The U.S. ‌has supplied large amounts of arms to allies while also using munitions in the Iran conflict, raising concerns about inventories of air defense and precision-guided weapons.

“We called on industry to rapidly scale up munitions output, and RTX is delivering,” Acting Secretary of the Navy Hung Cao said in an X post. “This landmark Tomahawk contract ensures our warfighters continue to have the lethal firepower they need.”

In a separate statement, Raytheon said the contract would run for seven years and would allow annual Tomahawk production to increase to more than 1,000 missiles. The company currently makes just 60 a year.

The sea-launched Tomahawk, a mainstay of the Navy’s surface fleet, provides long-range precision strike capability against land targets from ships and submarines.

The formal announcement firms up a framework agreement that the U.S. military and Raytheon signed in February.

The administration of President Donald Trump is brokering multi-year deals with the biggest U.S. defense contractors, giving the companies confidence to invest billions of dollars in new facilities and equipment.

Earlier this month, the military signed deals to ramp up production of Patriot and THAAD interceptor missile parts.

The deals cover avionics and ejector assemblies Boeing supplies to prime contractor Raytheon, an RTX business, for both the SM-3 Block IB and the newer Block IIA. Both variants operate with the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System to destroy incoming missiles outside the atmosphere.

“These agreements ensure our Warfighters get the munitions they need to win,” Michael P. Duffey, under secretary of war for acquisition and sustainment, said in the Pentagon release. “We are stabilizing our supply chains, expanding munitions production and putting our entire defense industrial base on a wartime footing.”

The frameworks run for seven years and allow Boeing to start building components before a contract is in place, while the three sides negotiate a multiyear deal. The long-term commitment is intended to give suppliers enough certainty to invest in added capacity. Neither the Pentagon nor Boeing released dollar figures or quantities.

“This gives us a clear demand signal to build and deliver SM-3 interceptors at the levels needed to counter threats,” Bob Ciesla, vice president of Boeing Precision Engagement Systems, said in a company statement. “The SM-3 is an essential part of the layered air and missile defense architecture that protects the U.S. and its allies worldwide.”

The approach mirrors a seven-year deal Boeing struck in April to triple production of PAC-3 Missile Segment Enhancement seekers, part of a broader Pentagon effort to lock in supply from key subcontractors alongside the prime contractors.

Earlier this month, the Missile Defense Agency awarded Raytheon a $745 million contract to produce fully assembled SM-3 Block IIA interceptors for the United States and Japan.

Demand for the interceptor traces back to April 2024, when Navy destroyers first fired SM-3s in combat, helping to thwart an Iranian ballistic missile attack on Israel. Far more interceptors have been launched since, including those fired in Operation Epic Fury.

The Center for Strategic and International Studies estimated the SM-3 inventory at 414 as of December 2025. A May analysis from the center put wartime expenditures between 130 and 250 missiles and warned that replenishment will take years.

Congress has stepped in to keep the Block IB line open, the cheaper of the two variants covered by Friday’s agreements, after the Missile Defense Agency proposed ending new purchases in the fiscal 2025 budget request.

National security officials in Washington widely view Baker, who also served as a national security adviser to Vice President JD Vance, as a low-key but influential figure inside the White House.

A former State Department official, academic and Vance adviser when the vice president was in the Senate, Baker had historically advocated for a more restrained American foreign policy that questioned the wisdom of long-term foreign conflicts.

He was also among the figures who helped craft Vance’s speech to the Munich Security Conference last year, during which the vice president warned European leaders that alleged censorship and democratic backsliding posed risks as severe to the continent as external threats, like those posed by China and Russia.

“I’m proud of everything we’ve achieved and, of course, am incredibly grateful to the President, Vice President and Secretary Rubio,” Baker wrote in a statement provided to Reuters. “I’ll never be far away.”

In separate statements, Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio praised the outgoing deputy national security adviser, whose departure was first reported by Axios.

Staff Changes

Baker, who has a young family, stayed on at the White House months longer than originally planned to help with some key staff transitions, according to a person close to him.

Mike Needham, a high-ranking State Department official close to Rubio, joined the White House in late May as another deputy national security adviser alongside Baker, the person noted. Cliff Sims, a White House and intelligence official during Trump’s first term, succeeded Baker as national security adviser to Vance at around the same time.

There have been additional staff departures at lower levels of the White House’s national security team in recent months. The top officials on the National Security Council overseeing Europe and Latin America both departed in June.

The broader significance of the turnover is unclear. While Baker was present at some high-level talks and was considered far more influential than some of his peers, the Trump administration has often dealt with its biggest foreign policy challenges at the principal level, delegating relatively little responsibility even to its highest-level staff.

Outside the national security space, the White House has in recent days announced the impending departure of White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt and White House counsel David Warrington.

Task Force Falcon Strike will utilize one-way attack drones composed of unmanned systems from above, on and below the sea, managed by U.S. military support staff and regional partners, according to a Thursday release.

The move to launch this unit follows CENTCOM’s establishment of Task Force Scorpion Strike in December 2025, a Middle East-based task force equipped with one-way attack drones as the military strived to integrate drone technology across the services.

“Task Force Falcon Strike will expand on Scorpion Strike’s success given the tremendous innovation happening among our regional allies and partners,” Adm. Brad Cooper, CENTCOM commander, said in the release. “Integrating and deploying our new capabilities together will help us rapidly realize the new possibilities that are on the horizon.”

Scorpion Strike was the first to launch an aerial attack drone from a U.S. Navy warship last December, the month of its announcement. The unit also deployed one-way unmanned aerial systems during Operation Epic Fury and during strikes on Iranian port facilities in July with unmanned attack vessels at sea, the statement highlights.

CENTCOM began consulting with and officially inviting regional partners to join Falcon Strike, aiming to expand attack-drone capabilities across the Middle East into a “unified multi-domain, multinational deterrent.”

“The United States military has a lot of strong partnerships and friends in the region,” Cooper said. “We are collectively stronger when we integrate and deploy new capabilities together.”

The release did not specify which regional partners CENTCOM is working with on the unit.

Personnel from the U.S. Special Operations Command Central, located at MacDill Air Force Base, Florida, will lead Falcon Strike’s staff of U.S. and regional representatives after it launched Scorpion Strike, the release states.

The announcement comes as the U.S. continues its war with Iran, which has depleted the U.S. munitions stockpile and caused military leaders to weigh the possibility of developing cheaper anti-drone technology at a faster pace.

In an announcement, Sheehy said the Special Operations Forces Concealed Carry Act would align the status of special operators with active and retired law enforcement officers, who are permitted under federal law to carry concealed weapons across state lines.

“Our elite warfighters never stop serving, and this bill ensures the law reflects the trust they’ve earned through a lifetime of sacrifice,” Sheehy said, adding that “Special Operations Forces spend their careers protecting the American people with unmatched discipline, judgment, and professionalism.”

According to Sheehy’s office, when Congress passed the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act, or LEOSA, in 2004, lawmakers recognized that active and retired officers may need to respond to violent crime or terrorists while off duty. They also recognized that officers face ongoing threats from individuals they previously encountered while on duty.

Sheehy’s office explained that his bill would build on the framework created by LEOSA because individuals in special operations “have completed rigorous selection and possess firearms training that meets or exceeds professional law enforcement standards.”

Congressman Pat Harrigan, a Republican from North Carolina, filed a companion bill in April. In a statement, he said that “it makes no sense that an active or retired SEAL or Green Beret, someone who spent a career mastering firearms under the most demanding conditions in the world, has no equivalent recognition under federal law.”

While the bill would extend concealed carry privileges, it would also require participants to complete annual active-duty-level firearms qualification tests, as well as a Justice Department concealed carry class.

During Sheehy’s bid for a Senate seat in 2024, The Washington Post published an article about an incident in which Sheehy was cited at Glacier National Park for illegally discharging a firearm. According to the report, the park ranger investigating the incident interviewed Sheehy at an emergency room in Kalispell shortly after the shooting in October 2015.

“(Sheehy) stated he was arranging gear in the back of his vehicle, and that the gun (Colt Revolver, .45 long) had slipped down the pile of gear, hit the ground and fired. The round hit him in the right forearm and did not pass through,” the ranger wrote in a narrative with the citation.

The ranger also told The Washington Post that the revolver that Sheehy said had accidentally discharged was loaded except for a single missing bullet.

When confronted with the details, Sheehy told reporters that he lied about accidentally discharging his firearm and that the shooting injury actually occurred during a deployment in Afghanistan. He said he didn’t report it because a teammate’s negligent discharge caused the injury, and he didn’t want to get his teammate in trouble.

“I guess the only thing I’m guilty of is admitting to doing something I never did,” Sheehy told the newspaper. He added: “It was a small price to pay to make sure that a whole team of really great Americans didn’t get dragged through the mud over this.”

Gen. Francis L. Donovan, commander of U.S. Southern Command, directed the activation Tuesday, describing Joint Task Force Western Hemisphere, or JTF-WHEM, as a purpose-built joint task force that will provide unified command and control at the tactical and operational levels, while integrating military capabilities with the 18 partner nations of the Americas Counter Cartel Coalition, or A3C.

SOUTHCOM Media Relations Officer Steven McLoud told Military Times the activation of JTF-WHEM “represents an evolution from Operation Southern Spear,” reinforcing the command’s whole-of-government, multinational approach to defending the homeland while building on the successes of Operation Southern Spear.

