Why the Pentagon Fails Audits Year After Year After Year

Last year, it was announced that the US Department of Defense had failed an audit for its seventh straight year, indicating an ongoing inability to track its hundreds of billions of dollars in spending and inventories. Why does this keep happening? Why does the Pentagon get audited in the first place? And what can be done to fix it? On this episode, we speak with Julia Gledhill, a research analyst at the National Security Reform Program at the Stimson Center. She explains how the budgetary process works, as well as the prospects for the Pentagon ever actually passing an audit. Read more:Pentagon Still Falls Short on Jump-Starting Innovation, Audit SaysBillionaire Feinberg Says Pentagon Needs an Investor’s Savvy Only Bloomberg.com subscribers can get the Odd Lots newsletter in their inbox each week, plus unlimited access to the site and app. Subscribe at bloomberg.com/subscriptions/oddlotsSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Speaker names marked ? are inferred from speaking time and the show’s known hosts — they are not voice-verified.

• 0:00Speaker 00

  Finance is increasingly being built on digital rails. But as the adoption of virtual assets, tokenization and stable coins grows, can regulation not only keep pace but help accelerate it? Find out more later in the podcast.

• 0:16Speaker 01

  This is the Bloomberg Tech Minute brought to you by ChatGPT. I'm Carol Muster. Getting hired at SpaceX requires exceptional ability and may include having Elon Musk review a candidate's resume. So writes Bloomberg Business Week's Lauren Grush. She reports that the company culture is defined by Musk and job candidates must understand that a commitment to SpaceX means adhering to this culture and exhibiting loyalty to Elon Musk. To get hired, candidates must demonstrate their achievements from past jobs and hands-on experience matters more to recruiters than advanced degrees, with the company looking for people with raw innate intelligence. A spokesperson for SpaceX didn't respond to a request for comment on its recruiting and hiring practices.

• 0:59Speaker 01

  But according to recruiters, advisors and those who've interviewed for jobs there, it's the space exploration dream that draws people to the company. And Musk invokes that dream regularly to remind workers why they're there. Prospective hires are told that the job will require stamina, including in job ads that candidates, quote, "must be willing to work extended hours and weekends as needed." One major perk for all that hard work? Employees' access to equity, either the right to buy shares or payment in the form of restricted stock units that vest over time. That's the Bloomberg Tech Minute brought to you by ChatGPT. Get started at chatgpt.com.

• 1:39Joe Weisenthal?

  Hello, Odd Lots listeners. I'm Joe Wasenthal.

• 1:41Tracy Alloway?

  And I'm Tracy Allaway.

• 1:43Joe Weisenthal?

  Obviously, mostly, we've been talking a lot about the trade war lately, the tariffs. But there are other things going on in the world. And in fact, there are some episodes that we've recorded prior to all this that we still want to publish.

• 1:57Tracy Alloway?

  That's right. So what you are about to hear is an episode we recorded way back on March 18th. It feels like it was a lot longer ago, but it's been basically a month. And with everything that was happening in markets, all the trade announcements, the tariffs, we've had to put this one on hold, but we want you to listen to it. It's a really interesting topic and still very, very worthwhile to hear about it.

• 2:22Joe Weisenthal?

  Right. We're going to be talking about the Pentagon budget and things like that. If it feels a little dated, the conversation, that's because it is dated. But take a listen. I still think that you'll find, you know, there is still no world in which the nature of defense spending is not an important question, is not something interesting. So even with everything else going on in the world, you should take a listen.

• 2:45Tracy Alloway?

  Here we go.

• 2:49Speaker 04

  Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio, news.

• 3:04Joe Weisenthal?

  Hello and welcome to another episode of the Odd Lots Podcast. I'm Joe Wagenthall.

• 3:09Tracy Alloway?

  And I'm Tracy Alloway.

• 3:11Joe Weisenthal?

  Tracy, we've hinted on the podcast a few times over the last several months, we want to do more on defense. And we're gonna, we're gonna start ramping that up.

• 3:18Tracy Alloway?

  I don't think it's a hint, Joe. I think you've said it pretty explicitly.

• 3:20Joe Weisenthal?

  But it is interesting, right? Like it is a good, it does seem like it should be a good topic for us, right?

• 3:25Tracy Alloway?

  It's a huge chunk of the economy. I think it's like the US government's biggest line item in terms of expenditure. It's either defense or interest rate payments on its bonds.

• 3:35Joe Weisenthal?

  Yeah, that's right.

• 3:35Tracy Alloway?

  It's definitely number one or number two. And so it is worthy of additional study. I agree.

• 3:42Joe Weisenthal?

  And, you know, I think it's actually really important for us because, you know, we talk about industrial policy a lot. And defense is the one area where that is never wavered, right? Like it's always been the government is the primary buyer purchaser. But there are these private companies and they also sell overseas and stuff. And it's always been about staying at the leading edge of tech. And probably if you're like thinking about like industrial policy in other areas, like whether it's cars or batteries or semiconductors, I just assume there must be a lot that we can learn from how it works in the defense world.

