Joe Bidendelivered his foreign policy farewell address Monday at the State Department. The speech was largely a celebration of his own (perceived) accomplishments — all the things he wants to be remembered by as a foreign policy president. One of them is enacting a historic redistribution of wealth from the public to private weapons companies:
“We’ve significantly strengthened the defense industrial base [read: arms industry], investing almost $1.3 trillion in procurement and research and development. In real dollars, that’s more than America did in any four year period during the Cold War.”
Foreign policy for the one percent
The type of direct, trillion-dollar-plus government investment Biden promised for climate and social welfare only happened for arms companies. The amount Biden just bragged about giving to the weapons industry is about $540 billion more than the combined value of all the projects announced under the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, the Inflation Reduction Act, and the CHIPS Act (as of Jan. 10: $756,247,845,330).
The combined effect of Biden’s flagship domestic accomplishments isn’t particularly climate-friendly, either. For example, over 40% of the funding in the infrastructure law — often marketed as a climate bill — is exclusively for highways, roads, and bridges. That’s not just not green, that’s anti-green. Biden described the climate crisis as “the single greatest existential threat to humanity” in yesterday’s speech, but it definitely wasn’t budgeted like one during his administration.
At least there are more robust climate programs now than there were in 2020. The same can’t be said for social welfare — the U.S. social safety net is considerably weaker now than it was when Biden entered office. You might be thinking “but the pandemic assistance Biden inherited was intended to be temporary,” which is true. Also true: the purpose of Biden’s “Build Back Better” plan was to make the bulk of those programs permanent and establish several new ones.
It was never enacted. In 2021, Biden abandoned the strategy needed to overcome the challenge posed by the GOP and a couple recalcitrant Democrats and pass the social spending plan. In early 2022, Biden ditched the trillion-dollar-plus welfare agenda he campaigned on entirely and rebranded himself as a foreign policy president. From that point on, pandemic assistance was nolonger something Biden sought to expand or preserve; in fact, the more of those programs that expired, the more he could brag about reducing the deficit. Ending that assistance during a historic bout of inflation devastated the working class. Many people lost their homes because of it.
The Pentagon budget was exempt from Biden’s deficit reduction regime. Little wonder — it takes serious cash to implement a foreign policy as bellicose and destructive as Biden’s. As key social welfare provisions expired or were eliminated, military spending soared. This is not the hallmark of a “foreign policy for the middle class” and it’s definitely not one for the working class.
The beneficiaries of Biden’s foreign policy are part of a much more exclusive group. Here are a few of them:
Stephen Semler is co-founder of the Security Policy Reform Institute, a think tank that develops policy ideas for the working class. He writes the Polygraph newsletter on Substack.
Top photo credit: President Joe Biden on the White House Lawn, July 14, 2023. (Shutterstock/Salma Bashir)
There is no plan in place to fund the Ukrainian budget after 2025.
Even if the war ends by the summer of 2025, it will take some time to reduce military expenditures, leaving European nations on the hook. It’s not clear that European elites have fully understood the political costs, however much longer the war continues.
With intensive, U.S.-brokered negotiations ongoing in Saudi Arabia involving separate Ukrainian and Russian delegations, hopes are rising that the Trump administration will finally be able to bring an end to the war.
But even if the war ends tomorrow, it would be unwise to assume that Ukraine could reduce military spending close to prewar levels.
Ukraine now has almost 900,000 men and women at arms, a threefold increase from peacetime, and that doesn’t take into account irrecoverable losses through death and injury. Estimates vary widely, but the casualty rate is commonly thought to number in the hundreds of thousands, with compensation provided to the injured and families of the deceased.
The war in Ukraine has therefore come at a vast financial cost to that country. Ukraine’s defense spending has risen tenfold since the 2021 budget was announced, when social welfare payments were the country’s biggest expenditure.
This has left a gaping hole in Ukraine’s finances that no amount of tax increases or Western donations will be able to fill over a sustained period without political consequences.
Since 2022, Ukraine has run an average budget deficit of over 22% of GDP. Based on the current exchange rate, Ukraine’s budget shortfall in 2025 amounts to around $41.5 billion. And that assumes defense spending falling slightly this year. In the hopefully unlikely event that war continues to the end of the year, the Ukrainian state would need to revise its budget upwards as it did in 2024.
Today, Ukraine’s domestic revenue, including taxes, excise, and duties, just about covers the cost of the defense effort, which in 2024 accounted for 64% of its total budget expenditure. That includes significant tax increases as the war has gone on. Total tax revenue will have risen by more than 100% since the war started and personal income taxes by over 200%. This in a country in which, according to the Wilson Center, 50% of the population lives at a basic subsistence level.
As Ukraine is cut off from international capital markets, it has had to meet the difference through aid and loans from Western nations.
