Exclusive: Expect more "reshuffling" in Army's transformation
Thousands of feet in the air, returning to D.C. from Georgia, U.S. Army Secretary Dan Driscoll told Axios of his housecleaning ambitions — the "cobwebs and bullsh*t" that need sweeping.
"Complacency right now is going to be rewarded with failure and death in the short- to medium-term," he said.
The big picture: The Army Transformation Initiative's opening salvo landed May 1 with the backing of Driscoll and others, including Chief of Staff Gen. Randy George and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.
It jarred Congress and industry alike with its cuts (M10 Booker), consolidation (Futures and Training and Doctrine commands) and urgency.
A second push, colloquially known as "2.0," is now in the works.
It focuses on "procurement, reorganizing and reshuffling, and firing," Driscoll said, as well as funding "good ideas" plucked from the minds of soldiers and small- and medium-sized businesses.
Nothing is sacred, it appears. "We should be held accountable if we're not willing to look at everything."
Driving the news: Driscoll spent Monday at Fort Stewart, in the swampy southwest of Savannah, inspecting armored vehicles and drones and workout regimens and barracks. He sought feedback from troops on what desperately needs fixing — and warned them of how radically different war looks today.
Axios was the only media in tow.
Zoom in: Fort Stewart is home to the 3rd Infantry Division. Two armored brigade combat teams there are involved with Transforming in Contact, meant to quickly arm soldiers and test commercially available kit.
That initiative predates and informs ATI.
Soldiers are experimenting with robotics to clear battlefield obstacles, aerial drones to make first contact with an enemy, and tools to better understand and leverage the electromagnetic spectrum, which is key to communications and weapons guidance.
Friction point: Congress has not been happy with the level of detail the Army has thus far provided concerning its overhaul, said to save $48 billion over five years.
"We don't serve either the taxpayer or the common defense with blank checks for vaguely defined priorities," Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said at a June 18 appropriations hearing.
"We want to see the analysis behind the specific bets the Army wants to place on ATI," he added. "We want to understand the second-order effects on industry, other services and allies."
The other side: Driscoll promised to show the service's work in 10 days.
The information had not been relayed as of Monday evening.
The bottom line: "We believe the decision to not act is actually riskier than the decision to act and get it wrong," Driscoll said.
The Russia-Ukraine war, a potential Chinese invasion of Taiwan and a constant simmer in the Middle East consume Beltway thinking.
"The existential factors and threats that are occurring today make it a very credible statement to say 'We're either going to do this in a wartime footing or we're going to do it in a pre-wartime footing,'" Driscoll added.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
American Military News
an hour ago
- American Military News
Have 34 felony counts against Trump been dropped after US presidential election?
This article was originally published by Radio Free Asia and is reprinted with permission. Manhattan District Attorney's Office dropped the case against President-elect Donald Trump in which he was convicted of 34 felony counts involving falsifying business records, following his presidential election victory. But the claim is false. Documents released by the court on Nov. 19 show that the prosecution intends to proceed with post-trial sentencing and denies Trump's impending presidency is sufficient grounds to dismiss the case. The claim was shared on X on Nov. 22, 2024. 'Donald Trump's sentencing for 34 criminal charges in the state of New York abruptly adjourned by Judge Merchan without explanation. All charges have been dropped,' the claim reads. Former President Trump secured a second, non-consecutive term by defeating Vice President Kamala Harris in the 2024 U.S. presidential election on Nov. 5. In March 2023, a Manhattan grand jury indicted Trump on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records. The indictment accused Trump of orchestrating hush money payments to adult film actress Stormy Daniels to suppress information about a sexual encounter that she says they had aiming to influence the 2016 presidential election. Trump denies any sexual encounter with Daniels. The payments were purportedly disguised in business records as legal expenses to conceal their true purpose. The claim that the felony accounts against Trump were dropped following the election is incorrect. Charge vs account Chinese social media users appear to have confused the terms 'charges' and 'counts.' A 'charge' refers to a specific crime someone is accused of committing, while a 'count' indicates the number of times the person is accused of committing that crime. In Trump's case, he was accused of one crime – falsifying business records – but was charged with committing it 34 separate times. To be proceeded The Manhattan district attorney offices' charge against Trump has not been dropped. Documents released by the court on November 19 show that the prosecution intends to proceed with post-trial sentencing and denies Trump's impending presidency is sufficient grounds to dismiss the felony counts against him. However, the prosecution noted that it will