

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
"These seeming conflicts raise serious questions about whether these federal employees are beholden to the American people or to the interests of private for-profit corporations," said one of the authors.
More than 1-in-4 senior appointees in President Donald Trump’s Department of Commerce have significant “conflicts of interest,” according to a report published on Wednesday, pointing to the same sort of corporate capture that is rampant across the administration.
The watchdog group Public Citizen reviewed financial disclosure forms for 112 senior officials in the department, which is dedicated to overseeing industry and economic growth. It found that at least 30 of them have substantial ties to the very industries that the department is tasked with regulating.
It’s a pattern seen across the Trump administration, where fossil fuel lobbyists and insiders dominate the Energy and Interior departments, as well as the Environmental Protection Agency.
But as the new report, written by journalist Zach Everson and researcher Douglas S. Pasternak, explains, the Commerce Department is “unique in its active engagement in the economy to benefit particular companies, including those for whom its current officials once worked.”
“The conflicts of interest identified in this report put Americans at risk,” said Pasternak, the research director for Public Citizen’s Trump Accountability Project.
The entanglements start at the top, with the billionaire Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, who has ties to more than 800 different businesses from his decades as the CEO of the Wall Street financial services firm Cantor Fitzgerald, with interests spanning finance, real estate, crypto, AI, tech, satellites, energy, and gaming—many of which could be affected by Commerce policy.
While Lutnick promised to sell his business interests within 90 days of being confirmed at the department, he missed that deadline by more than four months. And instead of putting his financial stake into a blind trust, he sold his interest in the fund to trusts benefiting his four children.
As Commerce Secretary, Lutnick has engaged in actions that the report says "have a clear conflict with his family’s financial interests and appear to violate ethical norms for government employees."
In particular, it highlights his role in pushing for the dramatic expansion of artificial intelligence data centers across the US, and pressured other governments, including that of the United Arab Emirates, to invest in them.
At the same time, his former company, Newmark, where his son now sits on the board of directors, has facilitated more than $25 billion in AI-data center deals.
Similarly, Commerce invested over $1.6 billion in the mineral company USA Rare Earth Inc. while Cantor was leading the company's private fundraising.
Lutnick has also been at the center of the Trump administration's efforts to promote cryptocurrency and develop regulatory policy around it. This could impact the blockchain platform Tether, which hosts the world's largest stablecoin, for which Cantor acts as the primary custodian for more than $180 billion worth of reserves.
Beyond Lutnick, the department is crawling with ex-industry employees, lobbyists, and corporate lawyers now embedded in the regulation of their former clients.
Joyce Meyer, formerly a top lobbyist for the life insurance industry, now serves as undersecretary for economic affairs, where she oversees the Bureau of Economic Analysis and the US Census Bureau, which produce economic reports that shape federal tax, interest, and spending policy.
The current undersecretary for industry and security, Jeffrey Kessler—who oversees export controls on technology, software, commodities, and other equipment—previously worked as an attorney for the law firm WilmerHale, where he represented dozens of clients across industries he now regulates, including Boeing, Meta, and Eli Lilly.
One of the people in charge of regulating the sale of defense technology abroad, Joe Bartlett, who serves as deputy undersecretary at the Bureau of Industry and Security, came from one of the US military’s biggest drone makers, Skydio, which is subject to BIS export controls.
The report also identifies multiple other employees who have worked for weather data companies that have pushed to privatize forecasts now provided for free by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
"It is unclear if these officials are serving the American public as their positions require or attempting to enrich their former employers or potential future employers, and ultimately themselves," Pasternak said. "These seeming conflicts raise serious questions about whether these federal employees are beholden to the American people or to the interests of private for-profit corporations.”
Everson added that the department "is meant to work in the interest of the people, not in the interest of a few select billionaires.”
He said, "Political appointees within the Trump administration need to be subject to standards of ethical and financial conduct which prevent them from using their positions of power to skim off the top.”
“Big Oil is openly asking Congress for a ‘get-out-of-jail-free’ card because fossil fuel companies are desperate to avoid facing the evidence of their climate lies in court," said one critic.
As Big Oil and its Republican defenders vow to fight a flurry of state and local lawsuits seeking to hold the industry accountable for its role causing catastrophic global heating and lying to the public about it, one climate defender on Monday urged congressional lawmakers to reject a so-called "liability shield" aimed at protecting fossil fuel companies from litigation.
With more than two dozen state and local climate lawsuits against Big Oil ongoing from Maine to Hawaii—and a successful outcome for youth litigants in Montana in 2023—Republicans from President Donald Trump down to state lawmakers are scrambling to find ways to stem the tide of legal action against one of their biggest sources of financial support.