McLoud said JTF-WHEM serves as SOUTHCOM’s “action arm,” focused on what he described as imposing “total systemic friction” against threats across the hemisphere.

He said the task force builds on Operation Southern Spear, which employed “precise kinetic strikes and maritime interdiction operations” to disrupt illicit trafficking and undermine entrenched criminal networks, by advancing efforts to disrupt, dismantle and defeat narcoterrorism networks.

According to McLoud, JTF-WHEM coordinates U.S. military actions targeting cartels and narcoterrorist networks while leveraging the commitment of Americas Counter Cartel Coalition member nations through expanded bilateral and multilateral cooperation in border security, countering threats and protecting critical infrastructure. He said enhanced cooperation and information sharing support the president’s national security strategy, the defense secretary’s national defense strategy and SOUTHCOM’s theater priorities.

According to SOUTHCOM, JTF-WHEM will serve as the command’s operational headquarters for executing missions across the region.

The command said the headquarters integrates intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, operational planning and multinational coordination while supporting intelligence sharing, combined training, interoperability, partner-capacity building and humanitarian assistance and disaster response.

SOUTHCOM said the task force is intended to increase operational effectiveness against transnational criminal organizations and other threats affecting the United States and partner nations.

“JTF-WHEM strengthens our ability to work alongside trusted allies and partners, synchronize military capabilities and apply sustained pressure against the networks that threaten our collective security,” Donovan said in a statement. “Together, we are increasing security across the hemisphere and protecting our homeland.”

Donovan also said, “Together with the 18 nations of A3C, we are changing the way we confront these threats.”

Gen. Donovan selected Marine Corps Maj. Gen. Kevin Jarrard to command the new task force. Jarrard most recently led U.S. military support to U.S. Department of State-led disaster relief operations following the June earthquakes in Venezuela.

The fall lasted only seconds, but the consequences would span a lifetime.

Under the cover of darkness in Balad, Iraq, Army Sgt. Will Fisher was moving into position for an overnight mission. He fell roughly 40 feet and landed on his feet while wearing about 100 pounds of gear. The force of the fall crushed the talus bone in his right ankle and broke his back. He was medically evacuated to Landstuhl Regional Medical Center in Germany.

That fall eventually cost him his leg and his career — the latter more than a decade earlier than he had hoped, and five critical years short of his qualifying for a full military pension.

“I wasn’t planning to leave the Army,” he said. “The injuries made that decision for me, and that was it. The retirement I’d spent almost 15 years working towards was gone.”

Service members qualify for full pensions after two decades of service, but only 17% reach the necessary 20-year mark of eligibility, a 2011 Defense Department report found. An estimated 54,000 veterans sustain career-ending combat injuries before reaching that threshold.

Consequently, medically retired veterans lose part of their retirement pay because they also receive disability compensation from the Department of Veterans Affairs. Last fall, those reductions averaged roughly $1,650 a month, or nearly $20,000 a year, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

The Major Richard Star Act would change that. The bill — named after an Army major who was medically retired after being injured in combat — has backing from nearly 80 senators, more than 330 House members, and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.

“It is unacceptable that tens of thousands of combat-injured veterans are denied the full military benefits they earned,” said Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), one of the bill’s lead sponsors, who characterized the offset as “one of the deepest injustices in our present veterans’ disability system.”

Some lawmakers support the bill’s premise, but worry about the cost: $78 billion over a decade, according to the CBO.

Sen. Mike Crapo, an Idaho Republican, is one of them. In a statement provided to The War Horse, a spokesperson for Crapo said, “We owe combat-injured veterans nothing less than our full support when they return from their military service.”

But his office also said Crapo is concerned about the bill’s overall price tag and “remains willing to work with his colleagues to address cost-related concerns.”

The cost previously prompted Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wisc., to block the legislation, arguing the long-term financial impact required greater scrutiny.

The cost question Congress hasn’t resolved

When it was introduced in 2023, the Major Richard Star Act applied only to those who were medically retired due to combat injuries and was estimated to cost about $10 billion to $13 billion over 10 years. Eligibility was later extended to an additional 255,000 medically retired veterans regardless of how they became injured, inflating costs nearly sevenfold over the same period.

In an effort to help it finally pass, lawmakers in June included the Major Richard Star Act as part of the Take Care of America’s Veterans Act (TCAVA), a legislative package with more than 60 veteran-related measures. The version in that bill would again limit the benefits to only those 54,000 injured in combat, according to advocates and legislative language reviewed by The War Horse.

Candace Wheeler, senior director of government and legislative affairs at the Tragedy Assistance Program for Survivors, said advocates ultimately focused on combat-injured retirees because broader proposals would “balloon the cost” and be harder to move through Congress. But after TCAVA failed to get a floor vote in July, its chances of passing this fiscal year are dwindling, leaving some confused about the status of the standalone bill.

According to congressional staff in Sen. Blumenthal’s office, lawmakers intended the amended Major Richard Star Act to extend eligibility to just 1,124 additional combat-wounded veterans, but the bill’s legislative language was interpreted by the DoD Office of the Actuary as applying to roughly 255,000 medically retired veterans, an estimate the Congressional Budget Office used in scoring the bill, accounting for the additional $68 billion.

However, Disabled American Veterans opposes the larger bill because of its funding mechanism, which would reduce future disability claims for some conditions, including tinnitus and sleep apnea. The group said the proposal asks one group of veterans to finance benefits for another and could set a precedent for future reductions in benefits.

“We would be 100% supportive without the poison pill,” said Todd Hunter, DAV’s deputy national communications director.

Currently, there are two similar bills before Congress: The original targeting combat-injured veterans only, and the expanded version that would apply to a broader group of medically retired veterans.

A career cut short five years before retirement

As lawmakers debate the cost, combat-injured veterans say they earned both their military retirement pay and disability benefits.

After serving eight years as a Marine and spending a few years as a civilian, Fisher joined the Army. He deployed repeatedly throughout Iraq, Afghanistan, Kosovo, Panama, and elsewhere. Then, on Oct. 19, 2009, while serving as an infantryman with Task Force 16, 155th Brigade Combat Team, in Balad, Iraq, rotor wash from a nearby U.S. helicopter knocked him from a ladder during overwatch operations, ending his career.

For four years, Fisher lived with chronic pain, heavy medications, and repeated efforts to save his right leg. Eventually, he chose to have it amputated below the knee.

“The pain was unbearable,” he said. “The surgeries didn’t work, and I was exhausted from daily medications that I didn’t want to be taking, and after all that, my right ankle was dead.”

Two days after surgery, Fisher was back on his feet. Nine weeks later, he was fitted with a prosthesis and walking.

“I have more legs than I have shoes,” said Fisher, who now owns 11 prosthetic legs.

Within months, he was running. Eight months after surgery, he returned to service as a volunteer firefighter. Later, he became Fort Hood’s first amputee civilian police officer, a job that allowed him to work alongside soldiers and train others for duties he once performed himself.

But because he served in that role as a civilian employee after medical retirement, the work did not count toward the 20 years of military service required for a full military pension.

The retirement they wanted but never received

Fisher wanted so badly to stay in the military that when the war with Iran began earlier this year, he called the recruiter’s office to ask whether the Army was taking retirees. He wanted to serve as a military police officer again, this time on active duty.

When Fisher left the Army in 2014, he had earned a military retirement worth $2,166 a month. He has never received it. The Army assigned him a 40% disability rating during his discharge process, which made him eligible for about $2,700 a month in disability compensation.

Under a federal policy known as the VA Waiver, Fisher’s disability compensation reduces his military retirement pay dollar for dollar. Since his disability pay exceeds the value of his retirement benefit, his retirement check is wiped out. But if both benefits were paid, Fisher’s monthly military-related income would be nearly $4,900.

“My retirement pay was earned through my years of service,” Fisher said. “My VA disability compensation is because I lost my leg serving my country. Those are two completely different things, and I don’t think one should cancel out the other.”

Fisher also earns a salary from his full-time job as a logistics manager for an appliance company. But he said the offset still affects his long-term financial stability. With the extra money, he would have more flexibility.

“I’d pay off debt, save some money, and I could enjoy my family a lot more,” he said.

Naomi Mathis understands the strain.

During the invasion of Iraq in 2003, the former Air Force staff sergeant’s convoy came under attack amid what she described as “total chaos.” Mathis witnessed the aftermath of multiple combat incidents, including the death of a fellow service member. After returning home, she was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder.

The condition led to a 100% disability rating from the VA. She was medically retired after serving 7.5 years, far short of her goal of serving at least 20 years and eventually becoming a chief master sergeant.

Like Fisher, Mathis said the loss was not simply financial. It was the loss of a career she intended to finish.

“My career was cut short,” she said. “I was not given the opportunity to serve out those 20 or 30 years. But I would have.”

Mathis qualifies for a special combat-injury compensation fund that partially supplements the offset. Even with that assistance, the shortfall still stings: nearly $800 a month less than if she received her full retirement and disability pay.

With three young children at home, Mathis said financial pressure forced her back into the workforce before she had fully recovered.

“I couldn’t pay rent or feed my kids. I needed a job immediately,” she said. “I wasn’t able to heal.”

Mathis now serves as DAV’s deputy national legislative director. She said she remains grateful for the life she built after military service, but still believes the country’s promise to injured service members should not end when their careers are cut short.

“I signed my name on the dotted line, and I wasn’t just under the impression — I was told — that the military would be there for me when I put up my boots,” Mathis said. “Well, they put my boots up for me.”

