Potential Priorities for Defense Acquisition Reform in the Second Trump Administration

If there is one topic that those with experience in federal government acquisitions agree on it is that technology procurement policy and methods at the Department of Defense (DOD) are in serious need of reform. Current acquisition processes are too inflexible and slow compared to the rapid pace of technological evolution. This lack of alignment often results in the DOD fielding solutions that soon become obsolete when the next great innovation is already on the horizon.

Chris Miller, the former acting Secretary of Defense at the end of the first Trump Administration, is well familiar with this challenge, which is probably why The Heritage Foundation asked him to author a chapter on the DOD for the Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise: Project 2025 Presidential Transition Project published back in 2023.

Positioned by The Heritage Foundation as a “180-day playbook” for the next Republican presidential administration, Project 2025 has drawn fire for many of the policy positions it contains, and indeed some are considered controversial. Yet, the document is also filled with recommendations on nuts and bolts issues, such as reforming defense acquisitions, that are not controversial. Such is the case with Miller’s DOD chapter, which focuses attention on the ways that DOD should be improving its acquisition processes in order to field technology solutions more rapidly.

This article takes a look at a few of Miller’s recommendations in the hope that they might provide insight into where Secretary Pete Hegseth could effect change when it comes to defense acquisitions. This exercise could prove useful for industry because on one level Hegseth has already charted a course suggested by Miller. Specifically, during the last week of February, a memo from Secretary Hegseth came to light emphasizing how the DOD should give preference to using Commercial Solutions Openings and Other Transaction Agreements as its default methods for acquiring capabilities. This memo echoes Miller’s recommendation that the administration “Develop legislation or other means of providing funding outside the traditional [budgeting] process for the prototyping and experimentation of emerging technologies that are deemed essential to modernization and future conflict. Consider creating a “fast track” for projects that satisfy the most pressing national security needs.” CSOs and OTAs fit this need to a tee.

As for other Miller recommendations that Hegseth might find useful, here are a few:

• Increase budgeting and procurement flexibility by enhancing “funding and authority for DOD mission-focused innovation organizations … away from program-specific stovepipes.”
• Conduct “Night Court” operations that enable existing authorities to terminate outdated or underperforming programs so the money can be used for what works and will work. “Night Court” is an approach used by defense authorities during the first Trump administration.
• Study the acquisition processes used by adversaries to improve our understanding of how they are often able to innovate and field new technologies on a faster timeline.
• Strengthen the defense industrial base and industry supply chain to ensure that adequate inventory exists if it is needed for a future conflict. This is a strategy also pursued by the Biden administration.
• Incentivize industry to partner with the DOD by using multi-year procurements and block buys.
• Prioritize U.S. and allied supply chain sources under the Build America, Buy America Act.
• Help small businesses to become medium-size and large vendors to encourage a more resilient industrial base and foster competition.

These are some of the “big rocks” proposed by Chris Miller, and as we can see, not only are they not controversial, they are also priorities recommended by multiple presidential administrations, both Republican and Democrat.

President Trump’s America First agenda almost ensures that securing the U.S.’ supply chain by strengthening American businesses will remain a DOD priority. It is also almost a certainty that program reviews will take place to realign resources with administration priorities, meaning we could see a return of the “Night Court” operations which took place back in 2019-2020. As a reminder, “Night Court” efforts at that time generated more than $35B for Army’s modernization efforts as funding flowed from low priority to high priority programs. Industry should probably expect a similar development this time around, making it imperative that partners seek to align their efforts around the 17 priority areas outlined by Secretary Hegseth on February 19, 2025.  

As the Trump Administration agenda continues to unfold, assessing early actions (such as executive orders, memos, agency leadership statements) and potential policy influencers (such as emerging legislation and Project 2025 agency-level recommendations) may help contractors begin to understand where future budget priorities may lie. After the agency RIFs and reorganization plans and contracting reviews are complete, where should contractors be watching for potential opportunities and challenges? (Note: this consideration of Project 2025 is purely exploratory and Deltek does not endorse or validate its recommendations as definitive or final. We are committed to basing our analysis on a comprehensive review of multiple, available resources and data.)