Defence budget demands are the biggest in US history.
Senator Dems Blast Gop for passing “Big Beautiful Bill”
Democrats have sharply criticized GOP Senators for passing President Donald Trump’s “big beautiful bill.”
WASHINGTON – Before the very public feud between President Donald Trump and Elon Musk in February, the president boasted that his allies would find “hundred millions of dollars of fraud and abuse” at the Department of Defense’s Budget Office.
Less than five months later, the Pentagon officially announced its first domestic $1 trillion defense budget proposal for fiscal year 2026, covering the previous year’s total with more than $100 billion. What about the direct “Doge Collaboration” advertised in the Department of Defense budget deployment? Just $6 billion.
Congress must legislate and approve the full budget, but the first tranche of financing for fiscal year 2026 ($1.01 trillion, $119.3 billion) could arrive via Trump’s tax and spending package, called “Big Beauty Building.” The administration has put a key part of Trump’s megaville defense budget, including controversial and conservative policy priorities.
“We argued that a budget is needed to end our four-year chronic investment in our military,” Defense Secretary Pete Hegses said before the Senate’s Armed Worship Committee.
Former President Joe Biden called for an increase in levels of defense spending, but Republicans in Congress called for more. A DOD spokesman told USA Today that Hegseth continues to review cuts or further real contest programs.
Pentagon and NNSA spending contrasts with the substantial cuts in other programs that Congressional administration and Republican majority are seeking. The Settlement Megaville, which passed the Senate on July 1, must win the house approval again before going to Trump for his signature. (The White House did not immediately respond to requests for comment.)
Over the next decade, the settlement bill will cut $1 trillion from Medicaid, according to the Non-Participant Congressional Budget Office. $300 billion from food stamps. Over tens of billions of people from the Clean Energy Program.
Foreign aid and education programs are located in the major budget chopping blocks that Congress has not yet begun deliberation.
Mike Rogers, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee of R-Alabama, said defense spending on the settlement bill is “necessary to restore American deterrence, revitalize defense industrial bases and modernize the military.”
Figures on both sides of the political spectrum, including Trump’s former chief strategist Steve Bannon, have expressed dissatisfaction with the continued growth of the defense budget.
“Unless you’re going to go to the pentagon, you can’t talk about fraud, waste, or abuse in this town,” Bannon said on an April 24 podcast. “And do you know what happened since (Doge) went there? Cricket… the system we have is not sustainable.”
William Harton, a defense spending expert at the Quincy National Institute of Responsibility, told USA Today that the U.S. Department of Defense’s rushing budget deployment omitted key documents detailing the “nuts and bolts” of funding requests.
“It’s going to be very difficult to analyze…their priorities,” Harton said. “There’s a lot of stuff short if you’re a member of Congress trying to evaluate this.”
This could have led lawmakers and analysts to rush to fly blindly during the push of a settlement bill, and Trump ordered Congressional GOP leaders to be on their desks by July 4th.
Hartun argued that more spending on defense is not necessarily equivalent to getting better results, as Congress often spends money based on what Congressional districts or states receive jobs rather than how proposals match US strategy.
Former Rep. John Tierney, who now heads the council for a livable world and arms management and non-proliferation nonprofit organizations, said he believes the political climate will discourage both parties from questioning defence spending.
“There’s not much thought into what the strategy is,” Tierney added.
Nuclear modernization, missile defense will win billions
According to the Pentagon, the proposed defense budget of around $85 billion will be directed towards the US nuclear capabilities and Trump’s Golden Dome missile defense initiative. Much of the funding will go to the American Triad of nuclear-armed bombers, intercontinental ballistic missiles, and nuclear submarines, which are the center of a broader $1.7 trillion nuclear modernization effort.
Halton highlighted the poor track record of the Pentagon and NNSA to maintain such protections on time and on budget.
The government’s Accountability Office estimated in June that the entire cost of developing and deploying the Sentinel ICBM, which is set to replace the Minuteman III missiles that have been monitored since 1970, would rise to “approximately $170 billion” after the new missiles realized they could not use the Legacy Minuteman III silo.
“This project is completely out of control,” claimed Tierney.
The administration hopes the restructured Sentinel program will receive $4.5 billion in fiscal year 2026, according to budget documents. The new silo is not included in the diagram.
The NNSA, which designs, builds and maintains the country’s nuclear warhead, is lined up to increase funding for the arms activities sector by $55.6 billion (or nearly 30%) compared to the previous year.
The agency is struggling to meet its timeline and cost goals to reestablish mass production of nuclear warhead explosive cores known as plutonium pits.
In a May USA Today investigation, the NNSA detailed decades of struggle to ensure adequate federal employees with adequate technical backgrounds and oversees the agency’s complex and vast projects. Government Watchdog consistently highlights the issue of staffing as an agency Achilles heel.
The NNSA’s 2026 budget request does not include significant funding for additional federal employees despite testifying to Congress on May 20th.
“This is a recipe to waste money,” said Hartun, NNSA fundraising boost.
Davis Winkie’s role in covering nuclear threats and national security at USA Today is supported by partnership with Autorider Foundation and Journalism Funding Partner. Funders do not provide editor input.
Contributed by Cybele Mayes-Osterman, USA Today
