Gen. Francis L. Donovan, commander of U.S. Southern Command, directed the activation Tuesday, describing Joint Task Force Western Hemisphere, or JTF-WHEM, as a purpose-built joint task force that will provide unified command and control at the tactical and operational levels, while integrating military capabilities with the 18 partner nations of the Americas Counter Cartel Coalition, or A3C.

SOUTHCOM Media Relations Officer Steven McLoud told Military Times the activation of JTF-WHEM “represents an evolution from Operation Southern Spear,” reinforcing the command’s whole-of-government, multinational approach to defending the homeland while building on the successes of Operation Southern Spear.

McLoud said JTF-WHEM serves as SOUTHCOM’s “action arm,” focused on what he described as imposing “total systemic friction” against threats across the hemisphere.

He said the task force builds on Operation Southern Spear, which employed “precise kinetic strikes and maritime interdiction operations” to disrupt illicit trafficking and undermine entrenched criminal networks, by advancing efforts to disrupt, dismantle and defeat narcoterrorism networks.

According to McLoud, JTF-WHEM coordinates U.S. military actions targeting cartels and narcoterrorist networks while leveraging the commitment of Americas Counter Cartel Coalition member nations through expanded bilateral and multilateral cooperation in border security, countering threats and protecting critical infrastructure. He said enhanced cooperation and information sharing support the president’s national security strategy, the defense secretary’s national defense strategy and SOUTHCOM’s theater priorities.

According to SOUTHCOM, JTF-WHEM will serve as the command’s operational headquarters for executing missions across the region.

The command said the headquarters integrates intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, operational planning and multinational coordination while supporting intelligence sharing, combined training, interoperability, partner-capacity building and humanitarian assistance and disaster response.

SOUTHCOM said the task force is intended to increase operational effectiveness against transnational criminal organizations and other threats affecting the United States and partner nations.

“JTF-WHEM strengthens our ability to work alongside trusted allies and partners, synchronize military capabilities and apply sustained pressure against the networks that threaten our collective security,” Donovan said in a statement. “Together, we are increasing security across the hemisphere and protecting our homeland.”

Donovan also said, “Together with the 18 nations of A3C, we are changing the way we confront these threats.”

Gen. Donovan selected Marine Corps Maj. Gen. Kevin Jarrard to command the new task force. Jarrard most recently led U.S. military support to U.S. Department of State-led disaster relief operations following the June earthquakes in Venezuela.

The fall lasted only seconds, but the consequences would span a lifetime.

Under the cover of darkness in Balad, Iraq, Army Sgt. Will Fisher was moving into position for an overnight mission. He fell roughly 40 feet and landed on his feet while wearing about 100 pounds of gear. The force of the fall crushed the talus bone in his right ankle and broke his back. He was medically evacuated to Landstuhl Regional Medical Center in Germany.

That fall eventually cost him his leg and his career — the latter more than a decade earlier than he had hoped, and five critical years short of his qualifying for a full military pension.

“I wasn’t planning to leave the Army,” he said. “The injuries made that decision for me, and that was it. The retirement I’d spent almost 15 years working towards was gone.”

Service members qualify for full pensions after two decades of service, but only 17% reach the necessary 20-year mark of eligibility, a 2011 Defense Department report found. An estimated 54,000 veterans sustain career-ending combat injuries before reaching that threshold.

Consequently, medically retired veterans lose part of their retirement pay because they also receive disability compensation from the Department of Veterans Affairs. Last fall, those reductions averaged roughly $1,650 a month, or nearly $20,000 a year, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

The Major Richard Star Act would change that. The bill — named after an Army major who was medically retired after being injured in combat — has backing from nearly 80 senators, more than 330 House members, and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.

“It is unacceptable that tens of thousands of combat-injured veterans are denied the full military benefits they earned,” said Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), one of the bill’s lead sponsors, who characterized the offset as “one of the deepest injustices in our present veterans’ disability system.”

Some lawmakers support the bill’s premise, but worry about the cost: $78 billion over a decade, according to the CBO.

Sen. Mike Crapo, an Idaho Republican, is one of them. In a statement provided to The War Horse, a spokesperson for Crapo said, “We owe combat-injured veterans nothing less than our full support when they return from their military service.”

But his office also said Crapo is concerned about the bill’s overall price tag and “remains willing to work with his colleagues to address cost-related concerns.”

The cost previously prompted Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wisc., to block the legislation, arguing the long-term financial impact required greater scrutiny.

The cost question Congress hasn’t resolved

When it was introduced in 2023, the Major Richard Star Act applied only to those who were medically retired due to combat injuries and was estimated to cost about $10 billion to $13 billion over 10 years. Eligibility was later extended to an additional 255,000 medically retired veterans regardless of how they became injured, inflating costs nearly sevenfold over the same period.

