Air Force Ready to Deploy More Nukes Once Arms Control Treaty Ends

June 6, 2025 | By John A. Tirpak and Rachel S. Cohen

The Air Force is ready to add more nuclear warheads to its bomber aircraft and underground missiles if ordered to do so when a key arms control treaty expires next year, its top nuclear officer said June 5.

Air Force Global Strike Command boss Gen. Thomas A. Bussiere, during a discussion of the U.S. strategic arsenal hosted by the Atlantic Council, said that when the New START Treaty ends in February 2026, “there may be a direction to provide additional capacity, both on the land leg and the bomber leg.”

“If directed, we are ready and prepared to execute” that order, he said. “We have the capability and capacity to do it.”

Bussiere also talked about the likely need for more than 100 stealthy, long-range B-21 Raider bombers, and the expansion of America’s nuclear force in response to the rise of new nuclear powers.

New START, which entered into force in 2011, limits the number of launchers—like a plane, submarine or missile—with nuclear warheads that can be deployed by the U.S. and Russia. The 400 deployed Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missiles were designed to carry three warheads but use only one apiece to comply with the treaty.

Global Strike periodically test-launches the missiles with multiple independently targetable reentry vehicles (MIRVs), which would each carry a nuclear warhead in a real attack. It most recently did so in November from Vandenberg Space Force Base in California.

A spokesperson for the command said that just because the Air Force could put missiles with multiple warheads on alert if no longer bound by a treaty, that doesn’t mean it will. The Air Force could also put more nuclear weapons on its B-2 Spirit and B-52 Stratofortress bombers if funded and directed to, the spokesperson said, but “specific postures and plans would be directed by the National Command Authority,” comprised of the president and defense secretary.

The U.S. and Russia in February 2021 agreed to extend New START for five years, but Russia announced in 2023 that it didn’t intend to continue the deal past 2026.

Until February, “we are encumbered by the restrictions and limits” of New START, Bussiere said. “There is no follow-on arms control.”

Modernizing Missiles

As the end of New START draws closer, efforts to deploy a new generation of nuclear weapons face fresh criticism in Washington. Among them is the Sentinel ICBM, which would replace Minuteman III missiles and can also carry multiple warheads.

The Pentagon found last summer that the troubled initiative was over budget by 81 percent, for an estimated cost of nearly $141 billion, and delayed by three years. The Air Force is restructuring the program to avoid future cost overruns that could trigger additional congressional oversight and slowdowns.

Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle on June 5 pressed Air Force officials to show they’re taking the Sentinel program seriously. The new ICBM is the program that has occupied the most of his time since becoming secretary last month, Air Force Secretary Troy E. Meink said. It’s one of his top three priorities, he said, if not the highest.

“We’re doing everything we can to get it back on track,” he said.

Bussiere said the so-called Nunn-McCurdy breach was largely spurred by the costs of building Sentinel launch facilities and command-and-control infrastructure—effectively, the sheer scope of the civil engineering effort. While the program remains delayed by up to two years, he said, other aspects of the program “are ongoing and going well.”

“I’m encouraged by the activities that are going on right now between industry, our ops and maintenance professionals, and the acquisition professionals,” Bussiere said. “We are seeing some great opportunities in the restructure of the program.”

House Armed Services Committee Chairman Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Ala.) questioned why the service has moved $1.2 billion provided for the Sentinel program to fund other priorities in fiscal 2025, and said he’s concerned the new missiles won’t be ready in time to replace the Minuteman IIIs before they’re too old to be effective.

At the Atlantic Council event, Bussiere said Global Strike has a “very deliberate plan” for keeping enough Minuteman III missiles available to meet the minimum number needed for deterrence while transitioning missile launch facilities and control centers to the Sentinel program. It is “a national imperative” to keep Minuteman III functional until Sentinel can replace it, he said.

This is only the second time the U.S. has sought to replace its nuclear enterprise, and the first since the 1980s. Global Strike is now juggling the complex and expensive ICBM modernization at the same time as it brings on the B-21 to replace the B-1 and B-2 bombers, a new air-launched cruise missile and other pieces of the strategic arsenal. That challenge will “take an effort and a lift from everybody,” Bussiere said.

“If we had to do it again,” Bussiere said, “we might look at maybe doing one leg [of the nuclear triad] every 10 years, versus all three legs at the same time.”

He hinted the U.S. may need a more robust nuclear force structure to counter future threats. Since 2010, China has become a near-peer nuclear power to the U.S. and Russia and is continuing to bolster its strategic arsenal, while North Korea has also built up its nuclear forces. North Korea is receiving nuclear missile guidance know-how from Russia in exchange for sending troops and other aid to Russia for its war against Ukraine, Bussiere said.

In February, President Donald Trump said he wants to pursue arms control talks with Russia and China and bemoaned the amount of money the U.S. plans to spend on new weapons.

“There’s no reason for us to be building brand new nuclear weapons, we already have so many,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office. “You could destroy the world 50 times over, 100 times over. And here we are building new nuclear weapons, and they’re building nuclear weapons.”

“We’re all spending a lot of money that we could be spending on other things that are actually, hopefully much more productive,” Trump said.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office projected in April that operating and modernizing U.S. strategic forces will cost $946 billion through 2034; other estimates reach $1.5 trillion over the systems’ lifetimes. Proponents of the effort argue keeping other nuclear-armed nations at bay is worth the price.

Asked June 5 to respond to Trump’s comments, Secretary Meink told lawmakers nuclear deterrence is one of the highest priorities for America’s national defense.

“I have never and do not believe that I disagree with the president on anything,” Meink said at the House Armed Services Committee hearing. “I think we’re supporting his priorities, which is, support the homeland. And this is one of the programs that we will use to support the homeland.”

