Even as they were putting the finishing touches on service member quality of life reforms in this year’s defense authorization bill, lawmakers were already looking ahead at the next steps for improving pay and benefits for troops.

At the Reagan National Defense Forum this weekend, Virginia Republican Rep. Rob Wittman — a senior member of the House Armed Services Committee — told Military Times that leaders on the panel have already begun discussion on boosting pay for senior enlisted troops in an effort to help with recruiting and retention challenges in the ranks.

The authorization bill, which sets plans for $850 billion in Defense Department spending for fiscal 2025, is expected to be voted on by the full House this week. It includes a 4.5% pay raise for all service members in 2025 but an additional 10% pay boost for troops rank E-1 through E-4.

If approved, it will mean between $3,000 and $6,000 more annually for those individuals, and bring nearly every junior service member’s base pay above $30,000 annually. Improving pay for junior enlisted had been a major priority of House lawmakers this year, and Wittman said he is pleased with the final compromise.

“This [authorization bill] is for E-1 through E-4, so the next effort has to be from E-5 to E-9,” Wittman said. “I think the officer corps is in fairly good shape, too, because there was an overall salary increase in the bill. … The next step we’ll have to take is for senior enlisted. There are folks that are committed to doing that next year.”

Wittman would not speculate on what a pay bump for senior enlisted troops would look like, or if it would approach the extra 10% boost given to the younger troops. But he said Republican leaders on both his committee and the House Appropriations Committee are focused on the idea.

The nearly 1 million enlisted personnel currently serving in the armed forces are roughly evenly split between the junior enlisted and senior enlisted ranks. A pay raise of 10% for the more senior troops would cost more than the same raise for younger troops, because of the larger base pay service members with more experience receive.

According to estimates released by the Congressional Budget Office earlier this summer, the 14.5% pay raise for all junior enlisted troops is expected to cost around $10 billion over three years. Updated estimates are expected to be released in coming days.

Getting the junior enlisted pay raise in the final compromise authorization bill took a year of negotiations between House and Senate leaders. Whether a senior enlisted pay raise could survive the same gantlet is unclear.

House Armed Services Committee ranking member Adam Smith, D-Wash., told Military Times he is skeptical about another large targeted pay boost in 2026.

“I think it’s just wildly speculative at this point,” he said. “If you’ve got a new administration that wants to cut $2 trillion out of a $6.5 trillion budget and defense is 13% of that, that’s a bit of a math problem. That math is not going to add up.”

The 4.5% pay raise for all troops next year is below the 5.2% boost military families saw at the start of 2024, but marks the third consecutive year of salary hikes over 4%.

“Growing up, many of my neighbors in Milwaukee were World War II or North Korea veterans, and I had an idea of what service meant because they always spoke to me,” said Maj. Gen. Johnny Davis, head of Army Recruiting Command, in testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee.

“That’s not the same today. I’ve served all over the world, and I’ve moved with my family. We’ve often been the only Army family in neighborhoods off post.”

Army, Navy and Air Force leaders missed their recruiting goals for fiscal 2023. The Marine Corps and Space Force met their targets, but acknowledged that matching those numbers for this fiscal year will again be a challenge.

The slipping interest in joining the armed forces comes as public perception of the military continues to decline, according to recent national polling. Roughly 46% of Americans questioned in the annual Reagan National Defense Survey said they have a great deal of confidence in the American military, a near steady decline from 70% in 2018.

Survey respondents blamed politics creeping into military policies for part of the problem. Among Republicans, more than one-third (38%) said the institution is “too focused on social issues at the expense of a focus on warfighting.” About half of Democrats surveyed (53%) said the military is not appropriately balancing a focus on warfighting and social issues.

The military has been the center of a host of high-profile social debates in recent years, including fights over coronavirus vaccinations, diversity training, abortion access and transgender rights.

But pressed on the topic by senators, military representatives said they are not hearing complaints about politics invading the ranks from potential recruits.

“That does not resonate with the issues that are on the minds of our recruits or what we are hearing from our recruiting force,” said Brig. Gen. Christopher Amrhein, commander of Air Force Recruiting Service.

