Merging combat commands and cutting 20 percent of active-duty four-star generals have angered many top military officers. Without the support of top military brass and state governments, can Trump 2.0’s ambitious military reform succeed? We shall see.
After taking office in Version 2.0, Donald Trump continued to advance the “America first” strategy proposed in his first term and put forward five key governance priorities: “lowering costs for all Americans, securing our borders, unleashing American energy dominance, restoring peace through strength and making all Americans safe and secure once again.” He established the Department of Government Efficiency (without congressional authorization) and carried out drastic military reforms. His reasons for military reforms include the previous administration’s emphasis on strategic competition, relaxation of war preparedness, intensifying partisan struggles, social unrest in the United States, accumulated problems and declining combat capabilities of the U.S. military and the rapid growth of China’s military strength, which has gradually narrowed the U.S. military advantage.
What to reform, and how?
Reform is a norm for the U.S. military. However, what to reform and how to reform depend on the views of each commander-in-chief—the U.S. president—and the U.S. Secretary of War about the armed forces. Trump 2.0 has attached particular importance to the status and role of the U.S. military in advancing the “America first” strategy and has paid special attention to the military. In his first year of his second term, Trump has vigorously promoted the following reforms:
• Emphasis on warrior ethos and preparedness: Trump signed his 200th executive order on Sept. 5, 2025, taking the name Department of Defense back to Department of War—originally established in 1789—to bolster the military’s confidence in winning wars. In his address at Marine Corps Base Quantico on Sept. 30, he said: “History has shown that military supremacy has never been simply a matter of money or manpower. At the end of the day, it is the culture, the spirit of our military that truly sets us apart from any other nation. Our ultimate strength will always come from the fierce people, those brilliant people with such pride and the unbending will and the traditions of excellence that have made us the most unstoppable force ever to walk the face of the earth.”
This placed the cultivation of a warrior ethos at the apex of his priorities. Secretary of War Pete Hegseth made restoring the warrior ethos one of the military’s three core missions. He issued 12 consecutive memorandums covering restoring mission-centric training, implementing personnel equality and merit-based appointment reforms, and upholding physical fitness standards. These directives aim to inspire troops’ training enthusiasm and warrior ethos through war-focused drills and merit-based promotions, thereby elevating unit readiness.
Hegseth signed a memorandum titled “Rebuilding the Warrior Ethos in Professional Military Education” on Feb. 6 this year, arguing that Harvard University failed to encourage open inquiry and debate and that partisan negative bias in the faculty toward military actions discourages alternative viewpoints and limits critical thinking. As a result, all active-duty military graduate professional military education programs, graduate fellowships and certificate programs between the Department of War and Harvard will be suspended starting in the 2026-27 academic year. (Active-duty personnel currently enrolled may complete their studies.)
All service branches were ordered to evaluate existing graduate programs by Feb. 21 for active-duty service members at Ivy League universities (and any other universities that similarly (in Trump’s view) diminish critical thinking, to ensure that professional military education fosters a warrior ethos.
• Increased defense budget to meet military needs: In both his first and second terms, Trump pushed to drastically increase the defense budget to support the accelerated development of advanced weapons and joint operational capabilities. During his first term (2017-20), the U.S. defense budget grew an average of 9 percent annually.
In his second term, the defense budget surged from $883.67 billion (2025) to $1.012 trillion in 2026—crossing the trillion-dollar threshold for the first time, with a 14.5 percent increase.
By contrast, during the Biden administration (2021-24), the defense budget grew at an average annual rate of only 4.13 percent, less than half the rate of Trump’s first term. Clearly, Trump spared no expense to strengthen U.S. military superiority and achieve his idea of peace through strength.
• Restructuring organizations for efficiency: Secretary of War Hegseth resolutely implemented Trump’s orders to streamline government agencies and enhance efficiency. He adopted multiple measures to restructure and downsize his department’s organizational framework.
First, Hegseth established new agencies and abolished some old ones by dissolution of the Office of Net Assessment and its reconstruction to align with the department’s strategic priorities; he established the Military Recruiting Task Force to meet current and future force requirements; disbanded the Joint Counter Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems Office to establish the Joint Interagency Task Force 401.
Second, Hegseth adjusted military base layouts to enhance space warfare capabilities. He relocated the U.S. Space Command from Peterson Space Force Base, Colorado, to Redstone Arsenal in Huntsville, Alabama.
Third, he renamed military bases to honor a warrior heritage. Fort Liberty reverted to Fort Bragg and Fort Moore reverted to Fort Benning to pay tribute to WWII hero Roland Bragg and WWI hero Fred Benning respectively.
Fourth, he restructured commands and reduced flag officers by merging the European Command and Africa Command into a new entity, merging Northern Command and Southern Command to form the U.S. Americas Command, disbanding the Joint Staff Directorate for Operational Plans and Joint Force Development, restructuring the U.S. Strategic Command, cutting at least 20 percent of active-duty four-star generals (to fewer than 30), and trimming the total number of approximately 800 one-star and above flag officers across the military by 10 percent (to below 720).
Fifth, he downsized conventional forces while expanding emerging capabilities, with conventional forces (Army and Marine Corps) continuing to shrink, while emerging capabilities (Space Force, unmanned systems, cyber forces) expanded.
Creating the Golden Dome
Despite already possessing a global missile defense system, Trump signed an executive order just a week into his second term that ordered the establishment of the Golden Dome system (initially named “Iron Dome” before being renamed). Hegseth immediately executed the order, establishing the Office of Golden Dome for America and developing the system’s initial architecture and implementation plan. He nominated Air Force General Mike Guetlein as the program director and U.S. Senate confirmed the appointment on July 17, laying a foundation for the project.
Once completed, the Golden Dome system will enhance U.S. missile defense capabilities, consolidate military superiority, and strengthen strategic deterrence.
Selecting personnel based on merit
In his Sept. 30 speech, Hegseth said: “Real toxic leadership is endangering subordinates with low standards. Real toxic leadership is promoting people based on immutable characteristics or quotas instead of based on merit. … The zero-defect mentality in the culture must end.”
The Department of War will comprehensively reform the Inspector General’s investigative processes and equal opportunity and merit-based appointment procedures, prioritizing competence and merit over political correctness and diversity and promoting and retaining personnel based on merit rather than quotas. Hegseth emphasized that the U.S. military needs “not perfect leaders, but excellent leaders: competent, qualified, professional, flexible, enterprising, innovative, risk-taking, apolitical and loyal to their oaths and the Constitution.”
Strengthening Unit Management
Hegseth issued multiple consecutive memoranda mandating strengthened unit management to boost cohesion and combat readiness by reducing mandatory training requirements and restoring mission-centric training through physical fitness testing for combat and noncombat personnel and issuing facial hair grooming standards to regulate military appearance.
Additionally, Hegseth is attempting to enhance unit cohesion and combat effectiveness through measures such as implementing personnel equality and merit-based appointment reforms and formalizing criteria for awarding the Purple Heart and Valor Medal.
Breaking legal constraints
U.S. military law prohibits active-duty forces from directly conducting searches and seizures, conducting arrests or performing similar domestic operations without specific legal authorization. Nevertheless, Trump repeatedly deployed troops domestically via executive order without such authorization. In 2025 another 1,500 active-duty soldiers were sent to the U.S.-Mexico border with orders to use military aircraft to assist in deporting 5,000 detained migrants, bypassing the California government to directly deploy 4,000 National Guard members and 2,000 Marines to quell Los Angeles unrest stemming from immigration enforcement. National Guard troops (armed with light weapons) were deployed, allegedly, to restore law and order in Washington. Trump ordered 300 National Guard members to Chicago, Illinois, to protect federal officials and assets. Frequent domestic military deployments without explicit legal authorization have sparked widespread public questions over their legitimacy.
