SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
");background-position:center;background-size:19px 19px;background-repeat:no-repeat;background-color:#222;padding:0;width:var(--form-elem-height);height:var(--form-elem-height);font-size:0;}:is(.js-newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter_bar.newsletter-wrapper) .widget__body:has(.response:not(:empty)) :is(.widget__headline, .widget__subheadline, #mc_embed_signup .mc-field-group, #mc_embed_signup input[type="submit"]){display:none;}:is(.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper) #mce-responses:has(.response:not(:empty)){grid-row:1 / -1;grid-column:1 / -1;}.newsletter-wrapper .widget__body > .snark-line:has(.response:not(:empty)){grid-column:1 / -1;}:is(.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper) :is(.newsletter-campaign:has(.response:not(:empty)), .newsletter-and-social:has(.response:not(:empty))){width:100%;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col{display:flex;flex-wrap:wrap;justify-content:center;align-items:center;gap:8px 20px;margin:0 auto;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col .text-element{display:flex;color:var(--shares-color);margin:0 !important;font-weight:400 !important;font-size:16px !important;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col .whitebar_social{display:flex;gap:12px;width:auto;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col a{margin:0;background-color:#0000;padding:0;width:32px;height:32px;}.newsletter-wrapper .social_icon:after{display:none;}.newsletter-wrapper .widget article:before, .newsletter-wrapper .widget article:after{display:none;}#sFollow_Block_0_0_3_0_0_0_1{margin:0;}#sSHARED_-_Social_Desktop_0_0_13_0_0_1.row-wrapper{margin:40px auto;}#sBoost_post_0_0_1_0_0_0_1_0{background-color:#000;color:#fff;}.boost-post{--article-direction:column;--min-height:none;--height:auto;--padding:24px;--titles-width:calc(100% - 84px);--image-fit:cover;--image-pos:right;--photo-caption-size:12px;--photo-caption-space:20px;--headline-size:23px;--headline-space:18px;--subheadline-size:13px;--text-size:12px;--oswald-font:"Oswald", Impact, "Franklin Gothic Bold", sans-serif;--cta-position:center;overflow:hidden;margin-bottom:0;--lora-font:"Lora", sans-serif !important;}.boost-post:not(:empty):has(.boost-post-article:not(:empty)){min-height:var(--min-height);}.boost-post *{box-sizing:border-box;float:none;}.boost-post .posts-custom .posts-wrapper:after{display:none !important;}.boost-post article:before, .boost-post article:after{display:none !important;}.boost-post article .row:before, .boost-post article .row:after{display:none !important;}.boost-post article .row .col:before, .boost-post article .row .col:after{display:none !important;}.boost-post .widget__body:before, .boost-post .widget__body:after{display:none !important;}.boost-post .photo-caption:after{content:"";width:100%;height:1px;background-color:#fff;}.boost-post .body:before, .boost-post .body:after{display:none !important;}.boost-post .body :before, .boost-post .body :after{display:none !important;}.boost-post__bottom{--article-direction:row;--titles-width:350px;--min-height:346px;--height:315px;--padding:24px 86px 24px 24px;--image-fit:contain;--image-pos:right;--headline-size:36px;--subheadline-size:15px;--text-size:12px;--cta-position:left;}.boost-post__sidebar:not(:empty):has(.boost-post-article:not(:empty)){margin-bottom:10px;}.boost-post__in-content:not(:empty):has(.boost-post-article:not(:empty)){margin-bottom:40px;}.boost-post__bottom:not(:empty):has(.boost-post-article:not(:empty)){margin-bottom:20px;}@media (min-width: 1024px){#sSHARED_-_Social_Desktop_0_0_13_0_0_1_1{padding-left:40px;}}.donation_banner{position:relative;background:#000;}.donation_banner .posts-custom *, .donation_banner .posts-custom :after, .donation_banner .posts-custom :before{margin:0;}.donation_banner .posts-custom .widget{position:absolute;inset:0;}.donation_banner__wrapper{position:relative;z-index:2;pointer-events:none;}.donation_banner .donate_btn{position:relative;z-index:2;}#sSHARED_-_Support_Block_0_0_16_0_0_3_1_0{color:#fff;}#sSHARED_-_Support_Block_0_0_16_0_0_3_1_1{font-weight:normal;}.sticky-sidebar{margin:auto;}@media (min-width: 980px){.main:has(.sticky-sidebar){overflow:visible;}}@media (min-width: 980px){.row:has(.sticky-sidebar){display:flex;overflow:visible;}}@media (min-width: 980px){.sticky-sidebar{position:-webkit-sticky;position:sticky;top:100px;transition:top .3s ease-in-out, position .3s ease-in-out;}}#sElement_Post_Layout_Press_Release__0_0_2_0_0_11{margin:100px 0;}.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper.sidebar{background:linear-gradient(91deg, #005dc7 28%, #1d63b2 65%, #0353ae 85%);}.black_newsletter{background:linear-gradient(91deg, #005dc7 28%, #1d63b2 65%, #0353ae 85%);}.black_newsletter .newsletter_bar.newsletter-wrapper{background:none;}
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
In response to Glenn Beck lashing out
for being chosen as 2009's "Misinformer of the Year," Media Matters for America challenged him
to contact the organization if he
believes any critiques of his show are false or deceptive. Media Matters' President Eric Burns sent
Beck a letter inviting the Fox News host -- who has repeatedly professed an interest in
accuracy -- to call the
newly installed "Beck phone" anytime he believes he is being unfairly
criticized.
