Skip to main content

The Trump team’s muddled messaging on a munitions shortfall

(CNN) — Just days before the Iran war began, the United States’ top military official, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Dan Caine, expressed misgivings.

One of Caine’s biggest concerns? How war with Iran could further deplete munitions stockpiles that had already been reduced by helping Ukraine and Israel in their wars in recent years, The Washington Post and CNN reported.

That warning is looking increasingly prescient and pivotal, as the Trump administration struggles to wind down a war that has lasted much longer than it previewed.

But the administration is struggling to reconcile exactly where things stand on the all-important issue of munitions.

On the one hand, it has claimed the US has more than enough munitions — even that Trump has vastly increased the munitions and that the number is “unlimited.” On the other, it has blamed the Biden administration for depleting the stockpiles and asked for a ton of money to help replenish them, while warning about shortfalls if Congress fails to provide it.

“We’re in very good shape,” Trump said Monday. “But for some of the more sophisticated stuff, we’d certainly like to have more. (Former President Joe) Biden gave a lot of it away.”

The president claimed his predecessor had given away “numbers that nobody’s ever seen before.”

US Ambassador to the United Nations Michael Waltz’s interview on NBC News’ “Meet the Press” on Sunday was also a case in point for the administration’s confusing messaging.

When asked about reporting from CNN and others that Caine had again raised concerns about the stockpile in recent days — shortly before the US paused its strikes on Iran on Friday — Waltz, like Trump, blamed the Biden administration.

“(Defense) Secretary (Pete) Hegseth inherited a depleted situation from not only Ukraine, but also the ongoing fight with the Houthis under the Biden administration, and a depleted military under the Biden administration,” Waltz said.

But when pressed by NBC’s Kristen Welker on whether he was admitting the stockpiles were indeed depleted, Waltz claimed he wasn’t.

“No, I want to be crystal clear: The US military — and I’ve verified this every which way — has everything that it needs to conduct this campaign as effectively as it needs to be,” he said.

Waltz’s comment walks a fine line.

As CNN has reported, the risk with the munitions stockpile isn’t so much that the United States won’t have enough to finish prosecuting the Iran war; it’s in how much the war might deplete the stockpile for future wars the United States might feel compelled to get involved in.

That includes exigencies like if China were to invade Taiwan. A depleted US stockpile could even embolden China to do something it might not otherwise attempt.

The administration’s confusing comments about munitions date to the earliest days of the conflict with Iran.

After multiple reports about such concerns around the time the war started, the administration dismissed the issue out of hand.

“We have massive amounts of ammunition,” Trump said on March 4.

Hegseth added March 5 that there was “no shortage of munitions” and that “our munitions are full up.”

“We have tremendous amounts of ammunition,” Trump said March 26, adding that “we’re packed.”

But even in his March 4 comments, the president also seemed to suggest — as he did Monday — that certain types of munitions could be an issue.

While he said the United States had “unlimited middle and upper ammunition,” he cast the “high end” munitions slightly differently. There, he said, “we gave away a lot of high end, but we have plenty.”

By April 21, CNN reported that classified Pentagon data aligned with a Center for Strategic and International Studies analysis showing sharp declines in some of those “high end” munitions. The analysis said the administration had used at least 45% of its Precision Strike Missiles, at least half of its THAAD missiles, almost 50% of its Patriot air defense interceptor missiles and about 30% of its Tomahawk land-attack missiles.

By April 30, Hegseth at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing seemed to confirm it would take “months and years” to replenish certain types of munitions (before trying to emphasize the “months” rather than “years”).

At a House hearing May 12, Hegseth said the munitions issue had been “foolishly and unhelpfully overstated” in the media, saying, “We have plenty of what we need.”

But Caine was more circumspect at the same hearing. He merely said that the military had “sufficient munitions for what we’re tasked to do right now” — with the phrase “right now” potentially looming large.

By June, Hegseth told CBS’ “Face the Nation” that “our stockpiles are great, and they’re only getting stronger” — despite having said less than two months earlier that it would take months or years to replenish them.

But then, while asking Congress for more money at a Senate hearing last week, Hegseth said that without the money, “we face critical shortfalls that threaten our ability to … rapidly replenish equipment and munitions.”

At the same hearing, Appropriations Chairwoman Susan Collins in her opening statement twice cited “shortfalls” in munitions and said they had been “known to this committee for some time.” Hegseth did not correct the Maine Republican.

The munitions issue is undoubtedly a difficult one.

On the one hand, it’s potentially alarming if the administration is significantly depleting important types of high-end munitions — especially by continuing to use them in an unpopular war that doesn’t seem to be nearing an end.

It’s a bit like throwing good money after bad. And replacing those munitions, as Hegseth acknowledged at one point, isn’t just a matter of money; it’s also a matter of the time it takes to produce them.

That raises the prospect that the Iran war hasn’t just been a lost cause, but also that it has potentially harmed national security and the United States’ ability to deter nefarious foreign actors in the near-term future.

On the other hand, if the munitions are being significantly depleted, it’s not particularly helpful to the US for those foreign actors to know that.

Whatever the true state of the munitions stockpile, it’s a sleeping giant of an issue for the Trump administration.

