Trump Seeks "Historic" $54 Billion Increase To Defense Spending

Tyler Durden's picture

As observed earlier in the day, as part of the leaked preliminary Trump budget, the president was set to unveil major spending increases for US defense offset by cuts to federal agencies, and other non-defense sectors. And on Monday morning, the first details emerged, including that the boost to defense spending is expected to be about 10%, or some $54 billion, and will be revenue neutral, offset by cuts in non-defense areas, and will not "add a dime to the deficit." As Trump said, he is seeking a "historic increase" in military spending.

"This budget will be a public safety and national security budget," Trump told state governors at the White House. "It will include an historic increase in defense spending to rebuild the depleted military of the United States of America at a time we most need it," he said.

One of the officials cited by Reuters said Trump's request for the Pentagon included more money for shipbuilding, military aircraft and establishing "a more robust presence in key international waterways and chokepoints" such as the Strait of Hormuz and South China Sea.

A second official said the State Department's budget could be cut by as much as 30 percent, which would force a major restructuring of the department and elimination of programs.  Some defense experts have questioned the need for a large increase in U.S. military spending, which already stands at roughly $600 billion annually. By contrast, the United States spends about $50 billion annually on the State Department and foreign assistance.

The White House will send federal agencies their proposed 2018 budget allocations at noon Monday, according to an Office of Management and Budget official. The official provided no specific details during a call with reporters about the rest of the budget, including the baseline figure being used for the cuts or over what period they would be made. The initial blueprint of the president’s budget will be released in mid-March, and the administration’s entire fiscal proposal is expected later in the spring.

The outline due next month will include only targets for discretionary spending programs, which represent around one-third of total federal spending. The blueprint won’t include proposed changes on tax policy or mandatory spending.

To offset the defense spending increase, the White House is seeking corresponding cuts of $54 billion in non-defense categories, including "large spending cuts" to foreign aid, the EPA, the State Department and safety programs. The official also added that most agencies would see funding reductions.

“Most federal agencies will see a reduction as a result," the official said, with cuts falling most heavily on “lower priority” programs as well as foreign aid. When asked where the extra $54 billion will be spent, the official said “predominantly it will go to the Pentagon,” but declined to name specific offices.

According to The Hill, the budget will fundamentally alter the spending rules known as the sequester brokered in a 2013 deal between President Obama and Congress. That agreement set a cap on discretionary spending across the federal government, which affected defense and non-defense spending equally.

The punchline: according to the White House, the budget, at least as it stands right now, won't add a dime to the deficit, suggesting that if only for the time being, the dramatic debt-funded spending spree remains on hold.

According to the WSJ, the Trump administration said the funding request will show that Mr. Trump is following through on promises he made during his campaign to boost military spending and put “America First,” a campaign theme he sounded in his inaugural address last month. It isn’t clear how the offsetting cuts will allow him to also make good on promises to ramp up funds for border security, infrastructure and veterans’ health care.

For now we await more details. As the NY Times reported ovenright, Trump's plan which is a collaboration between budget director, Mick Mulvaney; NEC director Gary Cohn; and Steve Bannon, is meant to make a "big splash" and has been carefully timed to come the day before the president's address to Congress.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
tmosley's picture

>No increase in the budget deficit

Are you tired of winning yet?

scouzi's picture

Same old yuuge budget deficit. Not even an attempt to balance the budget. Worldiwde debt binge can't end well.

froze25's picture

So much better than Obama, I couldn't even imagine if Hillary got into office.

hedgeless_horseman's picture


What in the world is Donald Trump?

Here is the result of my test.  Donald Trump is a Big Government Statist.

Statists want government to have a great deal of power over the economy and individual behavior. They frequently doubt whether economic liberty and individual freedom are practical options in today's world. Statists tend to distrust the free market, support high taxes and centralized planning of the economy, oppose diverse lifestyles, and question the importance of civil liberties.

BaBaBouy's picture

""Trump To Boost Defense Spending By $54BN""

This begs the question ~ Who to invade Next?

THUMP = MIC = THUMP ??? (He Has Surrounded Himself With Generals)

What about your OTHER Promises Donnie?

So far he has made the .01% ers Much More Rich, the Rest, not so much...

Manthong's picture

Gee, I guess he understands that he can borrow all he wants at interest from the compliant Fed that can print all they want out of thin air and then make Boeing, Raytheon, Lockheed, Level 3 et al filthy rich.


I just hope he remembers a few of the promises made to us low-lifes,




I am sure Vlad knows the Donald will come to the table with a large stack, but, when you both have had at least a liter or so to drink… all is good.

new game's picture

when does russia consult china and plan the strategic bond dump, followed by another event to dispute the reserve currency status.

where this must go to prevent world at war, dethrone the fed, imf, bis, shadow fiat rule of international armies, nato and dod...

