Experts at House Homeland Security hearing say U.S. is underinvested in Arctic security; urge faster icebreaker buys and allied coordination

Chairman Jimenez opened a House Homeland Security Committee hearing on U.S. Arctic readiness by saying the session would "examine the current readiness of US Arctic forces, evaluate interagency capabilities, and account for strategic investments in Arctic security assets." He and other lawmakers pressed a panel of outside experts on whether the United States is doing enough to match growing Russian and Chinese activity in the region.

"If we do not maintain a sustained focus on strengthening America's Arctic security, we will have failed in our duty to protect the United States," Heather Connley, a non‑resident senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, told the committee. Connley argued the United States has shifted toward treating the Arctic as part of homeland defense and urged a new, coordinated approach that brings together the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Defense, the Interior Department, state partners and private sector actors.

Connley highlighted what she described as major allied investments and recommended an "allied Arctic shield" to coordinate NATO Arctic partners. "We need to create an allied Arctic shield working closely together with our six NATO Arctic allies and those who wish to be part of that shield," she said, pressing lawmakers to pair procurement with interoperable planning and command arrangements.

Panelist Brian Clark, director of the Center for Defense Concepts and Technology at the Hudson Institute and a Navy veteran, outlined three technical priorities: broadened air and missile defenses to account for drones and non‑ballistic threats; investments to detect and protect undersea infrastructure such as cables and sonar arrays; and sustained presence—with people, maintenance and shore infrastructure—to operate new icebreakers. On procurement problems, Clark warned the Polar Security Cutter program is behind schedule: "Detail design is not complete," he told the committee, describing earlier industrial and program management decisions that delayed construction.

Marisol Maddox, senior Arctic fellow at Dartmouth's Institute of Arctic Studies, emphasized environmental change as a security issue. She said thawing permafrost, intensifying wildland fires and marine heat waves have practical consequences for runways, roads, sensors and subsistence and commercial fisheries. "Permafrost underlies about 15 percent of the Northern Hemisphere and it is increasingly thawing," Maddox said, noting infrastructure maintenance costs and risks to personnel and equipment.

Lawmakers pressed witnesses about whether recent political rhetoric had influenced allied behavior. Connley and Clark said allied investment packages — which Connley cited as major modernization efforts by Canada and Denmark — appeared to be driven both by long‑standing capability needs and by heightened political attention. Lawmakers also asked for written follow ups on questions about NOAA staffing, Coast Guard climate knowledge and other technical gaps; the committee left the record open for 10 days for such written responses.

The hearing included repeated warnings about the vulnerability of undersea cables and other seabed infrastructure. Clark said Russia has been mapping seafloor infrastructure and that adversaries could have the ability to sever or interdict cables in conflict. Witnesses recommended improved persistent surveillance—using manned and unmanned systems—along with allied data‑sharing to fill gaps in domain awareness.

The hearing closed with committee leaders asking for additional written answers from witnesses. The committee held the record open for 10 days and adjourned without taking any votes.