Growing the Bomber Force

The rise of other nuclear powers has revived the question of how large America’s nuclear arsenal, particularly its bomber fleet, should be. Bussiere maintains the Air Force can most easily accommodate growth in its bomber force, which can also be used for non-nuclear strike missions.

The Air Force plans to buy at least 100 B-21s, which cost around $692 million apiece as of 2022. But the service is “starting to see a number of combatant commanders, a number of members of the [Defense] Department, as well as Congress, asking the question, ‘Is 100 enough?’” Bussiere said.

The idea of boosting the buy to 145 B-21s is “predicated on an earlier threat,” he said.

“We need to explore . . . what the right number is,” Bussiere said. “The good news is, I think we have time to make that decision.”

The massive Republican-led tax-and-spending package under consideration on Capitol Hill includes $4.5 billion to ramp up B-21 production at Northrop Grumman and expand its supplier base.

The Senate version of the bill would allow the Air Force to spend the money only on aircraft that are made possible by greater production capacity. The B-21’s production rate is a closely held figure, but may be as low as seven or eight airplanes per year.

“If Congress gives us the additional money, then it’ll be a decision from the Department of Defense and the Department of the Air Force, with the Secretary’s direction, to get the contractor to ramp up that number,” Bussiere said.

If the Air Force opts to buy more than 100 B-21s, officials will explore whether to house more Raiders at its three main bomber bases or if other bases should host the planes, Bussiere said. The B-21 is slated to arrive first at Ellsworth Air Force Base, South Dakota, followed by Whiteman AFB, Missouri, and Dyess AFB, Texas.

Despite the rapid advance of autonomous aircraft, Bussiere said he does not expect there will be an autonomous nuclear bomber program in his lifetime, insisting that committing to the use of nuclear weapons is “a human decision.” Under the original B-21 contract, however, Northrop Grumman is required to make the B-21 usable without humans on board.

Space Force’s Only Guardian-Astronaut Reflects on Journey from Jets to Space

June 6, 2025 | By Unshin Lee Harpley

Last year, Space Force Col. Nick Hague—about to become the first active-duty Guardian to launch into space—was thrown a curveball. After 18 months of training to lead a four-person crew, he was reassigned as the commander of a two-member mission: to return two astronauts stranded aboard the International Space Station.

For just a couple of weeks, Hague and his crewmate, Roscosmos astronaut Aleksandr Gorbunov, intensely trained to return Barry Wilmore and Sunita Williams using SpaceX’s Dragon capsule—without having flown the spacecraft before. Hague described the difference between the 1960s-era Soyuz and the modern Dragon, outfitted with advanced automation, as “night and day.”

His team launched in September and worked alongside the other two astronauts on the orbiting station for six months. In March, all four safely splashed down off the coast of Florida.

“If you look at my spaceflight history, everything is a surprise. It’s full of ups and downs,” Hague said, reflecting on his 12-year career as an astronaut.

Lessons from Orbit

Hague represents the growing partnership between the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the Defense Department as the U.S. enters a new space race. Guardians have more to learn from civil space, and can offer their own unique military perspective in return as world powers compete for dominance in the cosmos, Hague told Air & Space Forces Magazine in a June 4 interview.

Hague has been candid about his bumpy road to NASA. He applied to the civilian space agency three times and was rejected twice over the course of a decade before finally earning the symbolic astronaut wings in 2013.

“The year that I got selected, there were some 6,000 people that applied, and they picked eight,” Hague said. NASA chooses new astronauts who offer the right set of skills, but also who meet the stringent medical and physical standards in place to minimize the chance of complications arising during a mission.

NASA astronaut Nick Hague poses next to the BioFabrication Facility inside the Columbus laboratory module during his first mission on July 29, 2019. Picture by NASA.

Being an Airman or Guardian offers some advantages in the intense competition to join the astronaut corps—many astronauts first serve as military test pilots. NASA prioritizes a balance of experience and diverse perspectives. The job requires being quick on your feet and good with your hands, as maintenance comprises much of the work on orbit.

“You train for the nominal about 5% of the time, and then you spend 95% of the time training for everything that’s going to go wrong,” Hague explained.

His career began as an Airman flying F-16 and F-15 fighters, plus T-38 training jets, along with a five-month deployment to Iraq.

That military experience enhanced his value with NASA, because so much of that experience was applicable. “It gave me a lot of opportunities that I’m not sure I would have been afforded if I hadn’t served in the military,” Hague said. “In a stressful environment, can you perform? Are you adaptable?”

His background proved essential during his first mission in 2018, where he launched alongside Roscosmos astronaut Alexey Ovchinin. Less than two minutes into the flight, the Soyuz rocket’s booster malfunctioned while the rocket was traveling at 4,000 miles per hour.

“All of a sudden, there’s a violent side-shake, a light’s flashing, and the alarm’s going off,” Hague recalled. With automated systems guiding their separation from the booster, they reentered Earth’s atmosphere from 50 miles up and landed safely in Kazakhstan.

He flew again on the Soyuz only five months later, spending 203 days on the ISS conducting a wide range of experiments. All told, the Guardian has spent about a year in orbit.

“Everything changes. The gravity’s not compressing my spine, so it straightens out and decompresses a little bit, and I grew an inch and a half to 2 inches on orbit,” Hague said. He also had to adjust how he perceives direction, relying on visual cues since there’s no gravity to tell him which way is up.

During his subsequent time on orbit, his research work has ranged from sequencing DNA to identify microbes sampled from the station, to studying how stem cells behave in microgravity. During his previous assignment, the colonel also worked on 3D-printing human tissue and editing genes to explore new ways of treating diseases. He also volunteered blood samples to help scientists understand how and why spaceflight suppresses the immune system.

