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?

What they said

According to William D Hartung, a senior research fellow at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, and the writer of the US Military Aid and Arms Transfers to Israel, October 2023–September 2025 report, “Given the scale of current and future spending, it is clear the [Israeli army] could not have done the damage they have done in Gaza or escalated their military activities throughout the region without US financing, weapons, and political support.”