WASHINGTON — U.S. Rep. Seth Moulton is blasting President Trump’s plan to slash the State Department budget by more than a third — as well as comments the president made about the ability of U.S. troops to win wars.

“His comments are disgusting,” Moulton, a former Marine who served four tours of duty in Iraq, told the Herald.

Monday, in proposing a $54 billion military spending boost, Trump said, “When I was young … we never lost a war. America never lost. And, now, we never win a war.”

“It proves once again that he has no respect for our troops or our veterans or for the sacrifices that we have made,” said Moulton, a Salem Democrat.

Moulton joined lawmakers on both sides of the aisle in opposing a White House plan to slash the budget of the State Department and U.S. Agency for International Development by as much as 37 percent to help pay for proposed increases in military spending.

Officials familiar with the proposal said yesterday that the cuts would focus on development assistance programs and diplomatic missions, and will lead to layoffs and staffing reductions that would include security contractors.

“He does not understand how to keep America safe,” Moulton told the Herald. “(Defense) Secretary Mattis has said many times, if you cut the State Department budget it will cost the lives of troops, and yet that is exactly what Trump has proposed.”

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) voiced similar sentiments yesterday.

“I for one, just speaking for myself, think the diplomatic portion of the federal budget is very important, and you get results a lot cheaper frequently than you do on the defense side,” McConnell said.

In an NBC interview, U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) declared Trump’s budget “dead on arrival” in Congress based on the State Department cuts.

As for Trump’s proposed 10 percent hike in military spending, Moulton said that while there are some areas where more funding is needed — particularly supporting active-duty troops — that can be offset by taking other cost-saving measures, such as renegotiating nuclear arms treaties.

“If we can reduce our nuclear arsenal in exchange for arms reductions from the Russians, that will require less investment in our costly nuclear deterrence,” Moulton said. “We could literally save billions if we did need to maintain as many nuclear weapons. Some of the savings could go to front-lines troops who always get the short end of the stick.”