In contrast to a series of contested nomination votes this week, the military confirmations were done by a simple voice vote without objection. The moves fill several top Pentagon and military service slots ahead of the congressional summer break, allowing the leaders to step into their roles in the coming days.

Adm. Daryl Caudle, who has been the commander of U.S. Fleet Forces Command since 2021, was approved as the next chief of naval operations, ending a nearly six-month vacancy in that role.

The Trump administration had dismissed previous CNO Adm. Lisa Franchetti without a stated reason on Feb. 21. Adm. James Kilby has been filling in as acting CNO since then.

Caudle testified at his confirmation hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee on July 24 that America is “in the midst of a crucial era, defined by global competition, technological saturation and unpredictable threats that challenge our American dream.”

He addressed issues of environmental remediation at Red Hill, issues with a bloated budget for the dry dock replacement at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, and Navy accountability for late deliveries and mistakes made in defense programs, among other issues.

Caudle has also criticized manning shortages, a sentiment that aligns with the Trump administration’s intention to overhaul the maritime industrial base.

Also on Thursday, Lt. Gen. Shawn Bratton was confirmed as vice chief of the Space Force, replacing Gen. Michael Guetlein. Last month, Defense Department officials announced Guetlein would step aside from the role in order to lead the new Office of Golden Dome for America, coordinating efforts for that defense project.

Vice Adm. Frank Bradley was named the next head of U.S. Special Operations Command. Lt. Gen. Dagvin Anderson was confirmed as the first Air Force general to lead U.S. Africa Command.

Marine Corps Maj. Gen. David Bligh, who currently serves as the staff judge advocate to the commandant of the Marine Corps, will take over as the judge advocate general of the Navy, the first Marine to hold that post in more than a century.

And Lt. Gen. Michael Borgschulte was confirmed as the next superintendent of the U.S. Naval Academy. He’s the first Marine to hold that post, although his appointment comes amid controversy.

Vice Adm. Yvette Davids, the school’s first female superintendent, had led the academy since January 2024 but was reassigned by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth amid a host of reforms at the school.

The Senate could approve more senior defense posts in coming days. Lawmakers were expected to debate through the weekend on clearing a backlog of nominations pending in the chamber, and Trump has suggested cancelling the Senate’s planned August recess altogether to finish the work.

The appropriations measure advanced out of the Senate Appropriations Committee by a bipartisan 26-3 vote, with both Republican and Democratic leaders praising the plan as meeting the emerging needs of the armed forces.

“This bill addresses major funding gaps across the board,” said Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, chairwoman of the panel. “It invests in ship building … it expands critical munitions production, including air and missile defense interceptors, long range missiles and next generation hypersonic weapons.

“It funds drone and counter drone technologies, which are increasingly changing the nature of the battlefield. Finally, the bill invests in our most precious asset, the men and women of our armed forces. It shows our continuing commitment to their readiness, well being and mission success.”

The bill includes plans for a 3.8% pay raise for troops next January and an increase in overall military end strength in 2026, similar to plans adopted by House lawmakers earlier in July.

But the measure also includes a 2% increase in base defense spending next fiscal year, about $20 billion above House approved spending levels and the White House’s request for defense spending.

The White House for months has advocated for a generally flat defense budget next year coupled with about $150 billion in one-time defense spending approved in a budget reconciliation measure earlier this summer.

Democratic lawmakers have objected to that strategy, saying it undermines oversight and long-term planning. Republicans on the committee backed the reconciliation measure but also expressed concern over the reliance on one-time funding for critical defense programming.

“I think not only the prior administration, but this administration as well, have underestimated the level of challenge that we have in defense,” said Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., chairman of the appropriations committee’s defense panel.

“You’ve got authoritarian regimes coordinating with each other in North Korea, in Russia, Chinese and Iranian proxies. And one thing they have in common is that they hate us.”

Whether the plussed-up defense budget plan will survive congressional negotiations is unclear.

The House has already recessed until September, and the Senate is expected to leave town at the end of this week. When both chambers return, they’ll have to approve funding for all federal spending past Sept. 30, either through a full-year appropriations package or a short-term budget extension.

If neither is approved, the country could face a partial government shutdown starting Oct. 1, shuttering a host of federal offices and pausing some military paychecks.

The bill’s passage — by a 221-209 margin, with only five Democrats backing the measure — sends the national security budget debate over to the Senate, where appropriators still have not unveiled the parameters of their spending plans for next year.

