Understanding the DoD Budget Process

Last updated 4 months ago. Our resources are updated regularly but please keep in mind that links, programs, policies, and contact information do change.

The United States Department of Defense (DoD) manages the largest discretionary budget in the federal government, representing a significant investment in national security and a major driver of the national economy. For Fiscal Year (FY) 2023, the DoD reported total discretionary budget authority of $851.7 billion—roughly half of the entire federal government’s discretionary spending—and managed assets totaling $3.8 trillion.

How these immense sums are allocated and spent is governed by a complex, multi-stage system known as the Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution (PPBE) process.

Understanding PPBE is crucial for anyone seeking insight into national priorities, government spending, and defense policy. It is the framework through which strategic objectives are translated into funded programs, capabilities are developed, and military readiness is maintained.

This article aims to demystify this often-opaque process, explaining its phases, key players, terminology, and the mechanisms for congressional oversight and public access. While PPBE has been the standard for decades, it faces criticism regarding its speed and adaptability, leading to major reform proposals aimed at creating a more agile and strategy-aligned system.

What is PPBE? The Foundation of Defense Resourcing

The Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution (PPBE) process serves as the Department of Defense’s primary system for making decisions about how to allocate its vast resources among the military departments (Army, Navy, Air Force), defense agencies, and other components.

Its stated objective, according to DoD Directive 7045.14, is “to provide the DOD with the most effective mix of forces, equipment, manpower, and support attainable within fiscal constraints”. Essentially, PPBE is the mechanism DoD uses to connect its strategic goals—derived from national security objectives—with the tangible resources needed to achieve them.

The process results in the DoD’s annual budget request submitted to the President and subsequently to Congress, and it also updates the department’s crucial five-year spending plan, the Future Years Defense Program (FYDP).

Origins and Evolution

The origins of this system date back to 1961, when then-Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara instituted the Planning, Programming, and Budgeting System (PPBS). McNamara’s goal was largely to centralize control over budget formulation, which had previously been more decentralized among the military services, and to create a more rational framework linking strategy directly to resource allocation.

While the system has evolved over the decades, its core logic remains largely intact. In 2003, DoD renamed the system PPBE, adding “Execution” to emphasize the importance of effectively managing and tracking funds after they are appropriated by Congress. Despite ongoing critiques and proposed reforms, PPBE has remained the cornerstone of DoD resource management for over sixty years.

Part of a Larger System

It’s important to understand that PPBE doesn’t operate in isolation. It is one part of a triad of major DoD decision support systems.

The other two are the Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System (JCIDS), which focuses on identifying and defining military capability requirements, and the Defense Acquisition System (DAS), which manages the development and procurement of specific weapon systems and equipment.

PPBE specifically handles the resourcing aspect—determining how to fund the requirements identified by JCIDS and the programs managed under DAS. Because these systems are interlinked, inefficiencies or delays in one can negatively impact the others. For example, a slow PPBE process can bottleneck the funding needed for agile acquisition programs or the fulfillment of urgent requirements.

PPBE is an annual, calendar-driven process, but it operates on multiple overlapping cycles simultaneously. Planning and programming for a future budget year occur while the budget for the upcoming year is being debated in Congress, and funds for the current year are being executed.

For any single fiscal year’s budget, the PPBE cycle typically begins more than two years before that fiscal year starts. This long lead time is one of the key aspects criticized for hindering agility. The process unfolds across four distinct phases: Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution, each with specific goals, lead organizations, and outputs.

Key Terms You Need to Know: The Language of the DoD Budget

Navigating the DoD budget process requires familiarity with a specific vocabulary and numerous acronyms. The density of this specialized language can itself be a barrier to public understanding. Here are some of the essential terms:

Core Budget Process Terms

• PPBE: Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution. The DoD’s core annual process for allocating resources based on strategic objectives.
• Fiscal Year (FY): The U.S. government’s financial year, running from October 1st to September 30th of the following calendar year. FY 2025, for example, runs from October 1, 2024, to September 30, 2025.
• Future Years Defense Program (FYDP): A comprehensive database and summary projecting DoD forces, personnel, and funding needs over a five-year period. It is updated annually through the PPBE process and reflects the decisions made during programming.
• Program Objective Memorandum (POM): A detailed proposal submitted by each DoD Component (like the Army, Navy, Air Force, or a defense agency) during the Programming phase. It outlines their proposed programs, priorities, and resource requirements for the five-year FYDP period, aiming to align with strategic guidance.
• Budget Estimate Submission (BES): A highly detailed budget request prepared by DoD Components during the Budgeting phase. It focuses specifically on the first year of the POM/FYDP period, translating program plans into the specific dollar amounts and justifications needed for the President’s Budget submission to Congress.

