Feb. 24, 2026, 12:23 PM EST

President Donald Trump loves a big number. Last year, even as Elon Musk’s DOGE was hacking away at alleged inefficient and fraudulent federal spending, Trump proposed a record-breaking $1 trillion defense budget. Even though the budget Congress passed fell short of Trump’s proposal, the almost $900 billion authorization was still the biggest ever. Even so, Trump said in January that his next proposal number would be 50% higher than the last one.

Among many, many other problems with a $1.5 trillion Defense Department budgetone in particular stands out: The military has no idea what it would do with that much money. That’s not hyperbole, based on a recent report from The Washington Postciting sources who spoke anonymously to characterize internal matters. Trump’s extragavent proposal is apparently causing a delay in the White House’s annual budget proposal:

Since Trump agreed to the higher number, White House aides and defense officials have run into logistical challenges about where to put the money, because the amount is so large, the people said. The White House is more than two weeks behind its statutory deadline to send its budget proposal to Congress, in part because it is unclear how precisely to spend the additional $500 billion, according to the people familiar with the matter.

Senior Pentagon officials have consulted with former senior defense officials as they grapple with the challenge, said one person familiar with the matter. Part of the discussion centers on how much emphasis should go into buying weapons the military already uses versus investing in high-end technologies, such as artificial intelligence, that the Pentagon envisions as part of its future.

An agency being flooded with more cash than can be reasonably spent in a year wouldn’t be the worst problem in the world. But when that agency is the Pentagon, which can already act as a budgetary black hole, it becomes deeply worrying to learn that Trump wants to turn a massive fiscal firehose its way. Trying to give that much more money to an agency that’s already overfunded says a lot about Trump’s misplaced priorities.

There are four major buckets within the DOD budget that the new funding could go toward: operations and maintenance, military personnel, procurement, and research and development. It’s apparently not clear, though, which areas would benefit most from such a sudden surge in money. The administration’s own National Security Strategywhich calls for drawing down U.S. involvement in Asia and the Middle East, makes it even more confusing to imagine what that much surplus could be spent on.

Though Trump announced a desired $1.5 trillion budget on social mediaaccording to the Post, the idea came from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who shares the president’s obsession with optics.

“We are rebuilding the arsenal of freedom,” Hegseth told Lockheed Martin employees on a Texas assembly line building F-35 fighter jets. (The Trump administration  recently sold a number of such jets to Saudi Arabia.) Tellingly, Hegseth said the staggering top line is “a message to the world” and that the funding would be used “wisely … [to] make sure we’re squeezing everything possible into the best capabilities in the world.”

Hegseth emphasized the massive budget request at a factory building the U.S. military’s most expensive and overbudget plane. And as for his claim that the money would be used wisely, let’s not forget that the Government Accountability Office says the Defense Department is the “only major federal agency that has never gotten a ‘clean’ audit opinion (i.e., when auditors find that financial statements are presented fairly).”

The amount of money that already disappears into the Pentagon’s maw is troubling enough without adding $500 billion on top of it. Consider that White House budget chief Russell Vought, as head of the Office of Management and Budget, has overseen the process of firing tens of thousands of federal employees and tried to slash billions in life-saving government programs from the budget. According to the Post, Vought was one of the main members of the administration to push back on Hegseth’s pitch, but to no avail.

We should all hope that that whatever budget Hegseth sends to the Pentagon gets drastically reduced before Congress makes it law. It’s ridiculous and discouraging to see the Pentagon be handed more money than it knows what to do with at a time when even a small percentage of that new spending could change millions of Americans’ lives for the better.

Hayes Brown is a writer and editor for MS NOW. He focuses on politics and policymaking at the federal level, including Congress and the White House.

Feb. 24, 2026, 1:35 PM EST

With the U.S. massing forces within striking distance of Iran, Secretary of State Marco Rubio met Tuesday with the “Gang of Eight,” a group of party leaders in the House and Senate customarily informed by the White House when military attacks are imminent.

Rubio was briefing the senior lawmakers hours ahead of the President Donald Trump’s State of the Union address, with tensions with Tehran over its nuclear program looming over the speech.

Typically, presidential administrations will let the group know ahead of major military actions, such as the 2011 raid in Abbottabad, Pakistan, that killed al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden at the direction of former President Barack Obama.

The Trump administration, however, has not briefed the group in advance of recent military operations, including the capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro in January (the group was briefed afterward), the killing of top Iranian general in 2020 and Operation Midnight Hammer last summer, in which U.S. forces bombed three nuclear sites in Iran.

The decision to brief these senior lawmakers now signals that any action against Iran the administration is weighing may be more substantial.

The current Gang of Eight consists of Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D.; Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y.; House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La.; House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y.; Sens. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., and Mark Warner, D-Va., the chair and ranking member of the Senate Intelligence Committee; and Reps. Rick Crawford, R-Ark., and Jim Himes, D-Conn., the chair and ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee.

Congressional Democrats have expressed concern that Trump is circumventing the War Powers Actthe federal law that requires the president to obtain congressional approval before committing armed forces to combat.

Last week, Schumer underscored in a statement that Congress alone has the power to declare waradding that “the administration has yet to articulate to Congress and the American people what the objectives or strategy would be for any potential military campaign against Iran, let alone what it would mean for the lives of American service members or the costs for American taxpayers.”

