In the wake of Hegseth's software memo, experts eye further change
The March 6 memo directs all Defense Department components to use DOD's Software Acquisition Pathway, along with other authorities designed to speed up the buying process and better leverage commercial providers. The tools singled out in Hegseth's order have existed for years, but a relatively small number of programs actually use them.
'The Department of Defense has been slow to recognize that software-defined warfare is not a future construct, but the reality we find ourselves operating in today,' Hegseth said in the memo. 'When it comes to software acquisition, we are overdue in pivoting to a performance-based outcome and, as such, it is the warfighter who pays the price.'
Officials have attributed the Pentagon's slow adoption of these processes to several causes but have primarily pointed to cultural inertia and risk aversion, both from DOD leaders and within military program offices. In interviews with Defense News and at events around the Washington, D.C., region in recent weeks, industry and Pentagon leaders said they were hopeful that Hegseth's mandate could lead to change — if it's enforced.
They also said they view the acquisition guidance as a first step toward broader reforms to how software is funded, tested and priced, as well as how acquisition officers and program managers are trained to manage software-heavy development efforts.
Steve Morani, the Pentagon's acting acquisition executive, said Hegseth's order sends a clear mandate for rapid transformation.
'That's Secretary Hegseth's way of, just six weeks into his tenure, introducing some change,' Morani said last week at the annual McAleese Defense Programs Conference. 'It's a sign that he's determined to drive the system to operate differently. I think we're all on notice that, again, we're not going to do things business as usual.'
In the immediate aftermath of Hegseth's mandate, Morani said his phone was 'blowing up,' as many in the defense acquisition world were concerned about how this new way of buying software could impact their programs.
'I think there was a lot angst up front,' Morani said.
That angst is indicative of the culture change that will be required to implement Hegseth's direction, as well as the sense that there are more changes still to come, he added.
'This is not the exception,' Morani said of the software memo. 'This is going to be the standard way of doing things.'
The Software Acquisition Pathway, created in 2020, has been regarded by the department as the recommended approach for buying software. The pathway offers a tailored acquisition mechanism, recognizing that software can't, and shouldn't, be procured under the same process as an aircraft or ship.
Today, around 82 programs representing each of the military services are using the pathway to buy a range of capabilities — from command-and-control systems to cyber. The problem, according to one official who recently spoke to reporters on the condition of anonymity, is that the pathway hasn't been combined with other authorities designed to attract and take advantage of commercial capabilities.
Those authorities include an approach championed by the Defense Innovation Unit called a Commercial Solutions Opening, a type of solicitation that allows startups and non-traditional defense companies to sell products and services to DOD without navigating arduous requirements documents. DIU also leverages a contracting tool called Other Transaction awards, which isn't subject to the same regulations as a standard contract.
When combined, these authorities allow DOD to award software contracts much faster than in the past.
Hegseth mandates streamlined software acquisition approach in new memo
Justin Fanelli, the Navy's chief technology officer, said this shift may be jarring for some acquisition officers who are used to dealing with a rigorous source selection process that can include thousands of pages of meticulous requirements. For example, the need statement for a Commercial Solutions Opening, or CSO, can sometimes be as succinct as a paragraph.
'As you can image, not everyone's comfortable with that, even inside the building,' Fanelli said March 19 during an Emerging Technology Demo Day in Reston, Virginia. 'We're saying, 'Here are three sentences that are user-sponsored,' and those serve as what we used to know as 3,000 pages of requirements.'
Speaking with Defense News after his presentation, Fanelli said the Navy is working to break down some of those barriers by offering examples of programs that have successfully used these tools and reaped the benefits.
'We are, right now, just using this opportunity to stockpile big success stories so that we can get more adoption and change our focus from risk avoidance when it comes to procurement to a focus on impact and outcomes and value-per-dollar,' he said.
