Follow us on social

POGO The Bunker

Bombers astray

This week in the Bunker: 'Big beautiful bill' shafts the troops, a purported defense-reform bill is anything but, and more

Analysis | Military Industrial Complex

The Bunker appears originally at the Project on Government Oversight and is republished here with permission.


A pair of stories with contrasting narratives

Amid the roar of B-2 bombers and other warplanes bizarrely flying over the White House on the 4th of July, President Donald Trump signed his “Big, Beautiful Bill” increasing defense spending by $150 billion and the national debt by $3 trillion. The military hardware was a bow to the U.S. military’s successful June 21 strike on Iran’s nuclear program. Nonetheless, it was a strange way to celebrate the nation’s 249th birthday. Only in today’s Washington could one celebrate dive-bombing the national debt ever closer to $40 trillion.

About $113 billion of that $150 billion is slated for the Pentagon’s 2026 coffers (the rest would be spent later). That has allowed the Pentagon to send Congress a base budget for next year that totals $848 billion, which is actually less than this year’s $831 billion, when inflation is taken into account. But adding the base budget request to the one-time bonus, and other national-security spending, pushes proposed defense spending to roughly $1 trillion in 2026. Where such future $100+ billion annual add-ons will come from remains a mystery.

News outlets that focus on economics wasted no time citing one of the bonus bill’s big winners. “The Pentagon will budget about $150 billion over five years on big-ticket projects such as ships, munitions production and missile-defense systems, including a roughly $25 billion down payment on the planned Golden Dome antimissile shield,” the Wall Street Journal noted. Echoed Bloomberg News: “The package boosts defense spending by $150 billion, with much of the funding going to new weapons systems made by major contractors.”

The troops will get July 4th picnic-table scraps. Only 6% of the $150 billion is earmarked for improving the quality of life for troops and their families. On July 3, Stars and Stripes reported that the Army will save nearly $5 million a year by shutting down a program that for decades has provided mental-health services for children of U.S. troops based overseas. That’s happening despite a May report that said such Pentagon-run schools are overwhelmed by kids with mental health problems.

Army officials said they are eliminating the program because “similar services exist.” Funny how such logic never applies to the redundancy of the Pentagon’s nuclear triad of bombers, ICBMs, and submarines, which cost about $5 million every half hour.

Why wonky weapons-buying changes won’t work

A defense reform bill now slinking its way through Congress is simply the latest in military camouflage, disguising future taxpayer rip-offs as the latest and greatest good-government bromide. This new wolf-in-sheep’s-clothing is the Streamlining Procurement for Effective Execution and Delivery Act — the SPEED Act (PDF), in Capitol Hill lingo. “With the SPEED Act, Congress and industry are yet again setting the stage for another round of decimating changes that will have disastrous results,” Scott Amey here at the Project On Government Oversight said in his July 1 analysis of the proposed legislation.

Amey, a recognized expert in the admittedly wonky arena of government procurement law, warns that the bill:

  • Prioritizes speed above the cost to the taxpayer.
     
  • Prioritizes “best value” of rushed requirements above cost efficiency, and risks steering contracts to well-connected or undeserving companies.
     
  • Promotes buying so-called “commercial” products and services, and the general principles of “offered for sale” and “similar,” all of which are misleading and result in overcharges for defense-only solutions because they are exempt from providing certified cost or pricing data that would ensure the federal government gets a fair deal.
     
  • Raises certain monetary thresholds, which results in overcharges.

The SPEED Act, Amey argues, “will take us back 60 years, to a time when companies blatantly took advantage of the federal government … which will lead to new $436 hammers and $10,000 toilet seat covers.”

Excellent! The Bunker is always on the prowl for new material.

It’s too easy to ignore troop deaths in peacetime

Battlefields and blood are first cousins in combat. The Bunker has done many deep dives over the years into those who voluntarily went into harm’s way in the nation’s uniform, and didn’t get to come home. There’s generally a patriotic predisposition to want to know about these heroes, waging war in our name.

But the deaths of U.S. troops in peacetime is a murkier realm. The U.S. military trains like it fights, which means that over the past decade more troops have died while training for combat than in combat itself. Yet too little attention is paid to their sacrifice. They’re not battling a foe other than inadequate training, or a moment’s inattention that could have saved a life.

