Biden’s FY25 budget cuts missile defense now when we need it more than ever

Despite the incredible performance of missile defense in Ukraine, Israel and the Red Sea over the past twelve months, the Biden administration’s 2025 budget is cutting missile defense.

This is a mistake. Given the increasing threat from missiles and drones – coupled with the effectiveness of missile defense – the United States should expand, not limit, its missile defense capabilities.

Autocrats are increasingly relying on a combination of missiles and drones to attack their enemies. From the relentless Russian air campaign against Ukraine, to the attacks on Israel by Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran, to the Houthi missile attacks on civilian ships, missiles are becoming an increasingly important part of military forces around the world.

However, in all the above cases, integrated air and missile defenses have been able to intercept a high percentage of missile salvos, saving countless lives and denying the autocrats’ success on the battlefield.

Should the United States need to defend Taiwan or another ally from a Chinese attack, missile defense will almost certainly be of paramount importance, as China has one of the largest missile arsenals in the world.

Why, then, has the Department of Defense proposed to cut the U.S. Missile Defense Agency’s budget by more than $400 million in FY25, when the FY24 defense budget calls for it to increase its budget by $560 million? Why is the Biden administration trying to cut missile defense by $2.6 billion over the next five years, as Rep. Doug Lamborn, R-Colo., recently noted?

When asked about these reductions in testimony in Congress, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Space and Missile Defense John Hill noted that the Defense Department has “bills to pay,” including pay increases, health care and child care. In other words, the Biden administration is cutting combat-proven missile defenses to pay for non-combat operations.

Given the deteriorating security environment, it appears that cutting back on missile defenses is exactly the wrong thing to do at this time.

You could (rightly) argue that budget ceilings apply, forcing the department to make difficult choices. This is certainly true: The Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023 limits discretionary spending, but given the temperature in Congress over the need to increase military lethality, it is entirely possible that either party could change the law or make cuts elsewhere can pursue.

While the FY25 defense budget proposal continues to support the integration of partner missile defense systems with U.S. missile defense systems, while supporting research and development funding for joint air and missile defense systems, it actually delays the development of a glide-phase interception capability for hypersonic missile threats, from prototype development in 2030 to delivery in 2034.

In real terms, President Joe Biden’s new budget only funds the construction of twelve SM-3 IIA missile interceptors and cuts production of the SM-3 IB missile interceptor – the leading ballistic missile defense interceptors built today.

Such a small purchase of interceptors is completely inadequate for the emerging missile threat environment in which Russia, the Houthis and Iran are increasingly dependent on missiles and drones in their attacks.

Only a few weeks have passed since Israel, along with American, European and Arab partners, intercepted a salvo of more than 300 Iranian ballistic missiles, cruise missiles and long-range drones. U.S. fighter jets and surface ships – likely firing Standard Missile-3 missile interceptors – contributed significantly even achieved the first interception of exo-atmospheric ballistic missiles during combat conditions. In total, reports show that the coalition has intercepted more than 99% of threats.

Twelve additional missile defense interceptors are not nearly enough to present a credible missile defense architecture in the Western Pacific, as China builds thousands of missiles with a variety of ranges and capabilities. Such missile salvos from China have the potential to overwhelm current defenses at U.S. and allied bases, as well as aircraft carrier strike groups in the region.

That is why the United States must expand – not reduce – its missile defenses regionally and build up missile stockpiles in priority areas of operations.

Should the United States or any of its allies ever find themselves on the receiving end of a Chinese missile salvo similar to what Israel received, such SM-3 interceptors could mean the difference between life and death for many Americans – literally .

With that in mind, Congress should pass a defense budget that includes funding for a credible missile defense architecture capable of replicating Israel’s recent successes in other areas of operations, especially in the Western Pacific. While childcare increases and salary increases are undoubtedly important, they should not come at the cost of weakening our defenses against the kind of rocket fire that is becoming increasingly common on the modern battlefield.

Robert Peters is a research fellow on nuclear deterrence and missile defense at the Heritage Foundation think tank. He previously served as chief strategist at the U.S. Defense Threat Reduction Agency.