Follow us on social

google cta
Musk Hegseth

DOGE wants to cut the Pentagon — by 0.07%

His recently announced meager $580m reduction is just an exercise in reshuffling

Analysis | Military Industrial Complex
google cta
google cta

Last week, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth directed the termination of over $580 million in Pentagon contracts, grants, and programs. They amount to less than 0.07% of the Pentagon budget.

The elimination of this spending aligns with the administration’s effort to reshuffle the budget, not to promote a wholesale reduction in military spending.

Secretary Hegseth made this clear in February, when he ordered his staff to draw up plans to excise about $50 billion from the Pentagon budget annually for at least five years — only to “offset” greater spending in 17 priority areas. These include further militarization of the border, needless expansion of the U.S. nuclear arsenal, and ill-conceived plans to develop a “Golden Dome” missile defense system for the United States.

Accordingly, Hegseth announced in a video last week that the eliminated spending did not align with the administration’s priorities — “in other words, they are not a good use of taxpayer dollars.” The secretary proceeded to outline terminated contracts, grants, and programs — lamenting one program for 780% cost growth. According to Hegseth, “we’re not doing that anymore.”

Hegseth is right to baulk at a program egregiously over budget and behind schedule. Cost growth and delivery delays are longstanding and pervasive issues at the Department of Defense. However, to cut wasteful spending fast — the secretary’s stated intention — he must start with big ticket items in the Pentagon budget. These are service contracts and major weapon programs, which are particularly susceptible to cost overruns and delays.

Instead, Secretary Hegseth has focused his attention on firing civilian employees and nibbling at the edges of the Pentagon budget to shore up more funding for the president’s misguided priorities.

The result is a performative appeal to the American people, who suffer the social and economic consequences of a runaway Pentagon budget — further militarization of U.S. foreign policy and forgone investment on civilian infrastructure. Taxpayers don’t need Secretary Hegseth to explain why he’s eliminating less than 0.07% of the Pentagon spending to simply redirect it elsewhere. They need big, bold action that prioritizes their security needs and wallets over the financial interests of military contractors. They need deep cuts to the Pentagon budget, regardless of parochial interests.

As a second-term president, Trump is well-positioned to advance deep reductions in military spending. He and Secretary Hegseth also have the necessary tools to reduce the Pentagon budget. My colleagues and I outlined around $60 billion in cuts in January. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) likewise detailed how to cut hundreds of billions from the Pentagon budget over the next 12 years. These recommendations are informed by years of research on the drivers of Pentagon waste: dangerous and unrealistic defense strategy, outsize corporate influence on the policymaking process, and downright bad deal-making with military contractors.

Yet the administration appears deferential to billionaire Elon Musk, the head of the so-called “Department of Government Efficiency” (DOGE). Indeed, last week’s re-shuffling of the Pentagon budget came at the direction of DOGE, which made no haste getting to the Pentagon even though military spending accounts for over half of the annual discretionary budget. As many have pointed out, Musk’s companies Space X and Starlink received billions in government contracts in fiscal year 2024. This is a clear conflict of interest.

Further, DOGE’s approach to the Pentagon is unlikely to produce significant savings long-term. Those require a pivot away from the U.S. grand strategy of global military dominance and the hubris that comes with it. President Trump seems to have some understanding that the Pentagon budget is overkill. Only a month ago he expressed interest in arms control agreements with China and Russia, with the goal of all three countries ultimately cutting their military budgets in half.

But then a week later, Secretary Hegseth exempted nuclear modernization efforts from any re-shuffling of funds within the Pentagon budget.

Promoting a topline reduction in Pentagon spending requires the administration to defy military contractors and lawmakers on the Hill — the ICBM lobby, the Joint Strike Fighter Congressional Caucus, and others. It means rejecting calls for Pentagon budget increases through the budget reconciliation process. Further, it necessitates that the administration cancel boondoggles like the F-35 fighter jet and the Sentinel intercontinental ballistic missile in the president’s budget request to Congress for fiscal year 2026. These actions require serious gumption. The administration would have to actually walk the walk to reduce topline Pentagon spending.

It is never too late to do the right thing, but right now the administration is talking a big game.

Editor's note: This story originally reported that Hegseth announced a 0.001% Pentagon budget cut. The actual figure is 0.07% and the story has been updated accordingly.


Top image credit: Elon Musk and U.S. Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth shake hands at the Pentagon in Washington, D.C., U.S., March 21, 2025 in this screengrab obtained from a video. REUTERS/Idrees Ali
google cta
Analysis | Military Industrial Complex
Trump Venezuela
Top image credit: President Donald Trump monitors U.S. military operations in Venezuela, from Mar-a-Lago Club in Palm Beach, Florida, on Saturday, January 3, 2026. (Official White House Photo by Molly Riley)

Geo-kleptocracy and the rise of 'global mafia politics'

Global Crises

“As everyone knows, the oil business in Venezuela has been a bust, a total bust, for a long period of time. … We're going to have our very large United States oil companies, the biggest anywhere in the world, go in, spend billions of dollars, fix the badly broken infrastructure, the oil infrastructure, and start making money for the country,” said President Donald Trump the morning after U.S. forces invaded Caracas and carried off the indicted autocrat Nicolàs Maduro.

The invasion of Venezuela on Jan. 3 did not result in regime change but rather a deal coerced at the barrel of a gun. Maduro’s underlings may stay in power as long as they open the country’s moribund petroleum industry to American oil majors. Government repression still rules the day, simply without Maduro.

keep readingShow less
Russian icebreakers
Top photo credit: Russian nuclear powered Icebreaker Yamal during removal of manned drifting station North Pole-36. August 2009. (Wikimedia Commmons)

Trump's Greenland, Canada threats reflect angst over Russia shipping

North America

Like it or not, Russia is the biggest polar bear in the arctic, which helps to explain President Trump’s moves on Greenland.

However, the Biden administration focused on it too. And it isn’t only about access to resources and military positioning, but also about shipping. And there, the Russians are some way ahead.

keep readingShow less
Iran nuclear
Top image credit: An Iranian cleric and a young girl stand next to scale models of Iran-made ballistic missiles and centrifuges after participating in an anti-U.S. and anti-Israeli rally marking the anniversary of the U.S. embassy occupation in downtown Tehran, Iran, on November 4, 2025.(Photo by Morteza Nikoubazl/NurPhoto via REUTERS CONNECT)

Want Iran to get the bomb? Try regime change

Middle East

Washington is once again flirting with a familiar temptation: the belief that enough pressure, and if necessary, military force, can bend Iran to its will. The Trump administration appears ready to move beyond containment toward forcing collapse. Before treating Iran as the next candidate for forced transformation, policymakers should ask a question they have consistently failed to answer in the Middle East: “what follows regime change?”

The record is sobering. In the past two decades, regime change in the region has yielded state fragmentation, authoritarian restoration, or prolonged conflict. Iraq remains fractured despite two decades of U.S. investment. Egypt’s democratic opening collapsed within a year. Libya, Syria, and Yemen spiraled into civil wars whose spillover persists. In each case, removing a regime proved far easier than constructing a viable successor. Iran would not be the exception. It would be the rule — at a scale that dwarfs anything the region has experienced.

keep readingShow less
google cta
Want more of our stories on Google?
Click here to make us a Preferred Source.

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.