STORY: The Pentagon awards RAND a $452 million contract to plan for the wars of the future

Research, Analytical Models, and War Games

The official contract language specifies that RAND must provide research, studies, analysis, analytical models, simulations, and war games—a set of tools used to test military scenarios before they occur in reality.

These exercises typically bring together analysts, government officials, and representatives from academia and industry, with the explicit goal of collectively addressing complex government challenges that often exceed the analytical capacity of a single institution.

Analytical Support for Long-Term Planning

Beyond simulations, the contract also provides for broader technical and analytical support, intended to guide program planning and management for the various Pentagon sponsors that engage the research institute’s services.

This type of support potentially covers issues as varied as the procurement of military equipment, the organization of the armed forces, or the assessment of emerging strategic threats—a deliberately broad scope that reflects RAND’s generalist role within the U.S. defense establishment.

A contract with such a broad scope inspires in me a mixture of respect and skepticism. On the one hand, RAND’s analytical rigor has been recognized for decades. On the other hand, the broad scope of this mandate leaves little room for a precise assessment of its actual effectiveness.

From the Pentagon to the Puget Sound region

Work under this contract will take place primarily at three locations: the Pentagon in Arlington, Virginia; RAND’s historic headquarters in Santa Monica, California; and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, where the organization also maintains an active research presence.

This geographic distribution clearly illustrates the distributed nature of modern intellectual work in the service of national defense, where teams collaborate remotely on projects of considerable strategic importance to the country’s security.

An initial deadline set for the summer of 2026

The estimated completion date for this first phase of the contract is August 1, 2026—a relatively tight timeline that suggests rapid delivery of initial analytical work, likely followed by additional phased orders under the same framework agreement.

This phased award structure, typical of major U.S. federal contracts, allows the Pentagon to maintain budgetary flexibility while ensuring continued access to RAND’s analytical expertise for several years to come.

I note with some interest that the Puget Sound region—more commonly associated with military shipyards than with strategic research—also appears in the contracts published on the same day, a reminder that the U.S. defense establishment is advancing on multiple fronts simultaneously.

Four federally funded research centers

The RAND Corporation operates a total of four federally funded research and development centers, also known as FFRDCs, including Project Air Force for the Air Force, the Arroyo Center for the Army, and the National Defense Research Institute for the entire Department of Defense.

This structure allows RAND to maintain distinct yet complementary analytical relationships with each of the major branches of the U.S. armed forces—a unique institutional framework that stems from decades of continuous collaboration with the Pentagon.

A history of contracts worth hundreds of millions of dollars

Federal spending data shows that, over the past several years, RAND has already received tens of millions of dollars annually for similar work, including studies on military health, operational readiness, and cybersecurity-related operations.

This new $452 million contract therefore represents institutional continuity rather than a break, simply consolidating on a larger scale an already well-established working relationship between RAND and various offices within the Department of Defense.

What strikes me is the longevity of this relationship. Few private organizations maintain such consistent and privileged access to the highest echelons of military decision-making for more than forty consecutive years.

Simulating War Before It Breaks Out

Wargaming, or war simulation, involves modeling potential conflict scenarios to assess their likely outcomes—a practice that allows military decision-makers to test strategies without the risks associated with actual combat operations.

In the face of rising geopolitical tensions with actors such as China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea, these simulation exercises are taking on growing strategic importance in anticipating increasingly complex and multidimensional conflict scenarios.

An Essential Tool for Preparing to Face Systemic Rivals

Modern war simulations now incorporate advanced technological variables, including the potential impact of artificial intelligence, drones, and cyberattacks—dimensions that are radically transforming the very nature of the conflicts envisioned by Western military planners.

In this context, the role of an institute like RAND becomes all the more crucial, as its ability to model credible scenarios directly helps Pentagon decision-makers prepare a defense posture capable of deterring the West’s strategic adversaries.

In a world where China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea are stepping up their coordinated provocations, I believe that every dollar invested in better strategic foresight is well worth the cost, even if it never appears in a military parade.

A multitude of contracts published on the same day

The RAND contract represents only a fraction of a much larger set of defense contracts published simultaneously by the Pentagon in early July, including naval projects in the Puget Sound region, maintenance services for the F-35, and naval repair contracts extending through 2031.

