The Myth of Pentagon Budget Cuts

One only has to look at Hegseth’s own words to confirm this. In a statement on February 20, he said the Pentagon would rely on DOGE to ​“find fraud, waste and abuse in the largest discretionary budget in the federal government.” But then, he added, such cutting ​“allows us to reinvest elsewhere.” The supposed 8% of cuts will come from ​“nonlethal programs” and that money will instead go toward ​“America First” priorities of Trump. These include an alarming military buildup at the border with Mexico, an absurd ​“Iron Dome” project, and accelerated militarization of the Indo-Pacific region.

As media outlets run sensational articles about DOGE’s non-cuts to the military, Congress is actually advancing real increases to military spending. Trump has endorsed a Republican budget resolution, which passed the House this week, that includes an extra $100 billion more in the Pentagon’s budget. The resolution would impose deep cuts across agriculture, education, energy, health, infrastructure, transportation and more, including to vital social welfare programs like Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly food stamps), upon which tens of millions of people rely. Generally speaking, if it’s not related to military or border security, it’s likely on the chopping block.

One telling indicator is that military industry investors are confident. The S&P Aerospace & Defense Select Industry Index, an index which represents the arms industry, is up 4.1% since Trump’s election and a whopping 21.18% since February of last year. And some leading military industry executives are publicly praising Elon Musk and DOGE for their deregulation and industry friendliness. In other words, if Trump is a threat to the military-industrial complex, no one bothered to tell the military-industrial complex. 

Certain parts of the Pentagon budget will drive the increase in overall military spending. A Trump administration memo lists 17 priority areas that are likely to see funding boosts in the president’s forthcoming budget request for 2026. 

A few stand out as being particularly dangerous and immoral.

“Southwest Border Activities”

Translation: Deploying U.S. military personnel along the Southern border.

Problems: Trump’s military buildup at the border is part of his broader campaign of hate against immigrants, and he is wielding the most-funded military in the world to help carry it out. The Fort Bliss U.S. Army base in El Paso, Texas, now functions as a primary hub for deportation flights, including to detention centers like the one at the U.S. Navy base in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, where Trump has directed federal agencies to set up additional space to imprison up to 30,000 migrants.

Legally, active duty troops are prohibited from conducting law enforcement operations. Further militarizing the border significantly increases the likelihood of the U.S. bombing Mexico or deploying troops there to fight well-armed cartels. In addition to violating domestic and international law, both escalations would likely prompt retaliation from the cartels, which would in turn spur additional U.S. military operations. Violence could easily spill over into U.S. border communities, and worsen humanitarian conditions on the Mexican side of the border. 

This is all in the context of the United States using its might to pursue policies that are naked in their imperial ambitions. Renaming the Gulf of Mexico the Gulf of America would be laughable if the United States were not deploying the military to the border.

“Nuclear Modernization”

Translation: Continue the nuclear weapons buildup.

Problems: ​“Modernization” refers, at the most basic level, to spending money on nukes, rather than pursuing nonproliferation and disarmament, which would make for a much safer world. Historically, modernization has involved buying new nuclear weapons, including intercontinental ballistic missiles, which are so dangerous they could trigger an accidental nuclear war. Annual nuclear weapons spending worldwide is now $7 billion higher in inflation-adjusted terms than it was in 2020. The U.S. share of worldwide spending has increased from less than 52% to more than 56%. The Doomsday Clock — a tool to warn the public about how close humanity is to destroying itself with its own technologies, namely nuclear weapons — was at 100 seconds to midnight in 2020. It’s now 89 seconds to midnight. The nuclear buildup is bipartisan: In 2020, Democrats criticized Trump’s profligate spending on nuclear weapons; in 2024, they applauded the Biden-Harris administration for spending even more.

“Homeland Missile Defense”

Translation: Build an American ​“Iron Dome,” a nod to Israel’s weapon system.

Problems: Trump’s January executive order calling for an ​“Iron Dome for America” implies a revival of Ronald Reagan’s ​“Star Wars” plan, a failed effort to defend against nuclear attacks. That project was a wildly expensive boondoggle. 

Naturally, ​“experts” at arms industry-funded think tanks resolutely support Trump’s plan. Meanwhile, real nuclear experts call it fantastical: ​“economically ruinous and strategically unwise,” as one scientist put it. Even if Trump’s Iron Dome project worked, it would spoil efforts at denuclearization between major powers and accelerate global nuclear weapons spending. (Note: the Iron Dome for America was rebranded as the ​“Golden Dome for America” on February 24. The new name hasn’t stuck.)