The Defense Department is currently operating this fiscal year under a modified continuing resolution, with some additional funding for military programs and purchases. Lawmakers are hopeful that won’t happen again next year, but the slow pace of budget work thus far leaves only about six weeks of session work left before a possible partial government shutdown if the appropriations bills aren’t finalized.

The House spending plan was largely drafted before Pentagon leaders unveiled their detailed budgetary requests for fiscal 2026 just last month. President Donald Trump has touted that outline as a “$1 trillion defense budget,” but that total includes additional one-time funds approved by Congress as part of a separate reconciliation measure.

As such, the House plan for the base defense budget represents a small decrease over current fiscal year military spending, a point that Democrats and some Republican lawmakers have lamented.

But Rep. Ken Calvert, R-Calif., the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee’s defense panel, praised the funding plan as “providing our men and women in uniform with the resources they need to keep America safe.”

The bill supports a 3.8% pay raise for servicemembers next year, matching the federal formula for the annual prescribed pay boost. It includes $2.6 billion for hypersonics programs and $13 billion for missile defense programs in support of Trump’s Golden Dome effort.

The measure sets aside $8.5 billion for 69 F-35 fighters, $3.8 billion for B-21 procurement, $2.7 billion for 15 KC-46s and $1.2 billion for four E-2D Advanced Hawkeye aircraft. Another $37 billion would go to Navy shipbuilding efforts, including procurement of one Columbia-class ballistic missile submarine and two Virginia-class fast attack submarines.

Under the plan, the Defense Department civilian workforce would be cut by about 45,000 individuals at a savings of $3.6 billion, a provision that drew strong objections from Democratic lawmakers.

Critics also attacked the bill’s social issue provisions, including language prohibiting military health care facilities from providing abortion services, bans on transgender medical care and surgeries, and elimination of diversity and equity programs.

“These poison pill riders will not go unnoticed by our troops,” said Rep. Betty McCollum, D-Minn., ranking member on the appropriations committee’s defense panel. “They will impact recruitment and retention.”

Passage of the defense budget bill was delayed for much of the week by unrelated legislative floor fights in the House, and could be complicated in the Senate by similar, broader fights over federal spending and program cuts.

House lawmakers are expected to shift focus in coming days to the annual defense authorization bill — legislation which sets Defense Department policy and spending priorities for the upcoming year, but does not actually appropriate the funds for those goals — but a full floor debate on that measure is unlikely to happen before the chamber’s August recess.

The move comes less than a week after Senate Armed Services Committee members passed their own version of the bill, which sets defense policies and budget priorities for the upcoming fiscal year. The legislation has been passed annually by Congress for more than six consecutive decades, despite increasing partisan tensions in recent years.

The House panel’s passage — by a 55-2 bipartisan vote, despite numerous objections from Democratic members — sets up possible consideration of the bill later this month by the full chamber and allows staffers to begin behind-the-scenes negotiations on a final draft.

House Armed Services Committee Chairman Mike Rogers, R-Ala., called the proposal “a strong bill that will help reform the acquisition system, revitalize the defense industrial base, and build the ready, capable, and lethal fighting force we need to deter China and our other adversaries.”

The measure also includes a 3.8% pay raise for service members in 2026 and an increase of the Defense Department’s end strength by about 26,000 troops next year.

It prohibits a reduction in U.S. military posture on the Korean Peninsula or in Europe without congressional approval, and it includes $400 million for Ukraine support (about $200 million less than the Senate draft).

Rejected objections

Like their Senate counterparts, Democrats on the House panel spent hours Tuesday unsuccessfully attempting to amend the authorization bill with a host of policies aimed at Trump, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and other administration leaders.

Several proposals criticized Hegseth for his use of unsecure messaging platforms to share details of military missions, as well as his focus on eliminating diversity and equity programs within the department.

Democrats also proposed restricting Trump’s ability to use military forces and resources for border security efforts. Another amendment would have blocked any funding for retrofitting a Boeing 747-8 luxury jetliner given to Trump by the Qatari government for use as official presidential transport.

And a proposal from committee ranking member Rep. Adam Smith, D-Wash., would prohibit the Defense Department from developing any military attack plans against Canada, Panama or Greenland.

But the Republican majority rejected all of those ideas. The final result is an authorization bill proposal that closely tracks with House leadership and administration priorities.

The committee also voted down a proposal from Rep. Nancy Mace, R-S.C., to zero out support for Ukraine, which she argued hurts other national security priorities. Both Republicans and Democrats on the panel rejected that assertion.