In June, Republican attorneys general in 16 states asked the Trump administration for protections from climate lawsuits. The AGs suggested modeling such policy on a 2005 law protecting gun manufacturers from litigation when their products are used in crimes. As a result, no gun company accused of negligence has ever been brought to trial. Gun control advocates have been trying to repeal the law for years.
“Big Oil is openly asking Congress for a ‘get-out-of-jail-free’ card because fossil fuel companies are desperate to avoid facing the evidence of their climate lies in court," Richard Wiles, president of the Center for Climate Integrity (CCI), said Tuesday in a statement. "Congress must make clear that any proposal to strip Americans of their right to hold corporations accountable for the damage they cause when they lie to the public about the harms of their products will be dead on arrival."
The CCI statement came in response to an announcement by the American Petroleum Institute—the nation's biggest oil lobby—that fighting state climate lawsuits is one of its top priorities for 2026. API has been named as a defendant in several state climate accountability and deception lawsuits.
🚨 Big Oil wants to take away your right to sue fossil fuel companies for the harm they cause.No matter your politics, we should all agree that no industry should be above the law. Say it with us: 📣 NO IMMUNITY FOR BIG OIL 📣
[image or embed]
— Center for Climate Integrity (@climateintegrity.org) January 13, 2026 at 11:03 AM
As CCI explained earlier:
Communities across the country are paying nearly $1 trillion per year for damages from extreme heat, floods, wildfires, and rising seas and other extreme weather events that fossil fuel-driven climate change is making more intense, deadly, and destructive. Major oil and gas companies knew decades ago that their products would fuel these climate damages, but they orchestrated a Big Tobacco-style campaign of deception to mislead the public and protect their profits. More than 1 in 4 Americans now live in a state or community taking Big Oil companies to court to hold them accountable for this deception and make polluters pay for the harm they have caused.
"A legal shield for Big Oil could forever shut the courthouse doors for all Americans, forcing the rising bill for climate change onto taxpayers, and setting a harmful legal precedent that protects corporations instead of communities," CCI added. "No industry should be above the law—especially one with a documented history of deceiving the public. Congress must oppose the fossil fuel industry’s lobbying efforts and keep the courthouse doors open for communities seeking accountability."
CCI's advocacy against a liability shield for Big Oil follows last year's plea by nearly 200 nonprofit organizations to Democratic leaders in Congress asking them to oppose such legislation.
"Our communities across the country are suffering grave threats to our public health, safety, and economic security as a result of Big Oil’s climate deception and pollution," the groups said. "Governments, residents, businesses, and others must have access to legal and legislative remedies in order to hold fossil fuel companies accountable, seek justice, and make polluters pay."
"Regulating AI is winning issue for Democrats, but their own party leaders are too complicit with Silicon Valley to use it," said one observer.
Polls show that a majority of US voters—and especially Democrats—want more robust guardrails on artificial intelligence, but Democratic governors' silence on President Donald Trump's directive banning states from regulating AI has some observers asking if lobbying by the powerful industry is to blame.
Sludge's David Moore and Donald Shaw reported Friday that tech titans including OpenAI and Meta last week sent a small army of lobbyists to meet with attendees of the Democratic Governors Association’s annual meeting, held this year at the swanky Biltmore Hotel in Phoenix.
According to the report, lobbyists and governors—some of whom "are teasing White House bids in 2028 or rumored to be in the mix"—gathered for a closed-door meeting. California Gov. Gavin Newsom, Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear, and Maryland Gov. Wes Moore were among those who reportedly met with the lobbyists.
Trump signed an executive order trying to prevent states from regulating AI and following through on the safety laws they enacted, but there was little public pushback from Democratic governors.AI lobbyists descended on the DGA winter meeting last weekend in Phoenix, per a list we obtained:
[image or embed]
— David Moore (@davidrussellmoore.bsky.social) December 12, 2025 at 11:15 AM
The meeting preceded Trump's Thursday signing of an executive order aimed at limiting states' ability to regulate rapidly evolving AI technology. The order directs the US Department of Justice to establish an AI Litigation Task Force empowered to sue states that enact “onerous and excessive" AI regulation. The edict also threatens to withhold federal funding from states that implement AI regulations that the Trump administration finds objectionable.
Democratic governors have been relatively muted on the order, especially given the overwhelming support for regulation of AI—which many experts say poses threats to humanity that may equal or outweigh its benefits—across the political spectrum.
