Senate Republicans on Tuesday emphasized that Trump administration officials need to follow the president’s lead on foreign policy, after President Donald Trump publicly overrode a Defense Department-instituted halt on weapons for Ukraine.

The public back-and-forth indicated discord between the president and the Pentagon. Trump on Tuesday appeared to suggest he was out of the loop about the Ukraine military freeze; when a reporter asked him who had ordered the halt, Trump responded, “I don’t know, you tell me.” 

Top Pentagon policy official Elbridge Colby reportedly led the move, citing a review allegedly showing U.S. missile defense interceptor shortages. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth approved the decision without informing the White House, CNN reported, and Trump did not specifically direct him to halt the weapons transfers. Politico reported that a series of other unilateral moves by Colby have surprised and frustrated Trump administration officials and U.S. allies.

Trump’s own policy on Ukraine as it defends itself against Russian aggression has been inconsistent since taking office, but in recent months he has grown publicly frustrated with Russian President Vladimir Putin’s approach to the war. Trump is now also backing a bipartisan Senate sanctions bill targeting Russia, according to the bill’s lead sponsor, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC).

Republican hawks on Capitol Hill praised Trump’s decision to reinstate U.S. aid to the country, with several warning Pentagon officials against working at cross purposes with the president, though they declined to directly address the behind-the scenes machinations.

“Policy on defense and otherwise, it’s clear, is set by the president, it’s not set by his underlings,” Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA) told Jewish Insider, adding that he thinks that Trump’s own position on the issue has hardened because “President Trump is rapidly becoming fed up with President Putin and starting to see him for what he is, which is a pirate and a liar” who only responds to pressure.

Kennedy denied that the Pentagon had been at odds with Trump, however, adding, “Whether you like it or dislike it, the people who generally get crosswise with the president that work for him only do it one time.”

Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC) told JI, “Generally speaking, I don’t think [Trump] likes people getting out ahead of him. So they need to coordinate that. I assume they did, it could have just been one situation, but you need to coordinate with the president.”

Tillis added that “anything that cuts short or challenges Ukraine’s resupply and support is a bad idea, and it’ll be a disastrous mistake.”

Sen. Mike Rounds (R-SD) told JI, “I’m in favor of additional aid for Ukraine. Whether it is simply a matter of having the Department of Defense get very clear orders from the president, or if it’s a matter of clarifying for the rest of the world to hear that we’re not walking away from Ukraine, I think it’s a very important message to send.”

Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY), the former Republican Senate leader, offered the most pointed criticism of those in the administration who have advocated for cutting off aid to Ukraine.

“This time, the President will need to reject calls from isolationists and restrainers within his Administration to limit these deliveries to defensive weapons,” McConnell said in a statement. “And he should disregard those at DoD who invoke munitions shortages to block aid while refusing to invest seriously in expanding munitions production. The self-indulgent policymaking of restrainers — from Ukraine to AUKUS — has so often required the President to clean up his staff’s messes.”

According to Politico, Colby independently ordered a review of the AUKUS submarine pact with the U.K. and Australia, which also surprised other elements of the Trump administration.

Sen. Roger Wicker (R-MS), the chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee, declined to comment on “palace intrigue” and said he was “just glad to see Washington, D.C., on a bipartisan basis moving in the right direction in favor of the good guys.”

“Facts become clearer, and more and more people, including the president and members of the administration, are coming to the realization that Putin wants nothing but conquest, and if he gets it in Ukraine, he won’t stop there,” Wicker told JI. “So it’s just a matter of the truth coming to light.”

Sen. Ted Budd (R-NC) suggested that the change had come about as a result of new information, rather than discord within the administration.

“Well, I think all of us have the right to change your mind when you have new information, so he’s not happy with the situation,” Budd said. “Again, I think all of our hearts are supportive of Ukraine. We want to make sure they have the right leadership, and transparency that they’re doing the right thing. So I think he’s making the right decision with the information that he’s given in real time.”

Sen. Markwayne Mullin (R-OK) said he wasn’t familiar with the exchange between Trump and the Pentagon, but noted concerns about U.S. stockpiles.

“I don’t know what the back-and-forth is,” Mullin said. “I know what we’re trying to do right now is build up our stockpiles, because we let things get pretty low with some of our missile systems, but I haven’t heard the back and forth between Trump and the Pentagon.”

Among Democrats, Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), the ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, called out Colby and Hegseth by name.