• 4:18Tracy Alloway?

  As a military brat, I feel comfortable saying as well that it's kind of also connected to a social safety net.

• 4:26Joe Weisenthal?

  Yeah, that's right.

• 4:27Tracy Alloway?

  You have healthcare tied to military service. You've got cheap groceries tied to military service. I used to love that. So it's interesting from a number of perspectives. What blows me away, though, is you hear that statistic every once in a while that the Pentagon has never passed an audit, which raises all these big questions about if this is the biggest expenditure or one of the biggest expenditures for the US, how is it possible that we don't actually seem to know where the money is going?

• 4:58Joe Weisenthal?

  No, I think this is a great question, and I think that what you articulated there is just a great way of sort of entryway to understanding defense with a simple question. Because like, I've seen those headlines, so late last year, headlines Pentagon fails seventh audit in a row, and then I read the headline, but I don't know what that means. I don't know what it means to like, you know, it's not like a private company. I don't know what audits really mean in the government. I don't know if there are any consequences. I don't know why it is. Is it because of malfeasance or is it just because of its sheer size? I mean, it's, you know, the Pentagon, absolutely enormous. So I think like, yeah, we should, what does that mean that they just keep failing all these audits?

• 5:35Tracy Alloway?

  Well, it also raises an existential question of why are we even bothering to do audits if we keep getting the same results?

• 5:42Joe Weisenthal?

  That too.

• 5:43Tracy Alloway?

  And nothing seems to change.

• 5:44Joe Weisenthal?

  That too. That's a great question. Anyway, we're going to finally get some answers to at least this question of what it means that the Pentagon keeps failing audits year after year and year and what it says maybe about how we do defense spending. I'm very excited. We have the perfect guest. We're going to be speaking with Julia Gledhill. She is a researcher at the Stimson Center, has written quite a bit about this, has been recommended to me as someone to talk to about Pentagon and defense spending. So Julia, thank you so much for coming on Odd Lots.

• 6:12Speaker 05

  Thank you for the invitation. It's great to be here.

• 6:15Joe Weisenthal?

  What is a Pentagon audit? Apparently, we've never passed one, and we'll get into why. But what is it even mean for the Pentagon to get audited?

• 6:22Speaker 05

  Yeah, this is an important question. And I think Tracy is hitting the point on the nail here in that what's the point of doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result? That is, in fact, the definition of insanity. And so in thinking about what the purpose of an audit is in a Pentagon context, it's important to remember why we audit in general, right? Companies undergo audits to assure stakeholders that management is accurately presenting a company's financial performance and position. In other words, you know, audits help investors and lenders determine the financial value of a company. So how does that apply to the Pentagon? Well, the Pentagon audit assesses how well the agency is managing taxpayer dollars.

• 7:03Speaker 05

  The difference is that unlike stakeholders and companies, taxpayers can't simply opt out of funding the Pentagon when it fails an audit. But the agency-wide consolidated audit of the Department of Defense looks at DOD financial statements, but also internal controls over financial reporting, as well as compliance with relevant laws and regulations.

• 7:25Tracy Alloway?

  What does an audit actually entail for the Pentagon? Because I imagine, you know, when I think about the Pentagon, it's this huge sprawling industrial military complex. I imagine it must be quite an undertaking to try to get granular detail on where money is going.

• 7:43Speaker 05

  It absolutely is a major undertaking, which explains why the DOD has not only failed so many audits in a row, but only started to do consolidated audits agency-wide in 2018. So the Pentagon audit is done by independent public accounting firms in collaboration with the Department of Defense Inspector General Office, which is the internal watchdog within the Pentagon. And what they do is conduct independent audits of several different DOD components. These can include the military services, but also combatant commands, field activities like the Defense Logistics Agency.

• 8:25Speaker 05

  Then the Department of Defense Inspector General puts all of those independent audits together in one consolidated agency-wide audit and comes to a conclusion. Notice that I say conclusion and not opinion because in the case of failing a Pentagon audit, the Pentagon has actually received disclaimers of opinion repeatedly, which means that the agency department-wide was unable to produce the financial statements necessary for auditors to form an opinion, an audit opinion, on the quality and sort of accuracy of financial reporting throughout the agency. But it includes a lot of different components and it is indeed quite laborious.

• 9:07Joe Weisenthal?

  So the goal is for the independent firms to be able to form an opinion. And when we read a headline that says they failed the audit, it means they can't even get the documents and the financial statements together so that they can form an opinion? Like, explain to us what that word "failure" means in this context.

• 9:25Speaker 05

  Yeah, so I think that the former comptroller of the Department of Defense has explained this quite well. And in describing a disclaimer of opinion in the context of auditing, he basically said that this is a red light, right? So is an adverse opinion, which is another level of there are going to be material persistent weaknesses in financial reporting throughout DOD entities. And then you have a yellow light, which is a qualified opinion. And then you have an unmodified opinion. This is the goal in the Pentagon audit process, which is considered a green light. And only a few of DOD components have actually achieved this green light, which means that

• 10:10Speaker 05

  the financial reporting internal controls generally can be trusted and assumed to be consistently accurate.

