The April 7 memo aligns with the March 28 Secretary of Defense memo that called for an analysis of the department in hopes of reducing duplicative jobs, automating others and weeding out bureaucracy.

“To successfully deter America’s adversaries and posture our Forces to prevail in combat, we must focus our efforts and our resources on our top priorities,” the April 7 memo states. “Optimizing the organizational structure and civilian workforce of the Department is foundational to that effort.”

Secretaries of the military departments, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, directors of the defense agencies and field activities and Hegseth’s principal staff assistants were instructed to provide a “future-state” organizational chart to the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness Jules W. Hurst III, pinpointing areas for consolidation.

The under secretary has until Friday to submit those proposals to Hegseth’s office.

The April 7 memo offers a simple litmus test for judging a position’s necessity.

“If this position didn’t exist today, and we were at war tomorrow, would we create it?” the memo states. “If the answer is no, it should be consolidated, restructured, or eliminated.”

Child care, teaching positions safe from DOD civilian hiring freeze

The letter lists several points of emphasis, including what’s listed as “mission-first alignment” — where every civilian role that doesn’t “directly enable lethality” should be “reclassified, outsourced, or removed” — and “flattened hierarchies,” where supervision is reduced in favor of providing more decision making power to positions at every level.

The memo also calls for the reduction of jobs with duplicate responsibilities, the elimination of reviews for a speedier “process,” reallocation of money that isn’t directly tied to “warfighter outcomes,” termination of civilian roles not tethered to operational priorities and leveraging of automation and artificial intelligence.

“By cutting unnecessary layers, eliminating redundancy, and aligning every role to mission readiness, we ensure our ability to respond to any threat with speed, precision, and overwhelming force,” the memo states.

Since President Trump took office, the Defense Department civilian workforce has seen several changes that broke with the status quo.

In February, DOD civilian employees were ordered by the department to reply to an email from Elon Musk — tasked with leading the Department of Government Efficiency — that asked for a five-point summation of their weekly accomplishments.

Civilian employees were also barred from using their government-issued travel charge cards, after being given a $1 spending limit.

“The troops that we have in the Republic of Korea are responsible wholly for preserving peace on the peninsula and in the region,” Army Gen. Xavier Brunson, who also serves as head of Combined Forces Command, told members of the Senate Armed Services Committee on Thursday.

“They are a critical component to ballistic missile defense in the region. They are critical to helping Indo-Pacific Command see, sense and understand threats to the north and to deter a great many adversaries.”

Currently, roughly 28,500 U.S. military personnel are stationed in South Korea, working with both regional military partners and United Nations countries. The Defense Department has had at least 25,000 American troops deployed continuously there since the early 1950s.

Top general recommends US maintain current troop levels in Europe

But Trump and his advisers have questioned the value of the long-term presence of American military forces at a number of overseas locations. During an Oval Office ceremony on Wednesday, Trump was asked about reducing the number of American troops stationed in Europe, and injected Korea into his answer.

“We pay for U.S. military in Europe, and we don’t get reimbursed by much. South Korea, too,” he said. “It will be one of the things that we discuss that is unrelated to trade, but we’ll make it part of the trade conversation. It would be nice to wrap it all up together.”

At the start of Thursday’s hearing, Senate Armed Services Committee ranking member Jack Reed, D-R.I., noted “there are rumors that the Defense department will direct a reduction of U.S. presence in South Korea, or retask these forces to focus on the threat from China” instead of North Korea.

Brunson did not address any of the force level change discussions directly, but said that from a military strategy standpoint, “we need to remember there is diplomacy and defense on the Korean Peninsula currently.”

He urged “strategic clarity” with any changes in force posture in the region, to ensure allies and adversaries understand America’s commitment to stability in the region.

Adm. Samuel Paparo, head of U.S. Indo-Pacific Command, told lawmakers at the hearing that the forces stationed in Korea benefit not only that country but also numerous other allies in the region.

“They make significant contributions outside the Korean peninsula, including in their participation in multilateral exercises,” he said.

Defense Department officials have not announced any formal plans to begin force reductions or significant posture changes in the region. Trump did not provide any additional details on when a review of troop levels in Europe or the Pacific may begin.

“We certainly respect the sovereignty of the Panamanians,” Hegseth said before departing the country back to Washington.

Earlier Wednesday, Hegseth faced questions in a press conference about the two countries’ joint statement following their meetings Tuesday. Panama’s version included a line about its sovereignty over the canal; America’s didn’t, though it discussed working through Panama’s constitution, which affirms authority over the canal itself.

The impasse brought back concern that the U.S. was reneging on its agreement ceding the canal to Panamanian control, finalized in 1999 after a 20-year handover.

Trump has disparaged that deal and said multiple times that America would take the canal back — even saying in a March address to Congress that the U.S. was already “reclaiming” the waterway.

Panama’s President Raul Mulino publicly denied the claims and referred to them as an insult on the country’s dignity.

Hegseth vows US will ‘take back’ Panama canal from Chinese influence

Hegseth’s visit this week worked to calm any such tension. In carefully planned remarks, he referenced Panama’s value as a partner and its long history with the U.S., including on building the canal in the early 1900s. He also signed agreements to increase America’s military work with the country through further training and rotating in more U.S. forces and equipment.

“He acknowledged the sovereignty of Panama over the Panama Canal,” Frank Abrego, Panama’s minister of public security, said of Hegseth at the press conference.

Speaking to traveling press on the flight back to Washington, senior defense officials didn’t specify how many further American troops would enter the country, nor give a timeline for their arrival. They also didn’t elaborate on plans Hegseth previewed to renew Fort Sherman, the U.S. military’s now-abandoned jungle fighting school in the country.

Any further dispatch of U.S. troops to Panama would first require consensus with Panama’s government, said one of the defense officials, allowed to speak anonymously to describe the agreement.

In return, Panama’s government expressed interest in American help protecting the canal from cyberattacks and surveilling it.

The U.S. once had a large military presence inside Panama, though it was drawn down heavily during the canal handover. The number of American troops in the country now rises and falls from a few dozen to a couple hundred, depending on exercises and training programs.

In late 1989, America’s military launched a two-month operation to depose Panama’s then-President Manuel Noriega. The invasion has left scars for many in the country today, wary of U.S. coercion and, perhaps, another attack.

“There’s extraordinary sensitivities at hand,” the first defense official said, noting that any suggestion — by China or America — of infringing on Panama’s sovereignty over the canal is a “non-starter” in the country.

At the same time, the officials said, the Trump administration is increasingly concerned about the drift of Panama, and Latin America as a whole, toward what it calls “China’s malign influence.”

China’s government has vastly expanded its trade and investment relationship with the region, including through the Belt and Road Initiative, a global infrastructure program American officials say includes predatory lending practices.

On the trip, Hegseth added a clause to Trump’s pledge to take the canal back, soothing concerns that the U.S. military was developing plans to seize the waterway, reported by multiple outlets in March.

“Together, we are going to take back the canal from China’s influence,” Hegseth said.

Mulino pulled Panama from the Belt and Road Initiative this February, the same month U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio made an earlier visit to the country. Hegseth mentioned his respect for Mulino’s leadership multiple times on the trip, and the secretary’s team described the president as a long-term partner.

The Trump administration has said the U.S. will focus more intently on Latin America, including through the American military, which surged troops and warships for immigration missions since January.

In turn, Hegseth repeatedly called the Panama Canal “key terrain” and affirmed America’s commitment to maintain its access to it — repeated in the two countries’ joint statement.

Around 40% of U.S. container traffic passes through the Panama Canal each year alongside about 100 American Navy vessels, a number that would surely increase if a war began in the Pacific.

“Together, we are going to take back the canal from China’s influence,” Hegseth said.

The secretary spoke Tuesday from a Panamanian navy pier, renovated with $5 million funding from the U.S. Army. The backdrop — a towering bridge with cargo ships loitering in the distance — was itself a sign of Hegseth’s priorities.

The Trump administration has promised a new focus on the western hemisphere, enforced in large part through the military. In his first three months, Hegseth has sent around 7,500 more active-duty troops to the U.S. southwest border and deployed two Navy destroyers to patrol the country’s coasts in a show of force. He’s also used military aircraft to deport migrants from the U.S., including some to Panama.

Hegseth’s visit shows that approach extending farther beyond American borders, and a gentler tone from the Trump administration. On the trip, he promised to increase joint exercises with Panama, rotate more American troops into the country and to renovate a former U.S. military jungle school now in disrepair.

“We welcome the opportunity to have an increased troop presence here alongside the Panamanians to secure the sovereignty of the Panama Canal,” Hegseth said in a press conference Wednesday. He didn’t directly answer questions on whether that presence could again become permanent.

Canal security

Countries across Latin America have yearned for a more intent American presence in recent years, including as China expands its trade and infrastructure investments there. That said, not all attention is welcome attention, something especially clear in Panama.

President Donald Trump himself has repeatedly said the U.S. is taking back the country’s canal, which was ceded to Panama in 1999 after a 20-year handover. He’s also falsely claimed that China is operating it, something Hegseth denied in a speech Tuesday.

“China did not build this canal, China does not operate this canal and China will not weaponize this canal,” Hegseth said.

The claims have put Panama’s otherwise pro-American President Raul Mulino in a difficult position — stuck denying the statements while still maintaining his relationship with Washington.

Experts on the region and former U.S. officials too have been skeptical of the threat China poses to the canal. In February, Mulino pulled Panama from the Belt and Road Initiative, a global Chinese infrastructure program. And until recently, a Hong Kong-based company had agreed to sell two ports along the canal to the U.S. firm BlackRock, though the Chinese government has since intervened to review the deal.

Calling it “key terrain,” Hegseth reinforced multiple times the importance of the canal to American trade and, potentially, a conflict in Asia. Around 100 U.S. warships pass through the canal each year, he said, and more would need to cross if a war broke out in the Pacific. A further 40% of U.S. container ship traffic transits the waterway annually as well.

Signs of discontinuity remained Wednesday after the two countries released different versions of a joint statement. The Panamanian version mentioned its sovereignty over the canal; America’s didn’t.

Asked about the difference at the day’s press conference, Hegseth argued the two countries would counter Chinese influence together.

