Key Takeaways
- •Elbridge Colby (Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, U.S. Department of Defense) defended the 2026 National Defense Strategy's "flexible realism" amid bipartisan criticism over unilateral troop withdrawals from Romania.
- •Colby testified that the military must prioritize deterring China in the Indo-Pacific while shifting the primary responsibility for conventional defense in Europe and Korea to wealthy allies.
- •Rep. Michael Turner (R, OH-10) accused Colby of being disingenuous and waffling on the U.S. commitment to NATO's Article 5 during a heated exchange over force posture.
- •Democrats condemned the administration for starting "wars of choice" in Iran, while Republicans criticized the Department of War for failing to consult Congress on European troop movements.
- •The committee remains deadlocked with the administration over unexecuted funding for Taiwan and Ukraine, signaling future legislative battles over the $1.5 trillion defense budget and industrial mobilization.
Read the full transcript
Starting at $350/mo
- Full hearing transcripts
- Speaker timestamps with video verification
- Organization & competitor mentions
- Same-day delivery
- Personalized summaries
30-day money-back guarantee on all paid plans.
Hearing Analysis
Key Testimony
The House Armed Services Committee met on March 5, 2026, to receive testimony from Elbridge Colby, the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, regarding the 2026 National Defense Strategy (NDS) and the United States' current defense posture. The hearing occurred amidst significant global volatility, specifically the ongoing Operation Epic Fury against Iran and controversial shifts in U.S. force posture in Europe. The primary purpose of the hearing was to examine how the Department of Defense (DOD)—frequently referred to by the witness and some members as the "Department of War"—is implementing President Trump’s "America First" and "peace through strength" approach through a framework of "flexible realism."
Under Secretary Colby testified that the 2026 NDS is built on four pillars: securing the U.S. homeland and Western Hemisphere, preserving a favorable balance of power in the Indo-Pacific to deter the People's Republic of China, enforcing aggressive burden-sharing among allies, and mobilizing the U.S. defense industrial base. Colby emphasized that the strategy seeks a "middle course" between isolationism and over-interventionism, prioritizing the "first island chain" in the Pacific as the primary focus for the U.S. Armed Forces. He defended Operation Epic Fury as a necessary action to degrade the conventional power projection and nuclear ambitions of the Islamic Republic of Iran, asserting that the campaign is "on plan" to destroy Iranian missile and drone production.
A significant portion of the hearing focused on the administration's "NATO 3.0" proposal, which demands that wealthy European allies take primary responsibility for their own conventional defense. Colby argued that this approach is working, citing increased defense spending by allies. However, Committee Chairman Mike Rogers (R, AL-3) and other members expressed sharp disapproval of the administration's decision to withdraw a brigade from the Republic of Romania. Chairman Rogers accused the DOD of ignoring "best military advice" from United States European Command (EUCOM) and failing to consult Congress as constitutionally required. Rep. Michael Turner (R, OH-10) further confronted Colby on the administration's commitment to NATO’s Article 5, accusing the witness of "waffling" on whether all NATO territories are treated equally under U.S. protection.
Overview
Partisan dynamics were notably complex. While some Republicans supported the administration's hardline stance on Iran and China, they joined Democrats in criticizing the DOD's lack of transparency and perceived disrespect toward congressional oversight. Ranking Member Adam Smith (D, WA-9) and Rep. Joe Courtney (D, CT-2) challenged the strategic logic of Operation Epic Fury, questioning the lack of a clear "endgame" and noting that the conflict contradicts President Trump’s campaign promises to avoid new wars. Democrats also criticized the use of 15 to 50 percent tariffs against allies like the Republic of India, the Federative Republic of Brazil, and the Swiss Confederation, arguing these "grievance-driven" policies undermine international stability.
Industry Impact
The defense industrial base was a recurring theme, with Colby highlighting a proposed $1.5 trillion defense budget intended to "supercharge" production capacity. Rep. Robert Wittman (R, VA-1) expressed frustration that despite congressional appropriations, including $850 million in presidential drawdown authority for Taiwan and $400 million for the European Capacity Fund, the administration had failed to execute these funds or deliver promised weapons to allies in the Baltic states and Poland. Rep. Seth Moulton (D, MA-6) questioned the impact of Operation Epic Fury on "magazine depth," suggesting that depleting munitions in the Middle East directly undermines the NDS goal of deterring China.
Key Testimony
Several notable exchanges highlighted the friction between the committee and the witness. Rep. William Keating (D, MA-9) pressed Colby on the reported suspension of weapons shipments to Ukraine, including Patriot missiles and 155mm munitions, which Colby attributed to a "framework for making intelligent decisions" rather than a formal pause. Rep. John Garamendi (D, CA-8) characterized the administration's actions in the Caribbean and Middle East as "wars of choice" and "regime change" efforts that contradict the NDS’s stated opposition to interventionism.
Overview
The hearing identified several organizations in critical contexts. The United States Department of Defense (DOD) was scrutinized for its policy-making process and lack of interagency coordination. The Islamic Republic of Iran was discussed as the primary target of current kinetic operations. The People's Republic of China was identified as the long-term "pacing threat." NATO was referenced regarding the transition to a "3.0" model and the withdrawal of troops from Romania. Ukraine was mentioned in the context of suspended military aid and the administration's inconsistent support against the Russian Federation. The State of Israel was praised by Colby as a "model ally" for its role in the conflict with Iran.
