Mark Vandroff, the senior director for defense policy at the National Security Council and a retired Navy captain, did not cite a reason for his departure in a letter sent to national security adviser Robert O’Brien and obtained by Defense News.

Vandroff’s resignation follows the resignation of deputy national security adviser Matthew Pottinger on Wednesday. Media outlets have reported that several top national security aides are also considering resigning.

Vandroff declined to comment on his resignation. The White House did not respond to a Thursday afternoon request for comment on any resignations in the wake of yesterday’s violent confrontation at the Capitol between a pro-Trump mob and police.

In his year in office, Vandroff worked on the Abraham Accords, an agreement brokered between the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Israel that extended official recognition of the state of Israel. A former major program manager for the Arleigh Burke-class destroyer program, Vandroff was also instrumental in shaping the administration’s push to kick off a major buildup of the fleet as part of a naval arms race with China.

In a letter, Vandroff thanked O’Brien for the opportunity to serve on the National Security Council.

“In the last year is has been a great pleasure to work for you on the staff of the NSC to implement the President’s policies and work to make America and the world safer and more secure,” Vandroff wrote. “I was privileged to work alongside the most talented, dedicated, and patriotic group of colleagues a person could imagine, here at the NSC, within the broader EOP [Executive Office of the President] and across the inter-agency in the Departments of Defense and State, and the Intelligence Community. I will always be grateful to you for the opportunity you provided me to serve our great nation.”

Joe Gould in Washington contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON — The Pentagon is seeking to divert $3.8 billion, largely from its fiscal 2020 weapons procurement budget, in order to fund President Donald Trump’s border wall, according to a reprogramming request to congress obtained by Defense News.

Among the victims of the cuts: a mass of aircraft purchases including F-35 joint strike fighters, C-130J cargo aircraft, MQ-9 Reaper drones and P-8 maritime surveillance planes, as well as ground vehicles and naval priorities — choices that drew quick, bipartisan condemnation from key defense lawmakers as reports of the plan filtered out Thursday.

Overall, the plan would shift $2.202 billion in FY20 defense appropriations and $1.629 billion in FY20 overseas contingency operations funding towards the wall, a key priority from president Donald Trump ahead of the November presidential elections.

Air Force and Navy aviation spending takes the brunt of the cuts proposed by the Pentagon, with aircraft procurement going down by $558 million for Navy and Marine Corps and $861 million for the Air Force. Importantly, all of the funding decreases target items that were specifically added by Congress during the budgeting process, which could incur rancor from lawmakers.

For the Navy, the Pentagon would cut two of the six F-35B short takeoff and landing aircraft added to the FY20 budget by Congress and two MV-22 Ospreys, stating that “current funding is more than sufficient to keep the production line open.” It also seeks to eliminate funding for one of the nine P-8A Poseidon surveillance aircraft funded in FY20, stating that the additional aircraft is “[in] excess to the 117 aircraft required.”

In the Air Force’s budget, the Pentagon slashed funding for four of the eight C-130Js added by Congress for the Reserve and Air National Guard. The department stated that funding for those planes can be rescheduled to fiscal year 2021, when the period of performance for the associated contract starts.

The request would eliminate eight MQ-9 Reaper drones, culling most of the funding added by Congress for an increase of 12 MQ-9s. “The program is currently undergoing a strategic review,” the department stated in written justification, referring to an ongoing debate within the Air Force about how many Reapers to buy and retain over the next decade. “Procurement, if necessary, can be rescheduled to a later fiscal year.” Combatant commanders have consistently said they need more surveillance assets around the globe.

It also strips $156 million for advanced procurement for the F-35A and removes $180 million for light attack aircraft for the Air Force, which the service has decided against procuring but has been widely supported by lawmakers as a low-cost alternative for the counter-terrorism fight.

The Army would stand to lose $100 million in funding for National Guard Humvee modernization and $194.5 million in Heavy Expanded Mobility Tactical Truck funding. However, with the Humvee set to be replaced by JLTV, the Army is unlikely to be heavily impacted by these funds being shifted around.

