Glonce

Watchdogs sue to shut down Pentagon's Project Meridian panel

policyThe Glonce editorsMilitary.com🔥51Glonce rating51Impact45Novelty40Relevance60Surprise40Players75Credibility85
Watchdogs sue to shut down Pentagon's Project Meridian panel

Three watchdog groups, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, Public Citizen and the Project On Government Oversight (POGO), filed a lawsuit in federal court in Washington on Monday. They want a judge to shut down Project Meridian, the Pentagon's future-of-warfare study led by Elon Musk, Palmer Luckey and Newt Gingrich. The defendants are the department, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Emil Michael, Undersecretary of Defense for Research and Engineering. The suit claims Hegseth built an illegal advisory committee out of people positioned to profit from its advice. A Pentagon spokesperson told Military.com that it does not comment on pending legislation.

The complaint says the panel violates the Federal Advisory Committee Act, a 1972 transparency law. The act requires outside advisory groups to file a charter, announce meetings publicly, keep records available, and carry a membership that is, in the law's words, "fairly balanced." The groups ask the court to void the memo that created the panel, bar it from meeting or advising the department until it complies, force the release of its records, and block the Pentagon from acting on any recommendations in the meantime. No court has ruled on any of it.

Hegseth commissioned Project Meridian in a Sept. 30 memo, issued the day of his Quantico address to the military's top officers. Citing operations Midnight Hammer, Absolute Resolve and Epic Fury, the memo warns that advances in artificial intelligence, autonomy, directed energy, robotics and biotechnology "will profoundly alter the character of warfare." It directs Michael to commission the study "through a partner organization", orders findings delivered by Jan. 28, 2027, and tells the Joint Staff and every service to "be prepared to connect their future warfare efforts and research to Project Meridian." The partner is MITRE, the nonprofit research operator, whose experts will assess the technologies and produce a report expected to run up to 30 pages plus classified annexes.

A MITRE spokesperson told Military.com that the department contracted with MITRE's National Security Engineering Center FFRDC to conduct Project Meridian, "an independent initiative on the future of warfare." The spokesperson said outside parties, including the nation's top business leaders, policy experts and technologists, will meet regularly to inform strategic recommendations for the department. Their insights, MITRE said, will inform prioritization of future warfighting domains and emerging technologies.

The panel's first gathering took place the day of the announcement; Hegseth said a meeting of "great Americans" and "a small group of us" was "happening in a SCIF." A second meeting followed Oct. 1 and included Sens. Tom Cotton and Tim Sheehy, whom Hegseth asked to serve as representatives on the project, according to a Cotton social media post cited in the complaint. Neither meeting was announced or opened to the public, and no charter had been filed, the suit says.

On membership, MITRE's published roster lists three co-directors and 17 participants. The complaint counts 19 of the 21 people involved as private-sector figures, leaving Michael and Air Force Chief Scientist Victoria Coleman as the only government members. Musk leads SpaceX, which has secured more than $8 billion in defense contracts in 2026 alone, according to NPR's review of government announcements. Luckey co-founded the autonomous weapons maker Anduril. Others include Oracle executive vice chair Safra Catz, Palantir co-founder Joe Lonsdale, Axon chief executive Rick Smith, and executives or investors from Saronic, Hadrian, Agility Robotics, Stoke Space and other defense and technology firms. The complaint alleges these members hold financial interests in the same weapons and technologies the panel could recommend. It does not claim any member has steered a contract. Pentagon officials have not said whether Musk and Luckey serve as special government employees, a status that would place them under federal criminal conflict-of-interest law.

Isabel Munilla, POGO's interim executive director, said the government should not be outsourcing its vision for the future of warfare to "a panel dominated by individuals that stand to profit from it."

POGO warned the department first. In an Oct. 29 letter to Hegseth, Michael and the Pentagon's advisory committee management officer, it asked that William Hartung, a defense budget and arms industry expert, or another adviser be seated to balance the roster, and wrote that without fair balance it was "obligated to take legal action." It sought an answer by Oct. 30; the suit arrived four days after the letter with the seat still unfilled. The complaint also argues the Pentagon never determined whether an existing committee could do the work, pointing to the chartered Science, Technology and Innovation Board, which stood up this year under full advisory committee rules and covers overlapping ground. One Meridian participant, Lookout co-founder John Hering, already sits on that board, according to the complaint's citations.

