US Army transformation is in flux after Secretary of the Army Dan Driscoll resigned, removing another senior figure who had been central to reshaping the force for future wars.
As the civilian leader of the service, Driscoll helped redefine ties with industry and pushed an accelerated shift toward drone warfare. His exit, following the dismissal earlier this year of the Army’s top general, has cast doubt on the trajectory of the Army’s modernization push. The service did not respond to questions about how these leadership changes could affect ongoing efforts, according to officials.
US Army transformation under shifting leadership
Driscoll, a former officer and investment banker, submitted his resignation on Monday. A U.S. official said he spoke with President Donald Trump about the state of the Army before stepping down. Multiple reports have indicated he harbored concerns about the transformation initiative amid Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth’s removal of senior generals. Earlier reporting also described friction between Driscoll and Hegseth.
Hegseth fired Army Chief of Staff Gen. Randy George in April, ending his tenure about 18 months before the typical four-year term. The move surprised observers, with reports describing disagreements between George and Hegseth preceding the decision.
The Army currently has no Senate-confirmed leaders in place, leaving elements of its leadership structure and modernization agenda unsettled. Early last year, Hegseth issued a directive ordering sweeping changes, characterized at the time as the largest shift in force structure and priorities since the Cold War.
That directive tasked Driscoll to “transform the Army now for future warfare,” including flooding divisions with drones, divesting older legacy systems, and reforming acquisitions. The total cost was estimated at about 36 billion dollars over five years.
Driscoll and George emerged as two of the most visible champions of the effort. Trump had previously labeled Driscoll a “change agent” and “disruptor.” Driscoll publicly critiqued underperforming weapons programs, advocated major investments in uncrewed capabilities, and urged a more commercially minded approach to working with industry. Early in his tenure he said the Army needed to modernize ahead of a future fight, arguing that decisions should prioritize soldier lethality over industrial or parochial interests.
One of Driscoll’s recent initiatives was the Right to Integrate, aimed at connecting weapons and systems from different suppliers so soldiers can more easily employ them together. In May, he told reporters he conceived the idea after observing how Ukraine linked drones, sensors, and weapons within its battle management network.
George also played a significant role in accelerating modernization. He helped drive the Next Generation Command and Control experimentation initiative to develop a prototype for a new command-and-control system. Another signature effort was the Army’s Unmanned Assault Battalion, an experimental unit in the 173rd Airborne Brigade launched last fall to apply lessons from Ukraine’s drone warfare. The concept envisioned a battalion specializing in drone tactics to spread best practices across the force.
Last month, however, acting Army Chief of Staff Gen. Christopher LaNeve, the vice chief of staff serving in an acting capacity, disbanded the battalion. An Army official said the unit is completing an exercise this month and will deliver its findings from that event and the past year to inform force design and future experimentation. Afterward, it will return to an airborne infantry focus.
The decision drew criticism from some defense analysts. Stacie Pettyjohn of the Center for a New American Security called it puzzling in light of the Pentagon’s Drone dominance initiative and the broader push to embed drones across U.S. formations. She noted the military has requested substantial funding for drones and questioned why the Army would pass up lessons from Ukraine, which she described as a global leader in operational drone use.
Defense leaders continue to emphasize technology and uncrewed systems as priorities. LaNeve has said in a written post that “the work of change continues,” while also stressing fundamentals of warfighting and soldier readiness. Even so, with key leaders gone and no Senate-confirmed officials in place, it remains uncertain whether initiatives championed by Driscoll and George will proceed, and if so, who will oversee them.