“I am pleased that President Trump appears to have reversed course on the dangerous and shortsighted decision made by Secretary Hegseth and Under Secretary Colby to continue critical assistance to Ukraine,” Shaheen said in a statement. “Unfortunately, last week’s decision sent exactly the wrong message. And it came with a tragic human cost.”

Analysts outside the administration emphasized that Trump’s policy is his own and hard-liners inside the Pentagon should be mindful that their views are not necessarily the same as Trump’s.

“I think over the last few years, it has been very, very clear that the only person who speaks for President Trump is President Trump,” Carrie Filipetti, the executive director of the Vandenberg Coalition and an official in the first Trump administration, told JI. “There are a lot of people, specifically within the Pentagon, that are much more ideological, who have assumed that President Trump shares their ideology, when really President Trump has always been much more flexible and responsive.”

Filipetti added that, from her experience in the first Trump administration, the president could get frustrated when officials “tried to speak for him” or “got over their skis and assumed that they knew the direction he was going in.”

She said that the administration’s recent moves, as well as some of Trump’s hawkish policies dating back to his first administration, show that the calculated use of force and economic power are key to Trump’s foreign policy.

“This is really a vindication of what Trump has always said was America First, which includes the willingness to use force if he can see how it will prevent a longer-term conflict,” Fillipetti explained. “Right now, I think the people who have pushed for a more hawkish policy are gaining more influence, partially because they’re proving that the goal was never to start wars. The goal was to end wars by using force and strength as a deterrent.”

Heather Conley, a nonresident senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and the former president of the German Marshall Fund, said it seemed clear that the Pentagon had not coordinated its moves with other parts of the administration or Congress, catching the White House off-guard.

“I think this was probably a very important lesson that the senior leadership in the Pentagon learned: that there’s no independent review, that these things are all connected and are all highly political and need to be coordinated with the White House, and Congress, most certainly, as well,” Conley said. “I think this will be a reinforcing lesson for the Pentagon to not get ahead of the president.” 

Referencing Colby specifically, Conley said, “He may have very strong views about what is needed, but the president is shaping this policy, he’s shaping it every hour and every day, and that means it’s moving very quickly. … [Administration officials] have to be in alignment for there to be success. And they also may not be able to pursue their own independent view of where things should go.”

Conley said that the capability review that prompted the cutoff was necessary — given proper coordination — for any administration, in light of the multiple draws on American weapons reserves. 

She said that the situation highlights the need for the U.S. to significantly accelerate its missile-defense production capacity and find ways to prompt Ukraine to expand its domestic production capacity, explaining that the U.S. lacks the ability to produce sufficient interceptors to cover Ukraine, the Middle East and potentially Taiwan. 

Conley also noted that this isn’t the first time the Pentagon has appeared to be acting out of step with the White House, pointing to moves by Hegseth on Ukraine policy dating back to February.

Administration spokespeople have denied any discord or lack of coordination within the administration. 

Kingsley Wilson, the Pentagon’s press secretary, told CNN in a statement that said in part, “Secretary Hegseth provided a framework for the President to evaluate military aid shipments and assess existing stockpiles. This effort was coordinated across government.” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said that Trump “has full confidence in the secretary of defense.”

The Department of Defense and National Security Council did not respond to requests for comment.

Jewish Insider’s congressional correspondent Emily Jacobs contributed reporting.

Elbridge Colby, the Trump administration’s under secretary of defense for policy, announced on Tuesday the nominations of Alex Velez-Green and Austin Dahmer to be, respectively, deputy under secretary of defense for policy and assistant secretary of defense for strategy, plans and capabilities, both senior policy roles under Colby in the Department of Defense.

Velez-Green and Dahmer, both former advisors to Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO), are aligned with the faction of the Republican Party that advocates for more selective U.S. engagement abroad, particularly limiting involvement in Europe, though both have been generally supportive of the U.S.-Israel relationship.

Both nominees are already serving in roles in the Defense Department that do not require Senate confirmation — Velez-Green filled Colby’s role during his confirmation process and subsequently served as his senior advisor, and Dahmer has been working in Colby’s office since the start of the Trump administration. The nominations were both submitted to Congress in June.

Defense News previously characterized both Velez-Green and Dahmer as “proteges” of Colby and highlighted that both have pushed for reducing U.S. support to Ukraine in the interest of prioritizing the defense of Taiwan.

Hawley, despite his occasional skepticism of U.S. engagement abroad and opposition for aid to Ukraine, is a vocal supporter of Israel and backed the U.S. strikes on Iran, telling Jewish Insider that he trusted the administration not to allow such an operation to turn into a protracted war.

