
Billions for weapons, rather than troops, won't make us safer
A new report by the Quincy Institute and the Costs of War Project at Brown University found that for the period from 2020 to 2024, more than half of the Pentagon budget — 54% — went to private companies. That figure has climbed considerably since the immediate post-Cold War period of the 1990s, when the contractor share was 41%.
The surge of spending on the Pentagon and its primary weapons suppliers won't necessarily make us safer. It may just enrich military companies while subsidizing overpriced, underperforming weapons systems, even as it promotes an accelerated arms race with China.
While weapons firms will fare well if the new budget goes through as planned, military personnel and the veterans who have fought in America's wars in this century will not. The Trump administration is seeking deep cuts in personnel, facilities and research at the Veterans Affairs, and tens of thousands of military families have to use food stamps, a program cut by 20% in the budget bill, to make ends meet.
The $150 billion in add-ons for the Pentagon include tens of billions for the Trump administration's all-but-impossible dream of a leak-proof Golden Dome missile defense system, a goal that has been pursued for more than 40 years without success. Other big winners include the new F-47 combat aircraft, and the military shipbuilding industry, which is slated for a huge infusion of new funding.
The question of how to allocate the Pentagon's orgy of weapons spending is complicated by the fact that there are now two powerful factions within the arms industry fighting over the department's budget, the traditional Big Five, composed of Lockheed Martin, RTX (formerly Raytheon), Boeing, General Dynamics and Northrop Grumman, and emerging military tech firms such as SpaceX, Palantir and Anduril.
The Big Five currently get the bulk of Pentagon weapons spending, but the emerging tech firms are catching up, winning lucrative contracts for military-wide communications systems and antidrone technology. And there will be more such contracts. Even after the public falling out between Elon Musk and the president, the emerging tech firms have a decided advantage, with advocates such as Vice President JD Vance, who maintains close ties with his mentor and political supporter Peter Thiel of Palantir, and dozens of staff members from military tech firms who are now embedded in the national security and budget bureaucracies of the Trump administration.
Meanwhile, the tech sector's promises of a new, revolutionary era of defense made possible by artificial-intelligence-driven weapons and other technologies are almost certainly overstated. If past practice tells us anything, it is that new, complex high-tech weapons will not save us.
The history of Pentagon procurement is littered with 'miracle weapons,' from the electronic battlefield in Vietnam to Ronald Reagan's 'impenetrable' Star Wars missile shield to networked warfare and precision-guided bombs used in the Iraq and Afghan wars. When push came to shove, these highly touted systems either failed to work as advertised, or were irrelevant to the kinds of wars they were being used in.
Just one example: Despite the fact that the Pentagon spent well over $10 billion to find a system that could neutralize improvised explosive devices in Iraq and Afghanistan, only modest progress was made. Even after the new technology was deployed, 40% of I.E.Ds could not be cleared.
Technology is a tool, but it is not the decisive factor in winning wars or deterring adversaries. An effective military should be based on well-trained, well-compensated and highly motivated troops. That means taking some of that 54% of the Pentagon budget that goes to contractors and investing in supporting the people who are actually tasked with fighting America's wars. But to be truly safe, we need to fight fewer wars by adopting a more realistic strategy that emphasizes diplomacy and close cooperation with allies, and that resorts to force only when there is a major, direct threat to U.S. security. A more balanced strategy would be much less likely to put U.S. troops in high-risk situations like the nation-building efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Instead of letting corporate special interests distort our foreign and military policies, we need to press for an approach that puts strategic considerations first. That will mean taking steps to reduce the power of the arms makers, new and old, through steps such as stronger measures to limit the revolving door between government and industry. And we need to bring more independent voices into the Pentagon's budget discussions. Lockheed Martin, Palantir, SpaceX and other companies shouldn't have undue influence over decisions on how much to spend on our military, and what to spend it on. That's no way to make a military budget, and no way to defend a country.
William D. Hartung is a senior research fellow at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft and the co-author, with Stephen Semler, of the report 'Profits of War: Top Beneficiaries of Pentagon Spending, 2020 to 2024.'
