Expeditionary Warfare Director Brig. Gen. Lee Meyer told reporters Tuesday at Modern Day Marine exposition in Washington that the Navy lengthened the operability window of the USS Wasp following a study on Wasp-class amphibious assault ships.

“The CNO approved the service life extension of the USS Wasp,” Meyer said. “He extended it by five years until 2034. The other LHDs, we’ve got to study to see if we can extend them and the plan is going to be to do that.”

A study of amphibious dock landing ships is expected to be delivered by Naval Sea Systems Command within several days, Meyers added. The study will provide updates on the status of those landing ship docks and recommendations for service life extensions.

Marines test ‘cruise control’ swim feature on amphibious vehicle prototype

The report will also help inform the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps’ plans to sustain amphibious ships across their 40 year service life, with hopes of pushing it to 50, to bolster the service’s military readiness.

The Wasp’s new lease on life is an example of what the Navy and Marine Corps would like to do with other ships, but the services have yet to analyze what exactly that would look like, Meyer said.

The Navy’s amphibious fleet has faced numerous issues during its service life.

Three Wasp-class amphibious warships encountered engineering problems at sea in 2024, with the USS Wasp itself having a deployment delayed as a result of mechanical failures.

The fiscal 2023 National Defense Authorization Act signed into law a requirement for the Navy to maintain at least 31 amphibious ships, including 10 amphibious assault ships.

The Navy holds an inventory of 32 amphibious warfare ships, but half of the fleet is in poor condition and poorly maintained, according to a 2024 report from the U.S. Government Accountability Office.

A defense official told Military Times in August 2025 that the readiness rate of amphibious ships had dropped to 41% despite the Marine Corps previously stating that the amphibious readiness rate needed to remain at 80% or higher to complete missions.

Marine Corps Commandant Gen. Eric Smith said at the 2026 Sea-Air-Space exposition that the current number of amphibious ships is not sufficient enough to meet requirements set forth by combatant commanders.

He spoke of extending the service life of ships to help address concerns over lacking fleet size.

Four amphibious ships are deployed across the globe currently, including the USS Tripoli and USS Boxer, which are stationed in the Middle East in support of Operation Epic Fury.

President Trump’s proposed $1.5 trillion fiscal 2027 defense budget asks Congress to carve out funds for a new America-class amphibious assault ship and one San Antonio-class amphibious transport dock.

A hearing on the Pentagon’s $1.45 trillion budget request for fiscal 2027 became a hotly contested debate on Iran, with House Armed Services Committee members asking how long the secretary expected the operation to last and Hegseth bristling at those who questioned the administration’s decision to go to war.

Committee members praised the work of the U.S. service members currently deployed to the Middle East, but they also wanted Hegseth to address the ultimate outcome.

Ranking committee member Rep. Adam Smith, D-Wash., asked Hegseth where the war was going. Rep. John Garamendi, D-Calif., said the military had executed the war with “tactical success” but called the administration’s strategy an example of “incompetence.”

The comments struck a nerve with Hegseth, who argued that President Donald Trump is the only U.S. leader to decide to physically stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapon.

“The biggest adversary we face at this point are the reckless, feckless and defeatist words of congressional Democrats and some Republicans,” Hegseth said, addressing Garamendi and others who have opposed the operation.

“Shame on you calling this a quagmire two months in the effort,” Hegseth added.

When the U.S. and Israel launched combat operations in Iran on Feb. 28, Trump said the goals were three-fold: destroy Iran’s missile capability; “annihilate” their navy; and ensure that the country would never have nuclear weapons.

The operation killed Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and several key leaders, destroyed Iran’s navy and wiped out key military installations. In retaliation, Iran launched missiles and air assaults on U.S. military facilities, killing 13 and damaging U.S. bases across the region, as well as civilian targets in Meddle East countries.

Hegseth noted that the Iranian navy has been destroyed, but Iran continues to have nuclear ambitions despite losing capabilities as a result of Operation Midnight Hammer last summer that Hegseth said “obliterated” facilities.

“You have to stare down this kind of enemy who’s hell bent on getting a nuclear weapon and get them to a point where they’re at the table giving it up,” Hegseth said.

The questions over the war’s future come as a 60-day deadline approaches Thursday under the War Powers Act. The legislation requires the president to seek congressional authorization to continue the operation or withdraw troops.

The law allows Trump to request an extension if the time is needed to safely withdraw U.S. troops.

According to testimony, the Iran war has cost $25 billion to date, with the highest costs coming at the beginning of the conflict as a result of the use of thousands of bombs and missiles.

Iran war has cost $25 billion so far, Pentagon official says

The Defense Department’s $1.45 trillion budget request for fiscal 2027 is 44% higher than the Pentagon’s current budget — the highest in modern history. It would fund an increase in military end-strength of 44,000 service members, provide a 5% to 7% pay raise to troops depending on rank and boost procurement funding by 76%.

“Under the leadership of President Trump our builder-in-chief, we are reversing … systemic decay and putting our defense industrial base back on a war-time footing,” Hegseth said.

During the hearing, lawmakers raised concerns about the firing of former Army Chief of Staff Randy George and the decision to remove general officers from promotion lists, with several praising the former’s 40-years of service and dedication to soldiers.

“Let’s talk about a guy who is a patriot. Someone who everyone on this dais has huge admiration for,” said Rep. Chrissy Houlahan, D-Penn., an Air Force veteran, referring to George.

In his response to Houlahan, Hegseth hinted that he fired George as part of a war on “woke” — Hegseth’s efforts to eliminate diversity or equity initiatives in the services.

“Out of respect for these officers, we never talk about the nature of their removal, but every one of them, including myself, knows that they serve at the pleasure of the president,” Hegseth said.

But, he added, “it’s very difficult to change the culture of a department that has been destroyed by the wrong perspective.”

During testimony, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Dan Caine remained above the political fray, declining to answer questions he perceived as political.

“My duty is to ensure our civilian leadership has a comprehensive range of military options and the associated risks that to those leaders who make the nation’s hardest decisions and offer my military advice privately,” Caine said.

“My blueprint for this role is Gen. George C. Marshall. His commitment to civilian control of the military and nonpartisan military remains a constant standard, and something I borrow from often,” he added.

He spoke after the Kremlin reported the two leaders discussed a temporary Ukraine ceasefire to mark the anniversary of the end of World War II next month.

“We had a good talk, I’ve known him a long time,” said Trump. The two leaders had their last publicly reported phone call on March 9, although Trump has indicated they speak regularly.

Trump, speaking to reporters as he met with astronauts from the Artemis II mission in the Oval Office, said he suggested “a little bit of a ceasefire” in the war in Ukraine in his phone call with the Russian leader.

“And I think he might do that,” Trump said, then asked reporters whether Putin had already announced a ceasefire.

Putin announced a similar truce last year that lasted three days but was not agreed with Kyiv.

Trump has a history of making positive comments about Putin and sharply criticizing Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy for not agreeing to make a deal with Russia to end the war.

Help with Iran’s uranium

Trump said Putin offered to help on the issue of Iran’s enriched uranium, a key obstacle to a deal to end the Iran war, but “I said I’d much rather have you be involved with ending the war with Ukraine.”

“I said, before you help me, I want to end your war,” said Trump.

Kremlin aide Yuri Ushakov did not say what proposals Putin had made on Iran. Moscow has previously offered to take enriched uranium out of the country.

Ushakov told reporters Putin had proposed the temporary ceasefire in Ukraine for celebrations on May 9 to mark the Soviet Union’s part in the defeat of Nazi Germany in World War Two. He said Trump reacted positively.

Ushakov added that Trump, in a friendly and businesslike conversation lasting over 1-1/2 hours, had said he believed a deal to end the Ukraine war was close.

Acting comptroller Jules Hurst III, testifying before the House Armed Services Committee, said that the bulk of the figure has been devoted to ordnance.

“Approximately, at this day, we are spending about $25 billion on Operation Epic Fury, most of that is in munitions,” Hurst told lawmakers, adding that some of the costs also included operations, maintenance and equipment replacement.

“We will formulate a supplemental [bill] through the White House that will come to Congress once we have a full assessment of the cost of the conflict,” he noted.

Wednesday marked the first time that President Donald Trump’s administration has publicly disclosed the war’s financial toll.

Senior Pentagon officials appeared on Capitol Hill for what had been scheduled as a review of the Department of Defense’s $1.5 trillion budget proposal for fiscal 2027, only for the proceedings to be subsumed by the war in Iran, which began with a joint U.S.-Israeli attack on Feb. 28.

Thirteen American service members have been killed in the operation, with 400 others wounded, according to Pentagon data.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, in a contentious exchange with Rep. Salud Carbajal, D-Calif., insisted that the war’s expenditure is justified to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon.

“The question that I would ask this committee is, ‘What is it worth to ensure that Iran never gets a nuclear weapon, considering the radical ambitions of that regime?’” Hegseth said.