Velez-Green has said he began his time in Washington focused on Middle East issues, and he worked for Colby at the Center for a New American Security. He’s been critical of the hawkish wing of the GOP.

“We can’t wish away scarcity. The reality is our military doesn’t have many of the things it needs to fight & win against our greatest threat [China],” Velez-Green said on X in 2023. “And our industrial base isn’t in a position to produce those things quickly. Our nation’s defense depends on our ability to prioritize.”

He was more recently a senior policy advisor at the Heritage Foundation, where he co-wrote a report calling for the U.S. to continue strongly supporting Israel and to work to increase cooperation between Israel and the Gulf States against Iran. The report states that supporting Israel’s defense “should be a top priority given America’s unique and long-standing relationship with Israel, but it also directly aids U.S. efforts to counter Iran.”

But it also argues that the U.S.’ interests in the Middle East must be pursued “without detracting from U.S. force posture in the Indo-Pacific.” The report argues that the U.S.’ defense of and support for Israel should “rely primarily if not exclusively on weapons that are not required for Taiwan’s defense.”

Colby, behind the scenes, reportedly argued against the relocation of missile defense resources from the Indo-Pacific to the Middle East and other moves he said would detract from a focus on Asia.

In the Heritage report, Velez-Green and his co-author described Iran as a “formidable adversary” but not one positioned to dominate the Middle East. He said the U.S.’ most critical role to play in the region would be to “retain — or, as needed, develop — its ability to destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities. U.S. forces must also be able to act decisively in the rare cases where a focused, limited intervention is needed — for example, if Israel’s survival was in doubt. Finally, the United States must always be able to impose severe costs on Iran’s leaders.”

Velez-Green has also described Israel as a “higher priorit[y]” than Ukraine.

Last month, the Heritage Foundation — after Velez-Green’s time at the think tank — offered a cautious response to the U.S. strikes on Iran, warning that they must not turn into a broader conflict.

A former Marine officer, Dahmer has, like Velez-Green, argued that the U.S. lacks the capabilities to fight wars in multiple theaters at the same time, though he has also argued that defending Israel requires fewer tradeoffs than assisting Ukraine in regards to the defense of Taiwan. He expressed support for supplemental aid for Israel last year, while arguing against aid to Ukraine.

“Israel is a close & capable ally which will require very minimal security assistance above the status quo, which we should provide,” Dahmer wrote on X. “When the same request contains ‘humanitarian aid’ to Gaza which will be commandeered by Hamas, this ‘support’ to Israel looks performative.”

He also criticized the Biden administration for “shameful[ly]” encouraging Israel to delay its own military operations in October 2023 while the U.S. worked to protect its own forces, and described U.S. forces deployed in Syria and Iraq as “counterproductive to US interests.”

Colby also announced Tuesday that John Noh had been nominated to be assistant secretary of defense for Indo-Pacific security affairs, after serving as deputy assistant secretary of defense for Asia. Noh is a former staffer for the House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party, federal prosecutor and Army officer who served in Afghanistan. 

The Senate voted to advance the nomination of Elbridge Colby to be undersecretary of defense for policy on Monday, teeing up a final confirmation vote for later this week, with three Democrats crossing party lines to vote in favor of advancing to a final vote on his confirmation.

Colby’s nomination advanced in a 53-39 vote on Monday evening, with no Republicans voting against him. It was unclear going into Monday’s vote what the final whip count would be, the result of Colby’s nomination being advanced in a secret vote during a classified session of the Senate Armed Services Committee last week. 

A final vote on Colby’s confirmation is scheduled for Tuesday morning. 

Sen. Jack Reed (D-RI), the top Democrat on Armed Services, Sen. Mark Kelly (D-AZ) and Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-MI) voted for the procedural motion to advance Colby’s nomination to a final vote on Monday. All three serve on Armed Services, and Slotkin worked with Colby in the past. Slotkin, who has worked for the Defense Department and the Central Intelligence Agency, told Jewish Insider in February that she was familiar with Colby’s record because he “used to be my assistant.”

Sens. Ruben Gallego (D-AZ), Cory Booker (D-NJ), John Fetterman (D-PA), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), Jon Ossoff (D-GA), Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Tim Sheehy (R-MT) did not attend Monday’s vote. 

The Democratic backers of Colby come as something of a surprise given the tough questioning the nominee faced from Democrats at his confirmation hearing on his skepticism of U.S. support for Ukraine and other issues.

Colby has faced pushback from some Republican lawmakers over his past support for accommodating a nuclear Iran. He walked back some of those positions, including that the U.S. could contain a nuclear armed Iran and that it should not attack Iran to stop it from obtaining a nuclear weapon, during his confirmation hearing last month. 