Sen. Ruben Gallego, D-Ariz., has proposed barring the VA from collecting voluntary or involuntary separation pay from veterans who are approved to receive disability compensation.

The bill also would allow veterans who later qualify for military retirement pay to remit the net amount they received instead of the gross amount so they don’t end up paying more than they actually received after taxes.

Gallego, a former Marine and Iraq War veteran, and Rep. Gus Bilirakis, R-Fla, introduced a similar bill in the House when Gallego served in that chamber, but the legislation never made it out of committee.

The senator said the legislation is needed because the money is paid out for separate reasons: disability payments are akin to workman’s compensation and separation pay reflects “time served” — an incentive tool used by the Defense Department to manage force strength and design.

“It is ridiculous to claw back money from a veteran who has put life and limb on the line, just because later in life they qualify for disability benefits,” Gallego said in a statement to Military Times.

From 2013 to 2023, the VA recouped $2.44 billion in separation pay and bonuses from 112,834 veterans under a law that the department cites as prohibiting it from paying disability compensation to those who received the pay unless the money is paid back.

The VA has been required to recover the money since the 1940s, and the Defense Department is required to inform transitioning service members of the potential for recoupment. Sometimes, however, veterans are surprised when letters announcing the recoupment arrive, sometimes decades after they left military service.

In one case, an Air Force officer received $30,000 in separation pay in 1990 and received a letter in 2024 telling him his entire disability compensation check would be withheld until the money was recouped.

The situation placed the veteran at risk for losing his living quarters and vehicle, he told Military.com at the time.

“I fail to comprehend how or why they intend to cut me off for several months without even negotiating a lesser but [survivable] monthly contribution. I also fail to understand why it took 34 years for VA to come up with this [scheme]. Why now?” retired Air Force Maj. Raymond Thomas, 75, told the publication.

By law, veterans’ monthly disability compensation can be withheld if they received readjustment pay, non-disability severance pay, disability severance pay, special separation benefits or involuntary or voluntary separation pay.

According to the VA, the recoupment effort hit a peak in 2018 with 17,066 veterans paying more than $396 million.

The Restore Veterans Compensation Act would also change the recoupment rate for retired military veterans who are required to make payments to 25% of their paychecks rather than the current 40% — an alteration that would lessen the financial impact of the recoupment.

When Gallego and Bilirakis introduced their bill in 2022, it drew the support of Disabled American Veterans who said the practice of withholding VA disability compensation because a service member received a separation benefit “must end.”

Sen. James Risch, R-Id. introduced a separate bill Wednesday that would limit the amount that veterans paid each month to the VA for recoupment.

Risch’s Veterans Earned Benefits Access Act would allow the VA to collect the separation pay but limit it to no more than 25% of their monthly disability compensation checks. Currently, the VA can withhold the entire amount of checks until the veteran pays back the government.

“My [bill] ensures that veterans can receive the disability benefits they need while repaying their separation pay,” Risch said in a release.

The missiles are principally the Army’s surface-to-surface weapons, known as Army Tactical Missile Systems (ATACMS) and Precision Strike Missiles (PrSM). The U.S. has used “virtually all” of these weapons, according to two of the sources.

The degree to which the military is running out of ATACMS and Precision Strike Missiles has not been previously reported.

The long-range munitions are an important part of the military’s arsenal, allowing accurate strikes from a safe distance. U.S.-supplied ATACMS have played a key role in the war in Ukraine, allowing Ukrainian forces to attack targets inside Russia. The PrSM is a newer, more advanced generation that will replace the ATACMS, which have a shorter range.

Analysts say such weapons — which cost over $1 million each — would also be important in any conflict with China.

The sources declined to say how many of each munition the U.S. had left.

President Donald Trump launched the Iran war jointly with Israel in February, predicting that the conflict would last a short time.

But as the war drags on, the three people familiar with the matter expressed worry that the falling missile supplies could limit the U.S. ability to deter adversaries, including Russia and China.

A fourth person familiar with the matter said that while Central Command — which oversees U.S. forces in the Middle East — has nearly used up the land-based missiles it had before the war began, it has been able to reload from U.S. military supplies elsewhere in the world.

The sources interviewed for this story spoke on the condition of anonymity.

Asked for comment on the stockpile data, the White House issued a statement from Trump, saying the U.S. had “far more munitions than anyone in the world” and “far more than we need.”

“Our defense companies are, at this moment, making more munitions than they have ever made before, in addition to expanding their plants and equipment at record levels,” Trump said.

Analysts agree that certain munitions, including artillery shells and several types of missiles, are being produced at record levels but caution that supplies might far short of what is needed for a prolonged war.

Lockheed Martin, which makes the ATACMs and PrSMs, along with the anti-ballistic missile THAAD system, did not immediately respond to questions about Trump’s statements or about supply levels.

Raytheon, which makes Tomahawk missiles and Patriot interceptors, two important U.S. weapons, also did not immediately respond.

Responding to a request for comment, chief Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell said: “America’s military is the most powerful in the world and has everything it needs to execute at the time and place of the President’s choosing. We have executed multiple successful operations across combatant commands while ensuring the U.S. military possesses a deep arsenal of capabilities to protect our people and our interests.”

The supply figures have circulated inside the federal government over the last week during tense conversations inside the Trump administration about how much longer the U.S. can continue striking Iran without drawing down the stockpile to levels that would limit the military’s ability to respond to crises elsewhere.

WARNINGS OVER WEAPONS SUPPLIES

One of the sources said the drawdown of the ATACMS and PrSM stockpiles reflected a decision by the Trump administration to avoid riskier ways of attacking Iranian targets, such as by using piloted aircraft to drop bombs.

Because these weapons allow the military to attack targets from a distance, analysts say they would be valuable in a war against an adversary with strong air defenses, such as China.

They have been used to strike targets inside Iran, according to a March report by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS).

According to the report, PrSM stockpiles were low to start with, since it is a relatively new munition, but the U.S. military has ordered a large number of them for 2027. The Army has said that ATACMS are being phased out and that production is shifting to the newer PrSM missiles.

Military leaders have for weeks warned the president that stockpiles of defensive weapons — including Patriot interceptors, which are effective against ballistic missiles — were dwindling, said two of the sources.

Last week, several media outlets reported Trump had decided not to launch another massive offensive inside Iran in part because his military advisers had warned about the U.S. stockpile.

A U.S. official disputed those accounts, saying Trump chose not to move forward with another attack because of pressure from Gulf states.

The Middle East conflict has sparked intense debate about Trump’s authority to prosecute hostilities against Iran without congressional authorization. No request for a declaration of war or an authorization to use military force has been submitted to Congress.

DEFENSIVE WEAPON STOCKS ARE ALSO DIMINISHED

Last week, CSIS published a report estimating that between February and July about 65% of Patriot interceptors had been expended and that the number of THAAD ballistic missile interceptors in U.S. stockpiles was at least 38% lower than at the start of the war.

Patriots and THAADs are systems that detect and destroy incoming missiles and are among the most effective in the country’s arsenal.

While Reuters has not seen the supply figures, those numbers match internal U.S. data, two of the sources said.

The U.S. also burned through a little less than half of its global supply of Tomahawk cruise missiles, which are generally launched from ships, since the start of the war, one of the sources said.

Reuters could not independently verify that number.

The Tomahawk is a Navy weapon, launched from destroyers, cruisers and submarines, and has long served as the sea service’s principal means of striking heavily defended targets without risking pilots.

Raytheon, a unit of RTX, has reached a tentative multi-year agreement with the Pentagon aimed at boosting Tomahawk production, alongside increases in other munitions, as Washington races to rebuild stockpiles.

In a letter shared exclusively with Military Times, the oversight committee’s ranking member, Robert Garcia, D-Calif., and Rep. Suhas Subramanyam, D-Va., ranking member of the Military and Foreign Affairs Subcommittee, asked Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to provide a complete record of every change made to the Defense Casualty Analysis System, or DCAS, involving Operation Epic Fury, “Overseas Operations” or any other category used to track casualties from hostilities with Iran. The lawmakers requested a response by Aug. 18.

The investigation follows questions raised after three U.S. soldiers killed in Jordan and one killed in Iraq were initially included in the Pentagon’s Iran war casualty total before being removed. Days later, the deaths reappeared under a new “Overseas Operations” category.

The new category has a stated start date of July 7, the same date the Trump administration said renewed military operations against Iran started a new 60-day period under the War Powers Resolution.

The lawmakers are seeking records explaining why those changes were made, the rules governing casualty classifications and any legal analysis underlying those decisions.

Garcia and Subramanyam also requested records documenting every change made to DCAS, the policies governing how deaths and injuries are assigned to operational categories and legal analyses related to a proposed expansion of the Defense Department’s authority to withhold certain controlled unclassified information under the Freedom of Information Act.

Taken together, the requests seek to examine how official casualty records are created, revised and publicly disclosed.

“The Pentagon appears to be lying about the casualties of fallen soldiers to continue justifying Donald Trump’s war of choice with Iran,” Garcia said in a statement announcing the investigation. “The American people deserve the truth about every life lost and soldier wounded in this illegal war.”

Subramanyam said the lawmakers are seeking transparency because the four service members “were killed in action during Trump’s war of choice in Iran” and “the Department of Defense should not play games and try to hide the true cost of this war.”

Unlike a July 29 letter led by Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., that primarily focused on force protection and medical care following the March 1 attack at Port Shuaiba, Kuwait, this inquiry seeks actual records related to the Pentagon’s casualty accounting process and public reporting.

