McConnell: Delivering “Trump Buildup” Will Require Serious, Full-Year Defense Appropriations

WASHINGTON, D.C. - U.S. Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Defense Subcommittee, delivered the following floor remarks today regarding the path forward for Pentagon appropriations once Democrats end their gov't shutdown, the National Defense Strategy, and Republican support for U.S. military aid to Ukraine:

"Mr. President, my position on government shutdowns is well-known. There's absolutely nothing to gain in taking basic government functions hostage for eleventh-hour partisan demands. And I hope our Democratic colleagues will re-learn that lesson in short order… Because the American people have plenty to lose from freezing important functions of the federal government.

"Here in the Senate, Democrats' shutdown is taking time we ought to be spending on important outstanding business, beginning with our obligation to provide for the common defense. In particular, our work to deliver full-year defense appropriations is not finished. So I'd like to talk briefly about what must come next after interim government funding is extended. And what's at stake for our national security.

"The U.S. military is not immune from the disruptive short-term consequences of a government shutdown. But the long-term consequences of going without robust, full-year defense appropriations are far graver. I offered this warning in the spring, when - for the first time - Washington told America's men and women in uniform to conduct today's operations and prepare for tomorrow's threats using yesterday's dollars. We put the national defense on a full-year continuing resolution and forced the military services to function for another year on the anemic defense budget signed into law by President Biden for FY 2024.

"A full-year CR is the enemy of readiness, modernization, and efficiency. The armed services want to make their budgets simpler, more efficient, and more flexible by consolidating budget lines. But they can't do it under a full-year CR. Punting new appropriations directly contradicts the Pentagon's stated goal of building a resilient, surge-ready munitions enterprise. The prohibitions on new program starts under a CR effectively put high-priority Service modernization efforts on ice.

"The Administration says it wants "flexible and efficient" investments. Well, Mr. President, there is nothing flexible, efficient, resilient, or lethal about running the national defense enterprise on a full-year CR. Nor will a CR send the consistent signal industry and investors need to pour private capital into the long overdue expansion of our defense industrial base. If you want to increase our nation's capacity to produce munitions more quickly and in larger volumes, full-year CRs might just be the worst way to go about it.

"I don't mean to sound overly alarmed. God willing, the House-passed short-term funding extension will give Congress enough time to deliver full-year appropriations and release our military from the constraints of the Biden FY24 budget. But I want our colleagues to understand what's at stake this fall. The President has set some ambitious, important, and overdue priorities for America's national security… and none of them come cheap:

"Golden Dome for America… An American shipbuilding renaissance… Sixth-generation stealth fighter aircraft… The long-overdue modernization of our nuclear force… Reconciliation isn't enough to support these major efforts. And neither is a perpetual freeze at the Biden FY24 level.

"Reviving the warrior ethos, rebuilding the military, and re-establishing deterrence - these are priorities we hear about all the time from the President's advisors. I certainly have no problem with rowing in that direction. I'm all for high standards of physical fitness. But pushups alone aren't going to stop Chinese hypersonic missiles. The next major conflict will likely be a test of lethality at very long distances.

"That's why I've spent years urging successive administrations to rebuild our global power projection and long-range fires. It's why I criticized the Biden Administration for talking about China as "the pacing threat" but turning in defense budget requests that didn't even keep pace with inflation.

"This Administration cannot afford to make the same mistake.

"So, this week, I was encouraged to hear Secretary Hegseth proclaim a "Trump buildup" in the mold of the Reagan buildup that helped end the Cold War. For the record, my fellow defense appropriators and I have been ready to deliver such a build-up since Day One. And our bipartisan bill speaks for itself, putting money where our mouth is.

"But here's the rub: we can only make it happen if the Administration moves from words to action. And an important step in that process is the National Defense Strategy. Historically, the NDS is what Administrations use to define threats, identify objectives, and propose coherent plans for aligning resources to meet them.

"But this time around, the stakes are higher. A short-sighted NDS that doesn't align with the President's vision of American greatness and peace through strength could wind up as the pretext to extend Biden-era constraints on our military indefinitely. Unfortunately, early reports suggest that this risk may be real… and that the NDS may turn out eerily similar to the rhetoric of Obama-era officials who viewed their remit as managing America's decline amid a transition to a multipolar world.

