It is Presidents’ Day, and President Donald Trump has made a bold statement regarding military spending – one that no other president in modern history has made. He claims he could cut the Pentagon budget by about 50%.
President Trump has suggested a major cut in defense spending, proposing that the United States, Russia, and China each reduce their military budgets by 50%. He has also expressed a desire to begin denuclearization and arms control discussions with both Russia and China to accomplish this objective.
Military contractors poured $4,440,605 into Kamala Harris’s campaign – more than double what they contributed to Donald Trump. Yet, even with the support of establishment figures like Dick Cheney, their favored candidate fell short. The defeat of the military contractor’s candidate may have consequences for the industry.
Now, with President Trump in office and a bold initiative to cut Pentagon spending by 50%, the defense industry faces a challenge unlike any before.
The financial markets are already responding: Major U.S. defense firms are experiencing notable stock declines, while European defense companies surge in anticipation of increased regional military spending. Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics, and Northrop Grumman have all seen stocks fall, while companies such as Rheinmetall, BAE Systems, and Saab are benefiting from investors expecting a shift in global defense priorities.
Last week, we examined the staggering costs of U.S. military spending in ‘The Cost of Freedom: Confronting Military Waste.’ This week, we take the conversation further by analyzing President Trump’s claim that he could cut Pentagon spending in half – what that actually looks like, and which interests may be affected.
As President Trump pursues negotiations to bring peace to Ukraine, European governments appear to be moving in the opposite direction, increasing military budgets and deepening their involvement in the conflict. European defense firms are thriving as they anticipate further arms sales to governments committed to escalating military engagement rather than seeking diplomatic solutions.
This contrast underscores the significance of Trump’s initiative – challenging the entrenched military-industrial complex, wherever it is located, and seeking to end perpetual warfare.
Hellbound and Down 