Army leaders to Musk: We will DOGE ourselves
The process began at a March White House meeting attended by Vice President JD Vance, a Marine veteran; Army Secretary Dan Driscoll; and the Army chief of staff, Gen. Randy George, three defense officials familiar with the matter told NBC News.
Soon after the meeting began, Musk joined them. Together, the four men discussed Driscoll and George's plans to cut hundreds of millions of dollars in what they and other Army officials agree is wasteful spending. The two men's goal is to cut jobs, consolidate commands and radically change the Army acquisition process, the three officials said.
'We have been working to get the best, most lethal, most modern tools in the hands of our soldiers,' Col. Dave Butler, an Army spokesman, said in an email. 'To do this we have to leave behind the anchor of obsolescence. We have to stop spending money on yesterday's equipment and invest in war winning technology.'
Army leaders have long complained that members of Congress force them to spend billions of dollars on weapons, vehicles and programs they don't want. Often, the spending is driven by members of Congress focused on bringing jobs and money to their districts or attached to legacy programs the Army leaders no longer want, the officials said.
George has argued that there are too many general officer billets in the Army and that some of them can be eliminated, the three officials said. And Driscoll believes there are civilian roles that have become redundant or outdated. The two leaders also suggested consolidating some Army commands, including U.S. Army North, U.S. Army South and U.S. Futures Command, the officials said.
'By combining headquarters and reducing general officer billets, we will prioritize the maneuver formations who fight and win our nation's wars,' Butler said.
Musk and Vance approved, and now Army leaders have begun a campaign to make their own cuts instead of DOGE. They include eliminating several large Army programs; consolidating or slashing redundant positions, including general officers and civilians; and using a consulting firm to convince the public and Capitol Hill that the programs the Army doesn't want are failing.
Army leaders are considering cutting 8% to as much as 20% of its civilian workforce, with an early estimate of about 20,000 cuts to start, the officials said. They promised to take a tailored approach to the cuts.
Two programs on the chopping block are the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle, known as the JLTV, and the High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle, commonly known as the Humvee. Army leaders hope to focus spending on the newer Infantry Squad Vehicle, known as the ISV, instead.
Another example is the Army could stop buying the Delta variant of the AH-64 Apache helicopter in favor of the AH-64E, which Army leaders prefer, the officials added.
Army officials also hope to stop buying the Gray Eagle drone and replace it with newer-model drones. Officials said they are also considering changes to at least seven other programs.
In anticipation of congressional resistance to reducing jobs and money in their districts, the Pentagon has prepared a 'DoD Directive' that would give Army officials significantly more autonomy in what they can buy, according to the three officials.
The directive is expected to be signed this week. It would allow Army leaders to select the specific vehicles, drones and large weapon systems that the Army would use for years without Congress' overruling them in the budget process. The issue is so sensitive that Pentagon officials must sign nondisclosure agreements before they are briefed on the details, the three officials said.
Since Driscoll was sworn in as Army secretary, his approach has been unorthodox. Driscoll, a close friend of Vance's, joined the Army after having worked in finance. He has assured Trump administration officials and congressional officials that he would resist congressional pressure and let the Army buy what the military leaders believe they need, two defense officials said.
Driscoll has hired a public affairs consulting firm, MAD Global Strategy, to place news stories in targeted districts and make the case for why certain programs should be cut, according to the three officials.
One of the firm's partners, Jai Chabria, was chief strategist and general consultant for Vance's Senate 2020 campaign in Ohio, according to his company bio. MAD Global did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The firm is tasked with sharing Army information with the public that shows that certain programs are inefficient, overpriced or outdated. Defense officials said it is the first time they can recall that the Army has intentionally released information about specific programs' weaknesses to end them and convey to voters that Congress is forcing the Army to buy them.
MAD will give examples such as vehicles that are too heavy to cross bridges into training areas and expensive software from outside companies that could be produced inside the Army at far less cost. It will also describe historic buildings that the Army is forced to keep instead of constructing new ones, even though they're expensive to restore and maintain.
