The Senate passed a compromise spending package Friday, clearing a path for Congress to avert a lengthy government shutdown. The 71-29 vote came a day after Senate Democrats and President Donald Trump struck a deal to attach two weeks of Homeland Security funding to five spending bills that will fund the Pentagon, State Department and many other agencies until Sept. 30. Only five of 53 Republicans voted against it after Trump publicly urged lawmakers Thursday to approve the legislation. Democrats were split, with 24 of 47 caucus members opposing the package. The Senate’s vote won’t avert a partial shutdown that will start early Saturday morning since House lawmakers are out of town and not scheduled to return until Monday. During a private call with House Republicans Friday, Speaker Mike Johnson said the likeliest route to House passage would be bringing the package up under a fast-track process Monday evening. That would require a two-thirds majority — and a significant number of Democratic votes. The $1.2 trillion package could face challenges in the House, especially from conservative hard-liners who have said they would vote against any Senate changes to what the House already passed. Many House Democrats are also wary of stopgap funding for DHS, which would keep ICE and Border Patrol funded at current levels without immediate new restrictions. Senate Majority Leader John Thune said he had been in constant contact with Johnson “for better or worse” about getting the funding deal through the House, predicting that the Louisiana Republican is “prepared to do everything he can as quickly as possible.” “Hopefully things go well over there,” he added. If the Trump-blessed deal ultimately gets signed into law, Congress will have approved more than 95 percent of federal funding — leaving only a full-year DHS bill on its to-do list. Congress has already funded several agencies, including the departments of Agriculture, Veterans Affairs and Justice. “These are fiscally responsible bills that reflect months of hard work and deliberation from members on both parties and both sides of the Capitol,” Senate Appropriations Committee Chair Susan Collins (R-Maine) said before the final vote. The Office of Management and Budget has issued shutdown guidance for agencies not already funded, which include furloughs of some personnel. Republicans agreeing to strip out the full-year DHS bill and replace it with a two-week patch is a major win for Democrats. They quickly unified behind a demand to split off and renegotiate immigration enforcement funding after federal agents deployed to Minnesota fatally shot 37-year-old U.S. citizen Alex Pretti last week. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, who helped negotiate the final deal, took a victory lap after the vote, saying “the agreement we reached today did exactly what Democrats wanted.” But Democrats will still need to negotiate with the White House and congressional Republicans about what, if any, policy changes they are willing to codify into law as part of a long-term bill. Republicans are open to some changes, including requiring independent investigations. But they’ve already dismissed some of Democrats’ main demands, including requiring judicial warrants for immigration arrests. “I want my Republican colleagues to listen closely: Senate Democrats will not support a DHS bill unless it reins in ICE and ends the violence,” Schumer said. “We will know soon enough if your colleagues understand the stakes.” Republicans have demands of their own, and many believe the most likely outcome is that another DHS patch will be needed. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), for instance, wants a future vote on legislation barring federal funding for cities that don’t comply with federal immigration laws. Other Republicans and the White House have pointed to it as a key issue in the upcoming negotiations. “I am demanding that my solution to fixing sanctuary cities at least have a vote. You’re going to put ideas on the floor to make ICE better? I want to put an idea on the floor to get to the root cause of the problem,” Graham said. The Senate vote caps off a days-long sprint to avoid a second lengthy shutdown in the span of four months. Senate Democrats and Trump said Thursday they had a deal, only for it to run into a snag when Graham delayed a quick vote as he fumed over a provision in the bill, first reported by POLITICO, related to former special counsel Jack Smith’s now-defunct investigation targeting Trump. Senate leaders ultimately got the agreement back on track Friday afternoon by offering votes on seven changes to the bill, all of which failed. The Senate defeated proposals to cut refugee assistance, strip out all earmarks from the package and redirect funding for ICE to Medicaid, among others. Graham raged against the House’s move to overturn a law passed last year allowing senators to sue for up to $500,000 per incident if their data had been used in former special counsel Jack Smith’s investigation into the 2020 election. But he backed off his threats to hold up the bill after announcing that leaders had agreed to support a future vote on the matter. “You jammed me,” Graham said on the floor Friday. “Speaker Johnson, I won’t forget this.” Meredith Lee Hill and Jennifer Scholtes contributed to this report.

