logo
Trump's $36 Billion Army Reform: What 'Generational Change' Looks Like

Trump's $36 Billion Army Reform: What 'Generational Change' Looks Like

Newsweek04-05-2025

Based on factual reporting, incorporates the expertise of the journalist and may offer interpretations and conclusions.
The Trump administration is initiating a $36 billion overhaul of the U.S. Army, modernizing systems and updating weapons—such as next-generation tanks and helicopters—that will bring about a "generational change," an Army spokesperson told Newsweek.
Why It Matters
The Pentagon has repeatedly raised concerns about the state of the U.S. military in relation to China over the past two administrations, with officials and leadership labeling China a pacing challenge for the U.S. military. This means they view China as a long-term risk to U.S. influence and power.
The last major equipment overhaul of the U.S. Army occurred during the late 1970s and mid-1980s with the introduction of the "Big Five" weapons systems: the M1 Abrams tank, M2/M3 Bradley Fighting Vehicle, AH-64 Apache attack helicopter, UH-60 Black Hawk utility helicopter and the Patriot air defense missile system.
What to Know
The overhaul is part of President Donald Trump's efforts to counter China's aggressive military. U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth signed a memo on Wednesday that directed the Pentagon to "build a leaner, more lethal force" by "divesting outdated, redundant, and ineffective programs, as well as restructuring headquarters and acquisition systems."
"Simultaneously, the Army must prioritize investments in accordance with the Administration's strategy, ensuring existing resources are prioritized to improve long-range precision fires, air and missile defense including through the Golden Dome for America, cyber, electronic warfare, and counter-space capabilities," Hegseth wrote in his memo.
The upgrade will cost $36 billion spent over five years to complete, starting in financial year 2026, which commences July 1, 2025.
Colonel David Butler, an Army spokesman, spoke with Newsweek about some of the specifics that the administration is looking to enact, with the understanding that "the proof will be in the execution of it," but the belief that "this is going to be a generational change for the army."
US Army equipment and military vehicles are pictured during preparations for loading on cargo ships for repatriation from the Esbjerg Harbor during Operation Raven Assistor in Esbjerg, western Denmark, on April 3, 2025.
US Army equipment and military vehicles are pictured during preparations for loading on cargo ships for repatriation from the Esbjerg Harbor during Operation Raven Assistor in Esbjerg, western Denmark, on April 3, 2025.
Bo Amstrup/Ritzau Scanpix/AFP via Getty Images
"For decades, without overstating it, the Defense Acquisition System is archaic," Butler said. "I think what's happening now is people just realize that it's right in front of our faces: You could see the battlefield in Ukraine is moving technologically. It's moving so fast, it's rapidly changing, you know, three weeks at a time, if not faster."
"We're seeing the same thing in Israel, the way the Israeli military had to adapt and change," Butler continued. "Our defense acquisition system could never keep up with that, and so I think—I can't speak for why we haven't been able to do it up until now."
The defense acquisition system is meant to "support the National Defense Strategy through the development of a more lethal force based on U.S. technological innovation and a culture of performance that yields a decisive and sustained U.S. military advantage," according to the Pentagon.