This daily deluge of contracts, often overlooked by the general public, illustrates the colossal scale of the budgetary apparatus that supports the U.S. defense posture on a daily basis, far beyond just visible spending on combat equipment.

This spending is part of a broader Western effort

This contract comes as Western allies, both within NATO and in the United States, are significantly increasing their investments in defense and strategic research—a trend that has been widely documented since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

Within this broader context of Western rearmament, the funding of strategic research by institutions such as RAND appears to be a logical and necessary complement to the more visible investments in equipment and troops.

I see this accumulation of contracts—however technical and discreet they may be—as tangible proof that the West is finally taking the multiple threats it faces seriously, rather than settling for mere lip service.

A $417 million contract in 2021

This isn’t the first time RAND has secured a contract of this magnitude: in 2021, the organization had already won a contract with a potential value of $417 million to conduct similar research on procurement, cybersecurity, and international security policies for the Department of Defense.

The increase between this 2021 contract and the one announced for 2026—from $417 million to over $452 million for the base amount—illustrates a steady upward trend in the resources allocated to strategic defense research over the years.

Continuity Despite Changes in Administration

This type of collaboration has spanned several U.S. presidential administrations without major interruption, a sign that the need for independent analytical expertise in the service of national security far transcends electoral cycles and shifts in political priorities.

This institutional continuity reinforces RAND’s credibility as a trusted partner for the Pentagon, regardless of the political orientation of the administration in power at any given time in Washington.

Seeing this collaboration continue seamlessly across such diverse administrations reassures me on one specific point: certain pillars of U.S. national security still withstand the partisan upheavals that shake so many other institutions in Washington.

The Issue of Transparency and the Use of Funds

Despite RAND’s widely recognized legitimacy in the field of strategic research, some observers might legitimately question the transparency surrounding the exact use of such substantial sums, particularly when the official wording of the contract remains deliberately broad and generic.

The lack of specific public details regarding the concrete deliverables expected under this specific contract highlights a real limitation in the exercise of government transparency, even when the amounts and the parties involved are clearly identified in official documents.

A Balance Between Strategic Confidentiality and Public Accountability

This partial lack of transparency is largely due to the sensitive nature of the national security work carried out by RAND, where excessive disclosure of details could potentially compromise the very usefulness of the strategic analyses produced for the Pentagon.

Nevertheless, this delicate balance between strategic confidentiality and public accountability deserves close scrutiny by American taxpayers, who ultimately fund these hundreds of millions of dollars through their taxes.

I don’t believe in secrecy for secrecy’s sake, but I understand that certain strategic details should not be made public. That said, a minimum level of accountability remains essential to maintaining public trust in this kind of colossal spending.

The Battle of Ideas Before the Battle of Weapons

This $452 million contract serves as a reminder of a truth often overlooked by the general public: long before a conflict physically breaks out, an intellectual battle is already being waged in simulation rooms and analyst reports, where the strategies that will potentially determine the outcome of future confrontations are taking shape.

This invisible dimension of modern military preparedness explains why institutions like RAND, though largely unknown to the public, have occupied such a central place in the U.S. national security architecture for nearly eight decades.

An Investment That Extends Beyond the Strictly Military Realm

Beyond purely military issues, RAND’s work also addresses foreign policy, cybersecurity, and international governance—a scope of activity that reflects the interconnected nature of the threats the West now faces.

This multidimensional approach to strategic research illustrates a profound shift in how Western democracies—led by the United States—now conceive of preparing for war in the twenty-first century.

What strikes me most about this report is how modest the figure is relative to its potential impact. $452 million is a tiny fraction of the total U.S. defense budget, but the influence of these analyses on future decisions could be measured in lives saved or lost.

What specific scenarios will be simulated?

Despite the official publication of this contract, no specific public information is currently available to indicate which specific geopolitical scenarios will be the focus of the war simulation exercises funded by this $452 million budget.

This lack of detail, while understandable in the context of national security, significantly limits the ability of the public and journalists to fully assess the actual strategic relevance of the work undertaken by RAND under this contract.

The Concrete Impact on Future Pentagon Decisions

It also remains difficult at this early stage to gauge the concrete impact that the analyses produced by RAND will actually have on the Department of Defense’s future decisions—a recurring methodological challenge when assessing the long-term utility of strategic research.

This inherent uncertainty does not detract from the importance of the contract, but it serves as a reminder that the true value of this type of investment is often measured years later, through decisions that might never have been made without this preliminary analytical work.

