A new report released on Monday has found that as much as half of the Pentagon’s combined budgets from FY2001 to FY2020 — which amounted to about $14 trillion — went to the military contractors.
The Center for International Policy’s Bill Hartung, in coordination with Brown University’s Costs of War Project, says that of that $14 trillion, “$4.4 trillion went for weapons procurement and research and development (R&D), categories that primarily benefit corporate contractors.” But that figure is a low-end estimate, as the report explains:
The $4.4 trillion figure is a conservative estimate of the pool of funding Pentagon contractors have drawn from in the two decades since 9/11. The Pentagon’s massive budget for operations and maintenance (O&M) also subsidizes contractors, but it is harder to determine what share of this category goes to private firms.
The report also found that of that $4.4 trillion, the top five weapons firms — Lockheed Martin, Boeing, General Dynamics, Raytheon, and Northrop Grumman — received about half, at $2.1 trillion in Pentagon contracts. That finding roughly lines up with another recent estimate from Stephen Semler, co-founder of the Security Policy Reform Institute.
To put these numbers into perspective, Hartung singled out what the Pentagon doled out to Lockheed Martin during FY2020 — $75 billion. By comparison, the State Department and USAID’s combined budgets for that year was just $44 billion.
Hartung also notes that Pentagon contractors spent upwards of $2.5 billion lobbying Congress during the same time period. Indeed, the top five companies accounted for just about half that total. Responsible Statecraft’s Eli Clifton recently noted that their investment yielded quite a return, as those top five firms “earned $1,813 in Pentagon contracts for every dollar spent on lobbying.”
The report adds that these staggering figures were in part fueled by corruption. “Numerous companies took advantage of wartime conditions—which require speed of delivery and often involve less rigorous oversight—to overcharge the government or engage in outright fraud,” a report summary noted. “In 2011, the Commission on Wartime Contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan estimated that waste, fraud and abuse had totaled between $31 billion and $60 billion.”
Ben Armbruster is the Managing Editor of Responsible Statecraft. He has more than a decade of experience working at the intersection of politics, foreign policy, and media. Ben previously held senior editorial and management positions at Media Matters, ThinkProgress, ReThink Media, and Win Without War.
Europeans are surprised and frustrated by President Trump’s decision to call Russian President Putin without consulting Ukrainian President Zelenskyy or other European leadership.
The president made good on his promise to begin negotiations with Russia by having a phone call with President Vladimir Putin on Wednesday, which he described as “lengthy and highly productive” and indicated that further negotiations would begin “immediately.”
“We agreed to work together, very closely, including visiting each other’s nations,” Trump posted on social media. “We have also agreed to have our respective teams start negotiations immediately, and we will begin by calling President Zelenskyy of Ukraine to inform him of the conversation, something which I will be doing right now.”
The president subsequently had a call with the Ukrainian president, during which they discussed opportunities to achieve peace, the U.S.’s readiness to work together at the team level, and Ukraine's technological capabilities -- including drones and other “advanced industries,” according to Zelenskyy.
Many European leaders saw Trump’s call with Putin as a betrayal. The European Union’s foreign policy chief, Kaja Kallas, said that the Americans were giving Russia “everything that they want even before the negotiations” and that any agreement made without the Europeans “will simply not work.”
“This is not how others do foreign policy, but this is now the reality,” said German foreign minister Annalena Baerbock. She insisted negotiations should not “go over the heads of the Ukrainians.”
Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth defended President Trump’s call with Putin, saying that “there is no betrayal there,” but a “recognition that the whole world and the United States is invested and interested in peace, a negotiated peace.” He also softened his comments on Ukrainian NATO membership, saying that “everything is on the table in his (Trump’s) conversations with Vladimir Putin and Volodymyr Zelenskyy.”
Trump said he and Putin may meet for an initial discussion at an undetermined date in Saudi Arabia because “we know the crown prince, and I think it’d be a very good place to be.” Vice President JD Vance will meet with Zeleskyy today on the sidelines of the Munich Security Conference.
On Thursday, after the call, the Kremlin’s spokesperson, Dmitry Peskov, said that the “position of the current (U.S.) administration is much more appealing.” For his part, Zelenskyy noted that he was not pleased that Trump chose to speak with Putin before himself and made it clear that Ukraine “cannot accept it, as an independent country, any agreements (made) without us.” However, he told reporters that he and Trump were “charting our next steps to stop Russian aggression and ensure a lasting, reliable peace. As President Trump said, ‘Let’s get it done.’”
