Revenues at the world’s top 100 global arms and military services producing companies totaled $632 billion in 2023, a 4.2% increase over the prior year, according to new data released by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI).
The largest increases were tied to ongoing conflicts, including a 40% increase in revenues for Russian companies involved in supplying Moscow’s war on Ukraine and record sales for Israeli firms producing weapons used in that nation’s brutal war on Gaza. Revenues for Turkey’s top arms producing companies also rose sharply — by 24% — on the strength of increased domestic defense spending plus exports tied to the war in Ukraine.
The United States remains the world’s dominant arms producing nation, with $318 billion in revenues flowing to American firms in the world’s top 100 for 2023, more than half of the global total. And the five highest revenue earners globally were all based in the United States — Lockheed Martin, Raytheon (now RTX), Northrop Grumman, Boeing, and General Dynamics.
China ranked second to the United States in arms industry revenues, with nine firms accounting for 16% of the revenue received by companies in the global top 100. Two of the fastest growing countries in terms of revenue growth for top companies were also in Asia, South Korea (plus 39%) and Japan (plus 35%). South Korea’s increase was tied to major export deals with Poland and Australia, while Japan’s was driven by its largest military buildup since World War II.
SIPRI’s analysis takes a “just the facts” approach, tracking sales numbers and correlating them with increases in domestic and export spending tied to specific events. It does not address the dire humanitarian circumstances that underlie the growing revenues of top arms companies, most notably Israel’s unconscionable attacks on Gaza, which have killed over 40,000 people directly and many more through indirect causes, including over 62,000 who have died from starvation. The companies and countries fueling this mass slaughter — including U.S. firms that have supplied a substantial share of the bombs, missiles, and aircraft used in Gaza — should be held to account for their actions, even as they halt the supply of weapons and services that the Israeli government is using to commit ongoing war crimes.
Another major impact of the revenue surge for top arms makers is the diversion of funding and talent from addressing urgent global problems, from climate change to poverty to outbreaks of disease. And the more companies and countries become dependent on the profits of war, the harder it will be to shift funding towards other urgent priorities. The continuing militarization of the global economy has a double cost — lives lost in conflict and devastating problems left unsolved. The situation needs to be treated as far more than a grim parade of statistics about who benefits from a world at war. It should be treated as an urgent call to action for a change in global priorities.
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 image credit: Andrew Angelov via shutterstock.com
In President Donald Trump’s first 100 days, his administration has arrested and detained, without due process, visa holders and other non-citizens in the U.S. for speaking out against Israel’s military actions in Gaza.
That’s not how the administration frames it, but that is the connective tissue in each of the cases.
On Wednesday, the same day Palestinian Columbia University student Mohsen Mahdawi was released on bail pending a Habeas hearing after a judge determined that he did not pose a risk to the public, Republican Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky blasted the Congress for pushing new speech restrictions, particularly antisemitism measures that would restrict criticism of Israel on school campuses.
“We’re either a free society governed by the Constitution, or we’re not. We need to challenge hate with reason, not censorship.”
Paul was specifically addressing the Antisemitism Awareness Act which would codify a Trump-era executive order declaring that antisemitism is a prohibited form of discrimination in schools and universities, and would use the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s working definition of antisemitism in assessing cases of antisemitic discrimination through the Department of Education.
Critics say that it would allow the government to conflate criticism of Zionism and the Israeli government with antisemitism and serve as a dangerous tool to shut down free speech. Paul wondered aloud if campus police would be used in enforcing new speech rules, and how.
As The Jewish Chronicle reported after the vote was postponed, Sen. Paul was part of “a testy hearing on Wednesday that covered objections to the bill ranging from whether a Christian would be barred from saying that Jews killed Jesus, to the acceptability of making contemporary political allusions to Nazi Germany and even the comedy of Jerry Seinfeld and Joan Rivers.”
Paul cited the landmark 1969 Brandenburg v. Ohio case, in which Ku Klux Klan member Clarence Brandenburg was convicted under two Ohio laws of allegedly inciting violence against Jews and African-Americans with his speech.
Brandenburg claimed that his punishment violated the First Amendment. The Supreme Court agreed with him.
“Brandenburg was a Nazi and an antisemite and he said horrible things,” Paul said. “And the First Amendment, the Constitution, the Supreme Court ruled that you can say terrible things.”
