Climate Security or Military Security? How Trump’s New Budget Puts Global Climate Efforts at Serious Risk
On July 4, 2025 — with flags waving and cameras flashing — Donald Trump signed his massive “Big Beautiful Bill,” a sweeping budget package that sends U.S. military spending soaring past $1 trillion. While billed as a victory for national security, the move has profound implications that rarely make headlines: its direct impact on the climate crisis.
The World’s Largest Institutional Polluter
According to a groundbreaking new study published in PLOS Climate, the U.S. Department of Defense is the world’s largest institutional emitter of greenhouse gases. Its vast footprint stems not only from combat but also from the maintenance of hundreds of bases, continuous training exercises, logistics, and global weapons transport — all powered by fossil fuels.
Until now, few researchers have investigated the quantitative link between military spending levels and actual energy consumption by the U.S. military.
New Evidence from Penn State
That’s precisely what sociologist Ryan Thombs of Penn State University and his colleagues set out to do. Using data from 1975 to 2022, their statistical analysis finds a strong correlation between defense budget cuts and lower energy use.
“Every time military spending goes down, energy consumption — particularly from jet fuel, vehicles, and facility operations — also drops,” Thombs explains.
Even more striking: cuts to the defense budget have a greater effect on energy savings than increases in spending have on energy use. This asymmetry suggests that reductions, even modest ones, could serve as a powerful lever for climate action.
Looking ahead, the researchers modeled scenarios through 2032. Their findings are eye-opening: sustained moderate reductions in military spending could lead to annual energy savings equal to the total annual consumption of the U.S. state of Delaware or the country of Slovenia.
In climate terms, that’s massive — especially when such savings come from a single sector.
Climate Security vs. National Security?
Ironically, even the Pentagon has acknowledged that climate change is a “threat multiplier” — exacerbating geopolitical instability, natural disasters, and resource scarcity. But while the military sees itself as a victim of climate chaos, it is also a key contributor to it.
Trump’s new budget plan doubles down on defense and border security while slashing environmental initiatives. In doing so, it risks trading planetary stability for short-term geopolitical showmanship.
The climate crisis demands clear choices — and budgets are moral documents.
Every dollar invested in war-making is a dollar not spent on sustainability.
Every new fighter jet burns fuel that will heat the planet further.
As the PLOS Climate study puts it, “Sustained cuts to U.S. military expenditures could result in annual energy savings on par with what the nation of Slovenia or the U.S. state of Delaware consumes annually by 2032.”
So the real question becomes:
Can the Earth afford the U.S. military?
Comment
Reply