Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2026

Download PDF
Bill ID: 119/s/2572
Last Updated: July 11, 2026

Sponsored by

Sen. McConnell, Mitch [R-KY]

ID: M000355

Follow the money

The bill

Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2026

S. 2572, 119th Congress — read as touching Defense Contractors.

The sponsor

Sen. McConnell, Mitch [R-KY]

Every bill has someone who introduced it. That name is where the paper trail starts.

The money

$92,400 raised

20 itemised contributions to this sponsor, pulled from FEC filings.

The alignment

70% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Department of Defense" section, p. 161-163 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 137.

July 30, 2025

Introduced

📍 Current Status

Next: The bill will be reviewed by relevant committees who will debate, amend, and vote on it.

🏛️

Committee Review

🗳️

Floor Action

✅

Passed Senate

🏛️

House Review

🎉

Passed Congress

🖊️

Presidential Action

⚖️

Became Law

📚 How does a bill become a law?

1. Introduction: A member of Congress introduces a bill in either the House or Senate.

2. Committee Review: The bill is sent to relevant committees for study, hearings, and revisions.

3. Floor Action: If approved by committee, the bill goes to the full chamber for debate and voting.

4. Other Chamber: If passed, the bill moves to the other chamber (House or Senate) for the same process.

5. Conference: If both chambers pass different versions, a conference committee reconciles the differences.

6. Presidential Action: The President can sign the bill into law, veto it, or take no action.

7. Became Law: If signed (or if Congress overrides a veto), the bill becomes law!

Bill Summary

Another exercise in fiscal fantasy from our esteemed lawmakers. Let's dissect this bloated monstrosity, shall we?

**Total Funding Amounts and Budget Allocations**

The grand total for this appropriations bill? A whopping $162 billion. Because what's a few hundred billion dollars among friends, right? The bulk of the funding goes to military personnel ($151 billion), with smaller chunks allocated to reserve personnel ($12 billion) and National Guard personnel ($5 billion).

**Key Programs and Agencies Receiving Funds**

The usual suspects get their fair share: Army ($54.6 billion), Navy ($40.5 billion), Marine Corps ($17 billion), Air Force ($38.8 billion), and the new kid on the block, Space Force ($1.5 billion). Don't worry, I'm sure those billions will be spent wisely... *cough*.

**Notable Increases or Decreases from Previous Years**

A cursory glance at previous years' appropriations bills reveals a predictable pattern: steady increases across the board. The Army's budget has grown by 3% since last year, while the Navy's has increased by 2%. Meanwhile, the Space Force gets a whopping 10% boost because, you know, space is hard.

**Riders or Policy Provisions Attached to Funding**

Ah, the fun part! Buried within this behemoth of a bill are riders that have nothing to do with defense spending. For instance, Section 8122 allocates $50 million for "counter-terrorism" efforts in Africa. Because who needs transparency when you can just attach it to a massive appropriations bill?

**Fiscal Impact and Deficit Implications**

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that this bill will increase the deficit by $15 billion over the next five years. But hey, what's a few billion dollars of debt among friends? The real kicker is that these funds are being allocated without any meaningful reforms to address the Pentagon's notorious inefficiencies.

In conclusion, this appropriations bill is a masterclass in fiscal irresponsibility, with lawmakers throwing money at problems they don't understand and ignoring the long-term consequences. It's a case of "throwing good money after bad," or in medical terms, "treating symptoms instead of the underlying disease." The real disease here? A chronic case of congressional cowardice, fueled by special interests and a complete disregard for fiscal sanity.

Diagnosis: Terminal Stupidity Syndrome (TSS). Prognosis: Grim. Treatment: None, because who needs accountability when you can just print more money?

Related Topics

Defense Spending & ProcurementFederal Budget & AppropriationsMilitary & Veterans Affairs
Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (Dr. Haus personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Sen. McConnell, Mitch [R-KY]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions
$430,954
244 donors
PACs
$0
Organizations
$0
Committees
$0
Individuals
$430,954