consider a stay of proceedings, which would pause sentencing until after Trump leaves office after his second term ends in four years. It stated this would allow the court 'to balance competing constitutional interests.' Uncertainties On Nov. 22, the presiding judge Juan Merchan postponed sentencing to receive more arguments from both sides. Trump's lawyers were ordered to file their arguments for dismissal by Dec. 2, while the prosecutors were given until Dec. 9 to submit their arguments for proceeding with the conviction. Given the unique situation of a president-elect awaiting criminal sentencing, the exact outcome of the case is still unclear. While the prosecution has signaled its plans to continue forward with sentencing at some point in the future, Trump's lawyers are still attempting to have the case dismissed. U.S. constitutional law expert Robert Mcwhirter said in an interview with the American broadcaster CBS that any sentencing against Trump would likely be enforced after leaving his second term in office. However, Mcwhirter noted there is 'a slim chance' that he could impose a short prison sentence on Trump before his inauguration in January 2025 or probationary measures during his time in office. Other cases In addition to the Manhattan court case, one other state-level criminal case in Georgia and two federal criminal cases have been brought against Trump . Following Trump's election victory, the Department of Justice dismissed the two federal cases against him on Nov. 25. The case in Georgia is stalled in pretrial procedures and its progress is unclear. A Supreme Court decision from July 2024 ruled that Trump was ineligible to be prosecuted for acts that fall under the president's 'core constitutional powers.' The president's 'unofficial acts' share no such immunity.
Miami Herald
an hour ago
- Miami Herald
Donald Trump Scores Iran War Powers Win
The Republican-controlled U.S. Senate on Friday rejected a Democratic effort to limit President Donald Trump's authority to launch further military action against Iran-just hours after Trump said he was weighing additional airstrikes. The chamber voted 53–47 against the war powers resolution, which would have required the president to seek congressional approval for any new hostilities against Iran. Every senator cast a vote, but the tally remained open late into the evening. In a notable split, Democrat John Fetterman broke with his party to vote "no," while RepublicanRand Paul crossed the aisle to vote "yes." The vote came days after Trump ordered airstrikes on three major Iranian nuclear sites over the weekend, escalating tensions amid Iran's conflict with Israel. Iran retaliated by firing missiles at a U.S. military base in Qatar on Monday. Although Tehran and Tel Aviv agreed to a ceasefire on Monday, the Israel Defense Forces have since accused Iran of breaching that agreement and have threatened strikes on Tehran in response-an accusation Iran's military denies. The Senate's decision marks a clear victory for the White House and shows how much latitude both Republicans and some Democrats are willing to give Trump to take unilateral military action against Iran. The measure, sponsored by Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia, would have invoked the War Powers Act-the 1973 law designed to limit a president's authority to enter armed conflicts without congressional consent. It would have required the White House to notify lawmakers and secure approval from both the House and Senate before U.S. forces could take any additional military action against Iran. Many Democrats, and even some Republicans, argued that the White House should have sought congressional approval before authorizing last weekend's strike. They point out that the Constitution gives Congress-not the president-the power to declare war, and say the War Powers Act exists to stop presidents from sidestepping that responsibility. Under the Constitution, war powers are divided but not always clearly defined. Article I, Section 8 gives Congress the power "to declare war," "raise and support armies," "provide and maintain a navy," and "make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces." This means Congress has the explicit authority to decide when the U.S. goes to war. But the last time Congress formally declared war was World War II. Since then, military actions-from Korea and Vietnam to Iraq, Libya, and Syria-have typically been carried out under broad authorizations, U.N. resolutions, or purely at the president's discretion. At the same time, Article II, Section 2 names the president as "Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States." This gives the president broad authority to direct the military once it is in action. In 1973, after the Vietnam War, Congress passed the War Powers Resolution to rein in presidential war-making. It requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of deploying troops and limits such deployments to 60 days-with a 30-day withdrawal period-unless Congress explicitly approves or declares war. Still, presidents of both parties have often argued that the War Powers Act is unconstitutional, or they've simply ignored its requirements. During his first term, Trump twice vetoed measures passed under the War Powers Act, including one aimed specifically at restricting his ability to strike Iran. Congress wrestled with similar questions in 2011, when President Barack Obama ordered airstrikes on Libya without explicit approval, drawing criticism that he had exceeded his