Rebuilding the defense industrial base means more than restoring facilities, expanding business lines or increasing procurement budgets. It also means finding enough people with the technical skills to do the work, Michael Cadenazzi, the assistant secretary of war for industrial base policy, told lawmakers during a field hearing before the House Appropriations Committee's defense subcommittee.
His remarks placed the labor question at the center of a broader debate over how the United States can sustain and expand the industrial capacity needed to support national defense. For years, policymakers have warned that the country's defense production system has become too thin, too specialized and too dependent on a shrinking pool of experienced workers. Cadenazzi's comments reflected a growing recognition inside Washington that the challenge is not only one of money or machinery, but of people.
The defense industrial base includes the network of companies, suppliers, shipyards, manufacturers and technical specialists that produce everything from munitions and missiles to aircraft components, naval systems and advanced electronics. Rebuilding that ecosystem has become a priority as the Pentagon seeks to replenish stockpiles, modernize weapons production and prepare for a more contested global security environment. But even when contracts are awarded and facilities are available, production can stall if there are not enough welders, machinists, engineers, technicians and other skilled workers to keep lines running.
Cadenazzi's warning comes at a time when the defense sector is competing with commercial industry for labor in an economy where many trades remain in short supply. The problem is especially acute in specialized manufacturing, where years of underinvestment, retirements and a limited pipeline of new workers have left gaps that are difficult to fill quickly. In defense production, those gaps can have strategic consequences, slowing delivery schedules and limiting the ability to surge output in a crisis.
The hearing before the appropriations panel also highlighted the fact that industrial resilience is not built overnight. Even if Congress provides additional funding, the workforce needed to translate that funding into usable capacity must be trained, retained and distributed across a complex supply chain. That means strengthening apprenticeship programs, technical education, and partnerships between government, industry and educational institutions, as well as making defense manufacturing careers more attractive to younger workers.
Cadenazzi's emphasis on labor suggests that the administration views workforce development as inseparable from industrial policy. The message to lawmakers was clear: expanding the defense industrial base is not simply a matter of authorizing more production. It requires a deliberate effort to rebuild the human infrastructure behind that production, from the shop floor to the engineering office.
The stakes are high. The United States has sought to accelerate production of critical defense items in response to depleted inventories and rising demand from allies and partners. Yet persistent labor shortages can undermine those goals, leaving the military with bottlenecks even when demand and funding are in place. In that sense, the industrial base is only as strong as the workforce that supports it.
Cadenazzi's remarks also reflect a broader shift in how defense readiness is being defined. Readiness is no longer measured solely by the number of platforms in service or the size of stockpiles on hand. It also depends on whether the nation can manufacture, repair and replenish those systems at speed. That, in turn, depends on whether the United States can recruit and retain the skilled labor force needed to sustain production over time.
As Congress weighs future defense spending and industrial policy, the hearing served as a reminder that rebuilding military capacity is a long-term project with a human dimension. Factories can be funded, contracts can be signed and equipment can be ordered, but without a workforce capable of turning plans into hardware, the defense industrial base cannot fully recover. Cadenazzi's message was that the people are as important as the plants, and perhaps more difficult to replace.