Follow us on social

Shutterstock_1936368754-scaled

Meet the Biden war budget, same as the Trump war budget

Turns out the new administration had neither the interest or fortitude to oppose the usual suspects, passing a $777B bill this week.

Analysis | Military Industrial Complex

President Biden took a remarkably different approach than former President Trump when the two faced off on the 2020 presidential campaign trail, both in style and in substance. You would hardly know the difference between the two, though, solely based on the $777 billion defense policy bill President Biden signed into law two days after the Christmas holiday.

Organizations representing both progressive interests and more fiscally conservative perspectives had urged President Biden earlier this year to pull back on the huge defense budget increases that occurred during former President Trump’s four years in office. From the defense budget just before President Trump took office (fiscal year 2017) to the last one Trump signed into law (FY 2021), Department of Defense spending grew a staggering $98 billion, (or 16 percent). The DoD’s budget grew by $65 billion in Trump’s first year (+10.7 percent), $17 billion in his second year (+2.6 percent), and $35 billion (+5.1 percent) in his third year, before shrinking $19.5 billion (-2.7 percent) in his final year. What’s worse, that big $65 billion budget increase (and the $25 billion increase in President Obama’s final budget for fiscal year 2017) were approved by Republican majorities in both chambers of Congress, despite the GOP’s professed concern for fiscal responsibility.

As noted above, experts and advocates across the ideological spectrum were hoping President Biden would assume some leadership in advocating for a reduced defense budget relative to the Trump years. Biden would surely experience resistance from the defense hawks in Congress in both parties, the thinking went, but he could give this reduced, more sustainable defense budget a major boost with Congress by advocating for it within the president’s annual budget request.

Unfortunately, President Biden’s first defense budget request was largely unambitious, and effectively held spending flat relative to former President Trump’s final year in office. At the very least, the first Biden budget request did not advocate for major increases to the defense budget, unlike President Trump and his first defense budget.

Based on the reaction from major military boosters in Congress, though, you would have thought the sky had fallen. Republicans called the budget request “reckless” and even “dangerous.” A dozen Senate Democrats on the Armed Services Committee voted this summer to fatten up Biden’s budget request by $25 billion, with only Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) having the courage to vote “no” on tens of billions of dollars more for the military and the contractors that support it.

And so the defense policy bill President Biden signed into law this week authorizes $740 billion in spending on the military (along with an additional $27 billion for nuclear weapons under the Department of Energy, and $1o billion for "miscellaneous defense needs"), $25 billion more than President Biden’s $715 billion budget request and $36 billion more than the $704 billion spent on the military in the last fiscal year. This larding up of the defense budget is happening even as the U.S. has ended major military operations in Afghanistan, and even as Congress is dedicating separate emergency funds to resolving the catastrophes that arose there.

The press releases from your Senator or member of the House will talk about the 2.7-percent pay increase for the troops, or a “whole-of-government response to the climate crisis.” Some of these initiatives are politically popular, but that’s not where lawmakers are porking up the budget. Spending on military personnel is actually down relative to FY 2021 (-$400 million, or -0.2 percent).

What’s up, then? Procurement (i.e., acquisition) of new ships, planes, and weapons for the military gets a major boost in the new defense budget — $15 billion, or 11.1 percent, more than the Biden budget request. Research and development spending, often on new ships, planes, and weapons that have yet to be built and procured, is also up a big $5.7 billion, or 5.1 percent, from the president’s budget request.

This extra spending will buy the Navy new ships, prevent the Navy from retiring ships that it wants to retire, and allow the service branches to purchase plenty of “new aircraft, combat vehicles, autonomous systems, missiles, and ammunition.” Much of the extra spending goes to so-called “unfunded priorities” requests of the military branches and combatant commands. My organization, National Taxpayers Union, calls them “wish lists.” In fact, they are more like stocking stuffers (tacked on to make the Christmas-time defense budget extra special for military officials and contractors) than essential presents under the tree.

Think lawmakers have fiscal responsibility at the Pentagon on their 2022 new year’s resolution list? Think again. Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Ala.), the top Republican on the House Armed Services Committee, is already warning that the “work is not finished” and that “combating [China and Russia] will continue to be our number one priority as we look ahead to FY23.” Unfortunately for the nation’s taxpayers, what “combating” these two nations often means is not spending smarter but spending more. Will we see an $800 billion military budget in 2022, for FY 2023? It’s not out of the question. It appears President Biden’s war budgets are going to look a lot like President Trump’s war budgets.


Photo: BiksuTong via shutterstock.com
Analysis | Military Industrial Complex
Trump ASEAN
Top photo credit: U.S. President Donald Trump looks at Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., next to Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim when posing for a family photo with leaders at the ASEAN Summit in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, October 26, 2025. Vincent Thian/Pool via REUTERS

‘America First’ meets ‘ASEAN Way’ in Kuala Lumpur

Asia-Pacific

The 2025 ASEAN and East Asia Summits in Kuala Lumpur beginning today are set to be consequential multilateral gatherings — defining not only ASEAN’s internal cohesion but also the shape of U.S.–China relations in the Indo-Pacific.

President Donald Trump’s participation will be the first by a U.S. president in an ASEAN-led summit since 2022. President Biden skipped the last two such summits in 2023 and 2024, sending then-Vice President Harris instead.

keep readingShow less
iran, china, russia
Top photo credit: Top image credit: Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov and and Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi shake hands as Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Ma Zhaoxu looks on during their meet with reporters after their meeting at Diaoyutai State Guest House on March 14, 2025 in Beijing, China. Lintao Zhang/Pool via REUTERS

'Annulled'! Russia won't abide snapback sanctions on Iran

Middle East

“A raider attack on the U.N. Security Council.” This was the explosive accusation leveled by Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov this week. His target was the U.N. Secretariat and Western powers, whom he blamed for what Russia sees as an illegitimate attempt to restore the nuclear-related international sanctions on Iran.

Beyond the fiery rhetoric, Ryabkov’s statement contained a message: Russia, he said, now considers all pre-2015 U.N. sanctions on Iran, snapped back by the European signatories of the 2015 nuclear deal (JCPOA) — the United Kingdom, France, Germany — “annulled.” Moscow will deepen its military-technical cooperation with Tehran accordingly, according to Ryabkov.

This is more than a diplomatic spat; it is the formal announcement of a split in international legal reality. The world’s major powers are now operating under two irreconcilable interpretations of international law. On one side, the United States, the United Kingdom, France, and Germany assert that the sanctions snapback mechanism of the JCPOA was legitimately triggered for Iran’s alleged violations. On the other, Iran, Russia, and China reject this as an illegitimate procedural act.

This schism was not inevitable, and its origin reveals a profound incongruence. The Western powers that most frequently appeal to the sanctity of the "rules-based international order" and international law have, in this instance, taken an action whose effects fundamentally undermine it. By pushing through a legal maneuver that a significant part of the Security Council considers illegitimate, they have ushered the world into a new and more dangerous state. The predictable, if imperfect, framework of universally recognized Security Council decisions is being replaced by a system where legal facts are determined by political interests espoused by competing power blocs.

This rupture followed a deliberate Western choice to reject compromises in a stand-off with Iran. While Iran was in a technical violation of the provisions of the JCPOA — by, notably, amassing a stockpile of highly enriched uranium (up to 60% as opposed to the 3.67% for a civilian use permissible under the JCPOA), there was a chance to avert the crisis. In the critical weeks leading to the snapback, Iran had signaled concessions in talks with the International Atomic Energy Agency in Cairo, in terms of renewing cooperation with the U.N. nuclear watchdog’s inspectors.

keep readingShow less
On Ukraine and Venezuela, Trump needs to dump the sycophants
Top Photo Credit: (Official White House Photo by Molly Riley)

On Ukraine and Venezuela, Trump needs to dump the sycophants

Europe

While diplomats labored to produce the Dayton Accords in 1995, then-Secretary of Defense Bill Perry advised, “No agreement is better than a bad agreement.” Given that Washington’s allies in London, Paris, Berlin and Warsaw are opposed to any outcome that might end the war in Ukraine, no agreement may be preferable. But for President Trump, there is no point in equating the illusion of peace in Ukraine with a meaningless ceasefire that settles nothing.

Today, Ukraine is mired in corruption, starting at the very highest levels of the administration in Kyiv. Sending $175 billion of borrowed money there "for however long it takes" has turned out to be worse than reckless. The U.S. national sovereign debt is surging to nearly $38 trillion and rising by $425 billion with each passing month. President Trump needs to turn his attention away from funding Joe Biden’s wars and instead focus on the faltering American economy.

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.