SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
boeing
China Announces 'Major Military Drills' Around Taiwan in Wake of Massive US Arms Sale
The Chinese military drills appear to be "an effort to gain air and maritime superiority and cut off external military support" for Taiwan, said one expert.
Dec 29, 2025
The Chinese military on Monday announced it was conducting "major military drills" around Taiwan weeks after the US announced an $11 billion arms deal with the island nation.
As reported by CNN, China is mobilizing its army, navy, and air force units around Taiwan in a move that it says should serve as a "serious warning" to any "external" forces interfering with the island, which China has long claimed as its territory.
Taiwan's government, meanwhile, responded by accusing China of conducting a campaign of "military intimidation," while vowing to "take concrete action to defend the values of democracy and freedom."
Su Tzu-yun, a research fellow at the Institute for National Defense and Security Research in Taipei, told German broadcaster Deutsche Welle that China's military drills appear to be "an effort to gain air and maritime superiority and cut off external military support."
William Yang, a senior Northeast Asia analyst at the International Crisis Group think tank, told DW that while Chinese military exercises around Taiwan are now regular occurrences, the speed with which China ramped up its latest exercises "shows that the Chinese People's Liberation Army is becoming increasingly capable of rapidly deploying forces to combat-ready positions."
Although China did not mention the US directly when denouncing "external" powers, CNN noted that the decision to launch military drills came weeks after the US reached an $11 billion arms deal with Taiwan that included HIMARS rocket systems, anti-tank and anti-armor missiles, drones, howitzers, and military software.
China responded to this arms sale directly last week by announcing sanctions against US defense firms including Boeing, Northrop Grumman Systems Corporation, and L3Harris Maritime Services, according to the Guardian.
In announcing the sanctions against US firms, a Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson emphasized that "the Taiwan issue is the core of China's core interests and the first red line that cannot be crossed in China-US relations," while warning that "any provocative actions that cross the line on the Taiwan issue will be met with a strong response from China."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'This Must Stop': 15 Companies Profiting Off Israeli Occupation and Genocide in Gaza
"It is unacceptable that states and companies are aware that their revenues come from death, destruction, and immense suffering of Palestinians, yet they have decided to look away," said the head of Amnesty International.
Sep 19, 2025
Amnesty International on Thursday published a briefing that pressures governments, public institutions, and companies to stop contributing to Israel's unlawful military occupation of Palestinian territories, system of apartheid against Palestinians, and genocide in the Gaza Strip.
"This must stop. Human dignity is not a commodity," Amnesty International secretary general Agnès Callamard said in a statement. "While Palestinian mothers in Gaza are left to watch their children waste away from starvation under Israel's genocide, arms companies and others continue to reap substantial profits."
The human rights group's new report "identifies actions that states must take to fulfill their obligations, from banning and barring companies contributing or directly linked to Israel’s crimes, to effective legislation and regulation, and including divesting and ceasing purchases or contracts," she noted. "It also lists actions companies should take, such as suspending sales or contracts and making divestments."
The briefing—titled Pull the Plug on the Political Economy Enabling Israel's Crimes—lists 15 firms for which Amnesty "has gathered credible evidence" of contributing to Israel's illegal actions, based on "primary research, companies' published human rights policies, corporate press releases, transcripts of investor calls, quarterly earnings statements, company promotional material and/or media sources, including statements made by company representatives to the media."
"We cannot allow the immense, unfathomable suffering of the Palestinian people to be ignored for a minute longer."
Amnesty "has documented the abuses by several of these companies for years," the report explains. The group wrote to all of them, "asking questions about their activities" in Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories (OPT), and "expressing concerns of the human rights violations described in this briefing before making them public."
"Eleven out of the 15 companies were contacted at different times from 2017 to 2024 about their activities described in this briefing and asked to provide a response," the briefing details. "In 2025, 13 out of 15 companies were contacted by Amnesty International and five companies sent replies, which are reflected in this briefing and previously published research that is cited; two replies are annexed in their entirety."
Amnesty spotlighted the US multinationals Boeing, which manufactures bombs and guidance kits "being used in unlawful air strikes in the occupied Gaza Strip," and Lockheed Martin, which "supplies and services F-16s and the growing fleet of F-35 combat aircraft—the backbone of the Israeli Air Force." It also targeted Israel Aerospace Industries, Elbit Systems, and Rafael Advanced Defense Systems, "the three largest Israeli arms companies."
However, it's not only the supply of military goods and services that "must be stopped," Amnesty underscored, also advocating for cutting off Israel's supply of surveillance and cloud infrastructure. The report specifically flags biometric tools from the Chinese company Hikvision, facial recognition software from the Israeli firm Corsight, and artificial intelligence products and services from the US-based Palantir Technologies.
The group further argued that "all trade and investment contributing to Israel's unlawful occupation, system of apartheid, or genocide must be banned." It took aim at Mekorot, an Israeli government water company operating in the OPT, as well as the South Korean HD Hyundai, which "produces heavy machinery that has been widely used in demolitions of Palestinian-owned structures, homes, and businesses."
The report also notes that the Spanish firm Construcciones y Auxiliar de Ferrocarriles "provides transportation materials and services to Israel for the Jerusalem Light Rail project, which connects illegal Israeli settlements in occupied East Jerusalem with each other, as well as with West Jerusalem."
Additionally, Amnesty pointed to its 2019 report "that exposed how the operations of online tourism companies such as Airbnb, Booking.com, Expedia, and TripAdvisor contributed to the maintenance, development, and expansion of Israeli settlements in the OPT, namely the West Bank including East Jerusalem, in violation of international law." The group says that it "called on these companies to responsibly disengage from doing business in Israeli settlements, but they continue to do so."
The report emphasizes that "the list is illustrative, nonexhaustive, and preliminary. Nevertheless, the range of industries and sizes of companies included in this document highlights the scale and scope of the role of economic actors that enable and sustain Israel's unlawful occupation and its crimes under international law, including apartheid and genocide."
Callamard—whose group began describing Israel's destruction of Gaza as a genocide last December, after over a year of war—called on "people around the world to take peaceful actions" pushing countries and companies to stop "sustaining a government that has engineered famine and mass killing of civilians and denied Palestinians fundamental rights for decades."
"It is unacceptable that states and companies are aware that their revenues come from death, destruction, and immense suffering of Palestinians, yet they have decided to look away, maintain their business models regardless of the human cost, and indulge in their wealth," she said. "We cannot allow the immense, unfathomable suffering of the Palestinian people to be ignored for a minute longer."
Amnesty is far from alone in highlighting how, as Callamard put it, "every economic sector, the vast majority of states, and many private entities have knowingly contributed to or benefited from Israel's genocide in Gaza, and its brutal occupation and apartheid." The briefing was published just days after over 80 other civil society groups launched the "Stop Trade With Settlements" campaign, which demands that countries ban all trade with illegal Israeli settlements in the OPT.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Under Trump, War Profiteers Are Entering a New Golden Age
The "garrison state" Eisenhower warned of has arrived, with negative consequences for nearly everyone but giant weapons conglomerates and their competitors in the emerging military-tech sector.
Jul 28, 2025
When, in his 1961 farewell address, President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned of the dangers of the unwarranted influence wielded by a partnership between the military and a growing cohort of U.S. weapons contractors and came up with the ominous term “military-industrial complex,” he could never have imagined quite how large and powerful that complex would become. In fact, in recent years, one firm — Lockheed Martin — has normally gotten more Pentagon funding than the entire U.S. State Department. And mind you, that was before the Trump administration moved to sharply slash spending on diplomacy and jack up the Pentagon budget to an astonishing $1 trillion per year.
In a new study issued by the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft and the Costs of War Project at Brown University, Stephen Semler and I lay out just how powerful those arms makers and their allies have become, as Pentagon budgets simply never stop rising. And consider this: in the five years from 2020 to 2024, 54% of the Pentagon’s $4.4 trillion in discretionary spending went to private firms and $791 billion went to just five companies: Lockheed Martin ($313 billion), RTX (formerly Raytheon, $145 billion), Boeing ($115 billion), General Dynamics ($116 billion), and Northrop Grumman ($81 billion). And mind you, that was before Donald Trump’s Big Beautiful Budget bill landed on planet Earth, drastically slashing spending on diplomacy and domestic programs to make room for major tax cuts and near-record Pentagon outlays.