UnclePhester's picture
UnclePhester (not verified) new game Feb 27, 2017 11:51 AM

Well, duuuuuuuuuuhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh


The GlobalistJoo World Order's War Against Russia isn't going to pay for itself, is it?


Now get to work GOYIM!

Déjà view's picture

ISISrael receives how much of that $54b?

Should use $54b to REDUCE deficits...Mr. Market a willing perp...

Perimetr's picture

Let's see, was that

"Make the Defense Department Great Again"? 


jus_lite_reading's picture

Peace through strength bitches. If you don't understand what the fuck WE are up against then I suppose it's better to just kindly STFU.

Do we want more war? FUCK NO.

Does more military spending mean we are going to war? FUCK NO.

Trump is once again doing what he said he was going to do and follow in Ronald Reagans footsteps with a PEACE through STRENGTH policy.


hedgeless_horseman's picture


If you don't understand what the fuck WE are up against then I suppose it's better to just kindly STFU.

If we don't defeat the Vietnamese, then the commies will take over the world!

Those ignorant Kent State students should just STFU.

tmosley's picture

This is what happens when you chase National guardsmen armed with rifles around your campus.

Just another bunch of commies virtue signalling, real events covered up by the controlled media. Same shit different decade.

jus_lite_reading's picture

With all due respect, being a libertarian and all, we both agree on a lot of things such as Ron Paul was the best President we never had. With that said, RP had his chance to beat this corrupt media empire and lost. Trump, the crazy motherfucker that he is, managed to troll the shit out of them. He's NO Ron Paul for certain but could you seriously have imagined Hillary Rotten Clinton?

BTW, there are no winners in war, only losers but unless we call their bluff, we are dead meat. If you think Iran, North Korea, perhaps China would not take advantage of our weakened military then you are ignorant.

I don't want the USA to be the police of the world, and Trump agrees. That doesn't mean we have to revert to using equipement from the 50's...

TDK's picture

You might be correct, maybe it won't be war, it could just be money money money for the 1%

idahobandito's picture

Id like to see exactly where the spending will in upgraded equipment, pay raises for enlisted, or more bombs to drop on people. There is a difference.

Anteater's picture

Trump is once again doing what he said he was going to do and follow in Ronald Reagans footsteps with a Nuns Pushed Out of Helicopters, Drugs to Mena for Arms to Iran policy.

There, fixed it for you.

tmosley's picture

You hallucinated a Donald Trump that is a big government statist. This does not make Donald Trump a big government statist.

He has been reducing the scope of government intervention in our lives since BEFORE day one, specifically with regards to regulations.

hedgeless_horseman's picture


He has been reducing the scope of government intervention in our lives...

Like Corporate Welfare, such as the Carrier deal?

Like supporting a National ID card?

Like escalating the War on Drugs?

Like not allowing us to have control of our own retirement investing?

You hallucinated a Donald Trump that is a big government statist.

It would be interesting to learn how your answers on behalf of Trump are different from mine, and why, in the comments section...

tmosley's picture

Reduction of taxes or regulations is not corporate welfare, even if it is targeted to a single company. It's unfair, sure. It should apply to all, but it is not welfare.

There is nothing wrong with having a national ID card.

Have yet to see evidence of escalation of the war on drugs.

There is ABSOLUTELY NO WAY to push through SS privatization currently, and you are a stupid idiot for holding that against anyone. If he can get replace all the cuckservatives in congress with people that will support him, that becomes a possibility. Might see progress on that front in two years.

Your test is one that applies well to ideologues, not to centrist deal makers like Trump. He will come up with deals that work better than ham fisted policies of the past for less, thus reducing the size and often the scope of government, but fools will still cry and scream because he isn't doing it THEIR way.

Manthong's picture

I was worried that his elimination of the last vestiges of F.n Hollywood Dodd (sandwich with Kennedy) / F’n  Lisping Faggot Frank would be bad…  but upon reflection ……

This will allow little good banks to shine against the bad big banks,

crossroaddemon's picture

"There is nothing wrong with a national ID card"?! What the fuck is wrong with you?

hedgeless_horseman's picture


Maybe he thinks the ID card is at least better than the iris scan...

...or the ID tattoo?

Supporting the lesser of two evils, again?

tmosley's picture

Having ID is now the same as being in a concentration camp.

This is the logic of anti-Trumpers, folks.

Consuelo's picture



I am not an 'anti-Trumper'.    However, I do understand how security at the expense of Liberty follows a certain 'logical' path.

SoilMyselfRotten's picture

'Getting everyone chipped to ultimately control everything' was revealed by the late Aaron Russo in a discussion with one of the Rockefellers. Not to get too biblical on this but it mentions something about this topic which was totally impossible throughout history, but not so much now. Everyone on the planet coming under one system? Absurd thought as few as 30 years ago.

crossroaddemon's picture

Fuck that shit. The government has no right to track me in any way.

