Two U.S. Army soldiers and one U.S. civilian interpreter were killed while three service members were left wounded in an ambush attack on Saturday in Palmyra, Syria, U.S. officials confirmed. Sean Parnell, the Pentagon spokesperson, confirmed the news on X Saturday morning, saying the two soldiers “were conducting a key leader engagement” and that their mission in the city was “in support of on-going counter-ISIS / counter-terrorism operations in the region. In a press release, U.S. Central Command said the attack was carried out by a “lone ISIS gunman” who was “engaged and killed.” President Donald Trump on Saturday said that in light of the attack, which he framed as an assault on both the U.S. and Syria, there will be “serious retaliation.” The president also said the soldiers were killed “in a very dangerous part of Syria, that is not fully controlled by them.” A Pentagon official said that Saturday’s attack took place in an area where current Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa does not have control. As of April, the U.S. had about 2,000 troops stationed in Syria involved in advisory, training, and counter-ISIS missions. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth confirmed that the person who perpetrated the attack had been killed. “Let it be known, if you target Americans — anywhere in the world — you will spend the rest of your brief, anxious life knowing the United States will hunt you, find you, and ruthlessly kill you,” Hegseth added in his post on X. The Kurdish-led and U.S.-backed Syrian Democratic Forces also weighed in on X, saying, “We express our regret for the injury of a number of public security personnel and U.S. soldiers following their exposure to gunfire in the Syrian Badia while performing their duties,” according to a translation of the post from Arabic. The U.S. first deployed to Syria during the Obama administration as part of the Operation Inherent Resolve coalition to fight ISIS. After ISIS lost almost all territorial control by 2019, the U.S. did not fully withdraw but kept a smaller contingent of troops in the Middle Eastern nation to prevent the group’s resurgence. In 2024, the longstanding government of former Syrian President Bashar al-Assad fell, and a new transitional Syrian government formed with U.S. encouragement. Parnell, in his statement, said the soldiers’ names, as well as identifying information about their units, are being withheld for 24 hours after the next of kin notification. He also said an active investigation is underway.

BRUSSELS — The EU’s top defense official issued an unusually sharp warning on Wednesday, arguing that the new U.S. National Security Strategy “surprises by its clear antagonism towards the European Union” and amounts to a geopolitical play to prevent Europe from ever becoming a unified power. In a strongly worded blog post published just days after Washington released its 2025 NSS, EU Defense Commissioner Andrius Kubilius argued that Washington’s framing of Europe’s supposed “civilizational erasure” is not rooted in genuine concerns about values or democracy, but in hard-edged U.S. geopolitical calculations.  “EU unity is against USA interests,” Kubilius wrote, summarizing the logic he said underpins the Trump administration’s document. He pointed to passages in the strategy urging Washington to “cultivate resistance” inside European countries and to work with nationalist parties opposed to deeper integration, language he interpreted as evidence the U.S. is ready “to fight against the European Union, against our strength through unity.” Trump’s view on Europe was underlined in an interview with POLITICO where he denounced European leaders as “weak” and that he would endorse candidates in European elections, even at the risk of offending local sensitivities. Kubilius wrote that the U.S. now sees a more cohesive EU as a potential challenger to American influence. “The US National Security Strategy’s antagonistic language on the European Union comes not from American sentimental emotions about ‘good old Europe,’ but from deep strategic considerations,” he wrote. Kubilius linked the strategy’s worldview to the ideas of Elbridge Colby — now a senior Pentagon official — whose book “The Strategy of Denial” argues that the U.S. must prevent any region from forming a dominant power capable of constraining American access to markets.  Kubilius noted that Colby identifies “the European Union or a more cohesive entity emerging from it” as being “capable of establishing regional hegemony and unduly burdening or even excluding US trade and engagement.” Kubilius argued that this strategic perspective, rather than ideological disagreements, explain the NSS’s unusually hostile tone toward Brussels. “Let’s hope,” he concluded, there “will be enough prudence on American soil not to fight against the emerging power of European unity.”

