Notes on Defense Budget and Strategy

The subcommittee hearing focuses on the Department of Defense's (DoD) budget request for the coming fiscal year.
The goal is to assess whether the budget aligns with a clear strategy or defines and limits the strategy.
The subcommittee values timely and forthcoming communication with the department.
Last year, the subcommittee added $18,800,000,000$ to President Biden's request, but it did not become law.

The current continuing resolution (CR) is seen as a missed opportunity that compounds challenges for the DoD.
Support exists for improving air and missile defense, unmanned technologies, modernizing the nuclear triad, and expanding shipbuilding capacity.
Lumping reconciliation spending with full-year appropriations risks conflicting objectives.
One-time investments aren't a substitute for steady growth in the annual budget.
Concern over cutting procurement funding by $14,400,000,000$ in the base fiscal year 2026 budget and moving it to a reconciliation bill.
This affects programs like Virginia class submarines, Hurley Burke class destroyers, and B-21 bombers.
Critical munitions should be incorporated into annual appropriations for sustained demand.

The administration's base defense budget request is lower than 15 of the last 20 annual requests.
The request fails to keep pace with inflation and the threat of China.
Even with reconciliation, the fiscal year 2026 DoD budget request falls short of annual funding requests from fiscal years 2008-2011.
As a share of GDP, the fiscal year 2026 request is around 3%, less than the Reagan buildup (6%) and President Carter's request (4.5%).
Historically, higher percentages of GDP were spent on defense during major conflicts:
- World War II: 37%
- Korea: 13%
- Vietnam: 9%

A growing share of the defense budget covers costs other than modernization and procurement.
Rising personnel, operations, and maintenance costs risk crowding out new capabilities.
Budget allocation reflects political will, and underfunding undermines American hard power.
Need to understand the strategy behind the budget and how it addresses adversary alignment and conflicts in the Indo-Pacific, Europe, and the Middle East.
Russia's war in Ukraine, its alignment with US adversaries, and its outcome are critical to American interests.
The speaker questions the absence of funding for the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative.
Terminating security assistance may not lead to lasting peace.
The US military should learn from battlefield innovators in Ukraine.
Abandoning partners in Europe could undermine trust with Asian partners.
China, Iran, and North Korea are learning from the conflict in Ukraine and could benefit from Russian success.

Asian and Pacific allies understand the influence of unchecked Russian aggression on President Xi's calculus.
Strategic alignment among adversaries is a global reality.
The risk of simultaneous conflict on multiple fronts is growing, however the capabilities America needs to prevail in such a conflict do not seem to be reflected in the request from OMB.