As we enter the second week of the war with Iran, we can take stock of what has occurred, what the cost has been so far, and what might lie ahead.

United States and Israel launched a joint attack on Iran. 

The initial strikes killed Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei —a fact confirmed by Iranian state media on March 1—and a number of senior regime officials. In a classic air campaign opening, U.S. and Israeli forces targeted air defense sites and missile launch facilities, as well as naval facilities and vessels, in an effort to suppress and destroy Iran's ability to retaliate and defend its airspace. Targets also included

 and Quds Force personnel and facilities.

Iranian forces retaliated with Shahed drones and ballistic missiles against U.S. targets across the Persian Gulf, including bases in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Jordan, Syria, the UAE, and Qatar. Iranian counterattacks have reached as far as Israel, Turkey, Azerbaijan, and Cyprus. As of this writing, Iranian vessels have begun laying mines in the Strait of Hormuz, in a replay of the 

Over the weekend and into this week, the United States intensified its attacks on Iranian naval targets, communications, transportation, and command and control infrastructure. Israel has broadened its strikes to include Iranian oil and gas facilities, as well as targets in Beirut that it identifies as Hezbollah infrastructure.

 (CENTCOM) confirms American forces have struck more than 5,000 targets inside Iran since 

began on February 28, while the Israel Defense Forces report conducting approximately 2,500 strikes of their own, including over 1,000 sorties dropping more than 2,500 bombs in the opening 24 hours alone. Combined, the two forces have destroyed an estimated 80% of Iran's air defense systems, more than 300 missile launchers, and at least 46 naval vessels. Defense Secretary Hegseth described March 10 as the most intense day of strikes yet.

Gulf states have been drawn into the fighting to defend their territory. Around March 3, 

 the Qatar Air Force reported downing two Iranian Su-24 fighter-bombers assessed to be “two minutes” from striking targets in Qatar. The U.S. maintains a large military presence at Al Udied Air Base, and Doha International Airport is a major transit point for travellers headed between Asia, Europe, and the Middle East. Qatar and the other Gulf states have remained in a firmly defensive posture. 

"Qatar has not been part of the campaign targeting Iran," said Qatari Foreign Ministry spokesman Majed Al Ansari. "We are exercising our right to self-defense and deterring Iranian attacks against our country."

Outside the region, NATO, Russia, and Ukraine have each adjusted their posture and, in some cases, provided intelligence and expertise. NATO has moved air and naval assets to Cyprus and Turkey, including forces from Spain and the UK, to bolster air defenses for member states that could be targeted. Ukraine has offered expertise in countering Iranian-made Shahed drones, which Iran previously supplied to Russia and which have been used extensively against Ukrainian forces. Multiple reports from 

, and CNN cite "officials familiar with the intelligence" claim Russia is sharing targeting data. There has been no confirmation from official sources.

There have been casualties on all sides, as well as in third countries across the Gulf, the Arabian Peninsula, and Lebanon. Israeli officials and open sources report 2 soldiers and 16 civilians killed, and 2,339 civilians and 14 military personnel injured. The United States has acknowledged 9 servicemembers killed and as many as 150 wounded, primarily from Shahed drone attacks.

The U.S. has also acknowledged losing several sophisticated air defense radar systems to Iranian drones, and three 

 in a friendly fire incident. All crews ejected safely and were recovered. The U.S. has additionally acknowledged the loss of 12 MQ-9 Reaper remotely piloted aircraft.

Iranian sources have acknowledged between 1,255 and 1,761 people killed to date. The humanitarian organization Hengaw estimates the number at a minimum of 4,300 killed, including approximately 3,910 military and regime personnel and 390 civilians. Iran has acknowledged the loss of 18 aircraft and approximately 50 naval vessels of all types, including the frigate IRIS Dena, sunk by a U.S. 

-class submarine off the coast of Sri Lanka.

Gulf states and other non-combatant countries have reported a combined total of at least 601 people killed and 1,756 injured from Iranian retaliatory strikes, with Lebanon bearing the heaviest toll at 570 killed and 1,444 injured following Israeli strikes on Hezbollah targets.

