Meet the New Defense Policy Board Advising the Pentagon

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s new Defense Policy Board includes former elected officials, conservative policy figures, defense technology investors, China hawks, nuclear policy specialists and longtime Republican operatives.

The Defense Policy Board was established in 1985 to provide independent strategic advice to the defense secretary, deputy secretary and undersecretary for policy. Its work can involve long-term defense planning, force modernization, regional defense policy and other national security issues referred by Pentagon leadership.

That advisory role makes the board’s membership important. Hegseth removed members of several Pentagon advisory boards in 2025 after a review meant to align those panels with the department’s new priorities. The board does not set policy or command troops, though it does advise senior Pentagon leaders on strategy, force structure, modernization and regional security issues.

The Pentagon on Monday announced Amb. Robert Lighthizer, a former U.S. trade representative, will chair the board while former Minnesota Sen. Norm Coleman will serve as vice chair. Others with input as part of the board include Marc Andreessen, Michael Anton, Rachel Bovard, Tom Feddo, Mike Garcia, Kenneth Jones, Blake Masters, Daniel McCarthy, Michael Pillsbury, retired Adm. Chas Richard, Francis Sempa, Christopher Williams and Theo Wold.

Political Figures and Republican Policy Veterans

Lighthizer, the board’s chair, served as U.S. trade representative during President Donald Trump’s first administration and is now affiliated with the America First Policy Institute. His defense relevance is not military command experience, but trade, industrial policy and China competition.

Coleman, the vice chair, served as a Republican U.S. senator from Minnesota from 2003 to 2009 and returned to his legal career in 2011 as senior counsel at Hogan Lovells, where his practice includes government relations, public policy and international matters.

Coleman has been closely tied to pro-Israel Republican politics. He is national chair of the Republican Jewish Coalition—a group that has taken a hard line on Iran, including a 2026 statement saying any U.S.-Iran agreement should require zero enrichment, removal of highly enriched uranium, no sunset clauses, anytime-anywhere inspections, missile and drone limits, and “an end to spreading terrorism.”

A 2008 Washington Report on Middle East Affairs compilation listed Coleman as receiving $80,000 from pro-Israel PACs in the 2007-08 election cycle and $120,980 over his career.

Coleman’s post-Senate work has also drawn scrutiny. Foreign Agents Registration Act filings show Hogan Lovells represented the Embassy of Saudi Arabia on issues including congressional outreach, regional security, counterterrorism, sanctions, export controls and possible arms sales.

Former Rep. Mike Garcia also joins the board after serving as a senior fellow at the America First Policy Institute. Garcia represented California’s 25th Congressional District from 2020 to 2023, and the 27th district until January 2025.

Before entering politics, he served as a Navy F/A-18 pilot, flew more than 30 combat missions during Operation Iraqi Freedom, and later worked as an executive at Raytheon. In Congress, Garcia served on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the House Appropriations Committee, including its Defense Subcommittee, giving him direct oversight of intelligence programs, military operations and Pentagon funding.

Garcia also maintained a consistently pro-Israel voting record, including voting for the Israel Security Supplemental Appropriations Act in 2024. Campaign finance records indicate Garcia received more than $261,000 in support from AIPAC and affiliated pro-Israel political committees. Garcia has also supported a tougher U.S. posture toward Iran and continued military and security cooperation with Israel.

Technology, China and the Defense Industry

Andreessen’s appointment places a major Silicon Valley investor on the board.

His firm, Andreessen Horowitz, created an “American Dynamism” practice that invests in companies tied to aerospace, defense, public safety, supply chains, industrial policy and manufacturing. That background is relevant because the Pentagon is increasingly focused on artificial intelligence, autonomous systems, space, software and private defense technology companies.

It also raises a predictable conflict over whether venture investors can hold stakes in companies that may seek government contracts, or benefit from Pentagon policy shifts.

Masters also comes from the technology and venture capital world. He co-wrote Zero to One with billionaire Peter Thiel and served as president of the Thiel Foundation before running unsuccessfully as a Republican for U.S. Senate in Arizona in 2022 and for a House seat in 2024.

