In the President’s Budget Request, the Pentagon is seeking a 150 percent increase across the services’ primary munitions procurement accounts compared to spending enacted for FY2026—a $47 billion increase. This excludes funding for nuclear bombs, which are funded through the National Nuclear Security Administration, and any Defense-Wide spending on munitions and related systems.
The boost raises important questions about the rationale for an Iran War supplemental, even in the wake of reports that the White House plans to seek a $80-100 billion supplemental rather than the $200 billion the Pentagon initially sought. But it also raises broader questions about how many bullets, bombs, and missiles we truly need to protect the nation.
Here’s a high-level breakdown of munitions spending enacted in FY2026 compared to spending sought for FY2027 (totals include regular appropriations and reconciliation funds). For a detailed breakdown with breakouts for regular appropriations and reconciliation, and program-level spending, download our spreadsheet here.
Two things could help explain this two-and-a-half-fold increase, and they’re not mutually exclusive. The first is that the president is seeking a 45 percent increase in topline national security spending in this year’s budget request, so obviously a lot of accounts and programs are going to see significant increases. The other is the Iran War, and the potential need (whether genuine or perceived) to restock munitions depleted during the war.
Clearly, the war has drawn down U.S. munitions stockpiles for both offensive munitions and missile defense systems—some more than others. When reports first surfaced that the Pentagon was seeking $200 billion in supplemental war funding, many assumed that the cost would cover not just replenishing munitions, but longer-term investments in the munitions industrial base. An $80-100 billion war supplemental would still likely cover far more than the cost of replenishing munitions.
The seemingly duplicative requests beg the question: is the Pentagon using the Iran war as an excuse to dramatically increase spending by double dipping into taxpayer funds? To answer that question, we looked at overall munitions spending in the budget request, compared to spending on munitions used during the Iran War. We found that, overall, the budget request seeks significantly larger increases for munitions used during the war than it does for other munitions (we only looked at munitions known to have been used during the war—there were likely other munitions used as well).
Among munitions we were able to identify as being used in the Iran War, the budget seeks some $22 billion, up from $4.5 billion enacted in FY2026. That’s a 387 percent increase. Excluding these programs, the munitions request “only” goes up by 125 percent. That’s a pretty strong indication that the administration is using its annual budget request to replenish munitions depleted during the war, and a yet another strong argument against Congress approving an Iran War supplemental.
As of this writing, we don’t yet have the budget justification documents that might help explain each of the increases included in the budget request. The Pentagon is expected to publish them on April 21. But even without those details, it’s clear that this budget request is excessive, even if Congress rejects an Iran War supplemental. That the annual budget request appears designed to help replenish munitions used during the war also begs the question of how the president wanted to spend $1.5 trillion on the Pentagon in the first place, given that he announced the number well before Operation Epic Fury began. While a generous read would be that the war forced the Pentagon to rethink its priorities, a more likely explanation is that the proposed topline proceeded any clear plans for how that money should be spent, as widespread reporting suggests.
Either way, replenishing certain munitions depleted during the war is an understandable priority for the Pentagon, but this request goes above and beyond replenishment. While some spike in spending is to be expected during or following a major war, some of the increases are astronomical. For example, the request for the High Mobility Artillery Rocket System (HIMARS) jumps by 1,112 percent from $61 million to $745 million. Similarly, the Navy is seeking $3 billion for Tomahawk missiles, up from $257 million enacted in FY2026—a 1,068 percent increase.
Congress needs to seriously interrogate the rationale for these increases. On a program-by-program basis, some of them, or some portion of them, may be warranted. But as the president moves to balloon the debt with a 45 percent increase in topline national security spending this year, taxpayers can’t afford to take his word for it.
- Adobe Stock - 155 mm artillery ammunition carried by air transport
