A group of Democratic lawmakers led by Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) on Tuesday slammed a Republican proposal to pour $150 billion into the military beyond the increases already planned for 2025.
“Republicans are putting the Pentagon before the people,” Markey said during a press conference on Capitol Hill highlighting wasteful Pentagon spending.
The senator stood next to a large list of alternative projects that could be funded by a $150 billion allocation including new hospitals, student loan forgiveness, affordable housing units, and free school lunches.
Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) took aim at Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency, highlighting the hypocrisy of a military budget increase amid massive cuts to much smaller federal agencies like the U.S. Agency for International Development, the National Institute of Health, and the Department of Education.
“Let’s not be fooled by the hollow claims that Elon is going to go after waste in Pentagon spending,” she said.
Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) said the $150 billion spending increase proposal was driven by her colleagues’ investments in the military industrial complex, echoing an opinion piece she published in the Detroit Free Press late last month.
Rounding out the slate of speakers were Robert Weissman, co-president of Public Citizen, Gabe Murphy, and Thomas Countryman. Murphy, a policy analyst at the nonpartisan organization Taxpayers for Common Sense, lamented the bloating influence of private companies, noting that “half of our budget goes to defense contractors.”
Meanwhile, Countryman, a former U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for International Affairs and current Board Chairman at the Arms Control Association, criticized the proposal’s emphasis on nuclear weapons spending as a defense strategy. “What concerns me about this particular agenda request by Republicans is that it will contribute to a nuclear arms race,” he said.
Gideon Pardo is a Reporting Intern at Responsible Statecraft and a senior at the Medill School of Journalism at Northwestern University. He has previously reported for the Medill Investigative Lab and for the on-campus publication North by Northwestern, where he wrote about campus related news and national politics.
A senior Democratic lawmaker on Wednesday said it was ‘a problem’ that many in his party have been trying to out-hawk Republicans on foreign policy and that Democrats need to be more aggressive in advocating for diplomacy approaches abroad, particularly with respect to China.
During a discussion hosted by the Quincy Institute — RS’s publisher — with House Armed Services Committee Ranking Member Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash), QI executive vice president Trita Parsi wondered why — pointing to Vice President Kamala Harris campaigning for president with Liz Cheney and Sen. Elissa Slotkin’s (D-Mich.) recent embrace of Ronald Reagan’s foreign policy — the Democratic Party has shifted away from promoting diplomacy, opposing “stupid wars,” and celebrating multilateralism.
“There is no question that that is a problem,” Smith said, adding that he thinks Democrats often fear being criticized for promoting talking with adversaries as being weak and then feel they don’t get enough support from the left. “One of the beefs I have with the left side of the spectrum is they’re always banging on us for not doing one thing or another. … We do four things and it’s the fifth thing we didn’t do.”
Smith said that Democrats need to “much more aggressively embrace diplomacy” and that part of that should be a refocus on how the United States deals with China.
“Everyone wants to talk about what their plan is to beat China. Anytime anyone says that, you got to ask the question, ‘what is your plan to peacefully co-exist with China?’” he said. “We are completely ignoring even trying to figure out how to make that work and constantly focused on how to beat them.”
Smith acknowledged that China “does have expansionist ambitions” and that the U.S. has “to be able to have an adequate deterrence” to push back and that “we need to be able to compete economically.” But, he said, the U.S. needs to work with China on a whole host of shared interests, like global warming, health issues and energy needs.
“What’s your plan to get along with China?” he asked.
keep readingShow less
Top photo credit: Volodymyr Zelensky (Shutterstock/Pararazza) and Vladimir Putin (Shutterstock/miss.cabul)
The Trump administration has so far played its cards in the Ukraine peace process with great skill. Pressure on Kyiv has led the Ukrainian government to abandon its impossible demands and join the U.S. in calling for an unconditional temporary ceasefire.
This call, together with the resumption of U.S. military and intelligence aid to Ukraine, is now putting great pressure on the Russian government to abandon its own impossible demands and seek a genuine and early compromise. A sign of the intensity of this pressure is the anguish it is causing to Russian hardliners, who are demanding that Putin firmly reject the proposal. We must hope that he will not listen to them.
That does not mean that Moscow either will or should simply agree at once to a ceasefire. It will not, because the Russian government has always insisted that certain things have to be firmly nailed down in advance. It should not, because unless key things are agreed and/or excluded, there will be a grave risk that the ceasefire will collapse and the war will resume. These issues will now be discussed in the next round of U.S.-Russia talks, and we must hope that they can be agreed upon with reasonable speed.
Among the things that Russia will have to abandon is Putin’s previous demand that in return for a ceasefire Ukraine withdraw from those parts of the four provinces that Russia claims to have annexed but Ukraine still holds. That is not going to happen, any more than Russia will withdraw from the territory it now holds. The ceasefire line will run where the battle line stops. However, it seems probable that before agreeing to a ceasefire Russia will do its utmost to drive the Ukrainian army from the sliver of Russian territory it holds in Kursk, and it may well achieve this in the coming days.
Something that should be agreed — at least in principle —- before a temporary ceasefire is the framework of a long term ceasefire. It is not clear from the latest U.S.-Ukraine talks if Kyiv has definitely given up its hope of a European peacekeeping force. It must do so; for the Russians regard this as NATO membership by another name, and if the Ukrainians and Europeans try to re-introduce this later, Russia will resume the war.