• 10:17Tracy Alloway?

  What happens when the Pentagon actually fails an audit? Because I imagine, like, in theory, there should be consequences, but the fact that it keeps happening, as I mentioned, suggests that there probably aren't.

• 10:29Speaker 05

  Yeah, there are no consequences, much to the disappointment. Must be nice. Exactly. Imagine, imagine a company failing an audit and their investors saying, well, we're going on ahead anyways. And so, no, there are no consequences for the Pentagon when it repeatedly fails audits. And yet, the audit is supposed to give us, taxpayers, some trust that the Department of Defense is spending our money efficiently and wisely. But unfortunately, and much to the disappointment of components like the Marine Corps or the Defense Threat Reduction Agency, which have received these green lights, these unmodified

• 11:11Speaker 05

  audit opinions, they are not rewarded for receiving green lights in the auditing process. And, you know, the Marine Corps is still struggling to, you know, get their boats. So, it's an important question, and unfortunately, there are just no consequences because appropriators are not reading a 400-page audit report on the Pentagon before deciding what to spend on national defense.

• 11:37Joe Weisenthal?

  So they failed the audits, or at least they can't even put together an opinion. What's happening? Why can't they? What are they, when they're going in there and they're looking for documents and evidence that the money is being tracked roughly in accordance with how it should be and that the various divisions are, what are they seeing when they go in there that causes them to not be able to produce an opinion?

• 11:58Speaker 05

  Sure. Well, one failure point that I love to point to is DOD's difficulty in tracking property and inventory records across the military services. One of my favorite examples of why does this matter? Who cares? Why do auditors go in and look at inventory records and flag this as a weakness in their audit reports? Well, a few years ago, 2019, the Department of Defense Inspector General flagged errors in the Navy's property and inventory records. And as a result, the service ended up finding a warehouse that was mysteriously absent from its property records. And they've lost a whole warehouse.

• 12:36Joe Weisenthal?

  They lost.

• 12:37Speaker 05

  Amazing. Indeed. And inside, they've Found 126 million dollars worth of spare parts.

• 12:43Tracy Alloway?

  Wow.

• 12:43Speaker 05

  Now, in the context of the Pentagon budget, what is 126 million when we're talking about a near trillion dollars, depending on how you count it? But they found these spare parts for a number of different aircraft inside that warehouse. And they were actually able to fill over 20 million dollars in spare parts orders without having to procure new ones. And so the scale of this issue is unknown, right? Because we have a pervasive inventory and property record-keeping issues throughout DOD. And importantly, the Government Accountability Office has actually flagged inventory issues since the early 80s, since 1981.

• 13:24Speaker 05

  And this is relevant, for example, to the most expensive weapon program in US history, the F-35 fighter jet. Now, the reason I bring it up is because, you know, okay, you have an example of the Navy finding all these aircraft parts and being able to fill orders. So what does that mean in the context of a now two trillion dollar weapon acquisition program, which is the F-35? Wow. Well, you have the GAO, the Government Accountability Office, saying that F-35 parts in the possession of contractors are likely significantly understated. So the government has all these spare parts. They're government-owned, but typically possessed, controlled by contractors. And the GAO has flagged this issue for a long time because it means we could be over

• 14:09Speaker 05

  by on spare parts as a country. The Department of Defense Inspector General has likewise expressed this concern and in 2021, found that, you know, the Army, for example, was forecasting spare parts needs and was only accurate 20% of the time. Again, why does that matter? Because they ended up overstating how many spare parts the Army needed by over 200 million dollars. The military writ large, all the services together, actually overshot their spare parts needs by nearly a billion dollars. So this matters when you can't keep track of your property in the possession of contractors.

• 14:45Tracy Alloway?

  It must matter from an operational or execution perspective as well, right? If there was a military emergency and we can't find the spare parts that we need because we've never been able to track them, it's problematic.

• 14:58Speaker 05

  Oh, absolutely. I mean, you look back to the early years of the war on terror. I mean, I meet a lot of veterans who, when I talk to them about these issues, they say, oh, yeah, we were hiding, you know, parts to maintain our equipment in our bunks because we had no assurances that we were going to be able to maintain, to repair the equipment that we need to do our jobs. So it is a readiness issue and one that the DOD absolutely needs to rectify.

• 15:42Speaker 00

  What's next for virtual assets? I'm Jacob Rees, host of Economy Scale, a series exploring growth in key global sectors. And in this episode, we're diving into the digital forces shaping finance. Sean McHugh from the Dubai-based Virtual Assets Regulatory Authority has this to say.

• 15:58Speaker 06

  We're seeing a lot of insocial players come in, digital asset dedicated hedge funds, high-frequency traders and that sort of thing, and folks who service insocial clients.

