In a Wednesday letter to his Democratic colleagues, the Washington representative called for more public testimony from senior defense officials and the restoration of a dedicated oversight subcommittee, listing strikes in the Caribbean and the U.S.’s war with Iran — the latter of which he called “illegal” — among his top concerns. Smith also questioned the need for a defense budget exceeding $1 trillion, arguing that Congress must reassert its authority over military policy under what he described as a “runaway Executive Branch.”

Smith, who won re-election in his district on Tuesday, currently serves as the committee’s ranking member. It’s chaired by Alabama Republican Rep. Mike Rogers.

Democrats took control of the House and Senate in this week’s midterm elections, and new committee chairs will be elected for the next legislative session. Smith previously chaired the committee from 2019 to 2023.

Smith blasted the Trump administration’s approach to national security, contending that its reliance on military force and unilateral action — he described the administration’s view as one that believes “might makes right” – has destabilized the globe and alienated the U.S. He called for a strategy that prioritizes partnerships, military deterrence and avoids expensive conflicts.

Smith also called for a shift in Pentagon spending priorities, advocating for more investment in low-cost munitions, uncrewed systems and drone and missile defenses. The war with Iran has used up to two-thirds of U.S.’s missile interceptor stock, according to a Congressional Budget Office analysis, in a drastic depletion that could take at least five years to restore. The U.S. has burned through expensive interceptors, which can cost millions of dollars per missile, to counter adversarial drones built at a fraction of the cost.

While acknowledging the need for advanced weapons systems, Smith said the Pentagon must strike a better balance between expensive platforms and cheaper, expendable capabilities.

He also criticized Trump’s proposal for a fleet of battleships.

“We need an appropriate mix of high-end survivable systems and lower-cost attritable capabilities, not a fleet of nuclear-powered battleships as proposed by the President,” he wrote.

Smith also raised concerns about how the Pentagon awards contracts and divvies out financial support to private companies, calling for closer examination of whether those awards serve taxpayers or are influenced by favoritism. While acknowledging Congress’s efforts to streamline the Pentagon’s notoriously bureaucratic acquisition process, Smith also argued that lawmakers still needed to know how defense dollars are spent, particularly as the military invests in new weapons systems.

Despite his criticism of the Trump administration, Smith insisted that he remained committed to passing the annual National Defense Authorization Act, though he acknowledged that working with Republicans would be “extraordinarily difficult.” The NDAA, an annual law that sets military policies and funding levels, remains unfinished this year after Senate Democrats blocked a procedural vote in July amid disagreements over the war in Iran and provisions involving Israel.

“The reason we lost is the war,” Vance wrote in a lengthy social media post Wednesday morning after Democrats won control of the U.S. House and Senate during Tuesday’s elections. His comments came after President Donald Trump on Tuesday night told The New York Times that going to war with Iran was a “very wise decision,” and that Republicans largely lost because he was not in the race.

Though votes were still being tallied as of Wednesday afternoon, Democrats had secured enough victories for a majority in Congress, flipping Senate seats in historically red states like South Carolina, Texas and Kansas.

“If you’d like to argue it was worth it, that losing the Senate for the next 6 years was worth it, then do so,” Vance continued on X. “But everyone knows why we lost,” he added, calling for “honest conversation” about the country’s next steps.

Public support for the Trump administration’s war with Iran sank in July, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll, which found that just one in three Americans supported the conflict. The poll also found that four in ten Republicans — and 69% of Americans — did not think Trump had “clearly explained the goals of U.S. military involvement in Iran.”

The U.S. military has spent more than $47 billion on its war with Iran, Reuters reported last month, a number more than 25% higher than the Defense Department’s July estimate. That estimate included $6 billion to replace military equipment lost during the war, such as aircraft and drones, and more than $29 billion to replace costly munitions.

The war has depleted up to two-thirds of the Pentagon’s missile-defense interceptors since July 2025, according to a Congressional Budget Office analysis, leaving the U.S. military with fewer available for future conflicts. The analysis found that rebuilding those stores could take at least five years.

