Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Just the Facts: Did Donald Trump Rebuild the Army and Military?

News

Just the Facts: Did Donald Trump Rebuild the Army and Military?

A U.S. military uniform close up.

Getty Images, roibu

The Fulcrum strives to approach news stories with an open mind and skepticism, striving to present our readers with a broad spectrum of viewpoints through diligent research and critical thinking. As best we can, we remove personal bias from our reporting and seek a variety of perspectives in both our news gathering and selection of opinion pieces. However, before our readers can analyze varying viewpoints, they must have the facts.

During his commencement speech at West Point on Saturday, May 24, Donald Trump stated that he rebuilt the military. He told the graduating cadets:


"I rebuilt that army, and I rebuilt the military. And we rebuilt it like nobody has ever rebuilt it before in my first term".

His speech also touched on military strength, national security, and his administration’s policies regarding diversity, equity, and inclusion in the armed forces.

Has the Trump Administration rebuilt the military as he claimed at West Point or just shifted priorities?

Trump claimed he rebuilt the military, but his administration's actions suggest more of a shift in priorities rather than a complete overhaul. His policies focused on streamlining defense spending and procurement, modernizing equipment, and prioritizing speed and flexibility in military operations. Additionally, he has emphasized reversing diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs in the armed forces.

Specifically, his administration cut certain Army programs while prioritizing long-range missiles and uncrewed aerial systems. Vice President JD Vance also outlined a strategic pivot toward avoiding prolonged conflicts and maintaining technological superiority rather than expanding military size.

Trump's military rebuild has led to a shift in U.S. defense strategies, focusing on restraint in the use of force and avoiding prolonged conflicts.

Trump also reversed diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs in the military, arguing that they were distractions from core defense missions. His administration fired senior military officers who supported DEI efforts and banned transgender individuals from serving. These changes have sparked debate over their long-term effects on military readiness and recruitment.

How have Trump's military priorities differed from previous presidents?

  • Budget and Spending: Trump has emphasized increased military spending, with his administration proposing the first Pentagon budget exceeding $1 trillion. However, some critics argue that this budget does not add significant new funding but rather reallocates resources.
  • Recruitment and Retention: Trump has touted record-breaking military recruitment, though data suggests enlistments were already rising before his reelection. His administration has focused on reviving military morale and recruitment reforms.
  • Modernization and Equipment: His administration has prioritized long-range missiles and uncrewed aerial systems while cutting certain Army programs, such as the Improved Turbine Engine Program for Black Hawk helicopters.
  • Social Policies: Trump has reversed diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs, reinstated the transgender military ban, and replaced senior officers who supported DEI efforts. These changes contrast with previous administrations that expanded inclusion policies.
  • Military Strategy: Unlike previous presidents who focused on global military presence, Trump has emphasized avoiding prolonged conflicts and reducing overseas deployments. His administration has also pushed for NATO allies to take more responsibility for their own defense.

Since President Trump specifically referred to his first administration, what are the increases in the military budget over Obama?

President Trump increased the military budget compared to the later years of President Obama's administration. The total defense budgets under Trump from 2017 to 2020 amounted to $2.9 trillion (adjusted for inflation), which was higher than the $2.7 trillion spent in Obama's last four years. However, in Obama's first four years, the defense budget was nearly $3.3 trillion.

The increase under Trump was often highlighted in his speeches, where he claimed to have invested $2.5 trillion in military equipment. However, only 20% of that budget was actually spent on purchasing new equipment.

Are there any areas where the Trump administration has reduced military effectiveness or readiness?

There are some concerns that certain policies under President Trump may have impacted military effectiveness or readiness:

  • Leadership Changes: Trump has removed several top military officials, including the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. CQ Brown Jr., and Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Lisa Franchetti. Some experts argue that these firings could disrupt continuity and strategic planning within the military.
  • Budget Adjustments: While Trump initially proposed increasing military spending, reports indicate that he briefly considered cutting Pentagon funding by up to 8% before walking back the proposal. Some analysts worry that shifting funds away from traditional defense programs toward missile defense and border security could impact overall readiness.
  • Cultural & Policy Shifts: Trump has prioritized removing diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives from the military, arguing that they detract from combat effectiveness. Critics argue that reducing DEI programs could limit recruitment and retention, particularly among underrepresented groups.