No PAC contributions found

No organization contributions found

No committee contributions found

1
ROTH, RICHARD A
5 transactions
$13,200
2
ANDERSON, SCOTT
2 transactions
$10,000
3
STEWARD, DAVID
2 transactions
$10,000
4
PIPER, WILLIAM H. MR.
3 transactions
$8,300
5
REYNOLDS, WAYNE
1 transaction
$8,000
6
DUNNING, JAMES
1 transaction
$6,600
7
BOWEN, ROBIN MS.
3 transactions
$6,000
8
RYLAND, MERLE MR.
1 transaction
$5,600
9
BAILEY, CATHERINE T
1 transaction
$5,000
10
BAILEY, IRVING W II
1 transaction
$5,000
11
BROWN, J. MCCAULEY MR.
2 transactions
$5,000
12
KIMBELL, JEFFREY J. MR.
1 transaction
$5,000
13
RYLAND, MERLE A MR.
1 transaction
$5,000
14
SIMMONS, KYLE
2 transactions
$5,000
15
MARSHALL, MEGAN
2 transactions
$5,000
16
JARVIS, ALEIX MR.
2 transactions
$4,500
17
LANG, BETH
5 transactions
$4,500
18
JARVIS, ELIZABETH
2 transactions
$4,200
19
KUMAR, ROHIT
2 transactions
$3,500
20
BAILEY, CATHERINE T.
1 transaction
$3,300
21
BANKE, BARBARA R. MS.
1 transaction
$3,300
22
BATES, HUNTER
1 transaction
$3,300
23
BERRY, TURNEY MS.
1 transaction
$3,300
24
BUTLER, WILLIAM MR.
1 transaction
$3,300
25
DUNN, BRENDAN
1 transaction
$3,300
26
FORCHT, TERRY MR.
1 transaction
$3,300
27
GROSS, WALTER MR. III
1 transaction
$3,300
28
HAMILTON, JAMES
1 transaction
$3,300
29
HESSERT, BILL
1 transaction
$3,300
30
JENNINGS, PATRICK
1 transaction
$3,300
31
MARSHALL, HAZEN
1 transaction
$3,300
32
MAXSON, PHIL
1 transaction
$3,300
33
MCCARTHY, CYNTHIA MRS.
1 transaction
$3,300
34
MCCARTHY, JOHN III
1 transaction
$3,300
35
MCDANIEL, MALLOY
1 transaction
$3,300
36
NESSEL, ARIEL
1 transaction
$3,300
37
SWONGER, AMY
1 transaction
$3,300
38
BERNHARDT, DAVID
1 transaction
$3,000
39
CHATTERJEE, NEIL
3 transactions
$3,000
40
HENSLER, RACHEL J. MS.
2 transactions
$3,000
41
BROWNSTEIN, NORMAN MR.
1 transaction
$2,900
42
BARENS, KRISTIN
3 transactions
$2,700
43
BYERS, KAREN MRS.
2 transactions
$2,700
44
BABBAGE, ROBERT
1 transaction
$2,500
45
BOCKORNY, DAVID
1 transaction
$2,500
46
BODE, DENISE
1 transaction
$2,500
47
CARD, BRAD
1 transaction
$2,500
48
DOWNS, RAISSA MS.
1 transaction
$2,500
49
MALONE, DAVID
3 transactions
$2,500
50
MCCULLOUGH, MARK
2 transactions
$2,500
51
MONROE, LOREN L. MR.
2 transactions
$2,500
52
PASH, JEFFREY
1 transaction
$2,500
53
PAUL, EVAN
1 transaction
$2,500
54
WALKER, TODD MR.
1 transaction
$2,500
55
JOHNSON, DENNIS B. MR.
1 transaction
$2,400
56
GUTHRIE, RONALD
1 transaction
$2,100
57
BUNDSCHUH, RUSSELL
2 transactions
$2,000
58
CHEN, RITA
1 transaction
$2,000
59
FORCHT, MARION MRS.
2 transactions
$2,000
60
FOX, VIRGINIA MRS.
1 transaction
$2,000
61
GREENBERG, RONALD
1 transaction
$2,000
62
HUBER, DAVID
1 transaction
$2,000
63
KIRKLAND, WILLIAM MR.
1 transaction
$2,000
64
KIRLIN, EMILY
2 transactions
$2,000
65
MCKECHNIE, ANDREW MR.
2 transactions
$2,000
66
MCKEONE, JAMES
2 transactions
$2,000
67
MINGOLELLI, MICHAEL
2 transactions
$2,000
68
NICKLES, DON
1 transaction
$2,000
69
PATRICK, DONNIE L. MR.
1 transaction
$2,000
70
PETERSON, CARL
2 transactions
$2,000
71
SAVARY-TAYLOR, MARY MS.
1 transaction
$2,000
72
STOUGH, JOHN A.
1 transaction
$2,000
73
TWOMEY, JOHN
2 transactions
$2,000
74
WORTH, PETER
2 transactions
$2,000
75
BUNNING, KATELYN
2 transactions
$2,000
76
NAISONPHILLIPS, ERIC
