The proposed drop, which echoes a similar cut in the first Trump administration’s 2020 proposal, was outlined in Friday’s record-breaking $1.5 trillion defense-spending request. 

Basic research spending would fall $3.7 billion from this year’s appropriated amount. Most of that—$2.6 billion—would be borne by the Space Force, but reductions would also hit the Army ($173 million), Navy ($529 million), Air Force ($150 million), and the Defense Department-wide account ($202 million).

Applied research funding would drop by about $1.3 billion. The Army’s pool would drop by $1.312 billion while the Navy and Air Force would each lose $150 million. But the DOD-wide account would gain nearly $600 million and Space Force would edge up $56 million, both buoyed by Golden Dome missile-defense work.

The documents released on Friday don’t provide any real explanation for decreasing research spending, although one alludes cryptically to “unnecessary spending and excessive bureaucracy” and “woke frivolities.”The new proposal comes as the White House has already worked to reduce non-defense spending on science and technology research —for example, by 22 percent in the fiscal year 2026 budget.

“While the United States is dismantling the very foundations that have sustained our STEM and innovation leadership for generations, Beijing has announced its plans to continue accelerating its investments in science, technology, and innovation,” says a Nov. 5 letter from Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi, D-Ill., ranking member of the House Select Committee on the CCP.

China is increasing its spending on basic and applied research in a wide number of areas in what could be called dual-use technology. Its government says it allocated $569 billion for research and engineering last year. The number is in line with a broader trend of year-over-year increases that have boosted government-funded science spending to 23 times its 2000 level. 

Decreases in U.S. government funding for military research and development don’t necessarily mean less basic and applied research funding overall—not when you factor in private-sector spending. Venture capital funding for new defense startups–which largely goes to R&D–is steadily rising.

New and established technology companies that specialize in dual-use products spend more of their own money on R&D than do traditional defense contractors, KPMG reported in January. 

Ukraine provides an excellent example of what a newly re-wired industrial base can look like. By some estimates, the country boasts more than a thousand defense startups that are finding customers across continents—and all with very limited government help. The Ukrainian government has allocated about $20 billion for military R&D this year. Ukrainian companies have leaned into information technology, rapid innovation, and continuous experimentation to produce new weapons on short timelines.

Kurt Freshley, a former Marine who leads growth for technology company Valinor, says his company is “encouraged by signals that the Department wants to open the industrial base to new entrants.” 

But Freshley said a larger topline for DOD doesn’t necessarily mean more money for new competitors.

“The rewiring question will be answered not by the overall number, but by whether new entrants can compete and deliver,” he said. “If the procurement architecture actually creates room for new companies to compete, if this budget delivers on that, it's genuinely significant.”

If approved by Congress, the sum would pay for 18 warships and 16 “non-battle force ships,” according to documents released by the Office of Management and Budget on Friday. About $5.6 billion would come from a proposed reconciliation bill, the second in as many years, according to Pentagon documents released Friday. 

“The 2027 Budget will establish President Trump’s Golden Fleet, including initial funding for the Trump-class battleship and next generation frigates, as well as increasing the capacity of public shipyards and improving overall ship production,” according to a White House fact sheet. 

The shipbuilding request is part of a White House proposal to spend $1.5 trillion on defense in 2027, half again as much as this year’s record-breaking amount. The plan requests $1.15 trillion in regular appropriations plus the balance in a reconciliation bill.

Funding for Columbia-class submarines—the missile boats that will replace the Ohios—would rise to $15.2 billion from the $9.3 billion appropriated in 2026. The sum would include $14.9 billion from the Defense Department’s budget and $205.7 million from the proposed reconciliation bill. The White House budget said $250 million would come from the National Sea-Based Deterrence Fund, created in 2014 to boost submarine construction with funds from outside the traditional shipbuilding budget. 

The Pentagon documents also include $28.4 billion for “other warships,” such as Virginia-class submarines, aircraft carriers, destroyers, and $1.4 billion for the first next-generation frigate. About $1.9 billion would come from reconciliation. 

