Follow us on social

google cta
Shutterstock_1811528518-scaled

Global military spending tops $2 trillion for the first time

The US far outpaces all spenders when pressing threats like climate change and nuclear conflict that require diplomatic strategies receive little funding.

Reporting | Military Industrial Complex
google cta
google cta

According to a new analysis from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, global military spending topped $2.1 trillion in 2021, the first time it has surpassed the $2 trillion mark. Over 38 percent of that total — $801 billion — was accounted for by the United States. Figures for 2022 will rise even higher on the strength of substantial spending increases in the United States and Europe in response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, and due to the misguided notion that China represents a “pacing threat” that calls for sharp increases in Pentagon outlays.

It’s hard to overstate just how much the United States and its allies dominate world military spending figures. As of 2021, the United States alone was spending over two and one-half times on its military than what China spent, and over 12 times what Russia spent. Just four U.S. NATO allies — the United Kingdom, France, Germany, and Italy — together spend over three times what Russia spends on its military. And adding Australia, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan’s spending to the U.S. total puts the United States and its closest regional allies together at well over three times what China spends.

But of course, throwing money at the Pentagon doesn’t necessarily make anyone safer. Much of the funding steered to the Department of Defense is wasted on a misguided strategy and dysfunctional or unnecessary weapons programs like the F-35 combat aircraft and the new intercontinental ballistic missile, now officially known as the Sentinel. And despite pledges to “put diplomacy first” in U.S. foreign policy, when it comes to budget allocations the Biden administration’s approach is clearly “put the Pentagon first.”

And the threats being cited to justify near record levels of spending for the Department of Defense are the same ones the Trump administration cited in its National Defense Strategy: China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, and what used to be called the “Global War on Terror.” Aside from the administration’s on-again, off-again effort to revive the Iran nuclear deal, the above-mentioned threats are too often addressed through military means and military preparations rather than by a comprehensive diplomatic strategy. Meanwhile, climate change, the greatest existential threat to the planet alongside the risk of a nuclear conflict, has taken a back seat in funding and policy development while military spending runs out of control.

Meanwhile, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine clearly calls for a response, but it’s not clear why it can or should jack up the Pentagon budget for years to come, especially given pledges by Germany and other U.S. European allies to do more in their own defense.

So, for what it’s worth, America is #1 in global military spending, but we need a thorough overhaul of our approaches to strategy and weapons procurement. Pouring more money into the same broken system is a recipe for failure.


Image: studiostoks via shutterstock.com
google cta
Reporting | Military Industrial Complex
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.