Follow us on social

Pentagon

Pentagon gets $6B more in bill designed to avoid government shutdown

The Continuing Resolution even sets aside $1.5B for a warship the Navy didn't ask for

Reporting | QiOSK

The Pentagon got a real boost — $6 billion in fact — in the House Continuing Resolution for the Fiscal Year passed last night to avoid a government shutdown on Friday.

While slashing non-defense spending across federal departments by $13 billion the CR pads the Fiscal Year 2024 defense budget, totaling $892.5 billion. If passed, the CR would fund federal agencies through September.

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.”


Top photo credit: An aerial view of the Pentagon, in Washington, District of Columbia. (TSGT ANGELA STAFFORD, USAF/public domain)
Reporting | QiOSK
Fort Bragg horrors expose dark underbelly of post-9/11 warfare
Top photo credit: Seth Harp book jacket (Viking press) US special operators/deviant art/creative commons

Fort Bragg horrors expose dark underbelly of post-9/11 warfare

Media

In 2020 and 2021, 109 U.S. soldiers died at Fort Bragg, the largest military base in the country and the central location for the key Special Operations Units in the American military.

Only four of them were on overseas deployments. The others died stateside, mostly of drug overdoses, violence, or suicide. The situation has hardly improved. It was recently revealed that another 51 soldiers died at Fort Bragg in 2023. According to U.S. government data, these represent more military fatalities than have occurred at the hands of enemy forces in any year since 2013.

keep readingShow less
Trump Netanyahu
Top image credit: President Donald Trump hosts a bilateral dinner for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Monday, July 7, 2025, in the Blue Room. (Official White House Photo by Daniel Torok)

The case for US Middle East retrenchment has never been clearer

Middle East

Is Israel becoming the new hegemon of the Middle East? The answer to this question is an important one.

Preventing the rise of a rival regional hegemon — a state with a preponderance of military and economic power — in Eurasia has long been a core goal of U.S. foreign policy. During the Cold War, Washington feared Soviet dominion over Europe. Today, U.S. policymakers worry that China’s increasingly capable military will crowd the United States out of Asia’s lucrative economic markets. The United States has also acted repeatedly to prevent close allies in Europe and Asia from becoming military competitors, using promises of U.S. military protection to keep them weak and dependent.

keep readingShow less
United Nations
Top image credit: lev radin / Shutterstock.com

Do we need a treaty on neutrality?

Global Crises

In an era of widespread use of economic sanctions, dual-use technology exports, and hybrid warfare, the boundary between peacetime and wartime has become increasingly blurry. Yet understandings of neutrality remain stuck in the time of trench warfare. An updated conception of neutrality, codified through an international treaty, is necessary for global security.

Neutrality in the 21st century is often whatever a country wants it to be. For some, such as the European neutrals like Switzerland and Ireland, it is compatible with non-U.N. sanctions (such as by the European Union) while for others it is not. Countries in the Global South are also more likely to take a case-by-case approach, such as choosing to not take a stance on a specific conflict and instead call for a peaceful resolution while others believe a moral position does not undermine neutrality.

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.