In an effort to help it finally pass, lawmakers in June included the Major Richard Star Act as part of the Take Care of America’s Veterans Act (TCAVA), a legislative package with more than 60 veteran-related measures. The version in that bill would again limit the benefits to only those 54,000 injured in combat, according to advocates and legislative language reviewed by The War Horse.

Candace Wheeler, senior director of government and legislative affairs at the Tragedy Assistance Program for Survivors, said advocates ultimately focused on combat-injured retirees because broader proposals would “balloon the cost” and be harder to move through Congress. But after TCAVA failed to get a floor vote in July, its chances of passing this fiscal year are dwindling, leaving some confused about the status of the standalone bill.

According to congressional staff in Sen. Blumenthal’s office, lawmakers intended the amended Major Richard Star Act to extend eligibility to just 1,124 additional combat-wounded veterans, but the bill’s legislative language was interpreted by the DoD Office of the Actuary as applying to roughly 255,000 medically retired veterans, an estimate the Congressional Budget Office used in scoring the bill, accounting for the additional $68 billion.

However, Disabled American Veterans opposes the larger bill because of its funding mechanism, which would reduce future disability claims for some conditions, including tinnitus and sleep apnea. The group said the proposal asks one group of veterans to finance benefits for another and could set a precedent for future reductions in benefits.

“We would be 100% supportive without the poison pill,” said Todd Hunter, DAV’s deputy national communications director.

Currently, there are two similar bills before Congress: The original targeting combat-injured veterans only, and the expanded version that would apply to a broader group of medically retired veterans.

A career cut short five years before retirement

As lawmakers debate the cost, combat-injured veterans say they earned both their military retirement pay and disability benefits.

After serving eight years as a Marine and spending a few years as a civilian, Fisher joined the Army. He deployed repeatedly throughout Iraq, Afghanistan, Kosovo, Panama, and elsewhere. Then, on Oct. 19, 2009, while serving as an infantryman with Task Force 16, 155th Brigade Combat Team, in Balad, Iraq, rotor wash from a nearby U.S. helicopter knocked him from a ladder during overwatch operations, ending his career.

For four years, Fisher lived with chronic pain, heavy medications, and repeated efforts to save his right leg. Eventually, he chose to have it amputated below the knee.

“The pain was unbearable,” he said. “The surgeries didn’t work, and I was exhausted from daily medications that I didn’t want to be taking, and after all that, my right ankle was dead.”

Two days after surgery, Fisher was back on his feet. Nine weeks later, he was fitted with a prosthesis and walking.

“I have more legs than I have shoes,” said Fisher, who now owns 11 prosthetic legs.

Within months, he was running. Eight months after surgery, he returned to service as a volunteer firefighter. Later, he became Fort Hood’s first amputee civilian police officer, a job that allowed him to work alongside soldiers and train others for duties he once performed himself.

But because he served in that role as a civilian employee after medical retirement, the work did not count toward the 20 years of military service required for a full military pension.

The retirement they wanted but never received

Fisher wanted so badly to stay in the military that when the war with Iran began earlier this year, he called the recruiter’s office to ask whether the Army was taking retirees. He wanted to serve as a military police officer again, this time on active duty.

When Fisher left the Army in 2014, he had earned a military retirement worth $2,166 a month. He has never received it. The Army assigned him a 40% disability rating during his discharge process, which made him eligible for about $2,700 a month in disability compensation.

Under a federal policy known as the VA Waiver, Fisher’s disability compensation reduces his military retirement pay dollar for dollar. Since his disability pay exceeds the value of his retirement benefit, his retirement check is wiped out. But if both benefits were paid, Fisher’s monthly military-related income would be nearly $4,900.

“My retirement pay was earned through my years of service,” Fisher said. “My VA disability compensation is because I lost my leg serving my country. Those are two completely different things, and I don’t think one should cancel out the other.”

Fisher also earns a salary from his full-time job as a logistics manager for an appliance company. But he said the offset still affects his long-term financial stability. With the extra money, he would have more flexibility.

“I’d pay off debt, save some money, and I could enjoy my family a lot more,” he said.

Naomi Mathis understands the strain.

During the invasion of Iraq in 2003, the former Air Force staff sergeant’s convoy came under attack amid what she described as “total chaos.” Mathis witnessed the aftermath of multiple combat incidents, including the death of a fellow service member. After returning home, she was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder.

The condition led to a 100% disability rating from the VA. She was medically retired after serving 7.5 years, far short of her goal of serving at least 20 years and eventually becoming a chief master sergeant.

Like Fisher, Mathis said the loss was not simply financial. It was the loss of a career she intended to finish.

“My career was cut short,” she said. “I was not given the opportunity to serve out those 20 or 30 years. But I would have.”

