Trump Wants a $1.5 Trillion Defense Budget. Here’s How Military Spending Gets Approved.

Last updated 2 weeks ago. Our resources are updated regularly but please keep in mind that links, programs, policies, and contact information do change.

President Trump announced he wants $1.5 trillion for the military next year. That’s a 50 percent increase over what the Pentagon is getting now—$901 billion—and it would represent the largest single-year jump since the Korean War.

The announcement came via Truth Social. Trump explained that “after long and difficult negotiations,” he’d decided the military budget “should not be $1 Trillion Dollars, but rather $1.5 Trillion Dollars.”

Congress controls the money, not the president. The Constitution is clear about this: the government can only spend money that Congress has officially approved. Trump’s $1.5 trillion figure is an opening bid in a negotiation that will stretch through most of 2026, involve hundreds of lawmakers with competing priorities, and almost certainly produce a final number substantially lower than what he’s asking for.

The Math Doesn’t Add Up

Trump’s justification for the increase relies on tariff revenues. He claimed in his announcement that “if it weren’t for the tremendous numbers being produced by Tariffs from other Countries,” he would have stuck with his earlier $1 trillion target. The tariffs would generate enough money to cover the $1.5 trillion budget while also paying down the national debt and sending “substantial Dividend” checks to American citizens.

The U.S. government collected $288.5 billion from tariffs and excise taxes in 2025. That’s nearly triple the $98.3 billion collected in 2024, but it’s nowhere close to covering a $500 billion annual increase, much less also funding dividend checks and debt reduction.

Steve Ellis, who runs Taxpayers for Common Sense, put it bluntly: “The math doesn’t add up.” The administration has already promised those same tariff revenues will cover multiple competing priorities—payments to farmers hurt by trade wars, the dividend checks, debt reduction, and now an extra half-trillion for the military. The same tariff money is being promised to pay for multiple different things.

The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget ran the numbers and concluded that if this proposal became law, it would add $5.8 trillion to the national debt through 2035 when you account for interest costs. The national debt is already $38.4 trillion. This would be a meaningful addition to that pile.

The Supreme Court will soon decide if the administration can legally use emergency powers to impose these tariffs. Should the Court say the administration can’t impose these tariffs, the CRFB estimates tariff revenues would drop by $700 billion through 2035. The claimed funding mechanism for this increase would partially evaporate.

Congressional Budget Process

The Constitution says Congress controls federal spending. The process of turning a presidential request into law involves many complicated steps that give Congress—particularly the Appropriations Committees—enormous power to reshape, reject, or ignore what the administration wants.

It starts in the fall, when the Office of Management and Budget works with the Department of Defense to develop the proposal. Each branch submits requests for things like personnel, weapons, operations, and facilities. These get combined into one document that Congress receives, usually in early February.

The request goes to the House and Senate Budget Committees, then gets distributed to the Appropriations Committees and their various subcommittees. For military funding, that means the Appropriations Subcommittees in both chambers.

Congress operates through two parallel tracks. Authorization bills say what the military is allowed to do and buy. But they don’t provide the money.

Appropriations bills provide the money. The Appropriations Committees decide how much money to spend. They can fund programs the White House requested, or not. They can add money for things it didn’t ask for. They can add conditions and requirements to the spending. The president’s request is a suggestion Congress can ignore.

Military funding doesn’t exist in isolation. Congress has to pass twelve separate bills each year to fund the government: Defense, Interior, Energy and Water, Commerce-Justice-Science, Transportation and Housing, Homeland Security, State Department, Agriculture, Labor-HHS-Education, Financial Services, Legislative Branch. Should any one of these bills not pass by September 30—the end of the fiscal year—you get a government shutdown.

Congress has to negotiate to avoid shutting down the government. Hawks want more for the armed forces. Fiscal conservatives want deficit reduction. Democrats traditionally insist that if military funding goes up, spending on things like infrastructure and education should go up equally. Regional representatives want contracts for their districts. All these competing interests have to be worked out, which is why the final bills look different from what was requested.

Congress hasn’t finished approving spending for the year that started October 1. Senate Majority Leader John Thune has emphasized they face a January 30 deadline to avoid another shutdown. Only three of the twelve appropriations bills have passed. The remaining nine are still being negotiated.

Congress can’t seriously consider next year’s proposal until it finishes this year’s work. That timeline suggests the $1.5 trillion request won’t get earnest deliberation until spring at the earliest.

Political Reactions

The chairmen of the House and Senate Armed Services Committees immediately endorsed it. Representative Mike Rogers of Alabama and Senator Roger Wicker of Mississippi issued a joint statement calling the proposal “exactly the kind of investment it will take to rebuild our armed forces and restore American leadership on the world stage.” They argued that $1.5 trillion would be about 5% of the nation’s total economic output, which they say is necessary given threats from China, Russia, and Iran.

Fiscal conservatives—even Republican ones—expressed skepticism. Steve Ellis from Taxpayers for Common Sense called the proposal “as wasteful as it sounds,” noting that Congress was already approving a 13 percent boost in Pentagon funding this year and that the nation is “$38 trillion in debt.”

Democrats have a different concern. They’ve traditionally insisted that if military funding goes up, spending on things like infrastructure and education should go up equally. Should the administration want an extra $500 billion for the armed forces, Democrats would likely demand $500 billion for their own priorities. That’s a trillion-dollar negotiation, and it’s unclear if Republicans would agree to spend that much extra on both.

The U.S. already spends more on its military than the next ten countries combined. China, which has the second-largest allocation globally, spends approximately $245 billion—less than a quarter of current U.S. levels.

