“The staff reductions since May 2025 constrain the depth and breadth of oversight that DOT&E [Director, Operational Test and Evaluation] can provide for DOD’s weapon systems,” said a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report released today.
GAO documents steep cuts and shifting workloads inside DOT&E
The GAO’s report traces a rapid shrinkage of DOT&E’s civilian workforce and the operational consequences. The office’s civilian complement fell from 126 authorized positions — 106 of which were filled at the time — to just 30 positions after the reorganization that began in May 2025. GAO found that some DOT&E leaders became “dual-hatted,” and the number of action officers tasked with assessing weapons programs fell sharply.
According to employees cited by GAO, the workforce reductions left remaining action officers assigned more programs, and in some cases assigned to programs in warfare areas where they lack subject-matter expertise. The watchdog linked those personnel gaps to increased risk that weapon systems could be delivered to warfighters with “undocumented operational shortfalls,” and flagged emerging expertise gaps in key fields such as electronic warfare.
What Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth ordered and why
The changes followed a memo by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth that reshaped the DOT&E office. Hegseth said the reorganization would save $300 million per year, cut “bureaucratic overhead” and drive “greater efficiency.” He framed the move as intended to “support of an America First defense strategy” and said an internal review had identified “redundant, non-essential, non-statutory functions within [the office] that do not support operational agility or resource efficiency, affecting our ability to rapidly and effectively deploy the best systems to the warfighter.”
GAO says that memo set off “a cascade of second- and third-order consequences,” producing the dual-hatting and staff reductions it documents. The Pentagon did not immediately respond to Breaking Defense’s questions about the report.
Oversight list shrinks: 90 programs removed from DOT&E watch
GAO reports that the reduction in staff was accompanied by a substantial narrowing of the programs DOT&E is charged with overseeing. In May 2025, the DOT&E oversight list contained 173 weapons programs; after the Secretary’s order, 90 programs were removed from that list. GAO cites employees saying reasons for removal included program cancellations, program mergers, and internal decisions that oversight was no longer needed.
GAO warned that these removals, combined with fewer subject-matter experts, reduce “the depth and breadth of oversight” DOT&E can provide — including oversight of major defense acquisition programs and “middle tier of acquisition” programs, the Pentagon’s streamlined framework intended to rapidly develop and field new capabilities.
What this means for the warfighter, DOT&E action officers, and Congress
- For the warfighter: GAO explicitly links DOT&E’s staffing and expertise shortfalls to an increased risk that new weapons and technologies could reach troops with “undocumented operational shortfalls,” meaning problems may not be recorded or fully appreciated before fielding.
- For DOT&E action officers: Employees told GAO they have been assigned more programs and, in some cases, work outside their areas of subject-matter expertise. GAO flagged electronic warfare as one area where expertise gaps have emerged.
- For Congress: DOT&E was established by Congress in 1983 to produce an annual report updating lawmakers on high-dollar weapon development programs and to advise the Joint Requirements Oversight Council. GAO notes DOT&E is conducting an analysis of its workforce and workload in response to a congressional inquiry.
Bottom line: watchdog warns of hidden shortfalls, DOT&E evaluating next steps
GAO’s report delivers a blunt assessment: the post-May 2025 reductions constrain DOT&E’s ability to oversee weapons programs and increase the chance that operational shortfalls will remain undocumented. DOT&E is conducting an internal analysis of workforce and workload in response to a congressional inquiry, but the Pentagon offered no immediate comment on GAO’s findings to Breaking Defense. The report leaves in plain view a consequential trade-off: faster, leaner organizational structures against the traditional safeguards that document and surface problems before equipment reaches the field.
