President Trump’s budget drew harsh criticism on Friday from a trio of powerful Republican senators, who rejected what they said were woefully inadequate resources for the military, and suggested they would ignore his plan and ensure that Congress provided far more money for their priorities.
In separate statements, the senior Republicans — Senators Roger Wicker of Mississippi, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee; Susan Collins of Maine, the chairwoman of the appropriations committee; and Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the chairman of the appropriations subcommittee on defense — expressed their disdain for Mr. Trump’s proposal.
Their collective pushback amounted to a rare moment of defiance at a time when Republicans on Capitol Hill have done little to fend off the White House’s efforts to slash federal programs.
Mr. Wicker said the administration’s proposed military spending levels would “shred to the bone our military capabilities and our support to service members.”
“President Trump successfully campaigned on a Peace Through Strength agenda, but his advisers at the Office of Management and Budget were apparently not listening,” Mr. Wicker said. He said that Mr. Trump’s budget would effectively flatline military funding for the fifth straight year, “which is a cut in real terms.”
Congressional Republicans are planning on approving roughly $150 billion in new defense spending through their sprawling tax cuts legislation. It is meant for specific new projects — not as a general-use boost to the Pentagon’s budget. In their budget request, administration officials factored in that money, and made the case that they planned to increase military spending by 13 percent.
Hawkish Republicans on Capitol Hill view that gambit as an accounting gimmick, and want to see military spending levels raised through the regular appropriations process.
“Make no mistake: A one-time influx reconciliation spending is not a substitute for full-year appropriations,” Mr. McConnell said. “It’s a supplement.”
Ms. Collins, who called the budget proposal “late” and lacking in important details, nonetheless made it clear she did not approve.
After a preliminary review, she said, she had “serious objections” to the defense portion. And she criticized Mr. Trump’s plan to gut or eliminate domestic programs including the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, which helps to offset high utility bills for low-income people across the country; another that provides federal educational services to students from disadvantaged backgrounds; and others that support biomedical research.
“Ultimately,” she noted in her statement, “it is Congress that holds the power of the purse.”
Mr. McConnell also noted in his statement that only Congress could set and approve federal spending levels, and that lawmakers often disregard the numbers laid out in the president’s budget request.
“America cannot expect our allies to heed calls for greater annual defense spending if we are unwilling to lead by example,” Mr. McConnell, the former Republican leader, said. “Fortunately, presidential budget requests are just that: requests. Congress will soon have an opportunity to ensure that American power — and the credibility of our commitments — are appropriately resourced. I hope and expect that my colleagues will join me in placing America’s national security first.”
Many Republicans cheered Mr. Trump’s budget, which Speaker Mike Johnson called a “bold blueprint that reflects the values of hardworking Americans and the commitment to American strength and prosperity.”
But the dissent from some Republican lawmakers in both chambers was notable at a time when few of them have spoken out about any of the president’s moves.
Representative Mike Lawler, Republican of New York, called the cut to the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program “reckless,” and said it would leave his constituents “out in the cold.”
Representative Mike Rogers, Republican of Alabama and the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, said he was “very concerned the requested base budget for defense does not reflect a realistic path to building the military capability we need to achieve President Trump’s Peace Through Strength agenda.”
