INSIGHTi

FY2022 NDAA: Strategic Context
Updated January 6, 2022
Congressional consideration of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2022 (NDAA;
H.R. 4350; S. 2792; S. 1605; P.L. 117-81) occurred as the Biden Administration was developing strategic
guidance for national security and defense programs. By law, for example, the President is required to
submit to Congress a National Security Strategy (NSS; 50 U.S.C §3043) and the Secretary of Defense a
National Defense Strategy (NDS; 10 U.S.C. §113).
The Biden Administration stated that efforts to align spending priorities with the President’s Interim
National Security Strategic Guidance (INSSG) helped shape its FY2022 defense budget request. Officials
said Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III planned to submit the NDS in early 2022. In March 2021,
the President released the INSSG, which stated that the United States faces “growing rivalry” with China,
Russia, and other authoritarian states, and would “work to responsibly end America’s longest war in
Afghanistan.”
Elements of the INSSG appeared to build upon aspects of the Trump Administration’s strategic guidance
documents, including the 2017 NSS and 2018 NDS. The 2018 NDS unclassified summary emphasized
retaining a U.S. strategic competitive edge relative to China and Russia rather than countering violent
extremist organizations. This and the call for “increased and sustained investment” to counter evolving
threats from China and Russia marked a change in emphasis from previous strategy documents.
The 2018 NDS did not address the question of pandemics or climate change as national security threats.
The INSSG referenced “pandemics and other biological risks, the escalating climate crisis, cyber and
digital threats, international economic disruptions, protracted humanitarian crises,” among other threats.
The INSSG pledged to prioritize “new resources for diplomacy and development” and identified defense
priorities as follows:
 Military personnel. (“... continue to invest in the people who serve in our all-volunteer
forces and their families.”);
 Readiness. (“... sustain readiness and ensure that the U.S. Armed Forces remain the best
trained and equipped force in the world.”);
 Force structure. (“... assess the appropriate structure, capabilities, and sizing of the
force, and, working with the Congress, shift our emphasis from unneeded legacy
platforms and weapons systems to free up resources for investments in the cutting-edge
Congressional Research Service
https://crsreports.congress.gov
IN11788
CRS INSIGHT
Prepared for Members and
Committees of Congress

---

Congressional Research Service
2
technologies and capabilities that will determine our military and national security
advantage in the future.”);
 Acquisition processes. (“... streamline the processes for developing, testing, acquiring,
deploying, and securing these technologies.”);
 DOD workforce. (“... ensure that we have the skilled workforce to acquire, integrate, and
operate them.”);
 Ethical technology use. (“... shape ethical and normative frameworks to ensure these
technologies are used responsibly.”);
 Special operations forces. (“... maintain the proficiency of special operations forces to
focus on crisis response and priority counterterrorism and unconventional warfare
missions.”);
 Gray-zone capabilities. (“... develop capabilities to better compete and deter gray zone
actions.”);
 Climate resiliency. (“... prioritize defense investments in climate resiliency and clean
energy.”); and
 Equal opportunity. (“... work to ensure that the Department of Defense is a place of
truly equal opportunity where our service members do not face discrimination or the
scourge of sexual harassment and assault.”).
In 2018, the National Defense Strategy Commission, established by Section 942 of the FY2017 NDAA
(P.L. 114-328) to provide an independent assessment of the NDS, recommended that policymakers
increase defense spending by 3% to 5% per year in real terms (i.e., adjusting for inflation)—or alter
expectations of the strategy and America’s global strategic objectives.
In written responses prepared for the Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) to advance policy
questions for his nomination as Defense Secretary, Austin wrote, “The most urgent challenge we face is
the pandemic,” referring to the outbreak of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). Austin described
many of the concepts in the 2018 NDS as “fundamentally sound” and China as the “pacing threat in most
areas.” He wrote that the strategy “assumes sustained defense budget growth, but that has not fully
materialized.” Austin pledged to undertake a comprehensive strategic review and called for DOD to be
“prepared for modest growth in the coming years.” He wrote, “Given the fragile state of our economy and
the large deficits required to combat the impact of COVID, I expect fiscal pressure going forward.”
Austin also pledged to review U.S. nuclear posture and the Navy’s 30-year shipbuilding plan.
In written responses prepared for the same committee to advance policy questions for her nomination as
Deputy Defense Secretary, Kathleen H. Hicks made related points, writing, “in light of COVID-19’s
ongoing impact, the Department must be fiscally pragmatic if it is to design a successful approach to
strategic competition.” In a 2020 Foreign Affairs article, Hicks argued DOD could reduce its annual costs
by $20 billion to $30 billion without detracting from national security objectives “after some upfront
investment.” In her written responses for the SASC, Hicks described some of the upfront investments that
could yield future savings as “workforce incentives—from buy-outs to recruiting bonuses, investments in
technologies such as artificial intelligence and robotics, and cyber defense.”
In considering FY2022 defense authorization and appropriations legislation, some Members of Congress
proposed increasing defense spending by 3% per year above inflation to prepare for long-term strategic
competition with China and Russia. Other Members of Congress recommended decreasing defense
spending to fund non-defense priorities, such as response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Including amounts for national defense discretionary programs that were not in the jurisdiction of the
House Armed Services Committee (HASC) or SASC, discretionary programs that did not require
additional authorization, and mandatory programs that were previously authorized, the total budget

---

Congressional Research Service
3
authority implication of the enacted version of the FY2022 NDAA was $790.6 billion. That amount was
$25.1 billion (3.3%) more than the President’s budget request and $38.2 billion (5.1%) more than
FY2021. Adjusting for inflation, that amount was $24.3 billion (3.2%) more than FY2021 (in constant
FY2022 dollars).

Author Information

Brendan W. McGarry
Kathleen J. McInnis
Analyst in U.S. Defense Budget
Specialist in International Security





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.

IN11788 · VERSION 3 · UPDATED

---