Reason.com - Free Minds and Free Markets
Reason logo Reason logo
  • Latest
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Archives
    • Subscribe
    • Crossword
  • Video
    • Reason TV
    • The Reason Roundtable
    • Free Media
    • The Reason Interview
  • Podcasts
    • All Shows
    • The Reason Roundtable
    • The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie
    • Freed Up
    • The Soho Forum Debates
  • Volokh
  • Newsletters
  • Donate
    • Donate Online
    • Ways To Give To Reason Foundation
    • Torchbearer Society
    • Planned Giving
  • Subscribe
    • Reason Plus Subscription
    • Print Subscription
    • Gift Subscriptions
    • Subscriber Support

Log In

Create new account

War

Trump's Call for a $1.5 Trillion Military Budget Is Irresponsible, Wasteful, and Unrealistic

The proposal is "an enormous waste of taxpayer dollars and would make Americans less, not more, safe." Thankfully, Congress is unlikely to adopt it.

Eric Boehm | 4.3.2026 2:35 PM

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL Add Reason to Google
Media Contact & Reprint Requests
trump-Military-4-3 | CNP / AdMedia/SIPA/Newscom/Feng Yu/Bumbleedee/Dreamstime
(CNP / AdMedia/SIPA/Newscom/Feng Yu/Bumbleedee/Dreamstime)

President Donald Trump is asking Congress to spend nearly $1.5 trillion on the military next year—a 43 percent increase to the Pentagon's budget.

The White House included that massive increase in military spending in a budget request sent to Congress on Friday. It formalizes the proposal that Trump has been teasing for months. In percentage terms, it would be the largest year-over-year increase in military spending since the Korean War.

Some of the new military spending would be offset by cuts to other parts of the discretionary budget. The White House's budget proposal would trim $73 billion from other programs. Overall, the White House's budget envisions discretionary spending increasing from about $1.9 trillion to nearly $2.2 trillion next year.

Trump's proposed military budget would be "an enormous waste of taxpayer dollars and would make Americans less, not more, safe," says Ben Freeman, coauthor of The Trillion Dollar War Machine and a director at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft. Freeman says the proposal would encourage more aimless wars and would add to the federal government's already soaring debts.

"Fortunately, it's not going to happen," he added, noting that political and budgetary pressure make it very unlikely that Congress will be able to fulfill the White House's request. Right now, it's not even clear that Congress will approve the much smaller request for $200 billion in supplemental funding for the Iran war. "This is a negotiating tactic, not a serious request," Freeman believes.

Even so, the president has made it clear that boosting the military's budget is a top priority, even if it comes at the expense of other government programs.

While speaking at the White House this week, Trump said the military budget was his top priority. "It's not possible for us to take care of day care, Medicaid, Medicare—all these individual things, they can do it on a state basis. You can't do it on a federal," Trump said. "We have to take care of one thing: military protection. We have to guard the country."

The impulse to push more responsibility to the state level is a good one, but Medicare and Medicaid will continue to be a huge part of the federal budget.

That's the real story here—and in every other debate over how much the federal government should be spending. So-called "mandatory spending" on entitlements like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid will cost an estimated $4.8 trillion in fiscal year 2027, according to the Congressional Budget Office's (CBO) latest projections. Interest payments on the debt will cost another $1.1 trillion that year.

Meanwhile, the CBO expects the federal government to collect about $5.8 trillion in tax revenue that year.

It doesn't take a math whiz to see the problem here. The budget is already running a deficit before any discretionary spending, including the military, is on the table.

The White House proposes cutting hundreds of billions in spending from some discretionary programs to use for the military budget. In reality, the entirety of that $1.5 trillion proposal is being borrowed and added to the debt, because entitlement spending and payments on the national debt have effectively crowded everything else. We are putting the whole federal discretionary budget on the national credit card.

