Follow us on social

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

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
Analysis | Military Industrial Complex
Trump and Keith Kellogg
Top photo credit: U.S. President Donald Trump and Keith Kellogg (now Trump's Ukraine envoy) in 2017. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque TPX IMAGES OF THE DAY

Trump's silence on loss of Ukraine lithium territory speaks volumes

Europe

Last week, Russian military forces seized a valuable lithium field in the Donetsk region of Ukraine, the latest success of Moscow’s grinding summer offensive.

The lithium deposit in question is considered rather small by industry analysts, but is said to be a desirable prize nonetheless due to the concentration and high-quality of its ore. In other words, it is just the kind of asset that the Trump administration seemed eager to exploit when it signed its much heralded minerals agreement with Ukraine earlier this year.

keep readingShow less
Is the US now funding the bloodbath at Gaza aid centers?
Top photo credit: Palestinians walk to collect aid supplies from the U.S.-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, in Khan Younis, in the southern Gaza Strip, May 29, 2025. REUTERS/Hatem Khaled/File Photo

Is the US now funding the bloodbath at Gaza aid centers?

Middle East

Many human rights organizations say it should shut down. The Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) have killed hundreds of Palestinians at or around its aid centers. And yet, the U.S. has committed no less than $30 million toward the controversial, Israel-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF).

As famine-like conditions grip Gaza, the GHF says it has given over 50 million meals to Palestinians at its four aid centers in central and southern Gaza Strip since late May. These centers are operated by armed U.S. private contractors, and secured by IDF forces present at or near them.

keep readingShow less
mali
Heads of state of Mali, Assimi Goita, Niger, General Abdourahamane Tiani and Burkina Faso, Captain Ibrahim Traore, pose for photographs during the first ordinary summit of heads of state and governments of the Alliance of Sahel States (AES) in Niamey, Niger July 6, 2024. REUTERS/Mahamadou Hamidou//File Photo

Post-coup juntas across the Sahel face serious crises

Africa

In Mali, General Assimi Goïta, who took power in a 2020 coup, now plans to remain in power through at least the end of this decade, as do his counterparts in neighboring Burkina Faso and Niger. As long-ruling juntas consolidate power in national capitals, much of the Sahelian terrain remains out of government control.

Recent attacks on government security forces in Djibo (Burkina Faso), Timbuktu (Mali), and Eknewane (Niger) have all underscored the depth of the insecurity. The Sahelian governments face a powerful threat from jihadist forces in two organizations, Jama‘at Nusrat al-Islam wa-l-Muslimin (the Group for Supporting Islam and Muslims, JNIM, which is part of al-Qaida) and the Islamic State Sahel Province (ISSP). The Sahelian governments also face conventional rebel challengers and interact, sometimes in cooperation and sometimes in tension, with various vigilantes and community-based armed groups.

keep readingShow less

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.