There are no official figures for the monetary cost of the war, but estimates from the 

Center for Strategic and International Studies

 estimate the cost so far could be as high as $7 billion through D+4.

The administration has offered varying statements on war aims and timeline projections since the conflict began. Officials have at different points described the objectives as destroying Iran's nuclear and missile capabilities, dismantling its navy, removing the regime's leadership, and encouraging Iranians to seek political change. 

The stated rationale for the timing of the strikes has also shifted — Secretary of State Rubio initially told reporters that the U.S. joined the attack in part to preempt an anticipated Iranian response to an imminent Israeli operation, a characterization he walked back the following day.

The Defense Department and the president have projected an open-ended timeline, emphasizing operational metrics such as targets struck and sorties flown rather than specific end conditions. On March 10, 

President Trump suggested the conflict may be nearing a conclusion

, telling a press conference the war was "complete" — though fighting was ongoing at the time of that statement.

What the ultimate objectives are, and when U.S. and Israeli leadership consider them met, remains to be seen.

The Army's New DFAC Shift: What "Freedom Dollars" Mean for Your Next Meal

Trump DHS Shake-Up Lands as Coast Guard Members Serve Through Funding Lapse

What is the RECEIPTS Act? Explaining the Plan to Audit the Pentagon

The Iran War Enters Week 2: Here's What We Know So Far

When the United States and Israel launched coordinated military strikes against Iran on Saturday, February 28, 2026, a lesser-noticed but diplomatically significant story was unfolding in southern Spain. The Spanish government, under 

, moved swiftly to declare that American forces stationed at two joint military installations — 

 — would not be permitted to participate in or support offensive operations against Iran. It was a statement of national sovereignty as much as it was a moral position, and it placed Madrid squarely at odds with Washington at one of the tensest moments in recent Middle Eastern history.

Spanish Foreign Minister Jose Manuel Albares made the government's stance unambiguous in a television interview on Monday, March 2. The bases at Rota and Moron, he explained, are jointly used by Spanish and American forces but remain firmly under Spanish sovereignty. Any use of those facilities must fall within the terms of the bilateral defense agreement between the two countries, and critically, must be consistent with the 

Offensive military action against Iran, in the Spanish government's view, meets neither of those thresholds. Defense Minister Margarita Robles went further, stating emphatically that no assistance of any kind — "absolutely none" — had been provided from either base in connection with the Iran strikes. The message was clear and deliberate.

The practical consequences were immediate. Flight tracking data from 

 showed that fifteen US aircraft departed Rota and Moron in the days following Spain's declaration. Nine 

 left Moron Air Base and were tracked heading toward Germany, while other aircraft departed Rota toward southern France. At least seven planes were confirmed to have landed at 

. The movement of American assets out of Spain underscored the seriousness with which both sides treated the restriction. This was not merely a diplomatic statement. It had short-term operational implications for the US military's posture in the western Mediterranean.

Spain's position stands in contrast to that of the United Kingdom, which initially hesitated but ultimately authorized the use of British military bases for what Prime Minister Keir Starmer framed as collective self-defense. That decision coincided with an attack on British forces, though the narrative is complex: a drone struck the British air base RAF Akrotiri in Cyprus, causing limited damage. However, the UK Ministry of Defence confirmed the drone was not launched from Iran, and officials noted the drone was in the air before Starmer announced the base authorization, contradicting claims of direct retaliation. 

Nonetheless, Spain, by refusing to become operationally entangled in the conflict, has so far avoided having its installations become direct targets. Whether that reflects wise statecraft or simply good fortune remains to be seen, but it illustrates the tangible risks that come with military participation.

Trade Threats and the Oval Office Fallout

The Spanish government's condemnation went beyond the base's question. Prime Minister Sanchez publicly characterized the US and Israeli strikes on Iran as an "unjustified" and "dangerous military intervention" that falls outside the bounds of international law. This represents a significant break from the position of many NATO allies and reflects the particular political orientation of Spain's coalition government. Sanchez has consistently positioned himself as a critic of offensive military action, previously taking an independent stance on the conflict in Gaza.

