President Trump likes to take credit for persuading NATO to spend 5% of GDP on defense, but in 2025 he didn't ask Congress to meet that target. That changed this month as he said he'll propose a military budget of $1.5 trillion. It's the right decision for a world of proliferating threats.
For "the Good of our Country, especially in these very troubled and dangerous times," he wrote on Truth Social, "our Military Budget for the year 2027 should not be $1 Trillion Dollars, but rather $1.5 Trillion Dollars."
Yes, the U.S. already spends more on defense in dollars than other major powers. But the world is more dangerous than any time since Hitler and Tojo were marching through Europe and Asia. China and Russia are working together against the U.S. wherever they can. They're helping anti-American regimes in North Korea, Iran and Latin America.
Most ominous, new technologies are proliferating in ways that threaten the U.S homeland. These include hypersonic missiles, space and cyber weapons, drones, and as ever nuclear weapons. All of this is before AI is weaponized in multiple ways.
China is embarking on the largest military buildup since Germany in the 1930s. Its navy ship count is larger than America's, with an expanding network of bases around the world. It is building nuclear weapons fast, with the delivery systems to threaten American cities. A 2024 report by a blue-ribbon panel of defense experts makes for harrowing reading about our vulnerability in the next war.
Deterring these threats -- and defeating them if war comes -- requires more money than we are now spending. The U.S. is devoting about 3% of GDP to defense. That's roughly the same as during the height of Bill Clinton's peace dividend in 2000, and half what it was at the height of Ronald Reagan's defense buildup. An additional $500 billion would get close to 5% of GDP and the NATO target.
But hasn't the U.S. military shown, in Iran and Venezuela, that it is unmatched? Yes, and brilliantly so, against small powers when we can dominate space and the skies, and use our experience in combined arms operations. Going up against China, or a multiple front conflict, is far less certain.
Since Barack Obama's budget sequestration in 2013, the Pentagon has had to make ugly trade-offs with declining real resources. This was only briefly interrupted by one-time budget increases in President Trump's first term. The services raid force size and readiness to fund new equipment, which too often is then pared back or canceled to save more money. Replacing an aging nuclear triad is a generational expense, and forget about a "Golden Dome" missile defense on current spending plans.
The U.S. military is too small to prevail decisively in a war with a peer, let alone deter another at the same time. A two-war standard has fallen out of fashion in both parties, but it's the realist position. A Taiwan crisis that ensnared the U.S. would be an opportunity for Vladimir Putin to snatch the Baltic states or North Korea to move on the South.
The active-duty Army is now roughly the size that Mr. Obama wanted for his come-home-America worldview (450,000). The U.S. Navy battle force is stuck at about 300 ships, despite the urgent need to grow. Tails in the Air Force fighter fleet? About half the Cold War inventory.
One can argue that the U.S. can compensate with technology, but Ukraine has exposed that wish. The billions of private capital flowing into defense tech will help, but the U.S. still isn't buying and operating unmanned platforms at scale.
Download the U.S. Navy's reports on accidents during a recent carrier strike group deployment to the Red Sea. The damage included shooting down one of our own fighter jets and a carrier fender bender with a civilian ship. The investigations reveal undermanned departments and under-trained sailors, who appear to have grown accustomed to operating that way.
Even the Caracas raid carries a warning. Those jets that suppressed enemy air defenses? The Biden Administration tried to retire a chunk of the Growler fleet, until Congress blocked that self-defeating penny pinching.
The opponents of spending more on defense make two main points: The Pentagon wastes too much of what it now spends, and the U.S. can't afford it. On the first point, we're all for making hard choices, and the Pentagon is making progress in reforming weapons production and purchasing. New contractors like Anduril will make a difference, especially if Congress prods the Pentagon to shape up.
As for affording it, defense is now less than 13% of the federal budget; though it is the most fundamental duty of government. A cradle-to-grave entitlement state won't look so comfortable if America has to fight another war; never mind loses one. The real choice today is between guns and runaway entitlements.
A $1.5 trillion budget request will be a heavy political lift; and to sell it Mr. Trump will have to level with the public that the U.S. military isn't as dominant as he has claimed. He'll have allies on Capitol Hill if he makes the case. The best way to go down as a peacemaker is by building a military no one wants to fight.