BRUSSELS — U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth will send his deputy to a meeting of NATO defense ministers next month, according to a U.S. official and a European diplomat, a decision likely to raise further questions about Washington’s dedication to the transatlantic alliance. NATO’s 32 defense chiefs will gather Feb. 12 for the first ministerial-level meeting since U.S. President Donald Trump brought the alliance to the brink of implosion by repeatedly suggesting he could seize Greenland from Denmark by force.  But Hegseth, who prompted outrage at the same meeting last year by delivering a blistering attack on Europeans for not spending enough on their defense, is not expected to participate, said the two officials, both of whom were granted anonymity to speak freely.  Instead, Elbridge Colby, the undersecretary for defense policy, is set to attend in his place, the diplomat and official said, a decision that is still subject to change. Colby is the third-highest-ranking civilian defense official at the Pentagon and a close ally of U.S. Vice President JD Vance. The U.S. Department of Defense didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment by POLITICO. Colby, nicknamed “Bridge,” is seen as a hardliner on Europe inside the Pentagon and is a staunch supporter of an isolationist U.S. foreign policy that advocates a less active American role — especially militarily — worldwide. He is also responsible for drafting plans on an expected drawdown of U.S. troops from Europe, which has faced repeated delays.  Colby was responsible for crafting the new American defense strategy, published last week, which downgraded Europe and said Washington would instead “prioritize” defending the U.S. homeland and China. Before publication, the document underwent deep revisions by U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, who pushed for changes to the China section in light of trade talks between Beijing and Washington. Bessent’s input also toned down the China language in the White House’s National Security Strategy, released late last year.   The defense strategy also makes clear that in Europe “allies will take the lead” against threats that are “less severe” for the United States — a euphemism for Russia. It’s not the first time Hegseth has skipped a NATO meeting. But it marks the second time in a row a top U.S. official has missed a high-level gathering after Secretary of State Marco Rubio similarly dispatched his deputy to a meeting of NATO foreign ministers last month. Oana Lungescu, a former NATO spokesperson, said the move “risks sending a further signal that the U.S. isn’t listening as closely as it should to the concerns of its allies, especially after Marco Rubio skipped the last meeting.” “Having said that, there is also an upside,” said Lungescu, who now works as a senior fellow at the Royal United Services Institute think tank, “in that Elbridge Colby … is best placed to explain [the new U.S. defense strategy’s] intent and implications, and to hear the views of allies.” 

The new U.S. defense strategy formally pushes Europe down Washington’s list of priorities while elevating Greenland to a core homeland security concern — suggesting European allies will be expected to shoulder more responsibility for their own defense. “Although Europe remains important, it has a smaller and declining share of global economic power,” the National Defense Strategy, published late Friday, states. “It follows that while the United States will remain engaged in Europe, it must — and will — prioritize defending the U.S. homeland and deterring China.” The strategy also makes clear that in Europe “allies will take the lead” against threats that are “less severe” for the United States but more acute for them, with Washington providing “critical but more limited support.” The document argues that Europe is economically and militarily capable of defending itself, noting that non-U.S. NATO members dwarf Russia in economic scale, and are therefore “strongly positioned to take primary responsibility for Europe’s conventional defense.” At the same time, the strategy places emphasis on Greenland, explicitly listing the Arctic island — alongside the Panama Canal — as terrain the U.S. must secure to protect its homeland interests. The Pentagon says it will provide the president with “credible options to guarantee U.S. military and commercial access to key terrain from the Arctic to South America, especially Greenland,” adding that “we will ensure that the Monroe Doctrine is upheld in our time.” That framing aligns with President Donald Trump’s recent rhetoric on Greenland, which has unsettled European capitals and fueled concern over Washington’s long-term intentions in the Arctic. The defense strategy builds on the Trump administration’s National Security Strategy released in December, which recast the Western Hemisphere — rather than Europe — as the primary arena for defending U.S. security. While the earlier document went further in criticizing Europe’s trajectory, both strategies stress continued engagement paired with a clear expectation that European allies will increasingly take the lead on threats closer to home.

