We often say that our service members are our greatest military asset. It is a statement repeated at ceremonies, in congressional hearings and throughout speeches about national defense.
But words of appreciation are easy. Budgets reveal our actual priorities.
That is why the Senate Armed Services Committee’s decision to replace proposed targeted pay raises for junior service members with a flat 3.6 percent increase across every rank is so disappointing.
The administration had proposed a 7 percent raise for the most junior enlisted ranks, 6 percent for mid-level enlisted personnel and junior officers, and 5 percent for more senior officers. The House Armed Services Committee has supported that general approach.
The Senate committee chose otherwise.
Under its version of the fiscal year 2027 National Defense Authorization Act, an E-1 struggling to establish a household would receive the same percentage increase as a general officer. That may appear equal on a spreadsheet, but it ignores the vastly different financial realities confronting those families.
Equal percentages do not produce equal outcomes.
For a senior officer, the difference between a 3.6 percent and 5 percent raise may affect savings, investments or discretionary spending. For a young Airman, Soldier, Sailor, Marine, Guardian or Coast Guardsman, the difference between 3.6 percent and 7 percent can mean groceries, diapers, fuel, utilities or an unexpected car repair.
It can determine whether a military family finishes the month with money remaining or must seek help from a food pantry.
That is not an abstract concern. Junior enlisted personnel, particularly those supporting spouses and children, can face genuine financial hardship. Some qualify for public assistance or depend upon charitable food programs and emergency aid. Military communities have repeatedly had to organize grocery distributions and other forms of support for families serving our nation.
That should trouble every American.
No one wearing the uniform of the United States should need food stamps or a food bank to feed a family.
We ask these men and women to accept extraordinary responsibility. They may be ordered across the country or around the world with little notice. Their spouses often sacrifice careers because of frequent moves. Their children change schools. Their families endure deployments, separations and uncertainty.
In return, the country has a fundamental obligation to provide them with a reasonable standard of living.
The Senate committee argues that targeted raises could compress the military pay scale and weaken the financial incentive to advance in rank. Pay compression is a legitimate issue, and promotion must continue to carry meaningful financial rewards.
But the solution cannot be to hold down the pay of those already struggling.
Congress is not confined to choosing between adequately compensating junior personnel and maintaining appropriate differences between ranks. In a defense authorization exceeding $1 trillion, lawmakers can structure pay tables that accomplish both.
This is a matter of priorities, not mathematical impossibility.
The committee says the money saved by reducing the proposed raises will instead support a broader quality-of-life package that includes health care, child care, tuition assistance and other programs. Those investments are valuable. Military families need affordable child care, reliable housing, accessible health care and educational opportunity.
But services and benefits are not substitutes for a sufficient paycheck.
A parent cannot pay for groceries with a future tuition benefit. A family cannot cover an electric bill with a promise that child care capacity might eventually improve. Programs matter, but so does the amount deposited into a service member’s bank account each month.
Direct pay also gives military families the ability and dignity to decide where their own most urgent needs lie.
The contrast elsewhere in the legislation makes the decision even harder to defend. Congress is considering enormous investments in weapons, munitions, technology, commands and organizational changes. The bill would authorize a new combatant command focused on robotic and autonomous systems. It would also approve changing the Department of Defense’s name to the Department of War—a change the Congressional Budget Office has estimated could cost anywhere from several million dollars to as much as $125 million, depending upon how extensively it is implemented.
Whatever one thinks of that proposed name, it is difficult to explain spending millions to change signs, seals, stationery and branding while reducing raises intended for the lowest-paid people carrying out the mission.
A new name will not improve readiness.
A better-paid, more financially secure force will.
Financial stress follows service members to work. It affects concentration, morale, family stability and mental well-being. It can influence whether an experienced service member reenlists. It can also discourage potential recruits who see military families struggling despite their service.
Pay is therefore not simply a personnel benefit. It is a readiness issue, a retention issue and a national-security issue.
We cannot claim to value the force while treating compensation as secondary to platforms, programs and Pentagon reorganizations. Weapons do not operate themselves. Aircraft do not maintain themselves. Missions do not plan or execute themselves.
Behind every capability is a service member—and behind many of those service members is a family quietly carrying part of the burden.
Congress still has time to correct this. The Senate bill must proceed through the legislative process and eventually be reconciled with the House version. Lawmakers should restore the larger, targeted raises for junior personnel while also preserving appropriate incentives for promotion and advancement.
They should retain the broader quality-of-life investments as well. This should not be presented as a choice between decent pay, child care, housing, health care and education. A nation contemplating more than a trillion dollars in annual defense spending should be capable of supporting all of them.
America should have the most advanced military technology in the world. We should maintain the munitions, aircraft, ships and systems necessary to deter aggression and win when deterrence fails.
But our first investment must always be in the people willing to defend us.
Before paying to rename the department, create another headquarters or redesign another sign, Congress should make certain that the junior enlisted family standing in the grocery aisle can afford to fill its cart.
Anything less is not only unfair. It undermines the force we are asking to protect us.