spending

BY THE NUMBERS

Spending on AI is forecast to skyrocket to $2.5 trillion in 2026, dwarfing even the largest scientific and infrastructure projects.

World leaders and tech executives are convening in New Delhi for the India-AI Impact Summit 2026, focusing on the role of artificial intelligence in governance, job disruption and global collaboration.

However, behind these discussions lies the financial reality. Over the past decade, AI has drawn one of the largest waves of private investment in modern history, totalling trillions of dollars.

According to Gartner, a United States-based business and technology insights company, worldwide spending on AI is forecast to total $2.5 trillion in 2026, a 44 percent increase over 2025.

To understand the magnitude of these investments, Al Jazeera visualises the staggering amounts by comparing them with some of the largest projects ever created by humanity. We also highlight which countries are spending the most on AI and provide insights into expenditures on data centres, models, services, and security.

What does $1bn look like?

To help understand a trillion dollars, it is useful to first visualise what millions and billions of dollars look like by using a stack of US dollar bills.

If you break these amounts down using $100 bills, here is how they stack up:

• $1,000 would form a stack about 1cm (0.393-inch) high.
• $10,000 would form a stack approximately 10cm (3.93-inch) high.
• $1m would fit inside a briefcase.
• $10m would fit inside a very large suitcase.
• $100m would fit on an industrial pallet stacked waist-high.
• $1bn would create a building approximately 5.2 metres (17 feet) high, with a width and a length of about 2 metres (6.6 feet) each.

Another way to think of it is if you spent $1 every second, it would take:

• 11.5 days to spend $1m
• 31 years to spend $1bn
• 31,000 years to spend $1 trillion

In more tangible terms, $1bn is roughly equivalent to:

• The estimated cost of the Grand Egyptian Museum in Giza, one of the largest archaeological museums in the world
• The cost of constructing two to three modern football stadiums, depending on size and design
• Buying 10 luxury private jets (at $100m each)
• Buying 6.3 tonnes of gold (at $5,000 per ounce)
• Buying 1 million high-end iPhones at retail price

$1.6 trillion already spent on AI

Over the past decade, AI-related investments have surged nearly 13-fold.

According to the 2025 AI Index Report by Stanford University, between 2013 and 2024, total global corporate investment in AI reached $1.6 trillion. This substantial expenditure dwarfs even the largest scientific and infrastructure projects of the 20th and 21st centuries.

To put the scale of AI investment into perspective, consider how it compares with some of the most ambitious and expensive projects in modern history. All figures are adjusted to 2024 US dollars:

• The Manhattan Project (1942-46): $36bn
• The International Space Station (1984-2011): $150bn
• The Apollo Program (1960-73): $250bn
• The US Interstate Highway System (1956-92): $620bn

In just over a decade, investment in AI has surpassed the cost of developing the first atomic bomb, landing humans on the moon and the decades-long effort to build the 75,440km (46,876-mile) US interstate highway network.

Unlike these landmark projects, AI funding has not been driven by a single government or wartime urgency. It has flowed through private markets, venture capital, corporate research and development, and global investors, making it one of the largest privately financed technological waves in history.

Global corporate investments in AI cover a vast array of operations, including mergers and acquisitions, minority stakes, private investments, and public offerings. These monumental expenditures highlight the extensive financial commitment to advance AI.

Which countries are spending the most on AI?

The AI investment surge is concentrated in just a few countries, where private capital has fuelled thousands of startups and shaped global innovation hubs.

The US has dominated AI spending, accounting for roughly 62 percent of total private AI funding since 2013. Between 2013 and 2024, US companies spent $471bn on AI. Chinese companies are the second-largest spenders at $119bn, followed by the United Kingdom at $28bn.

These figures exclude government spending, such as the US CHIPS Act or European national AI subsidies.

Global private investment in AI by country, 2013-24:

• US: $471bn, supporting 6,956 newly funded AI companies
• China: $119bn, 1,605 startups
• UK: $28bn, 885 startups
• Canada: $15bn, 481 startups
• Israel: $15bn, 492 startups
• Germany: $13bn, 394 startups
• India: $11bn, 434 startups
• France: $11bn, 468 startups
• South Korea: $9bn, 270 startups
• Singapore: $7bn, 239 startups
• Others: $58bn

AI spending to total $2.5 trillion in 2026

AI spending is forecast to skyrocket to $2.5 trillion in 2026, driven by a massive global build-out of data centres and services, according to Gartner.

