Follow us on social

Senators want to infect other agencies with 'unfunded' wish lists

Senators want to infect other agencies with 'unfunded' wish lists

Expanding a controversial budgeting practice that is already being abused to hike military spending is folly


Analysis | Washington Politics

Last week, Senators Tim Kaine (D-Va.) and Todd Young (R-Ind.) introduced legislation, along with an identical amendment to the Pentagon policy bill, to require the Department of State and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) to submit so-called “unfunded priority lists” (UPLs) to Congress.

In a press release announcing the effort, they argue the requirement “recognizes the State Department and USAID’s roles as key national security agencies,” and would provide “a clearer picture to Congress of where we need to allocate resources to ensure we can effectively respond to emerging threats and global challenges.”

While diplomacy and foreign aid are absolutely essential to national security, and are arguably undervalued as such in the budget, expanding a practice that fuels the very overemphasis on military spending these lawmakers aim to address is the wrong approach.

Unfunded priorities are just that — unfunded, meaning lower priority than everything that was funded in the president’s budget request. And while it is the prerogative and responsibility of Congress to assess, adjust, and approve the nation’s budget, unfunded priorities undercut the holistic approach to budgeting enshrined in the normal budget process.

Congress started requiring the military and several other national security agencies to submit unfunded priority lists to Congress in 2017, a response to former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates’s efforts to rein in the practice.

In the years that followed, lawmakers have used these unfunded priority lists to argue that the Pentagon is woefully underfunded. That argument is at odds with the reality that military spending has grown nearly 50 percent adjusted for inflation since the turn of the century.

It’s also at odds with military service leaders, who often preface these lists with assurances that the president’s budget is sufficient. As Army Chief of Staff General Randy George put it in his FY2025 UPL, “the Army’s FY25 budget request maintains our alignment with the National Defense Strategy and our ability to conduct our warfighting mission.”

Nonetheless, the growth of the unfunded priority lists this year was a central argument in Sen. Roger Wicker’s (R-Miss.) case for adding $55 billion to the Pentagon budget. And Senate appropriators just answered this call to arms with a $21 billion hike to the Pentagon budget, an open rebellion against budget caps agreed to just last year.

Lawmakers also occasionally fund UPLs by cutting items that were included in the base budget — against the express wishes of the military service leaders who submit these lists. Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Lisa Franchetti for example emphasized in the Navy’s UPL that “these unfunded items do not take priority over the FY 2025 President’s Budget and I urge Congress not to reduce the FY 2025 budget submission to support these unfunded items.”

Congress routinely ignores these requests, and this year is no different.

The Pentagon’s civilian leadership has also taken issue with UPLs. Last year, Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin expressed his support for repealing the requirement for these lists. Explaining the Pentagon’s opposition, Pentagon Comptroller Mike McCord argued that “The current statutory practice of having multiple individual senior leaders submit priorities for additional funding absent the benefit of weighing costs and benefits across the department is not an effective way to illuminate our top joint priorities.” The same logic would hold true for State and USAID.

Lawmakers, particularly those on the foreign relations committees like Kaine and Young, have plenty of opportunities to hear from State and USAID officials as they weigh the president’s budget request and look for opportunities to boost our national investments in these critical agencies. So do lawmakers on the armed services and appropriations committees with respect to the Pentagon budget.

Rather than expanding the practice of budgeting for national security by cherry-picking unfunded projects at the expense of real priorities, Congress should repeal these requirements and adopt a more measured, holistic approach to meeting our national security needs.

Thankfully Senator Warren (D-Mass.) is working to do just that with her own bipartisan amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which was co-sponsored by Senators Mike Lee (R-Utah), Mike Braun (R-Ind.), and Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa). When Congress gets around to finalizing the NDAA, it should support this straightforward amendment to repeal the UPL requirements and reject efforts, however well intentioned, that would expand the malign impacts of unfunded priority lists.


