Follow us on social

2023-01-06t021337z_1082062106_mt1sipa000qf7fr5_rtrmadp_3_sipa-usa-scaled

McCarthy weighing $75B defense budget cut in quest for speakership (update)

Reportedly, part of the deal with Republican detractors would be capping entire federal budget to 2022 levels.

Analysis | Reporting | North America

UPDATE, 1/7, 9:30 a.m. ET: Rep. Kevin McCarthy obtained the required number of votes to become House Speaker last night. His concessions to the holdout Republicans reportedly include demands that any raising of the debt ceiling be accompanied by budget cuts, though it is not clear, yet, what those rule changes might be or whether they would affect defense spending. The Washington Post and other outlets are reporting that McCarthy will allow more Freedom Caucus members — who would be averse to lifting the debt ceiling without cuts — to be seated on the powerful Rules Committee.


After days of negotiations, Rep. Kevin McCarthy is considering cutting the Pentagon budget by $75 billion in order to gain the support of roughly two dozen Republicans who have opposed his bid to become speaker of the House, according to Bloomberg

The cut is reportedly part of an “emerging deal” that would cap government spending at 2022 levels, meaning that it would return defense spending to $782 billion — a sharp drop from this year’s allotment of $857 billion.

According to Andrew Lautz, Director of Federal Policy at National Taxpayers Union and regular RS contributor, this could end up being a bigger cut than people think.

“I would argue the cut would be larger than $75 billion. That's a $75 billion cut relative to FY 2023 levels. CBO is not out with their new baseline yet but I imagine they're now projecting a larger than $857 billion national defense topline for FY 2024,” Lautz wrote in an email after this story broke. “Relative to that new expectation, a $782 billion flat FY 2024 topline might be closer to an $100 billion cut."

If any deal does go through, it would still represent one of the largest single-year reductions in the Pentagon’s budget in history. But that is, of course, a big “if.” It remains unclear whether the agreement will be enough to end days of battles in the House over who will serve as speaker, and it’s far from certain that McCarthy will have the power to ensure that such dramatic cuts are actually enacted. 

The proposal could earn support from some progressives in Congress, including Reps. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) and Mark Pocan (D-Wis.), who pitched a $100 billion haircut for the Department of Defense earlier this year. But it will no doubt face serious headwinds from more hawkish members of Congress, especially given that this year’s Pentagon budget boost easily passed both the House and Senate, and progressives are unlikely to go along with the idea of across-the-board budget cuts.

One of the biggest questions surrounding the deal will be its potential impact on U.S. aid to Ukraine. Several of the Republican holdouts, including Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.), have strongly opposed the assistance, and McCarthy himself famously quipped late last year that American help should not amount to a “blank check.”

Regardless of the outcome, the proposed deal highlights a significant shift in Republican politics that has taken place in recent years. As Bill Hartung of the Quincy Institute told RS, GOP lawmakers often “gave the Pentagon a pass when they talked about curbing ‘big government,’” but many Freedom Caucus members now seem determined to cut the military down to size.


Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., walks back to his office after the House adjourned until tomorrow after five additional ballots today fell short of the necessary numbers to confirm his nomination for speakership on the third day of the 118th Congress at the US Capitol in Washington, D.C., on Thursday, January 05, 2023. (Photo by Craig Hudson/Sipa USA)
Analysis | Reporting | North America
American Special Operations
Top image credit: (shutterstock/FabrikaSimf)

American cult: Why our special ops need a reset

Military Industrial Complex

This article is the latest installment in our Quincy Institute/Responsible Statecraft project series highlighting the writing and reporting of U.S. military veterans. Click here for more information.

America’s post-9/11 conflicts have left indelible imprints on our society and our military. In some cases, these changes were so gradual that few noticed the change, except as snapshots in time.

keep readingShow less
Recep Tayyip Erdogan Benjamin Netanyahu
Top photo credit: President of Turkey Recep Tayyip Erdogan (Shutterstock/ Mustafa Kirazli) and Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu (Salty View/Shutterstock)
Is Turkey's big break with Israel for real?

Why Israel is now turning its sights on Turkey

Middle East

As the distribution of power shifts in the region, with Iran losing relative power and Israel and Turkey emerging on top, an intensified rivalry between Tel Aviv and Ankara is not a question of if, but how. It is not a question of whether they choose the rivalry, but how they choose to react to it: through confrontation or peaceful management.

As I describe in Treacherous Alliance, a similar situation emerged after the end of the Cold War: The collapse of the Soviet Union dramatically changed the global distribution of power, and the defeat of Saddam's Iraq in the Persian Gulf War reshuffled the regional geopolitical deck. A nascent bipolar regional structure took shape with Iran and Israel emerging as the two main powers with no effective buffer between them (since Iraq had been defeated). The Israelis acted on this first, inverting the strategy that had guided them for the previous decades: The Doctrine of the Periphery. According to this doctrine, Israel would build alliances with the non-Arab states in its periphery (Iran, Turkey, and Ethiopia) to balance the Arab powers in its vicinity (Iraq, Syria, and Egypt, respectively).

keep readingShow less
Havana, Cuba
Top Image Credit: Havana, Cuba, 2019. (CLWphoto/Shutterstock)

Trump lifted sanctions on Syria. Now do Cuba.

North America

President Trump’s new National Security Presidential Memorandum (NSPM) on Cuba, announced on June 30, reaffirms the policy of sanctions and hostility he articulated at the start of his first term in office. In fact, the new NSPM is almost identical to the old one.

The policy’s stated purpose is to “improve human rights, encourage the rule of law, foster free markets and free enterprise, and promote democracy” by restricting financial flows to the Cuban government. It reaffirms Trump’s support for the 1996 Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act, which explicitly requires regime change — that Cuba become a multiparty democracy with a free market economy (among other conditions) before the U.S. embargo will be lifted.

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.