September, 02 2025, 03:26pm EDT

Federal Investment in Military Less Effective for Jobs than Investments in Education or Healthcare
Analysis Reveals Federal Budget Increasingly Devoted to Militarized Sectors—Not Public Goods That Create Jobs
PROVIDENCE, Rhode Island
The majority of the federal workforce involves militarized sectors, including the military, homeland security, and more. But military spending is inefficient for employment: spending on education and healthcare would create more jobs while reducing the federal budget, according to a new report from the Costs of War project at Brown University’s Watson School of International and Public Affairs.
The analysis, an update to a previous report from 2023, reveals that military spending (including both federal defense spending and various private military industries) produces an average of five jobs per $1 million in spending, including both direct jobs and jobs in the supply chain. By contrast, 13 jobs are created for every $1 million in education spending – nearly three times as much employment. Healthcare spending creates 84% more jobs than military spending, while infrastructure and clean energy create from 24% to 64% more.
“In 2025 the federal government is making large cuts in personnel and spending in various programs that Americans value – including education, healthcare, environmental programs, public parks and lands, and many others,” writes Heidi Peltier, Director of Programs for the Costs of War project. “At the same time, the Trump administration is increasing the size of the federal budget by devoting more spending and resources to the military and homeland security, further exacerbating a disproportional federal budget and workforce.”
Federal spending on the Department of Defense accounts for half of all discretionary spending (49%) and more than half (60%) of federal employment as of the end of fiscal year 2024. Adding funding for the Departments of Homeland Security and Veterans Affairs, the military sectors make up almost two-thirds (61%) of the federal discretionary budget and 78% of the federal workforce (including both civilians and active-duty military). This is a seven percent increase in the militarized workforce since Costs of War’s previous report based on fiscal year 2022 data.
Of the 3,669,000 federal workers in 2024, 2,846,077 were employed in either DHS, VA, or DoD.
It is precisely because military spending is so exorbitant that so many jobs have been created in the militarized sectors of the federal government. However, a shift in funding from military to non-military programs would result in an increase in employment (since other programs are better job creators than the military) without an increase in the budget, concludes the report.
“When we as Americans hear that investing in the military or military industries is great for creating jobs, we need to think twice,” said Stephanie Savell, Director of the Costs of War project. “This data illustrates that the superior job creation potential of sectors like healthcare and education is vastly under-appreciated.”
The Costs of War Project is a team of 50 scholars, legal experts, human rights practitioners, and physicians, which began its work in 2010. We use research and a public website to facilitate debate about the costs of the post-9/11 wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the related violence in Pakistan and Syria. There are many hidden or unacknowledged costs of the United States' decision to respond to the 9/11 attacks with military force. We aim to foster democratic discussion of these wars by providing the fullest possible account of their human, economic, and political costs, and to foster better informed public policies.
LATEST NEWS
Republicans Suddenly Care About US Airstrike Massacres—But Only Obama's
House Speaker Mike Johnson falsely claimed that "nobody ever questioned" Obama's hundreds of drone strikes, while defending the Trump administration's high seas murder spree.
Dec 02, 2025
Republicans on Tuesday invoked drone strikes during then-President Barack Obama's tenure in a dubious effort to justify what experts say is the Trump administration's illegal boat bombing campaign against alleged drug traffickers, while falsely claiming that Democrats and the media ignored airstrikes ordered by the former president.
US House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) was asked during a Tuesday press conference about a so-called "double-tap" airstrike—military parlance for follow-up strikes on survivors and first responders after initial bombings—that killed two men who survived a September 2 attack on a boat in the southern Caribbean Sea.
Although US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has denied it, he reportedly gave a spoken order to “kill everybody” in the boat, which was supposedly interpreted by Adm. Frank M. “Mitch” Bradley as a green light for launching a second strike after the discovery that two of the 11 men aboard the vessel were alive and clinging to its burning wreckage.