The bulk of the spending is expected to go towards:

• AI infrastructure: $1.37 trillion
• AI services: $589bn
• AI software: $452bn
• AI cybersecurity: $51bn
• AI platforms for data science and machine learning: $31bn
• AI models: $26bn
• AI application development platforms: $8.4bn
• AI data: $3bn

By 2027, Gartner is forecasting that AI spending will surpass $3.3 trillion.

The United States spends more on its military than any other country. Military spending by the U.S. made up almost 40% of the total military spending worldwide in 2023, according to a report by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI). When adjusted to 2024 dollars, the U.S. spent $5.74 trillion on WWII alone. That’s more than WWI, Vietnam, Korean, or the post-9/11 Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

U.S. military spending is expected to increase by 10% over the next decade. Congress approved and signed the Department of Defense’s (DOD) new budget into law for fiscal year 2024, which included $841.4 billion in funding for the Air Force, Navy, Army, Marine Corps, National Guard, and more.

According to projections by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), military expenditures will reach $922 billion (in 2024 dollars) by 2038. Almost 70% of that increase will be for the operation and maintenance of military personnel. The DOD requested $850 billion for 2025 to spend on the military. That’s about 3% of the GDP and relatively low compared to other times in U.S. history. The financial methods used to fund these expenditures will include increasing taxes and the national debt.

This level of military spending has national and global impacts and affects the economy.

Analyzing U.S. Military Spending from WWI to Post-9/11

Looking at military spending by war can show us how wars and defense spending affected the U.S. economy, factors that influenced military spending, and trends in defense spending over the years.

The total amount spent on each major U.S. war has been inflation-adjusted to 2024 dollars. All estimates are of the costs of military operations only and do not reflect the costs of veterans’ benefits, interest on war-related debt, or assistance to allies.

WWI (1917 – 1918): $466.91 Billion

The total cost of World War I was about $466.91 billion in 2024 dollars. When WWI began in 1914, the U.S. was in a recession. However, the economy began to recover and boom after European demand for U.S. goods increased during the war. 

This only intensified when the U.S. entered WWI in 1917, causing a massive increase in federal spending due to shifting the economy from peacetime to wartime production. Entering the war also created new manufacturing jobs and left more jobs open in the labor force, as many young men were drafted into the military. The government also funded the war by increasing taxes and selling Liberty bonds to Americans, who were later paid back the value of their bonds with interest. 

Funding WWI increased the U.S. national debt to over $25 billion by the war’s end. However, the U.S. emerged from WWI as an economic world power. Going into the 1920s, the national debt decreased, the government had a budget surplus, and stock market returns increased. The effect lasted until the economy crashed in 1929, the beginning of the Great Depression.

WWII (1941 – 1945): $5.74 Trillion

The U.S. spent nearly $6 trillion on World War II in 2024 dollars. In the peak year of spending, WWII expenditures made up 35.8% of the national GDP. Federal government spending on WWII was unprecedented.

The U.S. had one of the most significant periods of short-term economic growth between 1941 and 1945, largely fueled by government spending on WWII. The government-funded WWII mainly by increasing taxes and taking on debt. Government debt grew to more than $258 billion by the end of WWII. Tax rates also increased sharply, resulting in even families in poverty having to pay taxes. The average tax rate for top incomes rose up to 90% as well.

War-time production also boomed during this time, with over 36% of the estimated GDP solely dedicated to producing war goods. Over this short period, the U.S. produced 17 million rifles and pistols, over 80,000 tanks, 41 billion rounds of ammunition, 4 million artillery shells, 75,000 vessels, and about 300,000 planes, among other equipment and services needed for the war. However, with so many resources going into war production, it became harder for families to purchase household items like washing machines, irons, water heaters, and food that had to be rationed.   

When the U.S. entered WWII, it was reeling from the effects of the Great Depression, the most severe and prolonged recession in modern world history, from 1929 to 1941. Many attribute government spending on WWII to the end of the Great Depression. However, this broken window fallacy challenges the notion that going to war is good for a nation’s economy.

The theory also suggests that a boost to one part of the economy can cause losses in another part. While WWII reduced unemployment from the Great Depression as many were enlisted or worked in factories, the standard of living declined because of rationing and high taxes. Private sector jobs and production fell, along with overall consumption and investment.

