Follow us on social

google cta
51013311667_a4fd83867c_o

Why Biden shouldn’t wait to reduce defense spending

To avoid impact of the ‘weak on defense’ charge during election season, Biden should act quickly to make good on his campaign promise.

Analysis | Military Industrial Complex
google cta
google cta

Indications are that when the Biden administration presents its FY2022 defense budget and FY2022-26 defense program to Congress in May, it will propose keeping defense spending at the historically high level of $740 billion as the Trump administration proposed and the Congress approved for the Pentagon in FY2021. In short, President Biden is keeping what Donald Trump added to the defense budget — $100 billion — despite saying during his campaign that such a level was unnecessary. As Biden put it, “Trump abandoned all fiscal discipline when it came to defense spending.”

While no one can be sure exactly why Biden has come to this decision, there appears to be at least two factors that impacted the decision.

First, Biden, like many Democrats, does not want to appear uncommitted to strong defense. There is the perception that, when it comes to national security issues, including the size of the defense budget, it is the Republicans who are proponents of a strong national defense while Democrats do not give it the same priority, instead diverting resources to social programs.

For example, at about the same time that the Biden administration said that it would maintain the defense budget at its current level, eight House Republicans on the House Armed Services Committee, sent a letter to the president urging him to increase defense spending by three to five percent in real terms. This would mean increasing the FY2022 national defense budget from its current level to between from between $778 billion and $793 billion.

But analysis shows that, for the most part, this perception that Democrats reduce defense spending when they come into office, is historically inaccurate. In fact, after taking office and ending the Korean War, Republican president Eisenhower slashed defense spending about 40 percent by using the remainder principal, that is, allocating funding for his priorities, like infrastructure (for example, the interstate highway system), balancing the budget and giving the military the remainder. In today’s dollars, this amounted to a budget of about $450 billion, some $300 billion less than the current level.

However, after the Soviets launched Sputnik in 1957, the Democratic controlled Congress held a series of hearings blasting the former general for underfunding security by decreasing defense spending. (This led to Eisenhower’s farewell address where he warned us of the dangers of the military industrial complex.)

John Kennedy used this concern in his campaign and when he took office increased defense spending dramatically. By 1963, defense spending had risen by over $100 billion from 1958 levels and when the United States got into Vietnam, the Johnson administration increased defense spending by another $100 billion.

However, when Richard Nixon took office, he repeated Eisenhower’s defense policies, getting out of Vietnam and reducing defense spending to Eisenhower levels. He used these funds for increasing social and environmental programs — like the EPA, OSHA, and food stamps — substantially, which is why some commentators call Nixon our last liberal president.

Similarly, when Jimmy Carter succeeded Gerald Ford, he began increasing defense spending. Reagan followed this with the largest peacetime defense buildup in our history. By the end of his first term Reagan had increased defense spending to a level higher than Vietnam. However, as the debt grew exponentially, Reagan cut defense spending by 10 percent in his second term. George H.W. Bush continued the reductions and, by the end of his term, defense spending had dropped to Nixon levels. Moreover, he projected continuing reductions for what he hoped would be his second term.

However, during Bill Clinton’s time in office, he increased defense spending above the level projected by the outgoing George H.W. Bush team.

George W. Bush obviously had to raise defense spending to unprecedented levels to conduct his invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. While President Obama did make some reductions in that level, defense spending under Obama exceeded the levels of Vietnam and the Reagan build up, and, if one controls for inflation, Obama actually spent more on defense in his first four years in office than Trump did in his only four years.

Similarly, the Democrats have not been shy about using military force. Eisenhower refused to bail out the French at Dien Bien Phu in Vietnam in 1954, but Kennedy and Johnson ended up sending over a million Americans into that quagmire. Clinton sent military forces to the Balkans and Obama increased our troop levels in Afghanistan, intervened in Libya, and sent troops back to Iraq after he implemented the agreement Bush made to withdraw all of our military forces in 2011.

Second, the Biden administration could be planning to make the initial request just a placeholder and will make significant changes after it develops a new national security strategy later this year. But next year, 2022, will be an election year and the administration will find it difficult to change any major defense procurement programs significantly since that could have an impact on the reelection chances of Democratic members up for reelection as they try to maintain their razor thin majority in both houses.

If Biden wants to make significant cuts in the defense budget, he should do it now. While some Republicans may oppose him and claim that the Democrats are weak on defense, despite what history tells us, and that for the most part it is the Republicans who have kept defense budgets down. Moreover, his first year in office will be the most politically opportune time to do it.


President Joe Biden greets members of the military at a FEMA COVID-19 vaccination site Friday, Feb. 26, 2021, at NRG Stadium in Houston. (Official White House Photo by Adam Schultz)
google cta
Analysis | Military Industrial Complex
nuclear weapons testing
A mushroom cloud expands over the Bikini Atoll during a U.S. nuclear weapons test in 1946. (Shutterstock/ Everett Collection)

Nuke treaty loss a 'colossal' failure that could lead to nuclear arms race

Global Crises

On February 13th, 2025, President Trump said something few expected to hear. He said, “There's no reason for us to be building brand-new nuclear weapons. We already have so many. . . You could destroy the world 50 times over, 100 times over. And here we are building new nuclear weapons . . . We’re all spending a lot of money that we could be spending on other things that are actually, hopefully, much more productive.”

I could not agree more with that statement. But with today’s expiration of the New START Treaty, we face the very real possibility of a new nuclear arms race — something that, to my knowledge, neither the President, Vice President, nor any other senior U.S. official has meaningfully discussed.

keep readingShow less
Witkoff Kushner Trump
Top image credit: U.S. Special Envoy Steve Witkoff looks on during a meeting with U.S. President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, at Trump's Mar-a-Lago club in Palm Beach, Florida, U.S., December 29, 2025. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst

As US-Iran talks resume, will Israel play spoiler (again)?

Middle East

This Friday, the latest chapter in the long, fraught history of U.S.-Iran negotiations will take place in Oman. Iran’s foreign minister Abbas Araghchi and President Trump’s Special Envoy Steve Witkoff will meet in an effort to stave off a war between the U.S. and Iran.

The negotiations were originally planned as a multilateral forum in Istanbul, with an array of regional Arab and Muslim countries present, apart from the U.S. and Iran — Turkey, Qatar, Oman, and Saudi Arabia.

keep readingShow less
Trump Putin
Top image credit: Miss.Cabal/shutterstock.com

Last treaty curbing US, Russia nuclear weapons has collapsed

Global Crises

The end of the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START), the last treaty between the U.S. and Russia placing limits on their respective nuclear arsenals, may not make an arms race inevitable. There is still potential for pragmatic diplomacy.

Both sides can adhere to the basic limits even as they modernize their arsenals. They can bring back some of the risk-reduction measures that stabilized their relationship for years. And they can reengage diplomatically with each other to craft new agreements. The alternative — unconstrained nuclear competition — is dangerous, expensive, and deeply unpopular with most Americans.

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.