Mathis qualifies for a special combat-injury compensation fund that partially supplements the offset. Even with that assistance, the shortfall still stings: nearly $800 a month less than if she received her full retirement and disability pay.

With three young children at home, Mathis said financial pressure forced her back into the workforce before she had fully recovered.

“I couldn’t pay rent or feed my kids. I needed a job immediately,” she said. “I wasn’t able to heal.”

Mathis now serves as DAV’s deputy national legislative director. She said she remains grateful for the life she built after military service, but still believes the country’s promise to injured service members should not end when their careers are cut short.

“I signed my name on the dotted line, and I wasn’t just under the impression — I was told — that the military would be there for me when I put up my boots,” Mathis said. “Well, they put my boots up for me.”

Sen. Ruben Gallego, D-Ariz., has proposed barring the VA from collecting voluntary or involuntary separation pay from veterans who are approved to receive disability compensation.

The bill also would allow veterans who later qualify for military retirement pay to remit the net amount they received instead of the gross amount so they don’t end up paying more than they actually received after taxes.

Gallego, a former Marine and Iraq War veteran, and Rep. Gus Bilirakis, R-Fla, introduced a similar bill in the House when Gallego served in that chamber, but the legislation never made it out of committee.

The senator said the legislation is needed because the money is paid out for separate reasons: disability payments are akin to workman’s compensation and separation pay reflects “time served” — an incentive tool used by the Defense Department to manage force strength and design.

“It is ridiculous to claw back money from a veteran who has put life and limb on the line, just because later in life they qualify for disability benefits,” Gallego said in a statement to Military Times.

From 2013 to 2023, the VA recouped $2.44 billion in separation pay and bonuses from 112,834 veterans under a law that the department cites as prohibiting it from paying disability compensation to those who received the pay unless the money is paid back.

The VA has been required to recover the money since the 1940s, and the Defense Department is required to inform transitioning service members of the potential for recoupment. Sometimes, however, veterans are surprised when letters announcing the recoupment arrive, sometimes decades after they left military service.

In one case, an Air Force officer received $30,000 in separation pay in 1990 and received a letter in 2024 telling him his entire disability compensation check would be withheld until the money was recouped.

The situation placed the veteran at risk for losing his living quarters and vehicle, he told Military.com at the time.

“I fail to comprehend how or why they intend to cut me off for several months without even negotiating a lesser but [survivable] monthly contribution. I also fail to understand why it took 34 years for VA to come up with this [scheme]. Why now?” retired Air Force Maj. Raymond Thomas, 75, told the publication.

By law, veterans’ monthly disability compensation can be withheld if they received readjustment pay, non-disability severance pay, disability severance pay, special separation benefits or involuntary or voluntary separation pay.

According to the VA, the recoupment effort hit a peak in 2018 with 17,066 veterans paying more than $396 million.

The Restore Veterans Compensation Act would also change the recoupment rate for retired military veterans who are required to make payments to 25% of their paychecks rather than the current 40% — an alteration that would lessen the financial impact of the recoupment.

When Gallego and Bilirakis introduced their bill in 2022, it drew the support of Disabled American Veterans who said the practice of withholding VA disability compensation because a service member received a separation benefit “must end.”

Sen. James Risch, R-Id. introduced a separate bill Wednesday that would limit the amount that veterans paid each month to the VA for recoupment.

Risch’s Veterans Earned Benefits Access Act would allow the VA to collect the separation pay but limit it to no more than 25% of their monthly disability compensation checks. Currently, the VA can withhold the entire amount of checks until the veteran pays back the government.

“My [bill] ensures that veterans can receive the disability benefits they need while repaying their separation pay,” Risch said in a release.

The missiles are principally the Army’s surface-to-surface weapons, known as Army Tactical Missile Systems (ATACMS) and Precision Strike Missiles (PrSM). The U.S. has used “virtually all” of these weapons, according to two of the sources.

The degree to which the military is running out of ATACMS and Precision Strike Missiles has not been previously reported.

The long-range munitions are an important part of the military’s arsenal, allowing accurate strikes from a safe distance. U.S.-supplied ATACMS have played a key role in the war in Ukraine, allowing Ukrainian forces to attack targets inside Russia. The PrSM is a newer, more advanced generation that will replace the ATACMS, which have a shorter range.

Analysts say such weapons — which cost over $1 million each — would also be important in any conflict with China.

The sources declined to say how many of each munition the U.S. had left.

President Donald Trump launched the Iran war jointly with Israel in February, predicting that the conflict would last a short time.

But as the war drags on, the three people familiar with the matter expressed worry that the falling missile supplies could limit the U.S. ability to deter adversaries, including Russia and China.

A fourth person familiar with the matter said that while Central Command — which oversees U.S. forces in the Middle East — has nearly used up the land-based missiles it had before the war began, it has been able to reload from U.S. military supplies elsewhere in the world.

