McCarthy gaveled his first session as speaker earlier this week after he emerged victorious in a fierce four-day inner-party struggle that he won by giving concessions to a small group of conservative lawmakers.
On Monday, several media outlets reported that McCarthy won over holdout Republicans in the Freedom Caucus by agreeing to cut $75 billion from the defense budget proposal, among other rules that would boost transparency and devolve decision-making in the lower chamber.
"McCarthy's concessions may have a significant impact on defense spending if they are followed, especially with regard to allowing the Congress time to read and debate single or more narrowly defined bills - as opposed to massive, unread and undebated omnibus bills," former Pentagon analyst and retired US Air Force Lt. Colonel, Karen Kwiatkowski, told Sputnik.
Concessions related to limits on federal borrowing, along with the congressional debate, will also force hard questions about US defense spending, including funding for NATO, Ukraine and Syria operations, she added.
Kwiatkowski pointed out that the main drive to cut spending and, eventually foreign commitments, was coming from conservative Republicans rather than leftist Democrats.
"I think we are seeing that only the most patriotic and conservative members of Congress will be able to actually reduce defense spending and rationalize it. They now have the tools to get started, and they have exhibited their very real power," she said.
Financial analyst and former merchant banker Martin Hutchinson said the concessions the conservative rebels have extracted will have a considerable effect across the board on how the House does business.
However, he added, they will only have a modest impact on US policy because the House has little power when the Senate and President Joe Biden are against defense spending reductions.
At a minimum, Hutchinson said the concessions could hinder the process in the House and change the attitude towards the conflict in Ukraine.
"I also think the neocon gung-ho pro-Ukraine approach to foreign policy will be significantly curbed," he added.
Hutchinson said less spending for Ukraine means reducing the risk of sparking World War III and possibly forcing President Volodymyr Zelensky to "behave himself."
Long-Term Political Impact, Short-Term Nothing Will Change
Kwiatkowski predicted that in the long run, other domestic political trends would also force overdue cuts in defense spending.
"As the US economy continues to struggle through recession, inflation and higher interest rates, populist pressure will fall on both parties to put US taxpayer's money into domestic concerns, not foreign interventions and big ticket military spending for 20th century offensive bombers and aircraft carriers," she said.
McCarthy and Democratic leaders in the House alike were going to face increasing pressure to rein in spending and reduce international commitments from the emerging younger generation of politicians in Congress, Kwiatkowski argued.
"Successful politicians in coming elections have received the message that elitism and waste is unpopular," she added.
However, retired veteran Department of Defense analyst Chuck Spinney said he anticipated little change in spending levels in the short term given the Ukraine conflict and its companion the "New Cold War." Not to mention how deeply rooted in the budget high defense spending is, he added.
"The budgetary tail of the seed money [is] already politically engineered into the higher cost modernization bow wave for the next 20-plus years," Spinney told Sputnik.
Former CIA officer and Council for the National Interest Chairman Philip Giraldi said resistance to defense spending cuts would be widespread across the military-industrial complex.
"The overall defense budget… I believe is firmly embedded in the DNA of both parties for various reasons, mostly relating to defense jobs and political donations by defense contractors and their friends," Giraldi told Sputnik.
The main defense budget remained largely untouchable and would continue to grow but the Republican Party leadership was growing wary of the special add-ons to fund endless wars, especially the throwing of more than $100 billion at a very corrupt Ukraine without any accounting of how the money was being wasted, Giraldi said.