Follow us on social

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

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)
Analysis | Military Industrial Complex
Kim Jong Un
Top photo credit: North Korean leader Kim Jong Un visits the construction site of the Ragwon County Offshore Farm, North Korea July 13, 2025. KCNA via REUTERS

Kim Jong Un is nuking up and playing hard to get

Asia-Pacific

President Donald Trump’s second term has so far been a series of “shock and awe” campaigns both at home and abroad. But so far has left North Korea untouched even as it arms for the future.

The president dramatically broke with precedent during his first term, holding two summits as well as a brief meeting at the Demilitarized Zone with the North’s Supreme Leader Kim Jong-un. Unfortunately, engagement crashed and burned in Hanoi. The DPRK then pulled back, essentially severing contact with both the U.S. and South Korea.

keep readingShow less
Why new CENTCOM chief Brad Cooper is as wrong as the old one
Top photo credit: U.S. Navy Vice Admiral Brad Cooper speaks to guests at the IISS Manama Dialogue in Manama, Bahrain, November 17, 2023. REUTERS/Hamad I Mohammed

Why new CENTCOM chief Brad Cooper is as wrong as the old one

Middle East

If accounts of President Donald Trump’s decision to strike Iranian nuclear facilities this past month are to be believed, the president’s initial impulse to stay out of the Israel-Iran conflict failed to survive the prodding of hawkish advisers, chiefly U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) chief Michael Kurilla.

With Kurilla, an Iran hawk and staunch ally of both the Israeli government and erstwhile national security adviser Mike Waltz, set to leave office this summer, advocates of a more restrained foreign policy may understandably feel like they are out of the woods.

keep readingShow less
Putin Trump
Top photo credit: Vladimir Putin (Office of the President of the Russian Federation) and Donald Trump (US Southern Command photo)

How Trump's 50-day deadline threat against Putin will backfire

Europe

In the first six months of his second term, President Donald Trump has demonstrated his love for three things: deals, tariffs, and ultimatums.

He got to combine these passions during his Oval Office meeting with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte on Monday. Only moments after the two leaders announced a new plan to get military aid to Ukraine, Trump issued an ominous 50-day deadline for Russian President Vladimir Putin to agree to a ceasefire. “We're going to be doing secondary tariffs if we don't have a deal within 50 days,” Trump told the assembled reporters.

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.