• 16:06Speaker 00

  As more capital enters the market, adaptive regulation is likely to become increasingly key. Reese Merrick of Ripple says.

• 16:14Speaker 07

  A lot of regulators globally would like to keep the industry at arm's length. That's the opposite here. I think also what you'll find is that regulation and frameworks can come out, but some of them are maybe a slight iteration on some 80-year-old policy and not actually in line with what the technology can do and offer. And again, that's very different in Dubai.

• 16:33Speaker 00

  Listen to the full episode wherever you get your podcasts. This series is brought to you by Bloomberg Media Studios and the Dubai Department of Economy and Tourism.

• 16:44Speaker 01

  This is the Bloomberg Tech Minute, brought to you by ChatGPT. I'm Carol Muster. Getting hired at SpaceX requires exceptional ability and may include having Elon Musk review a candidate's resume. So writes Bloomberg Businessweek's Lauren Grush. She reports that the company culture is defined by Musk and job candidates must understand that a commitment to SpaceX means adhering to this culture and exhibiting loyalty to Elon Musk. Elon Musk. To get hired, candidates must demonstrate their achievements from past jobs. And hands-on experience matters more to recruiters than advanced degrees, with the company looking for people with raw, innate intelligence. A spokesperson for SpaceX didn't respond to a request for comment on its recruiting and hiring practices.

• 17:27Speaker 01

  But according to recruiters, advisors, and those who've interviewed for jobs there, it's the space exploration dream that draws people to the company. And Musk invokes that dream regularly to remind workers why they're there. Prospective hires are told that the job will require stamina, including in job ads that candidates, quote, "must be willing to work extended hours and weekends as needed." One major perk for all that hard work? Employees' access to equity, either the right to buy shares or payment in the form of restricted stock units that vest over time. That's the Bloomberg Tech Minute, brought to you by ChatGPT. Get started at ChatGPT.com.

• 18:07Joe Weisenthal?

  I have to imagine that if one of the problems is sort of implied here about overordering spare parts, I would guess that the major weapons suppliers, the defense contractors, don't really mind that problem.

• 18:20Speaker 05

  That's exactly right, Joe. In fact, the DOD has actually requested inventory records from Lockheed Martin before for the F-35 program. And Lockheed Martin said, oh, well, it's going to cost us a bunch of money to track down this information and provide the reports, essentially disincentivizing the government from requiring that in the military contract, right? And I wrote a piece about this a couple of years ago. And it's insane because you have contractors who have government-owned property in their possession, but they control all of the tracking mechanisms. And even when government asks, they say, oh, well, what are you paying us to provide you with information about government-owned property?

• 19:04Tracy Alloway?

  Just on the contractor point, I always wonder about this. But who does the US actually compete against when it's buying military stuff? Because I would think with a trillion-dollar budget for defense, the US is probably putting in the biggest orders. And so could they, in theory, dictate the price or at least ask for a volume discount or something? I mean, on the F-35s, for instance, like, the US has hundreds now versus other countries that have, I think, a few dozen.

• 19:37Speaker 05

  Yeah, so this is the problem with a monopsony market, right? You have

• 19:40Tracy Alloway?

  Monopsony klaxon. Sorry, that's a, that's a trigger word for us.

• 19:47Speaker 05

  You have one buyer, but you also, in a lot of cases, have one seller. And that is the genius of the arms industry, right? With the F-35 program, they have politically engineered it such that it exists in, I think, all 50 states now. Lockheed Martin has an interactive map, so someone can fact check me, but it is like 46, if not all 50 at this point.

• 20:10Joe Weisenthal?

  So every politician in America has some reason to preserve the status quo because they have workers. Is that the idea here?

• 20:18Speaker 05

  That's exactly right. Because jobs, even though we know that military spending is a lousy jobs creator in comparison to other types of government spending.

• 20:28Joe Weisenthal?

  So, you know, I guess if the Pentagon has failed seven audits in a row, I guess by implication, eight years ago or nine years ago, there was no mandate for an audit, period, because it must be a relatively new thing. Can you talk to us a little bit about how that came about, the requirement to audit, and how the military contractors sort of try to shape the process of tracking acquisition?

• 20:54Speaker 05

  Sure. So this is a question I get a lot. Was there accountability before the Pentagon started consolidated agency-wide audits? So the answer is yes, but not to the same extent that we have today. So in 1990, Congress passed the Chief Financial Officers Act, which required federal agencies to prepare financial statements for audit. And the DOD submitted, you know, component financial statements to the DOD IG for that purpose, but did not undergo the thorough audit that we see today. And in fact, the number of components included in the agency-wide audit tends to vary a

• 21:39Speaker 05

  little bit every year. Sometimes it's 28, sometimes it's 27. But it is absolutely true that contractors shape nearly every aspect of defense policy because of their power. An influence on Capitol Hill and a major lever for that power and influence is in fact the sort of jobs creation that they lean on for these weapon programs. And I actually think it's an interesting question because now you see the current Secretary of Defense Hegseth really embracing the audit in his quest to improve military readiness. And on its face, that is a noble and worthy goal, right?

