President Trump paused most foreign aid programs in January but is now asking Congress to approve $1 billion worth of bombs and demolition equipment to Israel.
The administration has been adding exceptions to its foreign aid pause since announcing it, but it seems Israel’s aid was never in jeopardy, according to diplomatic cables.
The American taxpayer will pay for the $1 billion sale of the weapons as part of the $3.8. billion military aid package sent to Israel each year. In total, from Oct. 2023 to Oct. 2024, Israel received a record-breaking $17.9 billion worth of weapons, and President Biden announced plans to send an $8 billion arms package to the nation in January, but it has not yet been fully approved by Congress.
This new arms package comes as President Trump is set to meet with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Tuesday. Trump also lifted the pause on the sale of 2,000-pound bombs to Israel in late January.
The weapons and equipment included in the most recent sale include 1,000-pound “general purpose” bombs and Caterpillar D9 armored bulldozers, which have historically been used to raze houses and other buildings in the West Bank as collective punishment, including as part of an ongoing operation in Jenin.
Trump’s decision to continue large-scale arms sales to Israel is shadowed by a fragile cease-fire in Gaza, and by reports that raised the death count in Gaza to at least 62,000.
Aaron is a reporter for Responsible Statecraft and a contributor to the Mises Institute. He received both his undergraduate and masters degrees in international relations from Liberty University.
Top Photo: A Palestinian man looks at an Israeli military vehicle during an Israeli raid in Tubas in the Israeli-occupied West Bank October 31, 2023. REUTERS/Raneen Sawafta
A Palestinian man looks at an Israeli military vehicle during an Israeli raid in Tubas in the Israeli-occupied West Bank October 31, 2023. REUTERS/Raneen Sawafta
Top image credit: NEW DELHI, INDIA – JANUARY 26: T90 Tanks on display during the 75th Republic Day Parade 2024, at Kartavya Path, on January 26, 2024 in New Delhi, India. (Photo by Raj K Raj/Hindustan Times/Sipa USA ) VIA REUTERS
2024 marked biggest increase in global military spending since Cold War’s end.
Spurred by ongoing wars in Europe and the Middle East, global military spending rose nearly 10 percent in 2024, the biggest annual increase since at least the end of the Cold War more than 30 years ago, according to the latest in the annual series of reports on world military spending by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, or SIPRI.
Altogether, the world spent more than $2.7 trillion dollars on their militaries last year, a 9.4 percent increase from 2023.
While the United States remained the world’s biggest military spender by far, at $997 billion, Washington accounted for 37 percent of total global military expenditures in 2024 – a number of other countries made extraordinary increases in their military budgets, far greater than the 5.7% increase in spending by the U.S.
The war in Ukraine and Israel’s wars in Gaza and Lebanon accounted for the greatest increases.
Russia’s military spending rose by 38 percent compared to 2023, reaching an estimated $149 billion in 2024. That was double the amount it spent in 2015, according to SIPRI.
Military spending by Ukraine, backed by the U.S. and other NATO members, increased at a far more modest rate, at 2.9%, to total $64.7 billion, or less than half of Moscow’s expenditures. But that constituted 34% of Kyiv’s total GDP, the world’s largest military burden expressed as a percentage of total national production.
The Ukraine war also had much broader impacts on military spending in Europe. Germany’s military budget rose by a whopping 28% in 2024 to reach $88.5 billion, propelling it to fourth in the rankings for the world’s biggest military spenders behind the U.S., China, and Russia and, for the first time, the top spot in Western Europe.
Indeed, all NATO member states increased their military spending in 2024, to a total of $1.505 billion, or 55% of total global military expenditures, according to the report. Of that total, European members spent $454 billion, or 30% of the alliance’s total spending. The biggest increase was in Poland, whose military budget grew 31%, to $38 billion, or 4.2% of its GDP, the highest percentage in the alliance. New NATO member Sweden increased its military budget by 34%, to $12 billion. France also increased defense spending, by 6.1%, to $64.7 billion.
“The latest policies adopted in Germany and many other European countries suggest that Europe has entered a period of high and increasing military spending that is likely to continue for the foreseeable future,” noted Lorenzo Scarazzato, a researcher with SIPRI’s Military Expenditure and Arms Production Program.