Buckaroo Banzai's picture

This is sort of off topic, but the pic got me thinking. If the German plan was to kill all the Jews, why did they go to the substantial trouble to individually tattoo all of them first?

Chris Dakota's picture
Chris Dakota (not verified) Buckaroo Banzai Feb 27, 2017 12:38 PM

And why don't they have tattoo numbers like 6 million something?


Anteater's picture

First in, first out. The first 100,000s found all the hiding places, like Congress and Wall Street have already front-ended Defense (sic) stocks.

hedgeless_horseman's picture


Cattle get branded, and they are all destined for slaughter.

tmosley's picture

So when is the slaughter? We've had state issued IDs since forever. Have yet for a state official to show up and drag me off to the slaughterhouse.

hedgeless_horseman's picture


Have yet for a state official to show up and drag me off to the slaughterhouse.

Taleb tells a story about a turkey and a farmer...



crossroaddemon's picture

And state IDs are a rights violation too. So is a driver's license.

BigWillyStyle87's picture
BigWillyStyle87 (not verified) hedgeless_horseman Feb 27, 2017 12:55 PM

Yeah except cattle are going to be eaten. Why were the jews given numbers, herded into camps,given any food, wasted soldiers to guard them, wasted money to buy chemicals for gassing, etc when clearly nobody was planning on eating them.  It would have been much cheaper to shoot them on the spot.


So now that the cattle get branded strawman is gone, the question remains....why were they given number tatoos if they were just going to be murdered?

Buckaroo Banzai's picture

Cattle get branded because people want to steal cattle.

Nobody wanted the Jews.

IronForge's picture

So it seems that a plan was in place to Incarcerate during the War.  After All, the Jewish did publicly declare War against Hitler back in 1933.

Have any of you WWII-European Theater Buffs come across any Nazi/Hitler Plans to deport the Jewish to, lettsay, then-Palestine, or were they dedicated to incarcerating them for Life?

The formal option seems more feasible, rational, and far more humane - not to mention the costs associated with maintaining such Camps Post War.

Shadow1275's picture

Agreed, Trump has done some good things but so did Julius Caesar and we all know how that turned out.


Quis Custodiet ipsos Custodes, understanding this is the key to a prosperous country

malek's picture

Godwin's law also applies to HH, it seems...

tmosley's picture

I have a functioning brain. This is something most human beings lack, sadly. Tends to make people hate you.

Perhaps you could tell the class what YOU think is wrong with national ID, keeping in mind that we already have national ID, and have for some 80+ years.

hedgeless_horseman's picture


As someone that owns livestock, and my own brand, I probably have a different perspective on this issue than you, Tom.   

The brand inspector never asks me for my ID.  

In the USA, We The People are supposed to be the sovereign, we are the government, and not the property of the government.  

Does anyone ever ask The Queen of England for her papers?

tmosley's picture

Your metaphor is bad and you should feel bad.

Does having a KISS Army picture ID make you property of KISS?

crossroaddemon's picture

You can't get arrested or fined for not having your KISS army ID.

Buckaroo Banzai's picture

Anybody here who thinks that ANY president could get federal spending under control is delusional. This train is headed off the rails-- the accelerator pedal is jammed to the floor and the brakes don't work.

Trump's job is to shut down the Clinton/Bush/CIA/Israel/Saudi global criminal cartel, so that when the inevitable financial collapse comes, their power will be crippled and they won't be able to establish a global dictatorship. That's the best we can hope for.

In the meantime, if Trump can also get our Naval power restored and our internal infrastructure rebuilt, those will be handy things to have post-collapse. Eight years of Ray Mabus ruined our Navy, and a Navy is foundational for protecting shipping lanes and establishing rule of law at sea, as well as projecting power internationally. The Navy (and by extension, the Marine Corps) is the only branch of service authorized under the Constitution.

crossroaddemon's picture

Because .gov thugs have no right to track me, or to ask for papers to ascertain my identity. 

Inzidious's picture

Yeah I'm with you here. I havn't heard a solid Trump declaration on his stance on drugs. He's going to lose a lot of 'cooler' republicans if he starts going backwards on cannibas, and I'd even like to see some out of the box thinking from him on this issue, personally, because I'm not really convinced this isn't just a huge TV show for him.

Let's see some real progress?

Chris88's picture

Like not touching entitlements and shitting on the 10th amendment to raid marijuana dispensaries.  Not discussing repeal of PATRIOT Act and NDAA.  He's a fucking leftist joke.

Chris88's picture

Growing 75% of federal expenditures at least and not listing a single federal department or agency to abolish.  That's a Statist.

tmosley's picture

To an ancap, anyone that isn't an ancap is a statist.