“Either you do or you don’t.”

That was Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s verdict on whether members of Congress support America’s warfighters during a contentious July 21 U.S. Senate Appropriations Committee hearing.

Yet senators from both parties had just demonstrated what responsible oversight requires: distinguishing the performance of American troops from the decisions of those who sent them into battle.

Democratic Sen. Martin Heinrich of New Mexico praised the “flawless” technical execution of American forces, while warning against confusing battlefield excellence with “long-term strategic success.” 

Hegseth tried to seize on the word “failure.” He called criticism of the administration’s strategy "reckless," said it smeared the troops’ sacrifice and accused Democrats of “political cowardice” for questioning an $87.6 billion supplemental funding request to support the Iran war effort.

His message was unmistakable: If Congress writes the check, it supports the troops. If it asks what the mission is, it does not.

The U.S. Constitution imposes a more demanding standard. It gives Congress the power to declare war, raise and support armies, provide and maintain a navy and control federal appropriations.

Those responsibilities are connected, but they are not interchangeable. Funding can provide troops with what they need. It cannot substitute for deciding whether the nation should be at war or........

© USA TODAY