Follow us on social

google cta
Shutterstock_610061759-scaled

Report: Weapons industry pocketed at least $4.4 trillion since 9/11

Military contractors may have even ended up with as much as one-half of the Pentagon’s $14 trillion allocation from Congress.

Reporting | QiOSK
google cta
google cta

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.”


Image: Pavel Chagochkin via shutterstock.com
google cta
Reporting | QiOSK
Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi
Top photo credit: Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi 首相官邸 (Cabinet Public Affairs Office)

Takaichi 101: How to torpedo relations with China in a month

Asia-Pacific

On November 7, Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi stated that a Chinese attack on Taiwan could undoubtedly be “a situation that threatens Japan’s survival,” thereby implying that Tokyo could respond by dispatching Self-Defense Forces.

This statement triggered the worst crisis in Sino-Japanese relations in over a decade because it reflected a transformation in Japan’s security policy discourse, defense posture, and U.S.-Japan defense cooperation in recent years. Understanding this transformation requires dissecting the context as well as content of Takaichi’s parliamentary remarks.

keep readingShow less
Starmer, Macron, Merz G7
Top photo credit: Prime Minister Keir Starmer meets Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, French President Emmanuel Macron, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney and António Costa, President of the European Council at the G7 world leaders summit in Kananaskis, June 15, 2025. Picture by Simon Dawson / No 10 Downing Street

The Europeans pushing the NATO poison pill

Europe

The recent flurry of diplomatic activity surrounding Ukraine has revealed a stark transatlantic divide. While high level American and Ukrainian officials have been negotiating the U.S. peace plan in Geneva, European powers have been scrambling to influence a process from which they risk being sidelined.

While Europe has to be eventually involved in a settlement of the biggest war on its territory after World War II, so far it’s been acting more like a spoiler than a constructive player.

keep readingShow less
Sudan
Top image credit: A Sudanese army soldier stands next to a destroyed combat vehicle as Sudan's army retakes ground and some displaced residents return to ravaged capital in the state of Khartoum Sudan March 26, 2025. REUTERS/El Tayeb Siddig
Will Sudan attack the UAE?

Saudi leans in hard to get UAE out of Sudan civil war

Middle East

As Saudi Arabia’s powerful crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman (MBS), swept through Washington last week, the agenda was predictably packed with deals: a trillion-dollar investment pledge, access to advanced F-35 fighter jets, and coveted American AI technology dominated the headlines. Yet tucked within these transactions was a significant development for the civil war in Sudan.

Speaking at the U.S.-Saudi Investment Forum President Donald Trump said that Sudan “was not on my charts,” viewing the conflict as “just something that was crazy and out of control” until the Saudi leader pressed the issue. “His majesty would like me to do something very powerful having to do with Sudan,” Trump recounted, adding that MBS framed it as an opportunity for greatness.

The crown prince’s intervention highlights a crucial new reality that the path to peace, or continued war, in Sudan now runs even more directly through the escalating rivalry between Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE). The fate of Sudan is being forged in the Gulf, and its future will be decided by which side has more sway in Trump’s White House.

keep readingShow less
google cta
Want more of our stories on Google?
Click here to make us a Preferred Source.

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.