Dear CGCI Community,
We closed out June with plenty of reminders that the world is not slowing down. A ceasefire between the United States and Iran, signed by both presidents on June 17, came under strain within days, with strikes and counterstrikes near the Strait of Hormuz continuing into the following week. In Ukraine, June brought some of the largest drone exchanges of the war, including the biggest Ukrainian strike on Moscow to date, alongside missile attacks that killed dozens of civilians in Dnipro and Kyiv. Neither conflict is resolved, and neither is likely to stay quiet through the summer.
Set against that backdrop, this month also carried a very different kind of headline: America’s 250th birthday. In the run-up to July 4th, from Ford’s exhibit at Union Station to America’s Potluck and the block parties filling town squares across the country, it has been genuinely moving to watch the holiday become something people rallied around together, rather than something split along the usual lines. National and economic security, and the security of our allies, should never be a partisan project. We hope that spirit endures far beyond the impressive firework displays. We are proud of the freedoms and the system of government this country has built over 250 years, and we believe the best way to honor that is to keep investing in the future that protects it.
This month, two pieces in CGCI Insights ask the same underlying question, whether the systems built to fund and field American capability can keep pace with the threat, from very different angles. In “Defense Technology Is Always On. American Capital Allocation Is Not.,” Emeka Alozie, Defense Innovation Unit Program Manager (contractor), Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) Abshire-Inamori Fellow, and Publisher of The New Arsenal, shows how a decades-old contracting tool, the IDIQ, is quietly becoming the sharpest underwriting signal in defense tech. In “Securing the Homeland: Innovation, Overmatch, and the Right Path for Partially Privatizing the War on Terror,” Karl Muth, CGCI NSRA Council Member and Lecturer at Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law, argues that as private contractors take on more of the homeland security mission, the real vulnerability isn’t the technology but outdated, conflicting legal definitions of terrorism.
Both pieces describe the same job for CGCI, just from opposite ends. A founder with a validated IDIQ and a security contractor with the right insurance backing only matter if capital allocators can actually see and price that value, and closing that gap is most of what we do here. Through our National Security Research Alliance (NSRA) and our GCI methodology framework, we spend far more time convening than publishing, bringing operators, underwriters, and allocators who each hold one piece of these puzzles into the same room, and turning shifts like the ones Emeka and Karl describe into frameworks that boards and investment committees can actually act on. That was true when we briefed NATO parliamentarians on industrial readiness late last year. It is true as we map the eight GCI sectors from semiconductors to maritime infrastructure. And it is true now, as we work through what a validated IDIQ, or a resolved definition of terrorism, should mean for how capital actually moves.
We’re also deeply grateful for our growing base of corporate sponsors and supporters, whose backing makes this work possible. Keep an eye out this fall for a series of co-authored whitepapers we are developing with partners across our eight GCI sectors, each one designed to show how our mission alignment across critical technology areas translates into concrete, investable strategy.
Thank you, as always, for the work you do steering capital, institutions, and technology through a year that keeps testing all three. Here’s to the next 250! 🇺🇸 Thank you for being part of this community.
Sincerely,
Christina Alfonso, Executive Director, Council on Global Competition and Innovation – CGCI


