The proposed $1.5 trillion defense budget would include $65.8 billion in shipbuilding capital to manufacture 18 battle force ships and 16 non-battle force ships, according to a White House overview of the budget.

“As waters around the world become increasingly contested, it is imperative that the United States be able to efficiently deliver the various naval platforms it requires to ensure maritime domain awareness and deterrence,” the overview said.

‘Everything costs what it costs’: Navy, Marine, Coast Guard chiefs call for historic funding

The budget’s maritime resources would be dedicated to building out Trump’s planned Golden Fleet, which he announced in December and which will include two so-called Trump-class battleships.

The president has claimed the vessels will be 100 times more powerful than any ship ever built.

The financial allotment would also fund next-generation frigates, increased public shipyard capacity, amphibious vessels, Columbia-class submarines, Virginia-class submarines, sealift vessels, hospital vessels, Consolidated Cargo Replenishment at Sea tankers, a special mission ship, submarine tenders and “other vessels vital for logistics,” the budget overview said.

The previous fiscal 2026 defense budget dedicated $27.2 billion for the Navy to build 17 ships.

Speaking at WEST Conference in San Diego, California, on Feb. 12, Navy Secretary John Phelan said ship production would likely double in fiscal 2027.

The new budget would help rebuild the maritime industrial base by manufacturing ships that were easier to construct than combat ships, which require complicated radar systems and nuclear propulsion systems, the Navy secretary said.

The request ultimately requires approval by Congress and will be debated by lawmakers in coming weeks and months.

The 2027 budget request comes as the president faces risky choices abroad, with the administration sending U.S. service members to the Middle East, and a public at home feeling the economic crunch of skyrocketing gas prices due to the conflict.

The request ultimately requires approval by Congress, where disagreement over Trump’s spending decisions recently led to the longest government shutdown in U.S. history.

The president’s budget also reflects the administration’s political priorities ahead of the 2026 midterm elections in November, when Trump’s Republicans hope to maintain their small majorities in both the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives.

The huge proposed surge in defense spending to $1.5 trillion, up from about $1 trillion in 2026, includes a 5-7% pay raise for military personnel at a time when thousands of service members are actively deployed.

The defense request will please defense hawks on Capitol Hill, but also highlights how Trump is trying to pay for his doubling-down on military pursuits, even after Republicans boosted defense spending last year in party-line legislation.

The Pentagon already requested $200 billion in extra funding to pay for the Iran war, but the White House has not yet officially made that request to Congress, where it is also likely to face scrutiny from lawmakers in both parties.

Other specific funding increases proposed by Trump include his controversial Golden Dome missile defense shield, money to build up critical mineral supplies for the defense industry and $65.8 billion to build 34 new combat and support ships.

Funds for shipbuilding, a priority for Trump since his first term, include initial funding for the so-called Trump-class battleship as well as submarines.

It is unclear how this new spending would impact the U.S. budget deficit because the projections were not included by the White House. The deficit is expected to grow slightly in fiscal 2026 to $1.853 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

Lawmakers on Capitol Hill often treat White House budget requests as suggestive, as appropriators try to negotiate behind the scenes to maintain their own legislative priorities. But Trump’s latest budget will likely add to the ongoing tension with congressional Democrats over funding federal programs that they see as important — and plan to campaign to protect — as the president seeks to cut federal programs.

“Savings are achieved by reducing or eliminating woke, weaponized, and wasteful programs, and by returning state and local responsibilities to their respective governments,” the White House said in a budget fact sheet.

The abrupt move, one of three significant changes made by Hegseth the same day, cuts short George’s tenure, which began in September 2023, well before the end of the typical four-year term.

The Pentagon intends to replace him with a leader aligned with Hegseth and President Donald Trump’s vision for the Army, the official added. They did not specify what this vision entails.

George has more than four decades of military service, according to the Army. He was commissioned as an infantry officer from the U.S. Military Academy at West Point in 1988 and served in the Gulf War, with subsequent deployments in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Chief Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell said that the current vice chief of staff of the Army, Gen. Christopher LaNeve, will replace George on an interim basis.

Parnell asserted that LaNeve is “a battle-tested leader with decades of operational experience and is completely trusted by Secretary Hegseth to carry out the vision of this administration without fault.”

The Department of Defense said it “has nothing further to provide at the moment.”

Hegseth on Thursday also removed Gen. David Horne, a former Army Ranger who had been overseeing the Army’s Transformation and Training Command, and Maj. Gen. William Green, the Army chief of chaplains, a Pentagon official confirmed to Military Times.

Since taking office, Hegseth has fired over a dozen generals and admirals, including Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. C.Q. Brown and Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Lisa Franchetti.

The latest shakeup coincides with the Pentagon’s deployment of thousands of troops from the Army’s elite 82nd Airborne Division to the Middle East, as the war with Iran enters its fifth week.

The ouster was first reported by CBS News.

Trump said he viewed U.S. membership in the defense pact as not merely up for debate but “beyond reconsideration.” However, he cannot withdraw unilaterally; doing so would require a two-thirds Senate majority or an act of Congress. Neither option, senators say, is likely to materialize.

“Any President that contemplates attempting to withdraw from NATO is not only fulfilling Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping’s greatest dreams but would be undermining America’s own national security interests,” Senators Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., and Thom Tillis, R-N.C., co-chairs of the Senate NATO Observer Group, said in a statement.

“Let us be clear, Congress will not allow the United States to withdraw from NATO,” they continued. “Congress and the American people know we are stronger when we stand with our allies. This is a basic fact and one that we ignore only to our own detriment.”

The president’s ire at European allies stems from what he describes as lackluster backing for the U.S.-Israeli campaign against Iran. From the other side of the Atlantic, many governments attribute their reluctance to Trump’s failure to consult them before launching the operation — and to the perception that it was a war of choice.

Trump has repeatedly called on allies to help reopen the Strait of Hormuz — a critical waterway that typically carries a quarter of the world’s oil — which Iran has effectively blocked in retaliation for the war. NATO, so far, has demurred.

Trump has since dismissed the alliance as a “paper tiger,” but Shaheen and Tillis argue this is belied by NATO’s response after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks. Roughly 3,500 American and allied troops died over the subsequent 20-year war in Afghanistan.

Trump threatens to walk away from NATO

Former Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and Senator Chris Coons, D-Del., also issued a joint statement on Wednesday underscoring NATO’s fight alongside American forces.

“The only time NATO has gone to war has been in response to an attack on America,” McConnell and Coons wrote. “The United States must not take this sacrifice — nor our allies’ commitment to make it again — lightly.“

The senators added: “Alliance disputes are as old as the alliance itself. Americans are safer when NATO is strong and united. It is in our interest for all allies to tend this unity with care.”

French President Emmanuel Macron on Thursday warned that the tension between Trump and NATO, and the U.S. president’s constant “chatter,” could fundamentally weaken the alliance.

“Alliances like NATO are valued from the unspoken — meaning the trust behind them," Macron said during a state visit to South Korea. “If you create daily doubt about your commitment, you hollow it out.”

Funding for Trump’s marquee but controversial $185 billion “Golden Dome” missile defense shield is expected to be included in the budget request as well as Lockheed Martin F-35 jets and warships.

Procurement of Virginia-class submarines made by General Dynamics, and Huntington Ingalls Industries as well as other top shipbuilding priorities is expected.

Last year, Trump asked Congress for a national defense budget of $892.6 billion then added $150 billion through a supplemental budget request, sending the total price tag over $1 trillion for the first time in history.

While the budget request framework for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2027 is set to be unveiled on Friday, a Pentagon official said more details on the defense budget will be announced on April 21.

Earlier this year, the administration was contemplating whether the $1.5 trillion budget request could be in the form of a $900 billion national security budget, with a $400 billion to $600 billion additional request, similar to the structure used in 2026.

The administration plans to use funds for more weapons production in the hopes of deterring Chinese aggression in the Indo-Pacific region and to rebuild weapons stocks depleted by conflicts in Israel, Iran and Ukraine.

The budget request will be debated in Congress in the coming weeks and months.

Asked by The Telegraph whether he would consider pulling the United States out of the alliance after Operation Epic Fury, Trump replied: “Beyond reconsideration.”

“I was never swayed by NATO. I always knew they were a paper tiger, and [Russian President Vladimir Putin] knows that too, by the way,” he said.

Trump, however, cannot unilaterally withdraw the U.S. from the alliance it helped found in 1949. A 2023 law — co-authored by then-Sen. Marco Rubio, now secretary of state — vests that power in Congress, not the president. Even then, NATO rules impose a one-year notice period before an exit takes effect.

Trump’s rebuke of NATO allies stems from their reluctance to support American efforts to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, a strategic chokepoint responsible for roughly one-fifth of global oil supplies under normal circumstances. Tehran’s effective blockade has exacerbated energy costs and granted the Islamic Republic strategic leverage over the U.S. and its allies as the conflict enters its fifth week.

“There was no consultation with the Europeans about this war, and the closing of the Strait is a direct result of the U.S.-Israeli military operations,” Max Bergmann, a former state department official and the current director of the Europe, Russia, and Eurasia Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, told Military Times.

Referring to Trump’s jabs at NATO — and key members like the United Kingdom and France in particular — Bergmann added: “It’s in some ways a clear deflection for the failures of the U.S. military campaign, and sort of saying ‘Well, it’s your problem now.’”

But the expert warned that the transatlantic alliance could falter without American military might.

“NATO is built around the United States serving as the backbone of European security,” Bergmann said. “It’s not defenseless because Europeans haven’t spent money. It’s defenseless because if you remove the backbone from an entity, then the appendages don’t work. And that is the fundamental dilemma that Europe faces.”

In a post on X, Poland’s defense minister Wladyslaw Kosiniak-Kamysz acknowledged NATO’s dependence on Washington, while noting that the alliance “works both ways.”

“Amid the emotions surrounding Donald Trump’s words, one must keep a cool head,” he wrote. “There is no NATO without the USA, but there are no strong United States without allies either.”

At the heart of the alliance is Article 5 — the core commitment that an attack on one member is an attack on all. It has been invoked only once: in the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks.

