Pentagon Fails Sixth Audit in a Row
Though federal law has required annual financial reports, the Department of Defense simply did not complete them until 2018. It has since failed each year.

The Department of Defense (DOD) has revealed the results of its most recent financial audit. For the sixth year in a row, it failed.
According to Michael McCord, the Pentagon's comptroller, the department holds $3.8 trillion in assets and $4 trillion in liabilities. In annual audits, the DOD Office of the Inspector General and independent accounting firms jointly scrutinize the department's finances, subdividing the DOD into 29 "components." All components are examined individually to verify that records are complete and accurate. This year, the process involved 700 site visits by 1,600 auditors.
Of those 29 components, only seven passed inspection with a "clean" audit. Three component inspections have not been completed; another, the Medicare-Eligible Retiree Health Care Fund, received a "qualified opinion," meaning "auditors concluded there were misstatements or potentially undetected misstatements that were material but not pervasive to the financial statements."
The remaining 18 components failed. These included the National Security Agency and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency.
This was nearly identical to last year's results, in which seven components passed the audit, the Medicare-Eligible Retiree Health Care Fund received a qualified opinion, and all remaining components failed.
Nonetheless, the department is trying to spin this result as a positive, stating in a press release that it constituted "incremental progress" toward "the goal of a clean audit." This was very similar to the language it used last year, when it said the results showed "progress toward a 'clean audit,' but not as much as officials hoped."
McCord told reporters last week that there was "progress sort of beneath the surface of a pass-fail." Deputy Pentagon press secretary Sabrina Singh said, "each time we go through this audit process, even if it is our sixth time, we keep going through the process. We keep getting better and better at it."
The optimism may be refreshing, but it's little comfort that an agency with trillions of dollars in assets and whose annual budget stretches past $800 billion can muster a passing grade on only a quarter of its programs' finances.
It was only in December 2017 that the DOD first announced that it would audit its own finances, a task which then-spokesperson Dana White said "demonstrates our commitment to fiscal responsibility and maximizing the value of every taxpayer dollar that is entrusted to us."
That audit was preceded by more than two decades of stonewalling. The Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990—I repeat: 1990—required federal agencies to prepare financial reports annually. For years, the DOD simply did not. Congress put a provision in the 2010 National Defense Authorization Act requiring the DOD to be prepared for an audit—in seven years. As Sen. Chuck Grassley (R–Iowa) put it, "The Pentagon was given an extra seven years to clean up the books and get ready."
When the DOD did finally complete its first audit, it failed, with only five out of 21 components passing inspection. Of those results, Deputy Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan shrugged, "We never thought we were going to pass an audit, right? Everyone was betting against us, that we wouldn't even do the audit."
Slightly more circumspect, acting Inspector General Glenn Fine said "the most important thing" was not that the department failed, "but that the department takes the audit seriously and seeks to fix the identified deficiencies, which the department is doing."
A year later, the department failed again. While the Pentagon had fixed about 500 out of more than 2,400 issues identified the previous year, auditors identified 1,300 additional problems that needed to be addressed.
The DOD has failed each audit since. Reporting on one of those failures in 2021, CNBC blamed "old systems for tracking funds, a slow bureaucracy, and the sheer size of the U.S. Defense apparatus."
Maybe so. But only in government could an institution that wields so much power, influence, and money—in March, McCord called a $1 trillion annual Pentagon budget "inevitable"—do such a poor job of keeping track of its own assets for so long without major restructuring.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
The MIC needs to take a big pay cut.
I Am Earning $81,100 so Far this year working 0nline and I am a full time college student and just working for 3 to 4 hours a day I've made such great m0ney.I am Genuinely thankful to and my administrator, It's' really user friendly and I'm just so happY that I found out about this....
I Worked Here ══════►►► http://Www.Smartcareer1.com
I’am making over $20k a month working online. I kept seeing how some people are able to earn a lot of money online, so I decided to look into it. I had luck to stumble upon something that totally changed my life. After 2 months of searching, last month I received a paycheck for $19683 for just working on the laptop for a few hours weekly. And best thing is..It’s so Easy…
.
.
.
HERE————————≻≻≻≻≻ https://tinyurl.com/2castxre
Look, we can either pay for a few accountants, or fund gender reassignments and abortion travel.
Which do YOU think is more important to defending the USA?
