Hubbry Logo
United States Secretary of DefenseUnited States Secretary of DefenseMain
Open search
United States Secretary of Defense
Community hub
United States Secretary of Defense
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
United States Secretary of Defense
United States Secretary of Defense
United States Secretary of Defense
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

United States Secretary of Defense
Seal of the department[a]
Flag of the secretary[1]
Incumbent
Pete Hegseth
since January 25, 2025
United States Department of Defense
StyleMr. Secretary (informal)
The Honorable (formal)
Abbreviation
  • SecDef or SECDEF[2]
Member ofCabinet
National Security Council
Reports toPresident of the United States
SeatThe Pentagon, Arlington County, Virginia
AppointerThe president
with Senate advice and consent
Term lengthNo fixed term
Constituting instrument10 U.S.C. § 113
Precursor
FormationSeptember 17, 1947 (1947-09-17)
First holderJames Forrestal
SuccessionSixth[3]
DeputyDeputy Secretary of Defense
SalaryExecutive Schedule, level I[4]
Websitewar.gov

The United States secretary of defense (SecDef), secondarily titled the secretary of war (SecWar),[b] is the head of the United States Department of Defense (DoD), the executive department of the U.S. Armed Forces, and is a high-ranking member of the cabinet of the United States.[5][6][7] The secretary of defense's position of command and authority over the military is second only to that of the president of the United States, who is the commander-in-chief. This position corresponds to what is generally known as a defense minister in many other countries.[8] The president appoints the secretary of defense with the advice and consent of the Senate, and is by custom a member of the Cabinet and by law a member of the National Security Council.[9]

To ensure civilian control of the military, U.S. law provides that the secretary of defense cannot have served as an active-duty commissioned officer in the military in the preceding seven years except for generals and admirals, who cannot have served on active duty within the previous ten years. Congress can legislatively waive this restriction[10] and has done so three times, for George C. Marshall Jr., James N. Mattis, and Lloyd J. Austin III.

Subject only to the orders of the president, the secretary of defense is in the chain of command and exercises command and control, for both operational and administrative purposes, over all DoD-administered service branches  – the Army, Marine Corps, Navy, Air Force, and Space Force – as well as the Coast Guard when its command and control is transferred to the Department of Defense.[11][12][13][14][15] Only the secretary of defense (or the president or Congress) can authorize the transfer of operational control of forces between the three military departments (Department of the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force) and the eleven Unified Combatant Commands.[11] Because the secretary of defense is vested with legal powers that exceed those of any commissioned officer, and is second only to the president in the military hierarchy, its incumbent has sometimes unofficially been referred to as "deputy commander-in-chief".[16][17][18] The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is the principal military adviser to the secretary of defense and the president; while the chairman may assist the secretary and president in their command functions, the chairman is not in the chain of command.[19]

The secretary of state, the secretary of the treasury, the secretary of defense, and the attorney general are generally regarded as the four most important (and are officially the four most senior and oldest) cabinet officials because of the size and importance of their respective departments.[20]

The current secretary of defense is Pete Hegseth, who was nominated by President Donald Trump and was confirmed by the Senate on January 25, 2025.

In 2025, President Donald Trump authorized "secretary of war" as a secondary title for use by the secretary; only an act of Congress can legally change the name of the position.[21][22]

History

[edit]
Seal of the National Military Establishment (1947–1949)

An Army, Navy, and Marine Corps were established in 1775, in concurrence with the American Revolution. The War Department, headed by the secretary of war, was created by Act of Congress in 1789 and was responsible for both the Army and Navy until the founding of a separate Department of the Navy in 1798.

Donald Rumsfeld is sworn in as Secretary of Defense by Associate Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart as U.S. President Gerald R. Ford and Chairman of The Joint Chiefs of Staff General George S. Brown watch at The Pentagon on November 20, 1975.

Based on the experiences of World War II, proposals were soon made on how to more effectively manage the large combined military establishment. The Army generally favored centralization while the Navy had institutional preferences for decentralization and the status quo. The resulting National Security Act of 1947 was largely a compromise between these divergent viewpoints. It renamed the Department of War the Department of the Army, and added both it and the Department of the Navy to a newly established National Military Establishment (NME). The act also separated the Army Air Forces from the Army to become its own branch of service, the United States Air Force.

A new title was coined by the act for the head of the NME: Secretary of Defense. At first, each of the service secretaries maintained cabinet status. The first secretary of defense, James Forrestal, who in his previous capacity as the secretary of the Navy had opposed the creation of the new position, found it difficult to exercise authority over the other branches with the limited powers his office had at the time. To address this and other problems, the National Security Act was amended in 1949 to further consolidate the national defense structure in order to reduce interservice rivalry, directly subordinate the secretaries of the Army, the Navy and the Air Force to the secretary of defense in the chain of command, and rename the National Military Establishment as the Department of Defense, making it one Executive Department. The position of the deputy secretary of defense, the number two position in the department, was also created at this time.

The general trend since 1949 has been to further centralize management in the Department of Defense, elevating the status and authorities of civilian OSD appointees and defense-wide organizations at the expense of the military departments and the services within them. The last major revision of the statutory framework concerning the position was done in the Goldwater–Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986. In particular, it elevated the status of joint service for commissioned officers, making it in practice a requirement before appointments to general officer and flag officer grades could be made.

As the secretary of defense is a civilian position intended to be independent of the active-duty leadership, a secretary is required to have been retired from service for at least seven (originally ten) years unless a waiver is approved by Congress.[23] Since the creation of the position in 1947, such a waiver has been approved only three times, for Army general George Marshall in 1950, Marine Corps General Jim Mattis in 2017, and retired Army general Lloyd Austin in 2021.[24][25]

Powers and functions

[edit]
Main article: Organizational structure of the United States Department of Defense
Department of Defense organizational chart (December 2013)

The secretary of defense, appointed by the president with the advice and consent of the Senate, is by federal law (10 U.S.C. § 113) the head of the Department of Defense, "the principal assistant to the President in all matters relating to Department of Defense", and has "authority, direction and control over the Department of Defense". Because the Constitution vests all military authority in Congress and the president, the statutory authority of the secretary of defense is derived from their constitutional authorities. Since it is impractical for either Congress or the president to participate in every piece of Department of Defense affairs, the secretary of defense and the secretary's subordinate officials generally exercise military authority.

As the head of DoD, all officials, employees and service members are "under" the secretary of defense. Some of those high-ranking officials, civil and military (outside of OSD and the Joint Staff) are: the secretary of the Army, secretary of the Navy, and secretary of the Air Force, Army chief of staff, commandant of the Marine Corps, chief of naval operations, Air Force chief of staff, chief of space operations, and chief of the National Guard Bureau and the combatant commanders of the Combatant Commands. All these high-ranking positions, civil and military, require Senate confirmation.

The Department of Defense is composed of the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD), the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) and the Joint Staff (JS), Office of the Inspector General (DODIG), the Combatant Commands, the Military Departments (Department of the Army (DA), Department of the Navy (DON) & Department of the Air Force (DAF)), the Defense Agencies and DoD Field Activities, the National Guard Bureau (NGB), and such other offices, agencies, activities, organizations, and commands established or designated by law, or by the president or by the secretary of defense.

Department of Defense Directive 5100.01 describes the organizational relationships within the department and is the foundational issuance for delineating the major functions of the department. The latest version, signed by former secretary of defense Robert Gates in December 2010, is the first major re-write since 1987.[26][27]

Office of the Secretary of Defense

[edit]
Main article: Office of the Secretary of Defense

The secretary's principally civilian staff element is called the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) and is composed of the deputy secretary of defense (DEPSECDEF) and six under secretaries of defense in the fields of acquisition & sustainment, research & engineering, comptroller/chief financial officer, intelligence, personnel & readiness, and policy; several assistant secretaries of defense; other directors and the staffs under them. The Secretary of Defense is issuing through the Office of the Secretary of Defense the National Defense Strategy, a major policy document.

The name of the principally military staff organization, organized under the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, is the Joint Staff (JS).

Awards and decorations

[edit]

The Defense Distinguished Service Medal (DDSM), the Defense Superior Service Medal (DSSM), the Defense Meritorious Service Medal (DMSM), the Joint Service Commendation Medal (JSCM) and the Joint Service Achievement Medal (JSAM) are awarded, to military personnel for service in joint duty assignments, in the name of the secretary of defense. In addition, there is the Joint Meritorious Unit Award (JMUA), which is the only ribbon (as in non-medal) and unit award issued to joint DoD activities, also issued in the name of the secretary of defense.

The DDSM is analogous to the distinguished services medals issued by the military departments (i.e. Army Distinguished Service Medal, Navy Distinguished Service Medal & Air Force Distinguished Service Medal), the DSSM corresponds to the Legion of Merit, the DMSM to the Meritorious Service Medal, the JSCM to the service commendation medals, and the JSAM to the achievement medals issued by the services. While the approval authority for DSSM, DMSM, JSCM, JSAM and JMUA is delegated to inferior DoD officials: the DDSM can be awarded only by the secretary of defense.

Recommendations for the Medal of Honor (MOH), formally endorsed in writing by the secretary of the military department concerned and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, are processed through the under secretary of defense for personnel and readiness, and such recommendations be must approved by the secretary of defense before it can be handed over to the president, who is the final approval authority for the MOH, although it is awarded in the name of Congress.

The secretary of defense, with the concurrence of the secretary of state, is the approval authority for the acceptance and wear of NATO medals issued by the secretary general of NATO and offered to the U.S. permanent representative to NATO in recognition of U.S. servicemembers who meet the eligibility criteria specified by NATO.[28]

Congressional committees

[edit]

As the head of the department, the secretary of defense is the chief witness for the congressional committees with oversight responsibilities over the Department of Defense. The most important committees, with respect to the entire department, are the two authorizing committees, the Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) and the House Armed Services Committee (HASC), and the two appropriations committees, the Senate Appropriations Committee and the House Appropriations Committee.

For the DoD intelligence programs the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence have the principal oversight role.

National Security Council

[edit]

The secretary of defense is a statutory member of the National Security Council.[29] As one of the principals, the secretary along with the vice president, secretary of state and the assistant to the president for national security affairs participates in biweekly Principals Committee (PC) meetings, preparing and coordinating issues before they are brought before full NSC sessions chaired by the president.