Washington's reaction was predictably hostile. Speaking from the Oval Office on March 3 during a 

meeting with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz

, President Donald Trump threatened to impose a full trade embargo on Spain in response to Madrid's refusal, directing his Treasury Secretary to cut off dealings. 

President Donald J. Trump and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz meet in the Oval Office and discuss crucial matters like Operation Epic Fury, Iran, and trade.

President Trump and German Chancellor Merz meet in the Oval Office

Legal experts and EU officials, including Chancellor Merz, were quick to note that any such embargo would face enormous legal hurdles since Spain is a member of the European Union and trade policy is largely an EU-level matter. However, the threat itself reveals President Trump’s views on Spain's defiance. 

Trump's warning sent a chill through Spanish and European business communities, prompting companies to quietly begin drawing up contingency plans even as legal advisers cautioned that a genuine embargo remained highly unlikely.

At the heart of this dispute is a foundational question about the nature of alliance relationships and military basing rights. Rota and Moron are jointly operated facilities, but they sit on Spanish soil, and the agreements governing their use have limits. The US has long operated under a somewhat expansive interpretation of what allied basing arrangements permit, and tensions over the scope of those rights are not new. What is notable here is the forcefulness and speed with which the Sanchez government acted. The US, for its part, moved aircraft to other European bases, so at the moment the dispute has little operational impact.

The broader implications for the US-Spain relationship, and for NATO cohesion more generally, remain to be worked out. Alliances depend on shared commitments and predictability, and Spain's refusal to permit the use of its bases for what Washington considers a legitimate security operation will leave a mark on the bilateral relationship. 

It’s also not the first time a European and NATO partner has declined to participate in an American military operation. Allied countries have their own constitutional and public responsibilities, and domestic politics is always a consideration. For its part, Spain is making an argument based on their view of international law, 

, and the specific terms of existing defense agreements.

The Spanish government’s position, mirrored by other NATO alliance members, is that alliance membership does not mean unconditional support. Spain believes that all NATO partners retain the right and the responsibility to define the limits of their participation. The bases at Rota and Moron are instruments of collective security.

 has been the foundation of Western security for eighty years, and disputes between members over military commitments are not new to it. How this particular impasse is resolved remains to be seen. What is less certain is what the US-Spain relationship looks like when it is.

What is the LUCAS Drone? A Look at the US's New $35,000 Kamikaze

Spain Draws a Line: No US Strikes on Iran from Spanish Soil

For many service members, “military retirement” sounds simple: serve 20 years, collect a pension for life. In reality, the Department of Defense operates several different retirement systems, and which one applies to you depends largely on when you first joined the military.

Understanding how these systems work is important not only for long-term financial planning but also for making informed career decisions along the way. Here is how military retirement actually works.

The single most important factor in determining your retirement system is your Date of Initial Entry into Military Service (DIEMS). This is the date you first entered any form of uniformed service, whether through enlistment, ROTC, a service academy, or the Delayed Entry Program.

Once established, your DIEMS never changes, even if you separate and later return to service. Your DIEMS determines which retirement plan applies to you, how your base retirement pay is calculated, and which multiplier formula is used. Think of DIEMS as your “retirement fingerprint.” Everything flows from it.

Once you determine which system you fall under based on your DIEMS, the basic formula is the same across all regular retirement plans:

Retired Pay = Retired Pay Base × Multiplier Percentage

The differences between systems come from how each part of that formula is calculated.

There are two main ways the DoD determines your retirement pay base. Members who entered service before September 8, 1980, use the Final Pay system. Under this method, whatever your basic pay is on your last day in uniform becomes the foundation for your pension.

Most modern retirees use the High-36 system. Under this method, your base pay is the average of your highest 36 months of basic pay, usually your final three years of service. This approach smooths out year-to-year fluctuations and prevents last-minute promotions from disproportionately inflating retirement pay.

The Multiplier: How Much You Earn Per Year

Once your base pay is determined, DoD applies a multiplier based on your years of service. This is where retirement systems differ most.

