Restocking the Pentagon

Alright, here’s what’s on tap for the day: Trump pushes U.S. weapons-makers to step up production, Hegseth pushes out a top general in Europe, and more discomfort between Trump and Republicans on Iran war powers.

The missiles have stopped flying between the United States and Iran (for now) after they signed a memorandum of understanding last week ending the monthslong conflict. Now begins the reckoning of how much of the U.S. arsenal was depleted and how to build it back.

The numbers don’t make for encouraging reading—Adm. Brad Cooper, the head of U.S. Central Command, said during a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing last month that the U.S. military had used nearly 14,000 strike munitions, with the Defense Department estimating at that time that the Iran war had cost a total of $29 billion.

A new report on Tuesday from the Center for Strategic and International Studies estimated those numbers to be significantly higher when including munitions used in air defense weapons such as the Patriot and Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) systems.

Deputy Defense Secretary Stephen Feinberg reportedly told lawmakers last week that the military would need $80 billion to cover the total cost of the war.

The Pentagon did not respond to SitRep’s request for comment.

Presidential pressure. Just a few days before Trump announced that a deal had been reached with Tehran, he sent a memorandum to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth invoking the Defense Production Act to address “systemic constraints in the munitions industrial base.” The 1950 law gives U.S. presidents emergency authority to direct U.S. companies to help shore up national defense.

Trump said on Monday that automobile manufacturers such as Ford and General Motors were going to “switch over” some of their plants to build weapons. “We’re really in a big, strong economic push to do the weapons, and some of the car companies, if they have any excess capacity, they’re making a deal to build missiles,” he said. This month, General Motors and defense company Lockheed Martin announced an MOU (yes, another one) to jointly “explore opportunities to accelerate the delivery of critical capabilities.”

And on Wednesday, Trump hosted executives from leading weapons manufacturers at the White House, with Feinberg reportedly pushing them in that meeting to ramp up production. That same day, Lockheed announced that it had won a $35 billion contract from the U.S. government to quadruple its existing production of THAAD systems.

Cheaper solutions. The military is also looking toward the less costly end of the spectrum to shore up its defenses. The U.S. Army on Tuesday unveiled a new program to induct low-cost (priced under $1 million) interceptor systems into the military, with a target for companies to host initial demonstrations of their systems as soon as this year.

“These are some very big, hard systems and hard problems to solve,” Army Secretary Dan Driscoll told reporters on Tuesday. He added that the Army is looking to give companies expedited access in a matter of weeks to two of its test ranges that are meant to mimic the conflict environment in Ukraine. “You’re seeing us trying to innovate as quickly as we possibly can [and] try different tactics to see what works,” Driscoll said.

The Pentagon is not the only one closely watching U.S. defense production. NATO countries last year committed to spending 5 percent of their GDP annually on defense by 2035, and many of them have already begun working toward that goal, as NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte reminded an audience in Washington during his visit to the U.S. capital on Thursday. “Now, we need supply to meet demand,” he said.

“Allies are investing a whole lot more. The budgets are there,” Rutte added, “but the assets we need, the capabilities to deter and defend, simply aren’t available at the scale or speed that our security requires.”

Hegseth has pushed out yet another general with no explanation. Gen. Christopher Donahue, the top U.S. Army commander in Europe since 2024, will now relinquish command on July 2—only halfway through his assignment (which normally lasts about three years). The special forces veteran was reportedly asked to put in his retirement papers by the Pentagon, though the Defense Department has declined to comment to multiple outlets. The Army confirmed Donahue’s departure but did not provide a reason.

Donahue is just the latest on a growing list of respected military leaders who’ve been forced out by Hegseth in his controversial and chaotic tenure as Pentagon chief. In April, Hegseth ousted Gen. Randy George as the Army chief of staff. Hegseth has also blocked the promotions of numerous senior officers. This month, the Wall Street Journal’s Lara Seligman reported that since becoming defense secretary, Hegseth has blocked or fired at least two dozen admirals and generals.

What should be high on your radar, if it isn’t already.

Republicans retreat on war powers. On Tuesday, the Senate approved a war powers resolution to block Trump from restarting the war with Iran. Four Republicans supported the resolution: Sens. Bill Cassidy, Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, and Rand Paul. The measure also passed in the House this month. Though it was a symbolic vote (it didn’t carry the force of law and couldn’t be vetoed), Trump was reportedly infuriated, calling the four Republicans who backed the resolution “Losers.” Trump accused the senators of making his job harder as his administration works to negotiate a nuclear agreement with Tehran.

At a meeting with Republican senators on Wednesday, Trump and Cassidy had a heated exchange on Iran. “He raised his voice. I lost my temper. That’s not appropriate,” Cassidy told reporters.

Later on Wednesday, Cassidy voted against a separate but similar Iran war powers resolution—reversing his previous stance—while Paul voted present. Trump’s pressure campaign seemingly worked, and the measure failed. FP’s Rachel Oswald recently wrote about why it’s so hard for Congress to curb Trump’s war powers, which we highly recommend reading.

Bessent goes to bat for the MOU. The Trump administration has faced significant criticism in Washington, including from some Republicans, on the MOU with Iran. Skeptics of the deal worry that far too many concessions were offered to Tehran, warning that the agreement will boost the Iranian economy in dangerous ways. U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent on Wednesday sought to make a case for the unpopular agreement. FP’s Keith Johnson wrote a must-read analysis on Bessent’s defense of the MOU and whether it holds up.

NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte and U.S. President Donald Trump speak during a meeting in the White House Oval Office in Washington on June 24. Andrew Harnik/Getty Images