The "Warrior Dividend: A Deceptive Rebranding of Money Already Going to Military Members
When Trump announced last night a $1776 bonus called “Warrior Dividend”, I had two reactions. First, that money will be very helpful to many servicemembers and their families—particularly junior enlisted members who often struggle to make ends meet. Second, is this Warrior Dividend legal? Did Congress authorize this expenditure and appropriate the nearly $2.5 billion needed to fund the program? So I did some digging.
It turns out that the Warrior Dividend is nothing more than a rebranding of money that servicemembers were already going to receive. So yes, the dividend appears to be legal, but it is also a deceptive move by Trump to take credits for what Congress has already approved.
It is important to understand that the Constitution gives Congress, not the President, the authority to decide how money is spent. Congress zealously guards this authority and has even made it a criminal act to spend money on a program that Congress has not authorized. The basic rules are based on Congress’ sole authority to authorize federal spending. Congress must authorize the activity for which you want to spend money, and it must "appropriate” the money used for this activity. In appropriating funds, Congress sets the purpose for which the money must be spent and how long you have to obligate that money.
Trump in his diatribe last night said that the Warrior Dividend was possible because of tariff revenue. Just because his tariffs resulted in revenue, however, does not mean that the funds can be spent at the whim of the President. The revenue sits in the Treasury until and unless Congress gives its approval to spend the money. So the legal issue is simple: where is the statutory authority to provide bonuses?
Thanks to some great reporting by Defense One and other members of the defense press corps, we now know the answer. The tariffs have nothing to do with this bonus. Instead, Trump simply “rebranded” money that servicemembers were already set to receive. Thomas Novelly of Defense One explained:
The senior administration official told Defense One in an emailed statement late Wednesday evening that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth directed the Pentagon to “disburse $2.6 billion as a one-time basic allowance for housing supplement” to all eligible service members ranks 0-6 and below.
“Congress appropriated $2.9 billion to the Department of War to supplement the Basic Allowance for Housing entitlement within The One Big Beautiful Bill,” the senior official said. “Approximately 1.28 million active component military members and 174,000 Reserve component military members will receive this supplement.”
The background is this: both Democrats and Republican members of the Armed Services Committees were concerned that the Department of Defense was not providing sufficient funding to the basic allowance for housing given to all servicemembers. This was the result of a Rand Study that said that the Department was not adequately adjusting the housing allowance to reflect rapid changes in the housing markets. AS Rand explained, “The BAH rate-setting methodology does not appear resilient to rapid and dramatic changes in the housing market, as occurred during the pandemic: BAH rates did not increase as dramatically as either rental rates or housing prices from 2020 to 2022.”
Accordingly, in the “One Big Beautiful Bill”, Congress included this appropriation to give the Department of Defense the funds needed to address the Rand Study concerns:
$2,900,000,000 to supplement the basic allowance for housing payable to members of the Army, Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps, and Space Force , notwithstanding section 403 of title 37, United States Code
It was this appropriation that Trump used to pay the Warrior Dividend. In other words, he took money that military members were already set to receive in the form of increased housing allowances, changed it to a flat one-time housing allowance increase, and deceptively rebranded it as his own Warrior Dividend.
So this was legal—but deceptive. Moreover, it is not consistent with the concerns that Congress had in mind. Indeed, many servicemembers will actually receive far less money than they would have received had congressional intent been respected. Based on the Rand Study, Congress was concerned that in many areas where rents were increasing rapidly, the rents paid by service members far exceeded the housing allowance. For servicemembers in these areas, the $1776 bonus will actually be far less than the increase they would have received in their housing allowance had the Department adjusted the housing allowance—as Congress intended—based on local market conditions.
The bottom line? This is a legal and welcome bonus for servicemembers. But it is money that servicemembers were already scheduled to receive, and many servicemembers in high rent areas are being shortchanged.
I agree that a sliding scale would be more appropriate, and if the computations are out of date that needs to be fixed. But there is another calculation that can easily be done. Congress appropriated $2.9B for this, which would be $2000 per person, but this expenditure of $1776 per person is only $2.5B. Did he actually short-change all service members, not just some of them? What happens or happened to the rest of the money?
Thanks for the insight Mr. Blanchard.
I am Active Duty; barely. I'm retiring December 22nd, 2025 (just a few days left). 20 years Army.
I received the $1,776 payment yesterday. I must say that it was most welcome, especially just before Christmas, to a family that lives paycheck-to-paycheck. A large swath of Americans manage (loose word) their finances this way. Although disproportionately affecting families of lower income, many high income families live paycheck-to-paycheck as well.
All these folks know the financial stress the holiday season can bring and I'm sure they can understand the great impact this payment has on military families. I can imagine some active duty parents exhaling deeply with a tear or two of joy when they saw the payment on their bank statement. That toy for their toddler they couldn't afford. That live Douglas Fir that was just out of reach. The holiday ham and the pride in hosting their family with a fine meal and a bottle of Christmas wine. All of this made possible because President Trump "rebranded" and timed the military housing supplement in a way that honors all active duty military for their service.
President Trump distilled the spirit of the appropriation that congress approved, enabling the public honoring of our military and active duty service members while allowing them to receive the payment with a sense of pride. Don't forget that it was President Trump that signed this bill into law.
You are absolutely correct that the flat distribution of funds is not the most effective or efficient way of addressing the poor management of military housing allowance market adjustments. It is also true that this paltry (relatively speaking) allowance, however well distributed, does not address the root of the problem.
In light of this, we should consider that President Trump may have deftly managed this appropriation in a way that actually addresses the greatest negative impact of poor housing allowance management; the negative impact on the morale of active duty families.
It's important to note that this "Warrior Dividend" payment was sent to every active duty service member from E-1 to O6, regardless if they were eligible for or currently receiving a housing allowance. I have no argument that this deviates from the nature of the bill for this appropriation. I do have an opinion that President Trump's creative use of Presidential power in this case, and many others, is a great demonstration of his effectiveness as Commander in Chief and President of our nation.
I understand your perspective and characterization of President Trump. My perspective is very different. I wish I had further insight into how you developed your views. They seem to be bent on attacking the President's character. I've always held the belief that the military doesn't need Drill Sergeants that are pillars of morality. We need Drill Sergeants that produce well trained, effective soldiers to win our Nation's wars. In the same way, I don't believe we should look to our President as the Nation's moral authority.
For too long we have done this. We have idolized Presidents. The office is not the papacy.
Americans should be looking to their God or the moral pillars of their own family for guidance of this nature.
We need a President that is effective in executing the office and it's responsibilities.
We have a President that is doing so in spades.