Lawmakers fume over Pentagon policy chief's evasive briefing on Iran strategy
Senators from both parties expressed anger after a classified briefing by Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Elbridge Colby, accusing him of refusing to discuss the National Defense Strategy or answer direct questions about the Iran conflict. Several lawmakers said Colby lacked an opening statement and deferred key queries to written responses, leaving them without clarity on U.S. strategic goals in the war. The session, intended to update the Senate Armed Services Committee on defense strategy, instead focused heavily on the administration's plans for Iran, which some senators said remain undefined.
The briefing was nominally scheduled to discuss implementation of the National Defense Strategy released in January, but senators said the session quickly shifted to the administration's handling of the Iran conflict. Sen. Mark Kelly cited roughly 14,000 to 16,000 targets struck in Iran, including civilian sites, and linked the scale of operations to a growing munitions shortage. The exchange follows a pattern of friction between Colby and congressional oversight panels dating back to November, when Sen. Dan Sullivan publicly complained about difficulty reaching the policy chief, and a March House hearing where Chairman Mike Rogers accused him of misleading lawmakers.
The meeting unfolded as the administration's $1.5 trillion fiscal 2027 defense budget request and a $67.1 billion supplemental spending package remain stalled in Congress until at least mid-November. Sen. Eric Schmitt defended Colby, characterizing Democratic treatment of him as disrespectful, while Sen. Richard Blumenthal countered that bipartisan frustration reflected a legitimate demand for straightforward answers rather than discourtesy.
This episode could further erode congressional trust in Pentagon leadership at a moment when defense spending decisions are already stalled. Lawmakers from both parties may grow more reluctant to approve the pending budget and supplemental requests without clearer strategic justification, potentially delaying military operations and procurement. The public may see this as evidence of executive branch opacity on war policy, which could deepen skepticism about accountability in national security decision-making.