In short, the “garrison state” Eisenhower warned of has arrived, with negative consequences for nearly everyone but the executives and shareholders of those giant weapons conglomerates and their competitors in the emerging military tech sector who are now hot on their trail. High-tech militarists like Peter Thiel of Palantir, Elon Musk of SpaceX, and Palmer Luckey of Anduril have promised a new, more affordable, more nimble, and supposedly more effective version of the military-industrial complex, as set out in Anduril’s “Rebooting the Arsenal of Democracy,” an ode to the supposed value of those emerging tech firms.
Curiously enough, that Anduril essay is actually a remarkably apt critique of the Big Five contractors and their allies in Congress and the Pentagon, pointing out their unswerving penchant for cost overruns, delays in scheduling, and pork-barrel politics to preserve weapons systems that all too often no longer serve any useful military purpose. That document goes on to say that, while the Lockheed Martins of the world served a useful function in the ancient days of the Cold War with the Soviet Union, today they are incapable of building the next-generation of weaponry. The reason: their archaic business model and their inability to master the software at the heart of a coming new generation of semi-autonomous, pilotless weapons driven by artificial intelligence (AI) and advanced computing. For their part, the new titans of tech boldly claim that they can provide exactly such a futuristic generation of weaponry far more effectively and at far less cost, and that their weapons systems will preserve or even extend American global military dominance into the distant future by outpacing China in the development of next-generation technologies.
War and a Possible Coming Techno-Autocracy
Could there indeed be a new, improved military-industrial complex just waiting in the wings, one aligned with this country’s actual defense needs that doesn’t gouge taxpayers in the process?
Don’t count on it, not at least if it’s premised on the development of “miracle weapons” that will cost so much less and do so much more than current systems. Such a notion, it seems, arises in every generation, only to routinely fall flat. From the “electronic battlefield” that was supposed to pinpoint and destroy Viet Cong forces in the jungles of Southeast Asia in the Vietnam War years to Ronald Reagan’s failed vision of an impenetrable “Star Wars” missile shield, to the failure of precision-guided munitions and networked warfare to bring victory in Iraq and Afghanistan during this country’s Global War on Terror, the notion that superior military technology is the key to winning America’s wars and expanding U.S. power and influence has been routinely marked by failure. And that’s been true even if the weapons work as advertised (which all too often they don’t).
And while you’re at it, don’t forget, for example, that, nearly 30 years later, the highly touted, high-tech F-35 combat aircraft — once hailed as a technological marvel-in-the-making that would usher in a revolution in both warfare and military procurement — still isn’t ready for prime time. Designed for multiple war-fighting tasks, including winning aerial dogfights, supporting troops on the ground, and bombing enemy targets, the F-35 has turned out to be able to do none of those things particularly well. And to add insult to injury, the plane is so complex that it spends almost as much time being maintained or repaired as being ready to do battle.
That history of technological hubris and strategic failure should be kept in mind when listening to the — so far unproven — claims of the leaders of this country’s military-tech sector about the value of their latest gadgets. For one thing, everything they propose to build — from swarms of drones to unpiloted aircraft, land vehicles, and ships — will rely on extremely complex software that is bound to fail somewhere along the way. And even if, by some miracle, their systems, including artificial intelligence, work as advertised, they may not only not prove decisive in the wars of the future but make wars of aggression that much more likely. After all, countries that master new technologies are tempted to go on the attack, putting fewer of their own people at immediate risk while doing devastating harm to targeted populations. The use of Palantir’s technology by the Israeli Defense Forces to increase the number of targets devastated in a given time frame in their campaign of mass slaughter in Gaza could foreshadow the new age of warfare if emerging military technologies aren’t brought under some system of control and accountability.
A further risk posed by AI-driven warfare is the possibility that the new weapons could choose their targets without human intervention. Current Pentagon policy promises to keep a human “in the loop” in the use of such systems, but military logic runs counter to such claims. As Anduril President and Chief Strategy Officer Christian Brose has written in his seminal book Kill Chain, the high-tech wars of the future will hinge on which side can identify and destroy its targets most quickly — an imperative that would ensure slow-moving humans were left out of the process.
In short, two possibilities arise if the U.S. military transitions to the “new improved” military-industrial complex espoused by the denizens of Silicon Valley: complex systems that don’t perform as advertised, or new capabilities that may make war both more likely and more deadly. And such dystopian outcomes will only be reinforced by the ideology of the new Silicon Valley militarists. They see themselves as both the “founders” of a new form of warfare and “the new patriots” poised to restore American greatness without the need for a democratic government in the war-making mix. Their ideal, in fact, would be to ensure that the government got out of the way and let them solve the myriad problems we face alone. Ayn Rand would be proud.
Such a techno-autocracy would be far more likely to serve the interests of a relatively small elite than aid the average American in any way. From Peter Thiel’s quest for a way to live forever to Elon Musk’s desire to enable the mass colonization of space, it’s not at all clear that, if such goals could even be achieved, they would be generally available. It’s more likely that such opportunities would be restricted to the species of superior beings that the techno-militarists see themselves as being.
The Ultimate Brawl Between the Big Five and the Emerging Tech Firms?
Still, the techno-militarists face serious obstacles in their quest to reach the top rungs of power and influence, not least among them, the continued clout of old-school weapons makers. After all, they still receive the vast bulk of Pentagon weapons spending, based in part on their millions of dollars in lobbying and campaign expenditures and their ability to spread jobs to almost every state and district in the country. These tools of influence give the Big Five far deeper roots in and influence over Congress than the new tech firms. These large, legacy companies also influence government policy through their funding of hawkish think tanks that help shape government policies designed to regulate their conduct, and so much more.
Of course, one way to prevent the ultimate brawl between the Big Five and the emerging tech firms would be to feed them both with ample funding — but that would require a Pentagon budget that would soar well beyond the present trillion-dollar mark. There are, of course, some projects that could benefit both factions, ranging from Donald Trump’s pet Golden Dome missile defense scheme, which could incorporate hardware from the Big Five with software from the emerging tech firms, to Boeing’s new F-47 combat aircraft program, which calls for unpiloted “wing men” likely to be produced by Anduril or another military tech firm. So, the question of confrontation versus cooperation between the new and old guard in the military sector has yet to be settled. If the rival firms end up turning their lobbying resources against each other and going for each other’s proverbial throats, it could weaken their grip on the rest of us and perhaps reveal useful information that might undermine the authority and credibility of both sides.
But count on one thing: neither sector has the best interests of the public in mind, so we need to prepare to fight back ourselves regardless of how their battle plays out.
Okay, then, what could we possibly do to head off the nightmare scenario of a world run by Peter Thiel, Elon Musk, and crew? First, we’ll need the kind of “alert and knowledgeable” citizenry that Dwight D. Eisenhower pointed to so long ago as the only antidote to an ever more militarized society. That would mean concerted efforts by both the public and the government (which would, of course, have to be run by someone unlike Donald J. Trump — already a project in itself!).
At the moment, the tech sector is indeed increasingly embedded in the Trump administration and he owes a number of them a distinct debt of gratitude for helping him over the top in the 2024 election. Despite his very public and bitter falling out with fellow narcissist Elon Musk, the influence of the tech sector within his administration remains all too strong, starting with Vice President J.D. Vance, who owes his career to the employment, mentoring, and financial support of Silicon Valley militarist Peter Thiel. And don’t forget that a substantial cohort of former employees of Palantir and Anduril have already been given key posts in this administration.
Creating a counterweight to those new-age militarists will require a full-scale societal effort, including educators, scientists, and technologists, the labor movement, non-tech business leaders, and activists of all stripes. Silicon Valley workers did, in fact, organize a number of protests against the militarization of their handiwork before being beaten back. Now, a new wave of such activism is all too desperately needed.
