Former President Donald Trump has announced his intention to raise the defense budget target for NATO allies from the current 2% of their gross domestic product (GDP) to a more ambitious 3%, should he win the presidency in November. This move, he argues, is essential for strengthening the alliance and enhancing security in Europe, especially in light of the rising military challenge posed by China.
While the call for NATO members to allocate more resources to defense is justified, it is crucial to recognize that the United States must also increase its own defense spending to meet this elevated standard. The challenge lies in the fact that merely urging allies to spend more while maintaining flat defense budgets domestically reflects a level of strategic hypocrisy—essentially saying “3% for you, but not for me.”
As it stands, the U.S. barely meets the existing 3% GDP benchmark, and projections from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) indicate that to achieve this goal in four years, the U.S. defense budget would need to swell to approximately $1.03 trillion—an increase of around $109 billion from current levels. This increase would necessitate a 2.9% annual growth rate in defense spending until 2029—an acceleration compared to the historical average increase of just 0.9% over the past decade.
Even if the Department of Defense succeeds in growing its budget at this rate, it risks losing vital purchasing power necessary to maintain a competitive edge against China, especially in the Indo-Pacific. Inflation and the rising costs of military procurement consistently outpace general economic inflation, leading to an erosion of military capabilities. In fact, defense budgets that merely keep pace with inflation could result in a military that is increasingly outdated and less capable.
Moreover, the Pentagon may be underestimating its future needs. The CBO warns that costs from 2024 to 2038 could be nearly $600 billion above what the Department of Defense currently anticipates. Should these projections hold true, the DoD would either need to scale back its plans or secure additional funding to meet its objectives.
It is vital to remember that the U.S. defense budget is not merely about meeting arbitrary targets. It is fundamentally about safeguarding national security, particularly against adversaries like China. Historically, the U.S. has spent significantly more on defense; for example, President Ronald Reagan allocated approximately 6% of GDP to counter the Soviet Union, while spending peaked at nearly 5% during the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.
Bipartisan consensus among military and civilian experts has long recognized the necessity for increased defense spending. In 2017, then-Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Joe Dunford advocated for an annual defense budget increase of 3% to 5% above inflation. This recommendation was reiterated by the bipartisan 2018 National Defense Strategy Commission. Unfortunately, the U.S. has failed to meet these targets over the past six years, leading the most recent 2024 National Defense Strategy Commission to deem 3% to 5% growth above inflation as the “bare minimum” necessary.
Within Trump’s circle, some self-identified “realists” argue that higher defense budgets may be politically unfeasible or that achieving results from increased spending will take too long. For instance, Trump’s former national security advisor has suggested that smarter spending must replace increased spending. Contrastingly, Chris Miller, the former acting defense secretary, has even proposed halving the defense budget.
Interestingly, these “realists” are supportive of Trump’s push for European nations to commit to spending 3% of GDP on defense, pointing to what they see as a lack of recognition among allied nations regarding the severity of contemporary threats. While this sentiment may hold some truth, a similar critique can be leveled at the situation within the U.S. The notion that America can succeed in a prolonged competition with China while maintaining flat or diminishing budgets is unrealistic.
In conclusion, while advocating for higher defense spending is challenging both in Washington and among NATO allies, the political climate should not dictate responses to the genuine demands of our security landscape. As history has shown, it is far more cost-effective to deter conflict than to engage in war. Thus, a robust commitment to defense is essential on both sides of the Atlantic.