Trump has reportedly been polling his advisors on whether he should fire Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, CBS reported Wednesday afternoon. Hegseth has been the subject of increasing scrutiny over the Pentagon’s handling of the war, with some lawmakers previously calling for him to be impeached.

Hegseth has blamed the war’s mounting costs on former Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin and prior Pentagon leadership.

“The amount of neglect, the amount of stale thinking and bureaucracy was staggering when we took over,” Hegseth told senators during a July hearing to request additional emergency funding — $67.1 billion — for the Iran war and other department expenses, such as the National Guard deployments to the U.S. southern border and Washington, D.C.

The U.S. launched its war against Iran on Feb. 28, and since then, more than 860 troops have been wounded and at least 23 have been killed, according to the Pentagon’s Defense Casualty Analysis System.

Potential contractors are asked to detail their capabilities to provide the Extended Range Attack Munition, a small, air-launched standoff missile intended for mass production.

The Air Force’s new Request For Information, which has a deadline of Nov. 19, offers some technical specifications for ERAM. It should be a 500-pound class weapon with a range of greater than 250 nautical miles and a speed of more than Mach 0.6. Terminal accuracy should be within 10 meters of the target even amid jamming, such as degraded GPS. In addition to blast and fragmentation effects, the weapon should also be capable of limited penetration on impact.

The Air Force describes ERAM as a next-generation cruise missile “designed to provide affordable mass to the fight,” and which “delivers a precision-guided, stand-off capability against high-value fixed targets.”

ERAM is part of the Pentagon’s push for cheaper weapons developed more quickly. In 2024, the Air Force awarded a contract to two small defense companies — Zone 5 Technologies and CoAspire — to develop ERAM prototypes. In January 2026 — less than a year and a half later, the Air Force conducted a live warhead test at Eglin Air Force Base, Florida.

Similar haste can be seen in the RFI, which states that companies should begin delivering the first of more than 1,000 ERAMs no later than three months after the contract is awarded. Deliveries should be complete within 15 months.

One question is whether Ukraine is already using ERAM on its American-made F-16 fighters. In August 2025, the Trump administration announced an $825 million sale of 3,350 ERAMs to Ukraine. In June 2026, Ukrainian media suggested that Ukraine has used the AGM-188A Rusty Dagger — an ERAM version — against the Voronezh Semiconductor Plant, which makes components for Russian missiles.

Another question is to what extent the U.S. military will make use of ERAM. The Air Force published the original RFI in January 2024, nearly two years into the Ukraine War — and nearly two years before the Iran war depleted U.S. inventories of expensive missiles.

The Defense Health Agency has not released full details of Tricare changes expected in 2027, but updates to its operations manual this month show that beneficiaries ages 21 to 26 who use Tricare Young Adult, or TYA, will pay $893 for TYA Prime or $394 per month for TYA Select beginning Jan. 1. 

The increases — of 12.5% and 8.5% respectively, from 2026 — were first reported by Federal News Network. 

Tricare Young Adult was established in 2011 to provide military dependents a coverage extension similar to the one required by the Affordable Care Act, which mandated that private health insurers cover children on their parents’ employee-based healthcare policies up to age 26. 

By law, however, TYA must cover the full cost of providing Tricare benefits, and under this construct, beneficiaries pay monthly premiums.  

Premiums for TYA Prime have always been higher than those for TYA Select, once known as TYA Standard. TYA Prime requires patients to see a primary care provider, often based in a military hospital or contract clinic, requires referrals for specialty care and has no deductibles or copayments.  

TYA Select allows patients to see any physician, including specialists, without a referral, and offers savings for seeing network providers. It has a higher deductible and requires copayments. 

The small number of patients enrolled in TYA Prime — 1,287 — are bearing the costs of the program, according to the Defense Health Agency.  

“A relatively small pool of insured population, combined with a high number of healthcare encounters, result in higher premium rates, particularly for TYA Prime,” DHA officials said in a statement to Military Times. 

