The watchdog said the Navy has not fully addressed the maintenance, idle-time and shipyard-capacity problems affecting the fleet. GAO also warned that submarines awaiting retirement could create another multibillion-dollar burden if the Navy does not change how it handles decommissioning.

What GAO found

GAO reviewed Navy attack-submarine maintenance data for fiscal years 2016 through 2025, along with Navy documents and interviews with officials. The report said lost operational days included delays in completing depot maintenance and what the agency calls active idle time.

Active idle time occurs when an attack submarine and its crew must remain pier-side because the submarine is no longer certified to conduct normal operations and cannot be inducted into a maintenance period. The submarine and crew continue to require personnel and support while the boat is unavailable for regular operations.

GAO said the public version of the report omits classified or sensitive information, including details about attack-submarine operational availability and the Navy’s approach to force generation.

Decommissioning backlog adds a second risk

GAO separately examined inactive idle time involving submarines designated for decommissioning. Those boats cannot begin the retirement process when shipyard capacity is unavailable to place them in a dry dock for nuclear-reactor defueling. Until space is available, the submarine and crew remain pier-side.

Without mitigation, GAO said 15 attack submarines will enter inactive idle time during fiscal years 2026 through 2030. The agency projected more than 14,000 inactive-idle days and more than $3.1 billion in operating and support costs for those submarines over that period.

The $3.1 billion figure is a projection, not spending that GAO says has already occurred. It represents the potential cost if the Navy does not reduce the time submarines awaiting decommissioning remain inactive.

Two recommendations remain open

GAO made two recommendations to the Department of the Navy. The first calls for a full evaluation of alternative ways to decommission attack submarines more efficiently and improve the use of shipyard capacity for the operational fleet. GAO identified options that could include defueling outside dry docks and reducing crews on submarines awaiting decommissioning.

The second recommendation calls for the Navy to use that evaluation to develop and implement an attack-submarine inactivation plan. The plan should include steps to achieve defined objectives and timeframes for monitoring and mitigating the risks associated with inactive idle time.

Both recommendations were listed as open when the report was released. The Navy verbally concurred with them but had not provided written comments.

Why the findings matter

The report is not a consumer safety alert or a finding that the submarines are unsafe. It concerns readiness and capacity: high-demand Navy platforms are unavailable while maintenance and retirement work compete for limited shipyard resources.

GAO said the Navy’s 44 attack submarines, as of fiscal year 2025, provide intelligence and strike capabilities and are among the assets most requested by combatant commanders. That makes the lost operational days significant beyond the accounting cost.

For taxpayers, the central issue is whether federal funds continue to support crews and vessels during periods when those assets are not delivering operational capability. The next accountability test is whether the Navy evaluates alternative defueling methods, produces a measurable inactivation plan and reports progress on reducing inactive idle time.

Readers should watch for written Navy comments, implementation milestones, changes in dry-dock capacity and any future GAO follow-up. The new report also adds to a longer GAO oversight record showing that attack-submarine maintenance delays have persisted across multiple reviews.

Sources

• GAO report: Navy Readiness — Actions Needed to Address Costly Attack Submarine Maintenance Challenges
• Reuters: Navy submarine maintenance delays cost $3.4 billion, GAO finds

The memorandum, signed August 13, 2026, gives the Secretary of War, in consultation with the Secretary of the Navy, 60 days to submit the plan. Counting 60 days from the signing date makes October 12, 2026, the practical deadline.

What the memorandum orders

The directive targets CVN-81, the fourth Ford-class aircraft carrier, identified in reporting as the future USS Doris Miller. It calls for a plan to replace the Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System, or EMALS, and the Ford-class Advanced Weapons Elevators with steam and hydraulic systems.

The plan must identify the measures, timelines and resources needed for the proposed change. The memorandum does not itself authorize construction, establish a final cost or confirm that the redesign will occur. It says implementation must comply with applicable law and remain subject to available appropriations.

The first three Ford-class carriers — USS Gerald R. Ford, USS John F. Kennedy and USS Enterprise — are not the initial targets of the directive, according to Associated Press reporting.

Why changing course could be difficult

The proposed change would affect a carrier already being developed around Ford-class systems. General Atomics, the company that makes EMALS, told the Associated Press that work on the Doris Miller’s catapults and arresting gear was already about halfway complete. The company said changing course could create significant cost, schedule and integration risks.

AP reported that reverting to steam technology would likely cost billions of dollars, require more sailors and be more difficult to maintain. Those are reported potential consequences, not a final government estimate for CVN-81.