The letter reads:
January 5, 2010
Mr. Beck,
On October 13, you unveiled
a "red phone" that the White House could use to call in and "correct the
mistakes" on your show. On Monday, that red phone made another appearance, as
you - responding to Media Matters
naming
you 2009's Misinformer of the Year - again asserted your commitment to the
truth:"If I'm not telling the truth, then why not just call me? That's all you
have to do. Call. Why is it that you attack this program, this network and
anyone, the tea party goers, anyone who stands in your way, Washington? Why attack? You see, lies are so
easily stopped. Lies that are broadcast nightly to an entire nation are easily
stopped. They're called laws -- or here's an idea, standards. Even if you think
I'm wildly irresponsible, you have to know that News Corp. is not stupid. It's
a company worth billions of dollars. Do you really think this corporation would
risk everything on an irresponsible crazy guy? That doesn't make sense. And
yet, the phone still doesn't ring. Truth."While we do not have the number for your red phone, we have on many
occasions corrected falsehoods and misinformation from Fox News' Glenn Beck and Premiere Radio Network's The Glenn Beck Program - you simply refuse
to acknowledge it. You claimed our decision to name you 2009's "Misinformer of
the Year" was not backed up "with any facts." However, that decision was based
on the 175 research items we posted in 2009 alone addressing claims made on
your radio and television shows. For example:
- Beck falsely claimed
"[o]nly 3 percent" of stimulus plan would be "spent in the next
12 months." Beck falsely claimed
that "[o]nly 3
percent" of the Democratic economic stimulus plan would be "spent in
the next 12 months." Beck's figures were based on a partial
Congressional
Budget Office cost estimate that excluded faster-moving provisions in
the bill. According to the CBO's full cost estimate of the bill,
11.2 percent of the $816 billion bill would be spent in the first
seven-and-a-half months after the bill is enacted, and, when including
the
bill's tax cut provisions, $169 billion -- or 20.7 percent of the
bill's total
cost -- would take effect in the first seven-and-a-half months.- Beck
aired false claim that a union only needs 30 percent support from employees to
be "established." Beck aired
an on-screen graphic with the headline, "THEN ... WAGNER ACT," which
falsely asserted that if 30 percent of employees want a union, "it gets
established." In fact, the Wagner Act, which was passed in the 1930s,
required that for union representation to be established, a majority of employees in a bargaining unit
within a company had to "designate or select" a union to represent
them. The National Labor Relations Act as it stands today also contains a
majority requirement.- Beck falsely claimed average
UAW worker makes $154 per hour. Beck falsely claimed
that "the average UAW [United Auto Workers] worker" earns "[a]
hundred and fifty-four dollars an hour if you look at -- you know, if you add
in all of the benefits." In fact, a recent Barclays Capital analysis
reportedly found that U.S.