Kori McNabb, a senior procurement analyst for the Air Force, told Defense News at the same event that while the shift to commercial-like buying is uncomfortable for some of the acquisition officials she works with, she's noticed there's been a greater sense of urgency to learn how to use these tools since Hegseth issued his directive.
McNabb highlighted the Air Force's CSO Center of Excellence, which offers training opportunities for program officers who may have less experience with the source selection tool. In recent weeks, use of the center's app has increased from around 200 users at a given time to close to 3,000, she said, adding that her team has upped its training webinar offerings since the memo's release.
'We just slowly grab them and pull them along with us,' she said. 'We're like, 'You have to come along because we're all moving to this.''
A new report from the Atlantic Council's Software-Defined Warfare Commission identified workforce expertise — and the training required to achieve it — as a top need for DOD as it looks to better leverage software.
The report, released Wednesday, proposes DOD develop an 'extensive, connected, layered and modular software-centric training program' that both raises awareness about the importance of software and establishes a foundational understanding of commercial best practices.
'While the DoD has taken steps to upskill its existing workforce for the digital age, a widely acknowledged software proficiency shortfall remains,' the commission found. 'While the United States is the world leader in software talent and solutions, the DoD lacks the expertise to effectively acquire, integrate, and use software tools that are central to mission success.'
As acquisition officials prepare their workforces to implement the secretary's software guidance, others in the defense community are looking ahead to further reforms — hoping that Hegseth's initial memo is just the beginning of more sweeping changes.
Jason Brown, general manager of defense programs at software firm Applied Intuition, said he's hopeful DOD is serious about enforcing the software directive, calling it a 'long overdue' policy. But more reform is needed, he told Defense News in an interview.
Brown pointed to software pricing, workforce expertise and testing processes as areas that need further attention if the department wants to make progress in this area.
'Test and evaluation needs to be completely reworked,' he said. 'It's not feasible for the current, very bureaucratic, slow, cumbersome test and evaluation methodologies to also be applied to software. I think everybody recognizes that — even the test and evaluation community — the question is, what are they going to do about it and how do we get there?'
The Atlantic Council's report offered a similar assessment of the software testing enterprise, pointing to lagging simulation capabilities and digital infrastructure.
Pentagon's commercial tech arm to ramp up role in military innovation
Authored by a group of former U.S. military officials and defense experts, the report recommends the Pentagon empower and provide funding to the Test Resource Management Center to improve its digital testing capabilities.
Speaking with reporters Wednesday at a Defense Writers Group event in Washington, D.C., former acting Deputy Defense Secretary Christine Fox identified testing infrastructure as a key, near-term focus area for the department.
'The thing that the department has to grapple with is, in addition to buying the software, they need to provide the infrastructure to, particularly, the operating forces,' she said.
Along with those investments, the report suggests the department explore letting more mature software vendors self-certify some capabilities as a way to speed up software fielding and reduce bottlenecks in the testing enterprise.
The commission also recommends the Defense Department take a commercial-first approach to development and procurement, arguing that DOD too often chooses to develop software on its own when private-sector solutions already exist.
'When the DoD decides to develop custom software, this often results in higher costs, longer schedules, and increased risks,' the report states. 'Commercial software is often updated continuously across a broad customer base, of which the DoD could take advantage. Instead, updating software to address threats and bugs or add functionality takes considerable time and funding.'
