

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
If we judge President Trump’s values by this budget, we could reasonably conclude he values only Pentagon bloat and aggressive assaults against the most vulnerable people in society.
Presidents release their federal spending priorities annually in the form of a federal budget proposal. This is a moral rather than a practical document—the president’s budget virtually never passes Congress as written. Instead, it expresses the values of presidents and how they want to see the nation’s revenues raised and investments spent. It’s a blueprint for the kind of country they want us to be.
These priorities fluctuate depending on which administration and party is in power. The fiscal year 2027 budget proposal from President Donald Trump is a shocking departure from values most Americans hold.
The budget proposal builds on the values legislated through Trump’s so-called “One Beautiful Bill,” passed last year, which stole from the rest of us to give tax breaks to the uber wealthy and the richest corporations.
If we judge Trump’s values by this budget, we could reasonably conclude he values only Pentagon bloat, aggressive assaults against immigrant families, and stripping rights from transgender people. Meanwhile, families and communities are essentially thrown to the wolves.
We must demand robust investments in family, community, and basic human needs. These are our national values, not war and the prosecution of immigrant children.
The most eye-popping number is the proposed $1.5 trillion for the Pentagon—a huge increase over the already astronomical $1 trillion spent this year. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which has brazenly abused immigrants and US citizens, would also get billions more—over and above the unprecedented sums it got in the “Big Beautiful Bill.”
What wouldn’t get an increase in Trump’s budget? Programs that actually help people. This budget proposes a 10% cut to all non-Pentagon discretionary spending.
The Department of Health and Human Services is cut by 12.5%. The Department of Agriculture, 25%. The Department of Labor is slashed by 26%, and the Environmental Protection Agency is cut in half.
Jobs Corps for young people and work assistance for seniors are eliminated. After-school programs and food assistance for children are slashed. The federal government’s signature housing program, HOME, is zeroed out entirely.
At a time when families are navigating rising living costs, stagnant wages, and a tight job market, this budget proposes deep cuts to the programs that help them get by. Education, food and housing assistance, home energy assistance, and worker rights—all either zeroed out or drastically reduced. Even the children’s summer food program and the fruit and vegetable benefits of food stamps are cut.
Mind you, all this would come on top of the historic $1 trillion cut to Medicaid, SNAP, and other programs under the “Big Beautiful Bill.” Those cuts aren’t a proposed blueprint—they’ve already been passed into law.
Children feel these effects the most. Reduced access to Head Start and school-based nutrition and disability services doesn’t just affect the present moment—they shape lifelong outcomes. Food insecurity, unstable housing, and a lack of early education create barriers that no child should have to try to overcome.
Transgender people, already under aggressive attack, are targeted in this budget—for example, historic cuts to the National Institutes of Health include eliminating research on the health of trans people.
The document also repeatedly scapegoats the trans community for cuts to programs that have virtually nothing to do with them. For instance, university programs that support vulnerable students were eliminated because the administration claims they fund “clothing needs for transgender people.” Cuts to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association were justified, in part, because the agency allegedly held a workshop for transgender people.
These disinvestments destabilize entire communities and local economies. Public health suffers and income inequality increases.
A nation’s strength is not measured solely by its military spending or economic indicators. It is measured by whether its people—especially its most vulnerable—have what they need to live with dignity. This budget fails that test.
We know what works. Investments in education, nutrition, health, housing, care, income, and work supports. These investments stabilize communities and improve the economy. Choosing to cut these programs is not inevitable. It is a policy decision whose adverse effects will be felt for generations.
We must demand robust investments in family, community, and basic human needs. These are our national values, not war and the prosecution of immigrant children. Because when we disinvest in people, we all pay the price.
This op-ed may be republished with attribution to InsideSources.com.
His latest spending proposals build on his history of overseeing significant reductions in taxes and dramatic increases in defense spending, in line with core conservative goals.
Since Donald Trump first broke onto the national political scene, there has been a serious debate among Republicans regarding his commitment to conservative principles. His style was, in a word, flamboyant. His morality was questionable. And his behavior and language were outrageous. None of these behaviors could be identified with the staid “buttoned down” behaviors on display in conservative circles.
