A Budget Out of Balance
The Department of Defense's $1 trillion budget proposal for 2026, championed by Secretary Pete Hegseth and General Dan Caine, promises to secure America through raw military power. At first glance, it's a compelling pitch: a stronger military to face global threats. But dig deeper, and the priorities unravel. This budget prioritizes fighter jets, missiles, and global posturing, diverting resources from families, medicine, and the needs of our own people. It's a defining moment for our nation. Will we invest in the strength of our communities, or chase an endless arms race?
In their testimony to the House Appropriations Subcommittee, Hegseth and Caine outlined a plan heavy on hardware: $25 billion for a missile defense shield, $62 billion to modernize nuclear forces, and $47 billion for shipbuilding. They called it a historic step toward readiness, equipping our warfighters to win any fight. Yet, the question lingers, what are we fighting for, and at what cost? This budget assumes conflict is inevitable, sidelining the urgent crises at home, from crumbling schools to veterans waiting months for mental health care.
For decades, advocates for equitable spending have warned that massive defense budgets drain resources from vital social programs. In 2021, Pentagon spending outpaced Medicaid by over $100 billion. Now, with the White House proposing a 22.6 percent cut to non-defense programs to fund this trillion-dollar plan, the trade-offs are stark. Why are we building a 'Golden Dome' missile shield while our infrastructure buckles under climate-driven storms and our children lack affordable childcare?
This budget reflects a belief that security equals firepower. It bets that a bigger military will deter nations like China or Russia. But economists warn that every percentage point of GDP spent on defense can cut economic growth by up to 9 percent over 20 years by starving public investments. Are we truly safer if our bridges collapse or our teachers are underpaid? A nation's strength comes from its people, not merely its arsenal.
Hegseth and Caine claim this budget supports troops, pointing to funds for better barracks and healthcare. That's a start, but it's dwarfed by the billions poured into weapons. Our service members deserve a government that values their lives as much as their service, a government that offers more than crumbs while splurging on war machines.
The Price Paid by Our Troops
The real-world consequences of this budget hit hardest at home. Oversight reports reveal a military struggling to care for its own: barracks plagued by mold, sewage leaks, and faulty fire systems. Junior troops face food insecurity, with some turning to food banks. Military spouses grapple with unemployment rates above 20 percent, and mental health care remains out of reach for too many. The Pentagon's 2024 'Taking Care of Our People' agenda acknowledged these issues, offering fixes like pretax health accounts and housing repairs. But these are small steps in a budget obsessed with weaponry.
Congress took notice, passing the 2025 National Defense Authorization Act, which they called the 'Servicemember Quality of Life Improvement' bill. It delivered a 14.5 percent pay raise for junior enlisted members and boosted childcare support. These changes matter, but they pale next to the budget's priorities. The $3.5 billion for the F-47 fighter jet could fund universal pre-K for years. The $62 billion for nuclear upgrades could transform veterans' healthcare. Why are we valuing technology over the people who serve?
Groups like Blue Star Families have long amplified these concerns. Their 2025 Lifestyle Survey spurred policies like the Military Spouse Career Accelerator Pilot, proving that listening to families drives change. Yet, this budget allocates far more to shipbuilding than to fixing the systems failing our troops. This is not enough to call support; it is a half-hearted gesture in a sea of misplaced priorities.
Hegseth and Caine tout the economic benefits, claiming the budget will revive the defense industrial base, supporting 200,000 firms and generating jobs. In 2023, the sector drove $955 billion in sales. But defense spending creates fewer jobs per dollar than education or infrastructure, and volatile budgets lead to economic instability. A 2025 Center for a New American Security report cautioned that short-term funding surges, like the $150 billion in this budget, fail to deliver the predictability needed for lasting growth.
A Smarter Way to Be Strong
There's a better path. Advocates for a balanced security strategy argue that true strength comes from a thriving, resilient population. The Quincy Institute calls for Pentagon audits to root out waste—seven failed audits in a row show there's room to trim. Redirecting even part of the $141 billion research and development account could fund free school meals for a decade or rebuild communities hit by climate disasters. Diplomacy, too, is underfunded. Strengthening alliances and preventing conflicts costs a fraction of preparing for war.
Some argue a strong military drives innovation and deters aggression, citing technologies like GPS born from defense contracts. But today's threats—climate change, economic inequality, pandemics—demand investments that weapons can't provide. Global defense spending hit $2.7 trillion in 2024, fueling an arms race that breeds mistrust. Why not lead with restraint, investing in human security and cooperation over dominance?
Our troops and their families are the backbone of our military. They've made their needs clear: safe housing, reliable healthcare, and support for their spouses and children. The 2024 Pentagon initiatives, like the Thrive parenting program and expanded childcare, show progress is possible. But these programs need robust funding, not leftovers from missile contracts. A budget that honors our troops would prioritize their well-being over a new fighter jet.
Shaping a Stronger Future
This $1 trillion budget is a choice, and it's the wrong one. It envisions a future defined by conflict, where strength is measured in warships and nuclear stockpiles. But real security comes from a nation that invests in its people, builds resilient communities, and fosters global cooperation. We can't afford to divert billions from the needs of our families and veterans to fuel an overstretched military.
The path forward is clear. Will we let this budget trap us in a cycle of militarization, or will we demand a strategy that strengthens our nation from within? Advocates for working families, veterans, and communities are calling for a budget that reflects our values: one that prioritizes people over power. Their voices deserve to be heard.
As Hegseth and Caine seek our support, we must challenge them: what kind of America do we want? A nation that thrives through compassion and resilience, or one weighed down by its own weapons? The answer will define our legacy for generations.