The senator compared the American concept of free speech with Europe’s recent crackdowns on speech.
“That’s unique about our country,” Paul said. “In Europe, you can’t say anything. In Europe, if you call a boy who thinks he’s a girl a boy, you can go to jail for that. If you say something about the Holocaust in Europe, you can go to jail.”
To Paul’s point, in 2019, 38-year-old Kate Scottow of Hertfordshire, England, was arrested for “misgendering” a transgender individual. Last year, 61-year-old Neal Lloyd of England was arrested over his Facebook posts about the Israel-Palestine conflict.
Do we want to replicate Europe’s speech laws in the U.S.? Paul raised the question.
“This is what we’re doing,” he insisted. “We’re codifying what Europe did to speech. It’s a terrible idea.”
The Congressional debate is taking place as non-citizen students have been snatched away ostensibly for what they said or wrote about Israel.
The State Department had accused Mahdawi, the former co-president of Columbia University’s Palestinian Student Union, of using “threatening rhetoric and intimidation” against Jewish students during a protest on campus in 2024. A 34-year-old permanent resident of the U.S. who was born and raised in a Palestinian refugee camp in the West Bank before moving to the U.S. and going to Columbia University, Mahdawi was detained by ICE agents while at his naturalization hearing in Vermont on April 14. He was never formally charged with a crime.
We don't know if the other non-citizen students detained by immigration authorities in the last month have actually been involved in threats or intimidation, or even genuine antisemitism, or real support for Hamas, because the administration has been deliberately vague about its reasons for detaining them. Secretary of State Marco Rubio says the administration has the right to deport non-citizens when their "presence and activities in the United States would have serious adverse foreign policy consequences and would compromise a compelling U.S. foreign policy interest."
Mahdawi may be the lucky one. Others are still in detention awaiting hearings.
Columbia University graduate Mahmoud Khalil claims he was arrested on March 8 for a speech he gave during campus protests, though he too was never charged with anything. A judge has said the administration’s attempt to deport him will be decided in court.
Tufts University graduate student Rumeysa Ozturk was snatched off the street near her home in Somerville, Massachusetts, on March 25 for what appears to be an op-ed she wrote for the school newspaper criticizing Israel's war on Gaza, and still awaits potential deportation. Badar Khan Suri, a postdoctoral fellow at Georgetown and an Indian national, was arrested by federal agents in March. He has been accused by Department of Homeland Security officials of spreading Hamas propaganda, something his family and supporters vehemently deny.
In each of these cases, the detainees’ support for the Palestinians’ plight and criticism of Israel’s war in Gaza appear to be the primary reasons behind their arrests, which is illegal according to the U.S. Constitution.
But if America did ignore the First Amendment and allowed rigid UK-style speech laws instead, how far would it go? Do the purveyors of the new antisemitism speech legislation on Capitol Hill know that this could boomerang on them when their ideological opponents someday get back into power?
As journalist Glenn Greenwald observed about the antisemitism legislation, “this is not a hate speech code applying to foreign nationals. It's a hate speech code that applies to American citizens, American faculty members, where people can be punished for the expression of ideas on college campuses cheered for by the right wing faction that has long claimed there's nothing worse than hate speech codes and other forms of suppression of ideas on college campuses.”
Carving out one country in the world and making it forbidden to criticize its government is the complete antithesis of the Constitution’s protections and a betrayal of the American tradition. The First Amendment allows anyone on American soil to critique the U.S. government, but now condemning a foreign government could land you in jail or deported to another country?
On what grounds? By what logic? By whose laws?
Rand Paul is right. One would think that putting America first might include putting its First Amendment first, too.
keep readingShow less
Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelenskiy and U.S. President Donald Trump meet, while they attend the funeral of Pope Francis, at the Vatican April 26, 2025. Ukrainian Presidential Press Service/Handout via REUTERS
The U.S.-Ukraine minerals agreement is not a diplomatic breakthrough and will not end the war, but it is a significant success for Ukraine, both in the short term and — if it is ever in fact implemented — in the longer term.
It reportedly does not get Ukraine the security “guarantees” that Kyiv has been asking for. It does not commit the U.S. to fight for Ukraine, or to back up a European “reassurance force” for Ukraine. And NATO membership remains off the table. Given its basic positions, there is no chance of the Trump administration shifting on these points.
