Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., pressed Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on Wednesday to spell out the Pentagon’s investments in unmanned aerial systems (UAS) and their countermeasures (C-UAS), citing escalating concerns about the threat such systems pose to U.S. forces and critical infrastructure.
“UAS, as we’ve seen, [are] extremely powerful,” Sen. Gillibrand said during a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on June 18. “I’m concerned about our posture with regard to UAS and a defensive posture with regard to UAS attacks. Inadequate authorities, inadequate defenses, inadequate technology … [it’s] incomprehensible.”
Hegseth acknowledged the urgency, explaining that “UAS [are] a reality of the modern battlefield that [DoD has] to fully account for and address as aggressively as possible.” He assured lawmakers that the full fiscal year (FY) 2026 budget would include robust investments in UAS and C-UAS technologies. However, the current budget documents provide no details to support that claim.
DoD has yet to release its full budget request for FY 2026. In the meantime, the White House’s so-called “skinny budget” proposes $1.01 trillion in defense spending – a 13 percent increase over current levels.
Lawmakers from both sides of the aisle have taken issue with the lack of detail behind that top-line number and how much of it hinges on a still-uncertain $150 billion reconciliation package working its way through Congress.
Unconvinced, Sen. Gillibrand demanded a formal commitment from the secretary to deliver to Congress “a letter detailing your plan for increased authorities, increased investment, [and] appropriate review of UAS that hover over our military and nuclear sites.”
Other members of the committee also pressed Hegseth over “inadequate planning” in the Trump administration’s FY 2026 defense budget, raising bipartisan concerns about the Pentagon’s preparedness to deliver a military to face mounting global threats.
“This will not deliver that military,” said Sen. Roger Wicker, R-Miss., issuing a blunt warning that the FY 2026 budget proposal falls short of delivering a military capable of confronting current and future threats.
Sen. Wicker has repeatedly voiced frustration with the White House’s “skinny budget,” particularly over its dependence on a $150 billion defense funding boost tied to a broader reconciliation package. That package – designed to accelerate defense investments by bypassing the Senate filibuster – was, according to Wicker, intended by Congress to sustain defense spending over the full four years of President Trump’s second term.
Instead, Wicker and other lawmakers are concerned the administration may front-load the funding, using a disproportionate share in the first year.
“If our congressional intent alongside the numbers in reconciliation is explicitly expressed, do you commit to following congressional intent unequivocally in reconciliation?” Wicker asked.
“Yes,” Hegseth replied. Yet while Hegseth committed to working with lawmakers, President Trump has suggested publicly that much of the $150 billion will be deployed immediately in 2026.