Sprawling defense legislation set for a vote as soon as this week would place new restrictions on reducing troop levels in Europe, a bipartisan rebuke of Trump administration moves that lawmakers fear would limit U.S. commitments on the continent. A just-released compromise version of the National Defense Authorization Act — which puts Congress’ stamp on Pentagon programs and policy each year — has been in the works for months. The measure stands in stark contrast to President Donald Trump’s new national security strategy, which sharply criticizes European allies and suggests the continent is in cultural decline. Lawmakers also endorsed a slight increase in the Pentagon budget with a price tag that is $8 billion more than Trump requested. And it would repeal decades-old Middle East war powers, a small win for lawmakers who’ve been fighting to reclaim a sliver of Congress’ war-declaring prerogatives. The final bill is the result of weeks of negotiations between House and Senate leadership in both parties, heads of the Armed Services panels and the White House. The measure had been slowed in recent days by talks on issues unrelated to defense, including a major Senate-backed housing package and greater scrutiny of U.S. investment in China. The defense bill typically passes with broad bipartisan support. Speaker Mike Johnson will likely need to win back some Democrats who opposed the House GOP’s hard-right initial bill in September. And the speaker will have to contend with fellow Republicans upset that their priorities weren’t included. But both House and Senate-passed defense bills reflected bipartisan concerns that the Trump administration would seek to significantly reduce the U.S. military footprint in Europe. Both measures included language that imposes requirements the Pentagon must meet before trimming military personnel levels on the continent below certain thresholds. Republicans, led by Senate Armed Services Chair Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) and House Armed Services Chair Mike Rogers (R-Ala.), broke with the Trump administration, arguing that troop reductions — such as a recent decision to remove a rotational Army brigade from Romania — would invite aggression from Russia. The final bill blocks the Pentagon from reducing the number of troops permanently stationed or deployed to Europe below 76,000 for longer than 45 days until Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and the head of U.S. European Command certify to Congress that doing so is in U.S. national security interests and that NATO allies were consulted. They would also need to provide assessments of that decision’s impact. The legislation applies the same conditions to restrict the U.S. from vacating the role of NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander in Europe, a role that the U.S. officer who leads European Command chief has held simultaneously for decades. Negotiators included similar limitations on reducing the number of troops on the Korean Peninsula below 28,500, a provision originally approved by the Senate. Lawmakers agreed to a slight increase to the bill’s budget topline, reflecting some momentum on Capitol Hill for more military spending. The final agreement recommends an $8 billion hike to Trump’s $893 billion flat national defense budget, for a total of roughly $901 billion for the Pentagon, nuclear weapons development and other national security programs. The House-passed defense bill matched Trump’s budget request while the Senate bill proposed a $32 billion boost. Republicans separately approved a $150 billion multi-year boost for the Pentagon through their party-line tax cut and spending megabill earlier this year. Regardless of the signal the topline budget agreement sends, the defense policy bill does not allocate any money to the Pentagon. Lawmakers must still pass annual defense spending legislation to fund Pentagon programs. House Armed Services ranking member Adam Smith (D-Wash.) described the agreement as a “placeholder” that would allow lawmakers to finish the NDAA, while congressional appropriators continue their talks on a separate full-year Pentagon funding measure. A House Republican leadership aide who, like others, was granted anonymity to discuss details of the bill ahead of its release, said the revised topline is a “fiscally responsible increase that meets our defense needs.” The bill also would repeal a pair of old laws that authorize military action in the Middle East, including 2002 legislation that preceded the invasion of Iraq and the 1991 Gulf War. Those repeals were included in both the House and Senate defense bills as bipartisan support for scrubbing the old laws — which critics contend could be abused by a president — overcame opposition from some top Republicans. Repealing those decades-old measures is a win for critics of expansive presidential war powers, who argued the measures aren’t needed anymore. They point to the potential for abuses — citing Trump’s use of the 2002 Iraq authorization to partly justify a strike that killed Iranian military commander Qasem Soleimani in Iraq in 2020. A second House GOP leadership aide said the repeal of the two Iraq authorizations won’t impact Trump’s authority as commander-in-chief. But the repeal is ultimately a minor win for lawmakers seeking to reclaim congressional power. The 2001 post-9/11 authorization that undergirds much of the U.S. counterterrorism operations around the world remains on the books. And the bill is silent on Trump’s ongoing campaign against alleged drug smuggling vessels in the Caribbean. Many lawmakers — including some Republicans — have questioned the administration’s legal justification for the lethal strikes. The final bill also doesn’t include an expansion of coverage for in-vitro fertilization and other fertility services for military families under the Tricare health system. The provision, backed by Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), Rep. Sara Jacobs (D-Calif.) and others, was included in both Senate and House bills before it was dropped. Johnson reportedly was seeking to remove the provision, which similarly was left out of last year’s bill.