After eight weeks of fighting, diplomacy between Washington and Tehran has failed to yield a definitive peace deal. Trump, in a post on Truth Social on Wednesday, warned that Iran “better get smart soon” as negotiations remain stalled.

“Iran can’t get their act together,” the president wrote. “They don’t know how to sign a nonnuclear deal. They better get smart soon!”

Trump’s message was accompanied by a manipulated image of him clutching a weapon while explosions took place on a mountainous landscape in the background.

The department approved the AI Hiring and Talent Development Plan this month with the goal of maintaining an edge against American adversaries and becoming an “AI-first force,” according to the strategy document.

“This Al strategy is fundamental to leveraging our people as a strategic asset, strengthening readiness and lethality, and modernizing our Air and Space Forces to ensure our nation’s competitive advantage,” Secretary of the Air Force Troy Meink said in the document.

One main aspect of the plan centers around the force’s ability to recruit, retain and train personnel, per the release. To attract new AI professionals, the force aims to streamline and expedite its hiring process for AI positions, find financial incentives and utilize a “Mission Matching Strategy” to pair candidates with certain defense projects.

To retain the talent the service already has, the department will leverage those already in the ranks by creating a Department of the Air Force Dual-Track Career Model set to give AI experts the ability to move as technical experts instead of traditional management roles, the release states.

For Air and Space service members that are already employed in an AI-centered role — or wish to be — they must prove their skills are aligned with a certain model, instead of previously just needing to fulfill a simple course completion. The training component vies to create a baseline for AI literacy for all personnel.

“AI is not a niche technology of the future; it is now an indispensable capability that must be integrated across our platforms and mission sets now as foundational to our readiness, to enhancing lethality and reestablishing deterrence, and as a cornerstone of our modernization efforts,” Meink said.

The released strategy highlights the different mission areas and directives the department found to be imperative to becoming a more AI-focused force, such as using AI for maintenance and training and fast-tracking the deployment of AI tools to guardians and airmen.

Along with talent and workforce development, the department’s vision includes other efforts to support AI implementation across the force. The other areas are data, technology and infrastructure; partnership and ecosystem management; change management and process re-engineering; and AI governance and oversight.

The document states the force will release an AI implementation plan that showcases the steps the services will take to implement the mission areas in this strategy, but it did not include a specific release date.

Brig. Gen. Sean Hoewing, head of the Corps’ newly established Risk Management Directorate, told an audience at the Modern Day Marine exposition in Washington, D.C., on Tuesday that, while the impacts of blast exposure and overpressure across time are still being studied, training supervisors have been instructed to take steps to limit prospective damage.

“If you’re an instructor on the range today, and you’re observing a Marine using a particular weapon system, we’ve already implemented distance requirements for the observer to be away from that weapon system,” Hoewing said. “Understanding that the Marine today with weapon systems that we use, many of them, they have to be in close proximity to the weapon. But anybody else that’s assisting doesn’t necessarily need to be inside that bubble where there would be danger. So those things are already being implemented.”

In February, according to Hoewing, the Corps established a baseline evaluation in a computer-based brain function assessment known as the Automated Neuropsychological Assessment Metrics, or ANAM, for all troops designated “high risk,” including weapons instructors, range staff and others whose routine work puts them in proximity to overpressure.

By this September, he said in a presentation, ANAM data would be incorporated into Marines’ periodic health assessments, an annual four-part screening administered by Navy medicine. September 2027 will see baseline ANAM evals complete for all troops.

The Marine Corps is set to evaluate a study on the impacts of blast overpressure at different levels and update the risk threshold — now set at 4 pounds per square inch (PSI) — by September 2029.

“We’re still debating amongst the scientists and medical health professionals, with the periodicity … how frequently we will do those tests from here on out, whether it’s a part of your annual periodic health assessment that most Marines will go through, or whether it’s something that’s, you know, every two years or every three years,” Hoewing said. “In the meantime, our mandate is to get after doing this assessment.”

The Corps has also built a working group, he said, to determine what to do with the information being gathered. Those tasked with building awareness may inform Marines, as well as makers of military equipment and protective gear, of blast risks and thresholds.

Those in the working group from Marine Corps Training and Education Command will have “the largest stake,” Hoewing said, as they’ll have to develop mitigation methods and procedures in a space where avoiding blast exposure altogether isn’t an option.

How the military plans to reduce blast-related injuries in troops

“There might be policy regarding the use of [personal protective equipment] that would be within our lane,” he said. “But under the mitigation effort, there’s lots of things, whether it’s policy, range, regulations, new weapon systems and whatnot … we are one stakeholder of many in a team effort to make that happen.”

Training aids that allow Marines to build familiarity and proficiency without firing live weapons as often may also be part of the solution, according to an official with Marine Corps Systems Command who chimed in during the briefing.

“Our goal is mitigation without reducing our warfighting capability,” Hoewing said. “I wouldn’t keep anything off the table.”

The service released an inactivation schedule for fiscal 2026 that will see vessels either recycled, dismantled, deemed logistics support assets or transferred to the U.S. Maritime Administration, a government agency that oversees the disposal of naval vessels.

Los Angeles-class submarines USS Newport News and USS Alexandria, along with Ohio-class guided-missile submarine USS Georgia, are slated to be recycled.

The service is currently phasing out Los Angeles-class submarines — some of which have served for 40 years — and is in the process of replacing them with Virginia-class submarines.

Ticonderoga-class guided-missile cruisers USS Shiloh and USS Lake Erie, along with Whidbey Island-class dock landing ship USS Germantown and Henry J. Kaiser-class underway replenishment oiler USNS John Ericsson, will be used as logistics support assets.

US Navy investigates potential LCS class-wide design flaw

“Logistics Support Assets (LSA) will be used as a primary means of cannibalization and equipment removal for ships,” the Navy administrative message said.

There were only 10 Ticonderoga-class cruisers remaining in the Navy fleet as of April 23, 2025, according to the service.

The Navy built 27 Ticonderoga-class cruisers beginning in 1980 but has been phasing them out of service, with hopes of completely retiring the remaining ships by fiscal 2027 and replacing them with its next-generation destroyer.

The cruiser was the first ship to wield the AEGIS Combat System, an advanced weapons platform that utilizes radar to detect, track and fire at targets.

The last Ticonderoga-class cruiser home-ported overseas began its return to the U.S. in March.

In the administrative message, the Navy said it also plans to dismantle the Freedom-class littoral combat ship USS Fort Worth.

The Freedom-class has been plagued by mechanical problems, failed weapons systems and ballooning maintenance costs.

The service will also transfer the following ships to the U.S. Maritime Administration: Watson-class vehicle cargo ships USNS Red Cloud, USNS Watkins and USNS Pomeroy; Offshore Petroleum Distribution System vessel USNS Vadm. K. R. Wheeler; and Henry J. Kaiser-class underway replenishment oilers USNS Pecos and USNS Big Horn.

The tropical location was the west coast of Palawan, an elongated Philippine island on the edge of the South China Sea.

As a notional enemy amphibious force edged closer to the beach, Australian, Kiwi, Philippine and American troops hiding in foxholes camouflaged by palm fronds unleashed a barrage of small-arms fire.

Afterwards, as the repulsed “enemy” withdrew in disorder, a coup de grace was delivered by an explosive-laden, first-person-view drone. As silence returned to the Aporawan beach in Palawan, disabled unmanned surface vessels – representing enemy landing craft – drifted in the waves or sat burning on the shore.

This counter-landing, live-fire exercise on Apr. 27 was a keystone event in Exercise Balikatan, an annual series of multilateral war games held in the Philippines.

On the day, more than 500 troops worked shoulder to shoulder – which is what “Balikatan” means – to repel the notional enemy amphibious assault.

Gen. Romeo Brawner Jr., Chief of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, explained the event’s “real value is showcasing our resolve to work together to defend the Philippine archipelago and to uphold the rules-based international order. So that’s the more important aspect of all the exercises we’re doing here.”

Palawan is an important location, Brawner added, since it faces the West Philippine Sea and the country’s exclusive economic zone.

“It’s really very important that we defend this territory of the Philippines, and we’re very fortunate that we have with us partners from like-minded nations.”

Although nobody was naming aloud the threat, China with the world’s largest armed forces is the obvious focus of attention in these Balikatan drills.

The South China Sea is witnessing a ramp-up of tensions as Beijing claims maritime territory and builds up reclaimed islands that act as forward military bases.

Involving approximately 17,000 troops from seven countries, Balikatan 2026 is being held from Apr. 20 to May 8.

The primary U.S. Marine Corps participation in the counter-landing exercise was Marine Rotational Force - Darwin (MRF-D), currently comprising 1/5 Marines.

Col. George Flynn III, commander of MRF-D, told Defense News: “We have the ability to be a global force in readiness and in support of our allies.”

Flynn said the very fact that he was standing on that particular Palawan beach demonstrated the ability of the Marine Corps to show up when it is needed.

