Both candidates pledged to fortify America. How much size?

PResidential elections They often do not ignite discussions on defensive spending, in part due to the fact that the financing of the armed forces is one of the few partisan traditions in American policy. Donald Trump and Kamala Harris issued mysterious obligations to reinforce the army, but neither of them provided many details. However, the conditions for discussion have already been determined in the Capitol Hill, and the next president can negotiate with the Congress to reshape the future of the Pentagon.

Usually, the means of making such decisions is the National Defense Defense Act (National Defense Defense Act), Which determines the annual basis of military expenditures. The bargaining usually continues for several months before the draft law is passed by a strong majority in the congressional councils. The latest was approved National Defense Defense Act Early $ 874 billion, and Congress is currently discussing Joe Biden’s request of $ 884 billion for the fiscal year 2025.

The main question that will face the next president is to what extent will spend. Roger Wek, the chief Republican Republican of the Senate Armed Forces Committee, called on the country to spend 5% of the budget gross domestic product On the defense, up from about 3 % today. Republican hawks in Congress and the broader National Security Foundation gathered about a massive, similar increase, and some even called for explicitly doubled military expenditures. Many Democrats oppose such measures, but they still agree that Biden was not aggressive enough. This year, although Democrats took control of the Senate and White House, Warker paid his committee to agree to $ 25 billion than Biden requested.

A handful of legislators seeks to reduce defensive spending, but they lack influence. The real debate takes place between the maximum spending and those who want higher financing, but they do not believe that 5 % of people want higher financing gross domestic product Possible politically or financially. Jack Reed, the Democratic President of the Senate Armed Forces Committee, has opposed the draft law in which his committee came out because it violates the limits of spending agreed upon in separate financial negotiations. Mike Rogers, Red Reed in the House of Representatives, described Biden’s request to be insufficient to restore deterrence, but he had a “hand that was granted to us.”

Once the battle will be resolved this year, the next president will be able to make a new opening offer. The question facing Trump’s presidency is whether the investment should be adopted in the generations that he calls for, or repeat the most modest increases in Trump’s first term. Mrs. Harris will have to decide whether to maintain Biden’s policy of reducing spending after inflation. It is difficult to predict its preferences, as in many other things.

It does not seem that the American military forces in the post -Cold War – which were built for short and sharp conflicts – are not ready to face the challenges of the turbulent today’s world: maintaining deterrence in the Middle East, supporting Ukraine in a struggle of attrition, adapting to new forms of war, and adapting to new forms From the war. Keeping up the rapid military crowd of China and its increasing aggression.

The Russian invasion of Ukraine revealed America’s inability to accelerate the production of ammunition and other equipment. The country’s defensive industrial base has made progress, but there is still more work to do. The next president must decide not only the volume of spending, but also what should give him priority. What is the amount that America must allocate to buy weapons instead of research and development? Should it convert the focus into the production of larger quantities of simple weapons instead of more amazing equipment? What are the supply chains that need to diversify to avoid relying on opponents?

Let us consider here one financial battle. Biden requested $ 166 billion for purchases this year, a reduction of approximately $ 3 billion. It also wants America to buy only one offensive submarine of approximately $ 5 billion, and it is a decisive platform in the conflict around Taiwan, instead of two submarines. The House of Representatives and the Senate moved the money to finance two offensive submarines, and the White House replied that this means slower in developing the next generation of combat aircraft. More money in theory may mean fewer barters, but the Pentagon’s request for weapons is limitless. What is required is strategic cohesion.

Re -equipping the traditional American forces is not the only task. China is working strongly to update its nuclear forces with the aim of eventually becoming a match for America and Russia. All agreements to reduce weapons between Washington and Moscow have almost collapsed, and there is no reasonable opportunity to conclude tripartite agreements to reduce weapons in the near future. The next president will face difficult and costly questions about how to prepare for the new nuclear race. In 2023, the Congress Budget Office estimated that the update of the American nuclear forces would cost $ 756 billion over the next decade.

Throughout his presidency, Biden talked about defending Taiwan, staying on the path with Ukraine, and staying a fixed ally of Israel. For four years in office, his speech was not accompanied by ambitious investments. These elections are likely to be determined based on issues such as economics, abortion and immigration, but the choices made by voters may also have permanent consequences for the strict power of America and financial health. ■

Keep a knowledge of the American policy with the we In short, our daily news message that includes a rapid analysis of the most important electoral stories, controls and balance, a weekly memorandum from the writer of our column in Lexington deals with the state of American democracy and issues of concern to voters.