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Atlantic
30 minutes ago
- Atlantic
Trump's Irresponsible Nuclear Threat
Donald Trump, beset by a week of bad news, has decided to rattle the most dangerous saber of all. In a post today on his Truth Social site, the president claimed that in response to recent remarks by former Russian president Dmitri Medvedev, he has 'ordered two Nuclear Submarines to be positioned in the appropriate regions.' (All American submarines are nuclear-powered; Trump may mean submarines armed with ballistic nuclear weapons.) 'Words are very important,' Trump added, 'and can often lead to unintended consequences, I hope this will not be one of those instances.' And then, of course: 'Thank you for your attention to this matter!' Trump's words may mean nothing. The submarines that carry America's sea-based nuclear deterrent routinely move around the world's oceans. Each carries up to 20 nuclear warheads, on missiles with a range of more than 4,000 miles, and so almost anywhere can be an 'appropriate region.' And Trump may not even have issued such orders; normally, the Pentagon and the White House do not discuss the movements of America's ballistic-missile submarines. Medvedev is a man of little actual power in Russia, but he has become Russia's top internet troll, regularly threatening America and its allies. No one takes him seriously, even in his own country. He and Trump have been trading public insults on social media for months, with Trump telling Medvedev to 'watch his words' and Medvedev—nicknamed ' little Dima ' in Russia due to his diminutive stature—warning Trump to remember Russia's 'Dead Hand,' a supposed doomsday system that could launch all of Russia's nuclear weapons even if Moscow were destroyed and the Kremlin leadership were killed. The problem is not that Trump is going to spark a nuclear crisis with a post about two submarines—at least not this time. The much more worrisome issue is that the president of the United States thinks it is acceptable to use ballistic-missile submarines like toys, objects to be waved around when he wants to distract the public, or deflect from bad news, or merely because some Russian official has annoyed him. Unfortunately, Trump has never understood 'nuclear,' as he calls it. In a 2015 Republican primary debate, Trump said 'we have to be extremely vigilant and extremely careful when it comes to nuclear. Nuclear changes the whole ball game.' When the moderator Hugh Hewitt pressed Trump and asked which part of the U.S. triad (land-based missiles, bombers, and submarines) would be his priority, Trump answered: 'For me, nuclear, the power, the devastation, is very important to me.' That power and devastation, however, is apparently not enough to stop the president from making irresponsible statements in response to a Kremlin troll. One would hope that after nearly five years in office—which must have included multiple briefings on nuclear weapons and how to order their use—Trump might be a bit more hesitant to throw such threats around. But Trump appears to have no sense of the past or the future; he lives in the now, and winning the moment is always the most important thing. Trump's nuclear threats are reckless. (I would call them 'silly,' but that is too small a word when the commander in chief even alludes to nuclear arms.) But such threats serve two purposes. First, they help Trump maintain the fiction that he wants to be tough on Russia, that he is willing to impose consequences on Moscow for its behavior, and that he's not about to take any guff from anyone in the Kremlin. He takes plenty of guff, of course, from Russian President Vladimir Putin, whom he seems genuinely to fear. Trump has never aimed such invective at Putin, and using Medvedev as a surrogate helps Trump to thump his chest without any danger of getting into a real fight with someone who scares him. More importantly, Trump knows that a foreign policy crisis, and anything involving nuclear weapons, is an instant distraction from other news. The media will always zero in on such moments, because it is, in fact, news when the most powerful man on earth starts talking about nuclear weapons. (And here I am, writing about it as well.) Trump's had a terrible week: He's dug a deeper hole for himself on the Jeffrey Epstein issue, the economy is headed in the wrong direction, and his approval rating is cratering. Using the implied threat of nuclear war to pick a fight with one of Red Square's most juvenile and odious figures is a convenient distraction. Nuclear-missile submarines are not toys. No one understood this better than Trump's predecessors, the 11 presidents who have been the only people in American history with the authority to order the use of nuclear weapons. They treated any declarations about nuclear weapons with utter gravity and sobriety. They avoided even mentioning such things unless they were articulating a carefully planned policy, and communicating it to allies and enemies alike. They did not engage in petty spats with nuclear-armed foreign powers. And they only considered using nuclear signals when faced with crises that involved America's vital interests. Trump, however, has now discarded all of these taboos. He has initiated a new era in which the chief executive can use threats regarding the most powerful weapons on earth to salve his ego and improve his political fortunes. Once upon a time, America was governed by serious people. No longer. For now, America's nuclear-armed opponents seem to have priced in a certain amount of drama and foolishness when it comes to Donald Trump, and his most recent social-media bloviation will likely amount to nothing. But if such outbursts are ever taken seriously by our adversaries, the president—and America—may one day regret it.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
