As the mission approaches the conclusion of its first year — with at least two more to go, unless the president says otherwise — its measure of success depends on whom you ask. In a round-table discussion with reporters Monday, Brig. Gen. Leland Blanchard, the D.C. National Guard’s interim commanding general, suggested the impact of the Guard’s presence was as much about an increased feeling of safety as it was about the number of interventions.

Those numbers, in the context of the size of the Guard deployment, are modest. Blanchard said Guardsmen had provided 788 medical assists, “ranging from administering CPR to applying tourniquets for gunshot victims;” reunited 43 lost children, intervened in 262 fights to prevent further escalation; and administered the overdose reversal drug Narcan to 325 people. Guard members supported law enforcement 479 times, he said, or a little more than once per day over the course of a year-long deployment.

“Those are not simply numbers. Those are not just data points,” Blanchard said. “Each of those represents fathers, mothers, children, people who have received emergency care, been returned to parents, and families, had their lives saved from opioid overdoses, or were involved in violent situations brought under control before further harm was done.”

He added that a Guard team on a “ride the rail” mission on the D.C. Metro had stopped a sexual assault in progress and recently intervened to stop a knife-wielding would-be assailant.

Blanchard said the Guard members’ presence was having its own impact. Guard troops recently began patrolling Starburst Plaza, a well-known hub for drug activity in northeast D.C. During a visit to the area Aug. 1, he said, he observed an Air National Guard member administering Narcan and “saving a life on the scene.”

“A few minutes later, a young teenager rode by on his scooter, stopped, and said, ‘I’ve never seen this place so clean,’” Blanchard said.

It remains unclear, however, how lasting those changes will be - or whether the impact justifies the missions’s cost. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated the cost of the D.C. deployment to be $55 million per month. Based on the Guard’s reported Narcan administrations, that amounts to more than $2 million in costs for every overdose reversal. A new estimate provided this week to the office of Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., estimates the mission will cost another $1.4 billion through its expected conclusion in January 2029, when Trump is slated to leave office.

Plans to move the Guard members from hotels into apartments via a $292 million contract awarded in July to corporate lodging company Placemakr are set to save the Guard about $90 million, Blanchard said, adding that they’ll also allow troops to be “closer and more responsive” to their mission areas.

There are currently just over 4,600 Guard troops in D.C., Blanchard said, and that number is expected to decrease somewhat as summer and 250th anniversary events come to a close.

A May study from the nonpartisan think tank Niskanen Center found that the Guard deployment correlated with a sharp decrease in specific kinds of crime, including vehicle theft and other opportunistic property crime in high-visibility spaces. But robberies and other violent crime trends stayed constant, it showed.

“The implication is sharp,” the study found. “The National Guard deployment appears to have deterred opportunistic property offending, exactly the category of crime most sensitive to visible, high-presence enforcement on the street. Violent crime was unmoved.”

Asked about recent reports, Blanchard said the report showed “there’s a positive impact where the Guard is on crime,” though the study authors “disagree with some of the locations” where the Guard has spent its time.

“As we move forward, what we’ll do is bring the same impact that we’re seeing,” he said, citing the recent move into Starburst Plaza.

“We have definitely seen a significant impact there,” Blanchard added. “I think we’re going to continue to bring that impact across the city as we expand.”

The Guard is now moving into its next phase of the D.C. mission, Blanchard said. While he provided few details about what the phase would entail, he mentioned specific higher-crime metro areas, including D.C.’s Ward 8 and Trinidad neighborhood.

“We’ll still be downtown, and we’ll still be in the neighborhoods that we’re in right now,” he said. “We’ll just shift some of those resources, and again, working in coordination with federal law enforcement and the Metropolitan Police Department, reallocate and repurpose some of those personnel.”

But on July 15, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill that includes $500 million in Foreign Military Financing for Taiwan, one in a chain of Pacific Rim allies that U.S. officials have long seen as a buffer against Chinese military expansion.

While the half-billion-dollar allocation in the 2027 fiscal year appropriations bill does not commit money to a particular arms package, analysts say it’s a sign that the Republican Party-dominated Congress values the defense of Taiwan in case China ever attacks with its larger armed forces, and that Washington intends to fulfill at least older arms purchase deals.

“This $500 million Foreign Military Funding demonstrates that Congress has not reduced its security support for Taiwan following the Trump-Xi meeting and reflects Congress’s desire to avoid long-term constraints on military aid to Taiwan due to White House negotiations with China through appropriations and delivery requirements,” said Huang Chung-ting, associate research fellow with the Institute for National Defense and Security Research in Taipei.

The US usually sells weapons to Taiwan – with drones, expect the reverse

Trump’s signature, needed to pass the appropriations bill, would imply continued weapons sales of some kind despite the unknown fate of the $14 billion package, analysts said.

Foreign Military Financing – usually grants or loans – for U.S. allies abroad may technically go toward acquiring weapons, military training or other related services.

“Foreign military financing concerns how weapons are ultimately paid for but not whether the weapons are actually sold or transferred in the first place,” said Sean King, vice president of New York-based political consultancy Park Strategies.

Trump has not ostensibly withdrawn any previous but unfulfilled U.S. arms sales for Taiwan, meaning that the proposed congressional funding could go toward one of those, experts say. U.S. arms sales to Taiwan date back more than four decades and can take years before payments and delivery dates are settled. As of April, sales of 30 individual weapon types were partly unfulfilled, according to the Taiwan Security Monitor research initiative of the George Mason University’s Schar School of Policy and Government.

The most recent items appear in a $11.1 billion batch of weaponry fully approved by Washington in December. It includes M109A7 self-propelled howitzers, the high mobility artillery rocket system HIMARS, Javelin anti-tank missiles and unmanned attack aircraft systems. Taiwan’s Cabinet approved its own special budget in May to help pay for the purchases.

“My assessment is that while there was indeed a political pause after the Trump-Xi meeting, it was not a complete halt to arms sales to Taiwan, but rather (it) targeted new cases that had not yet received approval,” Huang said.

“This delay likely involved Trump’s negotiations with China, a review of weapons stockpiles and internal White House scrutiny, and cannot be explained by a single reason,” he said.

The appropriations bill still requires U.S. Senate review before it would go to Trump’s office.

China claims sovereignty over self-ruled Taiwan and has threatened to take the island by force, if needed. Over the past four years the People’s Liberation Army has increased the frequency of military exercises near Taiwan, often in the 160km (100 miles) strait separating them.

Trump said after his meeting with the Chinese president that withholding the arms deal was a “good negotiating chip.” But in June, the U.S. State Department reiterated long-standing policy that arms sales to Taiwan were not dependent on Beijing’s consent.

Experts anticipate a White House announcement on the $14 billion arms package only after Trump and Xi meet in September in the United States, as announced by Washington.

“It may be that Trump is delaying a public announcement until after Xi’s visit to avoid being the skunk who came to the garden party,” said Doug Barry, a professor at The George Washington University and a former communications director with the U.S.-China Business Council.

“It’s odd there has been no public announcement,” he said.

Hegseth and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. John Caine testified before the Senate Appropriations Committee to seek $67.1 billion in supplemental money for the war and other DoD expenses, such as munitions, drones and the Army and National Guard deployments to the southern U.S. border and Washington, D.C.

Given that the department has $75 billion in its coffers from the $156 billion it received last year in reconciliation funding in the One Big Beautiful Bill, senators voiced skepticism over the emergency request.

Sen. Patty Murray of Washington, the committee’s top Democrat, said the committee would not “rubber stamp a request to bankroll this war,” given that the DoD received more than $1 trillion in funding last year and has requested $1.3 trillion this year.

“The president’s request is not even a primarily a request to cover the costs of the Iran war. This request is chock full of asks to fund unrelated DoD priorities, which should be considered through our annual appropriations process, not in an emergency supplemental,” the senator said.

Similarly, Sen. Kristin Gillibrand, D-N.Y., asked how to convey the DoD’s needs when constituents have seen gas prices, food and other household expenses rise.

“You’re asking for $1.5 trillion, unlimited money for bombs, but insufficient money for the American people for their healthcare, their food, their housing,” Gillibrand said.

Hegseth said the new funding is needed to support operations because the $75 billion in reconciliation funds are slated to be used to restore a military that was “ignored” under the Biden administration. The new request is an “urgent, necessary injection of resources to address” immediate needs, he said.

“The military requires a generational investment to deliver on peace through strength,” Hegseth said, later adding that he didn’t know what his predecessor, former Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, “did for four years.”

“The amount of neglect, the amount of stale thinking and bureaucracy was staggering when we took over,” Hegseth said.

He added that the supplemental was “a new request based on new realities of a world we face.”

“[We’re] stepping up to meet the moment,” Hegseth said.

In May, Hegseth estimated that the cost of war at the time was $29 billion.

Roughly half of the supplemental request, $32.7 billion, is slated to fund the ongoing operation directly. The remainder is for national security priorities not related to the war.

The request includes $21 billion for munitions, $17.3 billion for operations, $12.1 billion for classified programs, $5.1 billion for cybersecurity, $2.4 billion for drones, $1.7 billion for readiness, $1.5 billion for fuel and $2 billion for “administration priorities” and National Guard support.

The request comes as the war, which began Feb. 28, has escalated in the past two weeks. The U.S. has conducted air strikes consecutively for the last 10 days, and four U.S. service members have been killed in the last four days, bringing the total number of U.S. casualties to 18.

At least 14 merchant mariners also have died as a result of attacks in the Strait of Hormuz, according to the International Maritime Organization, and transits have decreased dramatically as Iran has reasserted its control over the strategic waterway.

Caine told senators he sat before them asking for the funding “while the window of opportunity — while time — is still on our side.”