European leaders have rejected Trump’s assertion that the pact’s cohesion is unproven. They see the joint U.S.-Israeli offensive on Iran as a war of choice, quite different from the kind of circumstance to which Article 5 applies.

“This isn’t the first time he’s done this, and since it’s a recurring phenomenon, you can probably judge the consequences for yourself,” Stefan Kornelius, the spokesman for German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, told reporters. “I simply want to state on behalf of the German government that we are, of course, committed to NATO.”

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, a frequent target of Trump’s broadsides, has rejected any direct participation in the conflict — but maintains that Downing Street remains dedicated to the alliance.

“I’ve been absolutely clear that this is not our war and we’re not going to get dragged into it,” Starmer said in a press conference. “NATO is the single most effective military alliance the world has ever seen, and it has kept us safe for many decades, and we are fully committed to NATO.”

A White House official told Military Times on Wednesday that the secretary general of NATO, Mark Rutte, is expected to meet with Trump in Washington next week.

Rutte has generally worked hard to keep in Trump’s good graces — an approach that has led the secretary general into controversy at times, most famously when he referred to the U.S. president as “Daddy” at a NATO summit last June.

Two weeks earlier, on March 13, five KC-135 Stratotanker refueling aircraft were damaged on the flight line, two U.S. officials told the Wall Street Journal, as reported by Military Times.

Since Feb. 28, Iran has struck radar systems, satellite communications and mission-critical aircraft at at least seven U.S. bases across Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and the UAE. The attacks have focused on infrastructure that U.S. forces depend on to detect threats, refuel aircraft and direct air operations in the region.

By late March, Iranian missile and drone launches had dropped more than 90% since the conflict began, according to U.S. Central Command. Meanwhile, the attacks that persist have zeroed in on radar sites, SATCOM terminals, tankers and now an AWACS.

Kelly Grieco, a senior fellow at the Stimson Center, said the pattern points to deliberate targeting, rather than opportunism. The strikes are systematic and target three “distinct functional categories,” she said, including radar and communications infrastructure, aerial refueling tankers and now the AWACS.

“Each is a critical enabler of U.S. air operations,” Grieco told Defense News. “That’s not random. That’s a target set derived from an understanding of how U.S. airpower functions and where it is most exposed. The pattern suggests deliberate doctrine, or something close enough to it, not opportunism.”

Joe Costa, director of the Atlantic Council’s Forward Defense program and former deputy assistant secretary of defense for plans and posture, said Iran’s targeting approach makes tactical sense.

“It’s much easier to hit stationary infrastructure on the ground than planes flying in the air,” Costa said. “The U.S. has a dynamic process to quickly reallocate global resources to mitigate risks to troops and the mission, but the real cost is the cumulative impacts this operation will have on long-term readiness for other U.S. priorities.

“The more assets we use and lose now, the less will be available later until maintenance cycles, repairs and new purchases are complete.”

Strikes on communications, missile defense infrastructure

Iran’s retaliatory campaign targeted communications infrastructure from the opening hours of the conflict.

On Feb. 28, an Iranian drone struck Naval Support Activity Bahrain, home of the U.S. Navy’s 5th Fleet. Satellite imagery later obtained by The New York Times showed damage to large SATCOM terminals at the installation.

Satellite imagery also confirmed damage to the AN/FPS-132 phased array early warning radar in Qatar, with at least one of the system’s three arrays struck in the opening days of the conflict, according to Planet Labs imagery obtained by the Middlebury Institute of International Studies. Similar strikes hit radar facilities at Al Ruwais and Al Sader in the UAE, according to satellite imagery reported by The War Zone.

Qatar purchased the AN/FPS-132 radar system from the U.S. in 2013 for $1.1 billion. The Iranian drones used to strike it cost an estimated $20,000 to $60,000 per unit.

CENTCOM and Space Force Public Affairs directed Defense News to previously released operational updates and declined to comment further about the strikes.

The targeting also extended to missile defense infrastructure.

Satellite imagery confirmed the AN/TPY-2 radar for a U.S. THAAD battery at Muwaffaq Salti Air Base in Jordan was struck and apparently destroyed in the opening days of the conflict, later confirmed by a U.S. official. The AN/TPY-2 is the primary sensor for the THAAD system. Without it, a THAAD battery cannot independently search for or track targets.

An already waning E-3 fleet

The damage to the Prince Sultan E-3 on March 27 comes at a time when the fleet is already stretched thin. The Air Force’s E-3 inventory has dwindled to 16 aircraft, the last delivered by Boeing in 1992.

In fiscal 2024, the fleet posted a mission-capable rate of 55.68%, according to Air Force data reported by Air & Space Forces Magazine, meaning fewer than nine aircraft were operationally available on any given day.

As of March 26, the Atlantic Council’s Forward Defense program, which tracks U.S. military assets committed to Operation Epic Fury, estimated that between 66% and 75% of the available E-3 fleet was deployed to the theater.

Air & Space Forces Magazine, which reviewed imagery of the damaged aircraft, reported the extent of the damage likely renders the E-3 unrepairable.

Grieco said the near-term impact is real, but manageable. Prior to the damage, six aircraft were forward-deployed, and the theater was operating “at the margins of what continuous battle management coverage requires,” she told Defense News.

“Five aircraft means accepting either a single continuous orbit or periodic gaps when a second cannot be regularly sustained. In those gaps, the air picture degrades, air battle management is less effective and the theater’s ability to coordinate a complex, multi-aircraft operation becomes significantly more constrained,” she said.

“The United States could send another E-3 to the theater,” Grieco added, “but there are only 15 left in the entire fleet — and every one deployed to the Middle East is one less available everywhere else.”

Philip Sheers, an associate fellow in the Defense Program at the Center for a New American Security, said the loss emphasizes the burden on the airborne battle management fleet. About half of the 16-aircraft E-3 fleet is mission capable, he said, and with six in the Middle East, only two or three remain for other needs.

“There is very little slack remaining for flexibility and adjustment, and that places a huge burden on the remaining fleet as well as other systems to fill in the gaps, potentially at the expense of other priorities,” Sheers said.

A ‘massive alarm bell’ for air defense

A March 2026 report by the Center for a New American Security warned that proposed alternatives to dedicated airborne battle management aircraft, including space-based sensors and fighter-based networks, are either longer-term technological prospects, unproven at battle management or highly vulnerable, and should be treated as complements rather than substitutes.

Replacing the airborne capability will take time.

The Pentagon moved to cancel the E-7 Wedgetail program in its fiscal 2026 budget request, citing cost growth, from $588 million to $724 million per aircraft, as well as survivability concerns in contested airspace. Congress reversed the decision, preserving the program in the fiscal 2026 National Defense Authorization Act and blocking further E-3 retirements until enough Wedgetails are in service.

According to the Government Accountability Office, the E-7’s first flight has slipped to May 2027, with full operational capability now projected for the early 2030s. Space-based systems proposed by the Pentagon as a longer-term alternative face a similar timeline, according to Space Force officials.

Near-term, Sheers said the loss will increase operational strain on the remaining E-3s and could result in increased dependence on carrier-based E-2 Hawkeyes and the Australian E-7 Wedgetail.

“The demand for airborne sensing to manage cruise missile and drone threats is not going anywhere,” he told Defense News. “Medium and long-term, this all bodes very poorly for E-3 readiness and highlights the need for DoD and Congress to resource a real solution to the shrinking and aging E-3 fleet.”

The KC-135 tanker fleet faces parallel pressures. Already cannibalizing parts from the boneyard, the Cold War-era jets have absorbed repeated strikes.

In addition to the five KC-135s damaged at Prince Sultan on March 13, multiple refueling aircraft were also hit in the March 27 strike, according to Air & Space Forces Magazine.

Costa pointed to broader implications that outlast the current conflict.

“The continued use and possible reallocation of high-demand, low-density assets like air defense systems will impact readiness for other U.S. global priorities,” Costa said. “That’s the real strategic tradeoff.”

Sheers said the conflict should serve as a warning well beyond the Middle East.

“The entirety of this conflict should be a massive alarm bell on the need for passive defenses, not just for U.S. forces in the Middle East, but over the homeland where drone incursions are increasingly frequent, and especially in the Indo-Pacific, where the Chinese missile threat is orders of magnitude larger and more difficult to suppress,” he told Defense News.

“Airbase vulnerability has been an issue for decades, and the drumbeat of independent analysis on this issue could not be louder,” he added. “If DoD doesn’t take these events as a wake-up call, we are setting ourselves up for disaster in a future great power conflict.”

Grieco suggested the effects may already be rippling through the campaign in ways that don’t show up in publicly available strike counts.

Those “less visible metrics” include tanker availability, AWACS coverage gaps and stockpile constraints, she said.

“If Iran’s strikes on radar and communications infrastructure are compressing warning times and creating gaps in the missile defense network, that’s operationally significant even if no additional aircraft are destroyed,” she said.

“The threshold for material degradation isn’t a single dramatic loss. It’s the accumulation of constraints that make the campaign more expensive, less flexible and less effective over time. We may already be past it in ways that won’t be visible until the campaign’s operational history is written.”

Hegseth, speaking during a press briefing at the Pentagon, asserted that morale is high and service members are determined to “finish the mission.” He declined to disclose the precise location of the bases that he toured over the weekend.

More than a month into the joint U.S.-Israeli assault on Iran, Hegseth warned that the coming days could prove pivotal, even as the broader course of the conflict remains unsettled.

“The upcoming days will be decisive. Iran knows that, and there’s nothing they can militarily do about it,” he said. “We have more and more options, and they have less.”

Pressed on whether the influx of newly arrived Marines and Army paratroopers might be used in ground operations on Iranian territory, Hegseth offered no indication either way.

“You can’t fight and win a war if you tell your adversary what you are willing to do or what you are not willing to do, to include boots on the ground,” Hegseth said. “Our adversary right now thinks there are 15 different ways we could come at them with boots on the ground and guess what? There are.”

He added: “If we needed to, we could execute those options on behalf of the President of the United States and this department. Or maybe we don’t have to use them at all.”

Limited missions, big risks: What a US ground fight in Iran could become

Gen. Dan Caine, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, announced that B-52 Stratofortress bombers have begun conducting missions over Iran, taking advantage of U.S. forces gaining air superiority over the country.

