Preet Bharara:

From CAFE and the Vox Media Podcast Network, this is Stay Tuned In Brief. I’m Preet Bharara. As the nation prepares for a new administration under President-elect Donald Trump, major shifts in defense policy are on the horizon. From the controversy surrounding Trump’s nominee to the ambitious goal of slashing the Pentagon’s $886 billion budget, the incoming president’s decisions have sparked intense debate about the future of U.S. military strategy and readiness.

To help us unpack these pressing issues, we’re joined by Michèle Flournoy, a seasoned defense policy expert and former undersecretary of defense for policy under President Obama. Michèle, welcome back to the show.

Michèle Flournoy:

Wonderful to be back with you.

Preet Bharara:

So Michèle, I’m really pleased and gratified that you’re with us. There’s a lot of discussion about various government agencies and who might be at the head of them and who might not be. So obviously your expertise, given your background is with the Department of Defense. Could you just explain in a way that people will understand how big a job the position of Secretary of Defense is? What is the nature of the job? What are the qualities that are required of someone in that job, as you know from seeing it up close?

Michèle Flournoy:

Well, the job is leading probably one of the largest organizations, if not the largest organization in the world. If you include the active duty military, it’s more than 3 million people scattered around the world. So it’s a huge leadership job, which requires a clear sense of vision and priorities and the ability to inspire people to get on board with those, but also a huge management job. So it really requires someone who has had experience leading large organizations, managing bureaucracies, or complex organizations.

I think in this period of time, it’s also a change management job. You need someone who’s actually driven change in a large organization before, and government experience helps. I mean, I remember when I first walked into the Pentagon back in the Clinton administration in 1993, I felt like I had landed on another planet. I had to learn how to read the resume on the chests of the military officers. I had to learn new acronyms and new language, really develop expertise to be able to credibly contribute to, and eventually over time lead parts of that organization. So it’s a huge and daunting job. And for someone with no government experience, no leadership and management experience at scale, it would be really tough.

Preet Bharara:

How much does prior military experience count for?

Michèle Flournoy:

I think prior military experience can help, or at least exposure, in that understanding the military as an organization, as a set of cultures, understanding military operations, military plans, understanding the appropriate civilian oversight of the military and how that is supposed to work. I think those things can be helpful. But military experience at the field grade officer level, while extremely honorable and to be respected and can be an asset, it’s not the same as understanding oversight and leadership of the military at the strategic level.

Preet Bharara:

So given what you’ve said about the needs, requirements, and qualities that you would want to have in the Secretary of Defense, which, if any, of those qualities does the nominee, Pete Hegseth, have or not have?

Michèle Flournoy:

Well, I think it’s clear that he does not have prior government experience. He does not have prior experience in the Pentagon. Again, his military experience is certainly honorable and important and appreciated, but it doesn’t necessarily prepare him to lead at the top of the Pentagon and the broader Defense Department.

I think the other thing I would say here is I think character matters. It’s a job where all eyes are on you and you set the tone in terms of your integrity, your moral standing, your personal behavior, and I think some of the issues that have come to light with regard to his use of alcohol, his treatment of women, his performance in two rather small nonprofits where he did not, by all accounts, lead or manage those with distinction, shall we say. I mean, I think the question is does he have the leadership and management and the character to lead this organization, particularly at this time?

I mean, the thing I would underscore is the stakes of what’s at stake in the next four years. We clearly are facing an incredibly volatile international situation with Ukraine, the war in Ukraine, the conflicts in the Middle East, and a strategic competition with China. I really believe that deterrence will be tested in this administration’s term, whether it’s China over Taiwan or somewhere else. And in order to meet that test, we have got to accelerate the adoption of innovation across the department. And that’s going to require someone who really knows how to lead and drive change in the Pentagon very, very quickly and at scale.

I think this administration frankly, has laid a good foundation there, but we need to move farther and faster. And so there will be a real cost if we put into place someone who’s not able to do that. And that cost could mean the difference between preventing war and not.

Preet Bharara:

To what degree, and in what ways does the Secretary of Defense deal with or interact with other US leaders who are involved with dealing with other countries like the Secretary of State, our ambassadors? How are those roles distinguished and what kind of coordination needs to take place and what kind of sophistication in world affairs does the Secretary of Defense need?