US defense bill proposes examination of Apple display supplier
By Stephen Nellis SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) -A measure added into a massive U.S. defense spending bill in recent weeks will, if passed, ask the Pentagon to determine whether one of Apple's display suppliers should be listed as a Chinese military company. Being on the list does not block companies from doing business in the U.S. but will in coming years block them from being part of the U.S. military's supply chain. The bill, known as the National Defense Authorization Act, was approved in July by key committees in both houses of the U.S. Congress. The final bill, considered a "must-pass" because it funds the U.S. military, is expected to become law later in the year. When the bill was approved by the U.S. House of Representatives Armed Services Committee, a newly added amendment for the first time asked the U.S. Defense Department to consider whether BOE Technology Group Co, listed on Apple's official suppliers list, should be added to a list of firms that allegedly aid China's military. BOE and Apple did not respond to requests for comment. Craig Singleton, a China expert at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a Washington think-tank, said Beijing had offered billions of dollars in subsidies, tax breaks and loans to help firms such as BOE dominate global panel production. "This creates a single‑source vulnerability that could be easily exploited to disrupt or degrade U.S. military operations, not to mention undermine commercial supply chains, during a conflict or period of heightened bilateral tension with Beijing," Singleton added. A study published last month by New York-based NERA Economic Consulting and commissioned by BOE's U.S. subsidiary found that the display industry, which includes major Korean players such as Samsung Electronics and LG Electronics, remains highly competitive, with no single player capable of significantly affecting global prices. "There is no credible risk of a supply chain disruption by mainland China display manufacturers," the report said.
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Markel to divest global reinsurance renewal rights to Nationwide
Markel Insurance has agreed to sell the renewal rights of its global reinsurance business to Nationwide. The move is part of Markel's plans to consolidate its operations and concentrate on enhancing presence in specific specialty insurance markets. The financial details of the agreement have not been disclosed. Nationwide will assign underwriting and management responsibilities for the policy renewals to Ryan Re Underwriting Managers, a subsidiary within Ryan Specialty. This delegation is an extension of an already established partnership between Nationwide and Ryan Re. Nationwide CEO Kirt Walker said: "By working with two respected names in the industry, this strategic acquisition reinforces Nationwide's position as a diversified risk partner and creates an opportunity for us to expand our reinsurance footprint. 'Nationwide's collaboration with Ryan Specialty, and Ryan Re in particular, has positioned us to increase our presence in the specialty reinsurance market." As part of the agreement, Markel will not be parting with any of its insurance company entities. Instead, the global reinsurance division of Markel will commence a run-off period, during which it will continue to recognise premium revenue over an estimated span of two to three years. The deal is expected to close by August 2025, subject to standard closing conditions Markel Insurance CEO Simon Wilson stated: "With this change, we will sharpen our focus on doing more of what we do best by growing our core specialty insurance business. "Nationwide and Ryan Re have the scale, market presence and expertise necessary to leverage these renewal rights to build an even stronger foundation for long-term success. We are confident that they will deliver for our reinsurance customers and trading partners." Last month, Markel completed the acquisition of a specialist marine managing general agent, MECO Group. MECO Group rebranded as MECO Specialty, operating within the Specialty division of Markel International's Wholesale operation. "Markel to divest global reinsurance renewal rights to Nationwide " was originally created and published by Life Insurance International, a GlobalData owned brand. The information on this site has been included in good faith for general informational purposes only. It is not intended to amount to advice on which you should rely, and we give no representation, warranty or guarantee, whether express or implied as to its accuracy or completeness. You must obtain professional or specialist advice before taking, or refraining from, any action on the basis of the content on our site.