Instead, service officials said, recruiters complain about inconsistent access at high schools and colleges, limiting their opportunities to explain military service to young men and women. And potential recruits have basic questions about military life, benefits and post-service career expectations that, if unanswered, shut down interest in enlisting.

“Forty years ago, if you had 10 dinner tables in a neighborhood, those dinner tables would each have a parent who served or a teacher who served or someone else who served. Today, it’s only one in 10,” said Rear Adm. Alexis Walker, head of Navy Recruiting Command.

“So, we are trying to fill that narrative space, talk about the positive benefits of service and get out that message that isn’t happening around the dinner table anymore.”

Officials said they are aggressively partnering with veterans organizations and other civic groups in an attempt to better spread that message. But they also acknowledged that other marketing and incentives will be needed to turn around the lackluster recruiting figures of recent years.

The United States must reject calls to turn away from global interests and become more isolationist, he told an audience of lawmakers, corporate and defense leaders and government officials attending a security conference. Those who “try to pull up the drawbridge,” he said, undermine the security that has led to decades of prosperity.

In his remarks at the Reagan National Defense Forum in California’s Simi Valley, Austin delivered a lengthy defense of U.S. support to Israel in its war against Hamas and to Ukraine in its struggle to battle Russia’s invasion. He said “the world will only become more dangerous if tyrants and terrorists believe that they can get away with wholesale aggression and mass slaughter.”

Austin met privately with top lawmakers on the House and Senate Armed Services Committees.

His message of rejecting isolationism appeared directed at conservative lawmakers who are increasingly opposed to spending on overseas wars and back former President Donald Trump’s “America First’” ideology.

“You’ll hear some people try to brand an American retreat from responsibility as bold new leadership,” Austin said. “Make no mistake: It is not bold. It is not new. And it is not leadership.”

Congress has failed to approve any new money for the wars in Ukraine and Israel and has managed to pass only a short-term budget bill, known as a continuing resolution, that runs out early next year. The Senate has been deadlocked for months over one lawmaker’s move to block hundreds of military nominations, including critical senior commanders for key regions around the world.

“Our competitors don’t have to operate under continuing resolutions. And doing so erodes both our security and our ability to compete,” Austin said. He opened his speech with a plea to the lawmakers in the crowd to pass both the budget and the supplemental funding for the wars.

Administration officials have warned that money for Ukraine is running out and may only last through the end of this year. The Pentagon has about $5 billion worth of equipment it can send from it’s own stockpiles and has been eating away at that almost weekly. Money to replace military weapons and equipment taken from Pentagon stocks to send to Ukraine is rapidly dwindling, and totals about $1 billion.

Austin, who was in Ukraine’s capital less than two weeks ago, has repeatedly pressed the important of helping Ukraine battle Russia’s invasion, as part of a broader campaign to prevent Russian President Vladimir Putin from threatening other countries in Europe.

Austin also noted that as much as $50 billion of that supplemental budget request for the wars would through American defense companies, helping to create or support tens of thousands of jobs in 30 states.

While he did not mention it in his address, Austin has often criticized Congress for its failure to confirm more than 400 military officers nominated for promotions or other jobs.

Sen. Tommy Tuberville, R-Ala., has blocked the nominations and objected when other senators have tried to get some through. On just two occasions has the Senate managed to votes to confirm a total of six high ranking leaders.

Almost 400 military nominations are in limbo, and the number is growing. Frustrated Republicans have tried unsuccessfully for almost nine months to quietly persuade Tuberville to drop the holds, and negotiations are continuing. Senior military officials have warned repeatedly that the situation threatens readiness and national security.

In other comments, Austin underscored the administration’s repeated insistence that Israel do more to protect civilians as it restarts its air assault against Hamas after a seven-day cease-fire to secure the release of prisoners.

Israeli fighter jets began hitting targets in the Gaza Strip minutes after the weeklong truce expired on Friday, and Israel dropped leaflets over parts of southern Gaza urging people to leave their homes, signaling it was preparing to widen its offensive.

