Defense Department Budget Tells a Story

Donald Trump’s priorities are quite different from those of Joe Biden.

As Matthew 6:21 reminds us, “For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.” The same can be said about the way the Department of Defense builds a budget for national security. Where the money is allocated is where America’s defense priorities lie. Recently, Donald Trump sent Congress his FY2026 President’s Budget Request for Defense (PBR-D). The total topped out at just over $1 trillion. However, that number is deceiving because $113 billion of that funding is mandatory spending included in the FY2025 Reconciliation Bill, which, for defense, is a must-pass legislation.

Trump’s Defense Budget Prioritizes Warfighting

Several areas of the FY2026 PBR-D differ significantly from President Trump’s predecessor’s submission. Of course, the non-value-added climate funding and social justice nonsense are absent. To understand the shift in priorities from the last administration, defense spending should be viewed as the total trillion-dollar package. The press statement for the White House budget release explained, “In combination with $119 billion in mandatory funding [reconciliation bill], the Budget increases Defense spending by 13 percent, and prioritizes investments to strengthen the safety, security, and sovereignty of the homeland, deter Chinese aggression in the Indo-Pacific, and revitalize our defense industrial base.”

Unlike previous budgets that merely talked about investing in the Indo-Pacific, the recent defense package provides substantial funding for it. The current request focuses on deterring China through investments in shipbuilding, missile defense (Golden Dome initiative), space-based systems, nuclear modernization, and the forward basing of forces (an enduring military presence). The Trump PBR-D emphasizes replacing and adding to munitions stores, particularly long-range anti-ship missiles, Tomahawk cruise missiles, and torpedoes, essential for countering a cross-Taiwan Strait invasion of Taiwan or offensive operations in the South China Sea. Funding for munitions is just over $20 billion, compared with the previous administration, which requested only $3 billion for similar weaponry.

The People’s Republic of China can pick and choose its fights, since it is not inextricably vested in any one region. The US national security team finds itself in the position of being engaged across the globe, where Taiwan and the Indo-Pacific form just one, albeit critical, region. As Real Clear Defense explained:

“And while we react, China builds. Slowly. Systematically. Its military footprint in Djibouti is no accident — it’s a strategic outpost at a maritime chokepoint. Its port investments across the Indian Ocean and Pacific Islands aren’t just economic — they’re pre-positioning efforts. When we take our eyes off the Indo-Pacific, China doesn’t pause. It capitalizes.”

In the area of nuclear modernization, the Pentagon has sustained its investment in the LGM-35 Sentinel program, the replacement for the aging Minuteman III Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs) deployed across the northern tier of the United States. The Defense Department requested nearly $3.5 billion; $1.5 billion is in the reconciliation bill. The Sentinel program’s escalating costs and schedule slips would typically have identified the project for cancellation. However, as a critical leg in the nuclear triad, Sentinel is too strategically crucial to fail.

Limping Gazelle Programs Are Easy Prey

Another limping gazelle program did not escape the ax. The Trump FY2026 PBR-D zeroed out money for the Air Force’s E-7A Wedgetail, based on the Boeing 737-700 commercial plane. Intended to replace the E-3 Sentry (a Boeing 707) airborne warning and control system (AWACS), the E-7A was plagued with rising costs ($724 million per aircraft), delays in schedule (first flight delayed until May 2027), and concerns about survivability in airspace where the Wedgetail would be required to fly. As with a herd of gazelles, the weak and limping are easy prey. In keeping with the change in strategic direction of the budget, the AWACS mission will shift to space-based systems. Early reports indicate that this program cut is likely to be met with congressional pushback. Many believe that space-based systems or other aircraft with similar radars and communications equipment are no substitute for the proposed E-7A’s capability.

Overall, comparing the FY2026 PBR-D to President Joe Biden’s defense budget tells a story of significantly different priorities, funding levels, and policy approaches. Defense spending, including the FY2025 Reconciliation Bill, has been increased by 13%. The emphasis is on readiness and modernization, with a clear warrior ethos. The challenge for subsequent years will be to achieve a managed trend in increased defense spending. Having the reconciliation bill to cover a hike in spending is analogous to having a built-in supplemental. It is a phenomenon that should not be counted on in the coming years.

The views expressed are those of the author and not of any other affiliate.