The White House memorandum refers to Advanced Weapons Elevators. That is a different system from the Advanced Arresting Gear, or AAG, discussed in Navy and Government Accountability Office background about aircraft recovery. The directive’s text does not say that AAG is being replaced.

The technology and staffing tradeoff

EMALS uses electrically generated magnetic force to launch aircraft, while older carriers use steam catapults. The Navy says the Ford-class flight-deck design, including EMALS and AAG, is intended to support greater operational capability and joint interoperability.

In a February 2026 release about the USS Gerald R. Ford, the Navy said preliminary sortie-generation testing indicated that the ship’s flight-deck design and electromagnetic launch and recovery systems had contributed to a higher sortie-generation rate than a Nimitz-class carrier. The Navy also said the systems were operating as designed while it continued analyzing the data.

AP reported that EMALS reduced the number of sailors needed to operate the Ford’s catapults from about a dozen to two. Moving to steam systems could therefore affect staffing and maintenance requirements, as well as the carrier’s internal design and operating procedures.

Congress and acquisition officials will matter

The next major decision point is the plan due October 12. Congress and Pentagon acquisition officials would then have to evaluate any proposed redesign, including its funding needs, technical feasibility, schedule effects and operational consequences.

Earlier GAO reviews found that Ford-class development experienced cost growth and schedule uncertainty associated with ambitious technology development, testing and construction challenges. A 2017 GAO report said critical technologies including EMALS accounted for a substantial share of the lead ship’s procurement cost growth and documented development problems. That historical analysis provides context; it is not a current cost estimate for CVN-81 or a prediction of the redesign’s final price.

What to watch next

Key indicators will include the Pentagon and Navy plan, technical assessments of the proposed steam and hydraulic systems, contract changes involving General Atomics and the shipyard, congressional funding decisions, and any revised delivery schedule or cost estimate for CVN-81.

For now, the White House has ordered planning rather than completed a carrier redesign. The central policy question is whether the administration believes older systems offer enough reliability or familiarity to justify the potential cost, schedule, integration and staffing risks of changing course.

Sources

• White House memorandum
• Associated Press report
• U.S. Navy Ford-class release
• Government Accountability Office Ford-class review

The commitment keeps Ukraine at the center of NATO’s military planning as the war continues. It also signals that allied governments intend to sustain support beyond a single year rather than treat the next phase of assistance as a short-term emergency measure.

NATO said the pledge covers military equipment, assistance and training. The announcement sets the commitment at at least €70 billion for 2026 and at least the same amount again for 2027. NATO did not provide a country-by-country breakdown of the pledge or a delivery schedule for every equipment category.

New defense contracts and counter-drone spending

The summit also produced more than €50 billion in new procurement deals announced by governments and industry. The announcement linked those deals to a broader effort to expand defense production and improve the alliance’s military capacity.

NATO launched an initiative called Drone Edge, involving $40 billion in counter-uncrewed-systems investment over five years. The initiative is focused on counter-drone capabilities, an area that has become increasingly important to modern battlefield operations. The pledge does not mean that the full investment has already been spent or that all planned systems have been delivered.

Together, the Ukraine assistance pledge, the procurement agreements and the Drone Edge investment point to a broader shift in NATO’s defense posture. The alliance is backing Ukraine while also directing substantial resources toward the technologies and industrial capacity it considers necessary for future security challenges.

Fuel infrastructure on NATO’s eastern flank

NATO also announced a €27 billion investment in its fuel supply chain. The plan includes storage, distribution infrastructure and pipelines toward the alliance’s eastern flank.

Fuel infrastructure is a less visible part of military readiness than weapons or troop deployments, but it affects the ability to move and sustain forces. Storage facilities, distribution networks and pipelines can help support operations and reinforce supply routes in eastern NATO member states. The announcement described the investment as modernization of the alliance’s fuel-supply chain.

The fuel commitment adds an infrastructure component to the summit’s military decisions. It suggests that NATO’s response is not limited to providing equipment to Ukraine; the alliance is also investing in the logistics needed to support its own members and maintain readiness.

What the commitments mean next

The pledges are commitments for future assistance and investment, not proof that all promised equipment has already reached Ukraine. Their practical effect will depend on national decisions, contracts, production capacity, training and delivery schedules.

For Ukraine, the announced 2026 and 2027 support provides a public indication of continued allied backing. For NATO members, the procurement, counter-drone and fuel investments represent a long-term expansion of defense spending and military infrastructure.

The summit’s announcement followed a formal United Nations Security Council briefing on Ukraine held on June 8, 2026, on the maintenance of peace and security in the country. No peace agreement was announced in Ankara, and the new commitments do not indicate that the war is nearing an end. They instead establish the scale of support and defense investment NATO says it will pursue over the next several years.

