Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2026

Download PDF
Bill ID: 119/hr/4016
Last Updated: July 12, 2026

Sponsored by

Rep. Calvert, Ken [R-CA-41]

ID: C000059

Follow the money

The bill

Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2026

HR. 4016, 119th Congress — read as touching Defense Contractors.

The sponsor

Rep. Calvert, Ken [R-CA-41]

Every bill has someone who introduced it. That name is where the paper trail starts.

The money

$85,240 raised

30 itemised contributions to this sponsor, pulled from FEC filings.

The alignment

70% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Department of Defense" section, p. 128-130 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Motion to proceed to consideration of measure made in Senate. (CR S8522)

December 7, 2025

Introduced

Committee Review

Floor Action

Passed House

Senate Review

📍 Current Status

Next: Both chambers must agree on the same version of the bill.

🎉

Passed Congress

🖊️

Presidential Action

⚖️

Became Law

📚 How does a bill become a law?

1. Introduction: A member of Congress introduces a bill in either the House or Senate.

2. Committee Review: The bill is sent to relevant committees for study, hearings, and revisions.

3. Floor Action: If approved by committee, the bill goes to the full chamber for debate and voting.

4. Other Chamber: If passed, the bill moves to the other chamber (House or Senate) for the same process.

5. Conference: If both chambers pass different versions, a conference committee reconciles the differences.

6. Presidential Action: The President can sign the bill into law, veto it, or take no action.

7. Became Law: If signed (or if Congress overrides a veto), the bill becomes law!

Bill Summary

Another exercise in futility, courtesy of our esteemed lawmakers. Let's dissect this bloated monstrosity, shall we?

HR 4016, the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2026, is a $729 billion behemoth that reeks of pork-barrel politics and special interest largesse. The bill's sponsors, no doubt recipients of generous campaign contributions from defense contractors, have seen fit to allocate funds with all the finesse of a drunken sailor on shore leave.

The total funding amount represents a 3% increase over last year's appropriation, because what's a few billion dollars among friends? The bulk of the funds will go towards military personnel ($152.4 billion), followed by operations and maintenance ($244.8 billion), and procurement ($134.6 billion). Because who needs infrastructure or education when you can have more bombs and bullets?

Notable programs receiving funds include the F-35 fighter jet program, which has been a poster child for cost overruns and inefficiency ($10.4 billion); the Navy's Gerald R. Ford-class aircraft carrier program ($2.5 billion); and the Army's Abrams tank upgrade program ($1.3 billion). Because what's a few billion dollars in waste when you can have more toys for the military-industrial complex?

Riders attached to this bill include provisions related to cybersecurity, counterterrorism, and "supporting our troops" (read: more pork for defense contractors). One particularly egregious rider allows the Secretary of Defense to waive certain procurement rules, because who needs accountability when you're buying bombs?

Fiscal impact? Ha! This bill will add another $100 billion to the national debt, but hey, what's a few hundred billion dollars among friends? The deficit implications are staggering, but our lawmakers are too busy lining their pockets with campaign cash to care.

Now, let's play "follow the money." A cursory glance at the sponsors' and cosponsors' campaign finance records reveals a veritable Who's Who of defense contractors: Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Raytheon Technologies, and Northrop Grumman, among others. It's almost as if these companies have a vested interest in perpetuating our endless wars and bloated military budget.

In conclusion, HR 4016 is a symptom of a deeper disease: the corrupting influence of money in politics, the prioritization of special interests over the public good, and the utter incompetence of our lawmakers. It's a bill that will further enrich defense contractors at the expense of American taxpayers, while perpetuating our national security state's addiction to war and waste.

Diagnosis: Terminal stupidity, with a side of corruption and greed. Prognosis: Poor.

Related Topics

Defense Spending & ProcurementFederal Budget & AppropriationsMilitary & Veterans Affairs
Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (Dr. Haus personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Calvert, Ken [R-CA-41]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions
$85,240
18 donors
PACs
$0
Organizations
$82,200
Committees
$0
Individuals
$0

