House This Week Passed $839 Billion Defense Bill Bursting With Pork

Authored by Alan Mosley via AntiWar.com,

The House of Representatives on Thursday approved an $838.7 billion fiscal 2026 defense spending bill, moving one of the largest appropriations measures in US history toward final passage in the Senate. In a 341-88 vote that crossed party lines, lawmakers advanced the sprawling defense and related appropriations package, underscoring persistent majorities in both parties willing to expand military outlays even amid growing concerns about fiscal discipline.

The total exceeds the Pentagon’s original FY 2026 budget request by $8.4 billion but still falls far short of more than $50 billion in additional funds the Defense Department sought after submitting its budget to Congress. That gap reflects, among other things, a stark $26.5 billion in “funding discrepancies” between the Pentagon’s request and the broader reconciliation bill – essentially accounting errors that left vital programs underfunded and were partly addressed by the House’s topline increase.

To fiscal conservatives and critics of Washington’s military spending consensus, those discrepancies signal deep structural problems in defense budgeting: an inability to accurately forecast needs, manage programs, or adhere to prudent fiscal stewardship. Lining up nearly three dozen major weapon systems, force structures, and procurement lines every year, the Pentagon’s budget process has consistently produced overruns and unpredictable spending swings that funnel money to entrenched interests rather than identified national priorities.

Yet the House markup did not merely bridge gaps; it added money to programs that the services themselves did not request – or, in some cases, explicitly asked to cancel. Lawmakers tacked on $897 million for the Navy’s sixth-generation F/A-XX fighter program, directed a contract award for engineering and development, and preserved $1.1 billion for the Air Force’s E-7 Wedgetail airborne early warning aircraft, which the service had sought to terminate. The Army’s agile funding proposal was rejected, while about $300 million was allotted for the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle program despite the Army’s call to end it.

Such additions comprise what critics deride as classic “pork-barrel” spending: earmarks and authorizations that serve narrow local or industrial constituencies rather than measurable defense needs. Funding lines for munitions procurement, disparate platforms, and legacy systems balloon irrespective of operational justification, raising perennial questions about legislative oversight and taxpayer value.

Compounding those concerns, the House Rules Committee refused to allow several amendments aimed at reigning in spending or constraining executive war powers to reach the floor. Measures that would have restricted funding for operations in Venezuela and others that would limit the scope of presidential military action were blocked from debate, leaving the core text untouched since its release. To some observers, the procedural closure itself was as significant as the topline figures: despite robust majorities on the floor, substantive policy alternatives were stifled before they could be considered.

Historically, the sheer scale of the defense appropriation reflects decades of incremental growth in U.S. military spending. Annual defense budgets have routinely eclipsed half a trillion dollars for more than a decade, and the FY 2026 package continues a long trend in which appropriators add funds above and beyond executive branch requests. By contrast, civilian programs and domestic discretionary spending have struggled to keep pace, prompting both political and public disquiet about national priorities.

Supporters of the bill defend the scale and scope as necessary to maintain US military readiness, industrial base capacity, and technological edge in an era of renewed great-power competition. They argue that predictable and robust funding deters adversaries and reassures allies, even if some line items exceed Pentagon forecasts. Opponents counter that emboldening the military establishment with ever-expanding budgets encourages intervention abroad and diverts resources from pressing domestic needs.

While the House’s 341-88 vote gives the bill substantial momentum, its journey is not complete. The Senate must act before the end of the current funding deadline on January 30 to avert a lapse in appropriations. Senate debate may give rise to further amendments or adjustments, but the core framework reflects a bipartisan consensus that large and growing defense outlays are politically durable, even as questions about accountability, efficiency, and strategic purpose multiply.