Foundation

• Jan. 21 — Artificial General Intelligence: America’s Next National Security Frontier, Institute of World Politics

• Jan. 21 — What Happens in Geostationary Orbit Doesn’t Stay There, Royal United Services Institute