As Moore and Shaw wrote:
While Democratic governors were silent, their Republican counterparts have been loudly arguing for months against the federal government preempting state AI policies. In June, 17 Republican governors sent a letter to Senate Majority Leader John Thune [R-SD] and House Speaker Mike Johnson [R-La.] warning them against preempting their states’ protections on AI use. Over the past couple months, a trio of Republican governors—Spencer Cox (Utah), Ron DeSantis (Fla.), and Sarah Huckabee Sanders (Ark.)—continued to make known their opposition to the Trump administration’s executive order.
Newsom, who many observers believe is eyeing a 2028 White House run, especially disappointed proponents of AI safeguards last year when he vetoed what would have been the nation's strongest AI safety regulations.
It's not just Democratic governors—congressional Democrats have increasingly partnered with an industry expected to soon be worth trillions of dollars. Some Democrats, like Rep. Josh Gottheimer of New Jersey, are personally invested in AI stocks. The AI industry also made record contributions to political campaigns during the 2024 cycle.
Other Democrats, including some who may have their sights set on higher office—notably Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York—advocate stronger guardrails on AI development.
The public is worried about AI. Regulating AI is winning issue for Democrats but their own party leaders are too complicit with Silicon Valley to use it. www.thenation.com/article/poli...
[image or embed]
— Jeet Heer (@jeetheer.bsky.social) December 12, 2025 at 7:24 AM
"Voters want the party to get tough on the industry. But Democratic leaders are following the money instead," Jeet Heer, national affairs correspondent for The Nation, wrote Friday.
Citing voters' desire for stronger regulation, Heer argued that "Democrats have a tremendous opportunity to use the AI backlash for wedge politics," adding that "it's a way to win back working-class voters who are already disillusioned with the GOP and Trump."
Lobbyists working to pass Pharma-backed legislation currently outnumber lobbyists working to oppose it by more than 20-to-1, estimates Public Citizen.
Government watchdog Public Citizen is warning that the pharmaceutical industry is preparing an all-out blitz aimed at sabotaging government efforts to negotiate lower prices for prescription drugs.
In a report released on Wednesday, Public Citizen said it found that the major pharmaceutical companies this year have hired more than 500 lobbyists to push for the passage of three pieces of legislation that would undermine the provisions allowing the government to negotiate lower drug prices contained in the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act.
The first piece, called the ORPHAN Cures Act, was passed by Congress in July after being stuffed into the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. According to Public Citizen, the law will "delay and exempt some of the most profitable drugs—including cancer treatments—from negotiations, representing tens of billions in annual Medicare spending."
The other two pieces of legislation—the EPIC Act and the MINI Act—have not yet been passed, and Public Citizen says that they "would lengthen the already long delay period before small molecule drugs are eligible for negotiation—effectively excluding many medicines from negotiations entirely or shortening the period patients have access to lower negotiated prices to only one or two years."
Public Citizen estimates that there are currently 501 lobbyists who are pushing to pass these laws, while just 24 lobbyists are working to block their passage. In total, notes Public Citizen, this means opponents of the legislation are outnumbered by a ratio of more than 20-to-1.
Steve Knievel, Public Citizen's access to medicines advocate, called on elected representatives to "reject the demands of pharma lobbyists and instead work to make prescription drugs more affordable" for their constituents.
"Instead of handing drug corporations billions of dollars by helping them evade price negotiations," Knievel said, "Congress should pass legislation to empower Medicare to negotiate lower drug prices on all costly medicines and allow all patients to access lower, negotiated prices, even if they don’t have Medicare."
"We see the very corporations driving this crisis being given a platform to foist the same false ‘solutions’ that sustain their profit motives."
A environmental advocacy group is warning about the potential "corporate capture" of the COP30 climate summit being held this week in Belém, Brazil.
In a report released on Friday, the Kick Big Polluters Out (KBPO) coalition said it tallied the “largest ever attendance share” for fossil fuel lobbyists, dimming hopes of reaching a breakthrough agreement to curb emissions.
In fact, KBPO found that fossil fuel lobbyists at the conference outnumber the delegations of every nation attending, with the lone exception being Brazil, which is hosting COP30.
In total, KBPO counted 1,602 fossil fuel lobbyists at the climate summit.
The number of fossil fuel lobbyists at COP30 increased by 12% from last year's COP29 held in Baku, Azerbaijan, and lobbyists represent one out every 25 participants at this year's conference.
The KBPO report puts this into perspective by contrasting the number of lobbyists in attendance with the number of delegates from nations that have suffered the most from extreme weather brought about by human-induced climate change.