Just as many of the scientists who helped build the atomic bomb spent their post-Hiroshima and Nagasaki lives trying to rein in or abolish nuclear weapons, a cohort of scientists and engineers in the tech sector needs to play a leading role in beginning to craft guardrails to limit the military uses of the technologies they helped develop. Meanwhile, the student movement against the use of U.S. weapons in Gaza has begun to expand its horizons to target the militarization of universities writ large. In addition, environmentalists need to double down on criticisms of the immense energy requirements needed to power AI and crypto, while labor leaders need to reckon with the consequences of AI destroying jobs in the military and civilian sectors alike. And all of this has to happen in the context of a far greater technological literacy, including among congressional representatives and workers in government agencies charged with regulating the suppliers of new military technologies.
None of that is, of course, likely to happen except in the context of a resurgence of democracy and a committed effort to fulfill the unmet rhetorical promises that undergird the myth of the American dream. And speaking of contexts, here’s one that anybody preparing to protest the further militarization of this society should take into account: contrary to the belief of many key figures from the Pentagon to Wall Street to Main Street, the peak of American military and economic power has indeed passed, never to return. The only rational course is to craft policies that maintain American influence in the context of a world where power has been defused and cooperation is all too essential.
Such a view, of course, is the polar opposite of the bombastic, bullying approach of the Trump administration, which, if it persists, will only accelerate American decline. And in that context, the key question is whether the widespread harm inherent in the new budget bill — which will only continue to wildly enrich the Pentagon and big arms firms of both kinds, while hitting the rest of us across the political spectrum — could prompt a new surge of public engagement and a genuine debate about what kind of world we want to live in and how this country could play a constructive (rather than destructive) role in bringing it about.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Boeing Jet Crashes Weeks After 'Sweetheart Deal' With Trump DOJ to Avoid Criminal Prosecution
"If Trump's DOJ hadn't worked out a deal to help Boeing avoid going to trial for its crimes, that trial would be starting on Monday."
Jun 12, 2025
A Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner jet carrying 242 passengers and crew members crashed in a residential area in western India shortly after takeoff on Thursday afternoon local time, a catastrophic incident that occurred weeks after U.S. President Donald Trump's Justice Department cut a deal allowing the aircraft manufacturer to avoid criminal responsibility for two deadly crashes in 2018 and 2019.
"If Trump's DOJ hadn't worked out a deal to help Boeing avoid going to trial for its crimes, that trial would be starting on Monday," Public Citizen researcher Rick Claypool pointed out following the crash.
The cause of the crash wasn't immediately clear, and Boeing said in a statement that it was "working to gather more information." India's health minister said that "many people" were killed when the London-bound plane crashed on the campus of a local medical college, and a local police commissioner told reporters that no one who was aboard the jet appeared to have survived.
(Update: It was later reported that at least one passenger, British national Vishwashkumar Ramesh, survived.)
India's minister of civil aviation wrote on social media that "rescue teams have been mobilized, and all efforts are being made to ensure medical aid and relief support are being rushed to the site."
The crash was believed to be the first deadly incident involving the Boeing 787 Dreamliner, a wide-body aircraft that entered commercial service in 2011.
A photo taken in the aftermath of the crash shows the tail of Air India Flight 171 on top of a building in Ahmedabad.
A view of the site after a Boeing crashed just after takeoff on June 12, 2025. (Photo: Central Industrial Security Force/Handout/Anadolu via Getty Images)
Boeing's stock plummeted following news of the crash, which is certain to heighten scrutiny of the company's safety record.
Whistleblowers and experts have accused Boeing of cutting corners on safety to meet production quotas and maximize profits. Last year, an engineer who worked on the 787 Dreamliner told members of Congress that Boeing was "taking shortcuts" to "speed up production and delivery" of the jet.
"Boeing adopted these shortcuts in its production processes based on faulty engineering and faulty evaluation of available data, which has allowed potentially defective parts and defective installations in 787 fleet," the engineer, Sam Salehpour, alleged in written testimony presented to a Senate committee in April 2024.
"This isn't just a betrayal of the victims and their families, but sends a chilling message: Even the most egregious corporate misconduct will be tolerated if a company is powerful enough and backs the right administration."
Last month, Boeing—a major federal contractor in the U.S.—reached what critics decried as a "sweetheart deal" with the Trump Justice Department to avoid criminal prosecution for allegedly misleading American regulators about the 737 MAX, two of which crashed in 2018 and 2019, killing nearly 350 people in total.
Boeing, which donated $1 million to U.S. President Donald Trump's inaugural fund, agreed to pay $1.1 billion in exchange for avoiding criminal responsibility.
"The deal marks one of the most shocking lapses of criminal enforcement against a major corporation in memory," Robert Weissman, co-president of Public Citizen, said after the deal was announced. "The Trump administration touts how it is tough on crime, but when it comes to the world's most powerful institutions, it is an all-time patsy."
William McGee, a senior fellow for aviation and travel at the American Economic Liberties Project, said earlier this month that "more than six years after two horrific Boeing 737 MAX accidents claimed 346 lives, the Trump DOJ is letting the company pay its way out of any accountability."
"Despite a trove of new evidence from whistleblowers, inspectors, and aviation experts, and even after another terrifying MAX incident last year, the Trump-Vance admin is once again siding with a massive and politically-connected corporation over public safety," said McGeen. "This isn't just a betrayal of the victims and their families, but sends a chilling message: Even the most egregious corporate misconduct will be tolerated if a company is powerful enough and backs the right administration."
Keep ReadingShow Less
DOJ-Boeing Deal Over Deadly Crashes Called 'Utterly Appalling'
"This kind of nonprosecution deal is unprecedented and obviously wrong for the deadliest corporate crime in U.S. history," said one attorney representing crash victims' families.
May 23, 2025
The Trump administration on Friday faced swift backlash to the U.S. Department of Justice's deal to end a felony case against Boeing that stemmed from a pair of 737 MAX passenger jet crashes that collectively killed 346 people in Ethiopia and Indonesia.
Responses on social media included: "No accountability, no safety, just corruption." "Really gotta feel for the families here. Just awful." "Just utterly appalling that Boeing escape[s] real criminal penalties here. People should have gone to jail." "They don't want to set the precedent that powerful people should have to answer to the public for fucking up."
Some critics also pointed to U.S. President Donald Trump's controversial luxury Boeing plane from the Qatari government, asking: "Is Trump getting another free plane? Is that the deal?"
During the Biden administration, Boeing had agreed to plead guilty to a criminal fraud conspiracy charge and pay a fine of up to $487.2 million over the 2018 and 2019 crashes—a deal that was also criticized by some victims' relatives who wanted a trial. However, at a meeting last Friday, federal prosecutors told families the company's posture changed after a judge rejected the plea agreement in December.
That's according to Reuters, which cited unnamed sources. The news agency also shared remarks from families' attorneys:
Paul Cassell, a lawyer for the families, said in a statement the government was intent on dropping the prosecution, saying "they conveyed their preconceived idea that Boeing should be allowed to escape any real consequences for its deadly lies."
Another lawyer representing family members who attended the meeting, Erin Applebaum, said the DOJ's "scripted presentation made it clear that the outcome has already been decided."
Despite Cassell's conclusion, the lawyer wrote to the DOJ on Thursday to argue against the agreement. He wrote that "in this case any further concessions to Boeing would be utterly inappropriate. This case is the deadliest corporate crime in U.S. history, as found by" Judge Reed O'Connor in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, who rejected the previous plea deal.
Also on Thursday, U.S. Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) urged Attorney General Pam Bondi not to sign an agreement that "would amount to a slap on the wrist, requiring Boeing to pay an additional fine and compensation to the victims' families, and hire an independent compliance consultant, in exchange for dismissal of the criminal fraud charge."
"DOJ must not sign a nonprosecution agreement with Boeing that would allow the company to weasel its way out of accountability for its failed corporate culture, and for any illegal behavior that has resulted in deadly consequences," argued Warren and Blumenthal, respectively the ranking members of the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee, and the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, in their letter to Bondi.
"Instead, DOJ should ensure that both the company and the executives that ran it are held accountable for any wrongdoing by thoroughly investigating the potential culpability of Boeing executives and holding criminally accountable any individuals that contributed to or allowed the pursuit of profits over people in violation of federal laws or regulations," they added.