By a 29-28 margin, the committee did adopt a measure preventing the Defense Department from using any funds to revert the names of military bases back to titles related to Confederate figures, a proposal unveiled by Pentagon leaders last month.

But the language is likely to face significant opposition on the House floor, and may be removed before final passage there.

Chamber conflicts

The biggest difference between the House and Senate drafts of the authorization bill — which still could be amended on their respective chamber floors — is the goal for total defense spending.

The Senate version outlines a $879 billion base budget for the Pentagon, about $32 billion above the White House request for fiscal 2026. The House sticks to the administration’s $847 billion plan.

Senate officials said the extra money would go toward priorities such as shipbuilding ($8.5 billion extra) and munitions ($6 billion more).

None of those totals include another $150 billion in spending included in the recently-passed budget reconciliation bill, which brings total Defense Department spending in fiscal 2026 potentially above $1 trillion.

Both drafts include sweeping changes to the defense acquisition reform process, but with different approaches.

The House draft includes Rogers’ Streamlining Procurement for Effective Execution and Delivery Act, or SPEED Act, which would establish a new directorate to serve as a decision hub on those issues, with an eye toward faster development and production timelines.

The Senate version repeals or amends more than 100 provisions of statute “to streamline the defense acquisition process, reduce administrative complexity, and remove outdated requirements, limitations, and other matters.”

Chamber leaders have said the specific language in the respective drafts are not inherently in conflict and can be massaged in coming months to reach a common goal of speeding and simplifying equipment purchases.

That work is expected to drag into the fall. Despite lawmakers’ focus on passing the authorization bill annually, the measure has not been finalized until after Thanksgiving in 12 of the past 15 years.

Tata was approved for the post by a partisan 52-46 vote, with all Republicans present in the chamber backing his nomination and all Democrats opposing it.

He served as Deputy Commanding General of the 10th Mountain Division during its deployment to Afghanistan in 2006. After his retirement from the military in 2009, he spent time as a public school administrator and as Secretary of the North Carolina Department of Transportation.

Tata served as a senior advisor to the Defense Secretary during President Donald Trump’s first term in office, a position he was appointed to after a failed attempt to gain confirmation as Under Secretary of Defense for Policy.

His bid was derailed by the revelation of numerous inflammatory comments on social media and in past media appearances, including labeling of former President Barack Obama as a “terrorist leader” and a secret Muslim believer.

Ahead of Tuesday’s vote, Senate Armed Services Committee ranking member Jack Reed, D-R.I., said that Tata has shown little remorse for those comments and remains too volatile for the critical Pentagon leadership role.

“Mr. Tata has a misguided and discriminatory view of military and civilian workforces he would oversee,” Reed said.

“Our servicemembers and their families and the civilian employees who support them come from all backgrounds and political persuasions … Mr. Tata, to be effective, would need to serve all members of the Department of Defense and their families, not just those with whom he agrees politically. His public record and past performance at the Pentagon do not inspire confidence in this regard.”

During his confirmation hearing in May, Tata said he regretted some of his past statements and pledged to “be an apolitical leader that is trying to take care of the men and women in uniform” in his new role.

Democratic objections in the chamber were not enough to stave off Tata’s confirmation this time.

The Under Secretary for Personnel and Readiness oversees a host of Pentagon program offices, including the Department of Defense Education Activity, the Military Health Care System, the Defense Commissary Agency and the Defense Travel Management Office.

Several of those have already been involved in controversies regarding new policy mandates from the Trump administration, with critics charging that the moves are politicizing support services for troops and their families.

Tata is expected to be sworn into the new role in the next few days.

The extra service members are included in both the Senate and House Armed Services Committees’ drafts of the annual defense authorization bill, which contains a series of policy and budgetary priorities for the military. Senators on the panel approved their version last week, while the House committee is scheduled to mark up its draft Tuesday.

Both plans call for a significant boost in troop numbers in fiscal 2026, with most additions in the Army and Navy ranks.

Earlier this year, White House officials in their budget plans for next year outlined a goal of 454,000 active-duty soldiers in fiscal 2026, an increase of 11,700 troops over this year. Similarly, the Navy would grow to 334,600 sailors, up 12,300 active-duty personnel from this year.

The plan also calls for a boost of 1,500 airmen from the current level of 320,000 Air Force service members and an increase of 600 Space Force active-duty personnel from the current end strength of 9,800 individuals.

