Private Citizen Gives US GOVT $130M to Pay US Military Amid DONKEY Shutdown

[army judge]

President Donald Trump said on Thursday that a wealthy private donor has provided $130 million to the U.S. government to cover potential shortfalls in military salaries caused by the ongoing government shutdown.

Speaking at a White House event, Trump praised the wealthy donor as a patriot and a "friend of mine," but declined to name him.

"He called us the other day and said, 'I'd like to contribute any shortfall you have because of the Democrat shutdown ... because I love the military and I love the country,'" Trump said.

The administration faces mounting pressure to ensure active-duty service members receive their paychecks despite the budget impasse.

Trump previously signed an executive order directing the Pentagon to repurpose unused research funds to cover salaries.

House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., has called the military funding shift a temporary fix and warned that troops could soon miss their paychecks if Congress fails to pass a budget resolution.

The U.S. federal government has been partially shut down since Oct. 1 as lawmakers in Congress remain deadlocked over a new budget, with disputes over healthcare subsidies at the center of the impasse.

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

https://www.newsmax.com/politics/donald-trump-military-shutdown/2025/10/23/id/1231640/

 

[Tax Counsel]

That's a lot of money to most people and makes a great headline. But its effect on the shutdown will be negligible.

In fiscal year 2024 the military spent $192 billion on military pay and benefits. That's approximately $526 million a day. Thus, that $130 million donation would pay for just under a quarter of one day. In other words, it would keep the military paid for just under 6 (5.93) hours. I don't mean to diminish the generosity of the donor in providing this gift (for which the donor will get a tax deduction, effectively reducing the cost of it) but rather point out just how big the military is. The total Department of Defense budget for FY '24 was approximately $997 billion, meaning just maintaining the military costs Americans $2.73 billion a day. The salaries of our men and women in uniform is less than 20% of the total budget.

The U.S. spends more than the next four countries (China, Russia, Germany, and India) combined, which is estimated to be $647 billion. The figures are estimated because China and Russia do not release specific defense spending numbers.

The entire world military spending is estimated at $2.713 trillion dollars. The U.S. accounts for 36.7% of that.

I support a strong military but I do wonder if we are spending too much on it. As the conflict between Russia and Ukraine is demonstrating, new cheap weapons like drones are proving just as capable or more so than weapons costing many times more.

The U.S. undertakes a mission no other nation attempts: to project its miltary presence and power over the entire globe. But are there ways to do that without the enormous amount of money we spend today?

 

[army judge]

The U.S. undertakes a mission no other nation attempts: to project its miltary presence and power over the entire globe. But are there ways to do that without the enormous amount of money we spend today?

As the GRAMMATICALLY INCORRECT old saying goes: you get what you pay for.

 

[Tax Counsel]

As the GRAMMATICALLY INCORRECT old saying goes: you get what you pay for.

That phrase was coined for the situation in which a customer opts for the cheaper product, thinking it'll be as good, or at least close enough, that the savings will get them a good deal. It sometimes does, but often the customer ends up disappointed in the performance and/or durability of the product and comes to regret buying cheap.

In the federal government civilian world that same problem occurs because of the requirement to put contracts out for bid to the lowest bidder. The lowest bidder typically provides goods and services that are inferior and not as long lasting as a higher price bidder would provide. As that old saying implies, the federal government might get better value by paying a bit more for something good. I remember well the kinds of tools and equipment I had to work with at the IRS. Computers that were cheap when bought and by the time they were delivered were already seriously out of date. Even the small things, like the ball point pens they bought were terrible. I ended up using my own office supplies and equipment to do the work better. I wasn't the only one, particularly in Chief Counsel where lawyers expected to work with decent quality stuff.

When it comes to major systems for the military, like aircraft, missiles, aircraft carriers, etc., the cost plus system is used instead. That system does deliver some quality products, but at what often seems to be inflated prices.

Most of the fault for this lies with Congress. The combination of the annual budgeting process and the short election cycle for House members leads to choices that are perhaps politically helpful to the member of Congress in their upcoming election but leads to bad spending habits. An aircraft carrier takes years to build but the government does not commit the money needed for them with spending authorizations that span the life of the contract. Instead they budget everything on an annual basis.

Well run businesses don't do that for good reason — in the long run the business gets better value from buying the right product for the job and committing the money to pay for it over the life of the contract.

Both lowest bidder and cost plus budgeting models are broken as they are currently implemented.