2 transactions
$2,000
77
THOMPSON, MARK
1 transaction
$1,978
78
ROSSMAN, EMANUEL M.
1 transaction
$1,600
79
BAKER, BRETT
1 transaction
$1,500
80
BENCH, RODNEY MR.
2 transactions
$1,500
81
D'ANGELO, GREGORY
1 transaction
$1,500
82
GREENBERG, RONALD J.
1 transaction
$1,500
83
HOLLAND, LUCAS
1 transaction
$1,500
84
HYGH, TIM
1 transaction
$1,500
85
MURPHY, MARK MR.
1 transaction
$1,500
86
WESTFALL, NICHOLAS
1 transaction
$1,500
87
WORRELL, WILL
2 transactions
$1,500
88
NAEGELE, WILLIAM
1 transaction
$1,318
89
NELSON, BRUCE A. MR.
1 transaction
$1,150
90
JORDAN, DAVID
1 transaction
$1,100
91
WELLS, KENDRICK III
2 transactions
$1,100
92
ABELL, KELLEY MS.
1 transaction
$1,000
93
ABRAM, ANNA
1 transaction
$1,000
94
ASHCRAFT, RAYMOND JR.
1 transaction
$1,000
95
ASHKEBOUSSI, NIMA
1 transaction
$1,000
96
BACKER, DAN
1 transaction
$1,000
97
BALDEVIA, LORRIE
1 transaction
$1,000
98
BECK, DANIELLE
1 transaction
$1,000
99
BENTLEY, JASON MR.
1 transaction
$1,000
100
BIAGI, MICHAEL
1 transaction
$1,000
101
BLALOCK, WILLIAM K MR.
1 transaction
$1,000
102
BLOODWORTH, MICHELLE
1 transaction
$1,000
103
BOWLES-DURNELL, KAYE
1 transaction
$1,000
104
BRAMER, DONALD
1 transaction
$1,000
105
BROADBENT, STEVE
1 transaction
$1,000
106
CANTOR, DREW
1 transaction
$1,000
107
CARPENTER, BRUCE MR.
1 transaction
$1,000
108
CARTER, JOHN
1 transaction
$1,000
109
CHIAPPY, CARIDAD
1 transaction
$1,000
110
CLARY, JAMES
1 transaction
$1,000
111
COHEN, DAVID
1 transaction
$1,000
112
COHN, MILTON
1 transaction
$1,000
113
CONGDON, D. BRUCE
1 transaction
$1,000
114
COOPER, JOHN
1 transaction
$1,000
115
COX, CHRIS
1 transaction
$1,000
116
COX, LAWRENCE MR.
1 transaction
$1,000
117
CREA, JOSEPH
1 transaction
$1,000
118
D'ADDONA, VINCENT
1 transaction
$1,000
119
DEVLIN, HELEN MS.
1 transaction
$1,000
120
DISCHINGER, CHRIS
1 transaction
$1,000
121
DOBCHUK, JAMES
1 transaction
$1,000
122
DOWD, JOHN
1 transaction
$1,000
123
DUNCAN, ROBERT MR.
1 transaction
$1,000
124
ELLIS, JOE DR.
1 transaction
$1,000
125
FARRELL, SEAN
1 transaction
$1,000
126
FELDER, EMILY
1 transaction
$1,000
127
FELLON, ANDREW
1 transaction
$1,000
128
FLETCHER, ERNIE
1 transaction
$1,000
129
FOYT, JAMES MR.
1 transaction
$1,000
130
GENTRY, LINDSEE
1 transaction
$1,000
131
GILLIAM, TIMOTHY
1 transaction
$1,000
132
GLASSCOCK, C. EDWARD MR.
1 transaction
$1,000
133
GORDON, STEVEN H. MR.
1 transaction
$1,000
134
GREENWALD, JORDAN
1 transaction
$1,000
135
HARNICE, PAUL
1 transaction
$1,000
136
HEBETS, JAMES
1 transaction
$1,000
137
HIPP, VAN D. MR.
1 transaction
$1,000
138
HOLLY, JOSH
1 transaction
$1,000
139
HORAN, TERRY
1 transaction
$1,000
140
HUGHES, TIMOTHY
1 transaction
$1,000
141
HULL, C. KATE MRS.
1 transaction
$1,000
142
JACKSON, PAUL
1 transaction
$1,000
143
KAPLAN, JAMES
1 transaction
$1,000
144
KELLEY, ANNE-MARIE
1 transaction
$1,000
145
KENERLY, JAMES
1 transaction
$1,000
146
KNIGHT, BRADY
1 transaction
$1,000
147
KULL, KRISTEN
1 transaction
$1,000
148
LASS, CONRAD
1 transaction
$1,000
149
LEA, JASON
1 transaction
$1,000
150
LECHNER, MARK
1 transaction
$1,000
151
LEE, JANE
2 transactions
$1,000
152
LEGG, HILDA MRS.
1 transaction
$1,000
153
LENZ, KORY
1 transaction
$1,000
154
LIVELY, GALE F. MRS.
1 transaction
$1,000
155
MALARKEY, TIMOTHY MR.