Caine said the campaign remains focused on “interdicting and destroying the logistical and supply chains that feed” the Islamic Republic’s ballistic missile, drone and naval production facilities, aiming to limit Tehran’s ability to replenish key weapons.

The Pentagon news conference began roughly one hour after President Donald Trump, in a post on Truth Social, lashed out at American allies for resisting his demands for help in the Middle East. He told nations who are facing fuel shortages to “build up some delayed courage, go to the Strait, and just TAKE IT.”

The United States “won’t be there to help you anymore,” Trump said, adding that “Iran has been, essentially, decimated. The hard part is done. Go get your oil!”

The de facto shutdown of the Strait of Hormuz since the conflict began has sent global energy prices soaring, imperiling supply chains that under normal circumstances transport roughly a fifth of the world’s oil.

Hegseth echoed the president’s message in his Pentagon briefing, calling on America’s partners — specifically the United Kingdom — to assume a larger role.

“There are countries around the world who ought be prepared to step up on this critical waterway as well,” Hegseth said. “It’s not just the United States Navy. The last time I checked, there was supposed to be a big, bad, Royal Navy that could be prepared to do things like that as well.”

Military analysts point to several possibilities, including coastal assaults, nuclear site raids or operations deeper inside the country.

Any one of these missions could unfold alone or evolve into something more broad. But across each scenario, U.S. forces would enter an environment where Iranian missiles, drones and ground units could begin targeting them as soon as they arrive.

A battle for the waterway

One version of the fight would likely unfold along the water.

U.S. forces could be tasked with seizing islands or coastal positions to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, a global shipping route that has been heavily disrupted by the war with Iran.

The mission could be a limited ground incursion, with Marines and airborne units deploying to seize important terrain, said Joe Costa, director of the Forward Defense program at the Atlantic Council’s Scowcroft Center.

President Donald Trump has publicly threatened Kharg Island, Iran’s primary oil export hub, which is located off the country’s coast.

In a Truth Social post on Monday, he said the U.S. would finish its “stay” in Iran, by “completely obliterating” Kharg Island.

Costa, a former senior Pentagon official who worked on U.S. war plans, including Iran, acknowledged speculation about Kharg, but also described a scenario in which U.S. forces would try to secure islands such as Abu Musa, Larak and the Tunbs, off Iran’s southern coast.

“This helps us take out Iranian reconnaissance units as we think of ways to reopen Hormuz. If you have the ability to secure some of the ports along the coast as well, you go a long way to supporting naval assets to start to open up the Strait,” Costa said, adding that the operation could rely on Marine units for the initial assault, with airborne forces supporting limited incursions and air assault operations — all under U.S. air superiority.

The USS Tripoli and embarked 31st Marine Expeditionary Unit arrived in the region’s waters last Friday, and the elements of the 82nd Airborne Division are deploying to the Middle East, the Pentagon confirmed last week.

An opening fight would not be in isolation, Costa said, and though there are mixed reports about Iranian military capacity right now, the country still appears to have functional command and control and is capable of attacks.

The first waves of U.S. ground troops would undoubtedly face Iranian fire, Costa warned.

“We have overwhelming force and would likely be successful in securing territory, but at that point every commander will face the daily decision of assuming risk to troops or risk to mission — force protection becomes paramount, especially if we start to see casualties mount up,” he said, adding, “There’s a high risk of that in this operation.”

Targeting nuclear sites

A different type of operation would focus on Iran’s nuclear program instead of territory.

Instead of seizing ground, U.S. forces could be tasked with entering fortified sites and securing material, likely under fire and deep within Iranian territory.

An operation aimed at seizing enriched uranium would likely involve special forces at a nuclear site in Isfahan, a populous city in the center of the country, said Nicole Grajewski, an expert on Iran’s missiles and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.

Excavating nuclear material would require a myriad of support, from construction equipment to Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear assets, Grajewski, a professor at Sciences Po, said.

Ground forces would likely have to dig deep underground to access the highly enriched uranium canisters “and then go in there, excavate it, then get out of the country,” she added.

An extraction team would likely be met with force. The area is heavily trafficked, and the nuclear site in Isfahan is located near numerous military and missile facilities, making it exceedingly risky.

Grajewski described the operation as likely “one that the U.S. military has not really done before,” and said experts could only speculate on how it would be accomplished.

“I’m not sure how they’re thinking about doing it,” she said, pondering if “they’re going to fly in there and do this quick extraction under the guise of night?”

Iran’s response

Even targeted operations like seizing an island or extracting nuclear materials carry the risk of evolving into something larger.

Dan Grazier, the director of the National Security Reform Program at the Stimson Center, said the challenges U.S. forces may face goes beyond securing land or items. It centers on how Iran chooses to fight once American soldiers are on its ground.

“The Iranians are going to do whatever they can to kill and capture as many Americans as they can,” said Grazier, who is also a Marine Corps veteran, “for the propaganda victory alone.”

Rather than seeking decisive engagement, Iranian forces would likely avoid conventional confrontation and stretch the conflict over time, he said. Instead of defeating U.S. forces, he added, Iran’s objective becomes making the conflict costly and prolonged, forcing leaders in Washington to decide whether the fight is worth continuing.

Any sustained ground operation would also risk widening the battlefield, as Iran could activate proxy groups across the region to further target U.S. forces and partners.

The Center for Strategic and International Studies in early March estimated that the first 100 hours of the war cost billions of dollars, and experts warn that critical air defense interceptors could be depleted faster than the rate of replacement.

The human cost has also risen as the war enters its second month. Thirteen American service members had been killed and over 300 injured as of late March. A survey earlier in March found that a majority of Americans thought the war had gone too far, and a separate poll showed diminished confidence in the president’s handling of it.

“The Iranians don’t stand any chance of defeating the United States on the ground, I don’t think,” Grazier said. “They do stand a chance of defeating the United States politically back home.”

Trump, speaking to reporters aboard Air Force One while holding renderings of the plans, said the ballroom “essentially becomes a [shield] for what’s being built under by the military.”

He emphasized protective features — comprising thick, high-grade bulletproof glass — will be installed as part of the ballroom’s design to protect against drones and “any other things.”

Trump said that the initiative is progressing “ahead of schedule and under budget” and reiterated that it is being financed entirely by himself and private donors.

“There’s not one dime of government money going into the ballroom,” he stressed.

“I’m so busy that I don’t have to do this, but I’m fighting wars and other things,” Trump added. “But this is very important, because this is going to be with us for a long time, and it’s going to be ... the greatest ballroom anywhere in the world.”

The WWII origins of the (now demolished) East Wing of the White House

The president complained the military’s previously clandestine undertaking only became public because of a “stupid lawsuit” that seeks to halt the endeavor.

The suit, filed in December 2025 by the National Trust for Historic Preservation, contends that Trump violated at least four laws by bypassing required review processes. It asks a federal judge to suspend construction of the ballroom until the design undergoes a series of independent reviews, passes environmental assessments, secures congressional authorization and allows the public an opportunity to offer input.

A federal judge rejected the group’s initial request to pause construction but had been expected to rule by the end of March on the amended complaint, including whether to issue an injunction.

The Trump administration, however, has already begun demolishing the East Wing to make way for the project. A White House spokesperson asserted at the time that Trump has “full legal authority to modernize, renovate and beautify the White House — just like all of his predecessors did."

Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., placed a hold Wednesday on the promotions of Marine Lt. Col. Vincent Noble, Col. Thomas Siverts and Navy Lt. Cmdr. Thomas MacNeil, saying his objections to a process that would quickly approve the promotions as a bloc was based on “misconduct or concerning judgement.”

In responses provided to Military Times, Wyden’s office made clear that the holds were a direct response to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s reported decision to pull two Black and two female military officers from a list of troops up for promotion to general or flag officer.

“Donald Trump and Pete Hegseth have launched an unprecedented politicization of the military promotion process, most recently, reportedly blocking promotions for Black and female officers,” Wyden said. “I asked my staff to vet potential promotions, to ensure the Senate is doing its job to ensure the officers leading our armed forces continue to meet the services’ high standards.”

In the case of Noble and MacNeil, Wyden cited their proximity to highly publicized war crimes cases dating as far back as 2007.

Noble, then a captain, had been the leader of a Marine Corps special operations platoon deployed to Afghanistan in 2007 when the unit became involved in an ambush that left up to 19 Afghans dead and dozens more wounded.

The Marines were accused of war crimes, and Noble and another officer, Maj. Fred Galvin, were sent to a rare court of inquiry military proceeding back in the states. But ultimately, the government opted not to charge the men after a three-star overseeing the case determined they “acted appropriately.”

Military Times investigated the incident in 2015, finding through the examination of newly declassified documents that the Marines were unjustly held to account for what was a combat engagement.

Wyden described it differently in his statement Wednesday in the congressional record.

“Military investigations found that Lieutenant Colonel Noble’s platoon fired indiscriminately on civilians in Afghanistan in 2007, and he was disciplined for filing a false report and asking Marines under his command to lie about the attack, according to military records,” the senator said, though he linked to a New York Times report from the time that quoted a source saying neither Galvin nor Noble fired a weapon in the engagement.

Wyden’s office did not provide additional information or context when asked about the statements regarding Noble.

MacNeil’s war zone case, which dates to 2017, is linked to that of Navy SEAL Eddie Gallagher, who was accused by his own unit of war crimes in Iraq, including stabbing a 17-year-old ISIS-linked prisoner to death. Gallagher was acquitted on charges linked to the death but found guilty of posing for photos with the prisoner’s corpse.

President Donald Trump intervened in 2019 to keep Gallagher from being stripped of his SEAL trident in the matter. MacNeil, then a lieutenant, testified against Gallagher in his trial but can be seen in a unit photo with him and nine other SEALs posing behind the corpse.

After Trump’s intervention with Gallagher, the Navy gave up efforts to strip MacNeil and two other SEALs of their tridents, and the matter was dealt with through internal “administrative measures,” acting Secretary of the Navy Thomas Modly said at the time.

