Pentagon budget tops $1 trillion. Now what?

Polygraph | Newsletter n°309 | 10 Jul 2025

IN THIS NEWSLETTER: U.S. military spending surpasses $1 trillion, and I write legislation that rescinds the Big Beautiful Bill’s $156 billion for the Pentagon and sends people $600 checks with the savings.

*New from me: This report for Brown University’s Costs of War Project, which details the vast and increasing extent to which the Pentagon privatizes public funds.

I. A threshold crossed

The idea of a $1 trillion Pentagon budget was hyperbole just a few years ago. It became reality a few days ago, once Donald Trump signed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act into law. The sweeping legislation adds $156 billion in military spending on top of the $899 billion already approved for 2025. This year’s military budget now stands at $1,055,270,000,000.

It’s a watershed moment, and not a particularly proud one for the nation, especially considering that the same bill pushing annual military spending over the $1 trillion mark also cuts healthcare and food assistance.

The deficit was used both as the justification for slashing social spending and the vehicle for financing the bill’s excess military spending. The legislation’s Pentagon budget increase isn’t paid for, as it were — not unlike the post-9/11 wars, the extra costs aren’t offset by commensurate tax increases; they’re funded by the deficit.

For a discussion of why you’re likely hearing this news about the $1 trillion budget from me and not seeing it in countless headlines, see this footnote.¹ I think it basically comes down to the Trump administration pushing out misleading numbers and the media not bothering to read legislation.

II. Is the Big Beautiful Bill’s $156 billion in military spending necessary?

Some think so, but it’s definitely not needed where I live, which is in the real world.

Pre–Big Beautiful Bill, the Pentagon budget was already larger than all but about 20 countries’ entire economies, roughly equal to the GDP of Switzerland. What the $156 billion boost does is put 2025 military spending at roughly 1943 levels, adjusted for inflation.

The geopolitical situation in 2025 is, thankfully, much different than it was in 1943 (aside from genocide occurring in both eras), so why are we budgeting like it’s World War II? To choose just one quantitative metric for comparison: US troop deployments in the 1940s were at a record high. US troop deployments nowadays are at a historic low.

Note that the chart below only goes through 2024. After the military spending boost from the Big Beautiful Bill, the contrast between military spending and troop deployments is certainly even starker in 2025, despite the presumed increase in deployments this year accompanying Trump’s attack on Iran.

It's no coincidence that military spending surges during particularly destructive and idiotic moments in US foreign policy history. The current performative military buildup — which has come at the direct expense of social programs — won’t go unnoticed. It hasn’t so far: to quote one pollster during the most recent election, voters “do not look at our politics and see any good guys. They see a dying empire led by bad people.”

That said, the Big Beautiful Bill’s $156 billion in military spending is impossible to justify regardless of context, because of what’s in the bill itself. Generally speaking, the funding goes toward three purposes:

1. Corporate welfare

2. Enabling a foreign policy increasingly unmoored from morality or realpolitik

3. Buying unimaginably dangerous weapons

Those three themes are expressed sequentially in this excerpt from the final bill (p. 50). The $2.5 billion provision is basically to cover Northrop Grumman’s cost overruns (the Sentinel program was already 81% over budget as of last July); the $4.5 billion is for the development of the aircraft to eventually replace the B-2, which was recently used to unlawfully and stupidly bomb Iran; and the $500 million upgrades the US’s operational ICBMs, which are among the world’s most dangerous weapons.

III. Next step: Revoke the Big Beautiful Bill’s $156 billion in Pentagon waste and corporate welfare

Legislation should be introduced that rescinds the $156 billion in military spending authorized under Title II of the Big Beautiful Bill.

However, a bill that only does that will certainly fail in obscurity. To avoid that outcome, it will have to be amended to meet the requirements listed below. Meeting these requirements doesn’t mean the bill will pass, but doing so at least makes it not impossible and ensures the effort makes a difference politically regardless of the outcome.

• Have mass appeal

• Align with voter attitudes

• Speak to people’s needs

• Offer direct, tangible, and familiar benefits

• Have bipartisan appeal in Congress

• Deter members of Congress from opposing it

• Not have a ridiculous name

I believe I wrote a bill that meets all these requirements. Except for the last one.