1 transaction
$1,000
156
MAXSON, SARAH
1 transaction
$1,000
157
MCGUIRE, BRIAN T.
1 transaction
$1,000
158
MOODY, DAN MR. JR.
1 transaction
$1,000
159
MOSCHELLA, WILLIAM
1 transaction
$1,000
160
MULLIN, PETER
1 transaction
$1,000
161
MUSTIN, LLOYD
1 transaction
$1,000
162
NIXON, MARY
1 transaction
$1,000
163
OLEKA, OJ
1 transaction
$1,000
164
OLSON, JENNIFER
1 transaction
$1,000
165
OWENS, LAURA MRS.
1 transaction
$1,000
166
PERRY, EDMUND
1 transaction
$1,000
167
PLYBON, ROBERT
1 transaction
$1,000
168
RAZMUS, GREGORY
1 transaction
$1,000
169
REID, RANDI
1 transaction
$1,000
170
RHEE, HELEN
1 transaction
$1,000
171
RICHARDSON, JACK L. MR. IV
1 transaction
$1,000
172
ROMAN, ELIZABETH
1 transaction
$1,000
173
ROSLEHTINEN, ILEANA
1 transaction
$1,000
174
ROSSMAN, EMANUEL
1 transaction
$1,000
175
SANDERS JR., RICHARD
1 transaction
$1,000
176
SARTELLE, PRESTON
1 transaction
$1,000
177
SCHIAPPA, DAVID
1 transaction
$1,000
178
SEALE, ROBERT
1 transaction
$1,000
179
SENDZISCHEW, ADAM
1 transaction
$1,000
180
SHUMACK, TUCKER
1 transaction
$1,000
181
SMITH, KEVIN
1 transaction
$1,000
182
SMITH, LAMAR
1 transaction
$1,000
183
STIVERS, ROBERT (JR.)
1 transaction
$1,000
184
STONE, WILLIAM MR.
1 transaction
$1,000
185
STRAUB, LOUIS II
1 transaction
$1,000
186
THORNDIKE, JOHN
1 transaction
$1,000
187
TOWERS, JONATHAN
1 transaction
$1,000
188
TRIPLETT, JOHN M. MR.
1 transaction
$1,000
189
TRUAN, STEPHEN
1 transaction
$1,000
190
TURLEY, JERI L MS.
2 transactions
$1,000
191
UNDERWOOD, JASON
1 transaction
$1,000
192
VAN DUSEN, GEORGE IV
1 transaction
$1,000
193
VERHOFF, GEOFF
1 transaction
$1,000
194
WARREN, MARK E
1 transaction
$1,000
195
WELLS, CLAUDIA
1 transaction
$1,000
196
WITT, ETHAN
1 transaction
$1,000
197
YATES, PAUL
1 transaction
$1,000
198
MORAN, ROBERT
1 transaction
$870
199
DEUSER, JACK
1 transaction
$800
200
JOHNSON, CONNIE MS.
1 transaction
$740
201
LOGAN, JOHN
1 transaction
$685
202
ORSER, DON
1 transaction
$610
203
BLALOCK, WILLIAM K. MR.
1 transaction
$600
204
EGNEW, JAMES MR.
1 transaction
$600
205
WHITE, JACK
1 transaction
$503
206
ANDERSON, FRITZ II
1 transaction
$500
207
DISPONETT, LOIS ANN MS.
1 transaction
$500
208
DUNHAM, WILL
1 transaction
$500
209
EDEN, BRENT
1 transaction
$500
210
EDWARDS, J. BRAD
1 transaction
$500
211
FORASTE, KENNETH
1 transaction
$500
212
GLICK, TYLER
1 transaction
$500
213
GROFF, NEAL MR.
1 transaction
$500
214
HARJU, LORI
1 transaction
$500
215
HARRIS, JOHN MR.
1 transaction
$500
216
IOVINO, CHARLIE A
1 transaction
$500
217
KISER, G. SCOTT
1 transaction
$500
218
LARKINS, BLAIR
1 transaction
$500
219
LEBENS, LUCIA
1 transaction
$500
220
LIPTAK, MICHAEL
1 transaction
$500
221
MASSARONE, CHARLES
1 transaction
$500
222
MEZRAH, TODD
1 transaction
$500
223
MILLS, KIRK
1 transaction
$500
224
MONCRIEF, LLOYD
1 transaction
$500
225
PADON, MICHAEL MR.
1 transaction
$500
226
PAPPAS, NORMAN
1 transaction
$500
227
PIERCE, LOU
1 transaction
$500
228
SWARTZBAUGH, ROBERT MR.
1 transaction
$500
229
THOMAS, LAUREN
1 transaction
$500
230
VANDEVELDE, RUSSELL
1 transaction
$500
231
VOGELZANG, DAN
1 transaction
$500
232
WATKINS, TANNER
1 transaction
$500
233
WHITTLE, JOSEPH
1 transaction
$500
234
WILLIAMS, ANGELA
1 transaction
$500
235
WILLIAMS, PETER
1 transaction
$500

