Pentagon leaders should have more control over services’ tech budgets, GAO suggests

The Pentagon could further accelerate its technology purchasing if the services’ emerging-tech budget requests flowed through the office of the defense undersecretary for research, the Government Accountability Office says in a new report. 

The report urges lawmakers to give “budget certification authority” for the services’ research and engineering spending to the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering. 

“This would require the secretary of each military department and the head of each defense agency to transmit their department’s or agency’s proposed budget for research, development, test, and evaluation activities,” the report says. The R&E office would then “review each proposed budget and determine whether it is adequate.”

Unsurprisingly, the proposal was not well received by the services. 

“The Departments of the Army, Air Force, and Navy disagreed,” arguing that the change would lead to “delays, restricted autonomy, and increased workload,” the report said.

But GAO says the current setup limits the Pentagon tech chief’s ability to ensure that service purchases fit with broader plans for the joint force—a “key role” the office was intended to play.

Consolidation, happening

The Pentagon has already pushed through a variety of measures to speed up and coordinate technology efforts. A March memo prioritizes the purchase of existing “dual-use” technology, particularly software, over custom, service-built solutions. The Department also is pushing acquisition authority down to the tactical level, allowing colonels and Navy captains to buy equipment in small batches using other transaction authorities.

These moves have met with approval from long-time Pentagon watchers like Paul Scharre, author of Four Battlegrounds and vice president of the Center for a New American Security.

“This leadership team is very invested in shaking things up, moving faster, and clearing out some of the red tape,” Scharre told Defense One in December. “A big piece of this has to happen on Capitol Hill as well. Congress has to be supportive…that has to do with things like getting less control out of the appropriators and giving the Department of Defense more flexibility to spend money very fast and be flexible in how they move money around.”

The NDAA fight

The current draft of the 2026 National Defense Authorization Act, passed by the Senate in October, includes a provision that echoes the GAO’s recommendation but stops short of full certification power.

Instead, the Senate-passed bill would establish Portfolio Acquisition Executives, or PAEs, to replace traditional Program Executive Officers. These PAEs would have the ability to change requirements on their own and would grant the Pentagon’s research office more direct authority over their activities.

However, the House version of the bill is more cautious. It stipulates that these acquisition executives “shall continue to report through their respective functional commands.” This discrepancy remains a primary point of contention as the House and Senate move to reconcile their versions of the bill. Despite the friction, there is at least a philosophical agreement that the services must buy equipment that aligns with a broader joint-force strategy.

The GAO report also included a pointed note for the Pentagon’s tech leaders: the office “has yet to ensure that Critical Technology Area roadmaps consistently provide sufficient information for military departments to invest in technologies for the joint fight.”

In other words: if the Pentagon is expected to follow a comprehensive tech strategy, the tech chief needs to finish writing it down.