The Army will look to equip each active-duty division with around 1000 drones, but Butler said that the Army would also look to invest in counter-drone technology, which he said "we're way behind in," in addition to investing in electronic warfare—spectrum detection and jamming capabilities—as well as artificial intelligence (AI) and robotics.
Soldiers of the US Army 3rd Brigade, 1st Armored Division and Bradley Fighting Vehicle prepare for a live fire exercise at the Drawsko Pomorskie training area on March 13, 2025 in Drawsko Pomorskie, Poland.
Soldiers of the US Army 3rd Brigade, 1st Armored Division and Bradley Fighting Vehicle prepare for a live fire exercise at the Drawsko Pomorskie training area on March 13, 2025 in Drawsko Pomorskie, Poland."We've got to continue to invest in our network infrastructure, connected via Starlink and Star Shield and other satellite communications," Butler said. "That's come a long way. The Army's got to invest quite a bit into that, because over the past 20 years we've gotten wayward in how our network is built and conducted."
"We are going to operate across several different lines of effort, but one of the one of the baseline things that we have to get right, we've already started this and we're going to continue, is the network infrastructure," he added.
The improvements Butler mentioned aimed to "lower our signature on the battlefield," as "a single electronic emissions give away our location and allow us to be targeted."
"This is all in an effort to have a much, much smaller footprint, reduce our electronic emissions, and be less targetable, so that we can be the ones targeting instead the ones targeted," he said.
With AI, the Army will be able to more quickly and accurate process information on production and program progress that currently is tracked through "tens of thousands of civilians that are filling out Excel spreadsheets and passing those around via email."
"We're doing a series of pilots with AI companies that apply AI to that system ... and initial findings is AI is obviously much, much faster, it's much more accurate, and it's also pulling out data that enables us to see the programs in a different way," he said, such as highlighting anomalies and trends – just one of several ways the Army will integrate new technology.
What People Are Saying
U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth wrote in his memo: "The President gave us a clear mission: achieve Peace through Strength. To achieve this, the United States Army must prioritize defending our homeland and deterring China in the IndoPacific region. Deterring war, and if required, winning on the rapidly evolving battlefield requires Soldiers who are physically and mentally resilient, rigorously trained, and equipped with the best technology available."
Oxford University International Relations Professor Neta C. Crawford, who has written extensively on U.S. and global military expenditure trends, told Newsweek: "This spending saps the rest of the U.S. economy. But it is also unnecessary. Any military budget needs to be shaped by a military strategy that is sized to the threat. China is not now a match for the U.S., and Russia is a greatly weakened military power after years of fighting in Ukraine."
What Happens Next
The Army will continue its review of spending and systems to pinpoint areas of improvement and work to overhaul those weaknesses over the course of Trump's second term in office.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Republicans, be so for real. This embarrassing government is what you wanted?
Republicans, be so for real. This embarrassing government is what you wanted?

