There is something almost quaint about the idea that the Pentagon might regard Congress as a team sport. One can imagine the scene: Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth arrives on Capitol Hill carrying the usual Washington mixture of charts, talking points and an appetite for an enormous cheque. The number is extraordinary, $1.5 trillion in proposed defence spending. The briefing room, apparently, is where the truly extraordinary part begins, some members of Congress are invited in, others are left outside.
This is not merely bad manners. It is a peculiar misunderstanding of what Congress is. The Constitution did not create a legislative majority and a legislative minority so that one could be treated as the government and the other as a hostile foreign power. Democrats in Congress may be political opponents of the administration. They are not foreign agents. They are not an inconvenient press corps. And they certainly do not stop being representatives of American citizens when they walk through the doors of a classified briefing room.
Hegseth's defenders can invoke leaks, distrust, security concerns and the familiar Washington argument that discretion is sometimes necessary. Fine. Classified information should be protected. But classification is supposed to protect national security, not provide a convenient adjective for political exclusion.
That distinction matters enormously when the department seeking congressional approval is asking for a sum so large that it could make even Washington's accustomed relationship with the word “trillion” seem slightly embarrassed. Hegseth is not asking Congress merely to admire his budget. He needs Congress to authorise, appropriate and ultimately legitimise it.
And yet the Pentagon appears increasingly comfortable treating congressional oversight as something to be managed rather than something to be respected.
The irony is almost too perfect. An administration demanding extraordinary military power is simultaneously narrowing the circle of lawmakers permitted to scrutinise it. The larger the budget becomes, the smaller the audience apparently gets.
Even Republicans have begun to object. That should make everyone nervous, because when members of the governing party start complaining that their own secretary of defence is turning national security into partisan property, the problem has moved beyond ordinary Washington tribalism.
There is a deeper danger here. Institutions acquire habits long before they acquire names. Today it is Democrats excluded from a briefing. Tomorrow it could be Republicans who have fallen out of favour with the president. Eventually Congress discovers that the executive branch has quietly decided which legislators deserve information and which deserve explanations after the fact.
That is how democratic erosion tends to work: rarely with a dramatic announcement, usually through administrative decisions that are defended as temporary, practical or necessary.
The Pentagon is not a political campaign office. The Secretary of Defence is not the president's partisan enforcer. Classified briefings are not rewards handed to friends.
America's military strength ultimately depends on something less glamorous than missiles, drones or aircraft carriers: constitutional trust.
A Pentagon that cannot distinguish between secrecy and partisan loyalty risks weakening precisely the institution it claims to defend. The most alarming secret in Washington may therefore be the one nobody is bothering to classify: democracy requires witnesses.
No comments:
Post a Comment