Sen. Mike Rounds (R-SD) told Jewish Insider on Wednesday that there was a “broad consensus” among members of the Senate Armed Services committee that two nominees tapped to serve under Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Elbridge Colby did not yet have sufficient support to move ahead at a committee meeting on Wednesday.

Confirmation hearings for the two nominees — Alex Velez-Green and Austin Dahmer, who were initially expected to receive votes in committee on Wednesday — turned into an airing of the grievances by a series of Republican and Democratic senators with Colby and his office.

The senators accused the Defense Department’s policy team of failing to properly communicate or consult with Congress on key decisions and issues, and of executing their own policy at odds with and without authorization from the White House on various issues. Colby is viewed as one of the leading isolationist voices in the Trump administration.

Rounds told JI that there was a “broad consensus” on the committee that more time was needed to consider the two nominations.

“I don’t think it was one or two people holding it up, or anything like that. … My impression was the committee felt the support there was not ready yet, but … we didn’t want to hold up anybody else,” Rounds said.

Republicans have only a one-vote majority on the committee, so they cannot afford to lose any GOP votes if all Democrats plan to vote against a given nominee.

Senate Armed Services Committee Republican leadership did not respond to a request for comment. Sen. Jack Reed (D-RI), the Democratic ranking member, deferred to Republicans when asked Wednesday about the postponed votes.

Members of the Senate Armed Services Committee from both parties voiced concerns with Elbridge Colby, under secretary of defense for policy, and his office at the Pentagon, at a committee hearing — for the second time this week.

While Thursday’s proceedings, a confirmation hearing for Alex Velez-Green, nominated to be Colby’s top deputy and who has been a senior advisor to him in an interim capacity, were generally less heated than a Tuesday hearing with nominee Austin Dahmer, lawmakers reiterated concerns with a lack of consultation by Colby’s team and alleged rogue decision-making on a range of issues by the office.

“Many of this committee have serious concerns about the Pentagon’s policy office and how it is serving the president of the United States and the Congress,” Sen. Roger Wicker (R-MS), the chairman of the committee, said in his opening statement. “In many of these conversations, we hear that the Pentagon policy office seems to be doing what it pleases without coordinating, even inside the U.S. executive branch.” 

Wicker, pushing back on a defense offered earlier this week by Dahmer — who dismissed many concerns as fallacious and based on inaccurate media reporting — said that the issues raised by committee members were based on their own conversations with other administration officials and United States allies.

“Either all of these other administration officials and senior foreign officials are deliberately misleading us or we have a problem coming from this office,” he continued.

He said that the policy office can begin to rectify those issues by meeting “its statutory requirement to consult with this committee … rather than simply informing us of a decision after the fact.”

“We need a process that works for the president and the [Congress]. Unfortunately, we do not have such a process at this moment,” Wicker said, adding that progress will require a “change in a mindset” from the policy office.

Sen. Rick Scott (R-FL) added that, “the perception is that there’s some disagreement between what has been put out [by the policy office] and what the president wants. And I think it’s pretty important that you guys figure out how to stop that.”

Velez-Green generally took a conciliatory posture, pledging to communicate and consult with lawmakers whenever possible and appropriate. He also insisted that the policy office and the entire Department of Defense have been diligent in ensuring they are fully aligned with the president’s policy.

But Velez-Green also insisted that the policy office had not directed a pause in U.S. arms transfers to Ukraine, which was later publicly overridden by President Donald Trump, who said he had not been aware of or instructed any such moves. Multiple Senate Republicans pointed to a news release from the Pentagon that specifically stated that such a pause had been implemented.

Velez-Green also denied media reports that Colby had opposed the deployment of additional U.S. forces to the Middle East during the war between Israel and Iran.

Lawmakers again raised concerns that they and U.S. allies in Romania had been notified only days ahead of time that the U.S. would be withdrawing troops from Romania, and that lawmakers were only provided a notification after the decision had been made rather than consulted ahead of time.

“Congress was not consulted about this. I think I can say with certainty about that,” Wicker said.

Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-MO) was the only lawmaker to offer an unequivocal defense of Colby and his office, accusing those criticizing Colby over both policy decisions and communication issues of attempting to block his policy preferences.

“I think much of the criticism, which is cloaked in terms of transparency and communication, really is just an effort to undermine a shift in our foreign policy orientation, which I support, which is to realism, as opposed to some of the failed points of view that have dominated permanent Washington over the last 30 years,” Schmitt said, adding that criticisms of Colby and his team reflect “resistance from those invested in maintaining the foreign policy status quo that has repeatedly failed the American people.”

Justin Overbaugh is set to be the latest affiliate of the Koch-backed Defense Priorities think tank placed in a top post at the Defense Department, approaching confirmation as the deputy under secretary of defense for intelligence and security.

Numerous others affiliates of the isolationist think tank have been picked for top roles in the Defense Department and the Trump administration, including Michael DiMino, the deputy assistant secretary of defense for the Middle East; William Ruger, the deputy director of national intelligence for mission integration; Dan Caldwell, a senior advisor at the Pentagon who has since been fired; and Daniel Davis, who was initially picked for the deputy director of national intelligence role but had his job offer rescinded amid public scrutiny.

A number of the Defense Priorities alumni throughout the administration have taken vocal positions opposing action against Iran and arguing the U.S. should pull back from the Middle East. Overbaugh, by contrast, lacks the extensive public record of those other officials — though he has also broadly called for a more restrained U.S. role in the world — and his nomination has attracted little public attention or controversy.

Overbaugh spent 25 years in the Army, retiring as a colonel, and focused on intelligence and global counterintelligence operations.

“I hope to lead the enterprise in strategic assessments that shape defense requirements, ensuring they are data-driven, actionable, and aligned with national security priorities,” Overbaugh said in written testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee. “I believe that we do not have the resources to cover all threats simultaneously, therefore we must be deliberate and discerning about the capabilities we pursue to defend our Nation and deter, or if necessary, defeat, our adversaries.”

His confirmation hearing in early May passed without incident and he was reported favorably out of the committee weeks later. The nomination will likely be considered on the Senate floor soon.

He argued in a co-authored piece for the Journal of Strategic Security in 2023 that the U.S. needed to reformulate its global foreign policy approach.

“It is time for the United States to rethink the foundations of its foreign policy as its global hegemony declines. America’s existing grand strategic enterprise—one that aspired to build a rules-based international order through liberal markets, institutions, and norms since 1990—increasingly appears to be unsustainable,” the article reads. “As a result, the current generation of American leaders, advisors, and foreign policy practitioners need to consider whether the decline of the liberal hegemony signals a necessary decline in the fortunes of [the] United States on the world stage or, rather, provides an opportunity for a healthy reset of grand strategic thinking.”

It concludes, “Principled beliefs may have a place in American foreign policy but pursuing them demands a clear understanding of their impact to dispel the erroneous belief that there are no trade-offs involved.”