automakers "pay an average of $55 an hour in wages and benefits to hourly
workers."- Beck falsely asserted that U.S. does not
fingerprint foreign visitors or collect rapists' DNA. Beck asserted
that "[w]e can't fingerprint anybody who's coming into this country
because that would be offensive" and that "[w]e can't take DNA
samples from killers or rapists, but you can have your fingerprint taken if you
want to sell your house." In fact, the Department of Homeland Security
does take fingerprints from "aliens seeking admission to the United States" at U.S. entry
points, and according to the National Conference of State Legislatures,
"All 50 states require that convicted sex offenders provide a DNA
sample."- Beck falsely claimed Iowa marriage ruling
"is actually about going into churches." Beck falsely asserted
that the Iowa Supreme Court's decision striking down the state's ban on
same-sex marriage "is actually about going into churches ... and saying
you can't teach anything else." In fact, the ruling does not affect
religious institutions' definitions of marriage.- Beck echoes tired falsehood
that ACORN received stimulus funds. Beck echoed
the false Republican talking point by stating, "By including ACORN, or
groups like them, in the stimulus package, we have guaranteed them billions of
dollars to buy more votes for the party that helps them the most." In
fact, the stimulus bill does not mention ACORN or otherwise single it out for
funding.- Beck falsely claimed $1.4
million in stimulus spent on doors, which actually cost $246,100 to repair. Beck
falsely claimed
that the government spent $1.4 million of economic stimulus funds "to
repair a door" at Dyess Air Force Base. In fact, the doors repaired were
hangar doors and did not cost that much money.
Recovery.gov actually states that the government awarded AFCO
Technologies nearly $1.2 million to replace gas mains on the base, and $246,100
to repair doors in Building 5112.- Beck falsely claimed Obama said
he doesn't want health reform protesters to "do a lot of talking." Beck
falsely claimed
that President Obama was "reacti[ng] to the health care protests"
when he said, "I don't want the folks who created the mess to do a lot of
talking." In fact, Obama was not talking about public protests or even
health care reform; he was discussing "folks on the other side of the
aisle pointing at the federal budget and somehow trying to put that at our
feet."- Beck reports fake murder story
from ACORN video as fact. After Andrew Breitbart posted a video of
an ACORN employee in San Bernardino,
California, claiming that she had
killed her ex-husband, Beck joined
Fox News colleagues Karl Rove, Greta Van Susteren, and Sean Hannity in
promoting it without fact-checking it or indicating that they had contacted
ACORN for a response to the claim. In fact, ACORN stated that the employee made
up the story because she recognized that the actors in the video "were
clearly playing with" her so she "matched their false scenario with
her own false scenarios," and, indeed, the San Bernardino Police
Department has said her claim is false.- Beck, falsely claimed IPCC's
Latif has "pulled the rug out" from under climate change consensus. Beck
joined
Sean Hannity in seizing on a World Climate Conference presentation on
short-term natural climate variability by Mojib Latif, a prominent climate
modeler, to suggest that, in Beck's words, Latif has "backed out now and
said, 'We were wrong,' " about global warming because, according to
Hannity, Latif stated that global temperatures are actually
"cooling." In fact, Latif asserted that contrary to common
"media" misperceptions of global warming as a "monotonic
process" in which "each year is warmer than the preceding year,"
there are significant natural climate variations within the decadal timescale
that do not change the "long-term warming trend."- Beck falsely claimed Anita Dunn
"worships" "her hero" Mao Zedong. Throughout
most of his October 15 Fox News program, Glenn Beck falsely claimed
that White House communications director Anita Dunn "worships" and
"idolizes" "her hero" Mao Zedong. In fact, in the video
that Beck aired as evidence to support his claims, Dunn offered no endorsement
of Mao's ideology or atrocities -- rather, she commented that Mao and Mother
Teresa were two of her "favorite political philosophers," and based
on short quotes from them, she offered the advice that "you don't have to
follow other people's choices and paths" or "let external definition
define how good you are internally."- Beck falsely accused Reid of
lying about support for public option. Following reports that Senate
leaders will include a public option in health care legislation, on Fox & Friends, Glenn Beck falsely suggested
that only "35 percent of the population" supported a public option
and accused Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of lying when he said, in co-host
Gretchen Carlson's words, "the public wants this." In fact, polling
consistently shows broad support for the public option, and the Fox News poll
Beck is presumably referencing did not ask specifically about a public option.- Beck falsely claimed that under
the Senate health care bill, "You don't get a single benefit until
2014." On November 19, Beck falsely claimed
that under the Senate health care bill, "All of the benefits of this bill
don't kick in until when? You don't get a single benefit until 2014."