Final Pay System (Entry Before September 8, 1980)

This legacy system applies to members who entered service before September 1980.

Under Final Pay, each year of service is worth 2.5 percent. A retiree multiplies their base pay by the appropriate multiplier based on years served. At 20 years, the pension equals 50 percent of base pay. At 30 years, it equals 75 percent. At 40 years, it reaches 100 percent. Because the base is final pay, this system is especially generous. Today, however, it applies to very few remaining retirees.

The High-36 system applies to members who entered service between September 1980 and January 2018 and did not elect REDUX. High-36 multipliers mirror Final Pay. A 20-year retiree receives 50 percent. At 25 years, the multiplier rises to 62.5 percent. At 30 years, it reaches 75 percent.

This has been the standard military retirement system for decades and still covers many current retirees. For most career service members, High-36 remains the gold standard of military pensions.

The Career Status Bonus/REDUX system was offered to certain active-duty members who entered after 1986. At 15 years of service, eligible members could accept a $30,000 bonus in exchange for reduced retirement benefits. Those who elected REDUX received a lump-sum payment, a reduced multiplier before age 62, and lower cost-of-living increases.

Under REDUX, each year under 30 reduces the multiplier by 1 percent. As a result, a 20-year retiree receives 40 percent instead of 50 percent. At age 62, benefits are temporarily recalculated to match High-36, then revert to reduced growth. This option appealed to service members who were confident in their ability to invest the bonus effectively. The option to elect REDUX ended in 2017.

The Blended Retirement System became the default system in 2018. It applies to all members who entered service on or after January 1, 2018, and to some earlier members who opted in.

BRS combines two elements: a smaller pension and government retirement savings contributions. It operates much like many private-sector retirement systems, blending a defined pension with employer contributions to a 401(k)-style account. In the military, that account is the Thrift Savings Plan (TSP). Under BRS, each year of service is worth 2.0 percent of base pay. At 20 years, a retiree receives 40 percent. At 30 years, the pension rises to 60 percent.

To offset the smaller pension, BRS provides government contributions to the TSP. Members receive an automatic 1 percent contribution after 60 days of service and can receive up to 4 percent in matching contributions after two years. Members who contribute at least 5 percent of their pay receive the full government match.

Unlike traditional pensions, TSP funds belong to the member even if they leave before reaching retirement eligibility. BRS was designed to modernize military retirement and provide portable benefits for those who do not serve a full career.

Service members who are medically retired with a DoD disability rating of at least 30 percent may qualify for disability retirement. Disability retirement pay is calculated using the member’s standard pay base and the higher of either the disability percentage or the service-based multiplier. 

The maximum multiplier is capped at 75 percent. Because disability retirement often interacts with VA compensation, individualized counseling is especially important.

All military retirees receive annual Cost of Living Adjustments tied to inflation. For Final Pay, High-36, BRS, and Disability retirees, COLA generally matches changes in the Consumer Price Index. 

REDUX retirees receive a reduced COLA, usually one percentage point lower, with a partial restoration at age 62. Over time, these differences can significantly affect lifetime retirement income.

In practical terms, military retirement works like this: your DIEMS determines your retirement system, your system determines your pay base, your years of service determine your multiplier, your multiplier is applied to your base pay, and COLA protects your benefits against inflation.

For most modern retirees, the key distinction is between High-36, which provides a larger guaranteed pension, and BRS, which provides a smaller pension plus portable savings. Neither system is inherently better. The right choice depends on career length, savings habits, and long-term plans.

Military retirement remains one of the most valuable benefits of service, but it is also one of the most misunderstood. Small differences in entry date, elections, or career length can translate into hundreds of thousands of dollars over a lifetime. Understanding your system early allows you to plan realistically for retirement, maximize TSP benefits, make informed career decisions, and avoid unpleasant surprises later.

Retirement benefits are one of the many ways America says “thank you” to the men and women who volunteer to serve.

Base Mobility 2.0: How Microtransit Is Replacing "Just Walk" Culture on Military Bases

Pentagon Cuts Harvard Ties: What Happens to Service Members Already Enrolled?