“We can talk about all the capabilities we have, but the integration of those capabilities is the cornerstone of how this is done right,” he said. “The friendships that we made being in the dirt in defensive positions alongside each other, that’s what really matters about this event.”

Maj. Gen. Thomas Savage, commander of the 1st Marine Division, was pleased with the conduct of the drill, which “was much more complex, with more countries integrated in the live-fire exercise.”

Asked whether the U.S. military is being sidetracked by the Iran war, Savage responded: “The United States has the capability to commit to all of our global commitments, and this alliance we have with the Philippines is rock solid.”

Nor did all this activity and other maritime drills go unnoticed by China.

The Southern Command of the People’s Liberation Army reported that a four-ship naval task force sailed near Luzon in response to “the current regional situation.”

Among the vessels was a Dongdiao-class intelligence gathering ship to soak up signals and electronic emissions.

Capt. Paul Michael Hechenova, commanding officer of the Philippine frigate BRP Miguel Malvar, said: “No confrontation, no radio challenges. They’re just here monitoring our activity.”

Cao touched on his vision for the Golden Fleet, modernization efforts for the Navy and Marine Corps and the type of values and military ethos he is looking for in future service members while speaking at the Modern Day Marine exposition in Washington.

Cao took over as the acting secretary Wednesday after previous Navy Secretary John Phelan was fired by the Trump administration.

Cao, who previously criticized a sailor who performed as a drag queen, described what he viewed as ideal qualifications for future service members.

“I don’t need cross-dressers in the military,” Cao said. “I need alpha males and alpha females.”

John Phelan out as Navy secretary, Pentagon says

Continuing to address military culture, Cao said the services needed “meat eaters” instead of “leaf eaters.”

The acting Navy secretary discussed the Golden Fleet, which he said was not only about building ships, but about reforming the acquisition process to deliver a high and low mix of ships, or more expensive and more capable ships with less expensive ones.

A destroyer couldn’t be used for everything, he pointed out, while also mentioning frigates, battleships and unmanned systems as pivotal components of that high-low mix.

Cao said the Navy was working within the confines of a limited budget as it tried to navigate trillions of dollars worth of problems.

The fiscal 2026 defense budget allocated $838.7 billion for discretionary spending, and President Donald Trump has proposed a $1.5 trillion fiscal 2027 defense budget.

The Navy would work within the budget to see where ships, aircraft and equipment could be improved, and what aspects needed continued maintenance, Cao said.

The Navy was also focused on delivering the sixth generation aircraft F/A-XX, the new Navy Medium Landing Ship and more amphibious transport docks, Cao said.

The Navy’s Medium Landing Ship program seeks to acquire 18 to 35 amphibious ships in support of the Marine Corps, according to Congress. The ship is designed to transport troops, equipment and supplies to shore without the need for established ports.

The fiscal 2027 defense budget requested $65.8 billion for shipbuilding, including money for six Medium Landing Ships.

The figure is substantially lower than the Congressional Budget Office’s projection in January, which estimated the rebrand could reach as much as $125 million if it were adopted “broadly and rapidly.”

In a legislative proposal released this month, the department argued that the revised designation “serves as a fundamental reminder of the importance and reverence of our core mission, to fight and win wars. It serves as a strategic objective in which to measure and prioritize all activities.”

President Donald Trump signed an executive order in September establishing the “Department of War” as a secondary title for the Department of Defense — a move that has remained largely ceremonial in effect. Only Congress has the authority to permanently rename executive department names, and it has not yet done so.

Trump contends that reviving the nation’s original defense nomenclature — used until two years after World War II — is a “much more appropriate” reflection of the world today.

“The name ‘Department of War’ conveys a stronger message of readiness and resolved compared to ‘Department of Defense,’ which emphasizes only defensive capabilities,” the executive order states. “Restoring the name ‘Department of War’ will sharpen the focus of this Department on our national interest and signal to adversaries America’s readiness to wage war to secure its interests.”

The estimated costs allocate $44.6 million for the Defense Agencies and the department’s field activities; $3.5 million for the Military Departments; $3 million for Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s office and Washington Headquarters Services; and $400,000 for the Joint Staff, Combatant Commands and National Guard Bureau.

Hegseth and Gen. Dan Caine, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, will testify before the House Armed Services Committee Wednesday and the Senate Armed Services Committee Thursday on the Pentagon’s fiscal 2027 budget proposal. The Trump administration is requesting $1.5 trillion in defense spending, the largest expenditure in modern U.S. history.

The rebranding would have “no significant impact” on the administration’s 2027 budget, “as the relevant changes were already implemented in 2026,” the Pentagon said.

The Coast Guard, which oversees 6,000 family housing units, has been “begging” utility providers to keep the power and water on during a partial government shutdown that has hampered the service’s ability to pay its bills, Coast Guard Commandant Adm. Kevin Lunday said Tuesday.

Coasties scheduled to move this summer also have mounting credit debt as a result of restrictions on advanced pay for travel, and some have postponed medical treatment or delayed major expenses to avoid costs.

Civilian Coast Guard employees have fared even worse, according to leadership. One civil servant told Master Chief Petty Officer of the Coast Guard Phil Waldron that he sold his car to pay his rent in Ketchikan, Alaska, before emergency funding became available.

“Our total workforce has spent a majority of this fiscal year operating under uncertainty, fear and anger caused by a lapse of appropriations,” Waldron said during a hearing Tuesday on the Coast Guard budget. “The dangerous missions that our folks conduct every day … require their complete and total focus. That focus is dangerously fractured when they’re worried about paying their rent or supporting their families.”

The Coast Guard is the only U.S. armed service affected by the partial government shutdown that began Feb. 14 over a funding dispute for the Department of Homeland Security. While active-duty service members have continued to receive paychecks as a result of funding shifts, the Coast Guard has halted non-emergency operations and maintenance and cannot pay some of its bills.

The Coast Guard’s civilian employees — who number nearly 10,000 — went without a full paycheck from Feb. 16 through early April, when President Donald Trump signed an emergency order to pay them.

That emergency funding could run out this week, and the Senate and House of Representatives are again at an impasse over appropriations for DHS, including Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Patrol, the agencies involved in the killings of two U.S. citizens in Minnesota in January.

The uncertainty as to whether Coast Guard members and civilians will get paid at the end of this week is taking its toll, Lunday and Waldron told members of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Maritime Transportation Subcommittee.

Lunday said the stalemate is “needlessly harming our people and hollowing out our readiness.”

“The reality today is the Coast Guard is operating in a crisis, Day 74 of a DHS lapse in appropriations,” Lunday said. “This is taking on our people and their families, the severe hardship and uncertainty, not knowing whether they’ll be paid after this week.”

Coast Guard selects Alabama as site of second recruit training center

House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., has said a bill that passed the Senate does not adequately address funding for immigration enforcement and promised Monday that a “modified version” would be agreeable to lawmakers on both sides of the aisle.

“We have to move DHA funding because it’s urgent … we are out of money,” Johnson told reporters Monday.

Rep. Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut, the ranking member of the House Appropriations Committee, predicted Monday that Homeland Security employees would be paid in early May but they will miss paychecks starting May 22 if an agreement is not reached.

She urged Johnson to support the Senate bill.

“The fastest way to ensure Secret Service, Coast Guard, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Transportation Security Administration, and Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency personnel are paid is for the Speaker to stop playing games and put the Senate bill on the House floor,” DeLauro said in a statement Monday.

Waldron also urged members to pass legislation to fund the department.

“I cannot stress enough the urgency for Congress to end this lapse and fully fund the U.S. Coast Guard,” Waldron said.

The Coast Guard has requested $15.6 billion for fiscal 2027, including $14.1 billion in discretionary funds that would support a 5% to 7% pay raise for members depending on rank, the service’s modernization and acquisition efforts and its goal to expand the service by 15,000 members.

According to Lunday, the budget also would fund childcare subsidies to service members, staff two child development centers and expand medical and logistics support at major installations.

It supports the work behind a $24.6 billion investment received last year for infrastructure improvements and acquisitions, and it includes $1.2 billion for procurement, construction and improvements.

The PCI funding would support development of the offshore patrol cutter fleet, changes to the Coast Guard cutter Storis — a commercial vessel purchased last year to augment icebreaker operations in the Arctic — and construction of three waterways commerce cutters.

The budget also would support service life extension projects for Coast Guard MH-60T helicopters and HC-144 surveillance aircraft and investment in command and control systems and shore infrastructure.

Lawmakers on the panel expressed support for the proposed budget but raised concerns that the service would be able to train additional personnel and maintain the manpower needed to staff new ships and aircraft.

Waldron said the budget provides $63 million to add roughly 300 new recruiters and open new offices, and $73 million to increase capacity across the training system. He assured representatives that the Coast Guard can support expansion.

“This will alleviate the immense strain on our training centers, which are currently operating above maximum capacity, and get our most junior members into their technical schools at a much faster pace,” Waldron said.

