Special operations forces increasingly need realistic electromagnetic environments to develop, evaluate, and validate electronic warfare tools and tactics. Running EW tests for U.S. Special Operations requires navigating three overlapping legal and regulatory tracks: range access and test authorities, airspace and safety law, and electromagnetic spectrum management and communications law. Below I break down the practical legal controls you must clear before planning a SOF-focused EW event at an established test range.

Range infrastructure and authorities

Most high-end EW work for Special Operations happens on DoD test ranges and major test facilities that are managed as part of the Department of Defense test and evaluation infrastructure. These facilities include Major Range and Test Facility Base sites such as White Sands Missile Range, Yuma Proving Ground, Dugway Proving Ground, the Nevada Test and Training Range and service test centers that are designated to support classified and unclassified test events. These range authorities provide the physical space, instrumentation, safety oversight, and procedures required to run live EW, jamming, and high-power RF events.

For Special Operations–oriented training and experimentation, DoD has stood up tailored venues and organizations to host cross-domain events. For example, the Special Operations Forces Training and Experimentation Center at White Sands serves as a hub to exercise cyber, space, and EW teams in denied environments, and to host capability experiments that mirror SOF mission sets. Operating inside those venues still requires formal coordination with the range owner and range safety office.

Airspace, environmental review, and safety law

Any test that involves airborne assets, high-power electromagnetic emissions, or RF fields that could impact aircraft requires FAA coordination and frequently an environmental review. The FAA conducts environmental assessments for actions that change special use airspace or impose temporary flight restrictions and it may adopt or require DoD to provide EAs or EISs for high intensity radiated field testing or changes to restricted airspace. That process provides public notice and a formal comment period. At the range level, creation or amendment of restricted areas or R corridors follows 14 CFR processes and is published in the Federal Register when proposed (for example restricted-area proposals associated with proving-ground testing).

Range operators also enforce hazards controls for electromagnetic radiation and ordnance. Tests that emit high-power RF need engineering reviews for HERO, HERP, and HERF to protect personnel, fuel, and ordnance. Those safety determinations are part of the range safety package and are required before emitters or high-power radars can be authorized to operate on DoD property. Range safety offices will also define danger zones, exclusion areas, and any live-fire or fragmentation containment measures.

Environmental law is not optional. NEPA requires federal agencies to analyze potential impacts of major federal actions, which includes many range modernizations, expansions, and some testing regimes with significant effects. Navy and other service NEPA programs publish draft EAs and EISs and accept public comment in advance of authorizing persistent or large-scale EW or electromagnetic test activities. Expect NEPA to add schedule and public engagement steps to complex test plans.

Spectrum law and federal spectrum management

Spectrum access is the single most important legal hurdle for EW testing. Domestic spectrum for federal users is managed under NTIA policy while non‑federal users fall under FCC rules. DoD and other federal agencies coordinate spectrum use internally via NTIA processes and via forms and procedures such as the DD Form 1494 application for frequency allocation, spectrum supportability assessments, and range frequency authorization processes. The NTIA Manual (the so called Redbook) and DoD spectrum policy documents govern how federal emitters are approved, the role of range frequency managers, and procedures for coordination with non‑federal users. For capability demonstrations that generate intentional interference, the range frequency office and NTIA must authorize the assignment and document mitigations to protect incumbents.

There are two practical implications. First, tactical EW test events that intentionally radiate into public bands will need documented federal frequency allocations or temporary coordination and will be confined to either government-only bands or tightly controlled windows with mitigation. Second, spectrum supportability is part of system acquisition and test planning. Program managers and range coordinators must show the emitter will not cause unacceptable harmful interference to civil or other federal users. GAO and DoD materials repeatedly emphasize that spectrum planning and early coordination are required to avoid later operational conflicts.

The civilian legality of jamming and interference

Under U.S. law, willful interference with radio communications is prohibited for non‑federal entities. The Communications Act and FCC orders make it unlawful for private persons or entities to operate jammers that block cellphones, GPS or other commercial services. That prohibition does not prevent federal agencies from conducting authorized EW operations, but it does mean commercial partners, contractors, or state and local agencies cannot lawfully run jammer equipment outside a federal authorization. Expect heavy legal and procedural scrutiny if a planned test could disrupt civilian emergency services or critical infrastructure.

Practical approvals and paperwork you should expect to prepare

  • Range access and mission approval. Coordinate early with the MRTFB or test facility owner. Expect statements of need, classified handling plans if applicable, proof of authorities to operate, and a signed range safety package.
  • Spectrum authorization. Submit DD Form 1494 or equivalent, complete spectrum supportability analyses, and obtain NTIA coordination or range frequency authorization. You will need mitigation plans to protect civil and other federal users.
  • Airspace and FAA coordination. If the event involves flight, TFRs, or high power RF that could affect aircraft systems, build the FAA coordination and any required EA into the timeline. The FAA can require additional restrictions or condition approvals on flight ops and RF emissions.
  • NEPA and public outreach. If your test represents a substantial change in range activity, an EA or EIS with public comment may be required. Factor NEPA timelines and public engagement into the schedule.
  • Range environmental and safety compliance. Provide HERO/HERP/HERF assessments, ordnance safety buffers, and other hazard analyses. Range safety offices will not sign off until these are satisfied.
  • Legal counsel and interagency clearance. For tests that could touch commercial networks or public safety bands, bring DoD spectrum counsel, NTIA coordinators, and range legal staffs into planning early.

Opportunities for industry and special operations collaboration

USSOCOM and associated innovation nodes run calls, experiments, and capability assessments specifically to bring industry solutions into SOF testbeds. Programs and events such as SOFWERX and USSOCOM capability assessments create structured paths to get prototypes onto SOCOM-friendly ranges under controlled conditions. Industry teams should treat those vehicles as the low-friction entry points for SOF-focused EW testing because they bundle some of the legal and range coordination overhead.

Bottom line and risk management checklist

If you are planning EW tests that support Special Operations: expect substantial paperwork, expect strict spectrum and range controls, and expect safety and NEPA review when testing could materially affect the environment or public systems. Start spectrum and range coordination as early as possible, document HERO/HERP/HERF and safety mitigations, involve FAA when aircraft or high-power RF are present, and assume private-sector jamming is illegal without explicit federal authorization. Doing the legal homework up front saves both schedule and reputational risk and keeps your tests admissible and repeatable in complex, contested-spectrum experiments.