Korean War (1950 – 1953): $476.69 Billion

The U.S. spent about $476.69 billion on the Korean War in 2024 dollars. While it was technically a civil war between the two opposing sides of the Korean peninsula, the U.S. and the United Nations joined in 1950 to support South Korea in a clash over democracy versus communism.

The U.S. funded the Korean War by implementing higher tax rates, contrasting funding by debt as in WWII. To do this, the government enacted the Revenue Act of 1950, increasing income tax rates to WWII levels. Individual and corporate taxes were raised again in 1951.

This was a financially turbulent time as the government had to implement price and wage controls to respond to the inflation created by additional government spending. Consumption and investment, two key factors contributing to the GDP, slowed down during this time and did not go back to pre-war levels.

Vietnam War (1962 – 1973): $1.03 Trillion

The U.S. spent about $1 trillion on the Vietnam war between 1962 to 1973. Military operations for the Vietnam War ramped up more slowly than WWII and the Korean War, with troop deployments starting in 1965. However, the U.S. had been providing aid and military training to South Vietnam since 1954 when Vietnam split into communist North Vietnam and the democratic South.

President John F. Kennedy expanded military aid in Vietnam as the conflict escalated between the North and the South, and President Lyndon B. Johnson continued that trend after Kennedy’s assassination. Escalating U.S. involvement in Vietnam was, in part, due to fears of the domino theory—the belief that if communism took over in Vietnam, it would spread through all of Southeast Asia.

The U.S. funded the war effort mainly by increasing taxes and advancing an expansive monetary policy that eventually led to high inflation in the mid-70s. Non-military spending was also very high during this time (unlike in previous wars, where military spending was significantly higher than non-military spending), largely due to President Johnson’s Great Society social programs, which included domestic policy initiatives such as work-study, Medicare, Medicaid, increased aid to public schools, and more.

Financing the war through increasing taxes and expansionary monetary policy left a lasting effect on the economy. It fueled inflation and caused the market to stagnate, which eventually turned into stubborn stagflation.

Afghanistan and Iraq Wars (2001 – 2021): $3.68 Trillion

The U.S. spent a total of $3.68 trillion in 2024 dollars on the Afghanistan and Iraq Wars over two decades. Military spending reached record levels under President George W. Bush, who launched the war in Afghanistan and the War on Terror in response to the September 11, 2001 attacks and the Iraq War in 2003.

The Afghanistan and Iraq Wars began in weak economic conditions owing to the recession from 2001 to 2002 after the Dotcom Bubble burst. Since this was the first time in U.S. history when taxes were cut during a war, both of these wars were completely funded by deficit spending. The government used an expansionary monetary policy that included low interest rates and fewer bank regulations to help stimulate the economy, but it was unsustainable in the long term for the U.S. government’s finances. The Federal Reserve Board increased interest rates again in 2006 and 2007 to help curb the housing bubble before the Great Recession in 2008. 

Military spending on operations in the Middle East peaked at nearly $964.4 billion in 2010, although it decreased in 2012 after the Budget Control Act of 2011, which was enacted in part to limit military spending to help bring down the growing national debt. However, annual caps on military spending were removed as of 2021. The Iraq War ended in 2011 under President Barack Obama, while the Afghanistan War ended in 2021 under President Joe Biden.

Key Drivers Behind U.S. Military Spending

Breakdown of U.S. Military Spending Components

Every year, the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) proposes a total budget and its specific allocations, which then go through Congress for approval. 

Military spending includes many different categories. The largest category is generally operation and maintenance, including military training and planning, maintenance of equipment, and a majority of the military healthcare system. In 2023, $318 billion was spent on military operation and maintenance.

The next biggest spending category is military personnel, which goes toward pay and retirement benefits for service members. About $184 billion was spent on military personnel in 2023. Other military spending categories include acquiring weapons and systems, research and development of weapons and equipment, and smaller categories such as building military facilities and family housing.

Influences on U.S. Military Expenditure

Military spending can be influenced by several factors, such as wars, international tensions, and government expenditures. For example, military spending dropped significantly during the 1990s after the end of the Cold War before increasing again in the 2000s because of the War on Terror and wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.  

A shift in government priorities can affect military spending. After the Budget Control Act of 2011 was passed, military spending decreased, placing annual limits on defense spending—although these limits no longer exist.

Due to the U.S.’s involvement in other countries’ economic and political landscape, humanitarian aid and development in other countries can further affect future military spending decisions. 

