‘Peace Through Strength’ Requires Increased Defense Spending

President Donald Trump, who ran on a platform of “peace through strength,” surprised some in Washington when he suggested last week that he might support cutting the U.S. defense budget by as much as 50 percent, presumably in concert with commensurate nuclear arms and budget reductions by Russia and China. The Washington Post then reported on Wednesday that Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth ordered the Pentagon to prepare for budget cuts of 8 percent per year for each of the next five years. However, subsequent reporting and comments by Hegseth suggested the Pentagon was pursuing a reprioritization of spending rather than a reduction in overall defense spending.

These mixed signals come at a moment when the United States needs much greater strength to preserve the peace. Aggressive dictatorships, including China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea, are cooperating more closely than ever to undermine American leadership. Meanwhile, U.S. defense spending has fallen, in terms of gross domestic product (GDP), to near its lowest point in the 80 years since World War II.

Mixed Signals

The proposed cuts, according to the Post, make exceptions for the Trump administration’s priorities, including “operations at the southern U.S. border, modernization of nuclear weapons and missile defense, and acquisition of submarines, one-way attack drones and other munitions.” However, according to Breaking Defense, Hegseth ordered the Pentagon to review “Biden-legacy programs” with the goal of shifting 8 percent of the defense budget toward Trump administration priorities, such as border security and “Iron Dome for America.” Hegseth attempted to clarify in a video statement on February 20 that the department is planning an 8 percent budget shift this year, which is quite different than an 8 percent cut to the Pentagon’s topline budget.

Some other priorities that could be spared include key shipbuilding initiatives and Indo-Pacific combatant command. Notably, U.S. Central Command, which is responsible for the Middle East, and U.S. European Command are not on the list of exceptions. Despite these calls for cuts, Trump endorsed the House of Representatives’ proposed budget on February 19, which includes a $100 billion increase in defense over the next decade, and the Republican-led Senate passed its own budget proposal with a $150 billion increase in defense spending on February 21. Additionally, Hegseth said last week that the administration was committed to spending more than the Biden administration, which he said, “historically underinvested in the capabilities of our military.”

Current U.S. Defense Spending and Strategic Threats

The bipartisan, congressionally mandated Commission on the National Defense Strategy assessed in its July 2024 report that “the threats the United States faces are the most serious and most challenging the nation has encountered since 1945 and include the potential for near-term major war.” U.S. adversaries Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea are increasingly cooperating to undermine U.S. national security as part of an “Axis of Aggressors,” including through arms transfers, weapons development, military exercises, intelligence sharing, military exchanges, and sanctions evasion. Despite this dangerous geostrategic environment, the United States is underfunding defense.

The Path Forward

The president has emphasized that his administration will prioritize “peace through strength,” but that will be difficult without increasing defense spending by 3 to 5 percent above inflation each year and ensuring that any such increase amounts to at least a 0.1 percent increase in defense spending as a percentage of GDP each year. Additionally, while the United States is right to prioritize the Indo-Pacific, neglecting American interests in Europe and the Middle East will embolden adversaries and could result in a cascade of negative consequences in those regions and globally.

If the Trump administration does not request increased funding for DoD, Congress should embrace its Article I constitutional authorities and responsibilities to ensure the military has the necessary resources. A failure to sufficiently fund defense will be measured in wars that could have been prevented and service members who do not return home to their families.

Cameron McMillan is a research analyst at FDD’s Center on Military and Political Power (CMPP), where Ryan Brobst is a senior research analyst and Bradley Bowman is the senior director. For more analysis from the authors and CMPP, please subscribe HERE. Follow Brad on X @Brad_L_Bowman. Follow FDD on X @FDD and @FDD_CMPP. FDD is a Washington, DC-based, nonpartisan research institute focusing on national security and foreign policy.