United States Government: Overview of the Fiscal Year Budget Proposal

Key Chapter Title List

1. Major Discretionary Funding Changes
2. Department of State and U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID)
3. Department of Education (ED)
4. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)
5. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
6. Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
7. Department of Justice (DOJ)
8. Department of Defense (DOD)
9. Department of Energy
10. Department of Transportation
11. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
12. Proposed 2026 Discretionary Request by Discretionary Category

Document Introduction

This report systematically presents the Trump administration's significant adjustments to federal discretionary spending under the "America First" agenda, based on the Fiscal Year 2026 Presidential Budget Proposal document submitted by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in May 2025. The core of the document reflects this administration's strategic intent to achieve budget balance and reshape U.S. fiscal management by cutting spending deemed "wasteful" or "contrary to the needs of ordinary American workers" through a "line-by-line review," while substantially increasing investments in defense and border security.

The main body of the report itemizes budget adjustment proposals for major federal departments and programs in detailed tabular form. Overall, the proposal plans to cut base 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; in the homeland security domain, $175 billion is planned for "finally securing the border completely," with approximately $43.8 billion expected to be obtained through the reconciliation process in 2026. This restructuring of funding aims to ensure stable resources for military and border security agencies, avoiding the political bargaining inherent in the regular appropriations process.

At the specific program level, the adjustments exhibit distinct ideological and strategic priority orientations. The diplomacy and international aid sector underwent the most drastic restructuring 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 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 students and minorities, and devolving more education decision-making authority to the states. Furthermore, numerous programs involving "Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion" (DEI), climate change, environmental protection, affordable housing, public health research (e.g., NIH), and renewable energy face significant cuts or cancellation, justified as eliminating "woke" ideology, reducing excessive federal intervention, and enhancing state autonomy.

In terms of analytical methodology, 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 agencies as the basis for cutting specific programs (such as the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, Job Corps, etc.). The rationale statements for budget adjustments frequently reference relevant Executive Orders, such as those on reassessing foreign aid, terminating government DEI programs, and withdrawing from specific UN organizations, reflecting a high degree of policy-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 lies in attempting to systematically reverse the role of the federal government: contracting 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 a detailed summary table of budget authority, visually presenting the final changes in budget levels for each department under the influence of both base appropriations and reconciliation funds.