I remain convinced that history will judge this kind of investment with greater clarity than we can today. Some of the most crucial strategic decisions of the Cold War stemmed from RAND reports that were considered obscure at the time of their publication.

Limited but Real Competition

RAND is not the only organization providing this type of strategic analysis to the Pentagon: institutions such as the Institute for Defense Analyses and the MITRE Corporation play similar roles for other specific branches of the Department of Defense and U.S. intelligence agencies.

This diversity of federally funded institutions creates a relatively robust strategic research ecosystem, where multiple independent analytical perspectives can collectively help inform the most complex decisions regarding U.S. national security.

A Model That Inspires Other Western Democracies

The U.S. model of federally funded research centers—of which RAND remains the most iconic example—has also inspired the creation of similar organizations in other Western countries, including European branches of RAND itself, based notably in Cambridge, Brussels, and The Hague.

This international expansion illustrates the growing recognition throughout the Western world of the strategic value of independent and rigorous research in the service of collective security in the face of threats posed by rival authoritarian regimes.

Seeing this American model spread as far as Europe convinces me that Western solidarity is not limited to diplomatic summits and NATO communiqués. It is also being built, quietly, in research facilities shared among allies.

A Trend Set to Gain Momentum

All signs indicate that the trend toward massive investment in strategic research and wargaming will continue to grow in the coming years, as the complexity of global geopolitical threats makes it increasingly difficult to base military planning solely on traditional historical experience.

This shift reflects a broader realization within the Pentagon that the West’s future military superiority will depend as much on the quality of its strategic analysis as on the raw power of its physical arsenals.

A trend to watch in the coming fiscal years

Future budget cycles at the Department of Defense will reveal whether this trend toward increased funding for strategic research continues, particularly through any new orders placed under this same framework contract with RAND over the next few years.

This issue, though technical and receiving little media attention, therefore deserves close monitoring by anyone interested in how the West is concretely preparing for the major strategic challenges that await it in the coming years.

I’d like to conclude on a note of cautious optimism: investing more in strategic thinking before investing in the weapons themselves seems to me to be exactly the kind of wisdom the West needs when facing adversaries who certainly do not lack strategic patience.

Hundreds of analyst positions supported indirectly

A contract of this magnitude indirectly supports hundreds of highly skilled jobs at RAND, including national security analysts, political scientists, computer modeling specialists, and military history experts—a range of expertise rarely associated in the public imagination with the defense sector.

These jobs are concentrated primarily in Santa Monica, RAND’s historic headquarters, but also in Arlington and Pittsburgh, contributing to a regional economic ecosystem that is often overlooked in public discussions of U.S. military spending.

Expertise That Extends Beyond the Military Contract Alone

The expertise developed by RAND researchers through contracts like this one often ultimately benefits other sectors of U.S. public research, particularly in public health, foreign policy, and economic analysis—a ripple effect rarely mentioned in media coverage of these contracts.

This dissemination of expertise illustrates the extent to which investment in defense research generates benefits that extend far beyond the strictly military context for which the funds were initially allocated.

This is a perspective that is too often overlooked: these defense contracts also indirectly fund scientific expertise that benefits far beyond the Pentagon. It is an investment in America’s intellectual capital as a whole.

A contract that appears modest, but reveals a priority

The $452 million contract awarded to RAND by the Pentagon illustrates, in its own discreet way, a fundamental truth of modern military strategy: intellectual preparation for war remains just as crucial as the acquisition of equipment or the deployment of troops on the ground.

This announcement, which went relatively unnoticed amid the daily flood of federal contract publications, nevertheless deserves the attention of anyone seeking to understand how the United States and its Western allies are building today the strategic advantage they will need tomorrow.

A story to watch in the coming months

It will be up to future federal contract publications and any public analyses by RAND itself to reveal, over time, the precise direction that this research and simulation work—funded by this substantial budget—will take.

In the meantime, this contract serves as a useful reminder that behind every major military decision often lies—months or even years in advance—the patient and meticulous work of analysts whose names will never make the headlines.

I conclude this report with the conviction that the West’s true strength is measured not only in tanks and aircraft carriers, but also in the hours of research invested before the first shot is fired. It is a less spectacular form of power, but one that is just as decisive.

By Maxime Marquette, columnist