The Pentagon should be given more control over the military services’ budgets for emerging technologies, according to a recent Government Accountability Office report. The Air Force, Navy and Army are opposed to the recommendation. (Brittany Chase/U.S. Air Force)
Congress should give the Pentagon more teeth over the military services’ tech budgets to streamline and coordinate Defense Department modernization initiatives, a government watchdog agency contends in a recent report.
But the Government Accountability Office’s recommendation would hinder the services’ efforts to deliver advanced technologies to their forces, say officials from the Air Force, Navy and Army who firmly oppose the move.
The GAO delivered its findings to the House and Senate armed services committees earlier this month.
The agency set out to address questions raised by Congress about the Pentagon’s ability to field cutting-edge technology such as artificial intelligence, hypersonic weaponry and quantum science to counter adversaries such as China and Russia, according to the Feb. 5 report.
At stake is nearly $180 billion in the White House’s fiscal year 2026 budget. That outlay is for activities aimed in part at developing technologies that meet the military’s short-term and long-term needs.
Within the Pentagon, that effort falls squarely under the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Research and Engineering, which is responsible for supervising science and technology innovation across the Defense Department and the military services.
But the research and engineering office struggles to manage and oversee emerging technology projects and investments, according to the GAO’s performance audit, conducted from July 2024 to the current month.
The office is “hamstrung by the existing budget process and lack of legal authority to certify military department budgets,” and that limits its “ability to influence the technologies” in which the services ultimately invest, the report said.
The disconnect has created several instances in which requested capabilities from one or more combatant commanders have not reached the joint force because they were not included in a military department budget, the GAO evaluators were told.
The research and engineering office cited the joint fires network, an initiative to develop a platform that can integrate various threat data from across domains to joint and partner forces during a conflict.
The effort lacked investment by the services, because it was unclear which military department would take the lead in developing the prototype for the project, according to the report.
The report urged lawmakers to give the undersecretary budget certification authority for the services’ technology spending, which the GAO says Congress should address by changing the law.
With that authority written into law, service officials would be required to submit their proposed budget for research, development, test and evaluation well in advance, allowing the Pentagon to review and determine if the budget was adequate, according to the report.
But Air Force, Army and Navy officials wrote in a response letter attached to the report that they “do not concur with the matter for congressional consideration.”
Army officials said giving the Pentagon more budget authority “would introduce additional layers of oversight that could potentially delay the budget approval process.”
Their technology budget, they added, is already subject to multiple DOD reviews, including forums offering the research undersecretary’s office chances to provide input.
Navy officials, meanwhile, argued that budget certification authority would likely result in a significant increase in workload of limited value, due to additional data calls and reviews.
They also said development of the budget is a rigorous 11-month process consisting of multiple reviews by senior Navy leadership, according to the report.
The Air Force did not raise any specific objections, but it was noted that the service agreed with the Navy and Army that such authority would lead to delays, restrictions on autonomy and an increased workload.
But the research and engineering office concurred with the recommendations, telling the GAO that budget certification powers “would be the least intrusive option” to assess the alignment of the services with DOD’s science and technology strategy, according to the report.
