Defense Policy in Congress: Military Operations Oversight, NDAA Fallout, and Veterans Benefits Dominate the Week

Key Takeaways

1. Congressional oversight of military operations is intensifying. Democrats are pressing hard on the legality and transparency of U.S. military actions in Iran and Venezuela, while the House Armed Services Committee held a hearing on defense strategy and posture. The constitutional tug-of-war between the executive and legislative branches over war powers is escalating.

2. The $901 billion NDAA continues to shape defense spending debates. The FY2026 National Defense Authorization Act — now signed into law — is generating friction over provisions that defy Trump administration preferences, defense appropriations levels, and the ongoing fight over continuing resolutions that Democrats say shortchange veterans.

3. Veterans affairs legislation is under the microscope. From a House Veterans' Affairs subcommittee hearing on traumatic brain injury support to broader fights over PACT Act funding and companies exploiting disabled veterans, Congress is grappling with how to deliver on its promises to those who served.

Military Operations and the Fight Over Congressional War Powers

The sharpest fault line in defense policy this week runs through the question of who gets to decide when and where the U.S. military fights.

Rep. Adam Smith (D-WA-9), the ranking Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, called for greater transparency on March 2: "The American people need more clarity from President Trump about the military operations in Iran."

That statement came the same week the House Armed Services Committee held a hearing on U.S. Defense Strategy and Posture, signaling that the committee is actively scrutinizing the administration's military commitments. On the Senate side, the Armed Services Committee held back-to-back hearings — one on the National Defense Strategy on March 3 with Under Secretary Elbridge Colby as the sole witness, and another on the current readiness of the Joint Force on March 4, featuring senior military leaders from every service branch plus a Government Accountability Office official.

The readiness hearing, chaired by Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-AK) with Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-HI) as ranking member, heard from witnesses representing the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, and Space Force — a comprehensive assessment of whether the military can sustain its current operational tempo.

Democrats have been building this case for months. Rep. Melanie Stansbury (D-NM-1) condemned U.S. military operations in Venezuela in January, stating bluntly: "Let us be clear: these strikes are illegal. The President does not have the authority to declare war or undertake large-scale military operations without Congress. Congress must act to rein him in. Immediately."

Rep. Mike Thompson (D-CA-4) pointed to bipartisan Senate opposition to the Venezuela operations: "5 Senate Republicans joined every Democrat to stop this President's war for oil in Venezuela. Congress must be involved in foreign military operations, and we need to take back our authority."

Sen. Jack Reed (D-RI), the ranking member on the Senate Armed Services Committee, has framed the issue in budgetary terms, criticizing the president for "cancelling promising research & shutting down the war on cancer so he can spend more money on culture wars & his reckless, unauthorized military operations."

The National Defense Strategy hearing on March 3 was immediately followed by a closed session — a signal that classified operational details are part of the conversation Congress is having behind doors. The defense industrial base is watching closely. Major contractors including Lockheed Martin, RTX Corporation, Northrop Grumman, and General Dynamics all have direct stakes in how military readiness priorities translate into procurement decisions. Emerging firms like Anduril Industries and Palantir Technologies are also positioning themselves as the administration shapes its approach to autonomous systems and AI-driven intelligence.

The question now is whether these hearings produce legislative action — specifically, whether Congress moves to reassert its war powers authority through binding legislation or whether the oversight remains rhetorical.

Defense Spending and the NDAA's Long Shadow Over Defense Policy

The FY2026 National Defense Authorization Act is law, but its aftershocks are still reverberating through Congress.

The Senate passed the $901 billion bill in December, sending it to the president's desk with a 4 percent troop pay raise, new equipment purchases, and — notably — provisions aimed at preserving congressional oversight of military commitments in Europe. As The Guardian reported, the bill includes support for Ukraine and European defense partnerships, despite administration resistance. A proposal by Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) to strip nearly all Ukraine security assistance was defeated 60–372, underscoring the depth of bipartisan support for those provisions.