“Our adversaries are aligning in their interests, creating simultaneous challenges across multiple domains. They are sharing intelligence, combat capabilities and technology. Technology. That is accelerating the speed of war, isn’t it?” Caine said in opening remarks.

Of concern to Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., and several other senators, was the administration’s approach to the Russia-Ukraine war and funding promised to support Ukraine that has not been allocated. Kennedy wanted assurances that the DoD had chosen a clear side in the conflict, asking Caine who “we” wanted to win.

“Sir, I want Ukraine to win,” Caine said.

“Is Russia America’s friend?” Kennedy asked.

“I think that depends on your definition of friend. I think it’s a complicated relationship,” Caine replied. After a brief pause, he added, “But no, I don’t think they’re our friends.”

Kennedy also asked what the administration thinks will happen regarding the Strait of Hormuz and what Iran’s intentions are in developing a nuclear weapon — the initial reason President Donald Trump gave for attacking Iran.

“We need straight answers!” Kennedy told Hegseth.

Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska sought assurances that should the supplemental request be approved, the Trump administration would not perceive passage as a measure for restarting the 60-day clock on a War Powers Resolution, which the Senate passed 50-48 in June.

Citing precedent by President Bill Clinton in sending U.S. troops to Kosovo, Murkowski asked if the administration felt it had adequate authorization to continue the conflict in Iran.

“We certainly, as department, take the position of the White House that we have all the authorities necessary at this moment,” Hegseth said.

Two lawmakers, Sen. Tammy Baldwin, D-Wisc., and Sen. Shelley Moore Capito, R-W. Va., asked Hegseth to answer for the record, to concerns that service members injured in the current conflict did not receive proper medical care from the U.S. military or screenings for traumatic brain injury.

As of Tuesday, more than 440 troops have been injured in the conflict.

“Every effort was made to provide every level of medical care possible,” Hegseth said.

The move would be a massive gesture from Trump to Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan whom he considers a close ally and would remove a major long-standing irritant in bilateral ties.

Even as Washington and Ankara have enjoyed warmer ties under Trump, Turkey’s 2019 acquisition of the Russian S-400 system has long been a sore point for both sides.

In response to that purchase, Washington in 2020 imposed sanctions on a major Turkish defense company and removed Turkey from the F-35 stealth fighter jet program, where Ankara was also a production partner.

“We’re going to be taking the sanctions off,” Trump told reporters just before his meeting with Erdogan during a visit to Turkey for a NATO summit. He added that his secretary of state and Treasury secretary were working on the issue.

Trump was also upbeat about the possible sale of F-35 stealth fighter jets to Turkey even as he did not say how exactly such a transaction would take place given the legal hurdles.

“Turkey has been, in many ways, much more loyal than other countries that we think would be loyal. ... It’s a great plane, it’s the best, currently the best plane by far. And it’s certainly something we will consider,” Trump said.

Congress passed a law prohibiting any F-35 sales to ​Turkey as long ⁠as Ankara retained the S-400s, saying the Russian system posed a security risk to U.S.-made combat aircraft. Currently, the U.S. law does not permit Turkey to operate or possess the S-400 system if it wishes to rejoin the F-35 program.

Earlier, two sources familiar with the matter told Reuters that Trump was expected to throw his support behind a potential F-35 sale to Turkey. One solution that has in recent weeks gained traction is to send the Russian system to a third country, although an agreement on this has yet to be sealed, according to the sources, who requested anonymity to discuss sensitive matters.

It was unclear if such a move would be accepted by Russia, which requires end-user obligations in weapons sales.

Trump’s visit to Turkey is the first by a U.S. president in 11 years. He was welcomed by Erdogan with a lavish state ceremony and both leaders sang each other’s praises in their public remarks. Under Trump, Turkey’s deteriorating human rights track record has never been a topic of much concern for Washington.

The maneuver surfaced in a Wednesday report accompanying the House Appropriations Committee’s fiscal 2027 defense bill, and it runs on money the White House went looking for a week earlier.

In a June 17 budget amendment to House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., the Office of Management and Budget asked Congress to steer more than $1.55 billion into the Air Force’s research and development account to keep the airborne battle management jet alive — money the service had left out of its original request after the Pentagon moved to cancel the program just a year ago.

Getting there required two cuts and one deposit.

OMB carved about $651 million from the Navy account that buys the E-2D Hawkeye and $899 million from the Air Force’s other procurement account. It funneled the combined sum into Air Force research, development, test and evaluation.

The House report pins the Air Force half on the Special Update Program, one of the service’s classified procurement lines.

The justification ran identically across all three amendments: The money would “deliver two E-7 Wedgetail prototype aircraft and continue Engineering Manufacturing and Development activities for a program of record.”

The Air Force already has seven E-7s on contract, including two rapid prototypes and five more added under a March modification. However, all are developmental jets meant to prove out the U.S. design before any production decision, which is why the money lands in research and development rather than procurement.

The committee pointed to the war in Iran to make its case.

“The conflict in Iran has reinforced the need for the Air Force to maintain a credible airborne battle management capability, currently being met with the Air Force’s E–3 Airborne Warning and Control System and the Navy’s E–2D Hawkeye programs,” the committee wrote. “As the E–3 is set to retire, the E–7 Wedgetail will serve as modern replacement for lost battle management capability.”

Panel pushes back on taking Hawkeye money

The Hawkeye money, though, was not OMB’s to spend. The House panel backed the E-7 realignment but rejected the Navy offset, restoring the $651 million the White House had taken from the Hawkeye program.

“While the committee wholly supports the E–7 program and funding realignment, the Committee also restored the E–2D program to six aircraft for fiscal year 2027,” the report states. “The committee understands the operational necessity of the E–2D platform; the complementary nature of the E–2D and E–7; and believes that more aircraft, not fewer, are necessary to support our warfighters now and in the future.”

For all the money in motion, it buys prototypes and development work, not a Wedgetail fleet. Lawmakers want to know what comes next.

The report orders the Air Force secretary to brief the House and Senate defense appropriations subcommittees, alongside the 2028 request, on “the full E–7 acquisition strategy, to include required quantity; funding requirements across the future years defense program; and schedules for development and production.”

Prior to the war in Iran, the Air Force wanted to scrap the E-7 program, a platform already flying with Australia, the U.K. and other allies, after an Air Force official said its per-aircraft cost had climbed from $588 million to $724 million, and amid doubts about whether it could survive in contested airspace.

The previous plan was to lean on extra E-2Ds and a future of space-based sensors instead.

The war with Iran undercut that case, exposing a near-term battle management gap that satellites cannot yet fill, compelling the Pentagon to reverse course this spring.

The supplemental funding request, posted on the White House website and transmitted to Congress, includes $67.15 billion for the military, in addition to some $1 trillion appropriated last year and another $1.5 trillion Trump wants for next year.

The White House said the latest funding request is to cover operational costs of the Iran war, including for military personnel and readiness, operational costs to rebuild weapons stocks, and classified programs.

The funding request for the military includes $21 billion to procure munitions, strengthen the U.S. industrial base and support critical capabilities.

Senate joins House in vote to halt Iran war

The U.S. Senate passed a war powers resolution on Tuesday directing Trump to halt military action against Iran, weeks after the measure passed the House, as a handful of Trump’s fellow Republicans in both chambers joined almost every Democrat in a rebuke to Trump.

During a lunch at the U.S. Capitol on Wednesday, Trump got into a shouting match over the war with Senator Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, one of the Republicans who voted in favor of the resolution.

The supplemental request immediately met resistance. Both Republican and Democratic lawmakers have complained since the U.S. and Israel began bombing Iran on February 28 that Trump and his team have not kept them informed about the conflict or his plans.

Additionally, lawmakers have noted that the U.S. Constitution gives Congress, not the president, the right to send troops into war, and accuse Trump of disregarding that separation of powers.

Tough vote for Republicans as midterms loom

Republicans could face a difficult vote for the request, given the war’s deep unpopularity and only months remaining until midterm elections in November that will determine whether they retain control of Congress.

Democrats also accuse Trump of ignoring the needs of Americans who have been grappling with a steep rise in fuel and food prices since the fighting began. “We should be lowering costs for the American people, not writing another blank check for Trump,” Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer posted on X after Congress received the request.

Senator Patty Murray of Washington, the top Democrat on the chamber’s appropriations committee, said she would review the request to ensure that servicemembers are taken care of, “but I will not rubber-stamp tens of billions more for this disastrous war of choice.”

Trump’s Republicans hold such slim margins in the House and Senate that appropriations bills typically need Democratic support to pass.

The supplemental budget request also includes some $1.4 billion to address the Ebola outbreak in Africa, including $800 million in international humanitarian assistance and $500 million for global health security to prevent, detect and respond to the outbreak.

“This funding is critical to protect Americans, and stop the spread to the United States,” the White House said.

The administration made steep cuts to the U.S. Agency for International Development and to African public health ​efforts prior to the outbreak.

The spending request is also seeking $11.1 billion to support U.S. farmers and $1 billion to boost the pensions of workers at former General Motors auto parts unit Delphi, which were cut during the Detroit automaker’s 2009 bankruptcy restructuring.

The White House is also asking for $500 million to support construction projects in and around Washington and $1 billion to assist reconstructing New York’s Penn Station.

The Senate Armed Services Committee included a provision in its version of fiscal year 2027 National Defense Authorization Act that would reduce funding for Hegseth’s travel to no more than 25% until the committee receives what lawmakers describe as overdue reports and supporting documents.

The committee approved its version of the NDAA last week in an 18-9 vote, sending the bill to the full Senate. House lawmakers advanced their version the week prior.

The provision cuts Hegseth’s travel funding by 75% until the committee receives the civilian harm investigations for three separate 2025 Yemen strikes and the February strike on the girls’ school in Minab, Iran.

