Defense Primer: Budgeting for National and Defense Intelligence
https://crsreports.congress.gov
Updated January 6, 2025
Defense Primer: Budgeting for National and Defense Intelligence
Introduction
Intelligence Community (IC) programs include the resources (i.e., money and manpower) to accomplish intelligence-related goals and responsibilities as defined by the United States Code (U.S.C.) and Executive Order 12333. IC programs are funded through the: (1) National Intelligence Program (NIP), which covers the programs, projects, and activities of the IC oriented toward the strategic requirements of policymakers; and (2) Military Intelligence Program (MIP), which funds defense intelligence activities intended to support tactical military requirements and operations. The Director of National Intelligence (DNI) and the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence and Security (USD(I&S)) manage the NIP and MIP, respectively, under different authorities.
NIP and MIP Funding
Title 50 U.S.C. §3306 requires that the President, as part of the annual budget submission to Congress, disclose the total amount of funding requested for the NIP—called the topline. The DNI is not required to disclose any other information concerning the NIP budget, whether the information concerns particular intelligence agencies or particular intelligence programs. Although not mandated by statute, the Secretary of Defense also discloses annual MIP appropriations totals dating back to 2007. For FY2025, funding requested for the NIP and MIP totaled $101.6 billion, including $73.4 billion for NIP and $28.2 billion for MIP. Compared to FY2024 appropriated amounts, of $76.5 million for the NIP and $29.8 million for the MIP, the FY2025 budget requested $3.1 billion and $1.6 billion less respectively.
Background
National Intelligence Program (NIP) The origins of the intelligence budget, separate and distinct from the defense budget, date to reforms initiated in the 1970s to improve oversight and accountability of the IC. At that time, the National Foreign Intelligence Program (NFIP) was managed by the Director of Central Intelligence (DCI), in consultation with the Secretary of Defense, and overseen by the National Security Council (NSC). Congress redesignated the NFIP as the NIP in the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (IRTPA; P.L. 108-458, §1074). The IRTPA also provided for additional IC reforms, including the position of DNI. The DNI was given more budgetary authority over the NIP than the DCI had over the NFIP. Intelligence Community Directive (ICD) 104 provides overall policy, to include a description of the DNI’s roles and responsibilities as program executive of the NIP.
Military Intelligence Program (MIP) Military-specific tactical and/or operational intelligence activities were not included in the NFIP. They were known as Tactical Intelligence and Related Activities (TIARA) and managed separately by the Secretary of Defense. TIARA referred to the intelligence activities “of a single service” that were considered organic to military units. In 1994, Congress created a new category called the Joint Military Intelligence Program (JMIP) for defense-wide intelligence programs. In 2005, the Secretary of Defense signed a memorandum that merged TIARA and JMIP to form the MIP. DOD Directive 5205.12, signed in November 2008, established policies and assigned responsibilities, to include the USD(I&S)’s role as program executive of the MIP, acting on behalf of the Secretary of Defense.
The IC established organizing principles—known as Rules of the Road—to explain the two budget programs’ separate but related structures. A program is primarily NIP if it funds an activity that supports more than one department or agency (such as satellite imagery), or provides a service of common concern for the IC (such as secure communications). The NIP funds the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) in their entirety and funds the strategic intelligence activities associated with departmental IC elements, such DOD’s National Security Agency (NSA).
A program is primarily MIP if it funds an activity that addresses a unique DOD requirement. Additionally, MIP funds may be used to “sustain, enhance, or increase capacity/capability of NIP systems.” The DNI and USD(I&S) work together in a number of ways to facilitate the integration of NIP and MIP intelligence efforts. Mutually beneficial programs may receive both NIP and MIP resources.
Two Budget Processes: IPPBE & PPBE
The IC’s Intelligence Planning, Programming, Budgeting and Evaluation (IPPBE) process allocates funding and personnel resources supporting IC-wide capabilities through the development and execution of the NIP and its associated budget. The NIP addresses priorities described in national security-related documents such as the National Intelligence Strategy. The IPPBE process applies to all 18 components of the IC, as specified in 50 U.S.C. §3003(4). Program managers control NIP resources aligned with requirements for IC capabilities such as geospatial intelligence, signals intelligence, and human intelligence— capabilities that may span several IC components.
DOD’s Planning, Programming, Budgeting and Execution (PPBE) process provides the funding for service
Defense Primer: Budgeting for National and Defense Intelligence
https://crsreports.congress.gov
intelligence components and DOD intelligence agencies (i.e., Defense Intelligence Agency, NSA, National Geospatial Intelligence Agency, and the National Reconnaissance Office) required to organize, train and equip military forces for combat, and to cover support missions. The senior leader for intelligence in each service—called the Component Manager—manages that service’s MIP resources in accordance with USD(I&S) guidance and policy.