The Pentagon has offered a possible answer that predates the suit. A department spokesperson told NPR in October that MITRE "is responsible for the analysis and recommendations" and will apply "appropriate conflict-of-interest and information safeguards." MITRE has also invited companies and individual experts to submit future-warfare ideas by Nov. 12, calling the effort "not a solicitation" that confers "no advantage" in any government competition.

There is precedent. In 2021 the D.C. Circuit revived a VoteVets lawsuit over the so-called Mar-a-Lago Council, three Trump associates who advised Department of Veterans Affairs leadership from Florida without any public process. The appeals court held that a group with "an organized structure, a fixed membership, and a specific purpose" can fall under the advisory committee law, whether the government brings it together "by formal or informal means."

Nothing in the filing automatically pauses Project Meridian. The government's response will come on the court's standard clock while the panel's Jan. 28 deadline keeps running, so the report may arrive before any ruling on whether the group that wrote it was legal.

Key facts

  • CREW, Public Citizen and POGO sued in federal court in Washington, asking a judge to shut down Project Meridian, the Pentagon's future-of-warfare study led by Elon Musk, Palmer Luckey and Newt Gingrich.
  • The complaint says the panel breaks the 1972 Federal Advisory Committee Act: no charter, no public notice of its first two meetings, and a membership that is not "fairly balanced."
  • The complaint counts 19 of the 21 people involved as private-sector figures and alleges they hold financial interests in technologies the panel could recommend; it does not claim any member has steered a contract.
  • The Pentagon says MITRE is responsible for the analysis and recommendations, with conflict-of-interest safeguards; findings are due Jan. 28, 2027.
  • Nothing in the filing automatically pauses the project, and no court has ruled, so the report may arrive before any decision.

Why it matters

Project Meridian is meant to shape how the Pentagon thinks about AI, autonomy, directed energy, robotics and biotechnology in future warfare, and Hegseth's memo tells the Joint Staff and every service to be prepared to connect their future warfare efforts and research to it. The suit argues that advice on those technologies is coming from people who may profit from them, and that the law's transparency rules were skipped. The case also tests an old statute, the Federal Advisory Committee Act, against a panel built through a contractor. A 2021 D.C. Circuit ruling in the VoteVets case, which held that a group with an organized structure, fixed membership and specific purpose can fall under the law, is the precedent the article points to.

Who it affects

The defendants are the Defense Department, Hegseth and Emil Michael. The panel's private-sector members are affected most directly: Musk (SpaceX), Luckey (Anduril), Gingrich, Safra Catz (Oracle), Joe Lonsdale (Palantir co-founder), Rick Smith (Axon) and executives or investors from Saronic, Hadrian, Agility Robotics, Stoke Space and other firms. MITRE is the contracted operator. Wider groups include the Joint Staff and the services, who are told to connect their work to the project, and the companies and individual experts MITRE has invited to submit ideas by Nov. 12.

How to use it

This is a legal story, so the practical use is knowing what to watch. The groups seek to void the memo, bar the panel from meeting or advising until it complies, force release of its records, and block action on its recommendations. Dates to track: MITRE's Nov. 12 deadline for idea submissions, which it describes as "not a solicitation," and the Jan. 28, 2027 deadline for findings. The government's response will follow the court's standard clock. Whether a charter is filed, meetings are announced or the roster is changed would show how the Pentagon answers the FACA claims.

How solid is it

The filing itself is the basis of the report, and Military.com describes its contents; the claims are the plaintiffs' allegations, not findings. The 19-of-21 private-sector count is the complaint's own. MITRE's roster lists three co-directors and 17 participants, which the source does not reconcile with the complaint's 21. The SpaceX figure of more than $8 billion in 2026 defense contracts comes from NPR's review of government announcements. The Pentagon's comment to Military.com was that it does not comment on pending legislation; the department's earlier statement to NPR and MITRE's statements give the other side. The article was updated with Pentagon and MITRE remarks. No court has ruled.

Risks and caveats

The complaint does not claim any member has steered a contract, so the case concerns structure and balance under the law, not alleged wrongdoing by individuals. The source does not say whether Musk and Luckey serve as special government employees. The Pentagon's position is that MITRE is responsible for the analysis and applies conflict-of-interest and information safeguards. The source does not say how Musk, Luckey or Gingrich respond. Timing is the main uncertainty: nothing pauses the project automatically, and even if the judge intervenes, the report may arrive before a ruling on whether the group that wrote it was legal.

“a panel dominated by individuals that stand to profit from it”

— Isabel Munilla, POGO's interim executive director, on the government outsourcing its vision for the future of warfare