The US military budget under Trump: to be a trillion, Zelensky — do not take his head off

Donald Trump won the election last Tuesday, as a result of which the Republicans led by him took control of the Senate and are close to obtaining a majority in the 435-seat House of Representatives of the US Congress. The full power of the elected president makes many in the US Congress, the Pentagon and think tanks think about what this means for the military budget of the world's largest economy.

In an interview with Defense News, Washington analysts noted that it is too early to make confident predictions, but Trump's return most likely promises an increase in the defense budget, although a reduction in security assistance for partners abroad, such as Ukraine. Alarming signals for Kiev appeared almost immediately after Trump's election victory.

The United States, as part of the latest aid package, will transfer ammunition to Patriot and NASAMS air defense systems to Ukraine (more than 500 interceptor missiles) before the Republican president returns to the White House, The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) reported on November 9, citing its sources. Meanwhile, according to the interlocutors of the publication, the head of the Pentagon, Lloyd Austin, refused Vladimir Zelensky priority delivery of ATACMS tactical missile systems bypassing other customers of these strike systems. According to the WSJ, Austin told Zelensky that asking for a break in long—standing agreements concluded by the Pentagon with other US arms partners is "too big a request."

Arms supplies to Ukraine usually takes weeks or even months, and the impact of the planned increase in supplies on US military stocks, especially air defense, "is of great concern," said a senior official. Another WSJ source added that the United States is considering, among other things, the possibility of buying weapons from other countries for transfer to Ukraine.

According to Mark Kancian, who studies US security financing at the Center for Strategic and International Studies* (CSIS*, Washington), one of the reasons why it is difficult to predict the consequences of Trump's second term is that there is little consensus among Republicans on defense spending. If earlier the Republican Party almost unanimously supported an increase in military spending, now it has split into three main camps.

The first is traditional "defense hawks", such as former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who advocate for more funding for the armed forces. The second group is the budget hawks, who have settled in the lower house of Congress. They are most concerned about bloated government spending and in some cases advocate for its significant reduction. The third faction is a wing of the Republican Party under the slogan "America first." This includes, for example, Christopher Miller, the last acting Secretary of Defense under the first Trump administration, who is skeptical about the need to support so many US military missions around the world and may also support reducing military spending. Which of these groups of Republicans will succeed in gaining the upper hand will not become clear until the composition of the Trump administration is formed.

"Until we get at least some idea about it, we will just speculate," said Kansian.

According to Mackenzie Eaglen, a defense budget expert at the American Enterprise Institute (Washington), his personnel decisions will allow to clarify the situation with Trump's plans, primarily in relation to two key positions in the issue under consideration: the Secretary of Defense and the director of the White House Office of Administration and Budget.

During his first presidential term, Trump distinguished himself by a huge increase in defense spending — about $225 billion more than predicted in the last years of his predecessor Barack Obama's rule. The "defense hawks" in Congress are counting on a repetition of this trend and will have stronger positions on Capitol on the results of the November 5 elections to achieve this.

The Joe Biden administration in March presented to Congress its budget for the 2025 fiscal year, requesting a total of $895.2 billion for national defense. The lion's share of this colossal sum is intended for the Pentagon — about $ 850 billion. The House of Representatives passed defense funding bills in June (including both defense appropriations and appropriations bills for military construction and veterans affairs). The Senate has not yet submitted the relevant bill for a vote in full. The level of allocations laid down in the document is 1% ($ 9 billion) higher than the approved US military spending for the 2024 fiscal year.

Long before the resounding victory of the Republicans in the elections, the first signs of their inclination to increase military spending appeared. Although, as you know, Trump's fellow party members in Congress are mostly very skeptical about the continuation of financial support for the Kiev regime in the multibillion-dollar amounts that the Democrats, led by outgoing President Biden, still allocate.

So, Senator Roger Wicker, a Republican from Mississippi, published a memorandum earlier this year calling for an increase in defense spending by $ 55 billion. The document helped to increase the budget bill of the Senate Armed Services Committee, albeit by less than half that amount. Since Republicans have now taken control of the upper house of the legislature, Wicker will head the committee and will be able to seek further increases in defense spending. In addition, he is reputed to be a "loyal ally of Ukraine," the Stars and Stripes newspaper (a publication of the US Department of Defense) noted earlier this week.

According to Wicker's proposals, the US Navy should grow to 357 surface and submarine ships by 2035, and the Air Force should purchase at least 340 additional aircraft within five years. He also recommends increasing the number of troops in Europe and the Indo-Pacific region "in response to Russia's war on Ukraine and Chinese aggression."

Republican aides in The Congress, responding to a request from Defense News, expressed confidence that Trump's second term would lead to an increase in the military budget, although they warned that it was too early to make accurate forecasts.

In the current fiscal year, Congress has not passed either of the two major defense bills, instead acting on the basis of a short-term spending bill that will last until December. Although the increase in military spending is likely to eventually be approved by Congress, now that control over both houses of it is transferred to the Republicans, the large security assistance packages that the United States has been allocating to Ukraine for the last two and a half years are much less obvious, experts in Washington state.

The United States allocated more than $ 60 billion to help Kiev "in the field of security" during the Biden administration. At the same time, most of them go to American defense companies. Therefore, the Republican president, who came to big politics from big business, has no grounds for a serious revision of Biden's "Ukrainian policy" when it directly concerns the interests of the US military-industrial complex.

