The High Price of Endless War

Protesters organize against US militarism and military spending

Despite constant debates in Congress about balancing the federal budget, the United States consistently finds billions for war. Military spending is one of the few truly bipartisan projects, with defense contractors regularly making contributions to both Republican and Democratic candidates. Since 9/11, military spending has surged. Last December, Congress approved a $895 billion defense bill, undeterred by the current administration's supposed concerns about “wasteful” government spending. Revealing its previous laments to be hollow, the Trump administration has recently proposed a $1 trillion defense budget for next year. 

Meanwhile, pressing domestic crises— from the housing shortage to unaffordable healthcare to the skyrocketing cost of living— continue to worsen. It’s difficult to understand how such massive military expenditures are justified when so many basic economic needs go unmet. Even if politicians frequently invoke the need for "national security," many young voters are increasingly questioning US militarism and pushing for diplomacy. Yet the federal government's commitment to military spending remains unwavering.

Special interests appear to be the answer. The Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft and Boston University’s Cost of Wars Project released reports in 2023 that highlighted the defense industry’s dominance in political lobbying. In particular, five major contractors — Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon, General Dynamics, and Boeing — have weaponized their political capital to secure a monopoly on defense contracts with the Department of Defense.

Over sixty years ago, President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned about the close relationship developing between the US military, the defense industry, and the federal government, often referred to as the military-industrial complex (MIC).  Major defense contractors act as private interests influencing the federal government to prioritize weapons manufacturing over diplomacy. Today, the military-industrial complex is often a target for American foreign policy critics. While these perspectives are entirely valid, there is also an economic dimension that goes unnoticed. According to the Institute for Policy Studies, “The average taxpayer paid $1,087 just for Pentagon contractors in 2022, representing 21 days of work. That’s nearly half the total contribution for the military, and it’s 4 times the amount the same taxpayer contributed to K-12 education, $270.”

This level of defense spending is not just about security or corporate influence; it reflects a broader economic strategy known as military Keynesianism, present in the United States since World War II. British economist John Maynard Keynes advocated for increasing public spending to stimulate demand during economic crises to promote fiscal stability. Military Keynesianism expanded on Keynes’ ideas, asserting that government spending on defense could boost economic growth and employment by increasing demand for goods and services provided by defense firms. The post-World War II economic boom served as a historical justification for Keynesianism. In the 1950s, the “guns and butter” approach established a tradeoff between military and social spending. Rather than channeling public funds into programs that directly support civilian needs, the state used military contracts and arms production as economic stimulus, propping up industries, generating jobs, and sustaining technological innovation under the guise of national defense. Without a major war or economic crisis to justify massive defense spending, politicians instead invoke an ever-looming threat to national security and democracy to maintain it.

Boeing Plant in Seattle Washington

The military-industrial complex and military Keynesianism work in tandem to produce America’s militarized economy. The "military multiplier"  effect— an increase in military spending leads to a proportional increase in economic output or GDP over a period of time— is frequently invoked to justify bloated Pentagon budgets. Setting aside GDP’s limitations as a measure of economic well-being, the evidence of the growth argument is mixed. In 2021, RAND, a non-profit research institute, released a report analyzing the current state of macroeconomic literature on the topic. While the average effect of defense spending appears to be positive, it is unclear how statistically significant this increase in GDP is to the economy; infrastructure investment was more conducive to economic growth. The authors also expressed concern that as the public debt increases, military spending may no longer contribute to economic growth. In other words, the economic benefits of military Keynesianism are often overstated, masking the opportunity costs of neglecting crucial social needs.

The billions in military aid sent to US allies such as Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan can also be viewed as military Keynesianism. Last month, British economist and former labor activist Michael Roberts raised concerns about the impact of increased military spending in Europe on its social welfare systems, warning of looming cuts to welfare services as the war between Russia and Ukraine persists. His concerns feel very pertinent in the United States as the administration expands funding cuts and layoffs in several federal agencies, except for the Department of Defense. The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) initiative’s proposal for defense spending would not make a dent in the Pentagon budget. Instead of targeting excessive weapons programs, nuclear expansion, or private military contractors, DOGE desires to save $80 million by cutting funding from DEI initiatives and academic research. 

The federal government does not appear to have a genuine interest in downsizing the Pentagon, but there is support amongst voters. Julia Gledhill, research associate of the Stimson Center, perfectly articulates the increasing public skepticism towards military spending: “The United States is unlikely to fight a war at home, and a potential great power conflict abroad would likely be a choice rather than an inevitability. Yet Washington demands that Americans make a generational investment in the military without naming the costs or identifying the conditions in which the United States would decrease security spending in the future.” These sentiments showcase an impetus for a radical shift in the federal budget priorities. 

The persistence of military Keynesianism reflects a political and economic system that privileges profit over the well-being of ordinary Americans. As long as the military-industrial complex retains its influence, meaningful reductions in military spending— and meaningful investments in domestic needs— will remain difficult to achieve. To break this cycle, a fundamental rethinking of economic priorities is necessary, one that places human needs above endless preparations for war. Proposals to cut wasteful weapons programs, audit the Pentagon, and redirect funds toward healthcare and education are already on the table— but they require sustained public pressure to overcome the defense industry’s stranglehold.