Follow us on social

Shutterstock_1755637343-scaled

Tax burden from the Pentagon budget authorized by the NDAA wipes out COVID stimulus payments

Despite widespread calls to modestly reduce the Pentagon's overflowing coffers to confront other priorities during a pandemic, Congress carries on with business as usual.

Analysis | Reporting | Washington Politics

Bipartisan majorities in the House and Senate this week approved a $740 billion national defense authorization bill (NDAA), setting up negotiations for a final version, which will almost certainly pose a major boon for defense contractors, passing along a tax bill that by comparison more than wipes out the average tax filer’s COVID-19 stimulus check.

The extent of the NDAA’s historical financial benefit to defense contractors is staggering, with, for example, over half of the 2019 total defense-related discretionary spending — $370 billion of $676 billion — going to contractors, according to Brown University’s Costs of War Project. 

Assuming this pace continues, the 2021 NDAA could pass along more than $370 billion to defense contractors, many of whom have contributed generously to politicians, like Rep. Rob Wittman (R-Va.), the top recipient of defense contractor campaign contributions in 2018, who authored a recent op-ed making “The Case for Robust Defense Spending.”

On the other side of the aisle, Democrats who voted against an amendment to cut the military budget by 10 percent received 3.4 times as much in campaign contributions from the defense industry than those who voted for the amendment.

The NDAA and its windfall for defense contractors is particularly troubling amid the COVID-19 pandemic which has, in addition to the public health crisis, caused economic turmoil, record unemployment levels, and federal efforts to inject liquidity into financial markets.

In March, the government sought to buoy the economy and blunt the economic impact of the pandemic with “Economic Impact Payments,” more commonly known as “coronavirus stimulus payments.” According to CNBC, the average payment was $1,809 per tax filer, which could be individuals or married couples filing jointly.

The long-term benefits of that payment to tax filers are dwarfed by the costs imposed on taxpayers by the defense budget and payments to defense contractors that Congress authorized in this year’s NDAA.

The IRS anticipates 155.1 million tax returns to be filed in 2020, meaning the cost of the upcoming NDAA will be, on average, $4,711.11 per tax filer, completely wiping out the stimulus payment and imposing an additional $2,902.11 burden per filer.

Just the portion of the NDAA destined for defense contractors, $370 billion or $2,385.55 per average tax filer, wipes out the average stimulus payment and imposes a $576.55 tax burden per filer.

Even the potential Senate Republican-led second stimulus proposal won’t fully unburden taxpayers from the NDAA’s massive discretionary spending on the military and defense contractors. The proposed legislation would include a $1,200 stimulus check to some Americans. That payment, combined with the average $1,809 payment from the March stimulus, would cover the average tax filer’s portion of the NDAA costs benefiting defense contractors but would still leave them with a $1,702.11 financial burden from overall annual defense spending.

Of course, the immediate cost per-tax filer might be deferred via deficit spending, but the national debt currently exceeding $26 trillion — over $167,000 per anticipated 2020 tax filer and over $80,000 per U.S. citizen — should raise questions about the role of the defense budget, which is the second largest category of federal spending after social security, and represents more than half of the discretionary budget. Moreover, U.S. defense expenditures exceed the annual combined defense spending of China, India, Russia, Saudi Arabia, France, Germany, the U.K., Japan, South Korea, and Brazil.

That levies a large bill on taxpayers, either in immediate taxes or assumed portion of the national debt, but Lockheed Martin President James D. Taiclet was decidedly upbeat on a July 21 earnings call, in which he beamed that “our portfolio was supported” in the NDAA. He said:

"[There are] encouraging elements for our portfolio is [sic] the Senate version confirmed that the national defense strategy remains the roadmap for the armed services. And the bill was passed with strong bipartisan support. Our portfolio was well supported in the Senate version for the recommended increase of 16 F-35 aircraft above the President's request, additional funding for missile defense priorities including an 8 THAAD battery and increased funding for the Homeland Defense Radar Hawaii program. Congress will continue with the authorization and appropriation spaces. We look forward to the finalization of the process in supporting our warfighters needs."