Several Republicans could vote against Colby on the final vote on Tuesday, but none of the potential critics previewed their plans to JI on Monday.

Colby said at the hearing that a nuclear Iran would be an “existential danger” to the United States and that he would provide the administration with military options to prevent such an outcome. He also said his past comments had been intended to push back on what he viewed as an overly hawkish public consensus at the time.

Those comments, along with a private lobbying effort by Colby and his allies to assuage concerns and distance himself from other controversial Pentagon hires, had a positive impact on skeptical senators who had been hesitant about voting to confirm him. 

“Speaking for me, he did answer things the way he needed to answer them, adequate at least to my satisfaction,” one GOP senator told JI last month. “He has said the things he needed to say to the satisfaction of people who like me and maybe others — I can’t speak for any of them … and he was pretty convincing.”

Jewish Insider’s senior congressional correspondent Marc Rod contributed to this report.

Elbridge Colby, the nominee to be the Pentagon’s undersecretary for policy, appears to be on track to pass a crucial hurdle toward confirmation in spite of strong GOP concerns earlier in his confirmation process about his dovish past views on Iran, among other issues.

The Senate Armed Services Committee has not yet scheduled a vote to advance Colby’s nomination to the full Senate, due to outstanding paperwork that the committee has not yet received, Sen. Roger Wicker (R-MS) told Jewish Insider on Thursday. But multiple committee members told JI they expect him to move successfully through the committee.

A Republican senator on the committee told JI on Thursday they believe Colby is on track to clear the committee and is not aware of lingering issues. Sen. Markwayne Mullin (R-OK), a committee member, also told JI, “we’re good.”

Another Senate Republican said that they believe Colby had done enough during his confirmation hearing and private conversations to assuage concerns from skeptical Senate Republicans concerned about his past views on Iran and other policy areas, as well as to distance himself from other controversial Pentagon hires.

“Speaking for me, he did answer things the way he needed to answer them, adequate at least to my satisfaction,” the senator said. “He has said the things he needed to say to the satisfaction of people who like me and maybe others — I can’t speak for any of them … and he was pretty convincing.”

Colby walked back his past views at his hearing, saying that a nuclear Iran would be an “existential danger” to the United States and that he would provide the administration with military options to prevent such an outcome. He also said his past comments had been intended to push back on what he viewed as an overly hawkish public consensus at the time.

He also distanced himself from Michael DiMino, the dovish deputy assistant secretary of defense for the Middle East.

The senator described Colby as indisputably sharp and smart, and added that Colby’s past comments should be taken in the context of his previous role as “an opiner” rather than a “policy guy.”

Asked if he plans to support Colby, Sen. Mike Rounds (R-SD), a hawkish Republican on Armed Services, told JI, “I think we’re moving forward at this stage in the game.”

Sen. Jacky Rosen (D-NV), who also serves on Armed Services, told JI after Colby’s confirmation hearing that she had concerns about what she described as his “bait and switch” on his positions on Iran. She had questioned Colby at his hearing about his calls for the U.S. to prioritize China and the IndoPacific over other regions and reduce its presence elsewhere.

“He literally told all of us there — and you saw that Chairman Wicker was trying to get him to answer my question — that he will focus on one country and ignore the others,” Rosen said. “Well, I can tell you, you have a home, and you tell the burglars, ‘I’m only going to lock the front door, but I don’t have the resources to lock the other doors or windows in my house.’ Do you think they’re just going to go away? They’re not. And so I don’t believe that he is forward-thinking enough to do this job, and I think Chairman Wicker agrees with me on that.”

The Republican Jewish Coalition urged the “swift confirmation” of Elbridge Colby as undersecretary of defense for policy in the Trump administration, according to a new letter, even as he faced scrutiny from pro-Israel conservatives over his dovish views on Iran and frequent calls to scale back U.S. involvement in the broader Middle East.

In the letter, which was sent on Thursday to Sen. Roger Wicker (R-MS), the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, RJC leadership said it was “confident” Colby “will enact the strong pro-Israel policy of” President Donald Trump and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, arguing the nominee “will be an asset to” the administration’s national security team. 

“Mr. Colby understands that a strong and secure Israel is in America’s interests as well,” RJC CEO Matt Brooks and Norm Coleman, the group’s national chairman, wrote in their letter backing Colby. “He fully supports the continued robust U.S. political, military and financial support of Israel,” they added, noting Colby has “called Israel a model ally” and “will ensure that Israel can continue to check the aggression of our common enemies in Iran and its proxies in the region.”

