To: Members of the U.S. House Committee on Appropriations
From: National Taxpayers Union
Date: June 24, 2026
Subject: NTU’s Views Regarding the Committee Markup of FY 2027 Defense Bill
I. Introduction
On behalf of National Taxpayers Union, the nation’s oldest taxpayer advocacy organization, we write to express our views regarding legislation slated for consideration before the House Committee on Appropriations on June 24, 2026. While we understand that heightened national security concerns increase the need for a fully funded Department of Defense, in light of this year’s estimated $1.8 trillion federal budget deficit and our overall federal debt of $39 trillion, we strongly request that the Committee develop a plan to offset large spending increases. We also hope that appropriate oversight attention is given to avoid any growth in waste, fraud, and abuse.
II. NTU Views Regarding June 24 Markup
Defense Appropriations Bill - NTU Opposes
The Full Committee Mark of the fiscal year 2027 Defense bill proposes a total discretionary allocation of $1.072 trillion, almost a 25% increase over the enacted FY 2026 total of $838.7 billion. Taxpayers deserve a clear explanation as to why this much money is needed by an already well-funded department.
However, we temper our concerns here with appreciation for a number of reforms and spending improvements made in this bill. This year’s legislation makes significant taxpayer-friendly changes to the procurement process, focusing on lower cost procurements as well as establishing “government purpose” rights on equipment. This should finally allow the military the right to internally repair critical weapons systems, which should save taxpayers money while increasing military readiness. We also recognize increased attention to defense innovation in this year’s bill, as well as the significant focus paid to financial management in the department. We are hopeful that, with the changes included in this year’s bill, the Defense Department may eventually pass a full audit for the first time ever. Taxpayers expect that the dollars they provide for our nation’s defense will be spent appropriately.
We remain concerned about the very large topline price tag along with unneeded extra spending seeded in this year’s bill. For starters, the bill proposes servicemember pay increases at over double the rate of inflation, which is a rate of increase that cannot be sustained considering our high levels of federal debt. However, the big spending issues in this space come from expensive defense programs that are either not needed or are not working as intended. For example, the Administration has proposed procuring 85 new F-35 fighter jets next fiscal year, at a cost to taxpayers of over $21 billion. This appropriations bill only covers the approximate $7 billion cost of buying 38 planes, while the rest are planned to be paid for by a future reconciliation bill. This complex procurement strategy seems risky for a plane that only works 25% of the time.
While Congress did limit spending on the new “Trump-class” battleship in the bill, the door still remains open for future funding on this unneeded ship. The bill also provides over $13 billion in additional funding for the “Golden Dome,” a technically questionable new defense project that could eventually cost taxpayers well over $1 trillion before it could block one missile from our shores. Based on reports on committee discussions, it seems like many expensive defense programs were passed along en masse without appropriate discussions on their costs to taxpayers or their relative lethality compared to alternatives. In an era of fiscal limits, it may be useful to consider a more measured increase in spending that is paid for, rather than a huge jump that also allows wasteful programs to continue on autopilot.
We are also concerned about discussions that Congress may soon consider another round of reconciliation that could include as much as $350 billion of additional mandatory spending on defense, on top of the high funding increases in this current appropriations bill and the $156 billion in mandatory spending passed last year as part of the One Big Beautiful Bill. This end run around the typical appropriations process is dangerous and should be avoided.
III. Conclusion
In light of the ballooning level of federal debt, taxpayers can no longer afford increases in federal appropriations bills without direct offsets. The era of uncontrolled federal spending needs to end before our nation’s fiscal trajectory veers dangerously off course. While we understand the more dangerous security environment facing our country right now, and appreciate the inclusion of several major taxpayer-friendly reforms, a 25% topline spending increase—when our federal debt level is now larger than our nation’s GDP for the first time since World War II—is too much. American taxpayers expect Congress to act in a more fiscally responsible manner. Should you have any questions about the recommendations in this memo, please do not hesitate to reach out to David Timmons (dtimmons@ntu.org).