Put simply, Western donations and loans have paid the salaries of Ukrainian state officials and kept the lights on in their buildings. At the start of the war, donations took the form of free financial aid to meet the country’s budgetary and military needs. According to the Kiel Institute, the United States has provided just above $50 billion in direct budgetary assistance. The European Union provided $51.5 billion in financial assistance – i.e., budgetary support – between 2022 and 2024.
However, since the start of 2024, free aid has progressively shifted to lending as Western governments have felt the political and economic cost of unlimited financial assistance.
So, Ukraine has increasingly resorted to borrowing money. In some regards, that is to be expected. Governments tend to borrow heavily at times of war. The UK only settled its World War II war debts to the United States and Canada in 2006.
Ukrainian debt has therefore soared to over 100% of GDP and, critically, the cost of servicing its debt has tripled, and now makes up the second largest line of expenditure in Ukraine’s budget, after military spending. To put that into context, Ukraine will spend more than twice the amount on servicing its debt in 2025 than it spends on the health of its population. That ratio will only widen the longer the war continues.
Ukraine should just about be able to make ends meet in 2025 thanks to the G7 Extraordinary Revenue Acceleration loan agreed in June 2024. As part of a last-ditch compromise by the outgoing Biden Administration, the $20 billion U.S. contribution to the G7 loan was directed through the World Bank to provide specific project-based support – i.e., to help rebuild power infrastructure - rather than generalized budgetary support.
The crucial point is that I’ve seen no plans for how Ukraine’s budgetary needs will be met from 2026 onward. Even if the war ends tomorrow, Ukraine may still be at risk of running out of money in 2026 if Western donor countries falsely assume that it will be able to return to prewar spending on Day One.
Therefore, the big question is how quickly Ukraine can reduce military spending in 2026 and who will cover the shortfall. To balance the books in 2026, Ukraine would need to reduce its military spending by 80%, or around $41 billion.
But decision-makers in Kyiv may understandably push to maintain a big army against the threat of future Russian aggression. While the huge expenditure in weapons and ammunition from war fighting may fall away, maintaining a standing army, even if its numbers are reduced, would still carry a heavy price. Even if Ukraine’s future budget deficit wasn’t as high as $41 billion, it is easy to imagine that it might be $20 billion.
The International Monetary Fund also doesn’t expect Ukraine to be able to access international lending markets before 2027. That will leave the Ukrainian state reaching out to donor nations for additional funding. With the Trump administration looking to pare back its financial commitments to Ukraine and focus instead on investing, including in minerals, the pressure will be on European states.
There is significant political risk here. In the past few days, the Europeans struggled to agree to an additional weapons package of $5 billion for Ukraine. Funding $20 billion in budgetary support to Ukraine in 2026 following a ceasefire this year may still herald a backlash from those on the nationalist left and right who believe the war should have ended in 2022. I assess the UK and Europe would find it economically and politically unsustainable to prop up the war beyond this year without the United States. That’s another reason why European leaders should get behind ongoing peace negotiations.
keep readingShow less
Top image credit: Secretary Marco Rubio arrives in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, February 19, 2025. (Official State Department photo by Freddie Everett)
As Secretary of State Marco Rubio visits the Caribbean this Wednesday, the region's leaders are threading the needle between standing up against threats to their national interests and safeguarding their need for trade, aid, and remittances from their powerful neighbor to the north.
Rubio's upcoming trip to Jamaica and the small, oil-rich countries of Guyana and Suriname will include high-level engagements focused on the rapidly deteriorating security situation in Haiti, the escalating border crisis between Guyana and Venezuela in the disputed Essequibo region, and the rising influence of China in Caribbean trade and political relations, among other issues.
The visit comes weeks after Suriname's foreign minister Albert Ramdin became the first Caribbean leader ever elected to lead the Washington-based Organization of American States (OAS), beating out Rubio's preferred candidate, Paraguay’s foreign minister Ruben Ramirez, and marking a shift away from the U.S.-aligned posture of the OAS's current secretary general, Luis Almagro.
It also comes as Caribbean heads of state have pushed back against an announcement by Rubio to deny entry to foreign officials determined to be contracting Cuban doctors, with nearly all regional leaders vehemently rejecting the administration’s allegations of forced labor and insisting they would rather give up their U.S. visas than jeopardize their public health systems' cooperation with Cuba, the largest Caribbean island.
On Friday, the 15-member Caribbean Community (CARICOM) convened an emergency meeting in anticipation of Rubio’s arrival, which stems from an invitation by the bloc’s president — Barbados’ Prime Minister Mia Amor Mottley, with whom Rubio will meet in Kingston — for President Trump to visit the region. In late February, the State Department’s Special Envoy for Latin America Mauricio Claver-Carone confirmed that he and Rubio would visit sometime in March, holding preliminary talks with Caribbean leaders in Washington amid Ramdin’s OAS election.
