In a bold move to supercharge the U.S. military’s ability to get cutting-edge weapons into the hands of troops quicker than ever, the Pentagon is overhauling its top-level acquisition leadership. The goal? Equip these key executives with the leeway and clout to make smart, calculated gambles that prioritize rapid delivery over endless red tape. This comes hot on the heels of a massive reform package rolled out by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth last Friday, signaling a sea change in how the Department of Defense approaches buying big-ticket items like fighter jets, missile systems, and next-gen tech.
At the heart of this transformation is a reimagining of the roles held by program executive officers—those seasoned pros who steer the multibillion-dollar programs behind major weapons systems. Under the new plan, they’ll evolve into “portfolio acquisition executives,” a title that packs more punch. These leaders won’t just manage individual projects; they’ll oversee entire portfolios of related capabilities, giving them the green light to pivot resources, tweak requirements, and steer programs toward success without getting bogged down in bureaucratic quicksand. It’s all about fostering a mindset where speed isn’t a luxury—it’s a necessity in an era of escalating threats from near-peer adversaries.
Michael Duffey, the Pentagon’s undersecretary for acquisition and sustainment, laid out the vision during a candid call with reporters on Monday, emphasizing that this isn’t about slashing corners but about empowering the right people to make the right calls. “We intend to give portfolio acquisition executives greater flexibility when it comes to reallocating resources and trading requirements, in order to deliver a system at speed and on time,” Duffey explained. He painted a picture of a cultural pivot from the old “culture of compliance”—where every checkbox and audit ruled the day—to one that celebrates “calculated risk-taking.” Think of it as trading the slow grind of perfectionism for the agile sprint of getting 85% of the job done fast, then iterating from there.
Of course, with great power comes the inevitable question: Won’t rushing things amp up the risks of cost overruns or underperforming gear? Duffey was quick to address that head-on, reassuring skeptics that the department isn’t flipping a switch to “mandate speed” at all costs. Instead, it’s leaning hard on the expertise of these program leaders to strike that delicate balance between urgency and prudence. “We’re continuing to be dependent on the judgment of program leaders who are executing these programs to understand where the need for speed balances with the risk that we would undertake to cost and/or performance of the system,” he said. The flexibility baked into the portfolio model is precisely what allows for those nuanced decisions—spotting when a delay for that last 15% of capability is worth it, or when shipping now and upgrading later keeps the edge sharp.
Hegseth himself drove this home in his Friday speech at the National War College, where he rallied industry leaders, commanders, and acquisition pros around the idea of embracing the “85% solution.” It’s a pragmatic nod to reality: In the hyper-competitive world of modern warfare, waiting for a flawless system that arrives too late is a loser’s game. Better to field something solid that meets most needs right away, then refine it through real-world feedback and upgrades. Duffey doubled down on this during Monday’s briefing, spotlighting how portfolio acquisition executives will be the linchpins in those tough calls. “That executive is basically accountable for delivering a system within a schedule, and with capability,” he noted. As programs unfold, these execs will inevitably hit roadblocks where timelines clash with specs. That’s when the magic happens: quick huddles with stakeholders to weigh options. “Is it worth waiting for that extra 10% of capability? Or is it worth delivering it now and sacrificing that extra 10% of capability?” Duffey mused, underscoring the streamlined discussions this setup enables.
Details on the nuts and bolts are still being hammered out—Duffey admitted as much, calling it an evolving blueprint. For run-of-the-mill adjustments on less critical fronts, these executives might have the autonomy to act solo, keeping momentum high without endless approvals. But for game-changing capabilities, expect broader buy-in from higher-ups, ensuring big bets align with strategic priorities. It’s a tiered approach designed to cut delays while safeguarding against rogue moves.
Beyond the structural shake-up, the Pentagon is laser-focused on retention to make this stick. Talented program executive officers, program managers, and other cornerstones of the acquisition machine often cycle out too soon, robbed of the chance to see their visions through. The reform package calls for longer tenures, so these experts can dig in, drive real impact, and reap the rewards—or face the music—of long-term outcomes. “Benefit from the incentives and accountability that drives performance over longer terms,” as the department’s fresh acquisition strategy puts it. It’s about building continuity, not just churning through short-termers.
Duffey also highlighted existing tools in the toolkit that could supercharge this agility, like other transactional authorities (OTAs)—those flexible contracting shortcuts that bypass traditional hurdles. The department plans to lean into them harder, making procurement nimbler and more responsive to battlefield demands. And let’s not forget the legislative muscle flexing in Congress: Two powerhouse bills, HR 3838 (the Streamlining Procurement for Effective Execution and Delivery, or SPEED, Act) and S 5618 (the Fostering Reform and Government Efficiency in Defense, or FoRGED, Act), have been largely woven into the fabric of the upcoming 2026 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).
The SPEED Act, championed by House Armed Services Committee Chairman Mike Rogers (R-Ala.) and ranking member Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.), is a targeted strike at acquisition gridlock. It overhauls regs to exempt smaller programs from heavy oversight, hands program executive officers crystal-clear authority and budget wiggle room, and holds them squarely accountable for hits or misses. Plus, it streamlines the requirements process to zero in on the core problem a system solves, rather than drowning in specs. On the Senate side, Sen. Roger Wicker’s (R-Miss.) FoRGED Act echoes that energy, slashing red tape, beefing up program executive officers’ powers, steering contracts toward efficient commercial off-the-shelf practices, and pushing for broader sourcing to spark competition.
Duffey wrapped up his remarks with optimism about the road ahead, noting how these NDAA provisions will turbocharge the Pentagon’s efforts. But he’s not stopping there—the department anticipates uncovering more spots where congressional tweaks could unlock even greater gains, and he’s committed to looping in lawmakers. “We’ve already gotten bicameral, bipartisan support for our initiative and a willingness to work with us on whatever additional authorities we need,” Duffey said, a testament to the unusual unity propelling this push. As global tensions simmer—from the Indo-Pacific to Europe—these reforms aren’t just paperwork; they’re a wartime imperative to outpace rivals and arm America’s warriors with the tools they need, when they need them.
About the Author