The measure also includes a proposed pay raise for service members ranging from 5% to 7%, depending on rank. It addresses authority over the naming of military installations and other military property.

The action sets out major proposed changes to national defense priorities, military compensation and the institutional identity of the federal agency responsible for defense policy. But the legislation is not yet final law.

What the House bill would do

The spending figure in the measure is approximately $1.15 trillion in proposed national-security spending. The bill incorporates that request rather than establishing, by itself, final appropriated funding.

That distinction matters for readers and service members. The House action signals the level of national-security spending lawmakers are backing in this bill, but the approved record does not establish that the amount has become final funding.

The proposed service-member pay increase would range from 5% to 7%, with the specific increase depending on rank. The measure therefore ties compensation changes to the legislation’s broader defense-policy package rather than presenting the pay provision as a separately enacted change.

The bill also addresses military-installation and property naming authority. Under the proposal, that issue would be handled as part of the defense legislation, alongside spending and personnel provisions. The approved record does not provide a list of installations or properties affected by the naming language.

Renaming the department

The measure would designate the Department of Defense as the Department of War. Because the House action remains a congressional bill, the proposed designation should not be described as an effective legal change.

A change to the department’s name would have broad institutional and legal implications, according to the approved account of the legislation. Those implications are part of why the naming provision extends beyond a simple change in terminology: it could affect how the department is identified across federal military policy and related authorities if the language ultimately becomes law.

For now, however, the House passage establishes only that the proposal is included in the bill passed by that chamber. The available record does not confirm that the name has changed or that associated legal authorities have taken effect.

What happens next

The bill’s status remains unresolved in the approved record. It does not establish whether the Senate subsequently passed the same language or whether President Trump signed it.

That leaves several key questions open: whether the $1.15 trillion request remains in the final defense legislation, whether the 5% to 7% pay provisions survive, and whether the Department of War renaming language is included in enacted text. The final status of the renaming provision requires checking the enacted defense-authorization text, while the spending figure also would need to be distinguished from final appropriations.

No deadline for those next steps is established in the approved source record. Until there is confirmation of final congressional action and enactment, the spending level, pay raise, naming authority and department renaming remain proposals contained in a House-passed bill.

On June 24, 2026, committee Republicans approved the bill by a 34–27 vote and described it as a $1.072 trillion discretionary topline for defense. Democrats, however, framed the package differently—arguing the bill’s Pentagon number represents a $234 billion increase over 2026 while also pairing that growth with nearly $13 billion in domestic investment cuts they say families rely on for everyday costs like housing, groceries, utilities, and education.

What the committee vote means procedurally

Committee action does not make the bill law. It is the next step in a process where lawmakers can still change the text before final passage—especially when it reaches the full House, where members can try amendments and political maneuvering can shift priorities.

Reporting on the committee decision says the bill is moving forward to the full House for consideration, with Republicans and Democrats continuing to argue over the topline and what those numbers imply for non-defense programs.

Republicans: defense investment and a higher discretionary topline

In their committee release, House Appropriations Republicans said the FY 2027 Defense Appropriations bill provides a total discretionary allocation of $1.072 trillion. Their framing focuses on supporting service members and backing defense modernization and readiness priorities, with the committee’s majority treating the discretionary topline as a budget foundation for the Pentagon’s next-year planning.

Democrats: larger Pentagon totals, plus claimed domestic tradeoffs

Democrats’ counter-narrative centers on two numbers and the “tradeoff” story between defense and domestic spending.

First, Democrats cite a Pentagon budget figure of $1,072,210,299,000 and describe that as $234 billion more than 2026. Second, Democrats argue the same defense package is coupled with nearly $13 billion in domestic investment cuts. Their defense fact sheet points to categories they say families feel in day-to-day life, including housing, groceries, utilities, and education.

It is important to treat the “nearly $13 billion” figure as Democrats’ claim about the bill’s proposed tradeoffs—not a universally agreed, final across-the-board accounting—because amendments and later negotiations can change what survives into the final enacted budget.

What to watch next before any final budget

As the bill moves toward a full House vote, the key reader question is whether lawmakers can (and will) revise the balance Republicans and Democrats are publicly debating.

• House floor amendments: Watch for whether members try to adjust totals or target specific domestic or defense priorities before any final House action.
• How the final House numbers compare to other paths: Defense appropriations figures often do not live in isolation from the broader appropriations package. Comparisons between House and Senate approaches matter for what actually makes it into the final deal.
• Where household-pressure issues land: Democrats’ stated focus—housing, groceries, utilities, and education—signals the cost-of-living categories they want voters to track as the process continues.

