Two senior House Armed Services Committee Democrats asked the Navy on Thursday to explain by Nov. 20 why the three leaders of the USS South Dakota were removed from their posts in October and why the service did not notify the committee. Reps. Adam Smith of Washington and Joe Courtney of Connecticut said in a letter to Acting Navy Secretary Hung Cao and Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Daryl Caudle that the removals took effect Oct. 14.

The lawmakers asked whether the dismissals followed a grounding or another mishap at sea. Their letter also sought information about potential injuries, damage and repair costs if an incident occurred. The Associated Press reported that the Navy declined public comment about the reported incident. The lawmakers’ questions and the reported confirmation of the commanding officer’s removal provide separate pieces of the record.

The letter asks what happened before the removals

The three roles identified in the letter were the commanding officer, executive officer and chief of the boat, the senior enlisted leader aboard the submarine. The lawmakers said the Navy’s submarine force public affairs office confirmed the commanding officer’s removal to a reporter. Navy Times reported that The Day of New London first obtained confirmation of the commanding officer’s dismissal and that the lawmakers had yet to receive an explanation for the leadership changes.

The distinction matters because a statement confirming one personnel action leaves open what happened to the rest of the leadership team and why. The letter describes the grounding as alleged and asks the Navy to establish whether there was one. Local reporting likewise described the questions about injuries and damage as conditional. The letter does not establish how an incident occurred, how serious it was or whether the removals shared a single cause.

Lawmakers cite a longstanding notification practice

Smith is the ranking Democrat on the full Armed Services Committee. Courtney is the ranking Democrat on its Seapower and Projection Forces Subcommittee. They wrote that the committee and the Navy have historically shared information about some at-sea accidents and dismissals of ship leadership. They described the arrangement as a practice, saying it had not been expressly written into statute. Their letter asks why the department did not follow that practice in this case.

The lawmakers pointed to earlier cases, including incidents involving the destroyers USS Fitzgerald and USS John S. McCain and the submarines USS Hartford and USS Connecticut. They argued that timely communication after those events helped Congress make decisions on personnel safety and fleet readiness. The House letter makes the oversight issue explicit by asking about training and procedures as well as the reasons for individual personnel decisions.

The letter’s timetable also shows how the issue reached Congress. It describes a reporter seeking comment nearly a month after the date the lawmakers gave for the removals. The lawmakers said they learned of the public confirmation while still waiting for formal notification. That sequence is the basis for their complaint about how the Navy communicated, separate from their questions about the original personnel decision.

The submarine is based in Connecticut

The South Dakota is a Virginia-class nuclear-powered attack submarine, according to the Navy. Submarine Force Atlantic lists it under a squadron in Groton, Connecticut. Its name identifies the vessel, and its home port explains the local interest in whether a mishap occurred and whether repairs might affect the boat’s availability.

That availability is among the questions lawmakers want answered. They asked for a preliminary damage estimate, details about any structural damage and a maintenance timeline if a grounding took place. Those are different measures. A repair bill would indicate the financial cost, while a maintenance schedule would indicate how long the work could take. The letter also asks about possible injuries and whether the circumstances point to training problems that could affect other crews.

The Navy faces questions about other unannounced changes

The AP reported Thursday that the Navy had also removed the commander of a destroyer in September without the public announcement the service has typically issued in such cases. It cited an unnamed defense official for that account. The report also described the departure of the Navy admiral who served as attending physician to Congress and the Supreme Court, which two senators confirmed with few other details. Those cases involved different positions and circumstances. They add context to lawmakers’ concerns about how the service communicates personnel changes.

The Nov. 20 deadline is the lawmakers’ requested date for a response. What happens next depends on what Navy leaders provide to the committee, including whether they confirm a mishap and how they account for the delay in notification. The most immediate question is the sequence of events leading to the command changes. The larger issue raised in the letter is how Congress gets timely information about safety and readiness when the Navy changes leaders after a reported incident.