Tobin Marcus, an analyst at Wolfe Research, said Congress will almost certainly not approve the full $1.5 trillion. He suggested Congress might approve around $1 trillion using a special process that lets Republicans pass bills without Democratic support, but even that’s difficult. This process requires finding other spending to cut to pay for it, and it tends to generate disagreements between different groups of Republicans.

Marcus predicted the effort would fail as it competed with other Republican priorities: consumer stimulus payments, healthcare legislation, entitlement reforms that fiscal conservatives have been promised but haven’t received.

Contractor Performance Requirements

On the same day the $1.5 trillion proposal was announced, an executive order targeting contractors was issued. The order, titled “Prioritizing the Warfighter in Defense Contracting,” tries to fix what many see as a fundamental problem: major companies prioritizing profits to investors over delivering weapons on time.

There have been repeated complaints that contractors are “woefully behind on deliveries of critical weaponry, yet continue to mete out dividends and stock buybacks to investors and offering eye-popping salaries to top executives.”

The Secretary of Defense must identify contractors that aren’t meeting deadlines within 30 days. Once identified, contractors have 15 days to submit a plan to fix the problems. Should the plan not be good enough or problems not be fixed, the Defense Secretary can change contracts or force the contractor to increase production. The order also lets the Secretary block underperforming contractors from getting help selling weapons to other countries—effectively cutting them off from foreign business opportunities.

All new contracts must include new rules within 60 days. These rules will ban companies from buying back their own stock or paying dividends to investors when they’re not meeting deadlines or investing in new factories. Executive pay must be based on whether they deliver on time and increase production, not on stock price. The Secretary can freeze executive salaries at current levels for underperforming contractors, with only cost-of-living increases.

This is a major shift in how the government controls these companies. Contractors have traditionally been free to decide whether to pay investors or invest in new factories. This order shifts that balance, prioritizing weapons production over profits.

The order gives the Defense Secretary a lot of power to decide what counts as “underperformance” and “insufficient investment.” How strictly this is enforced will depend on who’s Defense Secretary and what political pressure they face. Contractors will likely sue when they think the rules are unfair.

Next Steps

The detailed proposal should arrive in Congress in the coming weeks.

Budget committees will analyze the proposal, appropriations committees will hold hearings, the Defense Secretary will testify about what’s needed, military leaders will explain their requirements, interest groups will lobby, and regional representatives will negotiate for contracts in their districts.

One big unknown: what the Supreme Court decides about tariffs. Should the Court say the administration can’t impose these tariffs, the money to pay for the increase disappears. That could force the administration to ask for less money or find other ways to pay for it.

It’s unclear if Republicans will use a special process called reconciliation. Republicans used reconciliation in 2025 to pass a bill that included $175 billion in increases along with tax cuts and spending cuts. Senate Majority Leader Thune said Republicans might use reconciliation again, but only when they have a good reason and everyone agrees on what to include.

When Republicans use reconciliation for military funding, they can pass it without any Democratic votes. But reconciliation has strict rules and requires cutting other spending to pay for it. Republicans have small majorities in both chambers, especially in the House where members have refused to follow leadership on spending. That means using reconciliation is risky.

How Congressional Power Works

The $1.5 trillion proposal is an ambitious request from the president. The Constitution limits presidential power and Congress is designed to require compromise.

Congress controls the money. That’s in the Constitution and affects every negotiation. The White House can propose. Congress decides.

The math behind Trump’s proposal doesn’t work even when tariffs bring in as much money as he hopes. Independent analysts say the tariff money won’t cover the increase and also pay for the other things the administration promised. The difference between the $1.5 trillion request and what Congress will approve suggests the allocation will be significantly lower.

Republicans support more military funding, especially because of concerns about China, Russia, and other countries. The question isn’t whether funding will rise—it probably will—but by how much, and what else Congress will have to cut to pay for it.

The final level will reflect what Republicans and Democrats want, concerns about the deficit, regional representatives seeking contracts, what the Pentagon needs, and international security concerns. All negotiated through the process the Founders set up to make sure Congress, not the president, controls spending.

Whether the nation spends $1.5 trillion, $1.2 trillion, $1 trillion, or something else on the military next year will depend on how Congress negotiates and compromises, not on what one person wants. A number gets proposed. Congress responds with a different number. They negotiate. Eventually, a compromise emerges that enough members of both parties support. That compromise becomes law, and the Pentagon gets whatever Congress approves. It will probably be more than the current $901 billion but less than the requested $1.5 trillion.

The relationship between the Pentagon and private contractors has long been debated in American politics. Critics argue that this relationship creates incentives for perpetual conflict and wasteful spending. The current proposal, combined with the executive order targeting contractor behavior, suggests the administration recognizes some of these concerns while simultaneously pushing for historic funding increases.

The tension between these two impulses—demanding more money while also demanding better performance from those who receive it—will define much of the coming debate. Can the Pentagon absorb an additional $500 billion annually in a way that genuinely enhances national security? Or would such a rapid increase flow to contractors who, as the executive order acknowledges, have been prioritizing shareholder returns over timely weapons delivery?

Every dollar spent on the military is a dollar not spent on infrastructure, education, healthcare, or deficit reduction. The Constitution gives Congress the power to make these trade-offs because the Founders understood that spending decisions reflect values and priorities that should be determined through democratic deliberation, not executive decree.

Our articles make government information more accessible. Please consult a qualified professional for financial, legal, or health advice specific to your circumstances.