A pair of documents laying out the Trump administration’s global security strategy have been delayed for weeks due in part to changes that Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent insisted on concerning China, according to three people familiar with the discussions on the strategies. The documents — the National Security Strategy and National Defense Strategy — were initially expected to be released earlier this fall. Both are now almost done and will likely be released this month, one of the people said. The second person confirmed the imminent release of the National Security Strategy, and the third confirmed that the National Defense Strategy was coming very soon. All were granted anonymity to discuss internal deliberations. The strategies went through multiple rounds of revisions after Bessent wanted more work done on the language used to discuss China, given sensitivity over ongoing trade negotiations with Beijing and the elevation of the Western Hemisphere as a higher priority than it had been in previous administrations, the people said. The National Security Strategy has been used by successive administrations to outline their overall strategic priorities from the economic sphere to dealing with allies and adversaries and military posture. The drafting goes through a series of readthroughs and comment periods from Cabinet officials in an attempt to capture the breadth of an administrations’ vision and ensure the entire administration is marching in the same direction on the president’s top issues. The administration has been involved in sensitive trade talks with Beijing for months over tariffs and a variety of trade issues, but the Pentagon has maintained its position that China remains the top military rival to the United States. The extent of the changes after Bessent’s requests remains unclear, but two of the people said that Bessent wanted to soften some of the language concerning Chinese activities while declining to provide more details. Any changes to one document would require similar changes to the other, as they must be in sync to express a unified front. It is common for the Treasury secretary and other Cabinet officials to weigh in during the drafting and debate process of crafting a new strategy, as most administrations will only release one National Security Strategy per term. In a statement, the Treasury Department said that Bessent “is 100 percent aligned with President Trump, as is everyone else in this administration, as to how to best manage the relationship with China.” The White House referred to the Treasury Department. Trump administration officials have alternately decried the threat from China and looked for ways to improve relations with Beijing. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth is expected to deliver a speech on Friday at the Reagan Library in Simi Valley, California, on Pentagon efforts to build weapons more quickly to meet the China challenge. At the same time, Hegseth is working with his Chinese counterpart, Adm. Dong Jun, to set up a U.S.-China military communication system aimed to prevent disagreements or misunderstandings from spiraling into unintended conflict in the Indo-Pacific. Bessent told the New ‍York Times Dealbook summit on Wednesday that China was on schedule to meet the pledges it made under a ‌U.S.-China trade agreement, including purchasing 12 million metric tons of soybeans by February 2026. “China is on track to ‍keep every ⁠part of the deal,” ⁠he said. Those moves by administration officials are set against the massive Chinese military buildup in the Indo-Pacific region and tensions over Beijing’s belligerent attitude toward the Philippines, where Beijing and Manila have been facing off over claims of land masses and reefs in the South China Sea. The U.S. has been supplying the Philippines with more sophisticated weaponry in recent years in part to ward off the Chinese threat. China has also consistently flown fighter planes and bombers and sailed warships close to Taiwan’s shores despite the Taiwan Relations Act, an American law that pledges the U.S. to keep close ties with the independent island. The National Security Strategy, which is put out by every administration, hasn’t been updated since 2022 under the Biden administration. That document highlighted three core themes: strategic competition with China and Russia; renewed investment and focus on domestic industrial policy; and the recognition that climate change is a central challenge that touches all aspects of national security. The strategy is expected to place more emphasis on the Western Hemisphere than previous strategies, which focused on the Middle East, counterterrorism, China and Russia. The new strategy will include those topics but also focus on topics such as migration, drug cartels and relations with Latin America — all under the umbrella of protecting the U.S. homeland. That new National Defense Strategy similarly places more emphasis on protecting the U.S. homeland and the Western Hemisphere, as POLITICO first reported, a choice that has caused some concern among military commanders. Both documents are expected to be followed by the “global posture review,” a look at how U.S. military assets are positioned across the globe, and which is being eagerly anticipated by allies from Germany to South Korea, both of which are home to tens of thousands of U.S. troops who might be moved elsewhere.

