OPINION — “My priority will be to deliver on the President’s [Candidate Trump’s] promise to the American people to protect the homeland with an Iron Dome for America. I will direct a review of the current missile defense programs and pursue systems to defend against hypersonics, ICBMs, UAS [unmanned aircraft systems] and including threats from the South and the Arctic, among others. We will also look to remove bureaucratic impediments that slow unnecessarily complicated progress without contributing to the rapid and effective establishment of operational capability.”
That was a written answer Defense Secretary-nominee Pete Hegseth gave to a question on missile defense, among the dozens of other responses Hegseth gave to Senate Armed Services Committee questions in a 75-page package made public at the time of his January 14 public hearing.
The committee questionnaire covered a wide range of defense-related subjects, few of which were raised during the four-hour-plus confirmation hearing, although many should have been, such as Trump’s often-stated desire for an “Iron Dome” over the U.S.
Other Hegseth answers are buried in those 75 pages and merit further exploration, since they broaden our understanding of his and Trump’s plans for the Pentagon, a few of which I will discuss below.
The “Iron Dome”
I start with Trump’s Iron Dome for America. It is a crazy idea, as I wrote in my August 20, 2024 column after candidate Trump mentioned it during his August 12 live-streamed, two-hour discussion with Elon Musk on the latter’s X platform.
Trump has long believed in some sort of space shield for the U.S. and has used the Iron Dome name because that system has protected Israel from short-range missiles and drones. Back in January 2019, as President, in a speech at the Pentagon, Trump said, “My upcoming budget will invest in a space-based missile defense layer. It’s new technology. It’s ultimately going to be a very, very big part of our defense and, obviously, of our offense.”
Five years ago, Trump also said that bureaucratic obstacles that hinder speedy deployment of cutting-edge missile defense technologies would be eliminated, words that Hegseth echoed eerily in his recent answer to the Armed Services question.
Space-based missile warning systems have come to fruition, but the deploying weapons in space to intercept missiles launched from anywhere on earth and headed toward the U.S. has not materialized. Trump renewed the idea, most recently during a December 22, 20024 Phoenix rally, when he said, “I will direct our military to begin construction of the great Iron Dome missile defense shield, which will be made all in the USA, much of it right here in Arizona…Ronald Reagan wanted to do it many, many years ago [his Strategic Defense Initiative], but they didn’t really have the technology … But they have it now, you can knock a needle out of the sky.”
We await to see what Trump and Hegseth have in mind.
Join Cipher Brief Experts for a real-time conversation on defining the gray zone and the impact on U.S. national security led by Dr. Michael Vickers, former Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence, and Dave Pitts, former Assistant Director of CIA for South and Central Asia, on Wednesday, January 22 at 1:30p ET.
Subscriber+ Members, check your email for an invitation to register for this exclusive conversation. Not a member? We can help with that.
Nuclear questions
To written questions about nuclear weapons, Hegseth had this to say: “Nuclear deterrence is a central and critical foundation of our nation’s strategy, and modernization of nuclear forces is a priority to counter near-peer nuclear states [Russia, China], and rogue regimes who seek to expand their influence through the development of nuclear capabilities.”
Asked during last week’s public hearing if he supported continuing the development of a new nuclear submarine-launched cruise missile (SLCM), Hegseth said, “As of right now, based on what I know, I do.”
He went on, “One of the answers I will have repeated throughout this morning is getting an opportunity to look under the hood, at classified material, and understanding the true capabilities vis-à-vis enemy capabilities.”
Hegseth then added, “What I know on the nuclear side is Russia and China are rushing to modernize and build arsenals larger than ours. We need to match [their] threats to [our] capabilities, and the systems we elevate will be tied to whether those capabilities are needed.”
That answer implied to me that Hegseth was open to increasing the number of deployed U.S. nuclear weapons, now set at 1,550 based on the 2010 New START Agreement with Russia that runs out in 2026.
In addition, in written answers to the committee, Hegseth said that if confirmed, he would order “an immediate review of the [U.S. nuclear weapons] program of record,” meaning a new Nuclear Posture Review would be undertaken to come out in 2026, something normally done every four years.
Another issue reportedly being discussed within the Trump team and among GOP members of Congress is a return to U.S. nuclear testing. “Advisers to Mr. Trump have suggested that the incoming administration may propose a restart to the nation’s explosive [underground] testing of nuclear arms,” the New York Times wrote last Saturday, adding, “That step, daunting both technically and politically, would end U.S. adherence to a global test ban that sought to end decades of costly and destabilizing arms races.”