Role in the military justice system

[edit]

The secretary is one of only five or six civilians – the others being the president, the three "service secretaries" (the secretary of the Army, secretary of the Navy, and secretary of the Air Force), and the secretary of homeland security (when the United States Coast Guard is under the United States Department of Homeland Security and has not been transferred to the Department of the Navy under the Department of Defense) – authorized to act as convening authority in the military justice system for General Courts-Martial (10 U.S.C. § 822: article 22, UCMJ), Special Courts-Martial (10 U.S.C. § 823: article 23, UCMJ), and Summary Courts-Martial (10 U.S.C. § 824: article 24 UCMJ).

Salary

[edit]

The secretary of defense is a Level I position in the Executive Schedule,[4] thus earning a salary of US$246,400, as of October 2024.[30]

List of secretaries of defense

[edit]

The longest-serving secretary of defense is Robert McNamara, who served for a total of 7 years, 39 days. Combining his two non-sequential services as the secretary of defense, the second-longest serving is Donald Rumsfeld, who served just ten days fewer than McNamara. The second-longest unbroken tenure was Caspar Weinberger's, at 6 years, 306 days.

The shortest-serving secretary of defense is Elliot Richardson, who served 114 days and then was appointed U.S. attorney general amid the resignations of the Watergate Scandal. (This is not counting deputy secretaries of defense William P. Clements and William Howard Taft IV, who each served a few weeks as temporary/acting secretary of defense).

For precursors to this position prior to the establishment of the Department of Defense, see the lists of secretaries of the Navy and secretaries of war prior to 1947.

Parties

  Democratic   Republican   Independent / Unknown

Status
  Denotes an acting secretary of defense
No. Image Name Start End Duration Party Home State President(s)
1 James Forrestal[31] September 17, 1947 March 28, 1949 1 year, 192 days Democratic New York Harry S. Truman
(1945–1953)
2 Louis A. Johnson[32] March 28, 1949 September 19, 1950 1 year, 175 days Democratic West Virginia
3 George C. Marshall[33] September 21, 1950 September 12, 1951 356 days Independent Pennsylvania
4 Robert A. Lovett[34] September 17, 1951 January 20, 1953 1 year, 125 days Republican New York
5 Charles Erwin Wilson[35] January 28, 1953 October 8, 1957 4 years, 253 days Republican Michigan Dwight D. Eisenhower
(1953–1961)
6 Neil H. McElroy[36] October 9, 1957 December 1, 1959 2 years, 53 days Republican Ohio
7 Thomas S. Gates Jr.[37] December 2, 1959 January 20, 1961 1 year, 49 days Republican Pennsylvania
8 Robert McNamara[38] January 21, 1961 February 29, 1968 7 years, 39 days Republican Michigan John F. Kennedy
(1961–1963)
Lyndon B. Johnson
(1963–1969)
9 Clark Clifford[39] March 1, 1968 January 20, 1969 325 days Democratic Maryland Lyndon B. Johnson
(1963–1969)
10 Melvin Laird[40] January 22, 1969 January 29, 1973 4 years, 7 days Republican Wisconsin Richard Nixon
(1969–1974)
11 Elliot Richardson[41] January 30, 1973 May 24, 1973 114 days Republican Massachusetts
– Bill Clements
Acting[42] 		May 24, 1973 July 2, 1973 39 days Republican Texas
12 James R. Schlesinger[43] July 2, 1973 November 19, 1975 2 years, 140 days Republican Virginia Richard Nixon
(1969–1974)
Gerald Ford
(1974–1977)
13 Donald Rumsfeld[44] November 20, 1975 January 20, 1977 1 year, 61 days Republican Illinois Gerald Ford
(1974–1977)
14 Harold Brown[45] January 20, 1977 January 20, 1981 4 years, 0 days Democratic California Jimmy Carter
(1977–1981)
15 Caspar Weinberger[46] January 21, 1981 November 23, 1987 6 years, 306 days Republican California Ronald Reagan
(1981–1989)
16 Frank Carlucci[47] November 23, 1987 January 20, 1989 1 year, 58 days Republican Virginia
– William Howard Taft IV
Acting[48] 		January 20, 1989 March 21, 1989 60 days Republican Ohio George H. W. Bush
(1989–1993)
17 Dick Cheney[49] March 21, 1989 January 20, 1993 3 years, 305 days Republican Wyoming
18 Les Aspin[50][51][52] January 20, 1993 February 3, 1994 1 year, 14 days Democratic Wisconsin Bill Clinton
(1993–2001)
19 William Perry[53][51][54] February 3, 1994 January 24, 1997 2 years, 356 days Democratic Pennsylvania
20 William Cohen[55] January 24, 1997 January 20, 2001 3 years, 362 days Republican Maine
21 Donald Rumsfeld[56] January 20, 2001 December 18, 2006 5 years, 332 days
(7 years, 29 days total) 		Republican Illinois George W. Bush
(2001–2009)
22 Robert Gates[57][51] December 18, 2006 June 30, 2011 4 years, 194 days Republican Texas George W. Bush
(2001–2009)
Barack Obama
(2009–2017)
23 Leon Panetta[58] July 1, 2011 February 26, 2013 1 year, 240 days Democratic California Barack Obama
(2009–2017)
24 Chuck Hagel[59] February 27, 2013 February 17, 2015 1 year, 355 days Republican Nebraska
25 Ash Carter[60][51] February 17, 2015 January 20, 2017 1 year, 338 days Democratic Massachusetts
26 Jim Mattis[61] January 20, 2017 January 1, 2019 1 year, 345 days Independent Washington Donald Trump
(2017–2021)
– Patrick M. Shanahan
Acting[62] 		January 1, 2019 June 23, 2019 173 days Independent Washington
– Mark Esper
Acting[63] 		June 24, 2019 July 15, 2019 21 days Republican Virginia
– Richard V. Spencer
Acting[64] 		July 15, 2019 July 23, 2019 8 days Republican Wyoming
27 Mark Esper[63] July 23, 2019 November 9, 2020 1 year, 109 days Republican Virginia
– Christopher C. Miller
Acting[63] 		November 9, 2020 January 20, 2021 72 days Republican Iowa
– David Norquist
Acting[65] 		January 20, 2021 January 22, 2021 2 days Republican Massachusetts Joe Biden
(2021–2025)
28 Lloyd Austin[66] January 22, 2021 January 20, 2025 3 years, 364 days Independent Georgia
– Robert G. Salesses
Acting 		January 20, 2025 January 25, 2025 5 days Independent Rhode Island Donald Trump
(2025–present)
29 Pete Hegseth January 25, 2025 Incumbent 273 days Republican Minnesota

Succession

[edit]

Presidential succession

[edit]

The secretary of defense is sixth in the presidential line of succession, following the secretary of the treasury and preceding the attorney general.[67]

Secretary succession

[edit]

On December 10, 2020, President Donald Trump modified the order of succession for the office of Secretary of Defense in Executive Order 13963. The order of succession is:[68]

# Office
1 Deputy Secretary of Defense
2* Secretary of the Army
Secretary of the Navy
Secretary of the Air Force
3 Under Secretary of Defense for Policy
4 Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence and Security
- Chief Management Officer of the Department of Defense**
5 Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment
6 Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering
7 Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller)
8 Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness
9 Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Policy
10 Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence and Security;
11 Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment;
12 Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering
13 Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller)
14 Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness
15* General Counsel of the Department of Defense
Assistant Secretaries of Defense
Director of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation
Director of Operational Test and Evaluation
Chief Information Officer of the Department of Defense
16* Under Secretary of the Army
Under Secretary of the Navy
Under Secretary of the Air Force
17* Assistant Secretaries of the Army
Assistant Secretaries of the Navy
Assistant Secretaries of the Air Force
General Counsel of the Army
General Counsel of the Navy
General Counsel of the Air Force
*Order of Succession is determined by the seniority of officials in their role.[c]
**Office dissolved on January 1, 2021.[d]

Notes

[edit]
  1. ^ Executive Order 14347 authorized the usage of "Department of War" as a secondary name (which is now preferred by the department), and per 10 U.S. Code § 112, the secretary of defense [war] may institute a new seal with the approval of POTUS, without Congressional approval.
  2. ^ In September 2025, Executive Order 14347 authorized the usage of "Secretary of War" as a secondary title, which is now preferred by the department.
  3. ^ According to the Executive Order precedence states – in layman's terms – that appointees designated the same succession number are determined by the order in which the date they were appointed (senate confirmed) to their position. However appointees designated the same succession number and have the same appointment (senate confirmed) date shall be determined by the order in which they have taken the oath to serve in that office.
  4. ^ Congress disestablished the CMO position with the passage of the William M. (Mac) Thornberry National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 effective 1 January 2021.[69]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

United States Secretary of Defense

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
The United States Secretary of Defense is a cabinet-level position serving as the head of the Department of Defense, the federal executive department responsible for coordinating and supervising all agencies and functions of the government concerned directly with and the . The secretary, appointed by the President with the of the , acts as the principal defense policy advisor to the President, exercises authority, direction, and control over the department, and ensures control over the military establishment. By statute, the secretary is a , typically with no active-duty military service in the preceding seven to ten years, to maintain separation between military command and political leadership. Established by the National Security Act of 1947, the position unified the previously separate Departments of War and Navy under a single civilian leader to streamline military administration and policy amid post-World War II reorganization of national security structures. The act created the National Military Establishment—later renamed the Department of Defense in 1949—and positioned the secretary fourth in the presidential line of succession, underscoring the office's critical role in continuity of government during defense-related crises. Overseeing a budget exceeding $800 billion annually and more than 3 million personnel, the secretary directs the formulation of defense strategy, manages procurement and logistics, and coordinates with the Joint Chiefs of Staff on operational readiness, though operational command authority resides with the President as commander-in-chief. The office has been pivotal in major historical episodes, including the under early secretaries, the escalation, and post-Cold War force reductions, often sparking debates over military intervention, budget priorities, and civil-military relations. Defining characteristics include the secretary's statutory independence from service secretaries in policy matters and the requirement to report directly to the President, fostering centralized decision-making that has evolved through amendments like the 1986 Goldwater-Nichols Act, which enhanced the secretary's oversight of unified combatant commands. As of January 2025, holds the position, marking a recent shift following confirmation as the 29th secretary amid ongoing efforts to refocus defense priorities.

