Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
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

A TSA employee standing in the airport, with two travelers in the foreground.

A Transportation Security Administration (TSA) worker screens passengers and airport employees at O'Hare International Airport on January 07, 2019 in Chicago, Illinois. TSA employees are currently working under the threat of not receiving their next paychecks, scheduled for January 11, because of the partial government shutdown now in its third week.

Getty Images, Scott Olson

Nope. Nevermind. Some DHS agencies still shut down.

House Republicans reject clean bill to open shut-down DHS agencies (March 28 update)

House Republicans (and three Democrats) rejected the Senate's clean bill to end the shutdown late Friday night. Instead, the House passed a different bill that fully funds every agency in the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) but for only 60 days with the knowledge that this short-term continuing resolution will not pass in the Senate.

Both chambers are out until April 13 so the shutdown is expected to last until then at least. Hope that no major weather disasters occur before then because FEMA is one of the DHS agencies out of commission (though some of its employees may be working without pay). It's possible that air travel security lines won't get worse since the President signed an Executive Order authorizing DHS to pay TSA workers. New DHS Secretary Mullin says paychecks will start to go out as early as Monday. How long can this approach continue? Unknown. Leaving aside the questionable legality of repurposing funds in this way, DHS may not be willing to keep paying TSA from these other funds long-term.

Keep ReadingShow less
Protestors holding signs, including one that says "let the people vote."
Attendees hold signs advocating for voting rights and against the SAVE America Act at a rally to outside the U.S. Capitol on March 18, 2026 in Washington, DC.
Getty Images, Heather Diehl

The Senate Was Meant to Slow Us Down—Not Stop Us Cold

The Senate is once again locked in a familiar pattern: a bill with clear support on one side, firm opposition on the other—and no obvious path forward.

This time it’s the SAVE Act, framed by its supporters as a safeguard for election integrity and by its opponents as a barrier to voting access. The arguments are well-rehearsed. The positions are firm. And yet, beneath the policy debate sits a more revealing truth: in today’s Senate, the outcome of legislation is often shaped long before a final vote is ever cast.

Keep ReadingShow less
Clarity Is Power: The Three Pillars That Keep the People in Charge
man in white robe holding a book statue
Photo by Caleb Fisher on Unsplash

Clarity Is Power: The Three Pillars That Keep the People in Charge

American democracy does not weaken all at once. It falters when citizens lose clarity about how power is being used in their name. Abraham Lincoln warned that “public sentiment is everything… without it, nothing can succeed.” When people understand what their leaders are doing, they can hold them accountable.

But when confusion takes hold, power shifts quietly, and the public’s ability to act begins to erode. Clarity enables citizens to participate fully in democratic life and shape a government that responds to them. Confusion is not harmless; it erodes the safeguards, public awareness, and civic action that make self‑government possible. Clarity strengthens all three pillars at once — it protects our constitutional safeguards, sharpens public awareness, and fuels civic action.

Keep ReadingShow less
CONNECT for Health Act of 2025
person wearing lavatory gown with green stethoscope on neck using phone while standing

CONNECT for Health Act of 2025

How does a bill with no enemies fail to move? That question should trouble anyone who cares about Medicare, about rural health care, and about whether Congress can still do straightforward things.

In plain terms, the CONNECT Act would permanently end the outdated rule that limits Medicare telehealth to patients in rural areas who travel to an approved facility. It would make the patient's home a covered site of care. It would protect audio-only services, critical for seniors without broadband or smartphones, especially for behavioral health. It would ensure that Federally Qualified Health Centers can be reimbursed for telehealth, and it would lock in the pandemic-era flexibilities that Congress has been extending on a temporary basis since 2020. In short, it would turn five years of emergency workarounds into permanent, accountable policy.

Keep ReadingShow less