The overall goal, the officials said, is to give the public evidence that the current acquisition process is costly, time-consuming and inefficient.
'Over the past twenty years staffs and overhead have become bloated and ineffective,' Butler wrote.
This article was originally published on NBCNews.com
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Politico
12 minutes ago
- Politico
Elon Musk and X notch court win against California deepfake law
The first law would have blocked online platforms from hosting deceptive, AI-generated content related to an election in the run-up to the vote. It came amid heightened concerns about the rapid advancement and accessibility of artificial intelligence, allowing everyday users to quickly create more realistic images and videos, and the potential political impacts. But opponents of the measures, like Musk, also argued the restrictions could infringe upon freedom of expression. The original challenge was filed by the creator of the video, Christopher Kohls, on First Amendment grounds, with X later joining the case after Musk said the measures were 'designed to make computer-generated parody illegal.' The satirical right-wing news website the Babylon Bee and conservative social media site Rumble also joined the suit. The Harris video had depicted her describing herself as the 'ultimate diversity hire.' Mendez said the first law, penned by Democratic state Assemblymember Marc Berman, conflicted with the oft-cited Section 230 of the federal Communications Decency Act, which shields online platforms from liability for what third parties post on their sites. 'They don't have anything to do with these videos that the state is objecting to,' Mendez said of sites like X that host deepfakes. But the judge did not address the First Amendment claims made by Kohls, saying it was not necessary in order to strike down the law on Section 230 grounds. 'I'm simply not reaching that issue,' Mendez told the plaintiffs' attorneys. Neither Newsom's office nor the office of California Attorney General Rob Bonta immediately responded to requests for comment. Berman's office declined to comment and the office of Assemblymember Gail Pellerin, the Democrat who authored the second law, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.


E&E News
37 minutes ago
- E&E News
Why the megalaw didn't kill Biden's biggest climate program
President Donald Trump's megalaw was supposed to consign EPA's $27 billion climate lending program to the dustbin of history. Instead it's raising new questions about the fate of the Biden-era program. Trump's tax and spending package that became law on Independence Day repealed the so-called Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund — the Inflation Reduction Act's single-largest grant initiative designed to promote lending for technologies like renewable energy, zero-carbon housing and electric buses. But instead of terminating the program and returning the money to EPA, the law marks a new and uncertain chapter for one of the most ambitious — and politically contested — climate programs put forward by President Joe Biden. The program, whose future is in the hands of the courts, has been the subject of Republican lawmakers' attacks, a centerpiece of EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin's rollback attempts, and a star character in legal fights between the Trump administration and eight nonprofits that were awarded billions of dollars through the program. Advertisement The GOP's One Big Beautiful Bill Act rescinded any uncommitted — or 'unobligated' — funds that might be left over from the $27 billion in funding that Congress appropriated to EPA in 2022 for administrating the program and delivering grants to states and nonprofits. Under the new law, that money would be returned to the Treasury to help offset the cost of extending Trump's tax cuts. But almost all the money had been spent by the time Biden left office in January. EPA had signed contracts with 68 states, cities and nonprofits to expand green lending initiatives and bring solar power and other clean technologies to low-income communities. That fact was reflected last month in an analysis by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, which found that only $19 million was unobligated. But the Trump administration has been unwilling to accept that math. And that has sparked a controversy that the courts will ultimately resolve. EPA and Justice Department attorneys who are representing it have argued that any funding from the eight Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund grants that Zeldin claimed to have canceled in March should be added to that tally. But most of those recipients are challenging EPA's termination in court. A district court judge issued an injunction in April siding with the nonprofits and barring EPA from recovering the funds. EPA is appealing that decision. The eight grants awarded to the nonprofits last year originally totaled $20 billion, but some of the money was spent before EPA froze the recipients' accounts at Citibank in February. For example, one grant recipient — the Coalition for Green Capital — disbursed $2.7 billion of its $5 billion award to private equity firms prior to the freeze, according to the investing news site Impact Alpha. EPA's terminations didn't affect a $7 billion solar grant program for states, one leg of the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund that enjoys some bipartisan support. Now, EPA is arguing that the new Republican megalaw should allow it to recapture the $17 billion that's still left in the awardees' accounts, because the program no longer has the force of law. DOJ attorney Yaakov Roth, who is representing EPA in its appeal of the April injunction, submitted a letter to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on July 3 — one day before Trump signed the 'One Big Beautiful Bill' into law — arguing that the bill would 'rescind the appropriated funds that plaintiffs sought to reinstate through' their lawsuit challenging EPA's cancellation of the grants. 