Updated January 24, 2020
Defense Primer: Budgeting for National and Defense
Intelligence
Introduction
as Tactical Intelligence and Related Activities (TIARA) and
Intelligence Community (IC) programs include the
managed separately by the Secretary of Defense. TIARA
resources (money and manpower) to accomplish IC goals
referred to the intelligence activities “of a single service”
and responsibilities as defined by the U.S. Code and
that were considered organic to military units. In 1994,
Executive Order 12333. IC programs are funded through
Congress created a new category called the Joint Military
the: (1) National Intelligence Program (NIP), which covers
Intelligence Program (JMIP) for defense-wide intelligence
the programs, projects, and activities of the IC oriented
programs. In 2005, the Secretary of Defense signed a
towards the strategic requirements of policymakers, and (2)
memorandum that merged TIARA and JMIP to form the
Military Intelligence Program (MIP), which funds defense
MIP. DOD Directive 5205.12, signed in November 2008,
intelligence activities intended to support tactical military
established policies and assigned responsibilities, to include
requirements and operations. The Director of National
the USD(I)’s role as program executive of the MIP, acting
Intelligence (DNI) and the Under Secretary of Defense for
on behalf of the Secretary of Defense.
Intelligence (USD(I)) manage the NIP and MIP,
respectively, under different authorities.
The IC established organizing principles called “Rules of
the Road” to loosely explain the two budget programs’
NIP and MIP Spending
different but related structures. A program is primarily NIP
At the present time only the NIP topline figure must be
if it funds an activity that supports more than one
publicly disclosed based on a directive in statute. The DNI
department or agency (such as satellite imagery), or
is not required to disclose any other information concerning
provides a service of common concern for the IC (such as
the NIP budget, whether the information concerns particular
secure communications). The NIP funds the Central
intelligence agencies or particular intelligence programs.
Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the strategic intelligence
The Secretary of Defense also discloses annual MIP
activities associated with the National Security Agency
appropriations figures back to 2007. For Fiscal Year (FY)
(NSA), Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) and National
2018, the aggregate appropriated for the NIP and MIP
Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA).
totaled $81.5B (NIP $59.4B, MIP $22.1B). For FY2019,
the aggregate amount appropriated for the NIP and MIP
A program is primarily MIP if it funds an activity that
totaled $81.7B (NIP $60.2B, MIP $21.5B). For FY2020,
addresses a unique DOD requirement. Additionally, MIP
the aggregate amount requested for the NIP and MIP totals
funds may be used to “sustain, enhance, or increase
$85.7B (NIP $62.8B, MIP $22.9B).
capacity/capability of NIP systems.” The DNI and USD(I)
work together in a number of ways to facilitate the
Background
integration of NIP and MIP intelligence efforts. Mutually
beneficial programs may receive both NIP and MIP
National Intelligence Program (NIP)
resources.
The origins of the intelligence budget, separate and distinct
from the defense budget, date to reforms initiated in the
Two Budget Processes: IPPBE & PPBE
1970s to improve oversight and accountability of the IC. At
The IC’s Intelligence Planning, Programming, Budgeting
that time, the National Foreign Intelligence Program (NFIP)
and Evaluation (IPPBE) process allocates funding and
was managed by the Director of Central Intelligence (DCI),
personnel resources supporting IC-wide capabilities
in consultation with the Secretary of Defense, and overseen
through the development and execution of the NIP and its
by the National Security Council (NSC). Congress
associated budget. The NIP addresses priorities described in
redesignated the NFIP as the NIP in the Intelligence
national security-related documents such as the National
Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act (IRTPA) of 2004
Intelligence Strategy. The IPPBE process applies to all 17
(P.L. 108-458 §1074). The IRTPA also provided for a
components of the IC. Program managers control NIP
number of additional IC reforms including the position of
resources aligned with requirements for IC capabilities such
DNI. The DNI was given more budgetary authority over the
as geo-spatial intelligence, signals intelligence, and human
NIP than the DCI had over the NFIP. Intelligence
intelligence—capabilities that may span several IC
Community Directive (ICD) 104 provides overall policy to
components.
include a description of the DNI’s roles and responsibilities
as program executive of the NIP.
The DOD’s Planning, Programming, Budgeting and
Execution (PPBE) process provides the funding for service
Military Intelligence Program (MIP)
components and DOD intelligence agencies (DIA, NSA,
Military-specific tactical and/or operational intelligence
NGA, and the National Reconnaissance Office) required to
activities were not included in the NFIP. They were known
organize, train and equip military forces for combat, and to
https://crsreports.congress.gov