“While MacNeil was the junior member of his platoon and eventually testified against Gallagher, he exercised poor judgement as an officer and should not be promoted within the United States military,” Wyden said in arguing against his promotion.

The case of Siverts is different. Wyden highlighted appearances on a podcast, The Berm Pit, co-hosted by the colonel’s brother, Scott Siverts. The Anti-Defamation League, a global anti-hate organization, describes the podcast as far-right and antisemitic, and its social media feeds reveal re-posts of antisemitic memes and other offensive content.

The left-wing news outlet RawStory, which regularly covers extremism, previously reported that Siverts, who has served most recently with the Joint Staff at the Pentagon, had been reported to the Defense Department Inspector General for appearing on an episode of The Berm Pit in which one of the co-hosts joked about wanting to put “six bullets” into Hegseth’s head.

The IG opted not to open an investigation into the matter, and it’s not clear whether any administrative action was taken.

Wyden’s statement highlights a March 2023 appearance by Siverts on the podcast, since removed from the internet.

“Siverts’s participation in a podcast whose hosts espouse such bigotry raises serious questions about his character and professionalism, which are both relevant to his promotion to Brigadier General,” Wyden wrote. “To date, the Marine Corps has not provided me with a copy of this podcast episode to verify the nature of his participation in this podcast, nor has Siverts publicly apologized or expressed regret for his association with this podcast.”

A co-host of The Berm Pit did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Wyden told Military Times that he didn’t know how the nominations for Noble, MacNeil and Siverts made it out of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

“The military should not promote officers who violate military codes, were involved in war crimes, or fail to live up to the U.S. armed forces standards. Our country is stronger and more secure when military leaders are promoted based on their qualifications and records, and held accountable when they fall short of those standards,” he said. " … I won’t shortcut the Senate process to help unfit personnel lead our servicemembers and degrade the fitness of our armed forces."

Hegseth’s actions are in line with the broader Trump administration’s attacks on efforts across the federal government to support and promote the concerns of minority populations — what President Donald Trump and Hegseth have derided as “DEI,” which stands for diversity, equity and inclusion.

Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell disputed the Times’ reporting, telling the Guardian, “Under Secretary Hegseth, military promotions are given to those who have earned them. Meritocracy, which reigns in this Department, is apolitical and unbiased.”

Neither the Defense Department nor the White House has offered an explanation based on the officers’ performance or record for Hegseth’s decision. About three dozen officers remain on the promotion list, according to the Times; the majority are white men.

“This moment should not be separated from a broader, documented pattern,” Jose Vasquez, executive director of Common Defense and an Army veteran, said in a statement. “Since taking office, Hegseth has fired generals, renamed ships, and systematically targeted women and people of color in uniform. He is not making our military more lethal. He is making it more loyal to him and that is the true threat to national security and military readiness.”

The names of the four officers have not yet been released, but they include a Black armor officer who was singled out for having written a paper about Black officers’ choices to serve in support roles rather than front-line combat, according to the Times. One of the women targeted for exclusion from the promotion list was struck because she served during the U.S. military’s chaotic 2021 withdrawal from Afghanistan, the outlet reported. It is not clear why the other two officers were removed from the list.

Under retired four-star Army Gen. Lloyd Austin, the first Black defense secretary, the Department of Defense made efforts to promote women and minorities into visible positions of power. Austin’s tenure during the Biden administration saw the elevation of Navy Adm. Lisa Franchetti to chief of naval operations, the first woman to serve as the Navy’s top officer and the first to serve on the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Air Force Gen. CQ Brown to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the second Black man to hold that position.

“For too long, we’ve promoted too many uniform leaders for the wrong reasons — based on their race, based on gender quotas, based on historic so-called firsts,” Hegseth said in a speech to high-ranking officers in November.

Brown and Franchetti, among other top military officers, were fired by Trump in February 2025. That decision left no women in the top ranks of military leadership. In July, Hegseth reassigned Vice Adm. Yvette Davids, the first female head of the U.S. Naval Academy, and fired Vice Adm. Shoshana Chatfield from her position as the U.S. military’s envoy to NATO’s military committee last April, according to the Guardian. He also dismissed Air Force Lt. Gen. Jennifer Short from her job as senior military assistant to the defense secretary in early 2025.

“The depth of Secretary Hegseth’s prejudice is only overshadowed by the breadth of his incompetence,” said Richard Brookshire, co-founder and co-CEO of the Black Veterans Project. “The Trump administration is intent on instituting a caste system across our military, whereby anyone who isn’t white, male, straight and Christian is deemed less capable and deserving of leading our troops. Americans must all reject his bigoted, nonsensical and dangerous beliefs.”

It’s unclear whether Hegseth overstepped his authority by removing the names of the four from the promotion list himself, according to the Times. Army Secretary Dan Driscoll and other Army leadership reportedly refused to remove the names when Hegseth requested they do so. Ordinarily, promotion lists are either accepted or denied in full by the defense secretary, then sent to the president for review before heading to the Senate for confirmation, according to the Times.

The U.S. military has fired over 850 Tomahawk cruise missiles in four weeks of war with Iran, burning through the precision weapons at a rate that has alarmed some Pentagon officials and prompted internal discussions about how to make more available, The Washington Post reported on Friday, citing people familiar with the matter.

Reuters could not immediately verify the report.

“The U.S. military has more than enough munitions, ammo, and weapons stockpiles to achieve the goals of Operation Epic Fury laid out by President Trump — and beyond," White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said in a statement to Reuters.

“Nevertheless, President Trump has always been intensely focused on (strengthening) our Armed Forces and he will continue to call on defense contractors to more speedily build American-made weapons, which are the best in the world,” Leavitt’s statement said.

Asked for comment, the Pentagon, which Trump has ordered renamed Department of War, said the military had all it required.

“The Department of War has everything it needs to execute any mission at the time and place of the President’s choosing and on any timeline,” chief Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell said in a statement to Reuters.

In the first monthly Christian worship ceremony in the Pentagon since the Iran war began, Hegseth recited what he said was the “premission reading” and prayer given by a military chaplain to troops involved in the capture of Venezuela’s then-President Nicolás Maduro earlier this year.

“I pursued my enemies and overtook them. I did not turn back til they were consumed. I thrust them through so that they were not able to rise. They fell under my feet,” Hegseth read from the Book of Psalms during the prayer service.

“And those who hated me, I destroyed. They cried for help, but there was none to save. They cried to the Lord, but he did not answer them. I beat them fine as dust before the wind. I cast them out like the mire of the streets,” Hegseth continued.

Hegseth then prayed what he said was the same prayer that a military chaplain gave troops during the Maduro operation, calling on God to behold the “wicked who rise against your justice and the peace of the righteous” and to “break the teeth of the ungodly.”

“Let every round find its mark against the enemies of righteousness and our great nation. Give them wisdom in every decision, endurance for the trial ahead, unbreakable unity, and overwhelming violence of action against those who deserve no mercy,” Hegseth prayed.

He continued the prayer, saying “let justice be executed swiftly and without remorse, that evil may be driven back, and wicked souls delivered to the eternal damnation prepared for them.”

Hegseth called on those in attendance of the service to pray with thoughts of the U.S. service members in harm’s way right now, insinuating those involved in the Iran war.

Hegseth has faced backlash from advocacy groups, like Americans United for Separation of Church and State, for hosting monthly worship ceremonies at the Pentagon, as well as for his religious rhetoric in public appearances. He has previously prayed specifically “in the name of Jesus Christ” in events such as Pentagon briefings and White House dinners, like he did during Wednesday’s service.

Hegseth, a Christian who belongs to the Communion of Reformed Evangelical Churches, has spoken about his faith in speeches, raising concerns that he is associating the Christian faith with politics and the military.

The CREC is a conservative network co-founded by Douglas Wilson who was the guest speaker at February’s Pentagon prayer ceremony after other CREC pastors attended previous services.

Hegseth, meanwhile, has sought to reform the military’s Chaplain Corps with the goal of refocusing on ministry since “a chaplain is first and foremost a chaplain and an officer second,” he said in a Tuesday video announcement. He announced that chaplains will no longer wear their rank insignia, but instead, will wear symbols of their faith.

The military consists of 70% Christians, 2% atheist or agnostic and 24% reported as unclassified or unknown, according to a 2019 Department of Defense report.

In a 50-48 vote, the Senate rejected a proposal by Sen. Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee, to reinstate VA coverage of abortions.

Blumenthal said the ban, which went into effect last year, was the most restrictive in the federal health care system, noting that it bans the procedure in cases of rape or incest and prohibits physicians from advising veteran patients of their options.

“Many of them suffer from service-connected disabilities that increase the risks associated with pregnancy, and many have experienced military sexual trauma during their time of service. To betray them and take away this kind of health care — their ability to receive an abortion in the most harrowing situation — is unconscionable,” Blumenthal said during a press conference prior to the vote.

The VA finalized a rule Dec. 31 that prohibits the procedure at VA medical centers unless the veteran’s life is at risk. The new policy overturned a policy implemented in September 2022 that allowed the VA to provide the procedure or cover the cost in cases of rape, incest or endangerment of the life or health of the mother.

That policy, implemented by then VA Secretary Denis McDonough, was made in response to the Supreme Court’s ruling to overturn Roe v. Wade, removing constitutional protections for abortions.

In overturning the 2022 decision, VA Secretary Doug Collins said veterans will continue to have access to the procedure in medical emergencies. He added that the change represents a return to VA regulations under administrations of Presidents George W. Bush, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama.

A federal law known as the Hyde Amendment bans the use of federal funds for abortion with exceptions for rape, incest or threat to the life of the mother.

Democratic lawmakers say the VA change represents the most restrictive limitations on the procedure in the federal government. The Defense Department and other federal health agencies follow the Hyde Amendment, providing abortion services or covers the cost of the procedure in cases of rape, incest or threat to the mother.

“A female service member who was raped prior to transitioning out of the military … is no longer covered by the VA to have an abortion. If she was still on active duty, DoD would pay or perform the abortion. Even if she was serving in federal prison, she would be covered,” Disabled American Veterans Deputy National Legislative Director Naomi Mathis said during the press conference Wednesday.

