The House of Representatives on Wednesday passed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), paving the way for upwards of $848 billion in Pentagon spending. This, combined with additional funding contained in the so-called “Big, Beautiful Bill,” would push the Defense Department budget past $1 trillion for the first time.
That’s far more, adjusted for inflation, than peak levels reached at the height of the Cold War or the War in Vietnam.
And if the NDAA authorizations are turned into actual appropriations, huge sums of money will be wasted — on dysfunctional or obsolete systems like F-35s and $13 billion aircraft carriers that are increasingly vulnerable to high tech missiles. And the potentially most wasteful program of all would be President Trump’s “Golden Dome,” a costly pipe dream that most scientists who are not on the payroll of the Pentagon or the arms industry will tell you can never work.
Despite being a policy bill, the NDAA passed by the House is also silent about our misguided, dangerous “cover the globe” military strategy, which is more likely to draw us into unnecessary wars than it is to defend U.S. residents or anyone else.
House Armed Services Committee Chair Mike Rogers (R-Ala.) marketed the NDAA under the tired old slogan of “Peace Through Strength.” As research by the Costs of War Project at Brown University has demonstrated, America’s wars (and record Pentagon budgets) of this century have brought neither peace nor strength. Instead, they have cost at least $8 trillion, hundreds of thousands killed and displaced on all sides, and a devastating impact on veterans, including a huge number of physical and psychological injuries.
Activities that the bill amply funds include keeping troops in the U.S.-Mexico border. It also gives lip service to “cutting red tape” in the purchase of weapons, but that may include weakening the Pentagon’s independent testing office, one of the few sources of trustworthy analysis of the cost and performance of major arms systems. The House NDAA also endorses increased military cooperation with Israel, and replenishing war reserves that have been used to fuel Israel’s ongoing civilian slaughter and destruction of Gaza and attacks on Iran and Qatar.
The appropriations committees occasionally trim back the NDAA’s spending recommendations, but doing that in the prevailing climate in Washington would be an uphill climb.
William D. Hartung is a senior research fellow at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft. His work focuses on the arms industry and U.S. military budget.
Top photo credit: Vladimir Putin (Office of the Executive of the Federation of Russia) and Donald Trump (Michael C. Dougherty, U.S. Southern Command Public Affairs)
When asked on Sunday if reports that President Donald Trump was considering providing Ukraine with Tomahawk cruise missiles were true, Vice President J.D. Vance left the door open.
The President was selling, not gifting, weapons to Ukraine, Vance clarified, and would make the final decision about what capabilities Ukraine might receive.
If the Trump administration is hoping that toying with this proposal to furnish Ukraine with more advanced, longer-range missiles will give it leverage over Russian President Vladimir Putin, it is mistaken. Ukraine does not have the ability to launch Tomahawk missiles, and U.S. stocks of these weapons and their delivery systems are far too few and far too valuable for the Pentagon to agree to part with them.
Such rhetorical and unrealistic military threats are counterproductive, telegraph desperation, and create unnecessary escalation risks.
This is not the first time that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has asked for Tomahawk missiles. He made a similar request of the Biden administration earlier in the war but was rebuffed. The reasons for his continued interest are obvious. With a range of 2,500 kilometers—almost ten times that of the U.S. ATACMS—Tomahawk missiles could hold at risk strategic military and critical infrastructure targets across Russia far from Ukraine’s borders, including in Moscow and beyond.
That President Trump would now consider this request seriously is surprising. After all, his administration reimposed limits on Ukraine’s use of U.S.-provided long-range missiles months ago, restricting them to targets inside Russian-occupied areas of Ukraine. Providing Ukraine with new cruise missiles that can reach even farther into Russian territory would be at odds with this position and with Trump’s waning interest in offering Ukraine additional military assistance of any kind.
To be sure, President Trump often changes his mind. But even if Russia’s continued escalation in Ukraine and incursions into NATO airspace in recent weeks have altered Trump’s attitude, there is little chance that the United States can or would provide Kyiv with Tomahawk missiles. In fact, rather than exerting pressure on the Russian president, talk of providing Ukraine with Tomahawk missiles is fanciful and detached from military realities, and Putin clearly knows this.
Tomahawk missiles can be fired in three ways, from a guided missile destroyer; from Ohio, Virginia, and Los-Angeles class submarines; and using the new ground-based Typhon system, which was developed by the U.S. Army. Ukraine does not have any of these capabilities and has next zero chance of procuring them in the near or medium term.
For starters, Ukraine’s navy is small and lacks surface combatants, attack submarines, and the personnel to operate either. With U.S. ship and submarine-building under strain, it is unlikely Washington would consider selling these platforms to Ukraine.
