The Pentagon Set To Spend Nearly $1 Billion At ‘Grok For Government’ And Other AI Companies

 

PLEASE CLICK ON IMAGE TO ENLARGE

"TASK AND PURPOSE" By Matt White

"The Pentagon announced it is going to spend almost $1 billion on “agentic AI workflows” from four “frontier AI” companies, including Elon Musk’s xAI, whose flagship Grok appeared to be declaring itself “MechaHitler”.

_______________________________________________________________________________

"In a press release, the Defense Department’s Chief Digital and Artificial Intelligence Office — or CDAO — said it will cut checks of up to $200 million each to tech giants Anthropic, Google, OpenAI and Musk’s xAI to work on:

• “critical national security challenges;”
• “joint mission essential tasks in our warfighting domain;”
• “DoD use cases.”

The release did not expand on what any of that means or how AI might help. Task & Purpose reached out to the Pentagon for details on what these AI agents may soon be doing and asked specifically if the contracts would include control of live weapons systems or classified information.

A Defense official responded, saying that “Awards to Anthropic, Google, OpenAI, and xAI will enable the Department to leverage the technology and talent of U.S. frontier AI companies to develop agentic AI workflows across a variety of mission areas, including warfighting, intelligence, business, and enterprise information systems.” 

That term, “Frontier AI,” the official said, referred to “companies [that] lead development of the most advanced AI models and technologies, conduct insightful research into the use of frontier AI, and pioneer efforts to address both the potential benefits and risks of frontier AI technologies.”

Unanswered was whether any of the “agentic AI” will be tasked with “warfighting” directly — flying planes, shooting missiles, etc. — or if its all gonna be other stuff, like payroll or checking IDs at the gate or similiar mundane tasks that could not possibly screw up your life if an AI did it wrong.

But there are some hints. The release noted that the CDAO will also be “providing access” in the project to several existing AI systems inside the Pentagon.

Those include:

• Maven Smart System, an AI-powered targeting system the Pentagon has been building to comb through satellite and drone imagery, and other information like geolocation data, to find targets for artillery and other weapons.

• The Army Enterprise LLM Workspace, which appears to handle routine office tasks “from drafting press releases to reclassifying personnel descriptions, and everything in between,” according to an Army description of the system.
• ADVANA, the Pentagon’s massive computerized data hub, which collects data from logistics agencies, space organizations, special ops, and other areas for analysis.

The near-billion-dollar announcement is just the latest of Silicon Valley’s successful AI-powered inroads at the Pentagon. Last month, the Army direct-commissioned four senior Silicon Valley business leaders into the Reserve as lieutenant colonels. At least two of those new officers hold, or recently held, full-time, highly lucrative positions at OpenAI.

xAI belongs to Elon Musk, who famously spent the spring shutting down government computer systems across many agencies via the Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, and now, by coincidence, is selling an AI that just so happens to specialize in government agencies that for some reason no longer have working computers. He literally calls it “Grok for Government.”

The Pentagon is throwing $1 billion at ‘Grok for Government’ and other AI companies

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Matt White is a senior editor at Task & Purpose. He was a pararescueman in the Air Force and the Alaska Air National Guard for eight years and has more than a decade of experience in daily and magazine journalism. He also teaches news writing at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill’s Hussman School of Journalism and Media where he is frequently referred to as a “very tough grader” on Rate My Professor. You can reach Matt at matthew.white@taskandpurpo

VA Needs To Overcome ‘History Of Failed IT Modernization,’ Federal Watchdog Says

 

VA Health Records System Yet To Deliver Quality Care for Veterans After Continuing Long Term Development Spanning Years And Over $16 Billion

"STARS AND STRIPES" By Linda F. Hersey

 The GAO in March issued a report that examined VA’s “three unsuccessful attempts” to modernize its online health records system, which it uses to manage the medical needs of 9 million veterans. The agency is now on its fourth attempt.

_________________________________________________________________

"Technology officials at the Department of Veterans Affairs plan to tighten its budget and reduce its workforce, as it tackles modernization efforts to improve online operations for employees and veterans. VA leaders delivered that message Monday at an oversight hearing of the House Veterans’ Affairs Committee’s subpanel on modernization. The purpose of the hearing was to examine priorities in fiscal 2026 for updating the agency’s IT systems.