The Pentagon on Friday night released a long-awaited strategy that prioritizes the U.S. homeland and Western Hemisphere — a stunning reversal from previous administrations that aligns with President Donald Trump’s military strikes in Venezuela and efforts to acquire Greenland. The National Defense Strategy — a dramatic shift from even the first Trump administration — no longer focuses primarily on countering China. Instead, it blames past administrations for ignoring American interests and jeopardizing the U.S. military’s access to the Panama Canal and Greenland. The strategy calls for attention to the “practical interests” of the U.S. public and an abandonment of “grandiose strategies.” The Pentagon’s plan, in contrast to the National Security Strategy released last month, does not focus heavily on Europe or call the continent a place in “civilizational decline.” But it does emphasize what the administration perceives as its declining importance. “Although Europe remains important, it has a smaller and decreasing share of global economic power,” according to the strategy. “Although we are and will remain engaged in Europe, we must — and will — prioritize defending the U.S. Homeland and deterring China.” The document, which usually follows the National Security Strategy, came out after months of delay. POLITICO reported in September that a draft had reached Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s desk. But it stayed there for months as administration officials fought over how to describe the threat to the U.S. posed by China amid trade talks with the country. The strategy also says the U.S. should “no longer cede access or influence over key terrain in the Western Hemisphere,” including the Gulf of Mexico. But it offers few details on how the Pentagon will accomplish that goal. The first Trump administration prioritized China in its 2018 defense strategy as the biggest threat to U.S. security. That sentiment was further echoed in the Biden administration’s 2022 strategy. But the 2026 strategy instead highlights a continued U.S. focus on diplomacy with China — an echo of its recent annual report on Beijing’s military buildup — while “erecting a strong denial defense” in the Pacific to deter a potential war. It does not lay out what U.S. assets the Pentagon might send to the region. The document mentions threats to the U.S. from Russia, Iran and North Korea, but they are not as prominent.

Republican lawmakers breathed a collective sigh of relief Wednesday after President Donald Trump said he wouldn’t use force to seize Greenland. Trump’s surprise announcement removed the immediate threat of a military escalation that could have shattered the NATO alliance. It also offered a momentary reprieve for Republicans who risked either crossing the president or embracing an unpopular military intervention that could cost them in November. Republicans instead discounted that Trump was ever serious about conquering the island, even as they appeared to support acquiring Greenland for national security reasons. “All of us knew it was never on the table, but it’s very helpful that he said that,” House Armed Services Chair Mike Rogers (R-Ala.) said in an interview. “We need to start talking about more reasonable pathways to having a better relationship with Greenland, ideally a territory one day.” Speaker Mike Johnson pushed back on the idea that Trump was serious about taking over the Arctic island. “I don’t think that was ever his intent, and so I’m glad he clarified,” he said. “I’ve been speaking with him a lot along the way, and I don’t think anyone here in this building or at the White House ever expected that troop deployment to Greenland was a necessary option.” Trump, in a speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, insisted, “I don’t want to use force,” even as he bashed NATO allies for not selling Greenland to the U.S. “We probably won’t get anything unless I decide to use excessive strength and force, where we would be, frankly, unstoppable, but I won’t do that,” Trump said. “That’s probably the biggest statement I made, because people thought I would use force, but I don’t have to use force.” The president, in a Truth Social post hours later, called off a plan to impose tariffs on European nations and said he’d struck a “framework of a future deal” in a meeting with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte. Several top Republicans, including Senate Armed Services Chair Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) and Senate Defense Appropriations chief Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), had pushed back against Trump’s threats against Greenland — a rare rebuke that signaled just how seriously they took the situation. But many Republicans still appeared to support the idea of acquiring Greenland through negotiations given its strategic Arctic location — or at least beefing up the U.S. military presence there. Rep. Ken Calvert (R-Calif.), who chairs the House panel that controls Pentagon spending, suggested the Trump administration could seek “a better agreement” with Denmark. He argued that only the U.S. would ever spend the money in Greenland needed to defend North America. “We never were going to use force. Come on,” he said. “This isn’t Venezuela, for God’s sake.” Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), a close Trump ally and vocal defense hawk, expressed support for “a lawful and fair process” to acquire the island. Trump “rightly removed the option of taking Greenland by force,” he said. Polling data reveals the challenge Republicans face with Trump’s call for military action. GOP voters are overwhelmingly aligned with the president’s foreign policies and many support acquiring Greenland peacefully. But they draw a sharp line at troop deployments. Around 64 percent of Republicans approve of buying Greenland, according to a new CBS poll, although only 30 percent of Americans overall agree. Eighty-six percent of voters overall and 70 percent of Republicans disapprove of taking the island by military force. “Flexing America’s power is different from putting in American troops,” said Amy Walter, editor-in-chief of the nonpartisan Cook Political Report. “Capturing [Venezuelan leader Nicolás] Maduro, Republicans absolutely love it. Should we put military troops there? Well, no.” Republicans were unlikely to ride to Greenland’s rescue if it meant defying Trump, she said. More than 80 percent of House Republicans represent districts Trump won by double digits, and lawmakers have little incentive to break publicly with a president who backs primary challenges against his enemies. The issue also gave Democrats a ready-made midterms attack line to reinforce their argument that Republicans are focused on distractions abroad and not voters’ pocketbook issues. “You can kind of hear the Democratic ads already: ‘Congressman so-and-so thinks it’s okay for our $700 billion dollars to go to Greenland instead of to hard-working American families,’” Walter said. Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.), one of the few vocal Republican opponents of Trump’s threats to Greenland, said he and many of his colleagues felt the president would do better to focus on the economy ahead of the midterms. “Most of us think it was crazy, with a few exceptions,” Bacon said. “Most of us thought, behind shut doors, he should be bragging on the economy that’s growing at 4.3 percent, wages climbing faster than inflation for the first time in four or five years. But now we’re talking Greenland.” Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.), who represents one of the GOP’s most competitive swing districts, said Congress should step in if Trump moved toward military action. A member of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, he plans to go to next month’s Munich Security Conference to try to repair relations with allies. “We’re going to do our part to strengthen the alliance, to calm fears, to let them know we have their back and that we would never, ever allow that to happen,” he said. Jordain Carney contributed to this report.

LONDON — Just as Keir Starmer was scrambling to smooth things over with Donald Trump, the U.S. president fired an unexpected rocket the British prime minister’s way. London awoke to a Truth Social post from Trump slamming Britain’s decision to hand control of the Chagos Islands — home of a joint U.K.-U.S. military base at Diego Garcia — to Mauritius. The British government had long thought the deal was squared with the U.S. administration, but Trump decried it as an act of “great stupidity” that will only embolden Russia and China. The intervention is a fresh nightmare for Starmer’s government, which was already digging deep to maintain the links the prime minister has painstakingly built with the White House in a week Trump vowed to slap tariffs on the U.K. and European allies who oppose his plan to forcibly acquire Greenland. Officials received no advance warning of Trump’s intervention — which played right into the hands of domestic opposition parties who have been campaigning against the deal for months. Starmer’s government was outwardly bullish on Tuesday, with his spokesman insisting that “the U.S. supports the deal.” A bill enacting the transfer is currently making its way through the parliamentary process. However, ministers confirmed they would make fresh efforts to shore up U.S. support for the Chagos agreement in the coming days. Starmer will now have to strain every sinew to get back on an even keel with his unpredictable counterpart.  