Ukraine might have the personnel needed to operate the new ground-based Typhon system, but it is equally unlikely that the Pentagon would agree to sell this new hardware to Ukraine. The United States only has two working Typhon batteries, with a third in progress. Two of these systems are intended for use in Asia and one is earmarked for possible deployment to Germany. The United States has not agreed to sell the advanced system to any ally or partner — in part due to scarcity and in part due to the sensitivity of the technology — and it is hard to fathom that Ukraine will be the first.
If the United States did offer to sell Ukraine a Typhon system, it would not survive long on the country’s battlefield. The Typhon battery is enormous and hard to move. It requires a C-17 for transport over long-distances, and though it is road mobile, its size makes it quite easy to spot by satellite or even surveillance drone. In other words, it would make an appealing and vulnerable target for Russian airstrikes.
Without a means to launch the missiles, giving or selling Tomahawks to Ukraine would be futile. But there are other reasons to doubt that the United States would consider doing so. First, the missiles themselves are scarce and take two years to produce. With a total U.S. stockpile estimated under 4,000 missiles and after wasting several hundred in a pointless campaign against the Houthis in the Red Sea, the Pentagon will be leery of parting with the valuable munition, especially in the quantities needed for Ukraine to achieve strategic effects.
This is especially true given the crucial role the missile will play in any Pacific campaign, and the fact that fewer than 200 are produced most years.
Second, the United States has sold the missile so far only to close allies: Australia, Britain, Denmark, and Japan. Not even Israel has been permitted to purchase Tomahawk missiles to this point. It seems unlikely that the United States would be willing to share the weapon and its sensitive technology with the Ukrainians, especially with the risk that the missile or its remnants might fall into Russian hands.
Finally, there is the question of escalation, which Trump and his national security team has continued to attend to closely. Providing Ukraine a capability that can strike deep inside Russia creates a tremendous risk, especially since use of these missiles would require U.S. intelligence and targeting assistance. If Moscow believes that there is real threat to regime targets or to pieces of its nuclear infrastructure, the potential for nuclear escalation could become intolerably high. Even as he has become more frustrated with Putin, Trump has indicated zero interest in this type of outcome or any U.S. action that might drive Putin further from the negotiating table.
As the war drags on, it is understandable that Trump and his national security team are looking for new ways to coerce Putin into ending his battlefield campaign. To work, however, new threats must be credible, both politically and militarily. The proposal to send Ukraine Tomahawks is neither, and is more likely to evoke more laughter in the Kremlin than fear.
In the end, the best path to ending the war in Ukraine continues to be doubling down on diplomacy, even if the bargaining process is slow, frustrating, and doesn’t yield immediate results.
keep readingShow less
Top image credit: Georgia's new president Mikheil Kavelashvili speaks during his swearing-in ceremony at the parliament in Tbilisi, Georgia December 29, 2024. REUTERS/Irakli Gedenidze/Pool
The European Union expects Georgia to change radically to accommodate the EU. The Georgian government expects the EU to change radically to accommodate Georgia.
The latter may seem an absurd proposition given the relative size of the two sides (and it will certainly be regarded as such by the EU Commission) but as the Georgian President, Mikheil Kavelashvili reminded me in New York last week, Christian Georgia has been around for a lot longer than the EU — almost 1,700 years longer — and confidently expects to be around for a long time after it.
In the years after the Georgian Dream government was elected in 2012, relations with the EU were excellent. The previous United National Movement government of President Mikheil Saakashvili (now in jail for alleged misappropriation of state money), though it had carried out radical economic reforms (backed by copious Western aid), had become increasingly brutal and authoritarian, and had been criticized for this by human rights organizations.
Moreover, though they rarely talk about this in public, Western officials had come to see Saakashvili himself as a reckless and dangerous figure whose actions had brought on the Georgian-Russian war of August 2008, in which Georgia suffered a catastrophic defeat.
Georgian Dream carried out further economic and democratic reforms, and as President Kavelashvili was anxious to stress, as a result Georgia drew far ahead of Moldova and Ukraine in moving towards meeting the EU’s criteria for accession. However, hawkish elements in both Georgia and the West were always suspicious of Georgian Dream’s founder, Bidzina Ivanishvili, a billionaire who — like a number of leading Georgian businessmen — made a fortune in Russia in the chaotic years of the 1990s before moving to France in 2002 and becoming a French citizen. Mr. Ivanishvili’s wealth in 2024 was estimated at between $2.7 billion and $7.8 billion — the latter figure being almost a quarter of Georgia’s GDP. In the view of an opposition activist:
"Georgia currently is ruled by an oligarch who has a very Russian agenda…He owns everything, all the institutions and all the governmental forces and resources. He sees this country as his private property, and he is ruling this country as if it were his own business."