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
a minute ago
- Yahoo
A MAGA Voter's Reddit Post Breaking Down 5 Reasons They'll Be Voting "All Blue" In The Midterms Is Going Viral
As of late, Donald Trump's MAGA base has NOT been happy with him. From his mishandling of the Epstein files to bombing Iran, Trump seems to be backtracking on many of his campaign promises, and his support, even from high-profile names, is slipping. A Reddit post by a MAGA voter has recently gone viral for breaking down five reasons why they are abandoning Trump and planning to vote blue in the 2026 midterms. Related: At the start of the post, the MAGA voter explained their last-minute decision to vote for Trump on Election Day... They described feeling that Trump "got his ass beat" by Kamala Harris in the presidential debate, but did not like that the DNC was "open to big corporations and corporate donors." Their decision to vote for Trump also was inspired by Trump joining forces with RFK Jr., which they felt could improve nutrition policies. "Nutrition is a huge thing for me..." Related: The MAGA voter also assumed that Trump could end the Ukraine/Russia war due to his close relationship with Vladimir Putin. "I felt Trump would calm down the Ukraine/Russia basically say 'stop this shit' and create a calmer world for us." But, according to the MAGA voter, everything went south with the Trump administration's handling of the Epstein files. "Guy thinks we're stupid. He campaigns on the Epstein files, realizes he's on there and now is telling us to stop worrying about it." The White House has called the Wall Street Journal's claim that Trump was notified by the Attorney General that his name was in the Epstein files a "fake news story." Related: The MAGA voter also called out Trump's attempts to get rid of the Department of Education. "I know he brought this up during his campaign, but I thought he'd be sensible enough to work across the aisle with Democrats on this matter, but this is insane." They also called out Trump's "Big, Beautiful, Bill" that they described as "abhorrently terrible." As well as Trump's tariffs increasing costs for young people. "Wtf is this guy thinking other countries will pay more. We're the ones having to foot the cost." They took issue with Trump's immigration and deportation policies call them "messed up," because Trump has given ICE "free will to do whatever." Related: And finally, the post ended with a promise to abandon Trump in the midterms. "I will absolutely be voting all blue come the midterms and will be voting for a sensible democrat next election." After reading the post, most people in the comments were not exactly applauding the MAGA voter for their switch-up. "Wow, this is someone who even seems to have paid more attention than most, but also somehow discounted 99% of things Trump said he'd do. I just can't with that level of cognitive dissonance," one user said. "'She didn't have any ideas that I considered fresh and new, so I figured I may as well vote for the guy who babbled utter nonsense instead,'" another user wrote sarcastically, referencing the voter's comments on the presidential debate. "This sounds like a lot of people in my family's rationale for voting Trump, who should have had enough common sense to think things through. They'll never admit they're wrong and vote democrat though. At least this person realized they were wrong, albeit way too late," this user wrote. "They really give him too much credit thinking these pie in the sky thoughts that'd he abolish everything he said he would, and replace it all with something way better, which he never had a plan to do." What are your thoughts? Let us know in the comments below. Also in Internet Finds: Also in Internet Finds: Also in Internet Finds:
Yahoo
a minute ago
- Yahoo
U.S. slaps 20.56% anti-dumping duties on Canadian softwood lumber
The U.S. Commerce Department has decided to hike anti-dumping duties on Canadian softwood to 20.56 per cent, with B.C. lumber organizations calling them unjustified, punitive and protectionist. The hiked softwood lumber duties come amid the growing trade war between Canada and the U.S., and represent the latest blow to B.C.'s beleaguered forestry industry. B.C. Forests Minister Ravi Parmar described the long-awaited rate hike as a "gut punch" for B.C.'s forestry industry which has seen thousands of workers laid off over the last few years. "U.S. President Donald Trump has made it his mission to destroy Canada's economy, and there is no sector that has faced more of that than the forestry sector," he told CBC News. "This is a big deal for our workers. This is going to have a significant impact. It will lead to curtailments," he added. The B.C. government has been urging the federal government to prioritize the softwood lumber industry in trade discussions with the U.S., and Parmar said the hiked duties would also impact U.S. homeowners needing lumber to rebuild or renovate their homes. "This is going to mean that Americans, in particular middle-class Americans, are going to be paying more to the tune of $15,000 to $20,000 more USD to purchase or to build a home." The B.C. Lumber Trade Council says in a statement that if the U.S. department's pending review on countervailing duties is in line with its preliminary results, the combined rate against Canadian softwood shipped to the United States will be well over 30 per cent. In April, the preliminary combined rate on Canadian softwood lumber was reported to be 34.45 per cent, up from the previous 14.54 per cent. Friday's decision is a final determination, with Parmar saying it would go into effect in the U.S. Federal Register shortly.U.S. lumber producers have long maintained that Canadian stumpage fees, for harvesting on Crown land, are an unfair government subsidy. B.C.'s Independent Wood Processors Association says in a statement that the U.S. Commerce Department's decision this week to raise duties also includes a requirement for Canadian companies to retroactively remit duties for products shipped to the United States since Jan.1, 2023. WATCH | B.C. premier urges feds to prioritze lumber deal: Association chair Andy Rielly says in a statement that the requirement to pay duties on products shipped in the last 31 months could not only force small B.C. producers to shut down, but may also threaten operators' personal assets as they may have to risk using their homes as collateral to secure bonds to pay. Prime Minister Mark Carney said earlier this month that a future trade agreement with the United States could include quotas on softwood lumber, an area that has caused friction between the two countries for years before the latest trade war. Producer urges province to change conditions The United States has long been the single largest market for B.C. lumber exports, representing over half the market for the approximately $10-billion industry. But amid a series of challenges for the province's forestry industry — including a mountain pine beetle infestation that has killed hundreds of thousands of trees — mills have been closing around the province in recent years, and major forestry companies are opening up new mills in the United States. In 2023, numbers from Statistics Canada showed B.C. had lost more than 40,000 forest-sector jobs since the early 1990s. Kim Haakstad, the CEO of the B.C. Council of Forest Industries, said the B.C. government should work to improve the production environment in the province to prevent future mill closures. In a statement, the council said that by activating timber sales, fast-tracking permits and cutting through regulatory gridlock, the province could send a signal that it is serious about rebuilding a sustainable forest argued that if the industry could get production levels back to historic levels, it could help keep forestry-dependent communities vibrant into the future. "That will bring more than $300 million to the provincial government, as well, to help address the deficit situation we're in," Haakstad said. Kurt Niquidet, the president of the B.C. Lumber Trade Council, highlighted that Trump also has initiated a federal investigation into the U.S. imports of lumber and timber citing "national security," which could further impact B.C.'s forestry industry when combined with the tariffs. "Softwood lumber is quite important for the United States. They can only supply about 70 per cent of their softwood lumber demand, and they're importing 30 per cent from elsewhere," he told CBC News. "25 per cent of that's really coming from Canada, and British Columbia is the largest softwood lumber producer within Canada."


Fox News
a minute ago
- Fox News
Bongino promises a ‘dignified effort at truth' in cryptic X message
Fox News correspondent Lucas Tomlinson discusses President Donald Trump's visit to Scotland, Deputy FBI Director Dan Bongino's social media post on potential investigations and more on 'Fox Report Weekend.'