How Much Is Enough for National Defense?

$600 Billion Seems Reasonable

BILL ASTORE

APR 26, 2026

What is the right amount of money to spend on national defense?

It’s not an easy question because answers depend on goals. On commitments.

So, for example, I’m committed to the ideal of the American republic. That republic should focus on defense of the nation. I don’t support the American empire. I don’t favor an offensive military. I don’t believe defense is about global domination. Offense is enabled by full-spectrum dominance; defense doesn’t require it.

So much of what America spends on “defense” goes to weapons makers like Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and RTX. It’s advertised as military Keynesianism but it’s more like corporate welfare for what used to be called the merchants of death.

I don’t value weapons as “investments.” I see weapons as Ike saw them in 1953. They are a form of theft. They steal funding from schools, hospitals, libraries, fire stations, and other much-needed improvements to national services and infrastructure.

Yes, America has to defend itself, but an imperial military that is vastly overfunded is an albatross around the neck of a declining republic.

A wildly offensive military that seeks global dominance—the budget for that military is almost boundless. It’s not surprising, then, that this is the vision we’re sold. The idea that the U.S. military must be second to none and dominate everywhere at almost any cost. And what a cost!

An essential part of this imperial vision is that diplomacy is best done with bombs, as Pete Hegseth boasted. That diplomacy isn’t even needed, really, because as Trump says, America holds all the (military) cards. If countries like Iran keep resisting, threaten them with extermination.

A black hole for money

An imperial military of global dominance based on massively expensive weapons systems and exterminatory threats drives a “defense” budget of $1 trillion or more. Trump, of course, is asking for $1.5 trillion for FY2027, a staggering 50% increase. This insane vision of exterminatory war is enabled by colossal spending on Death Star-like weaponry.

Meanwhile, Members of Congress fight for their share of a rapidly expanding military procurement pie. Shrink the pie? Forget it! They only want their fair share of the pie (or the pork) for their district. Lobbyists from those imperial merchants of death ensure that Congress stays the military (and militarized) course.

To return to my question: Assuming we’re talking about national defense in a republic that believes in diplomacy and that isn’t forever seeking dragons overseas to slay, I’m guessing that roughly $600 billion a year would suffice for the Pentagon. That is still an enormous sum of money. That healthy amount assumes America can avoid fighting wars of choice and stop its various foolhardy military interventions across the globe.

Ten years ago, $600 billion was roughly the baseline for the Pentagon budget even as America was still in Afghanistan and waging a “global war on terror.” Sure, there’s been some inflation, a weakening of the dollar, but that ballpark figure seems reasonable for a military focused on true national defense rather than one based on total global dominance.

One axiom that should always rule: A republic should not spend one more dollar than necessary on military might. If $600 billion is too high, I’d be happy to see a lower amount.

One coda: No more money for the Pentagon until it’s able to pass an audit.

8 thoughts on “How Much Is Enough for National Defense?”

  1. Overall simpatico with you. I’d just go further, cut it at least in half, maybe more upon closer scrutiny. In part we invite perceived threats from elsewhere (e.g., Russian, China) because of our overall history of provocation and military presence and adventurism throughout the world. Remove the provocation, the reason for threat goes down.

    800+ bases throughout the world? How many “commands” (e.g., Centcom)? Insane. I believe Russia and China have one each. And all our military presence in the Middle East to prop up corrupt Arab royal family regimes and a genocidal “state” that’s warping our government, our politics, our society? Further insanity. Too stupid to see this? Yes, but there’s also profit in all that, for some.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

  2. Very Much Agree… BUT, if we don’t take steps SOON to limit the out-sized power and influence of Lobbyists, we are doomed as a viable country. The FIRST STEP REQUIRED is to effectively repeal the horrible Citizens United SCOTUS decision which allows unlimited “Campaign Contributions” under the guise of “Free Speech”. This unlimited CASH encourages corruption and distorts the mind and values of even the good people that still remain in our Congress.

    Jerry King

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

      1. Not the only one to have said it but Alison Weir in her “Against Our Better Judgment: The hidden history of how the U.S. was used to create Israel” demonstrably lays out that the Zionists pre-1948 and the Israelis post- identified this core reality about American politics, and have exploited that to the max to this day. The numbers of those in Congress “on the take” and the sums given are staggering (see Opensecrets.org). I believe John Mearsheimer and Steve Walt made note of this in their “The Israel Lobby” as well.

        Liked by 1 person

        Reply

    2. I had to double check, indeed Citizens United was decided by the Roberts Court, itself the culmination of Mitch “Machiavelli” McConnell’s twenty-year plotting and Senate rules breakinng to create a conservative majority on the Supreme Court. Let his epitaph read, “Did More Than His Fair Share of Damage to the Country,” and spoken by SPECTRE No. 1 in “From Russia, With Love,” “Let his death be a particularly unpleasant and humiliating one.”

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

  3. What tells the story for all to see is the quick approval of the military budget every year with no debate that I know of. Legislation that benefits we the people goes on year after year if it isn’t defeated quickly. We have a democracy of lobbies. The good thing is the Israel lobby is being pushed back showing that can be done if people make a fuss, though about 75,000 Palestinians had to die (from American weaponry) to get Americans motivated.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    1. 49-year old Rep. Seth Moulton of Mass. is challenging 79-year old and longtime Sen. Ed Markey to be the Democrat candidate this November. He presents a somewhat convincing case that it’s time for new blood among the Dems in the Senate. The first line in his campaign website reads, “Seth Moulton is a Democrat who has never been afraid to challenge the status quo. He’s spent his career standing up to entrenched interests…”

      I just checked less than two hours ago – he was among 115 Democrats who voted “Yea” v. 94 “Nays” in the House on the $1+ trillion National Defense Authorization Act. Markey voted “Nay” in the Senate, along with 17 other Dems and 2 Republicans.

      So much for standing up to entrenched interests…

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

Leave a comment