In addition to the removal, the service announced the establishment of the Direct Reporting Portfolio Manager for Robotic and Autonomous Systems, aimed at correcting “years of fragmented requirements, resourcing, and acquisition practices that dispersed accountability, complicated industry engagement, and slowed delivery to the warfighter,” the memo states.

Christopher Miller was selected to serve as the acting DRPM RAS and will concurrently take over Gassler’s previous role as Portfolio Acquisition Executive RAS. He will report directly to William Toti, who is performing the duties of the under secretary of the Navy.

“We are at an inflection point in naval warfare, and the Department has been approaching robotic and autonomous systems through arcane processes that do not deliver capabilities at the speed our Sailors and Marines need,” said Toti. “Secretary Cao has directed us to replace that model with clear accountability, faster decisions, and a relentless focus on the warfighter.”

The move comes only weeks after the RAS unit was caught in the crosshairs of a federal lawsuit after the Navy tweaked the acquisition framework for the medium unmanned surface vehicle program twice within the past two years.

Two defense technology companies — Blue Water Autonomy and Saildrone — filed lawsuits in federal court on July 14 after being excluded from the U.S. Navy’s newest unmanned surface vessel acquisition program.

The two companies allege they were kicked out of contention for the Navy’s Medium Unmanned Surface Vessel Family of Systems program after the Navy failed to comply with its own requirements, among other errors.

Blue Water Autonomy called the Navy’s decision to remove it from consideration for the MUSV request for prototype proposal “capricious” and not “in accordance with statute or regulation.”

Gassler was the first to serve in the portfolio acquisition executive role after the service strove last December to streamline its acquisition processes in an effort to purchase more drones and unmanned autonomous vehicles for the Navy.

Gassler concurrently served as the Deputy Director for Project Overmatch, a position she has held since her appointment to the Senior Executive Service in October 2024. In that position, she served across the Navy, Joint Services and with Coalition and Allied partners to design, develop and field the Naval Operational Architecture, according to her bio.

The Trump administration in December announced its intention to build a new class of large surface combatants, designated as the Trump-class guided missile battleship.

If built, the 35,000-ton nuclear battleship, according to the report, will be the most heavily armed surface vessel the U.S. Navy has ever built, possessing anti-air, land-attack and anti-ship missiles, hypersonic missiles, nuclear cruise missiles, large lasers and a rail gun.

“If built to those specifications, the ship would be the largest surface combatant in the world and larger than any surface combatant built for the Navy since World War II,” according to the report. “It would be more than three and a half times the size of the Navy’s Arleigh Burke-class guided missile destroyer and more than twice the size of the Zumwalt-class guided missile destroyer.”

The Navy projects that between 2028 and 2056 it will build 15 Trump-class guided missile battleships, with the subsequent 14 costing $18 billion each. By contrast, the USS Gerald R. Ford, the U.S. Navy’s premier nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, cost approximately $13.3 billion.

By 2058, the total tonnage of “large surface combatants to be constructed would need to increase by 60 percent,” which the report notes “could be a challenge for the shipbuilding industry.”

The shift away from small surface combatants would mean that by 2035, shipyards would need to produce 12% greater tonnage under the 2027 plan than under the 2025 version, according to CBO’s estimation.

To keep pace with the service’s aims, the Navy would need to build a battleship about every other year from 2028 to 2056, the report notes, while continuing to produce two DDG-51 destroyers per year.

Last March, the Government Accountability Office released a report detailing nearly two decades of lackluster progress in U.S. shipbuilding. According to the GAO, not enough ships have been built, newly constructed ships are failing to function as expected and ships are being delivered up to three years later than ordered.

In a statement to the Senate Armed Services Committee, Shelby S. Oakley, a director at GAO, said that unrealistic expectations of costs and timing have diverted resources and introduced delays in shipbuilding, with the result that Navy programs and shipbuilders have been “effectively made to operate in a perpetual state of triage.”

The report also notes that while the price tag will be immense up front, over time, by switching to nuclear power, it would reduce the battleship’s operating costs by eliminating the need to purchase fuel. The GAO did not provide an estimate of possible savings.

Since the December announcement, the cost of Trump-class battleships has been a moving target, with the updated $23.4 billion roughly six billion more than the initial Navy projection.

The extension is in line with the Trump administration’s efforts to curb illicit narcotics flowing into the United States via alleged drug-carrying vessels in the Caribbean Sea and eastern Pacific Ocean.