The House Appropriations Committee has not released its Homeland Security funding bill for fiscal 2027. The committee markup is scheduled for June 10.

Within a few hours, that cannonade would come steadily closer until the British 3rd Brigade marched into Washington, D.C., virtually uncontested and proceeded to burn the city’s public buildings, including the Capitol, the chambers of the Senate and House of Representatives, the Treasury Department and the War Office.

Adm. George Cockburn himself helped his men loot the White House — who purportedly sat down and helped themselves to President James Madison’s still-warm dinner — before setting the seat of democracy ablaze.

The following day, the arson continued until a serendipitous squall of rain extinguished the flames. The massive storm then spawned a rare tornado that, according to the National Weather Service, killed more British soldiers than American guns did during their brief occupation of D.C.

In just 10 days, the British had penetrated enemy territory, won a battle against a larger army and captured and burned the enemy’s capital — all at the loss of fewer than 300 men, according to historian Rick Britton.

Two years into the War of 1812, the ransacking of the capital was a national embarrassment, with an incensed Madison demanding the resignation of Secretary of War John Armstrong Jr. as the city lay smoldering.

It was an unmitigated military disaster, save for a small band of U.S. Marines whose desperate defense of the nation’s capital allowed for the Declaration of Independence — and the president — to be whisked away to safety.

A final stand

It was close to noon on Aug. 24 when a 4,500-man British army finally marched within sight of Bladensburg, Maryland. At just nine miles northeast of Washington, D.C., the seemingly vacant river town gave Maj. Gen. Robert Ross a commanding view of the American forces just across the Anacostia River.

The Americans — mostly untested and under-equipped — were strung out along three stacked lines. Hastily dispatched from all across the eastern seaboard to intercept the British, the men chaotically attempted to fall in line, standing facing the river’s only bridge.

There they stood in the open field and waited.

Earlier that morning, according to Britton, Madison had received a message from the sleep-deprived William H. Winder, one of the two brigadier generals tasked with defending Washington.

As Madison later put it, that morning Winder required the “the speediest counsel” from Madison.

At a subsequent meeting at Winder’s camp — attended by most of the cabinet secretaries — it was reported that the British were marching on Washington via Bladensburg.

Secretary of War Armstrong Jr., silent for most of the meeting, finally spoke up, saying, according to a later memorandum from Madison, that the American militiamen — roughly 7,000 strong but varying wildly in quality, training and enthusiasm — “would be beaten” by “Wellington’s Invincibles,” seasoned soldiers so named for their string of successes against Napoleon.

According to Britton, Madison, upset at Armstrong’s remark, instructed him to join Winder at Bladensburg, while also promising to be on the battlefield himself, should there be any “difficulty on the score of authority.”

Winder, according to the U.S. Naval Institute, “made and unmade plans, shuffled units around, and wore himself as thin as his straggling army.” Things were not improved by the presence of Madison and his Cabinet, “to whose ‘officious but well-intentioned information and advice’ the general was compelled to listen,” wrote historian Benton J. Lossing.

As Washington’s most senior leaders dashed off to Bladensburg, so too did Cmdr. Joshua Barney, mustering a group of 103 Marines and flotillamen from the Washington Navy Yard.

Even as the Marines took their positions at the center of the third line, the British attacked.

The first wave of British troops, repelled by cannon and rifle fire fell back, before a second wave managed to cross the bridge. Panicked, the first line of American troops turned and fled.

Charles Ball, an escaped enslaved worker that Barney took into his flotilla, noted that the militia “ran like sheep chased by dogs.”

The second line of defense, primarily Maryland militiamen, were outnumbered and outgunned as British forces poured over the now unguarded bridge. They too soon melted away in the face of the more experienced British units.

“In less than an hour,” according to the USNI, “nearly two-thirds of the American army had evaporated. Only the third line remained, anchored on Barney’s guns.”

Now, only the Marines stood in the way of the British and the U.S. capital.

As the British surged toward them Barney’s men repelled them once, twice, three times.

After the final failed attempt to overrun the battery stalled 50 yards in front of the Marine line, Barney counterattacked with his flotillamen, driving the British back into the ravine with cries of “Board ‘em, board ‘em!” according to the USNI.

The Marines and flotillamen fought alone for nearly two hours more hours — even as Barney’s ammunition wagons drove off with his resupply.

Dozens of Barney’s men were killed or wounded as they became enveloped by the British. Barney himself was wounded when a bullet became lodged deep in his thigh.

As the escape route began to close, Barney finally ordered a retreat as a few American gunners and Marines held the line while the rest ran a gauntlet of fire to make their way back to the capital, writes the USNI.

Six hours after British forces first engaged the Americans near Bladensburg, the red coats strolled into downtown D.C.

But the Marine’s defense was not entirely in vain — their desperate fight allowed precious minutes for Madison, government officials and civilians to flee.

It also allowed for State Department clerks to run to the Library of Congress and evacuate the Declaration of Independence, first to an unused gristmill near Chain Bridge over the Potomac River and later to a private home near Leesburg, Virginia, according to the National Archives.

The actions of the Marines that day were so decisive that even the British were impressed. According to USNI, Barney, unable to leave the field due to his wound, was captured and exchanged words with Adm. Cockburn and Gen. Ross.

“I am really very glad to see you, Commodore,” said Gen. Ross.

“I am sorry I cannot return the compliment, General,” Barney retorted.

Ross smiled and turned to Cockburn. “I told you it was the Flotilla men.”

“Yes,” Cockburn said, “you were right, though I could not believe you — they have given us the only fighting we have had.”

In a further act of chivalry, as the nation’s capital lay in smoldering ruins, only two buildings remained unscathed as the entire neighboring Washington Navy Yard was burned to the ground — the Marine Corps Commandants’ home and the Marine barracks lay untouched.

“Honoring the British king might seem an ironic beginning to our celebration of 250 years of American independence,” the president said to the crowd. “But in fact, no tribute could be more appropriate.”

“Long before Americans had a nation or a Constitution, we first had a culture, a character, and a creed,” Trump continued. “Before we ever proclaimed our independence, Americans carried within us the rarest of gifts: moral courage, and it came from a small but mighty kingdom from across the sea.”

The rain abated just minutes before the monarch was feted with a meticulously choreographed ceremony: a fife-and-drum corps in perfect unison, as well as “The President’s Own” Marine band performing both national anthems, and a 21-gun salute reverberating across the South Lawn.

The president and the king went on to preside over the first-ever pass in review conducted at the White House, which featured 300 U.S. service members. Nearly 500 personnel drawn from all six branches of the armed forces were present at the event, according to the office of the first lady.

The occasion also marked the debut of a Space Force Honor Guard detachment.

To bring the pageantry to a close, the Trumps and the royals, standing on the Truman Balcony, observed an official flyover of four F-35s. The president raised a fist after the jets roared overhead.

Trump, during his remarks, praised the U.S. and U.K. militaries for their long history of fighting side by side — a shift toward warmer rhetoric amid chilly relations between Washington and London as of late.

“In the centuries since we won our independence, Americans have had no closer friends than the British,” Trump asserted. “We share that same root, we speak the same language, we hold the same values and together, our warriors have defended the same extraordinary civilization under twin banners of red, white and blue.”

In recent weeks, the president has reserved particular ire for British Prime Minister Keir Starmer over his unwillingness to join the U.S.-Israeli campaign against Iran. Trump has castigated Starmer’s refusal to commit military support, describing him as a “coward” and “no Churchill.”

Officials on both sides of the Atlantic have expressed hope that the monarch — who remains politically neutral — might help catalyze a détente between the White House and Downing Street and restore the so-called “special relationship” that bonds the two governments. Asked ahead of the arrival whether the king has the power to repair relations, Trump responded: “Absolutely. He’s fantastic. He’s a fantastic man. Absolutely. The answer is yes.”

Gannon Van Dyke, 38, entered the plea before U.S. District Judge Margaret Garnett’s courtroom in Manhattan. Van Dyke sported a shaved head and wore a black blazer, jeans and brown shoes as he arrived to the courtroom with his lawyers, Zach Intrater and Mark Geragos.

Last week, Van Dyke was arrested on a federal indictment charging him with placing $33,000 in bets on prediction market Polymarket between December 27, 2025, and January 2, 2026, that Maduro would soon be out of office and that U.S. forces would soon enter Venezuela.

Markets at the time assigned low probabilities to those events, leading to a big payout for Van Dyke, prosecutors said.

The case marks the first time the Justice Department has filed insider trading charges involving a prediction market. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission also filed civil charges against Van Dyke.

Unregulated prediction market may endanger US national security, experts and lawmakers warn

Van Dyke, a master sergeant with U.S. Army Special Forces who is stationed at Fort Bragg in North Carolina, was involved in the “planning and execution” of the January 3, 2026, raid that captured Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, prosecutors said.

Van Dyke faces five criminal counts: unlawful use of confidential government information for personal gain, theft of non-public government information, commodities fraud, wire fraud and making an unlawful monetary transaction.