Until the House passes the bill in final form and Congress completes its later steps, the question remains what changes on the floor and what ultimately survives into the enacted FY 2027 appropriations framework.

Sources

• House Appropriations Committee (Republicans) — “Committee Approves FY27 Defense Appropriations Act” (June 24, 2026)
• House Appropriations Committee (Democrats) — “Republicans Advance Largest Pentagon Budget in History while Cutting Billions from Domestic Investments” (June 24, 2026)
• House Appropriations — FY 2027 Defense Appropriations act (bill text PDF) (as posted for the committee materials)
• Stars and Stripes — coverage of the June 24 committee action (June 25, 2026)

What NATO changed in Ankara

NATO used the summit to reaffirm its collective-defense baseline under Article 5 and to restate its “360-degree” approach to deterrence and defense.

In the formal Ankara Summit Declaration, leaders also linked deterrence and defense posture to space and cyber capabilities—saying NATO is developing an interoperable transatlantic warfighting cloud and adopting powerful AI models.

Defense spending pressure: from targets to plans

One of the summit’s clearest messages was how NATO is communicating the 5% goal: not just as a direction, but as a political and planning requirement.

NATO’s summit overview says European Allies and Canada increased core defense investments by more than USD 139 billion since the 2025 Hague commitment to reach 5% of GDP by 2035. It also says Allies announced more than EUR 50 billion in procurement deals on new capabilities at Ankara.

The declaration language similarly says NATO leaders announced more than $50 billion in new procurements and tied that to expanding collective manufacturing capacity while working with industry to accelerate innovation.

Associated Press reported that NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte pressed members to come forward with clear plans, and it described the agreed 5% of GDP defense-investment breakdown as 3.5% for defense budgets and 1.5% for roads, bridges and ports meant to help move troops and equipment faster in conflict.

From policy to industrial scaling: procurement, Drone Edge, and “resilience”

Beyond spending numbers, NATO leaned on procurement and industrial steps aimed at reducing delays between announcements and delivered capacity.

In the Defence Industry Forum announcements, NATO said Rutte announced the delivery of the 10th Airbus A330 MRTT aircraft to the Multinational Multi-Role Tanker Transport Fleet, the procurement of Northrop Grumman Triton uncrewed aircraft for maritime surveillance, and the joint procurement of Saab GlobalEye aircraft to modernize airborne early warning and control capabilities.

NATO also highlighted the Drone Edge initiative—designed to scale counter-drone capability—and said Allies agreed to invest over USD 40 billion over the next five years in counter-drone capabilities.

On the industrial-policy side, the summit overview also points to steps meant to remove barriers to defense trade, including launching the NATO Front Door for Industry and agreeing a Strategy for Industry–NATO Cooperation to carry this work forward.

And for operational sustainment, NATO framed fuel logistics as part of resilience: it says Allies took a historic step for NATO’s fuel supply chain by announcing a EUR 27 billion investment to modernize fuel storage and distribution infrastructure and to support new facilities (including pipelines) extending to the eastern part of the Alliance.

Cyber and cloud: NATO’s secure digital infrastructure takes a specific next step

Strategic language about a transatlantic warfighting cloud and AI adoption is paired with infrastructure work.

NATO’s summit-linked digital-infrastructure update says the NATO Communications and Information Agency signed a contract with Accenture for the Protected Business Network (PBN) at the Defence Industry Forum. NATO describes the PBN as a key step in delivering NATO’s secure, cloud-enabled digital enterprise and as a foundation for classified digital operations across the Alliance.

What to watch next

For readers trying to track what this means beyond summit headlines, the practical checklist is simple:

1) National budgeting and procurement timelines: NATO’s own framing emphasizes turning 5% direction into procurement and industrial output.

2) Follow-through on capability scaling: NATO highlighted both delivery milestones (such as the MRTT tanker delivery) and new procurements under discussion (including Triton and GlobalEye). The test is how quickly national programs translate these into funded, fielded assets.

3) Cyber/cloud interoperability rollout: PBN and the “interoperable transatlantic warfighting cloud” concept imply multi-step integration work. Watch for how member states operationalize secure classified digital operations across NATO systems.

4) Fuel-supply resilience: NATO presents the EUR 27 billion fuel-infrastructure investment as a readiness enabler—so downstream questions will center on where infrastructure expands and how it affects sustainment planning.

Sources

• NATO: Overview — 2026 NATO Summit in Ankara
• Associated Press: Mark Rutte on meeting NATO defense spending targets