Establishment and Statutory Basis

The position of United States Secretary of Defense was established by the , enacted by Congress and signed into law by President on July 26, 1947. This legislation aimed to promote national security through the unification of the armed services under a single civilian-led executive department, creating the National Military Establishment (NME) headed by the Secretary of Defense and comprising the Departments of the , the (which included the newly independent ), and other advisory bodies such as the . The Act subordinated the service secretaries to the Secretary of Defense, marking a shift from the pre-World War II decentralized structure of separate War and Navy Departments toward centralized policy direction while preserving operational autonomy for the military branches. The statutory authority for the Secretary of Defense is codified in Title 10 of the , Section 113, which designates as the head of the Department of Defense (renamed from the NME by the National Defense Act of 1949). Under this provision, is appointed from life by the President, by and with the of the , and serves as the principal assistant to the President on all Department of Defense matters, exercising direction, authority, and control over the Department subject to presidential oversight. The 1949 amendments, effective August 10, 1949, further consolidated authority by renaming the NME the Department of Defense and enhancing 's power to integrate budgets, , and across the services, addressing early unification challenges identified in congressional reviews. Subsequent amendments to 10 U.S.C. § 113 have refined the role, including requirements for annual reports to on defense capabilities and the establishment of advisory mechanisms, but the core framework remains rooted in the 1947 Act's emphasis on civilian supremacy and unified command. This basis ensures the Secretary's position as a cabinet-level without inherent military command, aligning with constitutional principles of executive authority over military affairs while mandating Senate confirmation to balance political accountability.

Scope of Authority and Constraints

The authority of the United States Secretary of Defense is principally defined in 10 U.S.C. § 113, which designates the Secretary as the head of the Department of Defense (DoD) and vests them with authority, direction, and control over the department, subject to the direction of the President. This includes responsibility for formulating policies and programs related to , preparing the annual defense budget request under 10 U.S.C. § 114, and overseeing the military departments (, , and ) as well as defense agencies. The Secretary serves as the President's principal assistant on all DoD matters, exercising civilian oversight to ensure alignment with executive priorities, but operational command of forces flows through the Chairman of the to unified combatant commanders, as established by the Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-433). Key powers encompass directing , including the $842 billion defense budget for 2024, and managing inter-service integration to prevent among services. The Secretary also holds authority to transfer operational control of forces between military departments, a prerogative shared only with the President or . However, this authority is delegated from the President, who retains ultimate constitutional command as under Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, limiting the Secretary to advisory and administrative roles in operations. Constraints on the Secretary's authority are multifaceted, rooted in constitutional, statutory, and structural checks to preserve civilian control and prevent executive overreach. Constitutionally, the power to declare war resides with under Article I, Section 8, rendering the Secretary unable to initiate hostilities independently; the of 1973 (Public Law 93-148) further requires presidential notification to within 48 hours of committing forces and limits engagements to 60 days without authorization. Domestically, the (18 U.S.C. § 1385) prohibits using federal military forces for law enforcement absent explicit congressional or constitutional exception, such as under the Insurrection Act (10 U.S.C. §§ 251–255). Additional statutory limits include a general requirement for the Secretary to be a , with a seven-year waiting period post-active duty for commissioned officers unless waives it, as amended by the for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181), to mitigate military influence over policy. exercises oversight through confirmation (requiring a simple majority), annual appropriations (DoD receives no funds without approval), and investigative powers, while the Government Accountability Office audits DoD expenditures. Internally, the Secretary cannot concurrently serve as a service secretary (10 U.S.C. § 113), and delegation of certain authorities, like nuclear command, remains tightly restricted to maintain chain-of-command integrity. These mechanisms ensure the Secretary's role supports rather than supplants democratic accountability, with historical instances of congressional pushback—such as budget cuts during the 2013 sequestration under the (Public Law 112-25)—demonstrating fiscal and political boundaries.

Historical Development

Origins in the National Military Establishment

The National Security Act of 1947, signed by President Harry S. Truman on July 26, 1947, created the National Military Establishment (NME) as the central framework for unifying U.S. military departments following World War II inter-service rivalries and inefficiencies. The legislation established the NME to encompass the Departments of the Army, the Navy, and the newly independent Department of the Air Force, aiming to streamline command, procurement, and policy while preserving service-specific expertise. The Act designated the Secretary of Defense as the civilian head of the NME, appointed by the President with Senate confirmation, tasked with promoting national security through coordination of military policies and resources across the departments. Section 201(a) of the Act explicitly stated: "There is hereby established the National Military Establishment, and the Secretary of Defense shall be the head thereof." However, the Secretary's directive authority was circumscribed; orders to the armed forces required concurrence from the respective service secretaries, reflecting congressional intent to balance unification with service autonomy amid resistance from military leaders. James V. Forrestal, who had served as Secretary of the Navy since 1944, was nominated and confirmed as the inaugural Secretary of Defense. He was sworn in on September 17, 1947, by Chief Justice Fred M. Vinson in the Secretary of the Navy's office, marking the formal inception of centralized civilian oversight over the unified military structure. Forrestal's tenure focused on integrating logistics and intelligence functions, though persistent service parochialism limited comprehensive reforms until subsequent legislation in 1949. The NME's establishment addressed post-war demobilization challenges and emerging Cold War threats, institutionalizing a single cabinet-level secretary to advise the President on defense matters while the Joint Chiefs of Staff provided military counsel. This structure laid the groundwork for the modern Department of Defense, though the Secretary's coordinative role rather than operational command underscored the Act's compromise nature, prioritizing gradual unification over immediate centralization.

Unification and Post-World War II Reforms

Following World War II, the United States military faced inefficiencies from inter-service rivalries and fragmented command structures, as evidenced by coordination challenges during joint operations, prompting calls for unification to streamline national defense under centralized civilian leadership. The National Security Act of 1947, signed by President Harry S. Truman on July 26, 1947, established the National Military Establishment (NME) as an executive department comprising the Departments of the Army, Navy, and the newly created Air Force, with a Secretary of Defense to oversee operations and promote unified effort. This act designated the Secretary as the principal assistant to the President on defense matters but imposed limitations, including requiring service secretaries' consent for many directives and preserving departmental autonomy, which hindered effective centralization. James , sworn in as the first Secretary of Defense on September 17, 1947, encountered significant resistance to unification, particularly from the amid debates over roles and allocations, leading to limited progress in consolidating functions like and . Forrestal's efforts focused on voluntary coordination through joint boards, but persistent service parochialism and budgetary disputes underscored the act's shortcomings, contributing to his in March 1949 amid health issues and policy conflicts. These challenges revealed the need for stronger statutory authority to enforce unity, as the NME's structure allowed departments to operate semi-independently, duplicating efforts and complicating strategic planning in the emerging context. The National Security Act Amendments of 1949, enacted on August 10, 1949, addressed these deficiencies by renaming the NME the Department of Defense, elevating it to full cabinet status, and granting direct over service secretaries, including the power to transfer resources and abolish positions without their approval. Under , who succeeded Forrestal, these reforms centralized budgeting under , eliminated the service secretaries' veto over directives, and enhanced the Joint Chiefs of Staff's advisory role while subordinating it to civilian control, aiming to reduce redundancies and improve efficiency. President Truman described the amendments as a "major step toward more responsible and efficient management" of defense resources, reflecting empirical assessments of post-1947 operational frictions. By 1949, these changes had consolidated key functions, such as unified intelligence and logistics planning, laying the foundation for a more cohesive establishment responsive to demands.

Cold War Adaptations and Post-9/11 Expansions

The National Security Act Amendments of 1949 significantly bolstered the Secretary of Defense's authority by transforming the National Military Establishment into the cabinet-level Department of Defense and positioning the Secretary as the President's principal assistant on defense matters, thereby curtailing the autonomy of the military service secretaries. This reform addressed early postwar coordination failures, enabling more unified strategic planning amid emerging threats like Soviet expansion and . In the 1960s, Secretary further centralized control through innovations like the Planning, Programming, and Budgeting System (PPBS) and , which applied quantitative metrics to allocate resources and evaluate programs, shifting power from service branches to the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD). McNamara's "" doctrine adapted U.S. strategy to graduated nuclear and conventional threats, exemplified by his management of the Crisis in 1961 and in 1962, where he advocated naval quarantine over airstrikes. These changes elevated the Secretary's role in policymaking, often rivaling the State Department in influence. The Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986 marked a capstone adaptation by clarifying the chain of command—running directly from the President through the Secretary to combatant commanders—and mandating joint officer assignments to foster among services. This enhanced the Secretary's oversight of operational planning and resource use, reducing interservice rivalries that had hampered efforts like the 1983 invasion, while reinforcing civilian authority over military advice via the elevated Chairman of the . Post-9/11, the Secretary's responsibilities expanded dramatically with the September Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), granting broad latitude to combat globally and enabling rapid deployment of forces without traditional declarations of . Under Secretary , this facilitated the Afghanistan invasion and 2003 Iraq operation, alongside structural shifts like the 2002 creation of U.S. Northern Command to integrate defense with continental operations. The era emphasized transformation toward agile forces for asymmetric threats, increased OSD involvement in intelligence fusion, and sustained high operational tempos, with defense budgets rising from $305 billion in to over $ billion by 2010. These adaptations reflected a pivot from peer-state deterrence to persistent and , though they strained resources and prompted debates over authority scope.

Responsibilities and Powers

Civilian Control over Armed Forces

The principle of civilian control over the ensures that military power remains subordinate to democratic authority, preventing the professional military from dictating national policy or pursuing independent agendas. This doctrine traces its origins to the Founding era, where fears of standing armies led to constitutional provisions vesting command in the elected civilian President under Article II, Section 2, while holds powers to declare war, raise armies, and regulate the military under Article I, Section 8. The Secretary of Defense embodies this control as the civilian head of the Department of Defense, appointed from civilian life by the President with confirmation per 10 U.S.C. § 113, which prohibits recent active-duty officers from holding the position unless waived—requiring at least seven years separation from service to maintain independence from military hierarchies. Operational authority flows through a deliberate chain of command from the President to the and then directly to the combatant commanders of the unified commands, excluding the Chairman of the from command roles to preserve civilian primacy. The Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986 codified this structure, clarifying the Secretary's directive authority over military operations, doctrine, and readiness while enhancing interservice jointness under civilian oversight, thereby reducing parochial service influences and reinforcing accountability to elected leaders. In practice, the Secretary adjudicates interservice disputes, approves strategic plans, and can relieve commanders for non-compliance, as exemplified by historical assertions like Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's directives during the early to align operations with administration policy despite military reservations. This framework extends to budgetary and personnel controls, where the Secretary, through the Office of the Secretary of Defense, allocates resources and shapes force structure to reflect civilian priorities, such as those set by Congress via annual authorization acts. Statutory mechanisms like the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 further limit military involvement in domestic affairs, upholding civilian law enforcement supremacy. Violations of civilian directives, such as unauthorized public dissent by officers, have prompted Secretary interventions, underscoring the expectation that the military executes rather than originates policy. Overall, the Secretary's role mitigates risks of military autonomy, as evidenced by the absence of coups in U.S. history despite large-scale mobilizations, attributing stability to entrenched civilian mechanisms.

