Led by Sens. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., and Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, the group will visit Canada, Greenland, Norway and Iceland to “examine U.S. and allied Arctic security, infrastructure and research capabilities amid growing geopolitical competition in the region from Russia and China,” according to a press release.

The itinerary is set to include briefings at Pituffik Space Base in Greenland on Arctic defense and strategic competition in the region.

President Donald Trump’s administration has sought to expand Washington’s strategic footprint in Greenland. Earlier this year, Trump suggested that U.S. forces could seize the semiautonomous Danish territory on national security grounds.

His push elicited a sharp rebuke from officials in both Greenland and Denmark, with the latter rejecting any potential for negotiation or territorial acquisition. The episode also roiled relations between the Trump administration and traditional European allies more broadly.

The all-female delegation that sets off on Friday is also expected to meet with U.S. military personnel, Indigenous communities, allied officials, Arctic researchers and regional leaders on emerging operational and strategic dynamics across the region.

Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, Catherine Cortez Masto of Nevada, and Maggie Hassan of New Hampshire make up the Democratic side of the delegation, while Sens. Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming, Katie Britt of Alabama, and Cindy Hyde-Smith of Mississippi represent the GOP.

Rubio, speaking to reporters following a meeting with foreign ministers in Sweden on Friday, contended that the raison d’etre of NATO was undermined when allies refused to allow the U.S. to use installations on their soil during a war.

“One of the arguments I always made was that these bases in the region provided us logistical options that we wouldn’t otherwise have,” Rubio said. “And when some of those bases are denied to you — during a conflict that we’re involved in — then you question whether that value is still there.”

The U.S.-NATO relationship has been increasingly strained in the wake of the war in Iran, which began on Feb. 28. President Donald Trump believes that NATO allies should have offered much more assistance, especially with regard to reopening the Strait of Hormuz. In basic terms, several of those nations say the war, started by Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu without their consultation, is not their problem.

“I was never swayed by NATO,” Trump said in an interview in April. “I always knew they were a paper tiger.”

In recent weeks, the Trump administration has moved to scale back its military footprint across Europe, a shift Rubio emphasized predated tensions over Iran.

But some contradictory signals have been sent. On Thursday, Trump announced that the United States would deploy 5,000 additional troops to Poland — the same number of troops the Pentagon said earlier this month would be withdrawn from Germany.

Poland’s Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski welcomed Thursday’s reversal, while his Swedish counterpart, Maria Malmer Stenegard, told reporters the U.S. position “is confusing indeed, and not always easy to navigate.”

Rubio, for his part, asserted that the United States military has global commitments in the Indo-Pacific, Middle East and Western Hemisphere that it has to meet — and that this requires a constant reevaluation of force posture.

“It’s well understood in the alliance that the United States’ troop presence in Europe is going to be adjusted,” Rubio said, underscoring that the process is already ongoing. “I’m not saying they’re going to be thrilled about it, but they are certainly aware of it.”

“This is not a punitive thing,” he insisted.

Regardless, Rubio said that Trump’s “disappointment” with the alliance’s response to U.S. operations in Iran will “have to be addressed” at the next NATO leaders’ summit, set for Turkey in July. He suggested that the gathering in Ankara will rank among the most consequential in NATO’s history.

The 11-page report said a “modest implementation” of the name change would cost about $10 million. But that figure could rise up to $125 million if the new moniker were adopted “broadly and rapidly” across the department.

The congressional office noted the estimate is “uncertain” because the Pentagon “has not provided information” about how it plans to carry out the executive order signed by President Donald Trump in September.

At the time of the announcement, Trump declared the Department of War was a “much more appropriate name, especially in light of where the world is right now.”

Trump went on to argue that the Department of Defense was too politically correct, and the Department of War “just sounded better,” noting it would be a callback to the original name used during the two world wars.

“We won the first world war, we won the second world war, we won everything before that and in between,” Trump stated in the Oval Office in September. “And then we decided to go woke and we changed the name to the Department of Defense.”

The executive order directed the federal government to adopt the Department of War as a secondary title. Since then, the Pentagon has often styled itself that way, though its legal name remains unchanged. A formal renaming would require congressional approval, which has not been granted.

The White House, in a fact sheet, said the Pentagon may use the Department of War name in official correspondence, public communications, ceremonies and non-statutory documents within the executive branch.

Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR), one of the two lawmakers who requested the report, cast the rebranding effort as “performative government at its worst.”

“Instead of prioritizing bringing down the cost of groceries or health care, Trump and his cronies are focused on vanity projects like renaming the Department of Defense,” Merkley said in a statement. “This move is performative government at its worst and does nothing to advance national security or help service members and their families.”

The Department of War, signed into law by President George Washington in 1789, stood for more than a century and a half as the central military authority in the United States.

After World War II, President Harry S. Truman replaced it with the National Military Establishment, merging the War and Navy departments with the newly independent Air Force. Two years later, it was rechristened the Department of Defense.

In September, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said reverting to the Department of War in the modern era would signal “maximum lethality, not tepid legality; violent effect, not politically correct.”

The department has received a failing grade on every audit since Congress mandated annual reviews beginning in 2018, and is the only one of the government’s 24 major agencies never to pass.

In the Department of Defense Agency Financial Report for fiscal year 2025, auditors identified 26 material weaknesses and two significant deficiencies in the department’s financial reporting.

Among the shortcomings were omissions in the Joint Strike Fighter Program, the Pentagon’s multifaceted effort to develop an affordable strike aircraft for the Air Force, Marine Corps, Navy and allied nations.

Auditors determined the Pentagon failed to report assets in the program’s Global Spares Pool, and did not accurately record the property.

“The DOD could not provide or obtain accurate and reliable data to verify the existence, completeness or value of its Global Spares Pool assets for the Joint Strike Fighter Program,” according to the report. “As a result, the omission of the Joint Strike Fighter Program Global Spares Pool assets resulted in a material misstatement on the Agency-Wide Financial Statements.”

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said the department remains committed to annual financial audits and is actively conducting a comprehensive review of its budget. The Pentagon reported $4.65 trillion in assets and $4.7 trillion in liabilities, located across all 50 states and more than 40 countries.

“The department cannot resolve decades of war, neglect of America’s defense industrial base and soaring national debt through unchecked spending,” Hegseth said in a statement released with the audit. “We are dedicated to openly sharing audit results and using them as a guide for continuous improvement.

“We believe this report clearly illustrates that progress and our unwavering dedication to ensuring every taxpayer dollar is used effectively and efficiently to strengthen our national defense.”

The department’s chief financial officer, Jules Hurst, wrote in a letter included in the report that the Pentagon aims to resolve “critical issues” and achieve an “unmodified” audit opinion by 2028.