Navy Chief Unveils New Fighting Instructions: An Important Change in How the Fleet Shows Up

Understanding Military Retirement: How DoD Pensions Really Work

Most military families have heard the term Noncombatant Evacuation Operation, or NEO, and it can sound dramatic. At its core, however, it is not about fear. It is about planning ahead so you and your loved ones are ready if circumstances overseas suddenly change.

By definition, a NEO is the ordered (mandatory) or authorized (voluntary) departure of U.S. citizens, dependents, and designated noncombatants from an overseas location to a safe haven when conditions deteriorate, whether due to civil unrest, natural disaster, or other crises. The Department of Defense describes NEOs in Joint Publication 3-68 as operations conducted to assist the Department of State in evacuating civilians from foreign countries when their lives are endangered by war, civil unrest, or disaster.

Noncombatant Emergency Evacuation Instructions

U.S. Marine Corps NEO guidance from the official 

, and of course, each base will have its own NEO guidance implementing the command’s policies and tailored to comply with the Host Nation’s requirements.

Military families have experienced this before. Families were evacuated from the Philippines after the 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo, from Japan following the 2011 tsunami, and more recently from locations in the Gulf region as tensions escalated. These operations were structured and deliberate, even when the circumstances were not.

Even in the United States, military families may have to evacuate on short notice. In 2012, the Waldo Canyon Fire threatened the U.S. Air Force Academy, and the installation commander ordered the base evacuated. Not every detail below will apply to a stateside emergency, but the discipline of thinking through what you would do - and what you would take - is useful for any military family, no matter where you live.

A NEO is not an impromptu sprint to the airport. It is a planned operation with defined phases: information, announcement, assembly, processing, and movement. Installations routinely rehearse these procedures. Many overseas commands conduct periodic NEO exercises so families understand what to expect.

If it is an official NEO, it will be a coordinated effort led by the U.S. Department of State, with assistance from the Department of Defense, to move U.S. government employees and their families to safety in an organized and accountable manner. In some cases, however, the call may come as a strong recommendation or authorized departure rather than a formal evacuation order. Either way, preparation matters.

Maintain Accurate Entry and Contact Information

The first step is simple but essential: keep your contact information current with your unit and installation. Commands typically use multiple communication channels - official alert systems, Key Spouse networks, email lists, social media pages, and sometimes personal notification - to reach families quickly.

Families overseas should also enroll in the 

U.S. Department of State’s Smart Traveler Enrollment Program (STEP)

. Enrollment allows the U.S. Embassy or Consulate to contact you during an emergency and provides access to security messages and travel advisories specific to your location. Information on STEP and personal preparedness is available at travel.state.gov.

Assemble a Go Binder of Essential Documents

When time is limited, digging through drawers is not an option. Create a waterproof folder, both physical and digital, that includes:

Certified copies of birth certificates and marriage certificates

PCS orders and verification of sponsorship

Insurance cards and prescription information

Emergency contact information for your unit, embassy, and stateside family

Maintain secure digital copies that can be accessed online. A thumb drive is helpful, but cloud access may be more practical if you need to transmit documentation quickly to embassy staff or host-nation officials. 

In some situations, the ability to email a copy of a passport or birth certificate can prevent delays at a processing center or airport.

Ideally, it is packed in advance. For some, maintaining a packed bag will not be practical. Families in this situation should keep a dedicated bag and checklist ready so they can pack quickly. Include:

Chargers, power banks, and critical electronics

Basic hygiene items, wet wipes, zip-top bags, and a small first aid kit

Installation NEO guidance consistently emphasizes minimal baggage and mobility. You may be carrying everything you bring. Pack what you need, and only what you need.

Cell networks can be overwhelmed during crises. Experience shows that while voice calls may fail when the system is saturated, text messages, messaging apps, and email often still transmit.

A designated family point of contact in the United States

A sequence of preferred communication methods

A rally point on base if separated, and phones are not working

“Chair flying” and even practicing it reduces stress. Time spent thinking through it ahead of time will make it easier if you ever have to do it.