On Feb. 28, the first day of the Iran war, a school in southern Iran was struck by a U.S. Tomahawk cruise missile, killing at least 165 people, most of them schoolgirls.

President Donald Trump claimed that Iran could have obtained the missile, despite questions about how Tehran would have gained access. The strike has been under investigation by the Pentagon since March.

Speaking on Wednesday in France, Trump was asked about the investigation and whether anyone in the Trump administration would be held accountable.

“It’s such a strange question to be asked at this state because you’re talking about a long time ago, but nobody did that on purpose,” he said in response.

“Mistakes are made. War is nasty. But I know it’s under investigation, and I could have a report for you tomorrow. I would ask Pete Hegseth that question because they have it under investigation,” he concluded.

Another provision in the Senate NDAA moved to prohibit the use of military funds for the operations against Iran without congressional authorization and restricted travel funding for Hegseth’s office until lawmakers submit a report on how the Iran war has impacted readiness. The amendment failed to pass in a 13-14 vote.

Unedited video of strikes conducted by U.S. Southern Command on terrorist organizations that were allegedly smuggling drugs in Latin American waters would also need to be submitted.

Since September 2025, the U.S. military has conducted strikes on vessels in the Caribbean Sea and eastern Pacific Ocean that they alleged were carrying drugs.

As of June 16, the military has disclosed 64 strikes that have killed at least 191 people.

The committee is also seeking information about the Defense Department procedures for notifying Congress about sensitive military operations.

Lawmakers have previously criticized Hegseth over congressional oversight following reports that a special operations team attacked survivors of an alleged drug-smuggling vessel strike off Venezuela’s coast in September 2025.

Hegseth refused to publicly release footage of the attack, instead only showing members of the House and Senate Armed Services Committee.

The provision would also require the unredacted investigation by U.S. Special Operations Command into Operation Absolution Resolve, the U.S. military operation executed on Jan. 20 to capture Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro.

Senate lawmakers also requested a certification that shows contractor support for clandestine and intelligence activities and a report on support to Ukraine required under last year’s NDAA.

A portion of the U.S. Air Force’s budget is set aside for the purchase of aviation fuel based on a predicted fuel price and an increase in flying hours for fiscal 2027, but that cost was estimated and submitted in their budget request before the war began, Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., said on Thursday at a Senate Committee on Armed Services hearing.

“My understanding is the president’s budget submitted to us did not include any costs that were costs related to the Iran war because it had largely been prepared and submitted through this budgetary chain of command before the Iran war started,” Kaine, a committee member, said in the hearing.

At the hearing on the department’s posture related to fiscal 2027’s defense authorization request, Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Kenneth Wilsbach said that the service did account for the increased cost of flying hours in the request and estimated that cost before the market determined the true cost.

“Some years it’s more, some years it’s less. So we will adjust our dollars if we end up having to pay more per dollar for a gallon of fuel if it ends up being more than we assessed,” Wilsbach said.

Aviation fuel costs are not an issue unique to the Air Force even though it is the largest consumer across the federal government. All branches of the U.S. military utilize aviation fuel to manage and operate their own drones, helicopters and aircraft fleets.

Kaine said that aviation fuel costs have increased roughly 50% since the war started on Feb. 28 and that while writing fiscal 2027’s NDAA, the committee needs to deal with the new reality of costs on the commercial side, given its effects on the American people.

At the pump, gas prices have surged around $1.50, making the national average about $4.50 since the war commenced. Commercially, U.S. airlines fuel cost increased by 56.4%, or $3.23 billion, since February, according to the Bureau of Transportation.

Wilsbach said the force assumed a 10% increase in flying hours costs from last year in this upcoming fiscal year budget.

The force’s budget requests funding for 1.1 million flying hours, which is considered the “maximum executable level for the total force,” and allots $9.9 billion for the flying hour program, which includes aviation fuel among other maintenance and operation items.

Wilsbach did not indicate what is the assumed cost per gallon of PB, which is a Propane-Butane liquid gas blend commonly used by the Air Force for field operations.

He said that the Air Force department had long-term contracts for fuel purchases and now has storage built up, so the specifics can’t be known until that storage runs dry. Kaine pressed on whether that 10% increase is deemed sufficient considering the rise in costs.

“It’s hard to say at this point, but what I’ll tell you is this is routine for us,” Wilsbach said.

“Every year, the cost of flying hours changes from the time we budget for it to the time we execute it, and we work it out with moving money around in various accounts to cover down on the cost,” he continued.

When posed by Kaine on if the potential cost is being considered in preparation of a possible supplemental bill, Secretary of the Air Force Troy Meink said that it depends on how long these costs stay high to determine their corresponding impact.

Meink said that in a previous hearing, Jay Hurst, who is performing the duties of Pentagon comptroller, mentioned the country is facing about a $29 billion impact, which includes some operation and maintenance fuel cost.

By the end of 2026, it is estimated that the American public will have paid over $193 billion in excess fuel costs because of the Iran war. As of today, American consumers have already paid $40 billion more for fuel.

Kaine highlighted these estimates, saying that it demonstrates the challenge families are facing now.

“I suspect as we’re looking at the military budget, we’re going to see a similar need to adjust it pretty dramatically because of fuel costs,” Kaine concluded.

The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform held a hearing on the DoD years-long struggle to produce a clean financial audit despite claiming around half of the government’s discretionary spending.

Congress passed a measure as part of the 2024 National Defense Authorization Act that requires the DoD to produce a clean audit by Dec. 31, 2028. “Clean” means a clear enough accounting of the military’s assets, what was budgeted and spent, along with evidence and documentation, so that the Government Accountability Office can make an accurate assessment of the entire federal government’s finances.

The Marine Corps has been the only service to pass an audit since 2018, when it was first mandated to conduct a full audit. To date, the DoD has never passed a full, clean audit, according to the GAO.

Over the course of Wednesday’s hearing, both the members of the subcommittee on government operations and some of the witnesses had some concern about the department’s ability to pull it off.

“That’s a standard that every other large [government] agency is able to meet, and meet regularly,” Rep. Kweisi Mfume, D-Md., said in his opening remarks.

Knowing that the Pentagon has failed to deliver on that, Mfume said he could not vote for the proposed massive increase to DoD’s budget — from around $901 billion for fiscal 2026 to $1.5 trillion for fiscal 2027.

In 2024, the committee instituted a new system for the DoD’s auditing process, which follows a rubric or scorecard. Since that strategy was implemented, committee chairman Pete Sessions, R-Texas, said, “Progress was made but not enough to ensure full financial transparency and accountability. Financial transparency and accountability are core principles of good government.”

The underlying problems, as both Sessions and Asif Khan, director of the GAO, pointed out, are the internal accounting, budget and expenditure mechanisms across the DoD.

This is not a new issue; in fact, it has been going on for 30 years, according to Khan’s pre-hearing witness testimony.

“In 1995, GAO designated DoD financial management as a high-risk area because of pervasive weaknesses in its financial management systems, business processes, internal controls, corrective action plans, acquisition management and financial monitoring and reporting,” the testimony reads. “In 2025, we expanded DoD’s financial management high-risk area to include fraud risk management.”

That potential for fraud rises with a budget increase like the one proposed, one witness said.

“Any time there is an influx of cash or funds into any organization, the likelihood of increased risk of fraud, waste, and abuse coincides with that,” Brett Mansfield, deputy inspector general for audit in DoD’s Office of the Inspector General.

“I’m not sure if it’s a one-for-one [but] there is definitely a positive relationship between an influx of funds and the increased risks,” he added.

Dubbed “Deal Team Six,” the crew is tasked with creating better deals with defense companies to ensure their production of U.S. military equipment is not at the expense of the taxpayer, but that of the contractor, according to a Thursday social media video posted by Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth.

Hegseth claims in the video that for decades, the department allowed contractors to “double-dip” when service members needed weapons, aircraft or ships, charging the taxpayer for factory builds and again for the final product.

“Despite paying companies to make weapons faster, scheduled delays were constant and cost overruns were the norm, all while their CEOs got rich,” Hegseth says in the video.

Deal Team Six, which is folded inside the Pentagon’s Economic Defense Unit, stood up in early April after it was introduced by Hegseth in a November 2025 memorandum that referred to the unit as a way to modernize contracting and provide incentives and possible penalties to industry partners.

Hegseth has sought to revamp the defense industrial base by scrapping the Defense Acquisition System and turning it into a Warfighting Acquisition System, designated the “arsenal of freedom.” The new system is meant to speed up project timelines and increase production.

In a November 2025 speech at the National War College at Fort McNair in D.C., Hegseth announced that the department would grant larger and longer contracts to companies for systems that have shown their merit.

In exchange for the companies to foot the bill for certain items — such as expansion efforts, new factories, assembly lines and factory plants — the department will provide “steady, long-term orders” for what the service members need, Hegseth’s recent video explains.

This is meant to guarantee that these defense companies can create equipment in higher volumes faster, while keeping to a flat price. Hegseth warned in the video that if companies don’t comply, the department will simply find others who will.

“We’re not tolerating delays in production or cost overruns anymore,” Hegseth says in the video.

“We’ve pushed out the bureaucrats who have made these deals in the past and replaced them with the most talented negotiators in the private sector,” he continued.

This unit was included in fiscal year 2026’s National Defense Authorization Act and appropriated more than $266 million for research, development, test and evaluation.

Included in President Donald Trump’s fiscal year 2027 $1.5 trillion defense budget, the unit is allotted over $593 million in the same type of funding section as the 2026 fiscal year.

Although the team’s entire roster has not yet been revealed, George Kollitides, the former head of defense at Cerberus Capital Management, was named its director, according to Wall Street Journal reporting.

Expeditionary Warfare Director Brig. Gen. Lee Meyer told reporters Tuesday at Modern Day Marine exposition in Washington that the Navy lengthened the operability window of the USS Wasp following a study on Wasp-class amphibious assault ships.