Policy Direction and Resource Allocation

The Secretary of Defense exercises authority, direction, and control over the Department of Defense, serving as the principal assistant to the President in formulating and implementing defense policy. This role encompasses directing the military departments, defense agencies, and combatant commands to align operations, strategy, and resource use with national security priorities established under presidential guidance. Policy direction involves issuing guidance on force structure, modernization initiatives, and operational readiness, ensuring unified execution across the armed forces. Resource allocation is managed primarily through the Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution (PPBE) process, an annual cycle that determines funding for DoD programs and activities. The Secretary oversees PPBE to prioritize investments, adjudicate service-specific requests, and balance requirements for procurement, operations, maintenance, and personnel across the , , , Marine Corps, , and joint activities. For fiscal year 2025, this process supported a proposed DoD of $849.8 billion, with allocations emphasizing deterrence against peer competitors, cyber capabilities, and . The Secretary transmits the consolidated defense budget request to annually, justifying expenditures and defending programmatic choices during oversight hearings. This authority enables adjustments to mitigate fiscal constraints, such as redirecting funds from lower-priority legacy systems to emerging technologies like hypersonic weapons and integration, as directed in the 2022 National Defense Strategy. Recent PPBE reforms, initiated in 2024, aim to enhance Secretary-led decision-making by streamlining reviews and increasing flexibility for reprogramming, addressing criticisms of bureaucratic delays in resource distribution. Through subordinate offices like the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy and , the Secretary evaluates policy outcomes and reallocates resources in response to threats, such as the 2023 supplemental funding for aid totaling $61 billion, which prioritized munitions production and allied interoperability. net assessments required under statute provide with data-driven insights into capability gaps, informing subsequent allocations.

Interagency and International Roles

The Secretary of Defense participates as a statutory member of the (NSC), established under the , where the position advises the President on the integration of domestic, foreign, and military policies relating to national security. This role facilitates interagency coordination by aligning Department of Defense (DoD) priorities with those of the Departments of State, Treasury, Energy, and other entities during NSC principals and deputies committee meetings. The Secretary also contributes to the Homeland Security Council on defense-related aspects of domestic threats, such as and cybersecurity, ensuring military resources support interagency responses without supplanting civilian lead agencies. Under the Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986, the Secretary exercises authority over combatant commands that conduct joint operations often requiring synchronization with non-DoD agencies, including intelligence community elements like the Defense Intelligence Agency, which provides military intelligence coordination. This includes directing DoD participation in interagency task forces, such as those combating terrorism or managing acquisition in multinational contexts, to avoid service-specific silos and promote unified operational effectiveness. The Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy further supports these efforts by developing strategies that incorporate interagency input on contingency planning and resource allocation. Internationally, the Secretary directs U.S. defense policy toward alliances and partnerships, prominently representing DoD in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), where the United States upholds Article 5 collective defense commitments under the 1949 North Atlantic Treaty. This involves presenting approved DoD positions on strategy, capabilities, and burden-sharing to NATO bodies and member states, as outlined in Department of Defense Directive 5105.20, to ensure interoperability and deterrence against threats like Russian aggression. The Secretary also oversees bilateral and multilateral engagements, including foreign military sales, security cooperation agreements, and joint exercises, coordinated through the Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs to advance U.S. interests in regions such as Europe and the Indo-Pacific. These responsibilities extend to treaty obligations, where the Secretary advises on military readiness and contributions, such as troop deployments and defense industrial base revitalization among allies.

Organizational Structure

Office of the Secretary of Defense Components

The Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) serves as the principal staff apparatus supporting in formulating policy, managing resources, and overseeing Department of Defense operations, with components organized hierarchically under the Secretary and Deputy Secretary. Established following the 1947 National Security Act, OSD components include Senate-confirmed Under Secretaries, principal staff assistants, and other senior executive service positions that provide specialized expertise in areas such as acquisition, , and . These elements ensure centralized civilian control while coordinating with military departments and combatant commands, though their structure has evolved through legislation like the National Defense Authorization Acts to address emerging priorities such as cybersecurity and sustainment. Key components encompass six Under Secretaries of Defense (USDs), each heading major functional domains:
  • USD for Research and Engineering: Acts as the Chief Technology Officer, directing science and technology investments, prototyping, and engineering standards across the department; established in 1977.
  • USD for Acquisition and Sustainment: Serves as the Chief Acquisition Executive and Chief Sustainment Officer, overseeing procurement, logistics, and industrial base management; dates to 1986 reforms enhancing acquisition oversight.
  • USD for Comptroller: Functions as the Chief Financial Officer, handling budgeting, auditing, and financial management with authority over the department's $800+ billion annual budget; formalized in 1990.
  • USD for Personnel and Readiness: Manages human resources, health affairs, and readiness programs for over 2 million service members and civilians; created in 1993 to centralize personnel policy.
  • USD for Intelligence and Security: Oversees defense intelligence activities, counterintelligence, and security policy, integrating with national intelligence community efforts; instituted post-9/11 in 2002.
  • USD for Policy: Develops national security strategy, alliances, and arms control policies, coordinating with the Joint Staff on global posture; established in 1977 amid Cold War expansions.
Principal Staff Assistants (PSAs) provide direct advisory support on legal, oversight, and operational matters, including the DoD General Counsel (established 1953 for legal advice and compliance), Director of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation (1973, for independent analysis of major programs), and (1982, conducting audits and investigations with independence from operational chains). Additional specialized directors handle testing (Director of Operational Test and Evaluation, 1983), information technology (, 2002), and emerging domains like (, 2022). In September 2025, the department underwent a symbolic renaming to the Department of War via executive action, but OSD components retained their statutory roles and titles, with no substantive reorganization reported as of October 2025; statutory references to "Defense" continue to govern operations. These elements collectively enable the Secretary to direct a exceeding 3,000 personnel at , emphasizing efficiency amid fiscal constraints and geopolitical demands.

Key Subordinates and Advisory Bodies

The Deputy Secretary of Defense is the principal deputy to , exercising authority in the Secretary's absence, overseeing daily management of the Department, and serving as the for resource management and policy implementation. Key civilian subordinates include the Under Secretaries of Defense, who head major functional areas within the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD):
  • The Under Secretary of Defense for Policy advises on national defense strategy, , and interagency coordination, including alliances and efforts.
  • The Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment directs , , , and industrial base policies to ensure warfighter readiness and .
  • The Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness manages and personnel policies, affairs, reserve integration, and readiness assessments.
  • The Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence and Security oversees defense intelligence activities, , and security policies across the intelligence community.
  • The Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller)/Chief Financial Officer handles , financial management, and audit compliance, ensuring fiscal accountability for the Department's $800+ billion annual as of 2025.
  • The Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering leads science and technology investments, prototyping, and to maintain technological superiority, including oversight of directed and hypersonic programs.
Additional principal subordinates encompass the Chief Management Officer, who drives business process reforms and enterprise efficiency; the General Counsel, providing legal advice on operations, contracts, and ; and the Inspector General, conducting independent audits and investigations into , waste, and abuse. Advisory bodies include the , comprising the Chairman, Vice Chairman, and chiefs of the , , , Marine Corps, , and , who collectively furnish military advice on strategy, operations, and resource needs without command authority. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff uniquely serves as the primary military counselor to the Secretary and President, coordinating JCS activities and representing the armed forces in interagency forums. These structures ensure civilian oversight while integrating expert military input, as codified in the Goldwater-Nichols Act of 1986, which enhanced joint advisory roles to promote unified defense planning.

Oversight of Military Departments and Commands

The Secretary of Defense holds statutory authority, direction, and control over the Department of Defense, encompassing the three military departments: the Department of the Army, the Department of the Navy, and the Department of the Air Force. These departments manage the administrative, training, and equipping functions for their respective services—the Army under the Secretary of the Army, the Navy (including the ) under the Secretary of the Navy, and the Air Force (including the ) under the Secretary of the Air Force—but all operate subject to the overarching supervision and policy direction of the Secretary of Defense to maintain unified national defense objectives. The Secretary ensures coordination among the departments, approves major organizational changes, and integrates their activities into broader Department of Defense priorities, including budget allocation and readiness assessments. In parallel, the exercises operational oversight over the 11 unified combatant commands, which are joint organizations composed of forces from multiple military departments assigned for specific missions. The chain of command for military operations flows directly from the President to the Secretary of Defense to the commanders of these combatant commands, excluding the Chairman of the from the operational authority structure. Each combatant commander, typically a four-star general or , reports to the Secretary for the performance of assigned missions, including geographic commands like U.S. Command and functional commands such as U.S. Cyber Command. The Secretary provides guidance on contingency planning, posture, and resource support, ensuring the commands execute national while maintaining for operational effectiveness and compliance with lawful orders. This dual oversight structure—administrative control through the military departments and operational command via the combatant commands—facilitates the Secretary's role in balancing service-specific development with joint force integration, as mandated to promote and across the armed forces. Annual reporting to on departmental expenditures, force structure, and mission accomplishments further reinforces the Secretary's accountability in these domains.