USA Today

time14 minutes ago

  • USA Today

Republicans, be so for real. This embarrassing government is what you wanted?

Republicans, be so for real. This embarrassing government is what you wanted? | Opinion Is this really what Republicans still want? Are they so scared of trans people having rights or undocumented immigrants receiving due process they chose a government that won't stand up to tyranny? Show Caption Hide Caption Six takeaways from the President Donald Trump, Elon Musk feud From disappointment to threats, here are six takeaways from the public spat between President Donald Trump and Elon Musk. Anyone could have predicted that President Donald Trump's second term was going to be an absolute disaster. I doubt even Republicans realized it would be this bad. Amid Trump's feud with Elon Musk, our tanking economy and our dysfunctional Congress, it seems that the next three and a half years are going to be rough on the country. I have to imagine that some Republican voters have buyer's remorse but would never admit it. I also realize that, for many Republican voters, a chaotic government is better than one that's run by a Democrat. They would rather watch our country become an international laughingstock than vote for someone who would run a stable, albeit more liberal, government. They would rather have millions lose health care than have a Democrats in power. I'll be the first to admit that Kamala Harris wasn't a perfect presidential candidate, but she was competent. She was energetic. She could ensure the country stayed on its course and continued to be a place where people felt secure. We could have had that. And Republicans in Congress would have done their job. Instead, we have this. So, this far into Trump's chaotic reign, I have to ask. Is this really what Republicans wanted? President Donald Trump vs. Elon Musk. Really? In case you missed it, Trump and Musk have gone from inseparable to enemies in a matter of hours. Musk, who was previously charged with leading the Department of Government Efficiency, has gone on X (previously Twitter) to allege that Trump was included in the Jeffrey Epstein files and whine that the Republicans would have lost the election without him. Trump, in response, has threatened to cancel all of Musk's contracts with the federal government. It's almost entertaining, in the way high school drama is entertaining. If only the entire country weren't on the verge of suffering because of it. Opinion: Musk erupts, claims Trump is in the Epstein files. Who could've seen this coming? If Harris had been elected, I doubt she would have made a narcissistic man-child one of her closest advisers in the first place – not just because Musk endorsed Trump, but because he was and continues to be a liability. She wouldn't have created DOGE and then allowed it to be a threat to Americans. Republicans, however, were unwilling to acknowledge the baggage that came with having Musk on their side. Now we have the president of the United States embroiled in a childish social media battle with the world's richest man. Think about how stupid that makes the country look. Is this what Republicans wanted? Is that what they still want? Surely they knew that the Trump-Musk partnership, like many of Trump's alliances, was going to implode. They are so scared of progressivism that they would rather have pettiness and vindictiveness in the White House. The American economy is not doing well. You wanted this? Trump, ever the businessman, has decided that making everything more expensive is what will make our country great again. His tariffs are expected to cost the average family $4,000 this year, according to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. I thought Republicans were the party of the working class. I thought they were supposed to care about grocery prices and the cost of living. But with the insanity of Trump's tariffs, a cooling job market and tax cuts that protect the wealthy, it seems like nothing is actually getting better for the average American. Our economy actually shrank. Opinion: Who would want to have babies under a Trump administration? Not me. Again, Republicans, you really wanted this? You were so scared of a government that was slightly more liberal that you would let everything get more expensive for working families? What were you afraid of – taxing billionaires? Helping first-time homebuyers? Harris' 'opportunity economy'? It seems like none of you thought this through. Or, worse, you did. The Republican Congress is a joke Another element of Trumpism is the fact that Republicans in Congress seem to be fine with the way he is completely dismantling the United States government. They don't care that his One Big Beautiful Bill Act is going to add to the deficit, so long as it's a Republican putting us further into debt. Some of them, like Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, failed to even read the bill before voting for it. Their lack of interest is so substantial that she just admitted it openly. Opinion: Why can't Democrats take advantage of all this obvious Republican failure? If Harris had been elected, there would be no need for Congress to monitor her every move (even if they're failing to do that with Trump). Instead, we may have seen a legislature that, while divided, was able to function. We would have had checks and balances and likely significantly fewer executive orders, none of which would have tried to rewrite the U.S. Constitution. Once again – is this really what Republicans still want? Are they so scared of the possibility of trans people having rights or undocumented immigrants receiving due process that they would choose a government that won't stand up to tyranny? Would they really elect a tyrant in the first place? They did, so I suppose they must be OK with all of it. I can't get over the fact that Republicans willingly chose chaos over stability. They would rather say they won than have a functioning government or a stable economy. They would rather see our country suffer than admit that Trump is a raging lunatic. That isn't patriotism – it's partisanship. They would rather give Musk billions in federal contracts than help Americans in any way. This is what nearly half the country chose for the rest of us. And it doesn't seem like anyone is embarrassed about it. Follow USA TODAY columnist Sara Pequeño on X, formerly Twitter: @sara__pequeno

Trump's past feuds don't bode well for Elon Musk
Trump's past feuds don't bode well for Elon Musk

Yahoo

time20 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Trump's past feuds don't bode well for Elon Musk

