The New York Times (Getty Images) The New York Times has found some government spending it opposes. As he prosecutes a war against the mullahs, President Donald Trump wants Congress to approve $1.5 trillion in defense spending for the 2027 fiscal year. “If enacted,” the paper warned in a piece to which nine reporters contributed, “that amount would set military spending at its highest level in modern history.” Well, yes, for lots of reasons, like inflation, the fact that Congress almost always spends more from one year to the next, and that Democratic presidents have not invested heavily in defense. And our Ira Stoll notes that it’s funny the Times hasn’t used that language to describe Democratic boondoggles: “The highest level in modern history” language is dramatic. It’s also unusual. When the New York Times writes about Democrat-proposed welfare spending or proposed tax increases, it never, or hardly ever, uses nominal current dollars to claim the “highest level in modern history.” The Office of Management and Budget’s historical table 8.4 provides outlays by category as a percentage of GDP for the years 1962 to 2025. The 2.9 percent of GDP that “national defense” spending amounted to in 2025 is a tie for the lowest level on the whole 64-year chart. Every year of the Obama administration—not known for its reckless abandon when it came to military spending—came in higher. In 2016, the final year of the Obama administration, national defense was at 3.1 percent of GDP. At 4.5 percent of GDP, defense spending would still be lower than in every year from 1962 to 1992, even lower than in 1978 and 1979 under the anemic Carter administration that was humiliated by its failed hostage rescue attempt in Iran. In 2010, under Obama, the level was 4.6 percent of GDP, so even after a Trump-proposed increase to 4.5 percent of GDP, by the percent-of-GDP measure spending would still be below Obama levels. READ MORE: On Defense Spending, a New York Times Double Standard