WASHINGTON
—
The
Pentagon’s
newly
revealed
$1.5
trillion
budget
for
fiscal
2027—
comprising
a
$1.15
trillion
base
request
and
$350
billion
in
reconciliation
—
will
face
an
uphill
battle
on
Capitol
Hill,
analysts
told
Breaking
Defense.
“This
is
not
a
sure
thing,”
said
Todd
Harrison,
a
defense
budget
expert
with
the
American
Enterprise
Institute.
“This
is
not
going
to
be
easy
to
get
through
Congress,
even
with
the
president’s
party
having
majorities
in
both
chambers.”
While
the
request
will
likely
satisfy
defense
hawks
who
have
pressed
Pentagon
officials
to
put
forward
a
budget
that
captures
the
totality
of
what
the
military
thinks
it
needs,
the
sheer
size
of
the
request
could
make
it
difficult
for
lawmakers
to
swallow.
The
$1.15
trillion
base
budget
request
alone
represents
the
first
ever
to
top
the
$1
trillion
mark.
“On
the
one
hand,
it
has
a
lot
of
the
things
that
Congress
has
been
asking
the
department
to
focus
on:
heavy
investments
in
munitions
production
—
both
interceptors
and
offensive
weapons,
heavy
investments
in
shipbuilding,
heavy
investments
in
space
based
stuff,”
said
Carlton
Haelig,
a
fellow
with
the
Defense
Program
at
the
Center
for
a
New
American
Security.
“But
it’s
still
a
really
large
ask
to
put
that
before
Congress
at
$1.5
trillion.”
The
first
task
for
Republicans
will
be
pushing
through
a
reconciliation
bill
with
$350
billion
for
defense
—
more
than
double
the
$150
billion
contained
in
the
reconciliation
bill
approved
last
year.
Trump
has
given
Republicans
a
June
1
deadline
to
pass
the
reconciliation
bill,
with
the
House
Budget
Committee
slated
to
meet
on
Wednesday
to
discuss
the
FY27
budget.
A
reconciliation
bill
can
be
passed
with
a
simple
majority,
and
with
53
Republicans
in
the
Senate,
that
should
be
fairly
easy.
However,
margins
are
razor
thin
for
House
Republicans,
who
occupy
217
seats
after
California
Rep.
Kevin
Kiley
switched
his
party
affiliation
to
independent
in
March.
Although
Kiley
has
continued
to
caucus
with
the
GOP,
some
fiscal
hawks
have
criticized
using
the
reconciliation
process
to
increase
spending,
with
Republican
Reps.
Thomas
Massie
and
Brian
Fitzpatrick
ultimately
voting
against
the
bill
last
year.
“They
can
only
afford
to
lose
one
vote
in
the
House,”
Harrison
said.
“That
package
is
going
to
have
to
be
carefully
crafted
to
balance
the
concerns
of
the
fiscal
conservatives
as
well
as
the
more
moderates
in
the
party
who
don’t
want
to
see
offsetting
cuts
in
things
like
Medicare
and
Medicaid.
“This
is
going
to
be
a
very
delicate
political
maneuver
for
[House
Speaker
Mike]
Johnson
to
try
to
get
this
through,”
he
added.
“It’s
going
to
be
hard.”
Meanwhile,
the
$1.15
trillion
defense
base
budget
will
face
a
tougher
road
to
passage
in
the
Senate,
where
60
votes
are
needed,
Harrison
said.
With
a
majority
that
doesn’t
breach
that
threshold,
Republicans
will
have
to
get
some
Democrats
onboard
to
push
the
bill
forward.
That,
too,
could
be
a
difficult
gambit,
due
to
cuts
to
areas
such
as
food
assistance,
housing
and
public
health,
which
have
riled
Democrats
who
typically
seek
parity
on
increases
to
defense
and
nondefense
spending.
“There’s
no
way
they
can
get
the
60
votes
because
of
the
non-defense
cuts,”
Harrison
said.
“If
they
were
going
to
get
it
through,
they
would
have
to
compromise
by
reversing
some
of
those
non-defense
cuts
to
agencies
like
NASA
and
others.”
Democratic
opposition
to
US
strikes
on
Iran,
as
well
as
continued
pleas
for
more
details
from
key
Republicans,
could
also
play
a
part.
Becca
Wasser,
the
defense
lead
at
Bloomberg
Economics,
posited
that
the
administration
could
be
compelled
to
provide
new
information
about
operations
as
a
way
of
solidifying
support
for
defense
spending.
