The mission capable rate, which measures the percentage of time aircraft can perform at least one of their tasked missions, dropped from 67% in fiscal 2021 to 44% in fiscal 2025, GAO found.

The full mission capable rate, the share of time aircraft can perform all assigned missions, slid from 38% to 25% over the same period.

Air Force officials attributed part of the fiscal 2025 drop to new jets that couldn’t perform their missions because of software delays, along with scarce parts and corrosion problems, according to the report.

“The F-35 is DOD’s most costly weapon system, but it hasn’t met performance goals and costs to sustain the aircraft continue to increase,” GAO wrote in a summary accompanying the report.

The F-35 Joint Program Office’s answer to the decline in readiness is what the office officially calls the Global Support Solution Reset. The strategy, launched in June 2025, aims for an 80% mission capable rate and a 65% full mission capable rate by 2030.

Getting there won’t come cheap: JPO estimates it will take $13.7 billion more than previously planned through fiscal 2031, money the services must request in their annual budgets.

The GSS Reset addresses concerns GAO has flagged for years, including spare parts shortages, maintenance problems and heavy contractor reliance, among other long-running issues.

Only about $2.2 billion of that total is for the GSS Reset, according to the report. The other roughly $11.5 billion covers the gap between what the services had budgeted and what F-35 sustainment actually requires.

JPO officials told GAO that readiness will likely worsen before it improves, and program documentation suggests improvements may not materialize until late 2026 or later.

GAO identified several risks that could keep the GSS Reset from succeeding.

“JPO will be reliant on the private sector to deliver more than $7 billion in additional parts and other material. But capacity constraints persist for key parts,” the report states.

A 2025 study by Lockheed Martin, which builds the F-35 and leads its sustainment alongside engine maker Pratt & Whitney, found 48 parts that the supplier base can’t produce enough of, including canopies, which GAO has previously identified as a top driver of grounded jets.

Costs keep climbing, too, threatening the services’ ability to pay for the Reset. By the mid-2030s, GAO projects the services will face a roughly $1.2 billion annual gap between what their F-35s cost to sustain and what they say they can afford.

Those estimates may understate the problem. GAO noted the fiscal 2027 projections were developed before Operation Epic Fury and may not capture the costs associated with additional flight hours.

Incentives spent on readiness haven’t delivered as intended, GAO found, echoing a Pentagon Inspector General audit published in December.

From 2020 through 2023, the program office paid Lockheed more than $114 million of roughly $269 million in available incentive fees meant to improve full mission capable rates and parts supply, even as both metrics generally stagnated or worsened.

Lockheed’s incentive fees were tied to readiness thresholds. In 19 of 39 performance periods, the JPO and Lockheed adjusted the recorded full mission capable rate upward, citing factors outside the company’s control, such as service-caused delays, which qualified the contractor for higher payments. Had fees been paid on the raw rates alone, GAO estimated Lockheed would have earned roughly half as much.

Pratt & Whitney, the program’s other prime contractor, has met its engine sustainment targets since 2022 after fixing problems GAO flagged in earlier reviews, the report noted.

“Lockheed Martin continues to partner with the Joint Program Office and our industry partners to ensure we are delivering efficient and effective sustainment for the warfighter,” a Lockheed Martin spokesperson said in a statement to Defense News. “We have recently invested more than $2 billion in advanced funding to accelerate spare parts to increase readiness rates across the F-35 fleet.”

The F-35 Joint Program Office concurs with the report’s findings and fully supports its three recommendations, a spokesperson told Defense News.

“Through our Global Support Solution Reset initiative, the JPO remains focused on achieving our 2030 readiness goals and ensuring strict fiscal accountability for every sustainment dollar spent,” the spokesperson said.

GAO also found the F-35 JPO could not produce consistent records of its incentive fee payments. It calculated fees using a formula that differed from the contract without documenting the change, and over the course of GAO’s review, provided three different versions of its incentive fee spreadsheet.

JPO officials told GAO they abandoned the contracted formula because it overstated Lockheed’s performance, and the corrected formula they used paid the company an estimated $3.7 million less than the flawed one would have.

GAO found the incentive problems extend to the current contract, covering 2025 through 2028, which includes no incentives tied to full mission capable rates at all, instead rewarding parts supply metrics with targets GAO found fall below the program’s own goals.

“Until JPO ensures the future use of incentives better achieves desired performance, it risks rewarding contractor performance that does not help meet program goals,” GAO stated.

GAO wants the Pentagon to do three things: build risk mitigation plans for efforts like the GSS Reset, covering technical data access, industry capacity, affordability and alignment with service goals; rethink how it structures contract incentives, possibly including penalties for poor performance; and build a reliable system for tracking what it pays in incentive fees and why.

GAO has now made 46 recommendations on F-35 sustainment since 2014. As of March 2026, the Pentagon had implemented 14.

The Pentagon did not provide formal comments on the report but said in draft comments that it agreed with the recommendations, according to GAO.

Despite the program’s readiness troubles, the F-35 remains the backbone of America’s fighter fleet. The Pentagon operates more than 800 of the jets and plans to buy about 1,700 more by the mid-2040s, with lifetime U.S. sustainment costs estimated at $1.6 trillion as of 2024.

The decision would limit NATO’s ability to launch long-range strikes and conduct surveillance, the report said.

The U.S. plan includes cutting the number of F-16 and F-15E fighter jets from roughly 150 to 100, reducing maritime reconnaissance aircraft from 26 to 15, and removing all eight aerial refueling tanker jets it previously made available to Europe, the report said.

The U.S. also aims to redeploy a missile-launching submarine and an aircraft carrier, along with several warships and scores of jets that join the carrier’s missions, the New York Times said, adding that one of two groups of bombers previously assigned for Europe’s defense may also be reallocated.

“Historically there has been an over-reliance on U.S. forces and capabilities,” NATO spokesperson Allison Hart told Reuters, adding that as Europe and Canada invest more in defense and develop greater capabilities, the balance of responsibility can shift.

This would strengthen NATO’s defense by reducing reliance on a single ally and reflect a broader change happening within the alliance, Hart said in an emailed statement.

The U.S. Department of Defense did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

The U.S. European Command said in a statement last week that it would “rightsize” its contributions to the NATO Force Model, without providing further details.

Reuters reported in May that the U.S. planned to scale back the military capabilities it would make available to its NATO allies during a major crisis.

U.S. President Donald Trump’s administration has repeatedly accused European governments of underinvesting in ​their militaries and relying too heavily on U.S. protection, while urging both Europe and Asian allies ⁠to boost defense spending to 3.5% of GDP.

The name change is included in the committee’s version of the fiscal year 2027 National Defense Authorization Act, Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., said in a Thursday statement, explaining why he chose to vote against the bill’s advancement.

Kaine criticized the proposed renaming and additional funding for what he called the “illegal and foolish” war in the Middle East.

“Rather than taking steps to end this deeply unpopular war, this bill rebrands the Department of Defense as the Department of War, a juvenile move that sadly describes the reality of a President who has abandoned meaningful diplomacy in favor of starting doubtful wars in multiple locations and threatening even more,” he said in the statement.

Though the Department of War and Secretary of War titles have not yet been legally established by Congress, the terms have been used by Pentagon and federal government officials as a secondary title since President Donald Trump’s September 2025 executive order declaring the reversal.

The Department of Defense was known as the War Department from its creation in 1789 until 1947, when President Harry Truman recommended the change.

A week ago, members of the House Armed Service Committee approved the name change, advancing the amendment included in fiscal 2027’s NDAA to the Senate, which has yet to release their version of the bill.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth praised the House vote on social media, stating that “The Department of War will officially be restored soon.”

Critics say it is unnecessary to change the name at a time when they say other matters should take priority. Supporters of the change say it would send a signal to adversaries by projecting America’s strength.

A Congressional Budget Office analysis released in January revealed that the push to rename the department could cost taxpayers between $10 million and $125 million.

“Instead of prioritizing bringing down the cost of groceries or health care, Trump and his cronies are focused on vanity projects like renaming the Department of Defense to the Department of War – potentially costing American taxpayers upwards of $125 million,” Ranking Member Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., one of the lawmakers who request the CBO report, said in a statement following the report’s release.

“This move is performative government at its worst and does nothing to advance national security or help service members and their families,” he added.

In a post on Truth Social, the president wrote the United States would be hitting Iran “VERY HARD TONIGHT,” adding that “at some point in the not too distant future, we will be taking Kharg Island, and other oil infrastructure points, and assume total control of their Oil and Gas Markets.”

Kharg Island, located in the Persian Gulf, typically handles roughly 90% of Iran’s crude oil exports. It has been central to the economic survival of the Islamic Republic for decades. A 1984 declassified CIA document called its facilities “the most vital in Iran’s oil system, and their continued operation is essential to Iran’s economic well-being.”

But Trump’s saber-rattling was quickly tempered by a note of caution. Speaking to the hosts of “Fox & Friends” shortly after his social media post, the president questioned whether America “has the stomach” for a larger military operation to take the island.