Ignoring those urgings, the DOJ on Friday announced an "agreement in principle" that—if it receives final approval—will cost Boeing more than $1.1 billion, including an additional $445 million for families of those killed on Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 and Lion Air Flight 610. In exchange, the department would dismiss the fraud charge, and the company would not be subject to oversight by an independent monitor.
"Ultimately, in applying the facts, the law, and department policy, we are confident that this resolution is the most just outcome with practical benefits," a DOJ spokesperson said in a statement. "Nothing will diminish the victims' losses, but this resolution holds Boeing financially accountable, provides finality and compensation for the families, and makes an impact for the safety of future air travelers."
While Boeing hasn't commented, Cassell told Reuters that "this kind of nonprosecution deal is unprecedented and obviously wrong for the deadliest corporate crime in U.S. history. My families will object and hope to convince the court to reject it."
Keep ReadingShow Less
In Bonanza for Arms Industry, Trump Announces Record $142 Billion Weapons Sale to Saudis
"I like him a lot," Trump said of Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, a prolific human rights violator. "I like him too much."
May 13, 2025
In what the White House described as "the largest defense sales agreement in history," U.S. President Donald Trump on Tuesday announced a deal for prolific human rights violator Saudi Arabia to purchase $142 billion worth of arms from a dozen different American companies.
The White House unveiled the sale as Trump visited Saudi leaders including Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman in the kingdom's capital city of Riyadh on the first leg of a Mideast tour, with stops also scheduled in Qatar and the United Arab Emirates.
A fact sheet published by the executive office said the arms sale involves "air force advancement and space capabilities, air and missile defense, maritime and coastal security, border security and land forces modernization, and information and communication systems upgrades."
"Oh, what I do for the crown prince."
Reuters reported that military-industrial complex titans including Lockheed Martin, RTX—formerly Raytheon—Boeing, Northrop Grumman, and General Atomics are involved in the deal. The U.S. and Saudi Arabia reportedly discussed the potential sale of Lockheed Martin F-35 fighter jets to the kingdom, but it remains unclear if the Trump administration will allow the transfer of the highly advanced warplanes.
The agreement is part of a broader Saudi commitment to invest $600 billion in the United States, which the White House said will "strengthen our energy security, defense industry, technology leadership, and access to global infrastructure and critical minerals."
Trump and his relatives, including son-in-law Jared Kushner, enjoy close personal and financial relations with the Saudi royal family, which has poured billions of dollars into their business ventures.
During a signing ceremony, Trump—who apparently fell asleep during the proceedings—joked that the Saudis should invest $1 trillion.
Business leaders including Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk—who is also the de facto Department of Government Efficiency chief—OpenAI CEO Sam Altman, IBM CEO Arvind Krishna, CitiGroup CEO Jane Fraser, and the heads of investment firms including BlackRock, Franklin Templeton, and Blackstone Group also traveled to Saudi Arabia.
Critics including congressional progressives and anti-war groups have long opposed U.S. arms sales to Saudi Arabia, which stands accused of a litany of human rights violations including bombing and starving civilians in Yemen, massacring African migrants, and the 2018 murder of journalist and U.S. resident Jamal Khashoggi.
In 2019, during Trump's first term, Congress passed three bipartisan bills aimed at blocking an $8 billion arms sale to Saudi Arabia and its coalition partner in the U.S.-backed war on Yemen, the United Arab Emirates. Trump vetoed the legislation. His successor, former President Joe Biden, paused U.S. arms transfers to Saudi Arabia and the UAE but subsequently lifted the freeze despite pleas from human rights defenders.
The record arms sale comes amid Trump's effort to broker a diplomatic normalization deal between Saudi Arabia and Israel. The president is no longer demanding that the Saudis normalize relations with Israel as a precondition for a civilian nuclear cooperation deal, a move that reportedly alarmed Israel's far-right government.
Trump lavished praise on the Saudi monarchy in a rambling speech in Riyadh on Tuesday, hailing bin Salman as an "incredible man."
Trump gushes over MBS: "We have great partners in the world, but we have none stronger and nobody like the gentleman right before me. He's your greatest representative. And if I didn't like him, I'd get out of here so fast. He knows me well. I do. I like him a lot. I like him too much."
[image or embed]
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar.com) May 13, 2025 at 9:01 AM
"We have great partners in the world, but we have none stronger, and nobody like the gentleman that's right before me, he's your greatest representative, your greatest representative," Trump said. "And if I didn't like him, I would get out of here so fast. You know that don't you? He knows me well."
"I do, I like him a lot. I like him too much, that's why we give so much, you know?" the president continued. "Too much. I like you too much!"
"Oh, what I do for the crown prince," he added.
Trump also announced that the U.S. would lift sanctions on Syria and restore relations with the country's new government, a move the peace group CodePink called "good news."
"The bad news is he's making new arms deals with Saudi Arabia, jeopardizing diplomacy with Iran, and continuing to ignore the U.S. and Israel's genocide in Gaza as they drop bombs on hospitals," the group added.
Keep ReadingShow Less
The Rise of the Drone-Industrial Complex
A new force — Silicon Valley startup culture — has entered the fray, and the military-industrial complex equation is suddenly changing dramatically.
Feb 11, 2025
Last April, in a move generating scant media attention, the Air Force announced that it had chosen two little-known drone manufacturers — Anduril Industries of Costa Mesa, California, and General Atomics of San Diego — to build prototype versions of its proposed Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA), a future unmanned plane intended to accompany piloted aircraft on high-risk combat missions. The lack of coverage was surprising, given that the Air Force expects to acquire at least 1,000 CCAs over the coming decade at around $30 million each, making this one of the Pentagon’s costliest new projects. But consider that the least of what the media failed to note. In winning the CCA contract, Anduril and General Atomics beat out three of the country’s largest and most powerful defense contractors — Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and Northrop Grumman — posing a severe threat to the continued dominance of the existing military-industrial complex, or MIC.
For decades, a handful of giant firms like those three have garnered the lion’s share of Pentagon arms contracts, producing the same planes, ships, and missiles year after year while generating huge profits for their owners. But an assortment of new firms, born in Silicon Valley or incorporating its disruptive ethos, have begun to challenge the older ones for access to lucrative Pentagon awards. In the process, something groundbreaking, though barely covered in the mainstream media, is underway: a new MIC is being born, one that potentially will have very different goals and profit-takers than the existing one. How the inevitable battles between the old and the new MICs play out can’t be foreseen, but count on one thing: they are sure to generate significant political turbulence in the years to come.
The very notion of a “military-industrial complex” linking giant defense contractors to powerful figures in Congress and the military was introduced on January 17, 1961, by President Dwight D. Eisenhower in his farewell address to Congress and the American people. In that Cold War moment, in response to powerful foreign threats, he noted that “we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions.” Nevertheless, he added, using the phrase for the first time, “we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.”
Ever since, debate over the MIC’s accumulating power has roiled American politics. A number of politicians and prominent public figures have portrayed U.S. entry into a catastrophic series of foreign wars — in Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere — as a consequence of that complex’s undue influence on policymaking. No such claims and complaints, however, have ever succeeded in loosening the MIC’s iron grip on Pentagon arms procurement. This year’s record defense budget of approximately $850 billion includes $143.2 billion for research and development and another $167.5 billion for the procurement of weaponry. That $311 billion, most of which will be funneled to those giant defense firms, exceeds the total amount spent on defense by every other country on Earth.
Over time, the competition for billion-dollar Pentagon contracts has led to a winnowing of the MIC ecosystem, resulting in the dominance of a few major industrial behemoths. In 2024, just five companies — Lockheed Martin (with $64.7 billion in defense revenues), RTX (formerly Raytheon, with $40.6 billion), Northrop Grumman ($35.2 billion), General Dynamics ($33.7 billion), and Boeing ($32.7 billion) — claimed the vast bulk of Pentagon contracts. (Anduril and General Atomics didn’t even appear on a list of the top 100 contract recipients.)
