Should the people who craft the Pentagon’s budget be allowed to own stocks in the very same companies whose profits are determined by Pentagon contracts?
Obviously not — this is an enormous conflict of interest! But that’s exactly how things work in Congress today. In 2024, 50 members of Congress traded between $24 million and $113 million worth of Pentagon contractor stocks on the side, while at work they were writing the military budgets that determined which weapons companies receive multi-billion dollar contracts.
In this episode of Always at War, we explore how this open secret — that our members of Congress are personally invested in America’s war machine — keeps our country perpetually at war. With the help of Public Citizen’s Savannah Wooten, we navigate how the military-industrial complex has woven a complex web of financial and political incentives to keep politicians from questioning either our $1 trillion Pentagon budget or the disastrous cover-the-globe foreign policy it enables.
We reveal how defense stocks consistently surge during military conflicts — jumping after the Soleimani assassination, Hamas’ Oct. 7 attack, and throughout the wars in Ukraine and Gaza — creating direct financial incentives for lawmakers to support military interventions over diplomatic solutions. Through suspiciously timed trades, like lawmakers buying Lockheed Martin stock days before an $11 billion contract announcement, we show how the military-industrial-congressional complex that Eisenhower warned about has evolved into a system where peace literally costs politicians money.
When the people writing checks to weapons companies own stock in those same companies, every vote for military action becomes a vote for personal profit — helping to explain why America's wars never seem to end and the Pentagon budget just keeps growing, without making Americans any safer.
C. Kaye Rawlings is the lead digital strategist at the Quincy Institute. She received her Ph.D. in Art History, with a specialization in the history of architecture, in 2023 from Emory University.
The veteran neoconservative talk host is repulsed by reports that President Donald Trump might be inching closer to an Iranian nuclear deal, reducing the likelihood of war. In addition to his rants on how this would hurt Israel, Levin has been howling to anyone who will listen that any deal with Iran needs approval from Congress (funny he doesn’t have the same attitude for waging war, only for making peace).
He has been lashing out, too, at conservatives who don't share his fury on the subject. Here on Eric Stakelbeck's newscast:
When the Enola Gay dropped the atomic bomb on Hiroshima, it took 45 seconds to blow that city off the face of the earth and 60,000 people with it. And we should have done what we needed to do then that war, given the Battle of Okinawa and how many casualties we had, that's not my point. My point is, can you imagine a death cult, a terrorist regime that says, Death to America with these kinds of weapons, I cannot, so the isolationist, the pacifist, the appeasers, the world has dealt with them before, just because they're so called, self identified influencers, bloggers, podcasters, they don't mean a damn thing to me. The fact is, reality we this generation, is being told by a death cult that they want to eliminate the United States that they're within effectively weeks of having nuclear weapons and for our generation to impose on our children and grandchildren and generations yet born this kind of a threat is a sin.
On Monday, Levin obliquely chastised the Trump administration, fresh from a Middle East trip that did not include Israel, for not giving more deference to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. “(He) is the elected prime minister of the sovereign nation of Israel, unlike the assorted dictators and terrorists who run the countries surrounding Israel,” Levin wrote. “He deserves our government’s respect not the treatment of some kind of inferior bureaucrat.”
Libertarian author and podcaster Tom Woods shared Levin’s shared the post, adding, “Levin is getting very impatient with Trump. This is interesting to watch.”
“He's trying very hard not to come right out and condemn Trump,” Woods added, “and it's making him crazy.”
In March, a poll showed that 70 percent of Israelis wanted Netanyahu to resign. Another poll found that a majority of Americans, including 64% of Republicans, prefer an Iran deal over war.
Apparently, American citizen Levin has more reverence for Israel’s leader than most of Netanyahu’s countrymen do. He wants war more than his fellow Americans too. Weird.
It’s not just Mark Levin who is frustrated. Ben Shapiro is probably the most high profile contemporary neocon critical of Trump’s diplomacy, who says things like, “actually, the world is making clear that it is happy to reward terrorism. If Hamas were a conventional army (a la Russia), Israel would be able to do whatever it wanted with U.S. approval. Hamas is an evil terrorist group, so it must be rewarded and Palestinians given a state.”
In no world does Shapiro consider what is being done to innocent civilians, women and children, in Gaza “terrorism.”
There are also Bush-era hawks like Pamela Geller and Frank Gaffney who are still kicking around and predictably aching to blow up the Middle East as opposed to finding solutions. There are others.
But if you look at the reactions to Levin or any of these other figures’ pitches for war on social media, you will find as many if not more of their own audience, as well as other MAGA-aligned conservatives, disagreeing with them, or even mocking them.
