Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Carrots and sticks: Reprioritize weapons budgeting

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.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter


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

Project 2025: The Department of Labor

Hill was policy director for the Center for Humane Technology, co-founder of FairVote and political reform director at New America. You can reach him on X @StevenHill1776.

This is part of a series offering a nonpartisan counter to Project 2025, a conservative guideline to reforming government and policymaking during the first 180 days of a second Trump administration. The Fulcrum's cross partisan analysis of Project 2025 relies on unbiased critical thinking, reexamines outdated assumptions, and uses reason, scientific evidence, and data in analyzing and critiquing Project 2025.

The Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025, a right-wing blueprint for Donald Trump’s return to the White House, is an ambitious manifesto to redesign the federal government and its many administrative agencies to support and sustain neo-conservative dominance for the next decade. One of the agencies in its crosshairs is the Department of Labor, as well as its affiliated agencies, including the National Labor Relations Board, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.

Project 2025 proposes a remake of the Department of Labor in order to roll back decades of labor laws and rights amidst a nostalgic “back to the future” framing based on race, gender, religion and anti-abortion sentiment. But oddly, tucked into the corners of the document are some real nuggets of innovative and progressive thinking that propose certain labor rights which even many liberals have never dared to propose.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

Keep ReadingShow less
Preamble to the U.S. Constitution
mscornelius/Getty Images

We can’t amend 'We the People' but 'we' do need a constitutional reboot

LaRue writes at Structure Matters. He is former deputy director of the Eisenhower Institute and of the American Society of International Law.

The following article was accepted for publication prior to the attempted assassination attempt of Donald Trump. Both the author and the editors determined no changes were necessary.

Keep ReadingShow less
Beau Breslin on C-SPAN
C-CSPAN screenshot

Project 2025: A C-SPAN interview

Beau Breslin, a regular contributor to The Fulcrum, was recently interviewed on C-SPAN’s “Washington Journal” about Project 2025.

Breslin is the Joseph C. Palamountain Jr. Chair of Political Science at Skidmore College and author of “A Constitution for the Living: Imagining How Five Generations of Americans Would Rewrite the Nation’s Fundamental Law.” He writes “A Republic, if we can keep it,” a Fulcrum series to assist American citizens on the bumpy road ahead this election year. By highlighting components, principles and stories of the Constitution, Breslin hopes to remind us that the American political experiment remains, in the words of Alexander Hamilton, the “most interesting in the world.”

Keep ReadingShow less
People protesting laws against homelessness

People protest outside the Supreme Court as the justices prepared to hear Grants Pass v. Johnson on April 22.

Matt McClain/The Washington Post via Getty Images

High court upholds law criminalizing homelessness, making things worse

Herring is an assistant professor of sociology at UCLA, co-author of an amicus brief in Johnson v. Grants Pass and a member of the Scholars Strategy Network.

In late June, the Supreme Court decided in the case of Johnson v. Grants Pass that the government can criminalize homelessness. In the court’s 6-3 decision, split along ideological lines, the conservative justices ruled that bans on sleeping in public when there are no shelter beds available do not violate the Constitution’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment.

This ruling will only make homelessness worse. It may also propel U.S. localities into a “race to the bottom” in passing increasingly punitive policies aimed at locking up or banishing the unhoused.

Keep ReadingShow less
Project 2025: A federal Parents' Bill of Rights

Republican House members hold a press event to highlight the introduction in 2023.

Bill O'Leary/The Washington Post via Getty Images

Project 2025: A federal Parents' Bill of Rights

Biffle is a podcast host and contributor at BillTrack50.

This is part of a series offering a nonpartisan counter to Project 2025, a conservative guideline to reforming government and policymaking during the first 180 days of a second Trump administration. The Fulcrum's cross partisan analysis of Project 2025 relies on unbiased critical thinking, reexamines outdated assumptions, and uses reason, scientific evidence, and data in analyzing and critiquing Project 2025.

Project 2025, the conservative Heritage Foundation’s blueprint for a second Trump administration, includes an outline for a Parents' Bill of Rights, cementing parental considerations as a “top tier” right.

The proposal calls for passing legislation to ensure families have a "fair hearing in court when the federal government enforces policies that undermine their rights to raise, educate, and care for their children." Further, “the law would require the government to satisfy ‘strict scrutiny’ — the highest standard of judicial review — when the government infringes parental rights.”

Keep ReadingShow less