But since the Ukraine peace process appeared to run out of steam, and Trump threatened to “walk away” from the talks, Kyiv and Moscow have been engaged in an elaborate diplomatic dance of semi-proposals and hints to try to ensure that if Trump does walk away, he will blame the other side for the talks’ failure.
This agreement makes it far more likely that he will blame Russia, and therefore that he will continue military and intelligence aid to Ukraine. He may also, as threatened, try to impose additional sanctions on Russia — though given the resistance of most of the world to these sanctions, and tensions over tariffs between the U.S. and Europe, it is not at all clear how effective new sanctions would be.
Continued U.S. military and intelligence aid will not win the war for Ukraine, nor allow it to drive the Russians from occupied territory. It will however help the Ukrainian army to slow down Russia’s advance on the ground and impose heavy casualties on the Russian army. This should not be taken by the Ukrainians or their European supporters as an excuse to maintain impossible conditions for peace that will make a settlement impossible; because the military and economic odds are still strongly against Ukraine, and a collapse of Ukraine’s exhausted troops is a real possibility.
However, it will make it more likely that Russia will abandon or heavily qualify its impossible demands, for example for Ukrainian disarmament and withdrawal from additional territory.
As far as the deal itself is concerned, it is clearly far more favorable for Ukraine than Trump’s original — and grotesque — proposal that Ukraine should essentially hand its entire reserves of minerals to the U.S. in compensation for U.S. aid. Under the new agreement, the profits of mineral extraction will be equally shared.
As Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said: “This agreement signals clearly to Russia that the Trump administration is committed to a peace process centered on a free, sovereign, and prosperous Ukraine over the long term. … President Trump envisioned this partnership between the American people and the Ukrainian people to show both sides’ commitment to lasting peace and prosperity in Ukraine. And to be clear, no state or person who financed or supplied the Russian war machine will be allowed to benefit from the reconstruction of Ukraine.”
Nor under this deal will any U.S. money go to develop mineral extraction in the Russian-occupied areas of Ukraine.
According to Trump, “The American presence will, I think, keep a lot of bad actors out of the country or certainly out of the area where we’re doing the digging."
Despite Western rhetoric, absolute Western security guarantees for Ukraine after a peace settlement have never really been on offer, because the Biden administration and almost every other NATO government stated repeatedly that they would not fight to defend Ukraine. This deal, if implemented, will however ensure a strong continued U.S. interest in Ukraine. It greatly reduces the risk that in the event of future Russian aggression, the U.S. would simply look away and not respond as it has in this war, with military supplies and extreme sanctions.
But the deal won’t be implemented until the war comes to an end. Thereafter, it will depend on the willingness of U.S. private companies to invest in this sector — and that will depend on their assessment of both the risks and the profits involved. For it is vital to note that this agreement does not commit the U.S. government to invest in Ukraine; and to judge by the present profitability of minerals extraction in the world, it is not certain that private investors will see major benefits from doing so.
China has developed its rare-earth sector on such a scale mainly through huge state-directed investment; and no-one has so far done a thorough analysis of the actual profitability and scale of most of these Ukrainian resources. So, only a tactical success for Ukraine and one over which there hang many questions; but nonetheless one that hopefully will lead Moscow to respond with some serious and acceptable peace proposals of its own.
The Bunker appears originally at the Project on Government Oversight and is republished here with permission.
Bomber builder losing money … for now
When playing Pentagon poker, when is a loss not a loss? When reading the tea leaves convinces you that today’s loss will yield a bigger win tomorrow. You knew this was coming as soon as the Air Force general in charge of dropping nuclear bombs dropped one last month: The Pentagon’s planned buy of 100 B-21 bombers isn’t enough. He really, honestly, truthinessly needs 145 of the bat-winged warplanes.
Things have changed since that original number was set in 2011, and it just won’t do in today’s world, General Anthony Cotton, chief of the U.S. Strategic Command, said March 18. “The production rate that was agreed upon was, I think, in [that] geopolitical environment. That’s a little different than the geopolitical environment that we will face for decades to come,” he said. “Hence, I, as a customer, would love to see larger production rates.”
So, as day follows night, 35 days later Northrop announced that it was taking a $477 million loss on its B-21 program. Largely, that’s so it — wait for it! — can build more of the highly-classified bombers, faster. Much of that sum is dedicated to an unspecified production “process change” for the B-21. “That process change supports the accelerated production rates,” Kathy Warden, Northrop’s CEO, said April 22. “We can ramp beyond the quantities in the program of record,” she added, referring to the Air Force’s piddling 100-bomber buy. “Which is something that we and the government decided was important for the optionality to support the scenarios that they have been looking at to increase the current build rate.”
