Hidden agendas: Billions added to the Pentagon budget without explanation

Most important points:

• More than $21 billion has been added to the Pentagon budget through more than 1,000 individual program increases introduced by lawmakers.
• These programs are not transparent, raising concerns about potential conflicts of interest and wasteful spending.
• Advocacy groups are urging Congress to adopt greater transparency measures to ensure accountability and prioritize national interests.

Pentagon budget is bloated by unexplained billions

The recently passed 2024 budget bill from the Department of Defense Appropriations Act includes as much as $21 billion in additional spending on top of the Pentagon’s original request. This increase is the result of more than 1,000 individual program increases implemented by lawmakers, often with little to no explanation or disclosure. This lack of transparency raises concerns about potential conflicts of interest and wasteful spending.

Program increases versus earmarks

Despite Congress’s claims that program increases are distinct from earmarks, practical application of both mechanisms reveals significant overlap in function and consequences. Designations that have been renamed ‘Congressionally Directed Spending’ in the Senate and ‘Community Project Funding’ in the House of Representatives are subject to a framework of transparency measures. These measures require legislators to explicitly define the intended purpose and beneficiary of each funding request, limiting the risk of conflicts of interest and ensuring accountability to voters.

Conversely, program increases drive the budget process with a worrying degree of opacity. These extensions lack clear assignment to specific sponsors and often require a well-defined reason for their inclusion. This lack of transparency clouds the decision-making process and hinders public scrutiny. The only limitation on program expansions is the requirement that appropriated funds be spent on programs that have, historically or in the future, been subject to a competitive bidding process. However, this provision does little to prevent the possibility of undue influence or favoritism, as the competitive bidding process itself can be susceptible to manipulation.

Potential for political gain and conflict of interest

This lack of transparency creates fertile ground for potential conflicts of interest. Lawmakers can direct funds to projects that benefit their constituencies or campaign staff without public scrutiny. For example, House Appropriations Committee Chairman Tom Cole secured a $200 million increase for the E-7 aircraft program, a project in his district that is backed by Boeing, a company whose PAC has consistently contributed to his campaigns. Similarly, Senator Gary Peters advocated a $4.2 million increase for the Stryker vehicle program, manufactured by General Dynamics, a company with a history of donating to its campaigns.

Calls for transparency and accountability

Taxpayers for Common Sense, a nonprofit budget watchdog, released a report and database detailing these program increases, calling on Congress for greater transparency. They argue that taxpayers deserve to know who is proposing these increases, why they are doing it and what the long-term costs will be. Additionally, they advocate requiring sponsors to disclose the ultimate recipients of these funds once contracts are awarded.

Increased oversight is critical, with the Pentagon’s budget approaching a trillion dollars annually and the department still struggling to pass an audit. Implementing transparency measures for program expansions would ensure that national interests, and not political or corporate agendas, drive defense spending.