When the Pentagon sidelines congress

The recent conduct of senior U.S. Defense Department officials reveals a deep and unusual rift in Washington—one in which the Pentagon, the executive arm of national defense, has effectively restricted the flow of critical information and sidelined the nation’s key oversight body: Congress. This move has drawn rare bipartisan concern, uniting both Republican and Democratic lawmakers in frustration.

In essence, the fears long expressed by Democrats—and even some Republicans—over the appointment of Pete Hegseth as Secretary of Defense are rapidly being realized.

Reports indicate that Hegseth has issued strict internal directives aimed at tightly controlling information related to U.S. military affairs. Under these orders, Pentagon staff must obtain prior authorization before engaging with members of Congress. This highly centralized approach to information management came under direct fire during a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, where senators complained about the lack of clear and transparent communication from senior defense officials.

For instance, Senator Jacky Rosen (D-NV) criticized the Pentagon for failing to provide any meaningful updates regarding the upcoming National Defense Strategy, noting an alarming “absence of urgency.”

Meanwhile, Senator Dan Sullivan (R-AK) went further, targeting Tim Colby, the Pentagon’s top policy official, saying it was “harder to get a straight answer from Colby than from the Secretary of Defense—or even the President himself,” calling him “the worst official in this regard.”

One flashpoint of tension was the reduction of U.S. troops in Romania (on NATO’s eastern flank). While Pentagon officials claimed Congress had been briefed three times prior to the public announcement, senior lawmakers flatly denied this. Senator Rick Scott demanded written records of those alleged briefings, noting that he had not attended any such meeting. The committee chair also pressed for clarification, leading to an awkward admission of a “misunderstanding.”

Lawmakers further expressed confusion over whether Pentagon strategy remains aligned with the administration’s broader political priorities. Observers noted that the Pentagon’s policy office has, at times, acted in violation of established law, including multiple unilateral pauses in weapons deliveries to Ukraine—a decision later overturned by President Donald Trump. Senator Scott questioned whether such internal disarray truly serves U.S. national interests.

Ultimately, these developments underscore a troubling dynamic: powerful factions within the Pentagon appear to be circumventing congressional oversight by monopolizing information flows and asserting operational independence. It seems unlikely this could occur without the prior knowledge—or quiet approval—of the controversial President Donald Trump himself.