The recent announcement of the Biden administration’s fiscal year 2025 defense budget has sparked controversy due to a proposed cut in missile defense funding. Critics argue that such reductions are unwise given the current international threat landscape, particularly in light of recent events demonstrating the effectiveness of missile defenses in Ukraine, Israel, and the Red Sea.
The United States faces mounting pressure from missile and drone attacks orchestrated by autocrats worldwide. Despite the effectiveness of integrated air and missile defense systems in intercepting a high percentage of missile salvos, the Department of Defense proposes to slash the U.S. Missile Defense Agency’s budget by over $400 million for FY25 and by $2.6 billion over the next five years.
This budget reduction occurs even as Rep. Doug Lamborn, R-Colo., highlights the need for increased budgeting based on the previous year’s expectations. Critics question the logic behind these cuts, especially as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Space and Missile Defense, John Hill, explains the need to “pay bills,” such as payroll increases, health care, and child care, essentially prioritizing noncombat operations over proven missile defense capabilities. The proposed budget puts into question the administration’s readiness to defend allies like Taiwan against the likes of China, which has a formidable missile arsenal.
The budget reduction also slows the fielding of a glide-phase intercept capability for hypersonic missile threats, pushing prototype development from 2030 to a 2034 delivery. Further, the limited procurement of missile interceptors, with only 12 SM-3 IIA missile interceptors being funded and production on the SM-3 IB missile interceptor being cut, is seen as inadequate in face of the growing missile threat from adversaries like Russia, the Houthis, and Iran.
It’s clear that the administration is making a strategic choice to emphasize near-term technology transitions and operational capabilities, as the broader science and technology (S&T) budget also sees a 3.4% decrease from last year’s request. Undersecretary of Defense for Research and Engineering Heidi Shyu cites a shift from basic and applied research to expediting technology transition into operational use as the cause for this shift.
This allocation reflects a broader budgetary trend where only 2% of the total budget is dedicated to S&T, a point that critics argue is insufficient for long-term investments in emerging technologies that are critical for future defense capabilities.
Relevant articles:
– Biden’s FY25 budget cuts missile defense when we need it more than ever, Defense News, 05/01/2024
– Pentagon cuts science and technology funding request, Federal News Network, 04/30/2024
– EMERGING TECHNOLOGY HORIZONS: Defense Budget Request Shortchanges Emerging Tech, National Defense Magazine, 04/30/2024