But Carol Harris, director of information technology and cybersecurity at the Government Accountability Office, warned the agency has a “long history of failed IT modernization efforts.”

The VA has experienced problems acquiring major IT systems, tracking its software licenses, managing cybersecurity practices and standardizing cloud computing procurement, according to the federal watchdog.

Lawmakers said the challenges affect the efficiency and effectiveness of the VA in delivering services to veterans.

“I’ve heard the [VA] secretary speak about how when he walked in the door on his first day, he couldn’t even know how many people were in the department and where they were all assigned because you had different payroll systems and different human resources management systems,” said Rep. Tom Barrett, R-Mich., the subcommittee chairman.

Jack Galvin, acting principal deputy assistant secretary and deputy chief information officer at the VA Office of Information and Technology, said a major focus is on standardization and ending duplication.

Eddie Pool is acting assistant secretary for information technology and chief information officer at the VA Office of Information and Technology. Pool told lawmakers that his office is taking a “bold and forward-thinking approach” to modernizing IT infrastructure and operations.

Pool said the VA’s “digital experience” is moving onto a single modern platform. The platform supports more than 16 million unique users monthly. More than 3 million veterans have downloaded the VA mobile app, he said.

The VA’s 2026 budget for IT operations is $7.3 billion, a 4% decrease from its fiscal 2025 budget, Harris said. The agency also plans to decrease its workforce by 11.7% from 2025 levels to approximately 7,000 full-time employees, she said.

The VA’s Office of Information and Technology employs 8,205, but 1,172 workers have accepted deferred resignations and early retirements, according to the VA. The reduction aligns with a shift toward automation in which fewer staff is needed as technology matures, according to VA leaders.

“I think since the dawn of technology, we’ve used it to do things that alleviate the necessitation of manual processes and labor along the way,” Barrett said. “However, we can’t talk about smarter IT strategy without talking about the money that VA has spent on IT projects that have not delivered as were expected.”

In 2026, VA also plans to invest $3.5 billion to accelerate modernization efforts for its electronic health records system. It also plans to retire outdated legacy systems for a savings of $500 million.

The GAO in March issued a report that examined VA’s “three unsuccessful attempts” to modernize its online health records system, which it uses to manage the medical needs of 9 million veterans. The agency is now on its fourth attempt.

The GAO did not address direct costs from the first three failed attempts. But NextGov/FCW, a news website that covers technology in the federal government, reported in 2018 that the VA spent almost $2 billion in its first three tries to modernize the electronic health records system. [A far higher estimate of these costs associated with earlier unsuccessful efforts are detailed in the link beneath the lead photo to this article above]

“We have previously designated VA health care as a high-risk area for the federal government, in part due to its IT challenges and implementation” of an electronic health records management system, according to the GAO findings.

“VA needs reliable, modern technology in order to provide the high-quality benefits and services that our veterans deserve,” Barrett said.

The GAO is recommending the VA tap a “dedicated team of high-performing leaders within the agency” to oversee major IT changes.

Harris also emphasized the importance of having a well-functioning IT system that is protected and supported by a skilled cybersecurity workforce.

Pool said the IT office has adopted a “zero-trust approach” to managing online interactions.Zero trust is a security protocol that requires every access request be authenticated, authorized and validated whether the user is inside or outside the organization, he said.

Harris said it is critical for VA to get feedback from system users. “Incorporating insights from a frontline perspective facilitates buy-in — or success — and increases customer acceptance of any changes,” she said."

VA needs to overcome ‘history of failed IT modernization,’ federal watchdog says

Linda F. Hersey is a veterans reporter based in Washington, D.C. She previously covered the Navy and Marine Corps at Inside Washington Publishers. She also was a government reporter at the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner in Alaska, where she reported on the military, economy and congressional delegatio

Numbers Tell The Story – Is Our Government Looking In The Right Places For Cost Cutting?

 

PLEASE CLICK IMAGE TO ENLARGE

The above stupefying statistics are contained in a July 8 report Report (PDF) from Brown University’s Costs of War project and the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft.

