Spending, budgeting… wow. Army in the spotlight
The Military Times reports that the new budget for 2026 will include a trillion dollars for the military.
During a press event with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Monday, Trump offered the outline for total defense spending in the fiscal 2026 budget as part of his larger plans for U.S. national security.
“We’re going to be approving a budget, and I’m proud to say, actually, the biggest one we’ve ever done for the military,” he said. “$1 trillion. Nobody has seen anything like it. Military Times
Supposedly the increase will be largely funded by the famous DOGE cuts. Adlai Stevenson’s famous quote comes to mind, doesn’t it?
Meanwhile, supposedly the Army is discussing cutting active duty strength – by up to 90,000 troops.Call it, what, 8 or so divisions?
Internal discussions are exploring trimming the force to between 360,000 and 420,000 troops — down from its current level of roughly 450,000. The potential cuts would mark one of the most dramatic force reductions in years, as military planners aim to reshape the Army from a blunt conventional force into what they hope could be a more agile, specialized instrument better suited for future conflicts. Military.com
The driving force seems to be that the Pentagon considers a war with China in the Pacific, with attendant island-hopping and fewer large land battles, as the most likely. I guess that means Russia, the only country to start a major invasion of another sovereign country, is not considered a threat. Well, everyone was worried we spent too much time worrying about Russia so we should prepare for China now…one hopes we don’t spend so much prepping for China that we fail to worry about Russia. “We are at war with Eastasia, we have always been at war with Eastasia, and Eurasia is our ally.”
Some chilly news for you airborne types. The Army, as part of its budgeting attempts, wants to recode up to 20,000 current airborne positions, so while they will still be airborne billets, jump qualification – and pay – will no longer apply.-
Since 2006, the Army has kept 56,756 paid parachutist positions on its rolls, Anderson said. For reference, the entire force of Army parachutists that jumped into Normandy during World War II was 13,000 troops. Army Times
One of the big questions is whether support units will jump with the actual combat troops or land separately. The Army says it is currently spending a lot of money on keeping all those support folks current and jump qualified so they are being looked at for potential savings.
And to close on a high note, Rep. Brian Mast (R, FL) has introduced a bill to make enlistment and retention bonuses tax-free.
Many of those bonuses are currently taxed at a rate of 20% or more, blunting some of the impact of the financial windfalls for military families. Army Times II
Yeah, screws up your taxes, too – that 20% doesn’t come near to cover how your total income tax is now figured on a radically higher income. It’s early days on this…to be honest, I wouldn’t hold my breath on it passing. Nice gesture, though.
Thanks to Jeff LPH for the last two today!
Oh, and a last titter before we part – Tesla is no longer accepting Tesla trucks as trade-ins. Motorbiscuit Too much new inventory to need used ones. Given the Tesla fallout due to DOGE and the build quality issues (I particularly like actual body panels falling off!) buyers are staying away in droves, and Tesla has a BUNCH of new trucks. Maybe if they mark ’em down to around five grand, hmm?
Category: Army
I’m still not a fan of Ukraine (except as a place Russians go to die), but I do believe in giving them stuff (stuff, not fraud cash) to continue to wreck Russia on the cheap. (Sort of like you give a homeless guy food, not “money for food” which turns into drugs… but here it’s HIMARS rockets not $$$ for Zelensky.) Even so, cutting the army is short-sighted, even with a higher focus on INDOPACOM.
Best way to fight is down to the last man…of another country.
To “wreck Russia on the cheap” at the cost of a 1000 dead Ukrainians a month you dumb fook.
Same way we fought the Nazis: down to the last Pole, Frenchman, Dane, Greek, Englishman, Soviet (mostly Russian), etc.
You are coming across as a real piece of shit, you know.
Cold calculus of war and politics. I spent too much time working for the Joint Staff trying to pull political miracles out of blowing shit up. The real world is an ugly place.
I am mildly curious as to why you think I come across that way. I pay my taxes so there!
You come across as an asshole because real people die in war and a number of us have been impacted by that very thing. It isn’t “cold calculus” when your human friends are on fire and you go home and talk to their wives and kids and parents and tell them what a great guy or brave young woman she was.
You might say; “well, they knew the risks”, which is yet another shallow and trivial comment like the above.
What 5JC said.
We contributed more than our share of lives in that war—on behalf of those Poles, Frenchmen, etc.
I struggled with math, but I was pretty good at ‘rithmetic. IIRC the military “budget” was somewhere near $750 billion last year. Ok, we’re adding another $250 billion to that, cutting troop levels, and taking a bit of pay from others. Now…are we going to be spending the additional funds on food and Service Member’s pay? Buying more whizz-bang toys that may and/or may not work as advertised? Increasing the amount we’re giving away to defend other countries? I’m all for having a well trained, well paid, well equipped, well fed military to defend America. “Defending” other countries?…not so much. YMMV
Article says it is a 12% increase.