The reprogramming request also cuts $650 million in advanced procurement funding for an America-class Amphibious Assault Ship, LHA-9, which is being built in Mississippi at Ingalls Shipbuilding. On its website, Huntington Ingalls Industries says the advanced funding provided by Congress, “enables a hot production line and a supplier base of 457 companies in 39 states to build this powerful warship.”

The reprogramming also cuts funding one expeditionary fast transport ship, which is built in Alabama at Austal USA, which has been an area of interest for the powerful Republican chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, Sen. Richard Shelby. The ship was deemed “excess to current programmatic need,” the reprogramming document says.

“The procurement exceeds the program-of-record requirement,” the document reads. “This is a congressional special interest item.”

In addition, the National Guard and reserves would lose about $1.3 billion in what the reprogramming request describes as unnecessary funding, given historic underexecution of prior year funds.

Congressional reaction

Last year, the Defense Department had budgets, largely for military construction projects, diverted into funding a stretch of the wall project. Those project cuts included the rebuilding of several DoD schools both in the U.S. and abroad, special operations training centers in Europe and Hurricane Maria relief for Puerto Rico National Guard facilities. Overall, more than 100 projects had funding delayed.

Asked on Tuesday about a potential reprogramming of defense funds to pay for the wall, Secretary of Defense Mark Esper said: “We did receive the request from DHS, that’s all I’ll say right now. We’re working our way through the process, we’re doing all those things we need to do. So when we’re ready to make an announcement, we’ll make an announcement.”

Both Democrat and Republican leaders immediately criticized the move as an attempt to usurp Congress’ power of the purse that would endanger national security.

House Appropriations Committee Chairwoman Nita M. Lowey, D-N.Y., and Defense Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman Pete Visclosky, D-Ind., said in a joint statement that Trump was, “once again disrespecting the separation of powers and endangering our security by raiding military resources to pay for his wasteful border wall,” and “orchestrating this backdoor mechanism to prop up a political vanity project.”

In a separate statement, Texas Rep. Mac Thornberry, the top Republican on the House Armed Services Committee, said he supports building a border wall, but slammed the Pentagon for going against congressional direction for spending defense dollars, saying the unilateral movement of already approved spending by Congress “undermines the principle of civilian control of the military and is in violation of the separation of powers within the Constitution.”

“The re-programming announced today is contrary to Congress’s constitutional authority, and I believe that it requires Congress to take action,” Thornberry said. “I will be working with my colleagues to determine the appropriate steps to take.”

In a statement, Pentagon spokesman Lt. Col. Chris Mitchell “The Department of Defense is committed to supporting the Department of Homeland Security’s efforts to secure the southern border by constructing fences and roads and installing lighting to block drug smuggling corridors.

“Last month we received a new request from the Department of Homeland Security asking for assistance in blocking drug-smuggling corridors on Federal land along the southern border of the United States,” Mitchell said. “In response, the Secretary of Defense authorized support of $3.8B to build approximately 177 miles of fencing that will help to protect our borders. We will continue to support DHS and other agencies as needed to keep our homeland is secure.”

Jen Judson in Washington contributed to this report.

“Today, we have the smallest Army since WWII, the smallest Navy since WWI, and the oldest and smallest Air Force ever. At the same time, we face complex threats from China, North Korea, Russia, and Iran,” Perdue said in a statement Friday to Defense News.

“A robust naval fleet is critical to deter aggression worldwide, project power, and support our allies. The Subcommittee on Seapower will provide vital oversight and support for our Navy and Marine Corps as they work to meet the increasing demand of global missions.”

Perdue’s state hosts nine military installations, including the 40-year-old Naval Submarine Base Kings Bay, which is home to six Ohio-class ballistic missile submarines, two guided-missile submarines and a facility that assembles the D-5 ballistic missile.

Perdue’s selection to head the Senate Seapower Subcommittee is a bicameral coup for the U.S. Navy’s submariners. Rep. Joe Courtney, D-Conn., who is the presumptive head of the House Armed Services Seapower and Projection Forces Subcommittee, has been a fierce advocate for submarine building.

