Defense Research

Explanation of source links: Throughout the research below, you will find links of three types. The first and most frequent type is to primary sources such as governmental agencies. The second is to nonprofit groups that generally use government data or their own research to support their philanthropic mission. We have tried to use the least biased of these, or when in doubt, we have identified their bias. The third is to articles in periodicals or newspapers that we find to be of interest. These are not meant to be construed as original sources, and in some cases may not be accessible, depending on a reader's frequency of prior visits to the linked periodical or newspaper.

How much does the US spend on defense?

The US Department of Defense (DOD) will officially spend approximately $726 billion on defense in fiscal 2019. When related expenditures that reside in other departments are included, however, such as overseas contingency funding, veterans’ benefits and services, and the cost of the nuclear arsenal, total spending rises to more than $1 trillion.

What are the major components of this spending?

The first major component is the base budget of $597.1 billion. The second is the “overseas contingency” funding of the action against ISIS and other terrorist activity of $89 billion. In addition to spending by the DOD, there is defense expense found in other departments like Veterans Affairs, Homeland Security, and the Department of Energy (nuclear arsenal) of $204.0 billion.

What are the general budgets by branch of the defense department? 

Navy: $180 billion, Air Force: $183 billion, Army: $166 billion, and funds allocated for activities pertaining to all or multiple branches: $110.0 billion.

How many people does the department employ?

The department employs 2.87 million military service members and 732,079 civilians, making it the largest employer in the US. According to the department, these personnel are located in 160 countries across seven continents and in approximately 4,800 different locations. 

How has this spending fluctuated over time?

Measured in 2011 dollars, real spending declined from $550 billion in 1988 to $375 billion in 1999, before increasing again. This savings was referred to as the “peace dividend” in reference to the de-escalation of US-Soviet tensions. The following chart from the DOD demonstrates the recent history of spending. (The $686 billion does not count several items such as “atomic energy subsidies” that were not included in the original budget request.)

How does this compare to the spending of other countries?

According to the Peter G. Peterson Foundation, the US spent more in 2017 on defense than China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, India, France, the UK, and Japan combined:

When measured as a percentage of the total federal budget, the US, at 15%, also spends more than any other large industrialized country. While China spends 6%, each of France, the UK, and Germany spend less than 4%.

This is also true when measured in terms of GDP:

Why does the US spend so much more than other countries?

One reason is that, unlike other countries, the US has a National Security Strategy and National Defense Strategy based on the goal of maintaining global military dominance in every region of the world. To support this goal, the US has 800 military bases in 80 countries. In terms of the largest non-war installations, the US has 174 bases in Germany, 109 in Japan, 14 in Korea, and 7 in Italy. No other country has this kind of presence, as indicated below. This infrastructure alone costs approximately $156 billion. The following chart identifies the global locations of active duty troops. 

How does this compare to other countries?

No other country has a comparable global presence. While the US maintains 800 military bases globally, the UK has the most of all other countries with 16, while Russia has only 9, and China has only 1.

Also, unlike other countries, US defense spending has funded a perpetual state of war around the globe. In total, the US military is estimated to have been deployed 237 times between 1948 and 2017. Many of these were peacekeeping missions at the invitation of existing governments; others were to assist in the peaceful evacuation of Americans abroad or in the defense of our embassies. A third category were actions in response to perceived aggression by other countries in their sphere of influence. For example, the US conducted military exercises in the Middle East that subsequently drew fire from Libya and Iran. Each of these incidents was then followed by a military response. Arguably, these incidents could have been avoided had we not been in the region in the first place. 

Nonetheless, after removing all of these incidents from the total, we are still left with 46 wars of choice since WWII, unrelated to our own defense, making the US the most warlike nation on the planet. Many of these were actions throughout Latin America conducted in cooperation with the CIA to effect regime change:

Does the military itself think all this spending is necessary? 

No; there have been many cases of Congress requiring the military to fund projects that are important to individual congressmen and senators, but are not important to the military. For example, Congress and governors have frequently objected to the military’s effort to close antiquated US bases and to reduce the size of the civilian workforce.

Because opposition from Congress was so frequent, the Congress passed the Defense Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Act of 1990 to provide some order to the management of Defense Department base closing recommendations. The act created a commission that would receive and review Defense Department recommendations before their submission to Congress.

In 2017, Acting Assistant Secretary of Defense provided the following testimony to Congress on the subject of BRAC.

“The Department urges Congress to authorize one new round of base closures and realignments, in 2021, using the statutory commission process that has proven, repeatedly, to be the only effective and fair way to eliminate excess DoD infrastructure and to reconfigure what must remain.

The Department has not been authorized to undertake a BRAC analysis for over 14 years. In those years, the Department has undergone considerable changes that have impacted the force structure, mission requirements, and threats facing the United States. In addition, budget constraints imposed by the Budget Control Act have further strained existing resources and forced the Department to take risk in sustaining the infrastructure it does maintain. It is a fiscal reality that the Department cannot fully fund all sustainment requirements. Limited construction and maintenance funding is better used at enduring locations with the highest military value rather than keeping installations that the Department does not need. Reality and prudence dictate that infrastructure should be reconfigured to meet specific needs and changing threats or validated as enduring.

