WRFH/Radio Free Hillsdale 101.7 FM - Sam Raus: Problems with the Bloated $1T Military Budget Request

Episode Date: March 10, 2026

The Trump administration has asked Congress to double the military budget, adding another $500 billion of spending. As the US sits over 36 trillion in debt and growing, this is a critical fiscal issue to our nation's long-term economic health.Sam Raus, the David Boaz Resident Writing Fellow at Young Voices, a political analyst, and public relations professional joins Luke Miller on WRFH to discuss. He has written about the military budget for The National Interest.

This is Radio Free Hillsdale 101.7 FM. I'm Luke Miller, and with me today is Sam Rouse, a David Boas resident writing fellow at Young Voices, whose work has been featured in USA Today, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Examiner, and The Hill. Sam is here with us today to talk about a recent piece he wrote for the national interest about bloat spending in the military. Sam, thank you for joining me today. Thank you so much for having me on. In your article, you point out that defense spending is often treated as untouchable, And that seems to have allowed the Trump administration to ask Congress to increase defense spending without much blowback. Tell us first about that increased defense budget, if you would.

Yeah, the president has requested a, I believe, $1.5 trillion at this point budget for the Department of War recently rebranded, which would essentially double, I believe, over double the defense spending of the United States to a historic high vastly outreaching any of other country in the world and reaching a historic level for the United States. And that's done through the National Defense Authorization Act, correct? Yes, that's how we spend our money on the Pentagon. So why do you think that defense spending is generally seen as untouchable? And do you think that there's something reasonable about that? I think that obviously we all think of the federal government first and foremost as providing national security.

I mean, that was the original intention of our founders for what we would do on a federal level. And ultimately, when it comes to the defense budget through the NDAA, it's really looked at through the lens of our materials getting old and we need to spend more money to update them. Never really considering the operational efficiency of the department and in what case, is that perhaps, yeah, spending on new technology could ultimately reduce spending on older technology. So it's kind of seen through this catch-22 of it's always going to be more. It's always got to be spending, spending,

in order to update the materials. When in reality, it's not really considering the way in which a lot of times new technology, new resources makes things more affordable. We see that in our own lives. Yeah, an iPhone costs $1,000. It's a pretty big upfront costs. But ultimately, what it does is it saves us so much time and money

when it comes to other things that we would otherwise need, whether that be predominantly you used to have to buy books. You have to use to buy all the stuff for your computer. or you needed to, you know, spend all this gasoline on things delivered, et cetera. Now you can do it through your phone rather fast and effectively. I think it's similar with the defense budget. It really is a lot of this drone technology, a lot of automated things, are going to allow us to spend a lot less money on traditional, you know, tankers and boats

and all sorts of the traditional technology that was used by the military. but it does come with an upfront cost. Yeah, absolutely. That makes a lot of sense. And there's a lot of issues that due to the politicization of a lot of these kind of issues become untouchable in that sense too, right? So like if you're for any cuts to Medicare or Medicaid, then you must not care about old people or poor people or about health care in general.

You must want to take away people's health care. And I think that sometimes defense spending can kind of get like that too. Is that how you see it? Yeah, I think one of the situations we see most often is lawmakers are right. rather defensive of the military spends a lot of money on manufacturing. And a lot of times there will be old plants and facilities to build, you know, shipping containers or trucks or boats in a certain district. And it's kind of seen as bringing pork home to your home district. And so lawmakers, rather than looking at, well, is the, you know, the military vessels being

made in this shipping yard, is that still unnecessary and effective for our defense readiness on a national security level? They're looking at it through a jobs and spending level and kind of seeing it as a jobs program. And that becomes the case through a lot of different government spending, instead of looking at it in terms of the impact on the specific issue area that is devised for correct, you know, healthcare spending is meant to improve public health, not to, you know, just create more jobs in the healthcare industry. But a lot of times lawmakers are looking at through it on the ladder instead of the prior. Yeah, that makes sense.

And looking at the Trump administration in particular, do you think that there increases or attempts to increase defense spending attempt to create jobs? Or do you think that part of that could be a response to the Biden administration's failures to project strength in the military? Do you think part of them asking Congress to increase the defense budget is to increase military capability increase their projected strength in response to some of the projected weaknesses of the Biden administration? Do you think that it's more about projecting strength for the Trump administration or more about, like you said, a job program? I think that the Trump administration

is well-intentioned in trying to upgrade our military to the 21st century. And there's a lot of the sectors of the department that do need a lot of updating. We are not ready for the kind of drone warfare, the kind of autonomous vehicles and modern technology with artificial intelligence and the like to compete in the modern age. I mean, our cybersecurity needs a heavy updating. Our military needs a lot of this equipment that's better suited for the wars of tomorrow. But the fact of the matter is that what's happened is the administration has proposed this doubling, which is a very major increase.

in spending at a time when we're so severely in debt. And then it's been reported that the Pentagon really doesn't know what to do with it. They're looking for requests on how to spend the money. I don't think that we should ever be appropriating money without knowing where it's going in the first place and having a clear strategy in mind. I think that's rather physically irresponsible. And so I think that ultimately, this isn't a conundrum of whether we should or shouldn't increase. I think that there's plenty of arguments into why we need to be spending this money.

