A new report from the Government Accountability Office calls for the Pentagon’s Chief Technology Officer to have budget certification authority over the military services’ research and development accounts—a move the services say would add a burdensome and unnecessary layer of bureaucracy.
The recommendation, made in a Feb. 5 report, comes as Defense Department leaders are moving to centralize management of the department’s innovation offices and to put the Pentagon’s CTO, Undersecretary of Defense for Research and Engineering Emil Michael, in charge of those efforts.
To effectively lead department-wide innovation, GAO found, Michael’s office needs more insight and input into the services’ budgets.
“[The Office of the Undersecretary for Research and Engineering] is hamstrung by the existing budget process and lack of authority to certify military department budgets,” GAO said in its report. “Having such authority would better position DOD to ensure military departments’ technology efforts align with department-wide priorities.”
The watchdog agency’s proposal is directed at lawmakers, as such a shift in authority requires an act of Congress. It would effectively give the CTO’s office an advance review of the services’ annual research, development, test, and evaluation budgets as well as a chance to flag any areas it deems inadequate and consult with Congress on any problem areas.
The Departments of the Air Force, Navy, and Army all took issue with the recommendation, writing in their official response to the report that OSD’s Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation office—which conducts independent cost assessments and program analysis—already provides guidance to the services.
“Any further budget certification limitations would restrict autonomy to an unacceptable degree,” the services said.
The CTO’s office, however, supported the watchdog’s proposal, citing language in the fiscal 2026 National Defense Authorization Act that makes it responsible for setting policies around technology development and transition and unifying the department’s research and development efforts to promote “jointness across the department.”
Underlying GAO’s findings is a sense that the Pentagon’s broader technology development and delivery priorities don’t match those of the military services. Elsewhere in the report, the agency notes that the services’ science and technology strategies and plans for addressing critical technology needs are misaligned, out of date, or nonexistent. Of note, the Air Force’s last science and technology strategy was released in 2019, while the Army and Navy updated their strategies in 2024.
“Without a requirement to develop and issue military department science and technology strategies that align with the National Defense S&T Strategy, and subsequently updating those strategies as needed, the military departments risk pursuing technologies that do not match the objectives of the [National Defense Strategy,]” the report states.
Pentagon leaders have raised concerns about such misalignment and are making moves to streamline the department’s technology development and innovation ecosystem in order to build and field new capabilities faster. Last November, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth kicked off a department-wide acquisition reform effort. That same month, Michael’s office narrowed the Pentagon’s top technology priorities from a list of 12 to just six, promising to home the department’s focus on the most critical needs and craft roadmaps to track the department’s progress.
Then in January, Hegseth issued a memo aimed at “transforming” the Pentagon’s innovation network by giving Michael singular authority to “align innovation organizations around outcomes that matter for the warfighter.” While the memo was largely directed toward Office of the Secretary of Defense-level organizations like the Defense Innovation Unit and the Chief Digital and AI Office, it calls for greater accountability from the military services and directs them to deliver plans this spring for how their labs and innovation hubs will organize around three goals: commercial integration, military-unique technology development, and operational concept innovation.
GAO notes that while the Pentagon’s CTO office has existing authorities to orchestrate and oversee the department’s innovation ecosystem, it may not be effectively using them. For example, the agency found that the research and engineering office hasn’t provided the services guidance on crafting critical technology roadmaps and hasn’t indicated how the services should weigh their own development priorities against those of the joint force.
“DOD strives to outpace technologically advanced adversaries such as China and Russia,” GAO states. “Yet, [the CTO’s office] struggles to manage and oversee the department’s innovative technology efforts and investments in them. DOD can accelerate these efforts if it acts to correct these issues.”