In recent decades, Republicans have latched onto a range of social issues like gay marriage, transgender rights, and abortion, or cultural matters like xenophobia and opposition to affirmative action. None of these issues, however, were central to textbook conservatism, which historically has been encapsulated in the mantra “lower taxes, smaller government” and the insistence that the principal role of government ought to be “securing the national defense.” Despite not being cut from the same mold as Barry Goldwater or Ronald Reagan, President Trump has proven his bona fides on advancing these core conservative goals. Mimicking the Reagan and George W. Bush administrations, President Trump in his first and second terms has coupled significant reductions in taxes with dramatic increases in defense spending either to expand the Pentagon’s already bloated budget or to underwrite foreign wars fought by us or allies.
This week’s rollout of Trump’s proposed budget for fiscal year 2027 looks like a conservative’s dream come true. He is asking for a $500 billion increase in the defense department’s budget, amounting to the largest increase (44%) and the largest overall military budget since World War II. This 2027 increase is on top of the $350 billion supplement requested for 2026, presumably to offset the increased costs resulting from the US-Israel war on Iran.
The 2027 budget request also includes increases for Veterans Affairs and the Justice Department (to cover the costs of immigration prosecutions). But the 2027 budget also makes cuts in 10 other government agencies, with sharp reductions for the State Department and international programs; renewable energy projects; research grants in healthcare; and a number of social, educational, and medical programs. When asked by reporters about the impact of these reductions specifically on Medicare, Medicaid, and daycare programs, the president replied: “We’re fighting wars. It’s not possible for us to take care of daycare, Medicaid, Medicare, all these things.”
Because mainstream Democrats have shied away from criticizing past and present wars and excessive defense spending, they’ve allowed Republicans to use the issue of budget deficits to play innocent and instead attack Democrats as “big spenders” who are recklessly spending the US into a hole.
What makes this problematic is that these dramatic increases in defense spending have been coupled with a sharp reduction in revenues resulting from Trump’s signature legislation—the “One Big Beautiful Bill”—that passed last year. That bill included reductions in taxes totaling $4.5 trillion over the next 10 years. In other words, “lower taxes, smaller government” and a singular focus on defense spending—the conservatives’ dream budget.
Two additional benefits to Republicans result from this pairing of decreases in revenues and increases in defense spending. On the one hand, it sharply increases budget deficits, which Republicans have effectively used to call for more spending cuts to social welfare spending. Because mainstream Democrats have shied away from criticizing past and present wars and excessive defense spending, they’ve allowed Republicans to use the issue of budget deficits to play innocent and instead attack Democrats as “big spenders” who are recklessly spending the US into a hole. In reality, however, it was Ronald Reagan’s irresponsible massive tax cuts and huge increases in military spending that caused the budget deficits of the 1980s. And while during the 2012 election Republicans made an issue of the growing national debt, no one pointed out that it was George W. Bush’s tax cuts and the war in Iraq that rang up a bill of trillions of dollars with no new revenues raised to offset the outlays for the war and its aftermath. To date, that war has cost over $7 trillion. Now Trump is following in the footsteps of Reagan and George W. Bush.
There is still another way, that Trump, like Reagan, will try to exploit the crisis created by a skewed budget to his advantage. This week, when reporters asked the president about his budget proposal’s impact on daycare programs, Medicaid, and Medicaid (which will experience cuts or strains), he replied:
(We can’t) send any money for daycare because theUnited States can’t take care of daycare. We’re a big country. We have 50 states. We have all these other people. We’re fighting wars. It’s not possible for us to take care of daycare, Medicaid, Medicare, all these individual things. They can do that on a state basis.
By recklessly reducing the federal government’s revenues and then forcing cuts in needed social programs to make way for increased defense spending, Trump, like Reagan, is forcing the financial cost of daycare, Medicaid, education, etc., down to the state level. Then when Democratic governors are forced to raise taxes to cover these increased costs, Republicans will pounce, criticizing them for raising taxes.
If this president’s policies over the last decade haven’t convinced the conservative elite that he's really one of them or voters that he’s not the radical populist his rhetoric made him out to be, then his 2027 budget should be all the convincing they need.
