Is U.S. Military Spending Too High? Analyzing the Long-Term Budget Burden, Strategic Goals, and Costs

 

U.S. military spending has long eclipsed that of any other nation. While defense advocates view this as essential for national security and global leadership, others argue it has become a budgetary burden misaligned with today’s strategic needs.

This article breaks down where the money goes, analyzes long-term fiscal implications, compares global military expenditures, and examines whether America’s defense priorities reflect modern threats or outdated habits.

The Scope of U.S. Military Spending

According to USAspending.gov, the Department of Defense (DoD) received more federal funding than any other agency in fiscal year 2023, totaling over $850 billion. This figure accounts for more than half of the discretionary federal budget and reflects the scale and complexity of America’s defense apparatus.

Official U.S. military spending includes:

Personnel salaries and benefits for over 1.3 million active-duty service members and nearly 800,000 civilian employees

Weapons procurement, including fighter jets, submarines, and missile defense systems

Overseas operations, or “Overseas Contingency Operations” (OCO)

Research and development for advanced technologies (AI, cybersecurity, hypersonics)

Nuclear modernization, in partnership with the Department of Energy

However, these figures only reflect direct appropriations. A vast array of military-related costs commonly referred to as the “ghost budget” reside in other agencies. According to a Harvard Kennedy School podcast, this includes:

Veterans Affairs programs

Nuclear weapons stewardship

Intelligence agencies’ black budgets

Foreign military aid via the State Department

Interest on war-related borrowing since 9/11

Combined, these push the real annual cost well beyond $1 trillion.

Strategic Goals: What Is the U.S. Military Designed to Do?

Historically, military spending supported Cold War-era deterrence and containment. Today, it underwrites America’s global footprint: over 750 bases in 80 countries, nuclear deterrence, and rapid-response capacity.

Critics, including the Quincy Institute, argue this posture is out of step with emerging threats like cyberattacks, pandemics, and climate instability. They question whether legacy systems and large-scale conventional forces are appropriate for asymmetric or non-traditional threats.

Some experts, like those at Brookings, advocate reallocating resources toward agility, tech innovation, and strategic clarity.

Is the Spending Efficient? Waste, Oversight, and Misalignment

Despite its scale, U.S. military spending suffers from inefficiencies. The Department of Defense has failed repeated audits. Cost overruns, such as with the F-35, highlight procurement mismanagement. Additionally, political inertia and contractor lobbying often shield inefficient programs from scrutiny.

A Cato Institute report points to:

Redundant and overlapping defense programs

Congressional earmarks that lack transparency

Defense contracts awarded without competitive bidding

Even vital programs, such as veteran support, face funding gaps due to budgetary misalignment.

The Budget Burden: Trade-Offs and Opportunity Costs

U.S. military spending accounts for more than half of the nation’s discretionary federal budget, a reality that has significant implications for both fiscal sustainability and public policy priorities. While defense advocates argue that this investment ensures national security and global stability, critics point to mounting opportunity costs that affect every American household.

According to the Costs of War Project at Brown University, the United States has spent over $8 trillion on post-9/11 military operations, homeland security, and related expenses. This staggering total includes direct combat costs, interest on war-related borrowing, and long-term commitments such as veterans’ care. Importantly, much of this spending was financed not through tax increases or budget adjustments, but through debt, a decision with serious long-term fiscal consequences.

Among the most pressing issues tied to this enormous defense budget are:

Rising interest payments on the national debt

Underinvestment in education, healthcare, infrastructure, and clean energy

Economic distortion, as defense spending props up entire local economies, creating reliance on defense contracts

The Quincy Institute argues that even modest reallocations of defense funds could unlock transformative investments in social infrastructure. For instance, just a 10% reduction in the Pentagon’s budget could fund:

Universal pre-kindergarten education

Robust climate adaptation and resilience initiatives

Student loan debt relief for millions of borrowers

These trade-offs illustrate a broader debate: not whether the United States should invest in national defense, but whether the current scale and structure of that investment reflect 21st-century security needs or outdated priorities that limit broader prosperity.