"Exploding the Pentagon budget will not make us safer. It will explode the debt. It will waste taxpayer dollars on programs that don't work or that we simply don't need," said Steve Ellis, president of Taxpayers for Common Sense, in a statement on Friday. "It will crowd out funding for other national security priorities that the Pentagon doesn't address, like disaster mitigation and response, pandemic preparedness, food security, and reining in the debt."

In a historical context, Trump's military budget proposal looks less extreme. Spending $1.5 trillion on the military would mean the Pentagon consumes roughly 5 percent of America's total economic output. During the height of the Cold War, the military consumed up to 10 percent of America's gross domestic product (GDP), as advocates of a beefed-up Pentagon budget like to point out.

Of course, the rest of the government cost a lot less back then, and it wasn't spending $1 trillion to pay interest on the national debt.

Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

NEXT: Trump’s Answer to Iran's Hormuz Crisis: Sell Oil We Don’t Have

Eric Boehm is a reporter at Reason.

WarGovernment WasteMilitaryDefense SpendingTrump AdministrationPentagonBudgetBudget DeficitNational DebtDebtIranCongressCongressTaxesTaxpayersGovernment Spending
Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL Add Reason to Google
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

Hide Comments (48)

Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.

  1. Don't look at me! ( Is the war over yet?)   2 months ago

    Yes, everyone knows what pinch pennies congress critters can be, particularly when those defense dollars are going to be spent in their districts.

    1. mad.casual   2 months ago

      Congress hasn't passed a budget in 30 yrs. The government has run at least in part on CRs for something like 46 of the last 50 yrs. Calling for a military budget of $0 would be irresponsible, wasteful, and unrealistic.

      Even Reason itself has pointed out multiple times that "It costs more money to shut down the government than it does to keep it open" and "DOGE is reckless and irresponsible".

      1. SCOTUS gave JeffSarc a big sad   2 months ago

        It’s disgraceful, and the republicans are almost as much to blame for that as the democrats. On a positive note, it looks like we manage to elect a few more decent ones each election cycle. GOP voters are getting more involved in the primary process, which is helping to stem the tide of establishment pukes pushed by the likes of Bitch McConnell.

      2. charliehall   2 months ago

        Ah, the straw man with no brain. Nobody is suggesting a military budget of $0. But the main purpose of the military budget is to put federal tax dollars into as many congressional districts as possible and to enrich the shareholders owning defense contractor stocks.

        Even Bernie Sanders supports the F-35!

  2. Fu Manchu   2 months ago

    Can't wait to hear from real Libertarians here why this is a good thing.

    1. SCOTUS gave JeffSarc a big sad   2 months ago

      That might better inform a hard left Sorosite democrat, such as yourself.

    2. charliehall   2 months ago

      Because Trump wants it! It is really amazing how one day they can be screaming for spending cuts and the next day they want this massive Massive MASSIVE increase in unnecessary spending.

  3. JFree   2 months ago

    This is all just funny money nonsense. Foreigners ain't gonna fund our deficits anymore - which is a big reason interest rates have risen since the Iran War started. That will only accelerate from here.

    We kicked the can for a long long time. That's over.

  4. Vernon Depner   2 months ago

    When numbers get that big, they're just pretend.

    https://youtu.be/CPDr9wGNEfg?si=kcujN6hWymQ5kHam&t=266

    1. SCOTUS gave JeffSarc a big sad   2 months ago

      It’s ALL pretend. You’re all just figments of my imagination anyway. Except SQRLSY. I take zero responsibility for whatever kind of unnatural abomination it is.

  5. Zeb   2 months ago

    FUCK YOU, CUT SP...
    ah, fuck it, why bother?

    1. Quicktown Brix   2 months ago

      Yeah...been feeling the same way...

      1. Fu Manchu   2 months ago

        This is warm and fuzzy Trump spending, unlike the oppressive and evil Biden spending.

        1. SCOTUS gave JeffSarc a big sad   2 months ago

          Don’t you have a bottle of rotgut liquor to crawl into? It’s Friday night, and you just got your welfare check.