IV. Introducing STEPHEN’S Act

The Stopping Taxpayer Exploitation by the Pentagon to Help Everyone’s Needs and Security Act of 2025 (STEPHEN’S Act) rescinds the One Big Beautiful Bill Act’s wasteful Pentagon spending and returns the savings to the taxpayer through $600 checks.

What STEPHEN’S Act does

1. Rescinds the Big Beautiful Bill’s $156 billion increase in Pentagon spending

2. Sends $600 checks to taxpayers and their dependents with the savings

3. Uses any remaining funds to pay down the deficit

Remaining funds should equal roughly $15 billion: STEPHEN’S Act effectively replicates the $600 “recovery rebates” issued in January 2021, which sent $141 billion in checks to taxpayers.

Who STEPHEN’S Act is for

Pretty much everyone but the rich. The $600 rebates from January 2021 reached more than 235 million Americans.² Two-thirds went to taxpayers with incomes under $50,000 and zero percent went to those with incomes above $200,000. Here’s who received the rebate (which was technically an advanced payment of a tax credit but structured as rebate and is often referred to as such), by income level:

• Less than $10K: 16%

• $10K-20K: 14%

• $20K-30K: 13%

• $30K-40K: 12%

• $40K-50K: 9%

• $50K-75K: 16%

• $75K-100K: 9%

• $100K-200K: 12%

• More than $200K: 0%

Why the public would support STEPHEN’S Act

• Tax rebates have always been popular and most Americans want another one to help offset the cost of living (63% support, 18% oppose).

• Americans need relief: 37% face financial hardship, 43% struggle to cover basic household expenses, and 66% live paycheck to paycheck.

• Rebates work. The number of people facing economic hardship and food insecurity fell by 9 million and 6 million, respectively, after the 2021 $600 rebates were issued.

• Most Americans (56%) support reducing military spending and reinvesting the savings into programs that deliver benefits to the public. Fewer than one in three oppose.

Which Members of Congress should support STEPHEN’S Act

• Republicans who want to reduce government waste, lower the deficit, and deliver a tax cut for working-class Americans.³

• Democrats who want to cut corporate welfare, lower the deficit, and help lower-income Americans survive social welfare cuts.

• Any Member of Congress who wants to enact popular legislation and avoid being known as the politician who voted against sending their constituents $600.

Bill text

Title: Stopping Taxpayer Exploitation by the Pentagon to Help Everyone’s Needs and Security Act of 2025 (STEPHEN’S Act).

Purpose: To rescind $156 billion in excess military spending from the One Big Beautiful Bill Act and return the savings to the taxpayer through $600 rebate checks, and deficit reduction.

1. Rescission of Funds as Offset.

   1. There is hereby rescinded the full amount of fiscal year 2025 budget authority made available by Title II—Committee on Armed Services of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (Public Law 119-21), to offset the change in revenue resulting from the refundable tax credit authorized in section (2), and to reduce the federal budget deficit as provided in section (3).

2. Rebates to Taxpayers.

   1. Subchapter B of chapter 65 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by inserting after section 6428B the following new section:

      “Sec. 6428C. 2025 Recovery Rebates To Individuals.

      “(a) In General.—In the case of an eligible individual, there shall be allowed as a credit against the tax imposed by subtitle A for the first taxable year beginning in 2025 an amount equal to the 2025 rebate amount.

      “(b) 2025 Rebate Amount.—For purposes of this section, the term ‘2025 rebate amount’ means, with respect to any taxpayer, the sum of—

      “(1) $600 ($1,200 in the case of a joint return), plus

      “(2) $600 multiplied by the number of qualifying dependents of the taxpayer for such taxable year.

      “(c) Administration.—The credit allowed under subsection (a) shall be treated as an advance refund of a refundable credit and shall be administered in a manner consistent with 26 U.S.C. §6428A.

3. Deficit Reduction.

   1. The value of rescinded budget authority specified in section (1), less the amount returned to the taxpayer through the advanced refund of tax credits (“2025 recovery rebates”) set forth in section (2), shall go toward deficit reduction.

Illustration of the bill text

^Alt text for screen readers: Rescind Big Beautiful Bill’s Pentagon spending, send taxpayers $600 with the savings. Remaining funds can go to deficit reduction. This chart compares the $156 billion in Pentagon funding in the Big Beautiful Bill with the $156 billion combined cost of $600 checks for 235 million people plus $15 billion in deficit reduction. Data: Title II—One Big Beautiful Bill Act, IRS. Rebate figures reflect the January 2021 $600 rebates.

