Secretary of defense has massive responsibilities for troops, weapons, advising the president and working with Congress
After weeks of controversy amid accusations of sharing sensitive information about military operations in unsecured chats with unauthorized recipients, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth is reportedly under pressure from within the Trump administration, which may seek to replace him. Being secretary of defense is a massive job, broadly affecting Americans' security at home and abroad and overseeing huge numbers of people and immense amounts of money.
The Conversation U.S. asked Evelyn Farkas, a longtime Defense Department leader who is now executive director of the McCain Institute at Arizona State University, to explain what the secretary of defense's job entails and what makes a person effective at that job. During the Obama administration, Farkas was a deputy assistant secretary of defense with a focus on Russia, Ukraine and Eurasia. Prior to that, she was a civilian adviser to the top military officer in NATO, and earlier still she was a senior staff member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, which oversees the military. She also served as a professor at the U.S. Marine Corps Command and Staff College.
They're responsible for about 3.4 million people, including 1.2 million active duty service members and 1.3 million reservists, as well as about 900,000 civilian employees. The secretary is responsible for making sure those people are able to do their jobs – which, collectively, is to defend the United States, the American people and U.S. interests.
They're responsible for defense policy, spending and operations, which includes the people, property and equipment at about 500 military bases across all 50 states and another 750 or so bases in 80 countries around the world. They're responsible for budgeting and spending almost US$2 trillion a year in federal funds, which is about 16% of the overall federal budget.
The president is the commander in chief and decides when and how to use the military. But the president's decision to use force relies on advice and recommendations from the secretary of defense and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The president orders the secretary to carry out military operations, and the orders pass down from the secretary to the relevant commanders from there.
The secretary sets the vision and tone for the Department of Defense and helps the president develop his or her defense strategy, and then implements that strategy. The secretary also designs and implements policies to advance the strategy and the overall national security objectives of the president.
The Defense Department's responsibility is focused on the use of the military, whether it's to deter attacks or defend American interests. The secretary must make sure the military is equipped and trained – ready – to fight and win the nation's wars and to conduct any other operations, such as humanitarian, counterterrorism or peace operations.
The secretary sets priorities, which are reflected in the department's budget. The budget has to be negotiated with Congress, of course. Day to day, the secretary is holding meetings with people who are charged with managing different aspects of the department's activity. This happens regularly in the Pentagon or when the secretary visits military units and installations in the U.S. or around the world.
There are undersecretaries for policy and the budget and other functions such as personnel and readiness. Then there are service secretaries, who look at all of those issues but only for one specific service – the Army, the Navy, which includes the Marine Corps, and the Air Force, which includes the Space Force.
It depends on the president. Most presidents have regular meetings with their top officials as a Cabinet, as a group, and then, of course, individually. Some presidents will have a standing lunch with their Cabinet members, or just a formal meeting.
Generally speaking, most presidents would seek to have a meeting at least once a week that involves their secretary of defense. There's a lot going on in the world, and most of the events or crises involve some decision about the use of military force or some effect on defense capabilities.
The secretary's involvement in a decision to use nuclear weapons would certainly affect almost every American. So that's one way, and any decisions involving war could potentially affect any given American.
Short of that, the economic ripple effects of decisions the secretary makes could be national. The defense budget is large, but not enough to affect everyone all at the same time. But for example, if the secretary of defense decides to close a base, that would have impact on most people in that community, if not all of them, at least indirectly. Businesses would have to adjust or close, and the military personnel and their families would have to move. And the political leadership of the community would be empowered to make decisions about the civilian use of properties previously owned by the Department of Defense.
Almost every kind of company does business with the Department of Defense, either directly or indirectly. The commissaries stock food and medicine and all sorts of regular items that the military buys, in addition to equipment for fighting.
And then there's research and development. Historically, the Defense Department has put a lot of money into those efforts, which has had a lot of effect on consumers' lives. It's not just the internet, although that's one example of something that was invented for military purposes and then translated into civilian use. A lot of smaller developments happen, too, because when a lot of money is being poured into innovation, they discover things along the way that can be commercialized.