The sources interviewed for this story spoke on the condition of anonymity.

Asked for comment on the stockpile data, the White House issued a statement from Trump, saying the U.S. had “far more munitions than anyone in the world” and “far more than we need.”

“Our defense companies are, at this moment, making more munitions than they have ever made before, in addition to expanding their plants and equipment at record levels,” Trump said.

Analysts agree that certain munitions, including artillery shells and several types of missiles, are being produced at record levels but caution that supplies might far short of what is needed for a prolonged war.

Lockheed Martin, which makes the ATACMs and PrSMs, along with the anti-ballistic missile THAAD system, did not immediately respond to questions about Trump’s statements or about supply levels.

Raytheon, which makes Tomahawk missiles and Patriot interceptors, two important U.S. weapons, also did not immediately respond.

Responding to a request for comment, chief Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell said: “America’s military is the most powerful in the world and has everything it needs to execute at the time and place of the President’s choosing. We have executed multiple successful operations across combatant commands while ensuring the U.S. military possesses a deep arsenal of capabilities to protect our people and our interests.”

The supply figures have circulated inside the federal government over the last week during tense conversations inside the Trump administration about how much longer the U.S. can continue striking Iran without drawing down the stockpile to levels that would limit the military’s ability to respond to crises elsewhere.

WARNINGS OVER WEAPONS SUPPLIES

One of the sources said the drawdown of the ATACMS and PrSM stockpiles reflected a decision by the Trump administration to avoid riskier ways of attacking Iranian targets, such as by using piloted aircraft to drop bombs.

Because these weapons allow the military to attack targets from a distance, analysts say they would be valuable in a war against an adversary with strong air defenses, such as China.

They have been used to strike targets inside Iran, according to a March report by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS).

According to the report, PrSM stockpiles were low to start with, since it is a relatively new munition, but the U.S. military has ordered a large number of them for 2027. The Army has said that ATACMS are being phased out and that production is shifting to the newer PrSM missiles.

Military leaders have for weeks warned the president that stockpiles of defensive weapons — including Patriot interceptors, which are effective against ballistic missiles — were dwindling, said two of the sources.

Last week, several media outlets reported Trump had decided not to launch another massive offensive inside Iran in part because his military advisers had warned about the U.S. stockpile.

A U.S. official disputed those accounts, saying Trump chose not to move forward with another attack because of pressure from Gulf states.

The Middle East conflict has sparked intense debate about Trump’s authority to prosecute hostilities against Iran without congressional authorization. No request for a declaration of war or an authorization to use military force has been submitted to Congress.

DEFENSIVE WEAPON STOCKS ARE ALSO DIMINISHED

Last week, CSIS published a report estimating that between February and July about 65% of Patriot interceptors had been expended and that the number of THAAD ballistic missile interceptors in U.S. stockpiles was at least 38% lower than at the start of the war.

Patriots and THAADs are systems that detect and destroy incoming missiles and are among the most effective in the country’s arsenal.

While Reuters has not seen the supply figures, those numbers match internal U.S. data, two of the sources said.

The U.S. also burned through a little less than half of its global supply of Tomahawk cruise missiles, which are generally launched from ships, since the start of the war, one of the sources said.

Reuters could not independently verify that number.

The Tomahawk is a Navy weapon, launched from destroyers, cruisers and submarines, and has long served as the sea service’s principal means of striking heavily defended targets without risking pilots.

Raytheon, a unit of RTX, has reached a tentative multi-year agreement with the Pentagon aimed at boosting Tomahawk production, alongside increases in other munitions, as Washington races to rebuild stockpiles.

In a letter shared exclusively with Military Times, the oversight committee’s ranking member, Robert Garcia, D-Calif., and Rep. Suhas Subramanyam, D-Va., ranking member of the Military and Foreign Affairs Subcommittee, asked Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to provide a complete record of every change made to the Defense Casualty Analysis System, or DCAS, involving Operation Epic Fury, “Overseas Operations” or any other category used to track casualties from hostilities with Iran. The lawmakers requested a response by Aug. 18.

The investigation follows questions raised after three U.S. soldiers killed in Jordan and one killed in Iraq were initially included in the Pentagon’s Iran war casualty total before being removed. Days later, the deaths reappeared under a new “Overseas Operations” category.

The new category has a stated start date of July 7, the same date the Trump administration said renewed military operations against Iran started a new 60-day period under the War Powers Resolution.

The lawmakers are seeking records explaining why those changes were made, the rules governing casualty classifications and any legal analysis underlying those decisions.

Garcia and Subramanyam also requested records documenting every change made to DCAS, the policies governing how deaths and injuries are assigned to operational categories and legal analyses related to a proposed expansion of the Defense Department’s authority to withhold certain controlled unclassified information under the Freedom of Information Act.

