The article examines Michael Horowitz’s endorsement of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s ambitious acquisition reforms, explains why both men see speed as vital to countering China, and outlines the failures of past Pentagon programs that reformers say the changes aim to fix.
Michael Horowitz, who led rapid capability efforts in the Biden Pentagon, told reporters he believes Secretary Hegseth’s acquisition overhaul is both urgently needed and non-partisan. He warned that America must accelerate how it adopts innovation to keep the military dominant and ready to deter or defeat China’s forces.
Hegseth has openly embraced a higher tolerance for programmatic risk as a trade-off for faster operational capability. “We mean to increase acquisition risk in order to decrease operational risk,” he said, framing the reforms as a deliberate shift away from a process that prioritizes paperwork over warfighting advantage.
Horowitz has argued the same point in public briefings and essays, urging acceptance of more risk in defense buying to break long development timelines. “Accelerating innovation adoption at speed and scale to ensure the American military remains the best in the world, and is prepared to deter or defeat China’s military in particular, is urgent and non-partisan,” he said, repeating the core rationale behind the push for change.
The proposed overhaul aims to slash procurement timelines dramatically by jettisoning much of the existing rulebook that defenders say slows programs to a crawl. The strategy includes strict deadlines and scorecards for prototypes, initial operational capability, and production ramps, with an emphasis on using AI tools to sort bids and prioritize vendors able to meet compressed schedules.
Reformers point to the strategic danger posed by China’s rapid shipbuilding and modernization as proof that tweaks are insufficient. China’s naval force has grown sharply in recent years, and its pace of production is often cited as far outstripping the U.S. system’s ability to respond under current rules and timelines.
Long-running Pentagon programs provide the cautionary tales driving the reforms. Programs that consumed tens of billions of dollars and decades of effort delivered little or delayed capability, which critics say resulted from requirements creep, political pressure, and a risk-averse acquisition culture. Reformers say the new approach is designed to favor working systems and move resources away from failing projects.
Part of Hegseth’s plan creates empowered Portfolio Acquisition Executives who can kill failing programs and reallocate funds to ones that are actually delivering results. Horowitz endorsed that idea bluntly: “Frankly, the thing that will make the PAEs successful is if they are able to move on from projects that aren’t working and reallocate funds to projects that are working to get capabilities out faster.”
Supporters argue the reform is not about gutting accountability but about changing norms so accountability centers on delivering capability to troops rather than protecting legacy contractors. They say the current regime often shields incumbents and entrenches slow processes, which in wartime could leave soldiers facing inferior or outdated gear.
Opponents in Congress have warned the changes could erode testing rigor, accountability, and workforce stability, framing speed as potentially reckless. Horowitz and other advocates counter that the stakes of falling behind a strategic peer like China justify accepting operational risk to get modern systems into the field sooner.
Reform proponents emphasize the need to change not just procurement speed but also what the Defense Department buys, pushing for a more agile, competitive market that delivers emerging technologies such as hypersonics, artificial intelligence systems, and unmanned swarms faster. “Implementing these reforms successfully requires following through on the promise to not just change how we are buying things, but to change what we are buying,” Horowitz said, signaling a broader cultural shift beyond procedural fixes.
If the reforms succeed, supporters say the result will be a military able to field cutting-edge capabilities in years instead of decades; if they fail, critics warn the status quo will continue to produce costly, late programs that leave gaps in national defense. The debate now centers on whether urgent change can be managed without sacrificing necessary safeguards and on whether new authorities will have the political backing to reshape the acquisition landscape.
Add comment