Congressional Defense Bills Include Earmarks and Diverge from Pentagon Priorities
Congress has been busy preparing the fiscal year (FY) 2026 suite of defense bills, and thus far there is substantial disagreement between the Pentagon and legislators.
The Senate Committee on Armed Services (SCAS) on July 9, 2025, approved its version of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which contained $878.7 billion for the Department of Defense (DOD), or $30.5 billion above the Pentagon’s request. The bill authorizes the purchase of 34 of the Air Force’s F-35A Joint Strike Fighters (JSF), or 10 more than the Trump administration requested. It also included $8.5 billion for shipbuilding beyond that asked for by the Pentagon.
The fate of the A-10 Warthog, which the DOD deems too vulnerable for future wars against advanced air defense systems, is another area of disagreement. The Air Force had proposed retiring its remaining 162 A-10 Warthogs in FY 2026, but the Senate NDAA blocked this plan, and instead required the Pentagon to maintain a minimum of 103 of the aircraft.
A draft version of the House’s NDAA would authorize $848.2 billion for the DOD, in line with the President’s request, but included even stronger language designed to impede the retirement of the A-10s. Following the adoption of an amendment offered by House Armed Services Committee member Austin Scott (R-Ga.), the bill would force the Air Force to keep all 162 Warthogs until October 1, 2027. Rep. Scott’s district includes Moody Air Force Base, the home of the A-10.
On a positive note, the Senate and the House NDAA bills each included language to empower nontraditional defense firms and allow the Pentagon more freedom to purchase existing items available on the commercial market. SCAS Chairman Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) wrote that the “bill contains the most significant reforms to the Pentagon’s weapons-buying process in generations.” It would streamline what has been “a crazy, years-long bureaucratic process to qualify new parts and types of weapons for military use.” As the 1984 Grace Commission report on procurement noted about weapons acquisition, “The source selection process takes too long, involves too many review and approval steps, and requires too many people.”
Lastly, the House passed its version of the FY 2026 DOD Appropriations Act on July 18, 2025, totaling $832 billion in spending. It contained funding for 42 F-35As, or 18 more than requested by the Pentagon. Given the disagreement in appropriate funding levels for the JSF, taxpayers can expect earmarks costing billions to appear in the final version of the DOD appropriations bill.
Many of the differences in priorities between the Trump administration and the two legislative chambers can be explained by the delayed budget request for the DOD, which was released on June 26, 2025, well after budget planning in Congress had begun. However, the increased funding for the F-35A and shipbuilding beyond the DOD’s request and the bicameral obstruction of the A-10’s retirement indicate legislators are yet again pursuing parochial goals rather than the most cost-effective and updated national defense strategy.