“The Trump-Putin call and Defense Secretary Hegseth's subsequent statement signals a long overdue willingness by Washington not only to engage the Russians in wide-ranging, impactful discussions but to countenance the concessions necessary to make a deal stick,” the Quincy Institute's Mark Episkopos told RS. “The hard work of squaring U.S., European, Ukrainian, and Russian positions is still ahead, and all sides should be prepared for what will be a winding, tortuous road to a negotiated settlement.”
He added, “still, the administration has just taken a colossal leap forward not just to resolve the Ukraine war but to stake out a new, more propitious architecture of European security and to reap all of the long-term geopolitical rewards therefrom.”
According to The Washington Post, Russian authorities released an American prisoner, Marc Fogel, after being imprisoned for three and a half years on drug charges. Trump said that a Russian prisoner would be released to Moscow as part of a deal with the Kremlin and added that the exchange “could be a big, important part in getting the war over."
Ukraine may be open to giving the United States access to its mineral industry in exchange for continued financial assistance. In an interview with the Associated Press, Zelenskyy's chief of staff, Andrii Yermak, remarked, “we really have this big potential in the territory which we control." He continued, “we are interested to work, to develop, with our partners, first of all, with the United States.” Trump showed support for such a plan earlier this month.
China has said it is ready to play a significant role in the Ukraine-Russia negotiation process. The Wall Street Journalreported that “the offer, however, is being met with skepticism in the U.S. and Europe, given deep concerns over the increasingly close ties between Beijing and Moscow.” The Journal speculates that this offer could be a vehicle for Xi to increase contact with President Trump as he seeks to negotiate away from the aggressive economic measures promised by the Trump administration.
There were no Department of State press briefings this week.
keep readingShow less
Top image credit: President Donald J. Trump greets Marc Fogel at the White House after his release from a Russian prison, Tuesday, February 11, 2025. (Official White House Photo by Daniel Torok)
In less than 3 weeks, President Trump secured a ceasefire in Gaza, spoke directly to Russian President Vladimir Putin and Ukrainian President Volodomyr Zelensky, and kickstarted diplomacy to end the Ukraine war. At the same time, he has also put forward some idiotic ideas, such as pushing Palestinians out of Gaza and making Canada the 51st state.
But it raises important questions: Why didn't the Biden administration choose to push for an end to the wars in Gaza and Ukraine? Why didn't the majority of the Democrats demand it? Instead, they went down the path of putting Liz Cheney on a pedestal and having Kamala Harris brag about having the most lethal military in the world while Trump positioned himself as a peace candidate — justifiably or not.
Undoubtedly, Trump's plans in Gaza may make matters worse and his diplomacy with Putin may fail. But that isn't the point.
The point is: Why did Trump choose to pursue diplomacy and seek an end to the wars, and why did the Democrats under Biden choose to transform the party into one that embraced war and glorified warmongers like Cheney, while protecting and enabling a genocide?
What happened that caused the party to vilify its own voices for peace — such as Reps. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) and Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) — while embracing some of the architects of the Iraq war?
And all of this, of course, in complete defiance of where the party base was (throughout the Gaza war, the base supported a ceasefire with 70% majority, for instance).
A profound reckoning is needed within the Democratic Party to save it from slipping into becoming neocon by default.
And with the pace at which Trump is moving, that reckoning needs to come fast. It will, for instance, be a severe mistake if the party positions itself to the right of Trump and reflexively opposes him on every foreign policy issue instead of basing the party's positions on solid principles, such as centering diplomacy, military restraint, and peace. Trump currently speaks more about peace than the Democrats do.
A senior Democratic lawmaker asked me rhetorically last week if I knew anyone who was happy with the foreign policy of Biden and voted for Harris on that basis.
I was happy to hear that the question was being asked. That's a good first step.
Europeans increasingly see the United States as a “necessary partner” rather than an “ally,” according to a new poll of 14 European countries released Wednesday by the European Council on Foreign Relations.
The survey of more than 18,000 adults across the continent was conducted in the weeks following the U.S. presidential elections on Nov. 5, in which Donald Trump defeated his Democratic rival, Kamala Harris.
Trump did not take office until Jan 20, although his skepticism about transatlantic cooperation and NATO and his criticism of the European Union during his previous tenure as president (2017-2021) and during the election campaign were well known in Europe.
“Our new poll highlights a remarkable shift in public opinion — and, as a headline, the potential death knell of the Transatlantic Alliance,” asserted Arturo Varvelli, an ECFR senior fellow who co-authored a report that accompanied the poll’s release. “That Europeans, today, see the United States more as a ‘necessary partner’ than an ‘ally’ speaks to a collapse of trust in Washington’s foreign policy agenda.”
Fourteen countries were covered by the survey, including Bulgaria, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain, Switzerland, the UK, and Ukraine. All of the countries except the UK and Ukraine are EU members, and all except Ukraine are members of NATO.
The survey and the accompanying report, “Transatlantic twilight: European public opinion and the long shadow of Trump,” also found that Europeans believe that peace talks between Ukraine and Russia are imminent and that the most likely outcome of the nearly three-year-old war will be a “compromise settlement” in which neither country will achieve its optimal outcome.
Majorities or pluralities of respondents in even what have been the most hawkish countries, notably Estonia, Denmark, the UK, and Poland, appear reconciled to such an outcome, although they also support continuing to supply Kyiv with the weapons it needs to continue its fight.
Coincidentally, the poll’s release came on the same day that Trump held what he described as a “lengthy and highly productive phone call” with Russian President Vladimir Putin centered in major part on ending the war in Ukraine, characterizing it as the beginning of a negotiation to end the war in Ukraine, and that his defense secretary, Pete Hegseth, told a NATO meeting Ukraine’s hopes of restoring its pre-2014 borders were “unrealistic.”
The poll also found that Europeans still see China less favorably than the United States. An average of 43% of respondents across the continent said they see China as a “necessary partner” or “ally” of the EU, 35% said they regard it as a “rival” or “adversary.” The most pro-China sentiment was found in southern Europe, particularly Bulgaria, Hungary, Spain, Romania, Italy, and Portugal. Majorities or pluralities with much less favorable view were found in Germany, Denmark, the UK, and France, respectively.
But the most significant finding, according to the ECFR analysts, was the prevailing view in every EU member state and the UK that the U.S. could no longer be seen as an “ally,” but rather as a “necessary partner.”
That assessment held for respondents in even the traditionally most Atlanticist-oriented countries, such as Poland where 45% of respondents said “necessary partner” vs 31% “ally) and Denmark (53% vs. 30%), and even the UK (44% vs. 37%), which has enjoyed a “special relationship” with Washington dating back to the Second World War. Only 18 months earlier, majorities in those countries saw the US primarily as an ally.
Those countries where respondents were most likely to view the U.S. as a “necessary partner” included Ukraine (67% vs. 27%), Spain (57% vs. 14%), Estonia (55% vs. 28%), Portugal (55% vs. 18%) and Italy (53% vs. 18%).
ECFR’s analysts viewed this shift as potentially tectonic and attributed it mostly to perceptions of Trump based on his previous administration and statements.
“Donald Trump’s recent actions towards historic US allies show that the Atlantic community is no longer underpinned by shared values,” according to Jana Puglierin, a senior ECFR fellow and co-author of the report. “In a world of Trump 2.0, transactionality reigns… For EU leaders, this will require a positional shift, away from the Washington-led status quo, towards one that showcases internal unity and an ability for Europe to exert its own influence on the world stage.”
Whether such a shift is possible, however, will depend to a significant extent on whether such unity can be achieved.
Indeed, the poll found major divisions among respondents in different members states of views regarding Trump. Asked whether Trump’s return to power was a “good” or “bad” development, respondents in southeastern Europe, particularly in Hungary, Bulgaria, and Romania, were more likely to see the president as positive for their own countries and world peace.
Conversely, clear majorities in Denmark, the UK, and Germany said they saw Trump’s return as “bad” news for their own countries and world peace.
While large majorities of respondents who identified with far-right parties in Hungary, Poland, and Italy said they believed Trump would be good for their countries and world peace, pluralities of self-described partisans of Germany’s AfD party and France’s Rassemblement National said they thought the U.S. president would be “bad” for their countries and world peace.
As for attitudes towards the EU itself, the report identified four groups: “Euro-optimists,” the largest group at 30% of respondents and strongest in Estonia, Denmark, Ukraine, Spain and Portugal, were inclined to see the Union as a great power unlikely to collapse within the next 20 years; “Europessimists” (22%) who disagree with both propositions and who are strongest among right-wing parties across the continent; “Euro-realists” (17%) who don’t think the EU will fail but are skeptical of its power and are strongest in Denmark, Ukraine, Poland, and Germany); and “Euro-mortalists” (11%) who see It as a great power but vulnerable to collapse.
The apparent decline in trust and confidence in the U.S.-European relationship, as evidenced by the downgrade from “ally” to “necessary partner” should prompt greater realism among leaders who support the EU, the report stressed. “This finding alone should sharpen minds about the need for Europe to embrace greater pragmatism and autonomy in its global dealings, as a means of protecting its citizens and values in the coming period,” according to Varbelli.
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.