Congressional Budget Process Terms

• President’s Budget (PB): The comprehensive budget proposal for the entire federal government, including the DoD’s request, submitted by the President to Congress annually, typically by the first Monday in February. It reflects the Administration’s priorities and spending plans.
• National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA): An annual law passed by Congress that authorizes DoD programs, sets defense policies and organizational structures, and recommends funding levels. Critically, it does not actually provide the money (budget authority) but sets the legal foundation for appropriations.
• Appropriations Act: An annual law passed by Congress that grants federal agencies, including DoD, the actual budget authority to spend money from the U.S. Treasury for specific purposes. This is where the funding originates.
• Continuing Resolution (CR): Temporary appropriations legislation passed by Congress when regular appropriations acts are not enacted by the October 1st start of the fiscal year. CRs typically allow agencies to continue operating at current or previous-year funding levels for a limited time, preventing a government shutdown.

Budget Execution Terms

• Budget Authority: The legal permission, granted by Congress through an appropriations act, for a federal agency to incur financial obligations that will result in government spending (outlays).
• Appropriation: A specific provision of law, usually within an Appropriations Act, that provides budget authority for a stated purpose. Often used to refer to the type of funding account (see “Colors of Money” below).
• Apportionment: The process by which the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) distributes appropriated funds to federal agencies (like DoD). Apportionment typically limits the amount an agency can spend over specific time periods (e.g., quarterly) or by activity, acting as a control mechanism to prevent overspending.
• Obligation: A binding financial commitment made by an agency (e.g., signing a contract, issuing a purchase order, hiring personnel) that will require a future payment (outlay). Agencies can only obligate funds up to the amount apportioned by OMB.
• Outlay: The actual payment of money from the U.S. Treasury to fulfill an obligation, typically through electronic funds transfer or check. Often used interchangeably with “expenditure” or “disbursement”. The sequence is crucial: Congress grants Budget Authority via Appropriation, OMB Apportions funds, the Agency incurs an Obligation, and finally, the Treasury makes an Outlay.

Major Appropriation Categories (“Colors of Money”)

DoD funds are appropriated into different accounts based on their intended purpose, each with specific rules and lifespans:

• Operation and Maintenance (O&M): Funds day-to-day expenses like civilian salaries, training, fuel, equipment maintenance, travel, and base operations support. Generally available for 1 year.
• Military Personnel (MILPERS): Covers pay, allowances, bonuses, permanent change of station moves, and related costs for uniformed military members. Generally available for 1 year.
• Procurement: Used to buy major capital equipment like aircraft, ships, missiles, combat vehicles, and weapons systems. Generally available for 3 years (Navy shipbuilding funds are available for 5 years).
• Research, Development, Test & Evaluation (RDT&E): Funds activities from basic scientific research and advanced technology development to testing and evaluation of new systems or components. Generally available for 2 years.
• Military Construction (MILCON): Pays for major construction projects such as new buildings, bases, roads, runways, and other facilities. Generally available for 5 years.

Phase 1: Planning – Setting the Strategic Course

The PPBE process begins with the Planning phase, designed to establish the strategic foundation for all subsequent resource decisions. This phase is led by the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy (USD(P)). Its core purpose is to translate broad national security goals into specific, actionable guidance for the Department of Defense.

The process starts by reviewing the highest-level strategic documents issued by the President and senior defense leadership. These key inputs include:

• The National Security Strategy (NSS): Issued by the President, outlining the administration’s overarching vision for protecting U.S. interests globally, identifying major threats, and setting foreign policy and national security priorities.
• The National Defense Strategy (NDS): Developed by the Secretary of Defense, this document translates the NSS into specific defense objectives, priorities, and strategic approaches for the DoD, focusing on how the military will contribute to achieving national security goals.
• The National Military Strategy (NMS): Prepared by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (CJCS), this document outlines how the military plans to execute the NDS, focusing on operational concepts, required capabilities, and military risk assessment.

These documents collectively define the security environment, identify adversaries and challenges (like the focus on China mentioned in the FY2025 budget context), and establish the strategic framework within which the DoD must operate.

The Planning phase involves a thorough review of these strategies by relevant stakeholders within the DoD, including the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD), the Joint Staff, the military departments, and the Combatant Commands (COCOMs) responsible for specific geographic regions or functional areas.

The CJCS plays a crucial role as the principal military advisor to the President and Secretary of Defense, providing input on military requirements, the strategic direction of the armed forces, assessments of military risk, and the capabilities needed to execute the strategy.

The primary output of this intensive review and deliberation process is the Defense Planning Guidance (DPG), sometimes referred to as Defense Programming Guidance. The DPG is a classified document issued by the Secretary of Defense that provides comprehensive, fiscally constrained guidance to the DoD components.

