How Trump can shake up the Department of Defense: an insider’s view

Few, if anyone, has a better understanding of Donald Trump’s plans for the Pentagon than Christopher Miller, the latter Acting Secretary of Defense Trump’s first term and architect head of defense document “Project 2025”.

This was reported by two people familiar with internal discussions of the Trump campaign. Defense One that Miller has good opportunities to play a key role in the national security apparatus of the next White House. And although Trump sought to distance himself from the Heritage Foundation document after his numerous controversial elements attracted public attention, it was written largely by his former appointees and staff and reflects many of his key policy proposals.

Although he acted as Secretary of Defense, Chris Miller is not anyone’s idea of ​​a Secretary of Defense, not even Chris Miller himself. A retired Army Special Forces colonel who later ran the National Counterterrorism Center, he lacks the defining qualities of a Washington politician. He shows no enthusiasm for speaking or performing; does not enjoy managing large budgets; expresses no interest in waging culture wars in front of cameras. He shares Trump’s off-the-cuff, off-the-cuff speaking style, but not his former boss’s. vindictiveness. Miller is much more likely to praise those in the security industry whose work he admires than to complain about people. (Though he is quick to find colorful language to denounce what he sees as bad ideas and failures, especially the 2021 troop withdrawal from Afghanistan.) In a city that thrives on political ambition, Miller shows irritation over both the question of what role he could play in a future Trump administration and seemed like a possibility. He is at home in the clothes of a man about to go fishing, and many, especially Miller himself, consider him too uncouth to pass Senate confirmation hearings. But considering Trump expressed preference for current cabinet secretaries rather than confirmed ones, this is not the barrier it once was. And Miller’s low ego might serve him well in an Oval Office run by a man with an excess of ego.

We sat down with Miller in June to discuss how the Department of Defense might change during a second Trump term, as well as to hear his own priorities and thoughts on the future of U.S. defense. In an interview, he said the defense chapter of Project 2025 was a collaborative effort involving many members and committees. He described his role as “herding cats.” However, Miller was happy to support and clarify some of his key points, many of which actually came from him.

Innovation

Unlike many of the better-known and more partisan parts of the Heritage Foundation’s voluminous “2025” project. documentThe defense chapter contains points and proposals that echo what many national security experts have called for for years, many of which the Biden White House has itself tried to implement. One of them is a major focus on innovation and faster deployment of new weapons. His biggest complaint is about current innovation efforts such as Replicator The program and even the Defense Innovation Office is that such efforts are not backed by real dollars.

However, Miller’s approach differs from the current status quo because he places much more emphasis on the ideas and innovations that arise within the department, especially at the operator level.

“Here’s my idea: extend the innovation fund to every battalion-sized unit across all the services… and let’s go from the bottom up,” he said in an interview. “​Bring decentralized innovation to kids working in the field. Give them start-up capital.”

Miller also wants to combat the risk-averse culture that is especially prevalent at the mid-service level by encouraging inspectors general to better monitor how innovation funds are spent.

“They come every year and make sure that the money is spent properly, that it is tied to the commander’s vision and all that. Then we just institutionalize it across the board,” he said.

Irregular warfare

Not surprisingly, Miller, a former Army Green Beret who first deployed to Afghanistan in December 2001, disagrees with the service’s views. plan reduce US special operations forces.

Miller wants irregular warfare to play a larger, even dominant role in U.S. policy in South and Central America and Africa—and a smaller one in the Pacific.

“Let Special Operations Command, the Irregular Warfare Command, take care of Latin America and AFRICOM. Let them compete with anyone. Let the services focus only on INDOPAKOM and the Russian bear.”

This is a new version of an idea that received serious attention in the early days of the 2001 operation in the Middle East. Ultimately, he said, he was destroyed by his military commanders. “All the geographic combatant commanders were simply filing it because of their authority and their prerogatives.”

Military intelligence

The Project 2025 document calls for significant reform of the military intelligence apparatus, eliminating “secondary intelligence responsibilities that do not enhance military readiness,” including screening people for security clearances.

Miller sees a possible joint role for military intelligence and special operations, effectively turning the latter into a quasi-intelligence service to better anticipate rapidly changing geopolitical crises. This vision is like this supported in 2016 by then-SOCOM commander Gen. Tony Thomas.

“This is nothing new. He’s been getting bullied for ages,” Miller said. “It’s almost a knee-jerk civil liberties reaction to this: If you have an operational element and an intelligence element working together, somehow you can violate American civil liberties. I don’t see it. This requires conscious control and serious attention. But we know how to do it.”

Miller would also like to place more emphasis on the rapid collection and analysis of open-source intelligence.

“We haven’t even scratched the surface of open source intelligence capabilities yet and we’re still stuck in these silos,” he said.

Space and tactical nuclear weapons

Project 2025 calls for the United States to “develop a nuclear arsenal of the size, complexity, and adaptability, including new theater-level capabilities, to ensure that circumstances do not arise in which America would be subject to significant nuclear coercion.”

Miller said that the problem of low profitability tactical nuclear weapon was heated during discussions in the Project 2025 committee and will most likely remain so in the future. But he is willing to consider adding them to America’s nuclear arsenal.

On space, Miller said the Pentagon can’t simply rely on an abundance of cheap low-Earth orbit satellites to ensure sustainability.

“Obviously, it is necessary to take into account treaty restrictions on the placement of weapons in space. A lot of it is not just about space weapons, but also about cyber effects and other effects,” he said.

National Guard

Miller expressed little enthusiasm for former Trump adviser’s proposal Stephen Miller send the National Guard into American cities to help deport people.

“I think the risks are a little overblown,” he said of the idea of ​​sending National Guard units from one state to another, even against the wishes of governors. “There are enough fire breaks” to prevent misuse.

But he believes border security is a natural fit for the Guard, which has been help there for many years. Additionally, he said individual governors should determine the responsibilities of their state’s Guard units, while the Pentagon trains and equips Guard units to help deter potential foreign adversaries.

Alliances

The public perception of Trump as wanting to leave NATO is the same opinion Trump himself has at times. advanced— does not reflect the actual policy or current thinking of his previous administration, which primarily emphasized the need for NATO countries to spend more on collective defense, an idea also shared by alliance officials. supported.

Miller also rejected suggestions that Trump was preparing to leave the alliance.

“Everyone is worried that (Trump) is talking about a massive withdrawal of NATO or other organizations. I think this is probably a stretch. The ultimate goal is better burden sharing.”

This expectation of increased individual defense spending by partner militaries will extend to other countries such as South Korea.

When it comes to joint development, especially ships, Miller is more like the current Department of Defense than the next. The United States alone simply does not have the shipbuilding capacity to meet the former Trump administration’s goal of a 350-ship Navy, let alone the current stated Navy. target out of 381.

“The ban on the construction of US Navy ships in foreign shipyards – I understand the reason for this, but there are exceptions for reasons of national security. So why don’t we talk seriously about the shipbuilding capacities of Japan and South Korea? There are other places too. You can probably get the Philippines. Australia too.”

This opinion, he said, was largely personal.

“This is where I am, not where Heritage is.” Hell, I have no idea where the Trump campaign is.”