Pete Hageseth, Trump’s nominee for Secretary of Defense, has built a reputation as a staunch critic of the Department of Defense’s repeated audit failures and fiscal mismanagement. His years of highlighting inefficiencies in defense spending position him to lead the charge for accountability. While Hageseth’s nomination signals a commitment to reform, a suite of proven strategies awaits his consideration as he seeks to bring fiscal discipline to the Pentagon.

Defense dollars saved through thoughtful reforms can significantly enhance the military’s lethality and capacity, ensuring that every dollar serves to strengthen America’s defense capabilities. By eliminating inefficiencies and reducing spending on non-defense priorities, resources can be redirected to critical areas such as modernizing equipment, replenishing munitions, and expanding operational readiness. Streamlining procurement processes, reevaluating outdated programs, and adopting best practices in lifecycle management can free up billions of dollars annually, allowing the Department of Defense to focus on high-priority threats and emerging challenges. These reforms not only maximize the impact of taxpayer dollars but also position the U.S. military to better deter adversaries and respond decisively in times of crisis, securing both national defense and economic stability.

One glaring issue within the defense budget is its allocation of resources. In fiscal year 2024, $145 billion has been dedicated to research and development (R&D). Critics of DOD’s spending practices argue that much of this funding is tied up in projects with no clear path to providing actionable military capabilities. Programs that linger in the research phase without progressing to acquisition could be cut, freeing up resources for immediate needs like advanced aircraft, ships, and munitions. Redirecting funds to tangible capabilities could help address mounting threats, particularly from China, which has been identified as the U.S.’s most significant strategic competitor.

Hageseth could also explore reforms in procurement and maintenance practices. The Pentagon’s reliance on aging equipment, such as Air Force fighter jets averaging 32 years old, highlights inefficiencies that drive up maintenance costs. Drawing inspiration from commercial industries like airlines, which replace equipment sooner to save on long-term costs, the DOD could prioritize lifecycle management to modernize its fleet and reduce expenses.

Structural changes offer another pathway to savings. Reviving the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) process could save billions annually by consolidating underutilized facilities. Additionally, streamlining contracting processes, reducing bureaucratic hurdles, and enhancing civilian workforce management could improve efficiency and accountability across the department.

Hageseth’s well-documented concerns about fiscal mismanagement make him a natural advocate for these reforms. By adopting a focused, results-driven approach, he can turn the Pentagon’s sprawling budget into a model of strategic efficiency, ensuring that every dollar strengthens America’s military capabilities. His leadership could finally deliver the accountability that defense hawks and fiscal hawks alike have long demanded.