The Pentagon has infamously failed its audit each year since 2018. The Marine Corps, by contrast, just passed its annual audit for the third year in a row.

Foreign Affairs Correspondent Vaughn Cockayne has more information on the Marine Corps’ success in what is otherwise a largely dismal track record across the U.S. military when it comes to audits. The Marines said the audit’s results reflect the service’s reputation for “accountability, discipline and leadership,” adding that the audit’s findings will help the Corps better deliver on its promises to taxpayers.

Key lawmakers on Capitol Hill urged the Defense Department to better utilize artificial intelligence and automation to help it finally pass an audit.

The Trump administration and its key ally Israel are pushing for Iran’s ballistic missile program to be at the center of ongoing talks between Washington and Tehran. But would Iran even entertain the idea of limits to its prized ballistic missile stockpile of 2,000 weapons?

On the surface, it seems like the answer is no. Top Iranian officials have already ruled it out, at least in their public statements.

There are multiple reasons why. For starters, some analysts say ballistic missiles have achieved an almost “mystical” reputation in the minds of Iranian military leaders, some of whom remember the missiles’ key role in the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s and now see them as vital to their country’s survival. A declassified 1986 CIA document accurately predicted that Iran would try to bolster its ballistic missile capabilities in the wake of that conflict.

Last year’s highly successful Israeli and U.S. military strikes on Iran could further cement Tehran’s commitment to its ballistic missiles. Key political and military leaders in Iran seem to believe they must protect those missiles at all costs as a means of self-preservation — and a way to strike back against Israel and U.S. bases in the Mideast — if a major war erupts.

It’s a complex question at the heart of 21st-century military strategy: At what point do cyberattacks or other nontraditional methods of war warrant a direct, kinetic military response?

On the latest episode of the Threat Status weekly podcast, Brad Bowman of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies unpacks that question and explains why modern-day dynamics between adversaries require asymmetric thinking.

“Just because someone is attacking us with one tool doesn’t mean we have to respond with that tool,” said Mr. Bowman, senior director of FDD’s Center on Military and Political Power.

So far, of course, none of China’s highly sophisticated cyberattacks have led to a kinetic U.S. military response. But top U.S. military officials warned recently that the nation must do more to stop Beijing’s targeting of critical American infrastructure with cyberattacks.

To get a sense of just how heated Tuesday’s long-awaited immigration enforcement hearing was, consider this question posed by Rep. LaMonica McIver.

“How do you think Judgment Day will work for you with so much blood on your hands?” the New Jersey Democrat asked acting Immigration and Customs Enforcement Director Todd Lyons. “Do you think you’re going to hell?”

Washington Times Reporter Stephen Dinan has more details from the explosive hearing before the House Homeland Security Committee. It was the first time the Trump administration’s top immigration enforcers appeared before lawmakers since the killings of two American citizens in Minnesota. They defended their agencies’ actions as in compliance with laws enacted by Congress and as a needed antidote to the massive border incursions of the Biden years.

Still, even key Republicans say immigration enforcement at times has crossed the line. House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Andrew Garbarino spoke at length about that on a recent episode of the Threat Status weekly podcast.

By the numbers, the U.S. is falling behind China on several key national security fronts: shipbuilding capacity, power generation capacity and infrastructure funding.

Andrew King, general partner of Bastille Ventures, proposes a solution: “Patriotic investment zones” that would offer highly lucrative financial incentives to drive investment in those sectors. Mr. King argues that U.S. public pension funds, which have tens of billions of dollars tied up in Chinese venture capital, can be leveraged to spur economic growth at home.

“We can reverse this flow by offering a simple, radical incentive: zero federal income tax on pension distributions derived from patriotic investment zone investments,” he writes in an op-ed in The Times.

“Here’s how it would work: Currently, state pension funds pay no capital gains tax, but retirees pay ordinary income tax on their monthly checks. Under a patriotic investment zone structure, if a California teachers fund allocates 10% of its capital to domestic shipyards and rare earth mines, then 10% of every retiree’s monthly check becomes tax-free,” Mr. King says.

• Feb. 12 — The State of American Energy Dominance, Foundation for Defense of Democracies

• Feb. 12 — Rep. John Moolenaar, Michigan Republican, on Deterring Aggression Against Taiwan, Atlantic Council

• Feb. 12 — After Caracas: A New U.S. Posture in the Americas and What It Means for China and Russia, Stimson Center

• Feb. 12 — Mapping Putin’s Next Moves — and How Europe Must Prepare for Them, Atlantic Council

• Feb. 13 — Golden Dome One Year In, Center for Strategic and International Studies

• Feb. 17 — Defense Tech Leadership Summit

• Feb. 18 — Post-Maduro Venezuela, Alexander Hamilton Society

• Feb. 23-25 — Warfare Symposium, Air & Space Forces Association