Cutting Government and Military Spending: Reform or Risk?
By Joel Wong
The Trump administration’s push to shrink the federal government and reduce military spending has ignited a debate that strikes at the heart of America’s identity: What is the proper role of government, and how much defense is enough?
Through the creation of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), led by Elon Musk, the administration sought deep cuts across key agencies like Social Security, the IRS, the NIH, and the Department of Education — institutions that millions of Americans depend on. At the same time, Trump proposed significant reductions in military spending, including shrinking ground forces, cutting the civilian defense workforce, and withdrawing U.S. troops from Europe, echoing past calls to reconsider America’s global military footprint (Congressional Budget Office, 2021).
Supporters argue these moves reflect long-overdue fiscal discipline. With the national debt surpassing $36 trillion (U.S. Treasury, 2023), they contend that the U.S. can no longer afford unchecked spending, whether on domestic programs or defense. They see opportunities to create leaner, more efficient government agencies and a focused military that prioritizes direct threats rather than costly overseas commitments. Cutting back, they argue, would free resources for urgent domestic priorities like healthcare and infrastructure — and reduce future taxpayers’ burdens.
Yet critics warn of real dangers. Slashing funding for Social Security, NIH, and education could undermine essential safety nets and scientific research, especially as America faces an aging population and emerging health crises (Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 2022). On the defense front, reducing America’s military presence abroad may embolden adversaries like Russia and China and weaken vital alliances such as NATO, particularly as global tensions rise (Council on Foreign Relations, 2023). Many argue that a strong U.S. military presence abroad deters conflict and ensures global stability — benefits that are hard to measure in dollars alone.
Beyond budget numbers, this debate touches on deeper questions: Should government be a lean provider of essential services, or a broader guarantor of security and prosperity? Is pulling back from military commitments a prudent way to avoid “forever wars” — or a signal that could encourage aggression from rivals?
The answer, as always, lies in balance. Efficiency should not mean fragility, and fiscal responsibility must not undermine national resilience. Reforming wasteful systems is wise; gutting critical functions is dangerous.
As America charts its future, we need a conversation that weighs the costs of overreach against the risks of retreat — a conversation guided by facts, not ideology. Anything less would fail the nation.
