WASHINGTON, DC - MAY 20: U.S. President Donald Trump speaks alongside Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth in the Oval Office at the White House on May 20, 2025 in Washington, DC. President Trump announced his plans for the "Golden Dome," a national ballistic and cruise missile defense system. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

Getty Images

US President Donald Trump just requested a record $1.5 trillion for the Pentagon’s budget, some $445 billion higher than 2026 levels. The administration claimed that the 40% increase is necessary to address the US’s war with Iran and other mounting global security challenges. The proposed budget would be the biggest in US history when adjusting for inflation, even exceeding US spending during World War II.

At the heart of the proposal is a renewed emphasis on large scale strategic defence systems. There are few details about how the funding will be allocated, but reports indicate that a central pillar of the Pentagon’s defence strategy is the Golden Dome missile defence system, slated to cost $185 billion. The program has drawn criticism, being compared to Ronald Reagan’s failed Strategic Defence Initiative which was terminated in 1990, after $40 billion was spent. Additionally, the Golden Dome does little to address urgent US threats, as many aspects of the project, such as boost-phase intercept systems and weapons have not been tested, with no guarantee that they could become operational any time soon.

Alongside missile defence, the budget prioritizes traditional naval and air power. The Pentagon is requesting $65.8 billion for shipbuilding, as Trump pursues several new ship classes under the Golden Fleet concept. There will also be a request for 85 F-35s fighter jets, with an average flyaway cost of $82.5 million. Another $5 billion each would go towards submarines and guided missile destroyers.

This raises a fundamental question about the Trump administration’s strategy. While Trump claimed that this record level of defence spending is necessary because “we’re fighting wars,” this strategy risks over-investing in expensive and vulnerable platforms at the expense of more affordable, scalable and disruptive weapons.

Without a doubt modern warfare today is dominated by drones, which pose a constant threat to any target. True, the US has been investing in drones but still remains a step behind. Last year when the Navy was testing autonomous drone boats off the coast of California, vessels stalled and crashed, suffering from software problems and human error.

While the Golden Dome can tackle high-end strategic threats such as inter-continental ballistic missiles, hypersonic glide vehicles and advanced cruise missiles, it would be vulnerable to a concentrated and up close swarm attack from low cost drones.

The recently fired Army Chief of Staff, General Randy George who was appointed in 2023 had pushed for the acquisition of cheap drones. And the current budget proposal does dedicate over $3 billion to counter drones, but it is not clear if drone warfare is the Pentagon’s top priority. Even as drone programs expand, a naval drone funding request of $172 million is small compared to $63 billion in overall Navy procurement.

The technical challenges of countering drones further demonstrates the disconnect of the US strategy. Drones fly very low, on a flight path that can take them between buildings. As they are not made of metal, they have a small radar reflection, making them more difficult to detect. Additionally, as radar systems are calibrated for spotting high-speed missiles, drones can be mistaken for birds or planes.

Iran’s strategic use of drones

Recent conflicts are showing how drones are reshaping the battlefield. Iran has demonstrated the cost-effectiveness of its drone strategy. Iran’s Shahed $30,000 drones are deterring warships worth $2.7 billion. Within the first week of the war, Iran launched more than 2,000 low-cost drones at targets across the Middle East, sparking total chaos in the region. Cheap Iranian drones, which carry explosives that detonate on impact, have been referred to as the AK-47 of the skies. Indeed, the deadliest attack on US forces thus far was from a drone attack which hit a US base in Kuwait, killing six US troops.

Iran has also proven adept at using drones to hit soft targets in the Gulf. An Iranian drone attack hit Saudi Arabia’s biggest oil refinery at Ras Tanura, halting production while Qatar’s world’s largest liquified natural gas export terminal was closed after being hit by a drone, knocking out 17% of Qatar’s liquified natural gas capacity for up to five years. Iranian drones also hit an office complex for Kuwait government ministries with significant damage. Drone strikes near Dubai airport caused Gulf aviation chaos, at one of the world’s busiest airports.

The cost imbalance is the most critical vulnerability in current defence systems. By using drones, Iran can effectively bankrupt billion-dollar air defence grids. The Gulf states have already expended hundreds of Patriot anti-missile interceptors, which cost $4 million apiece to shoot down Iranian drones, while the US has lost costly Patriot and THAAD interceptors that take years and millions of dollars to build. During the first week of the war, an Iranian attack drone also hit an early warning radar in Qatar, a $1.1 billion ballistic missile tracking system.

And even as Iran launches thousands of drones, its supply can be quickly replenished. According to US intelligence assessments, Iran still possesses about half of its drone arsenal, and produces about 10,000 drones per month. Drones don’t require massive infrastructure to assemble and deploy as they can be assembled in a garage and launched from the back of a truck.

Lessons from Ukraine

Ukraine offers the clearest example of how rapidly warfare is evolving. In Ukraine it was estimated that drones account for 60 to 70% of all losses across all categories. Yet Ukraine has adapted and built a multi-layered anti-drone defence system which uses electronic warfare and new interceptor drones, helping Ukraine intercept 80% of drone attacks. Understanding the threats that it faced Ukraine has prioritized drone research and production.

Because of the urgency, Ukraine fully outsourced research and development to the commercial sector, with drone manufacturers independently funding and developing technologies up to the prototype stage. By the time the Ukrainian military sees it, the drone is already a working prototype, ready to be tested in battlefield conditions. As a result, the military can focus on testing and using technology, not funding prototypes that aren’t going to be effective.

This model represents a fundamental shift in how military innovation occurs, prioritizing speed and cost-effectiveness. While the US continues to invest in billion-dollar platforms designed for older styles of conflict, its adversaries are refining a model of warfare built on scale, speed and affordability. The Pentagon seems more focused on outspending rivals rather than on out-innovating them.