It outlines force development priorities, specifies areas for investment and divestment, sets capability goals, and provides direction on posture, readiness, and modernization efforts needed to align with the NDS and NMS. The DPG serves as the authoritative roadmap that informs the next stage of the PPBE process: Programming.

Theoretically, this phase ensures a strong top-down linkage, translating national political objectives into concrete military planning guidance, reinforcing the principle of civilian control over the military and strategic alignment.

However, the effectiveness of this linkage in practice has been questioned. If the DPG is delayed or if DoD components begin developing their program proposals before the guidance is finalized—a criticism raised by the PPBE Reform Commission—the intended strategic direction can be weakened from the outset, creating challenges that ripple through the rest of the budget cycle.

Phases 2 & 3: Programming & Budgeting – Building the Plan and the Budget

Following the strategic direction set in the Planning phase, the PPBE process moves into the Programming and Budgeting phases, where guidance is translated into concrete resource plans and detailed budget requests. These phases involve intensive work within the DoD components and significant review by OSD leadership before the final budget proposal is sent to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

Programming Phase: Crafting the Five-Year Plan

The Programming phase focuses on developing a detailed plan for forces, programs, and resources covering the next five years, known as the Future Years Defense Program (FYDP). This phase is led by the Director of the Office of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation (CAPE) within OSD. CAPE’s role involves analyzing the long-term implications of current decisions and ensuring programs align with the DPG and are affordable.

The core activity during Programming is the development of the Program Objective Memoranda (POMs) by each DoD Component (Army, Navy, Air Force, Space Force, defense agencies). Based on the DPG and internal service priorities, each component prepares its POM, which is essentially a comprehensive proposal outlining its desired programs, force structure, personnel levels, and funding requirements for the five-year FYDP period.

POMs prioritize investments, identify necessary divestments, propose adjustments to existing programs, and highlight the risks associated with potential funding shortfalls or excesses.

These individual component POMs are then compiled into the Future Years Defense Program (FYDP), a massive database that provides an integrated picture of DoD’s plans and resource needs across all components for the five-year window.

Once submitted, the POMs undergo rigorous review within OSD, led by CAPE. CAPE analysts, along with other OSD staff and the Joint Staff, scrutinize the POMs to assess their alignment with the DPG, evaluate their analytical underpinnings, check affordability, ensure balance across the joint force, and identify potential overlaps or gaps.

Based on these reviews, the Secretary of Defense (SECDEF) or Deputy Secretary of Defense (DEPSECDEF) makes decisions on program funding levels and priorities. These decisions, often communicated through documents known as Program Decision Memoranda (PDMs), may direct components to make specific changes to their POMs. The FYDP is updated to reflect these final programming decisions.

Budgeting Phase: Detailing the First Year

The Budgeting phase shifts the focus from the five-year plan to the immediate budget year—the first year of the FYDP. This phase translates the broader program decisions made during Programming into a detailed budget request suitable for submission to OMB and Congress. The Budgeting phase is led by the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller)/Chief Financial Officer (USD(C)/CFO).

Based on the approved program levels from the Programming phase, DoD Components prepare their Budget Estimate Submissions (BES). The BES provides detailed cost breakdowns, justifications, and performance information for each program and activity funded in the budget request year. It converts the programmatics of the POM into the specific language and format required for the federal budget process.

The USD(C)/CFO’s office, guided by instructions from OMB (such as OMB Circular A-11) and internal DoD financial management regulations, reviews the BES submissions from the components. This review focuses on financial accuracy, compliance with fiscal controls, feasibility of execution within the budget year, proper phasing of funds, and overall alignment with the defense budget topline.

Comptroller analysts work closely with component budget staff to refine the submissions. Similar to the Programming phase, the SECDEF or DEPSECDEF makes final decisions based on this review, potentially directing further adjustments through documents known as Program Budget Decisions (PBDs).

The extensive documentation developed during the Programming and Budgeting phases, including detailed justification materials often referred to as “R-docs” for RDT&E and “P-docs” for Procurement, forms the critical foundation for explaining and defending the DoD budget request to both OMB and Congress. Inaccuracies or weak justifications at this stage can undermine the credibility of the request later in the process.

OMB Role and President’s Budget (PB) Formulation

Once the internal DoD reviews are complete, the USD(C)/CFO compiles the final DoD budget request and submits it to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), typically in the late fall or early winter. OMB, an agency within the Executive Office of the President, plays a crucial role in shaping the final budget proposal that goes to Congress.

OMB examiners review the DoD request (and requests from all other federal agencies) to ensure it aligns with the President’s overall policy agenda, economic assumptions, and fiscal targets. This review is not merely technical; it serves as a critical political and policy filter. OMB staff hold meetings with DoD officials, analyze data, and prepare budget issue papers for the OMB Director and the President.