---

Defense Primer: Budgeting for National and Defense Intelligence
cover all necessary support missions. The senior leader for
Evaluation is a Process not a Phase
intelligence in each service – called the Component
The E in the IPPBE stands for evaluation rather than
Manager – manages that service’s MIP resources in
execution. The PPBE also includes evaluation but it is not
accordance with USD(I) guidance and policy.
part of its acronym.
Planning Phase
Evaluation is a continuous process with several periodic
The IC’s Assistant DNI for
entry points throughout both the IPPBE and PPBE phases.
Systems and Resources
Analysis (ADNI/SRA) and the DOD’s Under Secretary of
Its primary objective is to assess the effectiveness of NIP
Defense for Policy lead the IPPBE and PPBE planning
and MIP programs, activities, major initiatives, and
phases, respectively. They analyze long-term trends,
investments. Evaluations inform current and future
validate intelligence-related requirements, identify gaps and
planning, programming, budgeting and execution decisions.
shortfalls, and prioritize needs as they relate to the DNI and
Responsibility for the evaluation function is shared. For
USD(I) policy goals. Each phase of the IPPBE and PPBE
example, DOD and IC Policy and Strategy offices conduct
processes has leads on the staffs of the ODNI and OUSD(I)
the program-level and strategic assessments to inform the
who work in concert to synchronize efforts.
planning phase. CFOs are responsible for all budgeting and
execution-related evaluations and performance
Programming Phase
measurement reports required for OMB and Congress.
During the programming phase, the IPPBE lead is the
IPPBE and PPBE Budget Cycles
ADNI/SRA while the PPBE lead is the Director of Cost and
The IPPBE and PPBE comprise at least four different fiscal
Program Evaluation (CAPE). The primary objective of this
year budget cycles running simultaneously at any given
phase is to provide analytically-based, fiscally-constrained
point in time, and are further complicated by numerous
options to frame resource decisions. Programming includes
federal, department, and agency-specific timelines,
the following primary activities:
missions and priorities.
 Conducting major issue studies to analyze high-impact,
(Note: This In Focus was originally written by former CRS
cross-IC issues (such as a common need for data-mining
Analyst Anne Daugherty Miles.)
technology);

Relevant Statutes
Developing independent total life-cycle cost estimates
for major systems acquisitions and other programs of
Title 10, U.S. Code, Chapter 9; Title 50, Chapter 44, Subchapter
interest;
III
 Producing the final Consolidated Intelligence Guidance
(CIG)—the joint DNI/USD(I) guidance used by NIP
CRS Products
Program Managers and MIP Component Managers to
CRS In Focus IF10428, Intelligence Planning, Programming,
finalize their program and budget submissions.
Budgeting, and Evaluation (IPPBE) Process, by Michael E. DeVine
Budgeting (and Execution) Phase
CRS In Focus IF10429, Defense Primer: Planning, Programming,
In the IPPBE, budgeting and execution comprise one phase
Budgeting and Execution (PPBE) Process, by Brendan W. McGarry
led by the ADNI/Chief Financial Officer (ADNI/CFO). The
and Heidi M. Peters
PPBE separates budgeting and execution into two separate
CRS In Focus IF10470, The Director of National Intelligence (DNI),
phases. The ADNI/CFO’s counterpart is the USD
by Michael E. DeVine
Comptroller/Chief Financial Officer (USD(C)/CFO).
CRS In Focus IF10523, Defense Primer: Under Secretary of Defense
(Intelligence), by Michael E. DeVine
The ADNI/CFO is responsible for producing the
CRS In Focus IF10525, Defense Primer: National and Defense
Congressional Budget Justification Books (CBJBs) and the
Intelligence, by Michael E. DeVine
accompanying NIP Summary of Performance and Financial
Information Report. Together, these classified documents
CRS Report R44381, Intelligence Community Spending: Trends and
explain and justify the details associated with each of the
Issues, by Michael E. DeVine
NIP programs to the congressional intelligence committees.
In contrast, the MIP programs are justified using
Other Resources
Congressional Justification Books (CJBs) submitted to
DOD Directive 7045.14, The Planning, Programming, Budgeting,
Congress as part of DOD’s PPBE process.
and Execution (PPBE) Process, August 29, 2017.
If the budget is enacted by Congress, the two CFOs manage
IC Directive 116, Intelligence Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and
the NIP and MIP budget apportionment and reprogramming
Evaluation System, September 14, 2011.
processes. Execution and performance reviews are

undertaken, so that funds are obligated in accord with DNI,
USD(I), and legislative intent. Mid-year reviews may lead
to decisions that require a redistribution of funds.
Michael E. DeVine, Analyst in Intelligence and National
Security
IF10524


https://crsreports.congress.gov

---

Defense Primer: Budgeting for National and Defense Intelligence


Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan shared staff to
congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and under the direction of Congress.
Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public understanding of information that has
been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the
United States Government, are not subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be
reproduced and distributed in its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include
copyrighted images or material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you
wish to copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

https://crsreports.congress.gov | IF10524 · VERSION 9 · UPDATED

---