      2. SCOTUS gave JeffSarc a big sad   2 months ago

        Yes comrade, your pro democrat advocacy telegraphs strong convictions where excessive spending is concerned.

        1. Quicktown Brix   2 months ago

          Buzz buzz...the annoying mosquito troll tries to bite again. The mosquito knows no other attack and isn't capable of learning a new attack, always whining past our ears day in, day out.

          Did you know only female mosquitoes bite? That's what makes it such an appropriate analogy for you. Just like a perpetually unhappy and entitled woman, you nag and annoy those around you to try to make them as unhappy as you.

          I wonder though... What kind of mental deficiency or personality disorder would drive someone to this name calling trolling with absolutely no ability to absorb information that doesn't fit your preconceived conclusions. I don't mean your ridiculous online persona either. I mean the disgusting human being sitting in your home or office or whatever lair you disgrace with your presence that would go online to spend your time trying to make others miserable, judging others to damnation based on your pompously ignorant obstinate authoritarian delusions. I wonder about that terrible human being.

          Show us you aren't ashamed of your behavior. Prove you're man. Tell us your real name. Stand up and own your screed. Let the world knows who feels this superior, to demean others' thoughts, call for their deaths, yet only shows infantile regurgitation of partisan views and middle school grade internet trolling for himself. Put up or shut up.

          1. SCOTUS gave JeffSarc a big sad   2 months ago

            Poor angry Marxist bitch can’t take it. And you will dammed becasie you are a vile lying leftist. A malignant collectivist that hates my constitutional republic. You don’t even believe America is a sovereign country. But you cry like a baby when you’re called out on it.

            What you really what is the ability to dox me, as that is the leftist way. If you really to be a big man, why don’t you come meet up with me? We can have a contest to see who can hit the softest.

            Whiney little pinko pussy.

            1. Quicktown Brix   2 months ago

              How can I meet you if you're afraid to say who you are?

              And why are afraid of being doxxed if you're not ashamed of your behavior here?

  6. Sometimes a Great Notion   2 months ago

    Print, baby, print.

    1. SCOTUS gave JeffSarc a big sad   2 months ago

      I think they just type some numbers into a computer at this point.

  7. Nelson   2 months ago

    I’ve been told repeatedly that Trump has cut the deficit and that supply-side economics definitely works.

    So how is it that Trump pushed the largest deficit spending bill in history (OBBB) and supply side economics has always grown the deficit faster than the policies they replaced? It must be a communist conspiracy!

    1. SCOTUS gave JeffSarc a big sad   2 months ago

      No, you’re just a moron who lies and also doesn’t really understand much of anything anyway. And we all know that off a democrat proposed a similar budget hike for welfare and other social oats giveaways you would enthusiastically support it.

      So cut the shit.

    2. TJJ2000   2 months ago

      Lies. Obama and Biden spent far more than Trump ever did.
      Needless to point out - [D]s wrote, pushed and passed even Trumps biggest spenders.
      Why do you leftards insist on lying about everything?

      1. charliehall   2 months ago

        Liar.

        Obama spent $46.06T in eight years, Trump $39.9T in five years, Biden $37.8T in four years. Trump will pass Obama shortly.

        More interestingly, spending increased 25% in eight years under Obama, 43% in four years of Trump's first term, 12% in four years under Biden, and another 6% in the first year of Trump's second term.

        https://apps.bea.gov/iTable/?reqid=19&step=2&isuri=1&categories=survey&_gl=1*1ukq8fg*_ga*MTY5MzY5MDQwNC4xNzcxNzc5NjQz*_ga_J4698JNNFT*czE3NzU0MTY0NTEkbzkkZzEkdDE3NzU0MTY0NTkkajUyJGwwJGgw#eyJhcHBpZCI6MTksInN0ZXBzIjpbMSwyLDMsM10sImRhdGEiOltbIkNhdGVnb3JpZXMiLCJTdXJ2ZXkiXSxbIk5JUEFfVGFibGVfTGlzdCIsIjg2Il0sWyJGaXJzdF9ZZWFyIiwiMjAwOCJdLFsiTGFzdF9ZZWFyIiwiMjAyNSJdLFsiU2NhbGUiLCItOSJdLFsiU2VyaWVzIiwiQSJdXX0=