“We certainly recognize that the Panama Canal is in Panama,” Hegseth said.

Speaking beside him, Panama’s Minister of Public Security Frank Abrego was more direct.

“He acknowledged the sovereignty of Panama over the Panama Canal,” Abrego said of Hegseth, describing their private meetings a day before.

‘Panama in the lead’

Hegseth is the second senior U.S. official to visit Panama in as many months, following a trip by Secretary of State Marco Rubio in February.

Since then, multiple outlets have reported that the Pentagon was developing plans to retake control of the canal if necessary. And Mulino publicly refuted claims by Trump during an address to Congress that America was already “reclaiming” the canal.

“I reject, on behalf of Panama and all Panamanians, this new affront to the truth and to our dignity as a nation,” Mulino wrote in a post on the social app X.

Hegseth’s visit hence took on higher value as a bellwether for the Trump administration’s approach to the region: Would it bring carrots or sticks?

In public, the secretary spoke reassuringly of the two countries’ relationship. His meetings with Mulino and other officials ran more than an hour long. In speeches, he mentioned their shared history and role building the canal in the early 1900s. And he promised to increase their military partnership, to include trainings and perhaps a larger U.S. presence.

“With Panama in the lead, we will keep the canal secure and available for all nations,” Hegseth said.

America once had a large military force in the country, including tens of thousands of troops and a school at Fort Sherman, where thousands more learned to fight in the jungle each year. It’s since dwindled to a handful of troops at any given time, with up to hundreds rotating in for exercises or trainings.

Hegseth visited Fort Sherman — or what’s left of it — late Tuesday to preview a renewed American presence there. The buildings leading up to the battery were in disrepair, with stripped away walls exposing empty concrete husks. In the weeks before Hegseth arrived, Panama’s government mowed the overgrown lawns and applied a fresh coat of paint to the abandoned battery.

“The opportunity for a more robust jungle training center — joint together between Americans and Panamanians — is a great example to the world of our deepening partnership,” Hegseth said to a group of Panamanian and U.S. forces.

America’s jungle training school has since moved to Oahu, Hawaii. The secretary didn’t specify what the future center would involve or why a new one was necessary, since Panama has another such school elsewhere in the country.

Editor’s note: This story has been updated to include comments from a press conference Wednesday.

The vote was 54-45, with Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky as the only Republican voting against him. Three Democrats voted for Colby.

In a statement, McConnell said Colby’s “long public record suggests a willingness to discount the complexity of the challenges facing America, the critical value of our allies and partners.” And McConnell said Colby’s confirmation “encourages isolationist perversions of peace through strength to continue apace at the highest levels of administration policymaking.”

Vice President JD Vance criticized McConnell in an X post, saying that the senator’s no vote — “like so much of the last few years of his career — is one of the great acts of political pettiness I’ve ever seen.”

Vance spoke at the Senate Armed Services Committee hearing early last month to urge Colby’s confirmation, saying the nominee has said things in the past that alienated Republicans and Democrats and also said things that both sides would agree on.

The vice president said Colby will be able to work with lawmakers and will strive to restore the defense industrial base, a key goal.

Sen. Jim Banks, R-Indiana, said in a post Tuesday on X that Colby “deeply understands the threat we face from communist China and is uniquely qualified to serve in this role. The Pentagon is better prepared to defend America with Bridge leading policy.”

Colby, who served as deputy assistant defense secretary for strategy during the first Trump administration, faced repeated questions from both Democratic and Republican senators during his confirmation hearing on previous statements he had made about whether Russia had actually invaded Ukraine and his suggestions that the U.S. could tolerate and contain a nuclear-armed Iran.

After initially declining several times to answer direct questions during his hearing on whether Russia invaded Ukraine, calling it a sensitive topic, Colby eventually acknowledged that Russia invaded its neighbor and poses a significant military threat to the U.S. and Europe.

Previously, Trump has falsely blamed Ukraine for starting the three-year war that has cost tens of thousands of Ukrainian lives and called Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy a dictator for not holding elections during wartime. During a stunning Oval Office blowup, Trump berated Zelenskyy and said he wasn’t grateful enough for America’s support.

Cavoli’s comments come amid concerns from Congress that the Pentagon is considering reducing the number of U.S. troops on the continent.

Sen. Roger Wicker, R-Miss., said last week that “mid-level” Pentagon leaders were working on what he described as a misguided plan to “reduce drastically our military footprint in Europe.” The Defense Department, however, has not made public any proposal to cut force levels there.

At a House Armed Services Committee hearing Tuesday, panel chairman Rep. Michael Rogers, R-Mich., asked Cavoli for his recommendation.

The number of U.S. troops in Europe increased by about 20,000 under former President Joe Biden in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. There have been roughly 100,000 troops there since then.

“It’s my advice to maintain that force posture as it is now,” Cavoli said. “Since we originally surged forces forward in 2022, we have periodically reviewed for structure both the military and policy level, and I have consistently recommended throughout that period to maintain the forces we surged forward, and I would continue to do so now if asked.”

The same day Cavoli suggested keeping forces in Europe, his command announced it was shuffling U.S. forces within Poland, away from a Ukraine support hub.

Military equipment and personnel were moving out of Jasionka, Poland, to other sites in the country, said U.S. Army Europe and Africa, which noted that the decision came after months of planning with NATO allies.

Military aid will continue to flow to Ukraine via Jasionka under the supervision of Polish and NATO leaders, with a smaller U.S. military force at the site, the Army said.

“After three years at Jasionka this is an opportunity to right-size our footprint and save American taxpayers tens of millions of dollars per year,” Gen. Christopher Donahue, commanding general of U.S. Army Europe and Africa, said in a statement.

The Associated Press contributed to this story.

The Ukraine Defense Contact Group is a summit of 50 countries that have met for the last three years to coordinate military aid for Kyiv.

Lloyd Austin, Hegseth’s predecessor, founded the group shortly after Russia’s 2022 invasion and chaired 25 meetings during the Biden administration. Since then, it’s raised more than $126 billion in security aid for Ukraine, around half of which has come from America.

Hegseth, like the Trump administration as a whole, has made arming Ukraine a lower priority while in office. He went to the group’s last meeting in February, but allowed Britain to chair it, the first time a U.S. secretary ceded that role.

While there, he urged Europe to take control of its own self-defense while previewing a less active role for America in protecting the continent.

The upcoming meeting will occur Friday in Brussels, chaired by Britain and Germany. European and American officials wondered whether Hegseth would join in the weeks prior, with some last week indicating he might skip it.

Even joining via teleconference is better than passing altogether, multiple European officials said. Still, they would have preferred him to attend in person and broadly remain unsure of America’s commitment to supporting Ukraine and European defense as a whole.

Gen. Christopher Cavoli, the head of European Command, will join the summit in person, though he will do so in his NATO role as Supreme Allied Commander Europe. Gen Curtis Buzzard, the head of a separate security assistance group for Ukraine, will also attend.

During a press event with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Monday, Trump offered the outline for total defense spending in the fiscal 2026 budget as part of his larger plans for U.S. national security.

“We’re going to be approving a budget, and I’m proud to say, actually, the biggest one we’ve ever done for the military,” he said. “$1 trillion. Nobody has seen anything like it.

“We are getting a very, very powerful military. We have things under order now.”

Defense officials considering cuts to military treatment facilities

A $1 trillion defense budget would represent an increase of nearly 12% from current fiscal year spending levels. Trump indicated that at least some of the new spending would come from savings found by cuts ordered by the Department of Government Efficiency, although he did not specify any accounts.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth praised the news on social media Monday evening.

“Coming soon: the first Trillion dollar Department of Defense budget,” he wrote. “President Donald Trump is rebuilding our military — and fast.”

Hegseth said that despite the significant increase, all taxpayer money for his department will be spent “wisely, on lethality and readiness.”

White House officials are expected to reveal their full budget plan for fiscal 2026 — which begins on Oct. 1 — later this spring.

Republicans in Congress have pushed for years for boosts in defense spending to counter growing overseas threats and operational demands.

But they have also called for cuts in overall government spending to balance the federal budget, and for tax relief for some Americans. Increasing defense spending will complicate those calculations, and likely add to the federal deficit unless sharp cuts are made to non-defense programs.

Democratic lawmakers have objected to those kinds of cuts, but have limited options in blocking budget moves because they are in the minority in both the House and Senate.

Even with the increase, an American military budget of $1 trillion still would not match Trump’s stated goal of all NATO countries spending 5% of their gross domestic product on defense.

Trump said the extra money for defense will allow the country to purchase new equipment and capabilities needed for the future.

“We’ve never had the kind of aircraft, the kind of missiles, anything that we have ordered,” he said. “And it’s in many ways too bad that we have to do it because, hopefully, we’re not going to have to use it.”

It’s unclear whether the firing originated from the Pentagon or the White House, which last week removed several national security officials — including Gen. Timothy Haugh, head of the NSA and Cyber Command — after President Donald Trump met with far-right activist Laura Loomer.

Loomer later took credit for Haugh’s dismissal in a post on the social media platform X.

Chatfield served as America’s representative to the NATO Military Committee, the alliance’s group of top uniformed officials. The body advises NATO’s two most senior military leaders and helps guide long-term strategy.

Brig. Gen. Sean Flynn, the deputy representative, will serve on an acting basis until a successor is named, said a U.S. official, like others, permitted to speak on background to discuss the removal.

Chatfield was previously the first woman to lead the U.S. Naval War College in Newport, Rhode Island. Her tenure there later made her a target of conservative advocacy groups, one of whom claimed she was overly concerned with diversity, equity and inclusion, or DEI, initiatives in a December letter to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.

The Pentagon did not respond to questions about why Chatfield was fired, who made the decision and whether other officers were affected. Reuters first reported Chatfield’s firing.

In its opening months, the Trump administration has overseen the swift removal of officers at the top of the U.S. military, including Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. CQ Brown, Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Lisa Franchetti, and the Air Force’s Vice Chief of Staff Gen. Jim Slife.