“You raise your hand and say, ‘I’m going to be the guinea pig, and you can do your experiments on me,’” he said.

For these astronauts, returning home isn’t the finish line. Hague spent two months rehabilitating his body to recover from the effects of space, including having grown more than an inch, a typical effect of living for months in a zero-gravity environment. It takes time to readjust to carrying one’s own weight on Earth and to become accustomed to gravity’s effect all around.

Col. Nick Hague at AFA’s Air & Space Warfighters in Action on June 4, 2025. Photo by Jud McCrehin, Air & Space Forces Association

Talent Exchange

The military has contributed talent to America’s civil space program from the beginning. The first astronauts were all Air Force, Navy, and Marine aviators, and Hague follows that tradition. Uniquely, however, he is the first Space Force Guardian to launch beyond the atmosphere as a Guardian. Col. Michael Hopkins transferred from the Air Force to the Space Force on the Space Force’s first birthday in December 2020.

The Space Force tracks some 47,000 objects in orbit, including satellites and space debris, and alerts space system operators, including NASA, when there is a risk of collision. NASA relies the Space Force’s GPS system for orientation and position, just as other operators do and the Space Force oversees launch operations.

“While I’m up there, I constantly got this umbrella of protection,” Hague said of the Guardians monitoring space domain awareness. The ISS orbits the Earth at 17,500 mph. “I don’t launch to space without the Space Force; I can’t operate my station without the Space Force.”

The Space Force likewise benefits from NASA research. In April, Space Systems Command partnered with NASA to send six experiments to the ISS. The research focuses on space radiation detection, studying lightning in Earth’s atmosphere, and testing space weather conditions. These experiments will stay on the ISS for a year, with data collected to boost the Space Force’s capabilities to protect satellites and improve their reliability.

“There are many ways that we are trying to figure out and actually taking advantage of this cross-pollination,” Hague said. “The skills necessary to operate and perform those two missions share a lot in common.”

For long-term joint training, NASA’s Johnson Space Center’s payloads office integrates Defense Department research aboard the ISS. The select Guardians who get assignments with NASA bring back that experience and exposure to its culture, operations, and best practices.

“You’re going to learn a ton while you’re there,” Hague said. “It’s also about how we find opportunities for NASA engineers and civilians to be able to participate in learning how the Space Force does what it does, so they can bring lessons back to NASA in the other direction. That cross-pollination is a big focus.”

With NASA’s continued mission on the ISS and its ambitions to return to the Moon and beyond, will future Guardians get to follow in his footsteps?

“The skills that make you effective to do the Space Force mission . . . are very applicable at NASA,” Hague said. “You’re doing, on a daily basis, things that NASA is doing, but you also bring this different set of experience and background. . . . That could make you a really attractive candidate.”

Turning Qatari Jet into Air Force One to Cost ‘Less Than $400 Million’

June 5, 2025 | By Rachel S. Cohen

Transforming a former Qatari royal jet into President Donald Trump’s new Air Force One will likely cost less than $400 million, the U.S. Air Force’s top civilian told lawmakers June 5.

“Those are classified, sensitive capabilities that we put on the platform,” Air Force Secretary Troy E. Meink said at a House Armed Services Committee hearing. “But . . . we believe the actual retrofit of that aircraft is actually probably less than $400 million.”

That price tag is far lower than the roughly $1 billion Democratic lawmakers have alleged modifying the Qatari jet would cost. Most of that figure consists of money the Air Force would spend anyway, such as for training assets and spare parts, Meink said. He declined to discuss details of the retrofit in public.

It’s the first time an Air Force official has publicly stated how much money retrofitting the Qatari plane to meet the needs of an American president could cost U.S. taxpayers.

Qatar agreed to gift Trump the jet for free after Trump approached the Middle East ally about selling the plane this winter, according to news reports. But The Washington Post reported May 28 that an Air Force inspection found the jet was “very poorly maintained” and could require $1.5 billion to prepare it to fly the commander-in-chief.

The Air Force is in charge of overhauling the plane because it oversees the portfolio of executive airlift jets that carry America’s civilian and military leaders around the world. To transport the president, jetliners require significant upgrades to defensive and communication systems, as well as other changes to accommodate regular travel with a sizable staff and press corps.

L3Harris is working with the Air Force to modify the Qatari plane, CNBC reported last month.

Though the Pentagon announced May 21 that the military had accepted the Qatari airframe and would move forward with the retrofit, The Washington Post reported that the two countries were still hashing out the legal terms of an agreement to transfer the luxury plane. The White House has said the royal plane will be ready to fly as Air Force One while Trump is still in office.

Congressional Democrats have decried the jetliner as an illegal bribe and introduced multiple bills to deter the transfer or block it outright.

The U.S. military is already in the process of bringing on two new planes that would serve as Air Force One when the president is onboard. Those jets, known as the VC-25B in military parlance, will replace the pair of modified Boeing 747s that have ferried American presidents since 1990.

The Air Force purchased a new set of aircraft—unused Boeing 747s abandoned by a bankrupt Russian airline—for $3.9 billion in 2018 after Trump criticized the cost of the replacement effort and went in search of a better deal. But Boeing has repeatedly stumbled, amassing $2.5 billion in losses amid significant delays that pushed Trump to seek another option.

“They had to strip those planes that were built for another purpose down to the studs,” Rep. Joe Courtney (D-Conn.) said at the hearing. “The contractor who was doing the interior work went out of business, and Boeing had to figure out a plan to do the fitting out of the interior of the plane.”

Now the Air Force estimates the new fleet won’t be ready until fiscal 2027 at the earliest—three years later than first expected, Darlene Costello, one of the service’s top civilian acquisition officials told lawmakers May 7.