WHAT GIVES? Trump’s apparent change of heart follows assiduous lobbying over the deal’s potential risks on both sides of the Atlantic. In the U.K., the campaign against the Chagos agreement was led by politicians from the right, citing concerns over Chinese influence in the region. They are now claiming victory. U.S. officials have received representations from Nigel Farage, the populist leader of Reform UK, and Tory figures, including Ross Kempsell, a peer and former aide to Boris Johnson. GB News reported Tuesday that a letter from skeptical British lawmakers was handed to Trump’s team during his state visit to the U.K. in September. One U.K. defense analyst with U.S. links, granted anonymity to speak candidly, said: “Every single China hawk in D.C. was against the deal.” Sophia Gaston, a research fellow at King’s College London, said U.S. institutions, which had been working on the negotiations with the U.K. were “supportive” of the deal and that Trump “was happy to wave it through in May as a gesture of trust and goodwill towards the special relationship.” But she added: “There was always an element of fragility to the president’s support, however, because it’s a deal that’s all based around a respect for international law, and he prioritizes hard power in the national interest.” A British official, not authorized to speak on the record, did not dispute this. “Pentagon and the State Department looked hard at this and concluded the deal was the best available outcome to secure vital U.S. interests,” they said. FRESH LOBBYING PUSH Foreign Commonwealth and Development Office Minister Stephen Doughty acknowledged Tuesday that the U.K. would now have to lobby the U.S. afresh. “We will, of course, have discussions with the administration in the coming days to remind them of the strength of this deal and how it secures the base,” he told MPs. Donald Trump’s apparent change of heart follows assiduous lobbying over the deal’s potential risks on both sides of the Atlantic. | Pool Photo by Francis Chung via EPA Starmer’s spokesman told reporters the parliamentary process to enact the Chagos treaty would continue as planned, while Mauritius’ Attorney General Gavin Glover issued a statement stressing that it still expects the transfer to go ahead. Campaigners had long argued that Britain’s custody of the archipelago — including the forcible expulsion of Chagossians to make way for the base in the 1960s — was a hangover from its days as a global empire. Glover said: “The sovereignty of the Republic of Mauritius over the Chagos Archipelago is already unambiguously recognised by international law and should no longer be subject to debate.” Gaston argued that it would still be “possible” for Starmer to persuade Trump to resume his backing, but warned that the price of doing so could be helping to find a solution to his standoff with Europe over Greenland — or allowing the president to “save some face” on his heavily-criticized Board of Peace for Gaza. The row poses wider questions for Starmer too. The British prime minister, a human rights lawyer by profession, has described international law as his “lodestar,” and took considerable domestic flack for sticking to his guns on the Chagos deal. Callum Miller, foreign affairs spokesman for the Liberal Democrats, urged a tougher approach, telling the House of Commons, “we must show President Trump that his actions have consequences” and “we should take no options off the table” when dealing with him.  But protestations from opposition MPs are unlikely to dissuade Starmer from his settled course of striving for common ground with Trump and raising differences in private. As one senior Labour MP put it: “It’s presidential trolling. Best not to rise to it.”

President Donald Trump has linked his desire to own Greenland with the development of his nascent missile defense shield, Golden Dome. Except that he doesn’t need to seize the Danish territory to accomplish his goal. Golden Dome, Trump’s pricey vision to protect the U.S., is a multi-layered defense shield intended to block projectiles heading toward the country. The president announced a $175 billion, three-year plan last year, although gave few details about how the administration would fund it. “The United States needs Greenland for the purpose of National Security,” Trump said Wednesday in a Truth Social post. “It is vital for the Golden Dome we are building.” But the country already has the access it needs in Greenland to host interceptors that could knock down enemy missiles. And the U.S. has other locations it could place similar defense systems — think New York or Canada — if many of the interceptors are even based on land, instead