Follow us on social

google cta
2023-04-20t173552z_1764131450_rc2fi0afq6ez_rtrmadp_3_usa-labor-senate-su-scaled

Senate bails out the weapons industry once again

A proposal this week to modestly cut the already needlessly high and wasteful Pentagon budget failed miserably.

Analysis | Military Industrial Complex
google cta
google cta

Press coverage of yesterday’s passage of the Senate version of the annual Pentagon spending bill, known formally as the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), has mostly focused on the looming battle over “culture war” provisions included in the House version of the bill, including measures that would constrain the Pentagon’s ability to promote diversity, fight racism in the ranks, and promote reproductive freedom and LGBTQ rights.

Meanwhile, neither chamber did much to question the Pentagon’s soaring budget, which could reach $1 trillion over the next few years if current trends continue. An amendment by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) that would have cut the Pentagon budget by 10 percent failed by a vote of 88 to 11, suggesting that the vast majority of members are perfectly happy throwing $886 billion at the Pentagon and the Department of Energy (for nuclear weapons work), with few questions asked and few strings attached.

The Senate vote represented a monumental failure of basic oversight that will set the stage for billions of dollars of waste even as it makes America and its allies less safe. Based on a CBS 60 Minutes investigation earlier this year and a hearing convened this week by Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), routine price gouging by weapons contractors and unaccountable spending by the Pentagon are back in the spotlight.  

There are endless examples of contractors overcharging the Pentagon and fleecing the taxpayer. Sen. Warren mentioned just a few in this week’s hearing: paying $1,500 for a medical device that could be purchased at Walmart for $192; giving Boeing $70 for a pin that was worth four cents; and paying $1,800 for vaccines that normally cost $125. And as 60 Minutes noted after interviewing former Pentagon procurement official Shay Assad, “[t]he Pentagon, he told us, overpays for almost everything – for radar and missiles … helicopters … planes … submarines… down to the nuts and bolts.” Indeed, RS reported recently that the Pentagon paid nearly $52,000 for a trash can.

Unfortunately, if the House and Senate votes on the NDAA are any indication, too many members of Congress continue to be willing to throw ever more money at the Pentagon without holding the department or the corporations that consume more than half of its budget accountable.

And it’s not just about price gouging. Barely a word was said in either house of Congress about America’s misguided, overly ambitious defense strategy, which is the ultimate driver behind the move towards trillion dollar Pentagon budgets. The Pentagon’s current approach is a “cover-the-globe” strategy that calls for being able to win a war against Russia or China, take military action against Iran or North Korea, and continue to wage a global war on terror that includes operations in at least 85 countries.  

A more restrained strategy that takes a more realistic view of the military challenges posed by China and Russia, seeks diplomatic solutions to regional security risks, rolls back the Pentagon’s $2 trillion program for building a new generation of nuclear weapons, and scales back the department’s use of hundreds of thousands of private contractors, could save over $1.3 trillion over the next decade, as noted in a recent Quincy Institute paper. Congress needs to seriously debate the appropriate role of the U.S. military in our foreign policy, and stop engaging in inflammatory rhetoric that exaggerates foreign threats and funding parochial projects that have more to do with bringing revenue into key districts than they do with carrying out any rational defense strategy.

The House and Senate could partially redeem themselves later this year if they at least head off efforts by hawks on Capitol Hill to increase the administration’s $886 billion military spending request as part of an emergency supplemental package. A number of senators who would normally have voted for Sen. Sanders’ 10 percent cut amendment said they were respecting the $886 billion figure set out in the debt ceiling agreement. But hawks have had no such qualms. They view the $886 billion as a floor, not a ceiling, and they will add as much to the Pentagon budget as the political market will bear, much to the delight of their supporters in the arms industry.

Enough is enough. It’s time to stop squandering money on the Pentagon at a time when there are urgent needs to be addressed with respect to climate, public health, and economic inequality. Our strength as a nation should be grounded in a healthy, well educated population and a well functioning democracy. We have a lot of work to do to make progress on those fronts, and pouring more money into war and preparations for war will only undermine our efforts to do so.


Committee Chairman U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) speaks during a Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee hearing on Julie Su's nomination to be Labor Secretary, on Capitol Hill in Washington, U.S., April 20, 2023. REUTERS/Amanda Andrade-Rhoades
google cta
Analysis | Military Industrial Complex
Ted Cruz
Top photo credit: Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) (Shutterstock/lev radin)

Ted Cruz's anti-Tucker pose for 2028 is truly a Jurassic Park dud

Washington Politics

Ted Cruz is reportedly planning on running for president. But which version?

The Tea Party Republican senator who once called the Iraq war a mistake, tried to appeal to non-interventionist Ron Paul libertarians, questioned Barack Obama’s authority to strike Syria, warned against U.S. military adventurism, who was also once the favored alternative to Donald Trump in the 2016 GOP presidential primary only to eventually capitulate to MAGA even after Trump insulted his wife?

keep readingShow less
Trump XI
Top image credit: Busan, South Korea – October 30, 2025: Chinese President Xi Jinping meets US President Donald Trump. carlos110 via shutterstock.com

Why China is playing it cool amid Trump's chaos

Asia-Pacific

Entering 2026, as President Donald Trump draws global attention to Venezuela, Iran, and Greenland, Beijing has been oddly included in debates over these issues.

Commentators have argued that they could create potential friction between the United States and China over regional influence in Latin America, the Middle East, and the Arctic. However, Beijing so far has largely adopted the “wait and see” approach and has instead been busy with rallying efforts to ensure a good start to its 15th Five-Year Plan and continuing anti-corruption campaign, especially in the military. Over the last weekend, two more members of China’s Central Military Commission were put under investigation, including the senior-most general Zhang Youxia.

keep readingShow less
China panama canal
Top photo credit: Parts of the Mirador de las Americas monument, commemorating 150 years of Chinese presence in Panama since the first migration for railway construction, is seen near the Panama Canal, in Arraijan, on the outskirts of Panama City, Panama, January 24, 2025. REUTERS/Enea Lebrun/File Photo

Panama court could trip Trump's wire over China linked ports

Latin America

During his inaugural address, President Donald Trump made very clear his thoughts on the Panama Canal: “We have been treated very badly from this foolish gift that should have never been made, and Panama’s promise to us has been broken.”

Chief among his concerns was that China was in effect operating the waterway. “We didn’t give it to China. We gave it to Panama, and we’re taking it back,” Trump said. And almost exactly one year later, a court decision may make Trump’s dream a reality.

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.