Typically, these companies are the lead, or “prime,” contractors for major weapons systems that the Pentagon keeps buying year after year. Lockheed Martin, for example, is the prime contractor for the Air Force’s top-priority F-35 stealth fighter (a plane that has often proved distinctly disappointing in operation); Northrop Grumman is building the B-21 stealth bomber; Boeing produces the F-15EX combat jet; and General Dynamics makes the Navy’s Los Angeles-class attack submarines. “Big-ticket” items like these are usually purchased in substantial numbers over many years, ensuring steady profits for their producers. When the initial buys of such systems seem to be nearing completion, their producers usually generate new or upgraded versions of the same weapons, while employing their powerful lobbying arms in Washington to convince Congress to fund the new designs.
Over the years, non-governmental organizations like the National Priorities Project and the Friends Committee on National Legislation have heroically tried to persuade lawmakers to resist the MIC’s lobbying efforts and reduce military spending, but without noticeable success. Now, however, a new force — Silicon Valley startup culture — has entered the fray, and the military-industrial complex equation is suddenly changing dramatically.
Along Came Anduril
Consider Anduril Industries, one of two under-the-radar companies that left three MIC heavyweights in the dust last April by winning the contract to build a prototype of the Collaborative Combat Aircraft. Anduril (named after the sword carried by Aragorn in J.R.R. Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings) was founded in 2017 by Palmer Luckey, a virtual-reality headset designer, with the goal of incorporating artificial intelligence into novel weapons systems. He was supported in that effort by prominent Silicon Valley investors, including Peter Thiel of the Founders Fund and the head of another defense-oriented startup, Palantir (a name also derived from The Lord of the Rings).
From the start, Luckey and his associates sought to shoulder aside traditional defense contractors to make room for their high-tech startups. Those two companies and other new-fledged tech firms often found themselves frozen out of major Pentagon contracts that had long been written to favor the MIC giants with their bevies of lawyers and mastery of government paperwork. In 2016, Palantir even sued the U.S. Army for refusing to consider it for a large data-processing contract and later prevailed in court, opening the door for future Department of Defense awards.
In addition to its aggressive legal stance, Anduril has also gained notoriety thanks to the outspokenness of its founder, Palmer Luckey. Whereas other corporate leaders were usually restrained in their language when discussing Department of Defense operations, Luckey openly criticized the Pentagon’s inbred preference for working with traditional defense contractors at the expense of investments in the advanced technologies he believes are needed to overpower China and Russia in some future conflict.
Such technology, he insisted, was only available from the commercial tech industry. “The largest defense contractors are staffed with patriots who nevertheless do not have the software expertise or business model to build the technology we need,” Luckey and his top associates claimed in their 2022 Mission Document. “These companies work slowly, while the best [software] engineers relish working at speed. And the software engineering talent who can build faster than our adversaries resides in the commercial sector, not at large defense primes.”
To overcome obstacles to military modernization, Luckey argued, the government needed to loosen its contracting rules and make it easier for defense startups and software companies to do business with the Pentagon. “We need defense companies that are fast. That won’t happen simply by wishing it to be so: it will only happen if companies are incentivized to move” by far more permissive Pentagon policies.
Buttressed by such arguments, as well as the influence of key figures like Thiel, Anduril began to secure modest but strategic contracts from the military and the Department of Homeland Security. In 2019, it received a small Marine Corps contract to install AI-enabled perimeter surveillance systems at bases in Japan and the United States. A year later, it won a five-year, $25 million contract to build surveillance towers on the U.S.-Mexican border for Customs and Border Protection (CBP). In September 2020, it also received a $36 million CBP contract to build additional sentry towers along that border.
After that, bigger awards began to roll in. In February 2023, the Department of Defense started buying Anduril’s Altius-600 surveillance/attack drone for delivery to the Ukrainian military and, last September, the Army announced that it would purchase its Ghost-X drone for battlefield surveillance operations. Anduril is also now one of four companies selected by the Air Force to develop prototypes for its proposed Enterprise Test Vehicle, a medium-sized drone intended to launch salvos of smaller surveillance and attack drones.
Anduril’s success in winning ever-larger Pentagon contracts has attracted the interest of wealthy investors looking for opportunities to profit from the expected growth of defense-oriented startups. In July 2020, it received fresh investments of $200 million from Thiel’s Founders Fund and prominent Silicon Valley investor Andreessen Horowitz, raising the company’s valuation to nearly $2 billion. A year later, Anduril obtained another $450 million from those and other venture capital firms, bringing its estimated valuation to $4.5 billion (double what it had been in 2020). More finance capital has flowed into Anduril since then, spearheading a major drive by private investors to fuel the rise of defense startups — and profit from their growth as it materializes.
The Replicator Initiative
Along with its success in attracting big defense contracts and capital infusions, Anduril has succeeded in convincing many senior Pentagon officials of the need to reform the department’s contracting operations so as to make more room for defense startups and tech firms. On August 28, 2023, Deputy Secretary of Defense Kathleen Hicks, then the department’s second-highest official, announced the inauguration of the “Replicator” initiative, designed to speed the delivery of advanced weaponry to the armed forces.
“[Our] budgeting and bureaucratic processes are slow, cumbersome, and byzantine,” she acknowledged. To overcome such obstacles, she indicated, the Replicator initiative would cut through red tape and award contracts directly to startups for the rapid development and delivery of cutting-edge weaponry. “Our goal,” she declared, “is to seed, spark, and stoke the flames of innovation.”
As Hicks suggested, Replicator contracts would indeed be awarded in successive batches, or “tranches.” The first tranche, announced last May, included AeroVironment Switchblade 600 kamikaze drones (called that because they are supposed to crash into their intended targets, exploding on contact). Anduril was a triple winner in the second tranche, announced on November 13th. According to the Department of Defense, that batch included funding for the Army’s purchase of Ghost-X surveillance drones, the Marine Corps’ acquisition of Altius-600 kamikaze drones, and development of the Air Force’s Enterprise Test Vehicle, of which Anduril is one of four participating vendors.
Just as important, perhaps, was Hicks’ embrace of Palmer Luckey’s blueprint for reforming Pentagon purchasing. “The Replicator initiative is demonstrably reducing barriers to innovation, and delivering capabilities to warfighters at a rapid pace,” she affirmed in November. “We are creating opportunities for a broad range of traditional and nontraditional defense and technology companies… and we are building the capability to do that again and again.”
Enter the Trumpians
Kathleen Hicks stepped down as deputy secretary of defense on January 20th when Donald Trump reoccupied the White House, as did many of her top aides. Exactly how the incoming administration will address the issue of military procurement remains to be seen, but many in Trump’s inner circle, including Elon Musk and Vice President J.D. Vance, have strong ties to Silicon Valley and so are likely to favor Replicator-like policies.
Pete Hegseth, the former Fox News host who recently won confirmation as secretary of defense, has no background in weapons development and has said little about the topic. However, Trump’s choice as deputy secretary (and Hick’s replacement) is billionaire investor Stephen A. Feinberg who, as chief investment officer of Cerberus Capital Management, acquired the military startup Stratolaunch — suggesting that he might favor extending programs like Replicator.
In a sense, the Trump moment will fit past Washington patterns when it comes to the Pentagon in that the president and his Republican allies in Congress will undoubtedly push for a massive increase in military spending, despite the fact that the military budget is already at a staggering all-time high. Every arms producer is likely to profit from such a move, whether traditional prime contractors or Silicon Valley startups. If, however, defense spending is kept at current levels — in order to finance the tax cuts and other costly measures favored by Trump and the Republicans — fierce competition between the two versions of the military-industrial complex could easily arise again. That, in turn, might trigger divisions within Trump’s inner circle, pitting loyalists to the old MIC against adherents to the new one.
Most Republican lawmakers, who generally rely on contributions from the old MIC companies to finance their campaigns, are bound to support the major prime contractors in such a rivalry. But two of Trump’s key advisers, J.D. Vance and Elon Musk, could push him in the opposite direction. Vance, a former Silicon Valley functionary who reportedly became Trump’s running mate only after heavy lobbying by Peter Thiel and other tech billionaires, is likely to be encouraged by his former allies to steer more Pentagon contracts to Anduril, Palantir, and related companies. And that would hardly be surprising, since Vance’s private venture fund, Narya Capital (yes, another name derived from The Lord of the Rings!), has invested in Anduril and other military/space ventures.
