The Department Of Defense Wants Less Proof Its Software Works
from the seems-bad dept
When Congress eventually reopens, the 2026 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) will be moving toward a vote. This gives us a chance to see the priorities of the Secretary of Defense and his Congressional allies when it comes to the military—and one of those priorities is buying technology, especially AI, with less of an obligation to prove it’s effective and worth the money the government will be paying for it.
As reported by Lawfare, “This year’s defense policy bill—the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA)—would roll back data disclosures that help the department understand the real costs of what they are buying, and testing requirements that establish whether what contractors promise is technically feasible or even suited to its needs.” This change comes amid a push from the Secretary of Defense to “Maximize Lethality” by acquiring modern software “at a speed and scale for our Warfighter.” The Senate Armed Services Committee has also expressed interest in making “significant reforms to modernize the Pentagon’s budgeting and acquisition operations…to improve efficiency, unleash innovation, and modernize the budget process.”
The 2026 NDAA itself says that the “Secretary of Defense shall prioritize alternative acquisition mechanisms to accelerate development and production” of technology, including an expedited “software acquisition pathway”—a special part of the U.S. code that, if this version of the NDAA passes, will transfer powers to the Secretary of Defense to streamline the buying process and make new technology or updates to existing technology and get it operational “in a period of not more than one year from the time the process is initiated…” It also makes sure the new technology “shall not be subjected to” some of the traditional levers of oversight.
All of this signals one thing: speed over due diligence. In a commercial technology landscape where companies are repeatedly found to be overselling or even deceiving people about their product’s technical capabilities—or where police departments are constantly grappling with the reality that expensive technology may not be effective at providing the solutions they’re after—it’s important that the government agency with the most expansive budget has time to test the efficacy and cost-efficiency of new technology. It’s easy for the military or police departments to listen to a tech company’s marketing department and believe their well-rehearsed sales pitch, but Congress should make sure that public money is being used wisely and in a way that is consistent with both civil liberties and human rights.
The military and those who support its preferred budget should think twice about cutting corners before buying and deploying new technology. The Department of Defense’s posturing does not elicit confidence that the technologically-focused military of tomorrow will be equipped in a way that is effective, efficient, or transparent.
Republished from the EFF’s Deeplinks blog.
Filed Under: defense department, ndaa, software
Comments on “The Department Of Defense Wants Less Proof Its Software Works”
Ah yes, trumpery AI. Just what the US government needs.
Making it easier for kickbacks might be a factor too I suspect...
Man it’s a good thing that lives don’t depend upon the military’s tech and gear being not just good but tested and reliable, otherwise rush ordering like this would sure seem like a great way to put the troops in even greater danger than them having to use older but time and stress-tested gear and tech.
Re:
They’re all about “lethal”, but they never specified who would be dying.
Re: Re:
It helps when they don’t care either way, either the enemy dies and they get to crow about how great ‘murica is, or US troops die and they get to exploit that to show how this demonstrates how terrible the enemy is and how the public needs to let the regime to whatever it takes to stop them.
At the scale the armed forces operate on, the expectation of rolling out new technology and software and have it functional within a year just shows a distinct lack of understanding how things work in the real world.
All projects have 3 primary factors associated with them: Cost, quality and speed – but you can only choose two of them which means the proposed legislation means either the armed forces will be saddled with poor quality systems or insanely expensive systems for what they do.
One thing they got right though, the procurement process really needs to be overhauled but this is just pork barrel politics on a grand scale and legalized embezzlement of taxes, all controlled by Pete Hegseth who can dole out contracts without any kind of oversight to “appropriate” benefactors of Trump and the Republican party.
Re:
The shit I have seen recently would make your hair turn white.
For real though, you are correct about everything.
Also, Hegseth said this stupid thing: “The objective is simple: transform the entire acquisition system to operate on a wartime footing, to rapidly accelerate the fielding of capabilities and focus on results.”
Which….wow. so fucking stupid.
Re: Re:
What did you expect from a guy who rose through the ranks of the Army National Guard to the lofty position of Major? It’s like if a WalMart general manager was named Secretary of Labor.
He was not chosen for his competence.
Re:
Improving project quality and speed when reducing cost looks like the MAGA definition of “efficiency”.
I don’t want to be the one that reminds that last time a whole department has gone “efficient”, it didn’t improved quality, speed or cost at all.
Having spent several years dealing with the DoD’s acquisition process, I’m unclear about which software this order covers. Yes, the DoD buys all the usual Microsoft Office software, which isn’t an issue. Most of the “other” software they acquire is custom-built by one of the five major beltway bandits or their subcontractors, typically because it must meet numerous highly specialized requirements. One of those requirements is (or was) that there are no open-source components due to the risk of malware or backdoors. The DoD does have a deep relationship with Palantir, but most of its software is heavily customized to meet specific DoD objectives. Have to agree with the previous commentator: this is just a way to route money to companies that will donate it to the Trump family or one of the Orangeman’s ugly projects.
It’ll maximize lethality, all right. He didn’t say to which side.
I actually understand how this moron got appointed Secretary of Defense. What I don’t know is how he managed to get promoted to the exalted rank of Major in the National Guard.
ACME announces it has become the official supplier for the US Military.
ACME is proud to enter this exciting new field, with its excellent track record of quality products at low, low prices.
*Warning. All reviews by a certain Will E. Coyote have been deemed by ACME Legal Department to be libelous slander and should not be taken seriously.
" . . . trumpery AI. Just what the US government needs."
Trumpist, maybe. This will make it far easier to acquire “AI” software that will “detect criminals and illegal immigrants” without any of that pesky testing that would show it was simply working off skin colour and lack of a business suit.
Ooh, yes, make the US great again with this one weird trick. This will take us back to the 40s – 80s when slapdash procurement brought us the insane marvels of engineering which made things like the multiredundant nuclear triad possible.
And these are the dudes who maybe feel like critical live-testing nukes again.
My question is, can we undo the term “AI” and break it back down into what version of software it really is? AI, like cancer, has too many meanings for most people to understand it. Some forms of cancer are survivable. Are there forms of AI that are, too?