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

An empty grocery cart in a market.

NYC Mayor Zohran Mamdani proposes five city-run grocery stores. See the arguments for and against, from food deserts to bodega concerns and the $70M cost.

Getty Images, Kwangmoozaa

Government-Owned Grocery Stores: Accessible Nutrition or Government Overreach?

Issue Introduction

Over the past few years, affordability has become the most central issue affecting Americans and the quality of life in the United States. The prices of groceries and basic necessities have risen 25-30% since the COVID-19 pandemic and are projected to rise another 3.2% in 2026. At the same time, the exodus of grocery chains from rural and low-income areas has scattered food deserts throughout individual states. Recent mass closures include Grocery Outlet’s shuttering of 36 stores and continued shut-downs of many Albertsons locations. These factors have led politicians to make affordability a major campaign issue.

During his progressive campaign for mayor of New York City, Zohran Mamdani raised the idea of opening grocery stores owned and operated by the city government to provide New Yorkers with affordable groceries. In his April 2026 public address that marked his first 100 days in office, Mayor Mamdani announced plans for the first of five city-run grocery stores. Mamdani’s proposed initiative will use $70 million in capital funding to build five city-owned municipal stores–one in each borough–and place them under control of the New York City Economic Development Corporation (NYCEDC). NYCEDC will then select third-party operating staff in accordance with city standards for affordability and proper labor practices. Public opinion following the announcement continues to be divided between uproar and support.

Keep ReadingShow less
​U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth

U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth testifies during a Senate Committee on Appropriations hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., on July 21, 2026. Hegseth is crafting a strong and masculine identity for his audience as he reportedly contemplates a presidential run.

(Alex Wroblewski/AFP/Getty Images/TNS)

Politicians Can’t Just ’Give the People What They Want’

For reasons that will baffle my many detractors, I am often asked for advice about being an opinion journalist. One of my standard responses is: You have to be willing to disappoint your biggest fans.

What I mean is that if you start to see your job as telling fans what they want to hear, you risk becoming an entertainer rather than a thinker, and eventually you become a caricature. I’ve seen it happen numerous times. Patrick Buchanan was a brilliant columnist and a serious person. But over the course of his career, he listened too much to the people who said, “Go Pat, go!” and too little to friends who said, “I think that’s taking it too far.”

Keep ReadingShow less
White marble exterior of the United States Capitol, often called the Capitol Building, is the home of the United States Congress and the seat of the legislative branch of the U.S. federal government

Congress approval is at a record-low 10%. Moderation and consensus-building, not partisan theatrics, are how Washington gets problems solved.

Richard Sharrocks / Getty Images

Reclaiming the Politics of the Possible

Washington is stuck in a cycle of performative conflict. The incentives seem to reward outrage, not outcomes that last; purity tests, not problem‑solving. So it’s no surprise that after three shutdowns in less than a year, public approval of Congress collapsed to just 10 percent this spring. (Gallup, April 2026.) But the country we live in — where many middle-income families report persistent financial strain and businesses are navigating unprecedented technological upheaval — cannot be governed by theatrics. Breaking this cycle requires moderation, consensus‑building, and a cooperative approach to governance.

This is not a call for centrism as an ideology. Instead, this is a call for transformative leaders to embrace moderation as their governing strategy, recognizing that in a pluralistic country of nearly 350 million people durable solutions require broad and stable alliances. Ultimately, this is a call for the 240 million of us who are eligible to vote in November to elect consensus-builders instead of bomb-throwers, and healers instead of arsonists.

Keep ReadingShow less
Adult man holds a microphone while asking a question during a town hall meeting.

Congress ignored 90% of public support for background checks. Learn how citizen assemblies and sortition helped Ireland break gridlock and could work in the US.

SDI Productions/Getty Images

Consensus Without Power: How Sortition Could Break America's Legislative Gridlock

In April 2013, four months after the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting killed twenty children, the US Senate voted on the Manchin-Toomey Act to expand background checks and to include gun-show and internet sales of firearms. Roughly nine in ten Americans, including a majority of gun owners, supported the bill—a figure that has held steady across more than a decade of polling. It fell short of the 60-vote threshold by six votes. This was not an outlier. On complex issues, representatives often fail to translate public consensus into reality. Research shows that legislators consistently vote in line with donor and interest group preferences over constituent opinion. Before the vote, the National Rifle Association (NRA) warned every senator it would “rate” their vote on its annual rating system, and a low NRA rating could cost senators their next primary. Consequently, the bill died 54-46, and the majority of Americans watched, powerless, as their consensus was overridden by self-interested representatives.

Liberal democracies need a method to bypass electoral incentives that run counter to public opinion. One already exists: Ireland faced the same stalemate on complex issues before it instituted a process called sortition. The beauty of sortition lies in its removal of the primary pressure that misaligns representatives’ interests from public interest: reelection. Much like jury duty, citizens are randomly drawn from the population. An independent body then stratifies the pool, so the final group mirrors the country by age, gender, geography, and income. The group meets over weeks or months, hearing from experts and the public, as well as debating frequently. At the end, it issues a recommendation that parliament may then put to a referendum or pass into law.

Keep ReadingShow less