Follow us on social

Lawmakers owning defense stocks: How corrupt is that?

Lawmakers owning defense stocks: How corrupt is that?

New episode of Always at War explores how members of Congress are trading millions in equities while managing US military strategy (VIDEO)

Analysis | Video Section

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.


Top Image Credit: Congress is Getting Rich Off War Stocks. Always at War #3 (YouTube)

Analysis | Video Section
Mark Levin
Top photo credit: Erick Stakelbeck on TBN/Screengrab

The great fade out: Neocon influencers rage as they diminish

Media

Mark Levin appears to be having a meltdown.

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).

keep readingShow less
american military missiles
Top photo credit: Fogcatcher/Shutterstock

5 ways the military industrial complex is a killer

Latest

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.

keep readingShow less
Sudan
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

Will Sudan attack the UAE?

Africa

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."

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.