Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Carrots and sticks: Reprioritize weapons budgeting

Opinion

Military vehicles with $100 bill background
Anton Petrus/Getty Images

Samuel is a doctoral candidate studying public health and American foreign policy at Columbia University. She is also a member of the Scholars Strategy Network.

American military supremacy is unmatched, both in might and expense. Congress is prepared to spend $886 billion on defense this year, in line with decades of federal investments meant to strengthen deterrence and military capabilities. Defense spending may exceed non-defense spending by over $100 billion – a clear demonstration of America’s muscular approach to foreign policy.

This year’s defense budget includes $315 billion earmarked for Major Weapons Systems, or what Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin refers to as “ highly lethal precision weapons.” Over a third of all defense appropriations are spent on weapons that include hypersonic missiles, advanced nuclear submarines, and continued development of the B-21 bomber program. At the same time, private defense contractors are set to enjoy rising profits as the beneficiaries of America’s force-first defensive posture.

But the nature of warfare is changing. Guns and missiles are the weapons of yesteryear. However formidable, they are not enough to keep America and our allies safe from the most pressing threats. Instead, our nation needs to realize that the threats we face in the 21st century are unprecedented and require novel diplomatic tools of defense. Congressional leaders must invest more in diplomacy if America is to remain free and safe.


Israel, one of the United States’ closest allies and the largest recipient of American military assistance since World War II, was not kept safe on Oct. 7. 2023, despite its possession of the most sophisticated weaponry in the Middle East. The Iron Dome failed with catastrophic consequences despite $3 billion in support from the United States. Meanwhile Israel’s indiscriminate use of American-supplied bombs has been met with international outcry and levels of civilian casualties not seen this century.

At the same time, the Biden administration’s $46 billion in military aid to Ukraine has inflamed already tense budget negotiations with congressional Republicans and has produced only a challenging stalemate with Russia, despite the inclusion of controversial cluster munitions in the arms package. And still, any resolution that might materialize to end the conflict will likely involve the ceding of formerly sovereign Ukrainian territory.

These sticks are not getting the job done. Diplomatic carrots, in the form of economic engagement and foreign aid, are better tools for protecting Americans at home and abroad.

Adversarial competition with China is the most pressing threat facing the United States. That threat has been most effectively tackled through commercial pacts like the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, a free trade agreement designed to limit China’s economic influence across the Pacific. America is already using the diplomatic weaponry that will keep us safe for future decades.

Diplomatic carrots also function to make weapons of force more effective by providing credible intelligence for deployment and targeting. Such intelligence has been historically and effectively shared among allies through collaborative intelligence partnerships. The Five Eyes Intelligence Oversight and Review Council, for example, is comprised of The United States’ closest English-speaking allies, who have successfully worked together since World War II to protect democracy globally. Their collaboration is a critical check on China’s growing influence.

These intelligence-sharing partnerships strengthen the United States against all possible threats, including infectious ones. China’s failure to share critical epidemiological data slowed the response to the Covid-19 pandemic and obfuscated the origins of the virus. The still ongoing pandemic serves as a reminder that not all of America’s problems can be tackled militarily.

America’s diplomatic fixation on violent weaponry undermines our national security. However, Congress can act to make us safer by strengthening the State Department and giving it the nonviolent tools to keep Americans safe. Congress must fully fund, if not exceed, President Biden’s budget request for the State Department, including the 10 percent budgetary increase for USAID, the agency responsible for administering US foreign aid.

The $11 billion in USAID’s budget earmarked for global health security is a miniscule amount compared to already-funded expensive weapons systems, but critical for preventing the next pandemic. An additional $4 billion for infrastructure development in the Indo-Pacific counters China’s influence in the region and cultivates new allies who might otherwise be drawn into the debt trap of China’s Belt and Road Initiative.

It goes without saying that Congress should continue to support our military and the heroes who keep us all safe. But Congress’ failure to better support our military with diplomatic weaponry both undermines American military supremacy and increases the danger our armed servicemembers face abroad. We are all less safe when the diplomatic arsenal is left dangerously underfunded.