According to a document
released by Senate Democrats summarizing the "Immediate Benefits" of
the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the bill included numerous
benefits that would "be available in the first year after enactment"
of the bill. Indeed, Washington Post
writer Ezra Klein published a list
of benefits that the Senate bill would provide
"before 2014."- Reviving "born alive"
falsehood, Beck claims Obama suggested it's OK to "put a spike in the
baby's head." Beck falsely claimed
that President Obama "suggested that [it] was OK" to "go into
those pregnant women and pull the babies out of them and put a spike in
the baby's head," echoing the oft-repeated right-wing falsehood that Obama
did not support protecting babies who survived botched abortions. In fact,
while serving in the state Senate, Obama opposed legislation to amend the
Illinois Abortion Law because the amendment threatened abortion rights and was
unnecessary since existing law already required doctors to provide medical care
for babies who survived abortions.- Beck falsely claims no jobs are
being "saved or created." Beck falsely claimed
that "jobs are not being saved or created" and that the Obama
administration is "creating the make-believe 'saved or created'
category" for jobs. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO)
recently estimated that the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act of 2009,
which was heavily promoted by President Obama, created 1.6 million jobs, and
the Bush administration repeatedly stated that its economic initiatives had
"saved or created" jobs.- Beck falsely claimed Robert
Creamer "stole" $2 million from banks. Beck falsely claimed
that progressive activist Robert Creamer "stole" $2 million from
banks while serving as Executive Director of the Illinois Public Action Fund.
In fact, Creamer was never accused of stealing any money and the judge in the
case reportedly gave Creamer a lighter sentence because no one suffered any
"out of pocket losses."- Beck led charge advancing
"Lie of the Year" contender that Holdren supported forced abortions
and sterilizations. Beck repeatedly
advanced
the false claim that White House science and technology adviser John Holdren --
whom Beck called "our science czar" -- supported forced abortions and
putting sterilants in drinking water. PolitiFact previously declared his claim
"pants on fire" false and nominated it for "Lie of the
Year," stating that Holdren and his coauthors "make clear that they
did not support coercive means of population control." Beck's claim was
Politifact.com's runner
up for lie of the year.
Your response to being named "Misinformer of the Year," however, did
not appear to be backed up "with any facts." For example, you claimed that
death panels were "discovered by The New
York Times" but the article you cite makes no mention of health care
reform or death panels. You stated that you "didn't want" Van Jones "to be
fired" but on the September 3 edition of your radio show you said that
"[r]emoving Van Jones is not enough" and called on listeners to ask "Why is
this man in [Obama's] administration?"You've repeatedly professed your interest in accuracy, stating that you
would immediately correct any errors on your broadcasts. Unfortunately, it's
hard to take this claim of yours - like so many others - seriously. For
example, it took you more than four months to correct your assertion that Van
Jones was a "convicted felon" who had spent "six months in
prison" - and you certainly haven't corrected any of the troubling errors
we've highlighted above.But just in case you are truly interested in setting the record
straight, Media Matters is going
take a cue from your October 13 show. We've installed a "Beck phone" at our Washington headquarters,
accessible by dialing (202) XXX-XXXX.
I challenge you to contact us anytime you believe one of our critiques of your
show is deceptive or false. We'll be waiting for your call.Warm regards,
Eric Burns
President, Media Matters for America
Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media.
The progressive senator underscored that the Israeli leader has been indicted by the International Criminal Court "for overseeing the systematic killing and starvation of civilians in Gaza."
U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders sharply criticized Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Tuesday as the fugitive from the International Criminal Court met with lawmakers ahead of a second White House meeting with U.S. President Donald Trump to advance plans for the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from the embattled Gaza Strip.
"As President Trump and members of Congress roll out the red carpet for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, let's remember that Netanyahu has been indicted as a war criminal by the International Criminal Court for overseeing the systematic killing and starvation of civilians in Gaza," Sanders (I-Vt.) said in a statement.
"This is the man Trump and Congress are welcoming this week: a war criminal who will be remembered as one of modern history's monsters," the senator continued. "His extremist government has killed more than 57,000 Palestinians and wounded almost 135,000, 60% of whom are women, children, or elderly people. The United Nations reports that at least 17,000 children have been killed and more than 25,000 wounded. More than 3,000 children in Gaza have had one or more limbs amputated."