The increases represent a 192% increase in TYA Prime premiums and 73% increase for TYA Select premiums since 2016. A decade ago, TYA Prime enrollees paid $306 a month in premiums while those in TYA Standard paid $228 per month. 

At the time, 26,910 beneficiaries were enrolled in TYA Prime while 18,273 had TYA Standard. 

According to DHA, roughly 27,600 beneficiaries are currently enrolled in TYA Select.  

The new rates translate to $4,728 to $10,716 in added healthcare costs for active-duty military and retiree families with young adult beneficiaries. Active-duty families without older children have no enrollment fees or premiums for Tricare Prime and, depending on rank and date of enlistment, pay between $50 and $397 a year for Tricare Select plus out-of-pocket costs. 

Retiree families pay between $765 and $1,191 per year in enrollment fees and bear out-of-pocket costs.  

The National Military Family Association, an Alexandria, Virginia-based non-profit that advocates for military personnel and their dependents, said the information provided by the Defense Health Agency on the rising costs of TYA doesn’t “fully explain the underlying factors driving the increases.” 

In a message posted on its website, the group said it is trying to determine the changes in healthcare use or costs that have contributed to the increases and what is attributable to rising medical expenses.  

Also, the organization is seeking to determine why costs have risen for TYA Prime at rates faster than TYA Select. 

Eileen Huck, director of government relations for the National Military Family Association, said the group is concerned that military dependents will forego health coverage if premiums continue to rise. 

“It is a vicious cycle because the costs are fully borne by the beneficiary. There’s no government offset. So, as the costs have gone up, young people who either can find less expensive options or feel that they are healthy enough to go without, risk going without health coverage,” Huck told Military Times in an interview.  

Tricare Young Adult offers coverage to unmarried dependents under age 26 of Tricare-eligible sponsors who don’t have access to employee-offered healthcare or meet the age requirements to remain on regular Tricare — age 21, or 23 if the beneficiary is a full-time college student. 

Since 2021, members of Congress have supported legislation that would allow military dependents to stay on Tricare until age 26, similar to the young adult children of employees enrolled in their company’s health plans. 

The current iteration of the bill, sponsored by Rep. Patrick Ryan, D-N.Y., in the House and Sen. Mark Kelly, D-Ariz., in the Senate, has 98 sponsors from both political parties. 

“We absolutely feel that it’s unfair for military families to have to pay extra for their young adults’ health coverage when … civilian families with employer-based plans get that coverage automatically,” Huck said. 

She added that barring passage of that legislation, NMFA would like to see all young adult beneficiaries have access to Tricare until at least age 23. Currently, dependents lose coverage under their sponsor at age 21 if they aren’t enrolled in college. 

“It really makes no sense that health coverage is connected to college enrollment,” Huck said. “We’ve always been concerned that large numbers of military-connected young adults are going without health coverage because of the cost.”  

According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, the annual cost of a U.S. family’s employer-provided healthcare plan was an average $28,303 in 2026. 

The Pentagon did not immediately respond to a request for comment on its estimate, which has not been shared publicly.

The disclosure about the rising cost of the Iran war comes as Republicans wrestle with the political fallout of the unpopular conflict ahead of the November 3 election that will determine control of Congress for the next two years.

The war’s impact on global energy costs has weighed on support for Republican candidates and hurt President Donald Trump’s approval ratings. Trump’s Republican Party holds a narrow majority in both chambers of Congress.

The Pentagon’s latest estimate was tied to the operational costs of carrying out the war, with a projected cost of more than $29 billion to replace expended munitions used in the conflict.

More than $6 billion would be needed to replace military equipment and so-called “platform losses,” which include the loss of aircraft and drones during the war.

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

Trump’s initial strategy in the Iran war focused on first using expensive, high-end precision missiles to bomb Iran’s defenses so it could later use less expensive munitions, including gravity bombs like the air-launched JDAMs, which are plentiful.

But an April ceasefire gave time for Iran to dig out underground storage facilities, bringing back online some Iranian defenses, as well as missiles and drones that had been inaccessible.