“There’s
been
a
lot
of
conversations
within
Congress
about
desire
for
greater
transparency
on
issues
like
the
Iran
war,
and
that
might
be
part
of
the
trade
off,”
she
said,
adding
that
even
with
a
“very
convincing
case”
for
added
funding,
“there’s
still
going
to
be
a
lot
of
pressure”
from
lawmakers.
Another
potential
headwind
is
the
upcoming
midterm
election,
where
analysts
predict
Democrats
could
take
control
of
at
least
one
chamber
of
Congress.
“I
think
there’s
very
little
hope
of
the
base
budget
being
enacted
before
the
midterm
elections,”
Harrison
said.
Should
Democrats
win
a
single
chamber
in
November,
they
will
likely
wait
until
the
new
session
of
Congress
begins
in
January
to
restart
negotiations
with
Republicans,
with
a
spending
deal
following
somewhere
in
the
February
or
March
timeframe.
Should
Democrats
defy
the
odds
and
take
both
the
House
and
Senate,
they
could
completely
disregard
the
president’s
budget
request
and
draft
their
own
bill,
Harrison
said.
And
Haelig
added
that
Democrats
could
seek
to
use
reconciliation
to
advance
their
own
political
priorities
if
they
controlled
Congress.
“It
just
raises,
I
think,
secondary
questions
about,
why
do
it
through
reconciliation?”
he
said.
“How
do
we
make
the
reconciliation
process
more
robust
for
oversight
and
accountability
in
terms
of
spending?”
‘Mortgaging
Modernization’
According
to
the
Office
of
Management
and
Budget,
the
44
percent
boost
to
the
defense
budget
in
FY27
“exceeds
even
the
Reagan
buildup.”
The
request
includes
elevated
funding
for
Trump
administration
priorities,
including
$17.5
billion
for
Golden
Dome,
$5
billion
for
the
F-47
sixth-generation
fighter,
as
well
as
the
first
funding
for
the
Trump-class
battleship,
which
stands
to
receive
$1
billion
for
advance
procurement.
Both
Haelig
and
Wasser
pointed
out
that
much
of
the
funding
for
some
of
the
administration’s
top
modernization
priorities
is
housed
within
the
reconciliation
spending
request.
Haelig
specifically
noted
that
93
percent
of
the
budget
increase
for
munitions
is
reliant
on
reconciliation.
“It’s
really
setting
up
the
reconciliation
fight
as
paramount
to
continuing
the
defense
modernization
push,”
he
said.
“They’re
trying
to
push
the
reconciliation
package
through
because
it
contains
so
much
of
the
critical
capabilities,
even
more
so
given
that
those
are
the
exact
type
of
things
that
have
been
severely
depleted
in
the
last
few
weeks
in
the
conflict
with
Iran.”
The
big
exception,
Haelig
added,
is
the
shipbuilding
and
conversion
account,
where
only
9
percent
of
spending
is
made
up
of
reconciliation
funds.
Despite
the
Trump
administration’s
record-breaking
budget
request
for
FY27,
OMB’s
five-year
plan
through
FY31
shows
defense
spending
is
not
slated
to
hit
$1.5
trillion
again
in
that
timeframe.
While
base
budget
defense
spending
is
set
to
rise
to
$1.35
trillion
in
FY31,
per
OMB,
no
additional
reconciliation
funding
is
currently
anticipated
through
the
rest
of
Trump’s
term.
Wasser
speculated
that
the
massive
bump
to
defense
spending
in
FY27
could
be
a
negotiating
tactic,
and
that
by
starting
from
a
“maximalist
position,”
the
Trump
administration
positions
itself
to
get
a
larger
budget
than
it
would
have
if
it
had
offered
a
more
typically-sized
funding
increase.
“I
do
wonder
if
some
of
this
is
‘Here’s
our
best
case
for
what
we
would
like
to
have
and
like
to
see,’
acknowledging
that
this
is
probably
going
to
change
over
time,
based
on
what
[happens]
when
Congress
gets
involved,
based
on
what
industry
can
actually
do,”
she
said.
But
even
if
the
administration
gets
the
$1.5
trillion
it’s
asking
for
in
FY27,
when
reconciliation
funds
disappear
the
following
year,
the
Pentagon
will
be
left
having
to
figure
out
how
to
fund
the
same
batch
of
priorities
with
less
money,
Haelig
said.
“It’s
really
this
idea
of
like,
mortgaging
modernization
through
reconciliation,”
he
said,
“but
then
that
does
eventually
come
home
to
roost
in
future
budget
years.”