Following this review, OMB communicates the President’s decisions back to the DoD through a process known as “passback”. The passback informs DoD of the approved funding levels and any required policy or program changes. These decisions may differ significantly from DoD’s initial request.

DoD has an opportunity to appeal passback decisions, potentially escalating issues to the OMB Director or even the President, but ultimately, OMB ensures the final DoD budget submission reflects the President’s priorities.

The final, agreed-upon DoD budget is then incorporated into the comprehensive President’s Budget (PB) request for the entire federal government. By law, the President must submit this budget proposal to Congress no later than the first Monday in February each year, officially kicking off the congressional budget process.

The internal OSD reviews led by CAPE and the Comptroller demonstrate significant centralized control over the budget proposals originating from the military services and defense agencies. CAPE focuses on programmatic analysis and ensuring alignment with strategy over the five-year plan, while the Comptroller emphasizes financial accuracy, executability, and compliance in the budget year. Their recommendations heavily influence the final shape of the budget request before it even leaves the Pentagon. OMB then acts as the President’s agent, ensuring the DoD request fits within the broader administration agenda and fiscal framework.

PPBE Phases Summary (Internal DoD Process)

Phase 4: Congressional Action – Authorization and Appropriation

Once the President submits the budget request (PB) to Capitol Hill, typically in early February, the focus shifts to Congress, which holds the constitutional “power of the purse”. Congress does not simply rubber-stamp the President’s request; it conducts its own extensive review and makes its own decisions through a complex, dual-track process involving authorization and appropriation. These two processes run largely in parallel and involve different committees, but both must generally be completed for DoD programs to receive funding.

The Two Tracks: Authorization vs. Appropriation

Understanding the distinction between authorization and appropriation is fundamental to grasping Congress’s role:

Authorization

This track is primarily concerned with policy and program structure. It is led by the House Armed Services Committee (HASC) and the Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC).

These committees review the President’s budget request and DoD’s policy proposals, conduct hearings, and draft legislation that establishes, continues, or modifies DoD programs, projects, and activities. They also set personnel strength levels and enact defense-related policies and reforms.

The culmination of this process is the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). The NDAA authorizes appropriations, meaning it recommends funding levels for programs, but crucially, it does not actually provide the budget authority (money).

Because the NDAA has been enacted for 64 consecutive fiscal years (as of FY2025), it is considered “must-pass” legislation and often becomes a vehicle for a wide range of defense-related policy measures. The very commission studying PPBE reform, for instance, was established by an NDAA.

Appropriation

This track deals with providing the actual funding (budget authority). It is led by the House Appropriations Committee (HAC) and the Senate Appropriations Committee (SAC).

Specifically, their respective Defense Subcommittees handle the bulk of the DoD budget, while the Military Construction (MILCON), Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Subcommittees handle MILCON and military family housing funds, and the Energy and Water Development Subcommittees handle defense-related nuclear programs within the Department of Energy.

These committees decide the specific dollar amounts that will be allocated to various appropriation accounts. Their work culminates in annual Appropriations Acts (e.g., the Defense Appropriations Act, the MILCON/VA Appropriations Act, the Energy & Water Appropriations Act).

Generally, appropriators cannot provide funding for programs that have not been authorized, nor can they typically exceed the funding levels recommended in the NDAA, though procedures exist to handle exceptions. This separation creates distinct power centers: the Armed Services Committees shape policy and program structure, while the Appropriations Committees control the purse strings.

The Congressional Process Steps

Both the authorization and appropriation tracks generally follow a similar legislative process, often occurring simultaneously:

1. Hearings: Upon receiving the President’s Budget, the relevant subcommittees and full committees (HASC, SASC, HAC Defense, SAC Defense, etc.) hold numerous hearings. Senior DoD civilian and military leaders testify, justifying the budget request and answering detailed questions from members of Congress.
2. Markup: Following hearings, the subcommittees and then the full committees conduct “markup” sessions. During markup, committee members debate, offer amendments, and vote on the legislative text of their respective bills (either the NDAA or an appropriations bill). SASC markups are often conducted in closed session due to the classified nature of some discussions.
3. Floor Consideration: Once a bill is approved (“reported”) by the full committee, it proceeds to the floor of the House or Senate for consideration by the entire chamber. Debate rules and amendment processes differ significantly between the House (often governed by structured special rules) and the Senate (often relying on unanimous consent agreements or facing potential filibusters requiring cloture votes). Each chamber typically passes its own version of the NDAA and the relevant appropriations bills.
4. Conference Committee: Because the House and Senate must pass identical legislation for it to become law, differences between the House-passed and Senate-passed versions of a bill must be reconciled. This is typically done through a conference committee, composed of members (conferees) from both chambers, usually drawn from the committees of jurisdiction (e.g., HASC and SASC for the NDAA; HAC and SAC for appropriations bills). The conferees negotiate a compromise agreement, which is documented in a conference report.
5. Final Passage and Presidential Action: The conference report is then voted on by both the House and Senate. Conference reports generally cannot be amended on the floor. If both chambers approve the conference report, the final bill (the enrolled bill) is sent to the President, who can either sign it into law or veto it.

