President Donald Trump’s sudden proposal on social media to increase U.S. military spending to $1.5 trillion in fiscal year 2027 is facing intense scrutiny from fiscal regulators, who warn that the move will impose a huge liability on the federal ledger. according to a Analysis released on Wednesday Once interest costs are taken into account, the president’s plan would add $5.8 trillion to the national debt over the next decade, according to projections from the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB).
It looks like the policy change stemmed from a post truth societyPresident Trump has called for increasing the defense budget to $1.5 trillion, a significant jump from the $1 trillion level he previously said he would propose. While the administration believes aggressive trade policies will offset those costs, budget analysts say the numbers don’t add up, or are more piled on top of the massive, growing $38 trillion national debt.
Tariffs miss spending targets
President Trump justified the proposed spending by pointing to the “tremendous numbers generated by the tariffs.” He asserted that the funds would be enough to fund the expansion of the “Dream Army,” still reduce the federal deficit, and even “pay a substantial dividend to the middle-income patriots within our borders!” Here, he appeared to refer to his idea of a $2,000-per-person tariff dividend, which failed to gain traction in Congress. in a November 2025 Analysisthe CRFB found that the cost alone was equal to twice the tariff revenue at the time.
CRFB’s initial estimates for the military budget increase paint a completely different fiscal picture than what Trump promised. The nonpartisan budget watchdog expects the proposed rate hikes to increase defense spending by $5 trillion by 2035. Even taking tariff revenue into account, the increase in spending is expected to be “much larger” and “approximately double the expected tariff revenue.”
CRFB cited recent projections from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) that current tariffs will increase by about $2.5 trillion by 2035, or about $3 trillion if interest savings are included. That leaves a trillion-dollar gap between the revenue the president counts on and the cost of his military ambitions.
another budget watchdog Peter Peterson Foundationhave previously calculated The U.S. government spends more on defense than the next nine countries combined. The foundation said in a statement that based on the latest available data wealth This new proposal would significantly widen this gap. The foundation said that when viewed from top to bottom, the U.S. military budget of $1.5 trillion would exceed the combined military spending of the next 35 top spending countries. Viewed from the bottom up, the US military budget of US$1.5 trillion will exceed the combined military expenditures of all other countries except China.
Looming legal challenges
The financial outlook could dim further, depending on what happens in the judicial sector. The Supreme Court is expected to rule soon on the legality of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).
If the courts struck down these specific tariffs, CRFB estimates that total deficit reduction from tariff revenue would plummet to about $700 billion by 2035 on a conventional basis. In this case, tariff revenue would cover only about 15% of proposed defense spending, and the deficit would widen significantly.
Legislative background and fiscal responsibility
The push for a $1.5 trillion budget follows the passage of the One Big Beautiful Act of 2025 (OBBBA), which has allocated $175 billion to the defense budget. In light of recent funding infusions, the CRFB believes “increased military spending is unlikely in the short term.”
Fiscal advocates urged lawmakers to proceed with caution. The CRFB recommended that given the nation’s “high and rising national debt,” any future spending increases should be fully paid for — preferably “double” — through new revenue sources or spending cuts elsewhere. They warned that policymakers cannot rely on existing tariff revenues, noting that without these funds the deficit would be much higher than the current baseline.