“FROM ‘THE BUNKER’ AT THE PROJECT FOR GOVERNMENT OVERSIGHT” By Mark Thompson

“Can the U.S. have a reasoned national debate on a new defense strategy that is not distorted by the influence of the wealthy weapons sector?

The question answers itself: So long as the U.S. promotes Pentagon policies that aim to do everything everywhere, it will continue to be a self-licking ice cream cone that can’t be sated.“

_________________________________________________________________

“The Bunker was never much for math as a student. But once he started covering the Pentagon during the Stone Age (technically, 1979), he figured out he’d better lube up his slide rule if he were to have any chance of keeping track of bangs for bucks. Armed next with calculators, and then with computers, charting U.S. military spending alongside long-ago defense-budget pros like Bill Kaufmann was always fascinating, and sometimes frustrating: How could this nation be spending so much on its military and getting so little in return?

Some things never change:

From 2020 to 2024, private corporations pocketed $2.4 trillion of the U.S. military’s $4.4 trillion discretionary budget — about 54%. That’s up from their 41% share during the 1990s. That represents a 32% hike.

Over that same time span, the Pentagon’s Top 5 contractors got twice as much money as the entire U.S. government spent on diplomacy and international assistance.

National-security spending — not including inflation — has nearly doubled since 2000, rising from $531 billion to just over $1 trillion.

The number of defense-industry lobbyists pleading for bigger Pentagon budgets grew from 730 in 2020 to 950 in 2024, an increase of 30% (the nation’s population rose by 3% over that same period).

These stupefying statistics are contained in a July 8 report (PDF) from Brown University’s Costs of War project and the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft. “The current [U.S.] cover-the-globe strategy, which stresses a quest for military dominance and the ability to intervene anywhere on the globe in short order — has not served the U.S. well in this century,” authors William D. Hartung and Stephen N. Semler write (PDF). “The question is whether the U.S. can have a reasoned national debate on a new defense strategy that is not distorted by the influence of the wealthy weapons sector.”

The question answers itself: So long as the U.S. promotes Potemkin Pentagon policies that aim to do everything everywhere, it will continue to be a self-licking ice cream cone that can’t be sated.”

BUT IT’S STILL NOT ENOUGH

The Pentagon rolls out its annual wish lists

No matter how much money the U.S. spends on national security — it’s slated to clear that once-impossible-but-now-inevitable trillion-dollar hurdle in 2026 — it’s never enough. That’s why the Pentagon’s latest flock of what it calls “unfunded priorities lists” landed as predictably as the swallows of Capistrano on Capitol Hill last week.

Widely-known as “wish lists” everywhere except inside the Pentagon and congressional offices — where the good-grift charade continues — the rosters have something for everyone. Except taxpayers. Originally voluntary, and rarely used, they became just another legally-required line item in the Pentagon budget after then-Defense Secretary Robert Gates tried to kill them.

The Pentagon’s wish lists for 2026 include nearly $50 billion in requests from the services and military commands responsible for various slices of the globe. According to Breaking Defense, the not-public-but-always-leaked lists include:

— $16 billion for the Air Force and its subordinate Space Force, including $4 billion for more missiles.

—$7.4 billionfor the Navy, including $2.2 billion for more munitions and the factories needed to produce them, as well as $1.4 billion for a next-generation fighter even as uncertainty grows about its future.

— $4.3 billion for the Army, largely for more bullets of all kinds.

— $2.4 billion for the National Guard, much of it dedicated to more F-35 and F-15 fighters.

Nearly $12 billion more for the U.S. Indo-Pacific Command, including $4.4 billion for drones.

Lawmakers, seeing themselves as the true civilian stewards of the U.S. military — except when it comes to declaring war, of course — have simply mandated that the services produce such lists. They represent an end-run around the Defense Department’s civilian leadership, and bollix up whatever Pentagon efforts there are to build a balanced force. It’s a crude way to demonstrate their porcine-overlord status, and their fealty to home-state defense contractors.

