Trump’s $1.5T defense budget is in trouble

House Republicans' latest plans to pay for the Iran war could kill President Donald Trump's dreams of a $1.5 trillion defense budget.

Party leaders are racing to pass a $60 billion bill to fill a hole in the Pentagon's balance sheet left by the war in the Middle East, which has drained crucial stockpiles of missile interceptors and other munitions. To get that measure through Congress, Republicans plan to use the reconciliation process, allowing them to circumvent Democratic resistance in the Senate.

Administration officials have urged lawmakers to enact a smaller measure to address those immediate wartime needs. But that's a problem for Trump's eye-popping overall defense budget goal, because the president had hoped that Congress would pass $350 billion of the total $1.5 trillion blueprint using that same reconciliation process.

"Defense spending is hugely important to me and the country, but I just don't think the votes are there to do another reconciliation bill," said Sen. Jerry Moran (R-Kan.), who sits on the Senate Appropriations Committee's defense panel. "We've got to focus on what can be done."

Congress already adopted a separate $70 billion reconciliation bill this spring to pay for immigration and border patrol programs. Passing two more reconciliation bills this year, just ahead of the midterms, would be an unlikely political outcome for the narrow Republican majorities in both chambers.

In fact, passing a major spending bill of any size before Congress breaks for the summer in the next few weeks will be a major challenge.

Prominent House Republicans contend the narrow $60 billion proposal, which cleared an initial hurdle Thursday when it advanced out of the Budget Committee, is important enough to warrant immediate attention — even if it creates other financial headaches later on.

"That leaves [hundreds of billions of dollars] of must-haves that I don't know how I'm going to deal with," said House Armed Services Chair Mike Rogers (R-Ala.). "But as [former Rep.] Peter King used to say, 'I'll jump off that bridge when I get to it.' I've got to deal with one thing at a time."

But top Senate Republicans are already tamping down expectations that they'll quickly sign off on the smaller House defense funding proposal. Majority Leader John Thune called the plan a "risky proposition," noting that a major challenge would be security votes of "defense guys who want more."

"I know that there's a need to get additional military spending," Thune told reporters. "But what this is talking about, relative to what the need is … is $60 billion worth the risk of putting something like that on the floor?"

Senate Armed Services Chair Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) — a top supporter of Trump's $1.5 trillion blueprint — was plain in his critique of the House plan: "We're going to need more."

A White House official, granted anonymity to discuss the unfolding legislation, called the pared back measure "a down payment for future efforts" to build up the military. The GOP-only measure, the official argued, provides the cash needed "to maintain readiness and meet operational needs, including munitions."

Rogers said the interim funding is critical to backfill munitions and replenish money spent on military operations in Venezuela and Iran. Without the infusion of cash some military programs, namely training and maintenance, would be starved by year's end.

Other House defense hawks said that while they support the $350 billion plus-up, such an ambitious goal may not be realistic right now.

"I think what you're looking at is, what's the art of the possible," said Rep. Rob Wittman (R-Va.), a senior Armed Services Committee member. "That's a massive amount of spending, and we've got a week and a half."

Republicans last year secured a $150 billion hike in defense spending above the base in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, Trump and the GOP's agenda setting package of tax cuts and cash for the military and immigration enforcement. The White House is seeking a reprise this year, asking for hundreds of billions more to go with House appropriators plans for $1.1 trillion in base defense spending in fiscal 2027.

While few on Capitol Hill truly see Trump's whopping $1.5 trillion defense budget as achievable, the Pentagon is relying on the $350 billion reconciliation chunk to cover for some of its highest priorities — including rebuilding weapons stockpiles, producing drone and counter-drone technology and fielding the Golden Dome missile defense shield.

If those efforts are scrapped, the Pentagon will face the possibility that many of those top priorities will go unfunded. And with a tight schedule in both the House and Senate before the midterm elections, the time and legislative options for Republicans to achieve another Pentagon boost are limited.

A defense industry lobbyist, who was granted anonymity to speak about potential impact of the budgetary issues, warned efforts to reduce the latest funding package would leave holes in U.S. stockpiles of missiles and other critical munitions without a near-term solution.

"The sudden and inexplicable about face from $350 billion to $60 billion in defense funding in reconciliation is a betrayal of the defense hawks in Congress and the defense industry who has been making initial investments in plant and equipment in order to execute multi year production contracts for missiles and munitions," the lobbyist said. "It also leaves the impression that the administration was never serious about a $1.5 trillion defense budget."

The framework that the House Budget Committee is considering would line up a $95 billion in reconciliation funding bill, including $60 billion to be parceled out by the House Armed Services Committee. Any package would need to pass the narrowly divided House as well as the Senate, where most GOP leaders have been cool to efforts to jam through another party-line bill ahead of the midterms.

House Defense Appropriations Chair Ken Calvert (R-Calif.) said the narrow package would "do something," but not enough. He lamented the low figure, but noted the politics of the midterm election season make garnering any Democratic support unlikely.

"In order to buy the stuff we need, we need to get a reconciliation or a high supplemental number. This reconciliation is a very relatively small [package, but] would take care of what's absolutely essential in the next couple of months," Calvert said.

Rogers, who attended a White House meeting with Speaker Mike Johnson and other GOP leaders this week on the proposal, said Trump is "still adamant" about securing an extra $350 billion in defense spending. But that will take a back seat to efforts to use reconciliation for immediate needs.

"They're going to worry about that after they pass this," Rogers said of the latest plan.

Jordain Carney contributed to this report.