Increases in military spending in the Middle East were almost entirely focused on Israel’s wars against Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon, according to the report. Its military budget increased by nearly two-thirds (65%) to $46.5 billion in 2024, the biggest annual rise since the 1967 Arab-Israeli War. That total amounted to 8.8% of its GDP, the world’s second highest burden after Ukraine.
Lebanon also increased its military spending significantly, by 58%, although its total military budget, $635 million, came to a tiny fraction of Israel’s. While spending by the other predominantly Arab states remained relatively static during 2024, Iran’s military budget actually fell by 10% in real terms to $7.9 billion (or less than a quarter of Israel’s budget), in part due to the impact of economic sanctions, according to the report.
Overall, military spending in the Middle East came to $243 billion for the year, an increase of 15% over 2023. Saudi Arabia, the region’s traditional biggest spender on defense equipment, retained its title with military spending reaching $80.3 billion, a slight increase of 1.5% over 2023. It ranked seventh in total military spending in 2024, behind Germany, India, and the United Kingdom.
Military budgets in Asia and the Pacific rose amid heightened global and regional tensions, reaching $629 billion for the year, an increase of 6.3%, the largest year-to-year increase since 2009, according to the report.
With the world’s second biggest defense budget, China accounted for about half the total for the region with an estimated budget of $314 billion, an increase of seven percent over 2023. Japan’s military budget rose even more, by 21%, to $55.3 billion, which SIPRI said was the largest annual increase since 1952. That amounted to 1.4% of GDP, low by NATO standards, but the highest since 1958. Meanwhile, Taiwan’s military budget grew by nearly two percent, to $16.5 billion, while India, with the world’s fifth largest military budget, increased its spending by 1.6% to $86.1 billion.
“Major military spenders in the Asia-Pacific region are investing increasing resources into advanced military capabilities,” said Nan Tian, who directs the Military Expenditure program. “With several unresolved disputes and mounting tensions, these investments risk sending the region into a dangerous arms-race spiral.”
The nations of both Latin America and sub-Saharan Africa were generally far more restrained in their military spending. Military spending in the latter totaled $21.9 billion, a decrease of 3.2% from the previous year. The report found that military budgets in three of the region’s biggest spenders — South Africa, Nigeria, and Ethiopia — fell for the year.
Military spending in South America remained stable overall in 2024 at $53.6 billion, although Colombia increased its budget in part due to the failure of peace talks with a rebel faction, and Guyana increased its budget by 78% to $202 million amid renewed claims by Venezuela to the oil-rich Essequibo region. A dramatic 39% increase in Mexico’s defense budget to nearly $20 billion to fight organized crime was the most notable change in the greater Central American region.
keep readingShow less
Top image credit: Fabrizio Maffei / Shutterstock.com
No Pope had ever kissed the feet of leaders, begging them to bring peace to their country. But in April 2019, Pope Francis surprised South Sudan and the entire world when he did just that to President Salva Kiir, Vice President Riek Machar, James Wani Igga, Taban Deng Gai, and Rebecca Nyandeng De Mabior; a gesture that clearly expressed his belief that the Pontiff of the Catholic Church must be a committed and unwavering peacemaker.
Pope Francis spoke about peace until his very last breath. In his brief message before the Urbi et Orbi blessing on April 20, Easter Sunday, he mentioned peace 10 times, remembering the Holy Land and the gift of all Christians celebrating Easter on the same day, in Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, Ukraine, the Southern Caucasus, the Balkans, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Sudan and South Sudan, the Sahel, the Horn of Africa and the Great Lakes region, and also Myanmar.
His memory of specific countries and regions was accompanied by his concern for freedom of religion, freedom of thought, freedom of expression, and respect for the views of others. He stressed that no peace is possible without true disarmament. The call was “to care for one another, to increase our mutual solidarity, and to work for the integral development of each human person.”
These were not only his last words. These were the words of an entire life and of an entire pontificate. Even the name chosen, “Francis,” was a sign of his commitment to peace and the poor. No Pope before him had used that name, the name of a poor friar from Assisi who, in 1219, was bold enough to counter the Crusaders and meet Sultan Malik al-Kamil in Damietta, Egypt.