The publisher of children’s book series Franklin the Turtle hit out at “unauthorized” depictions of its main character after Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth posted a mock cover of Franklin shooting at drug traffickers. Hegseth shared Sunday an image of a children’s book, titled Franklin Targets Narco Terrorists, showing the eponymous turtle dressed in military gear, standing in a helicopter and firing a weapon at boats loaded with cargo and men with guns. “For your Christmas wish list,” Hegseth captioned the picture. His post was a reference to the Trump administration’s deadly strikes on suspected drug-smuggling vessels in the Caribbean and Eastern Pacific in recent months, which have killed more than 80 people, according to the Pentagon, and raised concerns among lawmakers and others about the limits of executive power and the strikes’ compliance with international law. “Franklin the Turtle is a beloved Canadian icon who has inspired generations of children and stands for kindness, empathy, and inclusivity,” the publisher Kids Can Press wrote in a statement on X. “We strongly condemn any denigrating, violent, or unauthorized use of Franklin’s name or image, which directly contradicts these values,” the publishing house added. The Washington Post reported last week that Hegseth directed the U.S. military to kill any survivors in a Sept. 2 strike on a boat off the Trinidad coast that initially left two people clinging to the smoking wreckage. POLITICO has not independently verified the Post’s reporting. The White House on Monday confirmed a second strike in September had killed injured civilians after the first effort failed — but top officials in the Trump administration have stated pointedly it was U.S. Special Operations Command head Adm. Frank Bradley’s call, not Hegseth’s. Bradley was “within his authority and the law” in conducting the second strike, White House spokesperson Karoline Leavitt said. Hegseth himself called Bradley “an American hero” and pledged his “100% support” in a post on X that placed responsibility for the Sept. 2 strike on the admiral. “I stand by him and the combat decisions he has made — on the September 2 mission and all others since,” Hegseth wrote. The Franklin books see the young turtle dealing with life’s everyday challenges, such as Franklin Goes to the Hospital and Franklin Rides a Bike, and teach about themes such as courage and empathy.

One key figure is missing from the pack of top national security officials crisscrossing the globe to achieve a Ukraine peace deal: Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. But that sits fine with the White House, which is happy with his culture war attacks, made-for-TV images rallying the troops and online trolling of MAGA enemies. The Defense secretary has stayed silent on the surprising role of his subordinate, Army Secretary Dan Driscoll, who recently catapulted into the spotlight by leading surprise negotiations with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in Kyiv and Russian advisers in Abu Dhabi. Hegseth, instead, has been stirring support from President Donald Trump’s base for authorizing an investigation into Sen. Mark Kelly, a former Navy captain, who told troops in a video that they can refuse illegal orders. The Pentagon leader — a former Fox News host who seems more at home railing against diversity programs than leading diplomatic consultations — has carved out an unorthodox political niche that has helped insulate him from criticism within the administration, at least for now. “The president expects Pete to rule out DEI at the Pentagon, which he has been quite successful at doing,” said a senior White House official. “The president also loves that.” The Defense secretary position is traditionally not an overtly partisan role, especially since the person works with a military that has taken an oath to stay apolitical. But Hegseth’s tenure has been markedly different from his predecessors in the way he’s politicized the office. He’s antagonized Democratic lawmakers on social media, huddled with conservative activists such as Laura Loomer in his office, and stacked a new hand-picked Pentagon press corps with far-right conspiracy websites. “It’s all about projecting an image of strength,” said a former Pentagon official, who, like others interviewed, was granted anonymity to discuss a sensitive topic. “The new acquisition reform policy is a huge and important thing he’s doing,” the person said, in reference to a new initiative to transform U.S. weapons sales. “But he’s still focused on talking about DEI and grooming standards instead of that policy change.” And that appears to have gone over well in an administration that appreciates confidence, power and loyalty. “Hegseth still seems in tight with (read: loyal) to POTUS,” said another defense official. “And this ridiculousness with Sen. Kelly and the IG investigation could make Hegseth more popular with the president in the short term. Until it backfires.” The Pentagon did not respond to a request for comment. The White House insisted Hegseth was involved in broader discussions about the future of Ukraine. “Secretary Hegseth is deeply involved in all national security matters, including the Russia-Ukraine War, and any suggestion to the contrary is false,” said White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt. “In addition to running the Pentagon, Secretary Hegseth manages the weapons sales process to NATO, provides critical battlefield updates to the president, participates in the president’s intelligence briefings, and he is also deeply involved in discussions about Venezuela, China, and all of the challenges around the globe.” His tenure is still tenuous. Hegseth continues to face fallout from Signalgate, one of the most embarrassing incidents of Trump’s second term. The Defense Department’s inspector general is expected to soon conclude an investigation into whether the Pentagon chief released classified information about U.S. military strikes in Yemen this year in a Signal chat that accidentally included a journalist. The release of the report, if it further implicates Hegseth, could present problems. And the Pentagon leader may face subpoenas and uncomfortable hearings if the Democrats win back the House in the midterm elections. Hegseth appears to be playing at least some role in the administration’s controversial efforts to root out drug cartels in Latin America and weaken the authority of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro. He traveled to the Dominican Republic on Wednesday as the Pentagon continues with an unprecedented military buildup in the Caribbean. “They’re very situational and they plug and play based on what makes sense at the moment,” said Alex Gray, a National Security Council chief of staff in the first Trump administration. “Some of the things that [Hegseth] is front and center on are things that require the most adept communication expertise and the best messaging capacity.” But Driscoll continued to make his own headlines this week, pushing Ukraine and European allies to accept Trump’s peace proposal and meeting with a Russian delegation as the main U.S. negotiator. Trump indicated on Tuesday that special envoy Steve Witkoff would head to Moscow while Driscoll met with the Ukrainians. The White House tasked Driscoll, who was already set to visit Ukraine to talk about drones, to “go and then open the door for peace,” said a U.S. official familiar with the matter. The plug-and-play dynamic may have roots much earlier in the administration. Another person familiar with the situation said that behind the scenes, Hegseth can come off as stilted and uncomfortable in closed-door diplomatic meetings, and has had to rely on scripts in certain situations. “When you’re in a fluid diplomatic discussion, you can’t just stick to a script,” the person said. And yet it’s Hegseth who has gotten attention from some of Trump’s most ardent supporters, including Loomer, a MAGA influencer. She occasionally meets with Hegseth and has lambasted Driscoll online for not being sufficiently loyal to the president. “I’m not telling Pete Hegseth how to do his job,” Loomer told POLITICO this summer. “He’s a good leader in the sense that he’s not just ignoring [issues I raise] and saying, ‘Oh, well, it doesn’t matter.’” White House allies made the case that Hegseth also has a key role both in Trump-era housecleaning of military brass and the Pentagon’s increasing role in border security and domestic deployments. “The amount of internal cleanup that has to be done is extraordinary,” said Gray. “[Hegseth] has had to be incredibly focused on messaging and communicating the president’s agenda for reforming the department.”