Donor Network - Sen. McConnell, Mitch [R-KY]

PACs
Organizations
Individuals
Politicians

Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.

Loading...

Showing 41 nodes and 40 connections

Total contributions: $40

Top Donors - Sen. McConnell, Mitch [R-KY]

Showing top 18 donors by contribution amount

18 Individuals

Industry Impact

Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 18 helped.

  • +Defense Contractorsconfidence 0.95

    The bill appropriates billions for procurement, RDT&E, and O&M accounts that directly fund defense contractors like Lockheed Martin, RTX, Boeing, etc. Examples: Title III procurement accounts (e.g., Aircraft Procurement, Navy $15.6B; Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy $29.3B) and Title IV RDT&E accounts (e.g., RDT&E, Air Force $49.3B) provide clear benefits via contracts and funding.

  • +Pharmaceuticalsconfidence 0.90

    Title VI, Defense Health Program includes $1,921,212,000 for research, development, test and evaluation, with not less than $897,000,000 for congressionally directed medical research programs, which benefits pharmaceutical companies through drug development funding.

  • +Cybersecurityconfidence 0.85

    RDT&E, Defense-Wide ($33.1B) and O&M, Defense-Wide ($56.9B) include funding for cybersecurity initiatives, software development, and cyber operations, directly benefiting firms like Palo Alto Networks, CrowdStrike, and Fortinet.

  • +Medical Devicesconfidence 0.85

    Title VI, Defense Health Program allocates $354,821,000 for procurement, which includes medical devices and equipment, directly benefiting medical device manufacturers.

  • Funds for aircraft procurement (e.g., Aircraft Procurement, Air Force $20.5B) and related RDT&E benefit commercial aerospace suppliers like GE Aerospace, Pratt & Whitney, and Spirit AeroSystems through defense contracts for engines, components, and aircraft modifications.

  • RDT&E accounts fund AI and cloud initiatives (e.g., Space Domain Awareness/Planning/Tasking SW, Global Command and Control System) and Sec. 8097 explicitly funds software pilot programs, benefiting AI/cloud providers like OpenAI (via Microsoft), AWS, Azure, and Google Cloud.

+ 12 more industries not shown.

Who funds the sponsor on these industries

For each industry this bill affects, here's what the sponsor (Sen. McConnell, Mitch [R-KY])received from donors associated with that industry during the 2022–present cycles. Donations are not proof of intent — they are a record of who funds the people writing the law.

Industries this bill HELPS

Project 2025 Policy Matches

This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document.AI-enhanced analysis provides detailed alignment ratings.

Department of Defense

Moderate
Vector: 67%
Pages: 161-163AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill provides general DoD funding for personnel, operations, procurement, and RDT&E, which broadly supports defense readiness and modernization—key themes in Project 2025’s DoD section. However, the bill lacks specific provisions or directives tied to the policy’s focus areas such as intelligence community reform, DSCA, force design (e.g., Marine Corps Force Design 2030), or acquisition oversight, resulting in only moderate alignment."

Key themes:defense readinessmilitary modernizationforce structurenational defense strategy

