EPS Fellow Bill Hartung shares views on increased military spending in Forbes

Spending $1.5 Trillion on the Pentagon Will Make America Weaker

By Bill Hartung (link to article)

This week the President took to Truth Social to announce that he would seek a $1.5 trillion military budget for Fiscal Year 2027, an astounding number that would be 50% higher than current levels, a jump not seen since the mobilization for World War II.

The president justified his call for an enormous plus-up for the Pentagon as follows:

“After long and difficult negotiations with Senators, Congressmen, Secretaries, and other Political Representatives, I have determined that, for the Good of our Country, especially in these very troubled and dangerous times, our Military Budget for the year 2027 should not be $1 Trillion Dollars, but rather $1.5 Trillion Dollars. This will allow us to build the ‘Dream Military’ that we have long been entitled to and, more importantly, that will keep us SAFE and SECURE, regardless of foe.”

The president’s Republican allies have welcomed the announcement. Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) and Rep. Mike Rogers (R-AL), chairs of the Senate and House Armed Services committees, respectively, issued a press release in support of the president’s proposal, stating that “[we] commend President Trump for committing to a $1.5 trillion defense budget. This is exactly the kind of investment it will take to rebuild our military and restore American leadership on the world stage.”

Neither the president nor his Congressional allies have provided a coherent argument for such a huge increase.  The United States is already spending a near record $1 trillion on the Pentagon, nearly three times China, which the Pentagon refers to as its “pacing threat,” spends annually for military purposes.  But of course money is not a direct measure of military strength.  The key is to spend defense dollars wisely, and in support of a realistic strategy.

The president’s call for such a huge increase contradicts some of the rhetoric in the Pentagon’s recent National Security Strategy document, which called for curbing endless wars and limiting U.S. military action to “core interests.” If that rhetoric were put into practice, the Pentagon budget could be reduced, not increased by $500 billion.   

There are also serious questions as to whether the U.S. arms industry could use such a huge injection of funds. Many arms facilities are already maxed out, with little or no ability to produce beyond current levels. And there have been shortages of skilled workers in areas like submarine production.

In addition, some of the systems the new funds may be invested in will do little to make America safer. The President’s proposal for a leak proof Golden Dome missile defense system is a pipe dream. Most  scientists who don’t work for the Pentagon or the arms industry have conveniently argued that a perfect missile shield is physically impossible.  And an analysis from the conservative American Enterprise Institute has estimated that a Golden Dome system could cost anywhere from $292 billion to $3.6 trillion.

Similarly, the Pentagon is going full speed ahead with a new intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) that is already far over its original cost estimate, even as experts like former secretary of defense have said that ICBMs are the most dangerous weapon we have because the president would have only a matter of minutes to decide whether to launch them upon warning of attack, increasing the chances of an accidental nuclear war caused by a false alarm.

Golden Dome and the new ICBM are just two of many systems that should be reconsidered as the Pentagon develops a more realistic strategy appropriate to a rapidly changing global security landscape.

The Pentagon doesn’t need more spending, it needs more spending discipline.  Even more importantly, we need a new strategy that doesn’t involve a quest to be able to fight anywhere in the world on short notice.  Instead of cheering on the huge proposed increase for the Pentagon, Congress should be asking tough questions on exactly what the new spending is likely to achieve when it comes to making America and its allies secure.  It is highly likely that they will find that we can craft a better defense for less.  Money alone won’t provide safety.  We need a clear eyed analysis of the greatest challenges we face, and a strategy that merges military strength, smart diplomacy and widespread economic engagement.  We have a long time to go, and the task could not be more urgent.