In yet another escalation of America's already huge $850 billion defense budget, House Republicans have introduced a resolution that will increase military spending by another $100 billion. It is framed as a key element in President Donald Trump's broader fiscal package. This includes tax cuts and an increase in the $4 trillion debt cap. The proposal strengthens the relentless prioritization of Washington's military expansion.
hiking
The proposed increase follows a familiar pattern, as defenses have been reported. Military budgets are not vetted every year. Even Congress doesn't know where the money is heading. In other words, the Pentagon may be getting another massive increase in funding without a single detailed breakdown of how it will be used. The House and Senate Armed Services Committee will decide later — assuming that the bill can even go so far before it accumulates more war money.
House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) implies that the move is intended to fulfill Trump's “complete agenda.” He also argued that this was a well-considered effort to fulfill the campaign promises of House Republicans.
However, this “complete agenda” appears to prioritize unidentified military expansion above all else. The US is already spending more defense than the next 10 large troops combined, but pushing for more thorough funding continues without scrutiny or restraint. This issue is not just inefficiency and mismanagement, but also the magnitude of military spending itself. With each budget cycle, the Pentagon's share of federal resources will swell and strengthen the system in which military forces control national policy, regardless of need, strategy, or long-term outcomes.
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) predicts military spending will increase by 10% between 2028 and 2038, but the expansion will be through ambitious initiatives such as the proposed iron dome-style missile defense system. It could be tracked quickly. Initiative.
The Senate is pushing for even more
The Senate proposal aims to increase defense spending by $150 billion. That's $50 billion more than the House proposed increase. Breaking Defense aims to pass priority on a single sweep bill, while increasing defence bondage along with tax cuts, spending cuts and an increase in debt cap of $4 trillion, Senate fragmented We chose a fragmented approach to defense. , border security, and separate legislative package energy.
Senate Budget Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham (Rs.C.) urged House Republicans to support higher levels of spending in the Senate, saying, “The problem we have now is that ice is running out of money.” “It's what it is.” However, this rationale highlights a deeper problem. This is the assumption that spending more money on security agencies and defense contractors will automatically translate into national strength.
Meanwhile, Democrats have largely embraced the rise in defense spending, but are opposed to the budget settlement process used to quickly track the law. With the settlement, certain budget-related bills will be passed by a simple majority in the Senate, and bypass the filibuster, which usually requires 60 votes for most laws. This manipulation will make it easier for Republicans to push away Trump's agenda without the need for democratic support.
Sen. Tim Kane (D-Va.) pushed back by questioning why a settlement would be needed for additional military funding. He argued that Congress has already agreed to a bipartisan support twice last year to increase its defense budget. Kane's stance therefore reflects procedural disagreements rather than substantial opposition to more military spending, with the parties ultimately increasing the military budget despite the public stance. He emphasizes agreeing to the
Trump's war plane
In a recent interview with Fox News, President Trump highlighted his focus on eliminating waste from his defense budget. Nevertheless, he explicitly stated that he “want to increase defensive spending.” Therefore, while framed as a cost-cutting initiative, his administration is not aiming to lessen in war. It focuses on making wars more “efficient.”
As New American reported Wednesday, Defense Secretary Pete Hegses is working with Elon Musk's Government Efficiency (DOGE) to optimize Pentagon spending. However, the initiative is trying to speed up the pace of military procurement by redirecting savings towards acquiring more weapons systems, rather than cutting spending.
NATO
Trump's administration has also pledged to maintain defense spending that is more than 3% of GDP. NATO allies are also pushing to increase their military budgets to 5% of GDP.
However, the role of NATO itself remains a point of competition. Trump frequently criticizes NATO members for not contributing enough, but the broader issue is the fundamental purpose of the alliance. The US Constitution does not allow for the intertwining of military alliances. And in reality, NATO has been less useful as a defensive agreement and has played a more role as a tool for global interventionism. Instead of protecting peace, NATO promotes decades of endless wars and draws the United States into foreign conflicts that have little to do with actual national defense.
The cost of militarism
There are deeper issues beyond budget numbers. The United States continues to rely on military force as a major tool for global influence. With over 750 military bases across 80 countries, Washington continues to be committed to interventionism, ensuring that defense spending will never slow down even in the face of economic hardships for Americans.
Additionally, Trump has suspended most foreign aid, but despite his continued support for Ukraine and Israel, the US has been fully invested in military engagements despite his rhetoric of reducing overseas spending. It shows that there are even more. Similarly, the latest budget proposals are keen to appear “strong” in defense, not about national security, but about maintaining a system that benefits military contractors, lobbyists and politicians.
Critics of US foreign policy, including former House Rep. Ron Paul, have long warned that reckless printing of money will burn merciless military spending. This allows for endless interventions that drive inflation, weaken the dollar and weaken the burdensome taxpayers. Rather than exercise financial constraints, the government funds the war through debt and passes costs to future generations.
Economic Model
The proposed defence hike emphasizes that militarization is no longer a policy, but an economic model. The defense industry thrives in a permanent war, focusing taxpayer dollars on large contracts, and everyday Americans pay prices due to rising inflation, higher interest rates and lower real wages.
Breaking the defense, Sen. Tom Kennedy (R-La.) dismissed concerns about the bulging military budget, saying, “Weakness leads to wolves. We have to spend more money on defense.” However, military advantages do not guarantee security. At what point will preparations for an infinite war paired with a proxy war occur at the expense of actual strategic thinking? Can the government justify printing money to maintain the empire overseas while bankrupting citizens at home?