Between September 2022 and August 2025, the VA had covered or provided abortions to roughly 100 veterans and 40 CHAMPVA patients, according to data provided by the VA.

Blumenthal’s proposal would have opened debate on whether to repeal the VA’s ban. The vote fell nearly unanimously along party lines, with 50 Republicans voting no and two Republicans, Sen. Susan Collins of Maine and Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, joining 46 Democrats voting yes.

The motion failed.

“Republicans just voted to uphold an abortion ban for 462,000 women veterans — even in cases of rape, incest, or if their health is endangered. Shamefully, they are denying women veterans who have been raped or whose health is at risk the essential health care they need,” Blumenthal said in a statement after the vote.

The legislation, known as the Airspace Location and Enhanced Risk Transparency, or ALERT, Act, would require the military services to adopt reforms put forth by federal investigators in an effort to prevent similar accidents. The committee voted 53-0 in favor of advancing the bill to the full House for a vote.

“Improving aviation safety and protecting our national security are not mutually exclusive,” committee chairman Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Ala., said in his opening remarks Thursday, adding that “by taking our time and following regular order, we have produced a bill that does both.”

The bill would require all military aircraft to install crash prevention technology by 2031, with the exception of drones and military fighter and bomber aircraft. If enacted, the legislation would be implemented over several years, giving the services time to install new systems and update training protocols.

The bill also aims to balance safety requirements with national security concerns, making sure aircraft can operate without incident and without disclosing sensitive flight data.

Federal investigators found that a series of failures by both the Federal Aviation Administration and the Army contributed to the fatal Jan. 29, 2025, crash, to include an overburdened air traffic control system, congested helicopter routes and missed warnings from earlier close calls in the area.

The National Transportation Safety Board issued more than a dozen recommendations following the crash, including changes to training, airspace management and safety oversight.

The survey, conducted from March 19 to March 23, found 59% of respondents say the scale of Operation Epic Fury has gone too far, while 26% believe it has been about right. Only 13% think the campaign has not gone far enough.

A separate Pew Research Center poll released earlier this week showed low confidence in President Donald Trump’s handling of the conflict, with 37% approving and 61% disapproving.

Majority of American voters oppose the Iran war, poll finds

The public’s skepticism comes as Adm. Brad Cooper, the head of the U.S. Central Command, announced that American forces have struck more than 10,000 military targets across Iran since the operation began on Feb. 28. Cooper said the U.S. has significantly degraded more than two-thirds of the Islamic Republic’s missile, drone and naval production facilities and shipyards.

Trump, for his part, declared on Thursday that the war against Iran is “ahead of schedule” and going to “end soon.”

“It won’t be long,” Trump told reporters during a cabinet meeting at the White House. “It’s going to end soon. But we had to take a little detour, go to Iran, and we had to put out a fire, a very dangerous fire that could have blown up big portions of the world, if not the whole thing.”

The president reiterated that the Iranians are “begging to make a deal. Not me.”

Later in the cabinet meeting, Steve Witkoff, Trump’s peace envoy, said Washington has presented Tehran a 15-point plan to end the war in the Middle East. The proposal was transmitted to Iranian officials through Pakistani intermediaries.

“We’ll see where things lead if we can convince Iran that this is the inflection point with no good alternatives for them other than more death and destruction,” Witkoff asserted. “We have strong signs that this is a possibility, and if a deal happens, it will be great for the country of Iran, for the entire region, and the world at large.”

Meanwhile, the Pentagon emphasized that its offensive in Iran would continue.

“We pray for a deal and we welcome a deal,” Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said on Thursday. “But in the meantime, the Department of War will continue negotiating with bombs.”

Admiral Richard Correll’s comments come as officials are assessing how to implement a directive issued in October by President Donald Trump to conduct nuclear weapons tests.

Correll, testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee, was asked if he saw a military need for the U.S. to conduct nuclear warhead tests, the last of which took place in 1992.

Noting that the Energy Department and Pentagon annually certify the safety and reliability of the U.S. nuclear arsenal, he expressed support for the most recent certification, which was issued for 2025-2026.

The departments “indicated we have the capabilities and sufficient testing to satisfy ourselves on the reliability and efficacy of our nuclear warheads. But we monitor that very closely and I will continue to provide my best military advice.”

On Tuesday, the State Department’s top arms control official, Thomas DiNanno, told another Senate panel that the administration still is assessing how to implement Trump’s order for the U.S. to test nuclear weapons “on an equal basis” with other countries.

DiNanno did not rule out a resumption of full-scale underground explosive tests.

The administration has alleged that Russia and China secretly conducted yield-producing nuclear weapons tests in 2019 and 2020, respectively. Moscow and Beijing deny they did so and some experts have challenged the U.S. allegations.

Since 1994, the U.S. ​has ensured that its ​nuclear arsenal is safe ⁠and reliable by replacing underground test blasts with a multi-billion-dollar “science-based approach” of supercomputer modeling and other advanced tools.

Arms control advocates oppose a return to underground explosive testing by the U.S., warning this would prompt Russia, China and other countries to conduct such tests, fueling a nuclear arms race.

Some experts, however, contend that only such tests can verify the reliability and safety of aging U.S. warheads.

The U.S. and China signed but have not ratified ​the 1996 Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. Russia revoked its ratification in 2023. Under international law, however, the three countries as signatories still are ​obligated to uphold the pact.

Chaplains will retain their rank, he said in a video announcement Tuesday, but the new directive will shift how they are identified in uniform. Hegseth added that he would sign a memorandum solidifying the change.

Before the change, a chaplain’s uniform carried their rank insignia along with a symbol denoting their religion.

The policy, he said, “speaks to the difficult balance of the duality of a military chaplain. A chaplain is first and foremost a chaplain and an officer second. This change is a visual representation of that fact.”

Hegseth also said that removing rank allowed chaplains to “be seen among the highest ranks because of their divine calling.”

The directive follows a broader effort by Hegseth to reshape the military’s Chaplain Corps. In a December message, he said he wanted to restore chaplains’ focus on ministry and argued that the role had shifted toward counseling and support functions in recent years.

He terminated the Army’s spiritual fitness guide and said he would simplify how the military categorizes religious affiliation.

In his most recent message, Hegseth said that the number of religious affiliation codes was reduced from over 200 to just 31. Military Times was unable to independently verify these numbers.

The military uses those codes to categorize troops’ religious beliefs.

The move “brings the codes in line with its original purpose, giving chaplains clear, usable information so they can minister to service members in a way that aligns with that service member’s faith background and religious practice,” Hegseth said.

The defense secretary added that the Pentagon was not stopping with the pair of changes.

“We’re not even close to being done,” he said.

The Partnership’s Public Service Viewpoint Survey — conducted after the Office of Personnel Management canceled the statutorily required Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey, or FEVS — recorded a government-wide Employee Engagement and Satisfaction Index Score of 32 out of 100. The survey was fielded from Nov. 10 to Dec. 19, 2025, and received 11,083 responses from employees at 17 large agencies and 13 midsize agencies.

Among major DOD components, the Army posted the highest score at 48.1, Air Force civilians scored 38.5, and Navy and Marine Corps civilians scored 36.4, according to the Partnership’s data dashboard. Those figures are down from 70.3, 67.0, and 68.1, respectively, in the Partnership’s 2024 Best Places to Work rankings.

The Partnership cautioned that “significant differences still exist between the PSVS and FEVS,” and that results “should not be directly compared with the results of previous federal employee surveys.”

More than 58% of respondents government-wide reported that their engagement had worsened compared with late 2024.

Only 9.1% of Army civilians agreed that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s political leadership team generates high levels of motivation in the workforce. Just 22.5% of federal employees overall said they were confident they could report suspected wrongdoing without fear of retaliation. More than 95% of respondents said it remains important that their work contributes to the public good.

Max Stier, president and CEO of the Partnership for Public Service, told Military Times that while DOD components posted the highest scores among large agencies surveyed, the results remain alarming.

“The scores were still alarmingly low, and uncover a workforce that has drastically less confidence in their political leadership and workplace performance compared to a year ago,” Stier said.

Stier added that the timing of the survey, which followed major 2025 workforce reductions, makes the findings more significant.

“This survey was conducted after the bulk of the federal workforce cuts had taken place, which makes the results even more disturbing,” he told Military Times. “It is likely that those who left were even more demoralized than those who stayed.”

OPM canceled the 2025 FEVS, the first interruption since the survey began in 2002, citing plans to refresh the questions and avoid prohibitive costs. The agency has said the FEVS will resume later in 2026.

DOD’s civilian workforce stood at roughly 694,000 people in early 2026, down from about 795,000 at the start of 2025, according to OPM data cited by Defense One. That included nearly 50,000 departures through the Deferred Resignation Program, with thousands more taking early retirement. About 30,000 positions deemed essential to national security were later refilled.

A Defense Contract Management Agency employee told Federal News Network that budget cuts and staffing shortfalls are undermining the agency’s ability to ensure weapons delivered to warfighters meet all performance requirements.

“We are asked to do more, but cannot,” the employee said. “Something will eventually fail and fail badly.”

An informal Federal News Network pulse poll of 141 current DOD employees conducted this month found rising strain as operational tempo increases. “Leadership has not shown leadership,” one respondent said. “The lack of morale will bite them if/when we need to go to a wartime pace. The workforce will not elevate the level of effort.”

Pentagon spokesperson Kingsley Wilson accused Defense One of cherry-picking data and described the Partnership for Public Service as anti-Trump, without specifying which parts of the survey would provide a more complete picture.

In response to the Pentagon’s characterization of the organization as anti-Trump, Stier told Military Times that over the past 20 years, the Partnership has helped leaders across the political spectrum to identify problems and track progress. It conducted the Public Service Viewpoint Survey to fill a “critical data gap on the federal employee experience” that was created with the cancelation of FEVs, he said.

“Good management shouldn’t be partisan. Every leader needs to understand their workforce, and federal agencies are no different,” Stier said. “DOD leadership should pay attention and act on to this very important and troubling data.”

In the Partnership’s press release, Stier said the findings are particularly concerning amid ongoing military operations: “Especially now as the U.S. engages in a new war with Iran, no government can serve or protect the public effectively with such rampant dysfunction.”

