U.S. President Joe Biden and Chinese President Xi Jinping had a phone conversation on Tuesday, the first time the two leaders have spoken since their in-person meeting in November.
As has happened following previous conversations, there is a considerable difference between the Chinese and U.S. readouts of the conversation. While both sides stressed the importance of maintaining open lines of communication, the official White House readout as usual placed a high stress on cautioning China against a variety of actions while saying virtually nothing about the clear need to undertake constructive actions to address common problems, such as those regarding climate change and pandemics.
Equally important, as in past such readouts on conversations held between U.S. and Chinese officials, Beijing listed a set of assurances that Biden has supposedly made several times to Xi regarding Taiwan, U.S. alliances, and other critical security issues. And yet the U.S. side, as in the past, again failed to mention such assurances in its official readout of the conversation.
Why is it that Washington will not confirm, clearly and unambiguously, that Biden either has or has not made all such assurances to the Chinese side? Various lower-level officials have at times made some of these assurances. But to my knowledge no U.S. official has made all of them. And Biden has not personally confirmed that he has made all such assurances.
The failure to clear up this apparent disparity in messaging on these crucial issues could eventually produce Chinese expectations and perhaps even pressure on the U.S. that Washington pushes back against, thus creating a crisis in relations. Washington needs to do more to build constructive relations with Beijing on both sides' vital interests, and clarify its stance regarding Biden’s supposed assurances. This is particularly necessary with regard to the administration’s policies regarding Taiwan. See my recent brief on what the White House needs to say and what Beijing needs to do on that critical issue.
Michael D. Swaine is a Senior Research Fellow on East Asia at the Quincy Institute and is one of the most prominent American scholars of Chinese security studies.
FILE PHOTO: U.S. President Joe Biden meets with Chinese President Xi Jinping on the sidelines of the G20 leaders' summit in Bali, Indonesia, November 14, 2022. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque/File Photo
FILE PHOTO: U.S. President Joe Biden meets with Chinese President Xi Jinping on the sidelines of the G20 leaders' summit in Bali, Indonesia, November 14, 2022. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque/File Photo
Top image credit: Elon Musk and U.S. Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth shake hands at the Pentagon in Washington, D.C., U.S., March 21, 2025 in this screengrab obtained from a video. REUTERS/Idrees Ali
Last week, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth directed the termination of over $580 million in Pentagon contracts, grants, and programs. They amount to less than 0.07% of the Pentagon budget.
The elimination of this spending aligns with the administration’s effort to reshuffle the budget, not to promote a wholesale reduction in military spending.
Secretary Hegseth made this clear in February, when he ordered his staff to draw up plans to excise about $50 billion from the Pentagon budget annually for at least five years — only to “offset” greater spending in 17 priority areas. These include further militarization of the border, needless expansion of the U.S. nuclear arsenal, and ill-conceived plans to develop a “Golden Dome” missile defense system for the United States.
Accordingly, Hegseth announced in a video last week that the eliminated spending did not align with the administration’s priorities — “in other words, they are not a good use of taxpayer dollars.” The secretary proceeded to outline terminated contracts, grants, and programs — lamenting one program for 780% cost growth. According to Hegseth, “we’re not doing that anymore.”
Hegseth is right to baulk at a program egregiously over budget and behind schedule. Cost growth and delivery delays are longstanding and pervasive issues at the Department of Defense. However, to cut wasteful spending fast — the secretary’s stated intention — he must start with big ticket items in the Pentagon budget. These are service contracts and major weapon programs, which are particularly susceptible to cost overruns and delays.
Instead, Secretary Hegseth has focused his attention on firing civilian employees and nibbling at the edges of the Pentagon budget to shore up more funding for the president’s misguided priorities.
The result is a performative appeal to the American people, who suffer the social and economic consequences of a runaway Pentagon budget — further militarization of U.S. foreign policy and forgone investment on civilian infrastructure. Taxpayers don’t need Secretary Hegseth to explain why he’s eliminating less than 0.07% of the Pentagon spending to simply redirect it elsewhere. They need big, bold action that prioritizes their security needs and wallets over the financial interests of military contractors. They need deep cuts to the Pentagon budget, regardless of parochial interests.
