"we’ve got the floodgates about to open and apply to those priorities," Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth told the Senate Armed Services Committee — a brief, pointed promise that came with a cautionary tally: ten months after Congress passed a reconciliation package, only $26 billion of the roughly $152 billion earmarked for defense had been placed on contract.
One Big Beautiful Bill: $152 billion earmarked, $26 billion placed on contract
The sprawling reconciliation megabill—formally referred to in the hearing as the One Big Beautiful Bill—sets out roughly $152 billion in additional defense funding. The bill directs multi-year funding for a range of initiatives explicitly named during the hearings: Golden Dome, two Arleigh Burke‑class destroyers, munitions, nuclear modernization and other priorities. But while the legislation prescribes broad contours for spending, not every dollar is tied to a specific program, giving the Pentagon latitude in execution.
Pentagon spending plan and the Office of Management and Budget delay
Officials acknowledged a slow start. The Pentagon submitted its spending plan to Capitol Hill in February, and only $26 billion of the reconciliation pot had been placed on contract as of the committee meeting. SASC Chairman Sen. Roger Wicker, R‑Miss., and other lawmakers signaled frustration over timing, and committee testimony singled out the Office of Management and Budget. “Unfortunately, you’re starting a bit late, through no fault of your own, because the money was not sent timely by the Office of Management and Budget to the department until last month,” Rogers said during the hearing.
Congressional scrutiny: why fund through reconciliation?
Lawmakers on both sides questioned the department’s reliance on reconciliation for a variety of defense needs. Sen. Angus King, I‑Maine, pressed the point at the SASC hearing: “All those items of housing or Golden Dome, whatever — why aren’t they in the regular budget? Why do we suddenly have a two part budget where this committee and the Congress generally has oversight and input, to a process where a corner of the budget is essentially a slush fund?”
Rep. Ken Calvert, R‑Calif., made the same structural critique in an earlier House Appropriations defense subcommittee hearing, telling Air Force and Space Force leaders they should place “priority needs either in the base budget or the supplemental,” rather than in reconciliation, to better ensure stable funding.
Trump administration FY2027 reconciliation plan and political hurdles
The reconciliation approach is not limited to the current package. The Trump administration has outlined a FY2027 plan that projects $1.15 trillion inside the base budget and an additional $350 billion coming from a proposed follow‑on reconciliation bill — part of a larger $1.5 trillion request to fund the Pentagon next year. But timing and politics complicate that path.
House and Senate Republican leaders are, according to committee testimony, focused first on passing a narrowly tailored reconciliation bill to keep immigration enforcement agencies operational for the remainder of the administration. Defense funding would therefore have to be addressed in a second reconciliation bill. That raises a practical question lawmakers acknowledged: in a tight political environment, can Republicans “summon the political will” to pass a second reconciliation package?
On timing, Wicker told reporters after the SASC hearing that given the congressional calendar, defense reconciliation “could only be passed following the midterm elections.” “I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s enacted after the election. I am quite hopeful that it will indeed be enacted sometime in November,” he said.
Iran operations supplemental: $25 billion, mostly munitions
Beyond the $1.5 trillion planning baseline, Pentagon leaders told the House Armed Services Committee they are preparing a potential supplemental request tied to operations in Iran. Jules “Jay” Hurst, performing the duties of the Pentagon comptroller, said the current price tag “hovers around the $25 billion mark” and that “most of that is munitions…Part of that [is] obviously O&M [operations and maintenance] and equipment replacement.”
Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D‑Conn., pressed Hurst on whether that estimate includes the costs of repairing bases and replacing equipment, suggesting the figure seemed “well below” what might be needed. Hurst declined to be specific on construction costs, saying that “for the MILCON [military construction] facilities replacement cost, that’s probably the hardest thing to estimate right now, because we don’t know what our future posture is going to be, or the future construction of those bases.” Hurst had earlier noted the United States “might change how we build bases in the Middle East based on this conflict.”
How Congress, the Pentagon, and procurement leaders are responding
- Congress: Committees on both sides pressed the Pentagon on process and oversight, asking why long‑term or recurring needs were placed in reconciliation rather than the base budget or a supplemental, and signaling that timing and political constraints could delay enactment until after the midterms.
- The Pentagon: Senior leaders, including Hegseth and the acting comptroller Jules “Jay” Hurst, emphasized that contracts are poised to move and that additional requests — notably an Iran supplemental — will be refined as costs become clearer.
- Procurement and industry: With only $26 billion placed on contract so far, companies and program offices face a near‑term rush if, as Hegseth pledged, the “floodgates” open. How quickly OMB timing and congressional action resolve will shape contracting schedules for shipbuilding, munitions production, and modernization programs named in the bill.
The record from these hearings is straightforward: a large, flexible pool of reconciliation money exists, but contracting has been slow and political and procedural obstacles remain. The Pentagon says the funds are about to move; Congress and the Office of Management and Budget have shaped that timetable. Whether the remaining $126 billion flows before or after the midterms — and whether a second reconciliation push for FY2027 clears the political hurdles lawmakers described — are the tangible questions now waiting for answers.
