ProPublica, a nonprofit investigative newsroom, has announced a new examination of U.S. military budgeting, spending and contracting, calling on current and former defense industry workers, Pentagon officials and congressional staffers to share information about how taxpayer money is being spent.
The organization said it has spent years reporting on military matters, including an investigation into billions of dollars the Navy spent on warships with serious flaws and a Pulitzer Prize-winning series on fatal Navy accidents. Now, ProPublica says it aims to untangle what critics describe as opaque defense spending practices that often result in project delays, cost overruns and performance issues.
What the Left Is Saying
Progressives and government accountability advocates have long argued for greater transparency in military spending. Organizations such as the Project on Government Oversight have repeatedly called for stricter oversight of defense contracts, arguing that without adequate scrutiny, taxpayer dollars flow to contractors with little accountability for results.
"Taxpayers deserve to know exactly where their money is going," said a spokesperson for the nonprofit organization OpenTheBooks.com, which tracks government spending. "When it comes to defense, the veil of national security is often used to shield spending from public view."
Congressional Progressive Caucus members have similarly pushed for more rigorous audit requirements at the Pentagon, which received a disclaimer opinion on its financial statements for the seventh consecutive year in 2025—an indication that the Defense Department cannot fully account for its assets and spending.
What the Right Is Saying
Conservative defense hawks have cautioned against excessive scrutiny of military spending, arguing that delays in procurement and contracting can undermine national security. The American Enterprise Institute's John Ferrari, a retired Army major general who spoke to ProPublica, acknowledged transparency challenges but noted the complexity of modern weapons systems.
"There's no way that you can follow the money, because it keeps getting twisted like a Rubik's Cube," Ferrari said. "None of it is set up to be transparent."
Some Republican defense advocates argue that administrative burden and reporting requirements slow acquisition timelines without necessarily improving outcomes. They contend that maintaining military superiority requires streamlined contracting processes.
What the Numbers Show
The Pentagon budget has grown substantially over recent decades. The Defense Department's base budget stood at approximately $886 billion in fiscal year 2025, and the current presidential proposal seeks to increase defense spending to a record $1.5 trillion for the next fiscal year—a figure that would represent roughly 3.7% of projected GDP.
The Government Accountability Office has documented cost overruns on major weapons systems repeatedly over the past two decades. The F-35 program, for example, has experienced cumulative cost growth exceeding 85% from original estimates, with per-aircraft costs more than doubling in some variants.
Pentagon audits have consistently found deficiencies in financial management. The Defense Department's most recent audit resulted in a disclaimer opinion, meaning auditors could not express an opinion on the accuracy of the department's financial statements—a standard result for federal agencies receiving such opinions.
The Bottom Line
ProPublica's investigation comes at a time when Congress is actively debating defense spending levels and acquisition reform. The newsroom is accepting tips through encrypted Signal messaging (917-512-0201), SecureDrop, postal mail and email for those who wish to share information about military budgeting practices.
The effort aims to examine whether Pentagon projects are delivering value for taxpayers and adequate capabilities for service members. ProPublica notes that many sources it has spoken with came forward because they believed what they witnessed on the job did not represent good uses of taxpayer funds or were not contributing to national security.
Those wishing to contact reporters can request background conversation, meaning their identities would not be published. The newsroom emphasizes its track record of source protection and welcomes information at any level of sensitivity.