Courtney’s district includes the General Dynamics Electric Boat shipyard where the new Columbia class — set to replace the Ohio class in 2027 — will be constructed. The two chairmen will have outsized voices in how many Columbia-class subs will be built, as well as the future role of the aging Kings Bay.

A rare Seapower chairman without a major shipbuilder in his state, and a fiscal conservative, Perdue will bring objectivity to the sub-panel and “a needed focus on more bang for the buck,” said Arnold Punaro, a retired two-star and SASC staff director under Georgia Sen. Sam Nunn, now retired.

Perdue has used his experience as a businessman who lived and worked in Asia to become a voice in Congress on China issues, including trade and human rights. Perdue sits on the Senate Budget Committee and sat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee until recently.

On the SASC since 2016, Perdue has grilled administration officials about Beijing’s military buildup and whether the size of America’s sub fleet can match competitors. Last year, he traveled to Japan, Taiwan and Singapore, where he touted the U.S. military’s role in securing free trade and safe shipping lanes.

“He has become a real expert on China both from an economic and military standpoint,” Punaro said of Perdue. “The U.S. military, and in particular the Navy, needs to be extremely focused on Chinese naval power and their other threats in the maritime domain.”

Wicker, the sea power panel’s chair since 2015, relinquished the gavel to become chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee. He and his House counterpart, Rep. Rob Wittman, R-Va., saw their legislation to turn the Navy’s 355-ship requirement into U.S. policy signed into law a year ago.

SASC leaders announced a new roster Thursday that mostly maintains the status quo at the top, following a wider shakeup.

For the minority, Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., replaced former Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., as ranking member on the Cybersecurity Subcommittee.

Sen. Martin Heinrich, D-N.M., replaced former Sen. Joe Donnelly as ranking member of the Strategic Forces Subcommittee. Sen. Gary Peters, D-Mich., replaced Heinrich as ranking member of the Emerging Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee.

The leadership of SASC subcommittees is as follows:

Subcommittee on Airland

• Chair: Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark.
• Ranking member: Sen. Angus King, I-Maine

Subcommittee on Cybersecurity

• Chair: Sen. Mike Rounds, R-S.D.
• Ranking member: Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va.

Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities

• Chair: Sen. Joni Ernst, R-Iowa
• Ranking member: Sen. Gary Peters, D-Mich.

Subcommittee on Personnel

• Chair: Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C.
• Ranking member: Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y.

Subcommittee on Readiness and Management Support

• Chair: Sen. Dan Sullivan, R-Alaska
• Ranking member: Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va.

Subcommittee on Seapower

• Chair: Sen. David Perdue, R-Ga.
• Ranking member: Sen. Maizie Hirono, D-Hawaii

Subcommittee on Strategic Forces

• Chair: Sen. Deb Fischer, R-Neb.
• Ranking member: Sen. Martin Heinrich, D-N.M.

In a tweet Sunday morning, Trump announced that Deputy Secretary of Defense Patrick Shanahan will become acting secretary of defense starting Jan. 1. He praised the Pentagon’s second-in-command as having “a long list of accomplishments” and added, “He will be great!”

The move cuts short Mattis’ tenure by two months, and adds to an acrimonious end of the relationship between the commander in chief and his top military leader.

On Thursday, Mattis in a resignation letter told Trump he was making the move to allow the president to find “a secretary of defense whose views are better aligned with yours.”

He said his February departure date was designed to minimize disruption on the department during the leadership transition.

But Mattis’ criticism of Trump’s national security policies in the letter — in opposition to his announced withdrawal of U.S. forces from Syria and his past negative comments towards U.S. foreign allies — clearly irked Trump, leading to the early dismissal.

On Saturday, Trump appeared to fire back at Mattis on social media, tweeting that “when President Obama ingloriously fired Jim Mattis, I gave him a second chance. Some thought I shouldn’t, I thought I should.”

In a statement after Sunday’s announcement, Defense Department spokesman Army Col. Rob Manning said only that “the secretary of defense serves at the pleasure of the president. The department remains focused on national security.”

Mattis remains popular among lawmakers on Capitol Hill and the armed forces. A Military Times poll conducted in late September found that nearly 84 percent of troops had a favorable view of his work leading the armed forces. Among officers, the figure was almost 90 percent.

