The U.S. Department of Defense has established a secretive agency to develop tools and strategies aimed at disrupting technological advances by foreign rivals, according to an investigative report by POLITICO. The agency’s classified contracts could exceed $1.5 billion, although no official budget figure has been disclosed.
The new body, known as the Technology Support Office (TSO), was established in April 2026. Its mission is to help prevent foreign adversaries from developing technologies that could threaten U.S. military superiority, including through cyberattacks, deception operations and efforts to undermine access to critical military technology.
According to sources cited by POLITICO, the initiative was led by Deputy Defense Secretary Steve Feinberg, with assistance from his adviser Tom Rakusan, a former CIA employee with experience in emerging technologies.
The TSO was formed by combining two classified Pentagon programmes that had been conducting smaller-scale activities since 2023 to disrupt or damage the technological capabilities of foreign adversaries. The new structure is intended to expand those efforts and coordinate them under a single organization.
Cyberattacks and Deception Operations
The agency’s work reportedly includes developing sophisticated cyber tools, planning deception operations and identifying ways to prevent rival countries from acquiring strategically important military technologies.
One example cited in the report involves attempts to deceive adversaries into installing defective components in their weapons systems. Such components could allegedly be deliberately prepared to undermine the systems in which they are used.
However, according to sources familiar with the initiative, the TSO does not have the legal authority to conduct covert operations independently. Instead, it works with senior military and intelligence officials to develop tools and strategies that can be deployed through such operations.
The main objective is to delay or obstruct technological developments that could give U.S. adversaries an advantage in a major military conflict.
Supporters of the initiative argue that it is necessary as other countries increasingly deploy artificial intelligence, drones and other advanced technologies in ways that could challenge American military capabilities.
A New Structure Outside Existing Commands
Discussions about expanding the Pentagon’s existing programmes reportedly began in early 2025. Later that year, officials prepared a document examining how the programmes could be merged and expanded.
One option was to place them under U.S. Cyber Command. However, the final recommendation was to establish a separate agency with its own budget and procurement authorities.
According to former Pentagon officials, this arrangement could allow the TSO to acquire emerging technologies from private companies more quickly and identify foreign military systems considered the greatest threat to the United States.
The initiative is also intended to consolidate control over certain intelligence programmes within the Pentagon’s senior leadership.
Feinberg signed the document establishing the agency on April 14, 2026. During the summer, Pentagon leadership appointed Grant Hundley, a former U.S. Marine special operations officer, as its director. William Nelson, a career U.S. Army official, was selected for a role overseeing sensitive activities and special intelligence programmes.
The agency has reportedly signalled to several defence companies that it is interested in advanced cyberattack capabilities. However, its precise budget and the value of any new contracts remain unknown.
A former senior Pentagon intelligence official estimated that the agency’s classified contracts alone could exceed $1.5 billion. The figure is an estimate attributed to that former official, not an officially confirmed budget.
Internal Opposition and Oversight Concerns
The creation of the TSO has reportedly generated resistance within the Pentagon. According to sources cited by POLITICO, U.S. Special Operations Command and U.S. Cyber Command have opposed the new structure amid concerns that it could take away some of their funding and responsibilities.
The agency is also expected to coordinate the use of emerging technologies and strengthen cooperation between private companies and military intelligence programmes. One proposal involves creating a central catalogue of approved artificial intelligence tools and other technologies that defence contractors could use in classified projects.
Despite support for its stated mission among some officials, concerns have been raised about transparency, oversight and the potential consequences of covert activities.
Critics warn that operations could harm civilians, heighten tensions with other countries or violate international law. There are also concerns about whether classified contracts could be awarded or managed improperly.
A current national security official told POLITICO that only a limited number of congressional staff members had been briefed on the plans, potentially making legislative oversight more difficult.
A former senior Pentagon official warned that highly classified environments can create greater opportunities for activities to be concealed or misrepresented.
Pentagon Rejects the Report’s Claims
Pentagon spokesperson Jacob Bliss disputed the reporting, saying the information used by journalists was untrue and suggesting that the sources might have been misinformed or attempting to deceive them.
Bliss said the Department of Defense respects its relationship with Congress and would continue cooperating with the relevant committees to ensure they can fulfil their oversight responsibilities.
He also rejected concerns about conflicts of interest, stating that officials are subject to ethics rules and financial reviews.
The agency’s creation signals an effort to expand the role of emerging technology in U.S. covert activities, according to sources cited in the report. However, important questions remain about its funding, the operations it may support and the extent of congressional oversight.