Hoping to hit that date, the Air Force is considering paring down the requirements that the new airframes must meet to begin flying, Costello said without elaborating. It also temporarily loosened some of the security rules at the Boeing production facility to move work along.

“We’re down to a few remaining issues that we have to work through,” said Costello, then the Air Force’s principal deputy assistant secretary for acquisition, technology and logistics. “We will hope to close that in the very near future.”

While Meink said he can’t guarantee the pair of planes will be delivered in 2027, “we are doing whatever we can to pull it back.”

What Defense Tech Firms Can Learn From Formula One

June 5, 2025 | By Shaun Waterman

Excitement about self-driving taxis and small autonomous drones is exposing a dividing line between systems that operate at relatively slow speeds and the increasing challenges posed by systems operating at the speed of war. Government contractor Booz Allen Hamilton is looking to Formula One car racing to gain a combat edge for autonomous military vehicles.

“Doing autonomy slowly is something that we’re getting better and better at,” Bill Vass, the company’s chief technology officer, said June 3. “Autonomy at speed is very hard. . . . Whether it’s an aircraft or a missile or an autonomous vehicle, on the battlefield, you have to move fast.”

Booz is partnering with computer-chip maker NVIDIA to help develop autonomous Formula One race cars for Code 19, a startup. So far, the self-driving race cars have failed to match expert human drivers. But at the AI+ Expo in Washington, D.C., Vass and others argued that the Air Force and other military services will gain a lot from the effort to develop autonomous F1 cars.

Eric Breckenfeld, director of technology policy for NVIDIA, said the speed and other engineering challenges the project is targeting are outside the problems mainstream automotive manufacturers are focused on.

No one at commercial self-driving companies is incentivized to test how autonomous systems operate at 150 miles per hour, nor are they subjecting self-driving computers and chips to the extreme temperatures or intense vibration produced at those speeds.

Like military operations, car racing is confined to “relatively low-volume, relatively customized systems” and “relatively cost-insensitive customers,” Breckenfeld said.

Both also present “austere conditions, extreme circumstances of speed or vibration or temperature, and a ‘failure is not an option’” mindset.

But because autonomous racing is not a national security issue, Booz, NVIDIA and their partners could draw on a much wider talent pool and engage with a much wider range of potential suppliers and collaborators.

“It’s really useful,” he said, “to pull on all that volume, engage on surrogate problems, solve those out there” in the unclassified space.

Motor sports have long been testing grounds for the automotive industry; overland and other high-endurance races push hardware to new limits of tolerance, said Lawrence Walter, co-founder and CEO of Code 19. Now it’s filling that role for the software that powers autonomous vehicles, too.

“In competitive teams, where you’re racing against the best in the world, every ounce of performance matters, and the speed that you can extract . . . from the machines and from your software is critical,” Walter said.

Formula One race cars are already loaded with sensors, Walter noted. In addition to cameras and speedometers, they generate enormously detailed performance data for every element of the vehicle.

“In theory, with all that data, you should be able to perform better than a human that’s just driving by the seat of their pants using their intuition,” Walter said. “But . . . we haven’t been able to achieve that.”

Like highly skilled fighter pilots, Formula One drivers who start racing at a young age have an edge: “Their control algorithm, all of the skills that they actually employ in operating the vehicle, is instinctive to them,” he said.

In racing, there is a mathematically correct “optimal raceline,” a route around the track which, in theory, should produce the fastest lap time. “But when . . . you put an expert human driver driving that same track, the mathematical optimal race line is not actually what gets you around the track fastest,” Walter said.

Code 19’s AI development has used human performance as a baseline so the computer can model its driving on real racers.

Vass said imbuing AI with those almost instinctive, “seat-of-the-pants” skills is one of the hardest problems autonomy engineers have confronted.

The variables are many, Vass told Air & Space Forces Magazine, citing tire temperatures as just one area of complexity. Each time tires are changed during a race, the driver is placed at an disadvantage—until the tires heat up. “When your tires are cold, you can slide a lot, and it’s very scary,” said Vass, who has a Formula One license. “It’s very unpleasant—at least it was for me.” But skilled drivers know how to adapt and have techniques to heat up the tires faster.

“The autonomy has to be able to handle that as well,” he said. “It has to know that it’s got cold tires, and it’s got to know . . . how to heat the tires up fastest, because whoever can heat the tires up faster again is going to have better lap times.”

Programming autonomy requires engineers to understand all of the variables.

“How do you pass that to an AI agent?” Vass asked. “How do you get that human capability into the autonomy? That’s true in flying the jet, that’s true in the battlefield, that’s true in driving a tank. And so that’s where we have to connect the dots.”

The Air Force is betting big on autonomous systems, including self-flying fighters and scores of drone wingmen that can partner with manned aircraft, to act faster than humans alone and to multiply its forces. Last year, then-Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall boarded an AI-powered F-16 fighter known as the X-62 VISTA to see for himself whether Airmen could trust the technology.

He climbed out of the cockpit, grinning.

Air Force 3-Star Nominated as NATO’s Top Officer

June 5, 2025 | By David Roza

An Airman with years of experience overseeing air operations in the Middle East is next in line to lead NATO forces as the top U.S. military official in Europe.

Lt. Gen. Alexus G. Grynkewich is nominated for promotion to serve as the four-star head of U.S. European Command, the Pentagon announced June 5. If confirmed by the Senate, Grynkewich would also assume the title of Supreme Allied Commander Europe, NATO’s top military officer, amid the bloodiest conflict on the continent since World War II.

The North Atlantic Council, made up of representatives from each member nation who make political decisions for NATO, has approved the nomination. Grynkewich is expected to step into the role this summer, the alliance said in a June 5 release.

