link to page 2 
Updated March 29, 2024
Defense Primer: Department of Defense Unfunded Priorities
Introduction
Selected Legislation
By law, certain U.S. Department of Defense (DOD)
FY2013 NDAA. Section 1003 of P.L. 112-239 included a
officials and other executive branch agency officials are
provision expressing the sense of Congress that certain
required to submit reports to Congress describing defense
military officers “should” submit to Congress, through the
and intelligence-related priorities that were not included in
the President’s annual budget request. These reports, known
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (CJCS) and the
Secretary of Defense (SECDEF), “a list of any priority
as unfunded priorities lists (UPLs), identify certain
military programs or activities under the jurisdiction of such
programs, activities, or mission requirements for which
officer for which, in the estimate of such officer additional
appropriations were not requested, along with the funding
funds, if available, would substantially reduce operational
amounts that may be necessary to resource them. Pursuant
or programmatic risk or accelerate the creation or fielding
to 10 U.S.C. §222a, the highest-ranking officers of the U.S.
of a critical military capability.”
military services and combatant commands (COCOMs) are
to submit UPLs (also sometimes referred to as unfunded
FY2017 NDAA. Section 1064 of P.L. 114-328 established
requirements, or UFRs) to the Secretary of Defense,
the statutory requirement of 10 U.S.C. §222a for annual
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and congressional
reports on unfunded priorities of the services and
defense committees. Some Members have described DOD
COCOMs. In particular, the statute requires the service
unfunded priorities as “wish lists” that reduce budget
chiefs and combatant commanders to submit within 10 days
discipline and increase unnecessary spending. Others have
of the President’s budget request to Congress a report on
described them as “risk lists” that identify items intended to
the unfunded priorities of the service or command under
support strategic objectives. With the value of such items
their jurisdiction. The statute requires the officers to submit
sometimes totaling tens of billions of dollars a year (e.g.,
the documents to the SECDEF, CJCS, and congressional
DOD alone identified nearly $24 billion in FY2022 UPLs),
defense committees (i.e., the House and Senate Committees
Congress often debates authorization and appropriation of
on Armed Services and Appropriations). The reports are to
funding for certain unfunded priorities.
include items in order of priority and such information as
the line item number in procurement accounts, program
Background
element number in research and development accounts, and
For decades, reports accompanying defense authorization
the sub-activity group in operation and maintenance
and appropriation legislation have sometimes referenced
accounts. The statute defines an unfunded priority, in part,
“unfunded requirements” of the military. For instance, the
as a program, activity, or mission requirement that “is not
conference report (H.Rept. 97-749) to accompany the
funded in the budget of the President” and “is necessary to
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1983
fulfill a requirement associated with an operational or
(NDAA; P.L. 97-252) authorized appropriations within the
contingency plan of a combatant command or other
Operation and Maintenance, Air National Guard accounts
validated requirement.” Section 1696 of the act established
for certain “unfunded requirements” (i.e., cold weather gear
a similar statutory requirement (10 U.S.C. §222b) for an
and chemical defense equipment). By the mid-1990s,
annual report on unfunded priorities of the Missile Defense
according to some accounts, the services routinely
Agency (MDA).
submitted lists of unfunded priorities to Congress. In the
FY2021 NDAA. Sections 924 and 1006 of P.L. 116-283
2000s, conference reports accompanying defense
amended 10 U.S.C. §222a to include among the officers
authorization and appropriation legislation sometimes
referenced the “unfunded priority list” of DOD or a military
required to submit reports on unfunded priorities the Chief
service, or the “unfunded requirements list” of a military
of Space Operations and the Chief of the National Guard
service. In 2009, in preparation of the FY2010 President’s
Bureau, respectively. Section 1005 established the statutory
requirement of 10 U.S.C. §240i for the DOD Comptroller to
budget request to Congress, then-Secretary of Defense
submit a report on unfunded priorities related to audit
Robert M. Gates limited access to information about
readiness and remediation. Section 1867 renumbered the
proposals to decrease funding for certain defense
statutory requirement for the Under Secretary of Defense
programs—a move that he acknowledged generated
for Acquisition and Sustainment to submit a report on
congressional concerns over transparency into the
department’s budget development process. In 2021, then
unfunded priorities of the national technology and industrial
-
base to 10 U.S.C. §4815.
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Mark A.