Taken together, the requests seek to examine how official casualty records are created, revised and publicly disclosed.

“The Pentagon appears to be lying about the casualties of fallen soldiers to continue justifying Donald Trump’s war of choice with Iran,” Garcia said in a statement announcing the investigation. “The American people deserve the truth about every life lost and soldier wounded in this illegal war.”

Subramanyam said the lawmakers are seeking transparency because the four service members “were killed in action during Trump’s war of choice in Iran” and “the Department of Defense should not play games and try to hide the true cost of this war.”

Unlike a July 29 letter led by Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., that primarily focused on force protection and medical care following the March 1 attack at Port Shuaiba, Kuwait, this inquiry seeks actual records related to the Pentagon’s casualty accounting process and public reporting.

The Defense Department declined to comment on either letter.

“It’s an order that’s long overdue,” Trump said during a signing ceremony at the White House, flanked by more than a dozen military spouses who will be part of the new commission. The President’s Military Spouse Commission will make suggestions for improving quality of life in the areas of spouse employment, housing, education, childcare, healthcare, deployment-related support “and just about everything else you can think of,” Trump said.

He noted the strains of separation from loved ones deployed overseas and the frequency of permanent change of station moves.

These are “generational issues that are long overdue to address,” said Jennifer Hegseth, wife of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and chairman of the commission, which will include more than 20 members.

For more than a decade, military spouses have struggled with unemployment rates above 20%, in addition to various problems with housing, lack of affordable childcare and persistent issues with access to health care.

The commission’s duties will include connecting with military spouses to determine common areas of concern, according to the executive order.

Commission members will include Christie Mullin, the wife of Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin, as well as the spouses of the service secretaries, spouses of the members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and spouses of the services’ senior enlisted advisers.

“It means the world to me that you highlight the enlisted corps,” said one senior enlisted member’s wife who spoke at the ceremony.

Trump said that collectively, these spouses have more than 400 years of experience as active-duty spouses.

“America couldn’t have the strongest military in the world without the love and devotion of our remarkable military spouses, who make extraordinary sacrifices for our country,” Trump said.

The spouses will serve without compensation, but they may receive reimbursement for travel expenses. The group will meet each month at the White House and will provide a report on the issues at the end of each fiscal year for as long as the commission exists. The commission will end two years from now, unless the president extends it, according to the executive order.

It’s unclear how or if the commission will work with the congressionally mandated Department of Defense Family Readiness Council, which is now in the process of being reconstituted. That council hasn’t met since DOD ordered a review of all advisory committees in early 2025. For over ten years, the council examined issues affecting military families. At most, they met twice each year.

A congressional push to improve quality of life resulted in pay raises in 2025 that targeted younger enlisted troops, as well as other initiatives. But service officials and families have said there are lingering, persistent concerns in areas such as childcare, spouse employment, housing and healthcare, among others.

Previous initiatives during the Biden and Obama administrations also aimed to raise awareness of issues for military families.

The poll, conducted Friday through Sunday, also showed the Republican president’s approval rating ticking higher to 37%, up 3 points from last month when his rating tied the lowest of his presidency.

Trump has offered shifting objectives for the conflict such as aiding Iranians to topple their leaders, taking out Iran’s ballistic-missile capabilities and preventing it from obtaining a nuclear weapon. The poll found that 69% of Americans — including four in 10 Republicans — think Trump has not “clearly explained the goals of U.S. military involvement in Iran.”

White House spokeswoman Olivia Wales said Trump will not make decisions based on “fluid opinion polls” and reiterated the president’s resolve to prevent Iran from ever acquiring a nuclear weapon.

“What matters most to the American people is having a commander in chief who takes bold action to keep them safe,” Wales said.

Approval of the conflict has been below 40% since the U.S. and Israel launched strikes on February 28 — a stark contrast to the opening months of other recent conflicts.

While each had different context, the Iraq War from 2003 to 2011 had the support of about 70% of Americans in its early months. During the early days of the Afghanistan War, which lasted from 2001 to 2021, about 90% of the country backed the war, according to polling by Gallup.

‘No idea’ why US at war

Public disapproval of the war is weighing on Trump and his Republican Party ahead of the November midterm elections when the president’s allies will defend slim majorities in the U.S. Congress.

“It’s not clear why we started a war with them. I have no idea,” said Alex Womack, a retired turbine repair specialist from Stockbridge, Georgia, who became a Republican in part because he liked how Republican President George H.W. Bush handled the Gulf War in 1991.

Womack, who served in the U.S. Marine Corps during that conflict, said his support for Trump has ebbed because of the war. “I don’t think he’s doing very well, personally,” he said.

To date, 18 American soldiers have died in the conflict while thousands have died in Iran and in Lebanon, where Iran-allied fighters have battled Israeli forces.