“I’m not sure the country has the appetite for it, as good as it is,” Trump said. “I think they’d like to see us come home.”

The White House told Military Times that all military options remain available to the president, including scenarios involving a significant number of ground forces occupying Kharg Island. On Thursday, however, Trump appeared to rule out that possibility.

“I don’t want to have boots on the ground. But if I wanted to, we could put a small group of soldiers and take over the whole place,” the commander in chief said, punctuating his remarks on Iran with “They’re finished.”

Trump’s political coalition has been riven with tensions since the U.S. and Israel attacked Iran on Feb. 28. Foreign policy hawks who insist Iran must be curbed are on one side, and isolationist-leaning, “America-First” voices are on the other. The latter group is vigorously opposed to the use of ground troops, fearing that such a deployment would pave the way for the U.S. getting sucked into a long and costly conflict, similar to those in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The proposal to seize the island and establish control over Iran’s oil sector also diverges from the four objectives that bolstered Operation Epic Fury in the first place. The Trump administration’s stated war aims were to destroy Iran’s ballistic missile arsenal, inflict serious damage on its Navy and Air Force, prevent nuclear development and curtail its support for proxy groups in the region, including Hamas and Hezbollah.

This all comes as hostilities between American and Iranian forces in the Middle East are on the rise, despite a ceasefire signed in April.

U.S. Central Command said that Marine Corps, Air Force and Navy assets conducted strikes Wednesday evening against Iranian military surveillance capabilities, communication systems and air defense sites.

Trump, during his interview with Fox News, claimed the U.S. “dropped $250 million worth of bombs on them last night.”

Tehran — which asserts it has launched a series of retaliatory strikes against American bases in Bahrain, Jordan and Kuwait — cast the nearly two-month ceasefire as “practically meaningless.”

“The illegal and criminal attacks perpetrated by the United States in recent hours not only constitute a flagrant violation... but also render the ceasefire practically meaningless,” Iran’s foreign ministry said in a statement. “Responsibility for the extremely serious consequences of the criminal act lies with the leaders of the United States.”

The cancellation, first reported by Task and Purpose, was announced Wednesday by leaders of the Bipartisan Women’s Caucus in a press conference outside the U.S. Capitol.

Multiple Democratic lawmakers decried the circumstances, saying it was more evidence of attempts by the administration and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to minimize the service of female veterans.

“In plain terms, the very women the ceremony was created to honor were pushed out of it,” Rep. Emilia Sykes, D-Ohio, the caucus co-chair and vice chair of the Democratic Women’s Caucus, said. “Honoring veterans should not be controversial. Recognizing the service and sacrifice of women who wore our nation’s uniform should be one of the easiest things for us to come together around. Yet, because of the decisions made by this administration, we are defending the basic act of honoring women veterans.”

A staffer for the Democratic Women’s Caucus told Military Times that the wreath-laying had been canceled June 10 after officials with the Department of the Air Force said they could not attend due to anti-DEI mandates published in January 2025, immediately after President Donald Trump took office.

An Air Force spokeswoman, Ann Stefanek, confirmed to Military Times via email that “The Department of the Air Force declined participation in compliance with Executive Orders … and DoW guidance.”

Officials with the Army and Navy declined to comment. But military sources with knowledge of planning indicated that the services were not coordinated in their response.

Sources claimed the Navy had been unaware of the event and their invitation to attend, while the Army faced scheduling conflicts related to Army birthday events following a rescheduling of the initial wreath-laying date. The Marine Corps did not respond to a query.

The caucus staff member confirmed the event had been rescheduled to June 10 from an earlier May date due to a conflict with votes. They also acknowledged that the Army had citing scheduling issues, but said Army birthday events had never been a problem in the past.

“The executive order and the DoD guidance, it’s for all the branches, so that’s ultimately why this event couldn’t happen,” the staffer said.

At Wednesday’s press conference, multiple speakers cited other recent moves they cast as diminishing the service of military women.

Sykes cited recent reports of Hegseth’s intervention to block the promotion of three female Navy officers to one-star admiral, leaving no women on the promotions list.

Kayla Williams, an Army veteran and former Department of Veterans Affairs official representing the Vet Voice Foundation, recalled Pentagon-driven directives that resulted in the services pulling down web pages honoring the achievements of women in uniform.

Rep. Chrissy Houlahan, D-Penn., a former Air Force officer, noted that her grandparents were buried in Arlington National Cemetery, which made the cancellation of the wreath-laying “so painful.”

“I keep coming back to a simple question for President Trump and for Secretary Hegseth and my Republican colleagues,” she said. “Which is, when did saying thank you to women who served their country become a controversial statement?

“Women have answered ... every call this nation has asked of them,” Houlahan continued. “They have flown combat missions, they have commanded troops, they’ve cared for the wounded, they’ve gathered intelligence and they’ve deployed into harm’s way alongside their fellow service members. They didn’t ask for special treatment, they earned our respect. And honoring their service should never be viewed as a political statement.”

The Cyber Mastery Incentive Pay, or C-MIP, initiative is meant to modernize how the department encourages the Cyberspace Operations Forces, the military and civilian units responsible for cyberspace operations, according to a June 10 release.

“To incentivize our cyber forces and meet both Department of War and Defense Industrial Base needs, we need to shed legacy incentive models and invest directly in our people serving on the digital front lines. C-MIP does this,” Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness Anthony Tata said in the release.

The C-MIP program drops the previous incentive models to a more flexible system that aligns pay with skillset mastery and performance of demanding tasks, the announcement says. The program was developed in 60 days by the CYBERCOM 2.0 unit.

The program will feature two layers: skill incentive pay and special duty pay.

Skill incentive pay, or SIP, is considered the foundational layer that rewards an individual for skill level, whether it’s basic, senior or master.

Special duty assignment pay, or SDAP, is a monthly incentive for members who perform duties CYBERCOM deems “exceptionally demanding” and scale their skills by serving in roles such as trainers or more advanced cyber positions.

“By breaking down the bureaucratic norms of government incentives, this framework enables increased lethality by driving the skills, roles and duties most vital to mission success,” Katie Sutton, assistant secretary of defense for cyber policy, who will lead the execution of the program, said in the statement.

The pay incentive program is slated to begin Oct. 1, per the release. The announcement did not specify the pay incentive amount for either program level.

This initiative follows a recent push from some lawmakers to advance the creation of an independent Cyber Force military service.

A report from two D.C. think tanks examined how a proposed Cyber Force could take over the “service-like” responsibilities that CYBERCOM is currently expected to perform.

However, it would take at least one year and $10 billion to stand up the new force.

Speaking to reporters in the Oval Office, the president declared, “We hit them hard yesterday and we’re going to hit them hard again today.”

Trump initially claimed in a Truth Social post on Tuesday that Iran had shot down the aircraft, before revising his account a day later to say it was struck by an Iranian ordnance that failed to detonate on impact.

“That bomb was lodged in the helicopter, it didn’t explode. It was on fire but it didn’t explode,” Trump explained. “Those two guys, they knew how to fly, but they got very lucky.”

He then quipped: “You won’t believe the rescue, how cool it was.”

The crew members were retrieved by a remotely piloted Navy surface drone, in what Trump and military officials described as the first U.S. operation of its kind.

Still, the episode demonstrated one asymmetrical element of the conflict. U.S. officials said a low-cost Iranian Shahed-136 drone — estimated to cost roughly $20,000 — engaged the American attack helicopter valued at between $35 million and $40 million.

Describing the subsequent rescue, Capt. Tim Hawkins, a spokesman for Central Command, told Military Times that the unmanned surface vessel retrieved the downed aviators and ferried them to a rendezvous point at sea, where they were then hoisted aboard a helicopter for extraction.

“The surface drone that assisted in [Monday’s] rescue of the Apache crew off the coast of Oman was a U.S. Navy Corsair unmanned surface vessel operated by U.S. 5th Fleet’s Task Force 59,” he said. “The task force began fielding these drones in theater in late March.”

The 24-foot Corsair — built by Texas-based Saronic Technologies — can carry payloads of up to 1,000 pounds over a 1,000-nautical-mile range and reach speeds of up to 35 knots, according to the company’s website.

Soon after the U.S. began carrying out retaliatory strikes on Tuesday night, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, in a social media post, wrote that “our powerful armed forces will leave no attack or threat unanswered.” The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps later announced, through a statement carried by Iranian state TV, that it had conducted 21 attacks on U.S. bases across the region, including in Bahrain, Kuwait and Jordan.

But despite the fresh wave of attacks, Trump on Wednesday insisted that a peace agreement can be reached.

“We’ll see what happens with the deal. We were really close to a deal but they keep tapping us along, they keep playing us for suckers,” Trump said. “All they have to do is they have to start signing a paper, it’s fully negotiated.”

Given that negotiations are highly sensitive and secret, it’s unclear how close — or distant — the sides are from an agreement.

A delegation of Qatari officials arrived in Iran on Wednesday in an effort to broker a deal between Washington and Tehran, a source familiar with the discussions told Military Times, speaking on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the matters publicly.