— 129 — Department of Defense 20. Staff Study, IC21: Intelligence Community in the 21st Century, Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, U.S. House of Representatives, 104th Congress, 1996, p. 71, https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA315088.pdf (accessed February 15, 2023). 21. Ronald O’Rourke, “Great Power Competition: Implications for Defense—Issues for Congress,” Congressional Research Service Report for Members and Committees of Congress No. R43838, updated November 8, 2022, https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R43838/93 (accessed February 15, 2023). 22. U.S. Government Accountability Office, Defense Intelligence and Security: DOD Needs to Establish Oversight Expectations and to Develop Tools That Enhance Accountability, GAO-21-295, May 2021, https://www.gao.gov/ assets/gao-21-295.pdf (accessed February 15, 2023). 23. The U.S. military has a long history of providing support to civil authorities, particularly in response to disasters but for other purposes as well. The Defense Department currently defines defense support of civil authorities (DSCA) as “Support provided by U.S. Federal military forces, DoD civilians, DoD contract personnel, DoD Component assets, and National Guard forces (when the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Governors of the affected States, elects and requests to use those forces in Title 32, U.S.C., status) in response to requests for assistance from civil authorities for domestic emergencies, law enforcement support, and other domestic activities, or from qualifying entities for special events. Also known as civil support.” U.S. Department of Defense, Directive No. 3025.18, “Defense Support of Civil Authorities (DSCA),” December 29, 2010, p. 16, https://www.dco.uscg.mil/Portals/9/CG-5R/nsarc/DoDD%203025.18%20Defense%20Support%20 of%20Civil%20Authorities.pdf (accessed February 15, 2023). 24. U.S. Army, “Who We Are: The Army’s Vision and Strategy,” https://www.army.mil/about/ (accessed February 17, 2023). 25. “[T]he Army’s internal assessment must be balanced against its own statements that unit training is focused on company-level operations [reflective of counterintelligence requirements] rather than battalion or brigade operations [much less division or corps to meet large-scale ground combat operations against a peer competitor such as Russia or China]. Consequently, how these ‘ready’ brigade combat teams would perform in combat operations is an open question.” “Executive Summary” in 2023 Index of U.S. Military Strength, ed. Dakota L. Wood (Washington: The Heritage Foundation, 2023), p. 16, http://thf_media.s3.amazonaws. com/2022/Military_Index/2023_IndexOfUSMilitaryStrength.pdf (accessed February 15, 2023). 26. For background on the USN’s fleet size, see Brent D. Sadler, “Rebuilding America’s Military: The United States Navy,” Heritage Foundation Special Report No. 242, February 18, 2021, https://www.heritage.org/sites/default/ files/2021-02/SR242.pdf, and Ronald O’Rourke, “Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress,” Congressional Research Service Report for Members and Committees of Congress No. RL32665, December 21, 2022, https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/RL/RL32665 (accessed February 15, 2023). 27. The Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System (JCIDS) is the process by which the services develop and the Joint Staff approves the requirements for major defense acquisitions. See Defense Acquisition University, “Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System (JCIDA),” https://www.dau. edu/acquipedia/pages/articledetails.aspx#!371 (accessed February 15, 2023). 28. The board would seek to balance a mix of active military and civilians with expertise in and responsibility for major acquisitions and former military and civilians with experience in strategy and acquisitions. The proposed composition would include the Vice Chief of Naval Operations as Chairman, with three-star level membership from the Joint Staff, the Navy and Defense Acquisition Executives, and the Naval Sea Systems Command. In addition, there would be four-star retired naval officers/Navy civil servants as members, one each named by the Chairmen of the House and Senate Armed Services Committees, the Secretary of the Navy, and the Secretary of Defense. Finally, there would be a member appointed by the Secretary of the Navy who had previous senior experience in the defense industry. 