Last Updated on April 17, 2025 by Bertrand Clarke

The U.S. Air Force’s Sentinel intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) program, a cornerstone of America’s nuclear modernization efforts, is under intense scrutiny as costs soar and questions mount about its efficiency and strategic necessity. Developed by Northrop Grumman, the program has seen its price tag balloon from an initial $96 billion to an estimated $141 billion, with some projections suggesting costs could reach $264 billion over its lifetime. As the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), led by figures like Elon Musk, pushes for sweeping federal spending cuts, the Sentinel program has emerged as a lightning rod for debates over defense priorities, contractor accountability, and the role of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives in government contracts.

A Costly Leap Forward

The Sentinel program aims to replace the aging Minuteman III ICBMs, which have served as the land-based leg of the U.S. nuclear triad since the 1970s. Designed to ensure a robust nuclear deterrent through the 2070s, the Sentinel is a complex undertaking involving new missiles, launch facilities, and over 7,500 miles of fiber-optic infrastructure. Northrop Grumman, a leading defense contractor, secured a $13.3 billion sole-source contract in September 2020 to spearhead the program’s development after Boeing withdrew from the bidding process, citing concerns over fairness.

However, the program has faced significant challenges. In January 2024, the Air Force notified Congress that Sentinel’s costs had risen by 37%, triggering a “critical” breach of the Nunn-McCurdy Act, which mandates oversight for programs exceeding cost thresholds. By July 2024, the Pentagon reported an 81% cost overrun, with estimates climbing to $141 billion. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) attributed delays to staffing shortages, supply chain disruptions, and IT infrastructure issues at Northrop Grumman. In February 2025, the Air Force paused work on launch facility construction, citing “evolving requirements,” further delaying the program by 18 to 24 months.

“These cost overruns are a symptom of deeper systemic issues in defense procurement,” said Mackenzie Knight, a defense analyst at the Center for Strategic Studies. “The Sentinel program’s complexity, combined with a lack of competition, has created a perfect storm for inefficiency.”

DOGE’s Cost-Cutting Crusade

The Sentinel program’s troubles have drawn the attention of DOGE, a Trump administration initiative aimed at streamlining government spending. DOGE has already canceled over $580 million in Defense Department contracts, targeting programs deemed wasteful or misaligned with national priorities. Critics of Sentinel argue it exemplifies the kind of bloated, poorly managed project DOGE was created to address.

“The Sentinel program is a textbook case of why we need DOGE,” a senior Republican congressional staffer told reporters. “Taxpayers are footing the bill for a project that’s over budget, behind schedule, and potentially redundant in today’s strategic environment.”

Elon Musk, a key figure in DOGE, has publicly criticized defense spending inefficiencies, advocating for a leaner, more innovative approach. Posts on X have echoed this sentiment, with users calling Sentinel “a black hole for taxpayer dollars” and questioning Northrop Grumman’s ability to deliver. One post, dated April 17, 2025, described the program as “a DOGE poster child,” highlighting both its financial mismanagement and Northrop Grumman’s DEI policies.

DEI in the Crosshairs

Northrop Grumman’s emphasis on DEI has become a flashpoint in the Sentinel controversy. The company’s 2023 annual report highlighted DEI as “vital” to its success, noting that 37% of its workforce are people of color, 25% are female, 18% are veterans, and 8% have disabilities. A promotional video by ClearanceJobs praised the company’s diverse culture, featuring employees discussing its inclusive environment.

However, with the Trump administration’s pledge to eliminate DEI initiatives across federal agencies, Northrop Grumman and other contractors have faced pressure to scale back these programs. Some X posts have linked Sentinel’s struggles to DEI, claiming it distracts from mission-critical priorities. A source close to the administration told media outlets, “Northrop’s focus on DEI is emblematic of misplaced priorities when billions are at stake.”

Northrop Grumman defended its practices, stating, “We hire, promote, and pay based on merit and performance to deliver the best team for our customers.” The company emphasized its commitment to national security, pointing to milestones like the successful March 6, 2025, static fire test of Sentinel’s stage-one rocket motor.

Strategic Necessity or Cold War Relic?

Beyond costs and DEI, the Sentinel program’s strategic value is under debate. Proponents, including Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. David Allvin, argue it is essential for maintaining a credible nuclear deterrent. At a March 2025 symposium, Allvin stressed, “The Sentinel ensures our nuclear triad remains safe, secure, and effective. It’s not optional—it’s a solemn responsibility.”

The Air Force points to growing threats from China and Russia, both of which are modernizing their nuclear arsenals. A 2024 Congressional Research Service report noted that Sentinel’s modular design and advanced technology would counter emerging threats more effectively than a life-extended Minuteman III.

Critics, however, question whether land-based ICBMs are still relevant in a world of advanced missile defenses and cyber warfare. Former Congressman John Tierney, speaking at a 2024 congressional event, argued, “Sentinel doesn’t enhance our security—it may make us less safe by escalating tensions.” Analysts like Stephen Young of the Union of Concerned Scientists suggest reallocating funds to submarine-based missiles or cyber defense, which offer greater flexibility and resilience.

The Path Forward

The Air Force is now restructuring the Sentinel program to address cost and schedule issues. Assistant Secretary for Acquisition Andrew Hunter has proposed opening parts of the ground infrastructure contract to competitive bidding, potentially reducing Northrop Grumman’s role. “We’re looking at breaking the contract into smaller, more manageable pieces,” Hunter said at a July 2024 conference. This move could invite new players like Bechtel or Clark Construction, both already involved in Sentinel’s infrastructure.

Meanwhile, the Pentagon insists the program remains vital. “We’re taking deliberate steps to enhance oversight and drive down costs while advancing the engineering design,” an Air Force spokesperson said. The fiscal 2025 budget request includes $3.7 billion for Sentinel, with projections of $6.6 billion in 2026 and $8.5 billion in 2027.

A Broader Reckoning

The Sentinel saga reflects broader tensions in U.S. defense policy: balancing modernization with fiscal discipline, innovation with accountability, and inclusivity with mission focus. As DOGE’s influence grows, other high-profile programs—like the B-21 Raider, also led by Northrop Grumman—may face similar scrutiny. The company reported a $1.6 billion loss on the B-21 in 2023, raising questions about its ability to manage complex contracts.

For now, the Sentinel program presses forward, with Northrop Grumman and the Air Force working to stabilize its trajectory. But with DOGE’s cost-cutting mandate and public skepticism mounting, the path to deployment remains fraught. As one defense analyst put it, “Sentinel isn’t just about missiles—it’s a test of whether the U.S. can modernize its arsenal without breaking the bank.”