Follow us on social

google cta
Shutterstock_1330695797-scaled

Protecting the people means cutting Pentagon spending

Our current level of military spending wastes resources on senseless instruments of destruction, while failing to address the security threats that people in the country actually face.

Analysis | Washington Politics
google cta
google cta

Across the country people are rightfully protesting systematic racism and the failures of their police departments. The COVID-19 pandemic has killed over 177,000 people since January. Millions of people are newly unemployed, and millions face evictions. And the new $740 billion military budget passed by Congress didn’t prevent and doesn’t address any of these immediate threats.  

The ability to tackle these threats exists, just not in the military. Instead, our military spending draws resources away from programs and departments that have the ability to create safety rather than add to the chaos. In the midst of a pandemic it is absurd that the budget for the Department Health and Human Services is a fraction of what the military receives. The Pentagon, like the police, should be defunded. 

The initial proposed Pentagon budget for this year is $740.5 billion, which is more than half of the annual discretionary budget. The budget fails to address the hundreds of thousands of fatalities in the U.S. from COVID-19. Our “national security” spending is supposed to keep us safe, yet hundreds of thousands of people have died and millions more are struggling. Instead of focusing on protecting the lives of people in the country, plans have been proposed for the modernization of nuclear weapons and the resumption of nuclear testing, both which create danger rather than security and ignore the actual problems we face. The Air Force's accidental leak of their hope to obtain a hypersonic nuclear weapon further illustrates the military’s misplaced focus. Nuclear weapons cost taxpayers around $22.4 billion a year, a monster number compared to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which for the fiscal year of 2020 received less than $7 billion. At a time when there is a pandemic, massive unemployment, and other issues raging in the country, creating new and dangerous toys is unreasonable and inconsiderate. 

The pandemic has made programs that fall under the discretionary budget such as food assistance for Women, Infants, and Children and the Workforce Investment Board that helps the unemployed find jobs even more important. As the military budget grows, which it has each year since 2016, funding for most of these programs and their departments tend to shrink. This is true of the Department of Education, whose budget was proposed to be cut by 8 percent or $6.1 billion dollars for 2021. Defunding the Pentagon would mean reallocating parts of its budget to departments and programs like these which are better equipped to manage the real threats to the people’s security.  

Had funding in the past been better invested in nonmilitary priorities, we would be better off now. Pertinent departments would be better equipped to handle the shockwaves from the pandemic. An example of this is in the economic security category of the discretionary budget. In 2019 these programs received $87 billion for housing, the homeless, and food and nutrition programs. Increased levels of income loss coupled with food insecurity because of the pandemic exacerbated the financial strain on these programs, forcing them to receive further aid from the CARES Act.

Emergency and major relief packages like the CARES Act were needed immediately and picked up where non-military departmental and program funding fell short. The $2 trillion economic rescue package filled in the gaps caused by the pandemic, such as in unemployment and healthcare programs. But in the future, we need to rebalance the funding so relief needs are not as high.

In July, Senators Bernie Sanders, Edward Markey, and Elizabeth Warren, and Representatives Barbara Lee and Mark Pocan introduced an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act that would have reduced the topline military budget by 10 percent, freeing $74 billion dollars to be redistributed to other departments. While this unfortunately failed to pass, it cannot be the end of the fight to defund the military. The Pentagon could be defunded by 50% and the United States would still have the largest military budget in the world. This would allow for $370 billion dollars to be reallocated to programs directly benefiting people. That could fund 10.3 billion COVID-19 tests a year or create over 6 million jobs.

Our current level of military spending wastes resources on senseless instruments of destruction, while failing to address the security threats that people in the country actually face. Even worse, it draws resources away from departments that address these security threats to the country. It is vital that we, as well as lawmakers, continue working to defund the military in order to free up and allocate resources to match the priorities and needs of the people in this country.


Tucson, USA — March 2, 2018: A U.S. Air Force F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (Lightning II) jet at Davis Monthan Air Force Base. This F-35 is assigned to Luke Air Force Base. (Michael Fitzsimmons / Shutterstock.com)
google cta
Analysis | Washington Politics
nuclear weapons
Top image credit: rawf8 via shutterstock.com

What will happen when there are no guardrails on nuclear weapons?

Global Crises

The New START Treaty — the last arms control agreement between the U.S. and Russia — is set to expire next week, unless President Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin make a last minute decision to renew it. Letting the treaty expire would increase the risk of nuclear conflict and open the door to an accelerated nuclear arms race. A coalition of arms control and disarmament groups is pushing Congress and the president to pledge to continue to observe the New START limits on deployed, strategic nuclear weapons by the US and Russia.

New START matters. The treaty, which entered into force on February 5, 2011 after a successful effort by the Obama administration to win over enough Republican senators to achieve the required two-thirds majority to ratify the deal, capped deployed warheads to 1,550 for each side, and established verification procedures to ensure that both sides abided by the pact. New START was far from perfect, but it did put much needed guardrails on nuclear development that reduced the prospect of an all-out arms race.

keep readingShow less
Trump Hegseth Rubio
Top image credit: President Donald Trump, joined by Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and Secretary of the Navy John Phelan, announces plans for a “Golden Fleet” of new U.S. Navy battleships, Monday, December 22, 2025, at the Mar-a-Lago Club in Palm Beach, Florida. (Official White House Photo by Daniel Torok)

Trump's realist defense strategy with interventionist asterisks

Washington Politics

The Trump administration has released its National Defense Strategy, a document that in many ways marks a sharp break from the interventionist orthodoxies of the past 35 years, but possesses clear militaristic impulses in its own right.

Rhetorically quite compatible with realism and restraint, the report envisages a more focused U.S. grand strategy, shedding force posture dominance in all major theaters for a more concentrated role in the Western Hemisphere and Indo-Pacific. At the same time however, it retains a rather status quo Republican view of the Middle East, painting Iran as an intransigent aggressor and Israel as a model ally. Its muscular approach to the Western Hemisphere also may lend itself to the very interventionism that the report ostensibly opposes.

keep readingShow less
Alternative vs. legacy media
Top photo credit: Gemini AI

Ding dong the legacy media and its slavish war reporting is dead

Media

In a major development that must be frustrating to an establishment trying to sell their policies to an increasingly skeptical public, the rising popularity of independent media has made it impossible to create broad consensus for corporate-compliant narratives, and to casually denigrate, or even censor, those who disagree.

It’s been a long road.

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.