• 22:23Speaker 05

  It remains to be seen how that actually shakes out in this administration. I only hope for the best and very much encourage the administration to take this seriously because I do think that it matters again when you have, for example, military services overbuying spare parts at the expense of the taxpayer. However, I think that it's noteworthy when you see news a month ago about the secretary saying, okay, we're doing budget reshuffling to reorder DOD funding and channel it toward Trump's priorities, President Trump's priorities. And one of those exemptions from potential reductions in these budget reshufflings was the audit. Of course, so was nuclear modernization and many other things.

• 23:07Speaker 05

  And that is important for military readiness and we actually should work toward passing an audit. However, it's important to note that even if the DOD passes an audit, that doesn't justify the money that the DOD is spending because we should be able to achieve more for less. And we have not seen that in recent decades.

• 23:26Tracy Alloway?

  Right. Just on this note, I kind of want to back up and ask a big picture question, but you know, Joe alluded in the intro to the fact that defense spending has historically been, it's always been there. It's always been with us and it's always been pretty big. I know that you can benchmark it to GDP and it's come down as a percentage of GDP, but I think we can all agree that 1 trillion is still a pretty big number. So why did that happen? And why is it that we just accept that defense is kind of untouchable or by its nature going to be this huge line item?

• 24:05Speaker 05

  I'm so glad you brought up percent of GDP. I love to talk about this. I Think that it's one of those macro indicators that conceals more than it reveals, right? So the distribution of military spending has changed a lot over time. But we're so beholden to this idea of a gigantic military budget to keep Americans safe because of its legacy after World War II in bringing the United States out of sort of the trenches of the Great Depression and stimulating the economy. Of course, any significant government spending would stimulate the economy and sort of offset the effects of underconsumption.

• 24:46Speaker 05

  And yet, we've just been sort of ingratiated with this idea that military spending is so integral to our economic growth, when in fact, there's a lot of economic research out there that says, you know, sort of ever-expanding military budgets can have a depressive effect on long-term economic growth. Why? Because it impacts productivity, right? Right. So World War II, the sort of narrative in sort of dominant historical discourse is we have this productivity miracle. No, it was a production miracle. We spent a bunch of money on military-industrial output, but that had a depressive impact on productivity over time.

• 25:28Speaker 05

  So I argue that this is actually bad for the economy long-term. But we are, as a country, I think, so dedicated to this idea that the military budget is sort of a core part of our economic engine. Mm-hmm. And unfortunately, that's not true anymore because, again, the distribution has changed over time. It's a lot more capital-intensive. It's not necessarily this sort of vehicle of upward economic mobility that it used to be because it's not as focused on labor. Of course, yes, you have the GI Bill. Yes, you can get a free education. That's all very important and good, and we should absolutely do that. But we're spending more and more money on research and development and procurement. Who does that benefit? It benefits electrical engineers, not the working man.

• 26:10Tracy Alloway?

  So just on this note, in preparing for this episode and looking you up, I noticed that for your undergraduate thesis, you did an econometric study to test the relative impacts of various types of defense spending on income inequality. That seems really interesting. I don't know if you remember your undergrad days or your work, but what did you find in that?

• 26:36Speaker 05

  So I actually just gave you the short pitch on my paper, which did find, and I had an R squared of 96%, so explanatory value was good. But I tested this hypothesis that military spending is good for jobs, good for people, good for the economy. And I did that by disaggregating the base budget into the major categories, some of which I just described: research and development, procurement, personnel, operations and maintenance, you know, the big ones. And I actually found that procurement and research and development had exacerbated income inequality over the eight years of the Obama administration. That was my time span. And I actually know someone at an academic institution writing on the same exact topic

• 27:20Speaker 05

  now, so I'm very happy that that person will be soon publishing a paper, because I did not publish mine. But yeah, I mean, I wanted to test this idea that military spending is good for the economy, and it's military keenness, right? This is the idea that we've all been fed, and I think that lawmakers really grasp onto because it's a convenient veil for what are frankly often conflicts of interest, whether that be congressional members owning and trading stocks, or receiving campaign finance from arms manufacturers. And I think it really distorts the way that we talk about defense policy, the military, and its role in our economy.

• 28:02Joe Weisenthal?

  If I could play devil's advocate for a second, one of the major sources of anxiety right now in the US economy is not about jobs, although maybe the labor market is weak. But the unemployment rate is still kind of low. It's mostly this concern that the US is not at the technological cutting edge in many areas that are at least in some way adjacent to the military. And of course, you know, people love to tell you it's like Silicon Valley got started off, you know, from it was all military funding and that's why we have chips. And that's why we have compact chips and small computers because they needed to be put in small spaces, et cetera. When you talk about all of the R and D spending that they do,

• 28:44Joe Weisenthal?

  or even the capital expenditure, isn't that like when we think about productivity, do we get positive spillovers from the research that's being done by today's weapons manufacturers that are then transmitted to the rest of the economy?