The war has pushed gasoline prices sharply higher, a blow to the finances of many Americans. Gasoline prices are averaging just over $4 a gallon nationwide, up from about $3 a gallon just before the war started on February 28.

“This puts pressure on the party in a myriad of ways, all of them bad,” said Alex Conant, a Republican political strategist and a White House spokesman during the presidency of George W. Bush. “The White House officials have been saying since January that they need to win economic arguments. It’s hard to win the economic arguments when you’re clearly focused on foreign policy.”

Independent registered voters in the latest Reuters/Ipsos poll said they were favoring the Democratic congressional candidate over the Republican by 36% to 20%. Independent voters also favored Democrats over Republicans on economic policy, the poll found.

Trump vowed to stay out of wars

In campaigning for the 2024 presidential election, Trump said he would keep the U.S. out of enduring conflicts. He initially estimated the Iran war would last four to five weeks. He has bristled over comparisons to other wars, including the Vietnam War, which lasted two decades and claimed the lives of more than 58,000 U.S. soldiers.

Rhyan Anderson, an independent from Fairburn, Georgia, who voted for Trump in 2024, said he thinks Trump should focus on domestic problems rather than on helping Israel or other allies.

“My biggest thing is just focus on the people who are actually in the country,” said Anderson, who works two jobs in security and data collection and said he voted for Democrat Joe Biden in 2020. “I know we have allies and things like that, but there’s a lot of people here that really need help.”

Since mid-March, the Reuters/Ipsos survey has asked respondents whether they support or oppose military strikes on Iran. At that time, 37% said they supported the war.

That compared to 27% approval on the day the war began, when the Reuters/Ipsos survey also gave respondents the option to choose unsure, which 29% did.

The latest Reuters/Ipsos survey, which was conducted online and nationwide, gathered responses from 1,246 U.S. adults and had a margin of error of 3 percentage points in either direction.

In a July 29 letter to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., joined by four other Senate Democrats and eight House Democrats, requested answers by Aug. 12 to 23 questions concerning medical care, casualty reporting, force protection and ongoing investigations related to the attack.

Lawmakers say the Pentagon has not fully responded to an April letter raising concerns about force protection before the attack and has not provided Congress with the Army’s investigative findings.

Recent reporting has raised new questions about the medical care provided to injured service members after the attack, which killed six U.S. service members and wounded more than 30 others.

A Pentagon official declined to comment about the letter to Military Times.

The letter cites CBS News reporting that soldiers requested additional medical personnel and supplies before the attack and that those requests were ignored. It also cites reports that, after the strike, some wounded troops drove themselves to a hospital in Kuwait City before later being evacuated and that about two dozen service members were not flown to Landstuhl Regional Medical Center in Germany until nine days after the attack.

Lawmakers also referred to reporting that some wounded service members arrived in Germany without being identified as medical evacuees or seriously injured patients in Defense Department Casualty Analysis System, which the lawmakers said resulted in only limited treatment at Landstuhl. Deeper reporting cited reveals that some troops waited weeks after returning to Fort Hood, Texas, before being evaluated by physicians qualified to diagnose and treat traumatic brain injuries.

Among other questions, the lawmakers asked why requests for additional medical support before the attack were reportedly denied, how the Defense Department classifies serious and very serious injuries and how many service members have sustained traumatic brain injuries since Operation Epic Fury began Feb. 28.

The request from lawmakers also asks the Pentagon to explain changes to publicly reported casualty figures during the conflict, provide updates on force protection measures at military installations across the Middle East, release the Army’s investigation into the Port Shuaiba attack and disclose whether additional Inspector General investigations are underway.

The March 1 attack at Port Shuaiba remains one of the deadliest attacks on U.S. forces during Operation Epic Fury. Reporting by The Washington Post, CBS News, The War Horse and Military Times have described concerns expressed by survivors and family members about force protection, casualty reporting and medical care following the attack.

The War Horse recently reported that medical records documented injuries including traumatic brain injuries, skull fractures, burns, broken bones, hearing loss and shrapnel wounds among those wounded in the strike.

After decades of relying on the U.S.-made Patriot interceptor system and its hit-to-kill PAC-3 munition as the most proven air defense against ballistic missiles, three new tracks are now leveraging international cooperation and a dire global need to develop and manufacture cheaper interceptor platforms.

Some officials, meanwhile, are hoping the sense of urgency leads to the fielding of the first new prototypes by the end of 2026 — years faster than today’s Patriots can be made.

It’s an ambitious ask.

The missile defense world has long described the mechanics behind anti-ballistic defense as akin to hitting a bullet out of the sky with another bullet, multiplied in difficulty by the number of simultaneous air threats coming in — a stark reminder of the mass air raids seen today in Iran and Ukraine that stretch air defenses to the breaking point.