In response to a request for comment, the Army referred Military Times to the Office of the Secretary of Defense. The Pentagon, Air Force and Navy did not respond to requests as of press time.

The school building sat fewer than 100 yards from a long-time Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps naval installation and was previously located within the IRGC compound perimeter until a wall appeared between 2013 and 2016, according to an analysis of satellite imagery by Amnesty International.

By the time the U.S. and Israel launched their first strikes on Feb. 28, the school had been established several years prior. It was active on social media and had its own website, a Reuters investigation found.

So what went wrong?

“Was artificial intelligence, including the use of the Maven Smart System, used to identify the Shajareh Tayyebeh school as a target?” more than 120 House Democrats asked in a March 12 letter to the Pentagon, just days after 46 Senate Democrats sent a similar request demanding clarity on the deadly hit.

The Maven Smart System, a targeting and intelligence platform built by data analytics company Palantir Technologies under a $1.3 billion Pentagon contract, was built to solve a problem that has grown exponentially in recent years: information overload — with artificial intelligence as its secret weapon.

Maven fuses satellite imagery, drone feeds, radar data and signals intelligence into a single interface, then classifies targets, recommends weapons systems and generates strike packages in near real time, compressing kill-chain reasoning and decision making into the fastest timelines ever seen on the battlefield.

And it uses Anthropic’s Claude AI model, embedded in its system, to semi-autonomously rank targets by strategic importance, drafting automated legal justifications for each strike along the way.

The software generated hundreds of strike coordinates in the first 24 hours of the Iran campaign, enabling the U.S. to hit more than 1,000 targets in the first 24 hours of the war, according to The Washington Post.

After sources briefed on preliminary findings told CNN that U.S. Central Command had created targeting coordinates using outdated intelligence provided by the Defense Intelligence Agency that had not been updated to reflect the school’s presence, one question became central to the inquiries: “If so, did a human verify the accuracy of this target?” they asked.

They are still waiting for an official explanation.

Ukrainian drone operators who build and deploy semi-autonomous targeting systems on the front line told Military Times they recognized the likely culprit immediately.

Ihor Matviyuk, the director of Aero Center, a Ukrainian drone company that builds and deploys semi-autonomous drones on the front lines of the war with Russia, said he can imagine exactly how the failure happened.

Although he has no inside knowledge of the Minab strike specifically, earlier this month he said that it bears the hallmarks of a targeting failure — not an AI malfunction.

“It was almost definitely a strike on the [given] coordinates,” Matviyuk told Military Times. “The main problem was not the AI — it was how close the military object was to the school.”

Last week, former military officials speaking to Semafor confirmed Matviyuk’s early assessment: “Humans — not AI — are to blame" for the school strike, they said, pointing to stale human-curated data fed to the Pentagon’s Maven targeting platform.

Matviyuk recognized the pattern because he’s had to decide how much AI to use in his own semi-autonomous weapon systems again and again as drone warfare and software capabilities have rapidly evolved on Ukraine’s battlefield.

“Automatic targeting allows us to capture less than half of the targets, not more,” Matviyuk said. “Because they are all still camouflaged.”

The Defense Department’s own data bears that out. Maven can correctly identify objects at roughly 60% accuracy overall — compared with 84% for human analysts.

But that rate drops below 30% in adverse conditions, such as bad weather or poor visibility, according to Pentagon data published in a 2024 Bloomberg report.

The risk of “collateral damage,” as the strike on the Minab school might be categorized in military terminology, is too high — that is why Aero Center and every other Ukrainian drone company that spoke with Military Times says they always leave the final strike decision to a human operator.

“The direct impact is always carried out by the operator’s command,” Matviyuk said, “to prevent civilians from getting under the blow.”

In 2021, an experimental U.S. Air Force targeting AI scored roughly 25% accuracy in real conditions, despite rating its own confidence at 90%, then-Maj. Gen. Daniel Simpson, the Air Force’s assistant deputy chief of staff for intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance, told Defense One.

“It was confidently wrong,” Simpson said, summing up the program’s problems. “And that’s not the algorithm’s fault. It’s because we fed it the wrong training data.”

The situation is not expected to improve. Last month, Hegseth slashed the Civilian Protection Center of Excellence workforce by approximately 90% and cut CENTCOM’s civilian casualty assessment team from 10 to one, Politico reported.

Then, after leaving a skeleton staff to oversee the guardrails of the biggest expansion of AI in the military, Deputy Secretary of Defense Steve Feinberg signed a memo earlier this month formalizing AI’s role in military decision making — designating Maven an official program of record and pushing adoption across all U.S. military branches by September, Reuters reported on Friday.

Hegseth wants Pentagon to dump Claude, but military users say it’s not so easy

Ukrainian weapon makers like Matviyuk are not shying away from giving AI more autonomy, but they’re using it strategically.

Autonomous targeting is effective for “massive offensive operations, where targets are not camouflaged,” he said, a description that may fit Iran’s fixed military installations, which are far less concealed than most positions on the Ukrainian front.

“We support the idea of using the human element less and less in the drone operator job,” Matviyuk said. “Autonomy, autonomous elements of drones — that’s the stuff we are working on.”

The problem, in his view, was not that the Pentagon used AI. It was that the data behind the target had not been updated since a girls’ school replaced a military headquarters on the same coordinates — and the people whose job it was to verify that data had already been cut from the chain.

AI systems are only as reliable as the people who build, feed and oversee them, Matviyuk emphasized.

When the human link fails, whether through bad data, gutted oversight or compressed timelines — the machine will continue to execute the error with precision.

Former CENTCOM director of intelligence, Lt. Gen. Karen Gibson, was unequivocal about where accountability for lethal strikes lies, regardless of weapon autonomy, at a Center for Strategic and International Studies panel last week.

“I will always come back to the fundamental principle of human responsibility and accountability,” she said. “A commander somewhere will ultimately be held responsible — not a machine or a software engineer.”

Defense officials are specifically interested in issues where state governments are the primary agents for positive change, according to the request for information posted in the Federal Register on Tuesday by the Defense Department’s office of the deputy assistant secretary of defense for military community and family policy.

They’re asking for input on what should be considered for 2028.

Submissions are due by April 23. Information on how to submit the input can be found in the Federal Register notice. The notice includes information that should be included, such as a title for the issue; the description of the issue with a problem statement about who is affected and whether the issue could be solved by change in state procedures, state regulations or state laws; a description of a potential solution; a description of the current status of the issue; and contact information for any needed follow up.

“The proposed solution should positively impact the quality of life of service members and their families, positively contribute to readiness, or both,” according to the Federal Register request for information.

Each year, officials in DOD’s State Liaison Office choose policy priorities for states to consider that cause barriers because of the mobility and uncertainty of military life. They’ll consider the public’s input in crafting their priorities.

Over the years, DOD’s State Liaison office officials have worked to inform state legislators and others about steps they could consider to help ease burdens related to a number of issues, such as easing the transitions of military children into new school schools and military spouse employment, including the transfer of professional licenses when spouses move to a new permanent duty station.

For 2026, the DOD State Liaison’s Office priorities for states to consider are:

• Exempting DOD-certified in-home child care providers from state licensure requirements.

• Speeding up the adoption and implementation of professional licensure compacts to ensure seamless portability, reduce financial strain and support long-term military family stability.

• Including military clauses in state family leave laws to help spouses address urgent family needs without risking income or job insecurity — when the service member is activated or in training, for example.

• Providing solutions for military homeschoolers, such as expanding access to school extracurricular activities and sports.

• Improving local implementation of policies that support military-connected children, and help families by clarifying requirements and streamlining access to information on state and local education websites.

• Providing state support for military families with special needs, ensuring timely establishment of services when families relocate and reducing procedural burdens.

• Providing open enrollment so that students can remain in their current school in spite of moving from temporary to permanent housing.

• Adopting policies that facilitate concurrent juvenile jurisdiction between the military and civilian authorities.

• Enhancing state laws to further protect victims of interpersonal violence by increasing access to civilian protective orders for victims, and mandating required sharing of information between military and civilian law enforcement authorities.

• Establishing statewide military-focused councils that consider military family readiness and dedicate at least one seat to member of the military community.

In one example, the Dong Fang Hong 3, a research vessel operated by Ocean University of China, spent 2024 and 2025 sailing back and forth in the seas near Taiwan and the U.S. stronghold of Guam, and around strategic stretches of the Indian Ocean, ship-tracking data reviewed by Reuters shows.

In October 2024, it checked on a set of powerful Chinese ocean sensors capable of identifying undersea objects near Japan, according to Ocean University, and visited the same area again last May. And in March 2025, it criss-crossed the waters between Sri Lanka and Indonesia, covering approaches to the Malacca Strait, a critical chokepoint for maritime commerce.

According to the university, the ship was carrying out mud surveys and climate research. But a scientific paper co-written by Ocean University academics shows it has also conducted extensive deep-sea mapping.

Naval-warfare experts and U.S. Navy officials say the type of deep-sea data being collected by the Dong Fang Hong 3 – via mapping and placement of sensors in the ocean – is giving China a picture of the subsea conditions it would need to deploy its submarines more effectively and hunt down those of its adversaries.

The Dong Fang Hong 3 isn’t operating alone. It is part of a broader ocean mapping and monitoring operation involving dozens of research vessels and hundreds of sensors.

In tracing this effort, Reuters examined Chinese government and university records, including journal articles and scientific studies, and analyzed more than five years of movement by 42 research vessels active in the Pacific, Indian or Arctic oceans using a ship-tracking platform built by New Zealand company Starboard Maritime Intelligence.

While the research has civilian purposes – some of the surveying covers fishing grounds or areas where China has mineral prospecting contracts – it also serves a military one, according to nine naval-warfare experts who reviewed Reuters’ findings.

To gather information about underwater terrain, research vessels map the sea floor while traveling back and forth in tight lines. The tracking data shows that type of movement by the vessels Reuters tracked across large sections of the Pacific, Indian and Arctic oceans.

At least eight of the vessels Reuters tracked have conducted seabed mapping, while another 10 have carried equipment used for mapping, according to a review of Chinese state media articles, vessel descriptions published by Chinese universities, and press releases by government organizations.