'It is more clear than ever that the district court's preliminary injunction must be reversed,' he wrote. Capito is a star witness — for both sides But other lawyers, including those representing the grant recipients, say that's not how it works. EPA signed contracts with the eight nonprofits under authority Congress had granted to it in the 2022 law, they argued. Lawmakers' decision now to revoke that authorization isn't retroactive, they added. Mari Quenemoen, a staff attorney with Lawyers for Good Government, said she couldn't think of another instance where an administration tried to argue that a change in statute rendered contracts void retroactively. 'What's unprecedented is totally throwing out what was intended by a prior Congress,' she said. The plaintiffs' attorneys wrote in a letter to the appeals court dated July 7 that the megalaw 'does not affect plaintiffs' claims, given that all their funds were and are obligated.' Both sides pointed to statements by top GOP lawmakers to buttress their arguments. The plaintiffs' attorneys highlighted an interview that Senate Environment and Public Works Chair Shelley Moore Capito ( gave to POLITICO after the election in which she asserted that it was a 'ridiculous thought' that EPA might try to claw back grant funds that were already obligated. Roth, the DOJ attorney, pointed to a quote by Capito in which she says that EPA's March cancellation of the grants had resulted in $17 billion being 'deobligated.' It is 'the intent of Congress that the entirety of this $17 billion … be rescinded,' Capito is quoted as saying in his letter. An EPW spokesperson directed POLITICO's E&E News to that same quote and said Capito had long been concerned about the program's risk of waste, fraud and abuse. 'Congress agrees with EPA's March 11, 2025, action to cancel GGRF grants,' the spokesperson said in an email to E&E News. He argued that language in the megalaw repealing the authorization for the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund and rescinding unobligated money ensures that EPA does not have to find new recipients for the canceled grants. EPA, for its own part, said it would take its cues from Congress. It responded to E&E News inquiries about its post-budget bill plans for the program by saying only that it would 'work to ensure Congressional intent is fully implemented.' 'Dueling commentary' Rhode Island Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, the committee's top Democrat, issued a statement Friday blasting DOJ for claiming that it could rescind the $17 billion in funding, calling it 'wishful thinking.' He said that in discussions with committee Republicans and the Senate parliamentarian no one challenged CBO's official accounting that the government stood to save only $19 million in administrative and oversight costs by rescinding unobligated money from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund and not $17 billion as EPA now claims. 'The majority did express concern about EPA prevailing in litigation and suddenly having nearly $20 billion back and, for this reason, pushed to repeal the language,' Whitehouse said. 'But the fact of the matter is [the megalaw] only rescinded EPA's administrative dollars and not a cent of the grant funding.' The House-passed bill included similar repeal language for other IRA grant programs, but the Senate parliamentarian stripped that out of the version that passed the Senate. Senate rules prohibit the chamber from including extraneous policy provisions in budget bills. But Dale Bryk, a senior attorney with the Environmental and Energy Law Program at Harvard Law School, said courts, not committee chairs, will have the final say on whether EPA can pull back $17 billion in grant funds or only $19 million in administrative funds. 'There's dueling commentary from Congress — including dueling commentary within her own mind from Capito — but they put down a word. The word says 'unobligated,'' Bryk said. 'And now the court has to decide what that is.' The appeals court has yet to issue a decision on EPA's request to lift the injunction by U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia Judge Tanya Chutkan this spring. The injunction has prevented EPA from emptying the Citibank accounts. Chutkan found that EPA's March terminations were probably unlawful. Bryk said that could be problematic for Republican arguments that the money could be deobligated. Attorneys tracking the case say the appellate court might weigh in on whether or not Trump's megalaw allows the agency to pull back grant funds as 'unobligated' funds. Or it may leave that question to the district court, or decide there's no need to address the question at all because it's only a contracts case that should be heard by the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.

