Trump Walks Back Call to Cut Military Spending—Not Surprising, But a Huge Mistake

For a brief moment, President Donald Trump gave peace advocates a reason to be hopeful. After decades of unchecked and counterproductive military spending, he appeared to support major cuts to the military budget.

On Feb. 13, Trump said that the U.S. should engage with Russia and China to work towards denuclearization, noting that the U.S. is wasting money on new and upgraded nuclear bombs when we already have enough weapons “to destroy the world 50 times over.” He said that by reaching agreements with rival nations, the U.S. could reduce runaway military spending by as much as 50%.

The following week, Defense Secretary Hegseth called for cuts of up to 8% in the Pentagon budget for each of the next five years, including up to $50 billion in cuts over the next year alone. While far less than a 50% reduction, an 8% cut to a budget that exceeds a trillion dollars would still represent a significant shift away from decades of bipartisan unchecked military spending.

Unfortunately, it quickly became clear that any cuts to existing Pentagon programs will not lower U.S. military spending. Unlike cuts to education, medical research, environmental protection, and food assistance programs, the administration is proposing that any Pentagon “savings” be redirected to missile defense systems, border militarization, and other controversial and destructive military projects.

The Pentagon budget remains one of the few areas of the budget where substantial cuts can and should be made.

This is an enormous missed opportunity. We don’t need a rearranging of the deck chairs on the Pentagon’s titanic budget. We need fundamental change.

In fiscal year 2023, the U.S. spent 62% of the discretionary budget on military spending, totaling more than $1.1 trillion. This left only 38% of discretionary funding to pay for education, infrastructure, scientific research, diplomacy, agriculture, social programs, and more.

The Pentagon budget remains one of the few areas of the budget where substantial cuts can and should be made. For over two decades, military spending has grown year after year with little regard to actual need. Congress adds money to Presidential requests for military spending, even as it slashes other parts of the budget. In the reconciliation package passed by the House on February 25, this trend continued with congress not only passing an increased military budget, but also adding in an additional $150 billion in new military funding to be spent over two years.

Year after year, Congress gives the military even more money than it has requested. This happens regardless of what party is in power and regardless of other factors that should cause a reassessment of funding levels.

When the brutal U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan finally came to an end, it would have been a natural time to reduce military spending. Instead, Congress added money to the military budget. The Pentagon has failed seven audits in a row and can’t account for over $3 trillion in assets, but still Congress increased the budget. Between 2013 and 2018 the Pentagon returned $80 billion in unspent funds to the Treasury, but in each of these years Congress increased the budget.

Rather than moving funding around, Trump should stick to his word and pursue a 50% reduction in military spending realized through diplomacy and direct engagement with international rivals.

Congress also mandates that the Pentagon provide it with an “unfunded priorities list” so that it can fund even more weapons. This includes funding for weapons systems that don’t work and that the Pentagon has explicitly said it does not need. But lawmakers from both parties continue to advance the interests of military contractors and weapons manufacturers.

Towards the end of his term, President Obama announced plans to spend over a trillion dollars to upgrade the U.S. nuclear arsenal. Today, President Trump is poised to continue this investment in weapons systems that are already powerful enough to end all life on earth. Despite paying lip service to denuclearization, the changes demanded by Hegseth and supported by Trump explicitly exclude cuts to ongoing upgrades to U.S. nuclear weapons systems.

Instead, Trump and Hegseth want to cut military programs to address climate change, a serious concern given the fact that the U.S. military is the largest global institutional producer of greenhouse gasses. Diversity programming is also on the chopping block. These are small budget items that address real world problems. The actual drivers of runaway military spending remain untouched.

And all of this comes as the U.S. has decimated its investments in international diplomacy and development, including conflict prevention programming. Ironically, the total foreign affairs budget that was cut by the Trump administration is just over $50 billion, the same as the amount that is being reprioritized by the Pentagon.

Rather than moving funding around, Trump should stick to his word and pursue a 50% reduction in military spending realized through diplomacy and direct engagement with international rivals. Money saved by such a reduction could easily be reinvested in conflict prevention, development, and poverty reduction abroad as well as green jobs, scientific research, environmental protection, medical research, health care, education, and other needs that benefit all of us.