Why the U.S. Defense Budget Remains the Largest in the World—Even in Peacetime-

The United States defense budget has long dwarfed that of any other nation. In 2024, U.S. defense spending reached over $850 billion, more than the combined defense budgets of the next 10 largest militaries. What makes this especially striking is that this level of spending persists not only during wars like Iraq and Afghanistan but also in periods of relative peace.

Several explanations exist: America’s global security commitments, the military-industrial complex, bipartisan political incentives, and the enduring influence of defense contractors.

At the heart of this puzzle lies lobbying, which helps ensure that the U.S. defense budget never contracts dramatically, regardless of strategic necessity.

1. Strategic Justifications vs. Political Reality

Global Commitments

The U.S. maintains military bases in over 70 countries, a global presence unmatched by any other power. Policymakers argue that sustaining such a posture requires massive, ongoing funding.

Political Reality

Yet much of the funding extends beyond genuine strategic requirements. Programs continue not because the Pentagon insists they are indispensable, but because political coalitions and lobbying networks keep them alive.

Thus, while national security needs provide a baseline, lobbying ensures the budget never dips below a politically comfortable threshold.

2. The Military-Industrial Complex

The term, popularized by President Dwight D. Eisenhower in his 1961 farewell address, refers to the interlocking relationships between the defense industry, the military establishment, and elected officials.

• Defense Industry: Corporations like Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Raytheon (RTX), Northrop Grumman, and General Dynamics dominate weapons production.

• The Pentagon: Senior military officers often advocate for new systems and, upon retirement, join defense contractors or lobbying firms.

• Congress: Legislators approve funding while benefiting from campaign donations and defense-related jobs in their districts.

This triangle sustains a system where spending itself becomes the goal, rather than a means to meet evolving threats.

3. Mechanisms Through Which Lobbying Sustains High Spending

A. Campaign Contributions and PACs

Defense companies are among the largest contributors to members of the House and Senate Armed Services and Appropriations Committees. These committees have disproportionate power over budget allocations. Contributions buy access, encourage favorable votes, and ensure lawmakers think twice before cutting programs tied to donors.

B. Jobs and District-Level Pressure

Contractors deliberately spread production across as many states as possible. The F-35 fighter jet program involves suppliers in 45 states, meaning any proposed cuts face fierce resistance from lawmakers protecting local jobs. Lobbyists amplify this pressure by warning legislators that cuts would devastate employment in their districts.

C. Revolving Door Employment

Lobbyists often include retired generals, Pentagon officials, and Congressional staffers. Their insider knowledge and relationships make them highly effective advocates. Knowing that lucrative defense industry jobs await, some officials may avoid pushing for budget reductions while in office.

D. Narrative Shaping

Lobbyists frame spending as essential for national security, often tying funding to adversaries like China or Russia. This narrative makes it politically risky for lawmakers to support cuts, even during peacetime.

4. Historical Patterns of Sustained Spending

Post-Cold War Era

After the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, many expected a “peace dividend.” Yet while budgets dipped slightly, lobbying and Congressional politics kept cuts limited. Major weapons programs, like the F-22 fighter jet and Virginia-class submarines, continued without existential threats justifying them.

Post-9/11 Surge

The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq fueled enormous increases, but when those wars wound down, spending levels remained high. Lobbying prevented a return to pre-9/11 norms.

Current Era

Even as the U.S. exits large-scale wars, the budget grows, often justified by great-power competition. Lobbyists push for next-generation systems—hypersonic weapons, space programs, AI warfare—ensuring upward pressure on spending.

5. Service-by-Service Examples

Army

Despite downsizing ground forces post-Iraq/Afghanistan, Congress funded upgrades to the Abrams tank fleet, even though the Army said it didn’t need more. General Dynamics, with strong lobbying efforts, secured contracts by rallying local lawmakers.

Navy

The Navy has struggled to retire old ships, with lobbyists pressuring Congress to maintain production lines. The controversial Littoral Combat Ship program persisted for years under lobbying protection, despite widespread acknowledgment of its shortcomings.

Air Force

The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is perhaps the most lobbied program in history. Its costs ballooned past $1.7 trillion over its lifetime, yet Congress continues to fund it heavily. This is largely due to Lockheed Martin’s lobbying machine and jobs spread across the U.S.

6. Why Spending Remains High in Peacetime

A. Political Safety Net

For lawmakers, cutting defense is politically dangerous. They risk being branded “weak on national security.” Lobbyists reinforce this risk by running targeted campaigns warning of vulnerability.

B. Economic Dependency

Entire communities depend on defense contracts for employment. This creates what some call a “defense dependency economy”, making it almost impossible to reduce spending without harming local economies.

C. Lobbying as an Insurance Policy

Contractors lobby not just to expand budgets but to prevent cuts during peacetime. Even when wars end, programs like missile defense or shipbuilding continue, justified as deterrence.

7. International Comparisons

Other advanced economies, like Germany, Japan, and Canada, adjust defense spending more closely to immediate threats. Their defense industries are smaller, and lobbying is less entrenched. By contrast, the U.S. system, with its revolving door and campaign finance framework, makes lobbying structurally embedded in budget decisions.

8. Consequences

• Inefficiency: Programs continue despite questionable military utility.

• Strategic Drift: Budgets don’t always align with emerging threats like cyber or AI warfare.

• Entrenchment: High spending becomes normalized, crowding out domestic investments in infrastructure, healthcare, or education.

The U.S. defense budget remains the largest in the world, even in peacetime, not merely because of global responsibilities but because of the lobbying power of the defense industry. Through campaign donations, jobs leverage, revolving-door relationships, and persuasive framing, lobbyists ensure that spending stays high, programs survive beyond their usefulness, and Congress avoids politically risky cuts.

In effect, lobbying institutionalizes a cycle where defense spending is insulated from peacetime realities, transforming the defense budget into both a national security tool and a political-economic machine.