Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Fact check: What would be the estimated cost of establishing a new national defense system for an independent California?
Executive Summary
An authoritative cost estimate for creating a full-fledged national defense system for an independent California is not present in the provided material; available figures instead offer partial, context-specific data points — notably a $134 million estimate for a 60-day deployment of approximately 4,100 National Guard and 700 Marines to Los Angeles and large Department of Defense contract values that illustrate scale but not a statewide force structure cost [1] [2] [3]. Any credible statewide defense-price projection would require detailed assumptions about force size, capabilities, infrastructure, and sustainment that the current documents do not supply [4] [5].
1. Why a single deployment number cannot stand in for a national budget shocker
The $134 million figure for a 60-day deployment of roughly 4,800 personnel into Los Angeles offers a tangible, short-term operational cost benchmark, but it is explicitly a temporary domestic operation and not a construction-cost datum for establishing an enduring national defense architecture. Multiple analyses caution that the deployment figure reflects mobilization, transport, lodging, and immediate operational expenses for specific units, and therefore cannot be simply annualized or scaled to represent building an entire armed force, naval, air, cyber, and sustainment base for a sovereign state [2] [6] [1]. Using it without further assumptions risks massive underestimation.
2. Contract values reveal defense-industrial scale — but not a nation’s price tag
DoD contract totals cited in the analyses — including nearly $1 billion for missile production support and other contracts in the hundreds of millions — illustrate the unit costs of high-end systems and infrastructure yet do not equate to a national defense budget. These contract-level numbers indicate that individual platforms, weapon programs, and facilities can each reach into the hundreds of millions or billions, meaning that a comprehensive force with air, naval, ground, logistics, and cyber capabilities would multiply such contracts across many categories [3]. Translating program contracts into a sovereign budget requires mapping required capabilities to procurement, R&D, and sustainment lines.
3. The U.S. Defense Budget gives scale but not a blueprint for secessionist armies
The FY 2025 U.S. Department of Defense budget request of $849.8 billion provides a context for the scale of modern national defense spending, showing how much a large established nation spends to maintain global power projection, R&D, bases, and personnel [4]. However, that figure bundles global commitments, alliance spending, and nuclear deterrence that an independent California might choose to pursue or abandon. Therefore, the DoD request is a high-end comparator rather than a direct analogue; deriving California-specific costs would require decisions on mission scope, alliance structures, and whether nuclear, strategic airlift, or carrier capabilities are sought [4].
4. Domestic missions and Guard deployments highlight political choices and costs
The analyses include the California National Guard’s domestic deployments related to federal operations and shutdowns, showing the dual-use nature of state forces and how political context drives expenditures [7]. The $120–$134 million reported for the LA deployment reflects state and federal cost-sharing complexities and underscores that establishing a national military would shift these relationships, likely increasing baseline costs for peacetime readiness, training, and federal-equivalent support systems absent Washington’s resources [1] [2]. Any estimate must therefore include transition costs from state-controlled Guard to a national force with independent logistics, pay, and procurement.
5. What the provided sources agree on — and where they diverge sharply
All supplied analyses agree that no single document gives a full estimate for an independent California’s defense system and that cited figures are contextual, not comprehensive [1] [4] [3]. Divergence appears in implied significance: deployment costs are presented by some as a useful reference point for short-term operational expenses, while contract totals are shown by others to highlight the expense of capabilities — these are complementary but non-overlapping datasets, meaning they must be integrated through explicit modeling to become an estimate [6] [3].
6. Missing assumptions that would be required to produce a credible estimate
No source supplies key assumptions: desired force structure (size of army, navy, air force, cyber units), strategic posture (defensive vs. expeditionary), industrial base capacity, alliance commitments, or timelines for build-out. Without these, attempting to compute a price is speculative. The existing items — short-term deployment costs, DoD budget magnitude, and individual contract sizes — can inform components of a model, but a defensible overall estimate requires explicit policy decisions and a multi-year financial plan that are absent from the provided materials [4] [3] [2].
7. Bottom line for policymakers and the public trying to gauge feasibility
From the available evidence, a reliable, evidence-based cost estimate for an independent California’s national defense does not exist; the best available data only establishes that individual deployments and contracts can cost tens of millions to billions, and national defense operating scales are reflected in the U.S. DoD budget [2] [3] [4]. To move forward, analysts must specify force goals and then assemble line-item costs — personnel, procurement, bases, R&D, sustainment, and transition liabilities — before any aggregate figure can be produced with credibility [1] [5].