WASHINGTON — Democratic Sen. Mark Kelly of Arizona sharply criticized the Trump administration's proposed $1.5 trillion defense budget on Sunday, calling it "outrageous" and warning that it fails to align with the nation's current strategic needs.
Speaking on CBS's "Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan," Kelly, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, argued that the fiscal year 2027 budget proposal represents an excessive escalation in military spending. The request, released last month, would increase defense allocations by 42% from 2026 levels, pushing the total to nearly double what it was when Kelly first joined the Senate five and a half years ago.
"When I got to the Senate five and a half years ago, the defense budget was just over $700 billion," Kelly said. "Now they're asking for twice as much money — it's nearly the amount that the rest of the world pays for its defense."
The senator's remarks come amid ongoing debates in Congress over federal spending priorities, particularly as the budget proposal serves as a baseline for negotiations. Beyond the headline figure, the plan includes funding for troop pay raises and replenishing critical munitions stockpiles, which Kelly acknowledged as necessary but insufficient to justify the overall scale.
One particularly contentious element, according to Kelly, is the allocation for a space-based "Golden Dome" missile defense system. He expressed deep skepticism about its feasibility, citing technical challenges. "There's stuff in there, like Golden Dome," Kelly said. "The physics on that stuff is really, really hard. I'm very confident we're going to spend a lot of money, we're going to get a system that doesn't work."
The budget request is compounded by the administration's anticipated push for a supplemental spending package to address the costs of the ongoing war with Iran. A Pentagon official testified during congressional hearings late last month that the conflict has already cost about $25 billion. However, U.S. officials familiar with internal assessments suggested the true figure could approach $50 billion, highlighting discrepancies in cost projections that have fueled bipartisan scrutiny.
Kelly, a former Navy pilot and astronaut, drew on recent Pentagon briefings to underscore vulnerabilities exposed by the war. He described the depletion of U.S. munitions stockpiles as "shocking," attributing it to what he called a lack of strategic planning under the current administration.
"I think it's fair to say it's shocking how deep we have gone into these magazines, because this president got our country into this without a strategic goal, without a plan, without a timeline," Kelly said. The Arizona Democrat warned that the resulting shortages leave America less secure against potential threats elsewhere, such as a conflict in the western Pacific with China.
"Whether it's a conflict in the western Pacific with China or somewhere else in the world, the munitions are depleted," he added. "Because of that, we've expended a lot of munitions, and that means the American people are less safe."
The senator's comments on the classified briefings prompted a swift rebuke from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. In a post on social media, Hegseth accused Kelly of inappropriately disclosing sensitive information. "Kelly was blabbing on TV (falsely & dumbly) about a *CLASSIFIED* Pentagon briefing he received," Hegseth wrote, adding that the Defense Department's legal counsel would investigate whether the senator had "violated his oath."
Kelly's critique fits into a broader pattern of Democratic pushback against the Trump administration's defense priorities. Since taking office, the administration has emphasized rapid military expansion, including investments in advanced technologies and readiness for great-power competition. Proponents argue that the increased funding is essential to counter threats from adversaries like China, Russia, and Iran, especially following the escalation of hostilities in the Middle East.
The war with Iran, which began in early 2026 according to official timelines, has already strained resources and drawn international condemnation. Initial U.S. involvement stemmed from retaliatory strikes after Iranian attacks on American assets in the region, but critics like Kelly contend that the absence of a clear exit strategy has prolonged the engagement and inflated costs.
In Congress, the budget proposal faces a divided reception. While some Republicans have praised the commitment to national security, others, including fiscal conservatives, have raised alarms about the deficit implications. The overall federal budget for fiscal year 2027 is projected to exceed $7 trillion, with defense comprising a significant portion that could crowd out domestic programs like infrastructure and healthcare.
As negotiations unfold, Kelly urged the administration to revise its approach. "They need to submit a defense budget that makes sense for the moment we're in," he said, emphasizing targeted investments over blanket increases. Senate leaders have scheduled initial hearings for next week, where Pentagon officials are expected to defend the proposal amid questions about its sustainability.
The controversy highlights ongoing tensions between military hawks and doves in Washington, particularly as the U.S. navigates multiple global hotspots. With midterm elections looming, the budget debate is likely to become a flashpoint, influencing voter perceptions of both parties' stewardship of national security and fiscal responsibility. For now, Kelly's outspoken stance has amplified calls for greater transparency in defense spending, setting the stage for what promises to be a contentious legislative battle.