authority. This time, the Trump administration has enjoyed strong backing from Republican leaders on Capitol Hill. House Speaker Mike Johnson has gone so far as to argue that the War Powers Act itself is unconstitutional. Meanwhile, Republican leaders have accused Democrats of using the issue for political gain and say the president needs flexibility to respond to threats quickly. "Democrats, of course, rushed to turn this successful strike into a political fight," said Senator John Barrasso, the chamber's No. 2 Republican, insisting that "national security moves fast" and that requiring consultation with Congress could "prevent the president from protecting us in the future." But some Republicans disagree. Senator Rand Paul cited the framers' original intent to keep war-making powers in the hands of Congress. "Madison wrote in the Federalist Papers that the executive is the branch most prone to war. Therefore, the Constitution, with studied care, vested that power in the legislature," Paul said, explaining his rare break with his party. For its part, the Trump administration argues the president already has all the authority he needs. In a letter to Congress this week, Trump cited his constitutional powers as commander in chief and his responsibility for foreign policy, framing the Iran strike as an act of "collective self-defense of our ally, Israel." Republican Senator John Barrasso said on the Senate floor: "Democrats, of course, rushed to turn this successful strike into a political fight. National security moves fast. That's why our Constitution says: 'Give the commander in chief real authority.'" Democratic Senator Chris Van Hollen said: "What would we have said if Iran or any other country had flown bombers over our country and struck our facilities? We would rightly call it what it was: an act of war." Democratic Senator Tim Kaine said: "War is too big an issue to leave to the moods and the whims and the daily vibes of any one person." Efforts to rein in Trump's military powers are also underway in the House, where similar measures have been introduced, but they face uncertain prospects in a Republican-led chamber unlikely to defy the White House. Related Articles Donald Trump Suffers Major Legal Blow: 'Grave Constitutional Violations'Exclusive: Democrat on How Trump's Tariffs Could Reshape Key Iowa RaceRepublican to Retire as Democrats Eye Potential House Seat: ReportsElon Musk Staffer 'Big Balls' Joining Social Security Administration 2025 NEWSWEEK DIGITAL LLC.
Axios
an hour ago
- Axios
Behind the Curtain: Unprecedented new precedents
Through silence or vocal support, House and Senate Republicans are backing an extraordinary set of new precedents for presidential power they may come to regret if and when Democrats seize those same powers. Why it matters: New precedents are exhilarating when you're in power — and excruciating when you're not. Here are 10 new precedents, all set with minimal GOP dissent: Presidents can limit the classified information they share with lawmakers after bombing a foreign country without the approval of Congress. Presidents can usurp Congress's power to levy tariffs, provided they declare a national emergency. Presidents can unilaterally freeze spending approved by Congress, and dismantle or fire the heads of independent agencies established by law. Presidents can take control of a state's National Guard, even if the governor opposes it, and occupy the state for as long as said president wants. Presidents can accept gifts from foreign nations, as large as a $200 million plane, even if it's unclear whether said president gets to keep the plane at the end of the term. Presidents can actively profit from their time in office, including creating new currencies structured to allow foreign nationals to invest anonymously, benefiting said president. Presidents can try to browbeat the Federal Reserve into cutting interest rates, including by floating replacements for the Fed chair before their term is up. Presidents can direct the Justice Department to prosecute their political opponents and punish critics. These punishments can include stripping Secret Service protections, suing them and threatening imprisonment. Presidents can punish media companies, law firms and universities that don't share their viewpoints or values. Presidents can aggressively pardon supporters, including those who made large political donations as part of their bid for freedom. The strength of the case in said pardons is irrelevant. Between the lines: Friday's Supreme Court ruling limiting nationwide injunctions — a decision widely celebrated by Republicans — underscores the risks of partisan precedent-setting. Conservatives sped to the courts to block many of President Biden's signature policies — and succeeded. But taking those broad injunctions off the table now means they'll also be unavailable the next time a Democratic president pushes an aggressive agenda. That future president will be able to keep implementing even legally shaky policies — just as Trump now can. What to watch: Trump previewed some of those policies at a celebratory press conference on Friday, saying the Supreme Court's ruling cleared the way for executive actions that had been "wrongly enjoined on a nationwide basis." They include ending birthright citizenship for the children of undocumented immigrants, terminating funding for "sanctuary cities," suspending refugee resettlement, and blocking the use of federal funds for gender-affirming care. Axios Zachary Basu contributed reporting.