Responding to the question concerning the strike's legality, Johnson pointed to upcoming congressional consultations on the matter and said that such attacks are "not an unprecedented thing."
“Secondary strikes are not unusual,” he noted. “It has to happen if a mission is going to be completed.”
“It’s something Congress will look at, and we’ll do that in the regular process and order," Johnson continued, referring to a classified briefing with Bradley and some lawmakers scheduled for Thursday. "I think it’s very important for everybody to reserve judgment and not leap to conclusions until you have all the facts."
“One of the things I was reminded of this morning is that under Barack Obama... I think there were 550 drone strikes on people who were targeted as enemies of the country, and nobody ever questioned it," he said.
RAJU: If defenseless survivors were killed, would that constitute a violation of the laws of war?
MIKE JOHNSON: I'm not going to prejudge any of that. I was pretty busy yesterday. I didn't follow a lot of the news. pic.twitter.com/v38JWhNx0k
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) December 2, 2025
The lack of attention to Obama's strikes claimed by Johnson is belied by congressional hearings, lawsuits, and copious coverage—and condemnation—of such attacks in media outlets including Common Dreams.
Progressive lawmakers and Republican Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky were among the numerous US officials who criticized Obama-era drone strikes.
Trump administration officials have reportedly cited the Obama administration's legal rationale for bombing Libya to justify the boat strikes to members of Congress.
Other Republican lawmakers and right-wing media figures noted on Tuesday that Obama—who bombed more countries than his predecessor, former President George W. Bush and was called the "drone warrior-in-chief"—ordered strikes that resulted in massacres of civilians at events including funerals and at least one wedding.
At least hundreds of civilians were killed in such strikes, including 16-year-old US citizen Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, who according to an Obama administration official was in the wrong place at the wrong time when he was slain in Yemen in 2011. This, after al-Awlaki's father—an accused terrorist who was also American—was assassinated by a drone strike ordered by Obama.
Asked by a reporter about the legality of assassinating US citizens without charge or trial, then-White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs infamously asserted in October 2012 that Abdulrahman al-Awlaki should have had "a far more responsible father."
Buried deep in a New York Times article published earlier that year was the revelation that Obama's secret "kill list" authorized the assassination of US citizens, and that his administration was counting all military-age males in a strike zone as "combatants" regardless of their actual status in an effort to artificially lower the reported number of civilian casualties.
“Turns out I’m really good at killing people,” Obama once boasted, according to the 2013 Mark Halperin and John Heilemann book Double Down. “Didn’t know that was gonna be a strong suit of mine.”
A third member of the al-Awlaki family, 8-year-old Nawar al-Awlaki—also an American citizen—was killed in a US commando raid in Yemen ordered by President Donald Trump in early 2017.
Tens of thousands of civilians were killed by US airstrikes in Afghanistan, Iran, Libya, Pakistan, Somalia, Syria, and Yemen during the Bush, Obama, Trump, and Biden administrations as part of the decadeslong so-called Global War on Terror, in which more than 900,000 people were slain, according to the Costs of War Project at Brown University's Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs.
At least thousands of civilians have been killed or wounded by US bombs and bullets in Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Somalia, Syria, and Yemen during Trump's first and second terms, during which rules of engagement aimed at protecting noncombatants have been loosened.
At least 83 people have been killed in 21 strikes on alleged drug-running boats in the Caribbean Sea and Pacific Ocean since early September, according to Trump administration figures. Officials in Venezuela and Colombia, as well as relatives of victims, claim that some of them were civilians uninvolved in narcotrafficking.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump DOJ Sides With Roundup Manufacturer Over Cancer Victims in Supreme Court Case
An attorney at Food & Water Watch said the DOJ sent a "clear message... to sick Americans harmed by toxic pesticides: Trump has Bayer’s back, not theirs."
Dec 02, 2025
The Trump administration is pushing for the US Supreme Court to shield the manufacturer of Roundup from thousands of state lawsuits alleging that its widely used herbicide product causes cancer.
On Monday, US Solicitor General D. John Sauer recommended that the high court agree to hear a challenge to a Missouri jury's verdict in 2023 that awarded $1.25 million to a man named John Durnell, who claimed that the product caused him to develop non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
Bayer, the agribusiness giant that purchased the manufacturer of Roundup, the agribusiness giant Monsanto, in 2018, immediately challenged the verdict.
In 2015, the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, as "probably carcinogenic to humans" based on "limited evidence."
That evidence became less limited in 2019, when a prominent meta-analysis by a team of environmental health researchers found that people exposed to glyphosate at the highest levels had a 41% higher risk of developing non-Hodgkin lymphoma than those who weren't.
There are nearly 4,500 Roundup claims currently pending in federal court, and at least 24 cases have gone to trial since October 2023. They make up just a fraction of the more than 170,000 claims filed.
According to Bloomberg, Bayer has already been forced to pay out more than $10 billion in verdicts and settlements over the product, which has caused a massive drain on the company's stock price.
In what it said was an effort to “manage litigation risk and not because of any safety concerns,” Bayer removed glyphosate-based herbicides from the residential market in 2023, switching to formulas that “rely on alternative active ingredients.”
That didn't stop the lawsuits from coming. Durnell's victory was the first successful case brought against Bayer outside California, the only state that labels the product as carcinogenic. That in Missouri opened the floodgates in other states, and plaintiffs subsequently won sizable payouts in Georgia and Pennsylvania.
But now the Trump administration is trying to help the company skirt further accountability. Sauer, who is tasked with arguing for the government in nearly every Supreme Court case, filed a 24-page brief stating that there is a lack of clarity on whether states have the authority to determine whether Bayer and Monsanto violated the law by failing to warn customers about potential cancer risks from Roundup.
Bayer argues that these cases are preempted by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), which forbids states from enacting labeling requirements more stringent than those recommended by the federal government.
Sauer agreed with Bayer, stating in the brief that the US Environmental Protection Agency "has repeatedly determined that glyphosate is not likely to be carcinogenic in humans, and the agency has repeatedly approved Roundup labels that did not contain cancer warnings."
In 2016 and again in 2020, the EPA indeed classified glyphosate as "not likely to be carcinogenic to humans" following agency assessments. However, in 2022, the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals voided this assessment, finding that the agency applied “inconsistent reasoning” in its review of the science.
Among the justifications for the ruling were that the EPA relied heavily on unpublished, non-peer-reviewed studies submitted to regulators by Monsanto and other companies that manufacture glyphosate. The agency also largely disregarded findings from animal studies included by the IARC, which showed a strong link between glyphosate and cancer.
"The World Health Organization has recognized glyphosate as a probable carcinogen while the EPA continues to twist itself into pretzels to come to the opposite conclusion," Lori Ann Burd, a staff attorney and director of the Center for Biological Diversity's environmental health program, told Common Dreams.
Notably, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. built his national profile campaigning against the dangers of pesticides and railing against regulatory capture by big business.
Kennedy served as an attorney for Dewayne Johnson, the first plaintiff to win damages against Monsanto in 2018, where a jury determined that Roundup had contributed to his cancer.
"If my life were a Superman comic, Monsanto would be my Lex Luthor," Kennedy said in a 2020 Facebook post. "I've seen this company as the enemy of every admirable American value."
During Kennedy's 2024 presidential run, he pledged to "ban the worst agricultural chemicals already banned in other countries."
But after he was sworn in as President Donald Trump's HHS Secretary, he began to sing a different tune. As Investigate Midwest noted, his "Make America Healthy Again" commission's introductory report made no mention of glyphosate.
Meanwhile, he reassured the pesticide industry that it had nothing to worry about: "There’s a million farmers who rely on glyphosate. 100% of corn in this country relies on glyphosate. We are not going to do anything to jeopardize that business model," he said during a Senate Appropriations Committee hearing.