The Defense Innovation Unit announced in a LinkedIn post last month that the winners — Bravo Ordnance, Kela Technologies, Kraken Kinetics, Mountain Horse Solutions and Northrop Grumman — developed “cost-effective, mass-producible, and easily integrated lethal payloads for small drones.”

According to the program’s Industry Day presentation, military officials reviewed submissions from 17 vendors. Evaluators examined both the payloads themselves and how they interfaced with various Electronic Safe and Arm Devices, or ESADs, as well as their compatibility with drones being considered in the program’s broader competition.

Although the cash prize was just $10,000 — a modest sum compared to the scale of the Pentagon’s investment — the selected designs will be presented to companies participating in the program as “preferred munitions” for one-way attack drones.

Northrop Grumman’s winning design, dubbed the Common UAS Payload, was built to require “no redesigns” and is “ready to integrate and deploy immediately,” according to a statement from Tanya Santers, the company’s director of fuzes and warheads.

The company added that it has invested more than $2 billion over the past several years in technologies and manufacturing facilities to meet the program’s requirements and accelerate delivery timelines.

Unlike Northrop Grumman, which enters the competition with an established defense-industrial base and decades of experience producing munitions for the Pentagon, most of the other winners are relatively young companies hoping to capitalize on the military’s growing demand for drone warfare technology.

The Texas-based Bravo Ordnance launched in 2025 with $3.5 million in venture capital. The company bills itself as capable of creating custom warheads in “two weeks or less.”

Founder Devan Plantamura, a Navy and Army veteran, told GQ magazine that his experience working at military technology startups convinced him the industry focused too heavily on drone platforms and not enough on the weapons they carry.

Without a warhead, he said, an attack drone is “just a flying object.”

The Israeli defense startup Kela Technologies was founded in July 2024 following the Oct. 7 attack as a software company focused on helping Western militaries rapidly integrate commercial technology into existing military systems.

The company quickly attracted backing from Silicon Valley investors as well as IQT, the CIA’s investment arm.

In just two years, Kela has raised roughly $100 million, secured an additional $200 million in financing and earned a reported valuation of $1.2 billion.

Although software integration remains its primary business, Kela was also named a winner of the Lethality Prize. The company reportedly partnered with fellow Israeli defense firm Autonomous Guard, which specializes in border security technology, including drones.

The North Carolina-based Kraken Kinetics was founded in 2023 to manufacture warheads for drone combat. Since then, the company has heavily promoted its Terminus payload, a warhead designed for first-person-view attack drones.

Kraken has demonstrated the system with Army Rangers, Marines and other military units, emphasizing its ability to be quickly attached to commercial drone platforms through its ESAD.

The Colorado-based Mountain Horse Solutions is one of the older companies in the group. Founded in 2014, about a year after its parent company, Global Ordnance, the firm initially focused on personal protective equipment before expanding into military drones in 2025.

That year, Mountain Horse and its partner Rotron Aerospace secured a spot on the Defense Department’s Blue UAS list of approved drone systems.

For the Lethality Prize, Mountain Horse partnered with several other companies to develop a payload system designed to work with “any drone on the market.”

In a statement, Bill Allen, Mountain Horse’s president, called the challenge “exactly the kind of problem set we are built for — delivering adaptable, scalable lethal solutions that keep pace with the lightning-fast evolution of drone warfare.”

The Defense Department launched the Drone Dominance program in July 2025 and in December of that year, revealed a three-phase effort to acquire roughly 300,000 drones by 2028.

For the first phase, the Pentagon invited 26 companies to demonstrate their systems. In the second and current phase, military officials are evaluating 79 drones from 49 companies for both long-range and close-quarters missions.

Over the remaining phases, the Pentagon plans to narrow the field to a select group of vendors. According to Pentagon officials, the goal is to reduce the average cost of a military drone from roughly $5,000 to $2,300.

The third phase of the Drone Dominance program is set to begin around November 2026, with final testing six months after that.

Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, a close ally of President Donald Trump, says he raised the issue directly with the president, arguing that the government should not be involved in adjudicating doctrinal disputes among faith traditions.

Two more Republicans from Utah — Sen. John Curtis and Rep. Mike Kennedy — also urged Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to amend the list for the same reason.

The Pentagon subsequently announced on Monday that it had removed “unnecessary labeling, and the mistake has been fixed.”

The new “Religious Affiliation Codes” no longer features the subheading gathering together Christian denominations, thus sidestepping the contentious issue of whether to include or exclude Mormonism.

Instead, it provides a long list of uncategorized options, including the previous Christian denominations; the Church of Latter-day Saints; other major religions like Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism and Sikhism; and classifications of Agnostic, “no religion,” and “other religions.”

According to a May 20 memorandum signed by Under Secretary of Defense Anthony Tata, the list will provide chaplains with “clear, readily available information” to better anticipate the religious needs of service members and to deliver religious support consistent with their faith and practices.

Sean Parnell, a Pentagon spokesman, described the original shift as “long overdue,” saying that the consolidation is intended to improve administrative efficiency rather than elevate certain religions over others.

“This decrease in religious affiliation codes is not designed to make any claims on the legitimacy of any faith or religious belief, nor is it intended to provide a list of ‘officially approved’ religions,” Parnell said in a statement on Friday. “Rather, it is designed to allow chaplains to quickly look at the religious composition of their units and determine how they structure resources to best provide for warfighters of all faith groups.”

Troops will not be restricted, however, in what information they choose to include on their dog tags.

When previewing the new policy in March, Hegseth said that the rank insignia worn by military chaplains on their uniforms is set to be replaced with religious insignia. He emphasized chaplains are “first and foremost called and ordained by God,” and, while they will retain rank as an officer to those they serve, their rank will not be visible.

The changes are expected to take effect by mid-July.

The United States-Israel Defense Technology Cooperation Initiative, part of the House’s version of the fiscal 2027 defense policy bill, would codify and increase military technical cooperation between the U.S. defense industry and Israel’s, as well as create a technical liaison position within the Pentagon to support the effort.

The House Armed Services Committee approved the measure as part of its National Defense Authorization Act after a marathon debate on hundreds of amendments.

Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., introduced an amendment to strike down the proposal, but it found very little support from his colleagues.

“We need to tell [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu that America calls the shots, not the prime minister of any other country,” Khanna said during his introduction of the amendment. “[Americans] want less cooperation and blank checks to Israel, not more. Only the United States Congress would dream up at this moment, ‘Let’s actually do more for Israel,’ not less.”

Eight committee members, including fellow Democrats, spoke against Khanna’s effort to quash the measure. The amendment was ultimately defeated.

The proposal “actually improves oversight and accountability for these programs by designating a single official responsible,” said committee chairman Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Ala. “Claims that this provision somehow cedes authority to a foreign government are ridiculous.”

Lawmakers quarrel over effort to boost defense tech integration between US and Israel

Rep. Adam Smith, D-Wash., the ranking Democrat on the committee, conceded that he understood some of the concerns Khanna outlined in his amendment, particularly regarding Netanyahu’s leadership in Israel and his multi-front war.

“We have endless wars, now, in Gaza, in the West Bank [...], in Lebanon,” Smith said. “No effort to negotiate, no effort to find partners for peace amongst the Palestinians or the Lebanese, even where there are opportunities to do so.”

But the measure puts existing programs under streamlined supervision, Smith argued. He and other committee members touted the benefits of Israeli technology for U.S. weapons systems.

The cooperation initiative “comes at a very bad time because of everything I’ve just said about Israel, but let’s not forget” what it actually does, Smith said.

Michael Hanna, director of the U.S. program at International Crisis Group, told Military Times the addition of the U.S.-Israel cooperation initiative “tells us something important about the broader climate.”

Further integrating U.S.-Israeli military cooperation differs from the memorandum of understanding, or MOU, process that has dictated military aid to Israel historically, he said.

“It’s hard to imagine there will be another MOU after [the next] one,” Hanna said. The current MOU expires in 2028, and while Hanna said a shorter agreement could follow, it’s clear that the U.S.-Israel relationship is changing.

“The Israelis understand that and are trying to get ahead of that” by moving from an aid model to one of co-production and procurement, he said.

One committee member spoke in support of Khanna’s amendment. Rep. Sara Jacobs, D-Calif., argued the cooperation initiative “entrenched” the U.S. and Israeli militaries “with no strings attached.”

“A clear majority of Americans already oppose sending more military aid to Israel,” Jacobs said. “They will not support this, and neither should we.”

A majority of Americans now hold negative views of Netanyahu and Israel, according to polling from the Pew Research Center. By August of last year, 60% of Americans disapproved of sending the country additional military aid, per a Quinnipiac poll.

The House’s version of the NDAA is expected to go to the floor for a vote in mid-July. Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., pledged to introduce another effort at that time to strike the section about U.S.-Israeli cooperation.

