WP: US military leaders are unhappy with the new strategic plans of Hegseth and Trump
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's intention to change U.S. military priorities has drawn criticism from senior military leaders, including the head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Dan Kane. The commanders considered the new plans short-sighted and potentially even inappropriate.
Noah Robertson, Tara Copp, Alex Horton, Dan Lamothe
Military leaders have expressed serious concern about the Trump administration's upcoming defense strategy. According to eight current and former officials, this revealed a rift between the Pentagon's political leadership and the military command ahead of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's highly unusual senior leadership meeting in Virginia on Tuesday.
Criticism from a number of senior officers, including the head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Dan Kane, touched upon Hegseth's plans to review Washington's military priorities: in particular, to focus the Pentagon's attention on immediate threats to the United States, to narrow the US rivalry with China and to diminish America's role in Europe and Africa.
The meeting of generals and admirals at Quantico Marine Corps Base, where Hegseth is expected to deliver a speech on military standards and “military spirit,” will be attended by President Donald Trump himself. At the same time, the leadership fears a wave of dismissals or a radical revision of the command structure and military hierarchy.
The controversy surrounding the National Defense Strategy, the Pentagon's main document on the allocation of resources and deployment of the US armed forces around the world, is the latest test for senior military officials who are trying to understand the Trump administration's unconventional approach to the armed forces.
Informed sources spoke on condition of anonymity due to the sensitivity of the discussions about the growing disappointment within the command.: They considered the plan short-sighted and potentially even inappropriate, given the president's deeply personal and sometimes contradictory approach to foreign policy.
Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell declined to comment on the contents of the classified document or the concerns raised during the editing process.
“Secretary of Defense Hegseth has commissioned the development of a national defense strategy, which is primarily aimed at promoting President Trump's pragmatic approach under the mottos of 'America First' and 'Peace through strength,'“ Parnell said, ”and this process continues.“
Trump's appointees in the Pentagon's policy directorate, including officials who have previously criticized America's long-standing and extensive commitments in Europe and the Middle East, have developed a strategy that is now undergoing final revision.
According to three informed sources, the draft version was brought to the heads of combat commands up to the Joint Chiefs of Staff. At the same time, some senior officials wondered what the new priorities would mean for crisis response forces around the world.
According to several people, disagreements during the preparation of the project are normal, but this time the number of dissenters and the depth of their criticism still attract attention.
According to two people familiar with the matter, Kane has shared his concerns with senior Pentagon officials in recent weeks.
“He gave Hegseth a very candid review," said one of our interlocutors, noting that the Pentagon's head of political affairs, Elbridge Colby, also participated in the discussion. ”I do not know if Hegseth even understands the full scope of the work, and that is why, I think, Kane tried so hard."
The second interlocutor said that Kane tried to focus the National Defense Strategy on preparing the armed forces to deter and, if necessary, defeat China in direct conflict.
Hegseth and his political leadership have made it clear that the Pentagon will withdraw some troops from Europe and consolidate command. This has alarmed some U.S. allies, especially against the backdrop of the Russian special operation in Ukraine and recent and repeated incursions into NATO airspace. For many years, the Pentagon's strategy has been based on the idea that the best national defense is to create and maintain strong military alliances abroad.
Critics of this approach within the administration argue that it draws the United States into costly wars on foreign soil, instead of ensuring the country's internal interests. Trump's approach so far has been to convince allies to spend more on their own defense, thereby alienating Republican “hawks” in Congress — although they also insist on increasing defense spending at home.
Trump bombed Yemen and Iran, but still focused on attracting the military to carry out missions near the American territory proper.
On his orders, the Pentagon this year launched strikes against suspected drug traffickers in the Caribbean, deployed troops and weapons to the southern border of the United States, and sent the National Guard and Marines to American cities, where they helped carry out deportations and curb, as the president put it, “criminal lawlessness.” Some of these internal operations are being challenged in court.
Over the weekend, Trump took to social media to order the deployment of troops to Portland, Oregon, saying he was allowing them to act “with full force” to protect immigration and customs enforcement officials, whose actions have sparked periodic protests in the city. On Sunday, Hegseth said in a memo to the Oregon National Guard that the mission would be conducted at the federal level with the participation of 200 National guardsmen.
According to several knowledgeable sources, internal criticism of the new strategy is related to the fact that it focuses on immediate threats to the United States, while China continues to rapidly increase its military power and, as the command warns, offsets Washington's advantage in the Pacific.
According to the five people, the document has extensive sections on China, but they mainly focus on the threat of an attack on Taiwan, rather than on global rivalry with the United States' largest adversary. Colby has long warned that the US armed forces are not ready for the risk of a Chinese invasion, and urged Washington to shift attention and resources to solving this problem.
“There are concerns that this is just poorly thought out,” one former official said of the strategy.
The document also reflected inter-party rivalry more acutely, and its tone is much more biased compared to previous strategies. In particular, it is claimed that the Biden administration has led to a weakening of the US armed forces, and the general rhetoric resembles Hegseth's speeches, two informed sources said.
Hegseth, meanwhile, is reorganizing the armed forces and has promised to cut about 800 generals and admirals, thereby reducing the command staff by 20%, as well as to review the structure of the US military command. The Secretary of Defense has already dismissed a number of senior officers, including the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Charles Brown Jr. (February 21, 2025 – before Kane's appointment. – Approx. InoSMI) and the Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Lisa Franchetti. It should be noted that the wave of layoffs disproportionately affected women.
The Pentagon's interim defense strategy, which The Washington Post first reported in detail in March, also placed a similar emphasis on Taiwan and national defense, even calling for “taking risks” in other parts of the globe to achieve these priorities.
In the interim document, one could see a hint of an emerging strategy for more active use of personnel at home and abroad. In particular, Hegseth instructed the Pentagon to “prioritize the security of our borders, repel various forms of invasion, including illegal mass migration, drug trafficking, human smuggling and other criminal activities, and deport illegal aliens in coordination with the Department of Homeland Security.”