Mr. Ivanishvili has always been accused by his enemies of being an agent of Moscow, though no concrete evidence for this has ever been presented. What is unquestionable, however, is that Mr. Ivanishvili’s immense wealth, political patronage, extensive philanthropic activities and personal prestige mean that although he was only prime minister from 2012-2013, he remains the Honorary Chairman and dominant figure in Georgian Dream.
In President Kavelashvili’s words, “He was responsible for restoring sanity to Georgian politics and refocusing Georgian policy on our real national interests…The number of people like him in Georgian history can be counted on the fingers of one hand. He is an example to the nation.”
Mr. Ivanishvili’s mixture of immense power with personal reticence and inaccessibility — very unlike the Georgian norm — were among the reasons for the growth of opposition to Georgian Dream in the Georgian political classes. What first drew the EU and NATO into this internal Georgian political battle was the role of Western-funded NGOs, which passionately support EU and NATO accession, but became increasingly linked to the opposition.
Georgia’s relative poverty, and deliberate decisions by previous governments to outsource state functions to them, have given these NGOs an unusually large role in Georgian society and as employers of the Georgian educated classes. Given that their agreements contracts with the EU and USAID generally stipulate a non-partisan role, the government had some reason to think it inappropriate that the EU should continue to fund what had in effect in many cases become openly political groups opposing the government.
However, the government’s moves to regulate the foreign funding of these NGOs caused a storm of protest in Georgia that spread to their backers in Western Europe and the United States, where it was portrayed as the first step in a move to suppress them.
What brought matters to a head between Georgia and the EU was the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022. The Georgian government condemned the invasion, sent humanitarian aid to Ukraine and imposed certain sanctions on Russia. However, it tried to block Georgian volunteers going to Ukraine to fight and rejected Western pressure to send military aid and to impose the full range of EU sanctions, leading to fresh accusations of being “pro-Russian.”
On this, President Kavelashvili pushed back very strongly. He accused the West of trying to provoke a new war with Russia that would be catastrophic for Georgia. “The West demanded that we get involved in war with Russia against our vital national interests…just like in 2008, when the then government’s unreasonable actions on the basis of trust in NATO led Georgia to disaster,” he said in our interview, adding, “but today, Georgia has a government that represents the interests of our people…the same media outlets that accuse us of being under Russian influence tell the same lie about President Trump.”
President Kavelashvili accused the U.S. “deep state” and organizations like USAID, the National Endowment for Democracy, and the European Parliament of mobilizing the Georgian opposition to this end; “but despite all this pressure, we stood and continue to stand as guardians of Georgian national interest and of Georgian economic growth” — the latter comment a veiled reference to the very important economic links between Georgia and Russia. Western sanctions against Russia have brought about a steep increase in Georgian exports to Russia and the transit trade from Turkey and Europe to Russia, contributing to maintaining high GDP growth over the past three years.
As a result of this clash, and what Western governments allege are the increasingly repressive policies of the Georgian government, several Georgian government figures (including Mr. Ivanishvili) are under Western sanctions, Georgia has paused its application to join the EU, and the so-called “Megobari” Act (in Georgian, Megobari means “friend”), introduced by Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.) to the U.S. Congress with bipartisan support, would if passed by the Senate impose sweeping U.S. sanctions on the Georgian government as a whole.
The Megobari Act, resolutions of the European Parliament and countless articles in the Western media allege that the Georgian parliamentary elections of October 2024 were rigged by the government with the help of a massive Russian “hybrid operation,” although at the time the OSCE observer mission report described them as generally free and without Russian interference, though with government misuse of the media and the civil service to generate support. The elections were followed by large and sometimes violent opposition protests that were met with police violence, and some elements in Europe and Washington support the claim of the former president, Salome Zourabichvili (previously a French diplomat), to remain Georgia’s legitimate president.
Mr. Kavelashvili, however, was defiant. “We are a unique people, and have had to fight for centuries to preserve our language, culture, values and identity,” he told me. “Our overriding aim is to strengthen and preserve this culture…We have an open-hearted approach to the EU and NATO but our relationship must be based on mutual respect. Instead, from them we receive only double standards, hypocrisy and hostility…We aim to join the EU in order to strengthen Georgia, not to weaken it.”
In his emphasis on national identity, national interests and traditional national culture, President Kavelashvili sounded very much like many U.S. Republicans and the growing right-wing populist movements in Europe (and of course the governments of Hungary and Slovakia), which are pushing back against what they see as dictation by Brussels and attempts at compulsory cultural change by liberal elites. As with Georgian Dream, all of these movements are using the language of the defense of cultural values to generate mass support.