As a second-term president, Trump is well-positioned to advance deep reductions in military spending. He and Secretary Hegseth also have the necessary tools to reduce the Pentagon budget. My colleagues and I outlined around $60 billion in cuts in January. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) likewise detailed how to cut hundreds of billions from the Pentagon budget over the next 12 years. These recommendations are informed by years of research on the drivers of Pentagon waste: dangerous and unrealistic defense strategy, outsize corporate influence on the policymaking process, and downright bad deal-making with military contractors.
Yet the administration appears deferential to billionaire Elon Musk, the head of the so-called “Department of Government Efficiency” (DOGE). Indeed, last week’s re-shuffling of the Pentagon budget came at the direction of DOGE, which made no haste getting to the Pentagon even though military spending accounts for over half of the annual discretionary budget. As many have pointed out, Musk’s companies Space X and Starlink received billions in government contracts in fiscal year 2024. This is a clear conflict of interest.
Further, DOGE’s approach to the Pentagon is unlikely to produce significant savings long-term. Those require a pivot away from the U.S. grand strategy of global military dominance and the hubris that comes with it. President Trump seems to have some understanding that the Pentagon budget is overkill. Only a month ago he expressed interest in arms control agreements with China and Russia, with the goal of all three countries ultimately cutting their military budgets in half.
But then a week later, Secretary Hegseth exempted nuclear modernization efforts from any re-shuffling of funds within the Pentagon budget.
Promoting a topline reduction in Pentagon spending requires the administration to defy military contractors and lawmakers on the Hill — the ICBM lobby, the Joint Strike Fighter Congressional Caucus, and others. It means rejecting calls for Pentagon budget increases through the budget reconciliation process. Further, it necessitates that the administration cancel boondoggles like the F-35 fighter jet and the Sentinel intercontinental ballistic missile in the president’s budget request to Congress for fiscal year 2026. These actions require serious gumption. The administration would have to actually walk the walk to reduce topline Pentagon spending.
It is never too late to do the right thing, but right now the administration is talking a big game.
Editor's note: This story originally reported that Hegseth announced a 0.001% Pentagon budget cut. The actual figure is 0.07% and the story has been updated accordingly.
Enjoy our new column by the Democratizing Foreign Policy team exposing stealth corruption infecting our system — in plain sight.
Whether you realize it or not, when you enter D.C. you are effectively taking a swan dive head-first into a pool filled with military industrial complex (MIC) marketing.
If you fly into Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport, as I did on a recent trip, the MIC immersion actually starts before the plane even lands. While many of my fellow passengers were captivated by the sight of our nation’s historic monuments, I was staring out the other side of the plane at the offices of our nation’s monumental contractors: there’s the gleaming new Boeing defense headquarters in Arlington nestled next door to the offices of L3 Harris, with the bright lights of the giant Lockheed Martin office building right down the street.
All of which are just a short walk or metro ride from the Pentagon, which doled out more than $100 billion taxpayer dollars to these three companies last year, alone.
The city of Arlington’s website doesn’t mince words about why these companies, and nearly every top Pentagon contractor, has offices in the city, noting that the Pentagon is, “the largest buyer of aerospace and defense goods and services in the world.” The journey in and out of Reagan National makes it abundantly clear these contractors aren’t the least bit bashful about trying to get their share of the more than $400 billion in contracts the Pentagon inks every year.
Leaving the airport I walked past ads for other Pentagon contractors and noticed that an in-airport playground that my kids have cavorted upon is sponsored by Boeing, whose weaponry has allegedly been used in numerousattacks that have killed children. And that’s an important distinction: these aren’t ads from companies that sell car insurance or beer, these are ads from companies that literally profit from war — and the threat of war — and get hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars every year to do it.
Moreover, these are ads designed to persuade not you the taxpayer but policymakers in Washington, to fund contractor x, y or z’s special program. Sometimes to get there they have to engage in threat inflation or make patriotic appeals, but it’s all lobbying by another name.
