Historically, Washington, D.C., has favored insider candidates for high-level positions, typically promoting individuals from within the Washington establishment. However, President-elect Trump's approach marks a departure from this tradition. One of his key campaign promises was to "drain the swamp" of entrenched insiders and return the government to the people. In line with this promise, he has quickly chosen non-traditional appointees who may have less experience but demonstrate capability, loyalty, and a commitment to his vision. One notable selection is Pete Hegseth, a Washington outsider and unconventional candidate for Secretary of Defense (SecDef).
However, the new Secretary will have to navigate the largest agency in the federal government with the second-largest federal budget. He will inherit responsibility for over three million personnel and an astounding $3.8 trillion in assets—not counting the immense responsibility of defending the nation. Yet, the most significant challenge may lie within the Pentagon and the Washington establishment. A complex network of processes, procedures, personalities, and agendas can generate more turmoil than any battlefield. The “task at hand” is immense, and navigating this environment will be difficult and time-consuming.
After spending several years at the Pentagon advising a Joint Chiefs of Staff member and working on various defense issues and congressional legislation, I have observed agenda-driven deals, decisions, and the challenges of defending our nation. I want to share a few observations and suggestions for the new secretary to help navigate this complex landscape.
The Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS)
The Chairman and the other JCS members serve as the primary military advisers to the President, the National Security Council, the Homeland Security Council, and the Secretary of Defense. They have no command authority and oversee little but, as the most senior appointed positions in the military, wield tremendous influence and the president's ear. Understand what they do and how they do it—a common failure of many SecDefs. DoD must act and speak with one voice.
The Combatant Commands (COCOMs)
The COCOMs and their commanders are the warfighters accountable to the President and SecDef. They are assigned worldwide geographic responsibilities and missions. However, not all COCOMs hold the same level of importance; their significance often depends on political factors, threats to U.S. interests, and the extent of U.S. military involvement rather than solely on the need to defend the nation. New presidential mandates will reshape the geopolitical landscape and change these commands' relevance; some will lose their influence and pushback; remember, you’re in charge!
The Service Secretaries and Chiefs
The military services, Air Force, Army, Marines, Navy, and Space often operate parochially, focusing heavily on their budgets and frequently lacking collaboration behind the scenes—a source of equipment and technological redundancies, challenging integration in combat zones, and inefficiencies. They are responsible for organizing, training, and equipping their forces, which accounts for nearly 80% of the Department of Defense's (DoD) budget, making them significant players within the Pentagon. Keep them close.
The Deputy Secretary of Defense (Dep SecDef)
This key position works closely behind the scenes with Service Chiefs and the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS). They are responsible for developing the National Defense Strategy, or the strategic direction for DoD, which should align with the President’s National Security Strategy. They are critical in enforcing your direction, serving as the helmsman and problem solvers. A personal pick is probably a good idea.
The Under Secretary of Defense Positions
Seven critical positions are below the SecDef; each nomination should receive personal approval. These individuals form the inner circle, and their influence varies in importance. The most crucial role is the policy position, responsible for defining and implementing the agency's military strategy in alignment with national security objectives and leading the budget planning process. The other important position is personnel and readiness, which will play a vital role in shaping policies for managing the force, with readiness being the key. After thirty years of continuous mobilization in non-traditional combat zones, we have seen a significant decline in unit readiness, jeopardizing the military’s lethality and ability to conduct operations against near-peer threats like China. An area that desperately needs addressing.
The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA)
A painful but necessary annual legislative act that grants the DoD and its members the authority to do what the nation asks the Department to do—defend the homeland and fight and win the nation’s wars. However, it is more than just authorizing the expenditure of funds; it also establishes defense policies and restrictions. Because of this, it can become politically misguided, making strong leadership and guidance from the secretary vital.
The DoD Budget Process
Everything in the Pentagon revolves around funding. To get what is needed, the DoD operates primarily through the Planning, Programming, Budget, and Execution Processes (PPBE), which are distinct from the NDAA. It is responsible for determining the department's funding requirements and capabilities while allocating resources, such as force structure (people, equipment, and facilities), to meet these requirements. Ensure it is aligned with the president’s guidance – this is not always the case and requires a watchful eye.
