The Pentagon Is Getting $150 Billion From the 'Big Beautiful Bill'
Giving the Defense Department even more taxpayer money is a recipe for waste, not security.

Despite describing himself as a "fiscal hawk," President Donald Trump asked for an additional $113 billion for the Department of Defense in his discretionary budget request. The One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which passed the House of Representatives on Thursday, appropriates $37 billion more for defense spending than Trump requested. While some of this money may go to projects integral to national security, much of it is expensive pork for defense contractors.
The bill, if passed by the Senate, would add an estimated $2.3 trillion to the federal deficit over the next decade. It would appropriate an additional $150 billion to the Defense Department's already-bloated $848 billion budget, bringing the agency's account to nearly $1 trillion in FY 2026. The additional appropriations in the bill from the Committee on Armed Services, which oversees Pentagon spending, span 37 pages, 16 sections, and 232 items.
In the air, over $500 million will go to Air Force exercises in the Pacific, a rather expensive way to saber-rattle with China. Nearly $1 billion will be allocated to "accelerate" production of the FA/XX aircraft and the F-47, which Trump touted as the "Next Generation Air Dominance" platform that will be "the most advanced, capable, and lethal aircraft ever built." But investing this much in another manned aircraft seems anachronistic while appropriating more than $10 billion for unmanned aerial weapons systems such as General Atomics' YFQ-42A and Anduril's YFQ-44A, autonomous one-way attack systems, unmanned surface and underwater weapons systems, and other artificial intelligence and autonomous capabilities.
At sea, the federal government will allocate more than $5 billion to the American shipbuilding industrial base, which the Jones Act has hollowed out. This century-old law requires all ships transporting goods between U.S. ports to be American-built, American-owned, and crewed by U.S. citizens. The bill also appropriates a combined $16 billion for a Virginia-class submarine, two guided missile destroyers, a San Antonio–class Amphibious Transport Dock, and another amphibious assault ship. (The Navy already has 23, 75, 13, and 12 of these, respectively.) About $3 billion will be given to the Defense Department to purchase T-AO oilers to help fuel the Navy's fleet of roughly 280 ships.
The Pentagon has failed each of the seven audits it has submitted to the department's inspector general since it began doing so in 2017—more than 25 years after Congress passed a law requiring agencies to investigate their own finances, Reason's Joe Lancaster explains. While the bill has not yet been signed into law, the Senate is unlikely to alter military appropriations significantly.
Giving the Pentagon even more money while it can't account for its expenditures does not make the country safer; it rewards incompetence and waste.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Just recently, everyone was upset about the prospects of possibly cutting government spending.
I thought $150 billion was trivial spare change? That's not even a full trillion dollars.
Clinton balanced the budget and Obama got the deficit to a manageable level by 2014…and both did it the same way—slash defense spending while jacking up tax revenue. Bush and Trump exploded the deficit.
He used the line item veto which was later ruled unconstitutional.
lol, nope. Defense spending as a percentage of GDP hit near record lows and tax revenue as a percentage of GDP hit near record highs. Bush/Cheney ran on slashing tax revenue and jacking up defense spending…and the surplus was squandered. Wait, didn’t you vote for Bush/Cheney?? Oops. 😉
Wrong but you do you
STEAL more from the people......
IGNORE all duties of having a Union of States government......
Yep; Sounds like a Democrats plan alright.
Never-mind Obama TRIPLED the deficit until an [R] Congress.
Never-mind Clinton only ran a surplus until an [R] Congress.
But increasing Pentagon spending is (R)equired
The Pentagon is the symbol of the antithesis of limited government.
The Defense Budget has become the main vehicle by which politicians channel Corporate Welfare. This has long been a problem but it is now worse than ever.
You know who else?
Amazing how Biden pulled that off.
His people. Biden barely knew his name.
And, mind you, they KEPT this imbecile in the WH, KNOWING he was incompetent for the position, until 1/20/25.