He would replace Army Gen. Christopher G. Cavoli, who has held the dual role since July 2022. Grynkewich is set to be the fifth Airman in the post since Army Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower was nominated as the first SACEUR in 1950. U.S. flag officers have served as SACEUR at the alliance’s main military command center in Belgium ever since.

The European Command boss leads about 84,000 U.S. troops at more than 40 bases across the continent.

Grynkewich would take over at NATO’s Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe at a critical moment for the transatlantic alliance. Russia’s looming threat has spurred NATO nations to hike defense spending and cooperate with new urgency as Russia’s unprovoked invasion of Ukraine — which borders four alliance members — continues into its fourth year. Ukraine does not belong to NATO.

Gen. Carsten Breuer, Germany’s defense chief, told the BBC earlier this week he believes Russia could attack NATO by 2029. His prediction comes as the U.S. plans to begin discussing the potential withdrawal of American troops from Europe with its allies on the continent later this year.

NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte is urging member nations to invest further in defense, particularly on munitions, as the U.S. turns its focus to the Pacific.

Grynkewich currently serves as the Joint Staff’s operations director. From July 2022 to April 2024, he worked at the heart of U.S. military action in the Middle East as commander of Air Forces Central. That included overseeing airstrikes against Iranian proxy groups, protecting ground troops, and helping Israel defeat a massive Iranian drone and missile attack the night of April 13, 2024, just a few days before handing over command to Lt. Gen. Derek C. France.

“It has been the honor of a lifetime,” the F-16 and F-22 fighter pilot told Air & Space Forces Magazine last year about his AFCENT time. “I’ve learned and grown as a leader myself in this position, and wouldn’t trade the experience for anything else.”

Grynkewich is the third flag officer and the second Airman nominated this week to lead one of the Pentagon’s 11 combatant commands around the globe. On June 4, President Donald Trump nominated Lt. Gen. Dagvin R.M. Anderson, to lead U.S. Africa Command. Anderson would become the first Airman in that role if confirmed.

Top NATO Official Says All Members May Hit Spending Target After 11 Years

June 4, 2025 | By John A. Tirpak

Eleven years after NATO pledged to spend at least 2 percent of each country’s gross domestic product on defense, “most, if not all” 32 of the alliance’s member nations are poised to reach or surpass that goal in 2025, Secretary-General Mark Rutte said June 4 at a ministerial meeting in Brussels.

NATO’s non-U.S. members will now be assigned “capability goals,” based on the role each country is expected to play in European defense, Rutte said. Those targets will be rolled out in three weeks at NATO’s full meeting at The Hague.

Rutte did not reference a reported plan to increase the contribution goal to 3.5 percent, or the 5 percent that U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth urged at the NATO ministerial in February.

“At this ministerial, we are going to take a huge leap forward,” Rutte said at a June 4 press conference. “We will strengthen our deterrence and defense by agreeing [to] ambitious new capability targets,” he said, but to do so, “it’s clear that we will need significantly higher defense spending.”

“That underpins everything,” he added.

The U.S. spent 3.4 percent of its GDP on defense in fiscal 2024, down from a historical average of 4.2 percent. POLITICO reported June 4 that 23 of NATO’s 32 members are on track to spend at least 2 percent by this summer.

It’s “only fair” that the non-U.S. NATO nations increase defense spending, Rutte said, acknowledging that the U.S. is pivoting its focus to security in the Pacific.

“We have to . . . equalize with the United States,” he said. While NATO is “extremely important” to America, Rutte added, the U.S. is “so big and powerful” that it logically must concentrate on other military theaters. He said the U.S. does not plan to withdraw from Europe.

The sharp increase in defense spending is necessary, Rutte said, because the Russian threat “is there for the long term,” and despite its economic difficulties, Russia is “producing four times more ammunition than the whole of NATO.”

Purchasing munitions should be the alliance’s top priority, he argued, no matter how politicians decide to fund it.

“I only need to make sure that, collectively, we have what we need to prevent us from taking Russian language courses,” he said.

Speaking at a press conference after a meeting of the Ukraine Defense Contact Group, the multinational effort to provide Ukraine with the weapons, vehicles and funds to prevail in its ongoing war with Russia, German defense minister Boris Pistorius called contributing 5 percent of GDP to defense “unrealistic.” Gradually increasing spending to hit that target is “possible and certainly needed” in light of the war in Ukraine, he said, but it would be a struggle to achieve that goal quickly—especially for smaller NATO allies.

Pistorius said the proposal will be discussed at the NATO summit later this month.

“It’s not about disappointing anybody,” he said. “It’s about negotiating . . . what is necessary and what’s possible.”

Germany announced after the meeting it will provide $5.7 billion worth of aid to Ukraine, focused on ammunition and air defense systems. The United Kingdom pledged $5.1 billion, of which $400 million will be used to build drones. Belgium, Canada, the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden also pledged new aid to Ukraine, including ammunition, drones and naval equipment.

Rutte said that non-U.S. NATO members and European Union members have pledged “20 billion euros for Ukraine . . . in the first three months of this year,” versus 50 billion euros last year.

He did not detail how countries will share responsibilities under the new allocation of roles, but said the top priorities include “air and missile defense, long-range weapons, logistics, [and] large land-maneuver formations.”

“We need more resources, forces and capabilities so that we are prepared to face any threat, and to implement our collective defense plans in full,” he said.

The U.S. has long assumed the greatest responsibility within NATO for long-range aviation and aerial attack, while Germany has provided the bulk of ground troops and electronic attack. The U.S., U.K., and France have provided the lion’s share of naval forces, and other countries have filled in the remaining capabilities. In recent years, however, NATO’s dramatic expansion has meant that non-U.S. countries are bringing on far greater frontline aviation and air defenses, with many more fifth-generation F-35s than the U.S. will station in Europe. Poland’s ground forces rival those of Germany, and newer, smaller NATO allies have niche capabilities in logistics and special forces.