The Pentagon noted the deaths of three U.S. troops recently. Their sacrifice should not pass unnoted:

— On July 3, Task & Purpose reported on the July 1 death of Navy Special Warfare Boat Operator 2nd Class Noah Tobin after an unexplained malfunction during a California parachute jump.

— On June 27, Air & Space Forces Magazine detailed how Air Force Captain John Robertson died at a Texas base in 2024 after he failed to fully engage a safety pin on the ejection seat of his T-6 trainer after landing, sending him 100 feet into the air without a parachute.

— On July 1, Task & Purpose reported on the death of Army Specialist Matthew Perez, 20, who died in 2024 after a string of snafus beginning with “an incorrectly tied knot” doomed him while parachuting at a Louisiana post.

Your valor was not in vain.

Here’s what has caught The Bunker’s eye recently

Royal Navy

Despite critics who argue that the U.S. Navy’s huge aircraft carriers would be sitting Peking ducks in a war with China, Commander Joshua M. M. Portzer maintained in the July issue of Proceedings that each of them is “a queen on the Pacific chess board.”

Speaking of carriers…

The Navy’s newest aircraft carrier faces a 20-month delivery delay because of problems with elevators designed to move munitions around the vessel, Tony Capaccio of Bloomberg News reported July 7.

Slice of war

The Pentagon Pizza Report, operated by an anonymous computer geek, tracks Google data flowing from pizzerias near the headquarters of the Defense Department to telegraph when the U.S. military might be preparing to strike, the Washington Post reported July 1.

Thanks for dropping in for a slice of The Bunker this week. Kindly share with pals so they can subscribe here.


Top image credit: Project on Government Oversight
Analysis | Military Industrial Complex
China Malaysia
Top photo credit: Pearly Tan and Thinaah Muralitharan of Malaysia compete in the Women's Doubles Round Robin match against Nami Matsuyama and Chiharu Shida of Japan on day five of the BWF Sudirman Cup Finals 2025 at Fenghuang Gymnasium on May 1, 2025 in Xiamen, Fujian Province of China. (Photo by Zheng Hongliang/VCG )

How China is 'eating our lunch' with soft power

Asia-Pacific

In June 2025, while U.S. and Philippine forces conducted joint military drills in the Sulu Sea and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth reaffirmed America’s commitment to the Indo-Pacific at Singapore’s Shangri-La Dialogue, another story deserving of attention played out less visibly.

A Chinese-financed rail project broke ground in Malaysia with diplomatic fanfare and local celebration. As Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim noted, the ceremony “marks an important milestone” in bilateral cooperation. The contrast was sharp: Washington sent ships and speeches; Beijing sent people and money.

keep readingShow less
President of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev and President of Russia Vladimir Putin
Top photo credit: President of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev and President of Russia Vladimir Putin appear on screen. (shutterstock/miss.cabul)

Westerners foolishly rush to defend Azerbaijan against Russia

Europe

The escalating tensions between Russia and Azerbaijan — marked by tit-for-tat arrests, accusations of ethnic violence, and economic sparring — have tempted some Western observers to view the conflict as an opportunity to further isolate Moscow.

However, this is not a simple narrative of Azerbaijan resisting Russian dominance. It is a complex struggle over energy routes, regional influence, and the future of the South Caucasus, where Western alignment with Baku risks undermining critical priorities, including potential U.S.-Russia engagement on Ukraine and arms control.

keep readingShow less
Netanyahu, Trump, and Syrian President Ahmed Al-Sharaa
Top photo credit: OpenAI. 2025. Netanyahu, Trump, and Syrian President Ahmed Al-Sharaa. AI-generated image. ChatGPT

Shotgun wedding? Israel and Syria go to the altar

Middle East

For half a century, the border between Israel and Syria on the Golan Heights was a model of hostile stability. The guns were silent, but deep-seated antagonism prevailed, punctuated by repeated, failed attempts at diplomacy.

Now, following the sudden collapse of Bashar al-Assad’s regime in December 2024 and a 12-day war between Israel and Iran that has solidified Israel's military dominance in the region, the geopolitical ice is cracking.

In a turn of events that would have been unthinkable a year ago, Israel and Syria are in “advanced talks” to end hostilities. Reports now suggest a White House summit is being planned for as early as September, where Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu would sign a security agreement, paving the way for normalization. But this is no outbreak of brotherly love; it is a display of realpolitik, a shotgun wedding between a triumphant Israel and a destitute Syria, with Washington playing the role of officiant.

keep readingShow less

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.