"If the NDS ignores the importance of maintaining American primacy, fails to account for the global nature of competition with China, or discounts the value of supporting and integrating allies and partners, it would risk further sabotaging the President's efforts to restore peace through strength.

"So I'll be interested to read how the Department is applying the lessons and dividends of security cooperation with allies and partners to looming challenges… How it plans to address critical munitions shortages even as its FY26 request and reconciliation investment fails to maximize existing production capacity… And how it accounts for the increasing likelihood of simultaneous conflict in multiple theaters.

"If the Administration means what it says about restoring deterrence, it would recognize how plans to reduce security cooperation with frontline NATO allies invite more brazen Russian incursions into the alliance's territory and airspace. It would recognize how China is watching closely for signs of weakening American commitments to European allies, to Ukraine, or to AUKUS partners.

"Of course, responsible senior officials who understood the dividends of security cooperation would not have tried an end-run around the President to freeze assistance to Ukraine. They certainly would have appreciated that cutting off intelligence sharing to the world's foremost experts in drone warfare might make it harder for the U.S. military to achieve "drone dominance". On that count, I was encouraged earlier this week that the President himself green-lit an expansion of the intelligence cooperation that members of his Administration had wanted to end.

"Mr. President, as our colleagues will recall, the President observed last month that Ukraine can win. And unlike some of his advisors, the American people are indicating in clear majorities that they think we ought to help! By one recent poll, more than six in ten Americans support sending more arms and military supplies to help Ukraine win. That includes a clear majority of Republicans!

"And the recent voting history of the House of Representatives indicates that this poll isn't a fluke: Last month, House Republicans voted overwhelmingly to reject an amendment to the NDAA that would've barred further assistance to Ukraine. No less than 72% of House Republicans - including leadership - said continuing to arm Ukraine's defense was a good idea.

"Ultimately, the President knows that money talks. He understands that valuable things are also expensive. What's true in property development is also true in military procurement. There's no way around it:

"Take Golden Dome for example. Building anything close to a continental missile defense shield will, by reasonable estimates, cost several times more than was allocated this year in one-off reconciliation spending… every year… for decades to come. If the Pentagon isn't even planning to max out its budget request for procuring critical munitions in the short term, why on earth should our adversaries take any talk of long-term missile defense seriously?

"Likewise, why should they take American air power seriously if we're only willing to develop sixth-generation stealth fighters for the Air Force but not for the Navy? What good are multi-billion-dollar aircraft carriers if we're not prepared to equip them with aircraft that can survive modern warfare?

"At home and abroad, I'm concerned that too many of the President's advisors are unwilling to acknowledge the gap between his stated priorities and what they're prepared to invest to achieve them. If you ask me, the name on the front door at the Pentagon matters a great deal less than whether the services inside are equipped and prepared to deter and win wars. And we're facing real, glaring gaps in critical capabilities.

"The ink was barely dry on the One Big Beautiful Bill when senior Pentagon leaders began to report to my colleagues and I on the Appropriations Committee that they still faced significant funding shortfalls. Given the high pace of operations in the Middle East and the Western Hemisphere, it's safe to assume these costs are continuing to rise.

"Mr. President, there's a lot going on around this building. But soon, I hope our colleagues will have an opportunity to go on the record in favor of investing in peace through strength. We'll have a chance to put our money where our mouth is on re-establishing deterrence and rebuilding the force required to back it up. Our investments in the common defense are a signal of our national resolve.

"When the American people spoke last November, I don't think they meant for their leaders to mail in a third year of anemic Biden-era toplines. I don't think the President assembled his policy and budget advisors with a mind to punt in the face of looming threats.

"When he hired civilian Pentagon leaders to restore deterrence, I think he meant more than just threatening adversaries with a catchy line on camera… I think he meant building the force that threatens them with its very existence!

"So if the Administration wants a Trump buildup, then let's build one. And, once Democrats' shutdown is over, let's start with serious, increased, full-year investments in the national defense."

###

Permalink: https://www.mcconnell.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2025/10/mcconnell-delivering-trump-buildup-will-require-serious-full-year-defense-appropriations