Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has made it clear that his primary focus at the Pentagon is on “lethality, lethality, lethality.” This mantra reflects a commitment to enhancing military readiness and warfighting capabilities. However, recent spending decisions within the Department of Defense (DoD) raise questions about this focus, particularly as millions of dollars are funneled into the maintenance and renovation of military golf courses.
In a striking juxtaposition, while Hegseth emphasizes a laser-like focus on military effectiveness, the U.S. military is investing in the upkeep of golf courses, including renovations to sand traps at the Woodlawn Golf Course in Germany and the purchase of mushroom compost for greens at Cannon Air Force Base in New Mexico. Critics are left wondering how such expenditures align with the stated mission of enhancing military lethality.
Gabe Murphy, a policy analyst at Taxpayers for Common Sense, argues that the military should not be involved in the golf resort business. He points out that the primary beneficiaries of these golf courses are often military retirees and dependents, rather than active-duty service members who typically lack the time to engage in leisure activities like golfing. This raises a fundamental question: why is taxpayer money being used to maintain recreational facilities that do not serve the core mission of the military?
Despite ongoing calls for budget cuts across the federal government, including proposals to eliminate thousands of jobs at the Department of Veterans Affairs, military golf courses remain untouched. Murphy highlights a disconnect between the Trump administration’s rhetoric about cutting wasteful spending and its actions, particularly regarding Pentagon expenditures. He notes that pouring money into golf courses contradicts the goal of streamlining military spending.
The history of military golf courses is fraught with criticism. As early as 1965, the General Accounting Office flagged excessive spending on golf courses, noting that funds were often drawn from the defense budget. In 1975, Senator William Proxmire condemned the $14 million annual expenditure on military golf courses as a waste of taxpayer money. While Congress eventually curtailed the use of appropriated funds for these courses, the problem persists, with approximately 145 golf courses still operating under the DoD.
Military golf courses are classified as revenue-generating programs, expected to cover their operating expenses through non-appropriated funds. However, a 1990s investigation revealed that many courses were losing money or relying on taxpayer funding. Recent closures of several military golf courses, such as the Pelican Point Golf Course at Tyndall Air Force Base and the Silver Spruce Golf Course at Peterson Space Force Base, underscore the financial challenges these facilities face.
The Pentagon’s golf courses, often situated in idyllic locations around the world, have become a point of contention. Critics argue that funds spent on maintaining these courses could be better allocated to support programs for service members suffering from PTSD and other war-related issues. William Hartung, a senior research fellow at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, emphasizes that if the military seeks to raise private funds, those resources should prioritize essential services rather than recreational amenities.
The complexities surrounding military golf course funding are further compounded by loopholes that allow appropriated funds to be used for courses in foreign countries. This raises additional concerns about the Pentagon’s priorities, especially when essential services and infrastructure for service members are underfunded.
Calls for a reevaluation of military spending priorities have gained traction, with some lawmakers advocating for the sale of military golf courses. Mike Gallagher, a former congressman, has argued that the Defense Department’s extensive property portfolio includes many assets, like golf courses, that are not essential to national security. He advocates for recycling these assets to invest in better training and living conditions for troops.
The financial implications of maintaining military golf courses are significant. Recent estimates suggest that the costs to replace facilities at just five military golf courses exceed $200 million. When considering the total number of military golf courses, the financial burden becomes even more pronounced. Critics argue that the Pentagon should be looking at all its infrastructure to propose reductions and address excess capacity.
In a broader context, the military’s focus on golf courses reflects a longstanding issue of misaligned priorities. While the U.S. military has faced challenges in various conflicts, the emphasis on recreational spending raises questions about the effectiveness of its leadership. As Secretary Hegseth continues to push for a singular focus on military lethality, the ongoing investment in golf courses stands in stark contrast to this mission.
The debate over military golf courses is emblematic of a larger conversation about government spending and priorities. As taxpayers question the rationale behind funding recreational facilities, it becomes increasingly clear that a reevaluation of military expenditures is necessary. The Pentagon’s commitment to enhancing military readiness must be matched by a commitment to responsible spending that prioritizes the needs of service members and their families.