America
US House panel passes $1.15 trillion defense bill, renaming Pentagon ‘Department of War’
The US House Armed Services Committee late Thursday passed its annual defense policy bill, approving a massive $1.15 trillion budget and sending the legislation to the full House floor. The committee debated the bulk of approximately 900 submitted amendments during a grueling 14-hour session.
Known as the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for fiscal year 2027, the bill was approved in a post-midnight vote of 44 to 12.
While the committee historically operates on a bipartisan consensus—typically with only one or two Democrats voting against the bill before it advances to the floor—this vote recorded unusually low Democratic support, with nearly half of the committee’s Democrats voting against the measure alongside unanimous Republican approval.
Prior to the final vote, committee members gave a standing ovation to the panel’s chairman, Representative Mike Rogers, a Republican who was presiding over his final NDAA markup unless granted a waiver.
“I don’t get choked up easy,” Rogers said in response to the gesture.
Among the adopted amendments was a provision requiring the Pentagon to notify Congress within five days of the grounds for dismissing high-ranking military officers.
The requirement, introduced by Democratic Representative Pat Ryan, was adopted on Thursday with bipartisan support via an unopposed voice vote.
Concerns had escalated across both parties following the dismissal of two dozen senior military officers by Secretary of War Pete Hegseth since taking leadership of the Pentagon, leading to allegations that experienced personnel were being removed without explanation.
The committee also approved another amendment introduced by Ryan requiring Hegseth to provide the defense committee with a copy of the official investigation and a briefing regarding the March 1 lethal attack on Shuaiba Port in Kuwait, which resulted in the deaths of six US service members.
In one of the session’s unexpected developments, the committee adopted an amendment by Republican Representative Ronny Jackson to officially change the name of the Department of Defense to the “Department of War.”
The designation is favored by the Trump administration and is a term frequently used by Hegseth and several Republican lawmakers. The amendment passed in a 29-to-27 vote.
In another significant vote, the committee adopted an amendment by Democratic Representative Marilyn Strickland. The provision directs the renaming of military bases that once bore the names of Confederate generals, were subsequently renamed to honor other service members, but were reverted to their former Confederate-linked names under the second Trump administration by attributing them to different historical soldiers sharing the same surnames.
Additionally, the committee adopted a “right to repair” amendment sponsored by Democratic Representative Maggie Goodlander and Republican Representative Pat Harrigan, which requires contractors to provide access to the data and parts necessary to repair military equipment.
“This is a common-sense requirement,” Goodlander told the committee. “This bipartisan amendment establishes a clear set of rules that will help resolve disputes before they arise, streamline processes, reduce bureaucracy, and close legal loopholes that drag our military into endless complications when we should be empowering our troops to do basic tasks.”
Rogers opposed the amendment, arguing that while it attempted to address “legitimate concerns,” it created a far more significant issue by granting the government overly broad authority over intellectual property developed by the private sector using its own capital.
“This amendment will force companies to choose between protecting their intellectual property and doing business with the Department of War,” Rogers said.
The adoption of the amendment, which also enjoys bipartisan support in the Senate, is seen as a major blow to major defense industry contractors.
Opposition budget cuts rejected
Democrats attempted to reduce the overall topline of the massive NDAA budget, cut funding allocated for Trump-class warships, oppose war with Iran, and ban the transfer of cluster munitions, but all such proposals were rejected by the committee’s Republican defense hawks.
Democratic Representative Seth Moulton said of his amendment to cut $150 billion from the NDAA budget: “I do not trust the current administration to properly utilize this historic budget. I will not give them a blank check to fund reckless and unilateral personal wars.”
The committee’s ranking Democrat, Representative Adam Smith, introduced an amendment to strip approximately $2 billion allocated for Trump-class warships from the defense policy bill.
Moulton, supporting Smith’s amendment, characterized the warship as “the most expensive target in world history.”
While the warship amendment was defeated, a provision introduced by Smith requiring the head of the Pentagon to submit quarterly reports to Congress on munitions inventories was adopted as part of an en bloc package.
An amendment by Strickland aimed at preventing the Secretary of Defense from removing names from officer promotion lists, and reserving the authority to overturn such decisions solely for the commander-in-chief, was defeated in a 30-to-26 vote.
Democratic Representatives Don Davis and Jared Golden voted with Republicans to defeat the measure, while Republican Representative Austin Scott crossed party lines to support it.
An amendment by Ryan aimed at blocking additional funding for further military operations against Iran was rejected 30 to 26, with Davis again voting with the Republican majority.
Republicans on the committee also voted down several amendments aimed at protecting the editorial independence of the military news outlet Stars and Stripes, which is currently operating under new restrictions imposed by the Trump administration, as well as preserving press access at the Pentagon.
Lawmakers rejected a provision introduced by Democratic Representative Sara Jacobs to shield Stars and Stripes from recent editorial interference attempts by the Pentagon in a 29-to-25 vote. Democratic Representative Derek Tran was the sole Democrat to vote against the measure.
“For 165 years, Stars and Stripes has been an independent voice for service members and a real newspaper reporting facts, not a mouthpiece for the Pentagon,” Jacobs said, adding that Hegseth “is attempting to end this legacy, and we must not allow it.”
The amendment would have established statutory status for the Stars and Stripes ombudsman position. The role, created in 1991, was designed to monitor the outlet’s editorial independence and report concerns to Congress.
The paper’s most recent ombudsman, Jacqueline Smith, was dismissed in April after criticizing the Pentagon’s new restrictions on the publication.
The restrictions, implemented by the Pentagon through a January directive, introduced new content requirements and mandated that job applicants be questioned on how they would support Trump’s policy priorities.
“This is censorship, and it is a dangerous warning sign,” Jacobs said. “We must make this position permanent immediately.”
While Rogers agreed that the ombudsman role is important, he stated he “cannot support limiting the secretary’s oversight authority over an ombudsman.”
The committee also rejected an amendment by Goodlander to establish Stars and Stripes as an independent agency within the Department of War, thereby creating oversight mechanisms against political interference, in a 29-to-26 vote.
Republican Representative Don Bacon crossed party lines to vote in favor of the measure, while Tran voted against it.
Goodlander, a former navy officer, argued that her provision would ensure “editorial decisions remain where they belong—in the hands of professional journalists, not political appointees.”
Rogers spoke against the amendment, asserting that the measure would “interfere with Hegseth’s ongoing efforts to ensure modernization and accurate reporting aligned with our military’s values.”
The rejection of these provisions came one day after two members of the Stars and Stripes advisory board filed a lawsuit against the Pentagon, alleging that recent structural changes have compromised the publication’s editorial independence.
Another amendment introduced by Jacobs to preserve press access at the Pentagon was also defeated in a 28-to-27 vote, despite Bacon joining Democrats to vote in its favor.
“If you remove the press from the Pentagon, you blind Congress and the American people to what is being done in their name and with their money,” Jacobs said.
Rogers urged members to oppose the amendment, stating that the Pentagon had “set a prudent policy to protect sensitive information by placing responsible limits on press access.”
The Pentagon has maintained a particularly tense relationship with the press during Trump’s second term, with journalists now largely barred from the building. While courts have frequently sided with reporters in lawsuits challenging these measures, the Pentagon has continued to increase restrictions.
Most recently, defense officials barred reporters from entering the press room inside the building, declaring the facility a classified space and blocking access to an area journalists had utilized for decades.
Oil industry executives and White House officials are engaging in a new push to prevent any move by the administration to restrict US oil exports.
According to a report by Politico, industry representatives say these efforts extend to the White House Domestic Policy Council, the National Energy Dominance Council, the Department of Energy, and Chief of Staff Susie Wiles.
Trump believes that oil prices could harm the Republicans’ chances of maintaining control of Congress in the November mid-term elections.
“Everyone from the industry and within the administration is working hand in hand to prevent this,” an energy industry executive said.
The individual added that White House officials had not formally raised the idea, “but everyone knows Trump will act like Trump again.”
The White House maintains that export restrictions are not on the agenda.
White House spokesperson Taylor Rogers said in a statement: “While the President and the entire energy team are taking various measures to mitigate temporary disruptions in the energy market, the administration has been very clear: there is no plan to impose restrictions on oil and gas exports.”