• 28:58Speaker 05

  Yeah, this is something I've really been grappling with. I'm writing a paper right now on the defense industrial base.

• 29:03Joe Weisenthal?

  Yeah.

• 29:04Speaker 05

  And you're absolutely right. I mean, industrial policy is super hot right now. Of course, like Robert Reich, I think, said this in the 90s, industrial policy is back. But the thing is, we've always had industrial policy for military contractors. To your point, Silicon Valley wouldn't exist without DARPA and ARPA E grants. And in my view, I sort of see this in the context of our economic resilience and vitality long term. Okay, I'm an elder Zoomer. I'm pretty much the oldest you can be and still claim to be Gen Z. And I think about my future and I see military investment

• 29:41Speaker 05

  as mortgaging our futures on exquisite expensive platforms, even in the software realm. That's not to say that I don't think there isn't innovation happening. I think, you know, in the context of the audit, for example, it's important that we have internal controls around the development of and reporting of sort of more cyber physical capabilities in a military context, software programs. I'm not convinced that private industry is necessarily going to make the leaps and bounds that we did as a country two decades ago, three decades ago today.

• 30:24Speaker 05

  And the reason for that is because I don't think that venture capital is necessarily driven by.

• 30:32Speaker 05

  Innovation and spillover into the civilian economy, they are driven by profit motive and the ability to return value to shareholders, right? This is the legacy of VC and Silicon Valley and the way that the government has always shaped the market through R and D funding, right? They jump in right before a product goes to commercial market if in fact you are working on something that is dual use and then they leave after the IPO. So in some ways, I see the government has always been the risk taker because they're the ones that fund the basic research. So I don't have fully baked thoughts on this, but I think that it's critical for the government to continue shaping the risky investments that we need to do true innovation and in

• 31:17Speaker 05

  my view, combat the climate crisis in sort of new innovative ways.

• 31:38Speaker 01

  This is the Bloomberg Tech Minute brought to you by ChatGPT. I'm Carol Muster. Getting hired at SpaceX requires exceptional ability and may include having Elon Musk review a candidate's resume. So writes Bloomberg Business Week's Lauren Grush. She reports that the company culture is defined by Musk and job candidates must understand that a commitment to SpaceX means adhering to this culture and exhibiting loyalty to Elon Musk. To get hired, candidates must demonstrate their achievements from past jobs and hands-on experience matters more to recruiters than advanced degrees, with the company looking for people with raw innate intelligence. A spokesperson for SpaceX didn't respond to a request for comment on its recruiting

• 32:20Speaker 01

  and hiring practices, but according to recruiters, advisors and those who've interviewed for jobs there, it's the space exploration dream that draws people to the company and Musk invokes that dream regularly to remind workers why they're there. Prospective hires are told that the job will require stamina, including in job ads that candidates quote, "must be willing to work extended hours and weekends as needed." One major perk for all that hard work? Employees' access to equity, either the right to buy shares or payment in the form of restricted stock units that vest over time. That's the Bloomberg Tech Minute brought to you by ChatGPT. Get started at ChatGPT.com.

• 33:01Joe Weisenthal?

  Tracy, I think this is like a really key point, which is just as Julia was putting it, which is that like really like long-term industrial capacity type innovation does not strike me as particularly compatible with the types of returns that either public markets or VC investors expect. And we talk about this in the context of nuclear anywhere, in this idea that like the payoff timelines and the risks do not seem in alignment with the opportunities set for private sector investors.

• 33:32Tracy Alloway?

  Right. It seems like a big risk with a lot of capital expenditure, which the private sector notoriously shies away from. Okay, I forgot to ask one really granular question on the audits. And I read that there's something called an unfunded priority list, which as far as I can tell, seems to be like just a wish list of extra budgetary items that the Pentagon didn't include in its official budget request. What is that? And what's the point of having a budget if you can just have like another budget on top of it?

• 34:07Speaker 05

  You described it perfectly, Tracy. It is in fact a wish list of extra budgetary items that the DOD not only didn't ask for in its budget request to Congress, but also did not have to provide justification documents for. And so you see the services manipulate the UPL process, the wish list process, in order to make it look like their budgets aren't as big as they actually are. We've seen the Navy do this with destroyers. I mean, it is absolute blasphemy. I think it's a slap in the face to taxpayers and to the rest of the federal government. You've seen some members of Congress, I believe Tim Kaine has suggested, oh, well, why don't we have civilian agencies also statutorily required

• 34:50Speaker 05

  to submit unfunded priority lists? Look, if it's not in your budget, it is not a priority and we do not need to standardize or normalize. What I consider to be a pretty undemocratic aversion of the budget process.

• 35:06Joe Weisenthal?