“The CNO approved the service life extension of the USS Wasp,” Meyer said. “He extended it by five years until 2034. The other LHDs, we’ve got to study to see if we can extend them and the plan is going to be to do that.”

A study of amphibious dock landing ships is expected to be delivered by Naval Sea Systems Command within several days, Meyers added. The study will provide updates on the status of those landing ship docks and recommendations for service life extensions.

Marines test ‘cruise control’ swim feature on amphibious vehicle prototype

The report will also help inform the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps’ plans to sustain amphibious ships across their 40 year service life, with hopes of pushing it to 50, to bolster the service’s military readiness.

The Wasp’s new lease on life is an example of what the Navy and Marine Corps would like to do with other ships, but the services have yet to analyze what exactly that would look like, Meyer said.

The Navy’s amphibious fleet has faced numerous issues during its service life.

Three Wasp-class amphibious warships encountered engineering problems at sea in 2024, with the USS Wasp itself having a deployment delayed as a result of mechanical failures.

The fiscal 2023 National Defense Authorization Act signed into law a requirement for the Navy to maintain at least 31 amphibious ships, including 10 amphibious assault ships.

The Navy holds an inventory of 32 amphibious warfare ships, but half of the fleet is in poor condition and poorly maintained, according to a 2024 report from the U.S. Government Accountability Office.

A defense official told Military Times in August 2025 that the readiness rate of amphibious ships had dropped to 41% despite the Marine Corps previously stating that the amphibious readiness rate needed to remain at 80% or higher to complete missions.

Marine Corps Commandant Gen. Eric Smith said at the 2026 Sea-Air-Space exposition that the current number of amphibious ships is not sufficient enough to meet requirements set forth by combatant commanders.

He spoke of extending the service life of ships to help address concerns over lacking fleet size.

Four amphibious ships are deployed across the globe currently, including the USS Tripoli and USS Boxer, which are stationed in the Middle East in support of Operation Epic Fury.

President Trump’s proposed $1.5 trillion fiscal 2027 defense budget asks Congress to carve out funds for a new America-class amphibious assault ship and one San Antonio-class amphibious transport dock.

The increase would mark the largest single-year F-35 buy from the Pentagon since fiscal 2022 and a sharp reversal from last year’s reduced procurement.

The headline number depends on Congress passing a separate funding bill. Only 32 of the 85 requested aircraft are funded through the base discretionary budget. The remaining 53 are tied to a $350 billion mandatory funding request that the administration plans to pursue through a second reconciliation bill, alongside the $1.15 trillion base topline.

That bill has not yet been introduced.

House Speaker Mike Johnson has acknowledged that a second reconciliation bill could be a tough sell, and some House Republicans have pushed back on the idea after the One Big Beautiful Bill Act cleared Congress last year.

If the bill fails, the F-35 buy could plummet to 32 aircraft, below even the fiscal 2026 baseline of 47.

As proposed, the 85-aircraft buy breaks down to 38 F-35As for the Air Force, 37 F-35Cs for the Navy and Marine Corps, and 10 F-35Bs for the Marine Corps, according to the Department of War’s FY2027 Procurement Programs (P-1) book. The total program cost runs to roughly $21.4 billion across all three variants, according to budget justification documents.

The request also targets long-running problems with the program. A $324 million line inside the mandatory funding request would accelerate procurement of 200 Block 4 modification kits, advancing the first fleet delivery from fiscal 2031 to fiscal 2030.

Block 4, the upgrade package that adds new sensors, weapons integration, and electronic warfare capability, has slipped roughly five years from the original schedule. Much of the delay traces to hardware problems with the Technology Refresh 3 processor, the brains behind the Block 4 software.

The budget also targets the readiness problems that have plagued the aircraft. The F-35 fleet averaged a roughly 50% mission-capable rate in fiscal 2024, meaning that fewer than half of the aircraft were ready for combat at any given time. That figure falls well short of the program’s 65% availability target.

Acting Pentagon Comptroller Jules Hurst last week told reporters that the F-35 had been “underfunded in the past as part of the budget” and said the fiscal 2027 request is structured to drive that rate higher.

Service-by-service, the Air Force absorbs the largest share of the joint buy. The 38 F-35As requested by the Air Force are 14 more than the 24 funded in fiscal 2026. Combined with 24 F-15EXs sought in the same budget request, the Air Force’s total fighter buy reaches 62, still 10 shy of the 72-aircraft annual minimum National Guard generals told Congress this month is the floor for stopping the fleet from “actively shrinking.”

The Department of the Navy’s request doubles last year’s F-35 buy: 37 carrier-variant F-35Cs for Navy and Marine Corps squadrons, and 10 short takeoff and vertical landing F-35Bs for the Marine Corps. The increase comes after years of slower naval F-35 buys.

The maritime buy aligns with a 2025 Marine Corps aviation plan that cut the service’s planned F-35B fleet from 353 to 280 aircraft while raising its F-35C objective from 67 to 140. The shift moves the Marine F-35 force toward squadrons aboard Navy aircraft carriers rather than amphibious assault ships.

The proposed joint force F-35 budget request has not silenced critics of the procurement rate, with one taking direct aim at the Air Force.

Retired Lt. Gen. David A. Deptula, dean of the Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies, told Air & Space Forces Magazine the 38 F-35A figure represents “budget triage” rather than a serious recapitalization rate.

He argued the Air Force needs to buy even more F-35As to modernize its fleet.

Phelan, who left his position as the civilian leader of the U.S. Navy on Wednesday shortly after delivering remarks to the media at the Sea-Air-Space symposium in Washington, said the service was looking at the future Gerald R. Ford-class aircraft carriers, the USS William J. Clinton and the USS George W. Bush, to ensure that the finances behind the them align with the Navy’s budget and overarching goals.

“We are looking at 82 [CVN-82] and 83 [CVN-83] to review the costs, the designs, the systems, to make sure that they make sense,” Phelan said.

“I think that it’s a prudent and practical thing for us to do, given the costs of them as a percentage of the budget and how we are thinking about the force design and our needs going forward,” Phelan continued.

The service is not only looking at how much it will take to build the future ships, but also how much it will cost to sustain and maintain them as well.

The flagship Ford-class carrier USS Gerald R. Ford cost roughly $13 billion to manufacture.

The Bush is slated for procurement in 2034, according to Congress, which did not list a potential price tag.

The Clinton is slated for delivery in 2040, with a currently unavailable procurement cost. The Navy’s fiscal 2026 budget submission requested $612 million in advanced procurement funding for the ship.

Newest Ford-class carrier USS John F. Kennedy aces sea trials

Getting the appropriate bang for the Navy’s buck means questioning the degree to which the Ford is, in fact, superior to older Nimitz-class carriers, according to the former Navy secretary.

“Is the sortie rate generation that much greater?” Phelan said. “And then what are the cost implications of this electric catapult? Did it really generate the savings? The Navy would like to say we’ve saved $5 billion in terms of savings in number of men and maintenance. I just need to check that back up.”

Nimitz-class carriers use a steam-powered catapult system to propel jets forward off the ship, while Ford-class carriers use an electromagnetic aircraft launch system meant to provide increased dependability, better acceleration and a higher sortie rate due to a lower demand for maintenance.

A February Navy release said that the USS Gerald R. Ford’s electromagnetic aircraft launch system contributed to an “increased sortie generation rate,” though the service was still analyzing the data.

President Donald Trump criticized Ford-class carriers’ catapult system in 2025, claiming he was unsure if the system could continue to function if water got onto the magnets. He voiced his preference for the steam catapults.

This type of review isn’t just specific to carriers, Phelan said, and is being applied to every Navy program.

The carriers in question are the fifth and sixth of the Ford-class.

The USS Gerald R. Ford is currently the only Ford-class carrier in service, with the USS John F. Kennedy, USS Enterprise and USS Doris Miller in the pipeline and under construction.

The review is to be completed by the end of May 2026, Phelan said.

The Navy announced on Jan. 3, 2025, that it would name the two future Gerald R. Ford-class aircraft carriers after the two former presidents.

The $1.5 trillion fiscal 2027 defense budget is seeking $65.8 billion for Navy shipbuilding, specifically 18 battle force ships and 16 auxiliary ships meant to fulfill the Golden Fleet initiative Trump announced last December.

Phelan left his position as the Navy secretary “effective immediately” on Wednesday, Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell announced in an X post.

While the Navy didn’t offer a rationale for his departure, a senior administration official with knowledge of the situation told Military Times that Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth decided it was time to go in another direction, as far as Navy leadership was concerned.

Phelan was informed of his firing shortly before Parnell made the news public, the official told Military Times.

According to budget documents released this week by the Trump administration, the VA would receive a record $488 billion, including $205.6 billion in discretionary funding for programs and operations and $282.6 billion for mandatory spending — the column that covers disability benefits, pensions, insurance and other requirements.

Highlights in the discretionary spending proposal include $500 million to build permanent facilities for homeless veterans at the new National Center for Warrior Independence in West Los Angeles, $1.3 billion to construct a VA medical center in Manchester, New Hampshire, nearly $2 billion to replace the VA medical center in Indianapolis and $30 million to buy land for a new medical center in San Antonio.

The budget supports the VA’s proposed redesign of its community care contracts and programs and planned changes to the management structure at the Veterans Health Administration. It also funds the restart of the VA’s electronic medical record system program that has been on hold since 2022. The VA plans to restart the initiative this month at four facilities, with an additional nine joining later this year.

The VA estimates that the fiscal 2027 budget would provide disability compensation to more than 7.4 million veterans and support 9.2 million veterans enrolled in VA health care.

According to the VA’s Budget in Brief documents, the proposal would support 443,327 full-time VA employees — roughly 9,000 fewer than in 2025 but up nearly 6,200 from fiscal 2026.