Polymarket said it flagged Van Dyke’s trading to the authorities and cooperated with the investigation.

Rival prediction market Kalshi had previously blocked Van Dyke from opening an account due to the platform’s ID requirements, Reuters reported on Friday, citing a person familiar with the matter.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Brian Meyers in Raleigh, North Carolina, ordered Van Dyke released on $250,000 bond at his initial court appearance on Friday in Raleigh. Garnett is expected to oversee Van Dyke’s case going forward.

The increase would mark the largest single-year F-35 buy from the Pentagon since fiscal 2022 and a sharp reversal from last year’s reduced procurement.

The headline number depends on Congress passing a separate funding bill. Only 32 of the 85 requested aircraft are funded through the base discretionary budget. The remaining 53 are tied to a $350 billion mandatory funding request that the administration plans to pursue through a second reconciliation bill, alongside the $1.15 trillion base topline.

That bill has not yet been introduced.

House Speaker Mike Johnson has acknowledged that a second reconciliation bill could be a tough sell, and some House Republicans have pushed back on the idea after the One Big Beautiful Bill Act cleared Congress last year.

If the bill fails, the F-35 buy could plummet to 32 aircraft, below even the fiscal 2026 baseline of 47.

As proposed, the 85-aircraft buy breaks down to 38 F-35As for the Air Force, 37 F-35Cs for the Navy and Marine Corps, and 10 F-35Bs for the Marine Corps, according to the Department of War’s FY2027 Procurement Programs (P-1) book. The total program cost runs to roughly $21.4 billion across all three variants, according to budget justification documents.

The request also targets long-running problems with the program. A $324 million line inside the mandatory funding request would accelerate procurement of 200 Block 4 modification kits, advancing the first fleet delivery from fiscal 2031 to fiscal 2030.

Block 4, the upgrade package that adds new sensors, weapons integration, and electronic warfare capability, has slipped roughly five years from the original schedule. Much of the delay traces to hardware problems with the Technology Refresh 3 processor, the brains behind the Block 4 software.

The budget also targets the readiness problems that have plagued the aircraft. The F-35 fleet averaged a roughly 50% mission-capable rate in fiscal 2024, meaning that fewer than half of the aircraft were ready for combat at any given time. That figure falls well short of the program’s 65% availability target.

Acting Pentagon Comptroller Jules Hurst last week told reporters that the F-35 had been “underfunded in the past as part of the budget” and said the fiscal 2027 request is structured to drive that rate higher.

Service-by-service, the Air Force absorbs the largest share of the joint buy. The 38 F-35As requested by the Air Force are 14 more than the 24 funded in fiscal 2026. Combined with 24 F-15EXs sought in the same budget request, the Air Force’s total fighter buy reaches 62, still 10 shy of the 72-aircraft annual minimum National Guard generals told Congress this month is the floor for stopping the fleet from “actively shrinking.”

The Department of the Navy’s request doubles last year’s F-35 buy: 37 carrier-variant F-35Cs for Navy and Marine Corps squadrons, and 10 short takeoff and vertical landing F-35Bs for the Marine Corps. The increase comes after years of slower naval F-35 buys.

The maritime buy aligns with a 2025 Marine Corps aviation plan that cut the service’s planned F-35B fleet from 353 to 280 aircraft while raising its F-35C objective from 67 to 140. The shift moves the Marine F-35 force toward squadrons aboard Navy aircraft carriers rather than amphibious assault ships.

The proposed joint force F-35 budget request has not silenced critics of the procurement rate, with one taking direct aim at the Air Force.

Retired Lt. Gen. David A. Deptula, dean of the Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies, told Air & Space Forces Magazine the 38 F-35A figure represents “budget triage” rather than a serious recapitalization rate.

He argued the Air Force needs to buy even more F-35As to modernize its fleet.

Gen. Michael Guetlein, the appointed czar for the United States’ “Golden Dome” initiative, appeared before the Senate Armed Services Committee Monday, telling lawmakers that plans to build the shield were proceeding apace, despite concerns in Congress about its funding and a dearth of regular updates.

In January, Rep. Jeff Crank, R-Colo., the co-chair of the House Golden Dome Caucus, told Military Times that he had found the wait for delivery of an actionable framework from the White House “frustrating” and worried missing the 2028 deadline would endanger the entire effort.

Guetlein said he had met with representatives from more than 400 potential contractors over the past six to eight months and believed the project was poised to deliver on time.

“We have built the foundation of Golden Dome upon a scalable, modular architecture, using affordable elements and taking advantage of competition innovation from industry to deliver those elements,” he said. “And we have scaled it so that it is multi-layered and integrated. If any component of the architecture cannot deliver on time, we have pathways to pivot away from that and embrace a different technology.”

While Guetlein did not elaborate on what such a pivot would look like, he said partnerships with industry were progressing quickly as the project advanced. Last week, he said, leaders had stood up an “ecosystem hub” that he described as a “one-stop shop” for doing business with Golden Dome.

“It’s a single point of entry. It includes two-way communications to have transparent dialog back and forth. It has strategic matchmaking,” he said. “I can connect them to anybody in the federal government that may be in need of their services or their capabilities. It has a security and resilience element to it.”

He added that the Pentagon had hired data analysis companies to stress-test supply chain resilience and anticipate threats so they can be thwarted before they arise.

“We are embracing industry like we’ve never embraced industry in the past,” Guetlein said.

Sen. Angus King, I-Maine, expressed doubt about the feasibility of delivering a comprehensive missile defense shield, even at the eye-watering cost of $185 billion. He noted that, according to the testimony of Army Gen. Francisco Lozano, portfolio acquisition executive for Fires, point defense of the U.S. territory of Guam alone cost $3.5 billion.

Guetlein said Guam’s Enhanced Integrated Air and Missile Defense System, which includes Patriot missile batteries, Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) and Aegis weapons systems, and is expected to be fully operational by next year, is not an apt comparison to the networked defense that Golden Dome will represent.

“If you look at the way we fight the away game, every one of our weapon systems has to be self-contained, so that it can operate in a bare-bones environment, that it can operate independently, disconnected from the larger enterprise,” he said. “That is not the way we need to defend the United States.”

King asked the Golden Dome czar to get more specific about what the system would actually be.

“We are integrating and networking an array of effectors and an array of sensors using next-gen technology to get a greater magazine depth at a lower cost per intercept,” Guetlein said.

For one specific program, the Next-Generation Interceptor made by Lockheed Martin and under the purview of the Missile Defense Agency, work continues, said Air Force Gen. Health Collins, MDA’s director. The Pentagon initially asked MDA to start fielding interceptors by 2028, though Collins noted the program faced a “replan” 18 months ago due to concerns with the solid rocket motor.

By the end of 2026, he said, “We are on track for the all the ground full system critical design review to close the design phase of the next-gen interceptor program and completely move into the manufacturing and test phase of that as we drive towards the first first flight test in 2029.”

No major design issues remained, Collins said, although a few components including the solid rocket motor still needed to be debugged.

“We are working to buy down those risks and move forward as quickly as possible to make sure we pull the date as far to the left as possible,” he said.

When U.S. Navy leaders declared that “the dream of a laser on every ship can become a real one” earlier this year, they apparently had one particular ship in mind.

The Nimitz-class aircraft carrier USS George H.W. Bush shot down multiple drones with a high-energy laser weapon stationed on its flight deck during a first-of-its-kind live-fire test in October 2025, the Navy recently revealed.

Photos published to the Defense Visual Information Distribution Service on April 20 show a 20 kilowatt Palletized High Energy Laser (P-HEL) system — based on the LOCUST Laser Weapon System from defense contractor AV and on loan from the U.S. Army’s Rapid Capabilities and Critical Technologies Office (RCCTO) — ahead of testing in the Atlantic Ocean.

The laser weapon “tracked, engaged, and neutralized multiple target drones, including drone swarms” from the deck of the Bush, AV officials said in a press release, “marking a major milestone toward fielding operational directed energy capabilities across all domains and platforms.”

John Garrity, AV vice president for directed energy systems, told Laser Wars that the live-fire test involved 17 drones.

Beyond the containerized P-HEL, which has been protecting U.S. service members from low-cost weaponized drones overseas for years, the Army currently possesses at least four LOCUST systems integrated onto M1301 Infantry Squad Vehicles and Joint Light Tactical Vehicles through the service’s Army Multi-Purpose High Energy Laser (AMP-HEL) initiative.

The U.S. Marine Corps also awarded a contract to AV in November 2023 to deliver a LOCUST laser weapon for integration into a JLTV, although it’s unclear if the service has taken receipt of that system yet.

As previously reported, AV predecessor company BlueHalo had been in discussions with the Navy since at least 2024 to test the LOCUST not just on aircraft carriers, but potentially on submarines as well.

The live-fire aboard the Bush represents a departure from the Navy’s previous shipboard laser weapon efforts.