Caine held bilateral discussions with senior leaders of the interim government and with U.S. embassy personnel. During those meetings, he underscored the importance of Venezuelan stability, broader security across the Western Hemisphere and the military’s commitment to implementing Trump’s “three-phase plan,” Joe Holstead, a spokesman for Caine, said in a statement.

The plan focuses on avoiding chaos, bolstering an economic recovery and — eventually — facilitating a transition to democracy.

A key pillar of the effort has been restoring Venezuela’s oil industry, which Trump previously characterized as a “total bust.”

All of that changed with Operation Absolute Resolve. The sprawling military raid — which involved more than 150 aircraft — culminated in Delta Force commandos descending on a heavily fortified compound and capturing Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores. The pair were later flown to New York, where they each face criminal charges.

The U.S. military, meanwhile, continues to maintain a robust presence in the region, with the USS Nimitz Carrier Strike Group sailing into the Caribbean in May.

Since September, the Pentagon has carried out at least 62 strikes in the waters off South America, killing nearly 200 people whom the Trump administration says were involved in drug trafficking, according to data compiled by Military Times. Many legal experts dispute the legality of those operations.

Members of the House Armed Services Committee voted unanimously Thursday to include the mandate in their markup of the fiscal 2027 National Defense Authorization Act.

Under the provision, a trained third party would have to be present for exams conducted by obstetrician-gynecologists at military treatment facilities.

The amendment was sponsored by Rep. Jill Tokuda, D-Hawaii, whose district includes Tripler Army Medical Center, one of the facilities where Army gynecologist Maj. Blaine McGraw, is accused of sexually abusing and secretly recording female patients.

McGraw, 48, faces eight charges and 273 specifications involving 96 victims across a period of seven years at Tripler and the Carl R. Darnall Army Medical Center in Fort Hood, Texas.

During his Article 32 hearing on May 26, witnesses for the Army’s Criminal Investigation Division said McGraw admitted recording patients, claiming he did it for the purpose of notetaking but also told investigators he had “voyeuristic tendencies” as a teenager that were exacerbated by a traumatic deployment to Syria, according to the Killeen Daily Herald.

Tokuda’s amendment would require military health facilities to train chaperones and ensure they be used for any exam, treatment or procedure that involves the ”genitalia, rectum or female breasts” or for forensic health exams.

It follows a Defense Health Agency policy change last year that said physicians must offer chaperones for sensitive medical exams or procedures.

Patients have always had access to a chaperone in the military health system, but doctors are now required to offer one under the policy.

The proposed requirement would not have had any impact on a separate sexual assault case involving Army physician Maj. Michael Stockin, who was sentenced in 2025 to nearly 14 years in prison for sexually abusing patients at Madigan Army Medical Center in Washington.

Stockin, an anesthesiologist and pain management specialist, pleaded guilty to 41 violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, including abusive sexual contact and indecent viewing with male patients during medical exams.

At the time of Stockin’s investigation, it was considered one of the largest cases involving sexual assault in the U.S. military.

The committee’s markup of the defense policy bill must pass the House and be negotiated in conference process with the Senate before it becomes law.

After a spirited 30-minute debate late Thursday evening, members of the House Armed Services Committee approved an amendment offered by Rep. Marilyn Strickland, D-Wash., to change the names in a narrow 29-27 vote.

In offering her amendment, Strickland said it was necessary because the Trump administration ignored Congress by changing the new names, choosing to honor, instead, different service members with the same last names as the Confederate officers for which the bases originally were named.

Strickland said while the current names honor military personnel in their own right — for example, Fort Lee in Virginia is now named for Fitz Lee, a Buffalo soldier who earned the Medal of Honor — the administration’s changes sidestepped the law and were hurtful to many military personnel and veterans for reviving Confederate legacies.

“They used the same stunt the commission considered and rejected, finding new service members that share the same last name as the Confederate traitors,” Strickland said.

Republican Rep. Don Bacon, R-Neb., who voted for the amendment, said his Virginia ancestor fought for the Union and would be “rolling in his grave” knowing U.S. military bases were named for Confederate leaders.

“I thought we did it right in 2020 — we debated it, it was a strong debate here. It passed in the House, a Democrat majority, and it passed in the Senate, Republican majority,“ Bacon said. ”The president vetoed it, and we overrode the veto. We did it right, and what happens is the secretary comes in here, puts his thumb in our eye … it should bother all of us.”

Lawmakers opposed to the change said the longstanding names have widespread and international recognition and mean much to the troops who have served on the bases, even as they may not know much about the installation’s namesakes.

“To judge historical figures by the morality of our time is taking certain things out of context … I just heard we can’t honor our forefathers who enslaved other people. Are we going to rename this city? Where does it end?” asked Rep. Pat Fallon, R-Texas.

“I think Secretary of War Pete Hegseth and President Trump have struck a reasonable balance. Our history should be taught, not erased, the good and bad,” agreed Rep. John McGuire, R-Va.

Under Strickland’s amendment, the Naming Commission’s recommendations would be reinstated: Fort A.P. Hill would become Fort Walker; Fort Bragg would become Fort Liberty; Fort Benning would become Fort Moore; Fort Hood would become Fort Cavazos; Fort Lee would become Fort Gregg-Adams; Fort Polk would become Fort Johnson; Fort Rucker would be Fort Novosel; and Fort Pickett would be Fort Barfoot.

Fort Gordon also would become Fort Shughart-Gordon. The installation, once named for Confederate Maj. General John Brown Gordon, was changed last year to honor Master Sgt. Gary Gordon, a Medal of Honor recipient for his heroism in the Battle of Mogadishu, Somalia.

Strickland said she worked with Rep. Austin Scott, R-Ga., to add the name Sgt. First Class Randall Shughart, who also earned the Medal of Honor in that battle.

Rep. Carlos Giménez, R-Fla., joined with Bacon and committee Democrats to overturn the names.

Codifying the ‘Department of War’

The panel also voted to change the name of the Defense Department to the Department of War. Rep. Ronny Jackson, R-Texas, introduced the amendment, saying that the change sends an “unmistakable signal” that “America is willing to fight and win to secure its interests.”

“This name reflects the determination and resolve of our brave men and women of the U.S. military who aggressively fight to secure our national interests,” Jackson said. “Our military does much more than defend the homeland.”

The War Department was established by legislation signed by President George Washington in 1789, and it remained so until 1947, when President Harry Truman sought to consolidate the services under a single Cabinet-level command structure.

Truman recommended that Congress pass legislation creating a Department of National Defense, which became the Defense Department.

Pentagon asks Congress to codify ‘Department of War,’ estimates $52 million cost

Trump issued an executive order Sept. 5, 2025, to restore the name Department of War, a secondary title to the Defense Department. The department has been using the moniker but requires legislation to permanently change the name.

Smith said the name change would have very little impact on adversaries.

“Practically speaking, it makes no frickin’ difference whatsoever. We have a lot of important work to do … and we are arguing over a name. It’s incredibly expensive to change that name,” Smith said.

Earlier in the day, the panel also voted unanimously by voice vote to ban hate symbols like swastikas, nooses and other graphics across the department, to include tattoos, uniforms, patches, personal equipment and government property.

The amendment requires the secretary to establish standards for identifying and addressing prohibited symbols and procedural review for removal.

Coast Guard clarifies hate symbol policy

The proposal is related to a policy change last year by the Coast Guard, which is part of the Department of Homeland Security, that classified the Nazi insignia as “potentially divisive” rather than a hate symbol.

Coast Guard officials said the policy change was misunderstood, and it was designed to clarify — not downgrade — its stand on extremist symbols.

“This is not an updated policy but a new policy to combat any misinformation and double down that the U.S. Coast Guard forbids these symbols,” officials wrote in a statement.

The measure, which has bipartisan support, was added as an amendment to the House version of the fiscal 2027 National Defense Authorization Act, a massive defense funding and policy bill. After more than 14 hours of debate, the committee sent the bill to the full House, where it’s expected to go to the floor for a vote in July.

Rep. Seth Moulton, D-Mass., introduced the amendment. Moulton, a Marine Corps veteran, previously grilled Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth about the cost of the war. During an April 29 hearing, Moulton guessed the cost could reach $100 billion, or about $600 per U.S. taxpayer, he said.

“For the American taxpayers out there, I’m just wondering if they have an extra 600 bucks lying around to pay for your war,” Moulton said. “That’s a question we ought to ask.”

The measure requires the defense secretary to provide the House and Senate armed services committees with an unclassified assessment of the total cost of the operations by April 1, 2027. The U.S.-Israeli strikes against Iran began Feb. 28.

In addition to the costs of damaged or destroyed equipment and property, expended munitions and deployments, the report would include the cost of an ongoing U.S. Navy blockade in the Strait of Hormuz, the proposal says.

Pentagon officials estimated May 12 that the total cost of the Iran war had reached $29 billion, up from $25 billion on April 29. Jules Hurst III, the Defense Department’s acting comptroller, relayed the figures to lawmakers during back-to-back budget hearings on Capitol Hill.

Hurst emphasized that the projections did not include expenditures for repairing damaged military installations in the region.

