The proposed 2025 Department of Defense budget is $850 billion, and when Department of Energy funding for military nuclear programs is factored in, the total tops $895 billion. Yet, the Joint Chiefs of Staff say they can’t meet assigned missions without more money.
Despite this appetite for even greater defense spending, President Donald Trump and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth are doing the right thing as they seek to cut billions from budgets.
Here are five areas they should focus on that can help guide cuts and reshape the military into a more cohesive fighting force with national treasure spent on the capabilities and force structure we need, rather than on what we don’t.
Conduct a comprehensive review of military strategy
Every four years the Department of Defense does a review of the National Defense Strategy (NDS), which is billed as a fresh look at current threats and the capabilities needed to defeat them. The last NDS was done in 2022, before Russia invaded Ukraine, demonstrating that the Russian military threat was severely overestimated.
A new NDS is not due until 2026, but the new administration should consider doing one sooner to account for changes in the military postures of both Russia and China, as well as the new administration’s foreign policy changes.
Absent a current review of the NDS, unrealistic assessments of how to deal with threats from potential opponents can lead to funding larger forces than needed. Experts who study Russia and China are skeptical of military strategies that envision employment of large American land forces.
Russia’s vulnerable center of gravity is it’s underperforming economy, which is largely dependent on high global prices for oil and gas, not its poorly performing military forces that would face combined NATO ground forces. A military conflict with China would be primarily an air, missile and naval fight with a limited role for ground forces.
A strategic review should seek to demilitarize, as much as possible, our approach to foreign affairs and plan to implement a “whole of government approach” to focus an array of government resources and expertise on threats to our security. The U.S. possesses many elements of national power that can be brought to bear on international problems. A high level of technological development and military industrial capacity and the ability to work with powerful allies to bring global pressure to bear are a few of these “soft power” elements.
End duplication of military capabilities
The U.S. has not had a truly complete review of the roles and missions of the various services since 1948. That turf war was so nasty that the service chiefs don’t want to risk opening that can of worms again. Consequently, the individual services are paying for duplication of effort and inefficient force structures.
For example, nine Department of Defense éléments all fund independent intelligence organizations. These are: the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), the National Security Agency (NSA), the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency (NGA), the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO), and the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force and Space Force. The Defense Intelligence Agency 2025 budget alone is $101.6 billion.
Senior leaders should conduct a roles and missions review to determine whether all the services need their own intelligence organizations. This is only one example and there are other areas that should be reviewed for consolidation.
The services are loathe to have discussions like this because there will be winners and losers. Even though their current budget share isn’t sufficient to meet all the missions acquired, senior leadership won’t rationalize organizational structure because it might mean less budget share — and lost flag officer spaces.
Fix confusing, costly contracting procedures
The Air Force’s Sentinel Program to develop a new ICBM is the poster child for an out-of-control program. The cost per missile has increased by at least 37% since the initial baseline, and the program is years behind schedule. Hegseth has placed a hold on the program, which could be an excellent candidate for restructuring or termination.
The list of defense procurement horror stories is endless. Many companies won’t bid on Pentagon contracts because wading through the arcane procedures is too costly in time and resources.
A major reason for excessive costs in defense procurement is that the military dictates dream specifications and sets off a frenzy of research and development efforts to meet optimal specifications, which takes time and drives up costs.
The military should buy “good enough” and train the heck out of the service members who need to use it. The approach should be based on buying more off-the-shelf gear and modifying it for military use.
Curtail congressional pork barreling
We could reduce defense spending dramatically if Congress would stop larding up budgets with earmarks. I worked on two high-cost programs the Army had no requirement for and didn’t want. This is commonplace.
Some of our defense budget is wasted every year on congressional pet projects or activities that ensure money is spent in the districts of powerful legislators. In fiscal 2025 alone, members of Congress requested “just over $38 billion for 1,499 military research and procurement programs … that the president didn’t seek,” CQ Roll Call found.
What’s more, the last survey of DOD facilities calculated the Pentagon has at least 22% more base infrastructure than needed to support current force structures. But Congress refuses to close excess installations because it would mean losing jobs and reduced spending in their districts.
Review nuclear weapons needs
The Congressional Budget Office estimated the DOD plans to spend $756 billion over a 10-year period to modernize nuclear forces. Nuclear weapons only have one function—to deter anyone else from using them against the U.S. or our allies. If we do things right, they will never be used.
In the New START agreement negotiated with the Russians in 2010, both agreed not to deploy more than 1,550 strategic warheads. In 2013, the Joint Chiefs of Staff concluded the U.S. could support deterrence strategy with only 1,000 deployed warheads.
President Trump wants the U.S., Russia and China to negotiate an agreement to drastically reduce nuclear weapons. If Russia and the U.S. agree to bring their numbers down, there could be a basis to persuade China to join a trilateral negotiation which would allow the U.S. to re-think spending so much on nuclear force modernization.