So far, the firings have prompted public criticism from mostly Democrats in Congress, though lawmakers from both parties called Brown’s firing “unfortunate” last week at a confirmation hearing for retired Gen. Dan Caine, Trump’s pick for chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

The removal of a senior U.S. officer in NATO concerned multiple European defense officials, who worry America is retreating from its role in the alliance. Gen. Christopher Cavoli, the head of European Command and Supreme Allied Commander-Europe, is set to retire this summer.

While there, Hegseth will meet with the country’s president, Jose Raul Mulino, and attend a meeting of regional chiefs of defense. He will also visit military sites and the Panama Canal itself.

In a statement Friday, Pentagon Press Secretary Sean Parnell wrote the meetings “will drive ongoing efforts to strengthen our partnerships with Panama and other Central American nations toward our shared vision for a peaceful and secure Western Hemisphere.”

The U.S. has a small military presence in Panama, though the Pentagon has reportedly been planning options to increase that number, in line with the president’s goal to take control of the canal. America is currently participating in a military exercise inside the country.

“To further enhance our national security, my administration will be reclaiming the Panama Canal, and we’ve already started doing it,” Trump said in a March address to Congress.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio visited the country in early February, where he also met with Mulino. In a post on the social app X after Trump’s speech, Mulino said ownership of the canal wasn’t being transferred and that he and Rubio didn’t discuss the topic.

“I reject, on behalf of Panama and all Panamanians, this new affront to the truth and to our dignity as a nation,” Mulino wrote.

Congress voted to transfer the canal to Panamanian ownership in 1978, deeming U.S. control unpopular and impractical. The process concluded more than two decades later.

Hegseth spoke with Panama’s president and minister of public security in early February. During the latter call, according to a Pentagon summary, Hegseth “emphasized that his top priority is to safeguard U.S. national security interests under President Trump’s leadership, to include ensuring unfettered access to the Panama Canal and keeping it free from foreign interference.”

The Trump administration has warned broadly that China is growing too involved in the Panama Canal through the country’s Belt and Road Initiative, a foreign aid scheme U.S. officials say is exploitative.

The last U.S. defense secretary to visit Panama was Donald Rumsfeld in 2004. More than a decade earlier, the U.S. led a short war in the country to remove then-President Manuel Noriega, later indicted for drug trafficking and racketeering.

President Donald Trump has abruptly fired the director of the National Security Agency, according to U.S. officials and members of Congress, but the White House and the Pentagon have provided no reasons for the move.

Senior military leaders were informed Thursday of the firing of Air Force Gen. Tim Haugh, who also oversaw the Pentagon’s Cyber Command, the officials said. They received no advance notice about the decision to remove a four-star general with a 33-year career in intelligence and cyber operations, according to the officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss personnel decisions.

The move has triggered sharp criticism from members of Congress and demands for an immediate explanation. And it marks the latest dismissal of national security officials by Trump at a time when his Republican administration faces criticism over his failure to take any action against other key leaders’ use of an unclassified Signal messaging chat that included The Atlantic Editor-in-Chief Jeffrey Goldberg to discuss plans for a military strike.

It’s unclear who now is in charge of the NSA and the Cyber Command.

Also fired was Haugh’s civilian deputy at the NSA, Wendy Noble.

The NSA notified congressional leadership and top lawmakers of the national security committees of the firing late Wednesday but did not give reasons, according to a person familiar with the situation who insisted on anonymity to discuss the matter. The person said Noble has been reassigned to the office of the defense undersecretary for intelligence.

The White House did not respond to messages seeking comment. The NSA referred questions about Haugh to the Defense Department. The Pentagon did not respond to questions about why he was fired or provide other details.

Sean Parnell, the chief Pentagon spokesman, would only say, in a statement, that the department thanks Haugh “for his decades of service to our nation, culminating as U.S. Cyber Command Commander and National Security Agency Director. We wish him and his family well.”

Far-right activist and commentator Laura Loomer appeared to take credit Friday in a post on X, saying she raised concerns to Trump about Haugh’s ties to Gen. Mark Milley and the Biden administration and questioned the NSA chief’s loyalty to the president. Milley served as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during Trump’s first term but has since become an outspoken critic.

“Given the fact that the NSA is arguably the most powerful intel agency in the world, we cannot allow for a Biden nominee to hold that position,” Loomer wrote. “Thank you President Trump for being receptive to the vetting materials provided to you and thank you for firing these Biden holdovers.”

Loomer, who has claimed the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks were an “inside job,” had discussed staff loyalty with Trump in an Oval Office meeting Wednesday, according to several people familiar with the situation who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the sensitive personnel manner. A day later, Trump said he fired “some” White House National Security Council officials.

Trump fires several national security officials over loyalty concerns

Rep. Jim Himes, ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, sent a letter to Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth demanding to know why Haugh and Noble were fired.

“Public reporting suggests that your removal of these officials was driven by a fringe social media personality, which represents a deeply troubling breach of the norms that safeguard our national security apparatus from political pressure and conspiracy theories,” Himes, D-Conn., wrote.

Sen. Jack Reed, a Democrat from Rhode Island, said Friday that he has “long warned about the dangers of firing military officers as a political loyalty test.”

“In addition to the other military leaders and national security officials Trump has fired, he is sending a chilling message throughout the ranks: don’t give your best military advice, or you may face consequences,” Reed said in a statement.

He added that Trump “has given a priceless gift to China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea by purging competence from our national security leadership.”

Another Democrat, Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia, vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said the U.S. was “facing unprecedented cyber threats” and asked how firing Haugh, who has served in the military for more than 30 years, makes America safer.

Haugh’s firing sets off a 60-day process. Unless he is moved to another three- or four-star job in 60 days he would automatically revert to a two-star.

Any new high-level job would be unlikely since that would require a nomination from Trump, who just fired him. As a result, Haugh, who was confirmed for the NSA job in a unanimous Senate vote in December 2023, would likely retire.

Trump hasn’t commented on Haugh or Noble, but on Thursday he dismissed the National Security Council firings as normal.

“Always we’re letting go of people,” Trump told reporters aboard Air Force One as he made his way to Miami on Thursday afternoon. “People that we don’t like or people that we don’t think can do the job or people that may have loyalties to somebody else.”

The firings come as Trump’s national security adviser, Mike Waltz, fights calls for his ouster after using the publicly available encrypted Signal app to discuss planning for a sensitive March 15 military operation targeting Houthi militants in Yemen.

Warner called it “astonishing” that Trump “would fire the nonpartisan, experienced leader of the National Security Agency while still failing to hold any member of his team accountable for leaking classified information on a commercial messaging app — even as he apparently takes staffing direction on national security from a discredited conspiracy theorist in the Oval Office.”

Haugh met last month with Elon Musk, whose Department of Government Efficiency has roiled the federal government by slashing personnel and budgets at dozens of agencies. In a statement, the NSA said the meeting was intended to ensure both organizations are “aligned” with the new administration’s priorities.

Haugh had led both the NSA and Cyber Command since 2023. Both departments play leading roles in the nation’s cybersecurity. The NSA also supports the military and other national security agencies by collecting and analyzing a vast amount of data and information globally.

Cyber Command is known as America’s first line of defense in cyberspace and also plans offensive cyberoperations for potential use against adversaries.

Associated Press writers Matthew Lee, Aamer Madhani, Zeke Miller, David Klepper and Lou Kesten in Washington contributed to this report.

Trump downplayed Loomer’s influence on the firings. But Loomer during her Oval Office conversation with Trump urged the president to purge staffers she deemed insufficiently loyal to his “Make America Great Again” agenda, according to several people familiar with the matter. They all spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the sensitive personnel manner.

“Always we’re letting go of people,” Trump told reporters aboard Air Force One as he made his way to Miami on Thursday afternoon. “People that we don’t like or people that we don’t think can do the job or people that may have loyalties to somebody else.”

Loomer appeared to take credit for the firings in a post late Thursday on X, writing, “You know how you know the NSC officials I reported to President Trump are disloyal people who have played a role in sabotaging Donald Trump?” She then noted that “the fired officials” were being defended by Trump critics on CNN and MSNBC.

The firings by Trump of NSC staff come at a tumultuous moment for Trump and his national security team. His national security adviser Mike Waltz, continues to fight back calls for his ouster after using the publicly available encrypted Signal app to discuss planning for the sensitive March 15 military operation targeting Houthi militants in Yemen.

Trump has said he stands by Waltz, who traveled to Florida with the president on Thursday for a dinner event ahead of the LIV Golf tournament in Miami.

Meanwhile, The Pentagon’s acting inspector general announced Thursday that he would review Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s use of Signal to convey plans on the Houthi operations. The review will also look at other defense officials’ use of the publicly available encrypted app.

Trump grew frustrated when asked about the review.

“You’re bringing that up again,” Trump scoffed at a reporter. “Don’t bring that up again. Your editor’s probably—that’s such a wasted story.”

Vice President JD Vance, chief of staff Susie Wiles, Waltz and Sergio Gor, director of the Presidential Personnel Office, also took part in the meeting with Loomer, the people said.

The Presidential Personnel Office has fired at least three senior NSC officials and multiple lower-ranking aides since Wednesday’s meeting with Loomer, according to the people familiar with the situation.

The NSC officials fired include Brian Walsh, a director for intelligence; Thomas Boodry, a senior director for legislative affairs; and David Feith, a senior director for technology and national security, according two people familiar with the matter.

“Laura Loomer is a very good patriot. She is a very strong person,” said Trump, who described his talks with the far-right activist as “constructive.”

Trump acknowledged that Loomer “recommended certain people for jobs.”

“Sometimes I listen to those recommendations like I do with everybody,” Trump said. “I listen to everybody than I make a decision.”

Loomer, who has promoted 9/11 conspiracy theories, was a frequent presence on the campaign trail during Trump’s 2024 successful White House run. More recently, she’s been speaking out on social media about members of Trump’s national security team that she insists can’t be trusted.

“It was an honor to meet with President Trump and present him with my research findings,” Loomer said in a Thursday posting on X. “I will continue working hard to support his agenda, and I will continue reiterating the importance of, and the necessity of STRONG VETTING, for the sake of protecting the President of the United States of America, and our national security.”

Trump has a long history of elevating and associating with people who trade in falsehoods and conspiracy theories, and he regularly amplifies posts on his social media site shared by those like Loomer, who promotes QAnon, an apocalyptic and convoluted conspiracy theory centered on the belief that Trump is fighting the “deep state.”