His 2022 Senate campaign received a major financial boost from Thiel, who contributed $15 million to the super PAC supporting Masters, making it one of the largest individual contributions to a Senate campaign during that election cycle. Masters’ public record includes skepticism of Ukraine aid and calls during his 2022 campaign to replace generals with more conservative officers.

Credit: Americanbridgepac.org

Pillsbury brings a different kind of defense background. He is a longtime China strategist, former government official, and author of The Hundred-Year Marathon. Hudson Institute describes him as its director for Chinese strategy and a former high-ranking government official.

Richard, a retired admiral, is one of the board’s clearest traditional military appointments. He commanded U.S. Strategic Command, which oversees strategic deterrence, nuclear operations, nuclear command and control, global strike, missile defense and related missions.

Conservative Policy and Legal Figures

Anton served in Trump’s first administration and has been associated with the administration’s national security thinking.

Jewish Insider reported in 2025 that Anton was tapped as a State Department technical lead in Iran negotiations and had previously criticized the 2015 Iran nuclear deal for giving Tehran up-front financial benefits.

Bovard is vice president of programs at the Conservative Partnership Institute and previously worked on Capitol Hill, including as legislative director to Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and executive director of the Senate Steering Committee.

Feddo is a sanctions and national security lawyer who served as the U.S. Treasury’s first assistant secretary for investment security, the office overseeing the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States. His background is relevant to China policy, foreign investment screening, sanctions and economic security.

Theo Wold is a senior counselor at Palantir Technologies and a visiting fellow for law and technology at the Heritage Foundation. He previously served as Idaho solicitor general, acting assistant attorney general in the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Policy, and deputy assistant to the president for domestic policy during President Donald Trump’s first administration.

McCarthy, editor of Modern Age, said there was “no reason” for the U.S. to be involved in the 12-day war with Iran, placing him among conservatives more skeptical of U.S. military involvement in Middle East conflicts.

Francis Sempa is an assistant U.S. attorney, adjunct political science professor at Wilkes University, and author who has written extensively on geopolitics and U.S. national security. His work has focused on China, Russia, Iran, military history and presidential war powers, often arguing that geopolitical considerations and great-power competition should drive U.S. foreign policy.

Williams has prior Defense Policy Board experience. His biography says he previously chaired the board, served in senior congressional and Defense Department roles, and advised on nuclear weapons management.

Public Integrity reported in 2003 that Williams had been a registered lobbyist with defense industry ties while serving on the board—a concern that mirrors broader questions about advisory board members with private-sector defense links.

Themes and Questions Surrounding the New Board

Although the Defense Policy Board is intended to provide independent advice rather than set Pentagon policy, the backgrounds of its members offer clues about the perspectives likely to shape that advice.

Several members have ties to President Donald Trump’s political orbit or conservative policy organizations, while others bring experience in venture capital, defense technology, nuclear deterrence, intelligence, sanctions policy and trade. A number of appointees have publicly argued that the Pentagon should place greater emphasis on military readiness, strategic competition with China, and a more confrontational approach toward Iran.

Several appointees also have longstanding ties to Israel or have advocated close U.S.-Israel security cooperation. Coleman has spent years leading the Republican Jewish Coalition, while Garcia received more than $261,000 in support from pro-Israel political committees and donors, according to campaign finance data.

Other members, including Michael Anton, have publicly opposed the 2015 Iran nuclear agreement or argued for a tougher U.S. posture toward Tehran.

The board’s composition has also prompted questions from some government ethics and foreign policy observers. Several members have backgrounds in lobbying, venture capital, defense contracting or companies that do business with the federal government, leading critics to wonder whether those private-sector relationships could create perceived conflicts when advising Pentagon leadership.

Others argue those same experiences provide practical expertise on emerging technologies, military procurement and national security challenges that career government officials may lack.

Since the board serves only in an advisory capacity, its influence will ultimately depend on the issues the defense secretary chooses to bring before it and the weight Pentagon leaders give to its recommendations.