And funny how it took a man stating that NATO was not doing its job and putting some concerns about the US leaving winning an election to light a fire.
Biden was the right man at the right time…a steady hand in a very difficult 4 years and by 2024 everything was trending the right way.
"a steady hand"
Whose hand(s)?
LMAO, why are you able to post from prison?
You obviously live within a bubble. You have no idea what was going on except for what the main stream media told you.
Biden was NOT in charge. Biden had no idea what happening around him.
Very bad thing happened.
Oh, by the way, how did that little baggie of cocaine get into the White House?
Oh, I know, Trump!
While some of this money may go to projects integral to national security, much of it is expensive pork for defense contractors.
Let's see:
- Air Force exercises in the Pacific
- to "accelerate" production of the FA/XX aircraft and the F-47
- unmanned aerial weapons systems
- the American shipbuilding industrial base
- a Virginia-class submarine, two guided missile destroyers, a San Antonio–class Amphibious Transport Dock, and another amphibious assault ship
- T-AO oilers to help fuel the Navy's fleet
Literally everything you said there sounds pretty integral to national security. Your arguments don't do much to assert otherwise. In fact, they're kinda pedestrian.
"DUR, WHY WE NEED AIRPLANES WHEN WE HAVE DRONES?"
Lots of reasons, Jack. The least of which being that total dependency on UA(/L/S)Vs is suicide. They're great tech, and will help save a lot of soldier's lives - but network-centric warfare has one especially glaring and fatal flaw (among others). Take out the network, and you take out their military. We still want trained killers with guns, tanks, battleships, submarines, bombers, and fighter jets to waste as many hadjis and chinamen as necessary in the rapidly approaching conflicts with them.
"DUR WE GOT SO MANY BOATS WHY WE NEED MOAR?"
The same reason you keep more than one firearm in your house. A lot more than one. And of varying types.
Especially seeing China so interested in their own ship-building efforts lately. (North Korea too, but they're retards.) If you haven't been paying attention to the Arctic Ocean lately, you should. There's a reason Trump wants Greenland.
Which leads us back to:
"DUR WHY WE RATTLE SABER IN PACIFICS?"
FAFO China.
Finally.
"OMG WHY AMERICAN BOATS NEED BE AMERICAN WITH AMERICANS DURR TO SHIP IN AMERICA?"
Um, because a bowl of tapioca pudding and his media enablers let a kajillion bajillion bad guys into the country, and jerkoffs like you are frustrating our every effort to get them out.
Defense spending is truly one of the ONLY ACTUAL LEGITIMATE uses of taxpayer dollars. If you're worried about the debt - and you're actually serious about it, instead of just posturing - eliminate public healthcare and social welfare. If you're worried about accountability - and that's a fair concern - then force the Pentagon to itemize the intended spending and require the Commander In Chief and the HASC Chairman sign-off on it. Probably can't go entirely public with that itemization (national security), but at least there's checks and balances from two branches.
Look, I know being wholly anti-military is very chic among losertarian and marxistarian circles - but it also makes you seem like drooling retards when you try and talk about it (to their credit, actual libertarians seem to understand why national defense is important).
Are you a drooling retard, Jack? Because this article sounds like a drooling retard banged on his keyboard for awhile and then nobody second-guessed publishing it.
"Literally everything you said there sounds pretty integral to national security."
Uh, no. The F-47 and every other new combat aircraft will be too expensive to ever risk in actual combat.
There is no labor force to staff new shipyards. 95% of the construction of new ships are in Japan, Korea, or China. Is Trump going to allow mass immigration of shipyard workers from those countries? But in any case, there is no market for such ships other than Uncle Sugar; the other countries produce ships at lower cost and there is no significant US merchant marine anymore.
"a Virginia-class submarine, two guided missile destroyers, a San Antonio–class Amphibious Transport Dock, and another amphibious assault ship"
Corporate welfare for Huntingdon Ingalls. Which Democrats support, too, because the Newport News Shipyard is unionized -- maybe the only unionized factory in the entire Right to Work South. (Interestingly, it is one of the few unionization efforts led by Black people, who were fighting the legacy of Jim Crow back in the 1970s.)