About 100 hostages were freed as part of the truce, but about 140 remain held by Hamas and others in Gaza.

While any country has a duty to respond to an attack like the Oct. 7 assault by Hamas on Israel, Austin said the lesson is that “you can only win in urban warfare by protecting civilians.” Austin said that if civilians are driven into the arms of the enemy by violence, it becomes a strategic defeat.

Just over 50% of Americans would encourage a family member or friend to enlist, according to the results of the latest Reagan National Defense Survey, an annual report from the Ronald Reagan Institute designed to take Americans’ temperature on national security issues.

This year’s survey found that while 51% of respondents would encourage military service, 31% would actively discourage it.

The data reflects several narratives that have circulated in recent years, including that the diminishing percentage of the U.S. population who are veterans means fewer people are encouraging the youth in their lives to serve. Elsewhere, many conservative voices have argued that the military’s initiatives supporting diversity and inclusion are turning off their younger peers.

In general, Americans’ esteem for the military has taken a tumble in recent years.

The survey began asking in 2018 about public confidence in the military as an institution, finding that 70% of respondents were highly confident that year. That number steadily fell to 63% in 2019, and 56% in early 2021. Support that year bottomed out at 45% following multiple controversies between President Donald Trump and the military during his administration, and a disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan in summer 2021 after President Joe Biden took office.

Sentiments have virtually plateaued across the last two surveys, data shows, with 48% high confidence last year and 46% in the latest results.

Researchers have dug deeper in the past two years, first adding questions about why someone felt varying levels of confidence in the military, then this year asking how those opinions would affect someone’s support of a friend of family member enlisting.

“Overall, we did find that about half of Americans would encourage a loved one to join the military; that number is pretty similar among Democrats and Republicans,” Rachel Hoff, the Ronald Reagan Institute’s policy director, told reporters on Tuesday. “But a full one-third of the American people would discourage their loved one from military service. Again, that number is pretty similar among Democrats and Republicans.”

The reasons behind discouraging service fall more along partisan lines.

“The number one reason to discourage service is simply that the military is too dangerous,” Hoff continued.

That tracks with what young people report as well. The Defense Department surveys 16-to-24-year-olds three times a year, asking about their interest in military service. The most recent results found that 70% were concerned about the risk of injury or death, while 65% were concerned about post-traumatic stress or developing other long-term psychological effects.

“But I do want to point out that numbers two and three on the list here are actually the top reasons when you look at the lists just for Democrats, just for Republicans,” Hoff said.

For Democrats, the biggest reason was an anti-war or pro-peace personal stance. For Republicans, it was the current political climate and a general distrust of politicians and politics.

Those responses dovetailed with questions about why respondents reported varying degrees of confidence in the military.

This year, the survey asked whether respondents felt the Defense Department is doing an adequate job balancing national defense with efforts to make the military an appealing place to work.

At 47%, Democrats were more likely to respond that the military is striking that balance. Among Republican respondents, 38% felt that the military was “too focused on social issues.”

Slightly more people, 51%, said they would encourage joining the military than the 46% who said they had a high level of confidence in the military.

Hoff pointed to the top reason both parties cited for why they would support a friend of family member joining as a possible reason why those numbers don’t perfectly align.

“It’s about patriotism, service and honor,” she said, which 31% of respondents selected. “And those are things that sort of might exist outside or … those values might rise above any particular concerns around the current military or civilian leadership … which is clearly what’s driving the declining trend overall and institutional confidence.”

One problem? There are few Senate-confirmed acquisition officials at the Pentagon to welcome them.

Nearly a year into President Joe Biden’s administration, the U.S. defense industrial base is confronting a supply chain crisis, challenges implementing Biden’s vaccine mandate, congressional budget gridlock and unpredictability about how the Pentagon will use new authorities to quickly buy and field cutting-edge tech.

At the same time, only about half of the defense nominees Biden has sent to the Senate have been confirmed, and the president has yet to nominate officials for key acquisition and sustainment jobs. Where critical jobs are vacant, career civilians lead in their place.