Trump’s national security team has been through a difficult stretch as officials struggle to answer questions about why they were using the Signal app to discuss planning for an operation targeting Houthi militants instead of using far more secure communication means.

The use of Signal for operation planning came to light because a journalist, The Atlantic magazine’s Jeffrey Goldberg, was mistakenly added to the chain and revealed that Trump’s team used it to discuss precise timing of the operation, aircraft used to carry out the strikes and more.

Waltz has taken responsibility for building the text chain but has said he does not know how Goldberg ended up being included.

The Pentagon’s acting inspector general announced Thursday that he would review Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s use of Signal to convey plans on the Houthi operations. The review will also look at other defense officials’ use of the publicly available encrypted app.

Watchdog to investigate Hegseth’s sharing of airstrike info on Signal

Loomer, in the leadup to Wednesday’s meeting with Trump, had complained to sympathetic administration officials that she had been excluded from the NSC vetting process as Waltz built his staff, according to one person familiar with the matter. She believes Waltz was too reliant in the process on “neocons” — shorthand for the more hawkish neoconservatives within the Republican Party — as well as what she perceived as “not-MAGA-enough” types, the person said.

Sen. Mike Rounds, a Republican who sits on Senate committees overseeing the military and national intelligence, said it “raises eyebrows” when “there is a firing of people on the National Security Council or their staff, particularly people that we have respect for, who were part of the Intel community to begin with here in the Senate.”

Waltz, in the first days of Trump’s return to Washington, sent about 160 nonpolitical detailees assigned to the NSC back to their home agencies to ensure those at the White House were committed to implementing Trump’s America First agenda.

The move sidelined nonpolitical experts on topics that range from counterterrorism to global climate policy at a time when the United States is dealing with a disparate set of complicated foreign policy matters, including conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East.

Last week, Adam Schleifer, an assistant U.S. attorney in Los Angeles, was fired without explanation in a terse email from the White House personnel office shortly after Loomer posted about him on social media, according to a person familiar with the matter.

Associated Press writer Stephen Groves contributed reporting.

DIU Director Doug Beck announced the Blue Manufacturing Marketplace last year as a way to overcome some of the barriers to leveraging advanced manufacturing capabilities like digital engineering, 3D printing and automation across the defense industrial base. Now, DIU is accepting proposals from vendors who have specific expertise across six areas, including automated metal machining for parts production, composite or ceramic additive manufacturing and 3D-printed tooling.

Beck told Defense News in an interview Wednesday that this is the first of many solicitations designed to help smaller firms developing cutting-edge, dual-use technology partner with advanced manufacturing firms that can help them scale their products. Rather than award contracts like it might for other programs, DIU’s role through the marketplace is to vet these manufacturing companies to make sure their supply chains are secure and provide a venue for those firms to find one another.

“It’s about creating the marketplace effectively for these folks to find those companies and encouraging them each to find one another in order to do their scaling,” Beck said.

The Pentagon over the last few years has emphasized the need for rapid production and scaling as a means both to replenish depleted weapons stocks and field low-cost systems like throw-away drones en masse. Innovative manufacturing techniques are one way to get after that challenge.

In its 2024 National Defense Industrial Strategy, the Defense Department called for greater adoption of advanced manufacturing and automation throughout the defense industrial base, identifying these technologies as a key enabler for not only increasing capacity but for making production processes more efficient.

“Many elements of the traditional [defense industrial base] have yet to adopt advanced manufacturing technologies, as they struggle to develop business cases for needed capital investment,” DOD said in its report. “This directly impacts DOD’s ability to reduce manufacturing lead times and lifecycle costs and to increase readiness.”

Pentagon’s first industrial strategy calls for ‘generational’ change

Beck emphasized that the Blue Manufacturing Marketplace is just one part of a broader umbrella of DOD efforts to better leverage advanced manufacturing throughout the defense industrial base. However, he said, it has the potential to be a game changer.

“Five years down the road, this might be one of the most important things that DIU helped to make happen,” Beck said.

Travis Demeester, DIU’s lead for the marketplace, told Defense News his team has spent much of the last year talking to manufacturing companies about the roadblocks they face in working with customers in the defense sector and figuring out how the new venue might address them. Many firms cited difficulty in establishing trust and verifying that their supply chains and executive boards aren’t funded by or linked to U.S. adversaries, he told Defense News in an interview. They also pointed to the lengthy vetting process that comes with integrating their capability into another company’s supply chain.

Demeester said DIU already provides vetting for companies entering the defense industrial base and is well positioned to help create a “shortcut” for onboarding manufacturing companies. In fact, the marketplace’s name is a nod to another DIU program, Blue UAS, that helps vet commercial drones for compliance with U.S. policies that restrict DOD from buying uncrewed systems or technology originating from Chinese firms.

DIU’s role in helping create a bridge between commercial firms and the complexities of DOD’s acquisition and procurement processes also means it has mechanisms in place to both onboard new capabilities and identify partnerships between firms with complementary technologies, Demeester said. In the case of the Blue Manufacturing Marketplace, that means connecting tech-focused firms with manufacturing capacity.

Defense Innovation Unit picks four firms to test one-way drones

“The big focus of what we want to do here is make it a lot easier for companies like that to scale,” he said. “And so, by identifying these exceptional manufacturers and making them available to those companies, that’s the approach that we’re taking.”

Today’s rollout is the first of many steps toward building out the marketplace, Demeester noted. Rather than spend years on the front-end defining what it will be, DIU wants industry to inform that process in real-time.

And practically speaking, he noted, DIU doesn’t yet have the resources to fully implement its vision for what the marketplace could become. For now, Demeester’s team is small and agile and doesn’t have a formal budget allocation.

One potential future growth area is in certification and qualification of additive-manufactured parts — a need expressed by the military services as they increasingly look to non-traditional vendors to supply certain capabilities. Demeester said he also expects future solicitations to target manufacturing companies with expertise in particular technology areas, like hypersonics or autonomy or firms that are based in different geographical regions.

“This isn’t a matter of putting all of our chips into the first effort, but in terms of how we resource it, how we grow it, programmatically, etc., we’re going to keep a close eye on it and be agile about that,” Demeester said.

Acting Inspector General Steven Stebbins announced the inquiry Thursday in a letter sent to Hegseth’s office, asking for two points of contact within five days to help detail what information was shared and the decisions leading up to the communications.

The investigation — requested by Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Roger Wicker, R-Miss., and ranking member Jack Reed, D-R.I., — would be the first internal Pentagon review of Hegseth’s role in the group chat, made public last week.

In mid-March, top officials across the Trump administration used the app to plan attacks on Yemen’s Houthi rebels, an Iran-backed terrorist group that has targeted commercial ships transiting the Red Sea, an important route for global trade. The group mistakenly included a reporter from The Atlantic, who later published its contents after the administration argued they weren’t classified.

‘Obviously classified’: Experts say Hegseth chat leaks invited danger

In those messages, Hegseth shared detailed information on imminent U.S. strikes, including what weapons would be used and when they would occur. Outside experts and former defense officials have argued the texts put American troops at higher risk and were almost certainly classified, something Hegseth has denied.

Signal is encrypted but not permitted for sharing classified information according to Pentagon standards.

Stebbins said the inquiry will probe whether Hegseth and others followed internal Pentagon standards for using such an app and properly handled classified material. The investigation will also cover “records retention requirements” for government communications.

President Donald Trump thus far has dismissed calls to punish Hegseth or national security adviser Michael Waltz, who started the chat group. Hegseth has called the controversy a media distraction from the successful airstrikes in Yemen.

Stebbins is serving as acting inspector general because Trump dismissed Robert Storch from the Senate-confirmed role as part of his firings of 17 inspectors general in January, less than a week after the presidential inauguration.

The group will meet April 11 in Brussels and will be chaired by Germany and Britain. Hegseth attended the last meeting in February, though he became the first U.S. defense secretary in the coalition’s 26 meetings not to lead it.

Hegseth won’t join in person and isn’t expected to join virtually either, according to a U.S. official, who like others was granted anonymity to discuss the planning. In fact, the Pentagon is unlikely to send any senior representatives, which typically join the secretary on such trips.

The United States is still assessing how its officials will participate in the various forums that support Ukraine, including those that help manage security assistance and training, the U.S. official said.

For Europeans, the secretary’s absence is the latest sign of the Trump administration’s lower-priority approach to arming Ukraine — a point Hegseth made clear at the last meeting in February.

In a speech from Brussels, Hegseth scolded European officials, urging them to take more control of their own defense rather than relying on America’s 75-year role helping defend the continent. He also ruled out the possibility of NATO membership for Ukraine before the administration had itself made a decision on the topic — something the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Roger Wicker, R-Miss., called a “rookie mistake.”

“President [Donald] Trump will not allow anyone to turn Uncle Sam into Uncle Sucker,” Hegseth said, referring to a quote from former president Dwight D. Eisenhower.

Hegseth’s predecessor, Lloyd Austin, founded the Ukraine Defense Contact Group shortly after Russia’s full-scale invasion in 2022. Since then, the group has helped raise and coordinate more than $126 billion in security aid to Ukraine, around half of which has come from America.

In the three years since, the group became synonymous both with Ramstein Air Base, where it was founded, and U.S. leadership. The only time Austin did not attend one of the group’s in-person meetings was early 2024, when he was recovering from complications following cancer treatment. Instead, he called into the summit and had Celeste Wallander, a top Pentagon policy official, convene the group.

Sensing the U.S. may step back from its role, European officials were already planning for alternate formats when the group last gathered during the Biden administration, Wallander said in an interview. One of the arrangements discussed was for Germany and the United Kingdom to take the lead, representing Europe’s economic powerhouse and one of its most capable militaries.

While the Ukraine group could continue meeting without U.S. leadership, Wallander said, there would be real costs. American defense officials, along with military counterparts from U.S. European Command, have typically led briefings on the state of the war and how it relates to Ukraine’s battlefield needs.

Without them, the group would lack key U.S. intelligence, something European officials are already preparing for. In late February, after a disastrous visit to the Oval office by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, the U.S. stopped sharing intelligence with Ukraine and paused weapons deliveries for a week.