  Talk to us a little bit more about the fights right now going on Capitol Hill. Setting aside the assumption that defense contractors always want more spending. What are some of the tension points or the fights that are happening about sort of guardrails on spending or other issues relate or maybe related to the audit? Like, what are the fights right now about?

• 35:27Speaker 05

  Yeah, so, I mean, obviously, we just averted a government shutdown. So the CR, the continuing resolution, has taken over everybody's minds in the last couple of weeks here. And sort of the next big fight is the budget reconciliation process. I'm sure listeners are familiar with that. If they listen to this podcast. It is also a mechanism through which to avoid regular order and thereby the filibuster in the Senate and add potentially hundreds of billions of dollars to the military budget. And then after that, we have the National Defense Authorization Act, the annual defense policy bill. That sets the top line for military spending in this country. It is just whammy after whammy in 2025. I sort of can't believe that it's only March

• 36:12Speaker 05

  because it feels like it has been months since this year began. But, you know, we have a couple of things going on. We have a fight for incredible military budget increases through reconciliation. And then in the Defense Policy Bill and the NDAA, we have a pretty coordinated effort industry-wide that is supported by many members of Congress to essentially gut the weapon acquisition process. Now, why would contractors want this?

• 36:40Joe Weisenthal?

  Yeah, explain that.

• 36:41Speaker 05

  Yeah, it's part of a decades-long effort to eliminate oversight guardrails in the budgeting and acquisition process at DOD. And the justification for it is we need to prepare for a war with China, which if you subscribe to that frame of foreign policy, which I consider to be a bit reactive, why would we base our foreign policy on another country? Right? Like, why would we do that? Wouldn't we want a positive vision of? What the US wants and how we are going to navigate the world. But if you subscribe to that vision, then it makes a lot of sense. Okay, we're gonna lift the pesky red tape so that industry can better sell

• 37:24Speaker 05

  weapon acquisition programs to the Pentagon, do it faster and more and sort of eliminate the milestones at which the DOD is able to decide, hey, do we really need this? Are we going to need it in five years? Is it cost effective? Is it filling a capability gap? Could we do it cheaper? Is there competition? And there are a couple of ways that they're doing this, but you know, acquisition reform writ large is sort of, I think, another big fight. And it's interesting because the Silicon Valley tech firms have actually jumped on board with this as well.

• 37:54Tracy Alloway?

  Yeah. What would be your recommendation for reform of defense spending? Like, imagine you're Hegseth. What would you like? What's number one on your list?

• 38:05Speaker 05

  Gosh, this is hard. I think I will pick an area that I think Trump could be instinctually open to. And that is reining in nuclear expansion. And I say expansion rather than nuclear modernization because I think that's a mischaracterization of what's going on. About a month ago, you saw President Trump say, I want to pursue arms control agreements with Russia and China and with the ultimate goal of cutting our respective military budgets in half. Now, I think that his heart was in the right place, if only for a moment. Because of course, a week later, nuclear modernization, as I mentioned before, was

• 38:47Speaker 05

  exempted from the potential budget reductions that Hegseth talked about. It's not a reduction of the military budget top line, but rather a reshuffling of funds. That area was protected against potential reshuffling. But what I would do is rein in nuclear expansion spending. I do not think that we need to be Investing in the modernization of all three legs of the nuclear triad. I would argue for just the sea leg of the nuclear triad. There's no reason we need to be doubling down on the land-based leg of our nuclear arsenal, the Sentinel program, for a bunch of reasons, not least of which is the fact that the program has experienced 81% cost growth since 2020.

• 39:32Speaker 05

  It's not the most accurate nuclear weapon we have in our arsenal anymore. And the program just has a bunch of issues that the DOD has not been able to resolve. And so if I could say one thing, I would probably say cancel the Sentinel program, which would save a lot of money. And you could argue that it's helpful in terms of de-escalating tensions with other nuclear powers. I will just wrap this by saying that our pursuit of nuclear expansion across the board in our nuclear enterprise has inspired other nuclear powers to do the same.

• 40:06Joe Weisenthal?

  I just have one last, very quick question. Do you think it's plausible that in the next four years, the Pentagon will pass an audit? Is it conceivable?

• 40:13Speaker 05

  Don't they have a target by like 2028 or something?

• 40:16Joe Weisenthal?

  Do you see it happening?

• 40:18Speaker 05

  I'm not optimistic, no.

• 40:20Joe Weisenthal?

  Why?

• 40:21Speaker 05

  They have 11 components of the DOD that have received unmodified opinions, and it has been a painstakingly slow process. I am not terribly optimistic that they're going to bring that number to 100% of components audited at DOD in addition to the agency-wide audit. I would love to be wrong.

• 40:43Joe Weisenthal?

  Well, we'll see. Maybe we'll have you back on in four years. Or as soon as we get the next, when we get a pass, we'll chat with you and we'll see what they did to accomplish that. Julia Gledhill, thank you so much for coming on Ov lots. Really appreciate you taking your time.

