America Needs To Spend More on Defense and Build More With It

America needs to spend more on defense. As a fiscal conservative, I do not say that lightly. Today's force must stay ready while we build the next one, and that costs money. Calling the refusal to pay "discipline" does not make it so.

Plenty of people want to settle this with a comparison of America's military and China's as they stand today. That does not tell us whether we can turn today's force into tomorrow's while keeping the current force ready to fight. We cannot assume American ingenuity will make up for factories that do not exist.

In 2024, China installed 295,000 industrial robots, compared with 34,200 in the United States. China accounted for 54 percent of installations worldwide. Those are factory robots, not military drones, and that distinction should not make anyone comfortable. They are the machinery that makes production possible.

The easy response in Washington is to point to our bigger defense budget. The Defense Intelligence Agency estimates China's actual military spending in 2025 at $325 billion to $400 billion. U.S. defense outlays were $891 billion that fiscal year. Different accounting and costs make those figures an imperfect comparison. More important, neither number tells us whether the money bought the capability we need.

How much a nation spends does not win a war by itself. I want the money to become working weapons we can actually replace when they get used, in the hands of troops trained to fight with them. If a larger appropriation cannot do that, it is not a victory. Fiscal conservatives should be the first people saying that out loud.

They should also recognize that rebuilding production costs money before it saves money. We cannot stop maintaining today's ships and aircraft while waiting for autonomous systems to mature, and we cannot keep postponing new programs because existing commitments consume the budget. For a period, we will have to pay for both. Congress needs to fund that transition instead of treating the cost of delay as zero.

Delay is already built into the system. GAO's July 2026 assessment found that major defense acquisition programs expect to take more than 12 years on average to deliver initial capability, a figure that does not describe every drone purchase. That procurement system cannot be the template for every new technology. Continuing resolutions make it worse by generally restricting new program starts and production increases. Congress cannot keep demanding innovation while making it harder to start buying something new.

Private capital can help expand manufacturing and bring costs down over time. As an investor, I want companies competing to deliver better equipment at a lower price. But a company cannot responsibly build a factory around the hope that a successful demonstration will someday become a production contract. Investors need credible demand, and companies need orders large enough to justify hiring workers and buying equipment. Congress has to fund purchases that make America stronger. Another round of experiments will not get us there.

I am not asking Congress to hand every defense startup a check. New companies should have to prove their systems work, and established contractors should have to do the same. Contracts should reward delivery and lower costs, with consequences for failure. A new company does not get taxpayer money for showing up. An incumbent should not keep receiving it forever just because it always has.

Technologists and private investors are looking seriously at defense, and the Pentagon is seeking more private-sector expertise in acquisition. A receptive department still needs Congress to buy what works. Otherwise, we will spend another few years congratulating ourselves on promising prototypes while the production gap grows.

Reconciliation should be part of that effort where the spending qualifies. There is already a precedent: the 2025 reconciliation law provided $1.4 billion to expand the small-drone industrial base. Congress should use the tools it has to fund new programs and the capacity to produce them with clear delivery requirements. I care more about getting usable equipment into the field than about which legislative vehicle carries the money.

I want America to deter a war with China and to defeat aggression if deterrence fails. That requires maintaining the force we have and paying to build what comes next. I fought for this country so my children would have the chance to be free. If we skip this investment, the bill does not disappear. The next generation just pays it under far worse circumstances.

Larsen Jensen is a combat-decorated U.S. Navy SEAL veteran, two-time Olympic medalist, and Founder of Harpoon Ventures, a venture capital firm with $300 million AUM backing early-stage technology companies. He is also co-Founder of defense-tech company Vector, equipping U.S. and allied forces with next-generation capabilities. He brings mission-driven leadership to founders building the next generation of innovation.

image: Tactical vehicles assigned to Alpha Company, 1st Battalion, 8th Infantry Regiment, 3rd Armored Brigade Combat Team, 4th Infantry Division, maneuver through the desert during Project Convergence Capstone 6 at Fort Irwin, California, July 24, 2026. PC-C6 is the premier Army-hosted experiment that allows the joint force and multinational allies and partners to integrate people, equipment, and technologies to support continuous transformation efforts aimed at shaping how future warfighters will operate in fast-paced, high-tech environments. (U.S. Army photo by Sgt. Kayla Cheesman-Miles)