Follow us on social

google cta
Shutterstock_1023205714-scaled

House votes to put billions more in military spending on the credit card

What would happen if we tied a tax to each budget hike? Don’t ask, it won’t happen.

Analysis | Military Industrial Complex
google cta
google cta

It’s nearing mid-December, which for many Americans means wrapping up their work for the year and figuring out when, where, and how they’re going to obtain holiday gifts for their loved ones. Unfortunately for those of us whose job it is to follow Congress, the potential flurry of activity for the month is just getting started.

This week on Capitol Hill features votes on two measures that are unrelated at face value but inextricably tied at the hip in practice: an increase in the federal government’s debt ceiling and a final, “compromise” version of the annual defense policy bill (also known as the National Defense Authorization Act or NDAA) negotiated between the House and the Senate. As of this writing, the House had passed both measures on Tuesday.

Neither Republicans nor Democrats in Congress really think of defense spending as contributing to the nation’s debt and deficits — even though they should. Unlike some so-called “mandatory” spending programs like Social Security, which are supposed to be self-funding through dedicated revenue streams like the payroll tax, there is no dedicated tax to fund our military budget. And even as federal revenues fall hundreds of billions of dollars short of meeting the government’s spending commitments and choices year after year, lawmakers rubber-stamp multi-billion dollar increases in the defense budget without batting an eye.

Would those big budget increases — which often go to military goodies like the failing F-35 program and an extra Navy destroyer — happen if Congress needed to raise taxes every time they increase the military budget, like they did in 1917 with the War Revenue Act? Maybe, and maybe not.

But that question is somewhat moot because Congress has been putting those military budget increases on the taxpayer’s credit card for years now. I have previously written in these pages that, since January 2012, Congress and presidents of both parties have authorized more than $1.3 trillion in military spending than they were supposed to under Budget Control Act automatic spending caps. About $439 billion of that $1.3 trillion was due to Congress raising the spending caps on a bipartisan basis, with political wins for Republicans (in the form of higher military spending) and Democrats (in the form of higher non-military spending) over the years. The other $880 billion was above and beyond the caps, for a so-called Overseas Contingency Operations account that started as a war funding mechanism and turned into a slush fund for irresponsible military budget plus-ups.

That $1.3 trillion in additional military spending over the last decade is partly responsible for the debt ceiling mess Congress finds itself in, brushing up again and again (78 times since 1960) on the deadlines and limits they set for the debt.

This brings us to a big irony in this week’s action on Capitol Hill. For a time, lawmakers were contemplating tying the debt limit and the NDAA together and forcing one vote in either the House, the Senate, or both chambers of Congress. The political calculation? Democrats who may be uneasy about sky-high defense spending might vote for the package because they don’t want the U.S. to default on its debt, and Republicans holding out on the debt ceiling might vote for the package (or at least allow it to move forward without blocking further congressional action) out of support for higher military spending.

Congressional leaders ultimately abandoned that approach, instead tying the debt ceiling increase to another politically sensitive matter: impending automatic cuts to Medicare spending. Both this measure and the NDAA passed the House and are expected to clear the Senate. But the episode should shine a spotlight on an uncomfortable truth too few members of Congress are willing to confront: big military budgets are not automatically paid for, and when not paid for they contribute to the debt.

With 2022 just around the bend, a lot of folks are no doubt thinking about renewal and about New Year’s resolutions. Here’s one for Congress: consider a menu of bold military budget cuts next year. My organization, the National Taxpayers Union, has put out a $338 billion roadmap. Defense Priorities hosted an entire symposium on how to achieve $1 trillion in military spending cuts over the course of 10 years, with work from experts across the ideological spectrum. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has envisioned how the military could adapt to a smaller budget in a number of ways. And CBO also puts out an excellent and semi-regular primer on deficit reduction options in the military (and elsewhere in the federal budget).

The options are out there, but it’s going to take some political will on Capitol Hill. As Congress votes for more defense spending and greenlights more debt for 2022 this week, it’s time lawmakers see the irony in this series of votes and resolve to do something about it.


Image: Black Creator 24 via shutterstock.com
google cta
Analysis | Military Industrial Complex
Why Israeli counterterrorism tactics are showing up in Minnesota
Top photo credit: Federal police tackle and detain a person as demonstrators protest outside the Whipple federal building in Minneapolis, Minnesota, on January 16, 2026. (Photo by Steven Garcia/NurPhoto)

Why Israeli counterterrorism tactics are showing up in Minnesota

Military Industrial Complex

In the past few weeks, thousands of federal law enforcement officials have descended on Minneapolis. Videos show immigration officers jumping out of unmarked vans, tackling and pepper-spraying protesters, and breaking windows in order to drag people from their cars.

Prominent figures in the Trump administration have defended this approach despite fierce local backlash. When federal agents killed a protester named Alex Pretti on Saturday, for example, Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem quickly accused him of “domestic terrorism.”

keep readingShow less
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
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.