• 40:57Speaker 05

  Thank you for having me.

• 41:10Joe Weisenthal?

  Tracy, I'm really glad we did that episode. You know, like when I hear those defense specialists like rattle off the names of the different weapons programs or the different legs of the nuclear triad, I have like, no, I, you know, I really lose it. So it's this enormous, complex thing, but I thought that was just like really helpful in getting a sort of simple answer to a basic question, particularly like things like, you know, the fact that the government doesn't know what's in its own warehouses.

• 41:37Tracy Alloway?

  Right. Well, Julia explained everything really well, but I still find it slightly unbelievable that there's all this money going in and out of the Pentagon and we seem unable to track it and no one really knows where it is. No one really has a full picture of the assets, the stuff sitting in warehouses, as you just mentioned. It's kind of crazy.

• 41:58Joe Weisenthal?

  Do you keep a really good personal budget?

• 42:00Tracy Alloway?

  Oh, no.

• 42:01Joe Weisenthal?

  So then like, can't you like sort of super fast with the Pentagon?

• 42:04Tracy Alloway?

  But I don't need to because I can just look at like my one bank account, right?

• 42:08Joe Weisenthal?

  Yeah.

• 42:09Tracy Alloway?

  And stuff going in and out.

• 42:11Joe Weisenthal?

  That's true. I guess I'm not totally surprised, right? I mean, it is insane. To me, it's also just very interesting too, the sort of interplay with all that and just the incredible infrastructure around lobbying and, oh, we have manufacturing in all 50 states, or maybe it's 48 states, or maybe it's 46 states. Like, how complete of a package the defense contractors have put together to make it so politically difficult to really meaningfully turn the dials on either the volume or just the approach to procurement.

• 42:42Tracy Alloway?

  Yeah. And on that note, the unfunded priority list, like the, the extra budget on top of the existing budget is kind of funny.

• 42:50Joe Weisenthal?

  Fascinating. We, I, let's, there's plenty more to dive into. I thought this was a great entry point.

• 42:55Tracy Alloway?

  Yep. More to come. Shall we leave it there for now?

• 42:58Joe Weisenthal?

  Let's leave it there.

• 42:59Tracy Alloway?

  This has been another episode of the Odd Lots Podcast. I'm Tracy Alockway. You can follow me at Tracy Alockway.

• 43:04Joe Weisenthal?

  And I'm Joe Weisenthal. You can follow me at the Stalwart. Follow our guest, Julia Gledhill. She's at Julia Gledhill. Follow our producers, Carmen Rodriguez at Carmen Armin, Dashell Bennett at Dashbot, and Kale Brooks at Kale Brooks. For more Odd Lots content, go to Bloomberg.com/oddlots, where we have all of our episodes and a daily newsletter. And you can chat about all of these topics with fellow listeners in our Discord, discord.gg/oddlots.

• 43:29Tracy Alloway?

  And if you enjoy All Lots, if you like it when we dig into the defense industry, then please leave us a positive review on your favorite podcast platform. And remember, if you are a Bloomberg subscriber, you can listen to all of our episodes absolutely ad-free. All you need to do is find the Bloomberg channel on Apple Podcasts and follow the instructions there. Thanks for listening.

• 44:22Speaker 08

  Empower is all about helping you invest well, so you can go out and live a little. And their Free Empower Personal Dashboard shows you your full financial life in one place. You'll be able to see your net worth, monitor budgets, analyze your portfolio, set retirement goals, and more. Whether you're saving for something big, want to treat yourself, friends, or family, or meet long-term goals, Empower helps you see where you stand. You've worked hard for your money, and Empower can help you make the most of it. Download the Empower Personal Dashboard or visit empower.com. Not an Empower client paid or sponsored.

• 44:54Speaker 09

  She's been thinking about this sleepover all week, but I think about her food allergies all the time. Fortunately, her doctor prescribed Zolair, omalizumab. It's proven to significantly reduce allergic reactions if a food allergy accident happens.

• 45:07Speaker 10

  Zolair 150mg is a prescription medication used to treat food allergy in people one year of age and older to reduce allergic reactions due to accidental exposure to one of more foods. While taking Zolair, you should continue to avoid all foods to which you are allergic. Don't use if you are allergic to Zolair. Zolair may cause a severe, life-threatening allergic reaction called anaphylaxis. Tell your doctor if you ever had anaphylaxis. Get help right away if you have trouble breathing or if you have swelling of your throat or tongue. Zolair should not be used for the emergency treatment of allergic reactions, including anaphylaxis. Zolair is for maintenance use to reduce allergic reactions, including anaphylaxis, while avoiding food allergens. Serious side effects such as cancer, fever, muscle aches and rash, parasitic infection, or heart and circulation problems have been reported. Please see zolair.com for full prescribing information. Ask an allergist

• 45:49Speaker 10

  about Zolair. This is an advertisement for Zolair, paid for by Genentech and Novartis.