We need to first talk about what it's going to be spent on before we determine the dollar amount because, you know, it might be proven that the most effective spending is a little bit less than that's proposed. It also may come out that it's a lot more, and that's okay. But what we need to do is have a conversation around what this is actually being appropriated to, first and foremost. And yeah, I think that there's a very strong argument that the Biden administration undercut the military. We saw a lot of, obviously, our arms have been sold to first Ukraine and then Israel, and we need to restock those munitions. I think that was a strategic move from a foreign policy standpoint at the time.

But now we have to address our national needs. And so we need to do a full restock, a full evaluation of what's necessary and what's necessary and what our strategy is and what on a bipartisan level in Congress we want to be spending on before determining the dollar amount. You don't go to the store looking for new clothes and say, I want to spend $300 today without knowing what clothes you're spent buying. Usually you say, okay, I need two shirts and a pair of pants. And then you end up, you know, maybe spending $200, maybe spending $400.

But you know what you're spending it on. First and foremost, it's not the dollar amount. Absolutely. Just a reminder to our listeners, this is Radio Free Hillsdale 101.7 FM. I'm Luke Miller and I'm talking today with Sam Rouse on bloat spending in the military. So Sam, I'm sure you're aware of the Trump administration's recent military actions in Iran and Venezuela and some of the technology that was used to do that. That's really unique to the United States that have been the result of a lot of the investments

that we've made in the Department of Defense, namely the bunker busters that we used in Iran last year and like the sonic weapons that we used in Venezuela that were very efficient and minimize deaths and allowed us to conduct that operation in Venezuela very quickly. What would you say to the argument that recent threats have shown the need for a strong and effective Defense Department, first of all, and that the increased spending has actually yielded very positive results? Yeah, I think that there is obviously a need for us to modernize the military. And while the proposed budget has not yet been authorized, obviously there has been an increase

and spending year over year for decades now. And it is showed, I think there's a lot of times there's this argument made that the United States, you know, we're spending so much more than all these other countries. It's a horrible idea. We should come down to the level of, you know, whatever, China, Russia. I'm not arguing that at all. I think that we should continue to be the world's leader. I think that the amount of spending we project right now generally is appropriate to the scope

of our role in the world and our leadership as a, as, you know, the United States. But what needs to be considered now is let's look at these recent circumstances. Let's look at where we're lacking in and specifically define what we want to be appropriating towards. I think these recent events have been a great scenario. to show how a lot of times this new technology that we need to purchase ultimately is relatively effective in a lot of ways. It will both effective in getting the military outcomes we want to have from a strategic side, but also effective in a spending way. We're not sending over tens of

thousands of American military men to live in a foreign country and have a prolonged conflict on the ground, spending a lot of resources, a lot of time, and potentially a lot of lives, we're able to carry out these rather quick operations with this high-tech technology and get things done quickly. And that actually is relatively cost-effective in a lot of ways because we're not using up arms. We're not losing resources and stuff that get destroyed. They come home with the people that carry up.

these operations. And so I think that there's a lot of cost effectiveness in, yeah, spending on something that's a little bit more expensive in the first place, but ultimately reduces the need to constantly be, you know, doing repairs or replacing things in the long run. Well, to go into what you mentioned there with putting boots on the ground, if you go through some of the biggest Department of Defense expenses, or Department of War expenses now, I guess, maintaining foreign military bases is among the most expensive. And obviously, like, that's not what you were saying. They're not putting boots on the ground in Venezuela. But in a different way, putting boots on the ground in foreign military bases and maintaining those is costing us over $200 billion a year by some

estimates. And that's to maintain 800 military bases in 80 countries. Many of those were post-World War II or Cold War institutions in places like Germany and Japan. But many argue that maintaining those and other bases is necessary to prevent our enemies like Russia, China, Iran, et cetera, from expanding. So do you think that this situation of having boots on the ground and spending all this money to maintain foreign military bases is necessary in this era, or is that one of these programs that can kind of be phased down a little bit? I think it's something that we need to reconsider. I am not a military strategy expert, so I can't say specifically whether or not we should remove those. I know they've played a critical role on our grand strategy.

achieve for a number of decades. I think it really becomes a place-based decision. It depends on the circumstances of the country that they're located in the conflicts that are going on in that part of the world and the threats facing it. I think, obviously, the president has been pretty outspoken in the fact that the European Union needs to play a more active role in its own military protection. we can't be taking that on for them. He's predominantly targeted their defense contribution to NATO,

but I think that he also may consider that in terms of these bases. But I do think that obviously they've been very important in preserving less stable parts of the world. I think that it's likely we will have potentially more of these in Latin America under this Donaro doctrine, but perhaps reevaluating them in the Middle East, Obviously, we've seen some close in recent years in parts of the Middle East as we've withdrawn our troop presence and our overall activity in certain countries. And that shifted towards this recent focus on Iran.

