The Key to Defense STEM Workforce Development

In “Connecting the Dots for Defense STEM Workforce Development” (Issues, Winter 2026), Payuna Uday, Ruth David, and Jeff Wilcox correctly argue that a highly skilled workforce in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics is a critical component of defense innovation infrastructure and, moreover, that the United States should treat STEM talent development “as a core pillar of national security, on par with modernizing weapons platforms, rebuilding industrial capacity, and securing supply chains.”

However, as they illustrate, current efforts supporting STEM workforce training and education by the Department of Defense—as well as by the broader defense industrial base (DIB) comprising the companies, organizations, laboratories, and facilities that provide DOD and the US government with defense-related materials, products, and services—are scattered, decentralized, and ultimately fail to produce “a coordinated national pathway into defense-related STEM careers.” Part of the issue, the authors argue, is that traditional paths to a STEM job over-rely on attainment of a baccalaureate degree, even though “workers with less than a bachelor’s degree who possess strong science, engineering, and technical skills play an essential role in supporting the nation’s STEM capabilities.” Another challenge lies in the fact that the most common forms of outreach across the DIB emphasize employee volunteerism or educational competitions at the K–12 level, provide scholarships and fellowships at the master’s or doctoral levels, or incorporate both approaches.

As a result of this focus on the young and the hyper-specialized, DOD and DIB programs and collaborations intended to support STEM talent development generally overlook the institutions that could have the biggest impact on defense STEM workforce development: community colleges. Indeed, in their extensive landscape analysis, the authors found few contemporary collaborations between DOD/DIB and community colleges, even though community colleges are key partners in two of the three exemplary cross-sector programs identified in the article: Manufacturing USA, Pathways in Technology Early College High School (P-TECH), and the 4-H Military Partnership.

Community colleges are key to “connecting the dots” and preparing the defense workforce of the future. As the premier providers of high-quality occupational degrees, certificates, micro-credentials, and short-term skills training, community colleges are already building the skilled technical workforce (although, due to lack of DOD and DIB attention, not necessarily in defense-related areas).

Furthermore, community colleges are primed to support defense-related STEM talent development and contribute to the type of “cross-sectoral partnerships capable of scaling, adapting, and delivering measurable impacts” that Uday, David, and Wilcox call for. The institutions have decades of experience collaborating with government and private enterprise to meet national, regional, and local workforce demands, and many colleges already have extensive programs geared toward veterans, active-duty military servicemembers, and their families.

In their conclusion, the authors argue that building coordinated, mission-driven cross-sector partnerships will “enable the US defense sector to treat the acquisition and development of the next generation of STEM talent as a core strategy, not an add on.” I agree and would remind Congress and DOD that the nation’s community colleges—located within commuting distance to all military installations and DIB hubs—stand ready to play a major role in these collaborations.

Carrie B. Kisker

Payuna Uday, Ruth David, and Jeff Wilcox are right that developing talent in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics is a national security imperative. Ensuring coordination across the Department of Defense, the services, industry, academia, and community partners also matters. Where the article falls short is in its characterization of DOD’s STEM efforts as largely “parallel, decentralized initiatives rather than a coherent system.” That framing may describe part of the historical landscape, but it does not fully reflect the progress DOD STEM has made in recent years.

DOD has built national infrastructure that directly addresses the fragmentation in STEM development the authors identify. The Defense STEM Education Consortium, for example, is a partnership among academia, industry, nonprofits, and government designed to broaden STEM literacy and invest in evidence-based workforce approaches. DOD’s broader STEM network also includes local and federal government, precisely the cross-sector structure the article calls for.

The current problem is not simply that programs exist in different places. The challenge is whether those programs are connected by shared purpose, visibility, and measures of success. DOD STEM has made meaningful progress on those fronts. Its current impact language commits to continuous learning, scaling evidence-based practices, reporting participation rates, using common metrics, making outcomes publicly available, implementing a department-wide plan, and tracking progress. These are not signs of a system with no coordinating structure; they are signs of a system building one.

That is especially important because DOD is not recruiting for one generic STEM workforce. The department’s newly designated “critical technology areas,” which essentially list priorities for its next 5 years of research and development, provide a clearer strategic frame than the article acknowledges.

The authors are correct that lack of coordination has consequences. But the lesson from recent DOD STEM work is not that all service-level efforts should be collapsed into one office. The lesson is that networks work. By building partnerships across the country, DOD STEM has helped communities with little or no engagement with defense missions see themselves as part of the national security STEM solution.

This is why the article’s call for “connective tissue” is right, but the policy answer must be handled carefully, focused on achieving shared infrastructure, aligned goals, coordinated data, and sustained leadership across sectors. The connective tissue should connect; it should not erase the organs it is meant to support. A national DOD STEM framework is valuable only if it strengthens the services, laboratories, installations, and industry pathways that already reach different communities and mission needs.

Congress and DOD should therefore resist solutions that defund the services directly or push all STEM activity into a single central office. The better path would be a federated model: national coordination without eliminating service-level ownership. DOD STEM should provide the common framework, evidence base, data standards, national visibility, and cross-sector partnership infrastructure. The services and agencies should provide mission identity, local relationships, installation access, technical mentors, and career pathways. Industry and community colleges should be integrated more deliberately, especially in regions connected to the defense industrial base.

This approach would answer the authors’ call for coordination while preserving the distributed strengths that make DOD STEM effective. It also would enable students, educators, communities, and individual military installations to see themselves as part of the greater national security STEM mission.

Michael Vargas