Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) indicated Thursday that Republicans are considering advancing a $350 billion military funding bill through reconciliation before Democrats assume control of Congress in January. The proposal, which would bypass the 60-vote filibuster, has drawn internal GOP divisions over its size and priorities.
President Donald Trump publicly pressed Senate Republicans to move the legislation immediately, framing it as a critical investment in national security. In a Thursday post on Truth Social, Trump stated: “TODAY I am calling on Senate Leadership to IMMEDIATELY move on the 350 Billion Dollar Reconciliation Bill to give our brave Warriors the DECISIVE ADVANTAGE they deserve.”
The $350 billion request is part of a broader $1.5 trillion defense budget proposal for fiscal 2027, with $1.15 trillion slated for regular appropriations and $350 billion designated for reconciliation. Key allocations include $47 billion for expanded munitions production, $17 billion for the Golden Dome missile defense system, and $48 billion for critical minerals. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has advocated for the package, citing strategic inventory shortfalls from munitions expenditure in operations such as Operation Epic Fury.
Republican divisions emerge
While Trump and some lawmakers support the bill, internal GOP disagreements persist. Senate Majority Leader Thune described himself as “interested” in the proposal but did not commit to its passage before the Democratic shift in power. House Freedom Caucus member Rep. Andy Harris (R-MD) defended the increase, stating: “We live in a very dangerous world … we have to fight 21st century wars with 21st century weaponry.”
The package’s size has also drawn scrutiny. Earlier this year, House Republicans proposed a $60 billion defense reconciliation framework, falling $290 billion short of the White House’s request. The House adopted a $95 billion budget resolution by two votes, but the Senate did not advance a reconciliation measure before the midterm elections.
Military urgency cited
Proponents argue the funding is necessary to address munitions depletion and industrial base bottlenecks, citing a Congressional Research Service report that warned of “strategic inventory shortfalls” and the need for “significant lead time” to expand production. Critics, however, have not publicly detailed alternative proposals in the provided sources.