U.S. spends billions a day on war — but could that money end global hunger? Video
The United States has been spending well over $1 billion per day on warfare, with early estimates from the Iran conflict suggesting roughly $11.3 billion in just one week of operations.
That figure sits within a broader pattern of how the U.S. remains the world’s largest military spender as it allocates close to $1 trillion annually, more than the next nine countries combined.
While these huge sums are deployed daily for military activities, hundreds of millions of people still lack access to basic food.
According to the UN World Food Programme, ending global hunger by 2030 could cost around $93 billion per year, which is less than 1% of what the world has spent on military budgets over the past decade.
Yet, the U.S. alone spends roughly $2.7–$3 billion per day on defence when annual budgets are broken down into daily figures.
In simple terms, a fraction of global military expenditure could fund large-scale hunger reduction programmes.
In fact, the same conflicts that drive military spending often worsen hunger directly by displacing populations and disrupting agriculture.
A UN Development Programme report warns that rising military budgets are “diverting resources from the very foundations of stability,” including food systems and development.
The Boston Consulting Group notes that investment in sustainable agriculture can be four times more cost-effective than direct food aid, yet it receives only a small share of global funding.
So could the U.S. “solve world hunger” by redirecting war spending?
Reallocating hundreds of billions of dollars could dramatically reduce hunger. But ending it entirely would require sustained global coordination, institutional reform and long-term investment beyond emergency feeding.
But although the world can afford to end hunger, is it willing to prioritise it?
This story is written and edited by the Global South World team, you can contact us here.