Throughout this process, Congress relies on analysis from support agencies. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) provides nonpartisan analyses of budgetary and economic issues, including estimates of the cost of legislation and projections of federal spending and revenue, which helps inform committee deliberations.

The overall framework for congressional budget decisions is typically set by a Congressional Budget Resolution, a non-binding blueprint that establishes total spending levels (including for the defense function, category 050) and allocates spending limits (known as 302(a) and 302(b) allocations) to the Appropriations Committees, constraining the amounts they can provide in their bills.

Dealing with Delays: CRs and Supplementals

The congressional budget process is complex and often contentious, and deadlines are frequently missed. If the 12 regular appropriations bills (including those funding DoD) are not enacted by the start of the fiscal year on October 1st, Congress typically passes one or more Continuing Resolutions (CRs).

CRs provide temporary, stopgap funding to prevent government agencies from shutting down. They usually fund activities at the previous year’s rate and often prohibit starting new programs or initiatives. While necessary to avoid shutdowns, reliance on CRs—which has become increasingly common—creates significant budget uncertainty and operational inefficiency for DoD, hindering planning and delaying the implementation of new priorities.

Separately, Congress can provide funding outside the regular annual process through Supplemental Appropriations Acts. Supplementals provide additional budget authority, typically in response to unforeseen emergencies or specific needs that arise during the fiscal year, such as natural disasters, military contingencies, or initiatives like supporting Ukraine. Unlike CRs, supplementals provide specific new funding amounts for designated purposes.

Phase 5: Execution – Managing the Money

The final phase of the PPBE cycle is Execution, which begins once Congress has passed the appropriations acts and the President has signed them into law. This phase involves the actual spending and management of the funds provided, ensuring they are used for their intended purposes in compliance with legal requirements and fiscal controls. The USD(C)/CFO generally oversees execution within DoD.

From Appropriation to Obligation: The Flow of Funds

The budget authority granted by Congress doesn’t flow directly to DoD program managers. Several control steps occur first:

1. OMB Apportionment: Before DoD can access its appropriated funds, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) must apportion them. Apportionment is a distribution plan, typically by fiscal quarter or sometimes by project or activity, that limits the amount of budget authority available for obligation within specific periods. This crucial step, mandated by law (31 U.S.C. 1513), prevents agencies from spending their entire appropriation early in the fiscal year and helps ensure funds are available throughout the year. It serves as a primary executive branch control over the rate of agency spending.
2. DoD Allocation/Allotment: Once OMB apportions funds to the DoD level, the Department further subdivides these funds internally. This process, known as allocation or allotment, distributes budget authority down the chain of command to the military services, defense agencies, specific commands, and program offices responsible for carrying out activities.
3. Obligation: With funds apportioned and allotted, DoD entities can now incur obligations—legally binding commitments to pay for goods or services. Examples include signing contracts with defense companies, issuing travel orders for personnel, or placing orders for supplies. A fundamental rule of federal fiscal law, the Anti-Deficiency Act, prohibits obligating funds in excess of the amount appropriated by Congress and apportioned by OMB.
4. Outlay/Expenditure: Finally, as goods are delivered, services are rendered, or personnel costs come due, the government makes outlays (payments) from the Treasury to liquidate the previously incurred obligations.

Appropriation Lifecycles: The “Color of Money” and Time Limits

A critical aspect of budget execution is understanding that different types of appropriations (“colors of money”) have legally defined lifespans during which they can be used to incur new obligations. Using funds outside their designated purpose or time limit violates federal fiscal law. The typical periods of availability for new obligations are:

• Operation and Maintenance (O&M): 1 Year
• Military Personnel (MILPERS): 1 Year
• Research, Development, Test & Evaluation (RDT&E): 2 Years
• Procurement: 3 Years (except Navy Shipbuilding/Conversion, which is 5 Years)
• Military Construction (MILCON): 5 Years

Underlying these time limits is the Bona Fide Needs Rule (31 U.S.C. § 1502(a)), a core principle of appropriations law stating that funds appropriated for a specific fiscal year may generally only be obligated for the legitimate needs or requirements arising in that year.

For example, one-year O&M funds from FY2025 should typically be used for services performed or supplies consumed during FY2025, not stockpiled for future years beyond normal replacement needs. This rule adds complexity, as managers must ensure not only that the appropriation account is still available but also that the timing of the obligation matches the timing of the need.