But Mattis’ relationship with Trump had appeared to sour in recent months as the president pushed for more aggressive military policies.

Pentagon officials appeared caught unaware by sudden decisions made in the Oval Office on forming a new Space Force, sending troops to the southern U.S. border, and banning transgender recruits from the ranks.

Most recently, Trump’s decisions to begin massive troop withdrawals in the Middle East and Afghanistan seemed to go against military commanders’ advice.

Shanahan, who is among the candidates to permanently replace Mattis, is now in a position to drive changes he’s championed as Mattis’ deputy.

The former Boeing executive in his current role has pushed for systemic changes to the acquisition system that pushes the Pentagon’s focus away from annual budget cycles and more on making programs successful.

“Too often we focus on process, or budget, or level of effort,” Shanahan told Defense News in an earlier interview. “The Pentagon should focus on outcomes and outputs — our performance. This focus on performance should drive us to field unmatched lethality, execute on our modernization plans and achieve this affordably.”

He has also focused on eliminating duplicative programs — for example, situations where the Army and Air Force both have a need for a similar system and develop unique solutions on their own, rather than joining up and creating a single system that can be used department-wide.

In the past, services have pushed back on that idea because of the unique needs of, say, a Navy system designed to go to sea and survive the elements and sea-salt air, or an Army system designed to work on land.

Shanahan has risen to the top of the list of likely successors to permanently replace the now-fired Mattis, partly because of his business background and good relationships with both Trump and Vice President Mike Pence.

But Shanahan has clashed with some in the Pentagon who say he’s is too focused on having meetings, sucking up staff time without having many concrete victories to point to, according to officials who have worked with him who spoke to Defense News.

Reporter Aaron Mehta contributed to this story.

The defense secretary was confirmed 99-1 by the Senate just hours after Trump’s inauguration and widely viewed on Capitol Hill as a calm, reasoned voice on national security for the often tumultuous administration.

On Thursday, Mattis announced he will step down from the top Pentagon post after a series of policy disagreements with the president. His departure is scheduled for February, a timeline he hopes will provide a smooth transition to new military leadership.

But who that will be remains a mystery. Already one top candidate, former Army Vice Chief of Staff Jack Keane, has said he is not interested in the job.

Trump tweeted on Thursday that “A new Secretary of Defense will be named shortly” but offered no other details.

Here’s a look at some of the likely names being considered:

Patrick Shanahan

Shanahan, the deputy secretary of defense, serves as Mattis’ number two and will likely play a key role in the transition to the next Pentagon administration.

He’s a longtime Boeing executive with experience in both the military and commercial sides of the company. Shanahan had no government experience prior to taking his current job, and has focused almost exclusively on internal reforms while in the building.

That included taking the lead on the creation of Trump’s new Space Force, meaning he has had significant face time with both Trump and Vice President Mike Pence in recent months. That kind of familiarity has been a major factor in past White House nominations.

But how serious a candidate he is remains unclear. His appointment would be less flashy than other potential names, but could help calm some fears among Senate Republicans worried about dramatic national security policy shifts with the departure of Mattis.

Tom Cotton

The Republican Arkansas senator has been a rumored pick for a Pentagon leadership post for months. At 41, he could become one of the youngest Cabinet appointees in recent history and the first veteran of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars to serve as defense secretary (he deployed to both as a soldier in the early 2000s).

Although Cotton has been a reliable supporter of Trump’s defense policies, he did break with the president on the announcement of plans for drawdowns of U.S. forces overseas. Given that the issue was a driver behind Mattis’ resignation, that makes his selection problematic.

It’s also unclear whether Trump would consider tapping a member of the Senate, given the tenuous balance of power in the chamber. Removing Cotton opens up the possibility of a less enthusiastic Republican supporter in his place, and potential problems getting nominees confirmed in the chamber.

Richard Spencer

The current Navy secretary is a former Marine aviator and career financier who has long had ties to the Washington defense establishment.

In his current role he has played up his business background, finding ways to apply civilian industry best practices to make Navy processes more efficient. Recently he has been mining Southwest Airlines’ best practices to streamline aircraft maintenance.