No PAC contributions found

1
TWENTY-NINE PALMS BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
2 transactions
$6,600
2
SAN MANUEL BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
2 transactions
$6,600
3
PECHANGA BAND OF LUISENO INDIANS
2 transactions
$6,600
4
POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS
2 transactions
$6,600
5
SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY
2 transactions
$6,600
6
AK-CHIN INDIAN COMMUNITY
2 transactions
$6,600
7
MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
2 transactions
$6,600
8
AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA INDIANS
2 transactions
$6,600
9
CHEROKEE NATION
1 transaction
$3,300
10
BARONA BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
1 transaction
$3,300
11
CATAWBA INDIAN NATION
1 transaction
$3,300
12
THE CHICKASAW NATION OF INDIANS
1 transaction
$3,300
13
SANTA YNEZ BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
1 transaction
$3,300
14
MOORETOWN RANCHERIA
1 transaction
$3,300
15
OSAGE NATION
1 transaction
$3,300
16
SYCUAN BAND OF THE KUMEYAAY NATION
1 transaction
$3,300
17
SHINGLE SPRINGS BAND MIWOK INDIANS
1 transaction
$3,000

No committee contributions found

No individual contributions found

Donor Network - Rep. Calvert, Ken [R-CA-41]

PACs
Organizations
Individuals
Politicians

Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.

Loading...

Showing 60 nodes and 30 connections (88 secondary connections hidden)

Total contributions: $85,240

Top Donors - Rep. Calvert, Ken [R-CA-41]

Showing top 18 donors by contribution amount

17 Orgs1 Committee

Industry Impact

Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 20 helped.

  • +Defense Contractorsconfidence 0.95

    The bill appropriates funds for procurement, research, development, test and evaluation, operation and maintenance, and other defense programs that directly benefit defense contractors. For example, Title III (Procurement) includes specific line items for aircraft, missiles, weapons, tracked combat vehicles, ammunition, shipbuilding, and other equipment procurement totaling tens of billions of dollars. Title IV (Research, Development, Test and Evaluation) funds basic and applied scientific resea

  • Title VI, Defense Health Program: $40,917,184,000 appropriated for medical and health care programs of the Department of Defense, which includes funding for military hospitals and health systems.

  • +Cybersecurityconfidence 0.90

    Title IV, Research, Development, Test and Evaluation: Significant funding for cyber-related programs including Defensive CYBER (PE 0608041A), Risk Management Information (PE 0608013N), and Maritime Tactical Command and Control (PE 0608231N). Also Title II, Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide includes funds for cybersecurity activities.

  • The bill includes significant funding for aircraft procurement across all military branches (Army, Navy, Air Force, Space Force) in Title III. For example: Aircraft Procurement, Army ($2,980,039,000), Aircraft Procurement, Navy ($17,989,351,000), Aircraft Procurement, Air Force ($21,414,080,000), and Procurement, Space Force ($3,721,695,000). These funds will be used to purchase aircraft from commercial aerospace manufacturers like Boeing (for military variants) and other aerospace companies, pr

  • +Health Insuranceconfidence 0.85

    Title VI, Defense Health Program: $21,023,765,000 may be available for contracts entered into under the TRICARE program, which is the Department of Defense's health insurance program for military personnel and their families.

  • +Pharmaceuticalsconfidence 0.80

    Title VI, Defense Health Program: $1,795,621,000 for research, development, test and evaluation, which includes pharmaceutical research and development activities.

+ 14 more industries not shown.

Who funds the sponsor on these industries

For each industry this bill affects, here's what the sponsor (Rep. Calvert, Ken [R-CA-41])received from donors associated with that industry during the 2022–present cycles. Donations are not proof of intent — they are a record of who funds the people writing the law.

Industries this bill HELPS

  • from 140 contributions
    • SHOCKEY, JEFF$6,600
    • SILBEY, NEELY$6,600
    • STRIEBEL, ERICA$5,500
    • MCBRIDE, MICHAEL$4,300
    • HANNA, TANIA$4,000
  • from 18 contributions
    • GOWDER GRABAN, AMY$3,300
    • GIAMBASTIANI, PETE$2,800
    • MCLEMORE, THOMAS$1,000
    • ROZELSKY, KEVIN$1,000
    • FERKO, JACQUELINE$1,000
  • from 4 contributions
    • KAPLAN, DAVID$6,600
    • SINGER, PAUL$6,600
  • from 3 contributions
    • BYRD, BRUCE$1,500
    • KOVAC, STEPHEN$1,000
    • KROESE, DANIEL$500
  • from 1 contribution
    • WACLAWSKI, JONATHAN$500

Project 2025 Policy Matches

This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document.AI-enhanced analysis provides detailed alignment ratings.

Department of Defense

Moderate
Vector: 69%
Pages: 128-130AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill provides general DoD funding and includes provisions related to counterterrorism and defense strategy reporting, which aligns with Project 2025's goals of sustaining counterterrorism efforts and reforming defense acquisition. However, it lacks specific measures on nuclear force modernization, PPBE reform, or defense industrial base replenishment emphasized in the policy."