Since 2023, Saildrone’s USVs have worked in coordination with the U.S. Navy, supporting the Joint Interagency Task Force South (JIATF-S) and U.S. Naval Forces Southern Command/U.S. Navy Fourth Fleet, per the release.

“The continuity of Saildrone’s presence along the southern border for nearly three years demonstrates the strategic value we bring as the world’s most experienced operators of unmanned surface vehicles,” said Saildrone President VADM (ret.) John Mustin. “Our unmatched ability to remain on station and on mission in critical regions for months at a time is why our fleet serves as a powerful deterrent to bad actors. We look forward to continuing to partner with the Navy in its mission to secure the country’s maritime approaches and southern border.”

The 33-foot-long Voyager is designed for persistent surface and subsurface surveillance and can also conduct nearshore mapping missions and seafloor characterization, the release states.

Able to remain “on mission and on station” for months at a time, the USVs are “both a deterrent and an alarm” along the U.S.’s expansive southern maritime border, according to the company.

Since September 2025, the U.S. military has conducted strikes against alleged drug-carrying vessels in the Caribbean Sea and eastern Pacific Ocean in support of what the Pentagon has called continued counternarcotics efforts.

As of June 22, the Trump administration and U.S. military have disclosed 66 strikes, killing at least 196 people.

Commands are now instructed to produce monthly facial hair accountability reports, specifically for those service members diagnosed with skin conditions such as Pseudofolliculitis Barbae, or razor bumps, according to the July 31 NavAdmin.

Commanding officers are instructed to maintain a log of personnel requiring medical facial hair treatment plans, the memo said. Commands must then “forward a Facial Hair Accommodation Accountability Report using Excel Spreadsheet by the 15th of each month, commencing August 2026.”

The updated July 31 memo expands upon the July 7 order in which the Navy announced that active duty and reserve sailors granted facial hair accommodations will be allowed to receive medical treatment for up to 12 months under new Navy grooming standards. If irritation from shaving is deemed incurable after 12 months, sailors will be evaluated for discharge.

Per the latest memo, the duration of treatment plans may not exceed 90 days at a time, with four consecutive 90-day waivers constituting 12 months of consecutive treatment.

Those approved for accommodation must carry a copy of the signed paperwork on their persons during periods of no shaving associated with medical appointments and interviews with the CO or designated command representative, according to the release.

After six months of continuous treatment, a review will take place with initial “counseling” for the affected sailor, the memo states. However, “personnel exceeding 12 months of treatment without attaining the ability to shave daily will be evaluated for continued naval service” and could face separation.

Administrative separations for affected sailors will begin Sept. 30, 2026.

In addition to the updated medical accommodations, the sea service laid out its latest religious accommodation requirements, noting that all previously approved and pending religious accommodation requests relative to facial hair must be resubmitted and reevaluated.

Those who did not update their previously approved religious accommodations beginning on June 10, 2026, will be processed for rescission.

Unapproved facial hair religious accommodation requests submitted prior to publication of the latest memo will not be processed and will be administratively closed, per the release. However, the memo also notes that for sailors “who have failed to submit an updated compliant RA request, Commanding Officers (CO) have until 7 August 2026 to submit to BUPERS-3.”

Sailors who are unable to comply with the updated timeline due to deployment, temporary additional duty, hospitalization “or other exceptional circumstances” must have their COs notify BUPERS-3 and submit an anticipated date of submission, per the release.

In June, the Navy released guidance on new procedures to redetermine whether individuals will be granted religious waivers to grow facial hair that does not adhere to military grooming standards.

To prove a sincere faith, service members were required to provide written testimony regarding their religious beliefs, as well as how clean-shaven grooming standards conflict with those beliefs.

Those requests were processed at the command level before being reviewed by a chaplain, who determined the veracity of the religious beliefs claimed.

“The AC Aviation Command Retention Bonus (ACRB) program incentivizes highly talented, hardworking Naval Aviators and Naval Flight Officers (NFO) screened for aviation command to choose to remain on Active Duty,” a NavAdmin released Friday states. “Our return on investment is the retention for continued Naval Service of our aviation warfighters, with their invaluable, irreplaceable skillsets and leadership.”

Bonuses start at $37,000 and cap at $150,000, according to the memo. Applicants “must have screened during the Aviation Command Screen Board (ACSB) as CO of an eligible Operational (OP), Operational Training (OPT) or Special Mission (SM) CDR command in order to apply,” the memo states.

