Defense Secretary Hegseth brought the Army full circle in its transformation efforts over the past twenty-five years when he signed an April 30 memo, directing the Army to implement transformation activities. The Army is to prepare for defending the homeland and deterring China by transforming the organization in alignment with the Trump administration’s peace through strength strategy but also by implementing reductions in personnel, wasteful spending and reforms as outlined in Project 2025.
New leadership at any institution looks to change the status quo to improve the organization and chart a path for future success. The Department of Defense, where leadership is taught and discussed daily, is not immune to new reforms, initiatives and directions.
RECENT ARMY CHANGE EFFORTS
The US Army may be one of the best examples of this drive to improve the current state of an organization. In 1999, General Eric Shinseki, the Army’s 34th Chief of Staff, talked of Transformation to move towards a more agile force able to meet the demands of 2030. He stressed the idea of transforming not only formations but soldier mindsets of to be able to adapt to a new security environment. Following closely was Secretary Donald Rumsfeld’s own transformation effort, laid out in a 2002 Foreign Affairs article. He too stressed a mindset open to new ideas to solve complex challenges as the military moved from a two-front war scenario to non-state actors committing acts of terrorism against America at home and abroad.
Throughout the next twenty years, as the Army was prosecuting two wars, the organization was looking to modernize and shed legacy equipment. In the late 2000s and early 2010s, then Army Vice Chief of Staff General Peter Chiarelli conducted portfolio reviews to determine the fate of legacy equipment to free up funding to pursue higher priorities. In the first Trump administration, then Army Secretary Mark Esper took Chiarelli’s efforts and expanded them into an event called “Night Court” to review the Army’s equipment and research portfolios line by line to support Army Modernization. Army Futures Command, established around this time started a focus on modernization across the Army’s functional areas through faster and more streamlined acquisition. The push for soldiers to experiment with equipment in exercises was starting to formalize with in 2011 with Network Integration Evaluations (NIEs) and laid the groundwork for Project Convergence, a practical exercise for Army Futures Command to experiment and share data. Currently, the Army program has scaled to a joint multi-domain exercise.
The Biden administration focused on six pillars of modernization for specific equipment. These efforts were improved upon, modified and paired with Transformation 2030, to meet large-scale combat, and Transformation in Contact (TIC), the latest field experiments to get equipment in the hands of soldiers during training exercises. At a March Association for the United States Army Global Force Symposium, Lieutenant General Joe Ryan, the Army Deputy Chief of Staff, G-3/5/7, said the Army plans to spend $1 billion on TIC between now and the end of FY27, compared to the $15 million spent in 2024 with three brigades. The goal is to add four more brigades to test unmanned equipment, electronic warfare systems, mobility systems, counter-unmanned systems and communications systems.
All of these parochial interests and all of these lobbyists that crawl around this building and crawl around Congress, they have succeeded for far too long. The first thing is, we are going to start to cut the things we don’t want or need.
Army Secretary Driscoll, May 1
ARMY TRANSFORMATION INITIATIVE REQUIRES TRADE-OFFS
The 41st, and current, Army Chief of Staff, General Randy A. George, has dropped the 2030 reference when speaking of transformation. Now he, along with the Army Secretary Daniel Driscoll, speaks of the Army Transformation Initiative through the directives of the April 30th memo signed by Defense Secretary Hegseth, subject: Army Transformation and Acquisition Reform.
Hegseth directs the Driscoll to “implement a comprehensive transformation strategy, streamline its force structure, eliminate wasteful spending, reform the acquisition process, modernize inefficient defense contracts, and overcome parochial interests to rebuild our Army, restore the warrior ethos, and reestablish deterrence.” The memo provides detailed sub-directives for fielding weapons systems within two to three years such as unmanned systems and ground/air launched effects in every division by the end of 2026, and long-range missiles able to strike moving land and maritime targets by 2027.
The memo directs the Army to pay for these directives “within existing resources” through ending procurement of obsolete systems, canceling “ineffective or redundant programs, including manned aircraft, excess ground vehicles and outdated UAVs.” Legacy sustainment, excess travel funding, reassessing Army Prepositioned stocks and modernizing language training programs are listed as sources for elimination of funding.