Michèle Flournoy:

Well, the Secretary of Defense is really a defense diplomat in some respects. Part of the job is meeting with numerous foreign counterparts, traveling to other countries, meeting with heads of state there, and of course the Secretary of Defense is by statute part of the National Security Council. So when it meets with the president and also the Principals Committee, which is when the NSC convenes without the president. And so being able to work effectively interagency, but also being able to represent the United States of America and advance and protect US interests abroad is absolutely an essential part of the job.

Preet Bharara:

Does Pete Hegseth have any of that experience or expertise?

Michèle Flournoy:

I’m know him personally, but I have not read anything that suggests he has any diplomatic experience.

Preet Bharara:

I’m old enough to remember a nominee to that position named John Tower.

Michèle Flournoy:

Yes.

Preet Bharara:

Are you, and do you want to remind some of our listeners what that was about and how that happened?

Michèle Flournoy:

Yeah, I mean, John Tower was a senator. He was quite a force of nature, but it became clear before, but also when he was nominated for Secretary of Defense that he had a serious problem with alcohol and that affected his behavior with women and in various contexts and a lot of instances of inappropriate behavior privately and publicly.

And I think the parallel here is quite strong. The Senate in its very important role of either granting or denying advice and consent decided that a Secretary of Defense cannot be someone who has a problem with alcohol and womanizing, and they rejected his nomination. They did not agree to confirm him. And I think that there’s a strong parallel here, and I think those are the kinds of discussions that are happening right now with senators and the Senate will play a very, very important role here in ensuring that we get a qualified person of character to lead the Department of Defense at this absolutely critical strategic moment for our country and our national security.

Preet Bharara:

You don’t think it’s enough or sufficient that Pete Hegseth says that if he gets confirmed as Secretary of Defense, he’ll quit drinking? Does that strike you as peculiar at all? Peculiar, conditional?

Michèle Flournoy:

The question is, I think there have been several incidents that should have suggested to him that he not use alcohol in the same way, that he not drink as much and he has not done that before. So if someone has a drinking problem, their intention to stop is not always enough.

Preet Bharara:

Do you think that Senator Joni Ernst will vote against or galvanize opposition and or, compound question I’m sorry, and or is she compromised in some way as a critic of Pete Hegseth, she’s a member of the incoming president’s party? Is she compromised in some way because she’s seen as someone who is herself seeking that position?

Michèle Flournoy:

I think that conversation has passed. That’s my understanding. And I think she has a duty as a senator to reach her judgment on this issue. As a woman who served honorably in the military and saw combat, as someone who I am led to believe, had some experiences with people approaching her with inappropriate sexual behavior, if you will, in the military. I think she’s very well positioned to be a judge of character on this issue. And I think I have great respect for her, and I think that her voice will be absolutely critical on this issue.

So I think her interest has been expressed in the past. I don’t think that’s an active conversation. I don’t know that, but that’s my sense, and I think she’s exactly the right person among other senators who also have relevant experience and judgment here to do the hard thing, but the right thing, which is to again, stand up for someone who has the qualifications and character to be the Secretary of Defense this country needs at this critical strategic moment.

Preet Bharara:

Stay tuned. There’s more coming up after this. It is interesting what you said a second ago, the hard thing, but the right thing. Why should it be hard?

Michèle Flournoy:

I think it’s hard because President Trump has made it clear that if senators or members of Congress go against his wishes, he’s willing to either threaten or actually primary them. He will take them on next time they run for reelection. So I think there’s a lot of Republicans who are afraid of him politically, particularly given the victory he just had. So I do think it’s hard for them politically to oppose a president of their own party on any nomination. But this is where they take an oath to the Constitution too. This is where the higher calling of what is the best thing for the nation and what risks are we willing to take with our national security? They have to be able to sleep at night based on how they answer those questions.

Preet Bharara:

So as you say, Joni Ernst’s time may have come and gone, but there has been some leaking about other potential backup plans if Pete Hegseth goes south. One of those people mentioned is Governor Ron DeSantis of Florida. How do you rate him as a possible Sec Def?

Michèle Flournoy:

I really don’t know how much or how little he knows about defense. I think at least he has had… I may differ on a great many issues with the governor, but he has had executive-

Preet Bharara:

But he’s run a state.

