Congress authorizes $2.5 billion security package for the Philippines

The United States has formalized its largest multi-year security assistance commitment to the Philippines in decades. The FY2026 National Defense Authorization Act, signed into law with total authorization of $900.6 billion, embeds the Philippines Enhanced Resilience Act—a provision enabling up to $500 million per year in Foreign Military Financing grants from FY2026 through FY2030. Over five years, the authorization ceiling reaches approximately $2.5 billion in grant assistance, with some reports citing upper estimates near $3.5 billion when combining multi-year grants, loan authorities, and other programmatic instruments.

This is not simply a larger check. PERA structures assistance around oversight mechanisms that tie funding to the bilateral Security Sector Assistance Roadmap (P-SSAR), a planning framework that aligns capability priorities, tracks spending, and embeds assessment and evaluation. The Secretary of State, coordinating with the Department of Defense, must submit annual spend plans detailing how grants address capability needs identified in the roadmap. The framework shifts U.S. support from episodic transfers to governed, sequenced capability-building—a policy-level strengthening designed to answer whether the Philippines can rapidly translate multi-year assistance into credible maritime denial and air defense effects amid persistent coercion in the West Philippine Sea.

Legislative architecture and capability priorities

PERA's statutory language specifies eight capability areas: coastal defense; long-range fires; integrated air defenses; maritime security; manned and unmanned aerial systems; mechanized ground mobility; intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance; and defensive cyber. These categories map directly to gaps identified in the Philippines' broader force modernization plan, which runs through 2027 and confronts major shortfalls in maritime domain awareness, air defense, and sea denial.

The roadmap discipline is critical. Authorization does not equal appropriation; Congress must still allocate funds each fiscal year. PERA's reporting requirements—annual spend plans and progress updates on roadmap implementation—create checkpoints that should prioritize capabilities that are interoperable, sustainable, and deliverable on realistic timelines. This governance layer is intended to prevent wish-list sprawl and focus resources where absorptive capacity exists.

Media variance on total figures reflects different accounting. The NDAA text authorizes $2.5 billion in FMF grants over five years; USNI and congressional sponsors report that FY2026 could open approximately $1.5 billion under the PERA construct. Higher estimates near $3.5 billion surface when outlets combine multi-year grant projections with separate loan authorities and other security cooperation tools. The core legislative fact is the $500 million-per-year grant ceiling running through FY2030.

Exclusive Analysis Continues:

Members are reading: How sequencing, industrial timelines, and absorptive capacity will determine whether PERA delivers layered deterrence or remains signaling.

Become a Member for Full Access

Signaling versus fielded capability

PERA immediately signals sustained U.S. commitment and may influence PLA and China Coast Guard planning assumptions, particularly in escalation scenarios involving resupply missions or contested air and sea space. But tangible deterrent effects depend on fielded systems and operational concepts validated in bilateral and multilateral exercises. The regional backdrop is compressed decision windows: fire-control radar locks near Okinawa, water-cannon engagements, and shadowing by Coast Guard cutters equipped for coercion.

The 1951 Mutual Defense Treaty and 2014 Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (expanded to nine sites in 2023) provide the treaty and basing framework. PERA operationalizes that framework by channeling sustained funding through a governed roadmap, reducing ad-hoc transfers and aligning capability development with bilateral defense planning. The risk is that appropriations lag authorization, or that industrial and training bottlenecks stretch timelines beyond the urgency dictated by gray-zone dynamics.

Congress has structured PERA to mitigate those risks through oversight, but the burden now shifts to State, Defense, and Manila to execute spend plans that prioritize rapid, sustainable capability rather than catalog items. The measure is a policy-level strengthening; whether it becomes a force-level strengthening depends on annual appropriations, realistic sequencing, and absorptive discipline across the next five years.