Trump has since imposed a naval blockade on Iran to starve it of oil export revenue and held out the possibility of restarting combat operations after the midterm elections. US officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, say the Pentagon has been planning to restart heavy fighting if ordered to do so.

The latest Pentagon estimate compares to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s July estimate of $37.5 billion for the cost of the war.

While the figures include a host of operational costs, from flight operations to cyber support, the US military’s Iran war cost estimates did not clearly account for the massive expense expected to repair damage to US bases sustained by Iranian missile and drone attacks.

The Congressional Military Range and Test Facility Caucus was formed with the purpose of highlighting the role military ranges and test facilities play in advancing research, technology development and test missions for the military, according to a Tuesday announcement.

“America’s military ranges and test facilities are where our nation’s warfighters get their edge, and I am proud to represent some of the most critical in the world,” Rep. Vince Fong, R-Calif., who launched the caucus, said in the release. 

“This caucus will ensure that Members of Congress understand what is at stake, fight for the resources these facilities need, and protect the missions that keep America ahead of our adversaries,” he continued.

The caucus was formed by Fong alongside co-chairs Reps. Ken Calvert, R-Calif., George Whitesides, D-Calif., and Gabe Vasquez, D-N.M. Other members include Reps. Jay Obernolte, R-Calif., Julia Brownley, D-Calif., and Mike Haridopolos, R-Fla., per the statement.

The caucus news comes after the Army announced earlier this year that it is opening five of its test ranges to private industry, aiming to quicken the development and testing of drones, counter-drone systems, long-range fires and cheap interceptors. 

The Army isn’t the only service that eyed opening up its ranges to approved companies. Earlier this month, Air Force leaders said they were working with the Army to understand how they could also apply the concept.

Although the Air Force has yet to open any ranges, Brig. Gen. Mark Massaro, the commander of the Air Force Test Center, said at an October Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies forum that in a previous posting he worked with officials and contractors to coordinate smaller-scale test range access for specific tests, which gave him insight into how opening the ranges to industry could work. 

^{Under federal law, former spouses may receive up to half a service member’s time-based military retirement pay. But medical-based military retirement pay and any Veterans Affairs disability pay is protected and not divisible.}

^{In Marschner v. Marschner, which was accepted by the high court earlier this month, Roxane Marschner, who married North Dakota Army National Guard soldier Richard Marschner, is seeking to enforce a clause in her divorce settlement in which Richard agreed to pay her the equivalent of her portion of military retirement pay if any of it was offset by disability compensation.}

^{The couple married in 1994 and divorced 22 years later. In their settlement, Roxane was to receive a percentage of Richard’s military and federal civilian benefits when he retired. But Richard later was medically retired as a result of service-connected injuries and received medical retirement pay and VA disability compensation — neither of which is divisible under the Uniformed Services Former Spouses Protection Act.}

^{Roxane then took Richard to court, arguing that he had agreed to pay her if she did not receive her share of benefits. The lower court ruled in her favor. Richard then petitioned the North Dakota Supreme Court, which said the provision was unenforceable.}

^{Roxane Marschner then asked the U.S. Supreme Court to consider the case, saying that the law and a previous Supreme Court ruling only limited courts from instating provisions that divided disability compensation and did not apply to private agreements negotiated by spouses.}

^{She also argued that other states, including Virginia, Illinois, Nevada and Alaska, have allowed enforcement of such agreements, known as indemnification provisions, in divorce settlements, and a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court was necessary to ensure equity across the legal system.}

^{Richard Marschner’s attorneys have said the state courts don’t have the authority to divide federally protected benefits and the North Dakota district courts order to Richard to pay Roxane is invalid as a result.}

^{Marschner’s attorney, Johanna Clyborne of Minnesota-based Brekke, Clyborne and Ribich, told Military Times that divorce agreements such as the Marschners’ happen “more than people realize” because veterans — and attorneys — often don’t understand federal protections of disability benefits and medical retirement payments.}

^{“Congress has spoken on this issue, right, and it is non-divisible. There’s going to be different sorts of interpretations, but Congress thought that the veterans were entitled to disability benefits and basically prioritized, and to allow them to be stripped by a state court in very narrow circumstances is not what was intended,” Clyborne said in an interview.}

