What Would You Do with a Pentagon-Sized Check?

I’ve been asking tough questions on LinkedIn — the kind that get defense insiders thinking beyond the beltway. From AI investments to acquisition reform and rare earth supply chains, it can be informative to know how your peers would shape the future of U.S. defense strategy if they had a say (and $150 billion to spend). Maybe it will challenge the validity of your own internal pulse.

If You Had $150 Billion to Shape Defense Strategy, Where Would It Go?

That’s not just a budget number — it’s a statement of national priorities. I recently asked my LinkedIn audience: If given the opportunity, where should $150 billion in defense funds be directed?

A. Industrial Base & Munitions
B. Indo-Pacific & Global Posture
C. AI & Autonomy
D. Shipbuilding

The response was clear: 40% said AI & Autonomy. In an era where algorithmic warfare, autonomous systems, and data dominance are reshaping the battlespace, this vote reflects a belief in pushing toward future-forward capabilities. Industrial Base & Munitions followed with 28%—a reminder that no amount of tech matters if our stockpiles can’t meet demand. Indo-Pacific & Global Posture and Shipbuilding rounded out the poll with 17% and 15%, respectively.

The takeaway? Tech is winning the imagination war — but logistics and global positioning are still in play, while awareness of the shipbuilding challenge has never been more acute.

Modern Threats, Outdated Systems: What Should We Fix First?

America’s defense acquisition system was built for a different era. But, as threats evolve faster than programs can be fielded, urgency is building for reform.
So, I asked: What’s the most urgent priority to modernize U.S. defense acquisitions?

A. Replace legacy processes like JCIDS with outcome-driven models
B. Embrace rapid prototyping and tech innovation from smaller firms
C. Shift to two-year budget cycle
D. Create more fast-pass entry mechanisms for new technologies

Results were tight. Embracing rapid prototyping and tech innovation from smaller firms led with 32%, suggesting that my audience believes disruptive solutions won’t come from legacy contractors alone. Right behind, at 28%, was Creating more fast-pass entry mechanisms for new technologies—pointing to frustration with bureaucracy blocking innovation. Replacing legacy processes and Shifting to a two-year budget cycle each earned 20%, reinforcing the idea that deep structural reforms still matter, but may take longer to implement.

Innovation isn’t just about new tech —
it’s about the systems that can absorb it quickly.

Supply Chain Sabotage? Rare Earths and National Security

China’s tightening grip on rare earth exports sparked a critical question: How should the U.S. defense industry respond to this growing dependency?

A. Invest in domestic mining and processing
B. Diversify imports through allied nations
C. Develop alternative materials and technologies
D. Establish strategic stockpiles and reserves

My audience voted for Diversifying imports through allied nations at 37%, showing a strong preference for coalition-based resilience. Developing alternative materials and technologies followed at 26%, while Investing in domestic mining pulled 24% — a close third, but likely reflective of environmental, regulatory, and infrastructure hurdles. Establishing strategic stockpiles was seen as the least sustainable solution, earning 13%.

Bottom line: The era of supply chain diplomacy is here — and the U.S. must choose its dependencies wisely. Even allies must rely on China for rare earths in the near term.

The Budget Squeeze is Real — Now What?

Flat budgets. Endless continuing resolutions. A growing threat landscape. The Pentagon’s modernization goals are being tested by a lack of predictable funding.

So, I posted another question: What’s the most critical step to ensure the U.S. military stays competitive and ready for the future?

A. Pass timely, full-year appropriations bills
B. Substantially increase the defense topline
C. Prioritize modernization over other expenses
D. Improve flexibility with existing budgets

46% of respondents said Improve flexibility within existing budgets — signaling that agility may be more powerful than just more money. Prioritize modernization over other expenses came in at 35%, reinforcing that the “what” is often more important than the “how much.” Meanwhile, Passing full-year appropriations (17%) and Increasing the topline (a distant fourth) show that while stability and growth are valued, they don’t outweigh the need to spend smarter.

The FY25 full-year continuing resolution was historic in its scope and loosening of authorities, allowing the executive branch considerable flexibility.

Let’s keeping the conversation going…

What Happens When the Budget Hits $1 Trillion?

Currently, the U.S. government seems poised to request its first $1 trillion defense budget for FY26. I asked LinkedIn what the consensus was on this historic milestone:

A. A necessary investment in national security
B. Too much – defense needs more fiscal discipline
C. Depends on how the money is allocated
D. Still waiting to see the full budget details

28% of voters are Still waiting to see the full budget details, while a slightly smaller 27% think it Depends on how the money is allocated. 24% considered this amount Too much, lacking fiscal discipline, and 21% thought it was A necessary investment in national security.

The classic “manager’s dilemma,” wanting more information—really?

Which Procurement Reform Will Move the Needle?

Next, I asked: Which reform would have the greatest impact on modernizing defense procurement?

A. Greater use of Other Transaction Authorities (OTAs)
B. Streamlining internal regulations and requirements
C. Prioritizing commercial tech and software solutions
D. Better training for acquisition officials

47% thought Streamlining internal regulations and requirements was the right solution. 24% considered Prioritizing commercial tech and software solutions as the best path forward, with 17% voting for Greater use of Other Transaction Authorities (OTAs), and 12% selecting Better training for acquisition officials.

I thought DOGE had this for action, no?

The Pentagon’s 8% Realignment: Wise Cuts or Strategic Risks?

With the Pentagon planning an 8% budget realignment for FY26 and the DOGE reviewing for waste, I polled for where the community was landing. Were people finding themselves:

A. Supportive – Realigning funds to focus on defense capabilities makes sense
B. Skeptical – Cutting areas like DEI and climate could have unintended consequences
C. Mixed – Efficiency is key, but lack of clarity on cuts is concerning
D. Opposed – These risks undermining long-term military resilience for short-term gains

A 39% majority was Supportive, with 31% Opposed, 26% Mixed, and just 4% were Skeptical.

I think the audience got this right, but the actions aren’t yet aligned with the stated policy.

Tariffs & Defense: What’s the Cost?

I moved the conversation to another hot topic – tariffs. I asked: How do you think the proposed tariffs on materials like steel, aluminum, and rare earths will impact the U.S. defense industry?

A. Increase costs and delays, hurting military programs
B. Create a mixed outcome – some benefits, some drawbacks
C. Boost domestic manufacturing and strengthen national security
D. Have little to no significant impact

51% said tariffs would Increase costs and delays, hurting military programs. A smaller 34% thought tariffs would Create a mixed outcome. Just 11% believed tariffs would Boost domestic manufacturing and strengthen national security, and 4% felt tariffs would Have little to no significant impact.

All economists concur that tariffs increase prices.

AI Strategy: Build or Buy?

To wrap up the poll results, I circled back to the headline event of current defense strategy – AI. I posed the question: When it comes to generative AI for DoD, should the focus be on building in-house solutions or buying from commercial providers? The choices were:

A. Build in-house – prioritize control and customization for DoD needs
B. Buy commercial – leverage innovation and speed from private sector
C. Hybrid approach – combine in-house development with commercial solutions
D. Neither – focus R&D on mission-specific applications, not broad AI platforms

50% of voters supported a Hybrid approach, combining in-house development with commercial solutions. 24% said Build in-house, while 15% preferred to Buy commercial. 12% selected Neither, signaling a desire to tailor R&D toward narrowly defined, mission-specific outcomes.

We must continue to develop executive branch talent that can adequately assess the technologies it’s responsible for acquiring.