To be clear, I’m not talking about neoconservatives like Bill Kristol, Max Boot or Jennifer Rubin, all Never Trumpers with far more affinity for Democrats than the GOP these days. I’m strictly talking about pro-war conservative voices who still consider their audiences and Trump’s one and the same.
They are increasingly not the same. What’s worse for neoconservatives is there is an ever-growing army of antiwar MAGA influencers that now outshine and overshadow the old guard. These would include ultra-popular personalities like Tucker Carlson who drew a hard line in the sand just a month ago upon suggestions that the U.S. should strike Iran.
“We’d lose the war that follows. Nothing would be more destructive to our country. And yet we’re closer than ever, thanks to unrelenting pressure from neocons,” he said. “This is suicidal. Anyone advocating for conflict with Iran is not an ally of the United States, but an enemy.”
None of them pull punches in their ‘America First’ foreign policy messaging to their millions of followers.
Libertarian comedian Dave Smith called out what he considers Shapiro’s “hypocrisy” during his interview with Tucker Carlson this month. "Ben Shapiro built a career opposing identity politics as a proud Zionist," he said. "You're out here saying 'facts don't care about your feelings', 'identity politics is wrong', and then while you're saying that, your number one priority is manifestation of identity politics.”
Ouch.
Then there are the MAGA-adjacent influencers, MAGA friendly when the moment calls for it but who are not exactly full bore Trumpians. Former Bernie Bro Joe Rogan is the most popular podcaster on earth and fits this category, as do libertarians like the aforementioned Smith and Woods. Comedian and podcaster Theo Von has a massive audience and has strongly condemned the slaughter in Gaza, after joining Team Trump in their recent trip to Qatar. Civil libertarian Glenn Greenwald is as thoroughly antiwar as ever and probably has a larger rightwing base among his audience today more than at any other time.
These are influencers who are setting the tone for what the right now broadly thinks an “America First” foreign policy should look like, and it is the opposite vision of the shrinking number of neoconservative-friendly voices.
The average tuned-in Trump voter simply doesn’t appear to be buying what the hawks are still hawking. Neocons want war. They have wanted war with Iran in particular for the entire 21st century. They still do. Badly.
As Trump’s MAGA movement continues to define the American right more than any other faction within it, neoconservative influencers, long accustomed to establishing narratives among conservatives, are seeing their relevance diminished.
In the past they could rile up their audiences with fears about Sharia Law taking over America, the Muslim Brotherhood infiltrating the Obama administration, or any of the other sensationalist tricks they used to gin up conservative support for the U.S.’s next foreign policy mistake. That’s simply not where the right is anymore.
President Trump and his non-interventionist rhetoric has had the most to do with this change. But so have the broadening collection of antiwar voices mentioned here, who are there to echo and affirm when the president, or Vice President JD Vance, or special envoy Steve Witkoff, or Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard has something positive to say about realism and restraint, and critical of the neocons.
Congress is on track to finish work on the fiscal year 2025 Pentagon budget this week, and odds are that it will add $150 billion to its funding for the next few years beyond what the department even asked for. Meanwhile, President Trump has announced a goal of over $1 trillion for the Pentagon for fiscal year 2026.
With these immense sums flying out the door, it’s a good time to take a critical look at the Pentagon budget, from the rationales given to justify near record levels of spending to the impact of that spending in the real world. Here are five things you should know about the Pentagon budget and the military-industrial complex that keeps the churn going.
#1 The military-industrial complex (the MIC) is a special interest lobby on steroids.
In many ways the denizens of the MIC — the Pentagon, the uniformed military, the weapons makers, and their allies in Congress — are more concerned with lining their own pockets and deriving political benefits than they are with crafting well-considered plans for how best to defend America and its allies.
Unfortunately, since Eisenhower warned us about the military-industrial complex in his January 17, 1961 farewell address, the military-industrial complex is more powerful than ever. The companies are larger, the budget is larger, and its influence is greater, so advocates of a more affordable, effective approach to defense have even a higher hill to climb than they did six decades ago.
#2 More Pentagon Spending Doesn’t Make Us Safer
Contrary to the common misconception that when it comes to military spending, more is always better, too often overspending on the Pentagon fuels costly and dangerous arms races and enables unnecessary wars by emphasizing military solutions and neglecting smart diplomacy.
