Political battles over the defense budget have reignited on Capitol Hill in the United States. On July 17 local time, the House of Representatives approved a defense bill for fiscal year 2026 with a vote of 221 to 209, allocating approximately $832 billion. This marks another major victory for the Republican Party in advancing President Trump's defense priorities and sets a new record for defense spending.

The passage of this bill signifies the second round of funding added by the Republican-led House for Trump's "Grand Plan" within just a few weeks. Behind the rising numbers lies the intention of the Trump administration to reshape defense policy and budget structures, highlighting deep divisions in American politics between defense, social issues, and budgetary responsibility.

Partisan Conflict: 221 votes to 209 votes, Trump's influence dominates the agenda

The voting results clearly reflect partisan division: apart from five Democratic members who crossed party lines to vote in favor, and three Republican members who voted against, most legislators strictly followed their party's stance.

This measure is the second major appropriation bill passed by the House for fiscal year 2026. A few weeks ago, the House had already approved another $150 billion appropriation directly serving Trump's "Grand Plan for Tax Cuts and Spending Reduction."

For Trump, the defense budget is not just about numbers but also an essential part of his political brand: emphasizing "strong military power," containing opponents, and revitalizing manufacturing and industrial bases.

Several Republican members of the House Appropriations Committee openly stated that their focus in recent months has been "fully supporting President Trump's defense strategy," rather than simply following the Pentagon's existing plans.

Budget Details: Military Pay, Missile Defense, and R&D Go Hand in Hand

The newly passed bill spans thousands of pages, covering areas such as soldier pay, missile defense, and research and development innovation.

Specifically, funding for active-duty, reserve, and National Guard personnel will increase by $6.6 billion, reaching $189 billion; basic military pay will rise by 3.8%, effective January next year.

Purchase funds will reach $174 billion, an increase of $6.5 billion from previous levels; while operations and maintenance budgets are $283 billion, a decrease of about $7 billion compared to 2025. This reduction is partly related to calls within the Republican Party for "streamlining" and efficiency reforms.

In addition, the bill includes $148 billion for research, development, testing, and evaluation (RDT&E), and increases support for the Department of Defense health programs and overseas humanitarian, disaster, and civilian assistance programs.

These details show that Republican legislators are trying to maintain a balance between "hard power" and "soft power," but the core remains resources tilted toward projects proposed by Trump.

The Far-Reaching Impact of Trump's "Grand Plan"

Earlier this month, the Republicans also passed another important defense funding plan, which included parts of Trump's "Grand Plan." The plan directly added $25 billion for the "Gold Dome" missile defense system and invested billions to strengthen shipbuilding, ammunition, and nuclear deterrence sectors.

Trump's Gold Dome Plan

In the eyes of the Trump administration, this missile defense system is not only a military need but also has symbolic significance: demonstrating to domestic voters that the government "ensures security in the face of global competition," while showcasing technological innovation and the robust development of the defense industry.

For Trump, it is an alternative to Obama's "Asia-Pacific Rebalance" and Biden's "Regional Partnerships Strategy," more direct, more high-profile, and more in line with the logic of "America First."

Political附加条款: Social Issues Entangled in the Defense Budget

However, this defense bill is not merely a game of numbers; it has been accompanied by numerous clauses reflecting partisan ideologies.

Some clauses in the bill explicitly prohibit the Department of Defense from funding travel related to abortion, prohibit funding for gender-affirming surgeries, and attempt to incorporate restrictions on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) into the defense policy itself.

These clauses have sparked strong protests from Democrats, who accuse them of "bringing social issues into national security," and some critics say it is "using the military budget battlefield to advance the culture war."

But the Republicans argue that these measures are intended to respond to concerns of certain grassroots voters and veteran groups, and to return the military to its "core mission" rather than getting involved in political and social issues.

Internal Amendments and Negotiations: Retaining Some Safeguards

During the debate on the bill, the House Appropriations Committee also conducted a series of internal negotiations to ease some controversies.

For example, the bill passed an amendment prohibiting the use of armed forces for domestic law enforcement, responding to concerns from some Republican and Democratic lawmakers about potential "militarization of domestic affairs." At the same time, it added a clause prohibiting the transmission of classified information on insecure networks to avoid leaks.

These amendments show that even within the Republican Party, there are people who remain cautious about "unlimited expansion of the defense budget" or "politicization of defense."

Budget Responsibility and the Shadow of Deficit

Although the Republicans emphasize "supporting the military and ensuring national security," such a large-scale budget expansion has raised concerns among traditional fiscal conservatives.

The Grand Plan Increases Government Deficit

So far, the U.S. federal government's deficit has remained high, and the national debt is approaching a historic high. Some Republican members have previously called for cutting domestic project expenditures (such as education and healthcare) to offset the gap caused by increased defense spending, but this approach is also controversial.

A Republican fiscal expert said privately: "We cannot wave the flag of 'fiscal austerity' while giving empty checks to the defense industry."

Disagreements in Defense Strategy and Future Directions

Through the budget, it is clear that the Republicans and the Trump administration have focused on defense strategies: less reliance on international multilateral cooperation and more emphasis on hard power deterrence and technological advantages.

On the other hand, the Democrats prefer achieving defense goals through alliances, diplomacy, and regional cooperation, and are wary of the international tensions and budget burden brought by excessive militarization.

The final version of the 2026 fiscal year defense budget still needs to be negotiated and unified with the Senate version. The party struggle is not just about missiles or aircraft carriers, but represents two completely different understandings of the world and America's role.

In Conclusion: A Budget Bill, Behind Which Lies a Deep National Decision

Behind the $832 billion defense budget figure is a tug-of-war over security, values, and fiscal responsibility. Is it a "bigger and stronger America," or a "more balanced and cautious America"? Congress, the White House, and voters will continue to argue endlessly.

As one anonymous member of Congress said after the vote: "Defense budget is not just about giving money to tanks and missiles, but about deciding what kind of country we want to be."

Original: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7528283710014128690/

Statement: This article represents the views of the author and welcomes you to express your opinion by clicking on the [Upvote/Downvote] buttons below.