Pentagon Asks Musk and Two Others to Predict Future Wars

The Pentagon has started Project Meridian, a short advisory study on what technology the U.S. military will need in future wars. It will be led by Elon Musk, Palmer Luckey and Newt Gingrich, and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth issued the order Engadget.

The stated task focuses on requirements. The group will study future battlefields, name the weapons and tools needed for the U.S. to stay ahead, and suggest how to build, test and deliver them Engadget. That covers the whole path from finding a gap (something soldiers may need to do without the right equipment) through building early models and testing them, to getting finished tools to troops. It does not cover basic science research.

The group has 120 days to study how war could change years and decades from now CNBC.

None of the three has served in the U.S. military Engadget. Gingrich is a former Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives New York Post, and Air University gave him an honorary doctorate Engadget. Musk's SpaceXAI and Luckey's Anduril already have business contracts with the Pentagon Engadget.

The broader context here helps explain the plan. A 120-day timeline means a report with ideas, not a program to build weapons or buy them. The Pentagon often uses outside groups to question its own habits about force size, equipment design, and buying speed. Think of it like asking outside engineers to sketch what tools a fire department will need in 20 years. Such groups can bring in fast business methods for software updates, self-operating machines, rockets and sensors, and factory-scale building. They can also miss practical limits like whether systems connect, how to supply and fix them, and the rules for their use.

In my view, engineers should read this as a signal, not a shopping list. The key result will not be a list of favorite weapons. It will be how the group describes the problem: which military jobs it puts first, what it assumes about blocked radios and navigation like GPS, how people and machines should work together and how much independence machines should have, and what it suggests about shared designs that work together like common chargers, test sites, and rules for updating tools bit by bit. Those choices affect common standards, data ownership, and testing demands for big defense firms and new companies alike.

Looking at what this means for industry, the business ties are worth watching plainly. When advisers already have Pentagon contracts, public rules about disclosure and stepping aside matter for trust, especially for build, test and delivery steps where their companies could gain. That does not prejudge the work, but buying officials will look for how the department writes down those limits.

What this enables, if done as described, is a short public push to think long term. A 120-day study cannot decide future force design. It can show where the department thinks private tech is moving faster than its own buying process, and where it wants better ways to test and grow new tools.