Military Leaders Warn of Readiness and Modernization Challenges Amid Budget Uncertainty
On Wednesday, military service leaders addressed the Senate Armed Services readiness subcommittee, expressing deep concerns about the impact of a temporary budget that keeps defense spending largely flat. The vice chiefs of the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force testified that without additional funding or the flexibility to reallocate resources, the armed forces face significant challenges in maintaining readiness and modernizing capabilities. This comes as Congress continues to rely on stopgap measures, known as continuing resolutions (CRs), to fund government operations rather than passing a full fiscal year 2025 budget. If this continues, it would mark the first time Congress has used a full-year CR for defense spending, leaving the military without the resources to start new contracts for weapon modernization, housing improvements, and other critical projects.
Military Leaders Emphasize the Consequences of Funding Constraints
Gen. James Mingus, vice chief of staff of the Army, summed up the dilemma: “Ultimately, the Army can afford a large, ready, or modern force, but with the current budget, it cannot afford all three.” He warned that without adequate funding, the Army will have to make tough choices between readiness, modernization, and other priorities. This, he emphasized, will lead to real-world battlefield consequences, not just delayed projects or budget adjustments. “We need to invest in the things and training our soldiers need for the next fight, not the last fight,” Mingus said. Other service leaders echoed his concerns, highlighting specific challenges across the branches. For the Navy and Marine Corps, funding shortfalls are already impacting shipbuilding, maintenance, and sustainment, while the Air Force faces readiness challenges amounting to about $4 billion under the CR.
Service-Specific Challenges Highlight the Need for Funding Flexibility
Adm. James Kilby, vice chief of naval operations, warned that the lack of funding flexibility will slow shipbuilding, including the construction of amphibious warships, which are critical for the Marine Corps. As of Wednesday, only 13 of the Navy’s 32 amphibious ships were available for use, according to Gen. Christopher Mahoney, assistant commandant of the Marine Corps. The shortfall in these ships has long been a concern for the Marine Corps, as they are essential for transporting troops and equipment during amphibious assaults. Meanwhile, Air Force Lt. Gen. Adrian L. Spain noted that the CR will hit combat readiness hard, creating a funding gap of about $4 billion. These readiness challenges come at a time when the military is already dealing with reduced spending and personnel cuts driven by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), led by Elon Musk, a key adviser to President Donald Trump.
The Role of the White House and Congress in Addressing the Crisis
President Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth have repeatedly emphasized the importance of military readiness and lethality, but the administration’s efforts to slash spending and personnel, led by DOGE, have further complicated the situation. On Capitol Hill, senators acknowledged the challenges posed by the CR but did not offer a clear path forward. Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska) acknowledged that the CR is “not helpful from a readiness standpoint,” but noted that a government shutdown would be even worse. Meanwhile, Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii) questioned whether the deployment of active-duty forces to the southern border is diverting resources from training and readiness, as troops are increasingly tasked with non-combat roles such as erecting barriers and assisting border agents with intelligence and logistics. Hirono criticized the practice of using warfighters for tasks like “overseeing the stocking of civilian warehouses and data entry on CBP computers,” arguing that it undermines the focus on lethality and readiness.
The Broader Implications for National Security and Military Priorities
The ongoing funding impasse has significant implications for the military’s ability to prepare for future conflicts. As the vice chiefs made clear, the armed forces are being forced to make trade-offs that will have long-term consequences for national security. For the Army, this means difficult decisions between maintaining a large force, keeping it ready for combat, or modernizing its capabilities. For the Navy and Marine Corps, it means delays in shipbuilding and maintenance, which could leave the fleet less capable of responding to emerging threats. For the Air Force, it means reduced readiness and a potential decline in its ability to project power. These challenges come at a time when global threats are increasing, from China’s military buildup in the Indo-Pacific to ongoing conflicts in Europe and the Middle East.
A Path Forward: Flexibility, Funding, and Congressional Action
As the spending bill moves to the Senate, the question remains whether lawmakers will find a way to provide the military with the flexibility and funding it needs. The House-passed bill, which would increase defense spending by about $6 billion and cut non-defense spending by $13 billion, offers one potential path forward. However, the topline increase in defense spending is modest, and it remains to be seen whether the Senate will adopt similar measures or continue down the path of a full-year CR. In the meantime, military leaders are urging Congress to prioritize the needs of the armed forces, not just to avoid a government shutdown but to ensure that the military remains ready to defend the nation. The stakes are high, and the consequences of inaction could be felt on the battlefield for years to come.