Key themes:counterterrorismdefense strategyacquisition oversightmilitary funding

— 95 — Department of Defense 1. Expand and modernize the U.S. nuclear force so that it has the size, sophistication, and tailoring to deter Russia and China simultaneously. 2. Develop a nuclear arsenal with the size, sophistication, and tailoring— including new capabilities at the theater level—to ensure that there is no circumstance in which America is exposed to serious nuclear coercion. l Increase allied counterterrorist burden-sharing. Transnational terrorism remains a threat to Americans even as we pivot toward Asia. 1. Sustain the military forces needed to deter, prevent, and combat terrorism, but at a sustainable cost in concert with other elements of national power and partner efforts. 2. Prioritize enhancing the capability of allies and partners to take the lead in combating terrorism in their regions. DOD ACQUISITION AND SUSTAINMENT (A&S) The DOD’s ability to acquire and field new and existing technologies is essential to the ability of America’s military personnel to fight and win our nation’s wars. To succeed in this endeavor, we must optimize the systems and personnel that the department uses, but the inflexible bureaucratic structure and risk-adverse culture that have developed over the decades make it difficult to provide the tools that warfighters need at the speed of relevance. The number one problem is the DOD budgeting process (instituted in 1961) that requires acquisition spending to be locked years in advance. Because tech- nologies change so rapidly and requirements can change overnight, this creates situations in which military personnel not only go to war with outdated technol- ogy, but also may be fighting with equipment that is less capable than that of their competitors. America owes its military many things, and the most important is the resources they need to survive on the battlefield and carry out the tasks we ask of them. Needed Reforms l Reform the planning, programming, budgeting, and execution (PPBE) process. 1. Enhance funding and authority for DOD mission-focused innovation organizations and away from program-specific stovepipes that, planned for and designed two or three years earlier, may no longer be — 96 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise relevant. This allows the acquisition community to focus on portfolio management and move money around more easily instead of being locked into inflexible, multiyear procurement cycles. 2. The President should examine the recommendations of the congressionally mandated Commission on Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution Reform4 and develop a strategy for implementing those that the Administration considers to be in the best interests of the American people. The commission’s final report is due on September 1, 2023. 3. Develop legislation or other means of providing funding outside the traditional PPBE process for the prototyping and experimentation of emerging technologies that are deemed essential to modernization and future conflict. Consider creating a “fast track” for projects that satisfy the most pressing national security needs. 4. Require the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment, the Under Secretary for Research and Engineering, and all service secretaries to conduct “Night Court” and use existing authorities to terminate outdated or underperforming programs so that money can be used for what works and will work. Require the Under Secretaries and service secretaries to brief the Secretary annually on the results. 5. Require the Office of the Secretary of Defense to research and report on the acquisition processes used by America’s adversaries to improve our understanding of how they are often able to innovate and field new technologies on a faster timeline. l Strengthen America’s defense industrial base. 1. Replenish and maintain U.S. stockpiles of ammunition and other equipment that have been depleted as a result of U.S. support to Ukraine. This will strengthen the defense industry supply chain and ensure that adequate inventory exists if it is needed for a future conflict. 2. Collaborate with industry to develop a prioritized list of reforms that the DOD and Congress can enact and implement to incentivize industry to help America’s military innovate and field needed capabilities.

Department of Defense

Moderate
Vector: 67%
Pages: 161-163AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill provides general defense funding and includes a report requirement on National Defense Strategy implementation, which aligns with Project 2025's focus on great power competition and strategic readiness, but lacks specific directives on force structure, modernization, or DSCA reforms emphasized in the policy."

Key themes:National Defense Strategygreat power competitiondefense readinessmilitary fundingstrategic oversight