It’s one that not only looms large over how long the administration can continue the Iran war. But it could also linger over American foreign policy whenever the war concludes.

The-CNN-Wire
™ & © 2026 Cable News Network, Inc., a Warner Bros. Discovery Company. All rights reserved.

¿Por qué Irán está perdiendo el control del estrecho de Ormuz?

La batalla por el control del estrecho de Ormuz se convirtió en el eje central de la guerra de Irán. Durante los últimos meses, tanto Irán como Estados Unidos afirmó tener la ventaja, y la retórica en competencia ha causado considerable confusión y duda.Sin embargo, en este momento, la evidencia es clara: Estados Unidos, patrullando el estrecho con sus fuerzas de la marina, gana terreno, mientras Irán pierde gran parte de su control sobre la vía marítima clave.Más del 80 % del tránsito de embarcaciones a través del estrecho de Ormuz en las últimas dos semanas toman la ruta de Omán, un canal de envío autorizado por la ONU que Irán se opone vehementemente, según Kpler, que rastrea los barcos utilizando transpondedores y datos satelitales.Irán, declaró el estrecho bajo su control, atacó a decenas de barcos que intentaron viajar por la vía marítima a través de la costa norte de Omán. A pesar del riesgo, la mayoría de los barcos recientemente han optado por ignorar las demandas de Irán y cruzar el estrecho con la promesa de protección de las fuerzas navales de Estados Unidos.“Cada vez más parece que Irán ha perdido al menos parcialmente el control del estrecho”, dijo Homayoun Falakshahi, jefe de análisis de petróleo crudo en Kpler.Esto contrasta radicalmente con la situación de hace un mes, cuando Kpler no observó prácticamente ningún tráfico marítimo por la ruta de Omán. La fuerte reducción del tráfico alrededor de la ruta preferida de Irán impidió a Irán cobrar peajes en el tráfico de barcos a través del estrecho, como lo hizo en la primavera.La expiración del Memorándum de Entendimiento entre Estados Unidos e Irán esta semana en teoría permite a Irán comenzar a cobrar peajes nuevamente. Pero no parece que el país haya podido, según Kpler.“La solicitud de Irán para cobrar peajes es algo que la mayoría de la gente del Medio Oriente no quiere hacer y no ha estado haciendo”, dijo Dan Pickering, fundador y director de inversiones de Pickering Energy Partners. “Por lo tanto, la ruta de Omán definitivamente tiene más sentido”.Kuwait, Arabia Saudita y los Emiratos Árabes Unidos han fletado transportadores muy grandes de petróleo crudo (VLCCs) —los petroleros más grandes— para salir del golfo Pérsico a través del estrecho de Ormuz, y luego transferir el petróleo a los tanqueros de los clientes fuera de la zona de peligro en el Golfo de Omán, según Andy Lipow, presidente de Lipow Oil Associates.Para evadir los ataques de Irán, apagaron sus transpondedores, a menudo durante semanas. Ese llamado tráfico oscuro parece haber eludido algunos servicios de seguimiento de datos como Kpler también. Aunque algunos pueden ser capturados por satélite, es más difícil seguirlos por medios tradicionales.Pero Estados Unidos, que con una fuerza militar significativa en el mar, vigila todos los barcos que pasan por el estrecho y ha informado cifras de envío de petróleo significativamente más altas de lo que la mayoría de las estimaciones tradicionales habían sugerido anteriormente.El Secretario de Energía Chris Wright dijo la semana pasada que los tránsitos combinados de petróleo a través del estrecho y redirigidos alrededor de la vía marítima sumaron alrededor de 15 millones de barriles por día durante el transcurso de una semana, mucho más cercanos al promedio de 20 millones de barriles antes de la guerra.Eso llevó al presidente Donald Trump a declarar el lunes que Estados Unidos tiene “control total sobre el estrecho”, una afirmación cuestionable que ha reiterado a menudo durante el conflicto. Los continuos ataques de Irán y los flujos de petróleo aún muy por debajo de los niveles prebélicos sugieren que Estados Unidos no controla completamente el estrecho de Ormuz.Pero tampoco Irán.“Si su objetivo es estar “a cargo”, entonces diría que nunca estuvieron completamente en control para empezar”, dijo Pickering. “Parece que su objetivo es la disuasión, con el fin de ser validados como en control. Creo que todavía están disuadiendo”.Pero si los petroleros realmente están obteniendo tanto petróleo a través del estrecho como Estados Unidos afirma, entonces la disuasión y el control de Irán del estrecho de Ormuz se han reducido en comparación con lo que era hace un mes o dos.Para complicar aún más las cosas: Omán e Irán están entablando conversaciones para restaurar la libertad de navegación a través del estrecho, sin la participación de Estados Unidos, para consternación de Trump. No está claro cómo afectarán estas discusiones al tráfico de petróleo o al control de la vía marítima.“Tomaría toda la información y los titulares ‘bajo asesoramiento’”, dijo Lipow. “Pero es justo decir que Irán perdió parcialmente el control del estrecho”.The-CNN-Wire™ & © 2026 Cable News Network, Inc., a Warner Bros. Discovery Company. All rights reserved.
Read Next Story