The Pentagon has $3.85 billion left in authority to send Ukraine military equipment, but no money left to replace it. Leaders in Congress have said they have no plans to pass more.

“We are burning readiness to the tune of tens of billions of dollars for what really amounts to a ragtag bunch of terrorists that are Iran proxies,” then-Rep. Mike Waltz, now the president’s national security advisor, told Politico last year. “Iran is the core of the issue.”

“It’s truly a mark of how off-kilter our foreign policy is that we are now embarking on ongoing military attacks in Yemen - Yemen! - without any real prospect they will be effective,” Elbridge Colby, nominated to run Pentagon policy, posted on the social media site X last year.

Since the group chat on the commercial messaging app Signal became public last week, the Trump administration has argued the scandal only distracts from the “highly successful” airstrikes it began earlier in March. Even more, it’s framed the campaign as a return to American strength after years of “deferred maintenance” under the Biden administration.

But as some of the officials’ past statements show, the airstrike campaign shows a change in how some members of the Trump administration see the Middle East, and America’s interests there. The strikes have certainly escalated since last year, experts said. But they represent a high degree of continuity with the Biden administration’s strategy — and are likely to encounter the same problems.

“Whether we’re going to make the Houthis cry for mercy anytime soon is extremely unlikely,” said Michael Knights, an analyst at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

A ‘relentless’ campaign

The most recent attacks in Yemen began March 15, when U.S. Central Command hit 30 targets across Yemen belonging to the Houthis, a terrorist group largely sustained by Iran. Immediately, the administration sought to distinguish these attacks from its predecessor’s approach.

“Joe Biden’s response was pathetically weak, so the unrestrained Houthis just kept going,” Trump posted on his Truth Social app shortly after the attacks began.

Shortly after Israel’s war in Gaza began in the fall of 2023, the Houthis began attacking commercial ships passing through the Red Sea, where 15% of global trade passed until that year.

In response, the U.S. and a group of other countries began a task force intended to protect those shipping lanes. The American military sent aircraft carriers, destroyers and other ships into the Red Sea to escort vessels, and also began routine airstrikes against Houthi sites in Yemen.

The problem, officials in the Biden Pentagon later acknowledged, was that these strikes didn’t solve the root issue. Even when attacked, the Houthis could resupply their stockpiles with support from Iran, and the group was gaining prestige by continuing its salvos.

“One thing we learned from our experience is not to underestimate the Houthis’ resilience,” said Daniel Shapiro, head of Pentagon Middle East policy until January, who supports the current airstrike campaign.

The Trump administration’s answer has been to hit harder. It’s conducted more than 100 strikes across Yemen so far, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said last week, and it’s changed the targets. Whereas the former administration stuck mostly to military sites — think ammunition depots or launch zones — this one is much more willing to hit enemy leaders, including those closer to civilians in urban areas.

“We have destroyed command-and-control facilities, air defense systems, weapons manufacturing facilities and advanced weapons storage locations. While the Houthis still maintain capability, it is largely because of the nearly 10 years of support provided by Iran,” a U.S. defense official said.

These attacks have been occurring much faster than the former campaign. And they’re taking place alongside a greater effort to inspect ships entering Yemen for equipment meant to resupply the Houthis, potentially slowing the group’s recovery.

“This campaign will be relentless to degrade their capability and to open up shipping lanes in the region,” Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell said in a March 17 briefing.

Surge pricing

Still, outside experts say those lanes will likely stay closed for months, if not indefinitely.

Shipping companies have almost uniformly chosen to reroute around the Red Sea, reasoning that it’s more important for a ship to arrive safely than quickly. Doing so has actually increased their revenue, which will make it harder for any country to force a return to the status quo.

“The Houthis have reshaped global shipping, and they’ve done so in a way that’s more profitable for global shipping,” Knights said.

The other issue is that the Houthis have been here before. In fact, the group has been in a state of almost-constant war for the last 20 years — against Saudi Arabia, the Yemeni government, the United Arab Emirates and now the United States.

“The problem with the air war there is that it’s not going to work,” said Ben Friedman, an analyst at Defense Priorities, a think tank that calls for a more restrained U.S. foreign policy.

The Houthis began their attacks again March 11, after a short pause following a ceasefire in Gaza. An easier way to stop their attacks may be to pressure Israel to allow more humanitarian aid to reach the Palestinian people, Friedman argued, though U.S. officials are wary of making it seem like the Houthis are fighting a noble cause by attacking commercial ships.

Instead, the administration has continued to escalate the military campaign.

Last week it extended the deployment the Harry S Truman carrier strike group already in the Red Sea and announced it would bring over another one from the Indo-Pacific, leading to a few weeks of overlap before the Truman departs. It has also brought over additional B-2 stealth bombers and scarce air defense batteries.

In the meantime the airstrikes continue, including rounds over the weekend that pummeled areas across Yemen.

“We hit them every day and night — Harder and harder,” Trump posted Monday, again threatening Iran if it continued supporting the group.

The Red Sea has not reopened for shipping companies, and the military surge has many Democrats in Congress concerned about the mixture of means and ends.

“They’re aware that this will have costs for readiness,” said a Democratic congressional aide, speaking anonymously per the office’s policy, of the Pentagon.

The critique may sound like the sort of partisan grandstanding that often occurs in Washington. But last year, it wasn’t an entirely Democratic issue — at least for Waltz.

“We’re using a lot of munitions,” the then-representative said at a March 2024 hearing, describing the Biden administration’s strategy. “We’re burning readiness.”

“I acknowledge that I am an unconventional nominee,” Caine said. “These are unconventional times.”

In a confirmation hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee, the general faced repeated questions over his fitness to lead the Joint Chiefs of Staff and how he was even nominated.

Trump tapped Caine in February after firing the previous chairman, Gen. CQ Brown, who was little more than a year into a four-year term. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth also fired other top officers, including Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Lisa Franchetti and Air Force Vice Chief of Staff James Slife.

The mass dismissals had no precedent and have worried many Democrats that the president was forcing politics into the military. Hegseth previously suggested both Brown and Franchetti, the first Black and female officers to hold their respective posts, were overly concerned with diversity or unqualified for their positions.

“With all due respect to you, we should not be here today. This hearing is happening only because of the unprecedented dismissal without cause of General Brown,” Sen. Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, said Tuesday.

Senators from both parties described Brown’s firing as “unfortunate,” though they acknowledged that Caine had no role in the decision.

Trump fires Joint Chiefs chairman, Navy head in DOD leadership purge

Adding to those concerns was Caine’s own nomination. The general had previously held top posts leading U.S. special operations and advising the Central Intelligence Agency’s director on military affairs. But he had since retired and lacked the seniority required by law to be the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, which the president can waive in cases of pressing national security need.

Even more concerning to some senators was a story Trump previously related about Caine donning a red hat branded with Trump’s “Make American Great Again” campaign slogan and expressing political support in front of U.S. troops during a 2018 visit to Iraq.

Caine denied the story in his hearing Tuesday, suggesting the president may have been referencing someone else.

“I’ve never worn any political merchandise or said anything to that effect,” Caine said.

Senators asked repeatedly whether he would remain candid while providing the best military advice to the president, the chairman’s most important function. Democrats, in particular, pressed the general about whether he would do so in the face of displeasure from the president, which caused friction with past chairmen in Trump’s first term.

Retired Gen. Mark Milley, in particular, fell out with Trump in 2020 after a controversial appearance in Lafayette Square outside the White House, where law enforcement had aggressively cleared out protesters. Milley later said he regretted the appearance, and he criticized Trump after the president left office.

Trump, in turn, removed Milley’s portraits from the Pentagon and cut his security detail.

Caine also faced multiple questions about the administration’s use of Signal, a commercial messaging app, to plan military strikes on Yemen. Top national security officials discussed the attacks while mistakenly including a journalist on the chat. Hegseth also sent highly sensitive attack plans to the group, detailing U.S. strikes before they occurred.

Caine avoided commenting directly on the chat, which he described as “political.” But he said that he would avoid sharing classified information on improper formats if confirmed.

“We should always preserve the element of surprise,” Caine said.

In a brief memo, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said the Pentagon would “immediately” offer voluntary early retirements and begin another deferred resignation plan. He warned that “exemptions should be rare,” but provided no specifics on what the offers will look like or say whether they would go out to the entire civilian workforce of more than 900,000.

And, while he signed the memo on Friday, it wasn’t released to Pentagon leaders until Monday, and there was no information on when or how those offers will be distributed and when the deadlines will be.

Hegseth in the memo said he wants to use the voluntary programs in order to “maximize participation so that we can minimize the number of involuntary actions that may be required.”

Almost 21,000 DOD employees approved to resign amid workforce cuts

The cuts are part of the broader effort by billionaire Trump adviser Elon Musk‘s Department of Government Efficiency Service to slash the federal workforce and dismantle U.S. agencies.

In mid-March, a senior defense official said roughly 50,000 to 60,000 civilian jobs will be cut in the Defense Department, in an effort to reach the goal of a 5% to 8% cut in that workforce.

Fewer than 21,000 workers who took the first voluntary resignation offer are leaving in the coming months, the official said at the time, speaking on condition of anonymity to provide personnel details. In addition, the Pentagon hopes to slash about 6,000 positions each month by simply not replacing workers who routinely leave.

Officials have not said how many Defense Department civilians accepted the initial offer — also known as the “Fork in the Road” — but were turned down. In some cases supervisors deemed the employees essential to national security.

According to the new memo, service secretaries and other department leaders will provide a proposed new organizational chart with consolidated management, position titles and numbers “clearly depicted” by April 11.

The office runs a regular experimentation event every 90 days called the Global Information Dominance Experiment, or GIDE, which is focused on taking capabilities designed to connect forces across domains and test them in an operational context. The events have been credited for helping the Defense Department turn a long-abstract concept called Combined Joint All-Domain Command and Control into capabilities the military is now using in the field.

Now, the Chief Data and AI Office, or CDAO, is spinning off a new string of more focused exercises called GIDE X that aim to tackle the integration issues that can keep operators from leveraging the capabilities that come from a larger GIDE event, according to Lindsey Sheppard, director of the office’s Advanced Command and Control Accelerator.