Once the period for incurring new obligations ends, the appropriation account enters the Expired Phase. This phase lasts for five years for all appropriation types. During the expired phase, the funds are no longer available for new commitments. However, they remain available to adjust previously made obligations (e.g., due to contract modifications) and to make payments (outlays) for obligations incurred while the appropriation was current.

This five-year window is essential for managing payments on large, multi-year defense contracts where work and invoicing continue long after the initial obligation period closes.

After the five-year expired phase, the appropriation account enters the Cancelled Phase. At this point, any remaining unobligated or unexpended balance is cancelled and returned to the U.S. Treasury. These funds are generally unavailable for any purpose. If a valid invoice arrives for an obligation made against a now-cancelled account, the agency typically must pay it using current-year funds from the same appropriation category, subject to certain limitations.

Major DoD Appropriation Categories and Lifespans

Execution Review and Flexibility

Throughout the fiscal year, OSD and the DoD components monitor the execution of the budget—tracking obligation rates and expenditures, evaluating program performance against planned metrics, and assessing compliance with guidance. This Execution Review process provides feedback that can inform future planning and programming cycles, theoretically creating a closed loop.

Oversight bodies like the Government Accountability Office (GAO) also monitor and report on DoD’s budget execution and financial management practices.

However, plans often need to change during the year due to unforeseen events, shifting priorities, or cost variations. DoD may need to move funds between different programs or activities. This reprogramming or transfer of funds is possible but often restricted, particularly when moving money between different appropriation categories (e.g., from Procurement to O&M) or exceeding certain thresholds.

Such actions frequently require formal notification to Congress or prior approval from the congressional defense committees. These limitations on flexibility during execution are a significant source of criticism regarding PPBE’s rigidity, as they can hinder the ability to quickly redirect resources to meet urgent operational needs or capitalize on emerging opportunities.

This tension between the need for fiscal control (enforced through appropriation limits, apportionment, and reprogramming rules) and the desire for operational flexibility is a central challenge in defense budget execution.

Who’s Who in the DoD Budget Zoo: Key Players and Their Influence

The DoD budget process involves a vast array of organizations and individuals within the executive branch and Congress, each playing a distinct role and wielding influence at different stages. Understanding these key players is essential to comprehending the dynamics of defense resource allocation. No single entity holds complete control; rather, power is distributed, requiring constant interaction, negotiation, and consensus-building.

Executive Branch Players

Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD)

Provides civilian leadership and centralized management within DoD. Key OSD players in PPBE include:

• Deputy Secretary of Defense (DepSecDef): Serves as the chief operating officer of the DoD and manages the overall PPBE process on a day-to-day basis, overseeing the integration of its phases.
• Under Secretary of Defense for Policy (USD(P)): The principal advisor on national security and defense policy. Leads the Planning phase, developing the strategic guidance (DPG) that shapes subsequent resource decisions. Influence stems from setting the initial strategic direction.
• Director, Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation (CAPE): Leads the Programming phase. This office analyzes program costs, evaluates alternatives, assesses risks, reviews component POMs, and manages the FYDP database. CAPE wields significant influence by shaping program priorities and making recommendations on resource allocation trade-offs based on analytical assessments.
• Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller)/Chief Financial Officer (USD(C)/CFO): The principal advisor on budgetary and fiscal matters. Leads the Budgeting and Execution phases. Oversees the development of the BES, interacts directly with OMB and Congressional appropriations committees on budget details, manages budget execution, and is responsible for DoD financial management and audit readiness efforts. Holds sway over the detailed formulation of the budget request and financial controls during execution.

Military Departments (Army, Navy, Air Force)

Headed by civilian Secretaries and military Chiefs of Staff/Commandant. Responsible for organizing, training, and equipping forces. They develop detailed requirements, formulate the POMs and BESs that constitute the bulk of the DoD budget request (reflecting their specific service needs within OSD guidance), and execute the funds allocated to them. Their influence lies in advocating for service priorities and managing the vast majority of DoD personnel and programs.

Joint Staff (JS)

Supports the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (CJCS), the principal military advisor. The Joint Staff provides military expertise throughout the PPBE process, reviews plans and programs for joint warfighting effectiveness, assesses military risks associated with budget choices, and links PPBE to the requirements generation process (JCIDS). Represents the integrated, joint perspective.

Combatant Commands (COCOMs)

Led by four-star commanders, COCOMs are responsible for military operations in specific geographic regions (e.g., INDOPACOM, EUCOM) or functional areas (e.g., SOCOM, CYBERCOM). They are the primary “users” of military forces. During PPBE, they provide input on their operational needs, capability gaps, and priorities, often through mechanisms like Integrated Priority Lists (IPLs) submitted to the Joint Staff and Services.