He took a similar approach to try and fix Navy culture in the wake of 17 sailor deaths in 2017, the result of preventable collisions. Spencer reached out to major industrial leaders such as major shipping companies to see how they dealt with major accidents.

That type of work syncs nicely with government efficiency goals outlined in the past by Trump, and could make him an attractive option for the post.

Heather Wilson

Trump could make the move to name the first-ever female defense secretary and tap Wilson, the current Air Force civilian leader, to fill the role. She’s an Air Force veteran and former member of Congress would bring her political and business background to the job of running the military.

But rumors swirled that Wilson may be fired from her current job back in October, when she sparred with administration officials over the creation of a new Space Force. She had been a vocal critic of the idea of a separate military service for space, but has fallen in line with the official administration position on the issue in recent months.

Wilson also boasts a close relationship with Pence, which could help elevate her name in any defense secretary discussions at the White House. However, the relationship between Wilson and Shanahan has been more contentious, which could lead to conflict if both are under consideration and still overseeing Pentagon operations as Mattis steps away.

Someone completely unexpected

When Trump fired then-Veterans Affairs Secretary David Shulkin, he shocked the veterans community by tapping relatively unknown White House physician Rear Adm. Ronny Jackson for the post. That nomination ultimately failed, but showed that Trump isn’t afraid to go with unconventional and unexpected names, even for high-level Cabinet jobs.

Could controversial former White House Chief Strategist Steve Bannon (a Navy vet) get a look? Former Treasury Under Secretary David McCormick and former Missouri Sen. Jim Talent have also both been floated as potential candidates. Energy Secretary Rick Perry, an Air Force vet, has had his name connected to numerous other positions within the administration.

Trump’s recent decision to name Army Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Milley over Mattis’ preferred pick shows that the president isn’t worried about looking in unexpected areas for his top military leaders.

Reporters Joe Gould and Tara Copp contributed to this story.

ARLINGTON, Va. — Two lawmakers who oversee defense policy took aim at a years-long walk-back of U.S. Navy transparency, calling on the Navy to declassify ship inspection results and end an information chill spurred by U.S. Navy and Defense Department memos over the past year.

The head of the House Seapower and Projection Forces Subcommittee in remarks at the Surface Navy Association’s annual symposium called on the Navy to declassify Board of Inspection and Survey inspections, known as INSURV, arguing that transparency would put needed pressure on the Navy to fix longstanding issues.

“We have recently classified INSURVs, and during peacetime the question is: Do we really need to do that?” said Rep. Robert Wittman, R-Va. “Shouldn’t there be some transparency there so that we understand what is necessary for those ships? … I think that during peacetime, INSURVs should be unclassified so that we know what’s going on, an ability for all of us to understand what needs to happen and make sure we stay on that strict cycle of three years.”

The Navy classified the results of INSURV in 2009 and has taken intermittent heat for the decision since. The call from the Seapower chairman will renew the debate about whether the Navy is seeking to make poor inspection results inaccessible to avoid public scrutiny.

Rep. Mike Gallagher, R-Wis., in remarks following Wittman slammed a memo from Chief of Naval Operations Adm. John Richardson calling on the U.S. Navy to be more careful in discussions of military capabilities with the media.

In a March 1 document, Richardson called on leaders to be more careful with what events to speak at and avoid talking about too many specifics.

“When it comes to specific operational capabilities, however, very often less is more,” Richardson wrote. “Now more than ever, it is important that public communication about our forces, their operations, and their capabilities, even at the unclassified level, makes it easier for potential adversaries to gain an advantage. Scrutinize information and protect it.”

But Gallagher said he didn’t buy the argument, and called on the Navy to change course “at the highest levels.”

“I read with great concern public reporting of a memo from last March that focused on the ‘less is more’ approach to strategic communications,” Gallagher, a member of Wittman’s Seapower subcommittee, said in his prepared remarks.

