Trump's Big, Brutal Bill Entrenches US Empire
3 minutes ago
Presented as a 'beautiful' fix for growth and security, HR 1 actually funnels wealth to America's richest, arms a $1 trillion war machine and thickens domestic repression, all with the aim of propping up a waning imperial hegemony.
The 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act' (H.R. 1), heralded as a transformative economic and security package for the United States, is less an economic stimulus than a manifesto for American supremacy. It weds two imperatives of the US ruling class: an upward transfer of wealth and a vast expansion of militarised power, thereby entrenching its domestic and global dominance. Cloaked in rhetoric about jobs, growth and border security, the Bill arrives at a moment when Washington's hegemony is fraying thanks to rising multipolarity, domestic inequality is at an all time high fast – the top 1% hold 32% of wealth – and popular discontent is increasing.
Ruling elites secure dominance not merely through coercion but by manufacturing consent via ideological control over civil society—media, politics, and cultural institutions. The Big Brutal Bill, framed as a 'beautiful' solution to economic and security challenges, exemplifies this process. Its proponents, including Republican leaders and sections of the corporate media, have deployed neoliberal and nationalist narratives to mask the legislation's true aims: redistributing wealth upward, strengthening coercive state mechanisms and escalating militarism to sustain US global primacy. This demands the US power elites discipline both domestic and global populations.
The bill's economic provisions constitute a brazen transfer of wealth from the working and middle classes to the ultra-rich. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that the bill reduces household resources for the poorest 10% by 4% ($940 annually) while boosting incomes for the richest 0.1% by $389,000 for those earning over $4.3 million. Extending the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which directed two-thirds of benefits to the top 20%, the bill amplifies a historical trend: since 1975, the top 1% have sapped $79 trillion from the bottom 90%. Cuts to Medicaid ($930 billion) and SNAP (affecting 4.5 million people) further impoverish the working class, with 15–16 million potentially losing healthcare.
This wealth transfer is not merely economic but ideological. Ruling elites, through Fox News and various well funded corporate think tanks, frame the bill as a universal economic boon, echoing neoliberal myths of 'trickle-down' prosperity. Yet, the bill's regressive tax structure and social cuts weaken the economic base of the working and middle classes, limiting their capacity for resistance. Such policies fragment the potential for a radical 'historic bloc' – a unified working-class alliance capable of challenging capitalist dominance.
The bill's economic impact aligns with America's global imperial strategies. By prioritising corporate tax breaks, it mirrors US strategies in the Global South, where austerity and privatisation entrench elite power. This domestic imperialism treats the US working class as a colonised population, extracting wealth while offering ideological platitudes about 'growth.'
Militarism and War: Coercive Pillars of Hegemony
The bill's $1 trillion military budget, the largest in US history, is a cornerstone of its aggressive imperial agenda, escalating war risks while consolidating ruling-class power. Allocating $400 billion for nuclear warheads, hypersonic missiles, and 200 new bombers, the budget aims to counter multipolar rivals like China and Russia. Yet, this spending dwarfs the military budgets of the next ten states across the world. What this bill shows is the degree to which the US empire relies on military dominance and violence to maintain its increasingly precarious global hegemony. The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute notes that such military modernisation lowers conflict thresholds, with arms races historically preceding wars 70% of the time. This leads to escalating fears of military miscalculation in regions like the South China Sea.
The budget has a dual role: coercion abroad and control at home. Abroad, it reinforces U.S. primacy by projecting power against adversaries, a response to the declining legitimacy of the US-led liberal imperial-international order. Domestically, $50 billion for militarised police and National Guard equipment, alongside $8 billion for 10,000 new ICE agents and private prisons, equips the state to suppress dissent. The bill's provision barring courts from holding officials in contempt further enables authoritarianism, echoing post-9/11 trends where domestic repression accompanied foreign wars (e.g., Iraq). Imperialism is not solely an external phenomenon; it disciplines domestic populations to ensure compliance with elite agendas.
The military-industrial complex benefits immensely, with $250 billion in contracts to firms like Boeing and Raytheon. Since 2001, some arms firm stocks have outperformed the Standard & Poor 500 by 600%, and contractor CEOs earn $20–$30 million annually. This economic-militaristic nexus incentivises instability, geopolitical tensions, and war, as historical examples like Iraq ($39 billion to Halliburton) demonstrate. Ruling elites are leveraging coercion to secure economic power, with war profits reinforcing their hegemony.
