Republican-led congressional committees are raising alarms over what they describe as an opaque and radical transformation of the U.S. military under President Donald Trump’s administration, with Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth at the helm of sweeping changes. On December 16, 2025, these committees voiced their frustration, saying they remain "perturbed" by the Pentagon’s failure to provide key details about its restructuring initiatives, as reported by Reuters and the Washington Post.
At the core of the controversy is Hegseth’s ambitious plan to overhaul the Department of Defense, which includes slashing the number of top generals and admirals and consolidating overseas military headquarters. According to the Washington Post, the Pentagon intends to reduce its global top-level headquarters from 11 to just eight, a move that would eliminate decades of combined leadership experience in one fell swoop. The plan also calls for a dramatic downsizing of major command centers, which critics argue will centralize decision-making in Washington and strip regional commanders of their autonomy.
This shakeup is closely tied to the new national security strategy unveiled by the White House earlier this month. The strategy, as quoted by the Washington Post, boldly declared, “the days of the United States propping up the entire world order like Atlas are over.” Hegseth’s reforms, sources say, are designed to align with President Trump’s campaign pledge to reduce U.S. involvement in foreign conflicts and to bring American troops home.
But not everyone is on board with this vision. Detractors warn that the changes could expose U.S. interests abroad to greater risk and potentially increase vulnerabilities at home, especially at a time when global instability is on the rise. Chuck Hagel, who served as defense secretary under President Barack Obama, told the Washington Post, “The world isn’t getting any less complicated. You want commands that have the capability of heading off problems before they become a big problem, and I think you lose some of that when you unify or consolidate too many.”
The Pentagon’s lack of transparency has only fueled congressional anxieties. Existing laws require the Department of Defense to provide Congress with detailed cost and strategic impact assessments before making major structural changes. Yet, as of mid-December, lawmakers say they have not received the full scope of Hegseth’s plans, nor the justifications for such sweeping reforms. According to Reuters, this has left Republican-led committees feeling increasingly sidelined and perturbed by the Pentagon’s evasiveness.
The internal turmoil within the Pentagon has not gone unnoticed, either. Hegseth’s tenure has been marked by a series of high-profile firings and purges of senior aides, most notably the abrupt dismissal of the Navy’s chief of staff in October 2025. According to the Washington Post, officials have faced random polygraph tests and been compelled to sign strict non-disclosure agreements, all part of what critics describe as an aggressive campaign to stamp out leaks and suppress dissent.
Media access to the Pentagon has also changed dramatically. Sweeping new restrictions led to a mass walkout of credentialed reporters, who were subsequently replaced by podcasters and online pundits widely perceived as sympathetic to the MAGA movement. This shift has drawn sharp criticism from journalists and transparency advocates, who argue that it undermines independent oversight and public accountability.
Hegseth’s leadership has also come under fire for his handling of military operations and information security. Legal experts have raised concerns about deadly strikes on suspected narcotrafficking boats in the Caribbean, questioning the legality of what some have described as a "double-tap" strike that killed survivors. Meanwhile, the so-called “Signalgate” scandal in March 2025 saw Hegseth inadvertently share sensitive, possibly classified military details in a group chat that included a journalist—a glaring breach of protocol that has only heightened scrutiny of his management style.
Against this backdrop, political tensions have flared over Hegseth’s reported push for an official command investigation into Democratic Senator Mark Kelly, a retired Navy captain. Last month, Kelly appeared in a video—circulated by six Democratic lawmakers, all former military members—reminding active-duty servicemembers that they have the right and duty to disobey unlawful orders. The video sparked outrage among conservative figures, with President Trump labeling the clip “treason” and suggesting that those involved should be executed, as reported by The Daily Beast.
Hegseth is now said to be moving forward with an investigation that could see Kelly recalled to active duty for court-martial proceedings. Kelly’s attorney, Paul Fishman, has pushed back forcefully, warning in a letter to the Pentagon that any such action would be “unconstitutional and an extraordinary abuse of power.” Fishman wrote, “If the executive branch were to move forward in any forum—criminal, disciplinary or administrative—we will take all appropriate legal action on Senator Kelly’s behalf to halt the Administration’s unprecedented and dangerous overreach.”
These developments have left many in Washington questioning the true motives behind the Pentagon’s rapid transformation. Supporters of the Trump administration argue that the reforms are long overdue and necessary to streamline the military, cut bureaucratic fat, and refocus on core national interests. They maintain that the U.S. can no longer afford to police the world and must instead prioritize its own security and economic well-being.
Opponents, however, see a different story unfolding. They warn that the centralization of power in the Pentagon and the White House, the marginalization of independent oversight, and the targeting of political critics all point to a dangerous erosion of democratic norms and military professionalism. The sidelining of experienced commanders and advisers, critics say, could leave the U.S. ill-prepared to respond to emerging threats, while the chilling effect on dissent within the ranks may stifle the kind of robust debate that is essential to sound decision-making.
In the midst of these high-stakes debates, the men and women of the U.S. military continue to serve, even as the ground shifts beneath their feet. On September 30, 2025, members of the armed forces gathered at Marine Corps Base Quantico for a meeting convened by Defense Secretary Hegseth—a rare moment of unity amid growing uncertainty. As lawmakers, military leaders, and the American public grapple with the implications of the Pentagon’s transformation, one thing is clear: the future of U.S. defense policy hangs in the balance, with consequences that will reverberate far beyond the halls of power in Washington.