Second-in-grade/sequential/bonus/fleet replacement squadron commands are excluded from the retention bonus, per the release.

The contract requires commanders and commanding officers to commit to two to three years of obligated service and the full completion of a Post Command Commander tour — which varies between 24 and 36 months.

Those currently under the Aviation Department Head Retention Bonus are eligible to apply, with ACRB “activated” upon the ADHRB contract expiration.

Per the release, ACRB rates are as follows:

• 2-year option: $37,000 total ($18,500/year), with the obligation ending at 21 years of commissioned service.
• 3-year option: $129,000 total ($43,000/year), with the obligation ending at 22 years of commissioned service.
• Sea Duty Incentive: $10,000/year (not to exceed $50,000/year total compensation) for each year of the contract, for those who report to post command orders to operational carrier strike groups, carriers, and amphibious assault ships. Due to the $50,000/year statutory cap, sea duty incentive for the 3-year option will be reduced to $7,000/year.

As the “flag officers of tomorrow,” the Navy hopes the financial incentives will help retain those with capabilities and command experience that are “critical for the future of our service.”

The application process closes Aug. 31, 2026.

Two former U.S. warships, the amphibious assault ship USS Peleliu and the cruiser USS Mobile Bay, were sent below the seas off the coast of Hawaii during a live sinking exercise, or SINKEX, event on July 17.

On July 24, the Navy released footage of the sinking, including video of the Global Autonomous Reconnaissance Craft uncrewed surface vessel targeting the USS Peleliu. On July 29, however, it released b-roll from inside the ship as it was pummeled by two UGM-84 Harpoon anti-ship cruise missiles, fired from Los Angeles-class fast-attack submarine USS Columbia.

Cameras placed inside and around the vessel show the warship shudder as the powerful blasts rip at its innards.

The sinking of the Peleliu and Mobile Bay was the third SINKEX event in recent weeks. The former USS Juneau was sent to the ocean floor during the June 22-July 1 Valiant Shield exercise off the coast of the Mariana Islands Range Complex.

Commissioned in May 1980, the USS Peleliu was the first ship to deploy Marines to Afghanistan after the 9/11 attacks, with the 15th Marine Expeditionary Unit commanded by then-Marine Brig. Gen. James Mattis under Task Force 58.

That same task force went on to capture John Walker Lindh in November 2001. Lindh, an American citizen-turned-enemy-combatant, later confessed to being a member of Al-Qaeda while aboard Peleliu.

During 35 years of service, the ship, dubbed the “Iron Nickel,” steamed more than a million miles before its decommissioning in March 2015.

Just a little over two weeks after U.S. Central Command utilized three Corsair unmanned surface vessels to strike a submarine and ship maintenance facility at the Bandar Abbas naval base in Iran, marking the “first time American forces have employed sea drones in combat operations,” the Navy confirmed its first live-fire training exercise of its Global Autonomous Reconnaissance Craft uncrewed surface vessel.

Two former U.S. warships, the amphibious assault ship USS Peleliu and the cruiser USS Mobile Bay, were sent below the seas off the coast of Hawaii during a live sinking exercise, or SINKEX, event during the biennial Rim of the Pacific exercise.

On July 24, the Navy released footage of the sinking, including the USV targeting the hull of the USS Peleliu.

Sarah Weinstein, a surface warfare officer currently serving as the first Commanding Officer of Unmanned Surface Vessel Division 32, confirmed that her division, USVDIV-32, was behind the execution of the Navy’s first GARC live fire.

“It was incredible to watch my team execute with precision and we were thrilled to provide a perspective of the former USS Peleliu that often isn’t often captured in a SINKEX,” the officer wrote on LinkedIn.

The sinking, which took place on July 17, found the GARC at the center of the Peleliu SINKEX. Created by the Baltimore-based BlackSea Technologies, the company touts the GARC as the “most proven tactical sUSV on the water.”

With a payload capacity of up to 1,000 pound and a range of 700 nautical miles at a speed of 22 knots, BlackSea writes that the 16-foot GARC “combines modular payload flexibility, advanced autonomy, and rugged endurance.”

In addition, operators can control the vessels individually or as a swarm. It’s driven manually or given a target to follow by using radar.