The vessels’ survey data “would be potentially invaluable in preparation of the battlespace” for Chinese submarines, said Peter Scott, a former chief of Australia’s submarine force. “Any military submariner worth his salt will put a great deal of effort into understanding the environment he’s operating in.”

The ship-tracking data show that China’s seabed-surveying effort is focused in part on militarily important waters around the Philippines, near Guam and Hawaii, and near U.S. military facilities on Wake atoll in the north Pacific.

“The scale of what they’re doing is about more than just resources,” said Jennifer Parker, an adjunct professor of defense and security at the University of Western Australia and former Australian anti-submarine warfare officer. “If you look at the sheer extent of it, it’s very clear that they intend to have an expeditionary blue-water naval capability that also is built around submarine operations.”

Moreover, Parker and other experts added, even where data is gathered for scientific purposes, the integration of civilian scientific research and military technology development has become a key focus of the Chinese government under President Xi Jinping. Beijing refers to this approach as “civil-military fusion.”

China’s ministries of defense, foreign affairs and natural resources didn’t respond to requests for comment about the seabed mapping and ocean-monitoring activities.

The U.S. Defense Department didn’t respond to questions from Reuters.

In testimony to a congressional commission this month, Rear Admiral Mike Brookes, the commander of the U.S. Office of Naval Intelligence, said China had dramatically expanded its surveying efforts, providing data that “enables submarine navigation, concealment, and positioning of seabed sensors or weapons.”

He added that “potential military intelligence collection” by Chinese research vessels “represents a strategic concern.”

America recently overhauled its own efforts to map and monitor the ocean, but it typically does so with military vessels that are allowed to turn off the tracking system monitored by civilian software. China’s civilian survey ships also sometimes disable tracking, meaning its campaign may go further than Reuters could determine.

This is the first time the extent of China’s mapping and monitoring across the Pacific, Indian and Arctic oceans has been reported. Previous reporting has revealed a portion of the effort around Guam and Taiwan, and in parts of the Indian Ocean.

“It is frankly astonishing to see the enormous scale of Chinese marine scientific research,” said Ryan Martinson, an associate professor specializing in Chinese maritime strategy at the U.S. Naval War College.

“For decades, the U.S. Navy could assume an asymmetric advantage in its knowledge of the ocean battlespace,” added Martinson. China’s efforts “threaten to erode that advantage. It is obviously deeply concerning.”

‘PARANOID ABOUT BEING BOXED IN’

The data that Chinese research vessels are collecting about the seabed and water conditions is critical to submarine operations and anti-submarine warfare, according to naval experts. Most obviously, said Australian defense scholar Parker, commanders need information about underwater terrain to avoid collisions and hide their vessels.

But that data is also essential for detecting submarines, which operate within a few hundred meters of the surface. Typically, submarines are identified through the sounds they emit or echoes from signals sent by sonar systems.

Tom Shugart, a former U.S. submarine commander who is now an adjunct senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security, said the movement of those sound waves changes depending on the underwater landscape.

Sound waves and submarine movements are also affected by water temperature, salinity and currents.

The vessels involved belong to Chinese state entities like the Ministry of Natural Resources or state-affiliated research institutions like Ocean University, whose president in 2021 publicly celebrated its “close ties” to China’s navy and commitment to “the construction of a maritime power and national defense.” The university didn’t respond to a request for comment.

China has done its most comprehensive ocean surveying east of the Philippines, which sits along the First Island Chain, the string of territories largely controlled by America’s allies that runs from the Japanese islands in the north through Taiwan and on to Borneo in the south. The chain forms a natural barrier between China’s coastal seas and the Pacific.

“They’re paranoid about being boxed in to the First Island Chain,” said Peter Leavy, formerly Australia’s naval attache to the U.S. and now president of the Australian Naval Institute. China’s mapping “indicates a desire to understand the maritime domain so they can break out.”

The tracking data shows that China’s mapping also covers waters surrounding Guam – where some American nuclear submarines are stationed.

Strikingly, Chinese vessels have also mapped waters around Hawaii, one of America’s other regional military hubs; examined an underwater ridge north of a naval base in Papua New Guinea to which the U.S. recently gained access; and scouted around Christmas Island, an Australian territory on a route between the South China Sea and a vital Australian submarine base.

China’s efforts extend further. It has mapped large swaths of the Indian Ocean, a critical route for Chinese imports of oil and other resources from the Middle East and Africa.

“China has some key vulnerabilities when it comes to dependencies on maritime trade,” said Parker, the former anti-submarine warfare officer. The surveying “indicates that they will likely be conducting more submarine operations in the Indian Ocean.”

China’s vessels have also mapped the seabed west and north of Alaska, an essential sea route into the Arctic. Beijing has identified the Arctic as a strategic frontier and declared its ambition to become a polar great power by the 2030s.

The extensive surveying and Beijing’s growing undersea capability are “symptomatic of China’s rise as a premier maritime power,” said Shugart, the former submarine commander.

A ‘TRANSPARENT OCEAN’

Around 2014, Wu Lixin, a scientist at Ocean University, proposed an ambitious effort to create a “transparent ocean” by deploying sensors that would give China a comprehensive view of water conditions and movement through specific areas, according to a statement published by the state-affiliated Chinese Academy of Sciences. The proposal quickly received at least $85 million in support from the Shandong provincial government, according to comments by Shandong officials.

The project began in the South China Sea, where Ocean University public statements boast it has now built an observation system covering the deep-sea basin.

Brookes, the director of the U.S. Office of Naval Intelligence, told the congressional commission that China is building undersea surveillance networks that “gather hydrographic data – water temperature, salinity, currents – to optimize sonar performance and enable persistent surveillance of submarines transiting critical waterways like the South China Sea.”

After surveying the South China Sea, Chinese scientists expanded the transparent ocean project to the Pacific and Indian oceans. In the Pacific, records from the Chinese Ministry of Natural Resources, Ocean University and the Shandong government show that China has deployed hundreds of sensors, buoys and subsea arrays to detect changes in water conditions like temperature, salinity and subsea movement through the ocean east of Japan, east of the Philippines, and around Guam.

In the Indian Ocean, documents from the Chinese Academy of Sciences and Ministry of Natural Resources describe a sensor array ringing India and Sri Lanka, including along an underwater mountain range known as Ninety East Ridge. The ridge – which Chinese vessels have also combed, according to the Starboard data – is one of the world’s longest undersea mountain ranges and sits astride the approach to the strategically essential Malacca Strait, through which much of China’s oil supply passes.

Ocean University and the Institute of Oceanology, which is part of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, have said the wider network of sensors now provides China with real-time data about water conditions and subsea movements.

Some naval-warfare experts expressed caution about that claim, given technical challenges with real-time communication of data from underwater. But even delayed data is valuable, Parker said, as it could help China detect U.S. submarine operations.

Many sensors are placed in sensitive locations. For example, Reuters recently reported on a U.S. effort to fortify a key strait between Taiwan and the Philippines to cut off Chinese access to the Pacific. Ocean University studies show that China has deployed advanced sensors in parts of the strait through which U.S. submarines would move to reach the South China Sea.

Chinese scientists say these sensors monitor changes in climate and ocean conditions. But in 2017, government officials from Shandong province said the transparent ocean project was intended to “ensure maritime defense and security” and explicitly compared the project with a U.S. military effort to build an American ocean-sensor network.

Shandong’s government, the Chinese Academy of Sciences and the Institute of Oceanology didn’t respond to requests for comment.

Mapping-program founder Wu now oversees the network through the Qingdao National Laboratory for Marine Science and Technology, whose partners include China’s Naval Submarine Academy, according to the academy’s website. Wu didn’t respond to Reuters questions.

‘NEW TYPES OF COMBAT CAPABILITIES’

Together, China’s mapping and monitoring give it sophisticated tools to detect rival submarines and deploy its own in some of the world’s most contested waters.

“This is a manifestation of China’s far-seas reach,” said Collin Koh, a senior fellow in maritime security at Singapore’s RSIS Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies. “They now have a reasonably good picture of the maritime domain they hope to operate in, either in peacetime or in war.”

Chinese researchers, similarly, see strategic value in their work. Zhou Chun, an Ocean University researcher who oversees the Indian and Pacific ocean sensor arrays, was quoted last year in an Ocean University press release as saying that his work had shown him “the rapid development of my country’s maritime defense and military capabilities.” He didn’t respond to Reuters questions.

Going forward, Zhou pledged to “transform the most advanced scientific and technological achievements into new types of combat capabilities for our military at sea.”

Both Bahrain and Washington have blamed an Iranian drone attack for the March 9 blast, which the Gulf kingdom said injured 32 people including children, some seriously. Commenting on the day of the attack, U.S. Central Command said on X that an Iranian drone struck a residential neighborhood in Bahrain.

In response to questions from Reuters, Bahrain on Saturday acknowledged for the first time that a Patriot missile was involved in the explosion over the Mahazza neighborhood on Sitra island, offshore from the capital Manama and also home to an oil refinery.

In a statement, a Bahraini government spokesperson said the missile successfully intercepted an Iranian drone mid-air, saving lives.

“The damage and injuries sustained were not a result of a direct impact to the ground of either the Patriot interceptor or the Iranian drone,” the spokesperson said.

Neither Bahrain or Washington has provided evidence that an Iranian drone was involved in the Mahazza incident.

The use of costly, advanced weaponry to defend against attacks by far cheaper drones has been a defining feature of the war. The incident points to the risks and limitations of this strategy: The blast from the powerful Patriot, whether or not it intercepted a drone, contributed to widespread damage and casualties, while Bahrain’s air defenses were unable to prevent strikes that night on the nearby oil refinery, which declared force majeure hours later.

When asked for comment, the Pentagon referred Reuters to Central Command, which did not immediately reply to questions.

In response to questions sent to the White House, a senior U.S. official said the United States was “crushing” Iran’s ability to shoot or produce drones and missiles. “We will continue to address these threats to our country and our allies,” the official said, adding that the U.S. military “never targets civilians.” The official did not answer specific questions about the Patriot attack.