Include Pets and Special Needs in Planning

Do not assume pets or special medical needs will be automatically accommodated. 

State Department emergency preparedness guidance 

encourages families to plan for pets and unique medical requirements in advance.

In some evacuations, pets are authorized. In others, they are not. Identify trusted friends or host-nation contacts who could care for animals if necessary. Ensure medical documentation, medication supplies, and special equipment are accounted for in your planning.

Children take their emotional cues from their parents. Treat this as a fire drill, not a catastrophe.

Many overseas commands even conduct NEO exercises precisely so families know what to expect. It is appropriate to tell a child when you do not have all the answers. Follow that honesty with reassurance: you are together, and you will take care of them. 

Older children can be given age-appropriate responsibilities, such as managing their own small bag or helping double-check documents. Delegating tasks provides a sense of control and stability during uncertainty.

 exist for a reason. They provide early warning so families can make informed decisions about authorized departures before conditions worsen. 

Maintaining situational awareness and conducting yourself calmly in public also matters. Sudden visible panic can draw attention in host nations during periods of tension. A low, steady profile helps keep movement smooth and professional.

Understand What Happens After a NEO Begins

, families are typically assigned a processing time and directed to an evacuation control center. The process resembles deployment processing: documentation is verified, travel authorizations are issued, and transportation is assigned.

Movement may occur by military aircraft, commercial charter, ship, or ground transportation, depending on the situation. The process is structured to ensure accountability and orderly movement.

A NEO is a tool - a planned, coordinated response to protect U.S. citizens when circumstances overseas become risky. Its effectiveness depends in part on how well families understand and prepare for its use.

You cannot anticipate every contingency. But you can control your documentation, your packing, your communication plan, and your mindset. For military families overseas, that preparation is simply another expression of readiness - one that supports your service member and protects the people who matter most.

Operation Purple Camp: Bring on the Summer Fun for Military Kids

Military Families Face Uncertainty After Pentagon Names New Leader for Defense Department Schools

What Military Families Should Do Now to Prepare for War & Deployment Surges

When the Call Comes: Preparing for a Noncombatant Evacuation Operation

Drone warfare is the newest revolution in military operations

. Defense manufacturers are building robotic craft for every conceivable application, including combat, logistics, and medivac. From cheap disposable drones that drop grenades or make a direct attack, to multi-million dollar semi-autonomous and even fully autonomous aircraft, boats, and vehicles, they are all now a standard feature on modern battlefields.

Lockheed Martin has officially unveiled its latest undersea vehicle: the Lamprey Multi-Mission Autonomous Undersea Vehicle (MMAUV). The Lamprey is a modular, autonomous drone designed to redefine naval operations by hitching rides on ships and submarines and entering contested waters stealthily with full energy and mission capability. The name is apt because a lamprey is a jawless, eel-like fish that survives by attaching itself to larger hosts and drawing energy from them, just as the unmanned system is designed to do.

The Lamprey MMAUV represents a departure from traditional long-endurance unmanned undersea vehicles. Rather than expending its own battery power during long transits, the system can attach itself to the hull of a host surface ship or submarine and generate electricity en route using built-in 

A hydrogenerator is a small propeller attached to a generator that charges the vehicle’s batteries, essentially turning host vessel motion into recharge power while remaining covert. This “hitchhiking” approach allows the vehicle to arrive on station with fully charged batteries and operational discretion without requiring host-platform modifications.

The Lamprey MMAUV is built around an open-architecture payload bay that offers roughly 24 cubic feet of configurable space, enabling mission tailoring for a wide range of maritime tasks. It can deploy smaller drones, missiles, lay mines, or conduct surveillance.

Lockheed Martin and press accounts cite potential payload options, including

, deployable via internal launchers for ISR (intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance) or precision engagement.

 that can confuse adversary sensors or act as acoustic countermeasures.

, enabling persistent monitoring from the ocean bottom.