The U.S. and Iran have been in fragile negotiationsin recent weeks regarding Iran’s nuclear weapons program.

Trump has also called for regime change in Iranafter widespread unrest in the country, and publicly clashed with the Iranian supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Each has threatened the other with military action.

The Pentagon sent the USS Gerald R. Ford, the world’s largest warship, and another aircraft carrier, the USS Abraham Lincoln, as well as other U.S. military assets to the region ahead of a potential attack. Iran has warned that it will retaliate if threatened.

CORRECTION(Feb. 24, 2025, 2:42 p.m. ET): A previous version of this article incorrectly stated that President Donald Trump was slated to brief the “Gang of Eight” on Tuesday. The briefing is being held by Secretary of State Marco Rubio and is not on Trump’s official schedule.

Erum Salam is breaking news reporter for MS NOW, with a focus on how global events and foreign policy shape U.S. politics. She previously was a breaking news reporter for The Guardian and is a graduate of Texas A&M University and the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism. Follow her on X, Bluesky and Instagram.

Feb. 24, 2026, 1:09 PM EST

Four years ago this weekRussian President Vladimir Putin launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine. A war he expected to win in just days has become one of the longest and costliest conflicts Russia has fought since World War II. What began as a blitz intended to decapitate Ukraine’s government has hardened into a grinding war of attrition. The United States’ initial commitment to supporting Kyiv has given way to a policy of strategic ambiguity, with neither Ukrainian victory nor a lasting end to the conflict appearing now to be Washington’s objectives.

With no sweeping changes in territorial control since 2023, Russia has suffered staggering losses for marginal territorial gains. Ukraine’s cities have been batteredits infrastructure repeatedly targeted and its people tested by cold, darkness and relentless attack. Yet Ukraine’s survival as a sovereign state is no longer in immediate peril.

This winter has been the harshest of the extreme conditions Ukrainians have endured. Unable to achieve decisive success on the battlefield, Russia has turned to a punitive strategy aimed squarely at civilians, striking energy systems to deprive Ukrainians of heatlight and water. Having failed militarily, the Putin regime is relying on coercion and cruelty.

Despite this, Ukraine perseveres. Through national mobilization, innovation and sacrifice, it has blunted Russia’s advantages in size, population and resources.

Ukraine’s fight has become one of the defining tests of the 21st century: whether democracies can defend themselves against revanchist autocracy. That is the question confronting Washington, as much as U.S. lawmakers avoid it.

For decades, American foreign policy rested on a simple but powerful insight: Values are not a distraction from power but the source of it. Alliances endure because they are rooted in trust. Deterrence works because adversaries believe the United States will act consistently and predictably. When values guide strategy, American power multiplies. When they are abandoned, power erodes.

The pattern extends beyond Ukraine. Tariff disputes with European partnersflirtation with illiberal movements seeking to weaken the European Union and repeated attacks on alliance commitments have created confusion where clarity is needed. This is not a coherent “America First” strategy. It is strategic drift that shifts the global balance of power in Moscow’s favor.

Under the Trump administration, American policy toward the largest war in Europe since World War II has drifted away from that foundation. Rather than reinforcing deterrence, strengthening alliances and shaping a just peace, U.S. actions too often have pressured Ukraine while offering political and rhetorical relief to Russia. Foreign policy has been treated less as an instrument of American security than as a means for transactional leverage and private advantage. The mirage of deals directed at Trump, his family and friends has warped American policy toward the Russia-Ukraine war, distorting strategy and undermining trust.

Washington policymakers forget at our peril: Chaos abroad never stays abroad.

When American leadership falters, global energy markets destabilize, supply chains fracture and investor confidence weakens. Prices rise. Working families pay more for fuel, food, insurance and utilities. Strategic incoherence overseas creates higher prices and greater insecurity at home. The rising cost of living in my home state of Florida is a reflection of this reality. When wars last longer because deterrence fails, Americans pay financially and strategically.

Corruption compounds these failures. When personal interests shape policy, adversaries exploit it. When allies lose confidence in American integrity and reliability, U.S. influence evaporates. Corruption is both a moral failing and a strategic vulnerability. It weakens deterrence and raises the cost of resolving crises. Crushing corruption is a national security imperative.

Ukraine’s struggle against armed aggression mirrors a broader struggle within other democracies: whether free societies will allow power to be abused for personal gain, or whether they will insist on accountability and the rule of law. The scale is different, country by country, but the stakes are linked. A world where corruption guides policy is a world of longer wars, weaker alliances and higher costs for ordinary citizens.

As the war in Ukraine drags on, a years-old threat to elected democracies, will the United States rise to meet the moment — or will Washington continue its slide into chaos, corruption and strategic self-harm?

America does not need theatrics or dealmaking illusions. It needs leadership anchored in national interest, guided by values and accountable to the public. Serious strategy shortens wars. Integrity strengthens deterrence. Credible leadership cuts costs — both human and economic — and reduces the likelihood that the next war could be longer and more dangerous than this one.

Alexander Vindman is a retired Army lieutenant colonel and former director of European affairs for the National Security Council. He is a Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate in Florida.