To be sure, there are longstanding leap-ahead efforts at the Pentagon. In his speech at the Reagan National Defense Forum in California, Austin pointed to DARPA programs, small business grants and Pentagon-sponsored innovation hubs, all meant to “transform the way that we do business” and put advances in unmanned systems, nanotechnology and artificial intelligence in the hands of troops.

Still, defense advocates say the vacancies slow the U.S. military as it races to compete with China and undermine effective stewardship of billions of dollars of acquisition and sustainment programs across the military. Temporary office-holders often lack the authority and direction to carry out major bureaucratic reforms or take new approaches, they say.

“Congress has actually given quite a few authorities to accelerate acquisitions ― but the regulations to apply it, the leadership to go out and do it, is just not happening,” National Defense Industrial Association President Herbert “Hawk” Carlisle told Defense News.

As the Pentagon drafts its National Defense Strategy and builds its annual budget, which accounts for more than half of the government’s discretionary spending, its acquisition community ― typically a key voice for modernization ― will have limited representation by Senate-confirmed senior officials.

Last month, Russia’s Navy said it successfully test-fired a prospective hypersonic missile, which is set to enter service next year. China recently tested a hypersonic weapon capable of partially orbiting Earth before reentering the atmosphere and gliding on a maneuverable path to its target and has been growing its nuclear arsenal dramatically.

“Obviously the department is responding to those, but if you had confirmed acquisition folks in place they could be taking steps to dig into programs to look for ways to accelerate efforts that are underway and bring senior-level management attention to bear to some problems right now,” said one former defense official who asked for anonymity because they are under consideration for a Pentagon job.

On Nov. 30, Biden nominated former Air Force acquisition chief Bill LaPlante for undersecretary for acquisition and sustainment, known as A&S, capping months of uncertainty after Defense Innovation Unit chief Mike Brown, first nominated for the job in April, withdrew his nomination. For industry, LaPlante cannot be confirmed fast enough.

“The primary conduit for industry with the Department of Defense is A&S, and the fact you don’t have these political positions filled is just terribly challenging for industry. You don’t get the guidance, the strategy and the leadership,” Carlisle said. “One of the key jobs of A&S is to telegraph to industry that government’s willing to take a little risk and not be so risk averse, because we all know you have to take risks to have that kind of agility and speed.”

Biden has not nominated a deputy undersecretary for research and engineering, deputy undersecretary for acquisition and sustainment, assistant secretary for acquisition or several other lower level acquisition officials in the services.

Among other key positions for Pentagon suppliers is undersecretary for research and engineering Heidi Shyu, who was confirmed by the Senate this summer. But the nominee for Army undersecretary, Gabe Camarillo; Army acquisition chief, Douglas Bush; and Air Force acquisition chief, Andrew Hunter, have been waiting to receive Senate floor consideration after clearing the Senate Armed Services Committee weeks ago.

’We need to move these people’

Senate Armed Services Committee leaders are mired in a protracted process of passing the annual National Defense Authorization Act, but Chairman Jack Reed, D-R.I. said Wednesday he plans to turn to nominees in the new year.

“We’ve obviously been focused distinctly on the NDAA, but we will shift quite dramatically and quickly to nominees,” Reed said. “There’s 11 that are waiting for confirmation, they’re critical roles in the Department of Defense and we need to get them filled. Everybody talks about how we have to get the best equipment into the hands of troops quickly, and that’s all acquisition and sustainment.”

The most visible obstacle right now is Missouri Republican Sen. Josh Hawley. Hawley has pledged to slow roll nominees for the State Department and Pentagon until Austin, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Mark Milley, Secretary of State Antony Blinken and National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan resign over the administration’s chaotic exit from Afghanistan.

“I’m not concerned about the defense industry,” Hawley said when asked Tuesday about his blanket hold on nominees. “What I’m concerned about is getting leadership in the department that will actually steer this country in a safe direction.”