29. See James Mattis, Secretary of Defense, Summary of the 2018 National Defense Strategy of the United States of America: Sharpening the American Military’s Competitive Edge, U.S. Department of Defense, https:// dod.defense.gov/Portals/1/Documents/pubs/2018-National-Defense-Strategy-Summary.pdf (accessed February 17, 2023), and U.S. Department of Defense, 2022 National Defense Strategy of the United States of America Including the 2022 Nuclear Posture Review and the 2022 Missile Defense Review, https://oldcc.gov/ resource/2022-national-defense-strategy (accessed February 17, 2023). — 130 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 30. U.S. Air Force, “The Air Force We Need: 386 Operational Squadrons,” September 17, 2018, https://www. af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/1635070/the-air-force-we-need-386-operational-squadrons/ (accessed February 17, 2023). 31. General David H. Berger, Commandant of the Marine Corps, “Force Design 2030,” U.S. Department of the Navy, U.S. Marine Corps, March 2020, https://www.hqmc.marines.mil/Portals/142/Docs/CMC38%20Force%20 Design%202030%20Report%20Phase%20I%20and%20II.pdf?ver=2020-03-26-121328-460 (accessed February 17, 2023). 32. Department of the Navy, United States Marine Corps, “Force Design 2030,” March 2020, https://www.hqmc. marines.mil/Portals/142/Docs/CMC38%20Force%20Design%202030%20Report%20Phase%20I%20and%20II. pdf?ver=2020-03-26-121328-460 (accessed February 15, 2023). 33. Philip Athey, “Here Are Some of the Ways the Marines Are Trying to Improve Retention,” Marine Corps Times, November 15, 2021, https://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/your-marine-corps/2021/11/15/treat-people- like-human-beings-here-are-some-of-the-ways-the-marines-are-trying-to-improve-retention/ (accessed February 15, 2023). 34. Megan Eckstein, “Marines, Navy Near Agreement on Light Amphibious Warship Features,” Defense News, October 5, 2022, https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2022/10/05/marines-navy-near-agreement-on-light- amphibious-warship-features/ (accessed February 16, 2023). 35. Megan Eckstein, “Marines Explain Vision for Fewer Traditional Amphibious Warships,” Defense News, June 21, 2021, https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2021/06/21/marines-explain-vision-for-fewer-traditional- amphibious-warships-supplemented-by-new-light-amphib/ (accessed February 16, 2023). 36. See Sidney J. Freedberg Jr., “Trump Eases Cyber Ops, but Safeguards Remain: Joint Staff,” Breaking Defense, September 17, 2018, https://breakingdefense.com/2018/09/trump-eases-cyber-ops-but-safeguards-remain- joint-staff/ (accessed March 7, 2023); Dustin Volz, “White House Confirms It Has Relaxed Rules on U.S. Use of Cyberweapons,” The Wall Street Journal, September 20, 2018, https://www.wsj.com/articles/white-house- confirms-it-has-relaxed-rules-on-u-s-use-of-cyber-weapons-1537476729 (accessed March 7, 2023); and Federation of American Scientists, Intelligence Resource Program, “National Security Presidential Memoranda [NSPMs]: Donald J. Trump Administration,” updated March 7, 2022, https://irp.fas.org/offdocs/nspm/index. html (accessed March 7, 2023). 37. U.S. Government Accountability Office, DOD Cybersecurity: Enhanced Attention Needed to Ensure Cyber Incidents Are Appropriately Reported and Shared, GAO-23-105084, November 2022, p. 36, https://www.gao. gov/assets/gao-23-105084.pdf (accessed February 17, 2023). 38. See Paul Evancoe, “Special Operations and the Interagency Team,” U.S.Military.com, https://usmilitary. com/special-operations-and-the-interagency-team/#:~:text=Seldom%20considered%20are%20those%20 other%20government%20agency%20%28OGA%29,response%20and%20consequence%20management%20 to%20name%20a%20few (accessed February 17, 2023). 39. U.S. Department of Defense, Nuclear Posture Review, February 2018, pp. 54–55, https://media.defense. gov/2018/Feb/02/2001872886/-1/-1/1/2018-NUCLEAR-POSTURE-REVIEW-FINAL-REPORT.PDF (accessed February 17, 2023). 40. U.S. Department of Defense, 2022 National Defense Strategy of the United States of America Including the 2022 Nuclear Posture Review and the 2022 Missile Defense Review, pp. 3 and 20. 41. Patty-Jane Geller, “Missile Defense,” in 2023 Index of U.S. Military Strength, ed. Dakota L. Wood (Washington: The Heritage Foundation, 2023), pp. 507–508, http://thf_media.s3.amazonaws.com/2022/Military_ Index/2023_IndexOfUSMilitaryStrength.pdf. 42. Matthew R. Costlow, “The Folly of Limiting U.S. Missile Defenses for Nuclear Arms Control,” National Institute for Public Policy Information Series, Issue No. 505, October 18, 2021, https://nipp.org/wp-content/ uploads/2021/10/IS-505.pdf (accessed February 16, 2023). 43. Forum for American Leadership, “Don’t Hand North Korea a Win in the Missile Defense Review,” January 4, 2022, https://forumforamericanleadership.org/dprk-missile-threat (accessed February 16, 2023). 44. Patty-Jane Geller, “It’s Time to Get Homeland Missile Defense Right,” Defense News, January 4, 2021, https:// www.defensenews.com/opinion/commentary/2021/01/04/its-time-to-get-homeland-missile-defense- right/#:~:text=Restoring%20our%20eroding%20edge%20when,advanced%20technology%20and%20 new%20capabilities.%E2%80%9D (accessed February 16, 2023).