"Fossil fuel lobbyists outnumber official delegates from the Philippines by nearly 50 to 1—even while the country is being hit by devastating typhoons as the UN climate talks are underway," the report notes. "Fossil fuel lobbyists sent more than 40 times the number of people than Jamaica, which is still reeling from Hurricane Melissa."
Jax Bongon, climate justice policy officer at the sustainable development advocacy organization International IBON and a member of the KBPO coalition, said the heavy presence of lobbyists is "making a mockery of the process" of trying to negotiate a deal to reduce global carbon emissions.
"Just days after devastating floods and supertyphoons in the Philippines, and amid worsening droughts, heatwaves, and displacement across the Global South," Bongon said, "we see the very corporations driving this crisis being given a platform to foist the same false ‘solutions’ that sustain their profit motives and undermine any hope of truly addressing the climate emergency."
The report also called out several wealthy nations for including fossil fuel lobbyists in their delegations.
" France brought 22 fossil fuel delegates, with five from TotalEnergies, including CEO Patrick Pouyanné," KBPO noted. "Japan’s delegation contained 33 fossil fuel lobbyists, among them Mitsubishi Heavy Industries and Osaka Gas; and Norway snuck 17 into the talks, including six senior executives from its national oil and gas giant Equinor."
Although the US under President Donald Trump is not taking part in this year's negotiations, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) is attending COP30 as the lone federal representative of the US government.
According to Politico, Whitehouse intends to hammer the Trump administration for continuing to focus exclusively on fossil fuel production at a time when the rest of the world is moving on to producing renewable energy sources.
"Amidst sinking approvals and a shellacking in the most recent elections, it’s no surprise the Trump administration is unwilling to defend the fossil fuel industry’s unpopular and corrupt climate denial lies on the global stage," Whitehouse told Politico.
Roger Alford, who was fired over his objections to a corrupt tech merger last month, said MAGA lobbyists and DOJ officials are "determined to exert and expand their influence and enrich themselves."
An antitrust lawyer fired from the US Department of Justice last month accused Attorney General Pam Bondi's underlings on Monday of giving MAGA-aligned corporate lobbyists the ability to "rule" over antitrust enforcement.
Roger Alford, formerly the deputy assistant attorney general in the DOJ's antitrust division, was ousted in July, reportedly for "insubordination" after he objected to the involvement of politically connected lobbyists in the $14 billion merger between Hewlett-Packard Enterprise (HPE) and Juniper Networks.
The DOJ had sued in January to block the merger, arguing that HPE's acquisition of Juniper would unlawfully stifle competition, raise prices for consumers, and harm innovation, since the two entities control over 70% of the wi-fi relied on by large companies, hospitals, universities, and other entities.
But that suit was resolved in June in what the Capitol Forum described as a "highly unusual settlement" in which Bondi's chief of staff, Chad Mizelle, overruled the DOJ's antitrust chief, Assistant Attorney General Gail Slater, to allow the deal to settle.
At the time, left-wing consumer advocates, like Nidhi Hegde, executive director of the American Economic Liberties Project, argued that the deal was "a corrupt and politically rigged merger settlement," which came after political operatives tied to Trump lobbied on behalf of the company.
Despite still describing himself as a staunch MAGA loyalist, Alford likewise feels that the settlement was a "scandal."
In a speech delivered Monday at the Technology Policy Institute in Aspen, Colorado, he said senior DOJ officials "perverted justice and acted inconsistently with the rule of law" by allowing "corrupt lobbyists" to hijack the process.
According to disclosures from HPE, it hired multiple top Trump allies as lobbyists to advocate for the merger. These included MAGA influencer Mike Davis—a right-wing critic of Big Tech and a notorious legal operative responsible for many of Trump's judicial nominations—and Arthur Schwartz, a close adviser and confidante to Donald Trump, Jr. and JD Vance.
According to reporting from the conservative writer Sohrab Ahmari in UnHerd last month, which cites one unnamed senior official, the DOJ's merger settlement was the product of "boozy backroom meetings between company lawyers and lobbyists, on one hand, and officials from elsewhere in the Department of Justice, on the other."
As Ahmari explained:
"Boozy backroom deal" here isn't a figure of speech, by the way. It captures what literally took place, according to the former official, who described a meeting between government officials and lobbyists that took place at one of Washington's "private city clubs" over cocktails.
In an essay for UnHerd adapted from his speech, Alford berated these "MAGA-in-name-only lobbyists and the DOJ officials enabling them," who he said are "determined to exert and expand their influence and enrich themselves as long as their friends are in power."
