A former Biden-era Department of Defense (DoD) official, Mara Karlin, has issued a cautionary note against the notion of running the Pentagon like a business. Karlin, who served as the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Strategy, Plans, and Capabilities, published her views in a commentary for Foreign Affairs, emphasizing that while the DoD undoubtedly needs reform, applying corporate strategies might backfire. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, currently leading the department, has expressed his intention to bring "actual businesslike efficiency" to the government through the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), spearheaded by Tesla CEO Elon Musk. This approach is predicated on the belief that corporate efficiency models can reduce waste and improve operations. However, Karlin argues that the Pentagon operates under fundamentally different conditions compared to the private sector, making such a transition fraught with risks. At its core, the DoD is an enormous and complex organization, with a workforce more than 40% larger than that of Walmart, the next largest U.S. employer. This includes both an all-volunteer military force and a significant number of lifelong civilian public servants, many of whom hold crucial institutional knowledge. Unlike a typical business, the DoD cannot quickly implement changes due to its lack of a centralized decision-making body like a board of directors. Instead, hundreds of members of Congress oversee the department's extensive budget and determine where funds are allocated, complicating efforts to streamline processes. One of the primary issues hindering the DoD's efficiency is the ongoing problem with audits. The department has failed seven consecutive audits, highlighting systemic financial and logistical challenges. These failures are exacerbated by the frequent use of continuing resolutions, which are temporary stopgap measures that prevent the DoD from effectively managing long-term contracts and initiatives. Despite these issues, the DoD's unique role in national security necessitates a different approach to risk management. While a business failure typically results in financial losses and job cuts, a DoD failure can lead to loss of life and significant strategic setbacks. Karlin, now a professor at the School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University and a visiting fellow at the Brookings Institution, stresses that the DoD must manage risk in a far more cautious and deliberate manner. She cites the example of the Department of Energy (DoE) during the Trump administration, where an attempt to streamline operations led to the forced departure of key personnel involved in handling nuclear materials. This move was eventually reversed due to its critical implications for national security, illustrating the potential dangers of hasty, business-driven reforms in such sensitive areas. The current focus of the Pentagon under Hegseth is on reducing wasteful spending. Recently, the DoD announced it had cut $5.1 billion from wasteful contracts, a move aimed at demonstrating the department's commitment to efficiency. However, Karlin warns that while cutting waste is essential, it should be done with a deep understanding of the department's unique structure and mission. She suggests that effective reform will require a nuanced approach that acknowledges the DoD's distinct operational environment and avoids simplistic corporate analogies. Industry insiders and experts agree with Karlin's concerns, noting that the DoD's intricate web of regulations, oversight mechanisms, and national security imperatives make it a significantly different entity from any private corporation. They emphasize the need for tailored solutions that address specific inefficiencies without compromising the department's core functions. Companies like Tesla may excel in innovation and efficiency, but the DoD's responsibilities extend beyond mere financial performance to safeguarding the nation and its citizens. In summary, while the DoD's reform efforts are necessary to address ongoing issues of waste and inefficiency, the application of corporate management strategies must be approached with caution. Understanding and respecting the department's unique characteristics and risk profiles are crucial for any successful reform initiative.