        1. TJJ2000   2 months ago

          LMAO... Do you think 8-years, 5-years and 4-years are equal comparison?
          Oh yeah; I'm the liar alright... /s
          ....And when Trump hits 8-years he will have spent more than Biden in 4-years! /s

          Yet the fact still remains Trump spent less (FAR, FAR, FAR less if you take-out the [D] Cares Act) than Biden did in the same 4-years as well as LESS than Obama in his 1st Term with [D] Congress.

          What kind of POS liars keeps trying to fight this? Everyone knows every single BIG SPENDER program is/has-always-been pitched by [D]emon-craps. What kind of snake-oil are you criminal minds trying to sell and exactly how stupid do you think people are to buy the BS?

    3. middlefinger   2 months ago

      Because government spending is part of the pesky GDP formula. Whether you’re giving Maoist retards make work NGO “jobs” or pushing military spending. economic growth is up!!!( government spending) but nothing is getting built.

      It’ll work this time- I promise

    4. Butler T. Reynolds   2 months ago

      Supply side economics works, but deficit spending is not supply side economics.

      1. Nelson   2 months ago

        Supply side economics has never, and will never, work. The promises of higher revenue from lower corporate taxes has never materialized because it isn’t mathematical reality.

        Supply-side revenue generation has never outperformed the projections of the policies they replaced. Not even in the first year, never mind the 10th (the GAO’s prediction window).

        Lowering taxes can help a little, but it needs to be targeted and needs to be part of a progressive tax. Reducing regulation without changing the tax code would be the first step, although a flat tax with a personal and corporate tax floor and no ceiling, with no deductions of any kind, would be the easiest and fairest way to balance the budget. Certainly better than a regressive tax like a VAT or sales tax.

        1. TJJ2000   2 months ago

          Nelson paraphrased, "America success was a fluke!" /s
          Let me guess you think Demand-Side Only works huh....
          As long as moronic [WE] keep DEMANDING with Gov-Guns the sh*t will just fall off a tree somewhere.

          It is baffling just how CRIMINAL the leftarded has gotten in their own minds.

  8. Agammamon   2 months ago

    I think that if we take CA and MN fraud (and fraud from the rest of the ethnic enclaves in the country) we can pay for a lot of that defense budget.

    1. SCOTUS gave JeffSarc a big sad   2 months ago

      I doubt Trump experts the full amount. He likes to open negotiations big to get a feel for the other side’s squeal number.

      (Am I the only one who read his book?)

    2. charliehall   2 months ago

      You win for the most hilariously ignorant internet comment of the week.

  9. Panhandle   2 months ago

    Bring back DOGE for 1 year under the leadership of Elon Mush and turn them lose on the Military/Pentagon/Dept of War waste and fraud and the USA will find it has plenty of money in its defense budget.

    1. Leo Kovalensky II   2 months ago

      DOGE was, unfortunately, not very successful. At this point we need something like Rand's plan to cut 6% year over year until the budget is balanced.

      But it won't happen. He won't be elected. There is no party of fiscal responsibility, only a few lone-wolves in Congress that get rebuked by their own party every time they speak up.

      1. H. Farnham   2 months ago

        Hell, I'd be ecstatic if they even held the budget even until we got back to pre-covid levels (adjusted for inflation).

        1. SCOTUS gave JeffSarc a big sad   2 months ago

          Adjusted for inflation? Or Bidenflation?

        2. Nelson   2 months ago

          That’s impossible due to the mandatory spending of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security.

