The Senate Armed Services Committee’s top Democrat is blasting Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth over his decision this week to appoint a new director of the Pentagon’s operational test enterprise and rapidly cut its staff by more than half.
Hegseth said his directed reorganization, which would reduce the staff, budget and resources at the Office of the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation (DOT&E), supports the Defense Department’s “America First” strategy, according to a Tuesday memo.
But Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.) said Thursday the move is “reckless and damaging” to military accountability and oversight.
“For decades, DOT&E has played a vital, legally mandated role in safeguarding the integrity of major defense programs and ensuring military systems are effective before they are put into warfighters’ hands,” Reed said in a statement.
He said Hegseth has given no logical reasoning for this action, and he is worried the move “appears retaliatory, driven by Mr. Hegseth’s opposition to some of DOT&E’s recent, legally required oversight decisions.”
Hegseth also ordered all contractor personnel support to end within seven days of the memo’s release.
The Pentagon chief justified the cuts by claiming an internal review “identified redundant, non-essential, non-statutory functions within ODOT&E that do not support operational agility or resource efficiency, affecting our ability to rapidly and effectively deploy the best systems to the warfighter.”
He estimated the changes will save more than $300 million annually.
The Defense Department’s test and evaluation office is in charge of validating weapons and platforms across the U.S. military, setting policies, providing oversight and publishing annual testing updates on such major weapons programs as the F-35 fighter jet, the Long-Range Hypersonic Weapon and the Columbia-class submarine.
But cutting the office back to a skeleton crew with limited contractor backing may prevent it from providing adequate oversight for critical military programs, “risking operational readiness and taxpayer dollars,” Reed said.
“This kind of politically motivated interference undermines independent oversight and leaves warfighters and the public more vulnerable to untested, potentially flawed systems,” he added.