The Comptroller and General Counsel
Both positions and their staff are crucial for managing DoD’s legal and fiscal accountability. DoD is under significant scrutiny, failing its last seven audits, with only 63% of its $3.8 trillion in assets correctly accounted for. Some progress has been made, but much more is needed. The general counsels serve as a form of insurance against legal issues. Anticipate several legal challenges to the president’s mandates arising from external and internal sources – plan for resistance.
Strategic Plans
They are a tool to shape DoD and its direction, which should be aligned with the President's. Start with the National Defense Strategy, which must align with the President’s National Security Strategy, focusing on an “America First” policy. Too often, it has been out of sync, like during President Trump’s first presidency, due to questionable loyalties within the Pentagon. In addition, and of great concern are the war plans. There are few operational-level plans for potential hotspots worldwide – a critical requirement and expertise lost after the Cold War. A lack of war plans could significantly complicate and delay a U.S. response—a troubling situation for future conflicts.
Office of Net Assessment (ONA)
The Office of Net Assessment (ONA) serves as the Department of Defense's internal think tank, crucial in assessing the future direction of the DoD's security strategies. However, it has come under scrutiny, with the DoD Inspector General investigating claims that DoD contracts may have been misused to support partisan political activities or engage in other improper and wasteful practices. The office is a valuable asset—it's essential to investigate and address any impropriety.
Extremism in the Military
DoD Instruction 1325.06 (Handling Protest, Extremist, and Criminal Gang Activities Among Members of the Armed Forces) needs to go away. The document was a misguided and unwarranted response initiated by the SecDef’s Countering Extremist Activity Working Group after the January 6th riots. It was a politically motivated group that lacked a solid rationale or supporting evidence to justify its conclusions, highlighted by a recent Army audit stating, "lack of basic awareness of what extremist acts are and how to report them," which underscores the troop-level confusion jeopardizing unit cohesion and fostering an atmosphere of division.
The Pentagon Recycling Bin
Sourcing senior DoD leadership is a recycling bin of established Washington security experts. It consists of a questionable practice of cycling senior leaders back and forth between the DoD and prominent Washington security think tanks, academia, and congressional staff, creating a breeding ground for groupthink. While their resumes may impress with numerous high-level security roles, only a few have experience running large organizations or spending time outside Washington. They tend to be risk-averse and unqualified for their position, often maintaining the status quo rather than introducing meaningful changes – hire cautiously.
Public Perception
The lack of attention to public perception in Department of Defense (DoD) decision-making is concerning. Only a few senior officials consider how the public will view their choices. While not every decision requires this consideration, many significant ones do. Issues such as the Middle East, Ukraine, Taiwan, financial accountability, and the introduction of "wokeism" and critical race theory into the military are particularly notable. This oversight contributes significantly to the secretary's challenges and should be integrated into relevant DoD decisions.
Conclusion
President-elect Trump has selected Pete Hegseth, a non-traditional candidate and Washington outsider, as Secretary of Defense. He faces a significant challenge ahead. However, Hegseth's unique troop-level perspective on security issues and military direction can potentially bring essential changes to the Pentagon and the broader security establishment. His comprehensive understanding of roles and responsibilities will be crucial for his success, while strong and persistent leadership will be necessary to navigate the expected scrutiny and resistance. His leadership style, rooted in a warrior ethos, is long overdue and seems ideally suited for this role.
Major General Don McGregor (U.S. Air Force, ret.) is a combat veteran and an F-16 fighter pilot. While serving as a General Officer in the Pentagon, he was the National Guard Director of Strategy, Policy, Plans, and International Affairs, advising a four-star Joint Chiefs of Staff member. He was the lead liaison between the Council of Governors and the Secretary of Defense and administered the Department of Defense’s premier international affairs program, with over 105 global partnerships. He has held various operational command and director positions across the National Guard and military commands. Major General McGregor is an expert in defense strategy, policy, planning, and global security and is well-regarded for his expertise in the use of military forces to support federal agencies. He holds a master’s degree in Diplomacy and International Conflict Resolution from Norwich University.