While the “warfighters needs” are arguably not supported from a combination of endless wars in the Middle East, a ballooning national debt burden at home, and a pandemic that’s spurring unemployment levels to rise over 10 percent, there are at least two beneficiaries from the NDAA: politicians who rely on defense contractor campaign contributions and defense contractors who see “encouraging elements” for their “portfolio” from the industry’s $2,385.55 annual burden on each tax filer.


Photo: bgrocker/Shutterstock.com
Analysis | Reporting | Washington Politics
Iran
Top image credit: An Iranian man (not pictured) carries a portrait of the former commander of the IRGC Aerospace Forces, Brigadier General Amir Ali Hajizadeh, and participates in a funeral for the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) commanders, Iranian nuclear scientists, and civilians who are killed in Israeli attacks, in Tehran, Iran, on June 28, 2025, during the Iran-Israel ceasefire. (Photo by Morteza Nikoubazl/NurPhoto VIA REUTERS)

First it was regime change, now they want to break Iran apart

Middle East

Washington’s foreign policy establishment has a dangerous tendency to dismantle nations it deems adversarial. Now, neoconservative think tanks like the Washington-based Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) and their fellow travelers in the European Parliament are openly promoting the balkanization of Iran — a reckless strategy that would further destabilize the Middle East, trigger catastrophic humanitarian crises, and provoke fierce resistance from both Iranians and U.S. partners.

As Israel and Iran exchanged blows in mid-June, FDD’s Brenda Shaffer argued that Iran’s multi-ethnic makeup was a vulnerability to be exploited. Shaffer has been a vocal advocate for Azerbaijan in mainstream U.S. media, even as she has consistently failed to disclose her ties to Azerbaijan’s state oil company, SOCAR. For years, she has pushed for Iran’s fragmentation along ethnic lines, akin to the former Yugoslavia’s collapse. She has focused much of that effort on promoting the secession of Iranian Azerbaijan, where Azeris form Iran’s largest non-Persian group.

keep readingShow less
Ratcliffe Gabbard
Top image credit: Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and CIA director John Ratcliffe join a meeting with U.S. President Donald Trump and his intelligence team in the Situation Room at the White House in Washington, D.C., U.S. June 21, 2025. The White House/Handout via REUTERS

Trump's use and misuse of Iran intel

Middle East

President Donald Trump has twice, within the space of a week, been at odds with U.S. intelligence agencies on issues involving Iran’s nuclear program. In each instance, Trump was pushing his preferred narrative, but the substantive differences in the two cases were in opposite directions.

Before the United States joined Israel’s attack on Iran, Trump dismissed earlier testimony by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, in which she presented the intelligence community’s judgment that “Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and Supreme Leader Khamanei has not authorized the nuclear weapons program he suspended in 2003.” Questioned about this testimony, Trump said, “she’s wrong.”

keep readingShow less
Mohammad Bin Salman Trump Ayatollah Khomenei
Top photo credit: Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad Bin Salman (President of the Russian Federation/Wikimedia Commons); U.S. President Donald Trump (Gage Skidmore/Flickr) and Iran’s Ayatollah Khamenei (Wikimedia Commons)

Let's make a deal: Enrichment path that both Iran, US can agree on

Middle East

The recent conflict, a direct confrontation that pitted Iran against Israel and drew in U.S. B-2 bombers, has likely rendered the previous diplomatic playbook for Tehran's nuclear program obsolete.

The zero-sum debates concerning uranium enrichment that once defined that framework now represent an increasingly unworkable approach.

Although a regional nuclear consortium had been previously advanced as a theoretical alternative, the collapse of talks as a result of military action against Iran now positions it as the most compelling path forward for all parties.

Before the war, Iran was already suggesting a joint uranium enrichment facility with Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) on Iranian soil. For Iran, this framework could achieve its primary goal: the preservation of a domestic nuclear program and, crucially, its demand to maintain some enrichment on its own territory. The added benefit is that it embeds Iran within a regional security architecture that provides a buffer against unilateral attack.

For Gulf actors, it offers unprecedented transparency and a degree of control over their rival-turned-friend’s nuclear activities, a far better outcome than a possible covert Iranian breakout. For a Trump administration focused on deals, it offers a tangible, multilateral framework that can be sold as a blueprint for regional stability.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.