this post was submitted on 04 Jun 2025
84 points (96.7% liked)

politics

23920 readers
3229 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

The Trump administration has submitted a budget proposal to Congress, calling for an increase in the National Nuclear Security Administration’s annual spending on weapons activities from $19 billion allocated this year to $30 billion by fiscal year 2026.

The Trump administration’s request comes amid efforts to cut budgets at other science-focused agencies, including NASA, the Department of Health and Human Services, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the National Science Foundation.

The White House’s budget plan proposes reducing the National Science Foundation’s funding from $8.8 billion in 2025 to $3.9 billion the following year.

In a statement, a Trump administration official said, “The President’s budget strengthens U.S. leadership in research and development by ensuring federal funding goes toward legitimate research rather than wasteful spending.”

To support this stance, the official cited the example of the $100 million “Environmental Justice Fund” at the Environmental Protection Agency.

The justification document sent to Congress states that the security agency aims to modernize the nation’s nuclear arsenal and “protect the American people.” It claims the weapons budget supports a “safe, secure, and effective” arsenal, provides nuclear propulsion systems for the U.S. Navy, and upgrades nuclear facilities across the research and production complex. It also notes that nuclear weapons funding will go toward six simultaneous warhead modernization programs, including the sea-launched nuclear cruise missile.

But will escalating nuclear weapons truly provide greater security and mutually beneficial cooperation between nations, rather than investing in our social, technological, and scientific development?

top 15 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Is Trump trying to end the world?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

We already have plenty of world ruining weapons. Trump just wants some coated I'm gold. A big beautiful yellow mushroom.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 17 hours ago

The world's biggest practical joke will be a giant golden shower that destroys all life on Earth

[–] [email protected] 21 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Donald Trump really really wants to set off a nuke. He's obsessed with it. It doesn't matter what target. It will make him feel like a man. His ego is out of control.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 2 days ago

He's a demented narcissist. He's literally sick.

[–] [email protected] 22 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Don't worry this increase is offset by the money Elon Musk saved us by firing nuclear defense personnel for a week before frantically rehiring them

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 day ago

Probably at a huge loss too, if I'm fired and I'm the only one who can do my job well sorry but now I want double and flexible hours.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 2 days ago (2 children)

You just KNOW this fat bitch is thinking of launching one while he still can.

[–] FunderPants 9 points 2 days ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] -1 points 2 days ago

I'd be fine with that if it's all he did

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 days ago

thats why he also wants his "golden dome" thing.

he absolutly wants to make use of nukes

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Well given that DEI programs were the very thing that NASA and the Department of Defense were using to support small manufacturers with the skills needed to make such arms.

He literally cut his own balls off and is effectively hoping that some viagra will fix the situation…

What a moron.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 days ago

I was about to say, manufacturing nuclear arms is not cheap, but it's also not incredibly profitable. Unlike even something like a fighter aircraft, you can't really sell them off, and you can't make most of ANYTHING ELSE with the tooling and setup.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 days ago

Its so funny that they have hid so much military work in other agencies due to the popularity in the 20th century with science and unpopularity of the military and he goes and cuts the science budget and finds he has to increase the military one. I remember dreaming about how great the 21st century would be. Entering into a new millenia. sigh.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 days ago

Why bother improving our knowledge of the universe when we can already make even more nukes? FFS...