Milley said unfunded priorities lists provide a “flexibility
Selected Permanent Laws
option” for lawmakers. In 2023, Secretary of Defense Lloyd
Table 1 lists statutory provisions requiring components of
J. Austin III said he would support removing statutory
DOD, the intelligence community, and other agencies to
requirements for UPLs.
submit UPLs, under varying terms.
https://crsreports.congress.gov
Defense Primer: Department of Defense Unfunded Priorities
Table 1. Selected Provisions in United States Code
Navy guided-missile destroyer (DDG-51) estimated to cost
Related to Defense and Intelligence UPLs
$1.7 billion. Following the inclusion of the destroyer on a
UPL, some Members questioned whether the Navy’s
Title and
official budget request accurately reflected the service’s
Section
Description
most important priorities.
Department of Defense
Selected Legislative Activity
10 U.S.C. §222a
Military services combatant commands
Some Members of Congress have offered legislative
unfunded priorities
proposals to authorize and appropriate funding to support
10 U.S.C. §222b
Missile Defense Agency unfunded priorities
unfunded priorities. Other Members have offered proposals
to eliminate statutory requirements for UPLs. In the 117th
10 U.S.C. §222e
Under Secretary of Defense (USD) for
Congress, during the House Armed Services Committee
Research and Engineering unfunded
markup of its version of the FY2023 NDAA (H.R. 7900),
priorities
Representative Mike Rogers supported an amendment to
increase appropriations authorized in the bill by $37 billion
10 U.S.C. §240i
USD(Comptrol er) unfunded priorities for
in part by saying, “The amendment funds critically needed
audit readiness and remediation
priorities from our service chiefs and combatant
10 U.S.C. §4815
National technology and industrial base
commanders that were left unfunded by the President’s
unfunded priorities
budget.” The committee voted to adopt the amendment 42-
17. Among those who voted against the amendment was
10 U.S.C. §4901
Small business innovation research and
then-Chairman Adam Smith, who has described unfunded
note
small business technology transfer
priorities as a “forcing mechanism” to increase the defense
programs unfunded priorities
budget. The FY2023 NDAA (P.L. 117-263) authorized
Department of Homeland Security
$847.3 billion for programs within the scope of the
legislation—nearly $45.0 billion more than requested. In
14 U.S.C. §5102
Coast Guard shoreside infrastructure and
the 117th Congress, Senator Elizabeth Warren wrote
note
facilities projects unfunded priorities
Secretary Austin to curtail the use of DOD UPLs and
14 U.S.C. §5108
Coast Guard unfunded priorities list
introduced legislation (S. 5255) to repeal statutory
requirements for certain department UPLs. In a press
Department of Energy
release announcing the legislation, Senator Warren said,
“The Department of Defense’s priorities should be reflected
50 U.S.C. §2756
National Nuclear Security Administration
in its budget.”
unfunded priorities
In the 118th Congress, Representative
Pramila Jayapal introduced legislation (H.R. 4740) to repeal
Intelligence Community
statutory requirements for certain DOD and DOE UPLs.
The bills were referred to, but not reported out of,
50 U.S.C. §3113
Intelligence community unfunded priorities
committee.
Source: CRS analysis of selected provisions of the United States Code
(U.S.C.).
Potential Issues for Congress
DOD UPLs
• How might unfunded priorities affect overall funding
levels and/or tradeoffs in the national defense budget?
DOD unfunded priorities lists typically lack a standard
format. Some lists have included a narrative to describe a
• How might unfunded priorities influence Congress’s
requirement; others have provided a line item in a
ability to make changes to the defense budget, as
spreadsheet. Some have included appropriation account
requested, irrespective of DOD’s support?
codes; others have included appropriation account
acronyms. Most have been unclassified; some have been
•
marked “Controlled Unclassified Information” (CUI) or
How might the submission of unfunded priorities
“For Official Use Only” (FOUO), even after DOD issued
without the approval of the Secretary of Defense affect
civil-military relations?
guidance discontinuing the FOUO designation.
Combatant commanders do not always submit UPLs. In
• How might a lack of a standard format for unfunded
2021, the heads of Strategic Command and Transportation
priorities lists affect the level of effort required for
Command did not submit FY2022 UPLs for their respective
congressional oversight?
commands. Then-Navy Admiral Charles A. Richard,
Commander of Strategic Command at the time, wrote to
• How might the classification level of certain unfunded
lawmakers, “The Department made extensive efforts to
priorities lists affect congressional oversight and
thoroughly assess, prioritize, and balance force capacity,
influence public opinion?
capability, and readiness ... I am satisfied USSTRATCOM
priorities are adequately addressed in the Department of
Brendan W. McGarry, Analyst in U.S. Defense Budget
Defense’s portion of the President’s budget.”
IF11964
The value of items on DOD unfunded priorities can vary.
Previous UPLs have included items that ranged in cost from
air-defense activities valued at approximately $100,000 to a
https://crsreports.congress.gov
Defense Primer: Department of Defense Unfunded Priorities
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 | IF11964 · VERSION 3 · UPDATED