Indeed, Pope Francis spoke about peace, invited peace, and worked for peace even and especially when few did so — much like his chosen namesake. He was the first Pope to visit the Arabian Peninsula and Iraq, the first to develop a personal friendship with the Grand Imam of Al-Azhar, Ahmed Al-Tayyeb, the same way he was friends with Rabbi Abraham Skorka in Argentina. He expressed the same personal touch through his frequent calls to the only Catholic church in the Gaza Strip.
Yet, his ministry was not only about personal relationships and feelings. It was made of bold steps for the world such as the “Document on Human Fraternity for World Peace and Living Together,” the first document to be signed by both a Catholic Pope and a Grand Imam of Al-Azhar. It was signed 800 years after St. Francis visited Sultan Malik al-Kamil and marked a dramatic turn in the relationship between Muslims and Christians.
It was also bold to declare, as he did in Nagasaki, Japan, that “the use of atomic energy for purposes of war is immoral, just as the possession of nuclear weapons is immoral.” The opposition of the Catholic Church and prior Pontiffs to nuclear weapons had been clear but Pope Francis’ statement went beyond; we must imagine a world without nuclear weapons, we must imagine a world in peace.
And he was equally bold when he denounced the arms trade, repeatedly condemning those who profit from war in his address to the United States Congress in September 2015, saying, “why are deadly weapons being sold to those who plan to inflict untold suffering on individuals and society? Sadly, the answer, as we all know, is simply for money; money that is drenched in blood, often innocent blood.”
For his boldness and love of peace, Pope Francis was openly criticized, even mocked. This was especially true when he tried to open a path to peace in Ukraine by sending Cardinal Matteo Zuppi to Kyiv, Moskow, Washington, and Beijing. In that context, peace was and has been a dirty word, but in his words and actions, Francis insisted that peace remain central, underlining the value of the human person, of peoples, over and against the destructive power of violence.
Similar resistance emerged against his stance in favor of the dejected, migrants, and prisoners. Pope Francis was caring. He was aware of the trials and tribulations of many, and, aware, he cared for them and invited others to do the same.
He made himself a pilgrim of peace, travelling the globe, witnessing to peace and spreading the invitation widely. He traveled to many countries where the Catholic population was a minority and was always welcomed with great warmth and appreciation. He made the world smaller, weaving it together in a time of further distances and higher walls.
He went from South Sudan, where he told the leaders, “future generations will either venerate your names or cancel their memory, based on what you now do,” and then to Iraq, where he met Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani in Najaf saying, “peace does not demand winners or losers, but brothers and sisters who, despite misunderstandings and past wounds, choose the path of dialogue.”
Francis was undetered, and worked tirelessly and repeatedly. In May 2014, then-Israeli President Shimon Peres and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas met with him in the Vatican and recently, after one year of Israeli offensive in Gaza, former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and former Palestinian Minister for Foreign Affairs Nasser Al-Kidwa presented Pope Francis with their proposal to end the war devastating their nations. Throughout the conflict, Pope Francis, as in Ukraine, centered the lives of the suffering, choosing to call the only Catholic church in Gaza personally every day, demonstrating, in a most concrete way, his care and concern.
Many are mourning after his death. He was mourning with many while he was alive.
When he visited the Community of Sant’Egidio in Rome in 2014, he coined 3 Ps to capture its charisms — prayer, the poor, and peace. In this synthesis was both a description and invitation; an invitation to many to make these the pillars of their life.
Pope Francis made peace through prayer and care for the poor. He did so until the very end of his earthly journey and continues to invite all to do the same.
keep readingShow less
Top image credit: U.S. President Donald Trump meets with China's President Xi Jinping at the start of their bilateral meeting at the G20 leaders summit in Osaka, Japan, June 29, 2019. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque
The Wall Street Journal reported Wednesday that Trump is considering a significant reduction of the extraordinarily high tariffs on China that followed a dizzying tit-for-tat spiral between the two countries in early April.
China was the only country to immediately retaliate against Trump’s draconian “liberation day” tariffs, and Trump’s intolerance for that self-assertion led to 145% tariffs on the U.S. side and 125% tariffs on the Chinese side — tantamount to severing economic relations overnight between the world’s two most important economic powers.
Trump’s public softening is a hopeful sign because the tariff confrontation could all too easily tip over into an irreparable break between the United States and China, ultimately developing into large-scale violence. Yet significant obstacles stand in the way, and both sides have already taken damaging steps that undermine the possibility for de-escalation. Regardless of what happens with the tariff rate, if the Trump administration successfully pushes major third countries to exclude China from their economies, conflict is likely to spin out of control.