“Despite the old adage that ‘loose lips sink ships,’ non-existent strategic communications can sink entire navies,” he continued. “If the bias is towards silence to prevent adversaries from finding out about unique capabilities or potential weaknesses, guess what, there will never be a public constituency for acquiring or mitigating them. And, oh by the way, our adversaries probably have a decent idea of what we’re up to anyways.”

Gallagher argued that he needs his constituents to understand what the Navy needs and why.

“There’s a very easy way to measure our success here,” he continued. “I want to hear pressure from my constituents about key Navy priorities. I want my colleagues to get calls and letters and office visits about Navy issues.”

The powerful chairman of the House Armed Services Committee also weighed in on the subject in a gaggle with reporters Wednesday. Rep. Mac Thornberry, R-Texas, told reporters that the Department of Defense needed to be more open so that he can convince his colleagues on the Hill and his constituents that fixing DoD’s issues is a priority.

“As we’ve talked before, some of the folks in DoD are reluctant to talk too openly about our shortfalls because you’re broadcasting that to your potential adversaries,” Thornberry said. “And I admit, it’s a fine balance. But if we’re going to convince my colleagues who are not on this committee, as well as the American people, to fix these things, I think we do have to at least talk somewhat openly about what our problems are.”

Richardson took heated questioning from a reporter on the issue of his March memo the previous day, asking if secrecy ever created an effective deterrent for an adversary. Richardson argued they may still be struggling with finding the right balance.

“We might be searching for the right things to talk about, right, because my sense was that we talk to much about it openly,” he said. “Just figuring out how do we change this dialogue? So I want to talk less about military capabilities or find the right way to cast those so that they have the deterrent effect that you have without allowing potential adversaries to reverse engineer or come up with ways to defeat those technologies or warfighting concepts.”

When asked to address the chilling effect his memo has had in both the service and industry, Richardson dismissed it.

“If we talk less about specific capabilities and concepts, I’m fine with that,”

Richardson’s position on sharing capabilities information with the public was seemingly supported by an Oct. 3 internal Defense Department memo sent by Defense Secretary James Mattis and reported by Military Times.

“It is a violation of our oath to divulge, in any fashion, non-public DoD information, classified or unclassified, to anyone without the required security clearance as well as a specific need to know in the performance of their duties,” Mattis wrote.

Both Mattis and Richardson have said they want their subordinates to speak with the media frequently. In the same memo, Richardson directed that his people not stop or slow down engagement with the media.

“I just ask that you give thought to the events in which you choose to participate and the type of information you are sharing,” he wrote. “As senior leaders its part of our job to look for opportunities to talk about the fantastic work our sailors and civilians do every day, and the role of the Navy in safeguarding our homeland, and protecting our national interests.”

Aaron Mehta in Washington contributed to this report.

“The security and privacy of our clients is a top priority for Hewlett Packard Enterprise (HPE),” said Thomas Brandt, a spokesman for the contractor. “This event has been reported to the Navy and because this is an ongoing investigation, HPE will not be commenting further out of respect for the privacy of our Navy personnel.”

Providing credit monitoring is a standard practice for companies and organizations who suffer cyber-attacks that expose personal information that could be used to open unauthorized bank and credit card accounts.

The breach became public Nov. 23 when the service announced that a computer supporting a contract that dealt with reenlistment and career data was “compromised.” Names and social security numbers of 134,386 current and former sailors were accessed and likely extracted from the computer by unknown persons.

The personal data came from the Career Waypoints database, known as C-WAY, which sailors use to submit requests for re-enlistment and to change Navy Occupational Specialties. Most are expected to be active-duty sailors, but the service says it’s possible that some are now in the selected reserve or could be totally out of the Navy, too.

Navy officials initially thought that detailed information on sailors’ security clearance levels was also accessed, but investigators now believe that was unlikely, the defense official said.

This is at least the second major breach of Navy data linked to its contracting activities with Hewlett Packard. In 2013, the service announced that Iran had penetrated its unclassified Navy and Marine Corps Intranet.

In March 2014, the Wall Street Journal reported that the breach was due to a sloppily written contract with Hewlett Packard that didn’t require HP to provide security for some of the Navy’s unclassified databases.

Senior Reporter Mark D. Faram contributed to this report.