Advancements in science and technology influence military spending, too. Developments in medical research, artificial intelligence, and new technologically advanced military systems affect defense spending. The Defense Appropriations Act for FY 2024 approved $21.43 billion in funding for science and technology, about $3.6 billion above the budget requested by the DOD. The bill also included more than $100 million over the requested amount for adopting artificial intelligence.

Economic Impact of U.S. Military Spending

The U.S. government has historically used a combination of methods to help fund wars including increasing taxes, pulling back on non-military spending, debt, and managing the money supply. All of these methods have affected the economy in various ways.

For example, WWII and the post-9/11 wars were largely funded by debt, whereas the Korean and Vietnam wars were financed by increasing taxes and inflation. One common thread between the wars, however, is that they increased pressure on inflation. Though inflation can be useful for reducing debt, the overall effects harm the economy and cause issues such as eroding purchasing power and reducing international competitiveness.

Military spending can also spur technological growth and innovation, creating demand and new jobs. However, some argue that defense spending on military research can divert talent away from other industries. High levels of military spending during WWII helped end unemployment and even increased income distribution. However, consumption and investment decreased because of resource redirection to the war effort. 

While military spending has had some positive effects over the years, the macroeconomic effects of military spending on major U.S. wars have been largely negative, according to an analysis by the Institute of Economics and Peace. War financing through debt, taxation, or inflation puts pressure on taxpayers, reduces private-sector consumption, and decreases investment.

U.S. Military Spending Relative to GDP

It’s important to note that while current U.S. military spending is higher than at any point of the Cold War (when adjusted for inflation), it is still low when considering defense spending as a percentage of the country’s GDP. The DOD has requested $850 billion in spending for 2025, which is about 3% of the GDP—that’s relatively low compared to other times in U.S. history. Looking at military spending in terms of GDP reveals that the U.S. economy has generally grown faster than military spending, so its share of the GDP has been lower. Military spending in the U.S. increased by 62% between 1980 and 2023, from $506 billion to $820 billion after adjusting for inflation. However, military spending still trails behind overall federal spending, which increased 175% over the same period.

The Bottom Line

The U.S. spends more on its military than any other country. The government has financed major wars by increasing taxes and debt and adjusting the money supply. Although military spending has reduced unemployment and has led to new developments in technology, the financing methods have increased inflationary pressures, causing negative long-term effects such as decreased purchasing power.

The larger macroeconomic consequences of large-scale military spending have included issues such as higher taxes, inflation, and larger government budget deficits.

Several Big Tech companies have reported earnings in recent weeks and provided estimates for their spending in 2026, along with leading analysts’ projections.

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

The data point that seems to have caught Wall Street’s attention the most is the estimated capital expenditure (CapEx) for this year, which collectively represents an investment of over $700bn (€590bn) in AI infrastructure.

That is more than the entire nominal GDP of Sweden for 2025, one of Europe’s largest economies, as per IMF estimates.

Global chip sales are also projected to reach $1tn (€842bn) for the first time this year, according to the US Semiconductor Industry Association.

In addition, major banks and consulting firms, such as JPMorgan Chase and McKinsey, project that total AI CapEx will surpass $5tn (€4.2tn) by 2030, driven by “astronomical demand” for compute.

CapEx refers to funds a company spends to build, improve or maintain long-term assets like property, equipment and technology. These investments are meant to boost the firm’s capacity and efficiency over several years.

The expenditure is also not fully deducted in the same year. CapEx costs are capitalised on the balance sheet and gradually expensed through depreciation, representing a key indicator of how a company is investing in its future growth and operational strength.

The leap this year confirms a definitive pivot that began in 2025, when Big Tech is estimated to have spent around $400bn (€337bn) on AI CapEx.

As Nvidia founder and CEO Jensen Huang has repeatedly stated, including at the World Economic Forum in Davos last month, we are witnessing “the largest infrastructure build-out in human history”.

Hyperscalers bet the house

At the top of the spending hierarchy for 2026 sits Amazon, which alone is guiding to invest a mammoth $200bn (€170bn).

To put the number into perspective, the company’s individual AI CapEx guidance for this year surpasses the combined nominal GDP of the three Baltic countries in 2025, according to IMF projections.

Alphabet, Google’s parent company, follows with $185bn (€155bn), while Microsoft and Meta are set to deploy $145bn (€122bn) and $135bn (€113bn) respectively.

