Follow us on social

Shutterstock_2089619839-scaled

Christmas comes early for hawks as Congress considers giant defense bill

With military spending set to hit $858 billion next year, arms makers are buzzing with holiday cheer.

Analysis | Military Industrial Complex

It’s the holiday season, which means parents are doing last-minute gift shopping while their kids eagerly await a host of presents from family. Ironically, Congress is engaging in a similar exercise in its final few work weeks of the year, and lawmakers are poised to pass a massive defense budget that is sure to make military brass and defense contractors giddy with glee ahead of Christmas day.

Finally, the legislative text of the Senate-House “compromise” version of the annual National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) was dropped on Tuesday night, just two days before the House is scheduled to vote on the bill before the end of the day Thursday. The final, gift-wrapped package – including defense-related and non-defense related policy bills that may join the festivities as legislative stocking stuffers – has been negotiated in secret by just a handful of lawmakers, away from the prying eyes of other lawmakers, reporters, and the general public. It numbers 4,408 pages.

Unfortunately, this is a somewhat regular exercise for the U.S. Congress: procrastinating on necessary legislative items, waiting until the last minute for a resolution, and negotiating that resolution behind closed doors. It’s evidence of a broken legislative process. It has also served to push the military budget to heights unimaginable just a few years ago.

This “compromise” version of NDAA will authorize 2023 defense spending at levels $45 billion higher than President Biden requested earlier this year and a whopping $80 billion higher than 2022 authorization levels. The total defense authorization amount is $858 billion, just $1 billion outside the range I predicted could come to pass in late October. As I wrote then, this hefty sum puts Congress on track to reach a $1 trillion defense budget much quicker (2027) than congressional budget experts currently project (2032).

And both lawmakers and the military continue to play budget games that only serve to hurt the American taxpayer. In November, Bloomberg reported that the Department of Defense sent Congress a highly unusual second unfunded priorities list (UPL) for the 2023 budget year, with total requests adding up to $25 billion. These UPLs, also called wish lists, have already helped Congress push the military budget higher in recent years. It’s common practice (and, of late, required by law) for the military branches and combatant commands to send their wish lists to lawmakers early in the year when the Department as a whole submits its annual budget request. But this second, Department-wide effort appears to be both unprecedented and something of a shameless play at influencing the budget negotiations.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) had a similar takeaway. In a letter to Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin in early December, Warren called the wish list “an end-of-year money grab, designed to short circuit the administration’s budget and the congressional appropriations process.”

An additional trend I’ll be watching, one that won’t matter so much in 2023 but could matter a lot in the future, is which NDAA amendments get approved for inclusion in the compromise product. Every year, lawmakers in both the House and the Senate file hundreds of amendments to the NDAA, in part because it’s one of the few major pieces of legislation that Congress still reliably passes every year. Everyone wants their priority to hitch a ride on this must-pass bill.

Unfortunately, the amendments often serve to push future military budgets higher by authorizing all sorts of new programs and new spending. Congress doesn’t always fund those new programs right away, but authorizing the new programs gives them the option to fund them in the future.

One prominent example I wrote about in October is the CHIPS (Creating Helpful Incentives to Produce Semiconductors and Science) Act of 2022. This multibillion-dollar legislation, enacted by Congress earlier this summer, provides subsidies to well-heeled American corporations to produce more semiconductors – a Congressional bid to steer semiconductor manufacturing away from China. The CHIPS Act was made possible in part by authorizations lawmakers previously made on a bipartisan basis in the 2021 NDAA.

Lawmakers introduced hundreds of amendments to the 2023 NDAA, dozens of which would authorize a collective $100 billion-plus on initiatives like military financing for Taiwan, defense cooperation with U.S. allies to counter China, and nuclear fuel. I’ll be watching closely to see which of these initiatives are included in the thousands of pages of a compromise NDAA package. They may signal where Congress wants to increase the military budget in 2024, 2025, and beyond.

Congress is rushing to pass the NDAA over the next week or two, before they go home for the holidays. Lawmakers will all but certainly pass a massive increase to the defense budget approved by members of both parties in both chambers of the legislature – at least $80 billion in total above 2022 levels, and that doesn’t include tens of billions of dollars the Pentagon has received to combat Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

If so, then Christmas will come early for the nation’s military brass, who often get to spend without consequences from lawmakers who control their purse strings, and defense contractors, who benefit mightily from the taxpayer-funded largesse.

(Shutterstock/ rogistok)
Analysis | Military Industrial Complex
ukraine war
Diplomacy Watch: A peace summit without Russia
Diplomacy Watch: Moscow bails on limited ceasefire talks

Diplomacy Watch: Russia capitalizing on battlefield surge

QiOSK

Russian President Vladimir Putin wants to increase the size of Russia’s military even while it’s seeing regular successes on the battlefield. These developments are leading some in the Ukrainian military and civilians alike to become more open to the idea of talks aimed at ending the war.

The Kremlin is currently negotiating a new military budget proposal of upwards of $145 billion which would mean that, if signed into law, Russia’s 2025 defense spending would grow to 32.5% of the budget, a 4.2% increase from this year’s spending.

keep readingShow less
Iran bombs Israel, but buck stops with Biden

Israel's Iron Dome anti-missile system intercepts rockets after Iran fired a salvo of ballistic missiles, as seen from Ashkelon, Israel, October 1, 2024 REUTERS/Amir Cohen TPX

Iran bombs Israel, but buck stops with Biden

Middle East

Today, Iran launched a massive missile attack against Israel, which Tehran billed as a response to Israel’s recent assassinations of leaders of the IRGC, Hezbollah and Hamas. Israel now appears to be mulling a retaliation in turn that could push the sides into all-out war.

When Israel and Iran narrowly avoided a full-blown conflict in April, I warned that we shouldn’t let Biden’s help in averting escalation overshadow his broader, strategic failure to prevent such a dangerous moment from ever arising. Had the U.S. used its considerable leverage with Israel to end its war in Gaza, the region would not have found itself on the edge of a disastrous war in April; six months later, the Middle East is back at the brink of disaster.

keep readingShow less
Disabled refueler exposes fragility of US mission in Middle East

The aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN 72) approaches the fast combat support ship USNS Arctic (T-AOE 8) for a replenishment-at-sea. September 12, 2019. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 3rd Class Tristan Kyle Labuguen/Released)

Disabled refueler exposes fragility of US mission in Middle East

Middle East

A U.S. Navy oil tanker running aground off the coast of Oman isn’t a huge event. The fact that it is the only tanker to refuel American warships in a Middle East conflict zone, is.

In fact, this only underscores the fragility of the Navy’s logistic systems at a time when the U.S. has chosen to lean in on an aggressive military posture when it may not have the full capacity to do so, and it may or may not be in the national interest for the Navy to be conducting these operations in the first place.

keep readingShow less

Election 2024

Latest

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.