In an era where national defense decisions can shape global stability, reporting to Congress isn’t bureaucracy; it is democracy’s safeguard. The Department of Defense (DOD) commands immense power, and with that comes a constitutional responsibility to remain accountable to the people through their elected representatives.
As of November 2025, amid heightened tensions spanning cyber warfare, Iranian missile exchanges, and narco-trafficking networks in the Caribbean, the DOD’s relationship with Congress stands as a crucial test of transparency. Recent lapses, including failures to meet legal War Powers reporting requirements, underscore why this process matters more than ever.
The Legal Framework: Oversight as a Constitutional Duty
Congressional reporting is not optional. It is grounded in the Constitution’s separation of powers, designed to ensure that military authority operates within democratic limits.
Article I gives Congress control over defense spending and the power to declare war; Article II makes the President Commander-in-Chief. The balance between these two powers depends on consistent, honest reporting.
Key Statutory Pillars
War Powers Resolution (1973): Requires the President to notify Congress within 48 hours when U.S. forces enter hostilities and to cease operations after 60 days unless Congress authorizes continued action.
Recent Violation (2025): The DOD submitted an initial 48-hour report for September 2, 2025, Caribbean drone strikes targeting a narco-trafficker but failed to provide required follow-up notices. Operations continued beyond the 60-day legal limit, violating the Resolution’s core reporting provision.
Officials claimed the strikes didn’t constitute “hostilities” since no U.S. personnel were endangered, a justification widely condemned by Congress and legal scholars as executive overreach.
National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA): Each year’s NDAA (for example, FY2025, S.4638) mandates hundreds of defense reports, from unfunded priorities to foreign influence audits. It is Congress’s most direct accountability mechanism over defense budgeting and operations.
Goldwater–Nichols Act (1986): Ensures unified command and joint accountability in defense management, with transparency requirements that persist through annual OIG (Office of Inspector General) audits.
These frameworks are the backbone of U.S. civil-military balance. Yet, their effectiveness depends on compliance, not mere codification.
How the DOD Should Report: From Compliance to Communication
Robust congressional reporting transforms national security from a closed circle into a shared civic enterprise. The DOD must prioritize clarity, timeliness, and completeness in its submissions, not only to comply with the law but to maintain legitimacy.
Core Elements of Effective Reporting
Timely Notifications and Briefings
Immediate Alerts: Deliver the required 48-hour reports promptly and without exception. In 2025, multiple incidents, including defensive operations involving Iranian missile intercepts, reportedly lacked timely War Powers notification.
Follow-Up Consistency: Weekly or ongoing briefings for extended operations should be standard practice, blending classified detail for legislators with declassified summaries for the public.
Detailed and Verifiable Content
Operational data: mission objectives, collateral impact assessments, and legal justifications.
Financial transparency: inclusion of Unfunded Priorities Lists (UPLs) and force-structure shifts to support informed appropriations.
Oversight alignment: integrate semiannual OIG and GAO audit results into legislative updates for consistent fiscal accountability.
Accessible Communication Channels
As of October 2025, all congressional interactions must route through the Office of Legislative Affairs, a move meant to standardize messaging but criticized for potential bottlenecks.
Future reforms could include direct briefings to congressional oversight committees to restore agility and trust.
Why This Matters: The Stakes of Transparency
Transparency is not a formality; it is the first line of defense against unchecked power.
In 2025, the DOD’s $886 billion budget accounted for over half of all federal discretionary spending. Yet, despite this vast reach, accountability gaps persist.
A. Guarding Against Executive Overreach
The 2025 Caribbean strikes’ reporting lapse revealed how easily “temporary” missions can bypass congressional oversight.
Without firm adherence to the War Powers Resolution, the constitutional balance erodes, granting the executive branch unilateral military authority, something the law was explicitly written to prevent.
B. Restoring Fiscal and Operational Integrity
The DOD’s seventh consecutive failed financial audit (April 2025) exposed over $3 trillion in unverified assets, prompting House hearings on the systemic failures of defense accounting.
Congressional analysts noted that missing or delayed reports directly obscure budgetary accountability, weakening both fiscal oversight and readiness planning.
C. Building Public Trust
Oversight fosters bipartisan unity: transparency provides neutral ground for cooperation in polarized times.
Laws such as the 2025 Congressional Access Act, which expanded legislative access to military installations, reflect renewed public demand for visibility into defense operations.
Citizens now track filings via defense.gov
and congress.gov
, exercising the informed vigilance President Eisenhower once deemed vital to democracy.
2025: A Year of Reporting Failures and Lessons Learned
According to official records and watchdog reviews:
Yemen Airstrikes (March–May 2025): A 48-hour War Powers report was filed, but no congressional authorization was sought for hostilities lasting nearly two months. Lawmakers labeled it a “blatant violation” of war powers.
Caribbean Anti-Narcotics Strikes (September–November 2025): One report filed, none thereafter. Hostilities continued past the legal 60-day limit with zero follow-up reports, violating Section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
Defensive Actions in the Middle East (Multiple Occurrences, 2025): Some troop movements and missile defense operations were never formally reported under the 48-hour requirement.
Together, these account for at least three major instances of noncompliance or incomplete reporting in 2025, the highest number in over a decade according to Congressional Research Service analysis.
These failures represent more than administrative lapses; they symbolize a drift toward executive opacity at a time when transparency is needed most.
Challenges Ahead and a Path Forward
Despite progress through the FY2025 NDAA and the PPBE (Planning, Programming, Budgeting & Execution) Reform Implementation Plan, persistent gaps remain:
Audit Failures: The Pentagon’s financial system remains fragmented, impeding accurate oversight.
Information Silos: Legislative Affairs’ centralized routing slows Congressional briefings.
Evolving Threats: Hybrid warfare, AI-enabled surveillance, and private military contracts complicate the traditional oversight model.
Congress’s role is clear: enforce reporting deadlines, demand independent audit verification, and resist expansive “hostilities” reinterpretations.
The DOD’s duty: commit to complete, timely, and transparent disclosures.
As citizens, the path forward begins with awareness: reading OIG audits, monitoring War Powers filings, and holding representatives accountable for demanding the same from the military.
“Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry,” President Eisenhower warned, “can compel the proper meshing of defense machinery with peaceful goals.”
In 2025, those words remain the truest call to action. Oversight isn’t obstruction; it is the heartbeat of a republic that refuses to wage war in the shadows.
Further Reading
War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93–148)
GAO Defense Oversight Reports
Department of Defense Office of Inspector General