Congress Faces Pressure to Restore Defense Oversight

Congress faces mounting pressure to reassert its constitutional authority over the Department of Defense as President Donald Trump's administration expands executive control over military operations, leadership, and spending. In an analysis published by War on the Rocks on October 28, 2026, the authors argue that lawmakers must use legislative oversight, funding decisions, and other constitutional powers to enforce congressional requirements and constrain executive overreach. Congress adjourned at the end of September until after the midterm elections following an unproductive summer legislative session, particularly on foreign policy.

Although lawmakers passed a long-debated Russia sanctions bill in September, Trump subsequently issued a waiver favoring Moscow, according to the analysis. The Senate also failed to advance a procedural resolution challenging Trump's war powers in Iran. Meanwhile, the House narrowly passed its version of the fiscal year 2027 National Defense Authorization Act in July, but Senate Democrats blocked their chamber's version that month to protest the war with Iran.

The Senate has not advanced the measure since.

The authors identify the Pentagon as a central arena for the expansion of presidential authority. They cite military strikes in Venezuela, maritime interdictions in the Caribbean, and an extended offensive campaign against Iran, arguing that these operations proceeded with limited congressional oversight or authorization.

The administration has also removed senior civilian and military leaders, proposed further changes to military command structures, and canceled or restructured major acquisition programs. Defense contractors have faced increased departmental control, which the authors say may conflict with existing statutory and regulatory requirements. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has outlined additional changes to departmental authority and declared that he would reduce the general and flag officer corps by 20 percent, according to the analysis. The authors note that the proposal has drawn bipartisan concern.

The analysis argues that congressional inaction reflects political pressures on Republican lawmakers, who face potential primary challenges and risks to their electoral prospects when they oppose Trump. However, the authors say Congress has quietly established mechanisms to influence defense policy through the fiscal year 2026 National Defense Authorization Act and provisions under consideration for fiscal year 2027. Those mechanisms include statutory requirements, legislative procedures, and funding restrictions intended to preserve congressional influence over national defense. The authors caution, however, that the administration has challenged some of these restrictions, asserting that Congress lacks the authority to limit executive power or refusing to follow congressional direction.

The authors argue that Congress cannot rely solely on statutory language when an administration declines to comply. Instead, lawmakers must use their constitutional powers, including appropriations, oversight, and impeachment, to pursue compliance. The dispute also extends to the administration's broader strategic priorities.

The 2025 National Security Strategy emphasized the Western Hemisphere, homeland defense, migration control, and economic security while favoring a more selective approach to global engagement. It framed China as a competitor to manage and treated allied defense commitments more transactionally, according to the analysis. The 2026 National Defense Strategy, directed by Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Elbridge Colby, sought to reconcile those priorities with military requirements.

The document continued to identify China as the principal pacing military challenge and emphasized deterrence by denial, forward military posture, and coordination with allies while incorporating the administration's focus on the Western Hemisphere.

The authors warn that the next Congress will face a difficult oversight environment, particularly if the midterm elections give Democrats partial control of either chamber. They argue that lawmakers will need to combine legislative authority with control over federal spending to address disputes over military strategy, executive power, and compliance with congressional mandates.