The shift from 5G to 6G is prompting regulators and technologists to think beyond raw capacity. 6G discussions are centering on integrated sensing and communications, pervasive AI, and extreme bandwidth that will push use into mid band and into millimeter and sub terahertz frequencies. These technical trends are colliding with legacy and mission critical spectrum uses that were not designed for dense commercial traffic, producing policy choices that will shape both civilian connectivity and electronic warfare postures for decades.

The radio regulatory milestone that changed the conversation was the World Radiocommunication Conference 2023. WRC 23 identified additional mid band spectrum, notably portions of the upper 6 GHz range, as candidate spectrum for IMT which lays groundwork for both 5G evolution and 6G planning. The conference also set study work to examine other mid band windows for future IMT and invited research on sharing and compatibility above traditional mobile bands. Those international decisions create a global pipeline of candidate bands but they do not, and cannot, relieve national regulators of resolving incumbent protection and defense equities domestically.

In the United States the federal government has signaled a proactive posture toward 6G policy while leaving spectrum specifics to interagency coordination and public process. The National Telecommunications and Information Administration issued a Request for Comment in May 2024 to capture industry, academic, defense and civil society views on 6G objectives and risks. That process is intended to feed executive branch guidance but it is not a substitute for concrete spectrum reallocation or technical coexistence rules. The U.S. position must balance commercial momentum with sustained protection for federal systems that use sensitive mid band frequencies.

History offers a cautionary template for how poor coordination can create operational risk. The 5G C band debate and the Federal Aviation Administration engagements in 2022 demonstrated that high power commercial transmitters adjacent to critical avionics frequency assignments can force operational mitigations, costly equipment upgrades and months of disruptive negotiation. For spectrum planners, that episode is a reminder that coexistence is possible but only when regulators, equipment makers and safety stakeholders collaborate early and transparently.

Electronic warfare implications are more complex than standard interference engineering. Military sensing, long range radar and space based imaging systems demand spectral environments that permit very high dynamic range reception and precise waveform processing. Even absent malicious jamming, dense commercial usage can elevate the noise floor, introduce non linearity in front ends, and produce aggregate effects that degrade radar cross section estimation, synthetic aperture imaging and signals intelligence. At WRC 23 and in subsequent debates the Department of Defense and naval leadership explicitly flagged the potential for repurposing mid band slices to create secondary consequences for systems such as ship borne Aegis radars and SAR satellites. Those are not purely theoretical concerns because some federal platforms have narrow frequency allocations and large sunk hardware investments.

Policy options that are viable today fall into three technical families. The first is exclusion and protection. This means retaining exclusive blocks for defense and safety critical users with conservative guard bands and tight emission masks. Exclusion prioritizes operational certainty but wastes spectrum when incumbents are underutilized and it can slow innovation.

The second approach is constrained sharing. This includes time frequency coordination, geographic exclusion zones, power limits near critical assets and dynamic protection zones implemented through databases and spectrum access systems. These tools can unlock commercially useful spectrum while keeping incumbent receivers safe but they require precise sensing, enforcement mechanisms and cross organizational trust. WRC 23 explicitly recognized sharing studies and invited technical work on compatibility measures for candidate bands.

The third approach is resilient coexistence by design. Here the emphasis is on hardening receivers and improving commercial radios so they are less harmful to incumbents and more robust to intentional electronic attack. Techniques include advanced front end filters, notch filtering, adaptive beamforming, coexistence aware waveforms, and integrated sensing and communications that can detect incumbent emissions and adapt in real time. DARPA and other labs have experimental programs aimed at component and front end improvements that make sharing more practical. From an EW viewpoint, resilient design also reduces attack surface because systems can detect anomalous emissions and respond rather than fail silently. While these technologies are promising, they will take time and procurement cycles to propagate across defense fleets and civil infrastructure.

Three practical imperatives should guide 6G spectrum policy if regulators want to avoid creating new EW hotspots.

1) Build spectrum roadmaps with explicit EW input. Frequency roadmaps for 6G must include participation from defense spectrum engineers and EW operators in a structured and documented way. The goal is to map critical receiver sensitivity, mission timelines for platform refresh, and worst case interference scenarios into allocation decisions. International agreements like those from WRC create candidate bands but national implementation determines real world impact.

2) Fund and mandate pre deployment coexistence testing. Before auctioning or reallocating bands full scale lab and field interoperability testing must be required. Test plans should simulate aggregate high density commercial deployment and include adversarial threat models that mirror hostile jamming or spoofing. Results from those tests should be public enough to build confidence but technically detailed enough to inform mitigation rules. The FAA and telecom interactions around 5G are a model for how incremental, evidence based mitigation can reduce disruption but the industry needs earlier, standardized test protocols for the broader 6G candidate bands.

3) Commit to funding receiver modernization and shared R D. When long lived defense systems are concentrated in a band the optimal policy may be to invest in receiver upgrades, filter technology and spectrum management systems that permit sharing without risking capability. Buying back or migrating defense systems is expensive and slow. A mixed strategy that advances resilient receiver tech, funds dual use research, and coordinates phased migrations is a more practical way to free portions of spectrum while maintaining national security. Public private cost sharing and firm timelines will be necessary to avoid stalemate.

Finally, regulators should prepare for an operational environment where contest and deception are permanent features. 6G will not only increase legitimate spectrum demand but it will also expand the set of tools available to adversaries such as low cost drone swarms, software defined jammers and space based emitters. Policy that treats spectrum as merely an allocation ledger misses the reality that the electromagnetic environment is contested. Investments in sensing, attribution, rapid enforcement and international norms around hostile spectrum use will be as important as allocation charts.

6G’s promise is substantial. But the path to broad deployment cuts directly through legacy mission critical spectrum. If regulators and technical communities adopt a policy mix that includes early EW-aware participation, rigorous coexistence testing and funding for modernization, it will be possible to unlock mid bands for 6G without undercutting essential defense and safety capabilities. The alternative is a drawn out series of last minute compromises that mirror prior disputes and leave both civilian and military users less capable. The technical work is tractable. The political and organizational work is the harder part. The earlier both are treated as core elements of spectrum policy the more resilient and useful 6G will become.