The battleship would get $1 billion in advanced procurement funding for 2027. Other funding includes $13.9 billion for “auxiliaries, craft, and prior-year program costs,” and $8.3 billion for amphibious ships. 

The proposed funding would also “maintain or increase” procurement of existing platforms from submarines to amphibious ships, according to White House budget summary. 

The documents released on Friday do not list the types and quantities of the 18 battle force ships. 

Landing Ship Mediums—of which six were listed in the Pentagon documents—were likely counted toward the warship total, said Mark Cancian, a budget expert and senior adviser with the Center for Strategic and International Studies. 

“Still, nine other battle force ships in a single year is a good program, though they need to build more to reach the 350 battle force ships that the Navy has aimed for,” Cancian said.

The 16 non-battle force ships include “strategic sealift vessels, hospital vessels, Consolidated Cargo Replenishment at Sea tankers, a special mission ship, submarine tenders and other vessels vital for logistics,” according to a White House budget summary document. 

The White House summary said some of the requested 2027 funds would be used to increase the repair capacity of the nation’s four public shipyards. 

The summary also highlights funding to design and develop the proposed battleship and new frigate. 

“Those will involve a lot of development and won't be actually constructed for several years,” Cancian said. “What the Navy can do in the near term is build a lot of auxiliaries where the U.S. shipbuilding defense industry has some capacity.” 

Brent Sadler, a senior fellow and naval expert with the Heritage Foundation, said the $65.8 billion shipbuilding topline should be carried into future years to increase production.

"This is actually the closest to what is needed and it needs to be sustained for several budgets,” Sadler said, proposing legislation that includes a block order for warships the Navy plans to buy in the next five years, boosts worker salaries and provides a mechanism to place underperforming shipyards in a conservatorship. 

But even with more funding, the challenge still lies in translating orders into production capacity in the foreseeable future. 

That “requires a strategic industrial planning effort, beyond the Navy, to achieve and which the Department of the Navy still not fully organized to achieve nor is the interagency,” Sadler said. “New shipyards need to be funded with orders of new builds with longer delivery times as the goal is, firstly, to grow capacity,” which also means stockpiling key components to shrink supply delays.

Lawmakers’ reaction to the proposed $1.5 trillion defense budget largely split along party lines. 

Republican leaders of the congressional defense committee praised the proposal. 

“These funds will drive the U.S. toward a defense budget of 5 percent of GDP–-a benchmark we have long supported as necessary to maintain our national defense. President Trump is also sending a clear signal for our allies and partners to build on recent progress and meet this benchmark alongside us,” Sen. Roger Wicker, R-Miss., and Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Ala., who chair the Senate and House Armed Services Committees, respectively, said in a statement. 

Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I., SASC’s ranking member, called the budget request “bloated” and “undisciplined.”

“We must wisely invest in technology and efficiency.  We must learn the right lessons from Ukraine and Iran. The military has to adapt to changing threats and invest in smart, cost-effective, advanced technologies that strengthen our defensive capabilities and contribute to America’s economic and technological edge. We must also continue investing in our people and build up our defense manufacturing base to meet America’s needs now and in the future,” Reed said in a statement.

The record-breaking $1.5 trillion 2027 defense spending request, released Friday, includes around $5 billion to develop the F-47, all from baseline discretionary funding. Just $140 million—$72 million of which is from a proposed reconciliation bill—is requested for the Navy’s own next-generation fighter, dubbed F/A-XX.

“The Administration is sending a clear message to the nation’s adversaries by aggressively moving forward with the F-47 sixth-generation fighter: that the U.S. military will secure command of the skies, deter aggression, and project power anywhere on the globe,” the budget documents read. “The 2027 request continues to prioritize the rapid development and production of the F-47, and would achieve a first flight in 2028.”