"At this moment, hundreds of thousands of people are starving after Israel prevented any aid from entering Gaza for nearly three months," Sanders noted. "In the last six weeks, Israel has allowed a trickle of aid to get in, but has tried to replace the established United Nations distribution system with a private foundation backed by security contractors. This has been a catastrophe, with near-daily massacres at the new aid distribution sites. In its first five weeks in operation, 640 people have been killed and at least 4,488 injured while trying to access food through this mechanism."
Trump and Netanyahu—who said Monday that he nominated the U.S. president for the Nobel Peace Prize—are expected to discuss ongoing efforts to reach a new deal to secure the release of the 22 remaining Israeli and other hostages held by Hamas since the October 7, 2023 attack on Israel, as well as plans for giving Gazans what the prime minister described as a "better future" by finding third countries willing to accept forcibly displaced Palestinians.
Critics said such euphemistic language is an attempt to give cover to Israel's plan to ethnically cleanse and indefinitely occupy Gaza. Observers expressed alarm over Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz' Tuesday affirmation of a plan to force all Palestinians in Gaza into a camp at the southern tip of the strip.
"There is no such thing as voluntary displacement amongst a population that has been under constant bombardment for nearly two years and has been cut off from essential aid," Jeremy Konyndyk, president of the advocacy group Refugees International and a former senior official at the U.S. Agency for International Development, told Reuters.
Most Palestinians are vehemently opposed to what they say would amount to a second Nakba, the forced displacement of more than 750,000 people from Palestine during and after the 1948 establishment of the modern state of Israel.
"This is our land," one Palestinian man, Mansour Abu Al-Khaier, told The Times of Israel on Tuesday. "Who would we leave it to, where would we go?"
Another Gazan, Abu Samir el-Fakaawi, told the newspaper: "I will not leave Gaza. This is my country. Our children who were martyred in the war are buried here. Our families. Our friends. Our cousins. We are all buried here. Whether Trump or Netanyahu or anyone else likes it or not, we are staying on this land."
Officials at the United Nations—whose judicial body, the International Court of Justice, is weighing a genocide case against Israel brought by South Africa and supported by around two dozen countries—condemned any forced displacement of Palestinians from Gaza.
"This raises concerns with regards to forcible transfer—the concept of voluntary transfers in the context that we are seeing in Gaza right now [is] very questionable," Ravina Shamdasani, a spokesperson for the U.N. Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, said Tuesday.
The high court's decision to "release the president's wrecking ball at the outset of this litigation," said Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, "is not only truly unfortunate but also hubristic and senseless."
The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday lifted a block on U.S. President Donald Trump's February executive order directing federal agency leaders to "promptly undertake preparations to initiate large-scale reductions in force" and a related memorandum.
In response to a lawsuit filed by a coalition of labor unions, local governments, and nonprofits, Judge Susan Illston—appointed to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California by former President Bill Clinton—had issued a temporary restraining order and then a preliminary injunction, which was upheld by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in May.
That legal battle led to the Supreme Court's shadow docket, where emergency decisions don't have to be signed. The Tuesday opinion from the high court's unidentified majority states that Illston's injunction was based on a view that Trump's order implementing his Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) "Workforce Optimization Initiative" and a joint memo from the Office of Management and Budget and the Office of Personnel Management "are unlawful."
"Because the government is likely to succeed on its argument that the executive order and memorandum are lawful—and because the other factors bearing on whether to grant a stay are satisfied—we grant the application," the Supreme Court continued, emphasizing that the justices did not weigh in on the legality of any related agency reduction in force (RIF) and reorganization plans.
BREAKING: The Supreme Court allows the Trump administration to resume agency mass-firing plans over the dissent of Justice Jackson, who criticized "this Court’s demonstrated enthusiasm for greenlighting this President’s legally dubious actions in an emergency posture." More to come at Law Dork:
[image or embed]
— Chris Geidner (@chrisgeidner.bsky.social) July 8, 2025 at 3:54 PM
Only Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson publicly dissented on Tuesday. Another liberal, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, wrote in a short concurrence that "the plans themselves are not before this court, at this stage, and we thus have no occasion to consider whether they can and will be carried out consistent with the constraints of law. I join the court's stay because it leaves the district court free to consider those questions in the first instance."
Meanwhile, Jackson argued that "given the fact-based nature of the issue in this case and the many serious harms that result from allowing the president to dramatically reconfigure the federal government, it was eminently reasonable for the district court to maintain the status quo while the courts evaluate the lawfulness of the president's executive action."