“Milley should be gone, Lloyd Austin should be gone, and I’m not going to consent to this being another Vietnam where the people who planned this get to stay around, get their fat pensions, and they’re lauded and feted, and later on it turns out they all lied to us, they did a terrible job and they don’t have any accountability,” he added.

Technically, Hawley is objecting to confirming nominees by unanimous consent or voice vote, a course senators generally reserve for controversial nominees, but increasingly are using to negotiate with the executive branch. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., could advance the nominations, but it would use scarce Senate floor time when the chamber is focused on Biden’s domestic agenda, judicial confirmations and other matters, including the NDAA.

The sentiment that these confirmation delays compromise national security, or at least effective government, is bipartisan.

Senate Strategic Forces Subcommittee Chairman Angus King, I-Maine., put the blame on Hawley. “Sen. Hawley is compromising national security. Period,” he said.

North Dakota Republican Sen. Kevin Cramer is awaiting multibillion-dollar decisions about replacing or overhauling intercontinental ballistic missiles based in his state, which will affect defense firms, local jobs and defense strategy for years to come. He said Schumer shares some responsibility for the delays.

“I get frustrated about it, and to the point it starts affecting national security, I get concerned about it,” Cramer, who sits on the SASC with Hawley, said of the holds. “We cannot move at the speed of China without people who can say yes to really important questions, and that frustrates me.”

The panel’s ranking member, Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla., said he hasn’t tried to sway Hawley on the matter directly, “but he knows my feelings: We need to move these people and get them on the job.”

In need of a nexus

While there’s a lot of continuity between the Trump and Biden administrations when it comes to championing American manufacturers and the defense industrial base, the Biden administration needs to install its own top leaders to implement its goals, Ellen Lord, who served as the Trump administration’s acquisition and sustainment chief at the Pentagon, told Defense News. That’s especially true when it comes to changing the Pentagon’s culture to embrace its new acquisition authorities.

“Frankly, Congress has done a very good job over the last five years or so, of setting forth the capability to do acquisition more rapidly and be much more creative, yet compliant, about how it is done,” she said. “It takes an enormous amount of work to translate that into policy and implementation guidance, and then make sure the acquisition workforce is trained. That training is essential, and it can’t just be hypothetical.”

At the same time, federal contractors want guidance about the Biden administration’s vaccine mandate amid disagreements over how to implement it. Small and mid-sized contractors are hurt disproportionately when their workers want to leave rather than comply, according to Carlisle.

“Whether we like it or not there is some vaccine hesitancy in this country, and there are cases where companies are not going to be able to proceed with what they were contracted for because they’re going to lose their workforce,” he said. “It’s a workforce with security clearances, unique skill sets, program managers, some close to retirement ― and they’ll retire early or walk across the street to commercial [employers].”

In the early weeks of the coronavirus pandemic, Lord’s office worked to keep the Pentagon’s suppliers in business, serving as a nexus for the top three defense trade associations, the White House and Capitol Hill. If confirmed by the Senate, her replacement could use a similar approach to try to solve vaccine mandate challenges, she said.

“Then you could have a cadence of communications, utilizing the industry associations, because you need some mechanism to echo and amplify the messages from the administration ― but just as importantly to hear the feedback on what some of the unintended consequences could be,” she said.

Another agenda item: Biden’s executive order to boost “Buy American” for federal contracting requirements sparked fears in U.S. defense firms of a backlash overseas against their products. And despite a carve-out for a number of allies, some partners saw a mixed message. A Senate-confirmed official could potentially find common ground among allies, the U.S. industrial base and Washington.

“I think Bill LaPlante is the kind of guy who can do that,” Carlisle said. “Friends, partners and allies being part of the supply chain is critically important, and maybe there’s a way to do this where a rising tide lifts all boats.”

“The bottom line is, they are dangerous,” said Leon Panetta, who served as the head of the Defense Department under President Barack Obama. “We need to try to get them to the negotiating table. And I don’t think what we’re doing now is working very effectively to get that done.”

Panetta and former Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, who was dismissed ahead of his planned retirement by President Donald Trump almost a year ago, made the comments at the annual Reagan National Defense Forum here on Saturday.

Mattis has repeatedly warned of the threat a nuclear-capable Iran poses to international security, and said at the event that “it’s going to take allies and partners” to make progress on containing the country’s belligerence.

“You’ve also got the internal dynamics there where you can be dealing with people who really are trying to deal with you in good faith, but meanwhile behind the scenes something completely different is going on,” he said.

Both men offered veiled criticism of the administration’s handling of the Iranian military shooting down a U.S. military drone in June, saying that they would have pushed for a stronger response. The White House announced new economic sanctions on the country after the attack and launched a cyber operation against Iranian missile systems.

“If they don’t understand that we are willing to exercise that (military) strength, we have a hell of a time trying to get them to try to abide by the kind of international standards that we would like them to,” Mattis said.

Neither man specifically endorsed a military response to future similar incidents. Mattis said he would not publicly second-guess defense officials involved in the incident but “in this world you don’t make false threats.” Panetta said he wanted to see “additional steps taken to make clear that we’re not going to allow that,” to include a stronger cyber response.

But both said the incident should underscore the importance of trying to make progress with the rogue nation, to prevent the situation from escalating further.

The defense forum, in its seventh year, brings together lawmakers and defense leaders for a day of discussions on national security strategy, priorities and challenges.

“We are very much open to” working with the U.S. on a new system, Gavin Williamson told reporters at the Dec. 2 Reagan National Defense Forum in California. “We will be very happy to work with allies, like-minded friends in terms of development, and it will be something that I think will bring quite considerable benefits.”

“If you look at this, it isn’t something that necessarily will compete with the Global Positioning System,” Williamson added. “And, actually, no single country should wish to be completely reliant on one system, and the EU, through Galileo, never let the U.S. effectively be able to have the access to the system that it would need.”

The remarks by Williamson came 48 hours after Britain hardened its negotiating position in the row with the European Union over being excluded from Galileo’s military and security data post Brexit, with Prime Minister Theresa May announcing in a statement the country would be pulling out of the project.

It is in Britain’s national interest to develop it’s own alternative system, May said, stating: “Given the [European] Commission’s decision to bar the UK from being fully involved in developing all aspects of Galileo it is only right that we find alternatives.”

The £9 billion (U.S. $11 billion) Galileo system will comprise 30 satellites, made up of 24 operating systems with six orbiting spares. The U.K. has invested approximately £1.2 billion in the Galileo program to date, and British industry has provided key technologies, including much of the encrypted computed-based Public Regulated Service system, which is at the heart of payload elements providing data to military and security users for missile targeting and other requirements.

“Galileo has been built on our money, our technology, our research. So the idea that I’m going to continue, or the British government is going to continue, to pump money into a project where we do not have military access or commercial access, frankly, is both naive and optimistic on behalf of the European Union,” Williamson said.

“The United Kingdom — we have the technology, the ideas, the people. And frankly we will do our own with other allies, and I believe it will be more successful and it will be more formidable than anything that Europe can produce.”

In August the British government set aside £92 million to look at options to replace Galileo with a newer, more capable system, and Britain says it’s confident it has the technical know-how to build a new satellite navigation network.

Airbus CEO Tom Enders weighed into the row on Dec. 3, tweeting that the U.K.’s departure from Galileo would be a “serious blow to the EU’s common security and defence ambitions.”

“Don’t those talking about a European army know that the UK is one of only two serious military powers in Europe?” he said on Twitter.

Last week it emerged Airbus had relocated 80 jobs from Britain to the continent to enable work on the project to be completed.

As to partnering in the U.S., Williamson said the focus will be more working with industry stateside than coordinating directly with the Pentagon.

“It will very much be working with U.S. defense companies, but also much more broadly in terms of allies. But it’s a dialogue that needs to develop,” the defense secretary said. “If that is something that the Department of Defense looks at with interest in the future, it would be good to have that discussion [and get the] ducks in a row in order to be able to take forward a proper proposition.”

Australia is another country that has been touted as a possible partner in any future system.