What overall conclusion one should draw from the President's statement on May 24 that he rebuilt that army, and rebuilt the military, and "we rebuilt it like nobody has ever rebuilt it before in my first term"?

While Trump’s administration undeniably increased military funding and introduced new initiatives, critics argue that the military was already strong before his presidency. Some analysts suggest that his policy changes—such as removing DEI programs and shifting focus away from certain diplomatic efforts— could have mixed effects on overall military effectiveness.

David Nevins is co-publisher of The Fulcrum and co-founder and board chairman of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund.

Read More

Fulcrum Roundtable: Militarizing U.S. Cities
The Washington Monument is visible as armed members of the National Guard patrol the National Mall on August 27, 2025 in Washington, DC.
Getty Images, Andrew Harnik

Fulcrum Roundtable: Militarizing U.S. Cities

Welcome to the Fulcrum Roundtable.

The program offers insights and discussions about some of the most talked-about topics from the previous month, featuring Fulcrum’s collaborators.

Keep ReadingShow less
Congress Bill Spotlight: Remove the Stain Act

A deep look at the fight over rescinding Medals of Honor from U.S. soldiers at Wounded Knee, the political clash surrounding the Remove the Stain Act, and what’s at stake for historical justice.

Getty Images, Stocktrek Images

Congress Bill Spotlight: Remove the Stain Act

Should the U.S. soldiers at 1890’s Wounded Knee keep the Medal of Honor?

Context: history

Keep ReadingShow less
The Recipe for a Humanitarian Crisis: 600,000 Venezuelans Set to Be Returned to the “Mouth of the Shark”

Migrant families from Honduras, Guatemala, Venezuela and Haiti live in a migrant camp set up by a charity organization in a former hospital, in the border town of Matamoros, Mexico.

(Photo by Andrew Lichtenstein/Corbis via Getty Images)

The Recipe for a Humanitarian Crisis: 600,000 Venezuelans Set to Be Returned to the “Mouth of the Shark”

On October 3, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court cleared the way for Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem to end Temporary Protected Status for roughly 600,000 Venezuelans living in the United States, effective November 7, 2025. Although the exact mechanisms and details are unclear at this time, the message from DHS is: “Venezuelans, leave.”

Proponents of the Administration’s position (there is no official Opinion from SCOTUS, as the ruling was part of its shadow docket) argue that (1) the Secretary of DHS has discretion to determine designate whether a country is safe enough for individuals to return from the US, (2) “Temporary Protected Status” was always meant to be temporary, and (3) the situation in Venezuela has improved enough that Venezuelans in the U.S. may now safely return to Venezuela. As a lawyer who volunteers with immigrants, I admit that the two legal bases—Secretary’s broad discretion and the temporary nature of TPS—carry some weight, and I will not address them here.

Keep ReadingShow less
For the Sake of Our Humanity: Humane Theology and America’s Crisis of Civility

Praying outdoors

ImagineGolf/Getty Images

For the Sake of Our Humanity: Humane Theology and America’s Crisis of Civility

The American experiment has been sustained not by flawless execution of its founding ideals but by the moral imagination of people who refused to surrender hope. From abolitionists to suffragists to the foot soldiers of the civil-rights movement, generations have insisted that the Republic live up to its creed. Yet today that hope feels imperiled. Coarsened public discourse, the normalization of cruelty in policy, and the corrosion of democratic trust signal more than political dysfunction—they expose a crisis of meaning.

Naming that crisis is not enough. What we need, I argue, is a recovered ethic of humaneness—a civic imagination rooted in empathy, dignity, and shared responsibility. Eric Liu, through Citizens University and his "Civic Saturday" fellows and gatherings, proposes that democracy requires a "civic religion," a shared set of stories and rituals that remind us who we are and what we owe one another. I find deep resonance between that vision and what I call humane theology. That is, a belief and moral framework that insists public life cannot flourish when empathy is starved.

Keep ReadingShow less