DoD Regulation on Formulating the Intelligence Budget
A recently revised Defense Department regulation (pdf) provides new detail on the preparation of the annual intelligence budget request, and on the documentation needed to support it.
The U.S. intelligence budget is comprised of two spending “aggregations”: the National Intelligence Program (NIP) and the Military Intelligence Program (MIP). (This configuration replaced the former National Foreign Intelligence Program, Joint Military Intelligence Program, and Tactical Intelligence and Related Activities.)
The NIP budget, which totaled $43.5 billion in 2007 according to last week’s official disclosure, funds intelligence to support national policy makers. The MIP budget, which probably amounts to at least another $10 billion, supports the Secretary of Defense, the military services, and military commanders in the field.
In practice, the distinction between the NIP and the MIP is not crystal clear, and several large “national” intelligence agencies — including NSA, DIA, NGA, NRO — also receive funding through the MIP.
A Defense Department Financial Management Regulation on “Intelligence Programs/Activities,” dated June 2007, presents the definitions of the intelligence budget aggregations, explains their classification levels, and describes the documentation that must be submitted to Congress to justify their appropriations.
We’re launching a national series of digital service retrospectives to capture hard-won lessons, surface what worked, be clear-eyed about what didn’t, and bring digital service experts together to imagine next-generation models for digital government.
How DOE can emerge from political upheaval achieve the real-world change needed to address the interlocking crises of energy affordability, U.S. competitiveness, and climate change.
As Congress begins the FY27 appropriations process this month, congress members should turn their eyes towards rebuilding DOE’s programs and strengthening U.S. energy innovation and reindustrialization.
Politically motivated award cancellations and the delayed distribution of obligated funds have broken the hard-earned trust of the private sector, state and local governments, and community organizations.