// William D. Hartung and Ben Freeman
Resistance is already forming to a proposed decrease in 2020 spending. It's important to understand just what that decrease means.
Mackenzie Eaglen | Breaking Defense
Recent cuts to topline defense spending show that President Trump would rather score political points about the deficit and debt over the much-needed improvements to and maintenance of America's military.
(Defense News) Democrats won the U.S. House in convincing fashion in Tuesday’s midterm elections, promising to shake up defense policy in the coming year and raising the possibility of tumultuous impeachment proceedings against President Donald Trump.
(Defense News) Here are three items on the national security agenda for Congress.
Mackenzie Eaglen | War on the Rocks
The current path is an irrational and costly recipe for sucking funding from other defense programs or buying fewer new nuclear delivery systems and reducing the size of the arsenal. The longer military and political leaders deny this reality, the worse off America’s nuclear deterrent and armed forces will be.
(Defense News) The Pentagon has officially been told the national security top line for fiscal 2020 will be $700 billion, representing the first cut to defense spending under the Trump administration.
Gary J. Schmitt | The Weekly Standard
At $700 billion, the Pentagon will be able to address some obvious readiness problems. But how long will it be able to sustain that fix? The answer is not long at all. Proposing and then authorizing budgets to fund the military is a product of the two political branches. Trump can only succeed in hollowing out the military’s capabilities if Congress agrees.
Reuters
Mackenzie Eaglen writes that recent cuts to topline defense spending show that President Trump would rather score political points about the deficit and debt than improve and maintain America’s military.