The current DOJ, Alford continued, has allowed for the "rule of lobbyists" to supplant the "rule of law." While he says this was not true of those idealists serving with him in the antitrust division—including his embattled former boss, Slater—he says that others in the DOJ showed "special solicitude" to lobbyists they perceived to be on the "same MAGA team."
"Too often in the current DOJ," he said, "meetings are accepted and decisions are made depending upon whether the request or information comes from a MAGA friend. Aware of this injustice, companies are hiring lawyers and influence-peddlers to bolster their MAGA credentials and pervert traditional law enforcement."
Alford makes a distinction between these corrupt officials and those he calls "genuine MAGA reformers" who "strive to remain true to President Trump's populist message that resonated with working-class Americans."
While he does not group Bondi in with the officials he deems corrupt, he does blame her for having "delegated authority to figures—such as her chief of staff, Chad Mizelle, and Associate Attorney General-Designee Stanley Woodward—who don't share her commitment to a single tier of justice for all."
"Some progressives may blanche at Alford's praise for [US President Donald] Trump's populist messaging, and insistence that it has been subverted by top DOJ officials selling out to lobbyists," writes David Dayen in the American Prospect.
But Dayen notes that Alford's audience is not progressives and that he is instead "attempting to reach the president and his inner circle by playing on Trump's demand for total loyalty."
The merger between HPE and Juniper can still be stopped under the Tunney Act, which requires it to be reviewed by a federal judge to determine whether settlements brought in federal "antitrust" cases are in the "public interest."
While the Capital Forum says this process is typically a "rubber stamp," they wrote that "given the settlement's atypical substance and process, plus third parties who may be motivated to intervene and a judge who may be inclined to approach the review skeptically, what's normally a quick judicial signoff could turn into a fraught process with wide-reaching implications."
"Indeed, the court should block the HPE-Juniper merger," Alford said. "If you knew what I know, you would hope so, too."
"Corporate polluters that created this problem must not be allowed to stop the world from solving it," argued one Greenpeace campaigner.
With representatives from 175 nations gathered in Geneva, Switzerland for the final round of talks on a global plastics treaty, Greenpeace campaigners on Thursday created a symbolic trail of black oil and hung massive banners over the entrance to the event venue demanding the expulsion of fossil fuel industry lobbyists from the summit.
Greenpeace said 22 activists from 10 European nations climbed to the roof of the Palais des Nations, where the United Nations conference is taking place, to unfurl banners reading "Big Oil Polluting Inside" and "Plastics Treaty Not for Sale."
The environmental advocacy group said that fossil fuel and chemical industry lobbyists outnumbered scientists 4-to-1 at the talks.
"Each round of negotiations brings more oil and gas lobbyists into the room," Graham Forbes, who is leading Greenpeace's delegation to the summit, said in a statement. "Fossil fuel and petrochemical giants are polluting the negotiations from the inside, and we're calling on the U.N. to kick them out."
"Governments must not let a handful of backwards-looking fossil fuel companies override the clear call from all of civil society—including Indigenous peoples, frontline communities, youth activists, and many responsible businesses—demanding a strong agreement that cuts plastic production," Forbes added.
The huge presence of these plastic-loving lobbyists threatens the Global Plastics Treaty.They don’t want real solutions, all they want is more profits.Tell the UN to kick them out of the plastics talks now👇act.gp/4licpMq
[image or embed]
— Greenpeace UK (@greenpeaceuk.bsky.social) August 7, 2025 at 8:55 AM
In 2022, participating nations agreed to draft a legally binding global treaty to reduce waste and toxic chemicals in some plastics contain; however, no such agreement has been reached.
"It is clear that the plastics treaty negotiators have a mountain to climb to reach an agreement by August 14th," Friends of the Earth International said Tuesday, referring to the summit's end date. "There remain substantive differences between the vast majority of states that want action and the few blockers looking to prolong the era of plastics."
There is strong opposition to curbing plastic production from the fossil fuel industry—99% of plastic is made from petrochemicals—and oil-producing countries including Russia, Saudi Arabia, and the United States.
Reuters reported Wednesday that the Trump administration sent letters to some countries participating in the Geneva talks urging them to reject "impractical global approaches such as plastic production targets or bans and restrictions on plastic additives or plastic products."
Oil producer pressure, Trump rollbacks threaten global treaty on plastics pollution. Plastics are derived from fossil fuels. www.reuters.com/sustainabili...
[image or embed]
— Antonia Juhasz (@antoniajuhasz.bsky.social) August 5, 2025 at 6:46 AM
Greenpeace noted that "the fossil fuel industry and its political allies are pushing hard to weaken the treaty's ambition."