Ideological Consent: Nationalism and Distraction
The bill's militaristic and economic aims are cloaked in nationalist ideology, a classic tactic to secure consent. Its $10 billion for 'countering foreign disinformation' doubles as domestic propaganda, while border wall and ICE funding ($8 billion) symbolise 'defending America.' These measures rally nationalist sentiment, particularly among the 55% of Republicans who support the budget for 'security'. Such symbols unify subordinate classes under ruling-class leadership, diverting attention from wealth transfers and social cuts.
Put crudely, American elite nationalism is little more than an instrument to mask class conflict. By demonising immigrants and foreign adversaries, the bill aligns segments of the working class with elite interests, dampening class consciousness. SIPRI data suggests nationalist surges increase war risks by 15–20% within five years, as publics tolerate aggression. The bill's narrative of 'preventing a recession' and 'securing borders' obscures its role in impoverishing millions, a hegemonic sleight of hand.
Crisis of Hegemony and Resistance
It is not a coincidence that the bill has emerged in a moment of hegemonic crisis. Rising inequality, multipolarity and public opposition signal eroding consent. Yet, the ruling elite counters this through intensified coercion (military, police) and ideological manipulation (nationalism, neoliberalism). Crises of hegemony require constant renewal, explaining this aggressive consolidation. However, cracks exist: there are widespread denunciations of the bill as a 'wealth transfer' and 'war machine'. Without a unified and organised counter-hegemonic movement, however, this resistance remains fragmented.
The Big Brutal Bill is a masterclass in imperial hegemony, blending wealth transfers, militarism, and nationalism to entrench the power of the American Establishment. Its $1 trillion military budget escalates war risks by fuelling arms races and domestic repression, while its economic provisions siphon wealth from the working and middle classes to the ultra-rich. The bill is an example of what Gramsci would call a 'war of position' – fortifying US capitalism amid crisis, reflecting the American state's dual nature: coercive abroad, exploitative at home. Resistance requires exposing these truths and building a historic bloc to challenge the ruling class's grip.
Inderjeet Parmar is a professor of international politics and associate dean of research in the School of Policy and Global Affairs at City St George's, University of London, a fellow of the Academy of Social Sciences, and a columnist at The Wire. He is an International Fellow at the ROADS Initiative think tank, Islamabad, and author of several books including Foundations of the American Century. He is currently writing a book on the history, politics, and powers of the US foreign policy establishment.
The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Is American Exceptionalism over? Investors question ‘no alternative' doctrine as US dollar declines, economy slows, global competition rises
The concept of American exceptionalism - the belief that the United States is unique, even superior, in its values, governance, and economic resilience - has long shaped both national identity and global investment strategies. But as the U.S. economy shows signs of strain in 2025, investors and analysts are questioning whether the 'TINA' doctrine ('There Is No Alternative' to U.S. assets) still holds true. The U.S. dollar is experiencing its sharpest decline in over half a century, with the dollar index dropping 10.8% in the first half of 2025 - the worst start to a year since 1973. This rapid fall is driven by a combination of unpredictable economic policies, record-high U.S. deficits, and mounting concerns over the stability of American fiscal management. President Trump's erratic tariff strategies and repeated criticisms of the Federal Reserve have further undermined confidence in the dollar as the world's primary reserve currency. As a result, central banks worldwide are shifting their reserves away from the dollar and increasing their gold holdings. Gold prices have surged to record highs this year, as countries seek to protect their reserves from the risk of further dollar devaluation . Analysts note that the traditional 'safe haven' status of the dollar is being questioned for the first time in decades, prompting a global move to diversify reserves and reduce exposure to U.S. assets. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like This may be of interest to you! Undo This shift is not just a financial technicality - it's already affecting Americans. The weaker dollar makes foreign travel and imported goods more expensive, while also raising the cost of government borrowing as demand for U.S. Treasuries wanes. Meanwhile, the long-term consequences could include diminished U.S. influence in global markets and a fundamental reshaping of the international financial system. What Is American Exceptionalism? American exceptionalism is rooted in the idea that the U.S. was founded on distinct principles: democracy, liberty, and self-governance. The phrase 'city upon a hill,' first used by Puritan leader John Winthrop in 1630, and later observations by Alexis de Tocqueville, helped cement the notion that America is a model for the world. Proponents argue that the U.S. is obligated to play a special role in global affairs, spreading its values and serving as a beacon of freedom and opportunity. Critics, however, warn that this belief can foster a sense of superiority and blind spots to the nation's flaws. The TINA doctrine: Why investors have favored the US For decades, global investors have embraced the 'TINA' doctrine - seeing U.S. assets as the safest and most attractive option. This confidence has been reinforced by: Live Events America's consistent economic outperformance, especially after the 2008 financial crisis and the COVID-19 pandemic. The strength of U.S. institutions, deep capital markets, and the dollar's dominance in global finance. A culture of innovation and entrepreneurship, producing world-leading technology and consumer brands. 2025: Exceptionalism under pressure This year, however, cracks are appearing in the American economic story: Economic Slowdown : The U.S. economy shrank by 0.3% in the first quarter of 2025, raising concerns about the sustainability of recent outperformance. Fiscal Strain: The federal budget deficit remains high, and political battles over spending and debt are intensifying. Policy Shifts: The Trump administration's mix of pro-growth tax cuts and deregulatory moves is offset by new tariffs and tighter immigration rules, creating uncertainty for businesses and investors. Global Competition : Other regions, especially in Asia and Europe, are adapting and investing in technology and infrastructure, making them more competitive alternatives for global capital. Analysts note that while the U.S. still enjoys many structural advantages, the gap is narrowing. 'The idea that there is no alternative to U.S. assets is being tested for the first time in years,' said a senior strategist at a major investment bank. 'Investors are watching not just for growth, but for stability and predictability - qualities that are no longer guaranteed.' American exceptionalism remains a powerful force in politics and culture, but its economic underpinnings are facing new challenges. The U.S. is still a global leader, but the world is changing - and investors are beginning to look more seriously at alternatives.
New Indian Express
an hour ago
- New Indian Express
Parents seek swift implementation of fee regulation Bill in Telangana
While the proposed Bill suggests formation of parent-teacher committees, parents' associations feel that there is a need for a statutory system and that officials from the Education department too should be included in these panels. While the proposed Bill suggests formation of parent-teacher committees, parents' associations feel that there is a need for a statutory system and that officials from the Education department too should be included in these panels. Photo | Express illustrations HYDERABAD: There seems to be no end to suggestions for and objections to the proposed Bill, drafted by the Telangana Education Commission, to regulate and monitor fee structure in private schools and junior colleges. While the proposed Bill suggests formation of parent-teacher committees, parents' associations feel that there is a need for a statutory system and that officials from the Education department too should be included in these panels. Expressing concern that no fee regulations are in place in the current academic year even though the draft Bill was submitted to the government way back in January, the members of Hyderabad Schools Parents Association are of the opinion it should be implemented as soon as possible to ensure that the new rules come into effect at the start of next academic year. They also suggested that the Commission come up with a proper fee hike percentage along with duration — for instance a 5% annual fee increase once in every three or five years after approval from the Fee Regulation & Monitoring Commission — as this is not mentioned in the proposed Bill. Kishore, a member of HSPA, said: 'We want the draft Bill to be implemented but we had a meeting with subcommittee members only once. After that the state government seems to have forgotten about it. During that meeting, we suggested that the Commission provide clarity on how much annual fee should be increased and in how many years.