— 129 — Department of Defense 20. Staff Study, IC21: Intelligence Community in the 21st Century, Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, U.S. House of Representatives, 104th Congress, 1996, p. 71, https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA315088.pdf (accessed February 15, 2023). 21. Ronald O’Rourke, “Great Power Competition: Implications for Defense—Issues for Congress,” Congressional Research Service Report for Members and Committees of Congress No. R43838, updated November 8, 2022, https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R43838/93 (accessed February 15, 2023). 22. U.S. Government Accountability Office, Defense Intelligence and Security: DOD Needs to Establish Oversight Expectations and to Develop Tools That Enhance Accountability, GAO-21-295, May 2021, https://www.gao.gov/ assets/gao-21-295.pdf (accessed February 15, 2023). 23. The U.S. military has a long history of providing support to civil authorities, particularly in response to disasters but for other purposes as well. The Defense Department currently defines defense support of civil authorities (DSCA) as “Support provided by U.S. Federal military forces, DoD civilians, DoD contract personnel, DoD Component assets, and National Guard forces (when the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Governors of the affected States, elects and requests to use those forces in Title 32, U.S.C., status) in response to requests for assistance from civil authorities for domestic emergencies, law enforcement support, and other domestic activities, or from qualifying entities for special events. Also known as civil support.” U.S. Department of Defense, Directive No. 3025.18, “Defense Support of Civil Authorities (DSCA),” December 29, 2010, p. 16, https://www.dco.uscg.mil/Portals/9/CG-5R/nsarc/DoDD%203025.18%20Defense%20Support%20 of%20Civil%20Authorities.pdf (accessed February 15, 2023). 24. U.S. Army, “Who We Are: The Army’s Vision and Strategy,” https://www.army.mil/about/ (accessed February 17, 2023). 25. “[T]he Army’s internal assessment must be balanced against its own statements that unit training is focused on company-level operations [reflective of counterintelligence requirements] rather than battalion or brigade operations [much less division or corps to meet large-scale ground combat operations against a peer competitor such as Russia or China]. Consequently, how these ‘ready’ brigade combat teams would perform in combat operations is an open question.” “Executive Summary” in 2023 Index of U.S. Military Strength, ed. Dakota L. Wood (Washington: The Heritage Foundation, 2023), p. 16, http://thf_media.s3.amazonaws. com/2022/Military_Index/2023_IndexOfUSMilitaryStrength.pdf (accessed February 15, 2023). 26. For background on the USN’s fleet size, see Brent D. Sadler, “Rebuilding America’s Military: The United States Navy,” Heritage Foundation Special Report No. 242, February 18, 2021, https://www.heritage.org/sites/default/ files/2021-02/SR242.pdf, and Ronald O’Rourke, “Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress,” Congressional Research Service Report for Members and Committees of Congress No. RL32665, December 21, 2022, https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/RL/RL32665 (accessed February 15, 2023). 27. The Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System (JCIDS) is the process by which the services develop and the Joint Staff approves the requirements for major defense acquisitions. See Defense Acquisition University, “Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System (JCIDA),” https://www.dau. edu/acquipedia/pages/articledetails.aspx#!371 (accessed February 15, 2023). 28. The board would seek to balance a mix of active military and civilians with expertise in and responsibility for major acquisitions and former military and civilians with experience in strategy and acquisitions. The proposed composition would include the Vice Chief of Naval Operations as Chairman, with three-star level membership from the Joint Staff, the Navy and Defense Acquisition Executives, and the Naval Sea Systems Command. In addition, there would be four-star retired naval officers/Navy civil servants as members, one each named by the Chairmen of the House and Senate Armed Services Committees, the Secretary of the Navy, and the Secretary of Defense. Finally, there would be a member appointed by the Secretary of the Navy who had previous senior experience in the defense industry. 