Boston Globe
2 hours ago
- Boston Globe
‘It's outrageous': Mass. governor forays into national debate over Texas redistricting vote
'It's outrageous, and it impacts all of us across this country,' Healey said at a news conference after meeting with the Democrats. 'This is what everybody hates about politics, and we're not standing for it.' Tuesday's visit was more than just a 'welcome to Boston,' Healey said, but instead an opportunity to sound the alarm on what she views as a nationwide threat. Advertisement If passed, the Texas maps would add five new Republican districts. The maps would also mean that for a primary election six months away, voters wouldn't know which district they'll vote in or who they can vote for. 'Not only is it stealing a voice from Texas voters, it's stealing the voice and the vote from voters around this country, from all Americans,' Healey said. 'All Americans are going to be impacted by what the next Congress looks like.' Advertisement By leaving the state, the Texas Democrats effectively blocked voting on the new maps by breaking a quorum, or the minimum number of lawmakers required for the legislature to conduct official business. If Democrats were still in Texas, they could be forcibly returned by Department of Public Safety state troopers, but the department doesn't have jurisdiction outside the state. A Texas senator on Tuesday asked the attorney general, Ken Paxton, also said Tuesday that if the Democrats did not return by Friday, he Democratic Texas state Representative Ron Reynolds spoke alongside other Texas Democrats during a news conference at the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers union hall on Monday in Warrenville, Ill. Scott Olson/Getty 'The price to pay pales in comparison to the rights of everyday people, everyday constituents that we represent proudly,' said Houston Representative Armando Walle, who traveled alongside his colleagues to Boston for the National Conference of State Legislators' annual summit, which is being held this week at the Thomas Michael Menino Convention & Exhibition Center. 'We're not scared, not scared at all.' Typically, state legislatures redraw congressional district lines once every 10 years to reflect the latest US Census. But Texas Republicans began their recent redistricting effort after pressure from the Trump administration, which demanded state leaders seven-member majority in the US House. Not all states allow for mid-decade redistricting. Texas, which has the second-largest congressional delegation in the country, does. In a CNBC interview on Tuesday morning, Trump blamed blue states like Massachusetts for initiating the current redistricting push. Advertisement 'They did it to us, the blue states you were talking about,' Trump said. 'In Massachusetts, I got, I think, 41 percent of the vote, a very blue state, and yet [Democrats] got 100 percent of Congress. One hundred percent. I got 40, 41 percent or something, and yet 100 percent of Congress in Massachusetts? No, it shouldn't be that way.' Trump received 36 percent of the vote in Massachusetts in 2024. Texas Democrats said the maps being proposed during this special legislative session are not only partisan but would also suppress the votes of people of color by breaking up voting blocs in districts with large minority populations. The US Supreme Court ruled in 2019 that states can draw electoral maps on partisan grounds, but the Voting Rights Act maintains that the map cannot suppress the voting rights of people of color. The current Texas map, passed in 2021, is being challenged in court on allegations that it violates the act. Secretary of State Bill Galvin, the state's top elections official who also met with the Democrats Tuesday, said the new maps would be 'splintering communities of color.' 'This is a very deliberate destruction of minority communities with the objective of trying to get more seats,' he said. Beyond Texas, Republicans have looked at redistricting in states where the party has control of the government, such as Missouri and Indiana, as a means to preserve a Republican majority in Congress after the 2026 midterm elections, which have historically gone against the party in the White House during a president's first term. Ohio is redrawing its map due to a court order, which could lead to Republican gains. Advertisement Democrats in California, Illinois, and New York hit back, When asked Tuesday if there is potential for Massachusetts to draw new maps before the next census, Galvin said it's not likely. 'We have no Republicans to give.' Matt Stout of the Globe staff contributed to this report. Samantha J. Gross can be reached at