The LampreyMMAUV™ multi-mission autonomous undersea vehicle is a new class of smart, stealthy, do-it-all submersibles built to disrupt and deny enemy forces at sea.
Its open design and 24-cubic foot payload bay can accommodate a range of mission options for subsea and seabed warfare, including: 
A watchful eye in the depths: Lurk stealthily underwater, collecting vital intelligence to relay to friendly forces. 

Introducing LampreyMMAUV™: The Next-Generation of Undersea Autonomy

Once detached from its host, Lamprey is intended to operate autonomously, conducting missions independently or as part of a larger swarm of unmanned systems. 

Its stealthy design and distributed operations concept are aimed at giving commanders new tools for 

ea denial, assured access, reconnaissance, and target engagement across undersea and surface domains. The Ukrainians have used uncrewed autonomous and remotely piloted naval drones to great success in the Black Sea, essentially destroying or neutralizing the Russian Black Sea Fleet.

specifically highlights the platform’s ability to operate from the seabed to the surface, enabling both underwater and above-water mission sets. For example, Lamprey can loiter quietly on the ocean floor and later transmit data or launch drones when conditions are favorable.

Strategic Implications for Naval Operations

Lockheed Martin frames Lamprey as a response to evolving maritime competition, particularly where traditional naval assets may be challenged by cost, endurance limitations, or detection risk.

Developed by Lockheed Martin with their own funding, they have rapidly iterated on the maturation of the system. In the same way that robotic aircraft revolutionized reconnaissance, enabling persistent presence at dramatically lower cost than manned platforms, the Lamprey and similar systems could significantly influence future U.S. and allied naval strategy, especially in contested spaces such as the Indo-Pacific.

Air Force One is Getting a New Look: Here's What It Means for the Military

Lockheed Martin Unveils the Lamprey MMAUV

Senator Joni Ernst’s proposed RECEIPTS Act 

reflects a frustration many Americans share: the United States Department of Defense has not yet received a clean financial audit opinion. After years of effort and substantial investment, that outcome remains disappointing.

Frustration, however, should not lead to oversimplification. The Pentagon’s audit challenges do not primarily reflect an inability to track spending. They stem from longstanding weaknesses in documentation practices, fragmented legacy information systems, workforce shortages in financial management, and organizational complexity.

Congress first established modern federal financial accountability requirements with the Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990, which created agency CFO positions and required audited annual financial statements. 

These requirements were reinforced by the 

 and the Federal Financial Management Improvement Act of 1996, which strengthened reporting and systems standards. Together, these statutes created the framework that governs financial audits across the executive branch.

The RECEIPTS Act seeks to strengthen financial accountability within the Department of Defense by raising qualification standards for financial managers, expanding reporting requirements, mandating the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) to 

streamline invoice reviews and audit the books

, and setting a hard, legislative deadline of 2028 for the Pentagon to finally achieve a clean audit. 

The Pentagon’s inability to obtain a clean opinion is a legitimate concern, and congressional oversight is appropriate. The central question is whether the proposed legislation addresses the underlying causes of audit failure.

A failed audit does not mean that funds are missing. It means that auditors cannot verify transactions and balances through standardized documentation and reconciled systems. In the Pentagon’s case, this problem reflects decades of decentralized system development and incomplete integration.

The Department manages millions of physical assets worldwide through hundreds of legacy systems operated by thousands of subordinate organizations while supporting global operations. Many of these systems were developed independently and cannot reliably exchange or reconcile data. Documentation standards have evolved faster than system modernization.

As a result, auditors frequently encounter incomplete records, fragmented transaction histories, and data inconsistencies. In most cases, the issue is not the absence of assets or expenditures, but the inability to trace them cleanly across multiple systems. This represents a systems integration problem rather than evidence of systemic fraud. Audit readiness efforts have repeatedly documented challenges involving incomplete data fields, mismatched systems, and classification disputes rather than undocumented expenditures.

Public discussion of the RECEIPTS Act frequently cites anecdotes involving questionable research projects, credit card misuse, or isolated procurement errors. In fact, Senator Ernst has explicitly used these exact examples of waste—such as DoD-funded animal research and astronomical contractor markups—as the political catalyst to push this legislation forward. However, while these examples successfully drive public awareness, they rarely reflect the systemic causes of audit failure.

