There’s this annual budget cycle that’s quite significant.
Congress has the potential to boost defense spending by up to $150 billion through adjustments. If this is added to the Department of Defense’s proposed budget for 2026, military spending would exceed $1 trillion annually.
Two main factors make it almost impossible for defense spending to dip below that threshold now.
First, there’s the political angle. If future budgets fall under the $1 trillion mark, discussions around national security cuts come into play. That’s a tough sell for many politicians, who would rather avoid those debates.
The second reason is quite practical. This budget increase includes funding for numerous new weapon developments. The program incorporates advanced aircraft like the F-47 and B-21 bombers, along with other innovations like underwater drones and hypersonic missiles. Currently, the military is only financing their development—not purchasing them yet. This means cost will balloon significantly once they enter production.
We’re seeing the Pentagon deal with what some refer to as “time bombs.” These new programs in the works are likely to turn out to be much costlier than initially anticipated as they transition into production and maintenance stages in the upcoming years.
Since the events of September 11, 2001, the burden of defense costs has escalated. Nowadays, military spending is at an all-time high, even surpassing the peaks during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Post-9/11, questioning military allocations in Washington became nearly taboo. Politicians aimed to exhibit a strong defense posture, so few dared to challenge proposals for military funding. This created an environment ripe for launching various acquisition programs, many of which had little connection to counter-terrorism efforts. After 9/11, new systems like the F-35 and various naval vessels emerged.
These programs were initiated under the belief that historic events warranted substantial financial support from taxpayers. Initially, it was the widespread fear of terrorism; today, concerns about China play a similar role.
The institutions overseeing national security seem to be on a relentless spending spree, often disappointing in outcomes.
Interestingly, despite increased funding, all branches of the military are much smaller compared to 50 years ago—roughly 40% of their size in 1975. The Navy has decreased from 559 ships to 293, and the Air Force’s fleet has shrunk from over 10,000 aircraft to around 5,000.
Unfortunately, many weapon systems take years to receive, often at double the estimated costs. Some don’t function well; for instance, the F-35 reportedly operates effectively less than a third of the time. There have been setbacks, such as the Navy discontinuing coastal vessels due to mission failures, and Army leaders scrapped future combat systems without delivering any operational vehicles.
Meanwhile, decision-makers seem to be perpetuating the very framework that has led to this ongoing turmoil. As taxpayers cover the consequences of past policy choices, today’s military authorities seem to be laying the groundwork for even more extreme Pentagon expenditures for the foreseeable future.
Defense spending has surged almost 50% since 2000, with the post-9/11 spending surge accounting for much of that rise. It’s feasible that, 20 years later, Americans might be facing costs between $2-3 trillion annually to meet ongoing commitments.
The current administration still has a chance to carve out a better course. The crucial first step involves reassessing the military strategies that guide defense policy. Given the changes in the global landscape over the last decade, especially concerning China’s own internal challenges, the U.S. can no longer rely on a vast military presence overseas.
Before advocating for hefty military expenditures, it’s essential to formulate an updated strategy to inform those decisions. It seems like the defense budget itself has become the strategy, rather than a reflection of a coherent approach.