Named by Trump to direct the as-yet-to-be-established Department of Government Efficiency, Elon Musk, like Anduril’s Palmer Luckey, fought the Department of Defense to obtain contracts for one of his companies, SpaceX, and has expressed deep contempt for the Pentagon’s traditional way of doing things. In particular, he has denigrated the costly, generally ill-performing Lockheed-made F-35 jet fighter at a time when AI-governed drones are becoming ever more capable. Despite that progress, as he wrote on X, the social media platform he now owns, “some idiots are still building manned fighter jets like the F-35.” In a subsequent post, he added that “manned fighter jets are obsolete in the age of drones anyway.”
His critique of the F-35 ruffled feathers at the Air Force and caused Lockheed’s stock to fall by more than 3%. “We are committed to delivering the world’s most advanced aircraft — the F-35 — and its unrivaled capabilities with the government and our industry partners,” Lockheed declared in response to Musk’s tweets. Over at the Pentagon, Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall had this to say: “I have a lot of respect for Elon Musk as an engineer. He’s not a warfighter, and he needs to learn a little bit more about the business, I think, before he makes such grand announcements as he did.” He then added, “I don’t see F-35 being replaced. We should continue to buy it, and we also should continue to upgrade it.”
President Trump has yet to indicate his stance on the F-35 or other high-priced items in the Pentagon’s budget lineup. He may (or may not) call for a slowdown in purchases of that plane and seek greater investment in other projects. Still, the divide exposed by Musk — between costly manned weapons made by traditional defense contractors and more affordable unmanned systems made by the likes of Anduril, General Atomics, and AeroVironment — is bound to widen in the years to come as the new version of the military-industrial complex only grows in wealth and power. How the old MIC will address such a threat to its primacy remains to be seen, but multibillion-dollar weapons companies are not likely to step aside without a fight. And that fight will likely divide the Trumpian universe.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Dr. Martin Luther King's Prophetic Warning: Denouncing the Merchants of Death
We all have a choice to hold ourselves accountable in the face of Dr. King's warning that we are approaching spiritual death.
Jan 13, 2025
Over the past three years, a collective of volunteer researchers, lawyers, and commentators created The Merchants of Death War Crimes Tribunal, dedicated to holding accountable four weapon manufacturing corporations based in the U.S. Their tribunal amassed copious evidence to prove that Boeing, Lockheed Martin, RTX (formerly Raytheon), and General Atomics (a company which manufactures weaponized drones) are guilty of committing war crimes. On January 15, 2025, as the world marks the birth of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, a press conference will announce the tribunal's verdicts and release the report of 10 international jurors who have weighed the evidence submitted to them.
Of necessity, the evidence was culled from examining a limited range of devastatingly criminal U.S. "forever wars," of brutal and needless wars of choice. The tribunal focused on specific U.S. war crimes and crimes against humanity in the invasions, occupations, and aerial assaults that followed the "9/11" attacks in 2001.
What if we could enlarge the tribunal, bringing before it war crimes occurring right now, the U.S.-assisted massacres we watch in real time on our phone and computer screens?
Certainly, one witness we would beg to appear for testimony would be Dr. Husam Abu Safiya, who was the director of Gaza's Kamal Adwan Hospital when such a place existed. The tribunal would wish to amplify his testimony on the harrowing weeks of siege during which Israel subjected his hospital to artillery and aerial bombardment. They would help to record his story of witnessing assassinations targeting medical staff, field executions of people clutching white flags in an attempt to surrender, the hospital's forced evacuation with at-gunpoint humiliation stripping of women and girls. The initial attacks disabled the hospital's operational capacities by targeting power generators and oxygen production equipment, but now an iconic photo shows Dr. Abu Safiya walking toward an Israeli tank through collapsed buildings and rubble. The tribunal would like to interview him, but he is being held without charge by Israel's military.
Our tribunal would surely turn to three of the world's most crucial international human rights groups for testimony.
On December 5, 2024, Amnesty International concluded that Israel is committing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza. Its research documents how, during its military offensive launched in the wake of the deadly Hamas-led attacks in southern Israel on October 7, 2023, "Israel has unleashed hell and destruction on Palestinians in Gaza brazenly, continuously, and with total impunity."
On December 19, 2024 Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF, Doctors Without Borders) stated that "repeated Israeli military attacks on Palestinian civilians over the last 14 months, the dismantling of the healthcare system and other essential infrastructure, the suffocating siege, and the systematic denial of humanitarian assistance are destroying the conditions of life in Gaza." The report says there are "clear signs of ethnic cleansing" by Israel as it wages war in Gaza.
Also issued on December 19, 2024 was a report from Human Rights Watch, entitled "Extermination and Acts of Genocide," stating that Israel has killed thousands of Palestinians in Gaza by denying them clean water, which it says legally amounts to acts of genocide and extermination.
Corroborating the testimony of healthcare workers and human rights advocates in Gaza would be Pope Francis' January 9, 2025 message to international diplomats. Pope Francis denounced Israel's ongoing war in Gaza, calling the humanitarian situation in the Palestinian enclave "very serious and shameful." Pope Francis referenced the deaths of children who froze to death because of Israel's destruction of infrastructure: "We cannot in any way accept the bombing of civilians. We cannot accept that children are freezing to death because hospitals have been destroyed or a country's energy network has been hit."
Recommendations made by jurors in the Merchants of Death War Crimes Tribunal call for major weapon makers to pay reparations for suffering caused. They echo the words of Pope Francis, whose message to the assemblage of diplomats made this appeal:
With the money spent on weapons and other military expenditures, let us establish a global fund that can finally put an end to hunger and favor development in the most impoverished countries, so that their citizens will not resort to violent or illusory solutions, or have to leave their countries in order to seek a more dignified life.
Considering such testimony from so many diverse sources, one might expect that U.S. lawmakers would reevaluate their murderous, unwavering support of Israel. Instead, on January 9, 2025, the U.S. House of Representatives voted to sanction the International Criminal Court in protest of its arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his former defense minister.
Who are the criminals? U.S. news coverage of five former or current presidents gathered for the funeral of President Jimmy Carter never hinted that hideous wars of choice along with massive increases in weapon sales had marked the administration of each of the five. There was no mention of President Joe Biden's order to send $8 billion dollars of weapons to Gaza. This gathering of U.S. presidents is referred to as "The World's Most Exclusive Club." Exclusive indeed. What other club of so few has caused so much suffering to so many?
On April 7, 1967, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. gave his famously insightful, prophetic speech about another illegal U.S. war of choice—"Beyond Viet Nam: A Time to Break the Silence"—in which Dr. King said, "Increasingly, by choice or by accident, this is the role our nation has taken: the role of those who make peaceful resolution impossible by refusing to give up the privileges and the pleasures that come from the immense profits of overseas investments."
Dr. King's verdict, in this speech, on the momentous first anniversary of which he was taken from us, was that "this business of burning human beings with napalm, of filling our nation's homes with orphans and widows, of injecting poisonous drugs of hate into the veins of peoples normally humane, of sending men home from dark and bloody battlefields physically handicapped and psychologically deranged, cannot be reconciled with wisdom, justice, and love. A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death."
The four defendants before our tribunal certainly did their part to pressure these five other criminals toward their varied crimes, but we all have a choice to hold ourselves accountable in the face of Dr. King's warning that we are approaching spiritual death. One step toward reconciling with wisdom, justice, and love would be to demand the release of Dr. Husam Abu Safiya from an Israeli prison so that we could humbly learn from him about war crimes and reparations.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Judgement Day for the Merchants of Death
Our tribunal, seeking to hold the war profiteers to account, represents the yearning of millions of people who mean to stop the depravity of invasion, occupation, killing and repression so that we can properly get about the work of human survival and the restoration of our planet.
