Senate appropriators from both parties denounced Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth Wednesday for relying on Republicans’ partisan budget reconciliation bill to meet his spending objectives in fiscal 2026.
The Trump administration has proposed spending $1.011 trillion on national security in fiscal 2026, with $961.6 billion for the Defense Department — but that total would include $113.3 billion from the reconciliation bill currently making its way through Congress.
“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.
Without the reconciliation dollars, the budget calls for $848.3 billion in base funding for the Pentagon — roughly on par with fiscal 2025 spending levels.
“DOD’s ability to take care of our warfighters should not be contingent on whether Congress can pass a bill that also explodes the national debt, gives billionaires tax cuts, cuts access to health care — in short, is controversial and uncertain,” said Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del., ranking member of the panel’s Defense Subcommittee.
Hegseth defended his department’s approach, suggesting that lawmakers view reconciliation spending and base budget spending as two parts of the same whole.
“We have two bills and one budget,” he said. “Ultimately we’re looking at it as one investment for FY26.”
Senators also took Hegseth to task for what Collins called an “unacceptably slow” release of its budget plans. The Pentagon last month unveiled a “skinny budget” for fiscal 2026 but has yet to publicly release the in-depth budget details that typically help Congress craft spending bills.
“The department has been AWOL in the ’26 debate, as it was in the ’25 debate,” Coons said. “The department’s inability to explain its budget is slowly making it less relevant to what it receives in fiscal year ’26 in our appropriations process.”
National Guard moves
Hegseth also faced sharp questioning from Democrats on the Trump administration’s recent deployments of National Guard troops and active duty Marines to quell protests against local immigration raids in Los Angeles.
Democratic senators condemned the move, which cites federal authority under Title 10 of the U.S. Code to place National Guard troops under federal command under certain circumstances, including a threat of rebellion.
The statute Trump invoked in federalizing the 4,000 Guard troops does not permit them to perform most law enforcement actions, such as make arrests. Such actions are barred under the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878.
That law can be waived if the president invokes the Insurrection Act to suppress a rebellious uprising against federal authority or enforce federal law, which is rarely done.
“Threatening to use our own troops on our own citizens at such scale is unprecedented,” said Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., ranking member of the full Appropriations Committee. “It is unconstitutional and it is downright un-American.”
The protests in Los Angeles had been mostly peaceful, according to reports from the scene, but late Sunday and early Monday saw isolated instances of vandalism and burglaries at downtown businesses. Numerous vehicles were burned or otherwise destroyed. Most of the destruction occurred within several city blocks, the Los Angeles Times reported. Some protesters also blocked a highway.
According to multiple reports, certain clashes between protesters and police occurred only after flash-bang grenades and tear gas had been used against demonstrators.
Hegseth insisted that the actions were necessary to protect local law enforcement agents.
“Every authorization we’ve provided the National Guard and the Marines in Los Angeles is under the authority of the president of the United States, is lawful and constitutional,” he said. “It’s about maintaining law and order on behalf of law enforcement agents who deserve to do their jobs without being attacked by mobs of people.”
Ukraine debate
Hegseth and Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., who chairs the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, also sparred over the administration’s approach to Russia’s war in Ukraine. McConnell repeatedly pressed Hegseth to clarify which side he believes is the aggressor and who he hopes will prevail.
“Which side do you want to win?” McConnell asked.
“As we’ve said time and time again, this president is committed to peace,” Hegseth replied.
The Trump administration in March paused U.S. aid shipments to Ukraine, instead urging European allies to do more to support Ukraine as the conflict stretches into its fourth year.
Meanwhile, the House’s draft Defense appropriations spending bill, unveiled this week, would not provide any money for the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative, which has previously enjoyed bipartisan support.
Hegseth was also pressed on recent reports that the Pentagon diverted thousands of anti-drone missiles originally intended for Ukraine to American forces in the Middle East.
“Is there any plan to provide Ukraine with the necessary technology to replace those anti-drone defenses?” asked Sen. Jerry Moran, R-Kan.
“We would have to review the capacity,” Hegseth responded. “But it’s one of the challenges of all the munitions that we’ve given to Ukraine over these three years — it’s created some challenges in other places.”
The post Hegseth gets bipartisan pushback for defense spending strategy appeared first on Roll Call.
