In March, a record-breaking defense budget found its way to the Congress floor: $816 billion [1]. This proposition came just one month after progressive Democratic Senators proposed the “People Over Pentagon Act”, which sought a $100 billion budget cut for the Department of Defense. Calls of this sort to reduce military spending are not isolated to the nation’s highest offices. A poll taken in February of this year found that 35% of Americans feel that the U.S. overspends on defense [2]. It's no secret that the national debt is at $33 trillion, and climbing [3]. And yet, when faced with the most recent debt-ceiling bill, Republican lawmakers pushed for less domestic spending while also calling for a higher-than-ever defense budget. 

So, who is right? In order to justify the United State’s defense budget, it is important to understand where such a massive check is being cashed. For a number of reasons, the broad and strategic nature of the United States military offers a strong defense for its hefty price tag.

First, numbers can be deceiving. It is true that the U.S. is the global leader in military expenses, outspending the next seven nations combined [4]. However, this money accounts for just over 3% of the American economy. At the start of Obama’s presidency, this number was closer to 5%. Nations that outspend the U.S. include Columbia (3.3) and Russia (3.9), while Saudi Arabia allocates almost 9% of their national GDP to national defense. Though many countries dedicate a larger portion of their wealth to defense, the United States outranks all other nations in terms of military strength [5].

The United States takes on a lot of responsibility regarding global defense. As a party to six treaties, the nation upholds defense commitments with 51 nations [6].  Beyond these official agreements, the United States frequently responds to unprecedented crises, such as the Ebola outbreak or the 2010 earthquake in Haiti. The United States also oversees maritime trade in unregulated areas like the Strait of Hormuz and the Horn of Africa. 

While it may seem that America has over-committed itself, participation in this globalized system is part of a major defense strategy established after the first World War. Under this strategy, the United States can identify potential threats to national security and address them in their earliest stages of development, making unexpected strikes on U.S. soil nearly impossible. Some argue such far-reaching influence is ineffective. However, regional conflicts in areas such as the Middle East demonstrate the threat that arises when the U.S. remains withdrawn from foreign adversaries. Iran became deeply involved in Iraqi politics in the early twenty-first century, supporting extremism that would eventually motivate the Operation Iraqi Freedom invasion [7]. For over a decade, Russia's support of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has also been an ongoing issue for U.S., considering they openly support the opposing Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces [8].

The liberal nature of American trade further justifies a projection of widespread military influence. After China, the United States is the second largest exporter of goods, engaging in trade with over 200 nations and territories [9]. American military operations abroad are tasked with the oversight of American exports and their ability to reach clients, allowing for a functional and powerful economy. The United States’s influence shares a zero-sum relationship with adversaries; that is, every route and outlet the U.S. military occupies means one less in the hands of foreign adversaries. India and Turkey, who saw minimal incorporation into western alliance systems in the past century, and are now Russia’s second and third largest trade partners, respectively [10].

Furthermore, the American military takes on the financial slack of under-contributing nations. In recent years, the United States has asked its allies to contribute 2% of their overall GDP to defense in order to create a global front that is both robust and an effective deterrent [11]. However, many countries have failed to meet this request. Mexico and Canada, who defend the same borders as the U.S., contribute 0.6 and 1.2 percent of their GDP, respectively [12]. The lack of equal contribution puts defense treaties at risk, forcing the United States to pay more than its share in order to reinforce the continuation of cooperative strategies.

Between the deceiving nature of the military budget, the strategic importance of a robust forward presence, and a lack of shared responsibility in the international community, it seems military spending is not the right place to start budget cuts. An important and rather recent testament to the value of defense spending is Israel. The extensive national security threats the nation currently faces bring into question what the fate of the nation would be if it had at some point decided to contribute less than 4.5 percent of its GDP towards acquiring state-of-the-art defense technology. When it comes to safety and security, is any price too high? National defense, it seems, is a situation in which it is better to be safe than sorry.