Army Secretary Dan Driscoll will huddle with Russian officials in Abu Dhabi on Tuesday about a peace plan to end the Ukraine war, a rare meeting between the countries’ top military leaders and one that will not include Secretary of State Marco Rubio or other U.S. negotiators. The Army leader is bringing the peace framework negotiated on Sunday between the U.S. and Ukraine to the Russians, according to a senior U.S. official. The meeting marks a significant step in the Trump administration’s latest push to end the war. And it will likely prove the most challenging stop of Driscoll’s weeklong trip — which took him to Kyiv and Geneva — as he is selling a controversial plan without the larger team of American diplomats and military officials who joined him over the weekend. Driscoll is bringing a plan that whittles down the initial U.S. peace plan from 28 points to around 19, after altering demands that Ukraine cede the Donbas region to Russia and other sensitive issues involving Ukraine’s territory, according to two people familiar with the negotiations, who like others interviewed, were granted anonymity to discuss sensitive deliberations. Those questions were left for President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to discuss. “President Trump’s entire team, including Secretary Rubio, Special Envoy Witkoff and many others, has been working in lockstep for 10 months to bring an end to the senseless and destructive war,” the State Department said in a statement. The Pentagon referred questions to the White House. Spokesperson Anna Kelly said Trump “appreciates Secretary Driscoll’s efforts to gather input from both the Russians and the Ukrainians in order to craft a deal that secures a durable and enforceable peace.” Driscoll — the surprising new international negotiator who Trump refers to as his “drone guy ” due to his work on Army modernization programs — landed in Abu Dhabi on Monday evening. He spent part of last week in Kyiv, where he met with Zelenskyy and dozens of ambassadors before joining Rubio and others in Geneva to meet with European leaders. Rubio and Trump’s chief Ukraine negotiator, Steve Witkoff, have returned to Washington. Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law and another negotiator, also has flown back to the U.S., while NATO Supreme Allied Commander Alexus Grynkewich has headed to Brussels to brief NATO allies. Russian officials have made their demands clear, and the initial U.S. proposal aligned with some of those points. The 28-point peace plan would cap the size of the Ukrainian army, ban the country from joining NATO and hand over land to Russia that it has not occupied in its four-year invasion of Ukraine. Kyiv and NATO partners rejected those provisions. Representatives from the U.K., France, Germany, Italy and other EU institutions huddled with the Americans and the Ukrainians separately over the weekend, after the two countries spoke. “We’re not sure where this goes next but there was some progress in Geneva,” one European diplomat said. “There is a long way to go, and the Russians will certainly push.” A last-minute meeting of the “coalition of the willing,” a group of about 50 countries who have pledged to support Ukraine, will take place virtually on Tuesday to discuss the negotiations and coordinate new military support for Ukraine. “Everybody is absolutely focused on what we need to get out of this, and that is a just and lasting peace,” said British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, who is leading the coalition. The Army secretary initially arrived in Kyiv with a blunt demand for Zelenskyy — accept the Trump administration’s 28-point peace proposal by Thanksgiving or the U.S. could pull military support, according to one of the people briefed on the meetings. Zelenskyy, in a statement on Monday, said “many of the right elements have been taken into account in this framework,” although he conceded much was still unsettled. “We appreciate that most of the world is ready to help us and that the American side is approaching this constructively.” Veronika Melkozerova contributed to this report.

