The Pentagon has crafted a secret plan to play “hardball” against House Speaker Paul Ryan’s defense spending proposal, according to a memo obtained by POLITICO that calls for pitting the House and Senate against each other, capitalizing on the “discomfort” of one key Republican lawmaker and finding ways to undermine the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee.

The five-page strategy blueprint also suggests possibly enlisting top military brass to help make the case that the Republican speaker’s budget “gimmick” would weaken the nation's defenses.


The memo, prepared for Defense Secretary Ash Carter and Deputy Secretary Bob Work, reads at times like an intelligence assessment of congressional leaders. It provides an unusually clear window into the tactics the Defense Department’s top officials are using in an increasingly partisan feud over their budget — particularly striking for an agency that seeks to avoid the perception of involvement in election-year politics.

The strategy it lays out will come to a head as Congress returns Tuesday, and will probably spill into the lame-duck session, as the House and Senate decide whether to include an extra $18 billion in war funding in the final defense authorization and appropriations bills they send to President Barack Obama.

The White House strongly objects to Ryan’s proposal to boost the Pentagon’s budget without increasing domestic spending, both of which are under tight caps imposed by a 2011 spending deal.

“We should attack” Ryan’s plan “and be prepared to play hardball opposing it,” says the May 13 memo, which calls for applying both “public and private pressure” on lawmakers to ensure the House Republican proposal doesn’t become law. That includes appealing to "media commentators" to help make the department's case and possibly having Carter lobby congressional Democrats at one of their caucus meetings — a step that it acknowledges “risks the appearance of partisanship.”

In assessing the motivations of House Armed Services Chairman Mac Thornberry, the memo says the Texas Republican is “still smarting” from tactics the White House used in last year’s bout with Congress over defense spending.

Asked to respond to the memo, a Republican aide to Thornberry's panel said it was striking “how cynical it is.”

“This isn’t a game of poker — this is national security,” said the aide, speaking on the condition of anonymity. “They see the chairman’s legitimate oversight concerns and policy concerns that he is trying to address in the bill as nothing more than a talking point.”

Pentagon press secretary Peter Cook said he would not discuss “internal department deliberations” but added the department’s “strong opposition to the House proposal should not be a surprise.”

“Secretary Carter and other senior leaders have repeatedly made clear their deep concerns with a proposal that raids $18 billion in war funds at a time of war, in order to buy force structure that the department has not requested and may be unable to support in the future,” Cook said. “In addition, the proposal also undermines the bipartisan budget agreement that has allowed the department to responsibly plan for the future in our budget proposal.”

The memo is more evidence of frayed ties between Congress and the Pentagon's civilian leaders. Key lawmakers and their aides have been complaining for months about their toxic relationship with the Pentagon under Carter.

“We have less communication than any secretary of defense that I’ve ever been associated with,” Senate Armed Services Chairman John McCain (R-Ariz.) told POLITICO before the long summer congressional recess. “Even when I wasn’t chairman we had more than this.”

Mackenzie Eaglen, a defense analyst at the American Enterprise Institute and former Senate aide, said Carter’s relationship with Congress has been rocky from the beginning.

“When I talk to the senior staff of those two committees, they will tick off on both hands multiple examples of slights,” she said. “He clearly sees no tangible negative impacts, or at least ones worth changing his behavior over.”

The Pentagon has shown some public signs that it is following the playbook outlined in the memo. In July, for example, it took the rare step of announcing the department’s lengthy objections to this year’s National Defense Authorization Act in a so-called “heartburn” letter, rather than the usual practice of quietly sending such concerns to the committees as part of the negotiations on the final bill.

The 23-page letter tore into the bills passed by both the House and Senate, with Carter writing he was “surprised and disappointed about the extent to which provisions in the bills could adversely affect our enterprise.” Cook announced the letter at a press briefing, saying that “Congress needs to join the department in making the tough budget choices that are necessary in this environment.”

The newly obtained strategy memo spells out the Pentagon’s tactics in greater detail.

The blueprint — written by Pentagon Comptroller Mike McCord and legislative affairs chief Stephen Hedger, both former congressional aides — describes Obama’s threat to veto this year’s defense policy and spending bills as “the principal weapon at our disposal.” But it also says Carter might have to take an “all in” approach to opposing the House GOP plan.

At times, the memo appears to step up to the edge of what tactics are considered acceptable for the Pentagon as it lobbies Congress. In discussing its efforts to keep outside experts “informed” about its opposition to Ryan’s plan, for example, it adds that “the department cannot advocate that such individuals take any specific actions.”

At issue is a move by House leaders this year and last year to use a supplemental war spending account, called “Overseas Contingency Operations,” to increase overall defense spending while leaving other federal agencies under strict congressional budget caps. The Defense Department’s base budget is subject to these caps, but its war-spending account is not — so Republicans have sought to game the system by using overseas money to fund base programs.

This year they've gone even further, seeking to fund operations in Afghanistan and Iraq for only half of the next fiscal year. The House budget would shift money from the overseas contingency account to pay for base programs, forcing the next administration to seek supplemental war funds.

Obama vetoed the first draft of last year’s defense authorization bill over the issue — seeking to preserve a spending balance in Congress between the defense budget, which is a priority for many Republicans, and the domestic budget, a priority for Democrats.

Carter has sought to bolster the White House’s position by saying he doesn’t want extra money at the expense of other federal agencies if doing so would undermine “bipartisan stability,” as he told reporters in May. The legislative blueprint makes clear his public statements are part of a much broader lobbying campaign.

Among the suggested Pentagon tactics, according to the memo:

A bid to play the Senate, which did not include the extra overseas funding, against the House: “The secretary should also meet with or call Senators McCain and [Senate Appropriations Chairman Thad] Cochran who have both said they would not include the OCO gimmick in their bills and urge them to hold firm in conference.”

An assessment of House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman Rodney Frelinghuysen’s (lack of) support for Ryan’s plan: “Importantly, we believe HAC-D Chairman Frelinghuysen may be less enthused about following the OCO gimmick format from the HASC bill, but has been directed to do so by the Speaker. Capitalizing on his discomfort could help prevent the gimmick from surviving.”

An appraisal of Thornberry’s resolve: “We believe that Chairman Thornberry is still smarting from the veto sustaining vote that the FY2016 NDAA received the first time it was on the floor last year and has vowed to do everything in his power to ensure he gets a strong vote this year.” The memo notes that Thornberry’s “savvy inclusion” of Democratic priorities, such as a New Balance shoe provision and more submarines, “means he will probably achieve that strong vote.”

A plan to use the brass to bolster the department’s position: “Of the three or four aspects of opposition the department has already communicated, the idea that the gimmick gambles with war funding might resonate the loudest in Congress and the public. If that is the case, then the various courses of action described below should include significant senior military leader involvement.”

An effort to lobby Democrats, necessary to back up the veto threat, by having Carter appear at one of their caucus meetings: “This engagement can be crucial in convincing Democratic members, particularly in an election year, to take a potentially difficult vote in opposition to a defense bill. Appearing at these meetings does impact votes, but it also risks the appearance of partisanship.”

A move to enlist the support of outside sources: “The department can also ensure outside influencers, such as former secretaries, former military leaders, think tank leaders and media commentators are fully informed about the department’s concerns. The department cannot advocate that such individuals take any specific actions, however.”