White House representatives did not confirm whether industry lobbyists had approached specific agencies or officials to discuss the export issue. Department of Energy representatives did not respond to queries.
However, although administration officials have guaranteed since the early days of the Iranian war that an export ban was off the table, Trump’s directive to the Department of Justice in June to investigate oil companies on charges of price gouging put the sector on high alert.
Concerns within the industry mounted after Trump stated on Monday that oil giants Exxon Mobil and Chevron were making “too much money.”
Industry executives now fear Trump may try to make a move against them by restricting fuel export activities abroad, which have boomed since the start of the US-Israeli war against Iran.
Another industry official said the sector had reiterated its concerns regarding export controls to the White House “very recently.”
The Trump administration has already tried several different approaches to lower prices that enjoy broader support from the oil industry.
These include the release of millions of barrels of oil from the country’s strategic petroleum reserve and the temporary suspension of the Jones Act to make it easier for non-American vessels to transport oil and natural gas between US ports.
Energy Secretary Chris Wright, a former oil company CEO, and Vice President JD Vance have repeatedly opposed the idea of limiting or banning exports.
Wright stated in May that the administration had “definitely” ruled out the option of banning diesel exports.
Mike Sommers, president of the American Petroleum Institute, said he was “confident” Trump understood the need to maintain oil exports, recalling that early in the crisis, the president had encouraged other countries to buy American oil:
“The administration has repeatedly expressed that they are opposed to [export controls]. Therefore, I do not think there is any change in their stance at the moment. Frankly, it feels as though we have to clarify this issue every three weeks.”
In a note sent to clients on Tuesday, consultancy firm ClearView Energy stated that the moment for the White House to take a step toward limiting fuel exports “might be approaching.”
The firm noted that former President Joe Biden had considered imposing export restrictions ahead of the 2022 mid-term elections following a “long summer of high petrol prices” caused by the war in Ukraine.
US crude oil exports increased by approximately 30% compared with last year, reaching nearly 3.5 million barrels per day by the end of July.
Shipments of refined products such as diesel, petrol, and other types of oil rose by 20%, exceeding 8 million barrels per day.
Opponents of exports argue that sending these cargoes abroad leads to rising prices domestically.
However, the oil and gas industry contends that closing the door to exports would harm the domestic market and cause their production to decline.
“Export bans may seem politically attractive, but ultimately they will lead to the exact opposite of the intended effect,” said a refining industry lobbyist who noted they were in contact with the White House on the matter, arguing that cutting off American exports from international markets would mean “a decline in US production, supply shortages, further upward pressure on domestic prices, and even greater disruptions in the global market.”
Chet Thompson, president and CEO of the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, stated that export controls would force US refiners to produce less petrol because they would lose commercial channels to ship other surplus fuels, such as diesel, produced during the process.
Three US senators have reported that intelligence sharing between Washington and Kyiv has reached its former level. The White House declined to disclose details of the current intelligence relationship, emphasizing that President Donald Trump remains focused on ending the conflict.
American senators reported that intelligence sharing between the US and Ukraine has returned to its previous level.
According to a report by Politico, the senators offering this assessment include Democratic Senator Mark Warner, a long-standing advocate for increasing aid to Ukraine.
Commenting on the matter, Warner said: “I don’t want to get into details, but things have improved.” Republican senators John Cornyn and Roger Wicker stated that information sharing has accelerated during a period of “strategic importance”.
Democratic Senator Tim Kaine also noted that he has observed signs of a revival in information sharing between the US and Ukraine.
The White House did not disclose details regarding the current state of its intelligence-sharing relationship with Ukraine. However, in comments to Politico, it emphasized that US President Donald Trump is focused on contributing to the termination of the conflict.
A White House official told Politico: “The President and his team remain committed to playing a constructive role in ending the war between Russia and Ukraine and remain optimistic that we will ultimately reach a peace agreement.”
Last autumn, the Financial Times reported that Trump had issued instructions to prepare for sharing intelligence data that could assist Ukraine in conducting strikes deep inside Russian territory.
Russian authorities are demanding that Western nations cease providing military aid to Ukraine, emphasizing that such assistance will not prevent Moscow from achieving its military campaign objectives.
