Hegseth Shuts Down Pentagon’s Future Warfare Office

Pentagon’s Office of Net Assessment to Close Amid Criticism and Calls for Restructuring

In a significant shift within the U.S. defense apparatus, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has ordered the closure of the Office of Net Assessment (ONA), a strategic entity that has played a pivotal role in shaping military thinking and planning for over five decades. This decision comes at a time when national security concerns, particularly regarding the growing threats posed by nations such as China, are at the forefront of U.S. military strategy.

Historically, the Office of Net Assessment has been a cornerstone for high-level military evaluation and strategic foresight. Operating with an annual budget ranging between $10 million to $20 million, the office represents a small fraction of the Pentagon’s massive $850 billion budget. However, despite its modest financial footprint, the ONA’s influence on military strategy has been profound, given its team of about a dozen military officers and civilian personnel dedicated to analyzing potential conflicts and developing innovative responses to emerging threats.

In a recent statement, Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell indicated that the office would undergo a restructuring process and reopen with a renewed focus on the nation’s most pressing security challenges. However, Parnell offered little detail on how this new direction would distinguish itself from the ONA’s historical mission. Analysts and former officials have expressed concern that dismantling the ONA may hinder the Pentagon’s long-term strategic planning capabilities.

The Office of Net Assessment was founded and led for many years by Andy Marshall, who was known for his unconventional approaches to military assessment. Under Marshall’s leadership, the office became synonymous with innovative military strategies, particularly during periods of significant change in international relations. Since Marshall’s departure, the office has been run by retired Air Force Colonel Jim Baker, who has sought to carry on its legacy amid evolving defense priorities.

The role of the ONA has often varied depending on the interests of the sitting defense secretary, highlighting its operational significance. For example, during the early 2000s, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld relied heavily on the ONA to enhance the military’s capabilities in rapid response, precision strikes, and advanced surveillance technology as the U.S. engaged in conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In recent years, the office has shifted its focus to counteracting China’s rising military capabilities, developing concepts such as the Air-Sea Battle initiative, which outlines a strategic approach involving stealthy bombers and submarines aimed at dismantling China’s long-range surveillance systems. This focus appears to be particularly pertinent in light of increasing tensions in the Asia-Pacific region, where the U.S. views China as a principal adversary.

Critics of the ONA, including Senator Charles Grassley, have argued for more scrutiny of its operations, suggesting that it has become wasteful and ineffective over time. Grassley, a Republican from Iowa, has positioned himself against what he perceives as an internal Pentagon think tank that has drifted from its original mission. Furthermore, some critics have highlighted the ONA’s tendency to prioritize theoretical future conflicts over current engagements in places like Iraq and Afghanistan, which they argue has limited its practical relevance.

Thomas G. Mahnken, a former top strategist within the Pentagon, expressed apprehension about the decision to dismantle a unit focused on long-term strategic competition with major powers such as China, especially during a time that closely resembles the geopolitical conditions of the Cold War. Mahnken voiced concerns that eliminating the ONA could compromise U.S. preparedness for significant global conflicts.

Similarly, Senator Jack Reed, a Democrat from Rhode Island, labeled the decision "shortsighted," cautioning that closing the ONA could undermine the military’s readiness for future wars. Reed’s comments reflect a broader anxiety among defense experts and lawmakers about the implications of this decision for U.S. military strategy.

Despite the closure, the Pentagon asserted that all personnel from the Office of Net Assessment would be reassigned to "mission-critical roles" within the Defense Department, although specifics regarding these new roles remain unclear. This transition raises questions about the future of strategic military analysis within the department and whether the void left by the ONA can be effectively filled.

As the Pentagon navigates this significant organizational change, the long-term impacts on U.S. defense strategy and preparedness in the face of evolving global threats will be closely watched. The balancing act between addressing immediate security concerns and preparing for potential future conflicts will be crucial in determining the effectiveness of U.S. military strategy in the years to come.