Jan 12, 2025
On January 15, 2025, five days before the inauguration of a U.S. president who threatens to rain down hell on the Palestinian people, and more war to the world, the Merchants of Death War Crimes Tribunal will release its final report on how Lockheed Martin, Boeing, RTX/Raytheon and drone-maker General Atomics have delivered hell to millions across the globe since 9/11.
The Tribunal’s 35 evidentiary episodes explain how these four defendant corporations have been essential enablers of the U.S. colonial campaign of murder, extortion and thievery since 9/11, epitomized in the horrific crescendo of violence that is already being rained down on the Palestinian people. This grossly illegal war campaign—without equal in U.S. history in its geographic scope and length—is largely dependent on the products of the tribunal’s four defendant corporations.
The tribunal episodes explain how the U.S. campaign since 9/11 flows directly from the post-World War II decisions by U.S. Presidents Harry Truman and Dwight Eisenhower, U.S. businessmen and their congressional allies to try to pick up the reins of colonial control around the world that were being dropped by war-ruined European nations.
The U.S. leaders were, of course, acting from their racist cultural and business roots, extending back deep into slavery and the genocide against the first inhabitants of the continent, atrocities on which the U.S. was founded. They set us on the bloody path on which we find ourselves today.
For these industrialists and their political enablers, siding with liberation movements anywhere in the world meant less profits for U.S. corporations. Thus, colonial liberation must be officially described as a “communist” threat to be dealt with through direct and proxy killing, repression, torture, and terror.
We hope that we are effective representatives of those calling for justice and repair from the hideous war work of the Merchants of Death and the United States government since 9/11.
A permanent military industry was needed to enable this mafia-style scheme of international exploitation. Tribunal video episodes describe ways in which the U.S. public has been manipulated to support this military industrial system, to their great economic, spiritual and intellectual disadvantage as the U.S. economy and the wealth of its oligarchs, like Elon Musk, has become more and more dependent on war and intimidation.
After World War I, even the Senate and Congress condemned gross war profiteering. Challenges to weapon manufacturers profiteering continued during World War II, though greatly diminished by war propaganda. Congressional support for weapons makers surged in the post-World War II years, so much so that “defense” stocks have become sacred elements of college and university endowment funds, pension funds and private portfolios.
The immensity of this dependency on war stocks breached the surface of public awareness in the spring of 2024 as students in support of Palestinian life and liberation demanded that their schools disclose and divest their stock in weapons makers.
Students at Smith College occupied the school’s administration building for 14 days, calling on an institution that had divested from apartheid South Africa-connected stock to drop its holdings in L3 Harris and other war stock. The school’s board of trustees refused, calling the school’s holdings ”negligible”. Then in the fall, Smith administrators, and their colleagues nationwide moved, deplorably, to suppress students’ free speech.
Wealth-driven weapons makers who must be protected by the so-called educators, and are revered in the business world, are the successors to those weapons makers in early 20th Century war-grieving America, who were often depicted as overconsumptive, sleezy, money-grubbing vultures, feeding on the corpses and misery of the war dead and afflicted.
Now, we have reached a point in which James Taiclet, the president, chair and CEO of Lockheed Martin Corporation, the largest weapons maker in the world, whose F-35s, F-16s and Hellfire missiles have been slaughtering Palestinians wholesale, can be a valued member of the board of directors of MassGeneral Brigham, the largest hospital system in Massachusetts, serving 2.6 million patients a year.
Intervening in this surging, greed-driven, incredibly lethal mess, the Tribunal rapporteurs and an international panel of 10 jurors, offer 13 recommendations for action by the public and by government officials to pull the profit out from under war and to provide reparations for the vast harm visited on millions of people by the Merchants of Death and the U.S. government since 9/11.
More specifically, we tribunal coordinators want to work with prosecutors around the world to bring the CEOs of the defendant corporations to justice for having enabled, since the October 2001 invasion of Afghanistan, war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide.
We want to work with student and other movements to end private and public investment in weapons production.
We must note that in our investigation, we repeatedly called on the defendant corporations to respond, in one instance getting arrested in the process. The four defendant corporations ignored us. We repeatedly asked members of Congress to answer our questions about their involvement with weapons makers. They ignored us.
The work of the Tribunal was made possible by the volunteer and the extremely low paid work of more than 40 people—students, filmmakers, artists, journalists, and others who joined us at various times over nearly three years to complete our video evidentiary episodes and report.
Those involved represent millions of people who mean to stop the depravity of invasion, occupation, killing and repression, everywhere, so that we can properly get about the work of human survival and the restoration of our planet.
In this, we hope that the Tribunal recommendations will be among the guide stars that will help us chart our course, shining above the hurricane of greed and viciousness now ravaging the U.S and the world.
We hope that we are effective representatives of those calling for justice and repair from the hideous war work of the Merchants of Death and the United States government since 9/11, of those calling to the world from their graves, from their hospital beds, from their poverty and dislocation and their relentless battles against racism in their places of refuge.
Note: You may register here for the January 15, 2025, (9 a.m. Eastern time), tribunal report release press conference. The 35 evidentiary video episodes appear on the Rumble platform and can be easily accessed at MerchantsofDeath.org, as can our Tribunal Study Guide and our podcast – Merchants of Death Radio.
Keep ReadingShow Less
US Workers Won Key Victories in 2024, But They’ll Have to Fight Even Harder in 2025
When Trump takes office, expect attacks on immigrant workers, public employee unions, safety regulations, climate protection, and the very idea of labor law.
Dec 29, 2024
Union workers broke open the cookie jar in 2024, after years of stagnant wages and rising prices. With strikes and the threat of strikes, workers did more than forestall concessions: They gained ground. Union workers in the private sector saw 6% real wage rises for the year.
Just the fear that workers would organize drove up wages at non-union employers like Delta Airlines, Amazon, and Mercedes.
Meanwhile, unemployment rates of around 4% made strikes easier to maintain. For instance, many Boeing workers were able to get side jobs during their 53-day strike this fall. Relatively plentiful jobs have also made it easier for workers to organize new unions, since the threat of getting fired is less daunting.
Workers’ demands for union democracy have fueled more fights, more wins, higher expectations, and more new organizing. It’s obvious that workers want and need unions that can match and defeat the billionaires.
Nearly 28,000 school employees in Virginia and 10,000 nurses in Michigan joined unions in the two biggest organizing victories of the year. At the first Southern auto plant to organize in decades, Volkswagen in Chattanooga, Tennessee, 5,000 workers won a union in April by a decisive 73%.
But even with a union, working conditions are often abominable. Speed-up and long hours make work risky and wear us out.
And storm clouds are on the horizon. Even our current weak labor laws and safety enforcement are on U.S. President-elect Donald Trump’s chopping block. Expect attacks on immigrant workers, public employee unions, safety regulations, climate protection, and the very idea of labor law.
Wage Gains—Finally
After a strike that shut down production in the Pacific Northwest, Boeing Machinists bagged a 38% general wage increase over four years. A three-day port strike netted 20,000 Longshore (ILA) workers 61% over six years. It was the first East Coast-wide longshore strike since 1977.
Continuing the uptick in strikes since the onset of Covid-19, 2024 is on track for as many strikes as 2022, though it didn’t match the huge walkouts of 2023 in Hollywood, at Kaiser, and at the Big 3. Johnnie Kallas of the Cornell Labor Action Tracker reported 34 strikes in manufacturing through November.
Workers gained just by threatening a strike. At Daimler Truck in North Carolina, 7,400 workers chanted “Tick tock” as the contract deadline approached. They defeated tiers and won a 25% increase, with more for lower-paid workers.
After a vigorous contract campaign and 99.5% strike vote, American Airlines flight attendants (APFA) secured an immediate 20% pay increase, back pay from their 2019 contract expiration, and boarding pay for the first time. (Most flight attendants aren’t paid till the aircraft door closes.) Southwest flight attendants (TWU) won big wage gains; United flight attendants (AFA) voted 99.9% to strike, and may still do so. Airline workers have to navigate a lengthy obstacle course sanctioned by the Railway Labor Act, if they want to strike.
Teacher strikes yielded gains for teachers and students. In Massachusetts, where reformers lead the statewide union, but strikes are illegal, teachers in several districts struck anyway. They won more student services, time to plan classes, and raises for the lowest-paid aides—60% in 10 schools in Andover in January.
