With the end of the legislative year approaching and next week’s elections poised to shift congressional control, lawmakers remain deadlocked over key Pentagon funding and policy legislation amid ongoing military operations against Iran. The impasse threatens to undermine U.S. military readiness, complicating efforts to replenish weapons stocks depleted during eight months of conflict and to advance an expansive defense agenda.

Congress faces tension over the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) and the annual defense spending bill, both vital to maintaining troop pay, weapons procurement, and military operations. While the NDAA has successfully passed for 65 consecutive years, it has stalled this year, failing to secure broad bipartisan support. The House narrowly approved the bill, with more Republicans opposing it than Democrats supporting it. Congressional leaders from both chambers are still negotiating the final version, with votes expected later in the fall. The broader defense appropriations bill, essential for funding day-to-day military activities, faces even more uncertainty.

At the center of the discord is Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, whose confrontational style has aggravated bipartisan cooperation. Lawmakers from both parties describe strained relationships marked by withheld information and personal attacks. Representative Joe Courtney (D-Connecticut) characterized the environment as far from typical congressional collaboration. Pentagon spokesman Joel Valdez defended Hegseth’s approach, emphasizing his willingness to engage lawmakers acting in good faith and underscoring the critical nature of the NDAA and defense appropriations for military readiness.

The Trump administration has proposed a $1.5 trillion defense budget plan, a 40 percent increase aimed at outpacing strategic competitors through advanced weaponry, including commercial-style drones, precision missiles, and ambitious projects such as a missile defense shield dubbed the “Golden Dome” and a fleet of battleships named after President Trump. The plan also includes a controversial proposal to rename the Defense Department as the “War Department.” Hegseth has insisted this level of spending is essential and requested an additional $67 billion to cover the costs of the Iran conflict and ongoing global operations.

Democrats have largely opposed the supplemental funding, reflecting broader objections to the administration’s handling of the war and concerns over executive authority. This opposition has prompted the administration to separate the defense budget into two parts: $1.15 trillion requiring some Democratic support and $350 billion intended for passage via Republican votes alone. However, GOP lawmakers have yet to coalesce around a clear strategy to advance the partisan funding portion.

The stalemate has tangible consequences for military operations. U.S. Central Command reported that expenses related to the Iran conflict have topped $47 billion by mid-October, forcing delays in training and maintenance to manage costs. Senate Republicans blame Democrats for obstructing necessary defense appropriations, warning adversaries that U.S. military capabilities may be diminishing. Meanwhile, Democrats contend the administration’s spending priorities and unilateral military actions have contributed significantly to the current impasse.

Relations between Hegseth and Congress have deteriorated. In a classified Senate Armed Services Committee session last year, Hegseth reportedly expressed distrust toward some members, a move described by Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) as “shockingly unprofessional.” Several lawmakers have called for the Pentagon to rely more on uniformed officers for congressional briefings, a role currently filled in part by Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Dan Caine, who has convened bipartisan meetings aimed at bridging divides.

Some Republicans acknowledge that Democrats bear part of the blame for the breakdown, noting missed opportunities for dialogue and bipartisan engagement this year. However, many Democrats remain steadfast in their opposition to the current defense policies and the administration’s conduct of the Iran war, signaling intentions to intensify oversight should they regain House control.

Industry observers and congressional insiders express doubt that the administration’s ambitious budget proposal can be enacted with limited time remaining in the session and a fractured Congress. Hegseth’s political standing within the Republican caucus has weakened amid disagreements over military leadership nominations and growing criticism from within his own party. Additionally, an impeachment resolution against Hegseth, led by Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Kentucky), is anticipated.

Looking ahead, heightened partisanship surrounding defense issues appears likely to persist. While some lawmakers express regret over the lost tradition of bipartisan military support, others stress the importance of holding the administration accountable for decisions affecting national security and military engagements abroad. As the election draws near, congressional divisions over defense funding and policy remain a central challenge for the Pentagon and the broader U.S. security apparatus.