A Congressional Research Service report released May 13 tallied 42 U.S. aircraft lost or damaged during the war, with drones accounting for 25 of the 42 losses.

The Pentagon has not publicly disclosed the scale of munitions expended before a ceasefire between Washington and Tehran took effect April 7, citing operational security. A May 27 analysis from the Center for Strategic and International Studies, however, found that more than 1,000 Tomahawk missiles had been launched during the U.S. strikes on Iran and 290 THAAD interceptors were used.

In addition to providing the cost assessment to the armed services committees, the measure mandates the Defense Department make it publicly available on its website.

In a marathon markup session that lasted from Thursday morning until 12:00 a.m. Friday, committee members debated and passed nearly 600 amendments and the bill language of the fiscal 2027 National Defense Authorization Act.

The committee approved the proposed legislation in a 44-12 vote. It now proceeds to the House floor, where it is expected to be considered in mid-July.

House Armed Services Committee Chairman Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Ala., said the proposal would revitalize the defense industrial base, invest in jobs and military personnel and “reverse the damage caused by decades of underinvestment in the U.S. military.”

Ranking member Rep Adam Smith, D-Wash., called it a “good solid bill” that supports the troops by investing in pay and benefits, continuing defense acquisition reform initiatives and supporting allies.

But, Smith said, the sheer size of the cost should cause pause.

“[The base amount] is a 30% increase over what the committee did last year — that is a lot of money at a time when we have a $40 trillion debt,” Smith said.

Target pay raises, boost to BAH

The proposal includes a significant boost in troop pay beginning Jan. 1, 2027, especially for junior enlisted personnel. Under the proposed legislation, service members E-5 and below would receive a 7% pay raise, while those E-6 to O-3 would get a 6% pay raise. Members O-4 and above would see their paychecks rise by 5%.

The pay plan is higher than the 3.8% increase service members received in fiscal 2026 but less than half the 14.5% increase they received in 2025.

The proposal also increases the size of the active duty force by 40,100, including: 15,000 for the Army; 12,000 for the Navy; 8,900 for the Air Force; 1,400 for the Marine Corps; and 2,800 for the Space Force.

With the increases, the active duty force will total 1,342,900 members.

Regarding benefits, the bill would remove a service member’s Basic Housing Allowance from calculations for consideration for the Basic Needs Allowance, a benefit available to low income military families whose income levels could qualify them for food stamps.

The provision, which would base a service member’s income and qualifications for the allowance on base pay and allowances while omitting the significant stipend provided to cover housing, was included in the House version of the fiscal 2026 defense policy bill but dropped from the final legislation.

According to a 2023 department survey, roughly a quarter of military families were considered “food insecure,” meaning they had difficulties buying enough food for themselves and their families.

Health and child care changes

The House proposal contains several other provisions to improve the well-being of service members and their families.

It would allow active duty personnel and reserve members on active duty to take bereavement leave in the loss of a pregnancy or stillbirth.

It would place limits on the Defense Department’s plans to restructure military health facilities, and it would require the Government Accountability Office to conduct an audit of Tricare’s pharmacy benefits.

The bill would require the department to implement an initiative to improve procedures for processing complaints against Tricare, the Defense Department’s health program, by developing a system for filing complaints not handled sufficiently by the standard complaint process.

And it proposes to allow military health beneficiaries to access physical therapy without a referral. It would expand child care options for military families by including au pairs as eligible in-child care providers under the DoD’s Child Care in Your Home Fee Assistance Pilot Program.

Controversial amendment votes

The bill was advanced to the House with two amendments that are sure to spark debate among members and in negotiations with the Senate, including an amendment offered by Rep. Ronny Jackson, R-Texas, to change the name of the Department of Defense to the Department of War, and an amendment from Rep. Marilyn Strickland, D-Wash., who proposed changing the names of military bases once named for Confederate generals back to the names recommended by a congressional naming commission in 2022.

Jackson’s amendment passed by a 29-27 vote while Strickland’s also was approved by the same number.

Regarding department oversight, lawmakers agreed that the Pentagon should submit reports to the committee on the removal of flag or general officers, including the reason, concern or inaction by the officer that prompted the relief. The provision stems from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s dismissal of Army Chief of Staff Gen. Randy George in April, along with his interference in promotion lists that has resulted in the removal of more than 19 senior officers.

The bill also also requires an independent assessment into a decision last month to cancel the deployment of an Army Armored Brigade Combat Team to Poland and a report from U.S. European Command on an effort to remove 5,000 U.S. troops from Germany.

The House $1.15 trillion authorization aligns with the Trump administration’s Defense Department base budget request. The administration also seeks an additional $350 billion for defense in a request known as reconciliation that requires separate legislation outside Congress’s normal appropriations process.

The Senate has not revealed its version of the fiscal 2027 National Defense Authorization Act. The Senate Armed Services Committee plans to mark up their version in meetings next week that are closed to the public.

During the lengthy debate Thursday, House lawmakers offered dozens of amendments on issues that included a proposal to reduce the amount authorized in the bill by $150 billion, an effort to shield the independent Stars and Stripes newspaper from department interference by protecting the paper’s publisher, motions to increase oversight of the secretary’s management of the Pentagon’s independent press and a prohibition of the sale of political merchandise on military installations.

All were defeated.

The bill now moves to the House for consideration. Rep. Rob Wittman, R-Va., told reporters Wednesday that he expects a vote to occur after the Independence Day break in July, according to a report from Politico.

The proposal would authorize Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to offer a discount at exchange stores that’s equivalent to the price of the federal gas tax. The tax is 18.4 cents per gallon for regular and 24.4 cents per gallon for diesel.

The proposal would also allow the secretary to cut fuel prices further in order to counteract state and local taxes.

Rep. Abe Hamadeh, R-Ariz., introduced the measure, which was included — with bipartisan support — in the House’s version of the fiscal 2027 National Defense Authorization Act that passed through the House Armed Services Committee early Friday morning.

“This discount, equal to the federal fuel tax, shows profound gratitude to our nation’s heroes who have borne the heavy costs of war defending our freedoms,” Hamadeh said in a statement. “This common-sense step delivers real relief to our selfless service members and their families.”

But the relief won’t be imminent. The bill next goes to the full House for a vote, followed by negotiations with the Senate to establish a final fiscal 2027 defense package.

Over the past several years, the budgeting process has included stopgap funding measures and stretched to December before defense appropriations were finalized.

Domestic gas prices have surged since the U.S.-Israeli strikes against Iran began on Feb. 28. The prolonged closure of the Strait of Hormuz — a key waterway for global oil trade — has sent oil prices up.

Across the U.S., Memorial Day weekend prices were the highest they’d been in four years, according to the American Automobile Association.

The national average for a gallon of regular was $4.56 over that holiday weekend, $1.38 higher than the same weekend last year.

Pump prices have cooled in the days since, with the average cost of a gallon of regular on Thursday at $4.24.

“But uncertainty lingers over when the Strait of Hormuz will fully reopen and resume traffic,” AAA said in a release. “That unknown means oil prices will likely not decrease dramatically as summertime gasoline demand starts going up.”

According to the Army & Air Force Exchange Service, fuel prices are set locally by surveying gas stations in close proximity to installations and matching the lowest price.

Polling about the Iran war has revealed deep concerns from Americans about the increased gas prices. According to a Reuters/Ipsos poll from May, 63% of the country say their household’s personal financial situation has taken a hit from recent gas price increases, up from 55% in a Reuters/Ipsos poll conducted in March.

President Donald Trump said in a CBS News interview in May that he would consider suspending the federal gas tax for all Americans, but the tax moratorium would require an act of Congress.

Attorneys for the Pentagon filed a motion Wednesday asking the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit to reconsider its Tuesday decision in the case, Wilkins v. Hegseth, which lifted a stay on prohibiting HIV-positive people whose infections are controlled by medication and who otherwise qualify from serving while the case continues.

In 2024, Circuit Court Judge Leonie Brinkema of the Eastern District Court of Virginia ruled that with treatment advances — and previous court rulings that allowed infected personnel to continue serving and deploy — civilians with controlled levels of the virus should be allowed to serve.

The Defense Department appealed Brinkema’s decision, and last December, the Fourth Circuit implemented a stay to new enlistments while it considered the case. In February, a three-judge panel reversed Brinkema’s ruling, but in May, the appeals court announced the case would be heard by a full panel of judges. The court clarified that the decision also lifted the stay.

The announcement was met with swift response from attorneys for Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth who asked that the stay be reinstated.

“Applying the injunction universally would disrupt the military’s expansive recruitment and accession operations,” wrote Charles Scarborough, an appellate attorney for the Civil Division in the Department of Justice.

“With the panel’s grant of a stay, the military resumed applying its HIV-related accession policies. Ceasing application of those policies … would impose an unnecessary and wholly improper burden on the military’s operations,” Scarborough added.

The case involves Isaiah Wilkins and two unnamed HIV-positive plaintiffs who sued the Defense Department after they sought to join or re-enlist but were prohibited based on their HIV status.

