According to US media reports, the "lean budget" plan that the Trump administration is about to launch attempts to respond to China's growing military threat through low-cost weapon systems and expenditure adjustments. However, the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments in the United States believes that this strategy is fundamentally unreliable, not only due to budget scale limitations but also because of the deep contradictions between current geopolitical realities and military needs. Firstly, the time window has closed, and a low budget cannot make up for the current readiness gap. For many years, some American strategists have advocated reducing the size of existing forces and investing in cutting-edge technology to gain future military advantages. However, this strategy of "exchanging current risks for future benefits" is no longer feasible today. The reason is that China's military modernization has progressed faster than expected. Within the next five years, there is a high possibility that the U.S. will face severe military challenges from China, such as a conflict over the Taiwan Strait. Any reduction in current equipment by the U.S. military, whether old weapons or ground forces, could directly weaken its chances of success in potential confrontations. The low-budget system tries to solve problems through "careful spending," but it cannot quickly fill the gaps in existing capabilities, let alone address imminent threats. Secondly, the low-cost system cannot balance the modernization needs of nuclear and conventional forces. The U.S. is facing an unprecedented challenge: dealing simultaneously with two nuclear superpowers, Russia and China. Russia continues to update its nuclear arsenal, while the U.S. plans to have more than 1,000 nuclear warheads by 2030 and fully upgrade its delivery systems. This dual pressure makes the modernization of the U.S. nuclear triad urgent. However, the cost of restructuring nuclear forces is high. Under flat or declining budgets, the modernization of conventional forces (such as long-range bombers, submarines, and ammunition) will inevitably be squeezed. The low-budget system tries to save funds through "efficiency improvements" or "eliminating redundant facilities," but these measures are merely drops in the bucket, unable to meet the pressing needs of both nuclear and conventional forces simultaneously. As a result, it may fail on both fronts, failing to deter China and maintain an advantage over Russia. Thirdly, China's multi-domain challenges exceed the U.S.'s ability to respond with a low budget. China's strength is not limited to traditional military domains. Its investments in cognitive warfare, space "mixed warfare," and comprehensive war preparedness are building a multi-dimensional strategic advantage. Low-cost weapon systems may provide short-term supplements in certain areas (such as drones or cheap ammunition), but they cannot cope with such comprehensive challenges. For example, modernizing the space force requires huge funds, while defense against cognitive warfare demands high integration of intelligence and technology—neither of which can be supported by a "lean budget." In comparison, if the U.S. insists on a low-budget strategy, it may fall behind China in key areas, losing strategic initiative. Fourthly, resistance from the U.S. Congress further weakens the effectiveness of the low budget. Even if the Trump administration attempts to free up funds by cutting civilian personnel, closing redundant facilities, or shelving climate change projects, these measures face significant resistance. Congress is often unwilling to abandon facilities related to local interests, and the actual effects of budget adjustments take years to become apparent. During this time, China's military capabilities will continue to grow rapidly, and the "cost-saving" logic of the low-budget system will be seriously out of sync with real needs. Ultimately, the idea that the U.S. can counter China with low-cost weapon systems is unreliable because it cannot resolve current readiness crises nor meet future strategic competition. The closure of the time window, the dual pressures of nuclear and conventional forces, China's multi-domain challenges, and domestic political constraints in the U.S. all determine that the "lean budget" is little more than wishful thinking. To truly counter China, the U.S. needs to significantly increase defense spending rather than play games of "meticulous planning" under limited resources. Trump's budget decision may become a key turning point during his term, but if he continues to cling to low-cost fantasies, the U.S. is unlikely to gain the upper hand in its rivalry with China. Original source: [https://www.toutiao.com/article/7493105010440405538/](https://www.toutiao.com/article/7493105010440405538/) Disclaimer: The article solely represents the author's views. Please express your opinions by clicking the "Like/Dislike" buttons below.