Hegseth Faces Backlash After Proposing Pentagon Cuts To Fund Trump’s Agenda

Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth’s Budget Cut Directive Sparks Controversy

Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth recently made headlines when he directed the Department of Defense (DOD) to identify $50 billion in programs to cut from next year’s budget. The Associated Press reported that these cuts are intended to realign funds toward President Donald Trump’s priorities, such as building an Iron Dome in the U.S. and bolstering border security. The announcement has ignited a firestorm of debate across the political spectrum, with critics and supporters alike weighing in on the potential implications of such reductions.

Hegseth’s Shift in Stance and Alignment with Unlikely Allies

Just last week, while traveling in Europe, Hegseth suggested that he would support increasing the military budget, arguing that the Biden administration had underinvested in critical military capabilities. However, his recent directive marks a significant shift, aligning him with some progressive lawmakers who have long advocated for cutting military spending to fund social programs like Social Security. Robert Salesses, the acting deputy secretary of defense, highlighted Hegseth’s directive in a statement, emphasizing the need to eliminate "woke programs" and Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives.

The $50 Billion Cut: What’s at Stake?

The $50 billion reduction represents approximately 8% of the military’s budget. While it is unclear which specific programs will be targeted, Salesses indicated that the cuts will help fund Trump’s agenda, including the Iron Dome project and border security measures. Hegseth has ordered a review of the Biden administration’s 2026 fiscal year budget to identify "low-impact and low-priority" programs that can be realigned to support Trump’s "America First" priorities. However, the directive has been met with sharp criticism from both sides of the aisle, with many arguing that such cuts could weaken national defense at a time of growing global tensions.

Bipartisan Pushback Against the Cuts

The backlash against Hegseth’s directive has been swift and bipartisan. Representative Don Bacon, a Nebraska Republican, stated on X (formerly Twitter) that Congress would not support cutting the military budget by 40%, a figure reportedly referenced in a memo citing annual 8% cuts over five years. Retired General Mark Hertling echoed similar concerns, warning that such reductions would be "exponentially worse than sequestration," which severely impacted the military in 2011. Democratic Representative Seth Moulton of Massachusetts, a longtime critic of Pentagon spending, also criticized the Trump administration for its lack of a coherent plan, pointing out that Trump himself has sent mixed signals about defense spending.

Reactions from Pundits and Lawmakers

The debate over Hegseth’s directive has extended beyond Capitol Hill, with pundits and lawmakers offering their perspectives. David French of The New York Times described the proposed cuts as "totally absurd," given the rising threat posed by China and the potential for conflict over Taiwan. On the other hand, independent Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont expressed rare agreement with Trump, suggesting that the savings from the cuts should be used to boost Social Security benefits and veterans’ healthcare. Conservative commentator John Hasson struck a middle ground, arguing that while eliminating wasteful spending is necessary, the military should not be left unprepared for a large-scale conflict.

What’s Next for the Pentagon Budget?

As the debate continues, the Pentagon has been tasked with identifying specific programs to cut ahead of the 2026 fiscal year, which begins on October 1. Hegseth’s directive reflects the broader political struggle over federal spending, particularly as the White House and Congress grapple with budget reconciliation and tax cuts. Critics warn that the proposed reductions could have far-reaching consequences for national security, while supporters argue that the cuts are necessary to realign priorities and eliminate unnecessary expenditures. The outcome of this contentious debate will likely shape the future of U.S. defense policy for years to come.