Trump’s stunning 'dereliction of duty' pummeled by Washington Post
AlterNet.org reports:
By Alex Henderson
According to U.S. Treasury data, the United States' federal deficit reached $1.8 trillion dollars this year. Economists are warning that the deficit could pass $2.0 trillion in the months ahead. And the Washington Post, in an editorial posted on Labor Day 2026, outlines the threat that federal government debt poses to the U.S. military.
The Post's editorial board writes, "Defending the country is Washington's most fundamental responsibility. Governments are expected to take on debt in wartime and pay it down in peacetime. Stretching the market for government debt to the limit in peacetime is a dereliction of duty and, ultimately, a danger to national defense."
The Post, in its editorial, lays out the challenges the U.S. is facing from a defense standpoint, explaining how the ever-growing federal deficit hurts military preparedness.
"The enemy gets a vote in foreign affairs, and nobody knows what the 2030s will hold," the Post editorial explains. "Will China invade Taiwan? Will NATO allies need defending against Russia? Will terrorism in the Middle East or Africa require a response from the United States? Will another emerging threat demand American action? The federal budget is not prepared for such contingencies. Judging by the size of the deficit alone, one might assume the U.S. is already fighting a war far more involved than the on-again, off-again bombing of Iran. The additional burden of borrowing to finance a full-scale, protracted conflict could push the budget into more dangerous territory than it already is."
The Post notes that back in 2010, Michael Mullen — the Joint Chiefs of Staff's chairman at the time — said, "The most significant threat to our national security is our debt." At the time, according to the Post, the "national debt was about $27 trillion lower than it is today."
"National security is the primary purpose of the federal government," The Post argues. "For much of American history, defense accounted for the bulk of federal spending. It was possible to identify wars just by looking at peaks in the debt-to-GDP ratio. Then, when the war was over, the ratio came back down as the need for taking on debt receded. That's no longer the case because non-defense spending has overwhelmed defense."
The Post continues, "National security is the primary purpose of the federal government. For much of American history, defense accounted for the bulk of federal spending. It was possible to identify wars just by looking at peaks in the debt-to-GDP ratio."
The Post stresses that the military is facing "unknown needs of the future," and the deficit leaves the U.S. ill-prepared for these challenges.
"Drone warfare, based on the experience of Ukraine, requires much nimbler procurement systems, as technology can become obsolete in months rather than decades," the Post explains. "Each unit of unmanned technology is cheap, but costs accumulate due to the enormous quantity of drones required and their quick depletion. Drones are not replacing more expensive conventional weapons, at least not right away, so they’ll be an added cost in the 2030s. They won't supplant existing spending.
There is plenty the Pentagon can do to be more efficient. It's a government bureaucracy like any other, prone to bloat as bureaucrats measure their success by the size of their budgets. The inherently uncompetitive defense market, where one customer deals with a handful of contractors, isn't conducive to cost effectiveness."
By Alex Henderson
According to U.S. Treasury data, the United States' federal deficit reached $1.8 trillion dollars this year. Economists are warning that the deficit could pass $2.0 trillion in the months ahead. And the Washington Post, in an editorial posted on Labor Day 2026, outlines the threat that federal government debt poses to the U.S. military.
The Post's editorial board writes, "Defending the country is Washington's most fundamental responsibility. Governments are expected to take on debt in wartime and pay it down in peacetime. Stretching the market for government debt to the limit in peacetime is a dereliction of duty and, ultimately, a danger to national defense."
The Post, in its editorial, lays out the challenges the U.S. is facing from a defense standpoint, explaining how the ever-growing federal deficit hurts military preparedness.
"The enemy gets a vote in foreign affairs, and nobody knows what the 2030s will hold," the Post editorial explains. "Will China invade Taiwan? Will NATO allies need defending against Russia? Will terrorism in the Middle East or Africa require a response from the United States? Will another emerging threat demand American action? The federal budget is not prepared for such contingencies. Judging by the size of the deficit alone, one might assume the U.S. is already fighting a war far more involved than the on-again, off-again bombing of Iran. The additional burden of borrowing to finance a full-scale, protracted conflict could push the budget into more dangerous territory than it already is."
The Post notes that back in 2010, Michael Mullen — the Joint Chiefs of Staff's chairman at the time — said, "The most significant threat to our national security is our debt." At the time, according to the Post, the "national debt was about $27 trillion lower than it is today."
"National security is the primary purpose of the federal government," The Post argues. "For much of American history, defense accounted for the bulk of federal spending. It was possible to identify wars just by looking at peaks in the debt-to-GDP ratio. Then, when the war was over, the ratio came back down as the need for taking on debt receded. That's no longer the case because non-defense spending has overwhelmed defense."
The Post continues, "National security is the primary purpose of the federal government. For much of American history, defense accounted for the bulk of federal spending. It was possible to identify wars just by looking at peaks in the debt-to-GDP ratio."
The Post stresses that the military is facing "unknown needs of the future," and the deficit leaves the U.S. ill-prepared for these challenges.
"Drone warfare, based on the experience of Ukraine, requires much nimbler procurement systems, as technology can become obsolete in months rather than decades," the Post explains. "Each unit of unmanned technology is cheap, but costs accumulate due to the enormous quantity of drones required and their quick depletion. Drones are not replacing more expensive conventional weapons, at least not right away, so they’ll be an added cost in the 2030s. They won't supplant existing spending.
There is plenty the Pentagon can do to be more efficient. It's a government bureaucracy like any other, prone to bloat as bureaucrats measure their success by the size of their budgets. The inherently uncompetitive defense market, where one customer deals with a handful of contractors, isn't conducive to cost effectiveness."