According to the group:
If they succeed, plastic production could triple by 2050, fueling more environmental destruction, climate chaos, and harm to human health. A recent report from Greenpeace U.K. revealed that companies like Dow, ExxonMobil, BASF, Chevron Phillips, Shell, SABIC, and INEOS continue to ramp up plastic production. Since the global plastics treaty process began in November 2022, these seven companies have expanded plastic production capacity by 1.4 million tons. Over the same time period, they have also produced enough plastic to fill an estimated 6.3 million garbage trucks, or five-and-a-half trucks every minute. These companies also reaped enormous profits, with Dow alone earning an estimated US$5.1 billion from plastics, while sending at least 21 lobbyists into treaty negotiations.
A study published this week in the British medical journal The Lancet estimated that plastics are responsible for more than $1.5 trillion in "health-related economic losses" worldwide annually.
"These impacts fall disproportionately upon low-income and at-risk populations," the study's authors wrote. "The principal driver of this crisis is accelerating growth in plastic production—from 2 megatons (Mt) in 1950, to 475 Mt in 2022; that is projected to be 1,200 Mt by 2060."
Friends of the Earth International campaigner Sam Cossar-Gilbert noted that "coastlines across the Global South are drowning in plastic waste that isn't ours."
"Shipped in from wealthy nations under the guise of 'recycling,' the plastic waste trade forces marginalized communities to absorb the consequences of someone else's convenience," he added. "This is not just environmental degradation—it's environmental injustice. We refuse to accept false solutions that sacrifice frontline communities and the environment."
Forbes asserted that "this is a battle for our survival."
"Corporate polluters that created this problem must not be allowed to stop the world from solving it," he added. "Governments must show courage and deliver a strong treaty that puts people and planet first, not short-term corporate profits."
"These figures represent a continuing and massive transfer of wealth from taxpayers to fund war and weapons manufacturing," said the project's director.
Less than a week after U.S. President Donald Trump signed a budget package that pushes annual military spending past $1 trillion, researchers on Tuesday published a report detailing how much major Pentagon contractors have raked in since 2020.
Sharing The Guardian's exclusive coverage of the paper on social media, U.K.-based climate scientist Bill McGuire wrote: "Are you a U.S. taxpayer? I am sure you will be delighted to know where $2.4 TRILLION of your money has gone."
The report from the Costs of War Project at Brown University's Watson School of International and Public Affairs and the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft shows that from 2020-24 private firms received $2.4 trillion in Department of Defense contracts, or roughly 54% of DOD's $4.4 trillion in discretionary spending for that five-year period.
The publication highlights that "during those five years, $771 billion in Pentagon contracts went to just five firms: Lockheed Martin ($313 billion), RTX (formerly Raytheon, $145 billion), Boeing ($115 billion), General Dynamics ($116 billion), and Northrop Grumman ($81 billion)."
In a statement about the findings, Stephanie Savell, director of the Costs of War Project, said that "these figures represent a continuing and massive transfer of wealth from taxpayers to fund war and weapons manufacturing."
"This is not an arsenal of democracy—it's an arsenal of profiteering," Savell added. "We should keep the enormous and growing power of the arms industry in mind as we assess the rise of authoritarianism in the U.S. and globally."
Between 2020 and 2024, $771 billion in Pentagon contracts went to just five firms: Lockheed Martin, RTX, Boeing, General Dynamics, and Northrop Grumman. By comparison, the total diplomacy, development, and humanitarian aid budget, excluding military aid, was $356 billion. [5/12]
[image or embed]
— The Costs of War Project (@costsofwar.bsky.social) July 8, 2025 at 2:43 PM
The paper points out that "by comparison, the total diplomacy, development, and humanitarian aid budget, excluding military aid, was $356 billion. In other words, the U.S. government invested over twice as much money in five weapons companies as in diplomacy and international assistance."
"Record arms transfers have further boosted the bottom lines of weapons firms," the document details. "These companies have benefited from tens of billions of dollars in military aid to Israel and Ukraine, paid for by U.S. taxpayers. U.S. military aid to Israel was over $18 billion in just the first year following October 2023; military aid to Ukraine totals $65 billion since the Russian invasion in 2022 through 2025."
"Additionally, a surge in foreign-funded arms sales to European allies, paid for by the recipient nations—over $170 billion in 2023 and 2024 alone—have provided additional revenue to arms contractors over and above the funds they receive directly from the Pentagon," the paper adds.
