Follow us on social

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

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)|
Analysis | Global Crises
Iran
Top image credit: An Iranian man (not pictured) carries a portrait of the former commander of the IRGC Aerospace Forces, Brigadier General Amir Ali Hajizadeh, and participates in a funeral for the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) commanders, Iranian nuclear scientists, and civilians who are killed in Israeli attacks, in Tehran, Iran, on June 28, 2025, during the Iran-Israel ceasefire. (Photo by Morteza Nikoubazl/NurPhoto VIA REUTERS)

First it was regime change, now they want to break Iran apart

Middle East

Washington’s foreign policy establishment has a dangerous tendency to dismantle nations it deems adversarial. Now, neoconservative think tanks like the Washington-based Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) and their fellow travelers in the European Parliament are openly promoting the balkanization of Iran — a reckless strategy that would further destabilize the Middle East, trigger catastrophic humanitarian crises, and provoke fierce resistance from both Iranians and U.S. partners.

As Israel and Iran exchanged blows in mid-June, FDD’s Brenda Shaffer argued that Iran’s multi-ethnic makeup was a vulnerability to be exploited. Shaffer has been a vocal advocate for Azerbaijan in mainstream U.S. media, even as she has consistently failed to disclose her ties to Azerbaijan’s state oil company, SOCAR. For years, she has pushed for Iran’s fragmentation along ethnic lines, akin to the former Yugoslavia’s collapse. She has focused much of that effort on promoting the secession of Iranian Azerbaijan, where Azeris form Iran’s largest non-Persian group.

keep readingShow less
Ratcliffe Gabbard
Top image credit: Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and CIA director John Ratcliffe join a meeting with U.S. President Donald Trump and his intelligence team in the Situation Room at the White House in Washington, D.C., U.S. June 21, 2025. The White House/Handout via REUTERS

Trump's use and misuse of Iran intel

Middle East

President Donald Trump has twice, within the space of a week, been at odds with U.S. intelligence agencies on issues involving Iran’s nuclear program. In each instance, Trump was pushing his preferred narrative, but the substantive differences in the two cases were in opposite directions.

Before the United States joined Israel’s attack on Iran, Trump dismissed earlier testimony by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, in which she presented the intelligence community’s judgment that “Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and Supreme Leader Khamanei has not authorized the nuclear weapons program he suspended in 2003.” Questioned about this testimony, Trump said, “she’s wrong.”

keep readingShow less
Mohammad Bin Salman Trump Ayatollah Khomenei
Top photo credit: Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad Bin Salman (President of the Russian Federation/Wikimedia Commons); U.S. President Donald Trump (Gage Skidmore/Flickr) and Iran’s Ayatollah Khamenei (Wikimedia Commons)

Let's make a deal: Enrichment path that both Iran, US can agree on

Middle East

The recent conflict, a direct confrontation that pitted Iran against Israel and drew in U.S. B-2 bombers, has likely rendered the previous diplomatic playbook for Tehran's nuclear program obsolete.

The zero-sum debates concerning uranium enrichment that once defined that framework now represent an increasingly unworkable approach.

Although a regional nuclear consortium had been previously advanced as a theoretical alternative, the collapse of talks as a result of military action against Iran now positions it as the most compelling path forward for all parties.

Before the war, Iran was already suggesting a joint uranium enrichment facility with Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) on Iranian soil. For Iran, this framework could achieve its primary goal: the preservation of a domestic nuclear program and, crucially, its demand to maintain some enrichment on its own territory. The added benefit is that it embeds Iran within a regional security architecture that provides a buffer against unilateral attack.

For Gulf actors, it offers unprecedented transparency and a degree of control over their rival-turned-friend’s nuclear activities, a far better outcome than a possible covert Iranian breakout. For a Trump administration focused on deals, it offers a tangible, multilateral framework that can be sold as a blueprint for regional stability.

keep readingShow less

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.