The Marine Corps, with 172,300 personnel, would be the only active-duty service not to see an increase.

The increases would grow the armed forces to just over 1.3 million active-duty troops, the largest goal since fiscal 2023.

Recruiting challenges in recent years have made reaching those goals difficult, leading lawmakers to lower their end-strength targets at the start of this fiscal year. In the last few weeks, officials from the Army, Navy, Air Force and Space Force announced they have already met their year-end recruiting targets.

If the fiscal 2026 targets become law, those recruiters will face additional challenges in coming months. House and Senate leaders are expected to work on a final negotiated version of the authorization bill throughout the rest of the summer.

The total number of guardsmen and reservists would drop by about 800 troops under the plan. The total end strength for those forces is roughly 772,000 service members.

Both drafts of the must-pass legislation also back White House plans for a 3.8% pay raise for all troops next year, equal to the federal formula for military salaries to keep pace with private-sector pay.

Military pay has increased by at least 2% every year since 2017, and troops have seen a pay increase annually since the 1970s.

But the 3.8% pay hike would be a step down from the 4.5% hike all troops saw this past January. And lawmakers last year also approved a second, targeted pay raise for junior enlisted troops which went into effect in January, raising some service members’ paychecks by an additional 10%.

For junior enlisted troops, a 3.8% raise in 2026 would mean about $1,200 more in take-home pay for the year. For senior enlisted and junior officers, the raise would add about $2,500 more to their annual paychecks. An O-4 with 12 years of service would see almost $4,300 more over 2025 pay levels.

The authorization bill is expected to be finalized sometime this fall.

Vice Adm. Charles B. Cooper II, who has served as the top deputy at Central Command since February 2024, said that the recent assaults have degraded some of Iran’s military but declined to give specifics on whether their fledgling nuclear program has been eliminated.

Even without it, he said that Iranian aggression and support for militant groups in the region would remain a top concern for American defense planners.

“I think we would all agree that Iran is the number one source of instability in the region, and the number one source and sponsor of terror throughout the world,” he said in testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee.

“Deterring Iran will be a priority … We’ve got to be in a three-point stance every day.”

Over the weekend, U.S. military assets bombarded several key underground uranium enrichment plants in Iran, delivering what the White House has claimed is a knockout blow to the country’s nuclear program. The move came after several days of similar Israeli strikes against key military and production sites.

The strikes followed almost two years of conflict between Israel and Iran’s main proxy groups in the region: Hezbollah, Hamas and the Houthis. Over time, the Israel Defense Forces have severely damaged these militias, which Iran has long sponsored as a deterrent against Tel Aviv, its main adversary.

On Tuesday, President Donald Trump wrote on social media that “it was my great honor to destroy all nuclear facilities and capability” in Iran, and suggested the threat from that country is now minimal.

Pentagon leaders have thus far touted the mission as a success but declined to publicly reveal just how much damage was done to the Iranian programs. And Cooper’s comments Tuesday made it clear that senior military officials still see the country as a significant problem to peace and stability in the region.

The lack of detail on the current status of the Iranian nuclear program and the damage it incurred was a point of frustration for Democratic lawmakers in Tuesday’s hearing, who have pressed the administration for more specifics on the threats posed by Iran and the status of their nuclear ambitions.

Pentagon leaders had planned briefings on the weekend airstrikes for House and Senate lawmakers Tuesday afternoon, but those meetings were later postponed until the end of the week.

“This last-minute postponement is outrageous, evasive and derelict,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. said in a statement. “Senators deserve full transparency, and the administration has a legal obligation to inform Congress precisely about what is happening.”

Democratic lawmakers have voiced worries that the military actions were premature and lacked justification, given past intelligence reports casting doubt on Iran’s ability to assemble a nuclear weapon.

They also criticized the administration for putting U.S. military personnel in harm’s way with the preventative action. On Monday, Iran launched multiple missiles at a U.S. military base in Qatar, though no casualties or significant damage was reported.

Republican lawmakers on the Senate panel did not share those concerns, and largely praised Trump’s decision to strike Iran during Tuesday’s hearing.

“Iran didn’t become a terrorist state because the United States bombed their nuclear bunkers,” said Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark. “The United States bombed their nuclear bunkers because they are a terrorist state.”

Senate lawmakers have discussed plans to vote on potential new limits to presidential war powers this week, but the timing of that Democratic-led effort could be impacted by the rescheduled congressional briefings.

Pentagon leaders have said there are no plans for additional strikes against Iran but left open the possibility of more military action if needed.