The U.S. halted underground testing in 1992, relying instead on subcritical tests that use chemical explosives with radioactive materials, but do not cause a nuclear chain reaction. The U.S. has not ratified the 1996 Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, and Congress has passed legislation to maintain underground test sites in Nevada in case full-scale, underground nuclear tests are resumed.
A shortage of ships
Another set of questions sent to Hegseth involved recent Pentagon problems with Navy shipbuilding.
One question said, “The Navy’s FY 2025 shipbuilding plan will significantly reduce the number of battle force ships and vertical launch systems over the course of the next five years. How would you mitigate the impacts of this reduced capacity, or how would you plan
to retain or grow the Navy’s capacity?”
Hegseth responded, “Shipbuilding is an urgent national security priority. If confirmed, I will immediately direct the Secretary of the Navy and the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition & Sustainment to create a shipbuilding roadmap to increase our capacity within the shipbuilding industrial base, remove bottlenecks within the supply chain, and reduce near-term risk by improving Navy maintenance, repair and overhaul capability.”
There were similar questions and answers.
“Do you consider the Fiscal Year 2025 shipbuilding plan, which reaches the policy goal of 355 ships only in 2038, to be acceptable? Hegseth’s answer: “If confirmed, I look forward to closely examining the Navy’s current plan to reach 355 ships and commit to working with the Congress to address current challenges and work diligently to accelerate the growth of our Fleet.”
“How would you accelerate the number of ships delivered to the United States Navy?” Hegseth’s answer: “If confirmed, I will work closely with Congress and the Navy to increase our shipbuilding capacity.”
“Do you support the transition to a hybrid fleet of manned and unmanned vessels, and if so, what would you do to achieve a successful transition?” Hegseth’s answer: “If confirmed, I will direct the Service Secretaries, the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition & Sustainment, and the Under Secretary of Defense for Research & Engineering to accelerate adoption and integration of cost-effective and highly capable unmanned systems to transition to the force of the future.”
Everyone needs a good nightcap. Ours happens to come in the form of a M-F newsletter that provides the best way to unwind while staying up to speed on national security. (And this Nightcap promises no hangover or weight gain.) Sign up today.
Hegseth, who is 44 years old, has had no past experience in major manufacturing such as shipbuilding, having served as an Army and National Guard officer, whose highest rank was as a major. He also has no experience managing large organizations. Trump’s nominee for Secretary of the Navy is John Phelan, a Florida businessman, investor and major Trump donor, who is also a novice when it comes to Navy shipbuilding. In fact, if confirmed, Phelan would be the first Navy Secretary in 15 years to have never served in any branch of the armed forces.
At last week’s confirmation hearing, Hegseth was asked by Sen. Tim Sheehy (R-Mont.), “How are you going to reinvigorgate our shipbuilding industry so we can compete with China?”
In public, Hegseth gave a different answer from the one he had provided in writing. This time he responded that Trump has said “repeatedly to me and publicly that shipbuilding will be one of his absolute top priorities of his administration.”
Then, Hegseth added, that meant the Defense Secretary’s office had to “shine a spotlight on it [shipbuilding] to make sure that the bureaucracy doesn’t strangle important initiatives…” He placed blame, saying, “This administration [Biden’s] has allowed our number of ships to drop below 300. It sets a projection of 340 or 350, but doesn’t create the capacity to address it.”
In his answer to Sheehy, Hegseth said, “If we are going to defend our interests, our allies, and put America first, we have to project power. That means shipbuilding, and means historic investments in our defense base there, and driving innovation and cost savings in ways that only business leaders inside the Pentagon can do.”
That sounds good, but it doesn’t mean much in a practical sense.
Hegseth is nominated to be Secretary of Defense, a position which calls for him to oversee the Defense Department, act as the principal defense policy maker and advisor on defense matters to the President.
“This job demands calm, judgment, and humility. It tests you. It tempers you. And I shouldered it with a deep sense of resolve and duty.” Those were among the words last Friday of former Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin III, in his farewell address to colleagues as he left the Pentagon.
Can they be applied to Pete Hegseth? They are qualities he’s yet to exhibit publicly.
The Cipher Brief is committed to publishing a range of perspectives on national security issues submitted by deeply experienced national security professionals. Opinions expressed are those of the author and do not represent the views or opinions of The Cipher Brief.
Have a perspective to share based on your experience in the national security field? Send it to [email protected] for publication consideration.
Read more expert-driven national security insights, perspective and analysis in The Cipher Brief