Sheppard said that while larger GIDEs function more as operational test demonstrations, the smaller events explore how the team can get after more discrete technical or systems integration issues that need to be resolved before conducting the larger experiments.

That could involve integrating a sensor’s data feeds or creating a path to pull readiness data from a platform, she said during a Hudson Institute event Monday in Washington, D.C.

“If I kind of map out those smaller integrations that have to occur between the larger GIDE, I can then use the GIDE to really focus on, ‘How do I get the leave-behind capability for the users,’” Sheppard said.

When CDAO started running GIDE exercises a few years ago, she said, it was “a big surprise” to the Defense Department, which has traditionally focused on delivering complex new systems that take years to develop, rather than providing regular capability updates on shorter timelines.

Now, operators get a batch of system improvements after every 90-day GIDE. They also are involved in the process for testing the updates on the same live networks they use on a regular basis — a factor that Sheppard said is key to sending out capability that works in the field.

“By operating on live networks, on live data, we ensure that capability will stay behind with the users,” she said.

The high-profile job has meant meetings with a UFC fighting champion, a trip to Guantanamo Bay and, right now, traveling on the Pentagon’s 747 aircraft as Hegseth makes his first trip as defense secretary to the Indo-Pacific.

Phil Hegseth’s official title is senior adviser to the secretary for the Department of Homeland Security and liaison officer to the Defense Department, spokeswoman Kingsley Wilson said in a statement Thursday.

“Phil Hegseth, one of a number of talented DHS liaisons to DOD, is conducting touch points with U.S. Coast Guard officials on the Secretary’s Indo-Pacific trip,” which includes stops in Hawaii, Guam, the Philippines and Japan, Wilson said in response to a query by The Associated Press.

Border security, the responsibility of DHS, has been highlighted as one of the top priorities for President Donald Trump, and thousands of U.S. troops have been deployed to the border to assist DHS with curbing illegal immigration.

Liaison roles are common

It’s common for the Defense Department and other federal agencies to have liaisons. Each military branch sends liaisons to Capitol Hill. The Pentagon, State Department and others all use interagency liaisons to more closely coordinate and keep tabs on policy.

But it is not common for those senior-level positions to be filled by family members of the Cabinet heads, said Michael Fallings, a managing partner at Tully Rinckey PLLC, which specializes in federal employment law.

Based on Phil Hegseth’s publicly available resume, his past experience includes founding his own podcast production company, Embassy and Third, and working on social media and podcasts at The Hudson Institute.

It’s not the first time Phil Hegseth has worked alongside his older brother. When Pete Hegseth was CEO of Concerned Veterans for America, a nonprofit that fell into financial difficulty during his time there, he paid his brother $108,000 to do media relations for the organization, according to federal tax records.

In a statement, the Department of Homeland Security confirmed Phil Hegseth’s job title and said this “interagency mission is part of Mr. Hegseth’s preview,” presumably meaning “purview.”

DHS said Phil Hegseth, while on the Indo-Pacific trip, has been meeting with representatives from Homeland Security Investigations, the law enforcement arm of the department, “and other DHS components and interagency partners.”

The Pentagon did not respond to a request to interview Phil Hegseth. Neither the Pentagon nor the Department of Homeland Security has responded to queries about his qualifications for the job.

A close ally to the secretary

He has been his brother’s close ally, appearing alongside him throughout his fraught confirmation process in the Senate. In photos, as Pete Hegseth walked the halls of Congress, Phil Hegseth is often right there by his side.

He now has offices just down the hall from him along the Pentagon’s E-Ring, according to a U.S. official familiar with the office location, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive matters.

Photos posted by the defense secretary’s official Flickr account show Phil Hegseth at the secretary’s table as he met with officials or high-profile guests, including Ultimate Fighting Championship champion Conor McGregor this month.

He traveled to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, with Pete Hegseth in February.

Nepotism laws guide government hiring

A 1967 federal nepotism law prohibits government officials from hiring, promoting or recommending relatives to any civilian position over which they exercise control.

An image of an office organizational chart obtained by The Associated Press shows Phil Hegseth in a small group of officials directly beneath his brother, with Phil Hegseth labeled as a senior adviser to the defense secretary.

Further review of Phil Hegseth’s hiring would be needed to determine if it ran afoul of federal nepotism laws, “but it does not pass the smell test,” Fallings said.

However, if he is wholly employed by DHS, that “would avoid a nepotism violation, unless it can be shown that [Pete] Hegseth was involved in the hiring or had asserted his authority to help hire his brother.”

DHS did not immediately respond to a request for comment on whether it wholly employs Phil Hegseth, whether he is paid, and if so, at what federal pay level.

There are also some exceptions to the nepotism law for the president’s office. In his first term, Trump appointed his son-in-law Jared Kushner to serve as his senior adviser. When he was president, Bill Clinton named first lady Hillary Clinton to serve on his health care task force.

In the Biden administration, Jake Sullivan served as national security adviser to the president while his brother, Tom Sullivan, was the counselor of the State Department.

While Washington dithered and denied MacArthur’s pleas to be allowed to bomb the Chinese buildup on the Yalu River, the Chinese measured the U.S. response and set a trap.

As winter conditions set in, nearly a half-million Chinese soldiers swarmed across the mountains as U.S. air power was politically restricted from crossing the Chinese border to destroy rear area logistics or even bomb the essential Yalu River bridges.

With vast human-wave assaults, the Chinese drove U.S. and U.N. forces all the way past the 38th parallel and overran the South Korean capital of Seoul. It took another two and a half years to regain the 38th parallel and conclude an armistice. And we are still there.

Those “probing attacks” foreshadowed Communist China’s decision to launch a war with the U.S. using all the military power at its disposal and doing it in the only place in which it could operate at the time — the Korean Peninsula.

Today, the U.S. may be in a similar situation, but the stakes are much greater: The relative power and strategic reach of China are orders of magnitude beyond what was available to them 75 years ago, allowing the country to now reach across the Pacific to our very shores.

While President Donald Trump is making a high-intensity push to bolster U.S. national security — with everything from the F-47 and the B-21 Raider to the promise of a “Golden Dome” aerospace defense system — these systems are not yet operational. The fact remains that China has steadily been increasing its offensive power under President Xi Jinping.

Just last week, the Chinese military released a propaganda video of its growing naval might. This followed last month’s large-scale jaunt into the Tasman Sea by the People’s Liberation Army Navy, much to the discomfort of our allies Australia and New Zealand.

Last week, China’s Coast Guard continued to challenge the Philippine Coast Guard, while last summer it blockaded a Philippine shoal outpost, detained a Taiwanese fishing boat and its crew, aggressively prowled an uninhabited Japanese island chain and flagrantly violated Taiwan’s air and sea space.

Much like the Chinese of 1950 massing in the hills above the Yalu with China’s probes ignored by Washington, so, too, are the contemporaneous, widespread actions of the Chinese across the breadth of the western Pacific being left partially unaddressed in the midst of the Trump administration’s nascent DOGE reformation of the entirety of the U.S. government.

Remember in 2013, Xi announced, “Western constitutional government, universal values, civil societies and journalism are false ideological trends.” Xi also asserted that China will be No. 1 in the world militarily and economically by 2049, the 100th anniversary of the establishment of the People’s Republic of China. In other words, China will be the world’s new hegemon. Xi continues to strengthen his authoritarian rule and use Chinese military power to make his ideas stick.

In 2023, Xi detailed the need for China to meet world-class military standards by 2027, the 100th anniversary of the pre-war founding of the People’s Liberation Army. Xi also spoke of “informatization” (i.e., artificial intelligence) to accelerate building the world’s most powerful, ultra-modern military force.

In light of the posture assumed by Xi, we believe that it could lead in the longer term to war directly against the homeland of the United States, as we have delineated in our website Winning Peer Wars.

Xi’s longer-term objectives are clear, but that does not preclude a variety of opportunistic short-term moves.

Such moves, just short of a war with the U.S., could include taking and holding parts of Pacific shoals and islands now under contention and vigorously supplying Russia with military hardware. Or, China could provide troops for non-combat duties to free Russian soldiers for the Ukrainian War.

There is also the distant possibility of encouraging the estimated 50,000-plus Chinese males of military age illegally in the U.S. to participate in low-level attacks, such as throwing railway switches, disturbing pipelines and affecting electric transformers across the country.

In an effort to map U.S. weakness in the near term, while maintaining deniability, Xi could engage in nuisance cyber attacks at will.

The House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party held a hearing earlier this month that exposed the depth of the current Chinese cybersecurity threat against the U.S. The overall outcome was alarming, not because of the obvious Chinese capabilities and long-running hacking operations, but because of the lackluster U.S. cyber defense worsened by government departments which are stovepiped, thus making it difficult for the U.S. to appreciate the broad systemic impact of the Chinese threat.

The U.S. myopia in the understanding of the larger Chinese threat is complicated by the ongoing DOGE reformation, leaving the U.S. unprepared for the reality of 21st century warfare with a peer competitor bent on war by strategic paralysis — the same strategic paralysis as put forth in the seminal work on Chinese strategic goals and methods, “Unrestricted Warfare.”

The book was written in 1999 by Qiao Liang and Wang Xiangsui, then colonels in the People’s Liberation Army Air Force. It laid out a decades-long plan of creeping, slow-motion warfare against U.S. diplomatic, informational, military and economic strengths until China would be strong enough to take on the country in a peer-to-peer conflict.

In retrospect, “Unrestricted Warfare” is exactly what China has been doing during the last quarter century, and what Xi intends to finish by 2049 — or perhaps years or decades before that date.

And while we have laid out plans at Winning Peer Wars to effectively counter Xi’s plans in the long term, here’s what we recommend for the next few months:

1. Increase reconnaissance efforts by the U.S. Indo-Pacific Command to maximum effort immediately.
2. Immediately declassify sensitive intelligence of Chinese military operations and pass to open sources.
3. Open U.S. ships, aircraft and bases to the world media to ensure massive coverage in the Indo-Pacific theater, whose vast distances preclude such coverage.
4. Make significant U.S. Air Force and Navy visits to the Philippines, Malaysia, Taiwan, Japan, Vietnam and other friendly countries.

