Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth faced bipartisan criticism during Senate testimony over a controversial budget strategy that relies on partisan reconciliation to meet military funding goals.
At a Glance
- Hegseth proposed $1.011 trillion for national security in 2026, with $113.3 billion coming from a partisan reconciliation bill
- Senate Appropriations Chair Susan Collins criticized using reconciliation funds to replace rather than supplement the base defense budget
- Hegseth faced additional scrutiny over military deployments to Los Angeles during protests against ICE raids
- The Defense Secretary avoided questions about National Guard activation during the January 6, 2021 Capitol riots
- Lawmakers expressed concerns about the administration’s pause on Ukraine aid and diversion of anti-drone missiles
Budget Strategy Draws Bipartisan Concern
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s testimony before Senate appropriators revealed significant pushback against the Trump administration’s defense funding approach for fiscal year 2026. The proposal seeks $1.011 trillion for national security, including $961.6 billion for the Defense Department, with $113.3 billion dependent on a partisan budget reconciliation bill. Without these reconciliation funds, the Pentagon’s base budget would remain at approximately $848.3 billion, essentially matching fiscal 2025 levels despite growing global threats.
Senate Appropriations Chair Susan Collins directly challenged Hegseth’s strategy, emphasizing that reconciliation was designed to provide supplemental funding rather than replace core defense budget investments. Senators also criticized the Pentagon for delays in releasing detailed budget plans, which has complicated the appropriations process and raised questions about fiscal responsibility during a time of increasing national debt.
Controversial Domestic Military Deployments
Beyond budget concerns, Hegseth faced sharp criticism over the deployment of National Guard troops and Marines to manage protests in Los Angeles following immigration enforcement actions. The Defense Secretary defended the deployments as necessary to protect law enforcement personnel, citing federal authority under Title 10. However, Democratic senators condemned the action as potentially unconstitutional, with some pointing to violations of the Posse Comitatus Act, which limits military involvement in domestic law enforcement.
“Threatening to use our own troops on our own citizens at such scale is unprecedented. It is unconstitutional and it is downright un-American,” said Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash.
Reports indicated that while there were isolated incidents of vandalism and clashes with police, the Los Angeles protests were largely peaceful. This has led many lawmakers to question the proportionality and justification for military involvement, especially as Hegseth simultaneously avoided addressing questions about National Guard activation during the January 6, 2021 Capitol riots.
Ukraine Support and Global Defense Priorities
Senator Mitch McConnell engaged in a pointed exchange with Hegseth regarding the administration’s position on Russia’s war in Ukraine. The conversation highlighted tensions over the Trump administration’s decision to pause U.S. aid to Ukraine while urging European allies to increase their support. The House’s draft Defense appropriations bill notably lacks funding for the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative, raising concerns about America’s commitment to its allies.
“Reconciliation, Mr. Secretary, was meant to provide one-time supplemental funds to augment the defense budget, not to supplant the investments that should be in the base budget,” said Senate Appropriations Chair Susan Collins, R-Maine.
Further concerns were raised when Hegseth was questioned about the diversion of anti-drone missiles from Ukraine to U.S. forces in the Middle East. Senators pressed for details on how this reallocation might impact Ukraine’s defensive capabilities at a critical moment in the conflict. The Secretary’s responses did little to assuage worries about a potential shift in America’s strategic priorities and commitments to international security partnerships.
Budget Reconciliation Controversy
Democratic Senator Chris Coons criticized the administration’s reliance on a controversial reconciliation bill for essential defense funding. He highlighted concerns that the proposed bill would significantly increase the national debt, provide tax cuts for wealthy Americans, and potentially reduce healthcare access for many citizens. This strategy has raised questions about whether critical national security needs should be tied to partisan legislative vehicles with uncertain prospects for passage.
Hegseth maintained that reconciliation and base budget spending should be viewed as a single investment in national defense. However, his argument failed to persuade many senators who see the approach as undermining the traditional bipartisan cooperation on defense appropriations. The contentious hearing underscored the challenges facing the administration as it navigates both domestic and international security concerns amid growing political polarization.