However, COCOMs generally have limited direct control over budget formulation and execution, relying on the military services to provide forces and funding. This perceived disconnect between operational responsibility and budget authority has led to criticisms and calls for providing COCOMs with more direct funding and flexibility, particularly for rapid innovation and fielding.

Office of Management and Budget (OMB)

Part of the Executive Office of the President. OMB acts as the President’s agent in overseeing budget preparation and execution across the entire federal government. It reviews the DoD budget request to ensure alignment with Presidential priorities and overall fiscal policy, issues binding guidance (“passback”), and controls the release of appropriated funds to DoD through the apportionment process. Its influence is significant in enforcing White House discipline on the DoD budget.

Congressional Players

Congressional Committees

The locus of legislative power over the budget.

• House Armed Services Committee (HASC) & Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC): The authorizing committees. They write the annual NDAA, setting policy, approving programs, and recommending funding levels. Their influence lies in establishing the legal framework and policy direction for DoD.
• House Appropriations Committee (HAC) & Senate Appropriations Committee (SAC) (specifically their Defense, MILCON/VA, and Energy & Water Subcommittees): The appropriating committees. They write the annual appropriations acts that provide the actual budget authority. They hold the ultimate “power of the purse,” determining how much money programs actually receive.

Congressional Budget Office (CBO)

A nonpartisan legislative branch agency that provides Congress with objective analyses of budget and economic issues. CBO produces independent cost estimates for legislation, analyzes the President’s budget using its own economic assumptions, and publishes baseline budget projections. Its influence comes from providing credible, independent data and analysis for congressional decision-making.

Government Accountability Office (GAO)

An independent, nonpartisan legislative branch agency often called the “congressional watchdog.” GAO audits federal agency operations, evaluates program effectiveness, investigates allegations of illegal or improper activities, and reports on systemic challenges, such as DoD’s financial management and audit problems.

Its influence stems from its oversight role, identifying waste, fraud, and abuse, and making recommendations for improvement to Congress and federal agencies. GAO’s persistent reporting on DoD’s inability to achieve a clean audit opinion highlights significant accountability gaps.

Challenges, Criticisms, and the Push for Reform

Despite its decades-long history as the backbone of defense resourcing, the Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution (PPBE) process faces substantial and growing criticism. Many observers argue that the system, designed during the Cold War, is ill-suited to the security challenges of the 21st century, particularly the need to compete effectively with near-peer adversaries like China and adapt to the accelerating pace of technological change.

Key Criticisms of PPBE

Complexity and Bureaucracy

The multi-phase, multi-year nature of PPBE, involving numerous organizational players, detailed documentation requirements, and complex reviews, makes it inherently bureaucratic and difficult to navigate. This complexity can obscure accountability and slow down decision-making.

Lack of Speed and Agility

Perhaps the most frequent criticism is that PPBE is simply too slow and inflexible. The process typically takes more than two years from the start of planning for a given fiscal year until funds become available for execution. This “industrial-era” model struggles to keep pace with rapidly evolving threats and technological opportunities. Restrictions on reprogramming funds during the execution year further limit the ability to adapt quickly to changing circumstances.

Weak Strategy-Resource Link

While designed to link strategy to resources, critics argue the connection is often tenuous in practice. Programmatic decisions made by the services in their POMs may precede or override top-level strategic guidance from the DPG. Furthermore, the way the budget is structured and presented to Congress (by appropriation account and component) makes it difficult to clearly trace funding back to specific strategic objectives or capability areas.

Poor Adaptation to Modern Technology

PPBE’s structure, particularly its traditional “color of money” appropriation categories (RDT&E, Procurement, O&M), is often seen as poorly suited for modern technology development paradigms, such as agile software development, iterative prototyping, and rapid fielding of capabilities that blur the lines between research, procurement, and operations. The rigid budget structure makes it hard to shift funds quickly to incorporate emerging technologies like artificial intelligence or cyber capabilities.

Financial Management Weaknesses and Lack of Transparency

Persistent problems in DoD’s financial management systems and business processes represent a major challenge. DoD remains the only major federal agency unable to pass a full financial audit, receiving disclaimers of opinion year after year.

Underlying issues include a vast number of non-integrated legacy IT systems, weak internal controls over assets and transactions, unreliable financial data, and difficulties in accurately tracking costs. This lack of reliable financial information not only results in waste and inefficiency but also hinders informed decision-making within the PPBE process itself.

If DoD cannot accurately account for its resources or costs, the foundation for effective planning and budgeting is weakened. Additionally, aggregated reporting on fund movements can sometimes obscure program-level details needed for effective oversight.

Cultural Resistance to Change

Efforts to reform DoD business operations, including financial management and PPBE, have often been hampered by cultural resistance to change and internal parochialism within the large bureaucracy.

