The Pentagon’s crackdown on communications with Congress will make it harder for lawmakers to get the information they need on military affairs, said Republican lawmakers, retired military officers and former Defense Department officials.
The Washington Times spoke with 13 members of the Senate Armed Services Committee and multiple members of the House Armed Services Committee about a recent Pentagon memo outlining a policy shift in which most Pentagon communication with Congress will be funneled through the Office of Legislative Affairs under Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.
The sources told The Times that the new rules would hamper key issues such as authorizing U.S. military action abroad, overseeing complex programs across the Defense Department, and getting quick answers to questions as they draft the nearly $1 trillion budget of the armed forces.
It’s the latest move in what critics say is a concerted attempt to cut off the flow of information from the Pentagon.
Senate Armed Services Committee members said they had not seen any effect so far on their communications with military officials or their access to the Defense Department, which President Trump has given the secondary title “Department of War.”
Those lawmakers said they had recent interactions with military officials and don’t believe their ability to do their jobs will be greatly affected.
The memo, viewed by The Washington Times, clearly states that even “secretaries of the military departments,” the “Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Joint Staff,” and “commanders of the combatant commands” will be restricted from interacting with members of Congress and state elected officials without approval from the Pentagon’s legislative affairs office.
That would mark a significant change from past practice, in which relevant congressional committees communicate freely and frequently with the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, and combatant commands such as Southern Command, Central Command and Cyber Command.
Some Republicans say the new policy could restrict congressional committees’ ability to oversee the military.
Sen. Joni Ernst, Iowa Republican and Senate Armed Services Committee member, said the new policy is an obstacle in her effort to conduct that oversight.
“I think it’s really hard, especially if you need a quick turnaround on an answer,” she told The Times.
“Sometimes it’s just easier to go to whichever department and find out directly from those members. So, I think it does make it more difficult,” said Ms. Ernst, an Iraq War veteran with a 23-year career in the Army Reserves and National Guard.
Other Republicans said top military officials should be able to communicate with Congress and feel comfortable doing so.
“One of the core tenets of our country is civilian control of the military,” Rep. Austin Scott, Georgia Republican, told The Times. “Members of our armed forces should feel comfortable speaking with their elected officials.”
Mr. Scott is a senior member of the House Armed Services Committee and represents a district with two Air Force bases.
Under the new policy, his discussions with military or Defense Department civilians from those bases, or on any issue before the committee, would need to be approved beforehand.
The Pentagon memo, first reported by Breaking Defense, says every Defense Department office “must coordinate all legislative affairs activities by [Department of War] personnel through the Office of the [Assistant Secretary of War for Legislative Affairs,]” except for the inspector general.
Mr. Hegseth’s office did not immediately respond to questions from The Times on Wednesday about specific criticisms raised by lawmakers in this article.
In a statement last week, chief Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell said the changes are a “pragmatic step” to improve communication with Congress and are designed to “improve accuracy and responsiveness in communicating with the Congress to facilitate increased transparency.”
“This review is for processes internal to the department and does not change how or from whom Congress receives information,” Mr. Parnell said.
‘Massively less efficient’
Former senior military officers say the system, if implemented and enforced by Mr. Hegseth and his office, would make it infinitely harder for Congress to write the Pentagon’s budget.
“What just happened is we became massively less efficient,” said retired Rear Adm. Mark Montgomery, a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and former policy director for the Senate Armed Services Committee under Sen. John McCain, Arizona Republican.
“I’m a little worried that routine things will no longer be done in a routine manner,” he said.
“Hegseth may think that’s good, but he’s wrong, and the reason that he’s wrong is we have a very large bureaucracy being overseen by a very thin staff. And he’ll say, ‘This doesn’t affect my efficiency at all.’ But it affects Capitol Hill’s efficiency. In the end, that weakens his product — his product being an understood, well-resourced budget,” Adm. Montgomery said.
Another former Defense Department official said “frequent, open communication” with Congress is crucial.
That former official, who was granted anonymity to speak freely, said “constant dialogue” is needed to ensure that lawmakers can properly craft a budget and make changes quickly, especially in the fast-moving, technologically advanced military environment of the 21st century.
Some senators said the new policy reinforces how they already conduct business with the Pentagon.
“If there was an issue, Secretary Hegseth would have called me on it,” said Sen. Markwayne Mullin, an Oklahoma Republican who championed Mr. Hegseth during his confirmation process.