SPECIAL THANKS TO: Abe B., Alan F., Amin, Andrew R., AT., B. Kelly, BartB., BeepBoop, Ben, Ben C.,* Bill S., Bob N., Brett S., Byron D., Chris, Chris G., Cole H., D. Kepler, Daniel M., Dave, David J., David S.,* David V.,* David M., Elizabeth R., Errol S., Foundart, Francis M., Frank R., Gary W., Gladwyn S., Graham P., Griffin R., Hunter S., Irene B., Isaac, Isaac L., Jacob, James H., James N., Jcowens, Jeff, Jennifer, Jennifer J., Jessica S., Jerry S., Joe R., John, John, John A., John K., John M., Jonathan S., Joseph B., Joshua R., Julia G., Katrina H., Kheng L., Lea S., Leah A., Leila CL., Lenore B., Linda B., Linda H., Lindsay, Lindsay S.,* Lora L., Mapraputa, Marie R., Mark L., Mark G., Marvin B., Mary Z., Marty, Matthew H.,* Megan., Melanie B., Michael S., Mitchell P., Nick B., Noah K., Norbert H., Omar A., Omar D.,* Peter M., Phil, Philip L., Ron C., Rosemary K., Sari G., Scarlet, Scott H., Silversurfer, Soh, Springseep, Stan C., TBE, Teddie G., Theresa A., Themadking, Tim C., Timbuk T., Tony L., Tony T., Tyler M., Victor S., Wayne H., William P.

* = founding member

-Stephen (Follow me on Instagram, Twitter, and Bluesky)

1. There are two reasons why we haven’t seen any headlines about the $1 trillion budget.

First, the Trump administration’s approach to budgeting has been opaque and ambiguous to the extent it looks deliberately misleading. Obtaining basic information is a challenge — standard budget documents are unavailable — and so is making sense of the information they do put out. The administration has created confusion about the Pentagon budget because it routinely conflates two different budgetary measures: budget authority (the amount of money an agency is permitted to spend) vs. obligations (the amount of money an agency commits to spending).

In May, the administration requested $848.3 billion for the Pentagon as part of its 2026 spending request, supplemented with $113.3 billion reconciliation resources, bringing the total to $961.6 billion. Because this is a request for budget authority, the administration indicated that reconciliation bill funding would first be made available in 2026 and that none would be made available for 2025.

The Big Beautiful Bill says otherwise. Under Title II, each section says that funding is available for 2025 (“there are appropriated to the Secretary of Defense for fiscal year 2025…”). Even though the funding can be spent over multiple years (“...to remain available until September 30, 2029”), the money was first authorized this year (2025) and thus officially counts toward this year’s spending totals. Per the Congressional Research Service:

“For budget enforcement and scorekeeping purposes, funding provided in appropriations legislation is generally counted as budget authority for the fiscal year in which it first becomes available for obligation. Even though the funds may remain available beyond one fiscal year, the budgetary impact of multi-year and no-year appropriations is generally scored as budget authority in only the first fiscal year.”

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) confirms that in terms of budget authority, the Big Beautiful Bill’s $156 billion in military spending applies to fiscal year 2025.

Second, the media’s level of effort. When it comes to military spending, media outlets generally report the numbers that are provided to them by government officials. If those numbers aren’t provided, they generally don’t get reported on, and it’s easy to see why. Consider the level of effort that went into determining that this year’s military budget had crossed the $1 trillion mark. This isn’t what I’d call a heroic effort, but it was painful and time-consuming:

• Read the text of the legislation from earlier this year that had set 2025 military spending levels

• Analyzed the accompanying documentation from the CBO

• Calculated the pre-Big Beautiful Bill total ($899 billion) by taking the sum of regular military spending ($892.5 billion) and “emergency” military spending ($6.6 billion)

• Read the text of the Big Beautiful Bill, recording and tallying each military spending provision

• Checked my numbers against the CBO’s

• Determined the total 2025 military budget ($1.055 trillion) by taking the sum of the military spending in the the Big Beautiful Bill ($156.2 billion) and the pre-Big Beautiful Bill amount ($899 billion)

2. There were 146,547,277 second-round tax rebate payments, according to the IRS, and 41,675,114 of them were to married couples filing a joint return. Filers also received $600 per child.

3. The Joint Committee on Taxation classified the 2021 $600 checks as a reduction in revenue, i.e., a tax cut.