The defense budget for this fiscal year, which ends in September, was roughly $1.1 trillion. For the next budget year, the Trump administration is requesting $1.5 trillion.
Of that, the administration wants $350 billion to be included in a new budget reconciliation maneuver, so it doesn’t require any support from congressional Democrats. The administration also has requested a supplemental appropriation for this budget year of $86 billion, mostly to cover the expenses of the Iran war.
Instead, Congress should put the military on a maintenance budget, at least for the duration of Trump’s presidency.
There are several reasons for this. One is Trump’s erraticism, untrustworthiness, and incompetence as commander-in-chief.
In just the last few days, Trump has threatened to bomb Oman and ordered an unspecified reduction in a training exercise in South Korea the day before it began.
Oman poses no threat to the United States. It is just seeking to negotiate with Iran what the Trump administration has failed to achieve, reopening the Strait of Hormuz to commercial traffic. If Oman negotiates a deal the United States doesn’t like, the appropriate response isn’t to bomb the shit out of it, Trump’s typically undiplomatic and unconstructive formulation.
Trump ordered the curtailing of the training exercise in deference to North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un, whom Trump described as “unthreatening and respectful”. Which is as true as Trump’s assertion that the Strait of Hormuz is open and fully under U.S. control.
These training exercises, however, aren’t a piece of geopolitical theater. They are important preparations for battle. A recent training exercise in Europe exposed the vulnerability of U.S. ground troops to the sort of drone warfare taking place in the Russia-Ukraine conflict. Over the course of the exercise, U.S. troops learned how to reduce the vulnerability.
Given the debacle of the Iran war, if a lack of firepower reduces Trump’s options to deploy military force, that’s good. Particularly since Trump acknowledges no need to have congressional approval to engage in military conflict.
Trump’s continued campaign in Iran is a blatant violation of the War Powers Resolution, which requires a cessation of hostilities if not approved by Congress within 60 days. Trump is dodging the act by claiming that hostilities had ceased within the required framework. However, a blockade of Iran continues, which clearly is an act of war requiring congressional approval.
A second reason is that acceding to Trump’s defense spending requests might trigger highly damaging fiscal and economic consequences. The most recent estimate of next year’s deficit by the Congressional Budget Office puts it at nearly $1.9 trillion. Trump’s defense request would move that to an inconceivable $2.3 trillion. The notion that Trump and congressional Republicans would adopt any meaningful offsets is, given the track record, laughable.
The interest investors are requiring to loan the federal government money is already rising at an accelerating rate. Given the structure of the federal debt, the intermediate borrowing needs of the national government are immense, consisting not only of financing the current year’s deficit but refinancing rapidly maturing bonds covering past deficits. Passing Trump’s defense request could trigger the same turmoil in U.S. sovereign debt that the Truss proposed budget produced in Britain.
The military threat to the U.S. homeland is extremely small. The budget question is primarily the extent to which we exert power globally, principally to deter and contain Russia in Europe and China in the Indo-Pacific.
However, it is clear that Trump has no commitment to deterring or containing either Russia or China. He tried to force Ukraine to capitulate to Putin’s territorial demands. He perpetually berates our erstwhile allies in the Indo-Pacific while praising North Korea’s nuclear-armed dictator. He sees China as an economic competitor, but is indifferent to its quest for greater geopolitical influence in the region.
The Quincy Institute pegs the yearly cost to robustly defend the homeland while exercising what it calls restraint in overseas commitments at around $850 billion, 43% less than the Trump request. That would still make the United States the world’s largest military spender by a long shot.
A just objection to this perspective is that much of the Trump budget request is for things that won’t come to fruition during his presidency. They are investments in military capabilities for future presidents.
However, they are still premised not on protecting the homeland, but on exerting global power principally to deter and contain Russia and China. The question is whether that is a role the American people continue to support. And whether the shaky finances of the national government can sustain it.
Except during times of war, the role of the president as commander-in-chief is very much a secondary voting consideration. American presidents are primarily chosen based on domestic issues. The American people have elected Trump to be president twice. To the extent Trump’s role as prospective commander-in-chief entered into the calculation, Trump conveyed the impression he would be circumspect in the exercise of military force. In the second term, that turned out to be a false impression.
Perhaps, post-Trump, a new bipartisan consensus about helping to protect fellow democracies will develop. Right now, however, that seems highly doubtful.
The United States will always want to maintain a qualitative edge in weaponry. And there could be a post-Trump bipartisan consensus in favor of sharing this qualitative edge with fellow democracies.
However, maintaining the military capability and willingness to go to battle on behalf of other countries seems unsustainable, politically and financially.
In reality, European and Indo-Pacific democracies are probably already on their own. The American defense budget should reflect that reality.
Reach Robb at robtrobb@gmail.com.