          Removing the income cap for FICA and applying it to both earned and unearned income would help a lot, while it would also tax everyone the same.

          The problem is that we can’t cut our way out of the deficit. If we only had Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, the interest on the debt, and military spending (the only discretionary item of the five), we would already be running a deficit.

          The math doesn’t work.

          The only way to cut the deficit is to reform entitlements. It is literally impossible any other way.

          1. charliehall   2 months ago

            The Republicans have enacted big cuts to Medicaid that haven't taken effect yet.

            A lot of deep red Trump communities will be losing their hospitals shortly. In addition to the healthcare they provide they are usually the largest employers.

  10. SRG2   2 months ago

    Unsurprisingly the cultists here are incapable of criticising even this most obviously stupid request to increase in gubment spending. You lot are such pathetic Earthlings.

    1. TJJ2000   2 months ago

      "There just HAS to be an enemy and even when I can't find one I'll make it up!" /s
      Haven't seen a single comment yet to insists growing spending is a good thing idiot.

    2. middlefinger   2 months ago

      Not me. I think defined benefit pensions, whether they’re local teachers unions, cops, fire or Social Security trust funds, pentagon, CIA, Fed and Congress is unsustainable and will collapse the U.S. as we know it. I don’t give a shit which political party is in. Defined benefits are unsustainable and kleptocratic theft.

      All pensions ought to be defined contribution. Big Government doesn’t build anything- they practice armed theft.

      1. charliehall   2 months ago

        "All pensions ought to be defined contribution. "

        That won't work for the military, unless you want to bring back conscription.

  11. Moderation4ever   2 months ago

    I can remember when President Reagan brought down the Soviet Union by forcing them to spend more on defense. President Trump seems determined to one-up Reagan by bringing down the United States by forcing more military spending. People should remember that peace is always cheaper. Many examples of this in history.

  12. MWAocdoc   2 months ago

    The United States does not need more military spending. What we need is less social welfare spending. What America needs is an offensive and defensive military unbeatable by any invading military force from outside; and the ability to totally destroy any force anywhere else in the world who attacks us. Instead, warhawks want a military that can project American power all the time, everywhere, all at once. Aside from the fact that that is a stupid foreign policy, it's also impossible to sustain. Stop trying to defend Europe and prop up THEIR social welfare system and let them defend themselves if they've a mind to do so; and stop trying to protect our non-existent "vital national interests" in the Middle East; and start reserving out military forces for defense of the United States instead.

    1. charliehall   2 months ago

      "What we need is less social welfare spending"
      Other than healthcare, there is less of that than in most developed countries. And the healthcare spending is because we have such high healthcare costs, not because the benefits are better.

      1. MWAocdoc   2 months ago

        How much other countries spend on social welfare is irrelevant. America should be spending ZERO on social welfare programs and so should other countries, developed or not. I could argue that the vast majority of Americans would be better off overall, including better, cheaper health care, with no government welfare spending than they are now with massive welfare spending. But what's the point? You would simply reject the facts and logic in favor of your unsupported socialist fantasies.

      2. TJJ2000   2 months ago

        Another LIE.
        Look up the welfare spending per capita between China and the USA.
        It might surprise you as it did me that the USA spends 2-TIMES on welfare than China.

        At this point one could say the USA is the 'socialist' nation.
        Which explains EXACTLY why healthcare is so 'unaffordable' in the MOST 'socialist' sectors.

        STEALING (by Gov-Guns) doesn't make sh*T.... Why can't you [D]emon-craps get that.
        The more you STEAL the more 'unaffordable' the product will get.
        ...because get this; STEALING doesn't make a product.
        This is grade school common sense.

  13. TJJ2000   2 months ago

    "It's not possible for us to take care of day care, Medicaid, Medicare—all these individual things, they can do it on a state basis. You can't do it on a federal," Trump said. "We have to take care of one thing: military protection. We have to guard the country."