The Hindu
an hour ago
- The Hindu
BRICS group condemns increase of tariffs, but doesn't name Trump, in summit overshadowed by West Asia tensions
The BRICS bloc of developing nations on Sunday (July 6, 2025) condemned the increase of tariffs and attacks on Iran, but refrained from naming U.S. President Donald Trump. The group's declaration, which also took aim at Israel's military actions in West Asia, also spared its member Russia from criticism and mentioned war-torn Ukraine just once. The two-day summit was marked by the absences of two of its most powerful members. China's President Xi Jinping did not attend a BRICS summit for the first time since he became his country's leader in 2012. Russian President Vladimir Putin, who spoke via video conference, continues to mostly avoid travelling abroad due to an international arrest warrant issued after Russia invaded Ukraine. In an indirect swipe at the U.S., the group's declaration raised 'serious concerns' about the rise of tariffs which it said were 'inconsistent with WTO [World Trade Organisation] rules.' The BRICS added that those restrictions 'threaten to reduce global trade, disrupt global supply chains, and introduce uncertainty.' Mr. Trump, in a post on his social media platform late on Sunday, said any country that aligns itself with what he termed 'the Anti-American policies of BRICS' would be levied an added 10% tariff. Brazil's President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, who hosted the summit, criticised NATO's decision to hike military spending by 5% of GDP annually by 2035. That sentiment was later echoed in the group's declaration. 'It is always easier to invest in war than in peace,' Mr. Lula said at the opening of the summit, which is scheduled to continue on Monday. Iran in attendance Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian, who was expected to attend the summit before the attacks on his country in June, sent his Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi to the meeting in Rio. The group's declaration criticised the attacks on Iran without mentioning the U.S. or Israel, the two nations that conducted them. In his speech, Mr. Araghchi told leaders he had pushed for every member of the United Nations to condemn Israel strongly. He added Israel and the U.S. should be accountable for rights violations. The Iranian Foreign Minister said the aftermath of the war 'will not be limited' to one country. 'The entire region and beyond will be damaged,' Mr. Araghchi said. BRICS leaders expressed 'grave concern' for the humanitarian situation in Gaza, called for the release of all hostages, a return to the negotiating table and reaffirmed their commitment to the two-state solution. Later, Iran's Mr. Araghchi said in a separate statement on messaging app Telegram that his government had expressed its reservation regarding a two-state solution in a note, saying it will not work 'just as it has not worked in the past.' Also on Telegram, Russia's Foreign Ministry in another statement named the U.S. and Israel, and condemned the 'unprovoked military strikes' against Iran. Russia spared The group's 31-page declaration mentions Ukraine just once, while condemning 'in the strongest terms' recent Ukrainian attacks on Russia. 'We recall our national positions concerning the conflict in Ukraine as expressed in the appropriate fora, including the UN Security Council and the U.N. General Assembly,' the group said. Joao Alfredo Nyegray, an international business and geopolitics professor at the Pontifical Catholic University in Parana, said the summit could have played a role in showing an alternative to an unstable world, but won't do so. 'The withdrawal of Egypt's President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi and the uncertainty about the level of representation for countries like Iran, Saudi Arabia and the UAE are confirming the difficulty for the BRICS to establish themselves as a cohesive pole of global leadership,' Mr. Nyegray said. 'This moment demands high level articulation, but we are actually seeing dispersion.' Avoid Trump's tariffs While Mr. Lula advocated on Sunday for the reform of Western-led global institutions, Brazil aimed to avoid becoming the target of higher tariffs. Mr. Trump has threatened to impose 100% tariffs against the bloc if they take any moves to undermine the dollar. Last year, at the summit hosted by Russia in Kazan, the Kremlin sought to develop alternatives to U.S.-dominated payment systems which would allow it to dodge Western sanctions imposed after Russia's invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. Brazil decided to focus on less controversial issues in the summit, such as promoting trade relations between members and global health, after Mr. Trump returned to the White House, said Ana Garcia, a professor at the Rio de Janeiro Federal Rural University. 'Brazil wants the least amount of damage possible and to avoid drawing the attention of the Trump administration to prevent any type of risk to the Brazilian economy,' Ms. Garcia said. 'Best opportunity for emerging countries' BRICS was founded by Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa, but the group last year expanded to include Indonesia, Iran, Egypt, Ethiopia, and the United Arab Emirates. As well as new members, the bloc has 10 strategic partner countries, a category created at last year's summit that includes Belarus, Cuba, and Vietnam. That rapid expansion led Brazil to put housekeeping issues — officially termed institutional development — on the agenda to better integrate new members and boost internal cohesion. Despite notable absences, the summit is important for attendees, especially in the context of instability provoked by Mr. Trump's tariff wars, said Bruce Scheidl, a researcher at the University of Sao Paulo's BRICS study group. 'The summit offers the best opportunity for emerging countries to respond, in the sense of seeking alternatives and diversifying their economic partnerships,' Mr. Scheidl said. Earlier on Sunday, a pro-Israel non-profit placed dozens of rainbow flags on Ipanema beach to protest Iran's policies regarding LGBT+ people. On Saturday, human rights group Amnesty International protested Brazil's plans for offshore oil drilling near the mouth of the Amazon River. For Mr. Lula, the summit is a welcome pause from a difficult domestic scenario, marked by a drop in popularity and conflict with Congress. The meeting was also an opportunity to advance climate negotiations and commitments on protecting the environment before November's COP 30 climate talks in the Amazonian city of Belem.