Last year, the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs requested that the US side clarify information regarding the transfer of intelligence data to Ukraine.
According to statements from the Kremlin, Russia has long been aware that the US and NATO countries collect intelligence and transfer it to the Ukrainian military, noting that this is “not a new development”.
Nevertheless, Russian President Vladimir Putin warned that Russia will not tolerate attacks by the Armed Forces of Ukraine and will continue to respond forcefully.
In June, President Vladimir Putin announced that Russia is prepared to conduct negotiations with Ukraine on the basis of the agreements reached in Istanbul.
According to Putin, the parties must also take into account the agreements reached between Moscow and Washington in Anchorage, the situation on the front line, and the conditions for a settlement previously set out by Russia.
The US Department of War (Pentagon) is preparing a new nuclear strategy that places special emphasis on the potential deployment of tactical and shorter-range nuclear weapons.
According to a report by NBC citing five informed sources familiar with the matter, the emerging strategy challenges a nuclear approach that has been regarded as unshakeable for decades.
The report asserted that the proposals presented by the department would not exclude any course of action for the US President. Instead, they aim to “expand decision space and thereby strengthen deterrence” by offering him realistic and credible options.
A Pentagon source said in a statement: “We believe we need credible options regarding the use of nuclear weapons.”
Work on the new strategy is being led by Elbridge Colby, Under Secretary of Defense for Policy. The process is reportedly being conducted as part of the routine reviews typically carried out under each new presidential administration.
Colby, who has long advocated for an increased role for tactical weapons, contends that US adversaries believe Washington might actually use long-range nuclear weapons to destroy enemy nuclear forces, as envisaged in the current strategy.
The strategy proposed by Colby has raised concerns among some US lawmakers. Critics argue that this approach could make the use of nuclear weapons appear less threatening or lead to a decline in military readiness levels under specific scenarios.
Furthermore, some circles assess that the operational readiness of the US Armed Forces could be adversely affected as the focus of military training shifts toward the new strategy, which involves the use of shorter-range weapons.
Those expressing this view claim that in a potential catastrophic scenario, the US military would be less prepared for the process due to a lack of sufficient expertise in the use of nuclear weapons.
A US Congressional source, in an assessment provided to NBC, said: “It is hard to imagine another study that so directly contradicts the position stated by President Donald Trump that we need to make our nuclear deterrence system great again. He clearly wants to have more capabilities, not fewer. This study is a complete fiasco.”
Sources speaking to the network reported that Colby will present the work he is leading during an off-the-record military event in Nebraska, scheduled to take place during a visit to US Strategic Command, which oversees US nuclear forces.
The nuclear strategy of the US was last updated in 2024.
According to research from February 2026 by the Federation of American Scientists (FAS), the US Department of War holds a stockpile of approximately 3,700 nuclear warheads designed for delivery by ballistic missiles and strategic bombers.
Jointly, Russia and the US control approximately 90% of the world’s total nuclear weapons stockpile. Russia’s nuclear arsenal is estimated to consist of more than 4,300 warheads.
China Is Not Pulling Up the Industrialization Ladder
Why did Trump step back from a decision to launch a new attack on Iran?
Oil industry lobbies White House to avert potential Trump export ban
Colombian gangs infiltrate Ukraine to gain drone warfare expertise
US and Ukraine restore intelligence sharing to former levels
-
Diplomacy1 week agoUK Prime Minister Andy Burnham pledges full support to Ukraine in meeting with Zelenskyy
-
Diplomacy1 week agoUkraine targets first prototype of European Freyja missile defense system in early 2027
-
America7 days agoUS signs $135 billion defense contracts for nuclear submarines and missiles amid Iran conflict
-
America7 days agoElon Musk’s America PAC plans $100 million field operation for 2026 Republican midterm push
-
Europe7 days agoCeuta migration crisis sparks diplomatic row as Italy demands Spain’s suspension from Schengen
-
Diplomacy2 weeks agoUS expands Middle East air operations using German bases as regional casualties rise
-
America7 days agoTrump administration seeks to reopen closed US oil refineries as war drives fuel prices up
-
America7 days agoAnthropic AI models breach corporate systems after escaping isolated test environment