The need for greater NATO spending is made clear by “Russia’s brutal war against Ukraine, the threat of terrorism, and intense global competition,” Rutte said. The alliance this week will “assess the gaps we have in our collective defense,” he added, to ensure NATO’s protection against Russia and China “not only today, but also in three to five years.”

Also on the table are a renewed investment in “infrastructure and resilience,” Rutte said, as well as a push to build munitions production capacity.

Rutte, echoing U.S. defense officials and associations that have said companies need to see strong demand to invest in greater weapons production, said the plans for increased funding are about “making sure . . . that our defense industries will put in extra production lines, extra shifts.”

Rutte praised the Trump administration’s efforts to “stop the bloodshed” in Ukraine and achieve “a just and lasting peace.” He said NATO’s efforts to support the beleaguered country, which Russia invaded unprovoked in 2022, are about ensuring Ukraine’s self-defense and preventing further aggression on the continent, not prolonging the war.

“Putin should never, ever try this again,” he said of the three-year-old invasion, “and that means we have to test him” and sit down to regional peace discussions.

“The U.S. is taking the lead on this, and I’m really glad that they do that,” Rutte said.

Asked if he believes the U.S. is solidly backing Ukraine—Hegseth skipped this contact group meeting—Rutte said the U.S. “is completely committed to NATO; completely committed to our joint endeavors when it comes to Ukraine, there’s no reason to doubt that.”

“Most of these meetings take place in Europe, so it will not always be possible for U.S. officials to participate in every meeting,” he added.

It’s the first meeting of Ukraine’s roughly 50 military benefactors at the U.S.-run Ramstein Air Base in Germany that a U.S. defense secretary will not attend, according to the Kyiv Independent.

“We are at a pivotal moment for our security,” Rutte said. “Make no mistake, NATO is strong today, and we will become even stronger. Strong defenses send a clear message: No one should ever think of attacking us.”

This General Could Be the First Airman to Lead AFRICOM

June 4, 2025 | By David Roza

U.S. Africa Command could soon have its first Air Force general in charge, as Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced the nomination of Lt. Gen. Dagvin R.M. Anderson to lead the combatant command and pin on a fourth star.

President Donald Trump also nominated Navy Vice Adm. Charles B. Cooper II for promotion to lead U.S. Central Command as a four-star admiral, replacing Army Gen. Michael E. Kurilla, the Pentagon said in a June 4 news release. The command oversees U.S. military operations in the Middle East and southwest Asia, including the Navy-led campaign against Iran-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen.

Army and Marine Corps generals have led AFRICOM since its creation in 2007. Three Sailors and one Airman, Lt. Gen. James C. Vechery, have served as deputy commanders at the organization’s headquarters in Stuttgart, Germany. AFRICOM is currently led by Marine Gen. Michael E. Langley, who took over the post in August 2022.

Anderson is no stranger to the continent or to joint commands, having led U.S. Special Operations Command’s Africa branch from 2019 to 2021.

During Anderson’s tenure at SOC-Africa in January 2020, three Americans died and three others were wounded by al-Shabab fighters in an attack on Kenya’s Manda Bay base. A Pentagon investigation into the ambush concluded that multiple security lapses and failure to focus on threats on the ground allowed the militants to mount an attack that killed a U.S. Soldier and two contractors.

That October saw Air Force CV-22 Ospreys carry Navy SEALs into northern Nigeria to rescue an American hostage from local gunmen; a month later, SOC-Africa led the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Somalia amid the COVID-19 pandemic.

“On essentially no notice, SOC-Africa planned and coordinated an operation that ultimately involved over 13,000 troops, an amphibious ready group, a carrier strike group, and a major airlift,” then-AFRICOM boss Gen. Stephen J. Townsend said about the withdrawal in July 2021, when Anderson handed command of SOC-Africa to Rear Adm. Milton J. Sands III.

“Anderson’s leadership of Operation Octave Quartz ensured the successful and safe repositioning of over 700 service members [and] 900 pallets of cargo from Somalia in less than 60 days,” Townsend said.

Anderson currently serves at the Pentagon as director for joint force development under the Joint Chiefs of Staff. A native of Ypsilanti, Mich., Anderson has flown KC-135 tankers, MC-130E special operations transports, and U-28A reconnaissance planes, according to his command biography. The general spoke highly of partnerships with African nations during his SOF-Africa tour.

“They are some of the best partners I’ve ever worked with,” he said at the 2021 change-of-command ceremony. “They’re not looking for a handout, they’re looking for a helping hand. And what more can you ask for? That’s why I’m passionate about Africa.”

If confirmed by the Senate, Anderson would oversee U.S. military operations as American troops have stepped up airstrikes in an effort to limit militant groups’ territorial gains, Niger’s ouster of U.S. forces has limited their ability to fly surveillance missions, and China and Russia are vying for greater influence across the continent.

The Senate Armed Services Committee has not yet scheduled a hearing to consider Anderson and Cooper’s nominations.

Senate Adds Billions for Air Force Programs to GOP Spending Bill

June 4, 2025 | By Rachel S. Cohen

Senate lawmakers unveiled legislation June 4 that would funnel at least $26 billion to the Air Force and Space Force starting this year as Washington Republicans aim to modernize America’s aging military and revitalize the defense industrial base for an era of competition between world powers.

The Senate bill offers billions more dollars for military aerospace than its House counterpart, which narrowly passed May 22 as part of a partisan tax-and-spending package making its way across Capitol Hill. The Department of the Air Force stands to receive many billions more under broad provisions for military space sensors and missile development, for instance, that don’t specify which organization would use the funds.

The provisions are part of the so-called “One Big, Beautiful Bill” that would enact large swaths of Republican President Donald Trump’s policy agenda through the budget reconciliation process, which lets lawmakers pass spending legislation with fewer votes than usual.

