A New Approach For A Newly Named War Department
Former HASC Staff Director Weighs In On "Commercial First" In NDAA
This week, the House and Senate are beginning consideration of their respective versions of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). This year’s bill could see significant reforms—including better, tech-forward systems and weapons for the warfighter. But differences between the two chambers remain to be ironed out.
Only a few people know what’s ahead and how that process might play out. Chris Vieson is one of them. Chris has an incredible resume from the Hill: Floor Director for the House Majority Leader and Staff Director for three separate committees—including most recently, the House Armed Services Committee. Chris was a key player in many NDAAs, and we are proud to share his thoughts on this year’s consequential bill.
The Pentagon of Tomorrow Starts With Commercial-First Today
by Chris Vieson, Zero Mile Strategies
This week, the House and the Senate will continue work on their respective versions of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). As both bodies legislate their priorities, the differences between them will require the two chambers to reconcile and compromise on a single bill, which will be voted on later this year.
From a topline perspective, the Senate bill, S.2296, authorizes $878.7 billion for the newly renamed “Department of War” while the House version reflects the $848.2 billion included in President Trump’s budget request for the Pentagon.
These numbers are often how policymakers, think tanks, and members of the media measure the commitment to our military and national security. It is an important metric, but it’s not the only determining factor for a military that is “on the offense, not just on defense”—a priority Secretary Hegseth noted last week.
Conflict is changing rapidly. In fact, it already has. From the drone-filled battlefields in Ukraine, to the increasingly contested Indo-Pacific theater, to the race to dominate space, military posture is being forced to reflect how our world of increasingly digital and autonomous systems operates.
Therefore, our warfighters must have the tools and authorities to adapt their preparation for a future conflict and, more importantly, to deter one from starting in the first place.
Throwing more money at large, exquisite systems does not guarantee this ambition in an age of dynamic technological change.
In fact, it could slow us down. Just look at several major platforms, like the LCS, in which taxpayer dollars continued to fund bad decisions.
Matching funding resources to these exploding line items doesn’t necessarily mean we are producing better systems. It just means we are largely doing the same thing at a much higher cost.
These types of funding decisions are far more defensible absent a robust ecosystem of new companies building for defense or more critically, building for the commercial world with viable defense capabilities. But that ecosystem has emerged and is rich with companies that are building and proving cutting-edge systems that better prepare us for the modern conflict.
Legacy Support For New Systems
Incorporating new technologies via procurement reform has been a stated priority of every Secretary in the modern era, as well as Congress. Various Pentagon initiatives have offered hope to new entrants.
But overcoming institutional inertia at the largest organization in the world is difficult to reverse. Even past congressional designs (DARPA, DIU, AFWERX, and the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) program) have run into this institutional wall, resulting in well-intentioned reforms falling short.
This isn’t good for a healthy industrial base or our national security.
Recent moves by leaders of the Pentagon and its service branches suggest further change to the status quo is afoot. Army Secretary Dan Driscoll said earlier this year that longstanding defense contractors will “have to adapt and change or die” … and that “those remaining ones that can sell to the Army in a couple of years, they’re going to be incredible, because we won’t buy it unless they are.”
But even with these signals toward more innovation from military leaders, the most durable path to military revitalization still lies in the halls of Congress.
Start With What Works
The good news is that the House and Senate both are attempting to establish needed reforms—specifically relating to developing a “commercial first” mandate for solutions and systems so that innovative companies can contribute to the Defense Industrial Base at the speed of technology.
America is home to the greatest technology companies and ecosystem in the world. And after years of tech declining to participate in our industrial base, we are flush with entrepreneurs and innovators eager to build for our country. It’s time to harness that advantage.
The proposals in the Senate bill would establish a new baseline standard for the purchasing of technologies that also have a strong commercial presence. Unless a specific military solution was required, a military customer should be no different than, say, an FAA customer.
The presence of a commercial market signals a few things: It works. The world’s most valuable companies use it. And many already operate in highly regulated industries.
But perhaps the most important aspect of a commercially viable product is the speed at which it can be deployed. Our men and women in uniform deserve the best systems. Waiting years for a product’s delivery presents an opportunity cost that is perhaps more irresponsible than the fiscal one.
A recent GAO study found that “DOD remains deeply entrenched in a traditional linear acquisition structure—characterized by rigid, sequential processes—that has proven inadequate in adapting to evolving threats and integrating emerging innovation. In a linear acquisition, the cost, schedule, and performance baselines are fixed early. Thus, programs develop weapon systems to meet fixed requirements that were set years in advance. This risks delivering a system—sometimes decades later—that is already obsolete. In contrast, leading companies use iterative cycles to design, validate, and deliver complex products with speed.”
Air Space Intelligence Founder Phillip Buckendorf echoed this, saying “America’s tech companies have built the greatest arsenal of innovation the world has ever seen. Government must judge by what companies have shipped, and choose what works. White papers don’t win wars. Software does."
The House bill has similar “commercial first” intentions but could see a strengthening in language so that these reforms don’t meet the same fate as past efforts.
As conferees come together in the coming weeks to iron out discrepancies such as "commercial first” mandates between the two chambers, the recurring question that must be answered is this: “does this give our men and women in uniform an upper hand in a conflict of the future?”
The presence of more technological innovation at the Pentagon will almost certainly result in “Aye.”
Chris Vieson is a former Staff Director at the House Armed Services Committee.