^{Several previous cases have addressed the division of retirement pay and disability benefits in military divorces. In Howell v. Howell, the Supreme Court ruled in 2017 that state courts cannot require a veteran to compensate his spouse half his retirement pay when he waived a portion of it to receive non-taxable VA disability compensation.}

^{The Court has not scheduled a date for Marschner v. Marschner, although the case could be heard as early as January.}

^{Clyborne said the case has the potential to affect divorce agreements for veterans who receive Combat-Related Specialty Compensation, Concurrent Retirement Disability Pay and other benefits.}

^{“Hopefully it will settle a lot of questions folks have been wrestling with,” Clyborne said.}

The extent of the drone war is underestimated, with Ukraine and Russia each using roughly 10,000 drones a day, the former CIA director and onetime commander of U.S. Central Command said, speaking at an American Primary Aluminum Association event in Washington.

“This is an unmanned systems war,” Petraeus said. “Tanks aren’t survivable there anymore.”

For Ukraine, drones and unmanned weapons have become central to how the country has leveraged a smaller, outgunned force against a much larger, better-financed adversary for almost five years.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy ordered the creation of a new Unmanned Systems Forces military branch in 2024, and the Defense Ministry has said time and again that developing more autonomous weapons is a top priority.

But for the rest of the world, Petraeus said, the fighting in Ukraine is a window into the future and a warning about the dangers of being underprepared for the battles to come.

“Really, no NATO country and not even the United States is undertaking yet the urgent revolutionary institutional change that should be taken based on what we see in Ukraine, which is the future of war,” he said.

The U.S. needs a new concept of warfare that runs through force structure, training, procurement, personnel policy and bases, the general said, replacing much of the legacy, heavily manned equipment with unmanned systems that are cheaper and far more numerous.

“What’s going to happen is we’ll see the introduction of autonomous systems really for the first time in warfare,” Petraeus said.

Washington is making “some commendable steps” toward developing these weapons, according to Petraeus, including establishing a new Autonomous Warfare Command that requires each military branch to stand up its own component command.

“But my hope is that they will not just create an unmanned systems force in terms of force structure, but that they will also spur the initiation of true institutional change,” Petraeus said.

That includes how the U.S. buys weapons, Petraeus said, calling for “very, very substantial manufacturing capacity but not necessarily producing all the time.”

“You want it to be able to make software changes every week, hardware changes every few weeks, which is what’s going on in Ukraine because the enemy continues to evolve and Russia’s been innovating very substantially as well,” he said.

Ukraine will produce as many as 20 million unmanned systems this year, Zelenskyy said in a July speech, with a shortage of trained operators and the acquisition of some weapons components — including optics, gimbals, brushless motors and fiber-optic cable — becoming the domestic industry’s production bottleneck.

The general also rejected the idea that the U.S. war with Iran has hurt Washington’s ability to help Kyiv, though he acknowledged the U.S. has used “a fair number of missile interceptors,” which “makes it more difficult to share those with others around the world.”

The war has consumed between one-half and two-thirds of the U.S. inventory of certain missile-defense interceptors, according to a Congressional Budget Office estimate released in September.

“We can help the Ukrainians in any way in which we decide to assist them,” Petraeus said. “These are policy decisions.”

In a federal lawsuit, the New Mexico Wildlife Federation, Battalion Search and Rescue and Southern Border Communities Coalition argue the Trump administration is misusing so-called “national defense areas” to circumvent longstanding restrictions on military participation in civilian law enforcement.

In a statement, Brian Netter, legal director at Democracy Forward, one of the teams representing the plaintiffs, called the “national defense area” designation “an extraordinary abuse of power with devastating consequences for the people who live, work, worship, recreate, and carry out lifesaving humanitarian work along the border.”

“Public lands do not become military installations simply because the president says so, and the military cannot be handed sweeping new authority to police civilians by drawing a line around land that belonged to the public,” he said, adding, “Our Constitution and laws impose clear limits on the use of the military for civilian law enforcement for a reason.”