The Defense Department declined to comment on either letter.

“It’s an order that’s long overdue,” Trump said during a signing ceremony at the White House, flanked by more than a dozen military spouses who will be part of the new commission. The President’s Military Spouse Commission will make suggestions for improving quality of life in the areas of spouse employment, housing, education, childcare, healthcare, deployment-related support “and just about everything else you can think of,” Trump said.

He noted the strains of separation from loved ones deployed overseas and the frequency of permanent change of station moves.

These are “generational issues that are long overdue to address,” said Jennifer Hegseth, wife of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and chairman of the commission, which will include more than 20 members.

For more than a decade, military spouses have struggled with unemployment rates above 20%, in addition to various problems with housing, lack of affordable childcare and persistent issues with access to health care.

The commission’s duties will include connecting with military spouses to determine common areas of concern, according to the executive order.

Commission members will include Christie Mullin, the wife of Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin, as well as the spouses of the service secretaries, spouses of the members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and spouses of the services’ senior enlisted advisers.

“It means the world to me that you highlight the enlisted corps,” said one senior enlisted member’s wife who spoke at the ceremony.

Trump said that collectively, these spouses have more than 400 years of experience as active-duty spouses.

“America couldn’t have the strongest military in the world without the love and devotion of our remarkable military spouses, who make extraordinary sacrifices for our country,” Trump said.

The spouses will serve without compensation, but they may receive reimbursement for travel expenses. The group will meet each month at the White House and will provide a report on the issues at the end of each fiscal year for as long as the commission exists. The commission will end two years from now, unless the president extends it, according to the executive order.

It’s unclear how or if the commission will work with the congressionally mandated Department of Defense Family Readiness Council, which is now in the process of being reconstituted. That council hasn’t met since DOD ordered a review of all advisory committees in early 2025. For over ten years, the council examined issues affecting military families. At most, they met twice each year.

A congressional push to improve quality of life resulted in pay raises in 2025 that targeted younger enlisted troops, as well as other initiatives. But service officials and families have said there are lingering, persistent concerns in areas such as childcare, spouse employment, housing and healthcare, among others.

Previous initiatives during the Biden and Obama administrations also aimed to raise awareness of issues for military families.

The poll, conducted Friday through Sunday, also showed the Republican president’s approval rating ticking higher to 37%, up 3 points from last month when his rating tied the lowest of his presidency.

Trump has offered shifting objectives for the conflict such as aiding Iranians to topple their leaders, taking out Iran’s ballistic-missile capabilities and preventing it from obtaining a nuclear weapon. The poll found that 69% of Americans — including four in 10 Republicans — think Trump has not “clearly explained the goals of U.S. military involvement in Iran.”

White House spokeswoman Olivia Wales said Trump will not make decisions based on “fluid opinion polls” and reiterated the president’s resolve to prevent Iran from ever acquiring a nuclear weapon.

“What matters most to the American people is having a commander in chief who takes bold action to keep them safe,” Wales said.

Approval of the conflict has been below 40% since the U.S. and Israel launched strikes on February 28 — a stark contrast to the opening months of other recent conflicts.

While each had different context, the Iraq War from 2003 to 2011 had the support of about 70% of Americans in its early months. During the early days of the Afghanistan War, which lasted from 2001 to 2021, about 90% of the country backed the war, according to polling by Gallup.

‘No idea’ why US at war

Public disapproval of the war is weighing on Trump and his Republican Party ahead of the November midterm elections when the president’s allies will defend slim majorities in the U.S. Congress.

“It’s not clear why we started a war with them. I have no idea,” said Alex Womack, a retired turbine repair specialist from Stockbridge, Georgia, who became a Republican in part because he liked how Republican President George H.W. Bush handled the Gulf War in 1991.

Womack, who served in the U.S. Marine Corps during that conflict, said his support for Trump has ebbed because of the war. “I don’t think he’s doing very well, personally,” he said.

To date, 18 American soldiers have died in the conflict while thousands have died in Iran and in Lebanon, where Iran-allied fighters have battled Israeli forces.

The war has pushed gasoline prices sharply higher, a blow to the finances of many Americans. Gasoline prices are averaging just over $4 a gallon nationwide, up from about $3 a gallon just before the war started on February 28.

“This puts pressure on the party in a myriad of ways, all of them bad,” said Alex Conant, a Republican political strategist and a White House spokesman during the presidency of George W. Bush. “The White House officials have been saying since January that they need to win economic arguments. It’s hard to win the economic arguments when you’re clearly focused on foreign policy.”

Independent registered voters in the latest Reuters/Ipsos poll said they were favoring the Democratic congressional candidate over the Republican by 36% to 20%. Independent voters also favored Democrats over Republicans on economic policy, the poll found.

Trump vowed to stay out of wars

In campaigning for the 2024 presidential election, Trump said he would keep the U.S. out of enduring conflicts. He initially estimated the Iran war would last four to five weeks. He has bristled over comparisons to other wars, including the Vietnam War, which lasted two decades and claimed the lives of more than 58,000 U.S. soldiers.

Rhyan Anderson, an independent from Fairburn, Georgia, who voted for Trump in 2024, said he thinks Trump should focus on domestic problems rather than on helping Israel or other allies.

“My biggest thing is just focus on the people who are actually in the country,” said Anderson, who works two jobs in security and data collection and said he voted for Democrat Joe Biden in 2020. “I know we have allies and things like that, but there’s a lot of people here that really need help.”

Since mid-March, the Reuters/Ipsos survey has asked respondents whether they support or oppose military strikes on Iran. At that time, 37% said they supported the war.

That compared to 27% approval on the day the war began, when the Reuters/Ipsos survey also gave respondents the option to choose unsure, which 29% did.

The latest Reuters/Ipsos survey, which was conducted online and nationwide, gathered responses from 1,246 U.S. adults and had a margin of error of 3 percentage points in either direction.

In a July 29 letter to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., joined by four other Senate Democrats and eight House Democrats, requested answers by Aug. 12 to 23 questions concerning medical care, casualty reporting, force protection and ongoing investigations related to the attack.

Lawmakers say the Pentagon has not fully responded to an April letter raising concerns about force protection before the attack and has not provided Congress with the Army’s investigative findings.

Recent reporting has raised new questions about the medical care provided to injured service members after the attack, which killed six U.S. service members and wounded more than 30 others.

A Pentagon official declined to comment about the letter to Military Times.

The letter cites CBS News reporting that soldiers requested additional medical personnel and supplies before the attack and that those requests were ignored. It also cites reports that, after the strike, some wounded troops drove themselves to a hospital in Kuwait City before later being evacuated and that about two dozen service members were not flown to Landstuhl Regional Medical Center in Germany until nine days after the attack.

Lawmakers also referred to reporting that some wounded service members arrived in Germany without being identified as medical evacuees or seriously injured patients in Defense Department Casualty Analysis System, which the lawmakers said resulted in only limited treatment at Landstuhl. Deeper reporting cited reveals that some troops waited weeks after returning to Fort Hood, Texas, before being evaluated by physicians qualified to diagnose and treat traumatic brain injuries.

Among other questions, the lawmakers asked why requests for additional medical support before the attack were reportedly denied, how the Defense Department classifies serious and very serious injuries and how many service members have sustained traumatic brain injuries since Operation Epic Fury began Feb. 28.

The request from lawmakers also asks the Pentagon to explain changes to publicly reported casualty figures during the conflict, provide updates on force protection measures at military installations across the Middle East, release the Army’s investigation into the Port Shuaiba attack and disclose whether additional Inspector General investigations are underway.

The March 1 attack at Port Shuaiba remains one of the deadliest attacks on U.S. forces during Operation Epic Fury. Reporting by The Washington Post, CBS News, The War Horse and Military Times have described concerns expressed by survivors and family members about force protection, casualty reporting and medical care following the attack.

The War Horse recently reported that medical records documented injuries including traumatic brain injuries, skull fractures, burns, broken bones, hearing loss and shrapnel wounds among those wounded in the strike.

After decades of relying on the U.S.-made Patriot interceptor system and its hit-to-kill PAC-3 munition as the most proven air defense against ballistic missiles, three new tracks are now leveraging international cooperation and a dire global need to develop and manufacture cheaper interceptor platforms.

Some officials, meanwhile, are hoping the sense of urgency leads to the fielding of the first new prototypes by the end of 2026 — years faster than today’s Patriots can be made.

It’s an ambitious ask.

The missile defense world has long described the mechanics behind anti-ballistic defense as akin to hitting a bullet out of the sky with another bullet, multiplied in difficulty by the number of simultaneous air threats coming in — a stark reminder of the mass air raids seen today in Iran and Ukraine that stretch air defenses to the breaking point.

Today’s anti-ballistic momentum began with U.S. President Donald Trump’s seemingly off-the-cuff comment at the NATO summit in Ankara earlier this month, when he pledged to grant Ukraine permission to produce Patriot missiles for the first time.

“We’re going to give a license to you to make Patriots. That’s pretty cool. This way, you can’t complain that we’re not giving ‘em enough,” Trump said, adding that the companies that make the system’s components, primarily Lockheed Martin, had not yet been consulted on the plan.

Five days later, Ukraine and nine European countries launched a coalition in Paris to field Freyja, an entirely new anti-ballistic system centered on a Ukrainian interceptor priced at roughly one-fifth of a Patriot round.

