Recently, Marines were seen deployed in Los Angeles, seemingly connected to a controversial “White Privilege” Card Sale at Fort Bragg. This coincided with a military anniversary that some are calling an excuse for a birthday parade for President Trump. It’s left many veterans, like me, scratching our heads, pondering how a non-partisan institution like the military became such a political tool.
Military spending continues to spiral out of control, with no real oversight in sight. It feels like there’s more focus on perpetual wars than ever before. One has to wonder: Where’s the civilian oversight for the military?
You may have come across articles discussing how military leaders are hesitant to confront the way the Trump administration has utilized the military. People often blame leadership failures for allowing the military to be a backdrop for crowd control in places like Los Angeles or parades in Washington, D.C.
But a bigger question looms: Why doesn’t Congress, those elected to keep military overreach in check, take responsibility? Many Americans are justifiably frustrated with Congress’s inaction. Polls show dissatisfaction is rampant across both parties, and it feels like our voices are falling on deaf ears.
Trump’s recent use of military forces and his proposed budget ought to serve as a wake-up call for Congress. He seems to know that, for those feeling marginalized, his unchecked power when it comes to military action is a significant concern.
Let’s talk about budgets. Military spending continues to rise, raising eyebrows even among self-proclaimed fiscal conservatives. We’re looking at a defense budget of around $1 trillion. Sure, keeping the country safe is expensive, but politicians who often liken federal budgets to household budgets appear to be mismanaging funds that apparently can’t even pass an audit.
We’ve seen military contractors convinicing Congress of the need for various weapons systems, resulting in wasted billions. Just look at the U.S. Navy’s coastal combat ships—a massive failure in terms of cost and efficacy. Fighter jets are often delayed and riddled with budget overruns. Regardless of what contractors or generals claim, they seem to always get what they want.
This sort of reckless spending creates opportunities for profit, often with Congress in the know. Many elected officials have financial ties to defense contractors, enriching themselves off taxpayer dollars. Some even sit on committees meant to question these expenditures, putting into question how transparent they really are about military spending, especially when it involves conflicts many Americans oppose.
We’ve seen both Democrats and Republicans advocate for sending more arms to Israel, Ukraine, and other allies. However, the opportunity for wealth among members of Congress could encourage them to ignore public opinion and send even more aid. The lack of oversight has resulted in an unwieldy military system that, while costly, may not effectively safeguard the nation.
These days, people are talking about “golden domes” to protect the U.S. from missile attacks—quite the claim. That project could cost approximately $175 billion, aimed at guarding against a range of enemies, both tangible and perceived.
As we speak, giants like Lockheed and Boeing, along with newcomers like SpaceX and Palantir, are vying for a piece of the pie. It’s unsettling how the Golden Dome project seems to benefit members of Congress financially, leading to inflated budgets that might not justify the expense.
This brings us back to Trump. The lack of budget oversight provides him with the latitude to engage in military actions without significant criticism. He has positioned himself against “endless wars,” yet the issues that led to prolonged conflicts like those in Afghanistan and Iraq remain unaddressed. Future presidents will likely continue to engage in low-intensity conflicts and utilize military resources as they see fit.
Including the recent deployment of Marines in Los Angeles seems a case in point.
Critics of leadership may argue that allowing parades and internal deployments achieves little. I believe it’s only when elected officials take responsibility for military budgets that we can expect them to demand more judicious military use, leaning toward diplomacy. This could lead to less global and domestic conflict, reduced spending, and overall stability.
