Democrats Make Moves to Rein in Trump’s Defense Spending

Democrats are getting more comfortable saying ‘no’ to the Pentagon, eroding a long-standing bipartisan tradition of supporting ever-larger defense budgets.

The shift is showing up across Capitol Hill as Democrats mobilize a midterm message that casts President Donald Trump’s priorities as out of step with voters’ needs. On Tuesday, progressive Sen. Ed Markey of Massachusetts unveiled legislation that would cap the fiscal 2027 defense budget at $750 billion — days after his primary challenger, Rep. Seth Moulton, a Marine veteran and House Armed Services Committee member, proposed cutting $150 billion from the House defense bill.

“Trump is pushing for painful cuts to health care, to education, to housing programs,” Markey, flanked by antiwar advocates, said Tuesday at a press conference. “We must turn that formula in our country upside down. Year after year, military spending continues to increase, while investments in working and middle-class people are being denied.”

The Democratic lawmakers’ moves stand little chance of changing defense policy. Markey’s bill is unlikely to pass, and Moulton’s amendment failed in committee. But they reflect a shift inside the party, where Trump’s war in Iran and pursuit of a $1.5 trillion defense budget while cutting social programs is making it harder for Democrats to support increases that once drew broad bipartisan backing.

“The connection between militarized spending and human-needs spending has been made much more visible,” said Savannah Wooten, the “People Over Pentagon” advocate at Public Citizen, a nonprofit consumer advocacy organization.

The fight over defense spending comes as Democrats have adopted a more confrontational posture on national security issues more broadly, opposing bipartisan surveillance legislation, demanding votes on war powers, and increasingly using procedural tools to challenge Trump’s military and intelligence policies.

Some Democrats say they’re not willing to cooperate as readily on defense matters when Republicans block hearings and votes on the administration’s use of the military.

“I don’t think the politics has changed,” said Hawaii Sen. Brian Schatz. “I think their number is absurd. If they stuck to a reasonable number, and if they allowed us a vote on the authorization of the use of military force, we’d be having a different conversation … It’s very easy to get to ‘no’ even for those of us who normally vote ‘yes’ on the National Defense Authorization Act.”

That resistance is showing up in congressional votes.

On the House Armed Services Committee this month, a dozen Democrats voted against the panel’s version of the NDAA. Moulton’s failed amendment to cut $150 billion from the bill attracted support from 25 Democrats.

More Democrats voted against this year’s National Defense Authorization Act in the Senate Armed Services Committee last week than voted for it. Among the opponents were centrist Sens. Mark Kelly of Arizona and Elissa Slotkin of Michigan — whose national profiles are centered on their national security backgrounds.

Virginia Sen. Tim Kaine — who said Tuesday that he has filed a two-page dissenting opinion on the SASC-passed NDAA — argued the country is now “in a completely different moment” than when SASC last year advanced its NDAA in a 26-1 vote.

The Trump administration has sought more money and less oversight from Congress, Kaine noted, as it has waged the Iran war and used military action against Venezuela and boats in the Caribbean that Pentagon officials say are carrying drugs.

“To swell the defense budget without meaningful checks on an administration that shows they want to end-run Congress, including going to war without Congress, that was just too much for me to bear,” Kaine said.

Whether lawmakers oppose the NDAA when it comes to the floor for an expected December vote is uncertain. Slotkin said she would not rule it out and argued she faced a “tough vote” because of the bill’s inclusion of $200 million to build a new F-15EX hangar at her state’s Selfridge Air National Guard Base and $4.4 million to a training center at Camp Grayling.

“We had two days of negotiation and conversation, and didn’t talk about the cost of the Iran war, when we all know that’s the elephant in the room,” Slotkin said in a brief interview. “So, what’s the bill on that? When’s that coming? That should affect us when we’re talking about a trillion-dollar budget.”