A week after that, Lockheed Martin unveiled a cheaper, faster-to-produce Patriot missile of its own. And on Wednesday, the company announced the Pentagon had awarded it another $53.86 billion for PAC-3 production, bringing its multiyear deal up to $58.62 billion and aiming to triple production capacity by the end of 2030.

The new anti-ballistics arms race has manifested largely as a result of the munitions shortage created by the U.S.-Israeli war with Iran, during which American forces have fired at least 1,060 to 1,430 Patriots at roughly $3.9 million apiece, draining an estimated two-thirds of America’s pre-war Patriot inventory, according to a new analysis by the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

The diminished stockpile is compounded by the ongoing war in Ukraine, where ballistic missiles are the only threat Kyiv still needs help taking down and the one munition it has completely run out of.

With three new anti-ballistic tracks opened in July alone, NATO and its allies are aiming to shore up air defenses as quickly as possible.

Here is where the primary Patriot interceptor stands, and how the three new alternative pathways in the arms race stack up.

The standard: The Patriot interceptor

The Patriot, the U.S.-made gold standard of ground-based air defense, pairs a radar, a command post and launchers with two families of interceptor missiles, each fielded in several variants.

Lockheed Martin builds the PAC-3 MSE, the hit-to-kill round that rams ballistic missiles out of the sky, while Raytheon, which also makes the Patriot’s radars and ground systems, builds the older PAC-2 GEM-T, a round that explodes near its target and works best against aircraft and cruise missiles.

The MSE is the only Western munition that has reliably killed Russian ballistic missiles — from Iskanders to modified S-300s — in Ukrainian service. It has even downed the air-launched Kinzhal, which flies at hypersonic speeds.

That record is why the Pentagon on Wednesday awarded Lockheed a multiyear deal now worth up to $58.62 billion to triple production capacity by the end of 2030. Today, each round costs roughly $3.9 million.

“This is a once-in-a-generation moment, and we are moving with wartime urgency to deliver the Arsenal of Freedom,” Lockheed chairman and CEO Jim Taiclet said in a statement.

The grant: Ukrainian PAC-3s under US license

Trump’s pledge in Turkey would make Ukraine only the second country outside the U.S. licensed to build Patriot missiles, after Japan, which has produced them under license for decades.

Germany, the Netherlands and Spain are only now standing up a joint production line. Berlin is negotiating a license of its own and Germany’s existing GEM-T work runs through a joint venture with Raytheon rather than a national license, according to The Associated Press.

The license under discussion for Kyiv would likely cover the missiles — rather than complete batteries — and could mean final assembly from imported component kits instead of production from scratch, the AP reported.

Poland has offered to host the joint production on its territory for safety and security reasons, according to Polish news agency PAP.

“It is about securing this production, so that this production takes place in a safe location,” Polish Deputy Defense Minister Magdalena Sobkowiak-Czarnecka said in Washington on July 23.

Zelenskyy said he met with Lockheed Martin representatives while visiting the U.S. for Sen. Lindsey Graham’s funeral on July 28, posting on Telegram that “Our teams are already working on specific solutions to move to joint production as soon as possible.”

The cost of the licensed PAC-3, meanwhile, would stay the same at close $4 million per round.

Yehor Chernev, deputy chairman of the Rada’s committee on national security, defense and intelligence, estimates Ukraine needs at least 18 to 24 months to launch a first pilot production line, “followed by more time to complete the first weapons,” per The Associated Press.

Zelenskyy is pushing for even faster joint production.

“We expect that by the end of 2026, our Ukrainian team will have the technical capability to produce U.S. missiles,” he said on July 15.

The analogue: Freyja

Freyja is a full Patriot-style anti-ballistic system that includes an interceptor, launcher, radar and command-and-control network.

The system, designed by Kyiv startup Fire Point, is built around its FP-7.X interceptor missile and various capabilities supplied by European partners.

Zelenskyy called Freyja “an analogue of Patriot, but a system for more mass production and a cheaper system.”

His comments came as he formally launched the Integrated Anti-Ballistic Missile Coalition in Paris on July 13 alongside nine other countries, including Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom.

The FP-7.X flew for the first time in early June and is built to kill ballistic targets at roughly 15 miles up using a high-explosive fragmentation warhead rather than the PAC-3’s hit-to-kill collision — which may come in later versions — at a target price of approximately $700,000 per interceptor, or roughly one-fifth the price of a PAC-3.

The company says it will build three interceptors a day starting in August. Zelenskyy wants the system up and running within 12 months, and the coalition is targeting its first real ballistic intercept for the end of 2027.

“We have an ambitious goal: to have an MVP ready by the first half of next year,” Davyd Aloian, deputy secretary of Ukraine’s National Security and Defense Council, told Reuters on July 27. “That is a prototype that can already demonstrate its first practical results.”

The Lockheed cost-cutter: PAC-3 ACE

Lockheed unveiled the PAC-3 Adapted Capability Effector, or ACE, at the Farnborough International Airshow on July 20.

Built on the PAC-3’s fire-control system and fully linked to the Patriot and the Integrated Battle Command System that allied air defenders already run, it is designed to counter airbreathing threats — meaning weapons that rely on oxygen for propulsion — along with cruise missiles and close- and short-range ballistic missiles, a tier below the high-end targets the MSE was built to counter.

“American and allied warfighters need a solution that is battle-tested and budget-smart, and PAC-3 ACE delivers exactly that by building on the unrivaled performance of the PAC-3 MSE,” Tim Cahill, president of Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control, said in the announcement.

Lockheed says it will develop and produce the round jointly with American and European industry partners.

International manufacturing is also under consideration, with the munition’s first flight expected in early 2028.

The company advertises ACE at less than half the price of an MSE, or roughly $2 million a round, without disclosing an exact figure.

While the standard Meal, Ready-to-Eat, or MRE, delivers nutritionally complete chow in a package weighing 1.5 pounds or less, that adds up for troops on the move: more than 30 pounds of supply per service member for a week-long patrol. And amid efforts across the services to prepare to operate independently in austere environments far from resupply, cutting down the weight and volume of food is a known need.

The fiscal 2027 National Defense Authorization Act calls on the secretary of defense to boost these efforts with new partnerships to create the MREs of the future.

“It is the sense of Congress that requirements for the future battlefield include dealing with contested logistics that cannot be achieved with the size and weight of currently fielded rations; and could be mitigated by incorporating within rations, components produced with emerging and innovative technologies developed in partnership with the Department of Defense Combat Feeding Research and Engineering Program,” language in the House version of the bill, passed July 22, states.

It requires the secretary of defense to seek opportunities to enter contracts to procure rations, naming two specific space-saving food technologies: sonic agglomeration and vacuum microwave drying.

Sonic agglomeration uses sound wave vibrations to compress food ingredients and stick them together without the use of fillers and binders. The Army’s Combat Feeding Directorate has been working with this technology since at least 2016, even using the method to help NASA develop a more compact breakfast bar for astronauts on future Mars missions.

Vacuum microwave drying quickly dehydrates food at low temperatures, locking in fresh flavors and colors that more conventional drying techniques can’t capture, making lightweight, water-removed rations that are more palatable for troops on the go.

In 2018, the Combat Feeding Directorate released information about work being done to develop a “salad bar” — a vacuum-compressed pack of shelf-stable fresh greens with the dressing already mixed in.

And work is happening to field at least early versions of some of these rations to the fighting forces.

Last year, the Combat Feeding Directorate announced that a new Close Combat Assault Ration, specially designed for the sustainment of units on their own for 7-10 days, could now be purchased through the Defense Logistics Agency. The CCAR saw a 39% reduction in volume and 17% production in weight compared to the eat-on-the-move First Strike Ration — which contains about 24 hours’ worth of calories — and allowed troops to “carry five days’ worth of nutrition in a 3-day footprint,” officials said.

But efforts to conduct more robust testing around sonic agglomeration and vacuum microwave drying were limited by COVID-19 pandemic delays, officials said, leaving more work to be done.

“These and other novel technologies were evaluated during the CCAR’s development and CFD will continue to work with industry partners to identify new technologies and evolve existing ones,” a 2025 release stated.

The NDAA provision directs the secretary of defense to maximize the use of the two new technologies for ration components to help bridge the gap between research and evaluation and fielding.

“As operational needs allow, the Secretary shall prioritize clean-label, nutrient-dense components that do not contain unhealthy fats or artificial preservatives,” it adds.

The provision also calls for a report to Congress no later than 120 days after the NDAA passes that includes a description of any “emerging and innovative” food processing technologies being developed for use by the Department of Defense; the total amount the Pentagon has invested in sonic agglomeration and vacuum microwave drying tech; the results of warfighter field testing of proposed ration components using these technologies; and a breakdown of benefits and barriers to using them, along with a summary of what’s being done to advance their adoption.

The House NDAA must still undergo reconciliation with the yet-to-be-passed Senate version of the bill before it can become law.

Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Elbridge Colby announced on X Tuesday that the Defense Department had “kicked off” the review Hegseth unveiled during the NATO defense ministerial in Brussels on June 18. Hegseth described the effort at the time as “a real review” of America’s force posture and basing in Europe.

Neither Hegseth’s announcement nor Colby’s statement announced troop reductions, unit movements or installation changes as part of the review. The Pentagon also has not said when the review’s recommendations will be released.

The review follows repeated calls by Trump administration officials for European allies to assume greater responsibility for NATO’s conventional defense as the administration reassesses U.S. force posture worldwide.

Hegseth said the review is expected to take up to six months, but it “could be less.” He shared that the review will include input from U.S. European Command as well as consultations with Congress and U.S. allies.

