This week on Facing the Future, Todd Harrison, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, explained the president’s request for a 50 percent increase in the U. S. defense budget and the procedural complexities of relying on the fast-track reconciliation process for enacting a large share of that increase The conversation also included Harrison’s take on the broad security implications of the war with Iran and why the growing debt poses a national security threat.
Harrison explained that the president’s $1.5 trillion defense budget request for Fiscal Year 2027 is split between two methods of funding: the “base” budget of about $1 trillion, funded through the usual appropriations process, and an additional roughly $500 billion funded through reconciliation.
“The base budget itself is a sizable increase,” Harrison said. “In any normal year, we would call this a huge increase. It goes up to a little over $1.15 trillion. That’s a significant increase from $1 trillion in just one year. It’s spread around a lot of different areas, but the biggest emphasis is scaling production of weapon systems. You can just go down the list of all the major weapon systems, and pretty much everything that can be produced at a higher quantity, they are attempting to buy more of. And then when you look at the reconciliation part of the budget, they add even more to those accounts. A fair amount of the money is in very big, brand new accounts that they are proposing where there is not a lot of definition around what they’re going to do with the money. Most of the $1.5 trillion is accounted for in the usual details that the public and Congress expect, but there are parts of that reconciliation funding that are woefully short on details.”
Harrison warned of the risks associated with this approach, explaining, “Reconciliation is temporary, it’s time-limited, and it only works if the same party controls both chambers of Congress and the White House.” He cautioned that reliance on reconciliation funding for defense created uncertainty: if future Congresses did not pass similar measures, the Department of Defense (DoD) could face funding cliffs and scramble to find alternative appropriations.
“It’s not a sustainable way to fund defense,” he said. “ I have likened it to a temporary sugar high.You eat a bunch of sugar, it boosts your energy real quick, but it doesn’t give you lasting energy. Eventually, you crash when you stop eating the sugar. What DoD needs more of are like protein shakes – enduring energy funding sources that can continue, that have bipartisan support, that aren’t going to be subject to the ups and downs of the political cycle.”
Despite the massive size of its budget, the Department of Defense has never passed a Government Accountability Office audit. Harrison explained, “DoD has very old accounting systems… designed in an era where you could not send large amounts of data,” making traceability and modern audit standards difficult to achieve. He acknowledged progress, noting that the United States Marine Corps and the National Reconnaissance Office had managed to pass clean audits, offering hope for incremental improvements across other components of the DoD.
Toward the end of the interview, the conversation broadened to consider the nation’s capacity for strategic mobilization in the event of a major conflict. Harrison framed mobilization as the ability to rapidly convert national resources and industrial capacity to support military needs at scale and speed, distinct from the operational mobilization of deploying reserve units. Harrison expressed concern over whether current economic conditions, including rising national debt and deficits, might limit the country’s ability to mobilize effectively. Harrison agreed with former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, who famously identified the national debt as the greatest threat to U.S. national security. “I think he’s absolutely right,” Harrison said, noting that “our debt and our deficit are so much higher today than they were when he first said that.”
While the interview painted a picture of a defense budget grappling with unprecedented growth and shifting funding mechanisms, it also highlighted significant challenges. These include ensuring sustainable funding, modernizing financial systems to increase transparency and accountability, and preparing the broader economic and industrial base for potential strategic mobilization. Harrison’s insights underscored the complexity of balancing immediate defense needs with long-term fiscal responsibility and national security readiness.
