Section 2.1: Department of Defense
“The DOD is also a deeply troubled institution. Historically, the military has been one of America’s most trusted institutions, but years of sustained misuse, a two-tiered culture of accountability that shields senior officers and officials while exposing junior officers in the field, wasteful spending, wildly shifting security policies, exceedingly poor discipline in program execution, and (most recently) the Biden Administration’s profoundly unserious equity agenda and vaccine mandates have taken a serious toll.”
I touched on this a bit in the introduction to Section 2. In point of fact, the Biden administration stopped requiring COVID-19 vaccines for the military in January 2023.
What strikes me about this passage is its disdain for the military, and this coming from a former member of the armed forces and former (acting) Secretary of Defense. Evidence seems to suggest that he is a deeply disenfranchised former soldier. More about Christopher Miller here.
Full contextual analysis of Section 2.1: Department of Defense here.
“Our disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan, our impossibly muddled China strategy, the growing involvement of senior military officers in the political arena, and deep confusion about the purpose of our military are clear signals of a disturbing decay and markers of a dangerous decline in our nation’s capabilities and will.”
It was Donald Trump and the Trump administration who orchestrated our “disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan.” Read our bite-sized brief about that here.
Full contextual analysis of Section 2.1: Department of Defense here.
“We also are witnessing a transformation in the character of war. The democratization of technology and the collapse of time and space require dramatic, thoughtful changes in how we defend, deter, and fight.”
This one is interesting to unpack (and I do, in the analysis.) Miller here is referring to the shift from traditional, large-scale conflicts to more hands-off and complex types of warfare, including cyber attacks, et al.
Full contextual analysis of Section 2.1: Department of Defense here.
- Reestablish a culture of command accountability, nonpoliticization, and warfighting focus.
- Transform our armed forces for maximum effectiveness in an era of great-power competition.
- Provide necessary support to Department of Homeland Security (DHS) border protection operations. Border protection is a national security issue that requires sustained attention and effort by all elements of the executive branch.
- Demand financial transparency and accountability.
These are Miller’s four main priorities for the military as a whole going forward. You’re not crazy – that third one is federally sanctioning using the United States Military to patrol the border.
Full contextual analysis of Section 2.1: Department of Defense here.
“By far the most significant danger to Americans’ security, freedoms, and prosperity is China.”
Miller’s position is that we must prevent China from becoming the most powerful country in the world, and says that they’re currently #2, behind the United States of America. He notes that they’re expanding their military and their nuclear capacity.
Full contextual analysis of Section 2.1: Department of Defense here.
“The most severe immediate threat that Beijing’s military poses, however, is to Taiwan and other U.S. allies along the first island chain in the Western Pacific. If China could subordinate Taiwan or allies like the Philippines, South Korea, and Japan, it could break apart any balancing coalition that is designed to prevent Beijing’s hegemony over Asia. Accordingly, the United States must ensure that China does not succeed. This requires a denial defense: the ability to make the subordination of Taiwan or other U.S. allies in Asia prohibitively difficult.”
Miller acknowledges that Russia, Iran, and North Korea also pose threats to the U.S. He goes on to argue for expanding the U.S. nuclear arsenal, and spending more money on defense in order to meet the goal of “ensuring that China does not succeed”.
He then goes into specific reforms he recommends. Among them are increasing defense burden-sharing amongst our allies, sustaining support for Israel (who is currently committing a genocide), and expanding our nuclear arsenal in order to compete with Russia and China.
Full contextual analysis of Section 2.1: Department of Defense here.
“Informal congressional notification or “tiered review” is a hinderance to ensuring timely sales to our global partners. The tiered review process is not codified in law; it is merely a practice by which the Department of State provides a preview of prospective arms transfers before Congress is formally notified.”
He’s arguing here for ending the tiered review process, which would result in the President being able to unilaterally transfer or sell arms to other nations without Congressional approval. This is a horrifying recommendation. He continues, “Use the tiered review process only when unanimous congressional support is guaranteed in order to eliminate the “weaponization” by select Members of Congress that has prevented billions of dollars of arms sales from moving into formal congressional notification.” (Project 2025, Section 2.1: Department of Defense, Christopher Miller, page 133, paragraph 5.)
If you’re only using the review process when congressional support is “guaranteed”, that’s a completely pointless review process.
Full contextual analysis of Section 2.1: Department of Defense here.
“Improve military recruiters’ access to secondary schools and require completion of the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB)—the military entrance examination—by all students in schools that receive federal funding.”
This would effectively force all public school students to take the military entrance exam, and make it easier for recruiters to influence them.
Full contextual analysis of Section 2.1: Department of Defense here.
“Exceptions for individuals who are already predisposed to require medical treatment (for example, HIV positive or suffering from gender dysphoria) should be removed, and those with gender dysphoria should be expelled from military service.”
Yikes. It’s interesting that he specifically sites HIV and gender dysphoria (gotta cover the homophobic and transphobic bases, I suppose.) “Requiring ongoing medical treatment” applies to people with cancer, lupus, diabetes, arthritis, asthma, pregnancy, and so much more. It’s also important to note that military leadership does not support removing transgender individuals from their ranks.
Full contextual analysis of Section 2.1: Department of Defense here.
“Codify language to instruct senior military officers (three and four stars) to make certain that they understand their primary duty to be ensuring the readiness of the armed forces, not pursuing a social engineering agenda. This direction should be reinforced during the Senate confirmation process. Orders and direction motivated by purely partisan motives should be identified as threats to readiness.”
This amounts to halting any promotions for military personnel unless they are loyal to the Project 2025 agenda. In fact, Miller is explicitly stating that disloyalty would be seen as a threat to the United States. Russ Vought touches on the same in Section 1.2 (Project 2025, Section 1.2: Executive Office of the President of the United States, Russ Vought, page 84, paragraph 2). This is textbook fascism.
Full contextual analysis of Section 2.1: Department of Defense here.