Colby said the review is designed to ensure NATO is “moving fast and irreversibly toward Europe taking primary responsibility for its conventional defense.” He explained the outcome of the review is intended to accelerate NATO’s transition to what he described as “a stronger, more equitable, and sustainable alliance.”

The Pentagon review aims to ensure U.S. force posture in Europe reflects the 2025 National Security Strategy and the 2026 National Defense Strategy. Colby said the department will develop a range of options based on “strategic rigor, a strong empirical baseline, and a clear sense of the geopolitical and military realities.”

Colby also said he looks forward to working closely with Gen. Alexus Grynkewich, NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander Europe, on the review. He noted that the Defense Department plans to have “extensive consultations” with European allies, Congress and other parts of the U.S. government throughout the process.

Joint Base Charleston, housed in North Charleston, South Carolina, is slated to be renamed after Graham, a U.S. Air Force official told Military Times.

Graham spent 33 years in the Air Force as an active-duty staff judge advocate, a South Carolina Air National Guard officer and a senior lawyer in the Air Force Reserve.

He died unexpectedly from an aortic dissection at the age of 71.

Graham was born in Central, South Carolina, and was elected to the House of Representatives in 1994 and the Senate in 2002.

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt posted Monday on social media about the base’s renaming. She did not provide further details, only linking a story by The Post and Courier, which first reported on the news.

The South Carolina newspaper reported that a Monday memo, signed by Secretary of the Air Force Troy Meink, directed staff to begin working with Air Mobility Command and Joint Base Charleston to rename the base to Joint Base Lindsey Graham, citing his “decades of distinguished service to the United States Congress and the United States Air Force.”

The Air Force official who spoke to Military Times confirmed that Meink signed a memo initiating steps to rename the base.

“Today’s announcement to rename Joint Base Charleston in honor of Senator Lindsey Graham is a fitting tribute to a man who dedicated his life to serving our nation and state,” Alan Wilson, South Carolina’s attorney general and Republican nominee for governor, said on social media.

Graham, who was chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, spearheaded efforts to support military funding. In particular, for the Charleston base, he assisted in securing $212 million in funding given to the Coast Guard for enhanced readiness.

Prior to his death, he commemorated the funding, calling it “welcome news.” The Coast Guard is set to use the funds to improve the installation’s pier infrastructure and construct a new medical and dental facility, in addition to other projects.

The news of the base’s renaming comes as lawmakers gathered on Capitol Hill on Tuesday for a memorial service for Graham. Afterward, his casket was moved to the Washington National Cathedral, where President Donald Trump gave remarks at a larger service Tuesday afternoon.

JB Charleston primarily houses the 628th Air Base Wing, 437th Airlift Wing and the reserve 315th Airlift Wing. It has a total force of over 90,000 airmen, sailors, soldiers, marines, coast guardsmen, civilians and retirees across four installations. The flying units are tasked with managing the base’s C-17 cargo fleet.

But this time, the Pentagon is in a hurry. The Iran war has exposed the problem of relying on costly long-range missiles such as the Tomahawk. To remedy that, DoD is putting out a call for long-range, autonomously guided Ground-Based Affordable Mass, or GBAM, weapons that cost less than $250,000 apiece.

The Pentagon also wants the GBAM munitions to be ready for demonstration within three months, and full-scale production within 18 months.

The goal of the GBAM initiative is to supplement expensive smart munitions with “affordable, scalable long-range effects, and “enable commanders to service a broader target set, preserve exquisite munitions for their intended purpose, and sustain operational tempo throughout a prolonged conflict.”

To facilitate that, the Defense Innovation Unit has created the GBAM Challenge. Contestants will pitch ideas in the form of a pitch deck or white paper, with a deadline of Aug. 5.

Winning teams will be invited to a Phase II flight demonstration at a government test site in early November, where they will give a 30-minute presentation — and get a $250,000 cash prize.

The top Phase II contenders may receive up to $5 million “to immediately deliver operational test quantities to units.” They may also be eligible for other funds, including Prototype Other Transaction agreements, follow-on production contracts and Small Business Innovation Research awards.

“In total, the government has budgeted up to $250 million to support prize execution and follow-on transition activities associated with this effort,” DIU pointed out.

However, grabbing that pot of gold will require much work. For starters, the timeline is tight. The Pentagon wants “mature, affordable, long-range precision strike systems that can be demonstrated within 60 to 90 days, certified, and scaled into production within 12 to 18 months.”

DIU doesn’t specify whether GBAM will be a missile or a drone, though it does say GBAM will be “aligned with the Direct Reporting Portfolio Manager for Unmanned Systems (DRPM-UxS) mandate to field low-cost autonomous capabilities at scale.”

Either way, the U.S. military wants a “favorable cost-per-effect at operationally relevant ranges while minimizing the logistical, training, and sustainment burden on employing units.” This means a ground-launched weapon with a range of at least 600 nautical miles, and a minimum payload of 35 pounds while ideally allowing for 100 pounds.

It should have automatic target recognition and autonomous terminal guidance, and be “ideally mission-proven” to function in jamming and GPS-denied environments. This includes “Alternative Position, Navigation, and Timing (PNT) or redundant navigation capabilities suitable for GPS/GNSS-denied operations in maritime and other ‘feature-poor’ environments.”

DIU is also looking for a weapon that doesn’t require any proprietary launch equipment, with “remote and low-signature launch methods strongly preferred.”

Companies should have an “existing production capacity or credible path to producing 100+ systems monthly.” And with a price tag of “cost-per-effect below $500,000 based on system reliability and mission success rate, with a sub-$250,000 all-up flyaway cost at scale.”

In addition to GBAM, the U.S. military is pursuing other strike weapons that don’t cost as much as traditional missiles, and can be mass produced as needed. They include the Family of Affordable Mass Missiles, or FAMM-BAR, program to launch cruise missiles from cargo planes, as well as the Low-Cost Containerized Missiles hypersonic weapons program.

Around 5,200 Army, Navy and Air Force enlisted students assigned to the Medical Education and Training Campus, or METC, at Joint Base San Antonio-Fort Sam Houston are being moved to on-base temporary housing, the San Antonio Express-News was first to report.

Their barracks face construction failures, which is forcing them to be demolished and ultimately reconstructed, a base spokesperson told Military Times.

Instead of normal wear and tear, “systemic infrastructure failures” rooted in their construction are causing the need to tear down the METC dormitories. The spokesperson said that the facilities have experienced persistent issues with their climate control systems, and the structural flaws in the building cannot be permanently resolved through routine maintenance or ongoing repairs.

“It has been determined that a complete teardown and transition to traditionally built facilities is the most responsible course of action,” the spokesperson said.

The METC dorms finished construction in 2014 using modular building methods meant to enhance efficiency and reduce onsite labor requirements to boost the project timelines.

The construction cost $140 million for each 1,200-person dormitory, according to the construction company tasked with the project. The company completed five multi-story barracks for METC.

The relocation is occurring in phases, with roughly 2,000 students moved since July 11. The spokesperson did not specify when all students are expected to be relocated but did say that construction is slated to begin by the end of 2026.

The base is utilizing existing infrastructure and transportation networks to allow for the students to maintain their training schedules, the spokesperson said.

Rep. Joaquin Castro, D-Texas, whose district houses JBSA-Lackland and parts of Fort Sam Houston, said in a release that the Department of Defense told his office five base barracks will be replaced due to mold, humidity and construction issues.

Castro said that the barracks’ demolishment is set for September, and the project is expected to cost over $1.4 billion in fiscal years 2027 and 2028.

“It’s critical that the Pentagon not repeat the construction mistakes of the past and provide quality housing that meets the needs of our servicemembers,” he said in the statement.

The move to replace these barracks follows the October 2025 creation of the Barracks Task Force by Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, which aims to improve service members’ living conditions and quality of life.

The base spokesperson said the Pentagon is investing more than $1.2 billion immediately into the improvement of the METC barracks. The $1.2 billion matches the initial amount invested across the services to overhaul barracks’ conditions, alongside granting local commanders more than $400 million to direct immediate work and more than $800 million in critical barracks renovations.

A Government Accountability Office 2023 report found that concerns about poor living conditions in military barracks and its management date back decades, with issues such as safety risks from sewage overflow, inoperable fire systems and a lack of reliable information from the Defense Department on how low-quality conditions affect troop morale.

“Our primary focus is ensuring every service member has a clean, comfortable, and safe living space so that they can focus on their training and mission,” the spokesperson said. “This relocation will allow the medical training pipeline to continue without compromise.”

Students are slated to move back onto campus once the reconstruction is complete.

Admiral, who currently serves as the commander of III Corps and Fort Hood, Texas, could take over the top job from Gen. Christopher Donahue, who unexpectedly relinquished command earlier this month after only 18 months in the role. Since Donahue’s exit, Maj. Gen. Christopher Norrie has been serving as acting commander.

If confirmed, Admiral would also serve as commander of NATO’s Allied Land Command, coordinating with 104 countries in USAREUR-AF’s area of responsibility. He would remain a three-star, despite the role previously being a four-star position.

Prior to leading III Corps and Fort Hood, Admiral served as the commanding general for the 1st Cavalry Division out of Fort Hood, Texas, and in Poland, and director of force management in the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff, G-3/5/7, according to his official Army bio.

Donahue’s early July departure came amid the Pentagon’s broad senior leadership changes under Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who in April asked U.S. Army Chief of Staff Gen. Randy George to step down and retire ahead of the typical four-year term.