of space as envisioned. “The right way for the U.S. to engage with an ally to improve our homeland defense — whether through additional radars, communication antennas or even interceptor sites — is to engage collaboratively with that ally,” said a former defense official. “If strengthening homeland defense is the actual goal, this administration is off to a truly terrible start.” Here are three reasons why Golden Dome has little to do with Trump’s desire to take Greenland: HE COULD HAVE JUST ASKED DENMARK The U.S. military’s presence in Greenland centers on Pituffik Space Base, which operates under a 1951 defense agreement with Denmark that grants the U.S. regular access to the island. The base is a key outpost for detecting threats from the Arctic, although it doesn’t host any interceptor systems. If the Pentagon wanted to station interceptors or more sensors on the island, the U.S. could simply work with Denmark to do so, according to the former official and a defense expert. Greenland has been part of the U.S. homeland missile defense and space surveillance network for decades and it would continue that role under Golden Dome, said Todd Harrison, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. “We already have unfettered access to what we need for Golden Dome in Greenland, but the president talks as if he’s not aware of that,” Harrison said. “His statements about Greenland are detached from reality.” The White House, when asked for comment, pointed to Trump’s post. HE COULD CHOOSE SOMEWHERE ELSE — THAT THE U.S. OWNS Greenland could prove a good location for ground-based interceptors that block missiles launching from Russia and the Middle East towards the U.S. But the U.S. has other options for interceptor locations, and none would necessitate taking another country (a seizure that could threaten to destroy the NATO alliance). The Pentagon has examined potential locations for interceptor sites and Fort Drum, an Army base in upstate New York, has routinely survived deep dive analysis by the Missile Defense Agency, said the former defense official, who, like others interviewed, was granted anonymity to speak about internal discussions. “Compared to Fort Drum, Greenland does not appear to be a better location for such interceptors,” the person said. Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-Ala.) has also said his state could play a “critical role” in housing interceptors. MUCH OF THE DEFENSE SHIELD IS SUPPOSED TO BE BASED IN SPACE Trump’s assertion about needing Greenland for Golden Dome also raises questions about what the multibillion-dollar architecture will actually look like. The Pentagon has largely avoided discussing the price tag publicly. And officials originally envisioned most of it located above the Earth. A key part of Golden Dome is space-based interceptors — weapons orbiting the planet that can shoot down incoming missiles. But moving missile defense systems to space would require fewer ground-based systems, negating the importance of acquiring more land for the effort. “If Golden Dome’s sensor network and defenses are primarily space-based — as per the current plan — Greenland might still be of value,” said a former defense official. “But less so than it would be for terrestrial architecture.”

The U.S. has ordered the evacuation of some personnel from its largest base in the Middle East as President Donald Trump weighs strikes against the Islamist regime in Iran. The move echoes similar actions last year in the run-up to the joint U.S.-Israeli air and missile strikes on Iranian nuclear program sites. But a U.S. defense official cautioned this evacuation was a precautionary step as Tehran struggles with mass anti-government protests with security officials killing numerous protesters. The shift of some forces from Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar comes after Trump told Iranians on Tuesday that “help is on its way,” and warned Americans in Iran they should think about evacuating the country. A former U.S. official familiar with the situation said aircraft had also been moved. The current and former officials were granted anonymity to discuss a sensitive national security issue. Reuters first reported the evacuation. The Qatari government said in a statement Wednesday that the evacuations from Al Udeid “are being undertaken in response to the current regional tensions.” The Pentagon stations about 10,000 U.S. troops at the sprawling Al Udeid, along with smaller bases in the region in Iraq, Syria and Jordan. The base has its own air defenses, which were put to the test in June when Iran attacked it with ballistic missiles. But one Patriot missile interceptor that was sent there before the attack has since been shipped back to South Korea.