Speaking on the sidelines of the Reagan National Defense Forum on Saturday, Defence Secretary Gavin Williamson said the Modernising Defence Programme would be arriving at Parliament “before Christmas.”

He added that the report would be a “full” version, rather than an interim version as some had speculated.

The report was launched in late 2017, and a rollout had been expected over the summer. But the conclusions have been delayed amid ongoing negotiations with the European Union about Britain’s exit from the organization. In the meantime, the U.K. increased its budget by £1 billion (U.S. $1.27 billion) in October.

The review is expected to call for increased funding in innovation, science and technology, as well as spell out how the U.K. will move forward as a global power — something Williamson said is a major emphasis in a post-Brexit world.

“Over the last year, you’ve seen Britain taking a number of actions. We are the leading European nation in terms of NATO, what we’ve been doing in enhanced forward presence in the Baltic states,” Williamson said. “Effectively, Britain, the Royal Air Force, has acted as the air defense for good chunks of southern Europe this year. You’ve seen uplift in terms of troop numbers in Afghanistan, lots of examples where Britain will and has taken a role.

“Do we need to do more? I think we all accept that with the world becoming more uncertain, there has to be a willingness to take not just a diplomatic leadership, but also a military leadership.”

Williamson’s comments came as the U.K. selected an unexpected slate of new military leaders for top positions, with more senior officers being passed over in favor of what the government considers innovative leaders.

WASHINGTON — Defense Secretary Jim Mattis on Saturday took aim at Russian President Vladimir Putin, accusing him of trying to “muck around” in the U.S. midterm elections, of duplicity in arms control and of acting irresponsibly in last weekend’s naval confrontation with Ukraine.

In remarks at the Reagan National Defense Forum in Simi Valley, California, Mattis said the U.S.-Russian relationship has deteriorated over the last two years.

“We are dealing with someone that we simply cannot trust,” he said. “There is no doubt the relationship has worsened.”

Mattis did not elaborate on his claim that Russia tried to interfere in last month’s elections, adding only, “We are seeing a continued effort along those lines.” He added more generally, “It’s his efforts to try to subvert democratic processes that must be defended.”

Citing Russia’s seizure of Ukrainian vessels and sailors, President Donald Trump canceled his plans to meet with Putin at this weekend’s Group of 20 summit in Argentina, but he said he looked forward to meeting Putin soon. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov called the canceled Trump-Putin meeting a missed opportunity, saying it didn’t “help settling a number of important international problems.”

The naval incident further escalated a tug-of-war that began in 2014 when Russia annexed Ukraine’s Crimean Peninsula and supported separatist rebels in eastern Ukraine. It also has prompted global concern and renewed Western criticism of Russia. Mattis portrayed the latest incident as evidence that the administration’s defense strategy, announced nearly a year ago, was correct in refocusing from the post-9/11 wars to what Mattis has called an emergence of “great power” competition with Russia and China.

Mattis, in a speech at the Reagan Presidential Library and during a question-and-answer session afterward, was unyielding in his criticism of Putin. Asked how the U.S. can deter further Russian confrontation, the former Marine general placed the blame for worsening relations all on the Russian president.

“This is a very complex situation because Mr. Putin is clearly a slow learner,” Mattis said. “He is not recognizing that what he is doing is actually creating the animosity against his people. He’s not acting in the best interests of the Russian people, and he is actually causing NATO to rearm” — an allusion to increased defense spending by many European NATO members, as well as the conduct of bigger allied military exercises and billions of dollars in additional U.S. spending on military training and operations in Europe.

“We are dealing with Putin’s duplicitous violation of the INF Treaty,” Mattis said. He was referring to the 1987 Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces accord between Washington and Moscow that the White House has indicated it intends to withdraw from soon.

The Trump administration asserts that Russia has been violating the treaty by producing and deploying land-based missiles the accord had banned. Moscow denies any violation.

Mattis did not mention directly the administration’s intention to withdraw from the treaty, saying instead, “We will re-energize our arms control efforts, but the onus is on Russia.”