She continued:
At bottom, this case is about whether that action amounts to a structural overhaul that usurps Congress' policymaking prerogatives—and it is hard to imagine deciding that question in any meaningful way after those changes have happened. Yet, for some reason, this court sees fit to step in now and release the president's wrecking ball at the outset of this litigation.
In my view, this decision is not only truly unfortunate but also hubristic and senseless. Lower court judges have their fingers on the pulse of what is happening on the ground and are indisputably best positioned to determine the relevant facts—including those that underlie fair assessments of the merits, harms, and equities. I see no basis to conclude that the district court erred—let alone clearly so—in finding that the president is attempting to fundamentally restructure the federal government.
Mark Joseph Stern, who covers the courts for Slate, said on social media that "Justice Jackson's criticism is spot-on, of course. But as Justice Sotomayor's concurrence suggests, SCOTUS' order looks like a negotiated compromise that leaves the district court room to block future RIFs and agency 'restructuring.' So the damage is limited."
"The real test will be what happens once agencies start to develop and implement plans for mass firings—which will, by and large, be illegal," he warned. "District courts still have discretion, for now, to stop them. Will SCOTUS freeze their orders and let unlawful RIFs and restructurings proceed? I fear it will."
Trump’s firings at federal agencies have upended the lives of thousands of workers.These are the people who oversee air safety, food and drug safety, disaster response, public health, and much more.Replacing civil servants with Trump loyalists is right out of Project 2025.
[image or embed]
— Robert Reich (@rbreich.bsky.social) July 8, 2025 at 5:13 PM
The coalition that challenged the order and memo includes the American Federation of Government Employees and four AFGE locals; American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME); Service Employees International Union and three SEIU Locals; Alliance for Retired Americans; American Geophysical Union; American Public Health Association; Center for Taxpayer Rights; Coalition to Protect America's National Parks; Common Defense; Main Street Alliance; Natural Resources Defense Council; Northeast Organic Farming Association Inc.; VoteVets; and Western Watersheds Project.
It also includes the governments of Baltimore, Maryland; Chicago, Illinois; Harris County, Texas; King County, Washington; and both San Francisco and Santa Clara County in California.
"Today's decision has dealt a serious blow to our democracy and puts services that the American people rely on in grave jeopardy," the coalition said Tuesday. "This decision does not change the simple and clear fact that reorganizing government functions and laying off federal workers en masse haphazardly without any congressional approval is not allowed by our Constitution."
"While we are disappointed in this decision," the coalition added, "we will continue to fight on behalf of the communities we represent and argue this case to protect critical public services that we rely on to stay safe and healthy."
Congressman Robert Garcia (D-Calif.), ranking member of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, was similarly critical but determined on Tuesday.
"The Trump-appointed Supreme Court just surrendered to a dangerous vision for America, letting the administration gut federal agencies by firing expert civil servants," he said. " The damage from these mass firings will last for decades, and weaken the government’s ability to respond to disasters and provide essential benefits and services. Oversight Democrats will not sit back as Trump turns the court into a political weapon. We will keep fighting to protect the American people and prevent the destruction of our federal agencies."
"These figures represent a continuing and massive transfer of wealth from taxpayers to fund war and weapons manufacturing," said the project's director.
Less than a week after U.S. President Donald Trump signed a budget package that pushes annual military spending past $1 trillion, researchers on Tuesday published a report detailing how much major Pentagon contractors have raked in since 2020.
Sharing The Guardian's exclusive coverage of the paper on social media, U.K.-based climate scientist Bill McGuire wrote: "Are you a U.S. taxpayer? I am sure you will be delighted to know where $2.4 TRILLION of your money has gone."
The report from the Costs of War Project at Brown University's Watson School of International and Public Affairs and the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft shows that from 2020-24 private firms received $2.4 trillion in Department of Defense contracts, or roughly 54% of DOD's $4.4 trillion in discretionary spending for that five-year period.
The publication highlights that "during those five years, $771 billion in Pentagon contracts went to just five firms: Lockheed Martin ($313 billion), RTX (formerly Raytheon, $145 billion), Boeing ($115 billion), General Dynamics ($116 billion), and Northrop Grumman ($81 billion)."
In a statement about the findings, Stephanie Savell, director of the Costs of War Project, said that "these figures represent a continuing and massive transfer of wealth from taxpayers to fund war and weapons manufacturing."