Nowadays the civilian sector has outpaced the Defense Department in terms of research and development and innovation, but the defense dollars still make a big difference.
I worked for four of them, three directly. Robert Gates had a high sense of empathy and lots of prior government experience. Leon Panetta had an acute sense of humor and a direct but funny way of interacting. He also had the advantage of having held multiple high-level jobs in other parts of the government. Chuck Hagel had a direct line to the Senate, and Ashton Carter was a hard-driven expert.
The most useful attributes include honesty, empathy, a sense of humor, a sharp intellect, the ability to learn quickly and the skill to determine what is important quickly. Of course, prior government experience working with the department is invaluable. It's helpful to have an understanding of how the Defense Department works, with all its components, and its strengths and weaknesses, before you get into the job. The department has a military and civilian bureaucracy, and it takes some savvy work to get it to move quickly to implement the president's strategy.
During the confirmation process, like all nominees, the secretary is required to attest in writing and sometimes verbally that they will provide truthful answers to Congress and that they will be responsive when Congress has questions.
Different secretaries do a better job at that than others. Secretary Donald Rumsfeld often would annoy members of Congress because he knew there was a time limit on his ability to speak and on each senator's ability to speak. So he would just speak until the clock ran out, and that made them mad. He wouldn't always answer questions directly and sometimes came off as arrogant.
The interactions with Congress are this delicate dance, because a secretary wants to protect the prerogatives of the president and the executive branch. But Congress pays the bills, provides any new authorities the secretary might be seeking and can curtail both the authority and the budget. A secretary wants to defend the policies, the budget and the actions of the Department of Defense. But they also want to be respectful of Congress' role and responsibilities and the individual members of Congress.
Sometimes that balance is hard to strike. They're in a really demanding job, and they get called to testify in front of Congress, usually with the TV cameras on. Members of Congress aren't always polite, so it takes a lot of patience and self control on the part of the secretary of defense to successfully maintain good relations, public and private, with members of Congress.
The secretary should be someone who will stand up for the military and civilians in the department and demand from the president and Congress the resources needed to execute their mission and to provide for the well-being of the personnel, who are, after all, Americans.
I would also say a secretary should interact with the media in a way that strikes the right balance between informing the American public about what the department and the military are doing in the name of the American people and protecting national security secrets. At the end of the day, the secretary of defense is working for the American people in their interest and that of the nation.
This article was updated on April 22, 2025, to reflect reports about the controversies involving Pete Hegseth.
This story is part of a series of profiles of Cabinet and high-level administration positions.
This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Evelyn Farkas, Arizona State University
Read more:
How the EPA administrator protects public health, air, water and the environment
What does the US attorney general actually do? A law professor explains
Interior secretary manages vast lands that all Americans share − and can sway the balance between conservation and development
Evelyn Farkas does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Hashtags

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


UPI
16 minutes ago
- UPI
Interior Department approves modifying federal coal mining project in Montana
The Department of the Interior Friday announced approval of a mining plan modification for Bull Mountains coal mine in Montana. It authorizes Signal Peak Energy LLC to mine roughly 22.8 million tons of federal coal. Secretary of Interior Doug Burgum (pictured in April) touted it as an example of "energy leadership." File Photo by Ken Cedeno/UPI | License Photo June 6 (UPI) -- The Department of the Interior on Friday announced approval of a mining plan modification for Bull Mountains coal mine in Montana. It authorizes Signal Peak Energy LLC to mine roughly 22.8 million tons of federal coal. It also permits the company to mine 34.5 million tons of adjacent non-federal coal. The mine is in Musselshell and Yellowstone counties and exports coal to Japan and South Korea. "By unlocking access to coal in America, we are not only fueling jobs here at home, but we are also standing shoulder-to-shoulder with our allies abroad," Interior Secretary Doug Burgum said in a statement. The Trump administration policy of increasing fossil fuel production stands in stark contrast to Biden administration policies. In October 2024 the Biden administration announced $428 million in funding for 14 federal energy projects in small towns historically known for coal production. The Trump administration is in the process of attempting to undo that clean energy approach while doubling down on coal, oil and gas production. For the Bulls Mountain coal mine, the Interior Department said Friday it is using emergency permitting procedures to disregard normal environmental review. The Interior Department said in an April statement that the procedures reduce what would normally be "a multi-year review process down to just 28 days at most." The department asserts that the procedures using the radically shortened review process still upholds environmental standards. "The Bull Mountains project is proof that we can meet urgent energy needs, work with local communities and uphold strong environmental standards," Acting Assistant Secretary for Land and Minerals Management Adam Suess in a statement. The Interior Department said it is using "alternative arrangements" for compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act, the 1969 law requiring federal agencies to assess potential environmental effects of their decisions. According to the Interior Department, "These alternative arrangements apply both to actions not likely to have significant environmental impacts and to actions likely to have significant environmental impacts." The Trump administration is using a so-called national energy emergency declared by President Donald Trump on Jan. 20 to avoid fully complying with full environmental regulations agencies would normally have to follow. Under the alternative arrangements, companies would notify the department they want those alternative arrangements. The official responsible for reviewing the application would then "prepare a focused, concise, and timely environmental impact statement addressing the purpose and need for the proposed action, alternatives, and a brief description of environmental effects." According to the Interior Department, the Bull Mountains project is expected to generate "over $1 billion in combined local, state and county economic benefits, including wages, taxes and business activity."

Yahoo
20 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Senate Republicans revise ban on state AI regulations in bid to preserve controversial provision
WASHINGTON (AP) — Senate Republicans have made changes to their party's sweeping tax bill in hopes of preserving a new policy that would prevent states from regulating artificial intelligence for a decade. In legislative text unveiled Thursday night, Senate Republicans proposed denying states federal funding for broadband projects if they regulate AI. That's a change from a provision in the House-passed version of the tax overhaul that simply banned any current or future AI regulations by the states for 10 years. 'These provisions fulfill the mandate given to President Trump and Congressional Republicans by the voters: to unleash America's full economic potential and keep her safe from enemies,' Sen. Ted Cruz, chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, said in a statement announcing the changes. The proposed ban has angered state lawmakers in Democratic and Republican-led states and alarmed some digital safety advocates concerned about how AI will develop as the technology rapidly advances. But leading AI executives, including OpenAI's Sam Altman, have made the case to senators that a 'patchwork' of state AI regulations would cripple innovation. Some House Republicans are also uneasy with the provision. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., came out against the AI regulatory moratorium in the House bill after voting for it. She said she had not read that section of the bill. 'We should be reducing federal power and preserving state power. Not the other way around,' Greene wrote on social media. Senate Republicans made their change in an attempt to follow the special process being used to pass the tax bill with a simple majority vote. To comply with those rules, any provision needs to deal primarily with the federal budget and not government policy. Republican leaders argue, essentially, that by setting conditions for states to receive certain federal appropriations — in this instance, funding for broadband internet infrastructure — they would meet the Senate's standard for using a majority vote. Cruz told reporters Thursday that he will make his case next week to Senate parliamentarian on why the revised ban satisfies the rules. The parliamentarian is the chamber's advisor on its proper rules and procedures. While the parliamentarian's ruling are not binding, senators of both parties have adhered to their findings in the past. Senators generally argue that Congress should take the lead on regulating AI but so far the two parties have been unable to broker a deal that is acceptable to Republicans' and Democrats' divergent concerns. The GOP legislation also includes significant changes to how the federal government auctions commercial spectrum ranges. Those new provisions expand the range of spectrum available for commercial use, an issue that has divided lawmakers over how to balance questions of national security alongside providing telecommunications firms access to more frequencies for commercial wireless use. Senators are aiming to pass the tax package, which extends the 2017 rate cuts and other breaks from President Donald Trump's first term along with new tax breaks and steep cuts to social programs, later this month. Matt Brown, The Associated Press Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data


The Hill