Speaking to reporters on Tuesday, Claver-Carone, the architect of “maximum pressure” sanctions against Cuba and Venezuela during Trump’s first term, said the region’s big opportunity is energy security, hoping U.S. oil investment can counter what he referred to as the “extortive” and “corrupt” Petrocaribe initiative developed by Venezuela in the prior decade.
While most policymakers regard the Caribbean as little more than a sunny destination for tourism, it is frequently referred to by security analysts as the United States’ “third border,” a front line in the hemispheric fight against drug and arms trafficking, according to Eric Jacobstein, a Biden administration official responsible for U.S. policy toward the region, writing in the Miami Herald on Monday.
The U.S. is by far the Caribbean's largest trade partner and provider of foreign assistance, and many islands have considerable percentages of their populations living in the U.S., which makes Trump's proposed travel ban — potentially affecting numerous Eastern Caribbean nations — another major threat to island economies dependent on remittances sent from the diaspora.
Ironically, St. Lucia and St. Kitts and Nevis, two of the countries on the leaked draft list, are, together with St. Vincent and the Grenadines, among the last few nations worldwide that have maintained full diplomatic recognition of Taiwan — a U.S. priority in the region — despite also being members of ALBA, the leftist regional alliance led by Cuba and Venezuela.
Yet the U.S. has no diplomatic presence in those countries, Jacobstein argues, urging Rubio to establish at least two new U.S. embassies in the Lesser Antilles to curb Chinese influence — as the Biden administration did in the Pacific Islands — despite announcements by the Trump team that it intends to reduce Washington’s diplomatic footprint worldwide.
Jacobstein also suggests Rubio sustain security assistance through the Caribbean Basin Security Initiative and maintain support for Haiti’s Multinational Security Support mission, which has suffered cuts, despite promised exemptions, as a result of Trump’s foreign aid freeze.
For Caribbean leaders, the prospect of mass deportations to Haiti of hundreds of thousands of migrants who have either had their temporary protected status rescinded or humanitarian parole terminated is also a major concern, potentially compounding the dire and deteriorating economic and security situation on the ground.
Moreover, recent announcements to revoke oil licenses to U.S. and European firms operating in Venezuela and impose 25% tariffs on countries importing Venezuelan oil could derail Trinidad and Tobago’s major natural gas project in Venezuelan territorial waters. It is being developed with oil giant Shell and was given the green light by Biden’s Treasury Department in 2023.
In Jamaica, Rubio is expected to meet with Trinidadian Prime Minister Stuart Young, who was previously in charge of the project and is certain to raise the Dragon gas field and request a license extension to continue exploration and commence production by 2028.
In Guyana — a country with less than one million inhabitants that has garnered significant attention in U.S. energy, defense and policy circles since it began extracting its offshore oil reserves in 2019 with the help of ExxonMobil — Rubio will meet with officials who have spent considerable resources lobbying Washington for greater attention in recent years.
Last month, Trump’s first-term ambassador to the OAS and nominee for the State Department’s top Latin America post, Carlos Trujillo, registered with the Department of Justice as a foreign agent for Guyana’s foreign ministry through his firm, Continental Strategy LLC, to help the country “increase U.S. trade and investment” and “enhance Guyana’s profile in the United States.”
Trujillo, a Cuban-American former Florida state representative with close ties to Rubio and Trump’s re-election campaign, will be compensated $300,000 for the six-month contract.
But even as Guyanese president Irfaan Ali has cultivated strong ties in Washington, aided by his intimate relationship with a U.S. oil major, other Trump policies have become a significant cause for concern, according to Bloomberg. At the emergency CARICOM meeting Friday, Ali pushed back on reported plans to fine Chinese-linked vessels entering American ports, arguing it could disrupt global shipping and increase the cost of inputs for Caribbean energy production.
He also rejected the proposed visa restrictions over collaboration with Cuba’s medical program, saying, “I don’t see abandoning Cuba as part of this equation.”
Barbados’ Mottley, for her part, argued that her country couldn’t have gotten through the COVID-19 pandemic without Cuba’s doctors, saying they are paid as much as local professionals, while Vincentian Prime Minister Ralph Gonsalves, whose government has played a key role in diffusing tensions between Venezuela and Guyana over the contested Essequibo border zone, said, “I would prefer to lose my visa than have 60 poor and working people die,” in reference to hemodialysis patients under Cuban care.
These predicaments have led leaders to walk a fine line between defiance and acquiescence to U.S. ultimatums, particularly in Suriname, “a Trump success story,” according to Claver-Carone, who claims U.S. support for an IMF adjustment program helped get the country out of its “China debt trap” and secure a $10 billion French-U.S. offshore oil and gas deal.