Today’s anti-ballistic momentum began with U.S. President Donald Trump’s seemingly off-the-cuff comment at the NATO summit in Ankara earlier this month, when he pledged to grant Ukraine permission to produce Patriot missiles for the first time.

“We’re going to give a license to you to make Patriots. That’s pretty cool. This way, you can’t complain that we’re not giving ‘em enough,” Trump said, adding that the companies that make the system’s components, primarily Lockheed Martin, had not yet been consulted on the plan.

Five days later, Ukraine and nine European countries launched a coalition in Paris to field Freyja, an entirely new anti-ballistic system centered on a Ukrainian interceptor priced at roughly one-fifth of a Patriot round.

A week after that, Lockheed Martin unveiled a cheaper, faster-to-produce Patriot missile of its own. And on Wednesday, the company announced the Pentagon had awarded it another $53.86 billion for PAC-3 production, bringing its multiyear deal up to $58.62 billion and aiming to triple production capacity by the end of 2030.

The new anti-ballistics arms race has manifested largely as a result of the munitions shortage created by the U.S.-Israeli war with Iran, during which American forces have fired at least 1,060 to 1,430 Patriots at roughly $3.9 million apiece, draining an estimated two-thirds of America’s pre-war Patriot inventory, according to a new analysis by the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

The diminished stockpile is compounded by the ongoing war in Ukraine, where ballistic missiles are the only threat Kyiv still needs help taking down and the one munition it has completely run out of.

With three new anti-ballistic tracks opened in July alone, NATO and its allies are aiming to shore up air defenses as quickly as possible.

Here is where the primary Patriot interceptor stands, and how the three new alternative pathways in the arms race stack up.

The standard: The Patriot interceptor

The Patriot, the U.S.-made gold standard of ground-based air defense, pairs a radar, a command post and launchers with two families of interceptor missiles, each fielded in several variants.

Lockheed Martin builds the PAC-3 MSE, the hit-to-kill round that rams ballistic missiles out of the sky, while Raytheon, which also makes the Patriot’s radars and ground systems, builds the older PAC-2 GEM-T, a round that explodes near its target and works best against aircraft and cruise missiles.

The MSE is the only Western munition that has reliably killed Russian ballistic missiles — from Iskanders to modified S-300s — in Ukrainian service. It has even downed the air-launched Kinzhal, which flies at hypersonic speeds.

That record is why the Pentagon on Wednesday awarded Lockheed a multiyear deal now worth up to $58.62 billion to triple production capacity by the end of 2030. Today, each round costs roughly $3.9 million.

“This is a once-in-a-generation moment, and we are moving with wartime urgency to deliver the Arsenal of Freedom,” Lockheed chairman and CEO Jim Taiclet said in a statement.

The grant: Ukrainian PAC-3s under US license

Trump’s pledge in Turkey would make Ukraine only the second country outside the U.S. licensed to build Patriot missiles, after Japan, which has produced them under license for decades.

Germany, the Netherlands and Spain are only now standing up a joint production line. Berlin is negotiating a license of its own and Germany’s existing GEM-T work runs through a joint venture with Raytheon rather than a national license, according to The Associated Press.

The license under discussion for Kyiv would likely cover the missiles — rather than complete batteries — and could mean final assembly from imported component kits instead of production from scratch, the AP reported.

Poland has offered to host the joint production on its territory for safety and security reasons, according to Polish news agency PAP.

“It is about securing this production, so that this production takes place in a safe location,” Polish Deputy Defense Minister Magdalena Sobkowiak-Czarnecka said in Washington on July 23.

Zelenskyy said he met with Lockheed Martin representatives while visiting the U.S. for Sen. Lindsey Graham’s funeral on July 28, posting on Telegram that “Our teams are already working on specific solutions to move to joint production as soon as possible.”

The cost of the licensed PAC-3, meanwhile, would stay the same at close $4 million per round.

Yehor Chernev, deputy chairman of the Rada’s committee on national security, defense and intelligence, estimates Ukraine needs at least 18 to 24 months to launch a first pilot production line, “followed by more time to complete the first weapons,” per The Associated Press.

Zelenskyy is pushing for even faster joint production.

“We expect that by the end of 2026, our Ukrainian team will have the technical capability to produce U.S. missiles,” he said on July 15.

The analogue: Freyja

Freyja is a full Patriot-style anti-ballistic system that includes an interceptor, launcher, radar and command-and-control network.

The system, designed by Kyiv startup Fire Point, is built around its FP-7.X interceptor missile and various capabilities supplied by European partners.

Zelenskyy called Freyja “an analogue of Patriot, but a system for more mass production and a cheaper system.”

His comments came as he formally launched the Integrated Anti-Ballistic Missile Coalition in Paris on July 13 alongside nine other countries, including Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom.