Ok, cool. Linky didn’t want to open for me for some reason. Bees that way…sometimes. A 12% increase tells me the budget was nearly $1 trillion before, so in the grand scheme of things…a rounding error. Not so much we have had a “budget issue” more of “where do we need to spend the budget $s issue”. I guess it’s a good thing that military contracts are going to the “lowest bidder”. Hate to know we are paying top dollar for stuff that doesn’t work as advertised.
It would be 12% less than a trillion before.
$1T military budget would make the Dems shit a solid gold brick in the old days, but they’ve become such warmongers now. If DJT is proposing that amount, they will oppose it. Hell, they’d oppose a lower budget too. I hope with all the DOGE saving it will increase available funds in certain departments while not increasing the overall budget. Part of the budget better be to clean up the housing and dinning problems some of our military members need.
Military budgets like this are tough to sustain. In years past we would just buy off countries since it was cheaper. Accountants, not generals, win wars.
We have had a drought of winning generals since 1991.
Sigh. The first Gulf War is used as an example by the Naval War College of a well fought war. Clear objectives, no mission creep, victory was defined before the war even started.
Sadly many Americans felt the job in Iraq was “unfinished.” So, bring on Iraq 2.0?
We lack the bloody mindedness to utterly crush our foes which then means “we might have the watches, but they have the time.”
We do great at toppling regime’s but it’s that pesky aftermath that is our Kryptonite. Leave? Stay?
Germany and Japan are our two great examples of success and we are STILL there. That’s what it takes to win long term. Not sure that model applies for the various dumps we have been fighting in for the last 30 years.
It’s seems the true strategy is formulated by accountants, and generals just do tactic’s and operations. The accountants sketched out the budget on Iraq 1.0 before hand and they stuck to it. The generals then were definitely under tight civilian control and they performed brilliantly.
My point is great generals are “created” when they serve under great (or at least competent) wartime civilian leaders.
It helps to have a war with certain attributes that favor “winning.”
It’s tough to find much to celebrate in a war…but winning sure beats losing.
It’s good to be us since we “quit” wars and keep on chugging afterwards. It’s incredible. Other countries have changes in government for doing that.
I don’t understand. We have always known that democracies are excellent at fighting total wars, and horrible at fighting limited wars. The evidence is abundant.
Within these constraints, all war planning should be done. Smash and dash, pump and dump, hit it and quit it. Get in and get out. We ain’t marrying that broad.
Totally not arguing against that viewpoint. Somehow we can’t help ourselves. An AF doctor pal of mine is in Mogadishu right now. Like wtf…why are we still in that rat hole. I do get great pictures and videos from him…on Signal even.
Russia doesn’t change government when they quit wars. Israel too. Iran, Iraq didn’t change governments when they quit… The loser sometimes changes if there even is a clear loser, sometimes.
The problem the US has is that defeating a government is easy but defeating an uprising is nearly impossible when they either can’t, won’t or don’t know how to address the causes of the uprising. There is no humane way to do that. The genocidal campaign that the US tried in the Philippines is the perfect example of the inhumane way and why it doesn’t work.
“There is no humane way to do that.”
Ramon Magsaysay and a few others disagree.
“The first Gulf War is used as an example by the Naval War College of a well fought war”
Before we injure ourselves patting each other on the back we should consider that Iraq was at best a minor league team playing against a major league team.
That was the argument for not fighting the Iraq War. They could have bought the whole GDP of the entire country for the cost of the war.
Is some of this “new money” paying for this? Are we going to be using the US Military to defend OUR Border? Gasps! Clutches pearls! The HORROR!
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-orders-military-control-federal-lands-southern-border
I suppose I would have no problem with reducing the size of the Army if Trump wasn’t running around the entire planet insulting people and engaging in an active trade war with most of the world.
Calling Canada the 51st state has long been insulting to Canadians for example. The passive/ aggressive threats with Greenland come across as a huge, cringy, creepy old man at a bar hitting on a young woman and telling her she is coming home with him; like it or not!? If I were her I’d be grabbing a large bouncer and asking for help. I’m sure it is her fault for dressing that way with those huge ice sheets.
That has just been the stuff in the news. Lesotho was insulted of course when Trump made a cringy joke at their expense the other day. All he really did was show his own ignorance. We won’t even get into all the countries in the Americas that he has insulted, suffice it to say it is all of them. If one has been left out he probably never heard of it. But that is just his daily blast that many American people love him for. Seldom do people go to war over insults but you don’t make allies that way either.
The trade war is a little more problematic. That is how real wars start. Normally countries will form blocks with close allies to get their way. Instead we turned the whole world on it’s head and gave them the finger. We are truly in uncharted territory in all of world history. It seems it would work a lot better when you have a large powerful Army to back it up. But hey what do I know?