Global Comparison: How the U.S. Compares

In 2023, world military expenditure reached an all‑time high of $2.443 trillion, up 6.8% from 2022. The five largest spenders accounted for over 60% of that total:

United States – $916 billion (37% of global)

The U.S. defense budget dwarfs all others, both in absolute terms and global share. It represents roughly 3.4% of U.S. GDP and supports global operations on every continent.

China – $296 billion (12% of global)

China has steadily increased spending for three decades. At about 1.7% of GDP, it focuses on modernizing its force, power projection in the region, and closing the technological gap with the U.S.

Russia – $109 billion (4.5% of global; ~5.9% of GDP)

Driven by the Ukraine conflict, Russia’s military burden jumped to nearly 6% of GDP, the highest since the Soviet era. Its absolute spend places it third globally.

India – $83.6 billion (3.4% of global; 2.4% of GDP)

India has climbed to fourth, boosting its budget 44% since 2014 and emphasizing domestic arms production (“Make in India”).

Saudi Arabia – $75.8 billion (3.1% of global; 7.1% of GDP)

Oil revenues underpin one of the highest military burdens relative to GDP. Its spending supports regional deterrence and advanced procurement.

While the U.S. far outspends others in raw dollars, countries like Russia and Saudi Arabia carry a far greater military burden relative to GDP. Additionally, some achieve regional influence and deterrence with far less spending.

This contrast raises critical questions:

Does high spending equal strategic advantage?

Could the U.S. achieve its goals more efficiently?

Is U.S. Military Spending Too High?

Whether U.S. military spending is too high isn’t just a question of cost—it’s a question of purpose. Critics argue that without a clear grand strategy, the U.S. continues to fund a defense system driven more by habit than by current threats. This results in continued investments in outdated programs, while emerging challenges—like cyber warfare, space defense, and energy security—receive comparatively less attention.

Experts at the Brookings Institution argue that smarter spending doesn’t mean spending less—it means spending better. This includes:

Prioritizing diplomacy and conflict prevention over prolonged military engagements

Redirecting funds toward cybersecurity, energy resilience, and emerging technologies

Setting performance benchmarks to evaluate the effectiveness of defense programs

Phasing out legacy systems that no longer serve today’s strategic needs

Reform advocates also call for a defense audit culture, sunset clauses for outdated programs, and less political interference in military budgeting.

Military strength doesn’t require unlimited resources—it requires focus, discipline, and adaptability. With a more thoughtful approach, the U.S. can maintain global leadership while ensuring its defense investments align with modern security realities.

Conclusion

U.S. military spending remains a defining expression of American power but it is also a mirror reflecting the nation’s assumptions, anxieties, and ambitions. While defense is undeniably essential to national security, an unchecked and unexamined budget risks eroding the very strength it aims to protect.

As global threats evolve, so must the strategy and structure behind defense spending. The real challenge is not how much the U.S. spends, but how wisely. A future-ready military requires more than funding it demands clarity of mission, accountability in execution, and the courage to adapt.

Reevaluating the size, scope, and priorities of the military budget isn’t a retreat from strength. It’s a step toward smarter security, one that safeguards both the nation’s values and its long-term stability.

References:

Quincy Institute. The Fiscal Implications of a Major Increase in U.S. Military Spending

Cato Institute. The Pentagon’s Spending Problem

Costs of War Project. Economic Costs of U.S. Post-9/11 Wars

Brookings Institution. Focusing on Quality Over Quantity in the U.S. Military Budget

Brookings Institution. What’s in Biden’s $850 Billion Defense Budget Proposal?

U.S. Department of Defense. FY2025 Defense Budget Spotlight

USAspending.gov. Department of Defense Spending Tracker

Harvard Kennedy School. The Ghost Budget: How U.S. War Spending Went Rogue, Wasted Billions, and How to Fix It