Any peacekeeping force must come from genuinely neutral countries under the authority of the United Nations; and this in turn could form the starting point for a new consultative mechanism on European security —- something that Russia has been seeking for the past 15 years at least.
Western suggestions for this have been pointless and unacceptable to Moscow, because they have involved four Western nations plus NATO and the EU “consulting” with Russia. For Moscow, this would be simply a new version of the failed NATO-Russia Council, in which Western countries line up to present Russia with previously agreed diktats.
A UN peacekeeping force for Ukraine by contrast could be under the aegis of a committee of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, plus Germany and whichever leading member of the “Global South” (for example, India and/or Brazil) provides significant numbers of peacekeepers. Such a group would also put content in (so far empty) Western acceptance of the “multipolar world,” and Western recognition that other countries have legitimate interests in European stability, insofar as war in Europe can have severe effects on their own food and energy security.
Such a UN mechanism could in turn help initiate talks on mutual arms limitations. Russia will obviously have to give up its previous demand that Ukraine reduce its armed forces to levels where they could not defend Ukraine, but it can be expected to press hard for limits on certain categories of weapons, like long-range missiles. This will be far easier for Ukraine, the U.S., and EU to accept if it forms part of a wider process of arms limitation negotiations.
One promising element could be a return to the mutual abolition of intermediate missiles in Europe.
Obviously such a complicated issue cannot be negotiated before a ceasefire, but an announcement of the beginning of a new arms control process should be possible.
Then there is the issue of the approximately $300 billion in frozen Russian assets, mostly held by Europe. Moscow will certainly demand a guarantee that they be unfrozen. The EU for its part is under pressure to seize the assets and use them to fund Ukraine —something that would be both illegal and a serious obstacle to peace. Ideally, however, together with EU aid they could form part of a Ukraine reconstruction fund under the UN, with a significant proportion of the Russian money going to reconstruct the Russian-held areas of Ukraine. Russian officials have suggested that this solution could be agreed.
These are all highly complex issues. Nonetheless, given intelligence and goodwill on both sides, it should be possible to make real progress in the next round of talks, and open the way to a ceasefire in the reasonably near future. Russia has good reason to seek an agreement, because otherwise the future offers only on the one hand a grinding war of attrition for uncertain gains, and on the other, the collapse of a highly promising new relationship with Washington.
Ukraine too will have to compromise, and here, professed friends of Ukraine in the West also have a responsibility, which so far all too many have completely failed to meet. The Trump administration’s initiation of the Ukraine peace process has been met in much of the U.S. and Europe not with sensible analysis and advice but hysterical and hate-filled condemnation, including disgraceful accusations of “treason”, of “betraying Ukraine”, and of a “New Yalta Agreement.”
As the latest news clearly demonstrates, none of this is true. And if as Marco Rubio has said, the ball is now firmly in Russia’s court when it comes to peace proposals and a ceasefire, it is also true that Ukraine also still has the capacity to wreck peace talks by introducing or reintroducing conditions that Russia will automatically reject. Their “friends” should not encourage them to do so.
keep readingShow less
Top photo credit: An aerial view of the Pentagon, in Washington, District of Columbia. (TSGT ANGELA STAFFORD, USAF/public domain)
Passing with a vote of 217-213 mostly along party lines — only one Republican, Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) broke ranks to vote against it — the CR now proceeds to the Senate, which needs to pass something by 11:59 p.m. Friday to avoid a government shutdown. Although Republicans will need bipartisan support for the CR to pass there, Senate Democrats, weary of the political costs of a shutdown, seem increasingly likely to comply.
Part of the House CR’s defense boost would go toward increased pay for troops. But the CR would also bolster the Pentagon’s flexibility to make new weapons purchases, even though such a measure would not typically be included in a continuing resolution.
And, while the CR sets aside previously requested funds for two Arleigh Burke class destroyers, it also fronts $1.5 billion toward a third one to be built — even though the Navy has not requested funds for another one.
Some lawmakers are frustrated by the choice to ram through additional defense spending at a critical political moment, when politicians are weighing the CR’s budget cuts with the political risks of a government shutdown.
“We know that there is a $6 billion in defense spending increase [in the CR]. That is not something the majority of Democrats, including myself, are in support of,” Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) said, expressing her opposition to the CR on CNN. “Especially when they are making $13 billion in cuts to programs that people care about.”
“I’d like verification that in the future that we’re going to reduce the spending at the Pentagon,” Tim Burchett (R-Tenn.) said, explaining his weariness towards the CR on Monday. “There's savings in [the CR] and they're making cuts in different departments, but the Pentagon always gets (more money),” he told CNN. Typically against CRs, Burchett ultimately voted for the bill.
U.S. Senator Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has called to increase military spending, invoking the China threat to warn against a CR-sparked return to last year’s defense spending levels.
“Spending the entire year under the FY2024 funding level will mean no money or authorization for 168 new programs — many of which are required to outcompete China in space and cyberspace,” he wrote in the Washington Post. “In the race to project power and deter aggression across the Indo-Pacific, it would put U.S. forces and our regional allies even further behind.”
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.