Appointment and Tenure

Nomination, Senate Confirmation, and Qualifications

The President nominates the Secretary of Defense from civilian life by and with the of the , as established under 10 U.S.C. § 113(a). This typically follows the President's or upon a vacancy, with the process beginning with formal submission to the . The Armed Services Committee (SASC) conducts background checks, reviews financial disclosures, and holds confirmation hearings where the nominee testifies on qualifications, policy views, and management plans. Following committee approval, the full debates and votes, requiring a simple majority for confirmation; in tied votes, the casts the deciding ballot. ![Associate Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart Swearing Donald Rumsfeld in as Secretary of Defense at the Pentagon in Arlington, Virginia - NARA -23898551.jpg][center] Statutory qualifications emphasize civilian control of the military, mandating that the Secretary be appointed from civilian life rather than active-duty military personnel. A key restriction prohibits appointment within seven years after relief from active duty as a commissioned officer of a regular component of the armed forces, a rule amended from ten years by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 to balance expertise with independence. This applies specifically to regular components; reserve or National Guard service, as in the case of recent nominee Pete Hegseth, does not trigger the same bar if not involving active-duty regular status. No other formal education, experience, or citizenship requirements exist beyond U.S. citizenship implicit in high-level appointments, though the Senate evaluates nominees' prior government, military, or private-sector roles for suitability. In practice, confirmations can be contentious, as seen with Hegseth's nomination by President in November 2024 and narrow 51-50 approval on January 24, 2025, after hearings scrutinized his experience, media background, and views on military priorities like AI and drone investments. Critics, including some retired officers and groups, argued such profiles lack depth in senior defense management, but legal eligibility prevailed without statutory barriers to non-traditional candidates. Historical precedents, like James Forrestal's 1947 as the first Secretary, underscore that scrutiny focuses on ensuring nominees can direct policy and resources effectively amid demands.

Recess Appointments and Historical Precedents

The Recess Appointments Clause of Article II, Section 2, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution empowers the President to temporarily fill vacancies in offices requiring confirmation, including principal officers such as the Secretary of Defense, when the is in recess; such commissions expire at the end of the next session. This provision ensures governmental continuity during periods when the cannot convene promptly, but it has been interpreted by the in National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning (2014) to permit appointments only during recesses of at least 10 days and to cover vacancies arising before or during recess, though not mandating immediate action upon reconvening. Recess appointments to Cabinet positions, including defense-related roles, have been infrequent in modern history, with only three such appointments to Cabinet secretaries since , reflecting a norm favoring confirmation for high-level executive roles to uphold the . Presidents have occasionally invoked the clause for subordinate defense positions, such as deputy secretaries, but its use for of Defense underscores exceptional circumstances like abrupt vacancies amid demands. The sole historical precedent for a recess appointment to Secretary of Defense occurred under President on December 1, 1959, when , then Deputy Secretary of Defense, was elevated to the position following Neil H. McElroy's resignation effective November 30, 1959, during a recess. , a career naval officer and investment banker with prior service as Under Secretary of the Navy, assumed duties immediately to maintain leadership continuity amid tensions, including the ongoing Berlin Crisis; the confirmed his nomination on April 28, 1960, by , allowing him to serve until January 20, 1961. This episode illustrates the clause's utility for rapid succession in defense leadership without delay, though no subsequent presidents have employed it for the position, preferring acting secretaries or expedited confirmations even during vacancies. ![Thomas S. Gates Jr.]float-right Post-Noel Canning, the clause's scope has faced partisan scrutiny, with Senate sessions designed to block intra-session recesses, limiting its practical availability; nonetheless, it remains a constitutional backstop for defense secretaries when Senate inaction risks operational gaps in command. No recess appointments to the Secretary of Defense have occurred since Gates, as evidenced by routine confirmations across administrations, including the 2025 Senate approval of on January 24, 2025, via a 51-50 vice-presidential .

Compensation and Succession

Salary, Benefits, and Official Support

The salary for the United States Secretary of Defense is established at Level I of the , amounting to $250,600 annually in 2025. This rate applies uniformly to cabinet department heads and reflects periodic adjustments tied to federal pay comparability. As a senior appointed federal executive, the Secretary is eligible for standard benefits available to high-level civilian employees of the executive branch, including enrollment in the Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) program for comprehensive health coverage, Federal Employees' Group Life Insurance (FEGLI), and participation in the Thrift Savings Plan (TSP) for retirement savings with government matching contributions up to specified limits. Paid leave entitlements encompass annual leave accrual (up to 26 days per year for long-serving executives), sick leave, and up to 12 weeks of paid parental leave under the Federal Employee Paid Leave Act. Additional allowances may include commuter subsidies and flexible spending accounts for health care or dependent care expenses, though political appointees like the Secretary typically do not accrue credited service toward a Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) or Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS) annuity unless they have prior qualifying federal service. Official support for includes a dedicated executive office within , staffed by the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD), which comprises policy directorates, administrative personnel, and a to handle operational, logistical, and advisory functions. Security is provided by a full-time protective detail from the Department of Defense Force Protection Agency or equivalent units, ensuring personal safety during domestic and international travel. Transportation perks encompass government-owned or leased vehicles, such as armored sedans for ground travel, and access to for official duties, with all usage subject to guidelines on personal versus official purposes. No dedicated is provided, unlike for the , though temporary accommodations may be arranged for high-threat periods.

Departmental and Presidential Succession Protocols

The succession protocol for the office of the United States Secretary of Defense within the Department of Defense is established by presidential executive order under authority from the and the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998. Executive Order 13963, issued on December 10, 2020, and effective as of that date without subsequent revocation or replacement, designates the order of acting officials to perform the Secretary's functions and duties in the event of absence, , resignation, or inability to serve. This order prioritizes -confirmed officials eligible under law, excluding mere acting officers from succeeding, and allows presidential deviation only as permitted by statute; within categories of equal rank, precedence follows date of confirmation and . The sequence begins with the Deputy Secretary of Defense, followed by the of the Military Departments (, , and , in order of departmental precedence). Subsequent positions include the Under Secretary of Defense for ; Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence and Security; Chief Management Officer of the Department of Defense; Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment; Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering; Under Secretary of Defense (); and Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness. The order then proceeds to deputy under secretaries in corresponding policy areas, followed by the General Counsel, Assistant of Defense, Director of Assessment and , Director of Operational Test and Evaluation, and ; under secretaries of the military departments; and assistant secretaries and general counsels of the military departments. This structure aims to ensure continuity of command while minimizing inter-service conflicts by initially elevating civilian OSD leadership over military department heads beyond the deputy level. In practice, the President may temporarily designate an acting Secretary under the Vacancies Reform Act for up to 210 days (extendable in certain cases), as occurred on January 20, 2025, when Robert Salesses, a senior DoD civilian official, was named acting Secretary pending confirmation of nominee . Such designations must align with statutory limits and the executive order's framework to maintain operational authority, including , without interruption. Regarding presidential succession, the Secretary of Defense occupies the sixth position in the statutory line of succession to the presidency, as codified in 3 U.S.C. § 19 and originating from the of 1947, with amendments incorporating Defense as a cabinet-level role. This places the Secretary immediately after the , Speaker of the House of Representatives, President pro tempore of the Senate, , and Secretary of the Treasury, but before the Attorney General. The acting Secretary would assume presidential duties only if preceding officers are unavailable due to removal, , , or inability, and must meet constitutional eligibility (natural-born citizen, at least 35 years old, and a U.S. resident for 14 years). This protocol underscores the Secretary's central role in continuity, though historical invocations remain hypothetical, with no ever ascending to the presidency.

Secretaries of Defense

Chronological List and Key Statistics

The United States Secretary of Defense position, established by the , has seen 29 individuals serve in the role as of October 2025, including , sworn in on January 25, 2025, under President . This count encompasses confirmed appointees and select acting secretaries who held substantive authority during transitions.
No.NameTermPresident(s)
1James ForrestalSeptember 17, 1947 – March 28, 1949Harry S. Truman
2Louis A. JohnsonMarch 28, 1949 – September 19, 1950Harry S. Truman
3George C. MarshallSeptember 21, 1950 – September 12, 1951Harry S. Truman
4Robert A. LovettSeptember 17, 1951 – January 20, 1953Harry S. Truman
5Charles E. WilsonJanuary 26, 1953 – October 8, 1957Dwight D. Eisenhower
6Neil H. McElroyOctober 9, 1957 – December 1, 1959Dwight D. Eisenhower
7Thomas S. Gates Jr.December 1, 1959 – January 20, 1961Dwight D. Eisenhower
8Robert S. McNamaraJanuary 21, 1961 – February 29, 1968John F. Kennedy / Lyndon B. Johnson
9Clark CliffordMarch 1, 1968 – January 20, 1969Lyndon B. Johnson
10Melvin R. LairdJanuary 22, 1969 – January 29, 1973Richard Nixon
11Elliot L. RichardsonJanuary 30, 1973 – May 24, 1973Richard Nixon
12James R. SchlesingerMay 24, 1973 – November 19, 1975Richard Nixon / Gerald Ford
13Donald RumsfeldNovember 20, 1975 – January 20, 1977Gerald Ford
14Harold BrownJanuary 21, 1977 – January 20, 1981Jimmy Carter
15Caspar W. WeinbergerJanuary 21, 1981 – November 23, 1987Ronald Reagan
16Frank C. CarlucciNovember 23, 1987 – January 20, 1989Ronald Reagan
17Richard B. CheneyMarch 21, 1989 – January 20, 1993George H. W. Bush
18Les AspinJanuary 21, 1993 – February 3, 1994Bill Clinton
19William J. PerryFebruary 3, 1994 – January 23, 1997Bill Clinton
20William S. CohenJanuary 24, 1997 – January 20, 2001Bill Clinton
21Donald RumsfeldJanuary 20, 2001 – December 18, 2006George W. Bush
22Robert M. GatesDecember 18, 2006 – January 20, 2011George W. Bush / Barack Obama
23Leon E. PanettaJanuary 21, 2011 – February 27, 2013Barack Obama
24Chuck HagelFebruary 27, 2013 – November 24, 2014Barack Obama
25Ashton B. CarterDecember 1, 2014 – January 20, 2017Barack Obama
26James N. MattisJanuary 20, 2017 – December 31, 2018Donald Trump
27Patrick M. Shanahan (acting)January 1, 2019 – June 23, 2019Donald Trump
28Mark T. EsperJuly 23, 2019 – November 9, 2020Donald Trump
29Christopher C. Miller (acting)November 9, 2020 – January 20, 2021Donald Trump
30Lloyd J. Austin IIIJanuary 22, 2021 – January 20, 2025Joseph R. Biden
31Pete HegsethJanuary 25, 2025 – presentDonald Trump
Key statistics include the longest tenure held by Robert S. McNamara, serving 2,596 days (7 years and 39 days) across two administrations amid the escalation. The shortest confirmed tenure was Elliot L. Richardson's 114 days, cut short by his reassignment during the Watergate crisis. Among secretaries who completed terms through 2017, the average tenure was 1,009 days (approximately 2.8 years), reflecting high turnover due to political pressures and policy demands. Of the 29 prior to Hegseth, 21 had prior military service, with seven from the Army and seven from the Navy. Donald Rumsfeld holds the distinction of youngest (43 years old in 1975) and oldest (74 in 2006) at swearing-in across his non-consecutive terms.