    AND ^THAT^ is what a US patriot looks like.
    Following the very definition of what a USA is by the US Constitution.

    No. We don't need a $2.2 Trillion dollar military budget and the only thing we don't need even MORE-So is a $4.8 Trillion dollar [Na]tional So[zi]alist policies in the Union government. The only excuse there was to even make a 'United' States was for national defense.

Please log in to post comments

Mute this user?

  • Mute User
  • Cancel

Ban this user?

  • Ban User
  • Cancel

Un-ban this user?

  • Un-ban User
  • Cancel

Nuke this user?

  • Nuke User
  • Cancel

Un-nuke this user?

  • Un-nuke User
  • Cancel

Flag this comment?

  • Flag Comment
  • Cancel

Un-flag this comment?

  • Un-flag Comment
  • Cancel

Latest

Trump's Self-Promotion Is Always Shameless and Sometimes Illegal

Jacob Sullum | 6.3.2026 12:01 AM

Bernie Sanders' AI Wealth Fund Bill Shows That He Doesn't Understand AI or Wealth

Tosin Akintola | 6.2.2026 5:49 PM

Fewer Migrants, Fewer Homeless

Christian Britschgi | 6.2.2026 5:15 PM

Cutting Tariffs on Farm Equipment Is Another Admission That Trump's Trade Policies Are Increasing Prices

Eric Boehm | 6.2.2026 4:20 PM

Trump Is Reportedly Reconsidering His Politically and Legally Contentious 'Anti-Weaponization Fund'

Jacob Sullum | 6.2.2026 4:05 PM

Recommended

  • About
  • Browse Topics
  • Events
  • Staff
  • Jobs
  • Donate
  • Advertise
  • Subscribe
  • Contact
  • Media
  • Shop
  • Amazon
Reason Facebook@reason on XReason InstagramReason TikTokReason YoutubeApple PodcastsReason on FlipboardReason RSS Add Reason to Google

© 2026 Reason Foundation | Accessibility | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

r

I WANT FREE MINDS AND FREE MARKETS!

Help Reason push back with more of the fact-based reporting we do best. Your support means more reporters, more investigations, and more coverage.

Make a donation today! No thanks
r

I WANT TO FUND FREE MINDS AND FREE MARKETS

Every dollar I give helps to fund more journalists, more videos, and more amazing stories that celebrate liberty.

Yes! I want to put my money where your mouth is! Not interested
r

SUPPORT HONEST JOURNALISM

So much of the media tries telling you what to think. Support journalism that helps you to think for yourself.

I’ll donate to Reason right now! No thanks
r

PUSH BACK

Push back against misleading media lies and bad ideas. Support Reason’s journalism today.

My donation today will help Reason push back! Not today
r

HELP KEEP MEDIA FREE & FEARLESS

Back journalism committed to transparency, independence, and intellectual honesty.

Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
r

STAND FOR FREE MINDS

Support journalism that challenges central planning, big government overreach, and creeping socialism.

Yes, I’ll support Reason today! No thanks
r

PUSH BACK AGAINST SOCIALIST IDEAS

Support journalism that exposes bad economics, failed policies, and threats to open markets.

Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
r

FIGHT BAD IDEAS WITH FACTS

Back independent media that examines the real-world consequences of socialist policies.

Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
r

BAD ECONOMIC IDEAS ARE EVERYWHERE. LET’S FIGHT BACK.

Support journalism that challenges government overreach with rational analysis and clear reasoning.

Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
r

JOIN THE FIGHT FOR FREEDOM

Support journalism that challenges centralized power and defends individual liberty.

Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
r

BACK JOURNALISM THAT PUSHES BACK AGAINST SOCIALISM

Your support helps expose the real-world costs of socialist policy proposals—and highlight better alternatives.

Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
r

FIGHT BACK AGAINST BAD ECONOMICS.

Donate today to fuel reporting that exposes the real costs of heavy-handed government.

Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks