a. National security budgets 

Both Republican and Democratic leaders, in their speeches and strategy documents, often say that the proliferation of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons and the prospect of such weapons falling into the hands of terrorists are among the greatest threats facing the United States. The National security budgets are the most dependable reflection of US security policy.

Yet only two-tenths of one percent of national security spending goes toward helping other governments prevent the scattering or theft of nuclear materials or weapons, and an even smaller share goes toward inspecting US-bound shipping containers for nuclear materials. 

The Department of Energy spends nearly twice as much annually on new earth-penetrating and low-yield nuclear weapons as on securing Russian fissile material.

b. The “grand strategy” 

The term “grand strategy” was first described by the British analyst, historian, and army officer, J. F. C. Fuller during the 1920s. It was first defined as the synchronizing of both military and nonmilitary activities to defeat an opponent.

During World War II, the successful conduct of grand strategy required the Allies to coordinate diplomatic, economic, political, and military initiatives on a truly global scale.

c. Domestic and international tools

All political leaders emphasize the importance of employing a wide range of domestic and international tools —including defense, diplomacy, public diplomacy, foreign assistance, intelligence, and homeland security—to make the country secure and advance its international interests and policies. (Williams, 2010)

As with any area of the federal budget, decisions about how much money to spend on security and foreign affairs as a whole or on any single activity of national security result from a complex mix of public and elite perceptions of security interests, domestic politics, and institutional forces.  

The budget reveals that the fastest growing bilateral assistance program is one that links assistance to the success of combat missions executed by forward-deployed US troops.

d. Priorities

The choices of priorities to emphasize, programs to pursue, and levels of spending can depend strongly on the preferences and abilities of individual leaders in federal departments and agencies, in the White House, and in Congress. 

They also depend on the machinery each of those institutions has created to bring information to those leaders and help them make choices about which programs and activities to pursue and how to divide resources among them. (Williams, 2010)

e. The United States increased funding
 

During the past two decades, the United States has increased its funding twice (2010-2020).

Including the cost of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, combined spending for national security, including national defense, international affairs, and homeland security, was more than three-quarters of a trillion dollars in fiscal year (FY) 2009, about 80 percent more in real terms than in FY 2001. (Williams, 2010)

Budget for FY2021

Related News

Just transition: Africa nations plan coalition to stop plunder of green minerals

The scramble for Central Asia: Why US is rushing to push normalization, rare earths deals out of Kazakhstan

For Fiscal Year 2021 (FY2021), the Department of Defense's discretionary budget authority is approximately $705.39 billion ($705,390,000,000). Mandatory spending of $10.77 billion, the Department of Energy and defense-related spending of $37.335 billion added up to the total FY2021 Defense budget of $753.5 billion. FY2021 was the last year for Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) as shown by the troop withdrawal from Afghanistan. Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E) investments for the future are offset by the OCO cuts, and by reduced procurement of legacy materiel.

Budget for FY2020

For Fiscal Year 2020 (FY2020), the Department of Defense's budget authority is approximately $721.5 billion ($721,531,000,000). Approximately $712.6 billion is discretionary spending with approximately $8.9 billion in mandatory spending. The Department of Defense estimates that $689.6 billion ($689,585,000,000) will actually be spent (outlays). Both left-wing and right-wing commentators have advocated for the cutting of military spending.

Budget for FY2019

For FY2019, the Department of Defense's budget authority was $693,058,000,000 (Including Discretionary and Mandatory Budget Authority). 

f. Budgets formation

Budgets are shaped by a variety of forces. These include party politics, the struggle between Congress and the executive branch, the bureaucratic interests and power of individual departments and agencies, and the abilities and preferences of individual leaders.

No simple formula can tell leaders how much the United States should spend on national security or how that spending should be allocated among departments and programs.  

g. The United States' wants and needs

A strong military and intelligence apparatus, vigorous civilian international engagement, and prudent homeland security: Achieving US objectives on the world stage and providing for security in the future will require continued substantial investment in all of those areas. Nevertheless, US resources are limited.

Spending on national security constitutes nearly 20 percent of total federal outlays and more than five percent of US gross domestic product (GDP). The Department of Defense (DOD), Department of State, Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and the US Agency for International Development (USAID) account for most of the total.

Homeland security activities are widely dispersed across the federal government, however, so nearly every department and independent agency has some share of the national security total.

h. Primacy

Primacy holds that only a preponderance of US power ensures peace. Yet across human history, winning wars has required more than simply winning battles.

Nations or other combatant groups must also isolate their enemies through diplomacy, generate the economic resources to prosecute the conflict, mobilize a political consensus in support of the war. (Brands, 2014)

The nation’s current financial and economic troubles will likely spark a tightening of the belt in every area of federal spending.  

Fiscal problems related to rising health care costs and the eligibility for the retirement of large numbers of baby boomers make the continued growth of national security budgets unlikely.

Setting priorities between guns and butter, and among the competing demands of national security, will be critically important to the nation’s future.

Federal arrangements for strategic planning and resource allocation for national security, across all the instruments of American security and statecraft, will be an important determinant of how well that is done. (Williams, 2010)

i. Conclusion

There is no unique document on the treatment of budgets in the interagency process or one that links the executive branch to Congress across the range of national security resource planning.

If policymakers are right that we need to use them in synergy, in the proposition that all the tools of national security policymaking ought to be considered together.

The budget can help decision-makers and ordinary citizens to define the actual priorities of national leaders from the oftentimes false priorities described in the speeches.

Arrangements for strategic planning, resource allocation, and budgeting within federal departments, in the White House, and in Congress have undergone substantial changes during the past decades. Scholars, think tanks, and multiple committees and commissions have tabled numerous proposals for additional reforms.

The decision-makers also depend on the machinery of the multiple institutions have created to bring information to those leaders and help them make choices about which programs to track and how to split up resources among them.

References

Brands, H. (2014). What Good Is Grand Strategy?: Power and Purpose in American Statecraft from Harry S. Truman to George W. Bush by Hal Brands. Itaca and London: Cornell University Press.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/0163660X.2010.516634. (2022, 01 25).

Nye, J. S. (2011). 20220201 The Future of Power ( 2011). New York: Public Affairs.

Williams, G. A. (2010). Buying national security: how America plans and pays for its global role and safety at home. New York and London: Routledge Taylor and Francis Group.