Follow us on social

google cta
Shutterstock_672651343

'Inflation': the Trojan horse for runaway military spending

Now begins Pentagon budget season and with it, a long wish list and efforts to justify massive increases.

Analysis | Military Industrial Complex
google cta
google cta

This month, the House and Senate Armed Services Committees are gearing up to advance their versions of the 2023 National Defense Authorization Act – the annual defense policy bill Congress typically passes into law every year. The Committees play the most influential role in Congress when it comes to shaping the policies and authorized funding levels of the legislation, before the full House and Senate vote on the bill.

If there’s been one common theme among the Republicans on these Committees this year, it’s been the one word dogging President Biden and Congressional Democrats all year: inflation. Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), lead Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, said in April that the “most problematic” aspect of President Biden’s defense budget request – which proposed increasing the Department of Defense (DoD) budget to $773 billion from $742 billion in 2022, a nominal increase but possible inflation-adjusted cut – was that it does not “sufficiently account for historic inflation.”

Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Ala.), lead Republican on the House Armed Services Committee, similarly said in April that President Biden “fail[ed] to account for inflation” with his defense budget request.

Sen. Inhofe and Rep. Rogers weren’t the only Republicans speaking out on the matter — at least four other Senate Armed Services Republicans and 16 other House Armed Services Republicans mentioned inflation in their statements blasting the Biden defense budget request. To be fair, some moderate Democrats on the Committees are also insisting the defense budget increase above the rate of inflation.

Interested parties will get a good look at the sincerity of lawmakers’ concerns about inflation over the next several weeks, as the Armed Services Committees ‘mark up’ and advance their defense policy bills authorizing new spending.

As Quincy Institute’s William Hartung has covered in these pages before, lawmakers are almost certain to add billions of dollars (or even tens of billions of dollars) to the Biden administration’s Pentagon budget request as they mark up the 2023 NDAA.

And, as noted above, lawmakers who advocate for ever-growing defense budgets will argue that “inflation” requires the defense budget to be tens of billions of dollars higher than what President Biden requested – possibly over $800 billion.

Pay close attention, though, to where and how lawmakers increase defense spending this month.

This week, Politico highlighted an important quote from a leading official at Biden’s DoD, Kathleen Hicks. In describing likely Congressional efforts to increase the defense budget, Hicks said (in May):

“What we don’t want is added topline that’s filled with new programs that we can’t support and afford in the out-years and that doesn’t cover inflation … That is my number one concern.”

Unfortunately for Hicks, it seems very likely that lawmakers’ defense budget increases this month will be filled almost exclusively with programs that DoD “can’t support and afford” in the long run.

My organization National Taxpayers Union has, in conjunction with the group Taxpayers for Common Sense, been tracking DoD unfunded priorities lists (or “wish lists”) submitted by the Army, Navy, Air Force, Space Force, and combatant commands across the military this year. These lists have combined to a total of more than $24 billion so far, and provide a realistic guide to where and how lawmakers will increase the military budget this month.

Around one in every ten dollars requested in the “wish lists” so far (at least, the ones that are public) is for the F-35 program alone — also known as the $1.7 trillion plane that can’t fly. Other major “wish list” requests, I wrote, include KC-130J logistics aircraft for the Navy and Marines; E-2D aircraft for the Navy; modernized Abrams tanks for the Army; and EC-37B electronic warfare aircraft for the Air Force.

I’m no inflation expert, but I’m not sure more F-35s and more Abrams tanks will help the U.S. military combat the effects of inflation.

And therein lies the potential for inflation to be a mere “Trojan horse” for defense hawks in Congress to increase the military budget by some absurd number this year. If lawmakers are focusing their entire increase (relative to the Biden budget) on goods and services that have been subject to high rates of inflation — such as basic pay increases for servicemembers and civilians, and fuel and energy costs — then the hawks’ inflation argument may, indeed, be sincere.

My organization would still insist that lawmakers find offsets to those increase with spending cuts in programs less subject to inflationary pressures (such as those in research and development). But at least a defense budget boost narrowly focused on items and services subject to significant inflation would be targeted at real problems and pressures the military currently faces.

If this “inflation” adjustment is devoted to more F-35s, more tanks, more aircraft, and more ships — more of everything, not just higher costs for the goods DoD already needs or plans to procure — then readers should know that the “inflation” argument is a mere convenient excuse. And when inflation abates, lawmakers will no doubt find another excuse for the next big defense budget increase.


(shutterstock/bumihills)
google cta
Analysis | Military Industrial Complex
Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi
Top photo credit: Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi 首相官邸 (Cabinet Public Affairs Office)

Takaichi 101: How to torpedo relations with China in a month

Asia-Pacific

On November 7, Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi stated that a Chinese attack on Taiwan could undoubtedly be “a situation that threatens Japan’s survival,” thereby implying that Tokyo could respond by dispatching Self-Defense Forces.

This statement triggered the worst crisis in Sino-Japanese relations in over a decade because it reflected a transformation in Japan’s security policy discourse, defense posture, and U.S.-Japan defense cooperation in recent years. Understanding this transformation requires dissecting the context as well as content of Takaichi’s parliamentary remarks.

keep readingShow less
Starmer, Macron, Merz G7
Top photo credit: Prime Minister Keir Starmer meets Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, French President Emmanuel Macron, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney and António Costa, President of the European Council at the G7 world leaders summit in Kananaskis, June 15, 2025. Picture by Simon Dawson / No 10 Downing Street

The Europeans pushing the NATO poison pill

Europe

The recent flurry of diplomatic activity surrounding Ukraine has revealed a stark transatlantic divide. While high level American and Ukrainian officials have been negotiating the U.S. peace plan in Geneva, European powers have been scrambling to influence a process from which they risk being sidelined.

While Europe has to be eventually involved in a settlement of the biggest war on its territory after World War II, so far it’s been acting more like a spoiler than a constructive player.

keep readingShow less
Sudan
Top image credit: A Sudanese army soldier stands next to a destroyed combat vehicle as Sudan's army retakes ground and some displaced residents return to ravaged capital in the state of Khartoum Sudan March 26, 2025. REUTERS/El Tayeb Siddig
Will Sudan attack the UAE?

Saudi leans in hard to get UAE out of Sudan civil war

Middle East

As Saudi Arabia’s powerful crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman (MBS), swept through Washington last week, the agenda was predictably packed with deals: a trillion-dollar investment pledge, access to advanced F-35 fighter jets, and coveted American AI technology dominated the headlines. Yet tucked within these transactions was a significant development for the civil war in Sudan.

Speaking at the U.S.-Saudi Investment Forum President Donald Trump said that Sudan “was not on my charts,” viewing the conflict as “just something that was crazy and out of control” until the Saudi leader pressed the issue. “His majesty would like me to do something very powerful having to do with Sudan,” Trump recounted, adding that MBS framed it as an opportunity for greatness.

The crown prince’s intervention highlights a crucial new reality that the path to peace, or continued war, in Sudan now runs even more directly through the escalating rivalry between Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE). The fate of Sudan is being forged in the Gulf, and its future will be decided by which side has more sway in Trump’s White House.

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.