Follow us on social

Shutterstock_1755637343-scaled

Tax burden from the Pentagon budget authorized by the NDAA wipes out COVID stimulus payments

Despite widespread calls to modestly reduce the Pentagon's overflowing coffers to confront other priorities during a pandemic, Congress carries on with business as usual.

Analysis | Reporting | Washington Politics

Bipartisan majorities in the House and Senate this week approved a $740 billion national defense authorization bill (NDAA), setting up negotiations for a final version, which will almost certainly pose a major boon for defense contractors, passing along a tax bill that by comparison more than wipes out the average tax filer’s COVID-19 stimulus check.

The extent of the NDAA’s historical financial benefit to defense contractors is staggering, with, for example, over half of the 2019 total defense-related discretionary spending — $370 billion of $676 billion — going to contractors, according to Brown University’s Costs of War Project. 

Assuming this pace continues, the 2021 NDAA could pass along more than $370 billion to defense contractors, many of whom have contributed generously to politicians, like Rep. Rob Wittman (R-Va.), the top recipient of defense contractor campaign contributions in 2018, who authored a recent op-ed making “The Case for Robust Defense Spending.”

On the other side of the aisle, Democrats who voted against an amendment to cut the military budget by 10 percent received 3.4 times as much in campaign contributions from the defense industry than those who voted for the amendment.

The NDAA and its windfall for defense contractors is particularly troubling amid the COVID-19 pandemic which has, in addition to the public health crisis, caused economic turmoil, record unemployment levels, and federal efforts to inject liquidity into financial markets.

In March, the government sought to buoy the economy and blunt the economic impact of the pandemic with “Economic Impact Payments,” more commonly known as “coronavirus stimulus payments.” According to CNBC, the average payment was $1,809 per tax filer, which could be individuals or married couples filing jointly.

The long-term benefits of that payment to tax filers are dwarfed by the costs imposed on taxpayers by the defense budget and payments to defense contractors that Congress authorized in this year’s NDAA.

The IRS anticipates 155.1 million tax returns to be filed in 2020, meaning the cost of the upcoming NDAA will be, on average, $4,711.11 per tax filer, completely wiping out the stimulus payment and imposing an additional $2,902.11 burden per filer.

Just the portion of the NDAA destined for defense contractors, $370 billion or $2,385.55 per average tax filer, wipes out the average stimulus payment and imposes a $576.55 tax burden per filer.

Even the potential Senate Republican-led second stimulus proposal won’t fully unburden taxpayers from the NDAA’s massive discretionary spending on the military and defense contractors. The proposed legislation would include a $1,200 stimulus check to some Americans. That payment, combined with the average $1,809 payment from the March stimulus, would cover the average tax filer’s portion of the NDAA costs benefiting defense contractors but would still leave them with a $1,702.11 financial burden from overall annual defense spending.

Of course, the immediate cost per-tax filer might be deferred via deficit spending, but the national debt currently exceeding $26 trillion — over $167,000 per anticipated 2020 tax filer and over $80,000 per U.S. citizen — should raise questions about the role of the defense budget, which is the second largest category of federal spending after social security, and represents more than half of the discretionary budget. Moreover, U.S. defense expenditures exceed the annual combined defense spending of China, India, Russia, Saudi Arabia, France, Germany, the U.K., Japan, South Korea, and Brazil.

That levies a large bill on taxpayers, either in immediate taxes or assumed portion of the national debt, but Lockheed Martin President James D. Taiclet was decidedly upbeat on a July 21 earnings call, in which he beamed that “our portfolio was supported” in the NDAA. He said:

"[There are] encouraging elements for our portfolio is [sic] the Senate version confirmed that the national defense strategy remains the roadmap for the armed services. And the bill was passed with strong bipartisan support. Our portfolio was well supported in the Senate version for the recommended increase of 16 F-35 aircraft above the President's request, additional funding for missile defense priorities including an 8 THAAD battery and increased funding for the Homeland Defense Radar Hawaii program. Congress will continue with the authorization and appropriation spaces. We look forward to the finalization of the process in supporting our warfighters needs."

While the “warfighters needs” are arguably not supported from a combination of endless wars in the Middle East, a ballooning national debt burden at home, and a pandemic that’s spurring unemployment levels to rise over 10 percent, there are at least two beneficiaries from the NDAA: politicians who rely on defense contractor campaign contributions and defense contractors who see “encouraging elements” for their “portfolio” from the industry’s $2,385.55 annual burden on each tax filer.


Photo: bgrocker/Shutterstock.com
Analysis | Reporting | Washington Politics
Kim Jong Un
Top photo credit: North Korean leader Kim Jong Un visits the construction site of the Ragwon County Offshore Farm, North Korea July 13, 2025. KCNA via REUTERS

Kim Jong Un is nuking up and playing hard to get

Asia-Pacific

President Donald Trump’s second term has so far been a series of “shock and awe” campaigns both at home and abroad. But so far has left North Korea untouched even as it arms for the future.

The president dramatically broke with precedent during his first term, holding two summits as well as a brief meeting at the Demilitarized Zone with the North’s Supreme Leader Kim Jong-un. Unfortunately, engagement crashed and burned in Hanoi. The DPRK then pulled back, essentially severing contact with both the U.S. and South Korea.

keep readingShow less
Why new CENTCOM chief Brad Cooper is as wrong as the old one
Top photo credit: U.S. Navy Vice Admiral Brad Cooper speaks to guests at the IISS Manama Dialogue in Manama, Bahrain, November 17, 2023. REUTERS/Hamad I Mohammed

Why new CENTCOM chief Brad Cooper is as wrong as the old one

Middle East

If accounts of President Donald Trump’s decision to strike Iranian nuclear facilities this past month are to be believed, the president’s initial impulse to stay out of the Israel-Iran conflict failed to survive the prodding of hawkish advisers, chiefly U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) chief Michael Kurilla.

With Kurilla, an Iran hawk and staunch ally of both the Israeli government and erstwhile national security adviser Mike Waltz, set to leave office this summer, advocates of a more restrained foreign policy may understandably feel like they are out of the woods.

keep readingShow less
Putin Trump
Top photo credit: Vladimir Putin (Office of the President of the Russian Federation) and Donald Trump (US Southern Command photo)

How Trump's 50-day deadline threat against Putin will backfire

Europe

In the first six months of his second term, President Donald Trump has demonstrated his love for three things: deals, tariffs, and ultimatums.

He got to combine these passions during his Oval Office meeting with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte on Monday. Only moments after the two leaders announced a new plan to get military aid to Ukraine, Trump issued an ominous 50-day deadline for Russian President Vladimir Putin to agree to a ceasefire. “We're going to be doing secondary tariffs if we don't have a deal within 50 days,” Trump told the assembled reporters.

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.