Since taking office, Hegseth has removed more than a dozen senior military leaders, including former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. C.Q. Brown and former Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Lisa Franchetti.

Eve Sampson contributed to this report.

Across the board, childcare providers struggle with financial issues, with about one in five reporting food insecurity, and about one-third struggling with debt.

Childcare providers across the board are experiencing high levels of stress and depression, researchers with the Buffett Early Childhood Institute at the University of Nebraska found.

In looking at potential solutions to bolster the military childcare provider work force, researchers also noted that poor access to behavioral support is a major reason for turnover, and there’s a high level of acting-out behaviors among children in military childcare.

The research, conducted by the Buffett Early Childhood Institute, provides more insight into military and civilian childcare providers, their needs and their differences.

Among other findings, the researchers determined that a one-time retention bonus of $500 would retain six out of 10 of those who were at risk of leaving for another year.

“You’d be shocked at how little it would take to keep them,” said Walter Gilliam, executive director of the Buffett Early Childhood Institute. “It’s because they want to stay.”

A societal issue

If there aren’t enough childcare providers, fewer children can get care. Access to affordable, high-quality childcare is key to their quality of life, to service members’ readiness and to military readiness, said those who spoke at congressional briefings this week held by the institute, in partnership with the National Military Family Association.

While childcare is a readiness issue for the current force, it’s also a readiness issue for the future force, since many military children follow in the footsteps of their military parents.

Sabrina Dalton, the wife of a Space Force guardian, said she was a preschool teacher until her first child was born more than 11 years ago. She left the work force after failing to find infant care. For her family, like many others in the military, they had many discussions about how to make the numbers work, weighing childcare costs and employment, she said.

But for eight years, until they moved to a state with free pre-Kindergarten for her youngest, she was out of the work force. They were never able to secure on-base childcare.

Dalton, who is the chief operating officer for Operation Child Care Project, said many of the spouses who seek them out to discuss childcare are also struggling with food insecurity and other issues, such as credit card debt, that are related to the effect the lack of childcare has on spouse employment.

As defense officials, lawmakers, private organizations and others have worked for decades to find ways to fill in the gaps of childcare, there has been more of a focus on recruiting and retaining childcare providers.

Stephen Simmons, deputy assistant secretary of defense for military community and family policy, said defense officials have worked on overhauling the compensation models for military child care providers and have been hiring specialists who can help with special needs, such as behavioral problems, in military child care centers.

Since June 2025, different efforts have reduced the amount of unmet need from 12,000 child care spaces to about 9,000 on wait lists across the Defense Department, Simmons said.

Half of the unmet need is located at about 20 installations, he said. And the problem can’t be solved solely by building more child development centers, which can take six years in the military construction process.

This need for child care is a societal issue, being felt across the country, Simmons said, with local, regional and national shortages of child care providers.

Those employees are critical to providing child care of high quality for military children.

“We’re going to change the idea that daycare is where you park a kid so a parent can go to work,” said Raleigh Duttweiler, chief impact officer of the National Military Family Association.

These are the most formative years of a child’s life, and they deserve to be in high quality childcare, she said.

‘It’s a calling’

According to results of the 2023 research — made public at briefings this week — of the 91 on-base military childcare providers who were surveyed, 63% of those said low pay is the leading reason for leaving the field, compared to 54.8% of the 231 military providers off base and 63.8% of the 24,285 non-military child care providers.

The on-base providers were indeed twice as likely to have actually left the field in the previous year as those off base, with 33% reporting leaving in the previous year.

Yet, military childcare providers are more committed to the field, with 51% of on-base providers planning to make it their careers.

For many of these employees, Simmons said, “It’s a calling.”

Many of the on-base providers are also older and more experienced, Gilliam said. On-base providers had a median of 20 years of experience in the field, compared to 18 years for military providers off base, and 16 years for non-military providers.

The down side, Gilliam noted, is that they also may be getting closer to retirement.

It’s unclear how many of the providers who left the field did so because of permanent change of station moves, since some are military spouses.

As troops struggle to find child care, 24-hour centers offer help

In addition to retention bonuses, another solution is to provide better access to support in dealing with children who have challenging behaviors.

Researchers found that a major reason for provider turnover is poor access to behavioral support. That access is “very weak” in off-base military child care programs, they found. More than half of those programs permanently expelled at least one child in the previous year, compared to one-third of on-base programs and 39% of non-military programs.

The rates of children’s mental health concerns are also greatest in off-base care, although about half of classrooms across the board reported that at least half or more of the children in their classrooms were “externalizing” their problems, or acting out.

More off-base military providers and non-military providers reported that children were internalizing problems, or exhibiting physical signs, such as unexplained headaches or stomach aches.

According to the most recent Blue Star Families Military Lifestyle Survey, 20% of active duty families with children have at least one child receiving mental health care, and another 13% would like for their child to receive care.

Other findings of the research into child care providers include:

• Stress is high across the board among providers, with the highest rate, 24%, reported in on-base providers, followed by 23% in non-military and 18% in off-base military providers.
• Depression rates are also high across the board, with about one-third of providers screening positive for depression.
• On-base providers and those providing care for military children off base are also more likely to have childcare credentials. Nearly half hold a Child Development Associate credential, the most widely recognized credential in early childhood education.
• On-base providers have better benefits, with nearly 60% having access to health insurance, 65% with retirement benefits, 54% with paid family leave and 42% with access to employee assistance programs.

The increased budget, up from the $900.6 billion authorized last year, raised concerns among lawmakers who felt they should cease funding the war in Iran, especially as the U.S. faces mounting debt.

The House passed its fiscal 2027 National Defense Authorization Act in a vote of 216-212, with three representatives sustaining from voting. A large majority of Republicans, 209, voted in favor of the bill, and 205 Democrats voted against it. Seven Republicans and six Democrats strayed from party lines.

The bill would have the Department of Defense officially adopt a name change to Department of War. The massive bill also includes a 5% to 7% pay raise for military service members, an increase in active-duty force size and a mandate to revert the names of nine southern military bases to those recommended in 2023 to replace Confederate honorifics.

In the Wednesday session, House lawmakers took to the floor to debate the bill, with some alleging its necessity to safeguard America both domestically and abroad. Policymakers on either sides of the aisle placed the blame on the other.

“The Democrats have gone on time and time again with this unprecedented obstruction,” House Budget Committee Chairman Rep. Jodey Arrington, R-Texas, said in the session. “Recently, they blocked the National Defense Authorization Act to protest President Trump and our troops’ efforts to stop this radical terrorist regime from having nuclear weapons,” Arrington said, referring to Senate Democrats blocking that chamber’s version of the 2027 NDAA last week.

Other lawmakers said the bill’s high price tag would cost American taxpayers too much during a time when citizens are already struggling, and as the country is in the midst of a widely unpopular war in Iran.

“Most of that [new deficit] spending is for President Trump’s Iran war, a reckless decision with absolutely no plan on how to achieve victory and how it would end,” House Budget Committee Ranking Member Rep. Brendan Boyle, D-Pa., said during the session.

“There’s nothing in [the reconciliation bill] whatsoever to bring down costs,” Boyle continued. “Just more spending on the most unpopular war in American history.”

The Iran war has cost the Defense Department $37.5 billion to date, Secretary Pete Hegseth told senators Tuesday. Hegseth testified during a hearing to request $67.1 billion in supplemental money for the war and other DoD expenses.

Historically seen by both parties as “must-pass legislation,” the NDAA is one of the few major bills that always gets through Congress, having become law for 65 straight years.

This year’s bill faces major challenges, given deep partisan divisions within Congress on issues ranging from the massive size of the military budget, to the Iran war and aid to Israel and Ukraine.

It is early in the NDAA process.

Each year, ⁠the House and Senate pass their own versions of the NDAA, before ​Armed Services committee negotiators agree on compromise version that then comes up for a vote in each chamber.

If the compromise version passes, it would be sent ​to the White House for Trump to sign into law or veto.

Reuters contributed to this report.

The Navy recently published a Sources Sought notice for a massive, multi-award contract — worth up to $30 billion — for the multi-mission dry dock.

The dock is part of the Navy’s Shipyard Infrastructure Optimization Program, which aims to modernize the service’s four long-neglected shipyards at Portsmouth, Virginia, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, and Kittery, Maine, as well as the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard & Intermediate Maintenance Facility. The contract is for five years plus three one-year options.

“The Multi-Mission Dry Dock is a fully pressure-relieved dry dock capable of accommodating shipyard repair services for the newest Ford-class aircraft carrier, Nimitz-class carriers, and other surface and subsurface ships served by PSNS & IMF,” according to the Sources Sought notice.

The project was spurred by the need to service Ford-class carriers on the West Coast.

“The Navy does not currently have the capacity and capability to perform depot-level maintenance on a Gerald R. Ford-class carrier in the Pacific Northwest,” according to the Navy’s Multi-Mission Dry Dock website.

The capability to even service older carriers is limited at Puget Sound: “The only dry dock on the West Coast able to accommodate a current Nimitz-class aircraft carrier is Dry Dock 6 (DD6), which does not meet seismic resiliency standards and cannot fully accommodate Ford-class carriers,” the site reads.

The multiple-award construction contract, or MACC, includes several task orders that typically range between $2 billion and $6 billion each. However, there may be smaller task orders for early contractor involvement and alternative technical concepts.

