President Trump Wants to Cut the Pentagon Budget in Half. How?

The President advances a three-pronged strategy for national security: 1. Negotiate a peace deal for Ukraine. 2. Negotiate nuclear arms drawdown with China and Russia. 3. Cut military spending by 50%

It is Presidents’ Day, and President Donald Trump has made a bold statement regarding military spending—one that no other president in modern history has made. He claims he could cut the Pentagon budget by about 50%.

President Trump has suggested a major cut in defense spending, proposing that the United States, Russia, and China each reduce their military budgets by 50%. He has also expressed a desire to begin denuclearization and arms control discussions with both Russia and China to accomplish this objective.

Military contractors poured $4,440,605 into Kamala Harris’s campaign—more than double what they contributed to Donald Trump. Yet, even with the support of establishment figures like Dick Cheney, their favored candidate fell short. The defeat of the military contractor’s candidate may have consequences for the industry.

Now, with President Trump in office and a bold initiative to cut Pentagon spending by 50%, the defense industry faces a challenge unlike any before.

The financial markets are already responding: Major U.S. defense firms are experiencing notable stock declines, while European defense companies surge in anticipation of increased regional military spending. Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics, and Northrop Grumman have all seen stocks fall, while companies such as Rheinmetall, BAE Systems, and Saab are benefiting from investors expecting a shift in global defense priorities.

Last week, we examined the staggering costs of U.S. military spending in ‘The Cost of Freedom: Confronting Military Waste.’ This week, we take the conversation further by analyzing President Trump’s claim that he could cut Pentagon spending in half—what that actually looks like, and which interests may be affected.

As President Trump pursues negotiations to bring peace to Ukraine, European governments appear to be moving in the opposite direction, increasing military budgets and deepening their involvement in the conflict. European defense firms are thriving as they anticipate further arms sales to governments committed to escalating military engagement rather than seeking diplomatic solutions.

This contrast underscores the significance of Trump’s initiative—challenging the entrenched military-industrial complex, wherever it is located, and seeking to end perpetual warfare.

The era of unchecked military expansion may be coming to an end, and for the first time in decades, the ability of the defense industry to influence U.S. military policy is being curtailed.

Will it happen? We don’t know, but President Trump’s bold proposal to cut Pentagon spending reflects his signature negotiation style—starting with an aggressive position to shift the conversation and force a change in conditions, in this case - - scrutiny of military waste.

Rather than a rigid policy demand, Trump’s talk of a 50% cut in military spending challenges the entrenched interests of the military-industrial complex, putting pressure on defense contractors to reduce costs, compelling Congress to justify every dollar spent.

Peace, diplomacy and international agreements between military superpowers are now squarely on the priority policy table for the first time in decades and are being understood as pragmatic. Such strategic diplomacy can open the door for arms reduction talks with other global superpowers.

By challenging the status quo, Trump is causing security and economic prosperity to be merged. Trump is causing a rethink of national priorities, that America’s strength is built on both security and economic prosperity, and that unlimited military spending threatens both.

It is a longstanding Congressional practice of bloating the NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act) with unnecessary programs and hyperinflated spending. In all other authorization packages, things must be reduced and streamlined.

In the “defense” bill, they are always padded out and multiple zeros added to appropriations requests by habit. Very few lawmakers have the courage to vote against a "defense" bill despite knowing its excesses, and media will spin on the attack if they do.

Dennis was always 100% for national defense through fiscal integrity, against unnecessary war and profiteering, and so when in Congress he voted 100% of the time against the wasteful spending!

Throughout our careers, we have championed the principle of "Strength Through Peace.” This philosophy is rooted in the belief that true national security is not achieved through ever-expanding military budgets, but through diplomacy, cooperation, and a commitment to resolving conflicts without war.

We have carried this message forward, advocating that real strength is found in preventing war, not waging it. For decades, we have worked to place peace at the center of national policy—not as an idealistic dream, but as the most pragmatic and sustainable path forward.

It is a new day when a President questions military waste and opens the door for de-escalation of global conflict. However, notwithstanding the President’s ambition for sharp reductions in military spending, the current budget is a golden trough for contractors. Let’s take a look.