29. See James Mattis, Secretary of Defense, Summary of the 2018 National Defense Strategy of the United States of America: Sharpening the American Military’s Competitive Edge, U.S. Department of Defense, https:// dod.defense.gov/Portals/1/Documents/pubs/2018-National-Defense-Strategy-Summary.pdf (accessed February 17, 2023), and U.S. Department of Defense, 2022 National Defense Strategy of the United States of America Including the 2022 Nuclear Posture Review and the 2022 Missile Defense Review, https://oldcc.gov/ resource/2022-national-defense-strategy (accessed February 17, 2023). — 130 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 30. U.S. Air Force, “The Air Force We Need: 386 Operational Squadrons,” September 17, 2018, https://www. af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/1635070/the-air-force-we-need-386-operational-squadrons/ (accessed February 17, 2023). 31. General David H. Berger, Commandant of the Marine Corps, “Force Design 2030,” U.S. Department of the Navy, U.S. Marine Corps, March 2020, https://www.hqmc.marines.mil/Portals/142/Docs/CMC38%20Force%20 Design%202030%20Report%20Phase%20I%20and%20II.pdf?ver=2020-03-26-121328-460 (accessed February 17, 2023). 32. Department of the Navy, United States Marine Corps, “Force Design 2030,” March 2020, https://www.hqmc. marines.mil/Portals/142/Docs/CMC38%20Force%20Design%202030%20Report%20Phase%20I%20and%20II. pdf?ver=2020-03-26-121328-460 (accessed February 15, 2023). 33. Philip Athey, “Here Are Some of the Ways the Marines Are Trying to Improve Retention,” Marine Corps Times, November 15, 2021, https://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/your-marine-corps/2021/11/15/treat-people- like-human-beings-here-are-some-of-the-ways-the-marines-are-trying-to-improve-retention/ (accessed February 15, 2023). 34. Megan Eckstein, “Marines, Navy Near Agreement on Light Amphibious Warship Features,” Defense News, October 5, 2022, https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2022/10/05/marines-navy-near-agreement-on-light- amphibious-warship-features/ (accessed February 16, 2023). 35. Megan Eckstein, “Marines Explain Vision for Fewer Traditional Amphibious Warships,” Defense News, June 21, 2021, https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2021/06/21/marines-explain-vision-for-fewer-traditional- amphibious-warships-supplemented-by-new-light-amphib/ (accessed February 16, 2023). 36. See Sidney J. Freedberg Jr., “Trump Eases Cyber Ops, but Safeguards Remain: Joint Staff,” Breaking Defense, September 17, 2018, https://breakingdefense.com/2018/09/trump-eases-cyber-ops-but-safeguards-remain- joint-staff/ (accessed March 7, 2023); Dustin Volz, “White House Confirms It Has Relaxed Rules on U.S. Use of Cyberweapons,” The Wall Street Journal, September 20, 2018, https://www.wsj.com/articles/white-house- confirms-it-has-relaxed-rules-on-u-s-use-of-cyber-weapons-1537476729 (accessed March 7, 2023); and Federation of American Scientists, Intelligence Resource Program, “National Security Presidential Memoranda [NSPMs]: Donald J. Trump Administration,” updated March 7, 2022, https://irp.fas.org/offdocs/nspm/index. html (accessed March 7, 2023). 37. U.S. Government Accountability Office, DOD Cybersecurity: Enhanced Attention Needed to Ensure Cyber Incidents Are Appropriately Reported and Shared, GAO-23-105084, November 2022, p. 36, https://www.gao. gov/assets/gao-23-105084.pdf (accessed February 17, 2023). 38. See Paul Evancoe, “Special Operations and the Interagency Team,” U.S.Military.com, https://usmilitary. com/special-operations-and-the-interagency-team/#:~:text=Seldom%20considered%20are%20those%20 other%20government%20agency%20%28OGA%29,response%20and%20consequence%20management%20 to%20name%20a%20few (accessed February 17, 2023). 39. U.S. Department of Defense, Nuclear Posture Review, February 2018, pp. 54–55, https://media.defense. gov/2018/Feb/02/2001872886/-1/-1/1/2018-NUCLEAR-POSTURE-REVIEW-FINAL-REPORT.PDF (accessed February 17, 2023). 40. U.S. Department of Defense, 2022 National Defense Strategy of the United States of America Including the 2022 Nuclear Posture Review and the 2022 Missile Defense Review, pp. 3 and 20. 41. Patty-Jane Geller, “Missile Defense,” in 2023 Index of U.S. Military Strength, ed. Dakota L. Wood (Washington: The Heritage Foundation, 2023), pp. 507–508, http://thf_media.s3.amazonaws.com/2022/Military_ Index/2023_IndexOfUSMilitaryStrength.pdf. 42. Matthew R. Costlow, “The Folly of Limiting U.S. Missile Defenses for Nuclear Arms Control,” National Institute for Public Policy Information Series, Issue No. 505, October 18, 2021, https://nipp.org/wp-content/ uploads/2021/10/IS-505.pdf (accessed February 16, 2023). 43. Forum for American Leadership, “Don’t Hand North Korea a Win in the Missile Defense Review,” January 4, 2022, https://forumforamericanleadership.org/dprk-missile-threat (accessed February 16, 2023). 44. Patty-Jane Geller, “It’s Time to Get Homeland Missile Defense Right,” Defense News, January 4, 2021, https:// www.defensenews.com/opinion/commentary/2021/01/04/its-time-to-get-homeland-missile-defense- right/#:~:text=Restoring%20our%20eroding%20edge%20when,advanced%20technology%20and%20 new%20capabilities.%E2%80%9D (accessed February 16, 2023).