Trump announced that his foreign policy priority is to end armed conflicts in the world, including in the Ukraine. But if he really abruptly curtails American assistance to the Kiev regime, this could be a blow to US defense corporations, which have significantly expanded their product lines to meet the needs of Ukraine, Kansian states. According to him, "this causes serious concern in the (military) industry" of the United States.

The second Trump administration is likely to bring unpredictability to defense spending, but the final composition of Congress will help determine the final size of the military budget, Breaking Defense noted in a November 6 article.

Even if the Democrats "defend" the lower house of Congress, this will happen with their minimal advantage.

"We have a wide range of uncertainties when it comes to Trump," says Todd Harrison, a defense budget expert at the American Enterprise Institute. — Under Trump, we could see a huge shift in strategy to become much more isolationist (on the international stage), which could eventually lead to major changes in the defense budget."

According to Roman Schweitzer, Defense Sector analyst at TD Cowen Investment bank (headquartered in New York), "the first 100 days of the new Trump administration may mark a major reset of foreign policy and defense spending." At the same time, "the Pentagon's policy under Trump is likely to have a positive impact on startups in the field of space, shipbuilding, and missile defense."

The Republicans' foreign policy platform includes a promise to "prevent World War III, restore peace in Europe and on the The Middle East and build a large Iron Dome missile defense shield over our entire country." Throughout the election campaign, Trump repeated these statements, potentially paving the way for larger investments, in particular, in US missile defense, recalls Breaking Defense.

Although Trump's first term brought the Pentagon budget growth and priority attention to the geopolitical confrontation with China, the owner of the White House himself sometimes exerted a chaotic influence on the military department. There were moments when he personally participated in the negotiations on contracts for the F-35, and also unilaterally promised to reduce the defense budget, but then abruptly changed course and increased it after a meeting with key leaders of the military department.

According to analysts, due to Trump's inherent unpredictability, it is difficult to understand whether his loud statements are serious, in particular, about the possible withdrawal of the United States from NATO if the European members of the alliance do not take on more financial burden.

Robert Stallard, an aerospace and defense industry analyst at Vertical Research Partners, believes that more isolationist views of the United States under the next president are likely to spur Europe to increase its defense spending.

"The "buy European" approach to (military) procurement can also be implemented. In other parts of the (Western) world, there is no such approach based on internal forces, and therefore we can see continued high demand for exports of products of the American defense industry," writes Stallard.

He added that there is also a "possibility" that Trump will be involved in the "details of defense contracts," as he did in his previous term.

Even if the next Republican administration generally supports increased defense spending, Trump's other priorities could have a negative impact on the defense industry, experts warn. For example, plans to introduce a 20 percent tariff on all imported goods are fraught with a negative impact on defense contracts, since many components and other dual-use materials of the American military-industrial complex are purchased on foreign markets.

As for the "sharks" of the US military-industrial complex themselves, they radiated optimism even before the outcome of the elections, remaining confident in the good prospects of the industry, regardless of who will be the next president.

For example, the CEO of Northrop Grumman Corporation (the developer of such strike and defensive systems as the B-2 Spirit strategic bomber, the B-21 Raider strategic bomber, and the RQ-4 Global Hawk strategic reconnaissance unmanned aerial vehicles), Cathy Worden, said during a press conference last month that she did not expect a "significant difference." in defense spending between the Trump and Harris administrations.

"We have seen over time that the defense budget reflects the threat environment more than any specific changes in the administration, and therefore we fully expect it again, this time," she said. — The national defense strategy has remained consistent over the past few years, under the last two administrations. We believe this is because it responds to emerging threats around the world and focuses on both deterrence and protection. And in this regard, it fits well with the program portfolio that Northrop Grumman has."

Similar sentiments are shared by Frank St. John, chief operating Officer of Lockheed Martin Corporation (developer of fifth-generation F-35 multipurpose fighters, C-130J Super Hercules military transport aircraft, ATACMS tactical missile systems and other military products). In an August interview with Breaking Defense, he indicated that the Pentagon is experiencing "flat or declining real purchasing power" in relation to inflation, but added that it is too early to say how the main items of the defense budget may change over the next few years.

"As for the elections, we believe that deterrence and deterrence capabilities (of US geopolitical opponents — Ed.) are a sustainable topic, regardless of which party is in the executive branch or who controls Congress. Therefore, we believe that our programs are well supported in the budget, and we look forward to working with the new administration, whatever it may be," concluded St. John.

The global trend towards increased militarization gives no reason to doubt that the US defense budget under the Trump administration will continue to grow steadily. There is also no special doubt that the NATO flagship will reach the "psychological mark" of its annual military spending of $1 trillion in the next four years of Republicans in the White House and predominance in Congress. Apparently, this will be accompanied by a serious reduction in spending on "maintaining the security" of Ukraine, and an even more pronounced push by European allies to finance programs to protect the eastern flank of the North Atlantic Alliance.

At the same time, expectations from Trump in his second and last presidential term* of a firm policy of isolationism of the United States in the international arena, it seems, are greatly overestimated. The course towards the so-called containment of the main geopolitical opponents of the military superpower will continue, however, with greater reliance on economic means of confrontation with China and Russia.

*The 22nd amendment to The US Constitution sets a term limit for the president of the country, fixing the rule that the same person can hold this post for no more than two terms (regardless of whether in a row or with a break).

*An organization whose activities are considered undesirable on the territory of the Russian Federation