The Trump administration began sending troops to the area in March 2025 to support border security and has since expanded the military’s presence along the border in other states. By April of that year, the Defense Department assumed jurisdiction over the 109,651 acres from the Department of the Interior.

The designation made the land, officially named the New Mexico National Defense Area, an expansion of Fort Huachuca for three years. The Defense Department said the designation allowed troops to detain people accused of trespassing in the military area after crossing the border illegally.

However, the lawsuit argues that the federal agencies exceeded their authority to transfer public land through emergency powers. “No statute authorizes the creation of ‘national defense areas,’ let alone permits carving one out of formerly public land,” the lawsuit says.

The lawsuit adds that the Defense Department has historically used such land restrictions only temporarily to protect people or property during accidents or emergencies.

“Creating a semi-permanent military zone along the southern border for purposes of immigration enforcement is directly contrary to the agency’s longstanding practice,” the lawsuit says.

Beyond alleging violations of federal law, the plaintiffs say the military zones are disrupting their work by limiting access to public lands used for recreation and conservation; supporting border communities; and providing humanitarian aid.

James R. Holeman, founder of Battalion Search and Rescue, said his organization leads volunteers who search for people in distress in remote areas and recover the remains of migrants who died crossing the border. Over the past three years, he said, the group’s monthly searches along the Arizona and New Mexico border have uncovered more than 100 death sites.

“Imagine how many more people could be found if we had the access, resources, and support to search systematically. Instead, we’re being locked out,” he said, adding that vast stretches of borderlands are “virtually inaccessible to humanitarian searchers” because of federal designations.

“Now the government is closing off even more territory. We don’t find weapons or drugs. We find Bibles, prayer cards, love notes, and the belongings of people simply trying to survive,” Holeman said. “There is no meaningful, systematic government effort to search for the missing and the dead. They don’t search, and now they’re preventing us from searching.”

During a review period from June 1, 2024, through May 31, 2025, the VA made at least one error in 17,900 cases, roughly 38%, regarding disability decisions for painful scars, according to a recent VA Office of Inspector General report.

920 of those decisions, per the report, led to millions in overpayment and will continue to accrue without “corrective action.”

For service-connected painful scars, as a result of burns, surgeries, shrapnel and gunshot wounds, among other sources, the VA requires a physical examination to support a veteran’s claim.

However, the OIG found that the Disability Benefits Questionnaire “does not clearly define objective versus subjective evidence.

Therefore, claims processors sometimes provided evaluations for painful scars without objective evidence to support the evaluations, which led to overpayments in disability compensation.”

In addition, the report found that physical manifestations of the disability were often evaluated under two separate diagnostic codes, often resulting in “pyramiding” and overpayment.

The report notes that more than a half-million veterans currently receive VA disability benefits for painful scarring caused or worsened by military service, but it took a random sample of 70 decisions from a review population of 47,300.

It further notes that the OIG took the findings to the VBA in February 2026 and following the briefing, “30 additional decisions completed from January 1 through January 31, 2026… identified a 43 percent error rate.”

The VBA, while agreeing with many of the OIG’s recommendations, including revising the “Scars/Disfigurement” section of the DBQ; ensuring employees understand how to accurately evaluate painful scars; and reviewing and correcting the processing errors on decisions the Office of Inspector General team identified, took issue with the statistical sample and the contextualization of those estimates.

“The OIG examined 130 decisions, representing approximately 0.27 percent of the total review population of about 47,300 decisions, and identified 60 errors, which form the basis for the projected 17,900 errors referenced throughout the report,” per VA comments in the report.

“Importantly, only seven of the 60 errors OIG found resulted in improper payments, which represents about 5.4 percent of the sample, and when viewed across the full review population, only about 0.015 percent of all decisions reviewed. The remaining 53 errors, more than 88 percent of the sample, were technical or procedural issues that did not result in improper payments.”

The VA is working to complete the OIG’s suggestions by February 2027 at the latest.