WASHINGTON − If history is any guide, and there is a lot of history, the explosive new falling-out between President Donald Trump and Elon Musk is not going to end well for the former White House adviser and world's richest man. The political battlefield is littered with the scorched remains of some of Trump's former allies who picked a fight with him or were on the receiving end of one. Lawyer Michael Cohen. Political adviser Steve Bannon. Attorney General Jeff Sessions, Defense Secretary James Mattis and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson. John Bolton, John Kelly and Chris Christie, to name just a few. 'If what happened to me is any indication of how they handle these matters, then Elon is going to get decimated,' said Cohen, the former long-term Trump lawyer and fixer who once said he'd 'take a bullet' for his boss. Musk, he said, "just doesn't understand how to fight this type of political guerrilla warfare." 'They're going to take his money, they're going to shutter his businesses, and they're going to either incarcerate or deport him,' Cohen said. 'He's probably got the White House working overtime already, as we speak, figuring out how to close his whole damn thing down.' Cohen had perhaps the most spectacular blowup, until now, with Trump. He served time in prison after Trump threw him under the bus by denying any knowledge of pre-election payments Cohen made to a porn actress to keep her alleged tryst with Trump quiet before the 2016 election. More: President Trump threatens Elon Musk's billions in government contracts as alliance craters Cohen felt so betrayed by Trump that he titled his memoir 'Disloyal,' but the Trump administration tried to block its publication. Cohen ultimately fought back, becoming a star witness for the government in the state 'hush money' case and helped get Trump convicted by a Manhattan jury. More: Impeachment? Deportation? Crazy? 6 takeaways from the wild feud between Trump and Elon Musk Some suffered similar legal attacks and other slings and arrows, including Trump taunts and his trademark nasty nicknames. Trump vilified others, casting them into the political wilderness with his MAGA base. When Sessions recused himself from the Justice Department's investigation of Russian meddling in the 2016 election, Trump savaged him, calling his appointment a 'mistake' and lobbing other epithets. Sessions resigned under pressure in 2018. When he tried to resurrect his political career by running for his old Senate seat in Alabama, Trump endorsed his opponent, who won the GOP primary. After firing Tillerson, Trump called the former ExxonMobil chief lazy and 'dumb as a rock.' Trump still taunts Christie, an early supporter and 2016 transition chief, especially about his weight. Trump also had a falling-out with Bannon, who was instrumental in delivering his presidential victory in 2016 and then joined the White House as special adviser. 'Steve Bannon has nothing to do with me or my presidency,' Trump said in 2018, a year after Bannon's ouster from the White House. 'When he was fired, he not only lost his job, he lost his mind.' Trump's Justice Department even indicted Bannon in 2020 for fraud, though the president pardoned him before leaving office. One of Trump's biggest feuds was with Bolton, whom he fired as his national security adviser in 2019. Trump used every means possible to prevent Bolton's book, 'The Room Where it Happened,' from being published, Bolton told USA TODAY on June 5. That included having the U.S. government sue his publisher on the false premise that Bolton violated a nondisclosure agreement and was leaking classified information, Bolton said. Bolton said Musk is unlike most others who have crossed swords with Trump in that he has unlimited amounts of money and control of a powerful social media platform in X to help shape the narrative. Musk also has billions in government contracts that even a vindictive Trump would have a hard time killing, as he threatened to do June 5, without significant legal challenges. Even so, Bolton said, "It's going to end up like most mud fights do, with both of them worse off. The question is how much worse the country is going to be off." This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Trump's past feuds don't bode well for Elon Musk

Elon Musk's feud with Donald Trump is hugely damaging to Tesla but don't expect any action from the board
Elon Musk's feud with Donald Trump is hugely damaging to Tesla but don't expect any action from the board

Yahoo

time21 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Elon Musk's feud with Donald Trump is hugely damaging to Tesla but don't expect any action from the board