Michèle Flournoy:

He’s run a state. He’s had executive experience in government. He understands politics, he understands some policy. I think the learning curve for him would be understanding the particulars of defense policy and what needs to happen in the next four years with some urgency and the particulars of driving change in a bureaucracy that is very unique and that he’s never experienced.

So obviously it’s very important who the Sec Def is. It’s equally important, who is the team? Does the deputy, the under-secretary, is the team going to be effective at driving the change? This is not something a secretary, any secretary, no matter how qualified or skilled, can do alone.

Preet Bharara:

So let’s talk about some of the challenges before I let you go of that job and that enormous government agency that you described at the outset of the conversation. So one issue people are concerned about and have always been concerned about is cost. And whether there is bloat in the defense budget as a political matter traditionally, it’s very hard to cut the defense budget. We have those two individuals, Vivek Ramaswamy and Elon Musk who have started the DOGE. And I wonder how you think about their views about the Defense Department. What’s your sense of how the budget can be approached reasonably at the Defense Department?

Michèle Flournoy:

Well, I’m sure the Defense Department will be on the table for examination. It is half of the discretionary budget, so it has to be considered.

Preet Bharara:

Of the US?

Michèle Flournoy:

Of the United States. Yes. That said, it’s at a time when there are clearly unmet needs. There are places where we need to be investing more to strengthen deterrence and our ability to prevail in the context of strategic competition with peer or near-peer competitors. But there are also places where we could divest in order to reinvest, that we could cut in order to move money into higher priorities. The problem historically has been that either you have parts of the bureaucracy that are very attached to defending those programs, or even when leadership says, “No, this is the right thing to do strategically,” they take that proposal to the Hill, and oftentimes in many cases of divestiture, the Hill says, “No, I’m not going to allow you to do that because that would affect a base in my district or a production facility in my district or a set of important constituents.” So the politics of spending smarter can be challenging, and it requires not only leadership within the department, but also the ability to build coalitions on the Hill that can go along with those tough trade-offs that we need to make strategically.

Preet Bharara:

This may be an unfair question since you’ve been out of the department for a while, but am I wrong to be obsessed with these hypersonic missiles that Russia has that can go at speeds of up to Mach 10? Because I’m obsessed with them.

Michèle Flournoy:

No, hypersonics, it’s a technology that we actually developed years ago and then sort of put on the shelf, but they are now coming to the, they’re being deployed by adversaries. I think the US is now accelerating their programs to do the same.

Preet Bharara:

So we’re going to get in on the action too, right?

Michèle Flournoy:

Oh, yes, absolutely. I think the other areas that I think offer both immediate promise and have to be managed responsibly are the marrying of unmanned systems in the air, on the sea, under the sea with human beings that control them. But I think the only way we buy back mass in the Indo-Pacific in the relevant timeframe of the next four or five years is by investing substantially in unmanned systems and figuring out how to use AI to help human beings manage those at scale with speed.

And then AI adoption. I mean, there’s so many different ways that AI can enhance the speed and effectiveness and quality of human decision making in the department from the most strategic level down to the most tactical level. And the department is still struggling to figure out how to do that. So I think, again, I want to say a lot of progress has been made in the last four years. There’s been focus on this, but we need to pick up the pace and the scale if we’re going to meet the moment.

Preet Bharara:

Is the following settled or still up for debate or reopened for debate in a Trump administration? And that is the role of women in the military generally and the role of women in combat specifically.

Michèle Flournoy:

I think if Pete Hegseth gets through and is Sec Def, we’re going to have a serious problem in that there are women who, like him, wear combat awards on their uniform for heroic actions. And I know many of them. They are not going to be pleased to be devalued. You could have a retention problem of those very senior experienced female leaders if it becomes sort of a hostile environment or their career opportunities are limited. It will also greatly compound our recruitment challenge for meeting our goals of bringing people into the force.

So I think it is setting up ourselves up for creating a problem of our own making that we really don’t need to do at this point in time. So I think it will be an enormous problem. I think that to the extent he tries to change the law, that will require Congress coming in on this, but there’s a lot he could do without that to make it a hostile environment. And you would see, I think a talent drain and a real significant harm to military recruiting.