It illustrates the Senate’s commitment to “peace through strength,” Senate Armed Services Chairman Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) told reporters at a June 4 Defense Writers Group event.

“We still have a strong military, but the trend is not headed in the right direction,” Wicker said. “The military advancements that will result from this bill are indeed historic, and their importance cannot be overstated.”

Senators kept the bill’s $150 billion cap for defense spending but set slightly different priorities than the House for how that money should be spent to challenge Chinese dominance in the Pacific, secure the U.S.-Mexico border and bolster America’s air defenses, among other issues.

As in the House, the Senate defense panel looks to boost production of the F-15EX fighter, B-21 bomber, C-130J transport aircraft, EA-37B electronic-attack jet and MH-139 patrol helicopter. It would also prevent retirement of the F-22 and F-15E fighters, speed development of the next-generation F-47 fighter and Collaborative Combat Aircraft drones, and fund Air Force training in the Pacific. It offers $2.1 billion for spare parts and repairs for Air Force platforms as well.

For the Air Force, the Senate bill adds $2.5 billion for facilities upkeep and modernization; $250 million to field air defenses that are cheaper than those systems typically cost; $50 million for fuel tanks to extend the range of the F-15EX; and $10 million apiece for wargaming and the Air Force Concepts, Development, and Management Office.

Senators also offered to spend more than the House on certain Air Force initiatives. Those include $2.5 billion to continue developing the Sentinel land-based nuclear missile, $1 billion more than in the House bill; $550 million for classified programs, a $250 million boost; and $187 million to add electronic warfare tools to the F-16 fighter, a $137 million increase.

Some Space Force programs would see a greater windfall from the Senate as well. Classified military space superiority programs would receive $5.1 billion under the Senate bill, more than $1 billion over the House version; plus $150 million rather than $100 million for ground target-tracking satellites.

The bill also adds $7.2 billion for military space sensors and $5.6 billion for space-based and boost-phase missile interceptors; it’s unclear how much of that money would go to the Space Force.

Lawmakers also earmarked $3.3 billion for military operations along the U.S.-Mexico border, including to hold migrants at U.S. bases. A defense official said in February the Army was planning to house as many 30,000 detained migrants at its installations.

The $150 billion defense portion of the massive reconciliation bill aims to push the U.S. defense budget above $1 trillion for the first time, when added to the $893 billion the Trump administration seeks in baseline annual funding.

Wicker argues the U.S. needs to steadily increase baseline defense spending rather than trying to pad it through unconventional measures. Asked how funding offered through reconciliation could affect lawmakers’ priorities for next year’s base budget, Wicker predicted Congress will float a “vastly different number” than the Trump administration has proposed.

“I think House and Senate authorizers and House and Senate appropriators are likely to have quite a different view from OMB on how that is racked and stacked,” Wicker said.

“There are some members of the administration who thought we would be delighted with the $1 trillion,” he added. “That’s not the way we viewed it.”

Though Republicans on the Hill welcome reconciliation as an opportunity to spend 5 percent of America’s gross domestic product, or around $1.5 trillion, on defense, Wicker said the Trump administration is using the measure to pretend that it can both cut defense spending while also achieving a historically large Pentagon budget.

“It makes no sense,” Wicker said.

He suggested it won’t be difficult for lawmakers to reconcile differences between the House and Senate bills, saying he and House Armed Services Committee Chairman Mike Rogers largely agree on a way forward and that the Trump administration is on board.

Rogers, of Alabama, said in a June 4 statement he’s eager to continue the party’s forward momentum on a “generational investment.”

But Wicker acknowledged disagreements over other aspects of the enormous spending package, from Medicaid cuts to its impact on the federal debt, could spell trouble for the defense provisions if efforts to rally Senate Republicans to vote for the bill fall short.

“I really think maybe 85 senators, if you ask them in a vacuum, do they want this $150 billion to be enacted? They would say yes—Democrats and Republicans,” he said of the defense package. “It’s the other parts that are going to take some massaging.”

Republican leaders on the Hill hope the package can clear Congress and reach Trump’s desk by July 4.

While the GOP could unilaterally enact the reconciliation bill without wooing Democrats, boosting the base budget would require buy-in from both parties to reach the 60-vote threshold needed for appropriations bills in the Senate. Both the compromise reconciliation measure and annual appropriations will need to survive a razor-thin Republican majority to pass in the House.

Wicker’s panel will get the chance to publicly press Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on the 2026 budget at a June 18 hearing—the first time Hegseth has appeared before the Senate Armed Services Committee since his confirmation in January.

The defense secretary is also slated to testify before the House and Senate appropriations committees on June 10, as well as the House Armed Services Committee on June 12.

Transgender Troops Face Tough Decision As Deadline to Self-ID Looms

June 3, 2025 | By David Roza

Active-duty transgender troops have until June 6 to identify themselves and begin the voluntary separation process or wait and risk involuntary separation later—even as questions linger over how that decision might affect their security clearances for future employment.

The Pentagon announced the June 6 deadline on May 15. National Guard and Reserve members have until July 7. A senior defense official said at the time that the military departments must begin the separation process within 30 days after members identify themselves as transgender.

It is unclear how many people may be affected by the order. In February, a senior defense official said there were 4,240 members serving who had been diagnosed with gender dysphoria, and about 1,000 members had received gender-transition surgery since 2014. But how many of those are still serving is not known. Not all transgender troops are diagnosed with gender dysphoria, and only some who are choose to undergo surgery.

“I think everyone is trying to make the decision that they think is best for them and their situation, and they’re doing so in an extreme absence of information,” said Col. Bree Fram, a transgender Guardian who noted she was sharing her personal views and not speaking on behalf of the Space Force or the government.