The 23-page report stresses that "annual U.S. military spending has grown significantly this century," as presidents from both major parties have waged a so-called Global War on Terror and the DOD has continuously failed to pass an audit.
Specifically, according to the paper, "the Pentagon's discretionary budget—the annual funding approved by Congress and the large majority of its overall budget—rose from $507 billion in 2000 to $843 billion in 2025 (in constant 2025 dollars), a 66% increase. Including military spending outside the Pentagon—primarily nuclear weapons programs at the Department of Energy, counterterrorism operations at the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and other military activities officially classified under 'Budget Function 050'— total military spending grew from $531 billion in 2000 to $899 billion in 2025, a 69% increase."
Republicans' One Big Beautiful Bill Act passed earlier this month "adds $156 billion to this year's total, pushing the 2025 military budget to $1.06 trillion," the document notes. "After taking into account this supplemental funding, the U.S. military budget has nearly doubled this century, increasing 99% since 2000."
Noting that "taxpayers are expected to fund a $1 trillion Pentagon budget," Security Policy Reform Institute co-founder Stephen Semler said the paper, which he co-authored, "illustrates what they'll be paying for: a historic redistribution of wealth from the public to private industry.”
Semler produced the report with William Hartung, senior research fellow at the Quincy Institute. Hartung said that "high Pentagon budgets are often justified because the funds are 'for the troops.'"
"But as this paper shows, the majority of the department's budget goes to corporations, money that has as much to do with special interest lobbying as it does with any rational defense planning," he continued. "Much of this funding has been wasted on dysfunctional or overpriced weapons systems and extravagant compensation packages."
The arms industry has used an array of tools of influence to create an atmosphere where a Pentagon budget that is $1 trillion per year is deemed “not enough” by some members of Congress. [9/12]
[image or embed]
— The Costs of War Project (@costsofwar.bsky.social) July 8, 2025 at 2:43 PM
In addition to spotlighting how U.S. military budgets funnel billions of dollars to contractors each year, the report shines a light on the various ways the industry influences politics.
"The ongoing influence of the arms industry over Congress operates through tens of millions in campaign contributions and the employment of 950 lobbyists, as of 2024," the publication explains. "Military contractors also shape military policy and lobby to increase military spending by funding think tanks and serving on government commissions."
"Senior officials in government often go easy on major weapons companies so as not to ruin their chances of getting lucrative positions with them upon leaving government service," the report notes. "For its part, the emerging military tech sector has opened a new version of the revolving door—the movement of ex-military officers and senior Pentagon officials, not to arms companies per se, but to the venture capital firms that invest in Silicon Valley arms industry startups."
The paper concludes by arguing that "the U.S. needs stronger congressional and public scrutiny of both current and emerging weapons contractors to avoid wasteful spending and reckless decision-making on issues of war and peace. Profits should not drive policy."
"In particular," it adds, "the role of Silicon Valley startups and the venture capital firms that support them needs to be better understood and debated as the U.S. crafts a new foreign policy strategy that avoids unnecessary wars and prioritizes cooperation over confrontation."
"These changes are an invitation to foreign actors to interfere in American affairs," warned one former DOJ prosecutor. "Even worse, it's an invitation to Americans to help them do it."
On her first day in office Wednesday, U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi—a former lobbyist for foreign governments and wealthy special interests that have come under scrutiny by the Department of Justice she now leads—dissolved teams tasked with investigating foreign lobbying and threats posed by corporate misconduct.
Bondi signed 14 directives on Wednesday, including measures to revive enforcement of the federal death penalty, investigate Department of Justice (DOJ) officials who prosecuted President Donald Trump, defund sanctuary cities, and end diversity, equity, and inclusion policies and programs.
She also issued a memo disbanding the Foreign Influence Task Force and limiting criminal enforcement of the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) "to instances of alleged conduct similar to more traditional espionage by foreign government actors."
Aaron Zelinsky, a former DOJ national security prosecutor, told Bloomberg Law that "taken together, these changes are an invitation to foreign actors to interfere in American affairs."
"Even worse, it's an invitation to Americans to help them do it," he added.
🚨NEWS: AG Pam Bondi just issued an order limiting enforcement of anti-corruption laws regulating foreign government lobbyists trying to influence Trump officials. Bondi was a foreign agent for Qatar & her old firm lobbies for foreign governments.