President Donald Trump confirmed Monday that he will allow Saudi Arabia to purchase F-35 stealth fighter planes, a move that will likely anger Israel as the U.S. deepens ties with another Middle East powerhouse. Trump announced his plan ahead of a Tuesday meeting at the White House with Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, Saudi Arabia’s de facto leader. “I am planning on doing that,” he told reporters when asked if he intended to allow Saudi Arabia access to America’s most advanced fighter jet. “They want to buy them. They’ve been a great ally.” Trump pointed to Saudi Arabia’s assistance with the U.S. missile strikes this year that he said “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear sites. He also seemed to confirm that the U.S. and Saudi Arabia will sign a security agreement, although he offered no details about its parameters. The two-day visit by Mohammed, which will continue on Wednesday with a joint U.S.-Saudi investment conference at the Kennedy Center in Washington, marks a significant moment in the relationship. The president will effectively decouple a broader strengthening of economic and security ties from his long-held goal of convincing Saudi Arabia to normalize relations with Israel, a priority that has been derailed by the conflict in Gaza. But actually delivering the fighter jets to Saudi Arabia would prove a massive and geopolitically fraught undertaking. Spinning production lines into high gear to fill the orders for Saudi F-35s could take years, as could training pilots to fly them. And lawmakers or future administrations could halt the process before it’s complete. “Politically this signals a strong commitment by the U.S. agreeing to sell its most advanced fifth-generation fighter to a country in the Middle East other than Israel,” said Firas Maksad at the Eurasia Group. But, he noted, the contracting process for arms sales can take years, and “there will be opportunities in the future for Congress to put a hold on it.” While Israel has not expressed public opposition to the deal, a potential U.S. sale of fighter jets to Riyadh could upend Israel’s “qualitative military edge,” a longstanding American law that ensures Pentagon weapons that flow into the Middle East do not erode Tel Aviv’s military advantages. That means that Israel could weigh in on the technology and weapons that go on board the jet, such as the sophistication of the sensors or the range of its missiles. The Israeli embassy in Washington did not immediately respond to a request for comment. If the deal moves forward, it would make the third major arms package Trump has agreed to with the Saudi regime between his two terms. The U.S. in May announced a $142 billion arms and security package, which is said to include air and missile defenses, maritime assets, and other weapons and support. Trump, in his first term, also announced a $120 billion weapons deal with Saudi Arabia, although most of that included items negotiated under the Obama administration. Details of both packages were kept vague and it remains unclear how many have actually led to signed contracts. The Trump administration in 2020 agreed to sell F-35 jets to the United Arab Emirates as part of a wider push to get the Gulf nation to normalize diplomatic relations with Israel. Some U.S. officials pushed back at the plan due to the U.A.E.’s close relationship with China, and the deal was put on hold by the Biden administration in 2021. It eventually fell apart after the Biden team said they would impose restrictions on shared technology as part of the deal. Saudi Arabia is a major purchaser of American weapons, most notably the kingdom’s $15 billion purchase of the Terminal High-Altitude Air Defense system, known as THAAD, during the first Trump administration in 2018. The U.S. is likely to gear the sale toward making Saudi Arabia’s military more able to cooperate with the Pentagon. “The emphasis is going to be on interoperability,” said Bilal Saab, a former Pentagon official focused on the region. “We want them to operate the machinery with us. It’s going to have some minimum requirements.”

U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on Friday bemoaned the “absence of urgency” and “a fundamental lack of trust” between the military and defense firms, in the most substantive and unifying policy address of his tenure. The speech, delivered to industry executives at the National War College, kicked off a highly ambitious program of speeding up weapons delivery — an issue that has beguiled administrations for decades. Hegseth’s address, which dug into the weedy details of acquisition reform, resembled the kinds of talks given by previous Pentagon chiefs and was a stunning tone shift from the berating one he delivered in September to hundreds of generals and admirals. It was also a far cry from his usual focus on culture war issues, often aimed at the MAGA base and dedicated to the perils of diversity, equity and inclusion. “I’m not here to punish. I’m here to liberate,” Hegseth said. “I’m not here to reform, but to transform and empower. We need to save the bureaucracy from itself.” It’s unclear whether the Defense secretary will live up to his reform goals, which reflect entrenched issues within the Pentagon. While he pledged to get rid of layers of bureaucracy, many of the ideas entailed renaming existing offices under the new “Department of War” moniker, adding oversight functions and overturning decades of policy in a few short months. “You’re our only hope,” Hegseth told an audience of defense industry mainstays and upstarts, including representatives from Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Boeing, Palantir