Notable Figures and Their Impacts

James V. Forrestal served as the first U.S. Secretary of Defense from September 17, 1947, to March 28, 1949, overseeing the initial unification of the armed services under the , which he helped develop despite his initial opposition to merging the War and Navy Departments. His tenure focused on streamlining military administration amid post-World War II budget constraints, advocating for a balanced force structure that prioritized naval power while resisting demands for dominance, which contributed to early inter-service tensions but laid foundational structures for joint operations. Forrestal's resistance to rapid demobilization preserved critical capabilities during the emerging , though his deterioration and resignation highlighted the personal strains of the role. Robert S. McNamara held the position from January 21, 1961, to February 29, 1968, introducing and cost-benefit methodologies to decision-making, which centralized civilian control over military budgeting and procurement for greater efficiency. Under his leadership, U.S. troop commitments in escalated from 16,000 to over 500,000 by 1968, driven by metrics-focused strategies like body counts that overestimated progress against North Vietnamese forces, contributing to prolonged conflict and domestic unrest. McNamara's later admissions in his 1995 memoir In Retrospect acknowledged misjudgments in assessing enemy resolve and the war's winnability, underscoring causal errors in applying quantitative models to without sufficient ground for cultural and political realities. Melvin R. Laird served from January 22, 1969, to January 29, 1973, pioneering "Vietnamization" to transfer combat responsibilities to South Vietnamese forces while withdrawing U.S. troops, reducing American presence from 543,000 in 1969 to 24,000 by his departure and ending the draft in favor of an all-volunteer force. This policy enabled phased U.S. disengagement, equipping and training over 1 million South Vietnamese troops, though its long-term success was limited by subsequent congressional aid cuts and North Vietnamese offensives post-1973. Laird's reforms emphasized readiness and sustainability, averting immediate collapse but revealing dependencies on sustained U.S. support absent political will. Caspar W. Weinberger directed the Department from January 21, 1981, to November 17, 1987, implementing President Reagan's defense buildup that increased budgets from $134 billion in 1980 to $253 billion by 1985, modernizing forces with expansion and precision-guided munitions development. His doctrine prioritized overwhelming force projection and readiness, contributing to Soviet economic strain and the Cold War's end without direct U.S.-Soviet conflict, as evidenced by enhanced deterrence that deterred aggression in Europe and the Pacific. Weinberger's resistance to incremental engagements, as in , emphasized clear objectives and exit strategies, influencing subsequent policy debates on intervention thresholds. Donald H. Rumsfeld, serving twice from November 20, 1975, to January 20, 1977, and January 20, 2001, to November 8, 2006, advanced military transformation during his second term by promoting lighter, reliant on technology for rapid deployment, as seen in initial successes of the 2003 with fewer than 150,000 coalition troops toppling Saddam Hussein's regime in weeks. His vision reduced emphasis on heavy divisions in favor of and precision strikes, streamlining to cut legacy systems, but faced criticism for underestimating post- insurgency requirements, leading to extended commitments and force strain. Empirical reviews post-2006 noted partial successes in agility but causal shortfalls in adaptive enemy countermeasures, prompting doctrinal adjustments.

Controversies and Debates

Accusations of Politicization and Overreach

Critics have long accused Secretaries of Defense of politicizing the military by aligning its operations or culture with partisan domestic priorities, thereby eroding its apolitical tradition. During the Trump administration, Secretary broke publicly with President Trump on June 3, 2020, opposing the invocation of the Insurrection Act to deploy active-duty troops against nationwide protests sparked by George Floyd's , warning that such actions would constitute unlawful domestic use of the military except in cases of rebellion or invasion. later recounted in his 2022 memoir that Trump administration officials proposed deploying up to 250,000 troops to the U.S.-Mexico border for political optics and considered active-duty involvement in clearing Lafayette Square protesters for a June 1, 2020, presidential photo opportunity involving a , actions deemed inappropriate politicization of uniformed forces. Under the Biden administration, Secretary drew accusations of partisan bias in anti- initiatives launched after the , 2021, Capitol breach. Austin directed a February 2021 60-day force-wide stand-down to root out , which Republican lawmakers contended disproportionately scrutinized conservative service members while downplaying left-leaning radicalism, such as support for Antifa or pro-Palestinian activism. In 2024, House Republicans, including Rep. , urged Austin to apply the same scrutiny to left-wing , citing documented cases like U.S. service members participating in 2023 pro-Hamas demonstrations and a 2021 Army training video linking conservative views to , amid Austin's repeated emphasis on right-wing threats as the primary concern. Overreach allegations have focused on Secretaries exceeding statutory authority or military expertise in policy execution. (1961–1968) was criticized for micromanaging strategy, overriding recommendations for phased withdrawal or escalation restraint, and imposing data-driven metrics like enemy body counts that incentivized inflated reporting and prolonged U.S. involvement without decisive outcomes, contributing to over 58,000 American fatalities by 1975. (2001–2006) faced charges of doctrinal overreach in , dismissing senior generals' calls for 300,000–400,000 invasion troops in favor of a 150,000-strong "light footprint" force predicated on rapid and optimistic post-war assumptions, which failed to suppress and led to prolonged occupation costs exceeding $800 billion by 2011. In contemporary contexts, overreach claims have targeted expanded domestic roles, such as revisions to Department of Defense Directive 5240.01 in , which authorized intelligence collection and potential non-lethal support for in scenarios like civil unrest, prompting concerns from advocates about blurring lines between military and police functions despite assurances it did not permit lethal force against U.S. citizens. These episodes underscore recurring tensions between oversight and preserving the military's non-partisan, warfighting focus, with empirical indicators like declining rates—from 68% mission capability in 2023 assessments partly attributed to perceived cultural distractions—fueling debates over whether such initiatives enhance or undermine readiness.

Social Engineering Initiatives in the Military

During the Biden administration, the Department of Defense under Secretary implemented extensive (DEI) programs, including mandatory training sessions that emphasized racial and gender equity frameworks, which critics argued diverted resources from combat preparedness. For instance, allocated significant funding to DEI initiatives, with reports indicating that such efforts consumed personnel time equivalent to thousands of man-hours annually across services, often framing military culture through lenses of systemic and privilege. These programs resumed after a 2020 Trump-era halt on certain trainings perceived as divisive, with Austin directing a department-wide stand-down on but simultaneously expanding equity-focused . Critical race theory (CRT)-influenced materials appeared in some military academies and trainings, such as at the U.S. Air Force Academy, where sessions incorporated concepts like "white fragility" and alongside discussions, prompting congressional scrutiny for undermining by prioritizing identity over merit. A 2022 Republican-led report highlighted expenditures on CRT-related content and progressive gender ideology, estimating costs in the millions while correlating with recruitment shortfalls, as voluntary enlistments dropped 25% from 2019 to 2022 amid perceptions of politicization. Proponents, including senior DoD officials, defended such elements as essential for by fostering inclusive environments, though an study concluded DEI efforts were largely ineffective and antithetical to the military's merit-based ethos. Gender-related policies, particularly the 2021 reversal of the Trump-era service restrictions, allowed individuals with to enlist and receive treatments like and surgeries, with DoD covering associated medical costs estimated at $8-12 million annually based on prior RAND projections. Critics, including former surgeons general, contended this compromised readiness by introducing medical complexities—such as deployability limitations from treatments—affecting 1,000-8,000 personnel, while empirical data from 2016-2019 open service showed no broad cohesion breakdowns but raised concerns over elevated risks and administrative burdens. Following the 2024 election, President Trump's January 2025 and Pete Hegseth's directives mandated termination of these initiatives, including DEI abolition verified by a DoD by May 2025, citing prioritization of lethality, uniformity, and merit over ideological conformity. was deemed incompatible with service, leading to separations, as part of a broader "Restoring America's " policy that ceased operations of related advisory groups. These initiatives faced bipartisan pushback in , with the 2024 enabling workforce reductions in DEI roles, reflecting data linking such programs to erosion and retention issues, as evidenced by a 14.4% active-duty shortfall in 2023. While official DoD assessments under prior administrations claimed minimal readiness impacts, conservative analyses and whistleblowers argued causal links to degraded standards, prioritizing demographic quotas over empirical performance metrics like and tactical proficiency. The 2025 reversals aimed to refocus on warfighting efficacy, with task forces confirming compliance by mid-year.

Recent Reforms and Leadership Challenges (2025)

Following his confirmation by the on January 24, 2025, Defense Secretary prioritized reforms to enhance military lethality, meritocracy, and readiness, reversing prior emphases on diversity initiatives. In a January 27, 2025, executive action, the administration established policies for high standards in troop readiness, cohesion, and uniformity, directing the elimination of non-essential programs not contributing to combat capability. On April 9, 2025, President Trump issued an under Hegseth's oversight to modernize defense acquisitions, emphasizing speed, flexibility, and innovation in the industrial base to address procurement delays. Hegseth's September 30, 2025, address to general and flag officers at Quantico outlined 10 directives reforming personnel policies, including stricter standards, revised gender-based rules for roles, and promotions based on performance rather than demographic factors. These measures aimed to refocus the military on warfighting, with Hegseth signaling additional personnel evaluations and acquisition overhauls to remove bureaucratic inefficiencies. An October 2025 memo required prior approval for most communications with , streamlining interactions but drawing accusations of insulating leadership from oversight. Leadership challenges surfaced amid these changes, with reports from , 2025, indicating eroded trust among senior officers, who viewed Hegseth's public rhetoric and directives as divisive grandstanding prioritizing political over operational expertise. An ultimatum to align with priorities reportedly prompted fears of mass resignations among generals uncomfortable with the cultural shift away from prior inclusivity-focused policies. Hegseth's first high-profile dismissal in October 2025, replacing a senior official with a close aide, exemplified efforts to install aligned personnel but intensified perceptions of politicization within . These tensions highlighted broader resistance to rapid de-emphasis of social engineering elements, with conservative analysts arguing the reforms address empirical readiness gaps, while detractors, often from circles, contended they risked cohesion without evidence of prior deficiencies.