In a statement laid out in the documents, VA Secretary Doug Collins said the proposal will enable the department to deliver timely care and benefits for all beneficiaries.

“This budget request reflects VA’s efforts to find more effective and efficient ways to serve our mission and maximize our resources,” the document states. “The days of measuring VA’s progress by how much money we spend and how many people we employ, instead of how successfully we serve Veterans, are over.”

President Donald Trump’s $2.2 trillion budget proposal for fiscal 2027 includes nearly $1.5 trillion in spending for the Defense Department — up 44% from fiscal 2026 levels — and increases for the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security.

It trims several domestic programs, including education, food and energy assistance, housing, the National Institutes of Health and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, among others.

The proposed VA budget increases spending for VA medical care provided in VA facilities but also increases the budget for community care, the VA’s program for covering the health treatment received by veterans in non-VA facilities.

The budget, which also includes a request for advanced funding for fiscal 2028, ensures that veterans benefits and services are never affected by a government shutdown. In addition, it increases medical care funding, with $96.2 billion requested for care provided in the VA medical system and $42 billion for community care.

As with fiscal 2026, VA officials asked to shift the mandatory funds designated to cover the costs associated with injuries or illnesses related to toxic exposures to the discretionary budget. The request of $52 billion from the Cost of War Toxic Exposures Fund is likely to raise concerns among Democratic lawmakers, who have argued that the continued use of the funds could jeopardize monies set aside for a specific purpose.

The proposal also seeks to cut what White House officials referred to as “divisive and wasteful diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives.” The budget documents did not specify which diversity programs the budget will defund, but officials said the reductions would ensure that “VA funding is used for critical VA missions: providing healthcare; benefits; and cemetery services for America’s veterans.”

The president’s proposed budget represents Trump’s vision for the federal government. It serves as a blueprint for Congress to consider as it starts its fiscal 2027 appropriations process.

In the last 25 years, the VA’s budget has ballooned significantly to address the needs of older veterans as well as the millions who served in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere following the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Trump’s fiscal 2027 budget proposal represents a 10-fold increase for the VA since fiscal 2001, when the VA’s budget was $45 billion.

“Have we delayed moving things to Taiwan? We haven’t,” Stanley Brown, principal deputy assistant Secretary of State for Political-Military Affairs, told a House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee hearing.

The U.S. and Israel began airstrikes against Iran on Feb. 28, a campaign that has raised concerns among some U.S. officials that the U.S. defense industry would be unable to keep up with demand and could be forced to slow shipments to buyers such as Taiwan, which faces steadily rising military pressure from China.

There was already a multi-billion-dollar backlog of U.S. arms shipments to Taiwan before the Iran war started. Brown said the administration was looking at ways to expedite shipments, without providing specifics.

Trip to China postponed

Several members of the House committee raised concerns about the island during the hearing, which took place on the day Trump said he was postponing a highly anticipated trip to Beijing to meet with Chinese President Xi Jinping.

Taiwan was one of the issues expected to be discussed by the two leaders.

China views Taiwan as its own territory and has never renounced the use of force to take the island under its control. Taiwan rejects Beijing’s sovereignty claims, saying only the island’s people can decide their future.

China held its most recent war games around Taiwan in December, and its warships and warplanes regularly operate around the island.

Reuters reported last week that a major U.S. arms package for Taiwan that included advanced interceptor missiles was ready for Trump’s approval and could be signed after his trip to China. With a price tag of about $14 billion, the arms deal would be the largest ever for the democratically governed island, which faces steadily rising military pressure from China.

It was not immediately clear whether the trip’s delay would affect the timing of that arms deal.

Trump’s Republicans and Democrats in Congress have also been sparring bitterly over Trump’s declarations of national emergencies in order to sidestep congressional review of foreign weapons sales, including the decision this month to expedite the sale of $650 million worth of bombs to Israel.

At the hearing, committee Chairman Brian Mast of Florida and other Republicans accused Democrats of delaying crucial assistance to important allies as they face international threats.

Rep. Gregory Meeks of New York, the panel’s top Democrat, said that bypassing congressional review of major deals weakened human rights oversight.

(Reporting by Patricia Zengerle and Michael Martina; Editing by Alison Williams)

Both the House and Senate, where the president’s Republican Party has a slim majority, had already drafted such resolutions long before the strikes Saturday. Now they are ready to plunge into a rare war powers debate next week that will serve as a referendum on Trump’s decision to go it alone on military action without formal authorization from Congress.

“Has President Trump learned nothing from decades of U.S. meddling in Iran and forever wars in the Middle East?” said Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., a leader in the bipartisan effort. He said the strikes on Iran were “a colossal mistake.”

In the House, Reps. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., and Thomas Massie, R-Ky., are demanding Congress go on record with a public vote on their own bipartisan measure. “Congress must convene on Monday to vote,” Khanna said, “to stop this.”

Massie blasted Trump’s own presidential campaign slogan and said: “This is not ‘America First.’”

But most Republicans, particularly their leaders, welcomed Trump’s move against Iran. Many cited the longtime U.S. adversary’s nuclear programs and missile capabilities as requiring a military response.

“Well done, Mr. President,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C. “As I watch and monitor this historic operation, I’m in awe of President Trump’s determination to be a man of peace but at the end of the day, evil’s worst nightmare.”

War powers debate tests Congress

The administration’s decision to launch, with Israel, what appears to be an open-ended joint military operation aimed at changing the government in Tehran is testing the Constitution’s separation of powers in deep and dramatic ways. Nearly two months earlier, Trump ordered U.S. strikes that toppled Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro.

While presidents have the authority as the commander in chief to conduct certain strategic military operations on their own, the Constitution vests Congress with the power to wage war. Before the Iraq War began in March 2003, Republican President George W. Bush made a monthslong push to secure congressional authorization. No such vote was attempted on Iran, and an earlier Senate effort to halt Trump’s actions after last summer’s strike on Iran failed.

The congressional debate over war powers would mostly be symbolic. Even if a resolution were to pass the narrowly split Congress, Trump likely would veto it and Congress would not have the two-thirds majority needed to overturn that rejection. Congress has often failed to block other U.S. military actions, including in a Senate vote on Venezuela, but the roll calls stand as a public record.

Republican leaders back Trump’s action

The response by House Speaker Mike Johnson reflected the party’s long-standing views. Iran, he said, is facing “the severe consequences of its evil actions.”

Johnson, R-La., said the leaders of the House and Senate and the respective intelligence committees had been briefed in detail earlier in the week that military action “may become necessary” to protect U.S. troops and citizens in Iran. He said he received updates from Secretary of State Marco Rubio and will stay in “close contact” with Trump and the Defense Department “as this operation proceeds.”

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., commended Trump “for taking action to thwart these threats.”

Thune said he looked forward to administration officials briefing all senators — a signal that lawmakers are seeking more answers to their questions about Trump’s plans ahead.

Democrats warn strikes are illegal

Many Democrats are calling the operation illegal, saying the Constitution gives Congress alone the power to declare war. To them, the administration has failed to lay out its rationale or plan for the military strikes, and the aftermath.

Sen. Chris Van Hollen, who serves on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said the president has undertaken “illegal, regime-change war against Iran.”

“This is not making us safer & only damages the US & our interests,” Van Hollen, D-Md., said in a social media post. “The Senate must immediately vote on the War Powers Resolution to stop it.”

House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries of New York said while Iran is a “bad actor and must be aggressively confronted” for its human rights abuses and the threat it poses to the U.S. and allies, the administration ”must seek authorization for the preemptive use of military force that constitutes an act of war.”

New York Sen. Chuck Schumer, the Democratic leader, demanded that Congress be briefed immediately on the administration’s plans.

“Iran must never be allowed to attain a nuclear weapon but the American people do not want another endless and costly war in the Middle East when there are so many problems at home,” he said.

Associated Press writers Mary Clare Jalonick and Matt Brown contributed to this report.

In materials released Monday, the House Appropriations Committee said the compromise $839 billion spending bill would provide $3.9 billion for the military’s sixth-generation aircraft. That would include $3 billion for the Air Force’s F-47 fighter, which will be built by Boeing, and $972 million for the Navy’s F/A-XX, the House committee said.

That would be hundreds of millions more than the Pentagon requested in its original proposed 2026 budget last summer, which requested nearly $2.6 billion for the F-47 and just $74 million for the Navy’s F/A-XX.

The F-47, also known as Next Generation Air Dominance, will be an advanced fighter designed to replace the F-22 Raptor. It is intended to fly alongside multiple autonomous drone wingmen, called collaborative combat aircraft, and have advanced stealth capabilities and greater range than the F-22 and F-35.

The spending bill also would prevent the Air Force from canceling its E-7 Wedgetail airborne battle management aircraft program.

While top service leaders had for years stressed the need to acquire the Boeing-made E-7 to replace the aging E-3 Sentry, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth expressed skepticism about the program’s future use in a June 2025 hearing and suggested a space-based system would be better. When the Pentagon’s budget proposal emerged later that month, it called for canceling the E-7, which is already flown by Australia and in the works for other allies.

Congressional appropriators appear to disagree. The House said the spending bill would provide $1.1 billion for the E-7 program.

The spending bill would also be in line with the Pentagon’s proposed reduction in the number of F-35 Joint Strike Fighters purchased in 2026. The Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps combined bought 75 F-35s from Lockheed Martin in 2025. But the Pentagon’s proposed budget called for 47 F-35s in all in 2026, including 24 F-35As for the Air Force.

The conferenced defense bill would provide $7.6 billion for 47 F-35 Joint Strike Fighters, across those three services. It would also provide $440 million for spare parts for both the F-35 and its engine, the F135.