Commentators have been slow to focus on the danger of U.S.–China conflict. Many have grown complacent as the conflict became familiar and seemingly contained to small-scale antagonistic measures and empty diplomatic discussions. Trump’s conflicts with allies, his tariff campaign against the whole world, and his attacks on liberal institutions at home have drawn all the attention.
Yet we now stand in a moment of acute danger. Against a years-long background of growing economic, military, and philosophical tensions, the trade war threatens to unleash a series of escalatory dynamics across all realms in the U.S.–China relationship.
Already under the first Trump and Biden administrations, the gradual formation of adversarial geopolitical blocs was underway. Biden’s consolidation and systematization of Trump 1’s exclusionary policies toward China had convinced the Chinese leadership of immovable American hostility to China’s interests. Then, Trump stacked his administration with a fractious national security and international economic team whose only point of agreement was the need for confrontation with China.
Trump himself, however, offered hope of escaping a devastating international conflict. His enthusiasm for dealmaking, his admiration of Xi Jinping, and his hostility to the dogmas of American primacy that animated the Biden administration all created an opening to move the relationship off its trajectory toward permanent hostility. Beijing recognized the possibilities and from the moment of Trump’s election victory began informally floating ideas on what China could offer to Trump’s priorities, seeking a reliable connection in Trump’s notoriously fluid inner circle, and inquiring into how a negotiation process could be structured.
The biggest obstacle was not Trump’s team, which he has cowed into obedience, but his desire to cow China, too.
Rather than responding to Beijing’s outreach, Trump hit China with an initial 10%t tariff increase in early February, claiming it was punishment for China’s indirect involvement in the fentanyl trade. Media coverage focused on even larger punitive tariffs directed at Canada and México, but these were quickly withdrawn while those on China remained. Trump repeated the same routine in early March, again sparing Canada and México while raising tariffs on China another 10%.
China responded with considerable restraint to both rounds, still seeking to preserve space for negotiation. Already under Biden, China had begun cooperation on limiting fentanyl inputs, so Chinese leaders were skeptical that this was the real issue. With increasing urgency, Beijing sought to determine what Trump actually wanted. But no response was forthcoming.
Then came the “liberation day” tariffs, with a 34% increase applied to China, and Beijing fundamentally changed its approach. China’s leaders seem to have concluded that Trump simply wants to demonstrate his own power by debasing China, as he has done to countries ranging from Canada to Colombia to Ukraine. This is clear in China’s repeated condition for talks: they “must proceed in a manner of sovereign equality on a foundation of mutual respect.”
The Chinese Communist Party’s entire foreign policy legitimacy and ideology are built on the claim that it remade China so that it could finally stand up against the depredations of foreign powers. Chinese diplomats’ emphasis on respectful treatment, often expressed through a preoccupation with diplomatic protocol and a sharp antipathy toward U.S. attempts to discredit China, grows from this foundation.
Even as he mulls the possibility of reducing the crippling tariff rates he imposed, Trump continues to say that China will have to be the one to request it. “China wants to make a deal. They just don’t know how quite to go about it,” Trump said shortly after tossing away the chance for talks and breaking the economic relationship. “You know, it’s one of those things they don’t know quite — they’re proud people.”
Over the last two weeks, he and close advisers like Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent have repeatedly expressed such sentiments. In response, China has shown openness to talks but insists it will not negotiate at the point of a gun. China is also looking for a clear process in the talks and some sense of an agenda from the United States. Most recently, China’s Commerce Ministry suggested that Trump could resolve the impasse by removing all “unilateral tariff measures.”
As the two trade accusations in public, in the background both are moving in the most dangerous direction possible: to force the rest of the world to choose one or the other. In its talks with other countries that were targeted on “liberation day,” the Trump administration is demanding that they sever economic ties with China. China responded by arguing that other countries would be short-sighted to make deals with a bully and promising “equivalent countermeasures” against any country that sacrifices Chinese interests as the price for access to the United States.
We are now stuck in the absurd spectacle of the world’s two most powerful leaders acting like children who want to make up but who insist that the other take the first step. The longer this impasse lasts, the less likely we will avoid cascading escalation into conflict.
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.