As Laser Wars has previously noted, the service’s Arleigh Burke-class guided missile destroyers that host the 60 kW High-Energy Laser with Integrated Optical-dazzler and Surveillance (HELIOS) and lower-power Optical Dazzling Interdictor, Navy (ODIN) systems are inherently strapped for juice due to existing power demands from capabilities like the Flight III variants’ new AN/SPY-6 Air and Missile Defense Radar systems.

As Garrity told Laser Wars, the Bush live-fire showed that LOCUST can not only recharge from an aircraft carrier’s nuclear reactors with ease, but that power requisition aboard Flight III destroyers should prove no significant obstacle to keeping the system in a fight.

Then there’s the space element.

While the Navy had previously integrated the HELIOS and ODIN systems directly into Aegis Combat Systems across the service’s Arleigh Burke fleet, the employment of a palletized LOCUST is firmly in line with Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Daryl Caudle’s vision of a future surface fleet augmented by modular, containerized capabilities that can be rapidly configured for specific missions and deployed aboard warships without a costly and time-consuming integration process. (Indeed, HELIOS maker Lockheed Martin is also developing a containerized version of the laser weapon, a company executive revealed in August 2025.)

“Missiles and [unmanned surface vehicles] are not the only thing that can fit inside of these, from towed-array-systems, to drone swarms, to electronic attack systems, to high-powered lasers,” Caudle stated at the McAleese Defense Programs conference in Arlington, Virginia, on March 17. “I want to containerize everything.”

At first glance, the aircraft carrier seems like the ideal naval platform for laser weapons, containerized or otherwise, simply because it does not suffer the same power or space constraints as smaller surface combatants.

This isn’t a totally new concept: Navy Capt. William McCarthy, at the time the commander of the Nimitz-class aircraft carrier USS George Washington, argued in a study for the U.S. Air Force Center for Strategy and Technology in 2000 that “given the sheer size and the margin of power available, the [Carrier Vessel Nuclear] is the best-suited warship to integrate the directed energy technologies” like laser weapons.

Just as importantly, aircraft carriers sit at the center of the Navy’s most valuable and threatened formations — prime targets for drone and cruise missiles attacks and other asymmetric threats like explosive-laden drone boats.

The service has increasingly fielded novel counter-drone capabilities like Coyote and Roadrunner interceptors to carrier strike groups deployed to the Middle East for this exact reason following attacks by Iran-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen on military and merchant vessels in the Red Sea.

With their low cost-per-shot and relatively deep magazines, laser weapons and other directed energy systems could potentially offer carriers a “robust self defense capability” so they can save their limited kinetic interceptor stockpiles for higher-end threats, or as McCarthy put it, a capability that may also come with restored maritime mobility.

“Freed from the need for a layered defensive screen of ships, the nuclear powered carrier, operating in tandem with a nuclear powered submarine, could exploit its inherent speed and self-sufficiency to deny its adversaries an opportunity for conducting asymmetric attacks,” McCarthy argued.

“By dispersing the battle group, each platform could choose the optimum location for its primary mission of launching cruise missiles, defending against theater missiles, protecting commerce, or maritime interdiction,” he continued. “This flexibility will become increasingly important as the Navy moves to a smaller and more capable force that operates in the littoral region close to the shore.”

Of course, the challenges that come with employing laser weapons in a maritime environment do not simply evaporate on the flight deck of an aircraft carrier. As Laser Wars previously noted, atmospheric instability wrought by water vapor, dust, salt aerosols and temperature fluctuations can all contribute to bending, diffusing, or bleeding off energy from a laser beam — reducing even the most powerful system’s effectiveness.

Meanwhile, access to a potent power source like a carrier’s nuclear reactors can’t overcome the fact that laser weapons require dwell time to neutralize incoming targets, meaning they can be easily overwhelmed by saturation attacks like those that have defined the rise of drone warfare.

Sure, a single successful strike that squeaks through is nowhere near powerful enough to sink an aircraft carrier, but adversaries could plausibly exploit these dwell time constraints by using drones to run interference against laser emplacements or deplete interceptor arsenals to pave the way for devastating anti-ship cruise missiles.

But the more significant problem for carrier-based laser weapons may be actually using them during a high-intensity combat engagement.

The flight decks on carriers are arguably among the most congested and dynamic airspace in military operations, with multiple aircraft launching and recovering during combat. Introducing a weapon that requires a stable, uninterrupted beam (that’s also invisible to the naked eye) adds a punishing layer of complexity to an already crowded battlespace, requiring meticulous deconfliction with friendly aircraft and sensors to avoid a catastrophic mishap.

Now imagine that deconfliction playing out against, say, a swarm of incoming Iranian Shahed-136 drones. A carrier obviously does not suffer from the same jurisdictional or governance ambiguity that yielded the airspace-closing laser shootdown in El Paso, Texas in February, but the same risk of friendly fire remains a valid concern even with automated safety layers like those integrated into the LOCUST system

The Bush live-fire proves that laser weapons are a natural fit for large, power-rich aircraft carriers, but the more pressing question is whether they can function effectively within the compressed and chaotic battlespace that such capital assets are designed to survive.

Once thing is certain: when the Navy’s laser carrier is ultimately put to test, it will almost certainly be a trial by fire — or, in this case, light.

The cruise missile-killing high-energy laser weapon the U.S. Defense Department envisions as part of its “Golden Dome for America” domestic missile defense shield is beginning to take shape.

The new Joint Laser Weapon System — a collaboration between the U.S. Army and U.S. Navy that Laser Wars first reported about in June 2025 — will initially consist of a containerized 150-kilowatt system with the potential to scale to at least 300kw to defeat incoming cruise missile threats, according to the Navy’s fiscal 2027 budget request.

The system will also include a Joint Beam Control System “capable of supporting” a 300-500kw laser weapon, the documents say.

The JLWS effort will leverage research and development lessons from the Navy’s 60kw High Energy Laser with Integrated Optical-Dazzler and Surveillance (HELIOS) system, which is currently installed on the Arleigh Burke-class guided missile destroyer USS Preble, and the Army’s 300 kw Indirect Fire Protection Capability-High Energy Laser (IFPC-HEL) system, the first prototype of which the service plans on taking delivery of later this year.

The Navy will also “conduct upgrades” to its High Energy Laser Counter Anti-Ship Cruise Missile Project (HELCAP) test bed “as appropriate” in support of future JLWS testing.

While last year’s Army budget request detailed $51 million in mandatory funding for JLWS through the One Big Beautiful Bill Act reconciliation bill under its Expanded Mission Area Missile program element, this year’s request does not contain any R&D funding for fiscal 2027. Instead, the proposal details plans for $337.8 million in spending starting in fiscal 2028 and running through fiscal 2031.

Based on the budget documents, it looks as though the service plans on closing out its IFPC-HEL activities first before kicking off its part of the JLWS effort.

The Navy, however, isn’t waiting around.

The service requested $94.825 million under its Directed Energy and Electric Weapon Systems program element in fiscal 2027 — up from just $14.5 million in fiscal 2026, as Laser Wars previously reported.

That amount includes $79.84 million under its Surface Navy Laser Weapon System effort to jumpstart JLWS R&D, sustain the service’s lone HELIOS system for future testing activities and upgrade the HELCAP test bed, which is also receiving a separate $14.978 injection, according to the service’s budget request.

The service plans on investing an additional $243.3 million into JLWS R&D under that program element through fiscal 2031.

Together, the Army and Navy requests total a vision of $675.93 million in R&D spending for the JLWS through fiscal 2031. The Navy plans on awarding $31.7 million in contracts for JBCS development as soon as the fourth quarter of 2026 and the $30 million in contracts for the procurement and testing of containerized JLWS by March 2027, according to budget documents.

It seems likely that Lockheed Martin will receive those contract. Not only is the defense prime the technical lead on both the HELIOS and IFPC-HEL efforts that will inform the JLWS, but it’s also already developing a containerized version of the former, a company executive revealed in August 2025.

While the Pentagon’s fiscal 2027 budget request also contains $452 million in R&D spending for the “development, integration, and assessment” of directed energy weapons in support of Golden Dome, the exact relationship with the Army and Navy’s JLWS efforts is unclear.

Pentagon seeks funds for Golden Dome, drones, AI in largest-ever budget request

The Navy budget documents state that the $79.84 million allocated under SNLWS also includes funds to “begin development of a consolidated implementation plan” for all Golden Dome-related directed energy projects, “leveraging synergy and common weapon architectures between these efforts where possible” in coordination with the U.S. Missile Defense Agency.

The dream of a laser weapon capable of shooting down cruise missiles is nearly as old as the laser itself.

The Pentagon first demonstrated the concept in the 1970s with the Navy ARPA Chemical Laser, or NACL, a deuterium fluoride system developed by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency that successfully engaged small missile targets but proved far too large and complex for practical deployments.

Those same challenges would befall its successor, the megawatt-class Mid-Infrared Advanced Chemical Laser, or MIRACL, despite the system successfully neutralizing a supersonic MQM-8 Vandal missile during testing in 1989.