Evaluations of Effectiveness

Empirical Measures of Defense Readiness

Personnel readiness is assessed through metrics such as recruiting achievement rates, retention percentages, and end-strength attainment relative to authorized levels. The U.S. , for instance, achieved only 75% of its 2023 recruiting goal of 65,000 soldiers and similarly underperformed in 2022 by approximately 25%, contributing to an overall active-duty end strength of 452,000 in 2023, below the congressionally mandated 485,000. Retention rates, however, remained robust during this period, with the exceeding 2023 targets by 105% for non-commissioned officers and 120% for junior enlisted. By 2025, recruiting momentum improved markedly, with the reaching 85% of its 61,000-soldier goal by April, amid reports of heightened interest following policy shifts and pay increases averaging 4.5-5.2% annually from 2023-2025. Across services, the Department of Defense reported accessions exceeding goals in early 2025, such as the attaining 115% of its February target. Equipment readiness is quantified via mission-capable (MC) rates, which measure the percentage of operational assets available for tasked missions, and depot maintenance throughput. Air Force MC rates for key platforms have trended downward; for example, V-22 Osprey rates fell from 51% in fiscal year 2021 to 46% in 2023, while F-35 rates declined between fiscal years 2019 and 2023 due to sustainment and parts shortages. Ground vehicle readiness has similarly eroded, with Army and Marine Corps depot overhauls dropping from 1,278 in fiscal year 2015 to just 12 in fiscal year 2024, attributed to workforce reductions and supply chain issues, rendering many units below combat-ready thresholds. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has documented persistent deficiencies in weapon system sustainment, noting that fiscal year 2021 ground domain readiness improved slightly from 2017 levels, but sea domain ratings declined amid deferred maintenance. Unit-level readiness is tracked through the Defense Readiness Reporting System (DRRS-S), which assigns color-coded status (green for fully ready, yellow for marginal, red for not ready) based on personnel, equipment, , and supply factors. GAO analyses indicate overall readiness degradation over two decades, with fewer than two-thirds of Army Brigade Combat Teams reporting top readiness levels in recent assessments, exacerbated by high operational tempo and budget constraints like the 2013 sequestration. DoD's 2020 performance reports highlighted alignment gaps between readiness goals and outcomes, including reduced hours and stockpiles. These metrics, derived from service inspections and comptroller validations, underscore causal links between underinvestment in and personnel policies, such as relaxed standards, and diminished deployability, though 2025 data suggest nascent reversals in recruiting-driven manning.
MetricFiscal Year 2021-2023 TrendFiscal Year 2025 UpdateSource
Army Recruiting Achievement75-80% of goals85% by (goal: 61,000)
Air Force F-35 MC RateDeclining (FY2019-2023)Not specified
Army Depot OverhaulsSharp decline to near-zeroOngoing challenges
BCT Top Readiness Levels<66%Stable/degraded

Critiques from First-Principles and Conservative Viewpoints

Conservative analysts argue that the Secretary of Defense has increasingly prioritized ideological conformity over the military's core mission of deterring aggression and prevailing in combat, eroding and operational effectiveness. contends that (DEI) mandates imposed under recent secretaries, such as extensive training programs and equity-focused promotions, distract from lethality and , contributing to shortfalls exceeding 40,000 active-duty personnel in 2023. These initiatives, they assert, introduce subjective criteria that undermine the causal link between rigorous standards and battlefield success, as evidenced by stalled promotions and lowered thresholds in some branches. From a first-principles perspective grounded in the Constitution's mandate to "provide for the common defense," critics highlight how secretaries have enabled bureaucratic expansion and unchecked spending, with the Department of Defense failing its seventh consecutive financial audit in November 2024, revealing $3.8 trillion in unaccounted assets. This fiscal opacity, conservatives maintain, stems from the secretary's oversight failures, allowing procurement inefficiencies—like the F-35 program's $1.7 trillion lifetime cost overruns—to persist without accountability, diverting funds from modernization to administrative bloat exceeding 800,000 civilian employees. Such deviations from efficient resource allocation weaken deterrence, as adversaries like China exploit perceived U.S. vulnerabilities, evidenced by the People's Liberation Army's 400% naval expansion since 2005. Further critiques focus on the secretary's role in social experimentation, including the integration of policies that Heritage describes as corrupting morale by redefining fitness and deployment standards around identity rather than capability. For instance, mandatory pronoun training and service accommodations under prior administrations consumed millions in redirected resources, correlating with a 25% drop in voluntary separations but also heightened internal divisions, as reported in surveys showing diminished trust in . Conservatives view this as a causal of the 's apolitical essence, where the secretary, as civilian head, should enforce discipline aligned with national survival rather than cultural agendas, lest it invite strategic miscalculations akin to historical precedents of divided forces. In terms of strategic posture, right-leaning think tanks fault secretaries for overreliance on global interventions without clear victory conditions, inflating budgets to $886 billion in 2024 while readiness metrics—such as only 38% of units combat-ready—languish due to deferred maintenance and training cuts. This reflects a departure from realist principles emphasizing sovereign defense over , with advocating reallocations to prioritize munitions stockpiles depleted by aid to , which exceeded $60 billion by 2024, exposing domestic vulnerabilities. Ultimately, these viewpoints hold that without restoring focus on empirical measures of strength—lethality, , and deterrence—the secretary's risks causal failures in preserving U.S. primacy against peer competitors.