The letter suggested the RJC was willing to overlook major potential differences with Colby, as Trump’s allies continued to fall in line behind some of his more divisive nominees awaiting confirmation. 

Colby’s possible ascendancy also underscores how a new generation of defense advisors deeply skeptical of U.S. engagement abroad is poised to shape the Trump administration’s foreign policy — overshadowing more traditionally conservative voices raising concerns about recent hires at the Pentagon.

In contrast with the RJC, Colby, a so-called defense “prioritizer,” has voiced a more sanguine assessment of Iran, which he regards as a less urgent threat to U.S. interests than China. Colby has also argued that containing a nuclear Iran “is an eminently plausible and practical objective.” 

Colby, who has called the Middle East “relatively unimportant,” has supported a withdrawal of U.S. military forces in the Persian Gulf that have helped defend Israel from Iranian missile attacks, saying that the U.S. can “more efficiently” deter Iran “by bolstering the military capabilities of its partners in the region.”

“If Iran’s provocations need to be answered, Washington must do so in a way that limits military involvement in the Middle East,” he wrote in a 2019 article. “If this means doing less than we might like against Iran, so be it.”

More recently, Colby questioned the Biden administration’s efforts to counter the Houthis, the Iran-backed proxy group in Yemen that has targeted Israel and global shipping lanes. While Colby has voiced support for Israel, he has called for a “reset” on the U.S.-Israel alliance to confront Beijing.

“America should be ready to provide potent material and political support to Israel,” Colby wrote shortly before the Hamas Oct. 7, 2023, attacks. “But at the same time, Israel should understand that the United States, which cannot afford to be enmeshed in another Middle Eastern war, will take a supporting role.”

He has otherwise opposed U.S. military assistance to Ukraine amid its war with Russia, which he has dismissed as a “peripheral conflict” with respect to U.S. national security interests. For its part, the RJC has urged Congress to back aid to Ukraine, saying “it is in America’s national interest to see Russia’s military might diminished and its malign strategic aims thwarted.”

Colby, whose confirmation hearing has not yet been scheduled, served in the first Trump administration as a deputy assistant secretary of defense and more recently worked at WestExec Advisors, a consulting firm co-founded by former Secretary of State Tony Blinken. Colby is an ally of Tucker Carlson, who has also pushed his inclusion in the Trump administration.

Sam Markstein, a spokesperson for RJC, said that “the letter in support of Mr. Colby came about as a result of extensive conversations with” Brooks and Coleman, “as we do with a wide range of various appointees and nominees for key administration positions.”

“After the conversation, in which we asked a wide range of questions and drilled down on his views, his commitment to support for Israel is clear,” Markstein told Jewish Insider on Sunday, “and as we said in the letter, Mr. Colby ‘will be an asset to President Trump’s solidly pro-Israel national security team.’”

Robert O’Brien, a former national security advisor in the first Trump administration, said he believed Colby’s foreign policy approach has “in some ways” been “mischaracterized,” calling Colby a “hawk when it comes to Israel and the Middle East.”

“I think Bridge’s concern is that the United States can only do so much,” O’Brien explained in a recent interview with JI.

Colby did not respond to a request for comment on Sunday. 

In addition to Colby, some other Pentagon picks have also recently drawn backlash from pro-Israel Republicans, including Michael DiMino, the newly appointed deputy assistant secretary of defense for the Middle East, who has called for a reduced U.S. presence in the Middle East and said the U.S. does not have any critical interests in the region.

Dan Caldwell, a Pentagon advisor who helped lead the transition process at the Defense Department, has likewise advocated for a more restrained foreign policy that would have the U.S. “significantly” pull back its long-standing focus on the Middle East and regional adversaries such as Iran, while expressing a largely skeptical attitude toward Israel, among other views espoused by a growing isolationist wing of the GOP.

As Colby awaits Senate confirmation, his position is currently being held by a protégé, Alex Velez-Green, who most recently worked as a senior policy advisor at the Heritage Foundation.

One Republican foreign policy expert who served in the first Trump administration recently speculated to JI that Colby’s confirmation will be “a real tough one” — though the RJC’s recent letter could serve as a valuable stamp of approval amid broader skepticism from the pro-Israel community.

Eric Levine, a top GOP fundraiser and RJC board member who has vocally opposed the confirmation of Tulsi Gabbard, Trump’s pick to serve as the director of national intelligence, expressed comfort with Colby in an email to JI on Friday. “I’m with RJC,” he said.