Wonder AI

Analysis | Washington Politics
Rand Paul Donald Trump
Top photo credit: Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) (Shutterstock/Mark Reinstein) and President Trump (White House/Molly Riley)

Rand Paul to Trump: Don't 'abandon' MAGA over Maduro regime change

Washington Politics

Sen. Rand Paul said on Friday that “all hell could break loose” within Donald Trump’s MAGA coalition if the president involves the U.S. further in Ukraine, and added that his supporters who voted for him after 20 years of regime change wars would "feel abandoned" if he went to war and tried to topple Nicolas Maduro, too.

President Trump has been getting criticism from some of his supporters for vowing to release the files of the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein and then reneging on that promise. Paul said that the Epstein heat Trump is getting from MAGA will be nothing compared to if he refuses to live up to his “America First” foreign policy promises.

keep readingShow less
Trump ASEAN
Top photo credit: U.S. President Donald Trump looks at Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., next to Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim when posing for a family photo with leaders at the ASEAN Summit in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, October 26, 2025. Vincent Thian/Pool via REUTERS

‘America First’ meets ‘ASEAN Way’ in Kuala Lumpur

Asia-Pacific

The 2025 ASEAN and East Asia Summits in Kuala Lumpur beginning today are set to be consequential multilateral gatherings — defining not only ASEAN’s internal cohesion but also the shape of U.S.–China relations in the Indo-Pacific.

President Donald Trump’s participation will be the first by a U.S. president in an ASEAN-led summit since 2022. President Biden skipped the last two such summits in 2023 and 2024, sending then-Vice President Harris instead.

keep readingShow less
iran, china, russia
Top photo credit: Top image credit: Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov and and Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi shake hands as Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Ma Zhaoxu looks on during their meet with reporters after their meeting at Diaoyutai State Guest House on March 14, 2025 in Beijing, China. Lintao Zhang/Pool via REUTERS

'Annulled'! Russia won't abide snapback sanctions on Iran

Middle East

“A raider attack on the U.N. Security Council.” This was the explosive accusation leveled by Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov this week. His target was the U.N. Secretariat and Western powers, whom he blamed for what Russia sees as an illegitimate attempt to restore the nuclear-related international sanctions on Iran.

Beyond the fiery rhetoric, Ryabkov’s statement contained a message: Russia, he said, now considers all pre-2015 U.N. sanctions on Iran, snapped back by the European signatories of the 2015 nuclear deal (JCPOA) — the United Kingdom, France, Germany — “annulled.” Moscow will deepen its military-technical cooperation with Tehran accordingly, according to Ryabkov.

This is more than a diplomatic spat; it is the formal announcement of a split in international legal reality. The world’s major powers are now operating under two irreconcilable interpretations of international law. On one side, the United States, the United Kingdom, France, and Germany assert that the sanctions snapback mechanism of the JCPOA was legitimately triggered for Iran’s alleged violations. On the other, Iran, Russia, and China reject this as an illegitimate procedural act.

This schism was not inevitable, and its origin reveals a profound incongruence. The Western powers that most frequently appeal to the sanctity of the "rules-based international order" and international law have, in this instance, taken an action whose effects fundamentally undermine it. By pushing through a legal maneuver that a significant part of the Security Council considers illegitimate, they have ushered the world into a new and more dangerous state. The predictable, if imperfect, framework of universally recognized Security Council decisions is being replaced by a system where legal facts are determined by political interests espoused by competing power blocs.

This rupture followed a deliberate Western choice to reject compromises in a stand-off with Iran. While Iran was in a technical violation of the provisions of the JCPOA — by, notably, amassing a stockpile of highly enriched uranium (up to 60% as opposed to the 3.67% for a civilian use permissible under the JCPOA), there was a chance to avert the crisis. In the critical weeks leading to the snapback, Iran had signaled concessions in talks with the International Atomic Energy Agency in Cairo, in terms of renewing cooperation with the U.N. nuclear watchdog’s inspectors.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.