The Bunker - The Numbers Tell The Story

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Mark Thompson has been covering U.S. national security for four decades, including from 1994 to 2016 as senior correspondent and deputy Washington bureau chief at TIME Magazine.Mark worked at TIME from 1994 to 2016. Before that, he covered military affairs for the late Knight-Ridder Newspapers (including the Detroit Free Press, the Miami Herald, the Philadelphia Inquirer, and the San Jose Mercury-News) for eight years.Prior to Knight-Ridder, Mark reported from Washington for the Fort Worth Star-Telegram for seven years. During that time, he and his paper were awarded the 1985 Pulitzer Prize for Public Service for a series of articles on an uncorrected design flaw aboard Fort Worth-built Bell helicopters that had killed nearly 250 U.S. servicemen.

Releasing Countries From The Humanitarian And Economic Prisons Of Warfare

Standard

The same, multi-national collaborative negotiation used to free 24 prisoners in Russia can be utilized to prevent and resolve wars.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

I have learned a great deal in two military combat tours, 36 years in the weapons systems business and 17 years as a national and international volunteer counselor to small business.

The most important lesson has been that someone different than I may not have the same value system I possess, but by learning about them I will be able to make distinctions between my values and theirs. 

That learning process permits me to consider accepting the differences between us, communicate with them and move forward on constructive objectives.

When governments and weapons makers treasure the economic windfalls in collective military industrial technology while refusing to negotiate, then political and military values on both sides of a world conflict collide.

Soldiers and civilians then die and economies endure massive debt or risk collapse while other world powers are forced to take sides.

All wars eventually result in negotiated settlements. Avoiding them by learning and negotiation in the first place is the most effective war weapon and by far the least costly in materials, debt and lives. 

A look over our shoulders at our recent warfare is useful when viewing our future while making prudent decisions regarding financial and defense security. Every citizen from the individual voter to the politician must consider the risks and the opportunities to avoid the risks of war.  

Effective negotiation must involve learning the other party’s values, not simply the perceived threat they represent to us because we do not know them.

From the neighborhood to the boardroom, from the Statehouse to the Congress and the White House, we would do well to learn more about those different from us before we fight.

The way forward lies in developing a mutual understanding of our respective values and cultures in lieu of fighting wars by using diplomacy and negotiation to save lives and economies.

Nations are evolving technological tools for communication at a startling pace. Our diplomacy, and negotiation must keep pace by using those tools with communicative, knowledgeable leadership to keep the peace.

What Can We Learn From People Who Are Different From Us?

Please Don’t Thank Me for My Service

 

                                                                           Image: LA Times

THE NEW YORK TIMES"

"The thanks comes across as shallow, disconnected, a reflexive offering from people who, while meaning well, have no clue what soldiers did over there or what motivated them to go, and who would never have gone themselves nor sent their own sons and daughters.

Something in the stomach tumbles from expressions of appreciation that are so disconnected from the “evil, nasty stuff you do in war; when your war turns out to have feet of clay — whether fighting peasants in Vietnam or in the name of eradicating weapons of mass destruction that never materialized."

---

"So what to say to a vet? Maybe promise to vote next time, Mr. Freedman said, or offer a scholarship or job (as, he said, some places have stepped up and done). Stand up for what’s right, suggested Mr. O’Brien.

The thanks Mr. Garth gets today remind him of both the bad times and the good, all of which carry more meaning than he has now in civilian life. Hardest is the gratitude from parents of fallen comrades. “That’s the most painful thank you,” he said. “It’s not for me, and I’m not your son.” He struggled to explain his irritation. “It’s not your fault,” he said of those thanking him. “But it’s not my fault either.”

Mr. Freedman, 33, feels like the thanks “alleviates some of the civilian guilt,” adding: “They have no skin in the game with these wars. There’s no draft.” No real opinions either, he said. “At least with Vietnam, people spit on you and you knew they had an opinion.”  Thank you for your service,” he said, is almost the equivalent of “I haven’t thought about any of this.”

Tim O’Brien, a Vietnam vet and the author of the acclaimed book “The Things They Carried,” told me that his war’s vets who believed in the mission like to be thanked. Others, himself included, find that “something in the stomach tumbles” from expressions of appreciation that are so disconnected from the “evil, nasty stuff you do in war.”

The more so, he said, “when your war turns out to have feet of clay” — whether fighting peasants in Vietnam or in the name of eradicating weapons of mass destruction that never materialized.

Mr. Garth appreciates thanks from someone who makes an effort to invest in the relationship and experience."

Please Don't Thank Me For My Service