The FP-7.X flew for the first time in early June and is built to kill ballistic targets at roughly 15 miles up using a high-explosive fragmentation warhead rather than the PAC-3’s hit-to-kill collision — which may come in later versions — at a target price of approximately $700,000 per interceptor, or roughly one-fifth the price of a PAC-3.

The company says it will build three interceptors a day starting in August. Zelenskyy wants the system up and running within 12 months, and the coalition is targeting its first real ballistic intercept for the end of 2027.

“We have an ambitious goal: to have an MVP ready by the first half of next year,” Davyd Aloian, deputy secretary of Ukraine’s National Security and Defense Council, told Reuters on July 27. “That is a prototype that can already demonstrate its first practical results.”

The Lockheed cost-cutter: PAC-3 ACE

Lockheed unveiled the PAC-3 Adapted Capability Effector, or ACE, at the Farnborough International Airshow on July 20.

Built on the PAC-3’s fire-control system and fully linked to the Patriot and the Integrated Battle Command System that allied air defenders already run, it is designed to counter airbreathing threats — meaning weapons that rely on oxygen for propulsion — along with cruise missiles and close- and short-range ballistic missiles, a tier below the high-end targets the MSE was built to counter.

“American and allied warfighters need a solution that is battle-tested and budget-smart, and PAC-3 ACE delivers exactly that by building on the unrivaled performance of the PAC-3 MSE,” Tim Cahill, president of Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control, said in the announcement.

Lockheed says it will develop and produce the round jointly with American and European industry partners.

International manufacturing is also under consideration, with the munition’s first flight expected in early 2028.

The company advertises ACE at less than half the price of an MSE, or roughly $2 million a round, without disclosing an exact figure.

While the standard Meal, Ready-to-Eat, or MRE, delivers nutritionally complete chow in a package weighing 1.5 pounds or less, that adds up for troops on the move: more than 30 pounds of supply per service member for a week-long patrol. And amid efforts across the services to prepare to operate independently in austere environments far from resupply, cutting down the weight and volume of food is a known need.

The fiscal 2027 National Defense Authorization Act calls on the secretary of defense to boost these efforts with new partnerships to create the MREs of the future.

“It is the sense of Congress that requirements for the future battlefield include dealing with contested logistics that cannot be achieved with the size and weight of currently fielded rations; and could be mitigated by incorporating within rations, components produced with emerging and innovative technologies developed in partnership with the Department of Defense Combat Feeding Research and Engineering Program,” language in the House version of the bill, passed July 22, states.

It requires the secretary of defense to seek opportunities to enter contracts to procure rations, naming two specific space-saving food technologies: sonic agglomeration and vacuum microwave drying.

Sonic agglomeration uses sound wave vibrations to compress food ingredients and stick them together without the use of fillers and binders. The Army’s Combat Feeding Directorate has been working with this technology since at least 2016, even using the method to help NASA develop a more compact breakfast bar for astronauts on future Mars missions.

Vacuum microwave drying quickly dehydrates food at low temperatures, locking in fresh flavors and colors that more conventional drying techniques can’t capture, making lightweight, water-removed rations that are more palatable for troops on the go.

In 2018, the Combat Feeding Directorate released information about work being done to develop a “salad bar” — a vacuum-compressed pack of shelf-stable fresh greens with the dressing already mixed in.

And work is happening to field at least early versions of some of these rations to the fighting forces.

Last year, the Combat Feeding Directorate announced that a new Close Combat Assault Ration, specially designed for the sustainment of units on their own for 7-10 days, could now be purchased through the Defense Logistics Agency. The CCAR saw a 39% reduction in volume and 17% production in weight compared to the eat-on-the-move First Strike Ration — which contains about 24 hours’ worth of calories — and allowed troops to “carry five days’ worth of nutrition in a 3-day footprint,” officials said.

But efforts to conduct more robust testing around sonic agglomeration and vacuum microwave drying were limited by COVID-19 pandemic delays, officials said, leaving more work to be done.

“These and other novel technologies were evaluated during the CCAR’s development and CFD will continue to work with industry partners to identify new technologies and evolve existing ones,” a 2025 release stated.

The NDAA provision directs the secretary of defense to maximize the use of the two new technologies for ration components to help bridge the gap between research and evaluation and fielding.

“As operational needs allow, the Secretary shall prioritize clean-label, nutrient-dense components that do not contain unhealthy fats or artificial preservatives,” it adds.

The provision also calls for a report to Congress no later than 120 days after the NDAA passes that includes a description of any “emerging and innovative” food processing technologies being developed for use by the Department of Defense; the total amount the Pentagon has invested in sonic agglomeration and vacuum microwave drying tech; the results of warfighter field testing of proposed ration components using these technologies; and a breakdown of benefits and barriers to using them, along with a summary of what’s being done to advance their adoption.

The House NDAA must still undergo reconciliation with the yet-to-be-passed Senate version of the bill before it can become law.