Senior military officials are becoming more concerned about Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth’s new defense strategy. They believe his approach increases domestic security priorities while asking the United States to take on more risk abroad, including in parts of Europe and other regions with strong alliances.
The anxiety has been building for months and after reports of internal disagreements within the Pentagon, it continued to grow. Earlier this year, a memo shifted planning to focus on deterring China’s actions regarding Taiwan and strengthening homeland defense, reducing emphasis elsewhere. Some may argue that the memo and its public release suggested that Washington’s traditional security commitments may become more conditional.
Hegseth’s recent public statements have strongly reinforced this shift. In a notable speech outlining the Pentagon’s direction, he described “defending the U.S. homeland and its hemisphere” as a key priority. He also emphasized allied “burden sharing” and a more focused, interest-driven stance abroad. He framed this approach as a move away from what he called “utopian idealism” toward “hard-nosed realism.”
Inside the Pentagon, senior officers and defense officials have expressed concerns that the strategy’s focus on domestic missions, including increased military presence at the border and in the Western Hemisphere, could create difficult tradeoffs during heightened tensions with China and Russia.
I’ve been through a lot worse than anything Donald Trump or Pete Hegseth can throw at me. And I’m not backing down, because this isn’t about me — it’s about you and every American’s First Amendment right. pic.twitter.com/x8hZrOrRKy
— Captain Mark Kelly (@CaptMarkKelly) December 11, 2025
Officials have indicated that their worry stems from whether diverting attention and resources will undermine the US preparedness for major power challenges and strain the diplomatic relationships that the military relies on for access, basing, logistics, and coalition operations.
The internal unease became more visible after the controversial meeting of senior leaders in the military. Defense officials criticized the event, questioning its value and suggesting it blurred the line between strategic briefings and ideological rallies. Democrats argued that Hegseth’s perspective is moving the department away from a focus on warfighting priorities.
Representative Chrissy Houlahan (D-PA) was particularly direct in her criticism of Hegseth, stating on X that he “embodies dangerous views that undermine our military’s effectiveness, lethality, and readiness.” Senator Mazie Hirono (D-HI) echoed concerns about priorities and resources, suggesting the direction of the strategy is a step backward. “This comes at the expense of real national security,” she noted, continuing: “But obviously they don’t care.”
Hegseth and his supporters have countered the claim that the strategy weakens readiness. He argues that recent conflicts and internal assessments have revealed training gaps, maintenance delays, and forces that are overstretched. He believes the Pentagon needs to refocus on essential tasks. In his public comments, he has stressed readiness, standards, discipline, and lethality, presenting the new approach as a return to basics rather than a withdrawal.
Supporters also maintain that the strategy does not abandon competition with China or other global threats. Instead, it reorders how the U.S. positions itself, placing greater emphasis on the Western Hemisphere while asking allies to take on more responsibilities in their regions.
Senior military officials are closely monitoring the rollout, allies are interpreting the signals, and critics in Congress are already making their case that the strategy risks turning America inward at a time when the world’s most dangerous actors are betting that the U.S. and its partnerships will back down first.
Hegseth’s biggest controversy in his tenure has been the boat strikes, which has allegedly led to the deaths of civilians. With his poll numbers in the gutter, he has remained steadfast in his missions and ethos of his military command.