"This is not an arsenal of democracy—it's an arsenal of profiteering," Savell added. "We should keep the enormous and growing power of the arms industry in mind as we assess the rise of authoritarianism in the U.S. and globally."
Between 2020 and 2024, $771 billion in Pentagon contracts went to just five firms: Lockheed Martin, RTX, Boeing, General Dynamics, and Northrop Grumman. By comparison, the total diplomacy, development, and humanitarian aid budget, excluding military aid, was $356 billion. [5/12]
[image or embed]
— The Costs of War Project (@costsofwar.bsky.social) July 8, 2025 at 2:43 PM
The paper points out that "by comparison, the total diplomacy, development, and humanitarian aid budget, excluding military aid, was $356 billion. In other words, the U.S. government invested over twice as much money in five weapons companies as in diplomacy and international assistance."
"Record arms transfers have further boosted the bottom lines of weapons firms," the document details. "These companies have benefited from tens of billions of dollars in military aid to Israel and Ukraine, paid for by U.S. taxpayers. U.S. military aid to Israel was over $18 billion in just the first year following October 2023; military aid to Ukraine totals $65 billion since the Russian invasion in 2022 through 2025."
"Additionally, a surge in foreign-funded arms sales to European allies, paid for by the recipient nations—over $170 billion in 2023 and 2024 alone—have provided additional revenue to arms contractors over and above the funds they receive directly from the Pentagon," the paper adds.
The 23-page report stresses that "annual U.S. military spending has grown significantly this century," as presidents from both major parties have waged a so-called Global War on Terror and the DOD has continuously failed to pass an audit.
Specifically, according to the paper, "the Pentagon's discretionary budget—the annual funding approved by Congress and the large majority of its overall budget—rose from $507 billion in 2000 to $843 billion in 2025 (in constant 2025 dollars), a 66% increase. Including military spending outside the Pentagon—primarily nuclear weapons programs at the Department of Energy, counterterrorism operations at the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and other military activities officially classified under 'Budget Function 050'— total military spending grew from $531 billion in 2000 to $899 billion in 2025, a 69% increase."
Republicans' One Big Beautiful Bill Act passed earlier this month "adds $156 billion to this year's total, pushing the 2025 military budget to $1.06 trillion," the document notes. "After taking into account this supplemental funding, the U.S. military budget has nearly doubled this century, increasing 99% since 2000."
Noting that "taxpayers are expected to fund a $1 trillion Pentagon budget," Security Policy Reform Institute co-founder Stephen Semler said the paper, which he co-authored, "illustrates what they'll be paying for: a historic redistribution of wealth from the public to private industry.”
Semler produced the report with William Hartung, senior research fellow at the Quincy Institute. Hartung said that "high Pentagon budgets are often justified because the funds are 'for the troops.'"
"But as this paper shows, the majority of the department's budget goes to corporations, money that has as much to do with special interest lobbying as it does with any rational defense planning," he continued. "Much of this funding has been wasted on dysfunctional or overpriced weapons systems and extravagant compensation packages."
The arms industry has used an array of tools of influence to create an atmosphere where a Pentagon budget that is $1 trillion per year is deemed “not enough” by some members of Congress. [9/12]
[image or embed]
— The Costs of War Project (@costsofwar.bsky.social) July 8, 2025 at 2:43 PM
In addition to spotlighting how U.S. military budgets funnel billions of dollars to contractors each year, the report shines a light on the various ways the industry influences politics.
"The ongoing influence of the arms industry over Congress operates through tens of millions in campaign contributions and the employment of 950 lobbyists, as of 2024," the publication explains. "Military contractors also shape military policy and lobby to increase military spending by funding think tanks and serving on government commissions."
"Senior officials in government often go easy on major weapons companies so as not to ruin their chances of getting lucrative positions with them upon leaving government service," the report notes. "For its part, the emerging military tech sector has opened a new version of the revolving door—the movement of ex-military officers and senior Pentagon officials, not to arms companies per se, but to the venture capital firms that invest in Silicon Valley arms industry startups."
The paper concludes by arguing that "the U.S. needs stronger congressional and public scrutiny of both current and emerging weapons contractors to avoid wasteful spending and reckless decision-making on issues of war and peace. Profits should not drive policy."
"In particular," it adds, "the role of Silicon Valley startups and the venture capital firms that support them needs to be better understood and debated as the U.S. crafts a new foreign policy strategy that avoids unnecessary wars and prioritizes cooperation over confrontation."