21 minutes ago
- The Hill
Points of Light, founded by the Bush family, aims to double American volunteerism by 2035
NEW ORLEANS (AP) — The Bush family's nonprofit Points of Light will lead an effort to double the number of people who volunteer with U.S. charitable organizations from 75 million annually to 150 million in 10 years. The ambitious goal, announced in New Orleans at the foundation's annual conference, which concluded Friday, would represent a major change in the way Americans spend their time and interact with nonprofits. It aspires to mobilize people to volunteer with nonprofits in the U.S. at a scale that only federal programs like AmeriCorps have in the past. It also coincides with deep federal funding cuts that threaten the financial stability of many nonprofits and with an effort to gut AmeriCorps programs, which sent 200,000 volunteers all over the country. A judge on Wednesday paused those cuts in some states, which had sued the Trump administration. Jennifer Sirangelo, president and CEO of Points of Light, said that while the campaign has been in development well before the federal cuts, the nonprofit's board members recently met and decided to move forward. 'What our board said was, 'We have to do it now. We have to put the stake in the ground now. It's more important than it was before the disruption of AmeriCorps,'' she said in an interview with The Associated Press. She said the nonprofit aims to raise and spend $100 million over the next three years to support the goal. Points of Light, which is based in Atlanta, was founded by President George H.W. Bush to champion his vision of volunteerism. It has carried on his tradition of giving out a daily award to a volunteer around the country, built a global network of volunteer organizations and cultivated corporate volunteer programs. Speaking Wednesday in New Orleans, Points of Light's board chair Neil Bush told the organization's annual conference that the capacity volunteers add to nonprofits will have a huge impact on communities. 'Our mission is to make volunteering and service easier, more impactful, more sustained,' Bush said. 'Because, let's be honest, the problems in our communities aren't going to fix themselves.' According to data from the U.S. Census Bureau and AmeriCorps, the rate of participation has plateaued since 2002, with a noticeable dip during the pandemic. Susan M. Chambré, professor emerita at Baruch College who studied volunteering for decades, said Points of Light's goal of doubling the number of volunteers was admirable but unrealistic, given that volunteer rates have not varied significantly over time. But she said more research is needed into what motivates volunteers, which would give insight into how to recruit people. She also said volunteering has become more transactional over time, directed by staff as opposed to organized by volunteers themselves. In making its case for increasing volunteer participation in a recent report, Points of Light drew on research from nonprofits like Independent Sector, the National Alliance for Volunteer Engagement and the Do Good Institute at the University of Maryland. Sirangelo said they want to better measure the impact volunteers make, not just the hours they put in, for example. They also see a major role for technology to better connect potential volunteers to opportunities, though they acknowledge that many have tried to do that through apps and online platforms. Reaching young people will also be a major part of accomplishing this increase in volunteer participation. Sirangelo said she's observed that many young people who do want to participate are founding their own nonprofits rather than joining an existing one. 'We're not welcoming them to our institutions, so they have to go found something,' she said. 'That dynamic has to change.' As the board was considering this new goal, they reached out for advice to Alex Edgar, who is now the youth engagement manager at Made By Us. They ultimately invited him to join the board as a full voting member and agreed to bring on a second young person as well. 'I think for volunteering and the incredible work that Points of Light is leading to really have a deeper connection with my generation, it needs to be done in a way that isn't just talking to or at young people, but really co-created across generations,' said Edgar, who is 21. Karmit Bulman, who has researched and supported volunteer engagement for many years, said she was very pleased to see Points of Light make this commitment. 'They are probably the most well known volunteerism organization in the country and I really appreciate their leadership,' said Bulman, who is currently the executive director of East Side Learning Center, a nonprofit in St. Paul. Bulman said there are many people willing to help out in their communities but who are not willing to jump through hoops to volunteer with a nonprofit. 'We also need to recognize that it's a pretty darn stressful time in people's lives right now,' she said. 'There's a lot of uncertainty personally and professionally and financially for a lot of people. So we need to be really, really flexible in how we engage volunteers.' ___ Associated Press coverage of philanthropy and nonprofits receives support through the AP's collaboration with The Conversation US, with funding from Lilly Endowment Inc. The AP is solely responsible for this content. For all of AP's philanthropy coverage, visit