Last year, Congress initially committed only a fraction of the funding that would be needed to substantially advance the development of the F/A-XX. The service reportedly came close to choosing Boeing or Northrop Grumman to make the future aircraft, but no announcement was made. 

But lawmakers’ support for the program soared in January, when House and Senate appropriators boosted F/A-XX funding more than tenfold, from $74 million to $897 million. Along with $750 million from the reconciliation bill, the Navy’s fighter saw nearly $1.7 billion in total enacted funding, according to the documents. 

As part of the restored funding for F/A-XX, lawmakers wanted the details of the service’s acquisition strategy, spending plan, and timeline for awarding the manufacturing and development contract, fielding the aircraft, and reaching initial operating capacity. They also want an explanation of what prevented the Navy from spending F/A-XX funds allocated in previous years.

By comparison, the F-47 received $2.5 billion in the 2026 budget request and $900 million in reconciliation funding. In total, the Boeing-built fighter netted $3.5 billion last year, the documents said.

The budget request will also spend more on F-35s for the Air Force, Marine Corps, and Navy. In total, the White House is asking for 85 of the fifth-generation jets, with 32 funded by the discretionary budget and 53 by the proposed reconciliation bill, an Office of Management and Budget spokesperson confirmed to Defense One. Of the total, 38 would go to the Air Force, 37 to the Navy, and 10 to the Marine Corps.

Nearly all of the $17.5 billion the White House is seeking for Golden Dome in this year’s budget would come from reconciliation funding, an Office of Management and Budget spokesperson confirmed to Defense One. Congress uses reconciliation, a special budgetary process which requires a simple majority to pass, to quickly enact mandatory spending legislation. Less than $400 million for the missile defense program would come from the budget’s baseline discretionary funds.

“The budget supports development of game-changing space-based missile defense sensors and interceptors, kinetic and non-kinetic missile defeat and defense capabilities and enabling technologies for a layered, next-generation homeland missile defense system,” the White House said in budget documents on Friday, adding that the administration is continuing “innovative program management and acquisition approaches to prudently employ taxpayer dollars.” 

Defense experts fear Golden Dome’s continued reliance on Congressionally-funded reconciliation is a bad sign for the administration’s hallmark defense project. President Donald Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill signed into law this past summer pushed $23 billion in mandatory funds towards the project. But Todd Harrison, an American Enterprise Institute senior fellow and defense budget expert, said reconciliation funding isn’t a guarantee in future budgets. 

“The whole program is on unstable footing,” Harrison said. “If they have not been able to move the main funding lines into the base budget, because reconciliation is highly unlikely to continue beyond FY27, then where does all the Golden Dome funding go in FY28?”

Overall, $350 billion of the $1.5 trillion 2027 defense budget request would come from reconciliation funds, according to the White House’s budget documents. The White House’s budget projections from 2028 through 2036 don’t showcase any additional mandatory funding, which would reduce the total defense spending.

Harrison said he was not surprised the Golden Dome-related reconciliation funds decreased from last year’s $23 billion to a little more than $17 billion in the proposed budget request.

“Golden Dome still has plenty of money sitting around waiting to be used,” Harrison said. “So it's not too surprising that they're requesting a lesser amount.”

In January, lawmakers criticized the Defense Department for failing to provide budgetary details and justifications for the $23 billion in Golden Dome-related reconciliation funds. A Pentagon planning document obtained by Defense One last month showed that numerous Golden Dome-related funds had yet to be allocated. 

Space Force Gen. Michael Guetlein, Trump’s Golden Dome czar, told attendees at the McAleese Defense Programs Conference last month that he’s provided details to Congress on the program’s progress and that reconciliation funds are freed up.

“I have personally briefed all six committees numerous times on everything that we're doing on Golden Dome, to include the detailed costs of what Golden Dome is going to cost,” Guetlein said. “All of the funding for Golden Dome under reconciliation has flowed, and we've got a very close partnership with OMB and [the National Security Council] on execution of those funds.”