References

  1. https://www.usgovernmentmanual.gov/Agency?EntityId=tv4LVSeIL00=&ParentEId=%2BklubNxgV0o=&EType=jY3M4CTKVHY=
  2. https://www.dni.gov/index.php/ic-legal-reference-book/national-security-act-of-1947
  3. https://history.state.gov/milestones/1945-1952/national-security-act
  4. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GOVPUB-D-PURL-gpo58478/pdf/GOVPUB-D-PURL-gpo58478.pdf
  5. https://history.defense.gov/Portals/70/Documents/special_studies/SpecStudy4.pdf
  6. https://www.war.gov/about/biographies/biography/article/4040890/hon-pete-hegseth/
  7. https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/COMPS-1493
  8. https://history.defense.gov/Portals/70/Documents/secretaryofdefense/OSDSeries_Vol1.pdf?ver=2014-05-28-130015-717
  9. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/113
  10. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2017-title10/html/USCODE-2017-title10-subtitleA-partI-chap2-sec113.htm
  11. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2010-title10/html/USCODE-2010-title10-subtitleA-partI-chap2-sec113.htm
  12. https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title10-section113&num=0&edition=prelim
  13. https://www.war.gov/Multimedia/Experience/The-History-of-the-Department-of-War/
  14. https://www.afhistory.af.mil/FAQs/Fact-Sheets/Article/458989/1947-the-national-security-act-of-1947/
  15. https://www.visitthecapitol.gov/artifact/s-758-national-security-act-1947-july-10-1947
  16. https://global.oup.com/us/companion.websites/9780195385168/resources/chapter10/nsa/nsa.pdf
  17. https://history.defense.gov/Portals/70/Documents/other/DODDocsEstandOrg1944-1978.pdf
  18. https://history.defense.gov/Multimedia/Biographies/Article-View/Article/571293/james-v-forrestal/
  19. https://www.history.navy.mil/our-collections/photography/numerical-list-of-images/nhhc-series/nh-series/80-G-704000/80-G-704442.html
  20. https://history.defense.gov/Portals/70/Documents/secretaryofdefense/OSDSeries_Vol1.pdf
  21. https://history.defense.gov/Portals/70/Documents/special_studies/SpecStudy1.pdf
  22. https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2016/june/lest-we-forget-give-em-hell-harrys-unification-fight
  23. https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/intelligence/2022-07-26/national-security-act-turns-75
  24. https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/document/28655-document-11-national-security-act-amendments-1949-10-august-1949
  25. https://history.defense.gov/Historical-Sources/DoD-Reforms/
  26. https://www.trumanlibrary.gov/library/public-papers/177/statement-president-upon-signing-national-security-act-amendments-1949
  27. https://www.airandspaceforces.com/article/0799coup/
  28. https://history.defense.gov/Portals/70/Documents/occasional_papers/SECDEFBROCH-2017FINAL6-13web.pdf?ver=2017-06-21-120118-220
  29. https://history.defense.gov/portals/70/documents/dod_reforms/goldwater-nicholsdodreordact1986.pdf
  30. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/citations/ADA529074
  31. https://www.csis.org/analysis/reflections-looking-back-need-goldwater-nichols
  32. https://ogc.osd.mil/Portals/99/Law%2520of%2520War/Practice%2520Documents/GC%2520Preston%2520-%2520Legal%2520Framework%2520for%2520the%2520US%2520Use%2520of%2520Military%2520Force%2520Since%25209-11%2520-%2520109AmSocyIntlLProc331.pdf?ver=dDHD5jVVldwBBUlzSskTMQ%253D%253D
  33. https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/government/rumsfeld-bio.html
  34. https://digitalcommons.ndu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1123&context=strategic-forums
  35. https://www.jcs.mil/About/
  36. https://www.congress.gov/bill/99th-congress/house-bill/3622
  37. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA442491.pdf
  38. https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title18-section1385&num=0&edition=prelim
  39. https://www.armed-services.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/McInnis_01-12-21.pdf
  40. https://warroom.armywarcollege.edu/articles/what-makes-a-civilian-rr/
  41. https://www.dau.edu/acquipedia-article/office-secretary-defense-osd
  42. https://www.dau.edu/acquipedia-article/planning-programming-budgeting-execution-process-ppbe
  43. https://media.defense.gov/2025/Jan/17/2003629812/-1/-1/1/DOD-PPBE-REFORM-IMPLEMENTATION-PLAN.pdf
  44. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/3021
  45. https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/administration/eop/nsc/
  46. https://history.defense.gov/Portals/70/Documents/dod_reforms/Goldwater-NicholsCR.pdf
  47. https://media.defense.gov/2025/Aug/28/2003790021/-1/-1/0/ESTABLISHMENT-OF-JOINT-INTERAGENCY-TASK-FORCE-401.PDF
  48. https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IF12808
  49. https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_110496.htm
  50. https://history.state.gov/milestones/1945-1952/nato
  51. https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/dodd/510520p.pdf
  52. https://policy.defense.gov/OUSDP-Offices/ASD-for-International-Security-Affairs/Europe-and-NATO/
  53. https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/LSB11256
  54. https://media.defense.gov/2025/Jan/17/2003629840/-1/-1/1/OFFICE-OF-THE-SECRETARY-OF-DEFENSE-ORGANIZATIONAL-STRUCTURE.PDF
  55. https://www.[whitehouse.gov](/page/Whitehouse.gov)/presidential-actions/2025/09/restoring-the-united-states-department-of-war/
  56. https://www.war.gov/about/leadership/
  57. https://www.war.gov/About/combatant-commands/
  58. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/164
  59. https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/RL31980
  60. https://ballotpedia.org/Confirmation_process_for_Pete_Hegseth_for_secretary_of_defense
  61. https://campaignlegal.org/update/confirmation-hearings-explained
  62. https://history.defense.gov/Portals/70/Documents/occasional_papers/SECDEFBROCH-2017FINAL6-13web.pdf
  63. https://www.war.gov/About/Biographies/Biography/Article/4040890/hon-pete-hegseth/
  64. https://homework.study.com/explanation/what-are-the-qualifications-to-be-the-secretary-of-defense.html
  65. https://defensescoop.com/2025/01/24/pete-hegseth-defense-secretary-confirmation-vote-senate-donald-trump/
  66. https://www.ucs.org/about/news/hegseth-unqualified-secretary-defense
  67. https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S2-C3-1/ALDE_00001144/
  68. https://abc7chicago.com/post/donald-trump-cabinet-picks-continue-heres-how-confirmation-process-recess-appointments-work/15548524/
  69. https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/RL33310
  70. https://history.defense.gov/DOD-History/Deputy-Secretaries-of-Defense/Article-View/Article/585243/thomas-s-gates-jr/
  71. https://apnews.com/article/pete-hegseth-defense-secretary-trump-cabinet-confirmation-12491935023692bce0a04d149663e784
  72. https://www.ntu.org/foundation/tax-page/pensions-and-perks-for-former-presidents-archive
  73. https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/salaries-wages/2025/executive-senior-level
  74. https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/pay-administration/fact-sheets/federal-employee-compensation-package/
  75. https://careers.state.gov/benefits/civil-service-benefits/
  76. https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/senior-executive-service/compensation/
  77. https://www.newsnationnow.com/politics/transition/white-house-cabinet-members-salary/
  78. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/12/15/2020-27739/providing-an-order-of-succession-within-the-department-of-defense
  79. https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/designation-of-acting-leaders/
  80. https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/dodd/302004p.pdf
  81. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/3/19
  82. https://www.usa.gov/presidential-succession
  83. https://www.war.gov/About/Secretary-of-War/
  84. https://history.defense.gov/DOD-History/Secretaries-of-Defense/
  85. https://smartpolitics.lib.umn.edu/2011/04/28/how-many-us-secretaries-of-def/
  86. https://www.dvidshub.net/news/539347/former-defense-secretary-caspar-weinberger-dies-88
  87. https://history.defense.gov/Multimedia/Biographies/Article-View/Article/571271/robert-s-mcnamara/
  88. https://millercenter.org/president/lbjohnson/essays/mcnamara-1963-secretary-of-defense
  89. https://www.britannica.com/biography/Robert-S-McNamara
  90. https://history.defense.gov/Multimedia/Biographies/Article-View/Article/571291/melvin-r-laird/
  91. https://www.war.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/1007274/laird-crafted-vietnamization-oversaw-end-of-military-draft/
  92. https://history.defense.gov/Multimedia/Biographies/Article-View/Article/571286/caspar-w-weinberger/
  93. https://www.airuniversity.af.edu/AUPress/Book-Reviews/Display/Article/4224942/caspar-weinberger-and-the-us-military-buildup-19811985/
  94. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/rumsfelds-revolution-at-defense/
  95. https://armedforcesjournal.com/why-did-donald-rumsfeld-fail/
  96. https://www.marshallcenter.org/en/publications/occasional-papers/business-usual-assessment-donald-rumsfelds-transformation-vision-and-transformations-prospects
  97. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/03/us/politics/esper-milley-trump-protest.html
  98. https://www.politico.com/news/2022/05/05/mark-esper-trump-mexico-border-00030592
  99. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/former-defense-secretary-mark-esper-details-his-fraught-relationship-with-trump
  100. https://www.military.com/daily-news/2024/11/07/defense-secretary-calls-calm-transition-apolitical-military-ahead-of-trump-transition.html
  101. http://vanorden.house.gov/media/in-the-news/fox-news-house-republicans-demand-lloyd-austin-investigate-left-wing-extremism
  102. https://tcf.org/content/commentary/the-true-subject-of-errol-morriss-donald-rumsfeld-doc-smugness/
  103. http://armedforcesjournal.com/rumsfeld-and-the-generals/
  104. https://restorethe4th.com/dod-524001/
  105. https://thewarhorse.org/far-right-misinformation-military-policy-lethal-force/
  106. https://www.war.gov/News/Transcripts/Transcript/Article/3960412/secretary-of-defense-lloyd-j-austin-iii-on-camera-on-the-record-remarks-to-trav/
  107. https://www.heritage.org/defense/commentary/dei-distracting-our-military-its-primary-task
  108. https://www.thecentersquare.com/national/article_5981e6a8-69bf-11ed-acc0-f3a1cd5a34f8.html
  109. https://www.military.com/daily-news/2021/03/08/military-resuming-diversity-training-trump-banned.html
  110. https://www.thecollegefix.com/dei-critical-race-theory-pervades-military-trainings-report/
  111. https://nypost.com/2024/07/01/us-news/dei-efforts-in-us-armed-forces-ineffective-run-opposite-of-the-military-ethos-study/
  112. https://nypost.com/2024/06/25/us-news/policies-for-nonbinary-service-members-critical-race-theory-essential-for-national-security-senior-pentagon-official-claims/
  113. https://cisneros.house.gov/media/in-the-news/hill-op-ed-dont-be-fooled-double-speak-trumps-transgender-military-ban
  114. https://www.heritage.org/defense/commentary/think-twice-changing-the-militarys-transgender-policy
  115. https://www.rand.org/news/press/2016/06/30.html
  116. https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/ending-radical-and-wasteful-government-dei-programs-and-preferencing/
  117. https://www.war.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/4195514/task-force-validates-successful-dei-elimination-throughout-dod/
  118. https://media.defense.gov/2025/Jan/29/2003634987/-1/-1/1/RESTORING-AMERICAS-FIGHTING-FORCE.PDF
  119. https://www.war.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/article/4086111/dod-gender-dysphoria-incompatible-with-military-service-members-must-serve-in-a/
  120. https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-25-107397
  121. https://www.nypost.com/2024/07/01/us-news/dei-efforts-in-us-armed-forces-ineffective-run-opposite-of-the-military-ethos-study/
  122. https://www.war.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/4146936/dod-task-force-to-assess-progress-of-dei-elimination/
  123. https://www.npr.org/2025/01/24/nx-s1-5272854/trump-cabinet-picks-pete-hegseth-senate-confirmation-vote
  124. https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/prioritizing-military-excellence-and-readiness/
  125. https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/04/modernizing-defense-acquisitions-and-spurring-innovation-in-the-defense-industrial-base/
  126. https://www.army.mil/article/288832/hegseth_announces_series_of_war_department_reforms_in_sweeping_speech_to_top_military_brass
  127. https://www.politico.com/news/2025/09/30/hegseth-meeting-generals-standards-00586122
  128. https://defensescoop.com/2025/09/30/hegseth-quantico-speech-trump-personnel-changes-acquisition-reforms/
  129. https://www.cnn.com/2025/10/22/politics/hegseth-limit-congress-communication
  130. https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2025/oct/20/pentagon-insiders-say-defense-secretary-pete-hegseth-lost-trust/
  131. https://houlahan.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=4786
  132. https://subscriber.politicopro.com/article/2025/10/pete-hegseth-army-firing-pentagon-trump-00622308
  133. https://www.heritage.org/defense/commentary/5-things-pete-hegseth-could-do-if-he-confirmed
  134. https://www.postalley.org/2025/10/20/two-steps-back-pete-hegseth-bullies-the-us-military-into-a-culture-war/
  135. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2025/02/10/the-us-militarys-recruiting-crisis
  136. https://www.army.mil/article/284886/army_exceeds_retention_targets_early_continues_reenlistments
  137. https://www.military.com/daily-news/2025/04/21/army-recruiting-upswing-service-hits-85-of-annual-goal-5-months-left.html
  138. https://usafacts.org/articles/is-military-enlistment-down/
  139. https://www.defensenews.com/air/2025/03/06/air-force-aircraft-readiness-plunges-to-new-low-alarming-chief/
  140. https://www.gao.gov/military-readiness
  141. https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2025/10/21/army-marine-corps-vehicles-not-ready-for-combat-watchdog-finds/
  142. https://news.usni.org/2023/05/04/gao-report-on-u-s-military-readiness
  143. https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-25-108104
  144. https://files.gao.gov/reports/GAO-25-108104/index.html
  145. https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-23-106673.pdf
  146. https://www.heritage.org/defense/commentary/our-military-dangerous-decline-and-the-reason-why
  147. https://www.heritage.org/defense/commentary/dei-sinking-the-us-navy
  148. https://www.heritage.org/defense/commentary/the-pentagons-war-wasted-dollars
  149. https://www.heritage.org/defense/report/conservative-defense-budget-fiscal-year-2025
  150. https://www.heritage.org/defense
  151. https://www.heritage.org/defense/report/social-experimentation-the-military
  152. https://www.heritage.org/defense/commentary/the-rise-wokeness-the-military
  153. https://oversight.house.gov/release/grothman-u-s-military-isnt-venue-for-social-experiments-and-political-correctness/
  154. https://www.heritage.org/defense/commentary/keeping-america-safe-conservative-national-defense-priorities
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.