Follow us on social

google cta
Congress's big opportunity to de-militarize our security budget

Congress's big opportunity to de-militarize our security budget

In the wake of the coronavirus crisis and Black Lives Matter protests, many members of Congress have paid lip service to change. They can act with crucial NDAA votes this week.

Analysis | Global Crises
google cta
google cta

What keeps us safe? Looking at the rapidly rising coronavirus rate and the widespread protests against systemic racism and police brutality, it definitely hasn’t been missiles, bombers, aircraft carriers, and nuclear weapons. 

And yet, Congress is currently debating a tone deaf $740 billion defense spending authorization bill for the coming fiscal year. Even though the United States is experiencing a grave assault on our national security, we are utterly unprepared to meet the challenge. 

The public health crises we’re facing are a wake-up call for the long overdue imperative of shifting spending away from the Pentagon and investing instead in priority human security needs. With Congress poised to pass its defense spending authorization bill for the coming fiscal year, now is the time to begin that process.

Two important lessons are emerging from the Movement for Black Lives’ call to “defund the police” — a demand that hits raw nerves but on reflection turns out to be common sense.

First, spending lots of money on public safety measures that rely on violence and the use of force drains money from other approaches that address underlying problems, reduce conflict, and offer a much greater return on investment.

The more than $100 billion the United States spends on policing is money not spent on housing, education, crisis intervention, addiction treatment, and economic opportunity. Similarly, the three-quarters of a trillion dollars in Pentagon spending sucks money away from investments in pandemic preparedness, public health, averting climate catastrophe, eliminating domestic and global hunger, and much more.

The coronavirus crisis has laid bare the very real cost of our underinvestment in public health and other needs. The budget for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is around $8 billion — barely 1 percent of the total Pentagon budget. The CDC budget targeting new infectious diseases is $570 million — less than one-tenth of 1 percent of total Pentagon spending.

The budgets for the CDC, public health, environmental protection, education, and other human security investments are cramped because the Pentagon is gobbling up so much money. Military spending makes up 53 percent of the discretionary federal budget. That's more money than we spend on, for example, education, federal courts, affordable housing, local economic development, and the State Department combined.

Second, an overreliance on the use of force actually undermines public safety; it’s difficult to avoid using tools of violence. Over-policing in Black and brown communities leads to degrading stop-and-frisks, countless arrests for petty offenses, avoidable violence and too often death, overincarceration, and the effective criminalization of Black and brown people. Overinvestment in the military has similarly paved the way for a seemingly endless “War on Terror” across the Middle East and North Africa that both cost millions of lives around the world and left the United States less safe.

The Pentagon budget is simply too big. The U.S. spends more on the military than the next nine countries combined. There are hundreds of billions in easily obtainable savings in the Pentagon budget, including tens of billions wasted on expensive private contractors, a giant Pentagon slush fund, and a vast array of unneeded,expensive weapons. Cutting those budget items would cut into the profits of the military contractors, but it wouldn’t injure the security of the nation one bit. In fact, it would strengthen national security.

As a modest step, Congress should adopt a proposal from Reps. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) and Mark Pocan (D-Wis.), along with Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), to redirect 10 percent of the Pentagon budget to community needs. Lawmakers will get that chance in the next few days, as the National Defense Authorization Act heads to the floor of both the House and the Senate for a vote and tees up a showdown on this proposal. It’s an unprecedented opportunity for Congress to take a concrete step toward fundamentally transforming the way we allocate our money as a nation by prioritizing programs that improve people’s lives instead of further bolstering systems of violence.

These are lessons that should have long been apparent, but now the Black Lives Matter protests and the utterly ineffectual U.S. response to the coronavirus have thrown them into sharp relief. A nation with the most advanced military weaponry in the world, with overwhelming military superiority on the oceans and in the skies, which can listen in on conversations anywhere on the planet, has shown itself utterly unprepared to handle a microscopic threat. It’s time to establish sensible priorities and shift money away from the Pentagon and to the nation’s many urgent needs.


Miami Downtown, FL, USA - MAY 31, 2020: Police and military in Miami during a protest against violence and racism (Photo credit: Tverdokhlib / Shutterstock.com)|
google cta
Analysis | Global Crises
G7 Summit
Top photo credit: May 21, 2023, Hiroshima, Hiroshima, Japan: (From R to L) Comoros' President Azali Assoumani, World Trade Organization (WTO) Director-General Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, Australia's Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and India's Prime Minister Narendra Modi at the G7 summit in Hiroshima, Japan. (Credit Image: © POOL via ZUMA Press Wire)

Middle Powers are setting the table so they won't be 'on the menu'

Asia-Pacific

The global order was already fragmenting before Donald Trump returned to the White House. But the upended “rules” of global economic and foreign policies have now reached a point of no return.

What has changed is not direction, but speed. Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney’s remarks in Davos last month — “Middle powers must act together, because if we’re not at the table, we’re on the menu” — captured the consequences of not acting quickly. And Carney is not alone in those fears.

keep readingShow less
Vice President JD Vance Azerbaijan Armenia
U.S. Vice President JD Vance gets out of a car before boarding Air Force Two upon departure for Azerbaijan, at Zvartnots International Airport in Yerevan, Armenia, February 10, 2026. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque/Pool

VP Vance’s timely TRIPP to the South Caucasus

Washington Politics

Vice President JD Vance’s regional tour to Armenia and Azerbaijan this week — the highest level visit by an American official to the South Caucasus since Vice President Joe Biden went to Georgia in 2009 — demonstrates that Washington is not ignoring Yerevan and Baku and is taking an active role in their normalization process.

Vance’s stop in Armenia included an announcement that Yerevan has procured $11 million in U.S. defense systems — a first — in particular Shield AI’s V-BAT, an ISR unmanned aircraft system. It was also announced that the second stage of a groundbreaking AI supercomputer project led by Firebird, a U.S.-based AI cloud and infrastructure company, would commence after having secured American licensing for the sale and delivery of an additional 41,000 NVIDIA GB300 graphics processing units.

keep readingShow less
United Nations
Monitors at the United Nations General Assembly hall display the results of a vote on a resolution condemning the annexation of parts of Ukraine by Russia, amid Russia's invasion of Ukraine, at the United Nations Headquarters in New York City, New York, U.S., October 12, 2022. REUTERS/David 'Dee' Delgado||

We're burying the rules based order. But what's next?

Global Crises

In a Davos speech widely praised for its intellectual rigor and willingness to confront established truths, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney finally laid the fiction of the “rules-based international order” to rest.

The “rules-based order” — or RBIO — was never a neutral description of the post-World War II system of international law and multilateral institutions. Rather, it was a discourse born out of insecurity over the West’s decline and unwillingness to share power. Aimed at preserving the power structures of the past by shaping the norms and standards of the future, the RBIO was invariably something that needed to be “defended” against those who were accused of opposing it, rather than an inclusive system that governed relations between all states.

keep readingShow less
google cta
Want more of our stories on Google?
Click here to make us a Preferred Source.

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.