Oracle also raised its 2026 CapEx to $50bn (€42.1bn), nearly $15bn (€12.6bn) above earlier estimates.

Additionally, Tesla projects double the spending with almost $20bn (€16.8bn), primarily to scale its robotaxi fleet and advance the development of the Optimus humanoid robot.

Another of Elon Musk’s companies, xAI, will also spend at least $30bn (€25.2bn) in 2026.

A new $20bn (€16.8bn) data centre named MACROHARDRR will be built in Mississippi, which Governor Tate Reeves stated is “the largest private sector investment in the state’s history”.

xAI will also expand the so-called Colossus, a cluster of data centres in Tennessee that has been described by Musk as the world’s largest AI supercomputer.

Furthermore, the company was acquired by SpaceX in an all-stock transaction at the start of this month.

The merger valued SpaceX at $1tn (€842bn) and xAI at $250bn (€210bn), creating an entity worth $1.25tn (€1.05tn), reputedly the largest private company by valuation in history.

There are also reports that SpaceX intends to IPO sometime this year, with Morgan Stanley allegedly in talks to manage the offering that now includes exposure to xAI.

Elon Musk stated that the goal is to build an “integrated innovation engine” combining AI, rockets and satellite internet, with long-term plans that include space-based data centres powered by solar energy.

Conversely, Apple continues to lag in spending with “only” a projected $13bn (€10.9bn).

However, the company announced a multi-year partnership with Google last month to integrate Gemini AI models into the next generation of Apple Intelligence.

Specifically, the collaboration will focus on overhauling Siri and enhancing on-device AI features. Therefore, one could say that Apple is outsourcing a lot of the investment it needs to be competitive on AI development.

As for Nvidia, it will report earnings and release projections on 25 February.

The company is primarily in the business of selling AI chips, and is expected to get the lion’s share of the Big Tech’s spending. Particularly, for the build-out of data centres.

In last August’s earnings call, CEO Jensen Huang estimated a cost per gigawatt of data centre capacity between $50bn (€42.1bn) and $60bn (€50.5bn), with about $35bn (€29.5bn) of each investment going towards Nvidia hardware.

The great capital rotation

Wall Street has had mixed feelings about the enormous spending Big Tech companies have planned for 2026.

On the one hand, investors understand the necessity and urgency of developing a competitive edge in the artificial intelligence age.

On the other, the sheer scale of the spending has also spooked some shareholders. The market’s tolerance hinges on demonstrable ROI from this year onwards, as the investments are also increasingly financed with massive debt raises.

Morgan Stanley estimates that hyperscalers will borrow around $400bn (€337bn) in 2026, more than double the $165bn (€139bn) that was loaned out in 2025.

This surge could push the total issuance of high-grade US corporate bonds to a record $2.25tn (€1.9tn) this year.

Currently, projected AI revenue for 2026 is nowhere near matching the spending, and there are valid concerns. For instance, the possibility of hardware rapidly depreciating due to innovation, and other high operational costs such as energy usage.

It can be confidently stated that the numbers have a heavy reliance on future success.

As Google CEO Sundar Pichai acknowledged this month, there are “elements of irrationality in the current spending pace”.

Back in November, Alex Haissl, an analyst at Rothschild & Co, became a dissenting voice as he downgraded ratings for Amazon and Microsoft.

In a note to clients, the analyst wrote “investors are valuing Amazon and Microsoft’s CapEx plans as if cloud-1.0 economics still applied”, referring to the low-cost structure of cloud-based services that allowed Big Tech firms to scale in the last two decades.

However, the analyst added “there are a few problems that suggest the AI boom likely won’t play out in the same way, and it is probably far more costly than investors realise”.

This view is also shared by Michael Burry, who is best known for being among the first investors to predict and profit from the subprime mortgage crisis in 2008. Burry has argued that the current AI boom is a potential bubble pointing to unsustainable CapEx.

Big Tech’s AI race is funded by a tremendous amount of leverage. Whether this strategy will pay off, and which companies will be the winners and the losers, only time will tell.

At the moment, Nvidia certainly seems to be a great beneficiary. Moreover, Apple has a distinct approach by increasing third party reliance, through a partnership with Google, instead of massively scaling their spending. It is a different trade-off.

Europe’s industrial deficit

Amid all this spending, urgent questions have also been raised about Europe’s ability to compete in a race that has become a battle of balance sheets.