Congress must act swiftly. The recently passed continuing resolution mandates an early March deadline to fund all foreign operations before a government shutdown threatens America’s capacity to pursue global peace. A fully funded USAID and State Department are the carrots that the United States needs to complement our unmatched militarized stick.


Read More

Open Letter to Justice Roberts: Partisan Gerrymandering Is Unconstitutional
beige concrete building under blue sky during daytime

Open Letter to Justice Roberts: Partisan Gerrymandering Is Unconstitutional

The Supreme Court, in holding that partisan gerrymandering is permissible—unless it "goes too far"—stated that the argument made against this practice based on the Court's "one person, one vote" doctrine didn't work because the cases that developed that doctrine were about ensuring that each vote had an equal weight. The Court reasoned that after redistricting, each vote still has equal weight.

I would respectfully disagree. After admittedly partisan redistricting, each vote does not have an equal weight. The purpose of partisan gerrymandering is typically to create a "safe" seat—to group citizens so that the dominant political party has a clear majority of the voters. It's the transformation of a contested seat or even a seat safe for the other party into a safe seat for the party doing the redistricting.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Puncher’s Illusion: Winning the First Round and Losing the War
Toy soldiers in a battle formation
Photo by Saifee Art on Unsplash

The Puncher’s Illusion: Winning the First Round and Losing the War

In the Rumble in the Jungle, George Foreman came in expecting to end the fight early.

At first, it looked that way. He was stronger, faster, and landing clean punches. I watched the 1974 championship on simulcast fifty-two years ago and remember how dominant he was in the opening rounds.

Keep ReadingShow less
Calling Wealthy Benefactors!
A rusty house figure stands over a city.
Photo by Katja Ano on Unsplash

Calling Wealthy Benefactors!

My housing has been conditional on circumstances beyond my control, and the time is up; the owner is selling.

Securing affordable housing is a stressor for much of the working class. According to recent data, nearly 50% of renters are cost-burdened, meaning they spend over 30% of their take-home income on housing costs. Rental prices in California are especially high, 35% higher than the national average. Renting is routinely insecure. The lords of land need to renovate, their kids need to move in. They need to sell.

Keep ReadingShow less
An ICE agent monitors hundreds of asylum seekers being processed upon entering the Jacob K. Javits Federal Building on June 6, 2023 in New York City. New York City has provided sanctuary to over 46,000 asylum seekers since 2013, when the city passed a law prohibiting city agencies from cooperating with federal immigration enforcement agencies unless there is a warrant for the person's arrest.(Photo by David Dee Delgado/Getty Images)
An ICE agent monitors hundreds of asylum seekers being processed.
(Photo by David Dee Delgado/Getty Images)

The Power of the Purse and Executive Discretion: ICE Expansion Under the Trump Administration

This nonpartisan policy brief, written by an ACE fellow, is republished by The Fulcrum as part of our partnership with the Alliance for Civic Engagement and our NextGen initiative — elevating student voices, strengthening civic education, and helping readers better understand democracy and public policy.

Key Takeaways

  • Core Constitutional Debate: Expanded ICE enforcement under the Trump Administration raises a core constitutional question: Does Article II executive power override Article I’s congressional power of the purse?
  • Executive Justification: The primary constitutional justification for expanded ICE enforcement is The Unitary Executive Theory.
  • Separation of Powers: Critics argue that the Unitary Executive Theory undermines Congress’s power of the purse.
  • Moral Conflict: Expanded ICE enforcement has sparked a moral debate, as concerns over due process and civil liberties clash with claims of increased public safety and national security.

Where is ICE Funding Coming From?

Since the beginning of the current Trump Administration, immigration enforcement has undergone transformative change and become one of the most contested issues in the federal government. On his first day in office, President Trump issued Executive Order 14159, which directs executive agencies to implement stricter immigration enforcement practices. In order to implement these practices, Congress passed and President Trump signed into law the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), a budget reconciliation package that paired state and local tax cuts with immigration funding. This allocated $170.7 billion in immigration-related funding for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to spend by 2029.

Keep ReadingShow less