From the Daily Caller News Foundation 

By Jake Smith

President-elect Donald Trump’s decision to tap Pete Hegseth for secretary of defense has sent corporate media and the wider defense establishment into a tailspin, with critics taking aim at the veteran’s lack of policy-making experience. Yet, national security experts argue that Hegseth could bring much-needed change to a Pentagon that has lost its way.

Trump announced Tuesday evening that Hegseth would be taking over the nation’s top defense role, touting him as “tough, smart and a true believer in America First.” Hegseth will face a series of challenges that started under the Biden-Harris administration’s tenure, including a recruiting and retention crisis, weapons stockpile shortages, hot-button left-wing policies and two global wars that have dragged in the U.S. 

“He wasn’t on my bingo card, but I just finished his book and was incredibly impressed by what he had to say,” Morgan Murphy, former Pentagon press secretary and national security adviser to Sen. Tommy Tuberville, told the Daily Caller News Foundation. “I think it’s a really good pick by the president.”

Hegseth is in lockstep with Trump’s “America First” approach, having vocalized his rejection of neoconservatism while also not appearing to be in favor of isolationism, either. Hegseth also spoke on the Shawn Ryan show in an interview published on Nov. 7 about the need to strip the Pentagon and military of left-wing policies that some argue have hindered the military’s readiness.

Many corporate media outlets reacted with shock at Hegseth being tapped to head the Pentagon. A number of officials and defense insiders who spoke to some outlets expressed outrage at the choice, arguing that Trump should have picked a Washington establishment figure for the role.

“Who the fuck is this guy?” a defense lobbyist, who has hoping for “someone who actually has an extensive background in defense,” told Politico.

“Folks are shocked,” one current DOD official told the outlet. “He’s just a Fox News personality that’s never worked in the government.”

Democratic lawmakers, too, have raced to cast doubt on Hegseth, voicing similar criticism.

“There is reason for concern that this is not a person who is a serious enough policymaker, serious enough policy implementer, to do a successful job,” Democratic Washington Rep. Adam Smith told The Associated Press.

Yet some people well versed in the national security and foreign affairs world feel differently; though Hegseth’s appointment was a surprise, it could be just what the Pentagon needs right now.

“Hegseth understands the needs of our service members and is committed to refocusing on readiness and core defense priorities, which will help address some recent challenges within the Department of Defense,” former senior Pentagon official Simone Ledeen told the DCNF.

A Princeton graduate, Hegseth joined the military in the early 2000s, serving in Cuba, Iraq and Afghanistan, and was an infantry platoon leader. He has also been active in veterans affairs, having worked for Vets for Freedom and Concerned Veterans for America in the late 2000s through the mid-2010s.

“He has personally fought in the wars that Washington has signed the nation up for, in Iraq and Afghanistan,” Murphy said. “When I look at his resume, that’s what jumps out at me … when you have been a guest of your government in our foreign interventions, I think it gives a perspective that we have not had from a secretary of defense in a long time.”

The ultimate cost for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars is estimated to be between $4 and $6 trillion, with both conflicts resulting in over 7,000 U.S. servicemember deaths and countless others wounded. Further, 13 U.S. servicemembers died during the botched Biden-Harris Afghanistan withdrawal, which initially left thousands of Americans stranded. Around $7 billion in U.S. military equipment was also left behind, ending up in the hands of the Taliban.

Hegseth joined Fox News in 2014 and has been with the network since. He was interviewed by Trump at the Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida on Tuesday and was chosen for the role on the same day, people familiar with the matter told The Wall Street Journal.

Hegseth has publicly voiced his strong belief in conservatism, especially when it comes to national security affairs.

“[Hegseth]” will be an amazing leader,” former acting Director of National Intelligence Richard Grenell wrote in a postto X on Tuesday. “He loves America and wants to protect her.”

The incoming defense secretary will inherit a number of challenges plaguing the Biden-Harris administration, including the ongoing Russia-Ukraine war and Middle East conflicts. He will also deal with the growing threat from China, which has become increasingly hostile to the U.S. and is rapidly expanding its military.

During an interview with Shawn Ryan last week, Hegseth also raised the issue of the ongoing recruiting and retention crisis in the military. Several branches of the military under the Biden administration have missed their recruiting goals in recent years, prompting the Pentagon to lower some standards to boost enlistment.