The PPBE Reform Commission and the Proposed Defense Resourcing System (DRS)

In response to these widespread concerns, Congress mandated the establishment of the Commission on Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution Reform in the FY2022 National Defense Authorization Act. After two years of research and deliberation, the bipartisan Commission issued its final report in March 2024, recommending significant changes.

The Commission concluded that the current PPBE process does not provide the agility and strategic alignment needed for the modern era and recommended replacing it entirely with a new Defense Resourcing System (DRS). The proposed DRS aims to:

Streamline Phases

Consolidate the current four PPBE phases into three core DRS processes: Strategy, Resource Allocation, and Execution. The Resource Allocation process would merge elements of the current Programming and Budgeting phases.

Strengthen Strategy Linkage

Enhance the connection between strategy and budgeting through improved, timelier guidance (Defense Resourcing Guidance – DRG) informed by continuous analysis and senior leader engagement earlier in the cycle. An Analysis Working Group (AWG) led by CAPE would provide ongoing analytic support.

Improve Agility and Flexibility

Introduce changes to budget structures and funding mechanisms to allow for greater adaptability. Key proposals include:

• Presenting, authorizing, and appropriating funds based on Major Capability Activity Areas (MCAAs) rather than just traditional appropriation titles, aiming to align the budget structure more closely with strategic decision-making.
• Consolidating RDT&E budget activities into broader categories (Fundamental Science, Technology & Development, Advanced Development & Demonstration) to better reflect modern tech development and allow more flexibility within research programs.
• Exploring changes to the period of availability for funds and reprogramming processes to enable faster adaptation during execution.

The Commission emphasized that successful implementation of these transformative changes would require a strong partnership between the DoD and Congress, as many recommendations involve altering budget structures and processes established in law or long-standing practice.

Implementing such fundamental reforms will undoubtedly face challenges, including overcoming bureaucratic inertia and aligning the many powerful stakeholders involved in the current system. However, the convergence of criticism from various sources, including GAO and the Commission itself, suggests a strong impetus for change.

Finding the Data: Where to Look for Official Budget Information

Transparency is a cornerstone of democratic accountability, and while the DoD budget process is complex, a significant amount of information is publicly available through official government sources. Knowing where to look is key to accessing this data. Here are primary resources:

Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller)/CFO

This is the definitive source for DoD’s budget requests and detailed justification materials submitted to Congress.

• Main Budget Materials Page: https://comptroller.defense.gov/Budget-Materials/. This portal provides access to budget documents for the current and previous fiscal years.
• Fiscal Year Justification Books: Look for links specific to each fiscal year (e.g., FY2025; FY2024). These pages contain the detailed “J-books” (Justification Books) organized by appropriation, including:
  • O-1: Operation & Maintenance
  • P-1: Procurement
  • R-1: Research, Development, Test & Evaluation
  • M-1: Military Personnel
  • C-1: Military Construction
• Summary Documents: The Comptroller site also offers high-level summaries like the Budget Request Overview Book, Program Acquisition Costs by Weapon System, and the National Defense Budget Estimates (“Green Book”), which provides historical budget data.
• Financial Reports: Find DoD’s annual Agency Financial Reports (AFRs) and Performance and Accountability Reports (PARs), which include audit findings, on the main Comptroller page.
• DoD Financial Management Regulation (FMR): Provides detailed policy and procedures. Accessible via the Comptroller website. The Glossary is also available.

Office of Management and Budget (OMB) / President’s Budget

For the complete federal budget proposal, including the DoD section within the broader context.

• GovInfo Budget Collection: The Government Publishing Office hosts official budget documents: https://www.govinfo.gov/app/collection/budget/ (e.g., FY2025). Key documents include the main Budget volume (President’s message, priorities), Analytical Perspectives, Appendix (detailed agency schedules), and Historical Tables.

Congressional Committees

Websites for the key committees provide access to hearing schedules, testimony, press releases, committee reports accompanying legislation, and bill text.

• House Armed Services Committee (HASC)
• Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC)
• House Appropriations Committee (HAC)
• Senate Appropriations Committee (SAC)

Congressional Budget Office (CBO)

Offers independent, nonpartisan analysis crucial for understanding budget implications.

• Main Website
• Key Topics: Explore sections on Budget, National Security, and related economic issues.

Government Accountability Office (GAO)

Provides reports on audits, program evaluations, and systemic financial management issues across the government, including extensive work on DoD.

• Main Website
• Key Topics: Explore sections like Budget and Spending and search for specific reports on DoD financial management or PPBE.

While the volume of information can seem overwhelming, these official sources provide the primary data and analyses used by policymakers themselves. Utilizing these resources empowers citizens to engage directly with the facts surrounding defense spending and the complex process that governs it.

Our articles make government information more accessible. Please consult a qualified professional for financial, legal, or health advice specific to your circumstances.