With luck, such actions might hold Xi in check and would tend to slow any Chinese march toward war.

Chuck de Caro was an IW researcher for the late Andrew W. Marshall, director OSD/Net Assessment; de Caro is the progenitor of the world’s first virtual military organization, the 1st Joint SOFTWAR Unit (Virtual).

John Warden is a retired Air Force colonel who served from 1965 to 1995, with tours to Vietnam, Germany, Spain, Italy and Korea, among other CONUS-based assignments. Warden served a number of roles at the Pentagon, was special assistant for policy studies and national security affairs to the vice president and was commandant of the Air Command and Staff College.

Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Roger Wicker, R-Miss., and ranking member Jack Reed, D-R.I., in a letter to acting Inspector General Steven Stebbins said the inquiry is needed to resolve outstanding questions about the incident and security of military secrets.

The move comes after three days of controversy over a chat group on Signal, in which Hegseth shared military operations information with other top administration leaders, including national security adviser Michael Waltz, Vice President JD Vance and Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard.

Jeffrey Goldberg, editor-in-chief of The Atlantic, was also included on the app, apparently in a mistake. He released a transcript of the discussions on Wednesday after White House officials insisted that it included no classified or secret information.

‘Obviously classified’: Experts say Hegseth chat leaks invited danger

The screenshots include details of attack plans hours before the launch of F/A-18s and Tomahawk missiles at Houthi militant sites in Yemen, particulars the lawmakers called concerning in their letter to the inspector general’s office.

“If true, this reporting raises questions as to the use of unclassified networks to discuss sensitive and classified information, as well as the sharing of such information with those who do not have proper clearance and need to know,” they wrote.

White House and Pentagon officials have insisted that no information was improperly shared on the commercial app. More than 30 Democratic lawmakers, meanwhile, have called for Hegseth to resign or be fired, calling his actions a serious breach of public trust.

“[Hegseth] lacks the judgement and character to lead America’s national defense,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said in a floor speech on Thursday.

“The information he shared on Signal is shocking. He sent very specific details about military plans over unsecured text messages. We need more answers, because more damage may have been done than the public and all of us know.”

White House officials said they will cooperate with the probe, while still insisting the scandal is a media-driven hoax.

“We have never denied that this was a mistake, and the national security adviser took responsibility for that,” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said in a press event Thursday. “And we have said we are making changes. We are looking into the matter to ensure it can never happen again.”

Hegseth and Pentagon officials have taken an even more aggressive approach, attacking Goldberg for what they call exaggerations and fear mongering.

Wicker has not committed to committee hearings on the issue, even as Democratic lawmakers have pushed for Hegseth to testify publicly on the controversy.

House Armed Services Committee leaders also have not said whether they expect to hold open sessions on the information sharing concerns.

But White House officials insist that senior leaders did nothing wrong and blasted critics for alleged exaggerations and fear-mongering instead of celebrating a successful military campaign against Houthi terrorists.

On Wednesday, The Atlantic released transcripts and screenshots of a conversation held among top national security officials ahead of the bombing of Houthi targets on March 16.

The exchange — which involved Hegseth, National Security Adviser Mike Waltz, Vice President JD Vance and others — included details of when the surprise attacks would occur, even before some of the aircraft involved took off.

In the chat, Hegseth included time stamps for when F-18 aircraft would launch and arrive at targets and when Tomahawk missiles would be fired at buildings controlled by Houthi members.

White House, DOD deny that Hegseth leaked military secrets in chat app

Administration officials inadvertently included Atlantic Editor-in-Chief Jeffrey Goldberg in the unclassified chat, which was conducted over the messaging app Signal. That program is authorized for some confidential government use but has been deemed unsuitable for sensitive or classified information under Defense Department rules.

Following the release of the messages, Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Roger Wicker, R-Miss., said his panel is planning an investigation into the issue, with a briefing from top defense officials on the information discussed and protocols ignored.

“The information as published recently appears to me to be of such a sensitive nature that based on my knowledge, I would have wanted it classified,” Wicker said.

House Armed Services Committee member Don Bacon, R-Neb., was more critical.

“The White House is in denial that this was not classified or sensitive data,” he said Wednesday.

More than 20 Democratic lawmakers — including House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y. — have already called for Hegseth’s resignation over the scandal.

White House pushback

Since the existence of the group chat was first confirmed Monday, White House and Pentagon officials have worked to downplay its importance and that of the details discussed in it.

Trump said Tuesday that no “classified” information was included in the chat. Intelligence officials included in the group later testified before Congress that none of the material included was classified, a claim repeated by Trump and his spokesperson, Karoline Leavitt, multiple times.

But former Pentagon officials with experience planning such attacks argued that claim is almost surely false.

“This information was clearly taken from the real time order of battle sequence of an ongoing operation. It is highly classified and protected,” said Mick Mulroy, a former Marine who was the Pentagon’s top official for Middle East policy during the first Trump administration.

Speaking with reporters Monday while traveling to Hawaii, Hegseth argued the group chat contained no “war plans,” as The Atlantic story initially alleged. Leavitt defended Hegseth’s claim Wednesday by arguing the information was instead part of an “attack plan,” language The Atlantic later adjusted in its own reporting.

Still, former defense officials familiar with the distinction said it held little relevance, or perhaps made the leak worse. Unlike a war plan, which outlines the broad overview of a U.S. military campaign, an attack plan describes an imminent operation, which could immediately put American lives at risk.

“Attack plans are actually far more sensitive,” said a former U.S. defense official with experience planning such operations, who spoke anonymously to avoid the threat of retaliation.

Another former defense official called the information “obviously classified” and said it could have jeopardized the operation.

Dangerous details

Experts interviewed for this story insisted that if the Houthis had access to the information shared in the group chat, they could’ve protected the targets in question, putting expensive American military assets to waste.

Tomahawk cruise missiles, which were used in the attack, travel at relatively slow speeds and are hard to redirect, making it more important to hit targets by surprise.

Even worse, the official warned, the Houthis could’ve fired back.

Specifying that the planes being used were F-18s, as Hegseth did, was especially risky, the two former officials said. The fighters launch from aircraft carriers, which makes it far easier to know where they’re coming from and how to target them — as the Houthis have scores of times over the last year.

“If there is a strike package coming your way, and you have an idea about where they might be going … maybe enough information that makes it easier for the enemy to shoot down an airplane, that helps them tremendously,” said Sen. Mark Kelly, D-Ariz., a former Navy pilot.

“In the first Gulf War, on my first combat mission, I almost got shot down when a missile blew up next to my airplane. I can guarantee you, if [the enemy] knew exactly where we were coming from and going to, it would have made it much easier for them.”

In a briefing from the White House on Wednesday, Leavitt said Trump had personally reviewed the transcript of the group chat and remained confident that information was handled properly. She did not directly answer questions on how the timing of a military strike would not be classified information.

The leak of internal conversations among administration officials could also benefit enemy spies, one former defense official said.

“The whole exchange starts to give other countries a sense of how this team deliberates and thinks about its allies, its tradeoffs, and generally those kinds of conversations are not public,” the official said.

Those internal conversations “are useful not just to the Houthis, but to other countries in the world who are seeking to understand America’s national security decision making, and that should be a concern.”

Amid the controversy, U.S. military operations in Yemen have continued, Leavitt said. Defense Department officials said American assets have now hit 100 Houthi targets and will continue to attack more until the group stops targeting commercial ships.

The goals are similar to those of former President Joe Biden’s administration, which launched multiple rounds of airstrikes against the Houthis for the same purpose last year.

The March 6 memo directs all Defense Department components to use DOD’s Software Acquisition Pathway, along with other authorities designed to speed up the buying process and better leverage commercial providers. The tools singled out in Hegseth’s order have existed for years, but a relatively small number of programs actually use them.

“The Department of Defense has been slow to recognize that software-defined warfare is not a future construct, but the reality we find ourselves operating in today,” Hegseth said in the memo. “When it comes to software acquisition, we are overdue in pivoting to a performance-based outcome and, as such, it is the warfighter who pays the price.”

Officials have attributed the Pentagon’s slow adoption of these processes to several causes but have primarily pointed to cultural inertia and risk aversion, both from DOD leaders and within military program offices. In interviews with Defense News and at events around the Washington, D.C., region in recent weeks, industry and Pentagon leaders said they were hopeful that Hegseth’s mandate could lead to change — if it’s enforced.

They also said they view the acquisition guidance as a first step toward broader reforms to how software is funded, tested and priced, as well as how acquisition officers and program managers are trained to manage software-heavy development efforts.

Steve Morani, the Pentagon’s acting acquisition executive, said Hegseth’s order sends a clear mandate for rapid transformation.

“That’s Secretary Hegseth’s way of, just six weeks into his tenure, introducing some change,” Morani said last week at the annual McAleese Defense Programs Conference. “It’s a sign that he’s determined to drive the system to operate differently. I think we’re all on notice that, again, we’re not going to do things business as usual.”

Adjusting to cultural change

In the immediate aftermath of Hegseth’s mandate, Morani said his phone was “blowing up,” as many in the defense acquisition world were concerned about how this new way of buying software could impact their programs.

“I think there was a lot angst up front,” Morani said.

That angst is indicative of the culture change that will be required to implement Hegseth’s direction, as well as the sense that there are more changes still to come, he added.

“This is not the exception,” Morani said of the software memo. “This is going to be the standard way of doing things.”

The Software Acquisition Pathway, created in 2020, has been regarded by the department as the recommended approach for buying software. The pathway offers a tailored acquisition mechanism, recognizing that software can’t, and shouldn’t, be procured under the same process as an aircraft or ship.

Today, around 82 programs representing each of the military services are using the pathway to buy a range of capabilities — from command-and-control systems to cyber. The problem, according to one official who recently spoke to reporters on the condition of anonymity, is that the pathway hasn’t been combined with other authorities designed to attract and take advantage of commercial capabilities.

Those authorities include an approach championed by the Defense Innovation Unit called a Commercial Solutions Opening, a type of solicitation that allows startups and non-traditional defense companies to sell products and services to DOD without navigating arduous requirements documents. DIU also leverages a contracting tool called Other Transaction awards, which isn’t subject to the same regulations as a standard contract.