As with all reorganizations, eliminating elements within headquarters and formations, merging capabilities and functions and divesting of units are laid out for the Army. Merging Army Futures Command with Training and Doctrine Command; divest armor and aviation units across all Army components, and consolidating operations across depots, arsenals and installations, to include looking for “leasing opportunities with commercial entities seeking to expand into the Defense Industrial Base.” This last consolidation directive may need Congressional approval, particularly if the intent is to shrink the number of depots, arsenals, and installations.
The memo seeks not only to transform equipment and formations but the Army’s budget structure as well. A directive to “consolidate Budget Lines and shift from program-centric funding to capability-based funding across critical portfolios (e.g., UAS, Counter-UAS, and EW) to ensure rapid technology adaptation,” The PPBE Reform Commission also recommended the DOD budget structure to be aligned with mission areas, not appropriation line items. However, The FY25 Senate Appropriations Committee Defense Report directed the Defense Secretary “to maintain the current appropriations structure in the fiscal year 2026 President’s budget request,” which as of publication of this article has not been released.
Increasing the use of Other Transaction Authority agreements (used for prototyping), expanding multi-year procurement agreements (currently used for mature technology such as helicopters), and including “right to repair” provisions to overcome intellectual property restrictions for maintenance, tools, software, and technical data are also directives placed upon the Army leadership.
Looking at this latest Transformation initiative, it seems to continue the efforts already in place, blending the reforms claimed by the Trump administration and Hegseth’s wasteful spending claims as bill-payers. Without a detailed FY26 budget and knowledge of how FY25 funds are being executed, it is difficult to know what the cost will be. And perhaps that is all part of the strategy.
Part of the problem is the lack of a presidential budget request to add to in the first place. It’s getting awfully late in the day.
House Appropriations Chair Cole (R-OK), May 12
POKING CONGRESS, LOBBYISTS, BUREAUCRATS
The day after Hegseth’s memo was released, Driscoll was reported as saying “…American politicians over 30 years have harmed the American soldier, not necessarily intentionally in all instances, but they have let rational decision-making decay. They have a lot of calcified bureaucracy get in the way of doing what’s right…From this moment forward…the only thing we are going to weigh is this good for the American soldier?”
He also had complaints about defense industry lobbyists as quoted in a June 2 article. “We think it is a waste of their dollars to try to impact beyond what the soldier and our leadership actually want and need…If they’re going to continue to spend dollars there…in the medium term, they will lose their businesses…and they may go out of business. Instead, I would advocate that they recycle those dollars to R&D and innovation and actually building the things the American soldier needs.”
In testimony on June 4, to the House Armed Services Committee (HASC), Driscoll’s tone was softer when referencing Congress’ oversight role. He blamed “program lobbyists and bureaucrats” for the Army’s inability to “prioritize soldiers and warfighting.” Instead of citing parochial interests, Driscoll asked for the “committee to empower us to make these changes while providing your constitutionally mandated oversight.” The Army senior leadership was questioned about the release of the FY26 budget, as HASC members want to see the details of the proposed transformation billpayers in terms of programs, research and personnel.
You’ve asked for agile funding proposals, but we don’t — the 24 baseline we’re working off is a CR. We don’t have the spending plan yet for 25. We don’t have the budget for — For 26, you’re talking about getting back to us as we’re marking up.
Ranking Member HAC-D McCollum (D-MN), May 7
BUMPY ROAD AHEAD?
The Army Transformation Initiative is another chapter in preparing the Army to be able to prosecute war, if called upon. In the past, plans and strategy were communicated with the Army’s stakeholders – soldiers, civilians, communities, Congress and the Defense Industrial Base. There is a lack of coordination and details in this iteration. A budget provides details. But it’s June and there is still no detailed budget for next year. Normally a strategy outlines what will be used in the future and what will be left behind. Lethality is a word used to describe capabilities for the Army but a measurement or definition is not provided.
In the past, the Army has met with Congressional Defense Committees to work as partners to make the changes, acknowledging the constitutional power of the purse as well as oversight. In the HASC hearing, Rep. Crow (D-CO), asked the Secretary why he has not met yet with the Army caucus, which traditionally meets Army leadership on a regular basis and one of the Army’s biggest supporters on the Hill. This may be a small thing but reinforces the Army Secretary’s rhetoric about Congress’ role in the federal budget.
Transformation efforts are nothing new for the Army, however the transformation of Army senior leadership and their public opinions about who makes the ultimate federal funding decisions may be the real change in FY26.