“Optionality”?
Of course, pretty much everything about the B-21 Raider, including its “build rate” — how many a year we’ll get to buy — remains secret. But Northrop’s website does have a handy-dandy FAQ section dedicated to the bomber. “The U.S. Air Force has stated plans to acquire at least 100 aircraft,” it says. “Some defense analysts believe that the Air Force should plan to purchase at least 200 B-21s.” Gotta wonder how much of a bonus the PR whiz pocketed who added “at least 200.”
The B-21 made its first flight late in 2023, and five more bombers are now under construction in California. Capable of carrying both nuclear and non-nuclear weapons, the B-21 is slated to go operational in 2027. Calculating its cost can be challenging. Bloomberg reported in 2022 that the 100 bombers would cost $89.1 billion to produce, or $891 million a copy. But that’s based on 2019 dollars. While the bomber may have some ability to elude enemy radar, it can’t elude inflation.
Hurray for Lockheed! Sure, that’s not The Bunker’s usual take on the Pentagon’s biggest contractor. But on April 22, the company did something refreshing. Instead of challenging competitor Boeing’s recent winning bid to build the Air Force’s new F-47 fighter, it decided to improve the existing Lockheed-built F-35.
Now granted, the F-35 continues to be plagued by cost, production, and readiness woes. But when defense contractors lose a major contract, many opt to file a “bid protest” with the Government Accountability Office in hopes of reversing the decision. It rarely works and only serves to delay the program.
In this case, Lockheed has instead decided to cram some of the unspecified new technologies it has developed for its losing F-47 sixth-generation bid into the fifth-generation F-35. “There are techniques and capabilities … that were developed for [our F-47 bid] that we can now apply here,” Lockheed CEO Jim Taiclet said. “We’re basically going to take the [F-35's] chassis and turn it into a Ferrari.” That’s pretty funny, because four years ago the Air Force’s top officer said the F-35 was already a Ferrari. (And for all those years you thought the “F” in F-16s, F-35s, etc., stood for “Fighter.”)
But what’s not funny is something else Taiclet said: “My challenge here on my aeronautics team is, let’s get 80% of six-gen capability at half the price … they wouldn’t have agreed to this if they didn’t think there was a path to get there.” (But don’t think that’ll be a bargain. Best estimates suggest that F-47s will end up costing $300 million each, meaning a supercharged F-35 would cost $150 million.)
Why should it take losing a contract to compel a contractor to build something nearly as good for half the price? No doubt there’s some Lockheed hyperbole there. But it’s no more hyperbolic than the hypersonic frenzy used to justify the F-47. Here’s an inside tip: Foreign foes are never as threatening as those with an (in)vested interest in fighting them claim. And its corollary: Shiny new U.S. weapons are never as good when they roll off the assembly line as they are at conception.
The death of decapitation
You may have seen images of Pope Francis in his open coffin last week. That’s because the Vatican wanted you to see them. But what if some terror group — or rogue state — didn’t want the world to know their leader had been killed by a U.S. missile strike, or offed during a capture-or-kill mission that defaulted to the death option?
That’s no longer a theoretical question. “Synthetic media may allow terrorist organizations to simulate the continued presence of deceased leaders, undermining public belief in their deaths,” Army Lieutenant Colonel Matthew J. Fecteau wrote April 23 at West Point’s Modern War Institute website. “Generative AI is not just a tactical threat; it is a strategic disruptor that challenges the foundations of belief, perception, and reality in modern warfare.”
In other words, the next time a good guy kills a bad guy, AI could generate a fake living bad guy to declare: “You missed.”
James Holmes of the Naval War College autopsies the 1989 blast aboard the USS Iowa that killed 47 sailors and details how and why the Navy compounded the tragedy with its disgraceful investigation, April 23 in The National Interest.
A new book by Phil Tinline, reviewed in the New York Times April 27, examines a 1967 magazine article that argued that war is “the essential economic stabilizer of modern societies.” It was a crafty hoax, but so well done, that it infects U.S. society even today.
Thanks for infecting The Bunker with your attention this week. Consider forwarding it to friends so they can subscribe here.
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.