The hearing concluded with Chairman Rogers announcing an immediate closed session to discuss classified military advice and specific force posture details. Members demanded that the DOD provide outstanding data on the costs and results of boat strike operations in the Pacific and Caribbean, as well as the status of unspent security assistance funds for Taiwan and the Baltic states.
Transcript
...domestically for a whole series of reasons, including again the fact that we have four members of this committee who are attempting to be prosecuted by the Justice Department for exercising their right of free speech, but it also impacts foreign policy. The chairman brought up Russia, Ukraine, and the somewhat inconsistent support that the administration has expressed for Ukraine. And I'm sure there's a lot of different reasons for that. But to take the president at his word, the fact that he and Putin, as he likes to say, went through the whole "Russia hoax" thing together, the fact that it wasn't actually a hoax, Russia did in fact attempt to interfere with the elections aside, it seems to influence his opinion. Because he and Putin were together on something, whereas Zelenskyy, when the president called him up and asked him to dig up dirt on Joe Biden, didn't do it. And then we have this whole performance art in the White House in February of Zelenskyy being dressed down in the middle of a war, undermining confidence in Zelenskyy and undermining our ability to put the pressure on Russia that we need to put on them to end this war and protect Ukraine. Again, all of that driven by sort of a personal amount of loyalty and a grievance that the president has. And we see that play out in the tariffs. We have a 50 percent tariff on India after Modi doesn't give Trump credit for ending the war in Pakistan and India, which apparently he didn't have much to do with. We put a 50 percent tariff on Brazil because they weren't nice to Bolsonaro, who Trump likes. We also put a tariff on Switzerland, and I confess as I'm talking to you, I forget exactly why. It's hard to keep track of all of the grievances past a certain point. But that undermines any sense that we have a set of values in terms of how we're trying to approach our foreign policy. The next step in all this is resources. Here, this is more of a bipartisan problem as we've discussed. We seem to think that we have infinite resources. We can cut taxes and spend $1.5 trillion on the defense budget without ever contemplating how do we use those resources better. So I do seriously want to hear, given the amount of money we have, how are we going to make this work? In one particular example of this, which I'm going to come back to over and over again, is of course the $22 billion battleship, which seems like a horrific idea to spend that much money when we have so many other needs. And by the way, for those of you who follow the whole Polymarket thing, if they're giving you the opportunity to bet, take the over on that. It's going to be more than $22 billion to build that battleship when we walk down that road. So how are we husbanding the resources that we have in order to achieve our objective? But the overall biggest problem is the Trump administration has decided that an excessive reliance on violence, threats, coercion, and the use of the military isn't just their go-to option, it's pretty much all they've got. If somebody in the world isn't doing exactly what we want, our approach is let's punch them in the face repeatedly until they capitulate. And then frankly, even after they capitulate, we decide to keep punching them in the face just on the off chance that they might change their mind. And I think as I said, the Financial Times summed this up fairly well this morning when it said, let me get all of this straight in my head. They want their allies to join in an ill-thought-out war of choice with unclear aims and an uncertain chance of success for any of the myriad aims stated so far. They want everyone else to just absorb any of the externalities, like influxes of refugees, disruptions to shipping, higher oil and commodity prices, and maybe even some incoming missiles. And then they also want to tariff everyone at 15 percent. I'm not sure they can keep pushing at everyone all at once indefinitely. There seems to be an inability here not just to anticipate second and third-order effects, but even just to model a response from any other party, much less every other party. The rest of the world does matter, and I suppose maybe we can just say we're the United States, whatever we want you have to give it to us, and if you don't, we're going to bomb you, tariff you, or do something to you. But that type of confrontation creates more chaos and more war, which is what we have seen. I know everyone likes to dump on the international rules-based order, okay? But the alternative to that was might makes right. Was basically whoever's strongest go take what you want and we'll just fight it out. And after a whole series of world wars, culminating in the war that killed 70 million people and blew the entire industrial world off the face of the map, we decided let's try something else. It isn't perfect, all right, not everyone follows the laws all the time, but it seems like what the U.S. has said is we're going to dump that entirely. And we're going to take what we want, when we want, and how we want, and the rest of the world can go to hell. I don't think that's going to end well. So I would like to see some kind of plan as to how other tools in our toolbox, other than just the military, you know, diplomacy, aid, foreign aid, which of course we decided to cut off food and healthcare from hundreds of thousands of people so that they starved to death, that doesn't help either. Are there other tools that we think about other than just coercion, violence, force, and the use of the military? I think there should be. And I guess the final question I want you to consider is when President Trump was running for office, he said over and over and over again, I'm not going to do wars. In fact, he very specifically said, if I'm president, we will not go to war with Iran. And here we are. So I'm genuinely curious, what changed? What changed from when he was a candidate to when he was in office that has led us to the level of conflict that we are now experiencing? Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Read the full transcript
Starting at $350/mo
- Full hearing transcripts
- Speaker timestamps with video verification
- Organization & competitor mentions
- Same-day delivery
- Personalized summaries
30-day money-back guarantee on all paid plans.
Not ready to subscribe?
Get a free daily digest with hearing summaries ranked by relevance.
Already have an account? Log in
