National Guard Faces Budget Crisis Amid Domestic Deployments

Why it Matters

The National Guard and Reserve Forces are heading into a budget hearing carrying a $2.7 billion unfunded priorities list, a funding request that is nearly 2 percent — or roughly $2 billion — below last year's levels, and a Congress that has yet to pass a full-year defense appropriations bill. The April 15, 2025 hearing before the House Appropriations Committee puts in sharp relief what happens when the nation's part-time military force absorbs the compounding costs of continued domestic deployments while operating under a budget that has shrunk in real terms.

The Funding Gap

The Reserve Components' FY2025 funding request came in nearly 2 percent lower than FY2024 — a reduction of nearly $2 billion, according to reporting by 13News Now. That shortfall lands against a backdrop of an unfunded priorities list that has grown to $2.7 billion for the National Guard alone. At the same time, a Congressional Budget Office report estimated that federal troop deployments to U.S. cities in 2025 cost $496 million in total, with ongoing deployments running at $93 million per month — costs that fall heavily on Guard and Reserve personnel.

The National Guard Association of the United States (NGAUS) has reported that even a stopgap defense budget under discussion in Congress would reach only roughly $847 billion — short of the $850 billion-plus that defense planners had sought. For the Guard and Reserve, the arithmetic is unforgiving: more missions, less money, and no full-year budget in sight.

Who's Testifying

The witnesses scheduled for the National Guard budget hearing reflect the breadth of the Reserve Component enterprise. General Steven S. Nordhaus, Chief of the National Guard Bureau at the Department of Defense, is expected to be the central voice on overall Guard readiness and funding. Lt. Gen. Robert D. Harter, Chief of Army Reserve at U.S. Army Reserve Command, will address Army Reserve-specific concerns. Representing the Navy's reserve components are Lower Half Richard Lofgren from the Department of the Navy and Leonard Anderson of the U.S. Marine Corps Reserve. John Healy rounds out the witness list.

Pressure from the Outside

The hearing arrives with a notable lobbying footprint. The Louisiana Armed Forces Alliance, represented by the Roosevelt Group, spent $200,000 across all four quarters of 2025 — $50,000 per quarter — lobbying on Army force structure, cyber forces, the FY2026 National Defense Authorization Act, and FY2026 military construction. The organization's sustained engagement through the year signals that force structure decisions — including which units survive budget pressure — are being actively contested.

AM General LLC, the defense vehicle manufacturer, spent $240,000 across 2025 through Van Scoyoc Associates and other firms, with filings referencing Army, Army Reserve, and Army National Guard modernization. One filing specifically mentioned HR5371, a continuing appropriations measure covering military construction and veterans affairs — a direct indicator of how procurement interests track the appropriations process.

NGAUS itself filed lobbying disclosures through Omega Strategies LLC at $30,000 per quarter, focused on National Guard issues in both the NDAA and appropriations bills. The State of Minnesota also filed disclosures through lobbyist Jeremy Bratt across all four quarters of 2025, covering National Guard issues — at no reported cost, suggesting pro bono representation of state interests in federal Guard funding decisions.

The Broader Context

Underlying the defense appropriations debate is a recurring dysfunction: Congress has not passed a full defense appropriations bill on time, forcing the military to operate under continuing resolutions that lock in prior-year spending levels and prevent new program starts. Witnesses at the hearing are expected to press lawmakers directly on this point. According to 13News Now's reporting, a general testified that the single most constructive action Congress could take is to pass a funding bill on time.

The consequences of that failure are not abstract. Discussions on military forums have surfaced reports that Army Reserve Aviation — specifically ARAC — is being considered for elimination, and that third-quarter operational funding and training schedules are already being affected. States were reportedly aware that FY2025 would be a lean year and have been planning accordingly, but awareness of a shortfall does not make it easier to absorb.

The Bottom Line

The National Guard funding debate is playing out inside a larger defense spending argument. Congressional Republicans have pushed for a significant increase in overall defense spending as part of a reconciliation package, while the base defense appropriations process has stalled. For the Guard and Reserve — which serve both federal and state missions, respond to domestic disasters, and have been heavily deployed for border security and urban operations — the budget uncertainty creates compounding readiness risks that are harder to reverse the longer they persist.

The House Appropriations Committee's military construction and veterans affairs subcommittee, which oversees this hearing, will have to reconcile the witnesses' funding requests against a topline that has not yet been finalized. The gap between what the Reserve Components say they need and what Congress appears prepared to provide is the central tension the April 15 hearing is designed to surface.

Access the Legis1 platform for comprehensive political news, data, and insights.