But the NDAA's passage didn't end the defense appropriations fight. Rep. Ken Calvert (R-CA-41), who chairs the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, celebrated passage of his FY26 Defense Appropriations bill as part of a broader funding package in February: "The funding package approved by the House today and signed into law by President Trump puts an end to the current shutdown and includes my FY26 Defense Appropriations bill that will provide our troops with critical resources to keep America safe as well as a much-deserved pay raise."

Not everyone saw the funding fight the same way. House Democrats on the Veterans' Affairs Committee blasted the continuing resolution that preceded the full-year bill, arguing it failed to include advanced funding for the Cost of War Toxic Exposures Fund for FY2027 — a requirement under the bipartisan PACT Act. Democrats accused Republicans of using veterans as leverage in shutdown brinkmanship.

Meanwhile, internal Republican tensions over the NDAA persist. Rep. Keith Self (R-TX-3) flagged language buried in the bill that he said blocks implementation of a Trump executive order on union influence in defense: "Buried in section 1110 of the National Defense Authorization Act is language blocking implementation of President Trump's Executive Order 14251, which prevents radical union bosses from having leverage over our national defense."

The defense spending trajectory is being watched by an enormous lobbying apparatus. The defense issue area has generated 12,040 lobbying disclosures from 3,293 organizations, according to available data. Trade groups like the National Defense Industrial Association, the Aerospace Industries Association, and the Professional Services Council are all active players in shaping how authorized dollars translate into actual contracts. As The Wall Street Journal reported, a new generation of Silicon Valley-backed defense firms is also jockeying for Pentagon dollars, adding competitive pressure to the traditional prime contractor ecosystem.

The Senate Armed Services Committee's nominations hearing on February 26 for two Assistant Secretary of Defense nominees — Mark Ditlevson and Brian Birdwell — touched on supply chain management and the use of military resources in domestic operations, further illustrating how defense spending decisions ripple across the policy landscape.

Veterans Affairs Legislation: TBI, Benefits Exploitation, and the PACT Act

Congress is confronting multiple fronts in veterans affairs legislation simultaneously — from medical care to predatory business practices targeting disabled service members.

The House Veterans' Affairs Subcommittee held a hearing on March 5 focused on supporting veterans with traumatic brain injury. Witnesses included representatives from the VA, the Avalon Action Alliance, and medical experts. TBI remains one of the signature injuries of the post-9/11 era, and the hearing signals continued congressional attention to long-term care needs.

Separately, NPR reported on a congressional push to crack down on companies charging disabled veterans for claims assistance that is supposed to be free. The investigation highlighted firms like Trajector Medical, which reportedly used robo-dialers to access VA systems and billed veterans for benefits increases the companies didn't actually secure. Organizations like Disabled American Veterans provide free VA-accredited claims services, while for-profit firms like Veterans Guardian have spent millions lobbying to maintain their role in the benefits claims ecosystem.

The broader benefits landscape saw substantial action in 2025. Military.com reported that Congress passed 14 laws reshaping military and VA benefits — covering automatic disability and survivor benefit increases, in-state tuition for Selected Reserve students, new foreclosure protections, and reimbursement for veterans who had benefits stolen by fiduciaries. The NDAA itself mandates in-person separation counseling for departing troops, including financial planning and VA claims guidance.

House Republicans are also pushing for reauthorization of key VA programs, with top lawmakers on the House VA Committee leading the effort to ensure continuity of services.

The veterans advocacy community is heavily engaged. The Military Officers Association of America has been named a top lobbyist for 18 consecutive years. The Veterans of Foreign Wars, the American Legion, and the National Military Family Association are all actively pressing Congress on pay, healthcare, housing, and food security for military families.

The unresolved PACT Act funding question looms over all of it. If advanced appropriations for the toxic exposures fund aren't secured, veterans exposed to burn pits and other hazards could face disruptions in care — a prospect that gives both parties political incentive to act, but no clear resolution yet.

Access the Legis1 platform for comprehensive political news, data, and insights.

Spot something wrong? Report an issue with this article