"The same reason you keep more than one firearm in your house"
I have never had a firearm in my house. Statistically, the most likely victim of your firearm is yourself.
"eliminate public healthcare and social welfare"
And kill Americans.
"Statistically, the most likely victim of your firearm is yourself."
Bullshit. You just shot down what little credibility you might have had.
Bullshit bullshit bullshit. You gun grabbers are all the same, full of bullshit.
Uh, no. The F-47 and every other new combat aircraft will be too expensive to ever risk in actual combat.
Said the losertarian about every instrument of war ever created. Anything we create for warfare runs that very acceptable risk. It's why we build lots and lots and lots of them. More than we arguably even need, just in case.
There is no labor force to staff new shipyards.
Then offer incentives to create one.
Is Trump going to allow mass immigration of shipyard workers from those countries?
No. Totally unnecessary and dangerous. What are you, retarded?
But in any case, there is no market for such ships other than Uncle Sugar
Again, proper purpose of government. It's not about a commercial "market" for the ships. The "market" is the United States Navy. Give them whatever they want.
If you've never beheld the sheer majesty that is the single greatest weapon on Earth - the US Navy Carrier Strike Group - then I suggest you go watch some military videos on the youtubes.
We should have AT LEAST three more of them sailing around the Pacific waiting for kickoff.
Corporate welfare for Huntingdon Ingalls.
Nonsense. We need ships, they build ships. We're getting something extremely valuable in return for our money. That's not "welfare."
I have never had a firearm in my house.
Wow, gay. Welcome out of the closet, I guess.
And kill Americans.
It won't kill Americans. Americans will either start taking care of themselves and being responsible for themselves, or they won't. That's on them.
I will never understand why people who do not trust the police want them to be the ONLY ones who can carry them legally.
And I love the idea that "banning" guns gets rid of them. Hilarious concept. But it will go a long way to not protect innocents.
Every new warbird comes with greater and greater costs. Not just in development, but in production as technical improvements or additions raise the prices and then after deployment, there is very heavy maintenance along with additional fees for fixing things that were wrong in the first place, all at cost plus, of course.
Turkeys like the F-35 and V-22 Osprey are two of the worst examples of failed, expensive to maintain and even dangerous to operate aircraft the taxpayers are forced at gunpoint to maintain.
If you want to build a modern force and reduce spending, decrease spending on boondoggle corporate welfare warplanes and increase spending on cheaper smarter drones.
As much as I think the DoD and MIC are bloated beyond redemption, this article was written by someone with zero knowledge of or experience in the military, like a bean counter given numbers and told to write a story.
The examples given of how many ships we already have is irrelevant. The relevant question is how many are needed and how much waste goes into them.
This article is word salad worthy of Kamala.
I demand more ships!! Big ones!! With big guns!! Now!
It's not the Pentagon getting the money, it's the Pentagon giving it to the likes of Boeing and Lockheed that's the waste. Funny how I don't see 'reason' advocating for getting some competent defense contractors.
Guess who founded the Military Industrial Complex?? Our would-be king thanks the Adams family lineage—Charles Adams! He transformed a refrigerator company you know as Raytheon into a defense contractor after WW2…and we are made to believe the Deep State doesn’t exist. 😉
Boeing can't even build a plane worth a shit let alone anything else.
I find a measly 0.15 trillion a damn insult to our proud members of congress we can't a big ol' war going for that kinda chump change.
Rand Paul is right and so is Elon Musk. More deficit spending which will end badly for the nation.
Trumpie's big beautiful bill is just another warfare/welfare giveaway for the MIC. The additional estimated debt will increase by at least $4 trillion and another $6 trillion by the end of the decade.
By then America will be totally bankrupted, society and government will have collapsed and the nation will join the others in the trash heap of failed empires.