Fund defense now or watch Democrats gut it later

In Focus delivers deeper coverage of the political, cultural, and ideological issues shaping America. Published daily by senior writers and experts, these in-depth pieces go beyond the headlines to give readers the full picture. You can find our full list of In Focus pieces here.

Congressional Republicans are understandably leery of passing a third reconciliation bill so close to an election, especially one that spends $350 billion to fulfill President Donald Trump’s supplementary defense request. They should do so despite their misgivings because House Democrats will likely starve defense if they win control.

No one who has studied the matter doubts that the United States needs to increase its defense spending significantly. China is arming at a rapid clip and already has more navy ships than America. It’s crucial to our security that we start to increase the size of our fleet simply to keep up.

Many American weapons systems are also nearing the end of their useful life. Our strategic nuclear force needs replacing, for example. Many of the Navy’s aircraft carriers and submarines are aging out of service, and the Air Force’s fighters, bombers, and support aircraft are also increasingly decades old. The new equipment will surely be more capable than what it replaces, but that won’t supply the needed increase in the military’s size.

The rapid development of drone warfare is another important factor. The U.S. needs its own drone capability, and fast. It needs to create and deploy newer, cheaper anti-drone defense systems to counteract what enemies like Iran have already shown they can do. When Iran can force America to use an expensive Patriot missile to take down one cheap drone, Iran’s asymmetric warfare allows the poorer and weaker power to win the economic war of attrition against us.

Then there’s Trump’s desire to build a “Golden Dome” anti-missile defense system. The success of Israel’s “Iron Dome” shows that a successful defense against ballistic missiles and other aerial threats is possible. Building and deploying that won’t be cheap, but it will be worth every penny we spend.

Taken together, one can easily see why Trump proposed spending a record high $1.5 trillion on defense this year.

Political realities also show why he chose to split it into two parts: a $1.15 trillion baseline budget and the $350 trillion supplemental request he wants funded through reconciliation. The baseline budget has to go through the regular appropriations process. That means Senate Democrats can filibuster it unless they get something they value. That surely means additional domestic spending, or the rescission of any proposed program cuts that Republicans can agree upon.

Democrats have traditionally pushed for so-called “parity”: every dollar of increased defense spending needs to be met by a dollar in increased spending on domestic programs. Trump’s $1.15 trillion on-budget request is already a 28%, or $242 billion, hike from last year. The parity principle for that increase alone would shock Republican consciences. Adding $350 billion more would be impossible to advance through Congress.

That entire amount, however, is what it will take to fund what America needs. Many of the administration’s biggest plans, such as additional F-35 fighters and ramping up production of critical munitions, are to be financed through this proposal. Rejecting it essentially says America is not prepared to meet the many and growing needs that changes in warfare and China’s rise pose.

Funding these programs through reconciliation also gives the administration flexibility in how to spend the money. That fund is intended to be disbursed over many years rather than all at once. As with the funds for the border wall and border enforcement included in the first two reconciliation packages, the programs a third bill would pay for would come online over the next few years. They are thus more like capital investments than ongoing operational spending.

U.S. Army’s armored vehicles move during a joint river-crossing exercise between South Korea and the United States as a part of the Freedom Shield military exercise in Yeoncheon, South Korea, Saturday, March 14, 2026. (AP Photo/Ahn Young-joon)

" data-large-file="https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/AP26073246101739.jpg?w=696" src="https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/AP26073246101739.jpg?w=696" alt="U.S. Army's armored vehicles move during a joint river-crossing exercise." class="wp-image-4582627" srcset="https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/AP26073246101739.jpg 1024w, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/AP26073246101739.jpg?resize=300,200 300w, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/AP26073246101739.jpg?resize=768,512 768w, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/AP26073246101739.jpg?resize=150,100 150w, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/AP26073246101739.jpg?resize=696,464 696w" sizes="(max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px">U.S. Army’s armored vehicles move during a joint river-crossing exercise between South Korea and the United States as a part of the Freedom Shield military exercise in Yeoncheon, South Korea, Saturday, March 14, 2026. (Ahn Young-joon/AP Photo)

This fact is crucial, as it places the needed expansion of our military outside congressional Democrats’ grasp. Passing this via reconciliation means the GOP can do this via a party-line vote; Senate Democrats have no power to stop it and force extra domestic spending in return for dropping their filibuster. The funds are also not subject to annual renewal, as is the case with programs paid for through the normal appropriations process. Democrats can therefore not cut spending and programs partway through the process if they regain control of one branch of Congress.

That, however, is a very strong likelihood this fall. Trump’s low job approval rating means polls currently show Democrats well ahead on the congressional generic ballot, historically a good proxy for aggregate support in House races. Senate polls also show as many as six Republican-held seats are at risk.

Democrats will almost certainly halt any subsequent defense spending increases if they regain control. Former President Joe Biden’s defense budget requests failed to keep up with inflation; only Senate Republican pressure forced eventual compromises that hiked spending. There’s no reason to think congressional Democrats will be any more willing to pay for our defense needs today.

The dramatic rise of socialists means they likely would be even less willing to do that. The Democratic Socialists of America’s platform calls for dramatic cuts to the military and the closure of U.S. bases abroad. Most Democrats know that’s impossible, but they will all be looking over their left shoulders next year despite that. Expect a Democratic-drafted defense bill to hold spending constant, or perhaps cut it, to appease this growing party faction.

This means the reconciliation bill is likely the last chance to fund the defense America needs. Punt on that or try to nickel and dime it to death by only appropriating an amount expected to be spent within one year, and congressional Republicans will put the political cart before the patriotic horse.

Nor should Republicans be overly concerned about paying for this increase through further spending cuts. There’s a lot of fat to be excised from the federal budget, but the time to do that was during the first reconciliation bill. Cutting domestic spending four months before the midterm to pay for defense hikes is not a good look.

They should also resist the temptation to add tax cuts to the bill as a political sweetener unless they are sent directly to the middle and working classes. No supply-sider favorite, such as inflation indexing the basis for assets subject to the capital gains tax, will prove a political hit and might be a serious liability. They are also highly likely to be repealed in the Democrats’ own budget bill, which would set up a veto showdown with Trump on an issue that does not play well with swing voters.

There’s also a political upside to the defense hike: jobs. Weapons are built in America, and if we are building more of them, we are employing more American workers. National security concerns also mean defense companies are much more likely to employ only U.S. citizens.

RESTORING AMERICA: THE ‘AMERICA FIRST’ FOREIGN POLICY PUTS AMERICA LAST

The debt should also not be an obstacle to passage. We should worry about the ballooning national debt, but $350 billion extra in spending is peanuts in comparison to the over $39 trillion debt. The extra spending for defense could be the difference between winning a showdown with China and being forced to step down. The marginal increase in debt is not going to push us any closer to a financial crisis than our massive annual deficits already are.

Sometimes a responsible party just has to do the right thing. Building a nest egg for defense is such a thing. Congressional Republicans should take a line from Nike and just do it.