How should a corporate board respond to a CEO publicly insulting and shaming a sitting president? It's not a question that most need to consider, since few chief executives dare to directly criticize the White House. When CEOs do speak out against a federal directive, their messages are usually delivered behind closed doors, or in a collective open letter. But this week, Elon Musk changed all that and forced the issue in a prolonged public spat with Donald Trump. The pair had a much-anticipated falling out over Trump's budget, also referred to as the 'big beautiful bill,' on Thursday, which quickly got personal. Musk asked his social media followers if it was time to create a new political party, said that Trump's tariffs would cause a recession, and even claimed that Trump's name was in government documents about Jeffrey Epstein, the convicted sexual offender. 'That is the real reason they have not been made public,' Musk wrote. The feud has already been costly for Musk and his many businesses, including Tesla. The automaker's shares took a tumble as the back-and-forth took over the news cycle, dropping 14% in on Thursday, and costing shareholders $150 billion. Now analysts warn that feuding with Trump could cost Tesla billions, considering that Trump could repeal electric vehicle tax credits and other measures that have boosted Tesla's earnings. The company could also face increasing regulatory obstacles around its autonomous driving vehicles, the technology that is meant to drive Tesla's future and has been cited by stock watchers as a reason for the stock's sustained eye-popping performance. Tesla bull and Wedbush analyst Dan Ives seemed to speak for investors early on Friday when he wrote in a research note: 'This needs to calm down.' At a regular company, there's a solid chance that the events of the last few days would spur a board to dismiss a CEO. But will the Tesla board fire Musk to protect public shareholders from potential damages? 'They should,' Charles Elson, founding director of the Weinberg Center for Corporate Governance at the University of Delaware, told Fortune. 'But they won't.' The Trump-Musk spat is just the latest in a series of events that have forced the question of what role Tesla's board actually plays in the company. 'Over the years, Musk's behavior has become more outrageous,' says Elson. 'The board's lack of response makes you wonder, 'Who are these people? Why are they there?'' It has long faced criticisms for being too close to Musk, and therefore willing to overlook numerous management issues. For instance, it famously approved Musk's much-disputed 2018 pay package for $56 billion, and has silently witnessed a year of high-profile divisive behavior from the chief executive that has led to public protests and customers distancing themselves from the company. And recent allegations about Musk's drug use echo reports that have surfaced in the past without putting Musk's role at risk. There are a few contributing factors as to why that is. Musk is a controlling shareholder in Tesla, where he holds 22% of the voting power, making it extra challenging for board members to have the votes needed to force him out. The board is also in a tough position in that firing Musk could tank the stock, considering that his name is so closely associated with the company. Many directors also have particularly close ties to Musk. That includes his brother Kimbal Musk, an entrepreneur and restaurant owner, and Joe Gebbia, a cofounder of Airbnb and a friend of Musk's. There are no car industry or green energy CEOs in the group, as one might expect at a typical EV company. The directors are also paid very well. This year, a Delaware court ordered the board to give back more than $900 billion in pay after finding it had paid itself too handsomely. Robyn Denholm, Tesla board chair since 2018, earned $600 million, far more than people with the same position at other companies. The court found 'the compensation was so significant, it made it really almost impossible for them to be independent directors,' says Elson. 'It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it,' says Nell Minow, a corporate governance expert, quoting Upton Sinclair. 'That's this board.' To be sure, this year, there were signs earlier this year that Tesla's directors were taking more control over the company's governance. Last month, the Wall Street Journal reported last month that the board had begun looking for a successor and selected a search firm to assist them. It also reported that the board had met with Trump weeks before he announced he would be spending less time at the White House. It seemed that between the backlash against Tesla provoked by Musk's focus on Washington, and Tesla's shrinking share price, finally pushed the board to act. But the board denied the report outright, with Denholm calling it 'absolutely false.' Even considering his own predilection for conflict, Elon Musk's latest squabble is in a category of its own. But board experts agree that to expect action from the Tesla board is misguided. 'There have been so many 'Now the board has to do something moments,' and they have failed every time,' says Minow. 'I no longer feel that there is such a thing as 'Now they have to do something.'' There are technically ways that shareholders could move the needle if they wanted Musk out. They could vote directors off the board via shareholder proxy votes, and hope that new directors would fire Musk. Or they could try to sue the board for not kicking Musk to the curb when he put the brand at risk and split his focus between Washington and Tesla. But a shareholder who wanted to do that would need to own up to a 3% stake in the company, points out Ann Lipton, associate dean for faculty research at Tulane University's Law School, and governance laws make it all but impossible to do. 'No shareholder is going to be able to show that this board is acting in bad faith by failing to replace Musk as CEO, which is really the level that they'd have to show,' she said. It's still theoretically possible that a Tesla board director could try to bring about change by suggesting Musk go. But they would have to make peace with potentially losing their roles, says Elson. 'They would say, 'Look, I will vote to move him along. And if I lose, I leave. I can't do this anymore,'' says Elson. Whether they'll do that depends on whether they're people of principle, he added, or 'people of convenience.''We'll have to see,' he said. This story was originally featured on Error while retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store