The Gulf War briefly revived this dream in the U.S. Air Force’s ill-fated Airborne Laser program, which consumed more than $5 billion over nearly two decades before its cancellation in 2012.

More recently, the Navy’s Layered Laser Defense system, developed by Lockheed Martin in conjunction with the Office of Naval Research, successfully downed a target drone simulating a subsonic cruise missile in a 2022 demonstration at White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico in the military’s latest attempt to validate the concept under realistic conditions.

The US Navy brought a ‘one-of-a-kind’ laser weapon back from the dead

The Pentagon clearly hopes that the JLWS will finally push its laser-based cruise missile defense efforts over the finish line. But as Laser Wars previously reported when the JLWS first became public in June 2025, such threats pose a far more complex challenge for directed energy weapons than the low-cost weaponized drones that are reshaping warfare on battlefields from Ukraine to the Middle East.

Cruise missiles fly low and fast, hug terrain and execute evasive maneuvers that compress reaction time, while their hardened casings require far more sustained energy to defeat than the soft-bodied drones that current tactical lasers are optimized for.

Compounding the challenge, atmospheric interference can scatter or absorb beam energy before it reaches the target; even at 300kw power levels, laser weapons demand a degree of beam control and aim-point precision that no known system has yet demonstrated against a realistic cruise missile threat.

After years attempting to scale laser weapons to power levels suitable for cruise missile defense, the Pentagon’s push for a containerized solution also represents a departure from past vehicle-mounted or warship-integrated systems.

For the Navy in particular, Chief of Naval Operations and noted laser weapon champion Adm. Daryl Caudle has explicitly emphasized the pursuit of modular capabilities that the service can rapidly swap across its surface fleet for particular missions without lengthy and expensive stays in shipyards.

Look no further than the service’s October 2025 live-fire test of the Army’s 20kw Palletized High Energy Laser (P-HEL) system, based on the LOCUST Laser Weapon System from defense contractor AV, from the flight deck of the Nimitz-class aircraft carrier USS George H.W. Bush.

The JLWS isn’t the only modular laser weapon the Navy is exploring.

The aforementioned Directed Energy and Electric Weapon Systems program element also includes $4.82 million in funding to support the “development, integration and marinization” of the Army’s Enduring High Energy Laser systems — the modular, 30kw laser weapon based on lessons from P-HEL and the aborted Stryker-mounted 50kw Directed Energy Maneuver-Short Range Air Defense system that the service envisions as its first directed energy program of record.

The US Army is already ditching its most powerful laser weapon yet

The Army planned on procuring two E-HEL units in fiscal 2026 and another pair the following year, according to the service’s budget request, with plans to “produce and rapidly field” up to 24 systems total in the coming years.

With its LOCUST system proven as a counter-drone capability both abroad and at home, AV appears the leading contender to clinch that contract in the coming years.

With institutional support for developing and fielding directed energy weapons at scale at a historic high, JLWS may prove a significant opportunity for the Pentagon to finally make its dream of missile-killing laser weapons a reality.

But the history of counter-cruise missile laser development is littered with programs that cleared every bureaucratic hurdle only to stumble on the physics and operational realities.

A containerized 150kw system may be a more modest and achievable goal than the behemoths that came before it, but whether JLWS can survive contact with both the budget process and real-world complexities of blasting cruise missiles out of the sky remains the open question.

For a swimming task, the pair forgot to swim the entire length of the lane, skipping out on 100 meters of the event.

Despite being upset and confused, 1st Lt. Bryce Sullenger said the duo “knew we had to brush it off our shoulders and move on to the next event.” And move on, they did.

Representing the 75th Ranger Regiment, Sullenger and his partner, 1st Lt. Christopher Barrett put aside the setback and won first place out of 42 teams at the Best Sapper Competition, held last week at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri.

The event brings together two-person teams from across the force to compete in a strenuous multi-day assessment of physical fitness, technical skills and grit. Competitors participate in lanes that test their mountaineering, steel cutting, breaching, marksmanship and reconnaissance skills, among others.

This year, teams moved up to 65 miles over the course of the competition, which started on April 20th and concluded on April 23.

In the Army, combat engineers — often referred to as sappers — support infantry units by clearing explosives, breaching obstacles and making sure front-line troops are able to maneuver.

The competition is modeled on the Army’s Sapper Leader Course, a grueling weekslong school with a high attrition rate that covers combat engineering tasks like demolitions, rappelling, land navigation and small unit tactics.

Soldiers of all ranks from different specialties can enter the competition but priority is given to teams with two members who have successfully completed the school and earned the Sapper tab, a patch worn on the left shoulder sleeve of the uniform.

The Army launched the Best Sapper Competition in 2005 and it has been held nearly every year since.

This was the second year in a row that the Regiment took home the gold.

The service also clarified plans for the size of its KC-46 fleet. Procurement figures in the fiscal 2027 budget document initially indicated a goal of 319 aircraft, but the Air Force corrected that number on April 24, confirming the program of record is 263 KC-46As, Defense Daily reported.

The expansion runs through the Tanker Production Extension program, which extends Boeing’s existing KC-46 contract rather than launching a new competition for a “bridge tanker” that Airbus and Embraer had hoped to bid on.

“The KC-46 is planned to fully replace the Air Force’s KC-135 fleet, providing critical refueling capabilities to project power, maintain strategic deterrence, and defend the Homeland,” the Air Force said in a statement. Budget justification documents show a unit cost of $199.8 million in fiscal 2027, rising to $321.9 million in fiscal 2028.

Even as the service commits to a long-term investment in the aircraft, the program’s technical problems persist. In May 2025, then-Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. David Allvin told the House Appropriations defense subcommittee that the KC-46 still has five Category 1 deficiencies, two of which stem from the Remote Vision System. The replacement system, RVS 2.0, is now projected to be fielded in summer 2027 — three years behind its original schedule.

Air Force budget materials state that the service expects all KC-46 shortfalls to be resolved by 2028. To date, Boeing has absorbed more than $7 billion in losses on the KC-46 under the program’s firm fixed-price development contract.

The fiscal 2027 request arrives as Operation Epic Fury exposes how heavily the joint force depends on aerial refueling. Tanker crews have sustained near-continuous airborne presence over the Middle East throughout the operation, refueling fighters and bombers operating against Iranian targets.

That demand has come at a cost. An Iranian missile strike damaged multiple KC-135s on the ground at Prince Sultan Air Base in Saudi Arabia, while another went down in western Iraq on March 12 during a refueling-related incident. It was the first loss of a U.S. Air Force tanker in more than a decade. U.S. Central Command said the incident was not due to hostile or friendly fire.

The fiscal 2027 request also redirects Next-Generation Aerial Refueling System funding toward a new Advanced Tanker Systems effort focused on mission systems and survivability upgrades rather than a new airframe. Operational fielding of a next-generation tanker remains unlikely before the mid-2030s.

The statement says that temporary uniform or grooming standards exceptions for medical conditions are limited to 12 months and gives guidance on the separation process for Marines unable to comply with the order, according to a Marine Administrative message signed Friday.

The release mentions this update includes those who experience Pseudofolliculitis Barbae, commonly known as razor bumps and mainly affects those with tightly curled hair, like Black men.

Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth has consistently sought a clean-shaven force, calling for “no beardos”, pushing for a review of military fitness and grooming standards and tightening the guidelines for those who request exemptions.

Marines who require exemptions for more than 12 months will be evaluated for administrative separation, which the Corps say they are revising the timeline for.

“This change provides our leaders the necessary time to ensure updated policies, training, and educational materials are fully implemented, and that all affected personnel are properly counseled before any final administrative action is taken,” the message reads.

In the statement, commanders are tasked with following specific steps for the administrative separation process:

Firstly, commanders are supposed to conduct initial counseling after six months of non-compliance with the established grooming or uniform standard, which will be formally documented to notify the service member of the possibility of administrative separation.

After 12 months, commanders will then evaluate the Marine for continued service and weigh beginning the separation process if the service member’s medical condition has not improved, is not classified as a disability and “affects good order and discipline.”

Before taking more steps in the separation process, commanders need to obtain a medical recommendation for separation that is endorsed by a Medical Evaluation Board Convening Authority.

If a commander has obtained the board’s recommendation, then they will conduct a final counseling to alert the Marine of the administrative separation’s process continuance, which will be formally documented in the same portal as previously notified.

Lastly, after the notification, the commander will process the separation by listing it as “Condition Not a Disability” for enlisted Marines and “Condition Not Constituting a Physical Disability” for officers.

This new guidance is effective immediately, but separation packages that were already submitted will not be authorized before Oct. 1, per the message.

Former Army telecommunications technician Ronald Christoforo, along with Michele Christoforo, filed suit Monday in the U.S. District Court of Connecticut, alleging that the VA discriminates against thousands of disabled children of Vietnam veterans by providing compensation to those whose mothers served but not their fathers, with one exception: children born with spina bifida.