As the small Caribbean nations brace for the impacts of the Trump administration's energy, trade, immigration, and deportation policies, they are also, as a bloc, standing up for their shared interests — with their level of success bound to have important implications for regional stability and prosperity over the next four years.
keep readingShow less
Top Image Credit: LIVE: Mike Huckabee's confirmation hearing to be ambassador to Israel - Associated Press (YouTube/screenshot)
Former Arkansas Governor and presidential candidate Mike Huckabee, who has advocated for Israel’s annexation of the West Bank and describes himself as an “unapologetic, unreformed Zionist,” was grilled by members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee about whether his staunch pro-Israel personal views would compromise his work representing the United States government in Jerusalem.
Huckabee’s confirmation for U.S. ambassador comes amid a broken ceasefire and a renewed Israeli bombing campaign and ground incursion in Gaza — all with the support of the Trump administration, according to recent interviews by U.S. envoy Steve Witkoff.
Huckabee emphasized during the hearing that the president’s views would be prioritized in his new role if confirmed. “I am not here to articulate or defend my own views or policies, but to present myself as one who will respect and represent the President whose overwhelming election by the people will hopefully give me the honor of serving as ambassador to the State of Israel,” Huckabee declared in his opening statement.
Some senators present, including Ted Cruz (R-Texas), were pleased by Huckabee’s nomination, especially in light of his career-long pro-Israel stance. “You’re going to do a fantastic job, and I’m very happy to see your name for this position,” Cruz said.
Senators Jeff Merkley (D-Or.) and Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), in contrast, were the most critical.
A “concern that I've had [regarding the war on Gaza] is the use of humanitarian supplies as [political] leverage, in which they've been restricted time, time, and again under international law. This is generally considered an illegitimate strategy of war,” said Sen. Merkley. “Have you had any concerns at all about Israel restricting the supplies of food to Gaza?”
Huckabee’s response was that Israel “provided 700 trucks a day,” and that “there have been massive supplies,” to Gaza. While about 600 aid trucks were going to Gaza daily during much of the ceasefire, Israel had again cut all humanitarian aid off to the strip in early March, subsequently breaking the ceasefire wholesale on March 18.
“There's been extended periods where very few trucks at all have gotten in. And certainly we did have relief during the ceasefire, but we're now in a new phase of extremely restricted supplies,” Merkley parried, rejecting Huckabee’s assertions outright. “There’s been many, many international organizations that have reported on this, so I know you’re not unaware of it.”
Merkley pressed Huckabee about Trump’s repeatedly stated plan to move Palestinians out of Gaza. Huckabee in turn denied Trump wanted to displace Gazans. “The president has never said that. He has never spoken about forced displacement.”
While Trump and his officials have occasionally walked back suggestions that Palestinians be permanently displaced, Trump has consistently asserted that Gazans must leave the strip entirely for his “Riviera” plan to work. At one point, he even suggested Palestinians could choose whether to leave, but any departures would be permanent.
Senator Chris Van Hollen asked Huckabee if he believed in the collective punishment of the Palestinian people, which he suggested Israel was carrying out. Huckabee said he did not.
“[Israeli] Finance Minister Smotrich suggested [that] it might be justified and moral to starve two million Palestinians in Gaza as part of a strategy [regarding] the hostages. Simple question: do you disagree with Finance Minister Smotrich?” Dodging the question, Huckabee responded that “an ambassador doesn't get to argue with the people of the country,” and that his role would be to represent Trump’s views.
Van Hollen also asked Huckabee about his support for the West Bank annexation by Israel. "I have previously supported it. Yes, sir. But it would not be my prerogative to make that the policy of the president,” Huckabee replied.
Huckabee has previously called for the West Bank to be referred to as “Judea and Samaria,” which is how Israel’s Likud party, long committed to the West Bank’s annexation, refers to the Israeli-occupied territory. U.S. Lawmakers have proposed the same name change in congressional legislation. Foreign Affairs Committee Chair Rep. Brian Mast has even instructed GOP committee staffers to comply with it.
Huckabee did not clarify whether he stood by the position when pressed by Van Hollen.
At the hearing, Huckabee also expressed support for Trump’s “maximum pressure” campaign against Iran, saying "Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon and it is better to bankrupt them than it is to bomb them.”
Other lawmakers and groups have opposed Huckabee’s nomination, describing his Israel positions as too extreme. In addition to claiming that “there’s plenty of land” for Palestinians to go to in other Middle Eastern countries, Huckabee has said “there’s really no such thing as a Palestinian” during his own unsuccessful presidential campaign.
“Huckabee’s positions are not the words of a thoughtful diplomat — they are the words of a provocateur whose views are far outside international consensus and contrary to the core bipartisan principles of American diplomacy,” Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY), who is Jewish, said in a Monday statement ahead of the hearing. “There is no need for more extremism, and certainly not from the historic ambassador’s post and behind the powerful seal of the United States.”
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.