Though Republicans have, in recent decades, usually been the ‘deficit hawks,’ President Donald Trump recently ventured into mostly uncharted territory by including the Department of Defence (DoD) and the Pentagon in his cost-cutting campaign.
Specifically, the President intends to have the U.S. Armed Forces reduce its budget by approximately 8% annually for the next five years.
Considering America’s exceptionally large military budget – at approximately $850 billion, it is larger than the combined budgets of Russia, China, and multiple other major nations – the savings could be major.
Picks for you
Here’s how much Trump’s planned Pentagon cuts could save
Indeed, if the first round of reductions proves a success, the U.S. could save as much as $68 billion. Furthermore, if the ordered rate is maintained, America could be spending $560 billion on its armed forces annually in five years – $290 billion less than what is earmarked for 2025, more than one entire annual budget of China’s People’s Liberation Army.
Still, going through with the program might be difficult. The 2013 budget sequestration that arose from the Budget Control Act of 2011 faced substantial bipartisan opposition and the trend that followed it – including the policy favored by Donald Trump during his first term – saw the expansion of military spending.
The situation in 2025 might, however, be different. Not only has the promise of spending cuts been central to the Trump campaign, but the Pentagon has been facing mounting criticism over its repeated failures to pass a financial audit.
Are 2025 military budget cuts feasible?
Furthermore, unlike in 2013, the U.S. Armed Forces are not involved in two simultaneous occupations as the country has not directly participated in a major war since President Trump arranged and President Biden implemented the withdrawal from Afghanistan.
Elsewhere, should the current administration truly pursue an ‘America-first’ policy and allow for a greater part of the defense of places such as Europe to become the responsibility of European countries, there may truly be room for significant defense budget cuts.
In the 19th century, the legendary German Chancellor Otto von Bismarck assessed U.S.’ position as highly favorable, meaning that spending could likely be reduced without jeopardizing the safety of the nation:
The Americans are truly a lucky people. They are bordered to the north and south by weak neighbors and to the east and west by fish.
The idea that the reduction is feasible is further reinforced by the fact President Trump identified multiple key areas that are to be spared from the cuts: modernization of missile defense and nuclear weapons, acquisition of submarines and one-way attack drones and other munitions, and operations at the southern border.
Simultaneously, more room for savings could be found in what appears to be severe price gouging by the companies supplying the military. In early 2024, Representative Mike Waltz became famous for claiming that the U.S. Air Force is paying as much as $90,000 for a bag of bushings – parts that can allegedly usually be found for under $100.
Why Trump might back down on his military budget cuts
Finally, despite a U.S. content with being far less interventionist than in the last 80 years likely being able to afford a smaller military expenditure and the headroom provided by the audits and the bushings, roadblocks are bound to remain.
On the one hand, though documents from 2023 indicate that the country has abandoned its posture of readiness for two simultaneous wars, the report nonetheless expresses doubt if the military spending could truly back the doctrinally expected one major war scenario.
On the other hand, the role of the armed forces in public perception and the economic role of the so-called Military Industrial Complex could lead to substantial resistance from the citizens and from the corporate lobby.