President Donald Trump on Wednesday declared he would ask Congress for a $1.5 trillion defense budget in 2027, a massive $500 billion increase from this year’s Pentagon budget. The huge boost likely reflects how expensive some of Trump’s military ambitions are, from the Golden Dome air defense effort to his call for a new battleship design. Neither of those programs could be fully funded under current spending levels. The president provided few details in his post on Truth Social, other than to say the money would pay for his “Dream Military.” Trump did suggest that tariff revenues could cover the increase, but even if he managed to circumvent Congress’ constitutionally mandated power over spending, existing tariff collections would still be several hundred billion short of what the president plans to ask for. While finding half-a-trillion dollars in new spending would prove difficult, Trump and some congressional Republicans appeared confident they could do so. The budget reached $1 trillion this year thanks to $150 billion in new money Congress voted to pour into Pentagon coffers via a reconciliation bill, although much of that will be spread out over the next five years on various long-term projects. Lawmakers have yet to complete a defense spending bill for this fiscal year, although a final agreement is expected to increase Trump’s budget request by several billion dollars. Some Republicans have long argued for significant annual increases in Pentagon funding, with a topline total of around 5 percent of GDP, up from the current 3.5 percent. Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.) called Trump’s aspirations “a good news story” after his administration proposed budgets defense hawks on Capitol Hill saw as lacking. “We think we need a permanent 4 percent [of GDP] or better,” Bacon said. “That’s what it’s gonna take to build our Navy, our Air Force, our ICBMs, our bombers, and take care of our troops.” The 2026 budget only reached $1 trillion due to the $150 billion added on by Congress. That one-time infusion gave a boost to Golden Dome as well as new initiatives to build more precision-guided munitions and air defense weapons. But the funding will need to be included in year-on-year spending legislation, something Trump’s new proposal appears to take into account. Trump’s surprise budget announcement came just hours after he sent defense stocks plunging by railing against the performance of major defense companies. In another social media post, Trump said he would not allow defense companies to buy back their own stocks, offer executives large salaries and issue dividends to shareholders. He also slammed the companies for moving too slowly, and charging too much, for weapons. “A lot of us are saying we want a commitment to a sustained spending [increase], not just a one-year,” Bacon said. The White House and Republicans have left open the possibility of another party-line megabill that could be used to increase defense spending again this year. It is unclear if GOP leaders are willing to pursue the procedurally and politically arduous approach again while they still maintain control of both chambers of Congress. Republicans would need to use that process again to accommodate even a portion of Trump’s request because Democrats are likely to balk at any move that slashes healthcare benefits, education and foreign aid in the ways Republicans have sought, said one defense lobbyist. “Golden Dome and Golden Fleet are completely unaffordable without budgets of this size, so the administration would need to come up with the numbers to back it up,” said the lobbyist, who was granted anonymity to discuss sensitive spending dynamics. “But my guess is that the extra money will have to be in reconciliation.” House Appropriations Chair Tom Cole (R-Okla.) said overall defense spending “needs to go up,” but wouldn’t say if the massive increase pitched by Trump is realistic. “I’ll take any request the president makes seriously, and we’ll see,” Cole said. Another senior House appropriator, Rep. Steve Womack (R-Ark.), hailed Trump as “absolutely right” in his own post. “For too long, we have underfunded our defense apparatus—undermining our national security and benefiting our foreign adversaries,” Womack said. “A strong national defense is critical to our long‑term prosperity and to protecting our country against every emerging threat. I commend President Trump for his leadership and look forward to working to advance a $1.5 trillion defense bill.”

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth got an unexpected Christmas gift from President Donald Trump this year: Hegseth’s embattled chief of staff — who’d been doing the job in an acting capacity for eight months — will take the role permanently, according to two people familiar with the matter who were granted anonymity to discuss personnel issues. Hegseth reportedly tried to make Ricky Buria his official chief of staff beginning in the spring but was blocked by the White House presidential personnel office. Buria was a former junior military aide for Biden-era Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin and donated to a Democrat in 2023, according to FEC records. Pinch hitter: Buria replaced former Hegseth chief of staff Joe Kasper who left in the spring shortly after a wave of firings of Hegseth senior aides that Pentagon officials attributed to a leak investigation. Several of the aides contested the investigation and their subsequent dismissals. Besides being very close to Hegseth, Buria has also reportedly won over Hegseth’s wife Jennifer. Buria updated his LinkedIn profile on Friday to note the change to chief of staff from “senior adviser.” The retired Marine has clashed repeatedly with other Pentagon Trump appointees. He recently tried unsuccessfully to oust fellow Hegseth senior aide Patrick Weaver, POLITICO reported. Buria also tried to fire Matt McNitt, White House liaison to the Pentagon, but McNitt kept his job and is now also temporarily dual-hatted to a role in the White House. In the late summer, the White House reupped its search for a new Hegseth chief of staff, following the Buria dustup with McNitt, who had told him he would never be chief of staff. Early retirement: After twenty years in the Marines, Buria retired from the military as a colonel after getting a waiver from Trump even though he had only held the rank for a brief amount of time. “Secretary Hegseth has put together an all-star team, and we are proud of our historic accomplishments,” Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell said in a statement. A spokesperson for the White House had no immediate comment.