Gains from 2023’s strikes raised expectations for 2024. Unions that pushed sub-par contracts on their members faced revolts. Machinists leaders at Boeing backpedaled furiously when a contract they recommended was voted down by 95% in September. Letter Carriers are organizing a vigorous “vote no” campaign after union leaders submitted a contract with 1.3% annual wage increases.
Employers often coughed up pay but fought union demands on overtime, staffing, automation, and the moving of work. Longshore workers, for example, suspended their strike with a big pay promise, but job-killing automation issues remained unresolved, with negotiations ongoing.
The strike threat at Daimler Truck, and the strike at Boeing, did extract contractual promises on where work would be done. But enforcement may require additional job action. Stellantis has so far broken its promise to the Auto Workers to reopen its Belvidere, Illinois, assembly plant—a condition of ending the UAW’s 2023 Stand-Up Strike. Auto workers are debating how to enforce that demand, and many Stellantis locals have taken strike votes.
In the Daimler contract, workers won a renewed promise of a guaranteed daily truck output, to dispel fears that the work would be moved to Mexico—a threat the company deployed regularly in negotiations.
At Boeing, the new contract promises to locate production of the next passenger jet in the Puget Sound area. But the work will likely start after the contract expires, and union leaders expect it may require another strike to enforce the agreement.
Despite big strike leverage, Boeing workers didn’t get a ban on mandatory overtime, though they can no longer be forced to work two weekends in a row. “I don’t think that people should be required to work more than 40 hours a week to keep their jobs,” said Boeing Machinist Mylo Lang.
Continuing 2023’s trend of defeating solidarity-crushing tiers at UPS and the Big 3 automakers, tiers were eliminated at Allison Transmission and Daimler Truck, while solar Ironworkers in California were able to end tiers in a multi-year effort to make commercial solar installation a union job.
Reformers Spur Organizing
Reform movements and new leadership in the Auto Workers and Teamsters led to big investments in new organizing. In February, the UAW announced it would spend $40 million to organize non-union auto and battery plants through 2026.
In October, the Teamsters announced they had added 50,000 members in the two years since new leaders took office. The Teamsters have made organizing Amazon a priority, and the Staten Island Amazon Labor Union voted to affiliate in June, as ALU-IBT Local 1. The New York Times reported that the Teamsters have committed $8 million toward organizing Amazon as well as access to their $300 million strike fund.
Amazon warehouse workers in California and New York have been marching on their bosses, demanding recognition. Newly organized Teamster drivers at Amazon have been setting up roving picket lines to disrupt operations until the company recognizes the union.
In these two unions, effective strike threats and dedication to organizing are no accident. They started with reform movements: Unite All Workers for Democracy in the Auto Workers and Teamsters for a Democratic Union in the Teamsters. More victories are coming down the pike: Rail Machinists (IAM District 19) elected reform leadership in 2024, as did New York City teacher retirees (UFT), a 70,000-person chapter. Up next are reformers in the Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW), Theatrical and Stage Employees (IATSE), Professional and Technical Engineers (IFPTE), and maybe soon the Letter Carriers (NALC), thanks to an insulting contract offer pushed by the leadership.
The troublemaking wing of the movement continues to grow, as evidenced by the 4,700 workers who showed up at the April Labor Notes Conference, and the thousands more who wanted to attend. (There just wasn’t space!)
Most Elections in a Decade
Unions continue to be more popular than at any time since the 1960s, with 70% public approval. Private sector union elections this year involved 107,000 workers, the highest in a decade, up from 63,000 in 2022 and 93,000 in 2023.
More than 20,000 new graduate student workers won unions since last December.
After changing state law to allow bargaining, 27,000 Virginia school employees won wall-to-wall representation in Fairfax County, creating one of the largest K-12 unions on the East Coast.
In November, 10,000 nurses at the Corewell hospital chain in southern Michigan won the biggest unionization election in recent memory, organizing with the Teamsters.
However, the pace of organizing “is not enough to keep up with employment growth, let alone meaningfully increase [private sector] union density,” wrote union researcher Chris Bohner.
Starbucks is a case in point. In February, Starbucks Workers United forced management to negotiate after two years of organizing. Ten months later, they’re still in contract talks, and 130 more stores have voted union. That adds up to 522 union stores, with 11,000 workers. But Starbucks operates 10,000 stores in the U.S.
Plant-Building Boom
The Biden administration’s Inflation Reduction Act stimulated a building boom for electric vehicle and battery plants—many in the South—opening the possibility of organizing drives at dozens of facilities as they ramp up production. The UAW extracted a promise during its 2023 Stand-Up Strike to include in the master contract 6,000 new General Motors jobs at four planned battery plants.
Workers at the first of these, Ultium Cells in Lordstown, Ohio, signed a contract in June. The union announced a majority at BlueOval SK Battery Park in Kentucky in November.
New Flyer electric bus manufacturing workers in Anniston, Alabama won their first contract in May, scoring raises up to 38%, through the Electrical Workers (IUE), a division of the Communications Workers.
After the big win at Volkswagen, the UAW hit a speed bump in its drive to organize German, Korean, and Japanese-owned plants when workers at Mercedes in Alabama voted down the union 2,642 to 2,045. Companies have been pulling out all the stops on the propaganda Wurlitzer, enlisting hostile politicians (and even preachers!) to stop workers from uniting.
Cease-Fire Switch
Unions opposed a Democratic presidential administration on a military issue for the first time in memory. Advocating “cease-fire in Gaza” had been something staffers faced discipline for. But it came to be viewed as common sense by most of the labor movement.
Support for a cease-fire started with unions like the United Electrical Workers (UE), whose members had long studied and debated the situation. It spread as dissenters—from teachers to painters—began speaking up, insisting that it was the place of unions to oppose mass death supported by our government. “The main question that came up was, ‘What does this have to do with us?’” said Texas IBEW member Dave Pinkham. “We made an appeal to humanity: ‘U.S. military support to Israel is supporting violence there. Let’s stop.’”
In October 2023, Postal Workers (APWU) President Mark Dimondstein was alone in calling for a cease-fire at the AFL-CIO executive council, and was denounced by others. By February, the AFL-CIO was calling for a cease-fire. By July, seven unions representing nearly half the union members in the U.S. were calling for a stop to military aid to Israel.
At some colleges, workers struck to defend members who had faced discipline and even attacks by campus police for protesting U.S. support for Israel.
Israel is still raining U.S.-made bombs and missiles on Gaza and Lebanon, showing the limits of union resolutions. But a Cold War-era taboo has broken. Perhaps unions can go one step further and figure out how to block the manufacture and transport of weapons destined for wars of aggression and genocide.
Storm Clouds
Federal workers and immigrants are likely to be the first targets of the incoming Trump administration and Republican-dominated Congress. Trump and his lackeys plan to slash federal spending, install a corporate-friendly National Labor Relations Board, stop subsidies for the electric vehicle transition, and dismantle public education.
Tools to protect immigrant workers from labor law violations, like the Department of Homeland Security's Deferred Action for Labor Enforcement program, are likely to be shelved, along with speedy elections and other efforts at labor law enforcement that we have become used to from the NLRB. Mass deportations are unlikely, given that Trump’s corporate sponsors rely on the labor of immigrants for their profits. But some showy raids are likely, and the terror of arrests will make it even harder to stop abusive bosses—which is the main point of the policy, as Magaly Licolli writes. Solidarity will be needed from all of us.
But even an NLRB determined to enforce labor law has been unable to force big corporations like Amazon to comply, so it’s not clear that organizing these companies will be significantly harder with a hostile board. As Chris Bohner and Eric Blanc point out, it was during Trump’s first term that the “Red for Ed” illegal teacher strike wave swept the country.
Workers’ demands for union democracy have fueled more fights, more wins, higher expectations, and more new organizing. It’s obvious that workers want and need unions that can match and defeat the billionaires.
If there are enough of us, and our bonds are strong enough, bosses, politicians, and even the law will give way. As strikers proved, the power is in our hands.
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More Stories
Most Popular
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy