Democrats on the Senate Budget Committee have raised “significant concern” with the Pentagon’s move to classify reconciliation spending plans, urging the department to provide more public details on how the $150 billion is being allocated.
In a letter to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, led by Budget Committee ranking member Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), the lawmakers say the classification decision “risks further turning reconciliation funding into a slush fund.”
“Classifying the spending plan undermines congressional oversight and accountability. Even at the height of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, defense appropriation spend plans were not fully classified,” Merkley and Sens. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), Mark Warner (D-Va.), Tim Kaine (D-Va.), Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), Ben Ray Luján (D-N.M.), and Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) write in the letter.
“Congress cannot forfeit its constitutional role in overseeing the defense budget. Transparency is not optional; it is the foundation of accountability. We strongly urge the department to reconsider this approach and provide Congress with comprehensive, appropriately marked spending plans without delay,” the lawmakers added.
The One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) passed last July allocated $150 billion for defense to be spent over four years, with the Donald Trump administration apportioning $113 billion for fiscal year 2026 to achieve a $1 trillion defense topline when combined with the base defense budget request.
The House and Senate Armed Services Committees were responsible for crafting the defense portions of the reconciliation bill, to include outlining $25 billion for the Golden Dome missile defense system and $33.7 billion for shipbuilding, while the final allocation of those funds is ultimately allocated by the Trump administration and Pentagon.
The Senate Budget Democrats’ letter notes that a provision was scratched from the final version of the reconciliation bill that would have required Hegseth to submit a detailed spending plan for the funds and to provide an annual expenditure report to Congress.
“Although the Senate Parliamentarian later determined Section 20014 to be non-budgetary, Democrats were willing to retain the language, but Republicans voluntarily removed it. The fact that Congress previously sought this reporting underscores the importance of transparency in reconciliation budgeting,” the lawmakers write.
Despite the provision not making it into the final bill, the lawmakers note that the chairs of both House and Senate Armed Services Committees issued “informal programmatic guidance tables” outlining Congress’ intent for the defense funds and calling on the Pentagon to submit a detailed spending plan last August.
“Senate [Armed Services Committee] Chairman Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) subsequently pressed military nominees and officials to publicly commit to adhering to that intent,” the letter states.
The lawmakers note that, according to media reports, the Pentagon has submitted “a fully classified” plan to the defense committees outlining how it plans to spend $90 billion of the total $150 billion defense reconciliation funds, while having yet to receive details on the remaining $60 billion.
“The department has offered no explanation for why the spend plan was classified, even though some items included in [the reconciliation bill], such as barracks improvements or personnel benefit increases, are not sensitive,” the Senate Budget Democrats write.
“It strains credulity that all the items in the $90 billion classified spend plan are sensitive enough to warrant complete classification. In prior years, only intelligence or specific sensitive programs required classified spend plans, while other defense budget materials were provided in unclassified form or with classified appendices as appropriate,” the lawmakers add.
Senior Senate GOP staff told reporters last month that appropriators did receive a “first tranche” of details outlining plans for defense reconciliation funds, but not been given a “complete spend plan” from the Trump administration to help inform work on defense appropriations legislation.
“So we were, in some sense, having to fly blind,” a senior Senate GOP aide said.
The final $839 billion fiscal 2026 defense appropriations bill, signed into law last week, included $5.5 billion to cover funding misalignments with the reconciliation process or items that didn’t make it into the OBBBA.
The senior Senate GOP aide noted that roughly $20.4 billion from the reconciliation bill has been set aside to be spent on defense in fiscal 2026, $3.7 billion for fiscal 2028 and $2.7 billion for fiscal 2029, adding that detailed spending plans from the Pentagon on subsequent tranches “would have been helpful.”
“They could spend that money whenever they want and, presumably, however they want,” the senior Senate GOP staffer said. “We don’t really have a great sense as to how the administration what’s in [the] base budget, what’s in reconciliation. And, again, we’re very much eager to see how the administration proposes to spend the rest of the reconciliation [funds].”
Senate Budget Democrats say there are “indications” that reconciliation funds may have been used purposes “not contemplated by law, including paying troops during the recent lapse in appropriations and providing a one-time bonus payment,” adding it “raise[s] doubts about whether Congress is receiving the information necessary to fulfill its constitutional oversight responsibilities.”
“Such uses appear contrary to congressional intent, which envisioned reconciliation funding as a tool for specific programmatic needs rather than a slush fund for the President’s ad hoc priorities. This underscores the risk that, absent robust transparency, reconciliation funds may be diverted to unintended purposes,” the lawmakers write.
The lawmakers call on Hegseth to provide additional information by February 20 outlining the justification for classifying the spending plan, whether reconciliation funds will be spent on classified programs, a commitment on providing the Budget Committee with the complete spend plan and details on the remaining $60 billion for defense.
Exchange Monitor affiliate Defense Daily first published a version of this story.