Meanwhile, my journey was just beginning. When I made it to the metro the train I needed to get into the city came rolling in completely covered in a vibrant purple and bearing the slogans and logo of a large and still growing Pentagon contractor, Leidos, which reported more than $2 billion in defense revenue in 2024. As I stared out the window of the Barney-colored train we rode past metro stations — including at Crystal City and the Pentagon itself —that were filled with ads from Pentagon contractors.
Leidos advertisement on side of a Washington DC Metro car (Brett Heinz)
Most D.C. denizens tune all of this out, as I certainly did in the 10 years that I lived in the District. You take it for granted that you’re going to see a lot of ads from a lot of companies that want a lot of money from the U.S. government. You put up blinders to it all. But the sheer volume of Pentagon contractor ads has seemed inordinately high on all my recent trips to D.C., so I wanted to get a sense of whether my blinders had just worn out, or if there really was a lot more contractor advertising going on.
So I contacted my former colleague Brett Heinz, who has done one of the only systematic analyses of Pentagon contractor ads in the D.C. metro system that I’m aware of — he spent dozens of hours riding the metro just to look at ads so, yes, he might be a masochist, but he’s highly knowledgeable about this topic.
“Oh, it’s gotten so much worse,” Heinz, who now works at the American Friends Service Committee, explained in an interview. “The subway campaigns that I focused on are still common,” he added, pointing to recent ad campaigns by Amazon Web Services (AWS) — which were running as Amazon founder Jeff Bezos was in town for President Trump’s inauguration — proclaiming to riders that “AWS is how taxpayer dollars go further” and “AWS is how intelligence stays a step ahead.”
“But contractors have also been trying new approaches,” Heinz added, pointing to the Anduril and L3 Harris billboard-sized ads that have been running on the side of D.C. buses for months.
L3 Harris advertisement on side of a Washington Metro bus (Brett Heinz)
For Anduril, these buses are part of an advertising blitz in the D.C. area that began last summer. In an homage to World War II posters, the company has an ad calling for “More, more, more, more production,” alongside a painting of what appear to be unmanned fighter jets. Another says, “We can’t win with blueprints,” which was inspired by a War Production Board poster circa 1942 or 1943, according to the company.
These and other posters have been featured in full-page newspaper ads, and are the centerpiece of Anduril’s ad push in the nation’s capital. They seemingly gift-wrap DC’s buses and, in August, the company actually took overall marketing at the Capitol South metro station (the closest metro station to House offices), ensuring Congressional staff and members of Congress not enjoying the August recess got a first hand look at these posters and a large banner that read simply, “Rebuild the arsenal.”
Anduril advertisement on the side of a Washington Metro bus (Brett Heinz)
Anduril did not respond to a request for comment about the advertising campaign.
This advertising does not come cheap. While Pentagon contractors are tight-lipped about their advertising spending, we obtained invoices from Outfront Media — which runs the advertising campaigns on the D.C. metro and buses — via a “Public Access to Records” request with the Washington Metropolitan Area Transportation Authority (WMATA).
One invoice was for Pratt & Whitney — which, amongst other things, makes jet engines for a number of military aircraft — showing the company paid $80,000 for just two “liveboards” to run in the metro for less than four months. Another memo from Outfront that Responsible Statecraft obtained showed these “station domination” takeovers in a metro station can cost more than $100,000 for just a single month of ads in a single station.
As pricey as that might be, it’s an easily justifiable expense for Pentagon contractors. “The returns on investment here are massive: if a contractor's ad campaign has even a marginal effect in securing one single Pentagon contract, the company will make their money back several times over,” Heinz explained.
To that point, just since the Anduril ads began running in the greater D.C. area the company has been awarded more than$1 billion in a series of contracts from the Pentagon.
While the ad campaigns' direct impact on any of these deals would be hard to prove, there’s no question that ad campaigns by Anduril and other Pentagon contractors get the attention of D.C. decision makers. That’s exactly the point. According to Outfront, “transit advertising makes you a part of consumers’ day.” In the greater D.C. area those “consumers” can be Pentagon acquisition officials, members of Congress, and their staff that help determine how much taxpayer money the Pentagon spends, and even which companies — like Anduril — get it.