The Department requires a comprehensive BRAC process to reduce excess while enhancing military value, achieving recurring savings, and ensuring retention of sufficient space for contingency and surge requirements, and changing missions, tactics, and technology. As indicated in testimony over the last several years, and as supported by two recent capacity assessments, the Department is maintaining excess infrastructure capacity – between 19 and 22 percent depending on what level of force structure is used in the analysis. This level of excess is not surprising given the fact that in 2004 we found that the Department had 24% excess and BRAC 2005 reduced infrastructure by 3.4% (as measured by plant replacement value).”

“About 20% of the Pentagon's facilities could be closed without negative impact,” John Roth, the acting budget chief, told reporters at roughly the same time.

Do we need this spending to protect ourselves from Russia?

While we are not naïve about Russia, including their interference in the 2016 election, we do not believe that the current level of spending is necessary as a defense against them. First, consider the world from their point of view.  

NATO was established with the sole purpose of containing Russia. Since the fall of the Soviet Union, while the threat of Russian aggression has significantly declined, the US nonetheless has expanded NATO to include the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Albania, Croatia, and Montenegro. Most of these countries were formerly either part of the USSR or members of the Warsaw Pact. Imagine for a moment the response from the US were Russia to create a military alliance with Canada and Mexico.  

A quick look at the NATO map will inform us of the Russian perspective. They are nearly surrounded by an often hostile and aggressive alliance.

Furthermore, while the US has only been invaded once in modern history, Russia was invaded twice by Germany in the past century, costing the lives of millions of Russian citizens. While the US has initiated dozens of wars of choice since WWII, most of which were not sanctioned by the UN, Russia has engaged in very few (Afghanistan, Ukraine, and Georgia). Its current activity in Syria was at the request of the Syrian government (and took place following our uninvited effort to overthrow that government).  

Consider, also, that the Ukraine invasion came after President Bush’s invitation to Ukraine to join NATO. Ukraine borders Russia, is populated by many ethnic Russians, is home to a major Russian naval base, and offers access to Russia via the Baltic Sea. Imagine our response if the Russians proposed a military treaty with countries of similar strategic importance to the US.

Given this context, Russia nonetheless spends only $61.5 billion on defense, less than 10% of what the US spends and only 3.5% of what we and our allies spend jointly, maintaining only 9 bases abroad while we maintain 800.  

What about China? Again, let’s look at the world from their perspective. Since WWII, the US has fought 46 wars of choice around the world, while they have been involved in approximately 10, virtually all involving conflicts on their border. Given this track record, who should fear whom? Consistent with their peaceful nature, China’s defense spending is only one-third of what the US spends, and only 10% of what the US and its allies spend jointly. While the US maintains 800 bases around the world, China has only one.

Policymakers in the US are currently alarmed that China is increasing their presence in the South China Sea. We believe that this is a highly hypocritical viewpoint of the US. How can a country with 800 military bases worldwide and a history of global aggression object to a country maintaining a military presence off its own coast?   

China, in fact, has used their considerable resources not to compete in military spending, but rather to invest in infrastructure globally. China is building alliances and influence globally, not through excessive defense spending, but rather through their Belt and Road Initiative. Pursuant to this effort, they are investing billions of dollars in infrastructure projects globally. These investments not only support their own supply chains, but also build important and lasting alliances and economic interdependence throughout the world. Finally, ask yourself, why would China wage war on a country (the US) that owes it $2.0 trillion and is its single largest trading partner? It makes no sense.   

What is the level of global spending by the US and our allies?

Comparisons of defense spending by country only tell part of the story. It is also important to consider how much our allies spend compared to Russia or China individually. When looked at this way, our spending when added to the spending by NATO ($270 billion) and allies like India, Japan, Saudi Arabia, Brazil, Israel, Australia, and the UAE ($293 billion) totals approximately $1.3 trillion. This is approximately 19 times Russia’s spending and 6 times China’s spending.

What are the basic elements of the debate about defense spending?

There is a lot of scholarship about the US military complex being obsolete in the modern world. These sources cite the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq (and sometimes even as far back as Vietnam) as evidence that “the best trained, best equipped, most modern military in the world” is incapable of stopping terrorists and other actors that are the greatest threat to national security. These sources argue that the US is preparing for a massive land war that may never again happen. The US outspends every other nation in the world in regard to our military, but has been ineffective in trying to pacify small, impoverished nations. 

While this is an academic perspective of current military spending, it seems to be relevant to the general populace. “A majority of voters surveyed between December 2015 and February 2016 said they wanted defense cuts in almost every area of the military.”

Despite this widespread mentality, most politicians (Democratic and Republican) publicly oppose military budget cuts. In the last presidential election, Bernie Sanders was the only candidate to advocate for budget cuts while Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush, and Hillary Clinton all said that they would not decrease military spending. Polling of senators and representatives reflects a similar trend. 

For our specific defense policy recommendation, please click here.