Gutelin also announced then that the program’s projected price tag had jumped $10 billion to $185 billion. Defense experts believe those costs will continue to skyrocket. 

The budget documents released Friday also include a mention that Trump’s Golden Dome won’t be a surefire solution against domestic missile threats, a reality that physicists have acknowledged.

"The initiative's scope is to develop and mature a versatile, multi-layered defense system. The goal is to not create a 'perfect' defense, but to provide an increasingly effective shield that enhances the U.S. capability to deter attacks, disincentivize arms racing, and negotiate from a position of strength,” the budget document reads. “For Fiscal Year 2027, the program will balance investments in next-generation technologies with the strengthening of existing foundational capabilities to improve near-term readiness and build for the future."

While Trump has not explicitly claimed the system would be flawless, he described it in near-absolute terms from the Oval Office last May as being capable of intercepting a wide-variety of missiles from anywhere in the world with an interception rate of "very close to 100 percent."

The administration's 2027 budget proposal outlines a plan to combine I&A with DHS' Management Directorate, Office of Situational Awareness, and Office of the Executive Secretary—essentially, folding the department’s intelligence arm into a consolidated headquarters office alongside management and executive functions.

Administration documents released on Friday said the plan would save $53 million and “would yield efficiencies and would enable better communication throughout the department and with external partners.”

But the plan requires approval from Congress, which last year rejected administration plans to slash the office from about 1,000 workers to 275, Nextgov/FCW first reported last July. That proposal drew pushback from law-enforcement organizations and Jewish groups that long relied on the agency to disseminate timely intelligence about threats to state, local, tribal and territorial communities. One international organization privately warned Congress that the proposed cuts would create “dangerous intelligence gaps.”

The downsizing was put on hold just days later, but DHS soon began a more gradual effort to shrink the office. By late last year, the office was down to about 500 employees. It’s possible that more people have since departed.

In November, the House Intelligence Committee considered adding a provision to the annual intelligence community authorization bill to curtail the size and scope of I&A. The provision would have barred the office from gathering and analyzing intelligence, effectively turning I&A into a clearinghouse for intelligence findings produced elsewhere and stripping it of standard spy-agency collection authorities.

I&A also helps manage a series of fusion centers around the country that help share intelligence among federal agencies and state and local law enforcement.

The move proposed in the FY27 budget would likely draw questions from lawmakers about the independence of DHS’s primary intelligence arm, how threat information is shared with state and local partners, and concerns about proper oversight of Immigration and Customs Enforcement and U.S. Border Patrol.

For years, lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have argued that I&A needs reform.

Democrats have faulted the office for overstepping its domestic surveillance authorities and for failing to protect civil liberties, especially during the 2020 racial justice protests. Republicans, meanwhile, have accused it of drifting into partisanship and falling short in providing timely intelligence to state and local partners, particularly on border threats.

A 2022 DHS oversight report assessed that I&A had detected online threats ahead of the January 6, 2021, Capitol riot but failed to share that information in time to be useful.

The Intelligence and Analysis unit holds a unique place in the federal oversight landscape. As one of 18 intelligence agencies managed by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, it falls within the purview of the Senate and House Intelligence committees. But its status as a DHS component also subjects it to oversight from the Homeland Security panels in both chambers.

It’s not clear whether the proposed consolidation would formally reduce the number of U.S. intelligence agencies statutorily managed under ODNI. Nextgov/FCW has asked ODNI and DHS spokespeople for comment.

I&A was born as part of the creation of the Department of Homeland Security after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks to coordinate intelligence on homeland threats and expand information sharing with state and local authorities.

Its placement in DHS has put it at the center of recurring jurisdictional tensions with the FBI, which drives much of the nation’s domestic intelligence, counterterrorism and counterintelligence work under the Justice Department. Researchers have long argued the division of labor creates a fragmented architecture that splits operational responsibilities across agencies whose missions too often overlap.