The real problem with the defense budget

The Trump administration is using a novel approach to increase defense spending. The Pentagon is relying on reconciliation, a special legislative process that expedites the passage of high-priority fiscal bills, to add money to programs underfunded in the base defense budget. Congress can pass reconciliation bills with a simple majority vote that, at least in today’s Washington, requires one party to control both houses and the presidency.

Defense hawks in Congress have criticized this approach since the White House’s request for the Pentagon’s base budget will keep spending flat through fiscal year 2026. If the 2026 midterm election results in a divided government, it is unlikely that the $1 trillion in defense spending the base budget and reconciliation request call for could be enacted again.

But the underlying problem with the budget is that the United States is courting strategic insolvency. Trying to maintain U.S. global military dominance has not only backfired geopolitically; it has also worsened the United States’ fiscal health. Fortunately, America’s geographic insularity affords it advantages that will not be undermined if it makes the right cuts and rigorously prioritizes among threats. Indeed, doing so would strengthen U.S. security by avoiding fiscal and geopolitical overstretch.

Ironically, hawks recognize that current spending levels are insufficient to support U.S. global military dominance. To support a “multiple theater force construct,” the congressionally authorized 2024 Commission on the National Defense Strategy argued for increasing defense spending to 3% to 5% above inflation. Hawks in Congress have also called for defense spending to reach 5% of GDP so the United States can take on the “axis of aggressors,” meaning Russia, China, Iran and North Korea.

Read at Stars and Stripes