Muslim World Report

Reassessing U.S. Spending: War versus Domestic Welfare

Dr. Anthony Lindsay | Jun 24, 2025 10:18 AM | 6 min read | 1105 words

TL;DR: The U.S. faces a critical challenge regarding its spending priorities, heavily favoring military expenditures over essential domestic welfare programs. This post examines the consequences of such an imbalance and advocates for a reassessment that prioritizes social welfare to foster a healthier society and enhance global standing.

Examining America’s Spending Priorities: War vs. Domestic Welfare

The United States stands at a critical crossroads regarding its financial priorities, starkly illustrated by the staggering military expenditures juxtaposed against the shrinking budget for domestic welfare programs. As of 2025, the federal budget has favored military funding, with the annual defense budget exceeding $800 billion, dwarfing allocations for essential services. Key statistics reveal:

  • Education and Healthcare funding is inadequate.
  • Disparities in health outcomes can be exacerbated by insufficient social services (Burgoon, 2006; AACR, 2022).

This imbalance is more than a budgetary issue; it reflects a broader societal inclination toward militarism, prioritizing national aggression over human welfare.

Historical Context

American priorities can be traced back to its legacy of slavery—a grotesque chapter in which a civil war was deemed necessary to abolish an abhorrent practice. The emergence of the civil rights movement was a response to systemic injustices that persist today, as evidenced by ongoing disparities in access to:

  • Healthcare
  • Education

Unfortunately, millions remain without access to universal healthcare, and face formidable barriers in education and housing (J. L. Rabinowitz, 1999). This persistent conservative push against social welfare funding is tied to a belief system prioritizing military might over human investment. Prominent conservative voices assert that national security necessitates a robust military presence, while dismissing social programs as extraneous (Martin, 2009).

Fundamental Questions

This prevailing mindset raises fundamental questions about American identity and responsibility:

  • If committed to liberty and justice, why does the U.S. neglect citizens’ welfare?
  • What does the spending priority dichotomy reveal about our society’s values?

A society investing heavily in defense yet underfunding essential services risks creating a disenfranchised populace. This reality breeds instability, laying the groundwork for social strife and unrest (Watkins, Larson, & Sullivan, 2007).

Global Implications

The global implications of America’s military spending are equally alarming. As the U.S. exerts immense influence over international relations, its military interventions dictate the geopolitical landscape (Levitt & Snyder, 1995). Each dollar spent on military might consumes resources that could alleviate domestic suffering, while the cycle of war undermines America’s soft power.

What if Military Spending Is Further Increased?

If the U.S. opts to increase military expenditure, the immediate ramifications would likely be:

  • Domestic: Further diminishing public funding for vital services like healthcare, education, and infrastructure.
  • International: Escalating tensions with rival powers, potentially igniting an arms race with nations like China and Russia (Schmidt et al., 2019).

This prioritization sends a message that citizen well-being takes a backseat to national aggression, eroding global perceptions of the U.S. as a force for peace and welfare.

What if Domestic Welfare Programs Are Expanded?

Conversely, if the U.S. expands domestic welfare programs, the potential benefits could be transformative:

  • Investing in healthcare and education could cultivate a healthier, more educated populace.
  • Addressing pressing issues like poverty and unemployment, especially for marginalized communities (Huber et al., 2006).

A well-supported citizenry fosters community engagement, leading to:

  • Higher voter turnout
  • Greater public participation in government (Yosso, 2005)

This shift could redefine America’s global role, emphasizing human capital as a pillar of national strength.

What if the Public Demands a Shift in Priorities?

Should the American public, disillusioned by stagnation in wages and inadequate healthcare, mobilize to demand a shift in priorities, such a grassroots movement could lead to:

  • A redefined political landscape in which officials respond to public demands for essential services.
  • Policies prioritizing funding for social safety nets over military expenditures (T. J. Yosso, 2005).

A shift in public sentiment could redefine America’s international image—from a militaristic power to a model of social responsibility and cooperation.

Strategic Maneuvers

To navigate this pivotal moment, key players must consider the following:

For Policymakers:

  • Initiate a thorough review of the federal budget.
  • Reevaluate priorities underlying military funding, with a focus on reallocating resources toward social welfare.
  • Engage experts to develop funding strategies that promote domestic welfare without compromising national security (Kurasawa, 2013).

For Military Leaders:

  • Recognize that national security cannot be defined solely by military might.
  • Emphasize diplomacy and conflict resolution strategies that prioritize negotiation over aggression (Burgoon, 2006).

For Citizens:

  • Mobilize grassroots efforts advocating for enhanced welfare programs.
  • Demand accountability from elected officials to ensure that citizen needs are prioritized.
  • Use activism and education to shift narratives surrounding federal spending towards a more equitable society (Efrat et al., 2020).

Conclusion

The stakes are high. The future of American spending priorities will determine not only the well-being of its citizens but its standing in the world. A critical reassessment of investments in security—both domestic and global—is essential for creating a more just and equitable future. The choice is clear: a country striving for true liberty and justice must redefine its commitment to the welfare of its people over the machinery of war.

References

  • American Association for Cancer Research (AACR). (2022). “Disparities in Health Outcomes and the Role of Social Services.”
  • Burgoon, B. (2006). “The Political Economy of American Military Spending.” Journal of Defense Studies.
  • Collier, P., & Hoeffler, A. (2006). “Military Expenditures and Civil Conflict.” Defense and Peace Economics.
  • Desai, R. M., Yousef, T. S., & Olofsgård, A. (2008). “The Consequences of Military Spending on Political Stability.” The World Bank Review.
  • Efrat, A., Ben-Ari, I., & Cohen, M. (2020). “Grassroots Movements and Government Accountability: The Role of Citizen Engagement in Policy Change.” American Political Science Review.
  • Green, M. J., & Griffith, J. (2002). “Military Buildups and Diplomatic Isolation: A Pattern of U.S. Foreign Policy.” International Relations.
  • Huber, E., Rojas, C., & Rodriguez, C. (2006). “Social Policy and Economic Growth: Latin America in Comparative Perspective.” Social Policy Review.
  • Kruk, M. E., Gage, A. D., Arsenault, C., et al. (2018). “High-quality health systems in the Sustainable Development Goals era: time for a revolution.” The Lancet Global Health.
  • Kurasawa, A. (2013). “The Role of Social Movements in Shaping Public Policy.” Social Movement Studies.
  • Levitt, M., & Snyder, R. (1995). “Military Influence on U.S. Foreign Policy.” Foreign Affairs.
  • Martin, D. (2009). “The Conservative View on Social Welfare: A Historical Overview.” Conservative Political Studies.
  • Schmidt, H., Tullock, G. M., & Sweeney, J. (2019). “Military Competition and the Global Arms Race.” Defense Studies.
  • Watkins, E., Larson, A., & Sullivan, M. (2007). “Military Spending and Its Impact on Domestic Policy.” Journal of Peace Research.
  • Wang, H., & Qian, J. (2011). “Power Hierarchies and Resource Distribution in American Society.” American Sociological Review.
  • Yosso, T. J. (2005). “Civic Engagement and the Role of Education.” Educational Studies.
← Prev Next →