This could make President Kavelashvili’s aim to change the EU a good deal less outlandish than it may seem. A future Rassemblement National government in France would probably push for a much looser EU, much closer to the ideas of Georgian Dream — and President de Gaulle — than those of the present European Commission and western European establishments. For in his words, “The European Union is not a museum. Attitudes within the EU are changing, and will go on changing.” Then again, an EU dominated by such forces might also be much less likely to engage in further enlargement. As for most of its history, Georgia would be thrown back on its own resources and its ability to navigate between the contending powers in its turbulent neighborhood.
The government of Israel has hired a new conservative-aligned firm, Clock Tower X LLC, to create media for Gen Z audiences in a contract worth $6 million. At least 80 percent of content Clock Tower produces will be “tailored to Gen Z audiences across platforms, including TikTok, Instagram, YouTube, podcasts, and other relevant digital and broadcast outlets” with a minimum goal of 50 million impressions per month.
Clock Tower will even deploy “websites and content to deliver GPT framing results on GPT conversations.” In other words, Clock Tower will create new websites to influence how AI GPT models such as ChatGPT, which are trained on vast amounts of data from every corner of the internet, frame topics and respond to them — all on behalf of Israel.
As part of this work, the firm will also use search engine optimization software MarketBrew AI, a predictive AI platform that helps clients adapt to algorithms and promote their work on search engines like Google and Bing, to “improve the visibility and ranking of relevant narratives.”
Clock Tower will integrate its pro-Israel messaging into Salem Media Network properties, a conservative Christian media group that boasts a vast radio network and produces high-profile shows such as the Hugh Hewitt Show, the Larry Elder Show, and the Right View with Lara Trump. In April, the conservative media network announced Donald Trump Jr. and Lara Trump as significant stakeholders in the company. Salem Media Network did not respond to a question clarifying whether it would be compensated by Clock Tower for promoting messages on behalf of Israel, or how these messages would be integrated.
Former Trump campaign manager Brad Parscale, the adviser who hired the controversial microtargeting firm Cambridge Analytica during Trump’s 2016 campaign, is at the center of the Israeli government’s new deal. Clock Tower is led by Parscale — who is also the new chief strategy officer for the Salem Media Group.
In its contract, Clock Tower does not reveal much about what kinds of messaging will be promoted on behalf of Israel. According to its filing under the Foreign Agents Registration Act, Clock Tower was hired to help “execute a nationwide campaign in the United States to combat antisemitism.”
The firm’s point-person is Eran Shayovich, the chief of staff at Israel’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs. According to Shayovich’s Linkedin profile, he is leading a campaign called “project 545” which aims to “amplify Israel’s strategic communication and public diplomacy efforts.”
Clock Tower’s work will be targeting a sector of the American populace that has broken sharply from its support for Israel. A July Gallup poll found that only 9% of Americans aged 18-34 support Israel’s military action in Gaza. Other polls show Israel’s favorability falling more generally among the American public.
Clock Tower will also complete an “initial cultural, demographic, and sentiment research report” for Israel within 30 days. Another American firm, Stagwell Global, recently conducted a similar survey for the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs. While the findings were far more favorable to Israel than other surveys, the poll, which was leaked to Drop Site, still found that a 47% of Americans believed that Israel is committing genocide.
In a meeting with pro-Israel influencers on Friday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu explained that social media is the most important weapon Israel has at its disposal. “We’re going to have to use the tools of battle, the weapons change over time,” he said. “You can’t fight today with swords, that doesn’t work very well…the most important ones are the social media.”
Netanyahu even touted the purchase of Tik Tok as a group of investors are making a play to buy the company. Oracle co-founder Larry Ellison, who is the single biggest private donor to the Israeli Defense Forces, is poised to play a large role in the deal. “I hope it goes through, it could be consequential,” said Netanyahu.
Clock Tower is conducting the work for Havas Media Network, an international media company that is working for the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs via the Israeli Government Advertising Agency. Clock Tower is not the only American firm Havas has subcontracted as part of its work. Earlier this month, Sludge reported that Havas had hired Democratic-aligned public relations firm SKDKnickerbocker on a $600,000 contract to run a bot farm promoting pro-Israel narratives on social media.
SKDK’s work ended just as Clock Tower’s is beginning. Clock Tower drafted a contract on August 27, two days before SKDK deregistered its work for Israel. In a statement to Politico, a spokesperson for SKDK declined to explain why the firm ended its work for Israel, simply stating that the work “had run its course.”
SKDK, Havas, and an associate of Clock Tower did not respond to requests for comment on this article.
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.