Wilkins was serving as a member of the Georgia Army National Guard who found out he was HIV-positive while trying to enlist in the Army Reserve.

The plaintiffs argued that antiviral medications kept their viral loads low or undetectable and affected U.S. service members had won similar suits and were allowed to stay in the military and deploy.

Defense Department and military services have long been concerned over transmission of HIV, the virus that can cause AIDS, from exposure to blood in a needle stick or responding to a traumatic injury.

In 2022, after Brinkema ruled that the military could not deny commissions to HIV-positive troops who sought to become officers nor could they be discharged, the Defense Department barred commanders involuntarily separating, restricting deployments or preventing commissions of affected troops.

The Defense Department stopped processing and training new recruits who were HIV-positive in January following the 4th Circuit’s decision to implement a stay.

Attorneys representing Wilkins and others said Tuesday they did not expect the stay to be lifted. They called it “great news.”

“On a regular basis, I hear from people with HIV who want to serve their country by joining the military, and that’s now again a viable option,” said Peter Perkowski in a statement issued by Minority Veterans of America, a group that has joined the plaintiffs.

The Defense Department disagreed.

“This Court should enter an order reinstituting the panel’s prior stay of the universal injunction on appeal in this case to the extent the injunction applies beyond the three individual plaintiffs in this suit,” Scarborough wrote in court documents.

From January 2020 through June 2025, the Defense Department screened roughly 7 million service members across the active, reserve and National Guard components. Of those, 1,463 were identified as HIV-positive, according to the Armed Forces Health Surveillance Division.

If lawmakers decided to move forward with the development of a U.S. Cyber Force, there would be challenges to its implementation because current responsibilities are shared between the various services and U.S. Cyber Command, per the Wednesday report written by the Center for Strategic and International Studies and the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.

“Many observers contend that the challenge of generating military capability and capacity necessary to deter, compete, fight and win in the cyber domain can be directly attributed to the lack of a single organization responsible and accountable for force generation in cyberspace — or organizing, training and equipping the military forces operating in this domain,” the report states.

Lawmakers have contemplated the necessity of a Cyber Force for over a decade since the 2010 establishment of U.S. Cyber Command, or CYBERCOM, one of the Department of Defense’s 11 unified combatant commands.

Current efforts to create a standalone Cyber Force are spearheaded by Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-NY, as an amendment to the fiscal 2027 National Defense Authorization Act.

The report showcases how CYBERCOM is expected to perform the functions of both a combatant command and a military service, but a proposed Cyber Force would take over most of its “service-like” responsibilities, and thus organizing, training and equipping forces for the cyber domain.

The think tanks examined ways Congress and the Defense Department could stand up and implement a Cyber Force as a new military service with a cyber-specific mission that centers around assisting forces in conducting offensive and defense cyberspace operations.

The initial budget for standing up a Cyber Force is an estimated $10 billion to $11 billion, the report says, although that budget is already currently allocated into other services and cyber capabilities.

In the fiscal 2027 defense budget request, the Pentagon distributed $7.7 billion to cyberspace operations, according to budget documents, with $4.1 billion designated to CYBERCOM and the remaining $4.6 billion set aside for other defense organizations, such as the National Security Agency and the Defense Intelligence Agency.

The budget request also emphasized the need for $20.5 billion for cyberspace activities and $12.1 billion for cybersecurity.

At least 20,000 active-duty personnel, 3,500 to 5,000 National Guard members and a civilian workforce of 6,000 would be needed to staff a Cyber Force if established, the report reads, highlighting that the commission envisions the force as a relatively small military organization.

“By grouping personnel into broad occupational categories within which they can specialize or generalize, the Cyber Force will preserve distinct competencies, support future changes in how cyber missions are conducted and create a professional identity strong enough to anchor training, career development and long-term readiness,” the report says.

Instead of following the precedent of other military branches, the commission recommended that a Cyber Force follows in the footsteps of the U.S. Public Health Service by employing commissioned and warrant officers for uniformed personnel without an “enlisted cadre.”

The think tanks weighed two options for institutional alignment: placing the Cyber Force within the Department of the Army, like the Space Force is attached to the Department of the Air Force, or making the Cyber Force its own military department.

If included in the Army, the force could have increased speed and efficiency since it would belong to an already existing DoD bureaucracy, but it could be then considered a lower priority.

By having its own military department, the Cyber Force could ensure prioritization of cyber issues within the Pentagon, but standing up a new DoD bureaucracy would require substantial time and resources.

Regardless of organizational structure, it would take between 12 to 18 months to reach initial operating capacity, the report states.

The panel’s personnel subcommittee has proposed limiting the DoD’s plans to restructure the military health system and called for reversing any changes the department has made to 41 military treatment facilities.

The subcommittee’s draft of the fiscal 2027 National Defense Authorization bill also would improve congressional oversight of military medical reforms by requiring the Defense Health Agency to give quarterly updates to Congress of its plans to change the system.

The proposals stem from a massive overhaul of the military health system reforms initiated under the fiscal 2017 National Defense Authorization Act, which called for transferring military hospital and clinic management to the Defense Health Agency and reducing administrative redundancies across the system.

The legislation ultimately aimed to focus the military health system on training military medical personnel for combat operations and caring for active-duty troops, and placing non-military patients in private sector care covered by the DoD.

As a result of the reforms, DHA and the military services planned to restructure the entire hospital system, announcing in 2020 that it would improve two military medical centers and consolidate or downsize 48 facilities, including 38 that would no longer see military families or retirees as patients.

At the time, Thomas McCaffery, who served as assistant secretary of defense for health affairs in the first Trump administration, said the changes were necessary to prepare military physicians and troops for deployment.

“We reviewed all facilities through the lens of their contributions to military readiness — that includes MTFs [being] operated to ensure service members are medically ready to train and deploy,” McCaffery said in a 2020 report to Congress.

But those reforms bled patients from military heath facilities, resulting in inadequate numbers for military physicians to maintain their skills. In turn, services degraded across many military hospitals and clinics, according to senior enlisted personnel.

In late 2024, the Defense Department reversed course on the plan to shed patients to private care, vowing to bring back 7% of patients by the end of 2026. It also has announced several partnerships with community health facilities to ensure that military physicians get adequate trauma training and patient exposure to maintain their skills.

But the DoD has failed to provide information to Congress regarding the reforms, frustrating members with its lack of candor regarding any planned closures of facilities.

Concerns voiced by lawmakers over changes to facilities that weren’t made public, such as Keller Army Community Hospital, West Point, New York, which was to lose its inpatient beds and Fort Leonard Wood’s new hospital. That hospital was to open not as a full-service hospital as planned, but an ambulatory clinic, which prompted several legislative changes, including the proposed fiscal 2027 NDAA restrictions.

Under the draft NDAA, DHA would not be allowed to make changes proposed for 41 facilities and must “reverse any steps to carry out a service change” and “restore personnel and clinical services affected by any such service change to a level that existed as of March 3, 2026.”

According to the proposed legislation, three facilities faced downsizing from hospitals to ambulatory care facilities, meaning they would have no inpatient capabilities. Those included:

• Eisenhower Army Medical Center, Fort Gordon, Georgia;
• 88th Medical Group, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, (including closing pediatric cardiology and discontinuing chiropractic care); and
• Naval Hospital Beaufort, South Carolina, including discontinuing chiropractic care.

Those that would limit access to active-duty service members only included:

• 78th Medical Group, Robins Air Force Base, Georgia;
• 72nd Medical Group, Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma;
• 75th Medical Group, Hill Air Force Base, Utah; and
• 66th Medical Squadron, Hanscom Air Force Base, Massachusetts.

Those that would have excluded caring for retirees and their dependents, only seeing active-duty personnel and their family members were:

• 22nd Medical Group, McConnell Air Force Base, Kansas;
• 341st Medical Group, Malmstrom Air Force Base, Montana;
• 28th Medical Group, Ellsworth Air Force Base, South Dakota;
• 92nd Medical Group, Fairchild Air Force Base, Washington;
• 90th Medical Group, Francis E. Warren Air Force Base, Wyoming;
• 355th Medical Group, Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, Arizona;
• 9th Medical Group, Beale Air Force Base, California;
• 45th Medical Group, Patrick Space Force Base, Florida;
• 4th Medical Group, Seymour Johnson Air Force Base, North Carolina;
• 460th Medical Group, Buckley Space Force Base, Colorado;
• 27th Special Operations Medical Group, Cannon Air Force Base, New Mexico;
• 412th Medical Group, Edwards Air Force Base, California;
• 30th Medical Group, Vandenberg Space Force Base, California;
• Naval Health Clinic Corpus Christi, Texas;
• 19th Medical Group, Little Rock Air Force Base, Arkansas, (which also plans to discontinue nutrition services); and
• 20th Medical Group, Shaw Air Force Base, South Carolina, (which also plans to discontinue nutrition services).

