WASHINGTON — Lawmakers across party lines agree the Space Force needs more funding.
Rep. Jeff Crank (R-Colo.), who serves on the House Armed Services Committee, said a draft defense appropriations bill unveiled June 9 signals bipartisan concerns that the U.S. is underinvesting in space capabilities.
The House Appropriations Committee proposed a defense spending bill for fiscal year 2026 that boosts the Space Force’s budget to nearly $29 billion, compared to just over $26 billion included in the Trump administration’s “skinny” budget outline.
The appropriations defense markup completed on June 10 comes as the White House has yet to release a detailed budget proposal for the Defense Department, prompting lawmakers to move forward with spending bills while voicing frustration about the administration’s budget delays.
“I was happy to see a $2.7 billion plus-up in appropriations markup for space,” Crank said June 10 at a Hudson Institute event. “We ought to be putting the foot on the gas when it comes to funding for space right now … whether it’s launch, satellite capability, mapping, all of that kind of stuff.”
Crank also said he opposes potential cuts to commercial space services, including National Reconnaissance Office funding for commercial satellite imagery. “It’s not a good idea … I think we’ve got to be very careful,” he said in response to an audience question about such proposed reductions.
Rep. George Whitesides (D-Calif.), also a member of the House Armed Services Committee, echoed that sentiment during a SpaceNews virtual event June 10, saying there is “bipartisan consensus that cutting the Space Force is a bad idea.”
“If you look at how our national security enterprise depends so deeply on space technologies, going in the opposite direction is a bad idea, and, frankly, inconsistent with administration rhetoric,” Whitesides said. “So we’re all kind of scratching our heads a bit at the budget proposal that came over related to the Space Force. I expect that to be reversed as we go through this year’s budget process.”
Whitesides added that both space and artificial intelligence are going to be key to the nation’s economic and national security future, “and we need to make sure that we are spending enough on those lines.”
Golden Dome divisions
But despite bipartisan support for space funding generally, one program continues to divide lawmakers along partisan lines: Golden Dome, an ambitious missile defense initiative that would deploy hundreds of satellites to detect and intercept missile threats.
“For whatever reason, it really triggers the left when you talk about Golden Dome,” Crank said.
Democratic critics, including Rep. Seth Moulton (D-Mass.), have raised concerns that Golden Dome could fuel an arms race and potentially destabilize strategic stability, making the U.S. less safe despite its defensive purpose. The program’s space-based interceptor concept represents a significant departure from current ground-based missile defense systems.
To build support for the program, Crank announced he and Rep. Dale Strong (R-Ala.) are forming the House Golden Dome Caucus. “The president wants Golden Dome deployed in three years. To do that, he’s going to need strong support from Congress,” Crank said.
The caucus will work with a Senate counterpart to create an educational forum for members and staff to engage with civilian and military leaders, industry firms and think tanks. Crank said he expects some Democrats to join, though acknowledged “it’s a harder sell for them in this sort of hyper partisan environment that we’re in right now.”
Pentagon pressed for details
Both Republicans and Democrats have expressed frustration with a lack of specifics about Golden Dome.
During a hearing Tuesday with Pentagon officials, House Appropriations defense subcommittee Chairman Ken Calvert (R-Calif.) pressed Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth for more details.
“We haven’t seen a clear definition of what it is,” said Calvert, highlighting that it will be difficult to secure political and fiscal support until there’s more clarity on the program.
Hegseth said he would provide more specifics to lawmakers but couldn’t discuss details in an open hearing due to classification issues.
The lack of detail is problematic, Whitesides said at the SpaceNews live event.
“We don’t really know what it is yet, to be perfectly honest,” he said. “There are a bunch of ideas circulating around. We have not been briefed in any level of high detail on what this plan is. I think it’s still in formulation somewhere inside DoD or the White House.”
Whitesides said he believes Congress needs to “wait until there is an actual technical program that can be discussed and funded in a proper way.”
House Republicans approved a $113 billion increase to DoD spending, including $25 billion for Golden Dome, in a reconciliation bill that has yet to be voted on by the Senate.
“We have had a robust missile defense program for decades, and you know those are important for defense of the homeland,” Whitesides said. “What specifically are we talking about here? Are we talking about space based interceptors? Are we talking about new layers of sensing? It’s not clear to folks in Congress yet exactly what we’re talking about,” he added. “We all want to make sure that the homeland is protected. We also need to think about the strategic implications … How does this play out at a sort of a strategic level, with our peer competitors? We need to think through those things as well.”
The House Appropriations Committee in a report accompanying its markup of the 2026 defense spending bill noted that the Department of Defense “has yet to provide information on what exactly it entails and how it intends to implement Golden Dome or to make the case that it is feasible or affordable.”
The report said lawmakers “need a detailed understanding of the overall architecture and capabilities envisioned for Golden Dome.” The committee “will require detailed proposals, realistic cost estimates, and risk assessments of new investments and new technologies for Golden Dome.”
Space Command battle
During his Hudson Institute appearance Crank pushed back against ongoing efforts by Alabama lawmakers to relocate U.S. Space Command headquarters from Colorado Springs to Huntsville, Alabama — a fight that has simmered for years and shows no signs of resolution.
“I wake up every day and I think about that, and I talk about that, and I work on it,” said Crank. “I represent Colorado Springs. I believe it makes sense to keep it there.”
The congressman argued that no one has presented a compelling military rationale for the move. “What’s the military value in moving Space Command out of Colorado Springs?” he said. “When I asked the military leaders that question [the answer I get is that] there isn’t any military value in doing it. So that’s sort of the argument that I rely on.”
“It doesn’t make military sense,” Crank insisted. “I keep waiting for the military logic of why we would do that, and I haven’t heard that yet.”