Our current, “cover the globe” strategy calls for the U.S. military to be able to intervene anywhere in the world on short notice. It calls for an immense, costly global military footprint that includes over 750 military bases and counterterror operations in 85 countries. It is a recipe for endless war. And when we’re not intervening directly, we’re often providing the weapons for other countries to fight wars, as is happening, with tragic effect, in the billions of dollars in arms the United States has supplied in support of Israel’s campaign of mass slaughter in Gaza.
If we want to defend ourselves, we should figure out what we need to defend ourselves, rather than just piling one weapon on another weapon on another weapon and hope that it all works out.
#3 The Military-Industrial Complex is a Terrible Jobs Program
The economy is getting weaker and debt exploding, so there is a premium on spending our tax dollars in ways that can counter, and hopefully reverse, that trend.
Jobs should be front and center in our national priorities. If you can’t make money, if you can’t feed your family, that’s a threat to your security, and, if enough people are in that category, it’s a threat to national security writ large.
Unfortunately, pumping up the Pentagon is not a solution to these adverse economic trends. As Heidi Peltier of the Costs of War Project has demonstrated, investing in alternatives like infrastructure, green energy, education and health care can generate anywhere from 9 percent to 250 percent more jobs for the same amount spent as giving the same amount of money to the Pentagon and the arms industry.
Even worse, there is evidence to suggest that Pentagon spending will be an even poorer job creator going forward. According to the National Defense Industrial Association (NDIA), the arms industry’s largest trade association, direct jobs in the arms manufacturing sector have dropped by almost two-thirds since the 1980s, from 3 million jobs then to 1.1 million jobs now.
And a defense industrial base focused on software-based emerging tech weapons that utilize AI to produce pilotless aircraft, ships and armored vehicles will likely create even fewer jobs per amount spent than current military outlays.
#4 The majority of the Pentagon budget goes to contractors.
While Pentagon budget boosters always argue that higher military spending is good for the troops, analyst Stephen Semler has determined that more than half of the department’s budget goes to contractors. And at the same time these firms are reaping hundreds of billions of dollars of our taxes each year, there are military families who need food stamps to make ends meet, and sharp cuts in veterans benefits in the offing based on budget proposals for this year and next.
Meanwhile, the arms makers are producing dysfunctional weapons systems that don’t work as advertised, cost billions more than originally projected, and spend more time in the hangar than being ready to use. To add insult to injury, much of the new funding they have received in recent years has gone to $20 million CEO salaries, or billions in spending to bid up their own stock prices – none of this spending does anything to defend us, but it does enrich the weapons makers, their executives, and their shareholders.
Really taking care of the troops would require spending more to take care of them by providing affordable housing and health care; better, more realistic training before sending them into combat; weapons that work as advertised and don’t spend half the time being repaired instead of being ready for combat; and a more realistic strategy that doesn’t put them in impossible situations and unwinnable wars.
And it would mean spending the $45 million-plus allocated for a military parade into directly investing in the needs of our veterans, and telling and honoring their stories rather than putting the focus on ostentatious displays of weaponry.
#5 It doesn't have to be this way
Promoters of ever higher Pentagon spending claim that pushing for more diplomacy, or having allies do more in their own defense is naive, because it’s a harsh world out there and it is necessary to have force and the threat of force as the leading elements of our foreign policy. Actually, if you want to defend the country, don’t overspend on the military, and don’t let special interests shape our foreign policy for their own financial gain. Don’t just assume that every solution has to be military. A military-first approach to foreign policy is not only naive, it is incredibly dangerous.
keep readingShow less
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
Recent weeks events have dramatically cast the Sudanese civil war back into the international spotlight, drawing renewed scrutiny to the role of external actors, particularly the United Arab Emirates.
This shift has been driven by Sudan's accusations at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) against the UAE concerning violations of the Genocide Convention, alongside drone strikes on Port Sudan that Khartoum vociferously attributes to direct Emirati participation. Concurrently, Secretary of State Marco Rubio publicly reaffirmed the UAE's deep entanglement in the conflict at a Senate hearing last week.
From Washington, another significant and sudden development also surfaced last week: the imposition of U.S. sanctions on the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) for alleged chemical weapons use. This dramatic accusation was met by an immediate denial from Sudan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which vehemently dismissed the claims as "unfounded" and criticized the U.S. for bypassing the proper international mechanisms, specifically the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, despite Sudan's active membership on its Executive Council. Despite the gravity of such an accusation, corroboration for the use of chemical agents in Sudan’s war remains conspicuously absent from public debate or reporting, save for a January 2025 New York Times article citing unnamed U.S. officials. That report itself contained a curious disclaimer: "Officials briefed on the intelligence said the information did not come from the United Arab Emirates, an American ally that is also a staunch supporter of the R.S.F."