When combined, these authorities allow DOD to award software contracts much faster than in the past.

Hegseth mandates streamlined software acquisition approach in new memo

Justin Fanelli, the Navy’s chief technology officer, said this shift may be jarring for some acquisition officers who are used to dealing with a rigorous source selection process that can include thousands of pages of meticulous requirements. For example, the need statement for a Commercial Solutions Opening, or CSO, can sometimes be as succinct as a paragraph.

“As you can image, not everyone’s comfortable with that, even inside the building,” Fanelli said March 19 during an Emerging Technology Demo Day in Reston, Virginia. “We’re saying, ‘Here are three sentences that are user-sponsored,’ and those serve as what we used to know as 3,000 pages of requirements.”

Speaking with Defense News after his presentation, Fanelli said the Navy is working to break down some of those barriers by offering examples of programs that have successfully used these tools and reaped the benefits.

“We are, right now, just using this opportunity to stockpile big success stories so that we can get more adoption and change our focus from risk avoidance when it comes to procurement to a focus on impact and outcomes and value-per-dollar,” he said.

Kori McNabb, a senior procurement analyst for the Air Force, told Defense News at the same event that while the shift to commercial-like buying is uncomfortable for some of the acquisition officials she works with, she’s noticed there’s been a greater sense of urgency to learn how to use these tools since Hegseth issued his directive.

McNabb highlighted the Air Force’s CSO Center of Excellence, which offers training opportunities for program officers who may have less experience with the source selection tool. In recent weeks, use of the center’s app has increased from around 200 users at a given time to close to 3,000, she said, adding that her team has upped its training webinar offerings since the memo’s release.

“We just slowly grab them and pull them along with us,” she said. “We’re like, ‘You have to come along because we’re all moving to this.’”

A new report from the Atlantic Council’s Software-Defined Warfare Commission identified workforce expertise — and the training required to achieve it — as a top need for DOD as it looks to better leverage software.

The report proposes DOD develop an “extensive, connected, layered and modular software-centric training program” that both raises awareness about the importance of software and establishes a foundational understanding of commercial best practices.

“While the DoD has taken steps to upskill its existing workforce for the digital age, a widely acknowledged software proficiency shortfall remains,” the commission found. “While the United States is the world leader in software talent and solutions, the DoD lacks the expertise to effectively acquire, integrate, and use software tools that are central to mission success.”

More reforms to come?

As acquisition officials prepare their workforces to implement the secretary’s software guidance, others in the defense community are looking ahead to further reforms — hoping that Hegseth’s initial memo is just the beginning of more sweeping changes.

Jason Brown, general manager of defense programs at software firm Applied Intuition, said he’s hopeful DOD is serious about enforcing the software directive, calling it a “long overdue” policy. But more reform is needed, he told Defense News in an interview.

Brown pointed to software pricing, workforce expertise and testing processes as areas that need further attention if the department wants to make progress in this area.

“Test and evaluation needs to be completely reworked,” he said. “It’s not feasible for the current, very bureaucratic, slow, cumbersome test and evaluation methodologies to also be applied to software. I think everybody recognizes that — even the test and evaluation community — the question is, what are they going to do about it and how do we get there?”

The Atlantic Council’s report offered a similar assessment of the software testing enterprise, pointing to lagging simulation capabilities and digital infrastructure.

Pentagon’s commercial tech arm to ramp up role in military innovation

Authored by a group of former U.S. military officials and defense experts, the report recommends the Pentagon empower and provide funding to the Test Resource Management Center to improve its digital testing capabilities.

Speaking with reporters Wednesday at a Defense Writers Group event in Washington, D.C., former acting Deputy Defense Secretary Christine Fox identified testing infrastructure as a key, near-term focus area for the department.

“The thing that the department has to grapple with is, in addition to buying the software, they need to provide the infrastructure to, particularly, the operating forces,” she said.

Along with those investments, the report suggests the department explore letting more mature software vendors self-certify some capabilities as a way to speed up software fielding and reduce bottlenecks in the testing enterprise.

The commission also recommends the Defense Department take a commercial-first approach to development and procurement, arguing that DOD too often chooses to develop software on its own when private-sector solutions already exist.

“When the DoD decides to develop custom software, this often results in higher costs, longer schedules, and increased risks,” the report states. “Commercial software is often updated continuously across a broad customer base, of which the DoD could take advantage. Instead, updating software to address threats and bugs or add functionality takes considerable time and funding.”

Allies of the United States see the group chat between top U.S. officials about a planned attack in Yemen that accidentally included a journalist as a jaw-dropping security breach which casts doubt on intelligence-sharing with Washington and the security of joint military operations.

“Scary” and “reckless” was the verdict of one European diplomat about the discussion on the Signal messaging app about strikes on Houthi rebels. Neil Melvin, a security expert at defense think tank the Royal United Services Institute, called it “pretty shocking.”

“It’s some of the most high-ranking U.S. officials seeming to display a complete disregard for the normal security protocols,” he said.

White House, DOD deny that Hegseth leaked military secrets in chat app

Beyond the security concerns raised by the leaked chat, U.S. officials addressed the country’s trans-Atlantic allies with disdain as Vice President JD Vance complained about “bailing out” Europe and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth slammed “pathetic” European “freeloading.”

The criticism is another blow to a long-standing relationship already strained by President Donald Trump’s blunt “America First” approach and disregard for friendly nations.

Melvin said that for America’s allies, “the alarm clock’s been ringing for a long time.”

In public, however, European officials insisted all was well in the trans-Atlantic relationship.

“We have a very close relationship with the U.S. on matters of security, defense and intelligence,” said British Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s spokesman, Dave Pares. “They are our closest ally when it comes to these matters, have been for many years and will be for many years to come.”

France’s Foreign Ministry said, “The United States is our ally, and France intends to continue its cooperation with Washington, as well as with all its allies and European partners, in order to address current challenges — particularly in the area of European security.”

A growing divide

Since taking office, the Trump administration has halted government funding for programs that support democratic principles around the world and presented a less welcoming face to visitors.

U.S. embassies in at least 17 countries have posted warnings for would-be travelers that engaging in behavior deemed harmful by the government could get them deported. Several European countries have issued warnings about visiting the United States after international tourists were caught up in Trump’s border crackdown.

Trump has appalled allies with his repeatedly stated aim of taking over Greenland — an autonomous Danish territory that Vance and second lady Usha Vance are due to visit this week — and his desire to make Canada the 51st state.

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney said his country has to “take greater ownership” of its own defense in the face of threats: “We have to look out for ourselves.”

Nathalie Loiseau, a member of the European parliament, told the BBC that she was “flabbergasted” by the breach.

“If I was [Russian President] Vladimir Putin, I would feel jobless. Russia has nothing more to do. … You don’t even need to spy on the U.S. administration. They leak by themselves,” she said.

US reliability questioned

The European diplomat, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive matters, suggested the security breach could make allies question the reliability of the U.S. as a partner.

The diplomat expressed hope that the Signal lapse was due to a lack of experience in government rather than a deliberate disregard for security.

Asked if he had concerns about sharing intelligence with the U.S. after the Signal incident, Carney said, “It’s a serious, serious issue and all lessons must be taken.” He said it would be important to see “how people react to those mistakes and how they tighten them up.”

Britain could be particularly exposed by U.S. security breaches. Its intelligence network is entwined with the U.S. in the Five Eyes alliance, and the countries’ militaries work more closely than those of almost any other nations.

Britain’s Royal Air Force provided air-to-air refueling for U.S. planes during the strike on the Houthis, but U.K. Armed Forces Minister Luke Pollard insisted British personnel had not been put at risk by the breach.

“We’ve got high confidence that the measures that we have got with our allies, including the United States, remain intact,” he told lawmakers.

Ed Davey, the leader of Britain’s opposition Liberal Democrats, said the lapse showed the Trump administration can’t be trusted to protect its own intelligence and “it could only be a matter of time until our own intelligence shared with them is also leaked.”

“This could put British lives at risk,” he said.

Alex Clarkson, a lecturer in European and international studies at King’s College London, said “the professionals and old hands” who “contained the damage” during Trump’s first term are largely gone.

“So what we’re having now is … a manifestation of tendencies that were held in check that we already saw in the first round,” he said.

American frustration

The U.S. has underpinned European security since World War II, and Trump is not the first president to bristle at the burden.

“From the Obama administration [onward], there’s been quite some frustrations in the U.S. security apparatus about the failure of the Europeans … to step up,” Melvin said.

Trump has gone much further than his predecessors in upending the decades-old security arrangements. He has long contended the U.S. needs to completely rethink its relationship with the rest of the world, saying other countries have been “taking advantage” of the nation’s military might by not paying enough for their own defense.

Trump has praised autocrats including Putin and sent chills through NATO during last year’s election campaign with his comment that Russia should “do whatever the hell it wants” to members that don’t meet military spending targets.

“There’s a real sense of divorce, that America is not just disinterested in the trans-Atlantic alliance but views Europe fundamentally as an adversary,” said Max Bergmann, a former State Department official who now works at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

“It’s very clear at this point, abundantly clear, that it will be next to impossible to count on the United States for the cause of defending democracy in the world,” said Kevin Casas-Zamora, secretary-general of the pro-democracy group International IDEA.

NATO leaders point out that Trump’s criticism and the war in Ukraine have led to a majority of member states meeting the target of spending at least 2% of their gross domestic product on defense.

Trump’s reelection and rapprochement with Putin has hastened European military plans, with nations scrambling to ramp up weapons production and create their own security structures — including a U.K.- and France-led “coalition of the willing” to help guarantee a future ceasefire in Ukraine.

Clarkson said Europe has more strength than many give it credit for, and severing the trans-Atlantic bond would hurt the U.S., too.

“One shouldn’t underestimate European military industrial capacity,” he said. “There are all kinds of things that can go wrong … but there is an element here also that the Americans are awakening a sleeping giant.”

Riccardi reported from Denver, Colorado. Associated Press writers Ali Swenson in New York, Chris Megerian in Washington. John Leicester in Paris and Rob Gillies in Toronto contributed.