US spending on war vs. diplomacy

Polygraph | Newsletter n°299 | 18 Apr 2025

IN THIS NEWSLETTER: A look at the money trail shaping US foreign policy.

*My latest article for Jacobin: https://jacobin.com/2025/04/trump-military-spending-medicaid-cuts

Situation

This week, media outlets reported that an internal White House memo outlined plans to cut State Department and USAID funding by nearly half. Last week, Trump announced he would request a $1 trillion Pentagon budget for 2026. Even if both proposals are scaled back in Trump’s forthcoming federal budget request, the administration has made clear that it intends to further widen the gap between military and diplomatic spending.

The funding gap

Since 2015, funding for diplomacy and humanitarian aid has increased by 11%, while spending on the military and foreign military aid has grown by 53%. The latter received 14 times more funding during this period, on average. In 2025, Congress allocated 18 times more for war than diplomacy.

This year’s war-to-diplomacy ratio will be much higher due to DOGE’s mass firings and contract terminations at USAID, the Trump administration’s push to dissolve the agency entirely, and forthcoming GOP rescission bills, which claw back previously appropriated funds. Trump’s extreme policy didn’t fall from the sky — as usual, he’s taking one of this country’s existing malfunctions and pumping it full of steroids.

The “diplomacy and humanitarian aid” category in the chart below includes the amounts in the annual Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs (SFOPS) spending bill, along with any resources for the same programs in supplemental bills. The SFOPS legislation funds things like: diplomatic operations and embassies (under Title I); USAID personnel and administration (Title II); bilateral humanitarian and economic aid implemented by USAID (Title III); and multilateral contributions to international organizations involved in development, environment, and other non-military activities (Title V).

I counted the foreign military and police aid funded under Title IV of the SFOPS bill as part of the “military and military aid” category, along with the Pentagon’s departmental budget and resources from other departments and agencies that go toward military purposes (or, in more technical terms, the appropriations classified as budget function 050). Additional methodological notes can be found in this footnote.¹

^Alt text for screen readers: The U.S. spends 18 times more on war than diplomacy. This chart has two lines, one red for spending on military and military aid programs, and one blue for spending on diplomacy and humanitarian aid programs. Since 2015, the former category has increased by 53% and the latter by 11%. Figures for military and military aid refer to Function 050 discretionary funding plus Title 22 assistance. Diplomacy and humanitarian aid is SFOPS funding minus Title 22 assistance. Amounts are in current dollars. Data: CBO, CRS, H.R.1968.

Why I made this chart

A paid subscriber asked me to. I wouldn’t have otherwise because it hints at a solution that doesn’t exist, which I’ll get to. But the graph does do a few things well: it clearly illustrates the Pentagon’s dominance over the State Department, highlights which programs are budgetary priorities, and broadly reflects the militarized character of US foreign policy. It was a good idea for a chart.

My concern is that the chart could give the impression that demilitarizing US foreign policy can be achieved simply by moving the blue line up without also moving the red line down. One might easily and reasonably conclude that the shaded area between the two lines represents militarization, and that closing that gap would lead to a less militarized foreign policy — regardless of whether it involves increasing the State Department budget or decreasing military spending. In my view, the primary focus should be on the latter, for three reasons.

First, military spending doesn’t just buy weapons, it buys a way of life. Half the Pentagon budget goes to contractors, whose profitability depends on securing more and more contracts. As a result, many of these corporations, particularly the big ones, lead a lavish existence, but also quite a tenuous one — their survival hinges on how 535 elected officials vote. This is why the arms industry spends tens of millions of dollars each year walling off Congress from democratic interference through lobbying, campaign contributions, and think tanks, which give their profit-driven interests a scholarly gloss. All this tilts the playing field toward militarism: The arms industry bankrolls the presidents who nominate secretaries of state, the senators who confirm those nominations, and the policies those nominees are expected to implement.

Second, I don’t see how anyone could still view the State Department as a peaceful counterbalance, not after the last administration. Consider the State Department-funded military aid to Israel,² Secretary of State Antony Blinken approving weapons transfers knowing they’d enable atrocities, and State Department spokesman and owner of the world’s most punchable face Matthew Miller unabashedly defending the Biden administration’s genocidal policy. The only kind of person I’m sure I’d want working at the State Department is one who would’ve already quit over Gaza. Clearly, I’m too cynical to argue for a budget increase, but I’m not about to argue for a cut, either — particularly when it comes to USAID. To be sure, I’m also cynical about USAID funding — working in the humanitarian sector will do that — but overall it’s worth fighting to protect. If you’re not convinced, consider the devastation wrought by the recent programmatic cuts.

Third, a focus on demilitarizing US foreign policy by cutting military spending is a good way to identify those who don’t have your best interests at heart. The people who wax about underfunding diplomacy but ignore the overfunded Pentagon typically don’t care much about the first and prefer more of the second. Their reasoning goes something like this: If the US stopped underfunding diplomacy, it wouldn’t have to spend so much on its military. That’s the type of thing military-industrial complex elites say when they’re trying to sound reasonable. For example, in 2013, General James Mattis told Congress, “If you don't fund the State Department fully, then I need to buy more ammunition ultimately.” He repeated the line in 2018 as Pentagon chief, a job he took right after serving on the board of General Dynamics (and Theranos). He oversaw three massive increases in military spending while State Department funding fell. Mattis resigned in December 2019 when Trump announced a withdrawal of US troops from Syria (which never ended up happening), and immediately rejoined General Dynamics, where he still sits on the board.

SPECIAL THANKS TO: Abe B., Alan F., Amin, Andrew R., AT., BartB., BeepBoop, Ben, Ben C.,* Bill S., Bob N., Brett S., Byron D., Chris, Chris G., Cole H., D. Kepler, Daniel M., David J., David S.,* David V.,* David M., Elizabeth R., Errol S., Foundart, Francis M., Frank R., Gary W., Gladwyn S., Graham P., Griffin R., Hunter S., Irene B., Isaac, Isaac L., Jacob, James H., James N., Jcowens, Jeff, Jennifer, Jennifer J., Jessica S., Jerry S., Joe R., John, John, John A., John K., John M., Jonathan S., Joseph B., Joshua R., Julia G., Katrina H., Kheng L., Lea S., Leah A., Leila CL., Linda B., Linda H., Lindsay, Lindsay S.,* Lora L., Mapraputa, Marie R., Mark L., Mary Z., Marty, Matthew H.,* Megan., Melanie B., Michael S., Mitchell P., Nick B., Noah K., Norbert H., Omar A., Omar D.,* Peter M., Phil, Philip L., Rosemary K., Sari G., Scarlet, Scott H., Silversurfer, Soh, Springseep, Stan C., TBE, Teddie G., Theresa A., Themadking, Tim C., Timbuk T., Tony L., Tony T., Victor S., Wayne H., William P.

* = founding member

-Stephen (Follow me on Instagram, Twitter, and Bluesky)

1. There are provisions funded outside the SFOPS bill that would fit under the chart’s “diplomacy, humanitarian aid” category. For example, the annual Agriculture appropriations bill funds assistance under Title II of the Food for Peace Act and the McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program. Likewise, there is war-related funding outside budget function 050 that fits under the “military, military aid” category, like Veterans Affairs, and military-related programs funded by the mandatory and not discretionary budget.

2. Which I included in the “military, military aid” category in the chart.