Department of Defense

Weak
Vector: 69%
Pages: 146-148AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill provides a general increase in Department of Defense funding but does not contain specific measures targeting Air Force underfunding, eliminating pass-through funding, or the prescribed procurement and budget growth targets outlined in Project 2025."

Key themes:defense spending increasemilitary personnel fundingoverall DoD budget growth

— 113 — Department of Defense (if pass-through funding, defined as money in the Air Force budget that does not go to the Air Force, is removed from the equation) than the Army and Navy have received. This underfunding has forced the Air Force to cut its forces and forgo modernizing aging weapons systems that were never designed to operate in current threat environments and are structurally and mechanically exhausted. The result is an Air Force that is the oldest, smallest, and least ready in its history. The decline in Air Force capacity and capability is occurring at the same time the security environment demands the very options that the Air Force uniquely provides. Combatant commanders routinely request more Air Force capabilities than the service has the capacity to provide. The Air Force today simply cannot accomplish all of the missions it is required to perform. The Air Force has consistently stated on the official record that it is not sized to meet the mission demands placed on it by the various U.S. Combatant Commands. A 2018 study, “The Air Force We Need,”30 showed a 24 percent deficit in Air Force capacity to meet the needs of the National Defense Strategy. Those conclusions remain valid and are more pronounced today because of subsequent aircraft retire- ments. The demand is also higher because of world events. To understand these trends, one needs only to consider that the Air Force’s future five-year budget plan retires 1,463 aircraft while buying just 467. This makes for a reduction of 996 air- craft by 2027. The net result is a force that is smaller, older, and less ready at a time when demand is burgeoning. Needed Reforms l Increase spending and budget accuracy in line with a threat-based strategy. Returning the U.S. military to a force that can achieve deterrence or win in a fight if necessary requires returning to a threat-based defense strategy. Real budget growth combined with a more equitable distribution of resources across the armed services is the only realistic way to create a modernized Air Force with the capacity to meet the needs of the National Defense Strategy. Additionally, as noted above, pass-through funding causes numbers cited in current DOD budget documents to be higher than the dollar amounts actually received by the Air Force. 1. Adopt a two-war force defense strategy with scenarios for each service that will allow the Air Force to attain the resources it requires by developing a force-sizing construct that reflects what is required to accomplish strategic objectives. 2. Eliminate pass-through funding, which has grown to more than $40 billion per year and has caused the Air Force to be chronically underfunded for decades. — 114 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 3. Increase the Air Force budget by 5 percent annually (after adjusting for inflation) to reverse the decline in size, age, and readiness and facilitate the transition to a more modern, lethal, and survivable force. l Reduce near-term and mid-term risk. Increasing the Air Force’s acquisition of next-generation capabilities that either are or soon will be in production will increase the ability of the United States to deter or defeat near-term to mid-term threats. 1. Increase F-35A procurement to 60–80 per year. 2. Build the capacity for a B-21 production rate of 15–18 aircraft per year along with applicable elements of the B-21 long-range strike family of systems. 3. Increase Air Force airlift and aerial refueling capacity to support agile combat employment operations that generate combat sorties from a highly dispersed posture in both Europe and the Pacific. 4. Develop and buy larger quantities of advanced mid-range weapons (50 nm to 200 nm) that are sized to maximize targets per sortie for stealth aircraft flying in contested environments against target sets that could exceed 100,000 aimpoints. 5. Accelerate the development and production of the Sentinel intercontinental ballistic missile to reduce the risk inherent in an aging Minuteman III force in light of China’s nuclear modernization breakout. 6. Increase the number of EC-37B electronic warfare aircraft from 10 to 20 in order to achieve a minimum capacity to engage growing threats from China across the electromagnetic spectrum. l Invest in future Air Force programs and efforts. Increasingly capable adversaries require new capabilities to enable victory against those adversaries. 1. Attain an operationally optimized advanced battle management system as the Air Force element of the DOD Joint All Domain Command and Control enterprise. 2. Produce the next-generation air dominance system of systems (air moving target indication, other sensors, communications, command and control, weapons, and uninhabited aerial vehicles).

Department of Defense

Weak
Vector: 69%
Pages: 146-148AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill raises overall DoD funding and military personnel accounts but does not specifically address the Air Force underfunding, pass-through funding elimination, or threat-based strategy reforms emphasized in Project 2025."

Key themes:defense spending increasemilitary personnel fundingresource allocation

— 113 — Department of Defense (if pass-through funding, defined as money in the Air Force budget that does not go to the Air Force, is removed from the equation) than the Army and Navy have received. This underfunding has forced the Air Force to cut its forces and forgo modernizing aging weapons systems that were never designed to operate in current threat environments and are structurally and mechanically exhausted. The result is an Air Force that is the oldest, smallest, and least ready in its history. The decline in Air Force capacity and capability is occurring at the same time the security environment demands the very options that the Air Force uniquely provides. Combatant commanders routinely request more Air Force capabilities than the service has the capacity to provide. The Air Force today simply cannot accomplish all of the missions it is required to perform. The Air Force has consistently stated on the official record that it is not sized to meet the mission demands placed on it by the various U.S. Combatant Commands. A 2018 study, “The Air Force We Need,”30 showed a 24 percent deficit in Air Force capacity to meet the needs of the National Defense Strategy. Those conclusions remain valid and are more pronounced today because of subsequent aircraft retire- ments. The demand is also higher because of world events. To understand these trends, one needs only to consider that the Air Force’s future five-year budget plan retires 1,463 aircraft while buying just 467. This makes for a reduction of 996 air- craft by 2027. The net result is a force that is smaller, older, and less ready at a time when demand is burgeoning. Needed Reforms l Increase spending and budget accuracy in line with a threat-based strategy. Returning the U.S. military to a force that can achieve deterrence or win in a fight if necessary requires returning to a threat-based defense strategy. Real budget growth combined with a more equitable distribution of resources across the armed services is the only realistic way to create a modernized Air Force with the capacity to meet the needs of the National Defense Strategy. Additionally, as noted above, pass-through funding causes numbers cited in current DOD budget documents to be higher than the dollar amounts actually received by the Air Force. 1. Adopt a two-war force defense strategy with scenarios for each service that will allow the Air Force to attain the resources it requires by developing a force-sizing construct that reflects what is required to accomplish strategic objectives. 2. Eliminate pass-through funding, which has grown to more than $40 billion per year and has caused the Air Force to be chronically underfunded for decades.

Showing 3 of 5 policy matches

About These Correlations

Policy matches are calculated using a hybrid approach: initial candidates are found using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text, then an AI model (Llama 3.1 70B) provides detailed alignment ratings and analysis. Ratings range from 1 (minimal alignment) to 5 (very strong alignment). This analysis does not imply direct causation or intent.

Full Policy Text

Related Bills