In the suit, the Christoforos note that Michele’s birth defect, which causes dwarfism, is specifically covered by the VA for the children of female veterans who served in Vietnam.

Ronald Christoforo applied for VA Agent Orange-related disability benefits for Michele in 2022 but was denied. According to the suit, the VA told Christoforo that Michele’s mother would have had to serve in Vietnam or Korea to qualify.

The Christoforos argue that the decision was unconstitutional because it is based on sex discrimination.

“When the VA rejected my claim, they didn’t say my condition wasn’t real or that it wasn’t caused by Agent Orange. They said my father’s service didn’t count the same as a mother’s would. How can that be legal?” Michele Christoforo said in a statement Monday.

According to the suit, roughly 200 children were born with birth defects to female Vietnam veterans, while an estimated 350,000 children of fathers who served have birth defects.

The VA began awarding disability benefits to the children of Vietnam veterans born with spina bifida in 1996, and four years later, expanded the list of eligible conditions for the children of women Vietnam veterans to 18. The expanded list includes achondroplasia, the defect that caused Michele Christoforo’s dwarfism.

The Christoforos, represented by Yale Law School’s Veterans Legal Services Clinic, want the courts to declare the VA’s sex-based disability awards as unconstitutional and provide disability benefits to all children who qualify, regardless of whether their mother or father served in Vietnam.

“All other circumstances equal, if Mr. Christoforo were female, he could rely on the benefits provided under [the law] to ensure his child would receive the medical care, educational benefits and income support she needs. The only difference in his ability to have this assurance is his sex,” the lawsuit noted.

Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., has sponsored legislation that would increase research on birth defects in veterans exposed to environmental pollutants, such as Agent Orange and the burn pits used in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere to dispose of waste.

On Monday, Blumenthal said children with a disability related to their parent’s service-connected exposure “deserve equal benefits without exception.”

“Michele’s condition is real, her father’s service is unquestionable, and the damage caused by Agent Orange is well-documented. Denying her VA benefits solely because her father served rather than her mother is both unjust and cruel,” Blumenthal said.

Linda Schwartz, a Vietnam veteran and adviser to Vietnam Veterans of America, added that research does not “justify this distinction” between maternal or paternal exposure and birth defects and she supports the suit.

“Our members came home from Vietnam carrying wounds that didn’t always show up right away, and some of those wounds were passed on to their children. … It is long past time it does the same for the children of the men who served alongside them,” Schwartz said in a statement.

Agent Orange is the name given to defoliants used in Vietnam and elsewhere to strip combat zones of vegetation that could be used by enemy forces for camouflage. The herbicides contain a type of dioxin that is a known carcinogen linked to cancers, chronic conditions and birth defects.

The Justice Department, which represents the VA, did not respond to a request for comment by publication.

The MQ-25A Stingray launched from Boeing’s facility at MidAmerica Airport in Mascoutah, Illinois, and flew for about two hours, according to a Navy release.

Navy and Boeing Air Vehicle Pilots controlled the MQ-25A Stingray during its test flight from the Unmanned Carrier Aviation Mission Control System MD-5 Ground Control Station.

The pilots conducted a series of tests to validate the aircraft’s basic flight controls, engine performance and handling features, the release stated.

As an aerial refueling tanker, the MQ-25A is designed to assume the refueling mission from crewed fighters with the goal of boosting the combat range and strike capability of the carrier air wing, per the statement.

The MQ-25A is “the first step in integrating unmanned aerial refueling onto the carrier deck, directly enabling our manned fighters to fly further and faster,” Rear Adm. Tony Rossi, who oversees the Program Executive Office for Unmanned Aviation and Strike Weapons, said in the release.

Navy F/A-18 Super Hornets currently performing the aerial refueling role would, as the Stingray goes operational, be allowed to focus on main tasks as multi-role strike fighters, according to a Boeing release.

Boeing posted a video on Monday of the MQ-25A’s flight and said that the aircraft demonstrated its ability to taxi, take off, fly and land autonomously. The Stingray successfully completed a predetermined mission plan, per Boeing’s release.

The Navy statement said that later this year the MQ-25A will conduct its ferry flight to Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Maryland. In the meantime, the service and Boeing will complete more test flights in Illinois to further test the Stingray’s flight controls and capabilities, the Boeing release said.

The Stingray is the first of four Engineering Development Model aircraft that will be delivered to the Navy under a $805 million contract.

The Navy announced in 2018 that Boeing was awarded this contract as part of the Unmanned Carrier-Launched Airborne Surveillance and Strike program, which is meant for aerial refueling as well as surveillance and intelligence missions.

“The successful first flight officially initiates the rigorous flight test program, which will focus on expanding the aircraft’s performance envelope and verifying all mission systems,” Unmanned Carrier Aviation Program Manager Capt. Daniel Fucito said in the Navy announcement.

The Stingray is powered by a single Rolls-Royce’s AE 3007N engine. This year, the company is expected to deliver four more engines to Boeing to support production spares, per a Rolls-Royce release.

According to a recent Request for Information, Beyond Adversary’s Reach, Family of Affordable Mass Missiles, or FAMM-BAR, would be a common air-to-surface missile carried in pallets aboard cargo aircraft. The service envisions producing 1,000 to 2,000 missiles per year for five years.

The goal is to “streamline the battlespace by developing a single, common, air-to surface munition that is affordable, adaptable, and possesses significant standoff range,” the Air Force’s RFI reads.

The initial goal is an anti-ship missile with a range of at least 1,000 nautical missiles, a speed of at least 533 miles per hour and mid-course navigation. The RFI describes the target set as “slow moving maritime.”

However, FAMM-BAR seems to be exploring the possibility of a joint missile that can be launched from multiple types of platforms. The RFI mentions “long-range employment on fighter and additional aircraft” using lugged munitions, or weapons attached to an aircraft’s wings or inside a bomb bay.

It also asks contractors whether their design is suitable for “surface to surface by Army and Navy systems.”

Respondents to the RFI are asked to detail how they will “manage the aerodynamic and physical constraints for a weapon that must be both internally/externally lug mounted by fighters/bombers and deployed from a cargo pallet or for maritime operations on USN ships.” Other considerations include resistance to GPS jamming.

However, “this is not a request to change your current design to satisfy other services and strictly for information gathering nor is it a demand signal from the other services,” the RFI noted.

FAMM-BAR is a longer-range addition to the Air Force’s palletized FAMM-P and lugged FAMM-L programs, which will have ranges of 250 to 500 nautical miles. The Air Force recently tested FAMM-L for compatibility with the F-16.

The Air Force’s fiscal 2027 budget asks for $300 million in mandatory and $55 million in discretionary funds to purchase 1,000 FAMM missiles.

“Future increments will be defined based upon user demand and are likely to include a Beyond Line-of-Sight (BLOS), Extended Range (ER), Long-Range Kill Chain (LRKC) communications, different payloads, sub-systems or employment options, etc.,” the budget request noted.

US uses hundreds of Tomahawk missiles on Iran, alarming some at Pentagon

The RFI comes as the U.S. has been expending missiles in the Iran War at a prodigious — and ultimately unsustainable — rate.

Experts worry that the Middle East conflict is depleting American missile stockpiles so rapidly that the U.S. will lack sufficient munitions to defend Taiwan from Chinese invasion.

The service wants to add 606 ISV-Heavy vehicles to its existing fleet of roughly 1,105 ISVs through a three-contract effort, signaling a shift in how it intends to use the platform.

While the original ISV was designed to rapidly move a nine-soldier squad across rugged terrain, the ISV-H is built to do more than just transport troops. Instead, it emphasizes onboard power generation and mission system support.

According to a GM Defense factsheet, the ISV-H is designed for “a myriad of mission areas to include command and control, counter UAA, medical evacuation, loitering munition and drone deliver launch and recovery.”

The hybrid-electric design also enables “silent drive” and “silent watch” modes, allowing for “stealthy ingress and egress for high threat zones, while powering equipment needed.”

The biggest change to the vehicle is its exportable power capability. In the solicitation, the Army said it wants the vehicle to generate and export 60 kW of continuous high-voltage DC power, 15 kW of 28V DC power and 4.8 kW of 120V AC power — effectively turning the ISV-H into a mobile energy source for small units in the field.

Despite its name, the ISV-Heavy is not an armored version of the original vehicle (though, it is “add-on armor capable”). Instead, it is built on the commercial Chevrolet Silverado 3500 HD platform, with “heavy” referring to its heavier-duty chassis rather than added protection.

That change comes with tradeoffs. The ISV-H weighs roughly 9,000 pounds more than the original and carries fewer troops. Early mockups show configurations ranging from two to six seats, compared to the nine-seat capacity of the baseline ISV.

The Army completed the first phase of the solicitation — collecting industry white papers — on April 13. Timelines for the remaining phases, including presentations and final proposals, have not been released.