Secretary Wormuth’s advice to next administration: ‘Stay on the path’ on Army programs

WASHINGTON — With all eyes on the presidential election and the significant changes that either candidate is likely to bring to Pentagon leadership, Army Secretary Christine Wormuth told Breaking Defense that right now, she’s keeping her head down to do the “best possible job I can do in this role.”

Wormuth, whose name has been floated in news reports as the potential next Secretary of Defense should Democratic candidate Kamala Harris win in November, said she wouldn’t speculate on what the future has in store for her.

“I am going to run through the tape as Secretary of the Army, wherever that tape ends,” she said.

The race Wormuth has run for the past three-and-a-half years has had plenty of obstacles to overcome of its own, from recruiting challenges and a relatively flat budget to the second-and-third order effects of wars in Europe and the Middle East.

Earlier this month at the Association of the US Army conference here, Breaking Defense sat down with 25th secretary of the Army to talk about some of those challenges and her priorities for her remaining time as the head of America’s land forces. Her advice to whoever succeeds her? When it comes to major programs, keep doing what the Army is doing.

This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

BREAKING DEFENSE: Looking at the broader picture, what are your key takeaways after nearly four years on the job? Concerns? The road ahead?

WORMUTH: There’s a benefit to having the duration of leadership for multiple years, because it provides consistent direction for where we’re trying to take the Army. We have had clear objectives, and we’ve been able to follow them through.

We’ve really moved the needle on a lot of our acquisition programs … [with] a lot of that progress because we’re using new authorities. We have consistent resourcing, as much as we can, given [continuing resolutions] and things like that. But we haven’t changed direction. We haven’t zigged and zagged. So, I think, there’s a lot of benefit to that consistency over time.

Looking ahead, the Army still has a lot of work to do. …  We need to have a mindset that reflects a greater sense of urgency and a somewhat higher willingness to take prudent risks, because the security environment is really challenging and technology is changing rapidly.

As you have worked through the upcoming five-year budget, will you talk about some of the priorities you’re looking at? 

Frankly, we are going to need to remain consistent across a lot of our big portfolios — long-range fires, future vertical lift, ground combat vehicle — [and] all the things we’ve been working on. 

It would be my hope and advice to the next administration, whatever party that may be, that they kind of stay on the path that the Army is on because I think we’re on the right path.

I’ve talked publicly about the fact that the next budget that [Chief of Staff Gen. Randy] George and I have been working to build a greater investment still in UAS [unmanned aerial systems], counter-UAS and electronic warfare (EW). The Army has been the service that’s most invested in counter UAS to date, but we’re going to increase that some more.

But frankly, I think, a lot of what we need to do is just keep on, keeping on and see things through. Get the [Future Long-Range Assault Aircraft] to first flight, have a successful hypersonic weapon test, things like that.

Part of that push has been this flexible spending pots of money for groups of systems. What are you hearing from Congress? And do you think that this will actually, you’ll be able to get this over the line?

I’m cautiously optimistic. … I was a little skeptical, just because of my experience with appropriators and with the appropriation staffers, they don’t like what they see as slush funds.

We’re really trying to work with them to talk about what approach would work for them. I think the fact that we’re targeting it narrowly to UAS, counter-UAS and EW, rather than kind of trying to have it encompass all of our different kinds of programs may be helpful.

We’re in an active conversation with on the appropriation side, in particular about what kind of mechanisms do they need to feel comfortable?  What kind of transparency mechanisms would they need to feel comfortable enough to give us the ability to bin things into larger pots. …The proof will be in the pudding and we’ll see what comes out in the ‘25 appropriations bill when it passes but I’m a little more optimistic than I was nine months ago. 

You have mentioned concerns about the negative impact a flat budget will have on Army programs and the hard choices the service might need to make. When will the service need to start making those tough decisions?

We have to see what’s going to happen in a couple areas. The quality-of-life panel [from] the House Armed Services Committee was proposing a 15 percent pay increase. If that passed in that form, that will be a very, very big bill that will absolutely crowd out other things that are important for our soldiers, to their readiness, to be combat effective, to give them the equipment they need. So, that’s a variable….

But certainly, a 15 percent pay increase for junior enlisted soldiers is a big bill that would put further pressure on our modernization programs.

What should I be asking you about or topics the media isn’t covering?

The United States Army needs to look hard in the next couple of years at kind of what I call the Army lifestyle, the burden of our frequent PCS [permanent change of station] moves. A lot of our younger officers are choosing to get out of the Army because they feel like they don’t have enough stability and predictability. Their spouses want to work and have a lot of challenges doing that when they’re having to move every two years.

And so, I think, that’s something we really need to take a very hard look at … are we going to be able to attract the best people? Are we going to be able to retain the best people? “Embrace the suck” is sort of part of the Army philosophy, but there are limits to that, there are limits to individuals’ selfless service.

We’ve had a model that’s static for a very, very long time. It’s not going to be easy to change that, but it’s really important.