Just eight months ago, the Pentagon was planning for two defense budgets -- and both were lower than the $750 billion now being advocated by congressional Republicans.
Now, Democrats and Republicans in the House and Senate are at odds over whether the Pentagon needs that amount for fiscal year 2020 or could make do with $733 billion -- the topline the Defense Department originally sought.
Meanwhile, the spending battle that has enveloped the FY-20 defense budget threatens to stall Congress' must-pass defense authorization bill. The debate has also politicized the findings of a bipartisan strategy commission and has called into question how the Pentagon justifies its need for more money.
'Move forward with the $773 billion'
The Pentagon in October, according to then Deputy Defense Secretary Pat Shanahan, was concerned its work to build a budget around $733 billion in total defense spending was about to be upended by President Trump, who had just said the defense budget for fiscal year 2020 would "probably" be $700 billion.
"Imagine we've been going through this very disciplined process the whole year to build a budget that's $733 billion," Shanahan said Oct. 26. “Then, last week we were directed -- build us a $700 billion budget. We are not going to reverse on all that planning, but we will build two budgets."
Shanahan said the $700 billion directive came from then Office of Management and Budget Director Mick Mulvaney, who is now acting White House chief of staff.
On Nov. 1, John Bolton, Trump's national security adviser, backed the president, saying the defense budget needed to "flatten out" to help address skyrocketing deficits, despite "howls of outrage" heard around Washington.
For the next several weeks, GOP defense hawks worked both publicly and privately to push the number back up to $733 billion.
Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-TX) and Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK), chairmen of the House and Senate Armed Services committees, penned a Nov. 29 Wall Street Journal op-ed calling for $733 billion.
"President Trump can prevent this $33 billion cut and the resulting damage by ordering the Pentagon to move forward with the $733 billion budget he originally proposed for 2020," they wrote.
The lawmakers got the White House's attention and were able to secure an Oval Office meeting with Trump, Vice President Mike Pence, then-Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, Bolton and Mulvaney.
Following the meeting, Trump reversed his position and approved a $750 billion request for defense.
Earlier this week, Thornberry recounted the meeting.
"At the end of the day, the president's decision was OK, we'll do 3% real growth," he said. "He likes round numbers so that's how $750 [billion] got there. It's within a fraction of being 3%. That was the decision, that's what everybody moved out on."
Thornberry also pointed to congressional testimony from Mattis and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Gen. Joseph Dunford, who said the defense budget needed to grow at a rate of 3% to 5% above inflation to execute the National Defense Strategy. The strategy is focused on preparing for "great power competition" with China and Russia.
After the Oval Office meeting, the Pentagon worked to build a third FY-20 budget around $750 billion, which, according to a senior defense official, came as a "pleasant surprise."
But Democrats, who won a majority in the House last November, have thrown cold water on the GOP's budget plans. The FY-20 legislation passed by the House Armed Services Committee this week authorized $733 billion for defense.
Committee Chairman Adam Smith (D-WA) pointed out that Republicans once lobbied for that exact figure.
"If you simply give [DOD] another $17 billion, which has not gone through the rigorous analysis the $733 [billion] went through, it is my legitimate concern that money will likely be wasted," he said Wednesday. "Not everything in the Pentagon needs to be increased. I think every single member of this committee can have a ton of examples of where the DOD has wasted money shamelessly."
Further, he said, the argument that DOD needs more money is undercut by the fact it was able to easily comply with Trump’s emergency order to reprogram billions of dollars to build barriers on the U.S.-Mexico border.
"It didn't take the Pentagon more than the blink of an eye to find $7 billion for this wall," he said. "The Pentagon has a history of asking for money for programs that in many instances are not ready to spend that money yet. And if we give it to them, it discourages them from being efficient."
Commission comes into play
Thornberry, however, pointed to a report by the bipartisan National Defense Strategy Commission, which states that 3% to 5% real growth is "indicative" of the funding DOD will need over its five-year budget cycle.
During the committee’s consideration of the bill Wednesday, Thornberry said the commission was "unanimous."