The Pentagon said last summer that it planned to redirect money that would have gone to buying more F-35s into sustainment of the jets and strengthening its supply base, as well as ensuring its Block 4 upgrades stay on track.

Block 4 upgrades will allow the F-35 to carry more weapons, improve its electronic warfare capabilities and upgrade its sensors, communications and navigation. But the effort is years behind schedule and billions of dollars over budget, and the F-35 program has scaled back its plans for those upgrades to focus on the capabilities that can be delivered in the next five years.

The defense spending bill would boost spending on the EA-37B Compass Call electronic warfare aircraft by $474 million, to buy two more of the planes.

And it would provide $1.9 billion for the B-21 Raider, Northrop Grumman’s sixth-generation stealth bomber.

The spending bill would also provide $27.2 billion for the Navy to build 17 ships, including a Columbia-class ballistic missile submarine, two Virginia-class fast attack subs, three medium landing ships and an anti-submarine warfare ship, the House said. The Senate said the conference bill increases spending on Columbia- and Virginia-class subs by $5.9 billion.

The bill also fully funds the Air Force’s LGM-35A Sentinel intercontinental ballistic missile program.

Trump put intense pressure on five Republican senators who joined with Democrats to advance the resolution last week and ultimately prevailed in heading off passage of the legislation. Two of the Republicans — Sens. Josh Hawley of Missouri and Todd Young of Indiana — flipped under the pressure.

Vice President JD Vance had to break the 50-50 deadlock in the Senate on a Republican motion to dismiss the bill.

The outcome of the high-profile vote demonstrated how Trump still has command over much of the Republican conference, yet the razor-thin vote tally also showed the growing concern on Capitol Hill over the president’s aggressive foreign policy ambitions.

Democrats forced the debate after U.S. troops captured Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro in a surprise nighttime raid earlier this month

“Here we have one of the most successful attacks ever and they find a way to be against it. It’s pretty amazing. And it’s a shame,” Trump said at a speech in Michigan Tuesday. He also hurled insults at several of the Republicans who advanced the legislation, calling Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky a “stone cold loser” and Sens. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Susan Collins of Maine “disasters.” Those three Republicans stuck to their support for the legislation.

Trump’s latest comments followed earlier phone calls with the senators, which they described as terse. The president’s fury underscored how the war powers vote had taken on new political significance as Trump also threatens military action to accomplish his goal of possessing Greenland.

The legislation, even if it had cleared the Senate, had virtually no chance of becoming law because it would eventually need to be signed by Trump himself. But it represented both a test of GOP loyalty to the president and a marker for how much leeway the Republican-controlled Senate is willing to give Trump to use the military abroad. Republican angst over his recent foreign policy moves — especially threats of using military force to seize Greenland from a NATO ally — is still running high in Congress.

Two Republicans reconsider

Hawley, who helped advance the war powers resolution last week, said Trump’s message during a phone call was that the legislation “really ties my hands.” The senator said he had a follow-up phone call with Secretary of State Marco Rubio Monday and was told “point blank, we’re not going to do ground troops.”

The senator added that he also received assurances that the Trump administration will follow constitutional requirements if it becomes necessary to deploy troops again to the South American country.

“We’re getting along very well with Venezuela,” Trump told reporters at a ceremony for the signing of an unrelated bill Wednesday.

As senators went to the floor for the vote Wednesday evening, Young also told reporters he was no longer in support. He said that he had extensive conversations with Rubio and received assurances that the secretary of state will appear at a public hearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Young also shared a letter from Rubio that stated the president will “seek congressional authorization in advance (circumstances permitting)” if he engaged in “major military operations” in Venezuela.

The senators also said his efforts were also instrumental in pushing the administration to release Wednesday a 22-page Justice Department memo laying out the legal justification for the snatch-and-grab operation against Maduro.

That memo, which was heavily redacted, indicates that the administration, for now, has no plans to ramp up military operations in Venezuela.

“We were assured that there is no contingency plan to engage in any substantial and sustained operation that would amount to a constitutional war,” according to the memo signed by Assistant Attorney General Elliot Gaiser.

Trump’s shifting rationale for military intervention

Trump has used a series of legal arguments for his campaign against Maduro.

As he built up a naval force in the Caribbean and destroyed vessels that were allegedly carrying drugs from Venezuela, the Trump administration tapped wartime powers under the global war on terror by designating drug cartels as terrorist organizations.

The administration has claimed the capture of Maduro himself was actually a law enforcement operation, essentially to extradite the Venezuelan president to stand trial for charges in the U.S. that were filed in 2020.

Paul criticized the administration for first describing its military build-up in Caribbean as a counternarcotics operation but now floating Venezuela’s vast oil reserves as a reason for maintaining pressure.

“The bait and switch has already happened,” he said.

Trump’s foreign policy worries Congress

Lawmakers, including a significant number of Republicans, have been alarmed by Trump’s recent foreign policy talk. In recent weeks, he has pledged that the U.S. will “run” Venezuela for years to come, threatened military action to take possession of Greenland and told Iranians protesting their government that “help is on its way.”

Senior Republicans have tried to massage the relationship between Trump and Denmark, a NATO ally that holds Greenland as a semi-autonomous territory. But Danish officials emerged from a meeting with Vance and Rubio Wednesday saying a “fundamental disagreement” over Greenland remains.

“What happened tonight is a roadmap to another endless war,” Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer said at a news conference following the vote.

More than half of U.S. adults believe President Donald Trump has “gone too far” in using the U.S. military to intervene in other countries, according to a new AP-NORC poll.

How Republican leaders dismissed the bill

Last week’s procedural vote on the war powers resolution was supposed to set up hours of debate and a vote on final passage. But Republican leaders began searching for a way to defuse the conflict between their members and Trump as well as move on quickly to other business.

Once Hawley and Young changed their support for the bill, Republicans were able to successfully challenge whether it was appropriate when the Trump administration has said U.S. troops are not currently deployed in Venezuela.

“We’re not currently conducting military operations there,” said Senate Majority Leader John Thune in a floor speech. “But Democrats are taking up this bill because their anti-Trump hysteria knows no bounds.”

Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine, who has brought a series of war powers resolutions this year, accused Republicans of burying a debate about the merits of an ongoing campaign of attacks and threats against Venezuela.

“If this cause and if this legal basis were so righteous, the administration and its supporters would not be afraid to have this debate before the public and the United States Senate,” he said in a floor speech.

Kaine vowed to force votes on war powers resolutions that would apply to a number of potential military conflicts, including Greenland. House Democrats have also filed a similar war powers resolution and can force a vote on it as soon as next week.

Associated Press writers Josh Goodman, Lisa Mascaro, Mary Clare Jalonick and Joey Cappelletti in Washington and Bill Barrow in Atlanta contributed to this report.

Democrats and five Republicans voted to advance the war powers resolution on a 52-47 vote and ensure a vote next week on final passage. It has virtually no chance of becoming law because Trump would have to sign it if it were to pass the Republican-controlled House. Still, it was a significant gesture that showed unease among some Republicans after the U.S. military seized Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro in a surprise nighttime raid.

Trump’s administration is now seeking to control Venezuela’s oil resources and its government, but the war powers resolution would require congressional approval for any further attacks on the South American country.

“To me, this is all about going forward,” said Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley, one of the five Republican votes.

“If the president should determine, ‘You know what? I need to put troops on the ground of Venezuela,’ I think that would require Congress to weigh in.”

The other Republicans who backed the resolution were Sens. Rand Paul of Kentucky, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Susan Collins of Maine and Todd Young of Indiana.

Democrats had failed to pass several such resolutions in the months that Trump escalated his campaign against Venezuela. But lawmakers argued that now that Trump has captured Maduro and set his sights to other conquests such as Greenland, the vote presents the Republican-controlled Congress with an opportunity.

“It’s time for Congress to assert its control over military action of this kind, and it’s time to get this out of secrecy and put it in the light,” said Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., who forced the vote.

Lawmakers’ response to the Venezuela operation

Republican leaders have said they had no advance notification of the raid early morning Saturday to seize Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, but mostly expressed satisfaction this week as top administration officials provided classified briefings on the operation.

The administration has used an evolving set of legal justifications for the monthslong campaign in Central and South America, from destroying alleged drug boats under authorizations for the global fight against terrorism to seizing Maduro in what was ostensibly a law enforcement operation to put him on trial in the United States.

Republican leaders have backed Trump.

“I think the president has demonstrated at least already a very strong commitment to peace through strength, especially in this hemisphere,” said Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D. “I think Venezuela got that message loudly and clearly.”

A vote on a similar resolution in November narrowly failed to gain the majority needed for passage. Paul and Murkowski were the only Republicans voting in favor then.

Paul, an outspoken proponent of war powers resolutions, acknowledged that Maduro is seen as a “bad guy” and “a socialist and an autocrat.” But, Paul added, “The question is about who has the power to take the country to war?”

Some progressive Democrats have suggested inserting language in a defense appropriations bill to limit certain military actions, but that idea met resistance from more pragmatic members of the caucus. Democratic leaders have tried to cast Trump’s foreign ambitions as a distraction from the issues that voters face at home.

“The American people are asking what the hell is going on in Venezuela and why is this president, who campaigned on ‘America First,’ now spending all his time and energy on escapades overseas?” Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer of New York said in a floor speech.

House Democrats were also introducing a similar resolution on Thursday.

The rarely enforced War Powers Act

Congress was once again left in the dark during the military operation in Venezuela, with Trump later confirming that he talked to oil executives but not leaders on Capitol Hill. That reflects a broader pattern in Trump’s second term, unfolding under a Republican-controlled Congress that has shown little appetite for reasserting its constitutional authority to declare war.

Under the Constitution, Congress declares war while the president serves as commander in chief. But lawmakers have not formally declared war since World War II, granting presidents broad latitude to act unilaterally.