On February 28, the first day of U.S. strikes on Iran, an Iranian girls school took a direct hit. Investigators at the U.S. Defense Department believe U.S. forces were likely responsible, Reuters first reported, possibly because of outdated targeting data, two U.S. sources previously told the news agency.

Video of the aftermath of the Mahazza blast in Bahrain verified by Reuters shows rubble around houses, a thick layer of dust in the streets, an injured man and screaming residents.

Both Bahrain and the United States operate U.S. Patriot air defense batteries in the kingdom, a close U.S. ally located on the Persian Gulf that hosts the U.S. Navy’s Fifth Fleet along with the regional U.S. naval command.

Bahrain plays a critical role in the security of the Strait of Hormuz, the chokepoint that carries about a fifth of the world’s oil and liquefied natural gas and has been almost entirely closed by Iran, causing unprecedented disruption to world oil supplies.

On the night of the explosion in Mahazza, the refinery on Sitra came under Iranian attack, according to Bahraini national oil company Bapco. Videos show smoke rising from the facility on the morning of March 9.

Reuters could not establish whether the cause of the explosion during a night of Iranian attacks on Sitra would have been immediately apparent to U.S. and Bahraini forces. Bahrain in its statement did not say why it had not mentioned the involvement of a Patriot at the time. Iran’s mission to the United Nations did not immediately respond to a request for comment about the incident.

Produced by Raytheon, part of RTX Corp. [RTX], the Patriot is the U.S. Army’s primary high-to-medium-range aircraft-and-missile interceptor system and forms the backbone of U.S. and allied air defenses. Raytheon didn’t respond to a request for comment about the incident.

Bahrain’s government declined to say whether the missile that detonated on March 9, was fired by its own forces or by the United States.

But research associates Sam Lair and Michael Duitsman and Professor Jeffrey Lewis of the Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterey concluded with moderate-to-high confidence that the suspect missile was likely launched from a U.S. Patriot battery located about 4 miles (7 km) to the southwest of the Mahazza neighborhood.

The conclusions of the three American munitions and open-source intelligence researchers, reported here for the first time, were based on their review of open-source visuals and commercial satellite imagery.

Reuters showed the Middlebury analysis to two target-analysis experts and one Patriot system missile researcher, who found no reason to dispute its conclusion.

One of them, Wes Bryant, a former senior targeting advisor and policy analyst at the Pentagon, said Lair, Duitsman and Lewis’s conclusions were “pretty undeniable.”

Key to the Middlebury analysis was a video shot from an apartment building and shared on social media. The video shows the suspect Patriot roaring across the night sky at low altitude on a northeastern trajectory. It then angled downward and out of sight. A flash of light in the distance appeared to mark its detonation 1.3 seconds later.

Hany Farid, a professor at the University of California at Berkeley specializing in digital forensics, reviewed the video for Reuters to determine if it was generated by artificial intelligence. He found “no obvious evidence that the video is fake.”

Lair, Duitsman and Lewis geolocated the video to a neighborhood in Riffa, Bahrain’s second-largest city. Reuters confirmed the geolocation. The earliest post of the video Reuters could find online was at around 2 am local time on March 9.

“The Riffa site’s location and orientation are consistent with the trajectory” of that of the suspect Patriot, the analysis said.

Multiple videos posted to social media the morning of March 9 show damage to residences in Block 602 of the Mahazza neighborhood. The researchers first geolocated the visuals using landmarks that appeared to match commercial satellite imagery of the area and visible street addresses. Reuters independently verified the geolocation.

The researchers then traced the trajectory of the suspect missile from Block 602 straight back to what they assessed – based on commercial satellite imagery – was the U.S. Patriot battery based less than half a mile from where the video of the missile in flight was recorded in Riffa.

A battery consists of a radar unit, a command hub and up to eight launchers that are integrated to detect, track and intercept aircraft and missiles.

Using commercial satellite imagery, the researchers determined that five launchers were visible at the Riffa site two days before the March 9 incident.

The battery has been there since at least 2009, according to satellite imagery. The Bahraini Defense Force did not start operating its own Patriot systems until 2024, according to a Lockheed Martin press release.

The Riffa site has features that are both distinctive to U.S. Patriot batteries in the region and different from those of known Bahrain-operated batteries, the researchers said, including protective walls, unpaved roads and a lack of permanent buildings. Based on these elements, the researchers concluded that the battery is likely operated by the United States, which uses Patriots to defend its naval sites in Bahrain.

The researchers were unable to say with confidence what caused the Patriot to explode. But they added that based on the available evidence, including the pattern and spread of damage on the ground, it appeared to have detonated mid-flight.

They concluded that it was possible the Patriot was aimed at a low-flying drone and that the combined explosion of the missile and drone ignited the blast, the analysis said.

“If this was the case, this was an irresponsible intercept attempt as it endangered the lives and the homes of allied civilians in a residential area,” the analysis said

This scenario matches what Bahrain’s government spokesperson said happened: that the Patriot intercepted an Iranian drone and both detonated in the air.

However, the analysis said, the direction of the damage and the lack of available evidence of a drone over the neighborhood suggested another scenario, that “the explosion was the result of the detonation of the warhead and unexpended propellant of a Patriot interceptor.”

Despite the claim by Bahrain, the researchers said it was less likely the missile made contact with a drone. Reuters could not independently verify the presence or not of an Iranian drone during the incident.

The analysis said that videos taken after the attack and photographs released by Bahrani authorities show that the blast damage was concentrated along four streets of Mahazza.

A Bahrain television news broadcast on March 9 and a government press release showed an extensively damaged home about 400 feet (120 meters) from the center of the main blast area, with interior photos showing holes in a wall created by shrapnel, the analysis said.

When all the damage is considered together, the Middlebury analysis noted, it matches what one would expect if a Patriot missile exploded in the air over a road intersection in the neighborhood. Pieces of the missile then flew about 120 meters farther and hit another house, the analysis said.

Robert Maher, an audio specialist who reviewed the video at the request of Reuters, said his analysis supports the approximate location of the explosion over the damaged homes.

In the video, a flash is seen about eight seconds in, but an explosion is never heard before the clip ends 19 seconds later. That’s because light travels faster than sound. Based on how long the sound would take to reach the person who shot the video, the explosion had to be more than four miles away. The damaged homes were about 4.6 miles (7.4 km) away, which fits with the timing.

Maher said that in the audio from the video he heard no drones or other missiles, although their sounds would have been faint or inaudible if they were more than four miles away from where the video was taken.

“I don’t see anything that is inconsistent with my observations from the audio,” Maher said after reviewing the Middlebury analysis.

Defense and industry officials say Patriot misfires are rare, but they do happen, including an errant missile in 2007 that hit a farm in Qatar.

In an X post on March 9, U.S. Central Command denounced Iranian and Russian news reports that said the incident in Mahazza was the result of a failed Patriot, calling it a “LIE.” It said an Iranian drone struck a residential neighborhood.

Reuters and the Middlebury researchers were unable to obtain or review any visual evidence of missile or drone fragments. Reuters attempted to contact witnesses in Bahrain, but several people declined to speak, citing fear of reprisals. Human Rights Watch has documented arrests of people in Bahrain during the war for posting videos on social media of attacks.

In the video of the suspect missile in flight, the Patriot appears to pass a much steeper smoke trail that the researchers said likely belonged to a first interceptor fired moments earlier.

Patriots are often fired in pairs to increase the chances that one hits the target. Neither the researchers or Reuters could establish what happened to the first missile.

The low trajectory of the second missile and its deviation from the route of the earlier launch could be signs of a possible problem, the researchers said. But they could not rule out the possibility that it was shot in that direction on purpose.

Bahrain’s spokesperson said any suggestion of malfunction or misfiring of the Patriots in Bahrain “was factually incorrect.”

In remarks to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard focused heavily on the threat of foreign terror groups with Islamist ideology to the U.S. and to “Western civilization.”

The phrase, while absent from recent threat reports, “fits the broader approach the administration has taken to U.S. allies in Europe, which is arguing that the threat is to Western civilization from immigrants,” according to Daniel Byman, director of the Warfare, Irregular Threats and Terrorism Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

“The spread of Islamist ideology, in some cases led by individuals and organizations associated with the Muslim Brotherhood, poses a fundamental threat to freedom and foundational principles that underpin Western civilization,” Gabbard said Wednesday. “Islamist groups and individuals use this ideology for recruiting and financial support for terrorist groups and individuals around the world, and to advance their political objectives of establishing an Islamist caliphate which governs based on Sharia [law].”

The report highlights the risks posed by Hezbollah, the Lebanese Shia group working closely with the Iranian regime and currently fighting Israeli forces that have launched operations inside southern Lebanon. Hezbollah has been a critical actor in regional conflict, recently in the Syrian civil war and launching attacks against Israel in support of the Palestinian group Hamas.

Hezbollah has been severely degraded over the past two years, as Israel has wiped out much of its top political and military leadership. Still, the Lebanese state has thus far failed to reach an agreement to disarm the group.

Since the fall of the Assad regime in Syria, Hezbollah also lacks a reliable conduit for trade with Iran, although some smuggling continues. Additionally, the group may have been responsible for a drone attack on a British air base in Cyprus earlier this month.

Iranian proxy groups like Kataib Hezbollah and other militias, also referenced in the report, do pose a threat to U.S. assets and military installations in Iraq in particular, as they have for several years. The ongoing joint U.S.-Israeli operation against Iran means the threat of such attacks has increased.

The report’s other major concerns, including ISIS- and Al Qaeda-linked groups in Africa, likely pose more of a threat within their regional or national contexts.

ISIS is still active in parts of Syria, and could present a more significant threat in a nation struggling to stabilize and avoid civil war after decades of dictatorship.

Other ISIS-linked groups, like ISIS-Khorasan in Southwest Asia, have presented capabilities of attacking internationally in the past, though recent attacks have been more confined to regional focus points.

African groups, such Al Shabaab in the Horn of Africa and Boko Haram in Nigeria, continue to pose threats as well.

“Locally, a number of these groups are doing very well,” Byman said. “They’ve been conquering territory. They’re threatening capitals in some areas, [but] they don’t seem to have a huge or particularly active international presence.”