But Eric Edelman, a co-chair of the commission, said during a Nov. 27 Senate Armed Services Committee hearing the commission was not unanimous in its fiscal position, though it reached consensus on the likely range of funding DOD might need. Through a spokesman, he referred Inside Defense to his testimony.
"I will tell you that as smooth as the commission's workings were and as much unanimity as we had on all of the issues that are in the report, had I asked the commission to tell us what each member thought the topline should be, I doubt we could have come to a unanimous agreement on that," he said. "Our judgment as a commission was that the NDS has a higher level of ambition because of its desire to put us into much better competitive space with Russia and China in particular and that therefore it stood to reason that 3% to 5% as an illustrative number was the minimum that would be necessary, possibly more. I mean I think you get a wide range of views among us on the commission as how much more, but that that would be the minimum."
Retired Adm. Gary Roughead, the commission's co-chair, told Inside Defense the need for 3% to 5% was neither thoroughly analyzed by the panel nor based on specific information provided by the Pentagon.
"My view of our budget comments at the [hearing] was that there was not a specific, granular dollar amount that we all could easily pinpoint," he said. "That is not surprising as we did not have the time nor the analytical capacity to do the work to determine that number. We arrived at our conclusion on the range of budget increase based on numerous interviews, briefings, other information, and the collective experience of the commission."
Kathleen Hicks, a member of the commission who works as an analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, told Inside Defense the panel did not "scrutinize" the 3% to 5% range. "It's maybe about what it would take," she said.
Hicks, however, stressed the panel was focused on strategy and was not a "fiscal commission." She said she believed the group's work has become "weaponized" by lawmakers who want to increase the defense budget.
Susanna Blume, a defense analyst at the Center for a New American Security who previously worked as a Pentagon budget official, told Inside Defense the department has never provided any official analysis to support its call for a 3% to 5% increase in spending.
"The Pentagon has not shown its work," she said.
The Pentagon did not respond when asked the origin of the 3% to 5% requirement for real growth.
Smith has questioned the budget segment of the commission’s report because it is not based on public Pentagon analysis.
"I disagree with the findings -- 3% to 5% -- what the hell does that mean?" he said earlier this week. 'I don"t think there is sufficient rigor on that. It forces rigor if you actually have to survive with less money."
Republicans vote 'no'
At this week's hearing on the FY-20 authorization bill, Thornberry, the committee's ranking member, led most of his GOP colleagues in opposing the legislation on the grounds it would take the military "backwards" toward a possible repeat of deadly mishaps and readiness shortfalls.
"There were too many problematic provisions in the bill for most Republicans on the committee to overlook," he said in a statement. "I am hopeful that as the bill proceeds, it will improve and earn my support."
The bill is now at odds with one passed by the Senate Armed Services Committee, chaired by Inhofe, that authorizes $750 billion.
The House Democrats' $733 billion defense authorization legislation is in line with the House defense appropriations bill, though the amounts differ because the first bill covers more than just the Pentagon.
Senate appropriators have yet to consider their version of the defense spending bill.
The entire defense topline discussion could be rendered moot, however, if Congress is unable to reach a bipartisan agreement to raise defense and non-defense spending caps mandated by the 2011 Budget Control Act.
Several analysts expect Congress will settle somewhere in the middle, perhaps around $740 billion for FY-20, as part of a two-year spending package. But obstacles remain, including the fact that Trump may veto the bills because they block funding for building barriers on the U.S.-Mexico border,
During the House Armed Services Committee hearing Wednesday, Rep. Rob. Wittman (R-VA) quoted "A Tale of Two Cities" by Charles Dickens to illustrate how the bill had many provisions he could support -- a bipartisan "spring of hope" -- but at too low a topline -- a "winter of despair."
Smith called Wittman's characterization overly dramatic.
"If you're arguing between $750 [billion] and $733 [billion], I can certainly see an argument. I can't see a 'winter of despair,'" Smith said. "Let's not act like you shouldn't be able to defend the country for $733 billion."