President Donald Trump campaigned on cutting the size of the federal government while reducing waste and fraud. According to the Office of Management and Budget, the Trump administration has sought to cut the fiscal year 2026 (FY26) overall federal budget to less than $1.7 trillion, or roughly a 7% decrease from the fiscal year 2025 (FY25) budget. Numerous agencies can expect to see their budgets slashed.
However, the Department of Defense (DoD) could expect to see a marked increase for FY26. For weeks, Trump has suggested the Pentagon could see a $1 trillion budget, a 13% increase from the FY25 budget. In April, the president said the world hasn’t “seen anything like it.”
Will We See a Trillion-Dollar Budget?
Congressional lawmakers are already debating a proposed budget that would keep it at the same level as last year, when President Joe Biden was in the Oval Office, roughly $893 billion.
However, Senate Armed Services Chair Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) has expressed concerns over freezing the budget at last year’s levels, arguing the top line number for the Pentagon budget is insufficient. The sentiment was shared by Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.).
The White House plan to increase the budget by upwards of $119 billion could be included in the reconciliation bill currently being debated in Congress. If lawmakers agree, it would put spending on par with the Reagan-era levels of the late Cold War.
NASA Budget Slashed
While the DoD’s budget could go way, way up; the budget for NASA is at risk, as the White House has proposed cutting the space agency’s budget by nearly 25%, and canceling several programs.
NASA already receives significantly less money than the Pentagon, and it could see its budget slashed from $24.8 billion last year to $18.8 billion for FY26. It would end the lunar Gateway, a proposed space station around the moon, as well as cut funding for the Space Launch System and Orion programs after Artemis 3. The cuts might stop the agency from going to infinity and beyond, yet, the lunar and Mars programs would remain intact.
“This proposal includes investments to simultaneously pursue exploration of the Moon and Mars while still prioritizing critical science and technology research,” said acting NASA Administrator Janet Petro in a statement. “I appreciate the President’s continued support for NASA’s mission and look forward to working closely with the administration and Congress to ensure we continue making progress toward achieving the impossible.”
Some Congressional lawmakers were far more critical of the slashing of NASA funding.
“Massive cuts to NASA in the President’s proposed budget are shocking – the largest in American history,” said Rep. Grace Meng (D-N.Y.), in a post on X, the social media platform formerly known as Twitter.
The ranking member of the House Appropriations Committee’s commerce, justice, and science (CJS) subcommittee, whose jurisdiction includes NASA, added, “They will decimate NASA’s research & education efforts and terminate funding for our nation’s dedicated scientists. Rather than rooting out so-called ‘government waste’, this budget puts American leadership in science, technology, & innovation at risk.”
Rep. George Whitesides, a California Democrat and Vice Ranking Member of the Science, Space, and Technology Committee, added in a post on X, “No spin will change the fact that this would end critical missions, dramatically scale back the workforce, and risk our scientific leadership around the globe.”
What It Means For the Aerospace and Defense Sectors
The increase in defense spending could counterbalance any losses some of the largest aerospace firms could face in the budget cuts at NASA. But the situation is a bit more complex, explained geopolitical analyst Irina Tsukerman, president of threat assessment firm Scarab Rising, told ClearanceJobs.
“In a nation already outspending the next ten countries combined, the question isn’t whether the budget is big enough; it’s whether it’s smart enough. And that, as history and multiple failed Pentagon audits have made abundantly clear, is a far murkier terrain than the glossy optics of strength suggest,” said Tsukerman.
The U.S. defense budget, already hovering in the $850 billion range, has long drawn criticism not for being too small, but for being too bloated, misaligned, and opaque.
“The Pentagon has famously failed audit after audit, with entire warehouses of equipment unaccounted for and procurement systems so byzantine they’d make Kafka blush,” Tsukerman added.
Are the Priorities in Order?
Since returning to the White House just over 100 days ago, President Trump has called for building a new “Golden Dome” that would be based on Israel’s Iron Dome. Critics have shot back that the U.S. doesn’t need a system unless it honestly fears missiles could be fired at Detroit from Canada or El Paso from Mexico.
Other much-needed efforts may be taking a back seat.
“There’s something unsettlingly familiar about prioritizing missile interceptors in the Middle East over rebuilding U.S. naval shipyards, modernizing Pacific fleet readiness, or investing in actual munitions production capabilities that might deter China in the Taiwan Strait,” said Tsukerman. “It’s a regional preference masquerading as grand strategy.”
There is also the issue of increasing the defense spending while alienating allies. The U.S. has been at the very center of complex global alliances and has partners around the globe. Does the United States need to spend more on defense if it can count on Europe, partners in Asia and the Middle East?
“If Germany underspends on tanks and Spain can’t field naval crews, does it really make sense for the U.S. to blow out its own defense budget rather than restructure alliance interoperability and pooled logistics?” said Tsukerman. “Throwing money at the Pentagon without fixing its accountability mechanisms is like pouring jet fuel into a car with four flat tires. It may sound impressive, but you’re not going anywhere fast.”
The trillion-dollar crescendo is not without its merits.
“America faces real, mounting threats: an emboldened China, a nuclear-ambitious Iran, and a resurgent insurgency in Africa that sees Wagner operatives taking selfies in vacated U.S. outposts. Trump is correct that this is no time for defense austerity. But the real test isn’t size; it’s coherence,” Tsukerman continued.
“The Pentagon needs systems reform, strategic realignment, and a cold, ruthless audit of its own misallocations,” she suggested. “Investing in drones is great—but who is coordinating doctrine? Boosting shipbuilding is urgent—but where are the dry docks and trained crews? Buying hypersonics is visionary—but are we still reliant on Chinese rare earths and Taiwanese semiconductors?”