[image or embed]
— David Sirota (@davidsirota.com) February 6, 2025 at 9:54 AM
As Sludge's Donald Shaw noted Thursday:
Bondi is a former foreign agent herself. In 2019, the lobbying firm Ballard Partners registered through FARA to work for the government of Qatar to provide "advocacy services relative to U.S.-Qatar bilateral relations, [including] guidance and assistance in matters related to combating human trafficking." Bondi was designated one of the key personnel on the Qatar contract, for which Ballard Partners was paid $115,000 per month.
Ballard Partners, where Bondi was employed until her confirmation, is currently registered to work as a foreign agent lobbyist for Japan and the Democratic Republic of Congo, according to the FARA database. In her ethics agreement with the Office of Government Ethics, Bondi pledged that she would not "participate personally and substantially in any particular matter involving specific parties in which I know Ballard Partners is a party."
By restricting FARA enforcement to traditional espionage, Bondi is narrowing the application of a law that has been used for prominent political corruption investigations and prosecutions. Last year, the Department of Justice charged Democratic House Rep. Henry Cuellar (Texas) with taking bribes and acting as a foreign agent of Azerbaijan, and Democratic Sen. Bob Menendez [N.J.] was convicted and sentenced to 11 years for bribery and conspiring to act as a foreign agent for Egypt."
Bondi issued another memo Wednesday reorienting the DOJ Criminal Division's Foreign Corrupt Practices Act Unit to "prioritize investigations related to foreign bribery that facilitates the criminal operations of cartels and [transnational criminal organizations], and shift focus away from investigations and cases that do not involve such a connection."
Another eyebrow-raising memo from Bondi demanded "zealous advocacy" of Trump's policy agenda by DOJ attorneys, whom she falsely called "his lawyers."
"It is the job of an attorney privileged to serve in the Department of Justice to zealously defend the interests of the United States," she wrote. "Those interests, and the overall policy of the United States, are set by the nation's chief executive, who is vested by the Constitution with all executive power."
This is an absolutely remarkable memo — and a betrayal of both the Constitution and the American political tradition. In the US, by *explicit contrast* with interwar fascist governments, the state is not supposed to be an extension of the personality of the chief executive.
[image or embed]
— Noah Rosenblum ( @narosenblum.bsky.social) February 6, 2025 at 5:50 AM
Reacting to that memo, MSNBC legal analyst and former Florida state's attorney Katie Phang wrote on the social media site Bluesky that "lawyers still have ethical obligations that stand separate and apart from what a client wants them to do."
Law Dork publisher Chris Geidner summed up the memo as a warning to "accept and defend Donald Trump's policies, or you might be fired."
Ken Kies has a client list that includes Microsoft, which stands to benefit from the president-elect's proposed corporate tax cut to the tune of $4 billion per year.
U.S. President-elect Donald Trump announced late Thursday that he has chosen a longtime corporate lobbyist and Republican donor to serve as assistant secretary for tax policy at the Treasury Department as GOP lawmakers prepare to craft another massive giveaway to the rich and major companies.
Ken Kies is currently managing director of the Federal Policy Group, a lobbying firm that was hired last year by Microsoft, the Cruise Lines International Association, the American Automotive Leasing Association, and other corporate interests. If Trump and the incoming Republican Congress succeed in lowering the corporate tax rate to 15%, Microsoft would receive an annual tax break of $4 billion, according to one analysis.
Kies' profile on the Federal Policy Group's website touts the "significant legislative and regulatory results" he has delivered for his clients, "which include major corporations, trade associations, and coalitions of companies with common objectives."
"Mr. Kies has led coalition efforts to enact legislation responding to the World Trade Organization's ruling against U.S. foreign sales corporation benefits, to avert enactment of broad 'corporate tax shelter' legislation that would have an adverse impact on legitimate business transactions, and to reverse Treasury regulations targeting 'hybrid' arrangements of U.S. multinational corporations, among other projects," the profile continues.
If confirmed by the Senate, Kies would work alongside billionaire hedge fund manager Scott Bessent—Trump's pick to lead the Treasury Department—as the second Trump administration pursues an extension of regressive 2017 tax cuts that are set to expire at the end of the year, as well as another rate cut for corporations.
The Washington Post reported Thursday that Republicans are planning to offset some of the enormous projected cost of the proposed tax package with tariffs, cuts to federal nutrition assistance, and work requirements for Medicaid recipients. The GOP is also pushing to eliminate the Education Department, roll back clean energy programs, and prevent Medicare from covering obesity treatments.
In addition to Kies, Trump said Thursday that he has selected Samantha Schwab to serve as deputy chief of staff at the Treasury Department. Schwab is the granddaughter of billionaire investor Charles Schwab, who donated $1 million to Trump's 2017 inaugural fundraising committee, according to Bloomberg.