Congress attempted to rein in that authority after the Vietnam War with the War Powers Resolution, passed over Republican President Richard Nixon’s veto. The law requires presidents to notify Congress within 48 hours of deploying forces and to end military action within 60 to 90 days absent authorization — limits that presidents of both parties have routinely stretched.

Democrats argue those limits are being pushed further than ever. Some Republicans have gone further still, contending congressional approval is unnecessary altogether.

Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, a close Trump ally who traveled with the president aboard Air Force One on Sunday, said he would be comfortable with Trump taking over other countries without congressional approval, including Greenland.

“The commander in chief is the commander in chief. They can use military force,” Graham said.

Greenland may further test the limits

Graham’s comments come as the administration weighs not only its next steps in Venezuela, but also Greenland. The White House has said the “military is always an option” when it comes to a potential American takeover of the world’s largest island.

While Republicans have cited Greenland’s strategic value, most have balked at the idea of using the military to take the country, instead favoring a potential deal to purchase the country.

Democrats want to get out in front of any military action and are already preparing to respond. Arizona Sen. Ruben Gallego said he is working on a resolution “to block Trump from invading Greenland.”

“We must stop him before he invades another country on a whim,” Gallego wrote on X. “No more forever wars.”

Kaine also said Wednesday that a resolution on Greenland would soon be filed, in addition to Cuba, Mexico, Colombia and Nigeria.

Greenland belongs to a NATO ally, Denmark, which has prompted a much different response from Republican senators than the situation in Venezuela. Paul said Republicans discussed Trump’s plans for Greenland at their Wednesday luncheon and he heard “zero support” for taking military action to seize it.

Sen. Thom Tillis, a co-chair of the Senate NATO Observer Group, used a Senate floor speech to criticize White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller for comments this week that the U.S. should take control of Greenland. Tillis said such remarks were “amateurish” and “absurd.”

“This nonsense on what’s going on with Greenland is a distraction from the good work he’s doing,” Tillis said of the president.

“And the amateurs who said it was a good idea should lose their jobs,” he said.

Trump called for the massive surge in spending days after he ordered a U.S. military operation to capture Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro and spirit him out of the country to face drug trafficking charges in the United States. U.S. forces continue to mass in the Caribbean Sea.

The 2026 military budget is set at $901 billion.

Trump in recent days has also called for taking over the Danish territory of Greenland for national security reasons and has suggested he’s open to carrying out military operations in Colombia. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has ominously warned that longtime adversary Cuba “is in trouble.”

“This will allow us to build the ‘Dream Military’ that we have long been entitled to and, more importantly, that will keep us SAFE and SECURE, regardless of foe,” Trump said in a posting on Truth Social announcing his proposal.

The military just received a large boost of some $175 billion in the GOP’s “big, beautiful bill” of tax breaks and spending reductions that Trump signed into law last year.

Insisting on more funding for the Pentagon is almost certain to run into resistance from Democrats who work to maintain parity between changes in defense and nondefense spending. But it’s also sure to draw objections from the GOP’s deficit hawks who have pushed back against larger military spending.

But Trump said he feels comfortable surging spending on the military because of increased revenue created by his administration through tariffs imposed on friends and foes around the globe since his return to office.

The U.S. government collected gross revenues of $288.5 billion last year from tariffs and other excise taxes, up from $98.3 billion in 2024, according to the Bipartisan Policy Center. That’s a meaningful increase in revenues from taxing imports. But it’s not enough to cover the various promises made by Trump, who has said the tariffs can also cover dividends to taxpayers, pay down the national debt and, now, cover increased spending on the military.

Meanwhile, Trump on Wednesday also threatened to cut off Pentagon purchases from Raytheon, one of the biggest U.S. defense contractors, if the company did not end the practice of stock buybacks and invest more profits into building out its weapons manufacturing capacity.

Trump in recent months has repeatedly complained that defense companies have been woefully behind on deliveries of critical weaponry, yet continue to mete out dividends and stock buybacks to investors and offering eye-popping salaries to top executives.

“Either Raytheon steps up, and starts investing in more upfront Investment like Plants and Equipment, or they will no longer be doing business with Department of War,” Trump said on social media. “Also, if Raytheon wants further business with the United States Government, under no circumstances will they be allowed to do any additional Stock Buybacks, where they have spent Tens of Billions of Dollars, until they are able to get their act together.”

The company is responsible for making some of the military’s most widely used and notable missiles, including the Tomahawk cruise missile, the shoulder-launched Javelin and Stinger missiles and the Sidewinder air-to-air missile.

Raytheon also owns Pratt & Whitney, a company that is responsible for manufacturing a host of jet engines that power aircraft for all the military branches, including the newest F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.

On Wall Street, shares of defense contractors fell, with Northrop Grumman dropping 5.5%, Lockheed Martin declining 4.8% and RTX Corp., the parent company of Raytheon, slipping 2.5%.

Raytheon did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

AP writers Josh Boak, Stephen Groves, Paul Harloff and Lisa Mascaro contributed reporting.

The 2026 National Defense Authorization Act, which the House passed Dec. 10, will now head to President Donald Trump, who has pledged to sign it. The Senate overwhelmingly passed the bill 77-20.

The bill was praised by the top two senators on the Senate Armed Services Committee, Chairman Roger Wicker, R-Miss., and ranking Democrat Jack Reed of Rhode Island, who said it makes critical investments to strengthen the U.S. military.

“The bill sets us on a path to modernize our defense capabilities and augment our drone manufacturing, shipbuilding efforts, and the development of innovative low-cost weapons,” Wicker said.

The discretionary defense spending authorized in the bill would be $8 billion more than the Pentagon requested earlier this year, and fully fund major programs such as the Golden Dome for America missile defense shield and the F-47 advanced fighter, as well as providing the Navy funds to build more submarines and destroyers.

Wicker also lauded the bill’s provisions that seek to improve the Pentagon’s budget and acquisition processes. An executive summary of the bill said it adopted key provisions from Wicker’s Fostering Reform and Government Efficiency in Defense, or FORGED, Act that seeks to speed up development and production of new weapons by prioritizing commercial acquisition, slashing red tape and expanding the industrial base.

“In this NDAA, my colleagues and I have prioritized the structural rebuilding of the arsenal of democracy and returning the department to its warfighting mission,” Wicker said. “Crucially, it also contains the most sweeping upgrades to the Pentagon’s business practices in 60 years — a watershed moment for our military.”

The bill also seeks to reform the Joint Requirements Oversight Council by cutting “bureaucratic validation of service requirements,” the executive summary said, and instead focusing on fixing joint operational problems.

The NDAA authorizes funds to give troops a 3.8% pay raise, and would create a senior-level Defense Property Management Office to “fix unacceptable outcomes for military families during the moving process,” Wicker and Reed said.

“We face significant national security challenges, but this NDAA makes meaningful progress toward meeting them,” Reed said. “It enhances military readiness, supports service members and their families, modernizes combat platforms, and invests in critical technologies.”

The NDAA also includes a provision that would withhold 25% of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s travel budget until he sends congressional committees overseeing the military “unedited video of strikes conducted against designated terrorist organizations” in the Caribbean region. This is intended to push Hegseth to release more information on controversial strikes against alleged drug-smuggling boats from Venezuela.

The bill would bar the Pentagon from cutting the U.S. military’s force posture in Europe or giving up the United States’ role in filling the Supreme Allied Commander-Europe position that commands NATO, until the secretary of defense assesses how those changes would affect U.S. and NATO interests and certifies to Congress that it would be in the national interest. It also would authorize a $200 million increase for U.S. European Command security assistance.

The NDAA contains provisions that seek to bolster allied and friendly nations against Russian aggression. It would establish a Baltic Security Initiative and authorize $175 million to “strengthen front-line deterrence against Russian aggression,” the executive summary said. It would also extend the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative through 2028 and authorize $400 million in funding for 2026 and 2027. And it requires the secretary of defense to notify Congress if any decision is made to modify, restrict or terminate military intelligence, imagery intelligence or other such support to Ukraine.

It also fully funds the Pacific Deterrence Initiative, strengthens activities related to the AUKUS agreement between the U.S., U.K. and Australia and provides new authorities for cooperating with Taiwan.

The bill would also prohibit the Air Force from cutting its fleet of A-10 Warthog attack planes below 103 in 2026, and extend a prohibition on the Air Force retiring RQ-4 Global Hawk drones to 2030. And it requires the Air Force to keep at least 90 days’ worth of spare parts for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter by the end of September 2028.

The National Defense Authorization Act will now head to the Senate for final passage, after its 312-112 approval in the House.

The NDAA also aims to pressure Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to release more information on controversial strikes on alleged drug smuggling boats from Venezuela, including video of the strikes, and the orders to use lethal force.

The bill would withhold 25% of Hegseth’s travel budget until he sends the House and Senate armed services committees “unedited video of strikes conducted against designated terrorist organizations” in the U.S. Southern Command’s area of responsibility.

The administration has forcefully defended those strikes, which killed dozens of people, as necessary to halt the flow of illegal drugs to the United States. Critics, including multiple former military lawyers, have raised multiple alarms about those strikes and said they could amount to war crimes or even murder of noncombatant civilians.

The controversy boiled over in recent weeks after the Washington Post revealed the first such airstrike was followed by a “double-tap” strike about 45 minutes later, which reportedly killed two survivors clinging to their boat’s wreckage.

Lawmakers viewed footage — so far publicly unreleased — of that strike, and emerged divided on what it showed. Some Republicans said the video showed the second strike was justified, but Democratic lawmakers called it highly disturbing and said it requires more scrutiny.

Hegseth has demurred on releasing video of that “double tap” strike, though the Pentagon has released videos of multiple other boat strikes.