"To pay for his endless wars, he wants the biggest increase to military spending in 70 years," said Rep. Greg Casar. "Hell no."
President Donald Trump's White House released a budget proposal on Friday that pairs an unprecedented, debt-exploding $1.5 trillion in military spending with tens of billions of dollars in cuts to domestic agencies and education, healthcare, climate, and housing programs.
Trump's budget request for fiscal year 2027, which must be approved by Congress, includes $73 billion in total cuts to nondefense spending while boosting military outlays by 42%—or nearly $500 billion—compared to current levels.
Programs cut or eliminated in the proposed budget—under the guise of slashing "woke programs" and "ending the Green New Scam"—include the Environmental Protection Agency's Environmental Justice program, Community Services Block Grants, electric vehicle charging subsidies, renewable energy initiatives at the Interior Department, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and Pathways to Removing Obstacles to Housing.
The budget proposal also calls for cuts to the already-depleted Internal Revenue Service, without offering specific figures.
One budget expert noted that, if enacted, the White House's requested cuts would bring nondefense discretionary spending to "its lowest level in the modern era."
Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas), chairman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, wrote in response to Trump's request that "to pay for his endless wars, he wants the biggest increase to military spending in 70 years."
"How does he pay for it? Cuts to 'education, health, housing, and more,'" Casar added. "Hell no."
Robert Weissman, co-president of Public Citizen, said in a statement that "the Trump-Vought budget proposal is a moral obscenity," referring to Russell Vought, director of the White House Office of Management and Budget.
"The $500 billion annual increase in proposed Pentagon spending—if it were instead deployed humanely—would be enough to solve or meaningfully address the nation's great problems, from healthcare to daycare, from the climate crisis to affordable housing, from improving schools to making college education affordable," said Weissman. "Instead, Trump and Vought propose to spend an unfathomable amount on a Pentagon that can't even pass an audit to further empower an out-of-control and incompetent leader in Pete Hegseth."
"As usual, the priorities of the people are simply unimportant to this administration as they think about spending our taxpayer dollars," Weissman continued. "Republicans and Democrats in Congress should treat this proposal with all the care it deserves and immediately hit delete."
"Trump said that our country cannot afford to help families with childcare or healthcare—but his own budget proves what a ridiculous farce that is."
The White House unveiled its budget request days after Trump said it is "not possible" for the federal government "to take care of daycare, Medicaid, Medicare, all these individual things" because "we’re fighting wars," comments that observers viewed as a stark summary of the administration's priorities.
"Trump is telling the American people our country somehow can’t afford childcare, Medicaid, and Medicare, but is never too stretched to fund wars of choice," Rep. Brendan Boyle (D-Pa.), the top Democrat on the House Budget Committee, said in a statement Friday. "He is wrong. We are the wealthiest country in the world and can absolutely afford to both defend and invest in the American people."
"The president is now demanding a massive increase in defense spending, including a $350 billion slush fund for his reckless war with Iran, while cutting billions from healthcare, education, housing, and more. This budget represents ‘America Last,'" said Boyle. "I will be demanding answers from White House OMB Director Russell Vought when he testifies at the House Budget Committee on April 15."
The Trump White House is calling on Congress to approve a significant chunk—roughly $350 billion—of its proposed military budget increase via the filibuster-proof reconciliation process, which would allow Republicans to push the funding through without any Democratic support. The new budget request also calls for a "historic investment" in the Department of Homeland Security, which has been partially shut down for more than a month as Democrats push for reforms to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
"This funding would come in addition to the $170 billion passed just last year that has enabled the deaths of migrants in detention centers, the detention of children, and the deaths of US citizens at the hands of mass deportation agents," Lindsay Koshgarian, program director of the National Priorities Project, said in response to the budget request.
“The president looked at the country, with our rising gas prices and nearly half of us struggling to afford basic necessities, and decided what we really need is a bigger war budget," said Koshgarian. "Not healthcare or childcare or relief from high prices or expensive housing, but a nearly bottomless budget for whatever wars his cronies and the contractors dream up next."