Transforming defense acquisition system
On Nov. 7, Hegseth signed a memorandum titled “Transforming the Defense Acquisition System into the Warfighting Acquisition System to Accelerate Fielding of Urgently Needed Capabilities to Our Warriors.” This was accompanied by two documents: “Initial Specified Implementation Actions” and “Acquisition Transformation Strategy.” These directives require the Department of War to rebuild the defense industrial base, empower acquisition personnel to rapidly deliver combat capabilities, maximize acquisition flexibility, develop high-performance weapons systems, improve lifecycle risk management, and ensure that the transformed acquisition system and enterprises are rooted in wartime requirements. The goal is to expand defense industrial production capacity, field new technologies and advanced capabilities faster than adversaries, preserve U.S. military superiority and rebuild credible deterrence.
Prominent features of reform
Trump 2.0’s military reform is wide-ranging and rich in content. It affects both the direction of U.S. military development and the vital interests of U.S. service members. It exhibits distinct features different from previous U.S. military reforms.
Targeted reform
Trump 2.0’s reforms cover every aspect of the U.S. military, leaving virtually no area untouched. The most important aspects include:
• Reverse the Biden administration’s military transformation direction and focus on winning high-end wars.
Biden pursued an “integrated deterrence” defense strategy, arguing that rather than preparing the U.S. military to fight wars that may never occur, it should engage in strategic competition with China and outcompete it alongside other nations. Thus, he pushed for the U.S. military’s transformation toward strategic competition with China.
Trump 2.0, by contrast, holds that the U.S. military’s primary mission is to win America’s wars—offense, not defense—and that the military must focus on preparing to fight and win future high-end wars.
• Address the reality of outdated U.S. military weapons and equipment with poor readiness rates, requiring the revitalization of the defense industry and manufacturing to enhance U.S. weapons production and maintenance capabilities and ensure that the military’s equipment is always combat-ready.
• Tackle issues such as recruitment difficulties, poor management, and low morale in the U.S. military by establishing a military recruitment task force, strengthening military appearance management, selecting personnel based on merit, and inspiring a warrior ethos to make the U.S. military truly the world’s most powerful force.
Executive orders lack safeguards
The U.S. is a country governed by the rule of law. All activities must be based on law. In the 1990s, to strengthen U.S. military joint operations, Congress passed the Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986, which provides a legal basis for U.S. military reform and enables gradual progress and the enhancement of joint operational capabilities.
In the early 2000s, the Defense Department proposed military transformation tasks through the release of quadrennial defense review reports and provided specific guidance and norms for transformation via the Joint Transformation Roadmap and service-specific transformation roadmaps. These achieved excellent results.
In contrast, Trump 2.0’s military reform is guided solely by presidential executive orders and secretary of war memorandums, with no congressional legislation or regulatory documents to underpin it. How far this reform can proceed remains a question. Further, presidential executive orders and secretary of war memorandums are not laws or regulations and are not binding on successors. Once Trump 2.0 and Hegseth leave office, their successors will issue their own executive orders and memorandums, consigning the previous ones to oblivion and potentially derailing the reform halfway.
Multiple vested interests
Trump 2.0’s military reform has only just begun but has already encountered numerous obstacles, making its future highly uncertain.
First, deploying the National Guard and active-duty forces to quell unrest caused by the expulsion of illegal immigrants has been widely questioned and deemed illegal by federal courts.
Second, directly deploying the National Guard without state government approval has sparked dissatisfaction among state governments. Under U.S. law, the National Guard is normally led and commanded by state governors; during wartime, it is placed under the command of the president and secretary of war after being mobilized for active duty. Trump 2.0 has repeatedly deployed the National Guard for domestic law enforcement operations without coordinating with state governments, triggering strong opposition from states including California, Washington and Illinois.
Third, merging combat commands and cutting 20 percent of active-duty four-star generals have angered top military brass. The day after Trump and Hegseth addressed more than 800 senior U.S. military generals, Air Force General Thomas Bussiere requested retirement, and Army General Bryan Fenton, commander of the Special Operations Command, announced his resignation the following day, expressing opposition to plans to merge combatant commands and cut 20 percent of active-duty four-star generals.
Without the support of top military brass and state governments, can Trump 2.0’s ambitious military reform succeed? Only time will tell.