Preet Bharara:

Is there a particular example of a defense secretary from either party that you think is a good model and was particularly effective?

Michèle Flournoy:

Well, I had the privilege of working with five different secretaries over time.

Preet Bharara:

So I’m going to make you pick one.

Michèle Flournoy:

Including two Republicans. So I would say I’m a huge Bill Perry fan, back in the Clinton administration. But I would say Bob Gates and Leon Panetta both, they were very different in the way they interpreted the job, but both were extremely effective in the Pentagon, and I had-

Preet Bharara:

Why, what made them effective?

Michèle Flournoy:

Well, I think they set out very clear priorities and expectations. They then empowered their team below them, military and civilian, to go out and achieve those objectives. And they were willing to hold people accountable, meaning they’re willing to fire people if they didn’t get the job done, or if they underperformed or if they violated the Constitution or the law, et cetera. So it was that mixture of really empowering strong leaders underneath them to go get stuff done for the nation, but also holding people to account. And I think that is the winning combination for a Secretary of Defense.

Preet Bharara:

If I may say, just in closing, it may be the case that Leanna Panetta is my favorite living public servant. And I’m not saying that also-

Michèle Flournoy:

I would join you in the Leon Panetta fan club for sure.

Preet Bharara:

And by the way, he added to the luster of his resume, I will say, by being the very, very first guest on the Stay Tuned podcast.

Michèle Flournoy:

Oh, excellent. There you go.

Preet Bharara:

So I was very thrilled that he agreed to do that, and he was very kind of him, and I didn’t think anyone was going to listen to this podcast, and they did. And so I credit him with that.

If I remember correctly, what’s impressive among other things is that when he became the CIA director, there was some controversy. Dianne Feinstein had not been notified, and he’s from her home state, and there was some question about his IC experience. He’d been a member of Congress, he’d been the head of the budget office in the White House. He’d been a chief of staff in the White House, all sorts of political skills.

But there was question from some precincts about his expertise as the head of the agency, and then he became the nominee to be the Secretary of Defense and very different from today’s controversy. And I believe he got voted in at a very polarizing and polarized time, particularly for nominees of the other party. He got in without a nay vote at the Department of Defense. Do you recall if I’m correct about that?

Michèle Flournoy:

I think that is likely true, but it’s certainly close to true if not true, because he-

Preet Bharara:

Which is a phenomenal accomplishment at that time.

Michèle Flournoy:

There’s an important lesson there beyond just the quality of Leon Panetta as the person and the leader, and that is he understood that Congress, members of Congress are critical stakeholders in our defense and national security, and woe be to the secretary that treats them as the other or the outsider, or as a thorn in their side. He cultivated relationships. One of the things I watched him do is he had members over to the Pentagon on a regular basis to bring them inside the tent, to explain to them what we were trying to do, and to try to win their support. And it was essential to his success, and I think every Secretary of Defense should take a page from his playbook.

Preet Bharara:

God bless Leon Panetta. That’s a good note to end up.

Michèle Flournoy:

Yes, indeed.

Preet Bharara:

Michèle Flournoy, thanks again for your time, your help and for your public service.

Michèle Flournoy:

Great. Thank you.

Preet Bharara:

For more analysis of legal and political issues making the headlines, become a member of the CAFE Insider. Members get access to exclusive content, including the weekly podcast I host with former U.S. Attorney Joyce Vance. Head to cafe.com/insider to sign up for a trial. That’s cafe.com/insider.

If you like what we do, rate and review the show on Apple Podcasts or wherever you listen. Every positive review helps new listeners find the show. Send me your questions about news, politics, and justice. Tweet them to me @PreetBharara with the hashtag #AskPreet. You can also now reach me on Threads, or you can call and leave me a message at 669-247-7338. That’s 669-24-PREET. Or you can send an email to letters@cafe.com.

Stay Tuned is presented by CAFE and the Vox Media Podcast Network. The executive producer is Tamara Sepper. The technical director is David Tatasciore. The deputy editor is Celine Rohr. The editorial producers are Noa Azulai and Jake Kaplan. The associate producer is Claudia Hernández, and the CAFE team is Matthew Billy, Nat Weiner, and Liana Greenway. Our music is by Andrew Dost. I’m your host, Preet Bharara. As always, stay tuned.