Those who voluntarily self-identify are promised “a very significant voluntary separation pay, a covered permanent change of station move to their home of record” and an honorable discharge if there is no misconduct prompting the separation, the defense official said. Other resources, including financial counseling, temporary healthcare coverage, employment assistance, and the Transition Assistance Program, will remain available.

But the process of ousting transgender troops may make it more difficult to land a job once out of uniform. The Pentagon will yank their access to SkillBridge, a program that funds internships, apprenticeships, and training in civilian organizations for Active troops for up to 180 days of service. When asked why, a separate defense official cited a May 15 memo, which specifically excluded SkillBridge because it “is a discretionary program,” meaning it is not required by law.

The senior defense official said troops who separate voluntarily will receive double the payment compared to those who separate involuntarily. For example, an E-5 with 10 years of service would receive about $101,000 for a voluntary separation compared to $51,000 in involuntary separation pay; an O-3 with seven years would receive about $125,000 in voluntary separation pay, but only about $62,000 if separated involuntarily.

The memo states that the military branches will check that troops who ask to leave under the policy have a current diagnosis of gender dysphoria or a history of that diagnosis, or exhibit symptoms consistent with gender dysphoria.

For members who do not self-identify, however, the memo states that “the primary method of identifying … [affected service members] who are no longer eligible for military service will be through compliance with the Individual Medical Readiness (IMR) program.”

The assessment of medical readiness will be conducted through the DoD Periodic Health Assessment, which will include questions about whether service members have a current diagnosis of gender dysphoria or a history of that diagnosis, or exhibit symptoms consistent with gender dysphoria.

Gender dysphoria refers to the sometimes severe stress or anxiety people can feel if their gender identity does not match their sex at birth. It can be treated through behavioral changes, such as dress and mannerisms, or through medical interventions, such as hormone replacement therapy or gender-transition surgery.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth contends that a history of gender dysphoria or transition treatment is incompatible with military service. Transgender troops have served openly since 2016. President Donald Trump moved to bar transgender troops during the Republican’s first term, though troops serving at the time were grandfathered in. President Joe Biden, a Democrat, lifted the ban on transgender recruits entering service when he took office in 2021.

Active-duty troops may apply for a waiver by June 6; Reservists and Guardsmen have until July 7. A person diagnosed with gender dysphoria who managed to serve without clinically significant distress and without attempting to transition could theoretically receive a waiver, but anyone who has attempted to transition is ineligible.

The Air Force implementation plan includes one major difference from the DOD memo: It allows volunteers with 15 to 18 years of service to apply to retire early under the temporary early retirement authority. The Defense Department policy had limited that option to troops with more than 18 but less than 20 years of service to apply for TERA.

Questions Remain

Though the memos give transgender troops a deadline to self-identify, the services have not released in-depth policies on what the process looks like for involuntary separations.

“There is still the unknown of ‘what does it mean to be involuntarily separated?’” Fram said.

The Defense Department said in February that “all service members affected by the policy will be separated with an honorable characterization of service, except where their record otherwise warrants a lower characterization.”

But troops who are involuntarily separated may not receive “certain benefits” available to those who separate voluntarily, the senior defense official said in May. They also may have to pay back bonus or incentive payments for which the required obligation has not been met.

Another complicating factor is the three-letter code listed on troops’ DD-214 discharge papers that signifies the reason for discharge.

Pentagon guidance said the code for enlisted troops separated under the policy will be “JFF,” meaning the discharge was directed by the defense secretary’s authority. But officers “will be processed for separation on the basis that their continued service is not clearly consistent with the interests of national security using the JDK separation program designator code,” the guidance said.

A JDK code would indicate the service member could not be trusted with national security matters, which presumably would make it difficult to retain or obtain a security clearance, said retired Air Force Col. Joshua Kastenberg, a former Air Force judge now teaching law at the University of New Mexico.

“If someone wants to go into classified work, it’s huge,” he said. “Keep in mind that people who leave the military honorably, some of them want to find jobs with contractors that require a clearance because they pay well and it gives them an opportunity to serve national defense without having to put on a uniform. That door may be shut to them as a result of this.”

Asked about the JDK code, a Defense Department official said “the separation code alone does not infer a revocation of a security clearance.” The official could not answer in time whether the JDK code would apply to all officers who are separated under the policy, or just those separated involuntarily.

Transgender troops must now comply with the dress, grooming, and fitness standards of their birth sex, which might not be possible for some service members at this point in their transition. Especially in question is the status of those transgender members whose gender data was changed in military personnel systems. Fram said she has heard anecdotally that some transgender members have been placed on administrative leave since they would not be able to adhere to the standards of their birth sex.

The unknowns mean some transgender service members are taking the voluntary separation option “as the best of bad choices,” Fram said. “But to be clear, it is not voluntary. These people would be continuing to serve if the circumstances were different. They are avoiding the threat of further unknown consequences.”

Two lawsuits challenging the policy change are still being litigated, but the Supreme Court last month overturned an injunction that would have kept transgender troops in uniform until the cases were settled. That process could take years, and Kastenberg doubts it will end favorably for plaintiffs, since there is no statute barring the military from discriminating based on gender identity.

The Pentagon memo directs commanders aware of troops with a diagnosis, a history of, or symptoms consistent with gender dysphoria to refer them to the medical review process. Fram worried that policy could be used against troops “just outside what people expect, particularly in women who may be more masculine than what others expect,” and Kastenberg shared her concern.

When asked if there would be safeguards to prevent misuse of the policy, the senior defense official told reporters in May that the military “has long granted broad discretion and authority to commanders . . . and so, this policy, like many others, will rely on their qualifications, discernment and judgment in how to interpret and apply the guidance.”