and Anduril. The reforms, which POLITICO first reported, are meant to cut bureaucracy and speed up how the military buys weapons and equipment. But they’re also a major test for Hegseth, a relative newcomer to the Pentagon who Vice President JD Vance vowed would prove an effective “disrupter.” The defense industry hailed the moves, which mirrored changes representatives have lobbied to get for years. Keith Webster, President of the Chamber of Commerce’s Defense Aerospace Council, called the reforms “bold, timely and forward-looking.” Aerospace Industries Association CEO Eric Fanning labeled them “an ambitious, long-needed overhaul.” The Pentagon aims to speed up U.S. arms sales to allies by moving the Defense Security Cooperation Agency, which runs the process, and the Defense Technology Security Administration, which runs export approvals, directly under acquisitions leadership. This will allow the same officials who manage weapons programs to handle the approval for allies. Hegseth even invoked the words of former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld — hardly a hallowed figure in the MAGA world — and said the Trump administration planned to “rebuild the defense industrial base into an arsenal of freedom.” The Pentagon chief’s push at acquisition reform — alongside two other major initiatives moving on Capitol Hill — are seen as efforts to level the playing field in the industry, which has long been dominated by a handful of contractors with deep roots in Washington. Hegseth has encouraged the expansion of new legal authorities that allow the Pentagon to give billions to upstart contractors that have not yet competed for major Defense Department programs. The reforms also include the creation of powerful “Portfolio Acquisition Executives,” who will run point on Pentagon weapons acquisition and have performance incentives linked to deliveries. “The Department of War will only do business with industry partners that share our priority of speed and volume above all else,” he said, using the administration’s preferred moniker for the Pentagon. Hegseth vowed to work with Congress on the ambitious overhaul. His address comes as leaders of the House and Senate Armed Services panels weigh parallel proposals to slash bureaucracy and get weapons and new technology into soldiers’ hands faster. Compromise defense legislation that’s likely to pass before the end of the year will almost certainly include a synthesis of the reforms proposed by the House and Senate. Hegseth called out both bills in his speech. Senate Armed Services Chair Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) said Hegseth’s endorsement of his legislation and the priorities his committee has pushed — including prioritizing commercial technology, expanding the industrial base and empowering acquisition leaders — “mark a pivotal moment for our national security.” House Armed Services Chair Mike Rogers (R-Ala.) stressed the need for the Pentagon and Congress to work together to overhaul the system, calling Hegseth “a willing and enthusiastic partner in our efforts.” Connor O’Brien contributed to this report.

BUCHAREST — Washington should scrap its plan to withdraw hundreds of troops from Romania, the country’s deputy defense minister told POLITICO, arguing the decision could fuel Russian propaganda around NATO disunity. “I believe this decision can be overturned … and it should be overturned,” said Romanian State Secretary for Defense Sorin Moldovan. Last week, the Pentagon said it would redeploy an infantry brigade of around 800 troops back to Kentucky from Romania, as the U.S. military reorients its focus to domestic priorities like border protection and the Indo-Pacific region. “I understand the current administration plans — that they want to review [their] posture in Europe,” said Moldovan.  But “it’s not a good sign in our bilateral relationship,” he said, adding: “We need to have a stronger bilateral talk with the U.S. to make the current administration understand that the threat is here on the eastern flank.” The U.S. Department of Defense did not respond to a request for comment by POLITICO. The withdrawal comes at a sensitive time for NATO, which is scrambling to address gaps in its aerial defense systems and is dealing with escalating suspected airspace incursions from Russia — including in Romania. Publicly, European and NATO officials have played down the significance of the drawdown, even as U.S. lawmakers have cried foul over the move. On Wednesday, NATO chief Mark Rutte and Romanian President Nicușor Dan said the U.S. decision would not create gaps in the country’s defenses. Other allies like the U.K. and Norway also dismissed suggestions the move showed Washington was no longer committed to NATO. “If we speak on operational levels, nothing has changed since the withdrawal,” Moldovan agreed. “But the … political symbolism is a bit weird to have right now,” he added, arguing it risks feeding into Russian “propaganda” about a lack of unity within NATO. And while Washington seeks to pivot toward Asia, he argued it must take into account how globalized Moscow’s all-out war in Ukraine has become. Russia has increasingly benefitted from support from China, Iran and North Korea in its war effort.  “We are talking not only about Russia … keep in mind that North Korea sent troops in Ukraine … Iran helped Russia with its capabilities as well,” he said. “We need to see the big picture.” “Our security is built on trusting our allies as well, and we are very much counting on U.S. support in the eastern flank,” Moldovan added. “NATO is stronger only when all allies are present there.”