“If I were to call them directly, they would want to go through legislative affairs anyway,” Mr. Mullin said.
The Office of Legislative Affairs is not equipped to handle the volume of requests it would receive if all discussions with Congress were moved into those official channels, said members of Congress and former Defense Department officials.
“What we need is a quick turnaround time, and so hopefully they’ll build up those congressional teams,” Ms. Ernst said.
She said it’s “important to have access” in both directions for service members and Congress to “make sure that they’re responding to our requests in a timely manner.”
Sen. Eric Schmitt, Missouri Republican, was slightly conflicted over the new policy. He said he doesn’t like the harm to national security from leaks of classified information, but he can’t let that stop him from conducting proper oversight.
“There has been a lot of leaks that I don’t think furthers our national interest,” Mr. Schmitt said. “I don’t know exactly the best way to get at that problem, but it’s a problem. For me, as a sitting United States senator on the Armed Services Committee, I’m going to continue to have oversight and seek oversight and get the right people in the room that can answer questions.”
Preserving a dialogue
Democrats have been more pointed in their criticisms.
Sen. Jack Reed of Rhode Island, the senior Democrat on the Armed Services Committee, said the new Pentagon policy is “consistent with their failure to respond to requests that are not only legal but obviously necessary for us to do our work right.”
Mr. Reed said the Pentagon has stalled requests from both sides of the aisle.
He suggested that the dynamic is why his counterpart, Sen. Roger F. Wicker, Mississippi Republican and Armed Services Committee chairman, demanded a public acknowledgment from Mr. Hegseth that he will follow congressional directions on funds allocated to the department under Mr. Trump’s One Big, Beautiful Bill Act.
“Do you commit to following congressional intent unequivocally on reconciliation?” Mr. Wicker asked him during a hearing earlier this year.
Mr. Hegseth responded: “Yes, our team looks forward to working with this committee both through the budget process and reconciliation, and would acknowledge this as a starting point of the conversation.”
Mr. Wicker then asked, “Are you qualifying your explicit ‘Yes’? Because we have not had that from any of the other witnesses that have come before us.”
Mr. Montgomery, the retired admiral, said such interactions are important for lawmakers but equally important, if not more so, for the staffers and other congressional aides who craft the details of the annual National Defense Authorization Act and other legislation.
He said they need almost constant communication with military officials to clarify specific military systems and capabilities.
Without it, he said, they will have to make assumptions or educated guesses.
“How excited are you about Hill staffers guessing your answer to questions?” asked Mr. Montgomery, addressing his comment to Pentagon officials.
‘I plan on that continuing’
Members of the armed services committees in both chambers will often discuss situations worldwide, especially U.S. military activity, and ask where funding is best directed or what old programs could be trimmed or eliminated.
Rep. Mike Rogers, Alabama Republican and chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, alluded to that dynamic during a public hearing in July.
While discussing changes to this year’s military authorization bill, Mr. Rogers said he and his Democratic counterpart regularly heed advice from senior military members when making decisions.
Some prominent senators said they expect the current system to continue despite the memo.
“You know, I’ve had a great relationship with the secretary, with the deputy, with the combatant commanders, with the troops,” said Sen. Deb Fischer, Nebraska Republican. “I plan on that continuing. I think it’s beneficial for the department and for Congress to have an open dialogue.”
That sense is echoed across the aisle and in bipartisan discussions.
Sen. Tim Sheehy, a Montana Republican on the Armed Services Committee, said he had “full access to the entire crew” at the recent launch of the USS Utah.
He said he did not see the new policy changing how Congress communicated with military officials.
“I think it’s the same vibe here where he says, ‘Listen, all of you can talk to Congress, that’s their job, but do it through the proper channels,’” Mr. Sheehy said. He added that the move was to “reassert proper channels of communication.”
He likened the new structure to his time in the military, saying it is similar to the “chain of command.”
“There’s been absolutely no impact,” he said of his interactions with military officials.
Sen. Mark Kelly, Arizona Democrat and a committee member, said he doesn’t think service members will hesitate to respond to lawmakers’ requests, though for a different reason than Mr. Sheehy explained.
“I think when I pick up the phone to call a senior member of the military, I’m confident they’re going to take the call,” Mr. Kelly said. “They’re not going to listen to the secretary of defense because it’s b———-.”
