Defense spending request too much

Secretary of War Pete Hegseth recently appeared before Congress to defend a $1.5 trillion defense budget request for the coming fiscal year. The request is more than $500 billion more than the current defense budget and it is filled with items from Trump’s wish list including the Golden Dome and a fleet of new streamlined battleships as well as several large open-ended discretionary items that lack precise definition.

Also included is a request to restore weaponry from our depleted reserve of Tomahawk missiles and other very expensive sophisticated weapons that have been expended since the start of the illegal war waged against Iran.

$1.5 trillion for defense is a staggering sum that is impossible to comprehend considering our $40 trillion national debt and $1 trillion annual debt payment expense.

National executive and legislative officials confront the question of how much defense spending is enough defense spending annually. Logic leads us to the conclusion that the more varied and ambitious our national defense objectives are, the more we must be prepared to spend.

Obviously, spending in defense of our 50 states and territories is fundamental. Military deterrence is a major part of our homeland defense strategy. We seek to deter potential adversaries from mounting an attack on us by informing those adversaries that we possess the potential to absorb a strike and to strike back with devastating force. Does effective deterrence require us to support a superior military force or would parity with our adversaries or sufficiency serve our purpose? We recognize that a military superiority strategy invites a constant arms race and costs much more than either parity or sufficiency.

We also recognize that military superiority makes our potential adversaries nervous, fearing we may use our superior forces to attack them.

Our national defense budget is not limited to the protection of our 50 states and territories. We seek to protect other vital lands and people across the globe, and we use our military might as a tool in conducting foreign affairs.

The more vital lands and people we wish to secure, the more we must spend. The more we rely upon our military as a tool in conducting foreign affairs as opposed to diplomacy, soft power or economic sanctions, the more we must be willing to spend on defense.

Some defense spending has more to do with funding economic activity and creating jobs in key congressional districts than it has to do with defending the states and territories. Closing a military base or canceling a weapons system always invites contentious debates.

Military spending as a means of stimulating our national economy has been found to have less of a ripple effect than other forms of government spending including infrastructure, education and health care. Should the limited ripple effect of military spending be considered in deciding how much defense spending is enough?

Increased military spending during this time of annual deficit spending exceeding $2 trillion in new borrowing invites even more borrowing as this Congress has no stomach to tax those who have wealth to pay for the increased spending and cuts to other domestic programs to fund more defense spending have already been included in the One Big Beautiful Bill.

I want to believe that our elected members of the US Senate and House will think and act rationally as they review and act on the $1. 5 trillion defense budget requests, but I fear the cowardly members of the current House and Senate will fall in line and give the pretend monarch what he desires for fear of retribution in the next GOP primary election.

The 2026 midterm election may result in a change in party majorities in both the House and Senate.

It is possible, if not likely, that the new defense budget proposal will still be a subject of inquiry and debate when the new Congress is convened on January 3, 2027.