Follow us on social

Shutterstock_1605904012-scaled

Trump’s proposed budget is fuel for American militarism

Donald Trump never campaigned on cutting Medicare and Social Security and give the savings to the Pentagon. But that's exactly what he has proposed to do.

Analysis | Global Crises

If a budget is a moral document, President Trump’s FY2021 budget proposal is a dark tell-all. Released this week to outcry from experts and advocates alike, the document underscores the president's overt contempt for the most vulnerable in our society and consistent failure to plan for the real human security needs of the 21st century. 

The total proposed budget is a record $4.8 trillion, up from the $4.74 trillion approved budget from last year. Its toplines include a 1 percent increase to the sky-high $738 billion defense budget, a continuation of tax breaks for the ultra-wealthy that equate to an additional $1.4 trillion by 2030, and drastic cuts to Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, at $850 billion, $270 billion, and $30 billion respectively. It also takes a knife to nearly every social service and national program designed to help Americans live full, supported lives, including double-digit percentage cuts to the Departments of State, Labor, and Interior, Housing and Urban Development, and the Environmental Protection Agency. These numbers are not arbitrary, but rather carefully designed to both dismantle the foundations of services many Americans require to live and further enrich the weapons manufacturers and service contractors in the catbird seat. 

Spokespeople for the administration claim that pumping billions more into the existing defense budget is necessary to prepare the country to take on “emerging threats” and strategically navigate relationships with Russia and China. But it’s difficult to believe that throwing money into the military-industrial machine is the solution, especially when the Defense Department is currently riddled with $35 trillion in accounting changes, failed its first audit, buried a report detailing $125 billion in waste, routinely pays contractor salaries at rates three times higher than civilian staff, and continues to produce suped-up trillion-dollar weapons systems that can neither fly nor shoot straight. Yes, really… to all of that.

The choice to funnel more taxpayer dollars into an already-bloated Pentagon while attacking the programs many Americans most urgently need to live communicates absolute disregard for a huge swath of people in this country. It also adheres to the outdated myths of American exceptionalism and faux military “might.” The U.S. already spends more on its military than the next seven countries combined, but continues to significantly inflate the Pentagon’s budget each year. Despite the fact that the U.S. military and its dependent corporations are more heavily funded now than they have been since the end of the Cold War, the proposed top-ups would continue increasing military spending to a whopping 62 percent of the discretionary budget within the next 10 years. 

While President Trump’s proposal for further misallocating our national wealth is not surprising, it is also not representative of the wishes or interests of Americans. Two separate polls conducted by Data for Progress and the Ploughshares Fund found that a majority of American voters support reinvesting at least $200 billion from the Pentagon to pay for domestic and human needs priorities. 

These polls revealed that the average citizen is much more concerned about how to pay for their medical procedures, ensure their employment through the end of the year, afford the ever-increasing cost of higher education, and reduce the existential threat to their lives posed by climate change than they are about a perceived international “enemy.” Contrary to the ideas behind Trump’s budget, external threats from overseas are not dominating Americans’ day-to-day worries any more than their concerns about the economy, their health, or their families. Nor should they be, as these so-called external “threats” are often conjured in the service of the American war machine. Much of the U.S. military’s mandate could be effectively addressed with wisely employed diplomacy and development efforts.

As detailed in the recent Afghanistan Papers and supported by returned veterans, the notion of “U.S. Empire” is flawed by design. Warmaking for the purposes of enforcing international dominance does not work. The so-called “War on Terror” alone has cost over 801,000 lives and $6.4 trillion, with interest accruing daily, and to no discernible strategic objective. 

Reckless and unchecked budgeting like the FY2021 proposal provide hawkish U.S. leaders with blank checks to continue flinging the country into global conflict as both an aggressor and an overzealous enforcer, roles that a majority of citizens and voters strongly disavow and feel burned by. In addition to a dwindling desire for military engagement and a robust re-commitment to anti-war principles, voters are also increasingly unwilling to commit to the heavy lift and squander of national resources required to engage in war. 

Which all begs the question: what, then, does an informed, humane alternative budget look like? Programs with the power to directly improve Americans' lives and wellbeing have price stickers as specific as defense line items, if not more so. 

According to a HUD estimate, $20 billion annually is enough to provide shelter for every person experiencing homelessness in the United States. Injecting $26 billion into the purchasing power of low-income Americans could functionally end hunger nationwide. Conflict analysts estimate that one dollar invested in the prevention of violent conflict through development or diplomacy could save up to $16 dollars in eventual government response. At the core of these statistics is the fact that every dollar allocated to the ballooning Pentagon is a dollar withheld from what could actually make us meaningfully safe: healthcare, climate justice, social services, education, infrastructure, and preventative diplomacy. 

As a country, making the decision to forgo cost-effective investments in the health, longevity, resilience, professional competency, and satisfaction of our citizens is a grave mistake. Not only does it stunt our ability to grow, succeed, thrive, and compete as a nation, it also harms those around the world who consistently bear the brunt of our militaristic whims. Despite the severity and injustice of this trade-off, we roll over to it annually. Fighting for a more aligned budget requires us to continually highlight the unconscionable opportunity costs of flushing money through the war machine and to tangibly plan for a world where these funds are channeled into programs of care, connectedness, and contribution to the flourishing of all Americans. 

Presidential candidates and Members of Congress alike must acknowledge the United States’ shift into a new era of human-centered foreign policy by outlining — in specific dollar values — how much they would cut away from the military-industrial complex. They must also have a plan for how to reinvest these funds back into the people they represent. Budget experts have suggested reinvestments ranging from $100 to $200 to $350 billion and have proposed using that money to fund a clean energy grid, humane immigration approaches, the transition to Medicare for All, or housing and educational reforms

The budget negotiations that have just kicked off will be battled out over the course of the year. Resoundingly, the architects of the FY2021 budget have put their priorities on full display — inequality, corporate payouts, war, and capitulation to a status quo of excess violence and exceptionalism. It’s now our responsibility to advocate — in detail and in dollar values — for the lives we would rather have for ourselves, our family, friends, children, and neighbors. 

Analysis | Global Crises
Diplomacy Watch: Ukraine risks losing the war — and the peace

Diplomacy Watch: Ukraine risks losing the war — and the peace

QiOSK

This week, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky offered his starkest warning yet about the need for new military aid from the United States.

“It’s important to specifically address the Congress,” Zelensky said. “If the Congress doesn’t help Ukraine, Ukraine will lose the war.”

keep readingShow less
What Washington got wrong about Niger and Russia

U.S. Army Lt. Gen. Jonathan Braga, U.S. Army Special Operations commander, meets with Brig. Gen. Moussa Barmou, Niger Special Operations Forces commander, to discuss anti-terrorism policy and tactics throughout the region, at Air Base 101, Niger, June 12, 2023. U.S. Department of Defense agencies partner with the Nigerien Army and Special Operators to bolster anti-violent extremist organization action throughout northwest Africa.
(US Air Force photo by Staff Sgt. Amy Younger)

What Washington got wrong about Niger and Russia

Africa

On March 17 Niger’s National Council for the Safeguard of the Homeland (CNSP) suspended its military agreement with the United States after a visit by senior U.S. officials to the capital, Niamey. A CNSP spokesman said the decision was made after the U.S. delegation warned the military regime against partnering with Russia and Iran. Niger, which hosts around 1,000 U.S. troops and a drone base, has been an important partner in Washington’s counterterrorism operations in the region. But relations have deteriorated considerably since July 2023, when Niger’s presidential guard removed democratically elected Mohamed Bozoum and installed General Abdourahamane Tchiani.

Russian influence looms large in Western discourse on the Sahel, and now informs U.S. policy and decision-making in places like Niger. This is a mistake. Outsized focus on Russia misunderstands the scale and scope of Moscow’s presence. More importantly, it ignores longstanding patterns of governance and denies the role of Africans in emerging pro-sovereignty movements and political blocs.Neither the U.S. nor Russia are in a position to force Africans to choose sides, efforts to do so will only result in rebuke.

keep readingShow less
South Korean president faces setback in elections

South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol casts his early vote for 22nd parliamentary election, in Busan, South Korea, April 5, 2024. Yonhap via REUTERS

South Korean president faces setback in elections

QiOSK

Today, South Korea held its quadrennial parliamentary election, which ended in the opposition liberal party’s landslide victory. The liberal camp, combining the main opposition liberal party and its two sister parties, won enough seats (180 or more) to unilaterally fast-track bills and end filibusters. The ruling conservative party’s defeat comes as no surprise since many South Koreans entered the election highly dissatisfied with the Yoon Suk-yeol administration and determined to keep the government in check.

What does this mean for South Korea’s foreign policy for the remaining three years of the Yoon administration? Traditionally, parliamentary elections have tended to have little effect on the incumbent government’s foreign policy. However, today’s election may create legitimate domestic constraints on the Yoon administration’s foreign policy primarily by shrinking Yoon’s political capital and legitimacy to implement his foreign policy agenda.

keep readingShow less

Israel-Gaza Crisis

Latest