Improper spending does occur in large organizations and is routinely investigated and prosecuted. However, such cases are not the primary drivers of audit outcomes.

A commonly cited example is a Department of Defense Inspector General finding involving

 overpayments for C-17 aircraft lavatory soap dispensers

 supplied by Boeing. The audit identified approximately $149,000 in overpayments under a sustainment contract. 

While the comparison to commercial prices appeared dramatic, the parts involved were certified, traceable, and configuration-controlled aviation components, not retail fixtures.

While contractors often argue that comparing these items to commercial prices is unfair because they are certified, configuration-controlled aviation components, the DoD Inspector General explicitly condemned the pricing as an 8,000% markup. Crucially, the IG warned that these extreme overpayments directly reduce the number of spare parts the Air Force can purchase, threatening global C-17 readiness.

Military aircraft parts require engineering validation, supply-chain verification, and long-term sustainment support. However, the Inspector General’s finding reflected severe weaknesses in price validation and contract oversight. Both the government and the contractor shared responsibility for inadequate documentation. The case illustrates major contracting and controls challenges, not systemic accounting abuse.

The Most Scrutinized Agency in Government

The Defense Department is among the most heavily overseen agencies in the federal government. Its budget is reviewed annually by multiple authorization and appropriations committees and subjected to Inspector General audits, 

 reviews, and independent financial examinations.

In addition, DoD leaders regularly testify on readiness, modernization, personnel, energy use, and acquisition performance. No other cabinet department operates under comparable and sustained scrutiny.

This oversight has driven improvements but also reflects the scale and complexity of the enterprise.

Like many accountability-focused proposals, the RECEIPTS Act faces legislative challenges. Bills that impose new administrative and reporting requirements often struggle to gain traction without dedicated funding and bipartisan support.

Unless incorporated into broader defense authorization legislation, the bill’s prospects remain uncertain. Even if enacted, it is unlikely to produce rapid results. Sustained progress will depend primarily on continued investment in modern financial systems, data integration, and professional workforce development. Additional certification and reporting requirements may strengthen governance, but are unlikely, by themselves, to resolve longstanding structural limitations.

Pentagon Warns That Scouting America Could Lose Military Support

Why You Can't Get a Beer in Military Chow Halls, Even Though It's Allowed Elsewhere on Base

A bill now before the U.S. Senate would impose new documentation requirements on voters when they register and cast ballots in federal elections. If enacted, it could affect how service members and military families vote.

What Is the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act?

In simple terms, the SAVE Act would require documentary proof of U.S. citizenship when registering to vote in federal elections and would expand voter list maintenance requirements. The House passed H.R. 22 by a vote of 218–213 on February 11, 2026. The legislation is now incorporated into 

Senate Bill 1383 through a House amendment

If enacted, S. 1383 would contain the final statutory language. Any further Senate changes would require the bill to return to the House for approval. The key distinction between the two versions is that H.R. 22 requires proof of citizenship for registration, while the House-amended S. 1383 (“SAVE America Act”) retains that requirement and adds a national photo ID requirement for casting a ballot.

Required Documents Under the Proposed Senate Bill

Mickey Addison

Military Affairs Analyst

Credentials

Expertise

Education

Latest by Mickey Addison

The Iran War Enters Week 2: Here's What We Know So Far

Spain Draws a Line: No US Strikes on Iran from Spanish Soil

Understanding Military Retirement: How DoD Pensions Really Work

When the Call Comes: Preparing for a Noncombatant Evacuation Operation

Lockheed Martin Unveils the Lamprey MMAUV

The Iran War Enters Week 2: Here's What We Know So Far

Spain Draws a Line: No US Strikes on Iran from Spanish Soil

Understanding Military Retirement: How DoD Pensions Really Work

When the Call Comes: Preparing for a Noncombatant Evacuation Operation

Lockheed Martin Unveils the Lamprey MMAUV

JOIN OUR NEWSLETTER

JOIN OUR NEWSLETTER