Washington D.C. – Congresswoman Strickland questioned Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, Elbridge Colby, on if the Defense Department is adhering to the National Defense Strategy, while taking actions against Iran. Strickland’s remarks are transcribed below, and can be viewed here:
Congresswoman Marilyn Strickland: Thank you, Chairman Rogers. Under Secretary Colby, you were one of the principal architects of the 2026 National Defense Strategy. And, that document makes it very clear that the PRC is the pacing threat, and that deterring the PRC in the Indo-Pacific is the central organizing principle of this administration’s defense policy. I’ve got six questions. The first three are yes and no, and then we can go into some of the detail.
So, I want to examine whether current force allocations actually reflect that strategy or if they contradict it. So, for clarity, the 2026 NDS identifies the PRC as the pacing challenge, correct?
Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Elbridge Colby: That’s correct.
Strickland: The Indo-Pacific remains the primary theater shaping force planning and modernization?
Colby: Yes, ma’am.
Strickland: Okay, second question. Credible deterrence in the Indo-Pacific requires forward deployed naval presence, long range strike capabilities, and sufficient precision guided munitions inventories. Would you agree?
Colby: Yes, ma’am.
Strickland: And the national defense strategy emphasizes prioritization and disciplined allocation of limited high-end capabilities, correct?
Colby: Correct.
Strickland: Alright. So, now let’s turn to current operations.
Over the past week, the Department has executed significant naval and air combat operations against Iran. And, I want to be clear. No one is saying that the Islamic Republic Guard of Iran is a good actor. We know that they are the largest state sponsor of terrorism.
But, your own strategy said, and I quote, “No longer will the Department be distracted by interventionism, endless wars, regime change, and nation building.” And, nothing says distracted like killing the leader of a foreign nation without even a hint of strategy or planning.
This operation against Iran involves large numbers of U.S. aircraft, ships, and precision weapons. So, Secretary Colby, are high end capabilities, like long range strike aircraft and cruise missiles, being used now in these operations? And those same capabilities, long range strike weapons and precision munitions, are also central to U.S. planning for potential conflict in the Indo-Pacific, correct?
Colby: Ma’am, we’d have to go into it more in a classified setting. I think we’d have to get to more differentiated in the way that we’re managing. I think is very effectively.
Strickland: Okay, I look forward to that conversation. Now, I want to talk about munitions inventories.
Last year, during the twelve-day war between Israel and Iran, U.S. forces fired more than 150 THAAD Interceptors defending against Iranian missile strikes — up to a quarter of the entire stockpile. Even if every interceptor we buy this year goes toward rebuilding our inventory, it’s only going to replace a third of what was used.
We already expend a large share of our missile defense inventory during last year’s conflict with Iran. Now, again, we are using high-end weapons while the Pentagon is warning about munition shortages. These interceptors, as you know, are not easy to replace. The U.S. buys only dozens per year and some missile defense systems take years to replenish. And again, how does using these limited weapons against Iran align with your strategy’s requirement to prioritize the pacing challenge in the Indo-Pacific?
Colby: Well, thank you, ma’am. I think the way the military campaign is being constructed is conscious of that, but more, I would say a couple of things:
One, I’d reiterate that this strategy and the administration’s efforts already anticipate, I think, the points you’re making, ma’am. One, with the $1.5 trillion budget request. Two, with the extraordinary, unprecedented degree from the President on down of overhauling something I think we all agree with. He’s talking to Congressman Khanna about as well. About getting defense industry to produce at a much higher scale.
I mean, $1 trillion is a lot of money for the American people to spend. $1.5 trillion is a lot. We should be getting better results and our allies and partners stepping up. And then in the classified session, maybe a bit more. We’re also thinking about, “How do we really think about novel ways for the force to be prepared to fight in a way that ensures effective defense?”
And, I think we’ve got a very good plan. And, I’m confident. And also, I think both our friends and potential foes are seeing the prowess of the joint force. And, that also contributes to deterrence.
Strickland: Yeah. And you know, as far as requesting more funding, we dramatically increased the budget for ICE. So, there’s money that exists if we want to use it properly to actually defend ourselves and plus up our munitions. And so, closing I’ll just say this:
Secretary Colby, the 2026 National Defense Strategy says the PRC is the pacing challenge, and that our most advanced capabilities must be prioritized for that competition. Yet again, we are using many of those same scarce weapons against Iran, a regional adversary that cannot strike the U.S. homeland and is going to result in the deaths of the young men and women who proudly wear the uniform. And, we are hoping and praying for their safe return, and our sympathy goes out to those who we lost.
So, I think a question for this committee is quite simple. Are our current actions following strategy or forcing to put our service members and our partners and allies in the Pacific at risk? The American people want transparency. Congress has the authority to authorize war, and the word “war” has been used by the President by the Secretary —
Chairman Mike Rogers: Gentlelady’s time is expired. Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Virginia.
Strickland: I yield back, sir.
###