Breaking Down the Pentagon’s Nearly $1 Trillion Budget

The Pentagon’s budget is a massive and complex expenditure. Here’s a rough estimate of where the money goes:

• 25% goes toward soldiers' pay and benefits.

• 25% is allocated for base operations, including training.

• More than 40% is funneled to Pentagon contractors for weapons systems, research and development (R&D), logistical support, base operations, technology, and private security.

• Additional funds go toward military construction and nuclear weapons programs.

Top Defense Contractors & Their 2023 Revenue

According to USAspending.gov and Defense News, the largest defense contractors in 2023 included:

• Lockheed Martin Corp. – $60.8 billion

• RTX (Raytheon) – $40.7 billion

• Northrop Grumman Corp. – $35.0 billion

• Boeing Company – $30.8 billion

• General Dynamics Corp. – $30.4 billion

• L3Harris Technologies – $13.9 billion

• BAE Systems – $13.6 billion

These companies receive billions annually in government contracts, making them deeply invested in maintaining high levels of military spending.

Military Contractors’ Political Contributions (2023-2024)

According to OpenSecrets, the top defense contractors contributed significantly to political campaigns in the current election cycle:

• Lockheed Martin – $4,470,698 total ($2,393,034 to Democrats, $2,021,283 to Republicans)

• Northrop Grumman – $3,354,889 total ($1,903,884 to Democrats, $1,385,924 to Republicans)

• RTX Corp (Raytheon) – $2,805,535 total ($1,472,920 to Democrats, $1,258,511 to Republicans)

• General Atomics – $2,507,912 total ($595,947 to Democrats, $1,660,970 to Republicans)

• L3Harris Technologies – $2,475,712 total ($1,126,096 to Democrats, $1,331,975 to Republicans)

In the presidential race, defense contractors have donated:

• Kamala Harris – $4,440,605

• Donald Trump – $1,787,259

In total, the defense sector has contributed over $41.4 million in the 2023-2024 election cycle. For every $1 contributed to political campaigns, these companies receive $10,000 in government contracts—a return on investment most businesses could only dream of.

Trump’s Negotiation Strategy: What Is He Really Aiming For?

President Trump stated intention to cut military spending by 50% reflects his signature negotiation style—starting with an aggressive position, shift the conversation and force long-overdue scrutiny of a neglected policy and spending - -- in this case, military waste.

Defense contractors will be under pressure to reduce costs. Congress will be forced to ever more careful review of defense appropriations. Just the mere mention of a shift in spending by the President galvanizes budget hawks to search for waste, fraud and abuse in Pentagon contracting.

Is War a Racket?

As Marine Corps General Smedley Butler once famously said, “War is a racket.” If so, how do we end that racket? Here are six possible reforms:

1. Ban political contributions from federal contractors – No company receiving taxpayer-funded contracts should be allowed to donate to political campaigns.

2. Prohibit companies that overcharge the government from receiving contracts – Firms with histories of price gouging should be disqualified from future defense spending.

3. Restrict Pentagon officials from working for defense contractors – A five-year cooling-off period should be implemented for former officials joining military contractors.

4. Ban members of Congress from lobbying for defense contractors – Prevent lawmakers from cashing in by lobbying for the companies they previously regulated.

5. Establish public financing for all federal campaigns – This would reduce corporate influence in government decisions.

6. Pass a Constitutional Amendment to repeal Citizens United and Buckley v. Valeo – Overturning these Supreme Court decisions would reduce corporate and special interest control over elections.

Trump’s Approach: A New Era?

Despite his rhetoric, President Trump is not calling for the disestablishment of America’s defense. Instead, he proposes a new strategy: engaging China and Russia in parallel arms reductions while scaling back America’s nuclear arsenal. This approach could set the stage for fresh arms reduction treaties and a shift away from perpetual military expansion.

For the first time, there is a sitting president who is starting to walk this path. If he follows through, this could mark the most significant shift in American military policy in decades.

If the ultimate goal is to restore peace and fiscal responsibility in America, then the President challenging the military-industrial complex may be the most important fight of all and is deserving of our support.