Facilities planning to restrict services only to active duty members and dependents who live on base included:

• 23rd Medical Group, Moody Air Force Base, Georgia;
• 366th Medical Group, Mountain Home Air Force Base, Idaho
• 319th Medical Group, Grand Forks Air Force Base, North Dakota; and
• 61st Medical Squadron, Los Angeles Space Force Base, California.

Three facilities were slated to discontinue contracts for chiropractic and nutrition services, including:

• 55th Medical Group, Offutt Air Force Base, Nebraska;
• 2nd Medical Group, Barksdale Air Force Base, Louisiana; and
• 87th Medical Group, Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst, New Jersey.

In addition, the following facilities would discontinue contracts for chiropractic services:

• 1st Special Operations Medical Group, Hurlburt Field, Florida;
• 10th Medical Group, U.S. Air Force Academy, Colorado; and
• 96th Medical Group, Eglin Air Force Base, Florida.

Seven facilities would have seen changes in services, to include:

• David Grant Medical Center, Travis Air Force Base, California, slated to lose its labor and delivery department;
• 42nd Medical Group, Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama, which would stop its educational and developmental intervention services;
• Vilseck Army Health Clinic, Germany, which would discontinue its physical medicine and rehabilitation services;
• Naval Health Clinic Patuxent River, Branch Health Clinic Dahlgren, Virginia, which would no longer offer radiology;
• Army Health Clinic Munson, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, which would stop offering mammography;
• Naval Health Clinic Lemoore, California, which would lose its operating rooms;  and
• 7th Medical Group, Dyess Air Force Base, Texas, which would stop offering nutrition services.

And according to the proposed legislation, one facility — the Desert Sage Community Based Medical Home, part of William Beaumont Army Medical Center, at Fort Bliss, Texas — was slated for closure.

In October, then-acting Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs Dr. Stephen Ferrara said review of the military health system was an ongoing process and no plans for reductions or closures were set in stone.

“Like any enterprise, we’re always looking at ‘Where are we there — where do we have supply and demand mismatches?’ That’s just good governance of the system,” Ferrara said in response to a question from a reporter at a Military Officers Association of America conference.

“If you looked at any corporation that had 100 hospitals or 100 stores, they should be looking at them to say where it makes sense to dedicate their resources. That’s kind of what we’re doing, just as a matter of course, so there’s not, like, a list,” Ferrara said.

Karen Ruedisueli, MOAA’s director of government relations for health, said Tuesday that the organization, which represents active-duty and retired military personnel and family members, continues to press pressed Congress and the Defense Department to conduct “rigorous data-based analysis and mitigation planning” before shifting patients from military facilities to civilian care.

Ruedisueli first reported on the facilities list in the proposed legislation Tuesday.

“MOAA will keep members informed as this legislation moves forward and work to ensure any changes to the MHS prioritize the needs of those who have served,” Ruedisueli wrote in a blog post.

The House Armed Services Committee plans its mark up of the fiscal 2027 NDAA Thursday. It then will be forwarded to the full chamber for consideration. The Senate Armed Services Committee plans to mark up its version next week but has not released a draft.

The “Global Terrorism Threat Assessment 2026″ identifies terrorism on the continent as “the greatest uncertainty,” citing the rising capabilities of al-Qaida and Islamic State affiliates.

“Unlike the Middle East’s terrorist organizations, most African terrorist groups are unquestionably ascendant,” the authors wrote, pointing to larger fighting forces, greater financial resources, and the groups’ ability to move through wide swaths of territory.

Many are also capitalizing on the proliferation of unmanned aerial systems and artificial intelligence to enhance their deadly effectiveness.

“These new capabilities unlock new forms of operation, facilitation, and inspiration for international terrorists, requiring novel responses from states, which may also take advantage of emerging technologies,” the report said. “Given the increasing pace of technological change, the future of how terrorists and counterterrorists will act against each other is increasingly unclear.”

The report classifies Al Shabaab, a Somalia-based al-Qaida-affiliated group, as Africa’s most capable – and likely largest – terrorist organization, with the clearest demonstrated intent to attack American interests. But the authors stop short of declaring that this group represents an imminent threat to the U.S. homeland.

“Al Shabaab seems focused on its regional objectives, meaning the probability that an African terrorist group attempts a mass-casualty attack against the U.S. homeland remains low,” the authors wrote.

Meanwhile, ACLED, a nonprofit organization that collects conflict data, recorded that nearly 80% of all ISIS activity during the first 11 months of 2025 occurred in Africa, marking a 50% increase from the previous year.

At the heart of that surge is the Islamic State West Africa Province, or ISWAP, a powerful insurgent network in the Sahel that poses the most significant challenge to Al Shabaab’s dominance on the continent and increasingly serves as a hub for intelligence gathering and logistical coordination among Islamic State branches in the region.

“ISWAP has also recently benefited from external support in the form of trainers deployed by the international Islamic State organization to increase ISWAP capabilities in UAS operations, advanced explosive assembly, and military tactics,” the authors wrote.

The Trump administration has recently focused its African counterterrorism strategy on those two theaters: Somalia, where U.S. Africa Command, or AFRICOM, has ramped up air and drone strikes, and Nigeria, where Washington has launched a series of airstrikes alongside local partners and deployed a small contingent of U.S. personnel to support training efforts.

Yet these developments come as the United States has reduced its military footprint in Africa by 75%.

Gen. Dagvin Anderson, the head of AFRICOM, told lawmakers in May that the departure of American and allied forces had created “an intelligence black hole” on the continent. Anderson also emphasized that his command was operating with the “minimum necessary resources” and that its diminished force posture was compromising its ability to respond to crises.

The United States-Israel Defense Technology Cooperation Initiative, part of the House’s edition of the National Defense Authorization Act released last week, would “expand and accelerate bilateral defense technology research, development, testing, evaluation, integration, and industrial cooperation,” according to the bill.

The measure was introduced by Reps. Mike Rogers, R-Ala., and Adam Smith, D-Wash., the chairman and ranking Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee. It calls for the defense secretary to designate an executive agent to synchronize cooperate efforts between the two countries.

Congress has a decades-long tradition of strong bipartisan support for Israel, and following Hamas’ deadly attack on Oct. 7, 2023, the United States sent $13.4 billion in military aid to the country.

U.S. and Israeli defense companies also cooperate on weapons development and manufacturing, including collaboration between U.S.-based RTX and Israel’s Rafael Systems on Israel’s Iron Dome missile defense system.

The directive for further technological integration between the U.S. and Israeli militaries comes as the two countries pursue a war on Iran, which is proving to be unpopular, according to nationwide polls.

Ben Freeman, the director of the Democratizing Foreign Policy program at the Quincy Institute, wrote in Responsible Statecraft that the NDAA provision would greatly expand the existing cooperation between the U.S. and Israel by promoting joint research and development on cyber defense, machine learning, unmanned systems, data integration and more.

Reps. Ro Khanna of, D-Calif., and Thomas Massie, R-Ky., have both spoken out against the effort. The two lawmakers united last year to introduce the Iran War Powers Resolution.

Massie, who recently lost his Republican primary to a challenger closely aligned with President Donald Trump — and his administration’s position on Israel — said in a message on social media, “If the provision in the NDAA to integrate/synchronize the U.S. and Israeli militaries (section 224) makes it out of committee, I’ll offer an amendment to strip it from the bill on the floor.”

Massie appeared concerned that such a level of integration would infringe on U.S. sovereignty.

Khanna, a member of the House Armed Services Committee, backed Massie on social media, posting that he would introduce an amendment to strip the measure out of the final House version of the NDAA.

Rogers defended the measure Tuesday, posting on social media that it “simply adds transparency and improves efficiency by designating a single official to coordinate existing initiatives.”

“In no way does it give away command and control of our military operations, personnel, or equipment,” he said.

The House Armed Services Committee is set to debate the measure as part of its markup of the NDAA on Thursday morning. The bill is then expected to go to the full House for a vote.

The researchers described the deployment as “an expensive tool” used in “the wrong places for the wrong types of crime.” They cited the $607 average daily cost per Guard member in the nation’s capital, compared with $384 in pay for Metropolitan Police Department officers.

“The National Guard was deployed primarily in high-visibility public spaces, exactly the locations where opportunistic property crime tends to occur and where visible deterrence is most likely to be effective,” they wrote. “A uniformed presence in tourist corridors and transit hubs is unlikely to interrupt a dispute between individuals with preexisting ties on their own turf. The Guard’s footprint was simply misaligned with the geography of violence.”

Robbery and other violent crimes in Washington, D.C., have also seen a downward trend that predates the deployment, the report said, and the operation did not impact that trajectory.

But the policy think tank emphasized that the effort was “not a waste.” It acknowledged there was a 24% decline in opportunistic property crime recorded in the first six months of the operation.

“What the Guard brought was a massive, sudden shock from the visible presence of uniformed military personnel on the streets of Washington almost overnight,” they continued. “It produced a significant reduction in property crime, and it did so quickly, which matters when residents and businesses are demanding visible action.”

The authors went on to argue that a more targeted, data-driven MPD mobilization could have achieved “comparable or better outcomes” at a fraction of the expense for taxpayers.