The NDAA also wants Hegseth to submit to lawmakers copies of each order to execute these lethal strikes.

The NDAA also wants Hegseth to submit a report, which the previous authorization act required, on how the Defense Department is identifying and implementing lessons learned from the war in Ukraine.

The White House said in a Tuesday statement that President Donald Trump supports the bill, S.1071, and would sign it, lauding its codifying of more than a dozen executive orders and actions, including the Golden Dome for America missile defense program.

The NDAA would repeal the 1991 and 2002 Authorizations for the Use of Military Force that for decades was used to support U.S. actions in the Middle East. The White House said in the statement of administration policy that repealing those AUMFs supports Trump’s goal of “ending ‘forever wars.’”

The bill would also authorize the Pentagon to sign multiyear procurement contracts for critical munitions, which the administration said would save taxpayers money. Multiyear procurements are also intended to make it easier for defense contractors to expand their industrial capacity to make munitions, since they would be certain of business in years to come.

The NDAA language, which lawmakers released Sunday night, would earmark $162 billion for procurement spending, and another $146 billion for research, development test and evaluation. It calls for $291 billion for operations and maintenance and another $234 billion for military personnel and health spending.

The policy bill would fund several of President Donald Trump’s top defense priorities, including the sweeping Golden Dome missile defense program, the Air Force’s F-47 and Navy’s F/A-XX next-generation fighters, the B-21 Raider stealth bomber, Air Force drone wingmen referred to as collaborative combat aircraft, submarines and warships.

But it does not contain language that would formally change the Defense Department’s official name to the War Department, Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s preferred moniker. Hegseth often emphasizes the adoption of the War Department name as signifying a shift in focus towards lethality, but it would take an act of Congress to officially rename it.

In all, the NDAA would authorize more than $38 billion to develop, procure or modernize existing aircraft across the military.

It would also authorize $26 billion in shipbuilding funds to build or support the third Columbia-class ballistic missile submarine and one Virginia-class submarine, as well as advanced procurement for future submarines and future DDG-51 Arleigh Burke-class destroyers, full funding for the Ford-class aircraft carrier program, one anti-submarine warfare auxiliary ship and two ship-to-shore connector landing craft.

It also would authorize more than $25 billion to replenish the nation’s stock of critical munitions, including precision strike missiles, joint air-to-ground missiles, Naval Strike Missiles, Javelins, Stingers, Sidewinders, Tomahawks, Guided Multiple Launch Rocket Systems, Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missiles, artillery rounds and joint direct attack munitions.

The NDAA would authorize the Pentagon to buy 47 F-35 Joint Strike Fighters in total across the Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps. That is in line with the Pentagon’s original budget request released this past summer, and would be a reduction from the 69 the Pentagon had originally expected to buy this year. The military bought 74 F-35s in 2025.

The Pentagon’s proposed 2026 budget said that the Air Force expected to buy 24 F-35A fighters, a little more than half of the 44 jets it bought in 2025.

The department said this summer that instead of buying as many F-35s, it wanted to spend more money on sustaining the jets and making sure it had a strong supply base that can support operations and maintenance, as well as making sure the planned upgrades, known as Block 4, stay on track.

The House Armed Services Committee said in an August report on its initial version of the NDAA that it supported the Pentagon’s decision to shift its focus more to sustainment and improvements, saying that approach is necessary to ensure the jets are ready to “fight tonight.”

The compromise NDAA would require the military to build up its stockpile of spare F-35 parts, and have at least 90 days’ worth of parts on hand by the end of September 2028.

The NDAA will also keep requiring the Government Accountability Office to evaluate the F-35 program each year, and for the secretary of defense to develop a plan to acquire and integrate open mission systems architecture into F-35 jets.

The NDAA would provide a reprieve for the Air Force’s E-7 Wedgetail airborne battle management program, of which Hegseth has been skeptical and the Pentagon sought to kill in its budget proposal.

Lawmakers would bar the Pentagon from canceling Boeing’s rapid prototype contract for the first two E-7s, or shutting down production lines of the jet, which is already flown by Australia.

The bill would require the Air Force to keep at least 103 A-10 Warthog aircraft until the end of September 2026, as well as providing a report by the end of March on the service’s plans to retire the rest of the jets before fiscal 2029, and how they will be replaced.

The bill would provide nearly $2.6 billion for the Air Force’s F-47 next-generation fighter, in line with the service’s request.

It would also require the Air Force secretary to send the House and Senate defense committees a report on the F-47 program by March 2027. This report would include a description of the F-47’s requirements and projected costs and schedule through 2034, and an acquisition strategy.

Congress also wants to see a proposed strategy to field the F-47, including estimated force structure, construction and personnel training requirements; strategic basing considerations; and a strategy to integrate Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve units into F-47 operations.

The Air Force would have to show Congress a plan to extend the life of its arsenal of roughly 400 LGM-30G Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missiles until the successor LGM-35A Sentinel nuclear missile is fully operational.

The bill would also bar the Air Force from reducing its arsenal of intercontinental ballistic missiles to fewer than 400, and keep at least 450 launch silos operational.

And the Air Force would not be able to accept more than 188 KC-46A Pegasus aerial refueling tankers until the department shows Congress a plan to correct all of its remaining major deficiencies.

In a Monday letter to leaders of both parties in the House and Senate, as well as Office of Management and Budget Director Russ Vought, the groups said a government shutdown would be extremely wasteful and harm defense firms. Signing onto the letter were the Software in Defense Coalition, the Alliance for Commercial Technology in Government, the Defense Entrepreneurs Forum and the Silicon Valley Defense Group.

Past shutdowns have led to the furlough of senior acquisition officials, slowed procurement timelines and disrupted science and technology programs, the organizations said. Even the F-35 program, one of the government’s major acquisitions, came close to halting production during the 2013 shutdown, they said in the letter.

But small vendors — which have smaller profit margins, constrained cash flows and fewer non-government contracts than bigger firms — will find it even harder to weather shutdown turmoil, the organizations said. After the 2013 shutdown, they said, small businesses’ government contracts fell by about one-third and spending dropped about 40%.

Small companies are already making up a smaller portion of the defense industrial base, the letter said, and over the last decade, their participation has dropped 40%.

“Government shutdowns exacerbate this erosion, pushing startups and innovative firms out of the defense market,” the letter said. “At a time when U.S. strategic competitors are expanding rapidly, America cannot afford to diminish the diversity and innovation of its industrial base.”

Here’s how looming government shutdown could affect troops, families

Other organizations, such as the National Defense Industrial Association, have also repeatedly highlighted concerns about an atrophying defense industrial base. NDIA reports, for example, have shown the number of new vendors entering the defense industrial base is declining, which means fewer companies for the government to choose from — and less innovation.

Past shutdowns have also cost the government billions of dollars, the letter said. The companies highlighted a 2018 Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee study that found three then-recent shutdowns cost taxpayers almost $4 billion in back pay, lost revenue and late fees. Another study, conducted by the Congressional Budget Office, found the five-week shutdown in late 2018 and early 2019 led to $11 billion in gross domestic product losses.

“Shutdowns squander public resources while weakening defense readiness,” the letter said.

Funding to keep the government open is now set to run out at the end of the fiscal year Tuesday. If a continuing resolution is not passed by then, most parts of the government will close and many federal employees will be furloughed — or fired.

Lawmakers did not appear close as of Monday afternoon to finding a solution to avert a shutdown.

The organizations urged that lawmakers and the administration swiftly pass and sign a bipartisan continuing resolution to keep the government open, as well as approve a 2026 defense appropriations bill this year.

They also want lawmakers to pass legislation ensuring troops and essential civilian and contractor staff don’t suffer financial strain from a shutdown.

Agencies should also send contractors guidance earlier on what activities will be exempted during a shutdown, the letter said. And the Pentagon and administration should exempt as many employees as possible from furloughs to ensure public safety and the protection of national security property.

The resistance Driscoll has encountered in his first eight months in the job is part of a longstanding tension between the Pentagon and Congress over the trust and oversight of taxpayer dollars.

Unstable leadership cycles and inconsistent funding have pushed contractors into cost-plus arrangements, Driscoll explained, while congressional skepticism has only grown in the wake of failed modernization programs.

“We have 1,400 [to] 1,500 line items of make and model of things we need to buy,” he told a group of reporters last week. “Specifically we have asked to consolidate down in electronic warfare, drone and counter-drone. … This is 1% of our budget and we are in like a holy war over whether we’re going to have the authority for 1% of our budget to have the flexibility to buy different makes and models.”

Trial by fire: How the Army banks on frontline units to test new gear

The Army first announced it wanted flexible funding in these areas in 2024 during the previous administration in order to keep pace with technology developments that are moving so quickly the service’s traditional acquisition paths would continuously lead to the delivery of outdated equipment.

New electronic warfare capability seen on the battlefield in Ukraine outpaces old technology in a matter of weeks rather than years, for example.

Driscoll acknowledged that the Army has frequently under-delivered or not delivered when it comes to using taxpayer dollars and said he understands Congress wanting extra oversight.

Even so, “the problem is we are requesting more trust from them and more ability move on our own and I think that they are cautious and hesitant to give us that until we start to deliver wins at scale, but we can’t deliver wins at scale until we get this flexibility. So it’s a little bit of a chicken and the egg setup,” Driscoll told Defense News.

“I’m cautiously optimistic that the more people that hear about this, the more people that weight the actual risk of a drone with a munition showing up at a stadium, our border, at a port in our own nation, the more that that starts to outweigh all the other things,” Driscoll said.”I think we’re empowering our decision makers to do what they, deep down, know what’s right.”

The stakes are high, Driscoll said, as the National Defense Authorization Act debate heats up. “We just cannot get after the EW, counter-UAS and UAS threats without this flexibility. We must have it. And so we have made this a hill that we are willing to die on.”