The latest funding proposal introduced by House Republicans to support military operations against Iran may completely derail former President Trump's goal of finalizing a $1.5 trillion overall defense budget.

The Middle East conflict has heavily depleted stocks of interceptor missiles and various munitions, leaving a massive financial shortfall on the U.S. Department of Defense's books. Republican leadership is urgently advancing a $60 billion targeted bill to fill this gap. To bypass obstruction from Senate Democrats, Republicans plan to use the budget reconciliation process to push the bill forward—this special legislative procedure does not require the usual 60 Senate votes to end a filibuster, needing only a simple majority to pass.

Trump administration officials had previously urged lawmakers to first pass a smaller-scale bill to address urgent wartime funding needs. However, this approach would severely undermine Trump's enormous defense budget blueprint: the former president originally planned for $350 billion of the total $1.5 trillion budget to also be approved through this same reconciliation pathway.

Senator Jerry Moran, a Kansas Republican and member of the Senate Appropriations Committee's defense subcommittee, stated: "Defense spending is critically important to me and to the country, but right now there simply aren't enough votes to pass another reconciliation bill. We have to focus on what is actually achievable."

This spring, Congress already separately passed a $70 billion reconciliation bill for funding immigration control and border patrol programs. With Republicans holding only slim majorities in both the House and Senate, and with midterm elections approaching, pushing through two more reconciliation bills this year is politically nearly unfeasible.

Furthermore, Congress is just weeks away from its summer recess, making it extremely difficult to advance any major spending bill before that break.

Several key House Republican lawmakers have indicated that this streamlined $60 billion proposal, which cleared an initial hurdle in the House Budget Committee on Thursday, is a top priority that must be reviewed and advanced quickly, even if it creates more fiscal challenges later.

"There are still hundreds of billions of dollars in essential spending that is not accounted for, and I have no idea how to handle it," said House Armed Services Committee Chairman Mike Rogers. "But as former Congressman Peter King often said: we'll cross that bridge when we come to it. I can only tackle one thing at a time."

However, Senate Republican leadership has already tempered expectations, signaling they will not quickly approve the House's scaled-down defense funding proposal. Senate Majority Leader John Thune called the plan "high-risk," noting a major obstacle is that a group of lawmakers advocating for increased defense spending would not easily vote in favor.

Thune told media: "We do need additional military funding, but is $60 billion, measured against the actual need, worth the risk of forcing a floor vote?"

Mississippi Republican Senator Roger Wicker, a key supporter of Trump's $1.5 trillion defense budget plan and Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, bluntly criticized the House proposal: "This amount of money is nowhere near enough."

A White House official, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the still-developing bill, described the reduced funding proposal as a down payment on a longer-term plan to expand military capabilities. The official stated that this Republican-only driven bill could provide funds to ensure troop readiness and fulfill supply needs for combat operations, such as munitions.

Rogers stated this interim funding is crucial to replenish ammunition stockpiles and cover expenses from U.S. military operations in Venezuela and Iran. Without this infusion of funds, multiple military programs, particularly training and equipment maintenance, would run out of money and halt by the end of this year.

Other hawkish defense proponents in the House admitted that while they support adding $350 billion to the defense budget, this grand objective is not realistic under current conditions.

House Armed Services Committee senior member and Virginia Republican Congressman Rob Wittman said: "We have to consider what is workable right now. The spending amount is too large, and Congress only has about a week and a half left to deliberate."

Last year, Republicans secured an additional $150 billion in military funding on top of the base defense budget through the "Big and Beautiful Act." That act was a top-tier Trump and Republican policy package encompassing tax cuts, increased defense spending, and strengthened immigration enforcement. The White House hopes to replicate last year's approach this year: the House Appropriations Committee has drafted a $1.1 trillion base defense budget for fiscal year 2027, and the White House is requesting several hundred billion more in special military funds on top of that.

Almost no one on Capitol Hill believes Trump's staggering $1.5 trillion defense budget can be fully realized. The Department of Defense had originally counted on the $350 billion secured through reconciliation to fund several top-priority projects: replenishing weapon and ammunition stockpiles, mass-producing drones and counter-drone equipment, and deploying the Gold Dome space-based missile defense system.

If this targeted funding is completely shelved, the Defense Department's aforementioned core priority projects will face a lack of available funds. Coupled with the tight legislative window for both the House and Senate before the midterm elections, Republicans have very limited options and time to secure another large supplemental budget for the Defense Department.

A defense industry lobbyist, speaking anonymously to comment on the budgetary turmoil's impact, warned that if this latest funding proposal is further reduced in scale, gaps in U.S. missile and critical ammunition stockpiles cannot be filled in the short term.

The lobbyist stated plainly: "Slashing the reconciliation defense funding from the originally planned $350 billion to $60 billion is a sudden, sharp turn that amounts to a betrayal of the defense hawks in Congress and the defense industry. Defense contractors have already made upfront investments in facilities and equipment to fulfill multi-year missile and ammunition production contracts. This also makes it seem like the government never seriously considered the $1.5 trillion defense budget plan from the start."

Framework documents under review by the House Budget Committee show the total reconciliation funding amount is set at $95 billion, with $60 billion allocated for the House Armed Services Committee to manage. The entire bill must not only pass the narrowly divided House but also clear a Senate vote; however, most Senate Republican leaders generally oppose forcing through another partisan, unilateral bill before the midterms.

House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman and California Republican Congressman Ken Calvert commented that this streamlined funding "solves part of the problem, but is far from enough." He expressed regret over the low funding amount but also acknowledged that in the midterm election cycle, it is almost impossible to gain any support from Democratic lawmakers.

"To procure the needed military equipment, you either go through the budget reconciliation process or apply for a large supplemental appropriation. Although this reconciliation bill is relatively small in scale, it can address the most urgent spending needs for the next two months," Calvert said.

Rogers, along with House Speaker Mike Johnson and other Republican leaders, visited the White House this week to discuss the proposal. He revealed that Trump "remains adamant" about adding $350 billion in defense spending, but that request will be temporarily postponed, prioritizing the use of the reconciliation bill to address the immediate funding gap.

Discussing this latest proposal, Rogers stated: "Lawmakers will get this bill passed first, and then discuss the follow-up matters regarding the $350 billion later."