United States Government: Overview of the Fiscal Year Budget Proposal
Analysis of Departmental Budget Adjustments Based on the Trump Administration's "America First" Policy, Focusing on Strategic Increases and Decreases in Defense and Domestic Program Funding, and Assessing Their Potential Impacts in the Fields of Diplomacy, Security, and Domestic Affairs.
Detail
Published
22/12/2025
Key Chapter Title List
- Major Discretionary Funding Changes
- Department of State and U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID)
- Department of Education (ED)
- Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)
- Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
- Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
- Department of Justice (DOJ)
- Department of Defense (DOD)
- Department of Energy
- Department of Transportation
- Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
- Proposed 2026 Discretionary Request by Discretionary Category
Document Introduction
This report is based on the President's Budget Proposal for Fiscal Year 2026 submitted by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in May 2025. It systematically presents the Trump administration's significant adjustments to federal discretionary spending under the America First agenda. The document's core reflects this administration's strategic intent to achieve budget balance and reshape U.S. fiscal management by conducting a line-by-line review to cut spending deemed wasteful or misaligned with the needs of ordinary American workers, while substantially increasing investments in defense and border security.
The main body of the report enumerates budget adjustment recommendations for major federal departments and programs in detailed table format. Overall, the proposal plans to cut baseline non-defense discretionary budget authority by $163 billion (a 22.6% decrease from 2025), while providing large-scale mandatory supplemental funding through the budget reconciliation process for agencies such as the Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security. Defense spending is proposed to increase by 13% to $1.01 trillion; for homeland security, $175 billion is planned to ultimately secure the border completely, with approximately $43.8 billion expected through the reconciliation process in 2026. This restructuring of funds aims to ensure stable resources for military and border security agencies, avoiding the political constraints of the regular appropriations process.
At the specific program level, the adjustments demonstrate distinct ideological and strategic priorities. The diplomacy and international aid sector underwent the most drastic reorganization and cuts: numerous traditional economic support, development assistance, and democracy funds were significantly reduced or consolidated into the newly established America First Opportunity Fund, which will focus on strategic investments serving U.S. national security interests and countering near-peer competitors like China. Concurrently, funding for United Nations peacekeeping operations, assessed contributions to international organizations, and institutions like the National Endowment for Democracy was suspended or canceled, citing reasons such as inefficient use of funds, agendas misaligned with U.S. interests, and alleged infiltration of radical ideologies. Domestically, the Department of Education's budget was cut by $12 billion, with measures including consolidating and simplifying K-12 funding programs, reducing federal grants and work-study programs for low-income and minority students, and devolving more education decision-making authority to the states. Furthermore, numerous programs related to Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI), climate change, environmental protection, affordable housing, public health research (e.g., NIH), and renewable energy faced significant reductions or elimination, justified as eliminating "woke" ideology, reducing federal overreach, and enhancing state autonomy.
Methodologically, this proposal is based on the administration's line-by-line review of FY 2025 expenditures and cites findings from the Government Accountability Office (GAO), Inspector General reports, and other audit bodies as justification for cutting specific programs (such as the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, Job Corps, etc.). The rationale for budget adjustments frequently references relevant Executive Orders, such as those on reassessing foreign aid, terminating government DEI programs, and withdrawing from specific UN bodies, reflecting a high degree of policy and budget coordination.
If implemented, this budget proposal would generate trillions of dollars in savings over the next decade and create conditions for balancing the federal budget. Its core policy implication is an attempt to systematically reverse the role of the federal government: scaling back its spending and influence in global governance, social welfare, and social engineering, while strengthening its investments in defense, border enforcement, traditional infrastructure, and core public health surveillance. This marks a significant shift in the allocation of U.S. fiscal resources, with impacts that will profoundly affect America's global leadership, domestic social policies, and the balance of power between the federal government and the states. The report concludes with detailed summary tables of budget authority, using figures to visually illustrate the final changes in budget levels for each department under the influence of both baseline appropriations and reconciliation funds.