Since introducing the idea for the San Antonio-based headquarters as an emergency item for the Legislature early this year, Abbott touted how UTSA, with investments from the UT System, would be a partner on the project. He signed the measure, House Bill 150, early this month at UTSA's National Security Collaboration Center in downtown San Antonio.
But while earlier versions of the measure said the command would be "administratively attached" to UTSA, the school and system were written out of the signed version and replaced with a less specific term — "another state agency."
Sources familiar with the history of the legislation said the change occurred during Senate deliberations. And despite the omission, UTSA officials and local legislators remain confident the university will still be a big part of the new cyber hub.
But the change opens the door for other state entities such as Port San Antonio or Texas A&M San Antonio to also play a role.
SAUSAGE-MAKING
"While control of final wording of the Cyber Command bill was determined during the legislative process, the important thing to recognize is that all the elements that make San Antonio's ecosystem ideal for the command remained in place," university spokesman Joe Izbrand said in an email. "Governor Abbott has been clear from the day he announced plans to create the Cyber Command that he expects to work closely with UTSA."
He said the university is "in active coordination with the governor's office and looks forward to the September start-up."
Asked about the omission, Abbott's office referred to a news release about the bill signing at UTSA. But the document does not specify the university nor its parent system's role in the command it says will be headquartered somewhere in San Antonio.
Rep. Trey Martinez Fischer, a San Antonio Democrat, lauded the decision to put the new command in San Antonio and said UTSA will play a role despite the language change.
"I don't see the mission happening without (UTSA)," he said.
Still, the details of the command and its partners are "certainly important," Martinez Fischer said. "I don't want that to get lost in the greater message, which is Texas state leaders see our community as the new frontier when it comes to national security and cybersecurity."
Neither of the bill's authors, Rep. Giovanni Capriglione, R-Keller, and Sen. Tan Parker, R-Flower Mound, responded to requests for comment.
'ANOTHER STATE AGENCY'
Instead of specifying UTSA, the final version of the bill said the command may work "with another state agency" to provide "administrative support" and "a facility to the command located in San Antonio that has a sensitive compartmented information facility."
Jim Perschbach, president and CEO of Port San Antonio, thought the inclusion of that term for a facility known as a SCIF may be causing confusion.
"SCIF is a term of art, and the only ones who can use a SCIF are military and intelligence operations," he said. "Because if you're not military or intelligence you don't have sensitive compartmented information."
Texas Cyber Command needs a secure, vaulted site, he said, but not necessarily one that meets the military standards for classified facilities.
Despite UTSA's omission, Perschbach said he figured it still would play a role.
"I'm taking the governor's signature at UTSA as a pretty good indication that he still wants and expects UTSA to play a major role in Texas Cyber Command," he said.
He speculated that cutting UTSA out of the final version may have been due to concerns about organizing a state agency under a university system.
"My limited understanding is there was some trepidation about how to put a state agency into a university system," he said. "And rather than create something that was difficult to manage, they just said let's put a cyber command in San Antonio."
OTHER POSSIBILITIES
Still, the change in the statute's language opens the door for more competition with other state agencies — including the port.
The Southwest Side tech campus has been angling to build a cyber complex for the military for several years.
In fact, the Legislature has promised $50 million to help build such a complex if the Air Force agrees to move its cyber warfighting headquarters to the port. That giveaway, part of the state's $13.2 billion spending bill, was a parallel effort to the formation of the Texas Cyber Command.
The Air Force is still mulling the state's offer.
But Perschbach said he thinks parts of the state's new cyber agency will land at the port.
"I think there will be components of Texas Cyber Command that will be located in Port San Antonio, but I think there'll be components of the military and intelligence aspects and the industrial side of this located off our campus as well," he said.
Legislative budget documents show the command will cost $135.5 million through 2027. Over the next five years, it's expected to cost $345.2 million.
The UT system has estimated it will cost $60.4 million to acquire and renovate a property, a price tag that includes installing secure facilities. It said it needs an additional $24 million for startup and operating costs in 2026.
Initial staffing calls for 65 full-time employees in 2026, growing to 130 the next year.
Neither UTSA nor other officials have said where the command would be built, but state officials are expecting it to be operational in 18 months.
© 2025 the San Antonio Express-News. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.