In August 2025, the Navy announced that it was “experimenting with the Global Autonomous Reconnaissance Craft (GARC)” to support naval operations. And just last month, USVDIV-32 utilized the drone boats during Exercise BALTOPS 2026, one of NATO’s premier maritime exercises.

“We are at the beginning and we don’t even know where we’re going to take it yet,” Weinstein told The Wall Street Journal in June. “The GARC originally was designed to kind of do a limited skill set, and we’ve turned it into something that can do escort, that can do surveillance, intelligence, maritime domain awareness, and we’ve already with one platform been able to expand what is in the realm of possible.”

Now, with its hand in sinking the USS Peleliu, the GARC continues to surpass its testing milestones as it inches its way toward operational deployment.

In its updated accounting method, the Defense Casualty Analysis System’s category labeled “Overseas Operations (OO) Casualty Summary” lists U.S. casualties suffered in the conflict since July 7 — effectively removing the totals from those associated with Operation Epic Fury.

The new page comes in the wake of criticism that the Pentagon had dropped the number of U.S. troops killed and wounded in the war with Iran.

On July 17 three U.S. service members were killed when an Iranian missile hit their sleeping barracks at Muwaffaq Salti Air Base in Jordan. The fourth death occurred two days later in a separate incident in Erbil, Iraq, during a controlled detonation of an attack drone.

The Pentagon initially updated its system to 18 killed before lowering that number to 14 once again.

On July 23, Sean Parnell, the chief Pentagon spokesman, refuted a New York Times article on the lowering of the KIA number, writing on X that “Our Pentagon Press Office gave the New York Times a courtesy off-the-record phone call explaining in detail that the site errors on the Defense Casualty Analysis System (DCAS) were due to a temporary data disruption. Our team explained we are working on it being resolved in coordination with the Military Services.”

Under the “overseas operations” system, the Pentagon reports that 207 U.S. service members have been wounded in action. It lists 417 wounded during Operation Epic Fury. Combined, the two categories account for 624 wounded service members. The total number listed as killed is 18.

The post-July 7 tally comes one day prior to the collapse of the tenuous June ceasefire agreement between the U.S. and Iran, resulting in U.S. Central Command delivering 13 continuous nightly strikes against the Middle East nation.

The collapse of the ceasefire, the Trump administration argued, restarted the 60-day clock that allows the president to use military force without congressional approval.

The new accounting system is in line with President Donald Trump’s assertion that the latest escalation between the U.S. and Iran is part of a new conflict with the Islamic Republic, not a continuation of the one that began in February.

On July 10, the president formally notified Congress that hostilities with Iran had resumed, a position that administration officials contend allows them to bypass the War Powers Resolution and restart the clock again on the war.

In April, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth controversially claimed that the ceasefire with Iran meant that Trump did not yet have to seek congressional consent to extend the war.

Hegseth argued that the pause in hostilities froze the ticking clock that would otherwise require the president either to get agreement from lawmakers or to end military operations after 60 days.

“We are in a ceasefire right now, which [in] our understanding means the 60-day clock pauses, or stops,” Hegseth told Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., during a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing.

“I do not believe the statute would support that,” Kaine said, adding that he has “serious constitutional concerns and we don’t want to layer those with additional statutory concerns.”

Congress has not technically declared war since World War II, and yet more than 100,000 service members have died in conflicts spanning the globe since 1945.

Admiral, who currently serves as the commander of III Corps and Fort Hood, Texas, could take over the top job from Gen. Christopher Donahue, who unexpectedly relinquished command earlier this month after only 18 months in the role. Since Donahue’s exit, Maj. Gen. Christopher Norrie has been serving as acting commander.

If confirmed, Admiral would also serve as commander of NATO’s Allied Land Command, coordinating with 104 countries in USAREUR-AF’s area of responsibility. He would remain a three-star, despite the role previously being a four-star position.

Prior to leading III Corps and Fort Hood, Admiral served as the commanding general for the 1st Cavalry Division out of Fort Hood, Texas, and in Poland, and director of force management in the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff, G-3/5/7, according to his official Army bio.

Donahue’s early July departure came amid the Pentagon’s broad senior leadership changes under Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who in April asked U.S. Army Chief of Staff Gen. Randy George to step down and retire ahead of the typical four-year term.

Since taking office, Hegseth has removed more than a dozen senior military leaders, including former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. C.Q. Brown and former Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Lisa Franchetti.

Eve Sampson contributed to this report.