Here's Why the Pentagon Says It Can Pay Troops with Money Intended for Research

To pay service members this week, the Pentagon turned to an unusual fix: tapping billions in unspent research and development funds to meet payroll. The move ensured that troops received checks, but it drew money from the same budget that fuels the military’s next generation of technology.

Questions that arise include, "Is that legal?" and "What consequences follow?"

When Congress fails to pass new budget appropriations, most agencies lose spending authority. The Defense Department, however, can sometimes tap what are called unobligated funds: money already appropriated by Congress but not yet tied to a specific contract.

Research, development, test and evaluation (RDT&E) funds are available for two years, so leftover money from fiscal year 2025, which ended Sept. 30, can still be used in fiscal 2026. 

That’s where the Pentagon found roughly $8 billion to keep military paychecks on track while lawmakers remained gridlocked. When the budget standoff dragged into its second week, President Donald Trump ordered the DoD to issue paychecks Oct. 15 by using already appropriated funds.

What the Money Normally Does

RDT&E funding isn't extra cash lying around; it's the backbone of long-term innovation. These accounts fund the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, the Office of Naval Research, and service labs that convert academic research into deployable systems. These accounts contribute to everything from basic science and university research to advanced weapons testing and battlefield medical breakthroughs. 

Historically, this funding has produced some of the U.S. military’s most important tools, such as stealth technology, precision-guided weapons, GPS and night vision. Current programs depend on the same funding stream, including research into hypersonic propulsion, AI-assisted logistics and cyber defense. 

RDT&E also supports smaller efforts with big impact, including Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) grants for startup defense contractors and university-based partnerships that develop everything from trauma-response biomaterials to satellite-tracking sensors. Delaying or diverting that money risks pausing some of those efforts midstream when even brief disruptions can derail experiments or force small contractors to shut down. This may create capability gaps that surface years later.

The funds being repurposed are unobligated and represent R&D projects that have been budgeted but not yet locked into contracts. In practice, this means delays or cancellations of new initiatives: prototypes of experimental systems, university collaboration grants and advanced technology efforts.

Legal commentators point out that although the administration is using funds already appropriated, shifting them to a different purpose without congressional reprogramming or approval could violate the Antideficiency Act, which prohibits spending money outside what Congress has authorized. 

The Legal Tightrope

The bedrock principle underlying U.S. budget law is that no agency may spend money unless Congress has appropriated it. The Antideficiency Act forbids obligations in excess or in advance of appropriations, and the Purpose Statute limits funds to “the objects for which the appropriations were made.” R&D accounts are intended for technology development, not salaries. 

Normally the DoD would need to reprogram the funds, formally notifying or seeking approval from congressional committees to spend money differently. Skipping that step risks crossing the statutory line. 

Supporters argue that the action still falls within existing authority because the money was already appropriated and remains legally “available” for two fiscal years under U.S. Code. That means the Pentagon is not creating new spending, only redirecting funds not yet committed to contracts. They also cite the Feed and Forage Act, a Civil War-era statute letting DoD buy food, fuel and supplies when appropriations lapse. 

Critics counter by stating the Feed and Forage Act has never been used for payroll and that precedent limits it to tangible “necessities” required to sustain operations, not compensation. Using it for salaries stretches both text and history.

Because the RDT&E funds are technically available and the action temporary, most budget lawyers call it a gray area rather than outright illegal. If the Government Accountability Office or Congress reviews it, the outcome will hinge on whether paying troops can reasonably be considered a “necessary expense” of defense operations or a diversion from what Congress approved. 

Why Did They Do It?

The move makes sense. Service members can’t be told, “Go to work, but don’t expect a paycheck.” That's demoralizing, risky and politically costly. 

Lawmakers across parties often treat military pay as sacrosanct during shutdowns. By diverting RDT&E funds, the administration preserves continuity, morale and national security messaging. 

In a post on his social media platform Truth Social, Trump framed the use of funds as a defense of troops: “I will not allow ... Democrats to hold our Military ... HOSTAGE.”

What It Means Going Forward

No one disputes that troops deserve pay. The issue is the tradeoff and the precedent. The unobligated research money ensures stability for military families now but may slow the programs that would strengthen them in the future.