So I think it remains a rather evolving situation. But I certainly think that reevaluating them in light of our current situation and strategy and resources would be a smart. thing to do. And then once that's determined, then obviously we'll know the fiscal impact. I wouldn't make this based off of a budget cutting portion because it is one of our greatest projections of strength on the global stage. And it's been something that's kept a lot of regions stable in a way that they wouldn't otherwise be. But it is something for them to consider from a strategic standpoint that probably would yield some cost savings ultimately. Just another reminder to our listeners. This is Radio Free Hillsdale 101.7 FM. I'm Luke Miller and I'm talking with Sam Rouse about bloat spending in the military. So in your article, you mentioned that some programs in the Department of War could be phased out that no longer serve strategic needs. What are some examples of those programs maybe? And do you think that they'll offset some of the spending increases?

Yeah, I think that there's a number of sections of spending that rely just heavily on. this on-the-ground presence. We've, you know, traditionally conducted military through, you know, tanks and trucks driving through these countries with soldiers on them. And that's not really the way in which war operates these days. Obviously, there's still operations like that at times, but, you know, we've seen a pretty heavy reliance on Air Force strikes in recent years. We've seen, obviously, drones be leveraged. And so not to get into too much of the specifics of certain programs, but, you know, thinking about the way in which warfare is being conducted these days and the way in which it probably

will tomorrow, thinking about the future, I think that we can re-evaluate some of this land presence materials, as well as looking at, you know, a lot of the current vehicles being used, you know, the tankers, the battleships and stuff. There's just a lot of dated infrastructure. There's a lot of dated designs that are not the fastest, most effective, most secure things to build. And so it's, you know, it's like if you were still building an outdated car rather than updating to the 2026 model of something. You know, we don't see Ford produce the 90s models of their cars anymore because they're not the best version that they have. I think that the military thinking about how it can retire some dated ships and designs and systems of doing things and updating them to what we have today and what is meeting the moment.

You know, it's evolving conversation. It's obviously something that they have to evaluate and apply their knowledge to. I'm not, you know, a military strategist in any kind of way, but it's something for them to consider an order for us. to make this budget and spending. We want to be spending on things that are efficient and effective and achieving their perceived outcomes and spending it on things that are legacy programs a lot of times is not the case.

Yeah, so do you think that phasing out some of those things will offset the spending increases, or are you not particularly worried about offsetting the spending increases so much as just maximizing efficiency? I think that, I mean, they kind of go hand in hand, But I think that we don't want to look at this necessarily from a budgetary perspective. We want to be looking at it from a strategic perspective. And then the budgetary outcomes will naturally come with that.

I think that one of the problems that we face a lot of times in any government program is you have a conundrum between people that think only about preserving the system that we have today. And then we have people that just want to stop spending so much. and we don't have a consideration of how we can have the system work better, and with that will come cost savings at the same time. So you say in your article on that note that the increase in spending kind of reflects a spend or cut mindset that's a problematic approach. What in your view would be a better approach to defense spending? Yeah, I think evaluating through efficiency like we were just talking about would yield us the outcome. outcomes on both fronts that we want to see. I think that in terms of this budget, we're a lot of

times just talking about increase, increase, increase, and we're not thinking about what it's being spent on. And there's a lot of open questions on that, that I think needs to be hashed out in order for people to have the public buy-in to greater spending that's being advocated for. So looking through some more of the Department of Defense major expenses, in 2020 through 2024, the DOD paid private contractors over $2.4 trillion over that four-year span. Much of that going to the top few companies like Lockheed Martin and Boeing. And as we learned from the Doge experiment, which was an attempt to cut waste fraud and abuse, which was a Trump campaign promise, that they attempted to cut government contracts and it really wasn't as easy to do as they thought. There was a New York Times article

that came out that said that in all of its effort, Doge ended up cutting about $7.9 billion, which is really a drop in the bucket of the federal budget. So as far as private contracts go for the Department of Defense, it makes up over half of their discretionary spending every year. But as we kind of learn from the Doge experiment, cutting government contracts isn't necessarily an easy thing to do either. Do you think that these are some payments that could be scaled back? Do you think that they're necessary? How do you think that relationship is working out? Yeah. Well, so the Department of Defense works predominantly through private contracting at this point. We tend to to purchase a lot of our planes, our drones, our now AI infrastructure that we're using

through private companies. And that allows them to innovate and build the most effective thing through the free market and then for us to purchase it. There's certainly been a lot of open questions as we see newer companies come up in the defense procurement space that are offering different types of technologies, offering new systems and programs on their planes and drones and stuff. So it's something that is going to continue to be reconsidered in the coming decades, I think, in terms of who is best serving our needs.

But we're not just going to cut up and terminate all those private contracts and the way we see in other departments that being done. That is predominantly how we get our materials. in the military. We don't want to nationalize these industries. We don't want for this to be all government public option programming. We want there to be a free market and private innovation. And that's predominantly how the military's functioned. Awesome. Well, I think that's all I have for you today. Sam, thank you for being here with us. Thank you so much for having me.

Our guest has been Sam Rouse of Young Voices here to talk to us about a PC wrote in the national interest on bloat spending in the military and an approach based on efficiency instead, and I'm Luke Miller on Radio Free Hillsdale 101.7 FM.