The Trump EPA has deregulated toxic chemicals across the board over the past year. It rolled back protections against per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), often referred to as "forever chemicals," in drinking water, which have many documented health risks. It has also declined to ban the widely used insecticide chlorpyrifos, which has been linked to neurodevelopmental disorders in children.
Elizabeth Kucinich, the former director of policy at the Center for Food Safety, described the US Department of Justice's effort to shield Bayer as another "betrayal of MAHA health promises." Her husband, the two-time Democratic presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich, worked as the campaign manager for RFK Jr.'s 2024 presidential bid.
“This is regulatory capture, not public protection,” she said. “This action shields chemical manufacturers from accountability by elevating a captured federal regulatory process over the lived harm of real people. That is anti-life, and it is exactly what millions of MAHA voters believed they were voting against.”
Food & Water Watch staff attorney Dani Replogle said the DOJ filing "encourages the Supreme Court to slam judiciary doors in the faces of cancer patients across the country."
"No political posturing can undo the clear message this brief sends to sick Americans harmed by toxic pesticides," she continued. "Trump has Bayer’s back, not theirs."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Evil and Disgusting': From Sabrina Carpenter to Franklin the Turtle, 'Violent' Memes by Trump Officials Rebuked
"This is a government that is not only full of sadists, but has elevated sadism to a place of honor in politics and policy," said one journalist.
Dec 02, 2025
Pop star Sabrina Carpenter and Kids Can Press, publisher of the popular Franklin the Turtle children's book series, are shaming President Donald Trump's administration for using their work to promote its policies of mass deportation and extrajudicial killing.
On Monday, the official White House X account posted a video showing federal agents chasing, apprehending, and detaining purported undocumented immigrants that featured Carpenter's song "Juno" as its soundtrack.
On Tuesday morning, Carpenter angrily denounced the White House for using her song in a mass deportation video.
"This video is evil and disgusting," she wrote in response. "Do not ever involve me or my music to benefit your inhumane agenda."
An administration spokesperson responded to Carpenter's message by continuing to reference her lyrics, and said that "anyone who would defend these sick monsters" that the administration is deporting "must be stupid, or is it slow," a line lifted from her hit song "Manchild."
As noted by the Guardian, Carpenter is just the latest popular artist to object to the Trump White House using their work in propaganda videos, as Beyoncé, Olivia Rodrigo, Kenny Loggins, and Foo Fighters have also attacked the White House for hijacking their songs.
Kids Can Press, meanwhile, slammed Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth after he posted a meme depicting Franklin the Turtle launching air-to-surface missiles at the boats of supposed "narco-terrorists" in the Caribbean.
In a statement, the publisher said that it "strongly" condemned "any denigrating, violent, or unauthorized use of Franklin’s name or image," such the one Hegseth posted on social media.
“Franklin the Turtle is a beloved Canadian icon who has inspired generations of children and stands for kindness, empathy, and inclusivity,” the published emphasized.
Hegseth posted the meme shortly after the Washington Post reported last week that US defense forces had conducted a "double-tap" strike against a suspected drug boat in September with the express purpose of killing two men who had survived the initial strike on the vessel.
Many legal scholars consider such an action to be murder or an overt war crime, and Hegseth and the Trump White House in recent days have been trying to shift responsibility for authorizing the second strike to Adm. Frank Bradley.
Writing in his Substack page on Tuesday, journalist Paul Waldman noted that Hegseth's attitude toward extrajudicial killing shouldn't be a surprise since he had previously lobbied Trump during his first term in office to pardon convicted war criminals.
"This is a government that is not only full of sadists, but has elevated sadism to a place of honor in politics and policy," he wrote. "If you’re one of Trump’s underlings and you aren’t publicly expressing glee at the prospect of punishing and abusing those with less power, then you won’t really fit in. That’s the context in which we have to view this event."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular


