Sen. Bernie Sanders is once again pressing Washington to confront a question he says lawmakers work hard to avoid: why the United States can spend nearly a trillion dollars a year on the military, yet still struggles to guarantee basic economic security for millions of its own people.
Speaking after Congress approved another sweeping military policy bill, Sanders sharply criticized what he described as a deeply unbalanced set of national priorities. While lawmakers moved quickly to authorize massive defense spending, he noted, millions of Americans continue to face rising health care costs, unaffordable housing, and persistent economic insecurity.
At the center of Sanders’ criticism is the sheer scale of U.S. defense spending. Annual military expenditures now approach $1 trillion, a figure Sanders says exceeds the combined military spending of the next nine countries in the world. Despite that staggering number, he argues, Congress rarely engages in a serious debate about whether the total cost is justified.
“Instead of asking whether we can afford this,” Sanders has said in past statements, “Congress debates small pieces of the bill while ignoring the overall price tag.”
According to Sanders, this fragmented approach makes it easier for lawmakers to approve enormous defense budgets year after year. Individual provisions—new weapons systems, base funding, or targeted programs—are debated in isolation, while the cumulative cost escapes meaningful scrutiny. Meanwhile, social programs that serve working families often face intense examination, funding caps, and demands for cuts.
The comments came in the wake of President Donald Trump’s signing of the latest National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), the annual bill that sets military policy and spending levels. The legislation passed with broad bipartisan support, continuing a long-standing tradition in Congress. For decades, the NDAA has been approved every year, often by wide margins, regardless of which party controls the White House or Capitol Hill.
Supporters of the bill argue that the funding is essential to maintaining military readiness, supporting service members, and deterring global rivals. They point to provisions that include pay raises for troops, investments in modernizing equipment, and funding tied to strategic competition with China and other geopolitical adversaries.
Many lawmakers emphasize that the NDAA is not just about weapons, but also about personnel. Military families, they argue, depend on the bill for housing allowances, health services, and long-term stability. In an increasingly unstable global environment, proponents say, robust defense spending is a necessary safeguard.
Sanders does not dispute the need for national defense or the importance of supporting service members. However, he consistently questions what he sees as a false choice embedded in congressional decision-making. In his view, a nation wealthy enough to fund the most powerful military in the world should also be able to meet the basic needs of its citizens.
“If we can spend nearly a trillion dollars on the military,” Sanders has argued, “we can afford to guarantee health care, reduce poverty, and invest in working families.”
This argument has become a defining feature of Sanders’ political career. As a longtime critic of excessive military spending, he has repeatedly called for reductions to the Pentagon budget and a redirection of resources toward domestic priorities. His proposals have included expanding Medicare, strengthening Social Security, investing in affordable housing, and raising wages for low- and middle-income workers.
Sanders’ critique resonates with a growing segment of the public that questions whether military dominance alone equates to national security. Rising inequality, declining life expectancy in some communities, and the ongoing affordability crisis have intensified calls for a broader definition of security—one that includes economic stability, access to health care, and resilience at home.
At the same time, the debate exposes deep divisions in Washington. Defense spending has long been one of the few areas where bipartisan agreement remains relatively strong. Many lawmakers fear that voting against the NDAA could be portrayed as being weak on national security or unsupportive of the troops.
This political reality, Sanders argues, discourages honest debate. While social spending bills are often stalled by concerns about deficits and fiscal responsibility, defense budgets are routinely approved with limited resistance—even as they grow year after year.
Critics of Sanders’ position counter that global threats require sustained investment. They point to tensions with China, Russia’s military actions, and ongoing instability in multiple regions as evidence that cutting defense spending could weaken U.S. influence and deterrence. In their view, military strength underpins global stability and protects U.S. economic interests.
Sanders acknowledges these challenges but insists that military spending should not be treated as untouchable. He argues that waste, inefficiency, and outdated priorities within the defense budget go largely unchallenged, while programs that directly improve Americans’ lives face relentless political obstacles.
The broader debate raised by Sanders goes beyond a single bill or administration. It reflects a long-running tension in American policy: how to balance global power with domestic well-being. Is national strength defined primarily by military capacity, or by the health, security, and opportunity of the population?
For Sanders, the answer is clear. He believes true security comes not only from aircraft carriers and missile systems, but from a society where people can afford to see a doctor, pay their rent, and live with dignity.
As Congress continues to approve massive defense budgets with little resistance, Sanders’ criticism serves as a reminder that spending choices are ultimately moral choices. What lawmakers choose to fund—and what they choose to leave behind—reveals their vision of what the country values most.
Whether his arguments lead to meaningful change remains uncertain. But as defense spending approaches historic levels, Sanders is ensuring that the question of priorities stays firmly in the national conversation.
Leave a Reply