“Executable military construction projects for U.S. Indo-Pacific Command”

Translation: Continue to hedge against China

Problems: As the United States pursues a military buildup in an arc around China, regular people, and basic principles of local self-determination, are caught in the crosshairs. There are at least 313 U.S. military installations in East Asia, and the United States has roughly 750 military bases around the world. (This compares to China’s eight or so foreign military bases, depending on who you ask.) Any military buildup in the region makes conflict or outright war more likely. And many people in the region object to their countries being used to expand the U.S. foothold. 

In recent years, the United States has reestablished its presence in the Philippines, after getting kicked out by a massive anti-bases movement in the ​‘80s and ​‘90s. This is how Corazon Valdez Fabros, an activist against the U.S. military presence, put it in an interview in 2023: ​“Imagine you have a visitor who comes into your house. You welcome this visitor. But this is a visitor who has all the guns, all the materials, that basically you cannot object to because they are fully loaded. And you cannot even tell this visitor to get out of your house when you want them to get out. That is the U.S.”

Taken together, these 17 priority areas suggest massive payouts to arms companies. In other words, business as usual, garnished with Trumpian pet projects like Iron Dome and border militarization. Most of the priorities involve sending military contractors vast sums of public funds to produce expensive armaments. One arms industry representative said the proposed Iron/​Golden Dome for America program will be ​“like the gold rush for [arms] companies — everyone is going to rush to show how they can contribute to the effort.” Other priorities convey the same message. ​“Virginia-class Submarines” cost more than $4.5 billion each; ​“Nuclear Modernization” is a major component of overall U.S. spending on nuclear weapons, which totals $69 billion; and ​“Munitions and Energetics Organic Industrial Bases” suggest billions of dollars in federal subsidies for arms producers.

Today’s Pentagon budget, adjusted for inflation, just about matches the peak spending levels of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. This is not good. After dramatic increases to pay for the invasions, occupations, and destructions of Afghanistan and Iraq, annual U.S. military spending was on its way down. That changed after Trump’s first budget (for fiscal year 2018). The administration said it was needed in an era of ​“Great Power Competition” — the endless ​“War on Terror” gave way to an endless cold war, the budgets of which have greatly exceeded those of the previous Cold War. After Trump ramped up military spending, Biden doubled down for the next four years. The concern now is that Trump will pick up right where Biden left off, just as Biden picked up where Trump left off.

Washington appears to be under the false impression that more military spending means more security, especially under the last two presidents. Biden called military budgets ​“investments in our national security,” as if security simply falls out of the Pentagon if you shove enough money into it. Trump embraced the same logic; his 2018 National Defense Strategy declared, ​“The surest way to prevent war is to be prepared to win one,” requiring ​“consistent, multiyear investment to restore warfighting readiness and field a lethal force.”

Despite trillions invested in the name of security, all signs suggest that more military does not bring genuine safety, and actually makes the world a more dangerous place. Trump’s buildup didn’t deter Russia from invading Ukraine, and Biden’s Pentagon spending spree was instrumental in putting the United States on the path to war with China.

Both parties are on autopilot, rubber-stamping Pentagon budget increases without considering the consequences, the costs, or public opinion. The result? An astronomically expensive military spending spree: The Trump-Biden military buildup far exceeds Reagan’s legendary 1980s buildup — annual Pentagon budgets under the last two administrations surpass those under Reagan by over $200 billion on average.

Of the post-World War II buildups, the Trump-Biden surge most closely resembles Reagan’s. Each accompanied drastic cuts to social welfare; another shared trait is that they made everyone less safe. Reagan’s rapid military escalation inflamed tensions with the Soviet Union, undoing the détente efforts that had started under Kennedy in 1963. Likewise, the current buildup has greatly increased the risk of intentional or accidental war with China.

Corporate profits soared during both buildups. The demand Reagan’s budgets put on the arms industry far outstripped supply. Weapons companies capitalized on this, charging inflated prices. Reagan bought more missiles, aircraft and tanks than Jimmy Carter, but paid 91%, 75%, and 147% more for each, respectively. 

Now, a recent 60 Minutes investigation has found systematic price gouging by contractors on ​“almost everything” the Pentagon buys.

While the Washington Post and other establishment media outlets report on fake Pentagon budget cuts, there are real, impending cuts to vital programs like Medicaid and SNAP. In other words, government programs that provide healthcare and food assistance to tens of millions of people are being gutted to make room for a $1 trillion Pentagon budget.

This arrangement benefits massive corporations and the ultra-wealthy at the expense of the working class. For example, Elon Musk’s SpaceX has already received $250 million in military contracts this fiscal year, adding to his publicly subsidized fortune. By contrast, social programs like Medicaid and SNAP serve human needs, not corporate interests — yet only social programs are on the chopping block. If the Democratic Party can’t make a coherent political message out of these basic facts, it’s not much of an opposition party.

This piece was adapted from a post on Stephen Semler’s Substack newsletter, Polygraph.