These ads, then, are better seen as lobbying by other means. And, while it’s technically illegal for contractors to use Congressionally appropriated funds “for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency,” transit ads have not been considered as falling under this limitation. And last May, a D.C. judge ruled that a WMATA provision barring “advertisements that are intended to influence public policy,” was a violation of the First Amendment, which now gives government contractors and others free rein to run issue ads in the D.C. transit system.
In short, residents and visitors to our nation's capital will be forced to wade through an even wider and deeper swamp of Pentagon contractor marketing that was made possible, to some extent, by the hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars the Pentagon doles out every year.
keep readingShow less
Top Photo: Zhytomyr, Zhytomyr Oblast, Ukraine - March 8 2022: On March 8, 2022, a Russian Su-34 bomber dropped two 250 kg bombs on a civilian house in Zhitomir, Ukraine (Shutterstock/Volodymyr Vorobiov)
Bombardments making Ukraine, Gaza toxic for generations
A new report finds dangerously high levels of uranium and lead contamination in Fallujah, Iraq, and other places that experience massive military bombardments in wartime, resulting in birth defects and long-term health risks among the people who live there
The report — from the Costs of War project at Brown University’s Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs — presages the dangers of prolonged conflict in places like Ukraine and Gaza, both of which have experienced sustained bombing campaigns for 3 years and 18 months, respectively. Indeed, precautions can be taken to reduce dangerous exposure to those who return to their homes after conflict ends, but the authors also point out that “the most effective way to limit heavy metal toxicity from war is by not bombing cities” at all.
Researchers found that 29% of Iraqis living in Fallujah have uranium in their bones, and 100% have lead contamination. Uranium is toxic to humans, and lead can be at high levels. The levels found at Fallujah were 600% higher than the national average in the United States.
These findings add to years of research done on the after-effects of America’s campaigns in Fallujah. In central Iraq, Fallujah was the scene of two destructive campaigns during the Iraq War. Several insurgent groups were operating in Fallujah in 2003, and in 2004, four American contractors were killed, with their bodies put on display. The United States launched the First Battle of Fallujah shortly after in an attempt to capture the perpetrators.
The first battle lasted only around a month, and the Second Battle of Fallujah broke out in November as the U.S. wanted to retake the city from insurgents. By November, 2,000 American and 600 Iraqi troops were participating in the assault, supported by air and artillery strikes. Most of the civilians were warned and subsequently evacuated, but tens of thousands remained during the fighting, which lasted until late December.
By the end of 2004, 60% of the city’s buildings were destroyed, 50-70% of the population had fled, and an estimated 800 civilians were killed. The after-effects were astounding, with infant mortality rates spiking to 13% from 2009-2010 (as opposed to around 2% in Egypt, for example). Birth defects were so widespread that some doctors warned parents to hold off on having children.
Heavy metal contaminants are often present in old war zones, either from the weapons that were used (including depleted uranium found in munitions) or burn pits used to destroy weapons and equipment, as the United States did in Iraq and Afghanistan.
According to the Costs of War study, exposure to these metals can especially harm individuals as they age and during pregnancy. It can lead to cancers, issues with neurodevelopment and cardiovascular health, and birthing complications.
The Department of Defense estimated that 3.5 million American soldiers may have returned from active duty only to suffer from health problems related to toxic metal exposure. Despite this, the military has approved soldiers to continue using burn pits under certain conditions.
The Costs of War report also highlighted how those who return to war-torn areas are often exposed to these metals as they clean up, often without proper protective equipment. Additionally, water and food sources can be contaminated or even destroyed following military campaigns.
The report’s authors recommend that as civilians return to their homes in Lebanon, Syria, Gaza, or Ukraine, they wear proper face coverings to prevent inhaling toxic debris, bury rather than burn trash, and take vitamin supplements to combat some of the adverse effects of exposure to heavy metals.
The report concludes that “the detonation and widespread use of heavy metals should be avoided at all costs” as “damage to the quality of air, soil, and water is long-lasting.” It adds that nations can disinvest from weapons sales and invest in more “effective and sophisticated forms of international relations” as a way to reduce civilian heavy metal exposure.
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.