Department of Defense

Weak
Vector: 70%
Pages: 146-148AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill provides a modest overall increase in DoD funding but does not include the specific Air Force-focused reforms advocated in Project 2025, such as a 5% annual Air Force budget increase, elimination of pass-through funding, or targeted procurement goals for F-35A, B-21, and other systems."

Key themes:DoD fundingNational Defense Strategydefense appropriations

— 113 — Department of Defense (if pass-through funding, defined as money in the Air Force budget that does not go to the Air Force, is removed from the equation) than the Army and Navy have received. This underfunding has forced the Air Force to cut its forces and forgo modernizing aging weapons systems that were never designed to operate in current threat environments and are structurally and mechanically exhausted. The result is an Air Force that is the oldest, smallest, and least ready in its history. The decline in Air Force capacity and capability is occurring at the same time the security environment demands the very options that the Air Force uniquely provides. Combatant commanders routinely request more Air Force capabilities than the service has the capacity to provide. The Air Force today simply cannot accomplish all of the missions it is required to perform. The Air Force has consistently stated on the official record that it is not sized to meet the mission demands placed on it by the various U.S. Combatant Commands. A 2018 study, “The Air Force We Need,”30 showed a 24 percent deficit in Air Force capacity to meet the needs of the National Defense Strategy. Those conclusions remain valid and are more pronounced today because of subsequent aircraft retire- ments. The demand is also higher because of world events. To understand these trends, one needs only to consider that the Air Force’s future five-year budget plan retires 1,463 aircraft while buying just 467. This makes for a reduction of 996 air- craft by 2027. The net result is a force that is smaller, older, and less ready at a time when demand is burgeoning. Needed Reforms l Increase spending and budget accuracy in line with a threat-based strategy. Returning the U.S. military to a force that can achieve deterrence or win in a fight if necessary requires returning to a threat-based defense strategy. Real budget growth combined with a more equitable distribution of resources across the armed services is the only realistic way to create a modernized Air Force with the capacity to meet the needs of the National Defense Strategy. Additionally, as noted above, pass-through funding causes numbers cited in current DOD budget documents to be higher than the dollar amounts actually received by the Air Force. 1. Adopt a two-war force defense strategy with scenarios for each service that will allow the Air Force to attain the resources it requires by developing a force-sizing construct that reflects what is required to accomplish strategic objectives. 2. Eliminate pass-through funding, which has grown to more than $40 billion per year and has caused the Air Force to be chronically underfunded for decades. — 114 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 3. Increase the Air Force budget by 5 percent annually (after adjusting for inflation) to reverse the decline in size, age, and readiness and facilitate the transition to a more modern, lethal, and survivable force. l Reduce near-term and mid-term risk. Increasing the Air Force’s acquisition of next-generation capabilities that either are or soon will be in production will increase the ability of the United States to deter or defeat near-term to mid-term threats. 1. Increase F-35A procurement to 60–80 per year. 2. Build the capacity for a B-21 production rate of 15–18 aircraft per year along with applicable elements of the B-21 long-range strike family of systems. 3. Increase Air Force airlift and aerial refueling capacity to support agile combat employment operations that generate combat sorties from a highly dispersed posture in both Europe and the Pacific. 4. Develop and buy larger quantities of advanced mid-range weapons (50 nm to 200 nm) that are sized to maximize targets per sortie for stealth aircraft flying in contested environments against target sets that could exceed 100,000 aimpoints. 5. Accelerate the development and production of the Sentinel intercontinental ballistic missile to reduce the risk inherent in an aging Minuteman III force in light of China’s nuclear modernization breakout. 6. Increase the number of EC-37B electronic warfare aircraft from 10 to 20 in order to achieve a minimum capacity to engage growing threats from China across the electromagnetic spectrum. l Invest in future Air Force programs and efforts. Increasingly capable adversaries require new capabilities to enable victory against those adversaries. 1. Attain an operationally optimized advanced battle management system as the Air Force element of the DOD Joint All Domain Command and Control enterprise. 2. Produce the next-generation air dominance system of systems (air moving target indication, other sensors, communications, command and control, weapons, and uninhabited aerial vehicles).

Showing 3 of 5 policy matches

About These Correlations

Policy matches are calculated using a hybrid approach: initial candidates are found using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text, then an AI model (Llama 3.1 70B) provides detailed alignment ratings and analysis. Ratings range from 1 (minimal alignment) to 5 (very strong alignment). This analysis does not imply direct causation or intent.

Full Policy Text

Related Bills