“The focus of this MACC will be the construction of a new proposed Multi-Mission Dry Dock at PSNS & IMF, located at Naval Base Kitsap (NBK) Bremerton, Washington,” the Sources Sought notice said. Located within the existing Dry Dock 3 and Piers 6 and 7, the project includes “dry dock drainage, dewatering, and flooding systems; a caisson; roadways and rail networks; portal crane track; access and egress elements; mechanical, electrical, and communications systems; support buildings; and utility routing tunnels. The proposed project also includes demolition of facilities and utilities.”

The Navy expects the first task order to include dredging, as well as work on piers, buildings and utilities. The second task order will see demolition of Dry Dock 3 and construction of the multi-mission dry dock. Task order three will provide infrastructure, such as electrical substations, utility tunnels and building crane rails. Task order four will be for the dock caisson.

Puget Sound has been a fixture for the Navy for more than a century.

It began in 1891, when the Navy bought 190 acres for $10,000 (about $367,000 today) to create Naval Station Puget Sound. The station became a shipyard in 1900 and was the Navy’s only West Coast repair facility until 1941.

“Between 1917 and 1969, Puget Sound Naval Shipyard constructed a total of 85 ships, including the largest vessels on the West Coast,” the Navy said.

The department will transition from the current Automated Neuropsychological Assessment Metrics, or ANAM, to an “improved capability” through a phased implementation effective immediately, according to a June 9 Pentagon memorandum.

A Pentagon official told Military Times that the effort will replace legacy tools with a next-generation, enterprise-wide capability that can detect cognitive changes early.

The new capability will provide timely, actionable data that can allow commanders to make informed operational decisions, while empowering medical providers to analyze cognitive trends for rapid clinical follow up and the department to sustain the overall readiness of the U.S. military, the official said.

“While ANAM provided an early foundation for cognitive baseline collection, the operational requirements, and technological landscape have advanced significantly,” the memo reads.

“The Department’s sustained research investments, combined with emerging clinical insights and the evolution of neurocognitive and neurobiological assessment capabilities, now support a transition from ANAM to a more modern, scalable, and operationally aligned solution,” the memo continues.

The memo first circulated on the unofficial Air Force Facebook page Air Force amn/nco/snco last week. A Pentagon official confirmed its authenticity to Military Times on Wednesday.

The rise of ANAM

ANAM is a computerized test that takes around 20 to 30 minutes with a combination of reaction and memorization activities to evaluate a service member’s neurocognitive baseline and can evaluate for traumatic brain injuries, or TBIs.

The tool was first developed in 1984, and it was mandated by Congress in 2008 for all Defense Department personnel as a pre-deployment baseline testing and post-injury assessment. At the time, the number of TBIs in the military grew substantially following deployments to the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts.

TBI is the disruption of brain function or structure caused by an external force, like a blow to the head or shockwave from a blast, that can cause brain bleeds or swelling. Symptoms can range from dizziness and trouble sleeping to memory loss or seizures.

While most cases are mild and allow service members affected to return to duty rather quickly, the more severe cases can last years or be permanent.

More than 500,000 service members sustained a TBI from 2000 to 2025, according to government data, from day-to-day activities, military deployment or training. The majority of TBI cases suffered by service members are classified as mild, or concussion, and they can return to full duty within 10 to 14 days of sustaining the injury.

Service officials have considered TBI to be the “signature injury” of modern warfare as it was seen widely in post-9/11 conflicts due to an increase in the use of explosive devices.

More recently, in the Iran war, nearly 500 service members have been injured, with the majority of injuries being TBIs.

A new approach

The June memo, signed by Under Secretary of War for Personnel and Readiness Anthony Tata, says that the DoD is granting a one-year exception to the previous policy to allow for the phased implementation to replace ANAM as the Pentagon’s cognitive monitoring tool.

When indicated, the new tool will incrementally replace ANAM for cognitive baselining, periodic monitoring, pre-deployment screening, clinical evaluations and post-deployment assessment, per the memo.

“The Department’s commitment to brain health is unwavering and enduring,” Tata wrote in the memo. “This modernization ensures that our cognitive monitoring enterprise reflects evolving science, operational needs, and our responsibility to protect those who defend our great nation.”

During the phased implementation, ANAM will continue to be used to meet the department’s cognitive monitoring requirements until the new capability is tested across the military.

Firstly, the rollout will prioritize deployed service members, followed by those preparing to deploy, the Pentagon official said, and will reach all remaining service members eventually. The memo also states that high-risk civilian personnel will be included in the early implementation.

TBI interventions

The change continues the broader efforts across the DoD to strengthen early identification and management of brain-health impacts for the total force. Services have been fielding new capabilities to assess TBI on the battlefield.

The Defense Health Agency’s Warfighter Readiness, Performance and Brain Health team hosted a medical training camp recently to evaluate TBI assessment technology prototypes being developed for use, according to a mid-July release.

Last week, the Army announced that a handheld blood-testing device, called i-STAT Alinity — which can detect TBI in 15 minutes — is being fielded to units under the 10th Army Air and Missile Defense Command because of the disproportionately high rates of TBIs in air defense.

The move to update the Defense Department’s cognitive monitoring program comes as funding for medical research into TBI has dropped significantly in the last three fiscal years.

In fiscal 2024, TBI under the Congressionally Directed Medical Research Programs was allocated $175 million, which dropped completely the following fiscal year to zero.

Funding jumped to $40.5 million in fiscal 2026, still a 23% decrease from fiscal 2024, with fiscal 2027’s budget request maintaining that amount.

The legislation seeks to end a decades-old offset that forces many combat-injured medically retired veterans to forfeit a portion of their retirement pay for every dollar they receive in VA disability compensation. Supporters have long argued the policy amounts to penalizing service members for injuries sustained in combat, calling it a “Wounded Veteran Tax.”

Then Congress introduced a revised version of the legislation in March 2025.

When the Congressional Budget Office evaluated H.R. 2102, the current version of the Major Richard Star Act, its new cost estimate projected the bill would increase direct spending to $78.1 billion over 10 years, roughly $68 billion more than CBO’s estimate for the bill’s 2023 predecessor.

The revised estimate transformed the conversation surrounding one of Congress’ most broadly supported veterans bills and prompted a question that still remains unresolved:

What changed between the 2023 and 2025 versions of the Richard Star Act to increase the projected cost so dramatically?

The answer isn’t simply a larger number. It lies at the intersection of legislative drafting, statutory interpretation, DoD actuarial data and congressional budget scoring, where even subtle changes can reshape both the projected cost of legislation and its political future.

Two provisions with a $65 billion price tag

CBO’s explanation points to two provisions it concluded were added to H.R. 2102 that were not included in H.R. 1282.

The first would make Chapter 61 military retirees with fewer than 20 years of service eligible for Concurrent Retired and Disability Pay (CRDP), a benefit generally limited under current law to military retirees who completed at least 20 years of service. CBO estimated that provision alone would increase direct spending by approximately $63 billion over the 2026–2036 period.

The second provision would remove an existing cap on CRDP payments for Chapter 61 retirees with at least 20 years of service, adding another estimated $2 billion.

Together, CBO concluded those two provisions accounted for roughly $65 billion of the increase between the previous and current versions of the legislation.

For years, supporters understood the Richard Star Act as legislation intended to restore concurrent receipt for approximately 54,000 combat-injured Chapter 61 retirees whose military retired pay is reduced because they also receive VA disability compensation.

Its estimated cost, roughly $10 billion over a decade, was substantial but comparatively modest within the context of major veterans legislation. Then the revised estimate changed the conversation.

A different understanding of the revisions

Congressional staffers in Sen. Blumenthal’s office involved in developing both H.R. 1282 and H.R. 2102 understood the revisions differently than CBO ultimately interpreted them, explaining that the legislative revisions were intended to address a narrow gap affecting approximately 1,124 combat-injured Chapter 61 retirees who remained excluded under previous versions of the bill. Under that understanding, the intended affected population would increase from roughly 54,000 to about 56,000 veterans.

CBO reached a different conclusion.

Its estimate states that approximately 255,000 Chapter 61 retirees with fewer than 20 years of service would become eligible for concurrent receipt under H.R. 2102. That broader interpretation accounts for nearly the entire increase between the previous estimate and the March 2025 score.

CBO has reaffirmed its estimate, explaining that it evaluated the statutory changes contained in H.R. 2102 using population data provided by the Department of Defense’s Office of the Actuary, which identified the class of retirees CBO concluded would become newly eligible under the legislation.

The result is a striking disconnect between Congress’ stated intent and CBO’s interpretation of the revised bill. Military Times also asked the Department of Defense about its role in providing information used during CBO’s analysis. DoD did not respond by publication.

The stakes

For the combat-injured retirees who have spent years advocating for the Richard Star Act, the legislation has never been about budget estimates. It has been about restoring military retired pay they argue they earned through their service and sacrifice. But in Congress, budget scores influence legislative prospects.

CBO has explained how it arrived at its estimate. What remains unclear is why congressional offices involved in drafting the revisions believed the legislation would affect roughly 56,000 combat-injured retirees while CBO concluded the revised language would extend eligibility to a much broader population.

That difference transformed a bill long understood to carry a price tag of about $10 billion into legislation projected to cost $78.1 billion over a decade, fundamentally altering its prospects in Congress.

Before her death in 2024, in an interview with Wounded Warrior Project, Tonya Star, widow of Maj. Richard Star, reflected on what passage of the legislation would mean to the veterans and families it was designed to help:

“It’s not just a rubber stamp; this will affect their day-to-day life and help them provide for their families… This would be their win.”