And, oh by the way, how do you actually audit secret stuff?
I mean we all know those $700 hammers are really $15 hammers with the rest building stealth bombers, but what else can we do?
No, they are $15 hammers with the rest paying engineers to select the hammers, QA inspectors to ensure there's a hundred pounds of paperwork properly completed to buy a two pound hammer, and accountants keeping track of every minute, ream of paper, or container of ink expended. I've worked under a defense contract. Massive waste was required _by the contract_ - to ensure that we weren't cheating.
Do you think if the White House had casual Friday whether Biden would wear Hawaiian shirt pattern diapers?
The real reason the DoD keeps failing is that it is, essentially, a military organization, not a business organization. What we should want in the permanent cadre of our national defense is excellence in military tactics, strategy and readiness. Having warriors try to do finance and accounting is a disaster waiting to happen. The books should be balanced and spending tracked by civilian employees in a business model environment and the interface between the military customers and the accountant managers could then be much more manageable. Trying to “audit” the barn door long after the horses have escaped is pointless – nothing will ever change.
Add to that the fact that the military mission is severely over-extended and it should surprise no one that the books are a mess. The mission should be limited to national defense, not “making the world safe for democracy” or “promoting our national interests” abroad, or “the global war against terrorism!” Maintaining our military infrastructure and shifting to a reserve-based system with a much smaller permanent strategic force – ocean patrol, nuclear response and strategic air command – would minimize those accounting difficulties and improve our overall readiness significantly.
Fourth generation Army, my son is fifth. Some components can be transferred to a reserve style system, however, in practice, the Pentagon has fucked this up royally. We've been trying to do this since Clinton. What has happened is these resources are stood down on active duty, but not adequately stood up on the reserve side, creating a large manpower shortage of critical combat support operations which then require us to hire government contractors to meet the shortfall. Part of this is because the reserve components time and money is very limited and so much of it is taken up with meeting non-mission DoD mandated training. I served both on active and reserve side, about half of all of my drills (and I was in a tier one unit, the best equipped and trained tier of the reserves supposedly) was taken up with non-mission training every year, things like EO, sexual harassment (which was somehow separated from EO) and similar training. Another quarter was taken up with common soldier skills, annual BRM, biannual APFT, annual CTT etc. So in essence, only about a quarter of the annual training cycle was aimed towards mission critical/MOS skills training. Thus, when we were deployed, it ended up taking weeks of remedial training to make us mission capable. This despite us having down missions such as deployments to Bosnia, Central America, JRTC etc in the years preceding our deployment. And we were the top ranked reserve unit of our type. When we did deploy we had to backfill a lot of slots from lower tier units. Many of them, due to training restraints, hadn't kept up on even their basic soldier skills, such as BRM. We had NCOs who hadn't fired an M-16 since basic and had to be retrained on how to use them. NCOs from these lower tier units who didn't know how to put together TA-50 gear. Didn't know how to prepare a fighting position and other basic field craft, and now they were deploying with a field unit. It was a total cock up.
I wonder how it is in Russian and Chinese units?
Generally speaking, US troops are better trained than the vast majority of Russian and Chinese units. A few premier units in those armies are well trained and maintained but the vast majority are just there as warm bodies.
The books are managed and spending tracked by civilian employees. That's a big part of why DoD has so many of them.
Bottom line, the DoD has plenty of resources to do the required bookkeeping and few to none of those resources are in uniform. Yes, the military's mission is over-extended but working to pass an audit doesn't change that.
Just got done reading a two volume biography of Duke Wellington, and interestingly enough, one of his big duties as commander in chief both in India and during the Peninsula Campaign was bookkeeping. As someone who had signatory privileges (it really was more a pain in the ass than a privilege) for millions of dollars worth of medical equipment while in the service, bookkeeping and accounting is and always has been a vital part of the military mission. It's basically the foundation of logistics, which is what actually wins wars.
I wonder what would happen to me if I failed 6 audits in a row.
That depends; are you registered (D) or not?
can't win wars ... can't win audits ...
It did win the audit, you won if you funny go to jail.
Math is hard.
There is one easy way to ensure the Pentagon passes their audits next year. Eliminate 100% of all departments that fail their audit this year.
An opinion piece in the WSJ asks, "Is the US ready for war". All you need to do is read this article and the answer is NO.
Where did the other $5.2T go?