Washington, D.C. – House Armed Services Committee Chairman Mike Rogers (R-AL), delivered the following opening remarks at ahearing on U.S. defense policy and posture.
Chairman Rogers' Statement As Prepared For Delivery:
Today we are meeting to review and examine the National Defense Strategy.
The NDS sets the policy direction for the Department’s force planning, resource allocation, and strategic decision-making.
Our witness is the chief architect of that strategy and plays a central role in its implementation.
To date, we’ve seen real progress on key pillars of the NDS, such as defending the homeland and American interests in the Western Hemisphere.
The southern border is secure; Operation Southern Spear is dismantling narco-terrorist networks; and the historic military operation that brought Nicolas Maduro to justice sent a clear message that the United States will no longer tolerate national security threats in our backyard.
I was also encouraged to see the strategy identify rebuilding the Defense Industrial Base as a critical line of effort.
This will be a central focus of the FY27 NDAA, because achieving peace through strength depends on reviving America’s arsenal of freedom.
You will also find you have a willing partner in this Committee to deter Chinese aggression.
The One Big Beautiful Bill’s $12 billion investment to improve the readiness of U.S. forces in the Indo-Pacific and strengthen Taiwan’s defense is proof of that commitment.
That said, the strategy deprioritizes U.S. interests in the Middle East and delegates primary responsibility for addressing the Iran threat to regional allies and partners like Israel.
This stands in direct contrast to the President’s decision this weekend to launch Operation Epic Fury.
That decision underscored the President’s belief that preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon and expanding its missile arsenal is a core U.S. national interest worth prioritizing.
The strategy also ignores the threat posed by a Russian victory in Ukraine to U.S. interests.
Let me be clear, I agree that Europe should take the lead in Ukraine’s defense, and I welcome the fact that it is finally stepping up.
But the President’s relentless drive for peace reflects his clear understanding that a durable end to the war still requires American strength and resolve.
That reality was difficult to square with the munitions review initiated by your office last year, which led to a temporary pause in U.S. military assistance to Ukraine.
Fortunately, when the President found out, he immediately overturned the pause, pledged additional U.S. weapons, and launched the PURL initiative to sustain U.S. arms deliveries with NATO funding.
By the way, Congress and Ukraine learned of your munitions review only after the fact.
And not from your team, but from others in the administration who had also been left in the dark and shared our frustration.
But what concerns me most about the NDS is that while your strategy hands over responsibility for deterring Russia’s conventional threat to Europe, your policies are weakening the very allies you expect to assume that burden.
President Trump’s success in pushing NATO allies to commit to spending five percent of GDP on defense by 2035 was historic.
But Europe cannot magically turn that new spending into credible forces and capabilities overnight.
And yet, you are pressuring allies to meet a 2027 deadline even though the Department has still not provided clear guidance on exactly which capabilities Europe is expected to assume and what “critical, but more limited” U.S. support will look like.
And, it is already March of 2026!
This is a recipe to guarantee failure and create a deterrence gap that Russia will exploit.
Moreover, last year your team tried to zero out security cooperation funding for frontline NATO members like the Baltic states.
That was a head-scratcher, given that those modest investments are among our most effective tools for training and equipping allies to assume greater responsibility.
But the decision to withdraw a U.S. brigade from Romania most starkly reflects this incoherent approach.
Just days prior to the announcement, the President said any troop movements from Europe would be “little.”
A brigade is not “little.”
But you went ahead anyway.
Neither Romania nor our other NATO allies were consulted in advance.
To be clear, after-the-fact notification just before an announcement isnotconsultation.
And while I strongly disagree with the decision itself, advance coordination could have allowed allies to replace the departing brigade to help cover the deterrence gap.
I understand the need for our allies to take on more of the burden of their defense, but this must be done in a coordinated and responsible manner.
You also need to make these types of decisions in consultation with your primary oversight committee here in Congress.
We made repeated requests to be consulted on any potential U.S. force posture changes.
Despite those requests, last October, just two weeks before the final decision to withdraw the U.S. brigade from Romania, you told me during our meeting in your office at the Pentagon that you were not aware of any such ongoing discussions.
I am concerned you were not being truthful.
This breakdown in communication is why we included oversight provisions in last year’s NDAA requiring advanced consultation with Congress on U.S. force posture changes.
We may not always agree on a policy decision, but the Constitution requires you and your team to have forthright conversations with this committee about the decisions you are making and why you are making them.
We shouldn’t have to resort to legislation to force you to have these conversations with us.
Many of us here support the President’s agenda.
All of us here want to strengthen our national security.
We can’t achieve those goals if we’re left in the dark.