For the European Union, the transatlantic contrast is sobering. While American firms are mobilising nearly €600bn in a single year, the EU’s coordinated efforts do not even match the financial firepower of the lowest spender among the US tech titans.

Brussels has attempted to rally with the AI Factories initiative, and the AI Continent Action Plan launched last April, which aim to mobilise public-private investments.

However, the numbers tell a stark story. Total European spending on sovereign cloud data infrastructure is forecast to reach just €10.6bn in 2026.

While this is a respectable 83% increase year-on-year, it remains a rounding error compared to the US AI build-out.

Last year, at the time when the initiatives mentioned were being discussed, the CEO of the French unicorn Mistral AI, Arthur Mensch, stated that “US companies are building the equivalent of a new Apollo program every year”.

Mensch also added that “Europe is building excellent regulation with the AI Act, but you cannot regulate your way to computing supremacy”.

Mistral represents one of the only flickers of European resistance in the AI race. The French company is employing the same strategy as most of Big Tech and aggressively expanding its physical footprint.

In September 2025, Mistral AI raised a €1.7bn Series C at a valuation of almost €12bn, with the Dutch semiconductor giant ASML leading the round by singly investing €1.3bn.

During the World Economic Forum in Davos last month, Mistral’s CEO confirmed a €1bn CapEx plan for 2026.

Just last week, the company also announced a major €1.2bn investment to build a data centre in Borlänge, Sweden.

In a partnership with the Swedish operator, EcoDataCenter, the facility will be designed to offer “sovereign compute” compliant with the EU’s strict data standards, and leveraging Sweden’s abundant green energy.

Set to open in 2027, this data centre will provide the high-performance computing required to train and deploy Mistral’s next-generation AI models.

This is an important move for the company, as it is the first infrastructure project outside France, and it is also a core venture for European data sovereignty.

Meanwhile, US tech titans are attempting to placate European regulators by offering “sovereign-light” solutions. Several Big Tech projects have been rolled out for “localised cloud zones”, for example in Germany and Portugal, promising data residency.

However, critics argue these remain technically dependent on US parent companies, leaving the European industry vulnerable to the whims of the American economy and foreign policy.

As 2026 unfolds, the stakes are clear. The US is betting the house, and its credit rating, on AI dominance.

Europe, cautious and capital-constrained, is hoping that targeted investments and regulation will be enough to carve out a sovereign niche in a world increasingly run on American technology.

PHOENIX — Coming off an offseason in which the Dodgers spent over $300 million on just two free agents, the two-time defending champions’ luxurious spending has undoubtedly been a topic of conversation and consternation around Major League Baseball.

However, when asked about the Dodgers’ record-setting payroll Sunday, the Philadelphia Phillies’ Bryce Harper and the San Diego Padres’ Manny Machado were complimentary of the way the Dodgers do business.

“I love it,” Machado told reporters at the team’s facility in Peoria, Ariz. “They figured out a way to do it. … I think every team has the ability to do it. I hope all 30 teams could learn from that.”

Machado spent a half of a season with the Dodgers in 2018 before inking a $300-million contract with the Padres. That same winter, the Dodgers met with Harper, who eventually signed a $330-million contract with the Phillies. Harper shared the same sentiment as Machado when he spoke with reporters in Clearwater, Fla.

“I love what the Dodgers do, obviously,” Harper said. “They pay the money, they spend the money. I mean, they’re a great team. They run their team like a business, and they run it the right way.”

Dodgers general manager Brandon Gomes, while speaking with media at Camelback Ranch Sunday, made it clear that his organization isn’t searching for approval from any outside sources.

“We’re not looking externally for validation,” Gomes said. “The validation is winning championships and putting out as good a team as we can each and every year, and all we’re trying to do is get a little bit better each and every season, with the goal of winning championships. [Our] coaching staff, our players I think view it as that. Good, bad or indifferent, the external stuff is something we can’t worry about.”

Gomes also credited Dodgers ownership for providing the financial resources to help the front office continue to bolster its roster each winter.

“[We’ve had] incredible support from ownership,” Gomes said. “We’ve always [been] in the position to address the needs that will help us go out and win another championship, so I think a lot of it is looking at what’s needed in the roster and what’s available. We’ve been in the fortunate position to be able to acquire guys that fit that really well.”

WASHINGTON — Speaker Mike Johnson’s ability to carry out President Trump’s “play call” for funding the government will be put to the test on Tuesday as the House votes on a bill to end the partial shutdown.

