ACA Calls on Congress to Slash Trump's Bloated $1.5 Trillion Military Budget

Why It Matters

The budget threatens to lock billions into costly nuclear programs while diplomatic arms‑control progress stalls, raising fiscal pressure and strategic risk for the United States.

Key Takeaways

• ACA urges Congress to cut $1.5 trillion defense request.
• Pentagon seeks $71.4 billion for nuclear weapons programs.
• Sentinel ICBM projected cost exceeds $200 billion.
• Missile‑defense shield estimate tops $1.2 trillion, far above Pentagon plan.
• ACA warns budget fuels arms race with Russia, China.

Pulse Analysis

The Arms Control Association (ACA) has launched a high‑profile campaign urging Congress to reject President Trump's $1.5 trillion defense budget request, arguing that the figure represents an unprecedented surge in military spending with little strategic justification. Central to the critique are the $71.4 billion earmarked for nuclear weapons modernization, $85.8 billion for missile‑defense and the “Golden Dome” project, and a $27.4 billion allocation for the National Nuclear Security Administration. ACA points to the Sentinel intercontinental ballistic missile program, whose cost is projected to top $200 billion, as a stark example of fiscal excess.

Beyond the raw numbers, ACA warns that the budget deepens the United States’ nuclear posture at a time when diplomatic avenues are faltering. The administration has not secured a successor to the New START treaty with Russia, nor engaged China in bilateral arms‑control talks, despite the treaty’s February 2026 expiration. By pouring resources into new warheads, sea‑based triad upgrades, and an expansive missile‑defense shield—estimated by the Congressional Budget Office at $1.2 trillion—Washington risks provoking counter‑measures that could accelerate an arms race rather than enhance security.

The political calculus is equally consequential. ACA joins a coalition of NGOs, including Public Citizen and the Coalition on Human Needs, in an open letter urging legislators to demand evidence of tangible risk‑reduction outcomes before approving the spending surge. With the federal deficit already strained and taxpayers feeling the pinch at the pump, the association argues that the budget diverts funds from domestic priorities such as infrastructure and health care. Congressional resistance could force the administration to trim the most contentious line items, reshaping the fiscal landscape of U.S. defense policy.