Officials with the Ronald Reagan Institute’s periodic survey on national defense issues also found increases in the number of citizens who want U.S. leaders to stand up for human rights and democracy issues, and majority support for American participation in NATO.

The group’s annual summer survey, which polled more than 1,200 individuals, covers a host of national security issues, with a focus on U.S. leadership on the global stage.

The release comes amid uncertainty over U.S. military plans in the Middle East, and potential efforts to help Israel in its campaign against Iran. The poll, conducted before the start of hostilities, found that 84% of respondents supported the premise of keeping Iran from developing a nuclear weapon.

More broadly, 64% of respondents said they believe the United States should be more engaged in international issues. That’s up from 54% last summer and the highest mark since institute officials began polling on the question in 2019.

Researchers said most of that increase came from Republicans who now favor more American involvement abroad since the election of President Donald Trump, despite his public statements pushing for a less interventionist policy for the country.

About 93% of Republicans surveyed expressed a belief that “a strong U.S. military is essential for peace and prosperity,” compared to 80% of Democrats polled. But about 87% of Democrats said that America needs to “stand up for human rights and democracy” overseas, compared to 81% for Republicans.

The survey showed a shrinking but still significant minority of non-interventionists pushing for a smaller American role in international affairs.

Roughly 23% of individuals in the poll said they want to see the U.S. government less engaged in foreign issues, the smallest total since the poll began. One-third of individuals polled supported withdrawing from NATO, most on the Republican side.

About 7% of Americans interviewed for the report said they are hoping that Russia will win in its war against Ukraine, compared to 58% who said they hope Ukraine is victorious.

The full survey is available on the institute’s website.

“Our commander-in-chief has made a deliberate — and correct — decision to eliminate the existential threat posed by the Iranian regime,” said Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Roger Wicker, R-Miss., in a statement. “We now have very serious choices ahead to provide security for our citizens and our allies and stability for the Middle East.”

The military assault — dubbed Operation Midnight Hammer — included bunker-busting bombs and Tomahawk missiles launched from multiple American assets, including B-2 bombers flying from American soil and submarines operating in the region.

House Armed Services Committee Chairman Mike Rogers, R-Ala., said Trump “made the correct decision to strike Iran’s nuclear sites” and warned Iranian leadership that “it would be a grave mistake to attempt any retaliation against our forces or homeland.”

But Rogers’ Democratic counterpart on the committee, ranking member Rep. Adam Smith, D-Wash., noted that Trump did not seek authorization from Congress ahead of the military action or “demonstrate that Iran posed an immediate threat” to the United States.

“Engaging in direct conflict places U.S. service members and military sites in the Middle East squarely in the crosshairs of Iran and its many proxies,” Smith said in a statement. “[The] actions could further escalate tensions, destabilize the region, and drag the United States into an avoidable war.”

Senate Armed Services Committee ranking member Jack Reed, D-R.I., called the decision “a massive gamble by President Trump, and nobody knows yet whether it will pay off.”

He also expressed concerns about potential retaliation against U.S. military forces, particularly the roughly 40,000 personnel stationed in the Middle East.

“We must be prepared for retaliation — both in the short and long-term, on the battlefield and asymmetrically,” Reed said.

But reaction to the military assault also cut across party lines.

Rep. Josh Gottheimer, D-N.J., a member of the House Intelligence Committee, issued a statement calling the bombings “critical and decisive action to protect America, freedom and democracy at home and around the world.”

Typically vocal Trump supporters Reps. Thomas Massie, R-Kent., and Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., both took to social media to criticize the decision to attack Iran.

“This is not Constitutional,” Massie wrote.

In recent days, a coalition of Democratic critics and Republican non-interventionists have pushed to revisit presidential war powers, as a potential check on Trump’s ability to engage in military action overseas.

Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., one of the lead voices in that effort, said in coming days he will “push for all senators to vote on whether they are for this third idiotic Middle East war.”

But finding enough votes to constrain Trump’s military authorities is unlikely in the Republican controlled House and Senate.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said that leaders from key congressional committees received notice of the strikes Saturday night, after the planes were safely out of Iranian airspace. Lawmakers said they will push for more information on the planning and execution of the strikes starting Monday, when they return from a long holiday weekend.

Officials from Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps said in a statement about the air strikes that their forces will consider “options that go beyond the delusional calculations of the aggressor coalition” in their response to the American military attack.

Reporter Noah Robertson contributed to this story.