Opinion
Wyoming has an opportunity to compete for one of the most consequential military investments in a generation. On Wednesday, Secretary of War Pete Hegseth invited governors and adjutants general to pitch America’s “Next Great American Base,” an installation for 15,000 to 25,000 troops on hundreds of thousands of acres, with independent power and modern defenses.
Having served as an Army officer and worked on defense policy at the Pentagon and in Congress, I know a serious bid must answer more than whether Wyoming wants the jobs. It must show Wyoming can meet the mission.
This base must be able to keep operating if an adversary disrupts the grid, jams communications, cuts supply lines or targets forces massed near vulnerable coasts. Modern war demands room for drones, long-range missiles, electronic warfare, protected airspace, dispersed training, reliable fuel and dispatchable power.
Wyoming fits that mission unusually well. We have open country and airspace where unmanned systems can train. We sit in the strategic heart of the country, home to F.E. Warren Air Force Base, with interstate and rail connections. We have natural gas, wind, uranium, coal and growing advanced-nuclear potential. The University of Wyoming and our community colleges can help train the technicians, cyber specialists and tradespeople this mission needs.
A fair question some Wyomingites will reasonably ask is whether we should want this here. A base this size could place city-scale demands on a Wyoming community: more pressure on roads, water, housing, schools and hospitals.
One answer is that our budget still rides the commodity roller coaster, while a base offers a different kind of anchor: a durable military mission, years of construction, and lasting demand for Wyoming energy, services and supplies that does not vanish when prices fall.
Consider Fort Drum, a major Army post in northern New York. Its fiscal year 2024 Army economic-impact statement reported about $1.9 billion in direct economic impact; regional analysis put its broader economic impact at about $2.55 billion and tied it to more than 31,000 jobs. Wyoming’s numbers would differ, but Fort Drum shows what a long-term military mission can mean for a rural region.
Negotiated correctly, federal investment can build infrastructure that outlasts the construction crews and give more of our kids a reason to stay. Wyoming workers, veterans and contractors should be ready to compete for the work through apprenticeships, veteran hiring and open access to federal contracts. If the base goes elsewhere, Wyoming gets none of the investment and none of the say.
The land question deserves a straight answer, too. Camp Guernsey’s 78,000-acre joint training center is a proven foundation but only a fraction of what the Pentagon described. A real bid must show how it could connect with compatible state land, federal land, and willing sellers to meet that scale. Other Wyoming communities deserve a fair shot at making their case, and a public, merit-based review of sites and costs should come before Wyoming commits any land or money.
No Wyoming family should lose its ranch because the state wants better odds in a federal contest.
Wyoming should compete only on terms we write ourselves. Land should come from willing sellers and public acreage, not annexation. Existing water rights, Wyoming law and interstate compacts must be protected. Hunting and recreation access should be protected where possible and replaced where necessary. Camp Guernsey has partnered with the Wyoming Game and Fish Department since 2003 on the Broom Creek Hunter Management Area, preserving public hunting alongside military training. It can be done.
Before any permanent units arrive, a binding compact should require Washington to cover the foreseeable costs of roads, housing, schools, emergency services, healthcare and water systems.
Time matters. Gov. Mark Gordon and the adjutant general can start the groundwork now with our congressional delegation, landowners, local governments and the university. Wyoming’s first submission should include a map and a plan for power, water, housing and schools.
Other states will bring land and promises, but Wyoming can bring a plan. We have the energy to run it, the strategic depth to protect it, the training space to prepare the joint force and the people who understand what military service costs and what it is worth.
Wyoming should make its case.
If the mission fits and the terms hold up, Wyoming should compete to win on Wyoming’s terms.
The only reason Camp Guernsey is able to “preserving public hunting alongside military training” is because only a small portion of what the camp uses for its training is within the boundaries of the camp. I have trained there, the only time we were at the camp was for the classroom portion of the training. Everything else was outside the few acres of the camp. If a base comes in they are not going to allow open access to parts of the base. Once the fence goes up you are going to need to show proof that you are allowed to be there.
It’s going to be fun watching the comments section of this article.
Just say no. People can’t stand to see our open spaces, and they want to ‘fill’ it in with any kind of development. Keep it up and we’ll look like the rest of America, a place that is swarming with people and their filth.
Are you going to be able to walk, hunt or recreate on this proposed development? No.
good commentary.
the super base,will have 2 civilian jobs for ever uniform job.
No thank you.
The USA needs to get out of the “war business”.
The military needs to be drastically CUT, not expanded.