The White House, in response, dismissed what it called an “out-of-touch” think tank analysis, written by “keyboard warriors” seeking to undermine President Donald Trump’s agenda.

“Here’s the reality: President Trump has transformed D.C. from a crime-ridden city into a safe and beautiful haven for residents and visitors alike,” White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson told Military Times. “The president’s Safe and Beautiful Task Force and National Guard presence have driven down crime, beautified the city and improved quality of life for countless individuals,”

Trump, for his part, said last week there were no plans for the National Guard to leave the nation’s capital anytime soon. The administration is requesting an additional 1,500 Guard troops ahead of America’s 250th birthday events in the district.

“They still have a lot of drones because these are easy to make,” Rubio said as he appeared before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for the first time since the United States launched Operation Epic Fury on Feb. 28. “This is a pervasive problem around the world.”

The Islamic Republic’s Shahed-136 drones have become emblematic of a new era in warfare defined by cheap, mass production. Costing between $20,000 and $50,000 apiece, the roughly 11-foot-long, delta-winged munition carries an explosive warhead that detonates on impact.

Rubio nonetheless insisted that the U.S. had been “highly successful” in achieving its military objectives in Iran, contending that the campaign had significantly degraded the country’s Navy, industrial base and its ability to manufacture missiles.

“There is no Iranian Navy. It lies at the bottom of the ocean, and will soon, within a number of years, be prime fishing spots because they’ll turn into reefs,” he quipped.

The nominal ceasefire between Washington and Tehran, however, remains tenuous.

U.S. Central Command announced on Sunday that it conducted “self-defense strikes” against Iranian radar and drone control sites over the weekend. Iran, meanwhile, declared it targeted U.S. forces at an airbase in Kuwait. American officials said the attack was thwarted and no personnel were harmed.

Rubio, a central player in the negotiations to end the war, stressed the intricacy of the process, given the heavy reliance on intermediaries. The discussions are “not like talks with Switzerland,” he noted wryly. Still, he pointed to signs of progress, citing the regime’s alleged willingness to begin bargaining over facets of its nuclear program.

He said the latest framework for review is built around a two-pronged model, beginning with the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz. Under that phase, he said, Iran would forgo tolls, assist in removing mines it had laid, and commit to not firing on ships — preconditions he described in aggregate as “the predicate that opens the door to phase two.”

The second phase would require Iran to enter “very specific negotiations” on the means of disposal of highly enriched uranium that is “buried deep in the mountain.” The secretary of state added that the regime would also have to accept “severe and long-term limitations and/or cancellation, of enrichment.”

Rubio talked up the overall outlook for a deal, but diplomatic channels have fallen quiet in recent days, according to Iran’s semiofficial Fars and Tasnim news agencies. The outlets report that Tehran has suspended communication with mediators in the wake of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s order of an incursion deep into Lebanon to target Hezbollah, effectively unraveling the truce between the countries.

President Donald Trump disputed the claim of severed communications in a Truth Social post on Tuesday. “The conversations between us have been going on continuously, including four days ago, three days ago, two days ago, one day ago, and today,” he asserted.

The crisis in Lebanon represents a significant hurdle on the path to a U.S.-Iran peace deal. Netanyahu appears adamant about prolonging Israel’s invasion of its northern neighbor — and preserving the right to strike inside its borders. But the Iranians are equally insistent that any enduring cessation of hostilities must encompass Lebanon.

“The ceasefire between Iran and the U.S. is unequivocally a ceasefire on all fronts, including in Lebanon,” Iranian Foreign Minister Seyed Abbas Araghchi said on Monday. “Its violation on one front is a violation of the ceasefire on all fronts.”

In a post on Truth Social, the president wrote that U.S. District Judge Richard Leon, a George W. Bush appointee, should “stop playing games with America’s Security.”

Trump added an ominous warning that if anything were to happen, the judge “will be responsible for the Death and Destruction caused to our Country.”

“He has already created enough problems by allowing ‘Top Secret’ information to be released and exposed based on a ridiculous lawsuit started by a highly litigious woman,” Trump noted.

The National Trust for Historic Preservation filed a lawsuit in December to block the $400 million project, arguing that it cannot proceed until it receives congressional authorization. Leon agreed at the end of March, but that decision was later paused by a federal appeals court, allowing work to resume in the interim pending further review.

The president invoked national security as a justification for forging ahead. His Sunday post featured two AI-generated renderings of military-style drones stationed on the rooftop and flanked by snipers.

“The DronePort at the White House Ballroom will be, perhaps, the most sophisticated anywhere in the World! It will safeguard our Nation’s Capital, Washington, D.C., long into the future,” Trump said. “With the advent of highly sophisticated, and powerful, modern day weaponry, we can no longer defend Washington, D.C., with rifles and pistols, alone.”

Trump hosted reporters for a tour of the site of the former East Wing in May, where he cast the development as both a ballroom and a fortress. Among the features he highlighted were a military hospital, missile-proof roofing and a “drone port” designed to accommodate an “unlimited number of drones.”

“This is all my money and donors’ money. This is tax free,” Trump asserted. “On top of the roof, we’re going to have the greatest drone empire that you’ve ever seen and it’s going to protect Washington.”

It remains unclear how or why drones would be deployed in this way. The specifics of security at the White House are not widely discussed but it has been reported that the building already has measures in place to combat potential drone attacks.

Security in general is a significant concern, however. Over the past month, there have been three separate incidents in which gunfire erupted in close proximity to the president.

On May 23, a gunman approached the White House while Trump was inside the residence, drew a firearm and discharged multiple rounds before being fatally shot by Secret Service agents. On May 4, a man was wounded during a firefight with Secret Service personnel near the Washington Monument. On April 25, an individual carrying a shotgun, handgun and knives attempted to breach a security checkpoint at the White House Correspondents’ Association dinner — an event attended by the president — before being swiftly apprehended by law enforcement and charged with attempting to assassinate the president.

The Justice Department is hoping the security imperatives will shape the trajectory of the legal dispute. Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, in a court filing, insists it is “urgent” that the ballroom be completed.

“This second attack on the President this month underscores that critical need for top level, state of the art security at the White House, including the Ballroom,” Blanche wrote in May, acknowledging that it is being constructed to “ensure that that President can perform his constitutional duties in a safe and heavily secured facility.”

U.S. Marine Corps Gen. Francis Donovan, the head of U.S. Southern Command, briefly discussed operational security matters with the Cuban delegation, which included Cuban Gen. Roberto Legra Sotolongo, first deputy minister of the chief of the General Staff, U.S. Southern Command said on X.

“Donovan also led a perimeter security assessment of the naval base and discussed force protection, safety of service members and their families, and operational readiness with base officials,” it said.

Donovan’s meeting in Cuba is the first in recent memory by a head of Southern Command and comes amid growing concerns in Cuba of a possible U.S. military attack on the Communist-run island.

Cuba’s armed forces said on Facebook that the meeting took place with mutual agreement and that both sides agreed to maintain communication.

“Both delegations evaluate positively the meeting where issues related to security around the dividing perimeter of the military enclave were addressed and agreed to maintain communication between both military commands,” the statement said.

The meeting follows a rare visit earlier in May by CIA ​Director ⁠John Ratcliffe to Havana.

President Donald Trump has often cited Cuba among the foreign policy goals of his second term and has hinted it will become his focus once the war with Iran is over.

U.S. ANTAGONIST

Cuba has been a U.S. antagonist for decades, since Fidel Castro’s 1959 revolution.

Trump is strongly supported by hardline Cuban Americans in Florida, who have pushed for U.S.-instigated regime change for decades, and his administration has been steadily ramping up pressure on the island.

On May 20, the U.S. formally charged former President Raul Castro with four counts of murder for the 1996 downing of civilian aircraft operated by Miami-based exiles.

The indictment was the latest example of the Trump administration’s efforts to assert U.S. influence in the Western Hemisphere.

Washington’s more assertive role in Latin America was epitomized by an audacious raid by the U.S. military on Jan. 3 to capture Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro in Caracas, and then fly him to New York to face drug trafficking charges.

Maduro, a socialist aligned with Havana, pleaded not guilty.

U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, the son of Cuban immigrants who is seen as a possible contender for the 2028 Republican nomination for president, has raised alarm in Havana by talking about the national security risk posed by what he calls a failed state just 90 miles (145 km) from Florida.

On May 5, Rubio and Donovan posed in front of a map of Cuba in a post on X by Donovan’s Southern Command. It said the talks focused on “U.S. efforts to counter threats that undermine security, stability and democracy in our hemisphere.”

Cuba’s Foreign Minister Bruno Rodriguez has warned that any military action would lead to a “bloodbath” in which thousands of Cubans and Americans would die.

Trump has effectively imposed a fuel blockade on the island by threatening tariffs on countries supplying it with fuel, igniting seemingly endless power outages and delivering new blows to the island’s already ailing economy.

Experts say instability in Cuba threatens a migration crisis.