Planning Phase The IC’s Assistant DNI for Systems and Resources Analysis (ADNI/SRA) and the DOD’s Under Secretary of Defense for Policy lead the IPPBE and PPBE planning phases, respectively. They analyze long-term trends, validate intelligence-related requirements, identify gaps and shortfalls, and prioritize needs as they relate to the DNI and USD(I&S) policy goals. Officials on the staffs of the ODNI and OUSD(I&S) oversee each phase of the IPPBE and PPBE processes, and work to synchronize their efforts.
Programming Phase During the programming phase, the IPPBE lead is the ADNI/SRA while the PPBE lead is the Director of Cost and Program Evaluation (CAPE). The primary objective of this phase is to provide analytically based, fiscally constrained options to frame resource decisions. Programming includes the following primary activities: • Conducting major issue studies to analyze high-impact,
cross-IC issues, such as a common need for data-mining technology;
• Developing independent total life cycle cost estimates
for major systems acquisitions and other programs of interest;
• Producing the final Consolidated Intelligence Guidance
(CIG)—the joint DNI/USD(I&S) guidance used by NIP Program Managers and MIP Component Managers to finalize their program and budget submissions.
Budgeting (and Execution) Phase In the IPPBE, budgeting and execution comprise one phase led by the ADNI/Chief Financial Officer (ADNI/CFO). The PPBE separates budgeting and execution into two phases. The ADNI/CFO’s counterpart is the USD Comptroller/Chief Financial Officer (USD(C)/CFO).
The ADNI/CFO is responsible for producing the Congressional Budget Justification Books (CBJBs) and the accompanying NIP Summary of Performance and Financial Information Report. Together, these classified documents explain and justify the details associated with each of the NIP programs to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. In contrast, the MIP programs are justified using Congressional Justification Books (CJBs) submitted to Congress as part of DOD’s PPBE process.
If the budget is enacted by Congress, the two CFOs manage the NIP and MIP budget apportionment and reprogramming processes. Execution and performance reviews are undertaken to assess whether funds are obligated in accord with DNI, USD(I&S), and congressional intent. Midyear
reviews may lead to decisions requiring a redistribution of funds. Evaluation is a Process not a Phase The E in the IPPBE stands for evaluation rather than execution. The PPBE also includes evaluation but it is not part of its acronym. Evaluation is a continuous process with several periodic entry points throughout both the IPPBE and PPBE phases. Its primary objective is to assess the effectiveness of NIP and MIP programs, activities, major initiatives, and investments. Evaluations inform current and future planning, programming, budgeting, and execution decisions. Executive branch and legislative branch entities share responsibility for evaluating intelligence-related activities and funding decisions. For example, DOD and IC Policy and Strategy offices conduct the program-level and strategic assessments to inform the planning phase. CFOs are responsible for all budgeting and execution-related evaluations and performance measurement reports required for OMB and Congress.
IPPBE and PPBE Budget Cycles The IPPBE and PPBE comprise at least four different fiscal year budget cycles running simultaneously at any given point in time. Numerous federal, departmental, and agency- specific timelines, missions, and priorities further complicate both cycles.
(Note: This In Focus was originally written by former CRS Analyst Anne Daugherty Miles.)
Relevant Statutes
Title 10, U.S. Code, Chapter 9 – Defense Budget Matters
Title 50, U.S. Code, Chapter 44 – National Security
CRS Products
CRS In Focus IF10428, Intelligence Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Evaluation (IPPBE) Process, by Michael E. DeVine
CRS In Focus IF10429, Defense Primer: Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution (PPBE) Process, by Brendan W. McGarry
CRS In Focus IF10470, The Director of National Intelligence (DNI), by Michael E. DeVine
CRS In Focus IF10523, Defense Primer: Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence and Security, by Michael E. DeVine
CRS In Focus IF10525, Defense Primer: National and Defense Intelligence, by Michael E. DeVine
CRS Report R44381, Intelligence Community Spending Trends, by Michael E. DeVine and Sofia Plagakis
Other Resources
DOD Directive 7045.14, The Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution (PPBE) Process, August 29, 2017.
IC Directive 116, Intelligence Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Evaluation System, September 14, 2011.
Michael E. DeVine, Analyst in Intelligence and National Security
IF10524
Defense Primer: Budgeting for National and Defense Intelligence
https://crsreports.congress.gov | IF10524 · VERSION 17 · UPDATED
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.