That’s an area where Hegseth is likely to fare better than Austin, Murphy told the DCNF.

“It’s going to be, I think, a tremendous boon to recruiting to have a secretary who has served,” Murphy said.

This is my next Secretary of Defense and he’s going to start by firing everyone responsible for pushing woke ideology in the military — and I cannot wait.pic.twitter.com/6uXV3kbySv

— Marina Medvin  (@MarinaMedvin) November 13, 2024

Hegseth is also likely to address a number of policies that the Biden administration and Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin have embraced in recent years.

Austin has overseen the implementation of several left-wing initiatives at the Pentagon. For example, the military has established diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) quotas for recruiting and retention. In another example, the DCNF previously learned that the Air Force set a “goal” to reduce the white population in a key recruiting program while setting specific targets for other races.

Austin also established a policy where the Pentagon reimburses servicemembers for travel fees if they have to go to another state to get an abortion.

Trump is already quickly filling spots in his cabinet and administration. The president-elect has selected Tulsi Gabbard to head national intelligence, Republican Rep. Matt Gaetz as attorney general, adviser Susie Wiles as White House chief of staff, Florida Rep. Mike Waltz to serve as his national security adviser, Tom Homan as “border czar,” North Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem as Department of Homeland Security secretary and John Ratcliffe as Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) director.

Republican Florida Sen. Marco was also confirmed Wednesday to be Trump’s pick for secretary of state.

Those picks are a major shift from Biden’s current officials. Hegseth will replace Austin; Wiles will take over from Jeff Zients; Waltz is set to take over from Jake Sullivan; Noem will replace Alejandro Mayorkas; Stefanik will take over from Linda Thomas-Greenfield, and Ratcliffe will fill Bill Burns’ role. Rubio is slated to replace Antony Blinken.

From the Fraser Institute

By Jake Fuss and Grady Munro

The Trudeau government will soon release its fall economic statement. Though technically intended to be an update on the fiscal plan in this year’s budget, in recent years the fall economic statement has more closely resembled a “mini-budget” that unveils new (and often significant) spending commitments and initiatives.

Let’s look at the data.

The chart below includes projections of annual federal program spending from a series of federal budgets and updates, beginning with the 2022 budget and ending with the latest 2024 budget. Program spending equals total spending minus debt interest costs, and represents discretionary spending by the federal government.

Clearly, there’s a trend that with every consecutive budget and fiscal update the Trudeau government revises spending estimates upwards. Take the last two fiscal years, 2023/24 and 2024/25, for example. Budget 2022 projected annual program spending of $436.5 billion for the 2023/24 fiscal year. Yet the fall economic statement released just months later revised that spending estimate up to $449.8 billion, and later releases showed even higher spending.

The issue is even more stark when examining spending projections for the current fiscal year. Budget 2022 projected annual spending of $441.6 billion in 2024/25. Since then, every subsequent fiscal release has revised that estimate higher and higher, to the point that Budget 2024 estimates program spending of $483.6 billion for this year—representing a $42.0 billion increase from the projections only two years ago.

Meanwhile, as spending estimates are revised upwards, plans to reduce the federal deficit are consistently pushed off into later years.

For example, the 2022 fall economic statement projected a deficit of $25.4 billion for the 2024/25 fiscal year, and declining deficits in the years to come, before reaching an eventual surplus of $4.5 billion in 2027/28. However, subsequent budgets and fiscal updates again revised those estimates. The latest budget projects a deficit of $39.8 billion in 2024/25 that will decline to a $26.8 billion deficit by 2027/28. In other words, though budgets and fiscal updates have consistently projected declining deficits between 2024/25 and 2027/28, each subsequent document has produced larger deficits throughout the fiscal outlook and pushed the timeline for balanced budgets further into the future.

These data illustrate the Trudeau government’s lack of accountability to its own fiscal plans. Though the unpredictable nature of forecasting means the government is unlikely to exactly meet future projections, it’s still reasonable to expect it will roughly follow its own fiscal plans. However, time and time again Canadians have been sold a certain plan, only to have it change dramatically mere months later due to the government’s unwillingness to restrain spending. We shouldn’t expect the upcoming fall economic statement to be any different.

Authors: