Trump's defense paradox: Record cuts, trillion-dollar boost

The first 100 days of Donald Trump’s presidency are marked not only by chaos in global trade and international relations but also by new challenges faced by the American Department of Defense in the early months of 2025.

The current head of the Pentagon, Pete Hagseth, is an officer with combat experience from Iraq and Afghanistan. His track record suggests that battlefield achievements do not necessarily translate into the ability to manage large organizations or competencies in maintaining confidentiality and protecting sensitive information.

In February, Donald Trump directed an eight percent savings plan in the Pentagon's budget. This significant budget cut was intended to be cyclical, with the amount spent on American armed forces expected to decrease by another eight percent in subsequent years.

The planned savings were supposed to exclude expenditures related to the U.S. presence in the Far East and the Pacific. However, these plans raised doubts about the future of programs such as NGAD (F-47 aircraft), the development of hypersonic weapons (like HALO missiles), and new strategic nuclear deterrents.

Soon after these announcements, which led to preparations for massive layoffs by the Department of Defense, Pete Hagseth announced an increase in the Pentagon's budget from the current $886 billion to a trillion dollars.

The declarations by the Pentagon chief are accompanied by an initiative from Republican congressmen to allocate an additional $150 billion to the military. In practice, this means that, despite the declared cutbacks in military spending, the Pentagon might receive an unprecedented influx of funds. What areas are considered priorities by the current administration?

The concept of building the Golden Dome—a next-generation missile defense shield—evokes the name of Israel's Iron Dome but, in terms of operation, is more reminiscent of Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative, commonly known as "Star Wars."

The Golden Dome is meant to provide security to the United States not by protecting specific points or theaters, as previous systems did, but the entire U.S. territory and—potentially—American allies. This defense strategy involves the militarization of nearby space—placing not only sensors in orbit to detect and track potential threats but also effectors—weaponry intended to counter detected missiles.

In terms of scale, the initiative for the Golden Dome appears unmatched—launching a defense system with the projected capabilities may require deploying thousands of satellites into space, and the cost of building and maintaining it over the years could amount to hundreds of billions of dollars.

For this reason, in the context of building the Golden Dome, Elon Musk suggested the idea of missile defense as a service offered by private entities on a subscription basis. This idea sparked numerous comments and controversies about the risk of handing control over critically significant infrastructure to private entities and the commercialization of national security.

The U.S. military aviation sector also requires funding. This is an area where the Pentagon has had a significant technical advantage over the rest of the world for the past 30 years. However, with the development of Chinese aviation, this advantage is increasingly questioned, and the Air Force is grappling with serious systemic issues.

The number of operational aircraft is decreasing yearly, and the average age of the fleet is close to the symbolic 30-year mark. Improvements in this indicator in recent years have not come from a massive influx of new planes into the USAF but from the retirement of older designs. The production of new aircraft—primarily F-35s—does not compensate for current and projected future losses.

Simultaneously, military aviation suffers from a growing personnel shortage—a lack of pilots. There are currently around 2,000 pilot vacancies. To address this issue somewhat, the Air Force has begun altering height restrictions for potential candidates.

In this context, the threat to the NGAD program, signaled recently due to the projected costs of future 6th-generation combat aircraft, seemed quite real. Despite the costs, however, a new machine will be built, as Donald Trump announced, giving it the planned designation—F-47.

Another area currently treated as a priority by the administration is enhancing the capabilities of the U.S. Navy. This idea is not an initiative of Trump's—the systemic problems of the American fleet have been highlighted by numerous analyses and commanders at various levels for over a decade, but little has come of it.

The U.S. Navy is a pillar of the current world order—guaranteeing the freedom of navigation and commercial maritime exchange. The importance of this issue is underscored by Donald Trump's actions concerning control over the Panama Canal and the campaign against the Houthis, who threaten trade routes in the Red Sea.

The global dispersion of the U.S. Navy means that in the event of a potential conflict with China, the Pentagon may lack forces for a victorious confrontation in the Pacific.

Therefore, additional resources are intended to expand the American fleet (continuation of the Littoral Combat Ship program, speeding up the construction of modern frigates and missile destroyers) and to rebuild the capabilities of the American shipbuilding industry.

The high priority for strengthening U.S. maritime capabilities also calls into question, among other things, the AUKUS agreement (an agreement between Australia, the UK, and the United States, centered on supplying Australia with nuclear-powered submarines).

During a Senate hearing, Deputy Secretary of Defense Elbridge Colby stated that if providing Australia with new submarines limits the capabilities of the U.S. Navy, the submarines will not be delivered.

Considering the pace of retiring older vessels and the production capabilities of the American industry, merely maintaining (without increasing) the capabilities of the U.S. submarine fleet requires delivering, on average, 2 Virginia-class submarines per year.

Currently, however, U.S. capabilities in this regard are 1.2 submarines per year. Without quickly increasing production capacity, the potential of the American Navy will decline, and the strategic AUKUS agreement may be questioned.