For its part, the UAE, heavily implicated by media reports and conflict investigators in backing the RSF, has mounted a vigorous defense. On May 5, the ICJ dismissed Sudan’s genocide case against the UAE. While the dismissal was on jurisdictional grounds — the court determined it "manifestly lacks jurisdiction" to entertain the application due to a reservation in the UAE’s accession to the Genocide Convention — the UAE immediately reframed this procedural ruling as an absolution.
As the ICJ delivered its decision, Port Sudan, Sudan’s wartime capital, was enduring the second day of a relentless six-day drone barrage. This assault, marking the first time the strategic city had been targeted, brought Sudan's deeply ingrained, if reluctant, reliance on the UAE to a dramatic breaking point. Despite Khartoum's prior investment in maintaining some semblance of ties with Abu Dhabi for sanction avoidance and gold exports, its patience — after explicitly accusing the UAE of orchestrating these precision strikes — snapped.
On May 6, this culminated in Khartoum severing diplomatic relations with the UAE, explicitly branding it an “aggressor state.”
Speaking at the United Nations after a Security Council session on May 20, Sudan’s ambassador to the U.N., Al-Harith Idris, doubled down on the accusation that the attacks on Port Sudan were launched from a “UAE military base strategically located along the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden." Idris characterized these strikes as "reprisal" for an SAF attack on a cargo plane in Nyala a day earlier, which had allegedly been delivering military hardware to the RSF.
Multiple reports indicate that several Emirati military officers were present and possibly killed in the bombing; Kenyan and South Sudanese news outlets also detailed the deaths of their citizens in the incident.
Despite the mounting scrutiny, the Trump administration’s engagement with the UAE has been overwhelmingly warm. President Trump's recent Gulf tour, which included Abu Dhabi as a stop, was touted as a success, highlighted by over $200 billion in announced deals, with a strong focus on AI technology. These agreements built upon a previously revealed $1.4 trillion commitment from the UAE to invest in the U.S. economy over the next decade, a pledge made months earlier during a visit by Sheikh Tahnoon bin Zayed Al Nahyan, the UAE's national security adviser.
The intense concentration on high-stakes economic diplomacy seemingly overshadowed the growing instability in Sudan and Abu Dhabi’s role in fueling it. As President Trump himself told UAE President Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan, in a move that signals “teflon status” for those who deliver on deals: "we're going to treat you, as you should be — magnificently, and you're a magnificent man."
Rubio, during his Senate hearing last week, however painted a different picture, when he explicitly identified the war in Sudan and the UAE’s role in fueling it, stating that "we have expressed, not just to the UAE, but to other countries that they are turning it [Sudan’s civil war] into a proxy war.. that it's destabilizing the region."
While external peace efforts are significantly handicapped, the conflict's internal dynamics ensure its continuation. Capitalizing on intense public animosity toward the RSF, the SAF has framed the war as an existential struggle for "dignity" and sovereignty. This narrative, in addition to helping mobilize volunteer fighters, makes overt negotiation with the RSF — determined by the Biden administration in 2023 to have committed genocide and ethnic cleansing — politically untenable. For its part, the RSF is intent on securing a political future for itself and is pressing on with the formation of a parallel government, while characterizing the SAF as an illegitimate, Islamist-controlled army and regime.
The deeply entrenched fighting positions of the warring parties, coupled with the lack of a coherent U.S. strategy and diplomatic infrastructure, including an understaffedAfrica Bureau and an unappointed special envoy, leaves Washington poorly positioned to coordinate the external pressure needed to break the conflict's stalemate.
Though Sudan’s military-led government has explicitly reserved its right to self-defense, a conventional military attack on the UAE is practically impossible; Sudan’s army, embroiled in its internal war against the RSF, lacks the necessary power projection capabilities for such a feat. Moreover, a direct assault on the UAE would invite swift, punishing retaliation from the well-connected petroleum exporting giant.
Beyond its devastating humanitarian toll, the civil war’s continuation increasingly imperils regional security, pushing Sudan and its neighbors into dangerous corners where miscalculation could spark international conflict. Indeed, a more immediate risk than a direct Sudan-UAE military clash is Khartoum acting on an explicit threat to strike Chad or South Sudan, accusing them both of complicity with the RSF and of facilitating Abu Dhabi's alleged weapon flows into Darfur — threats both nations have condemned and vowed to meet with force.
Though, for now, no conventional front will open between Sudan and the UAE. The battle will continue to unfold in the halls of multilateral institutions, where Sudan's accusations will test, but likely not break, Abu Dhabi's entrenched influence.
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.