Johnson will need near-unanimous support from his Republican conference to proceed to a final vote, but he and other GOP leaders sounded confident during a Tuesday morning press conference that they will succeed. Johnson can afford to lose only one Republican on party line votes with perfect attendance, but some lawmakers had threatened to tank the effort if their priorities are not included. Trump weighed in with a social media post, telling them, “There can be NO CHANGES at this time.”

“We will work together in good faith to address the issues that have been raised, but we cannot have another long, pointless, and destructive Shutdown that will hurt our Country so badly — One that will not benefit Republicans or Democrats. I hope everyone will vote, YES!,” Trump wrote on his social media site.

The measure would end the partial government shutdown that began Saturday, funding most of the federal government through Sept. 30 and the Department of Homeland Security for two weeks as lawmakers negotiate potential changes for the agency that enforces the nation’s immigration laws — U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE.

“The Republicans are going to do the responsible thing,” Johnson said.

Running Trump’s ‘play call’

The House had previously approved a final package of spending bills for this fiscal year ending Sept. 30, but the Senate broke up that package so that more negotiations could take place for the Homeland Security funding bill. Democrats are demanding changes in response to events in Minneapolis, where two American citizens were shot and killed by federal agents.

Johnson said on Fox News Channel’s “Fox News Sunday” it was Trump’s “play call to do it this way. He had already conceded he wants to turn down the volume, so to speak.” But GOP leaders sounded as if they still had work to do in convincing the rank-and-file to join them as House lawmakers returned to the Capitol on Monday after a week back in their congressional districts.

“We always work till the midnight hour to get the votes,” said House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, R-La. “You never start the process with everybody on board. You work through it, and you could say that about every major bill we’ve passed.”

The funding package passed the Senate on Friday. Trump says he’ll sign it immediately if it passes the House. Some Democrats are expected to vote for the final bill but not for the initial procedural measure setting the terms for the House debate, making it the tougher test for Johnson and the White House.

Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries has made clear that Democrats wouldn’t help Republicans out of their procedural jam, even though Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer helped negotiate the funding bill.

Jeffries, of New York, noted that the procedural vote covers a variety of issues that most Democrats oppose, including resolutions to hold former President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in contempt of Congress over the Jeffrey Epstein investigation.

“If they have some massive mandate,” Jeffries said of Republicans, “then go pass your rule, which includes toxic bills that we don’t support.”

Key differences from the last shutdown

The path to the current partial shutdown differs from the fall impasse, which affected more agencies and lasted a record 43 days.

Then, the debate was over extending temporary coronavirus pandemic-era subsidies for those who get health coverage through the Affordable Care Act. Democrats were unsuccessful in getting those subsidies included as part of a package to end the shutdown.

Congress has made important progress since then, passing six of the 12 annual appropriations bills that fund federal agencies and programs. That includes important programs such as nutrition assistance and fully operating national parks and historic sites. They are funded through Sept. 30.

But the remaining unpassed bills represent roughly three-quarters of federal spending, including the Defense Department. Service members and federal workers could miss paychecks depending upon the length of the current funding lapse.

Voting bill becomes last-minute obstacle

Some House Republicans have demanded that the funding package include legislation requiring voters to show proof of citizenship before they are eligible to participate in elections. Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, R-Fla., had said the legislation, known as the SAVE Act, must be included in the appropriations package.

But Luna appeared to drop her objections late Monday, writing on social media that she had spoken with Trump about a “pathway forward” for the voting bill in the Senate that would keep the government open. Luna and Rep. Tim Burchett, R-Tenn., met with Trump at the White House.

The Brennan Center for Justice, a think tank focused on democracy and voting rights issues, said the voting bill’s passage would mean that Americans would need to produce a passport or birth certificate to register to vote and that at least 21 million voters lack ready access to those papers.

“If House Republicans add the SAVE Act to the bipartisan appropriations package it will lead to another prolonged Trump government shutdown,” said Schumer, of New York. “Let’s be clear, the SAVE Act is not about securing our elections. It is about suppressing voters.”

Johnson, of Louisiana, has operated with a thin majority throughout his tenure as speaker. But with Saturday’s special election in Texas, the Republican majority stands at a threadbare 218-214, shrinking the GOP’s ability to withstand defections.

Freking writes for the Associated Press. AP video journalist Nathan Ellgren and writer Lisa Mascaro contributed to this report.