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
American Special Operations
Top image credit: (shutterstock/FabrikaSimf)

American cult: Why our special ops need a reset

Military Industrial Complex

This article is the latest installment in our Quincy Institute/Responsible Statecraft project series highlighting the writing and reporting of U.S. military veterans. Click here for more information.

America’s post-9/11 conflicts have left indelible imprints on our society and our military. In some cases, these changes were so gradual that few noticed the change, except as snapshots in time.

keep readingShow less
Recep Tayyip Erdogan Benjamin Netanyahu
Top photo credit: President of Turkey Recep Tayyip Erdogan (Shutterstock/ Mustafa Kirazli) and Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu (Salty View/Shutterstock)
Is Turkey's big break with Israel for real?

Why Israel is now turning its sights on Turkey

Middle East

As the distribution of power shifts in the region, with Iran losing relative power and Israel and Turkey emerging on top, an intensified rivalry between Tel Aviv and Ankara is not a question of if, but how. It is not a question of whether they choose the rivalry, but how they choose to react to it: through confrontation or peaceful management.

As I describe in Treacherous Alliance, a similar situation emerged after the end of the Cold War: The collapse of the Soviet Union dramatically changed the global distribution of power, and the defeat of Saddam's Iraq in the Persian Gulf War reshuffled the regional geopolitical deck. A nascent bipolar regional structure took shape with Iran and Israel emerging as the two main powers with no effective buffer between them (since Iraq had been defeated). The Israelis acted on this first, inverting the strategy that had guided them for the previous decades: The Doctrine of the Periphery. According to this doctrine, Israel would build alliances with the non-Arab states in its periphery (Iran, Turkey, and Ethiopia) to balance the Arab powers in its vicinity (Iraq, Syria, and Egypt, respectively).

keep readingShow less
Havana, Cuba
Top Image Credit: Havana, Cuba, 2019. (CLWphoto/Shutterstock)

Trump lifted sanctions on Syria. Now do Cuba.

North America

President Trump’s new National Security Presidential Memorandum (NSPM) on Cuba, announced on June 30, reaffirms the policy of sanctions and hostility he articulated at the start of his first term in office. In fact, the new NSPM is almost identical to the old one.

The policy’s stated purpose is to “improve human rights, encourage the rule of law, foster free markets and free enterprise, and promote democracy” by restricting financial flows to the Cuban government. It reaffirms Trump’s support for the 1996 Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act, which explicitly requires regime change — that Cuba become a multiparty democracy with a free market economy (among other conditions) before the U.S. embargo will be lifted.

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.