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
pentagon
'Tell Us Where That Money Is Going': Sanders Bill Would Penalize Pentagon for Failing Audits
"We have got to end the absurdity of the Pentagon being the only major federal agency that has never passed an independent audit."
Jul 30, 2026
Bipartisan legislation reintroduced Thursday by Sens. Bernie Sanders and Chuck Grassley would impose budgetary penalties on the US Department of Defense for failing to pass a complete and independent audit.
If enacted, the Audit the Pentagon Act would withhold 2% of the budget of any Defense Department office that fails to achieve a clean audit, and the funds would be returned to the US Treasury.
The Pentagon has failed eight consecutive audits without any consequences, as lawmakers from both parties continue to approve massive budget increases each year. For fiscal year 2027, the Trump administration is seeking $1.5 trillion in total military spending as it wages war against Iran with no end in sight.
“The Pentagon has been plagued by a massive amount of waste, fraud and financial mismanagement for decades,” Sanders (I-Vt.) said in a statement on Thursday. “Year after year, the Pentagon fails an audit, and year after year, Congress hands it another blank check."
"At a moment when the administration has dragged us into an unconstitutional war with Iran and is demanding the largest military budget in our history to pay for it, the Pentagon still cannot tell us where trillions of dollars have gone," Sanders added. "We have got to end the absurdity of the Pentagon being the only major federal agency that has never passed an independent audit.”
The Audit the Pentagon Act has 10 Senate co-sponsors so far: Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Cory Booker (D-NJ), Tina Smith (D-Minn.), Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Mike Lee (R-Utah), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Rand Paul (R-Ky.), and Chris Murphy (D-Conn.).
The latest version of the bill, which was first introduced in 2021, comes as the Trump administration is seeking tens of billions of dollars in funding for the Iran war, which Congress never authorized. Experts have warned for months that the Pentagon is not being transparent about the war's financial cost, which is likely to be far higher than the department's official estimate of $37.5 billion.
“You have the largest agency in terms of discretionary spending for eight years in a row unable to explain and defend the funding that they have, and we have seen enormous examples of waste and fraud,” Sanders told NBC News in an interview. “Tell us where that money is going, period.”
In a press release, Sanders' office highlighted several examples of what it described as "waste and fraud" at the Pentagon:
- Almost $141 billion spent on a Northrop Grumman ballistic missile project that was supposed to cost $77 billion, and which is seven years behind schedule;
- More than $126 billion spent on a General Dynamics submarine program which has run $17 billion over cost. The per-sub cost has nearly doubled since 2019;
- More than $12 billion spent on one missile battery from Leidos and Dynetics that the Pentagon can’t even confirm works; and
- More than $6 billion spent over 16 years on a Raytheon project to build a GPS system. The Pentagon cancelled the project in April due to “insurmountable” problems with its product.
Earlier this month, a version of the Audit the Pentagon Act was attached to the House's National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). The Senate Democratic caucus blocked the upper chamber's version of the NDAA earlier this month over President Donald Trump's illegal Iran war.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Picturing Armageddon: US Government Responses to Nuclear War Movies
A feature film based on Annie Jacobson’s terrifying non-fiction book, Nuclear War: A Scenario, is now in pre-production with Dune director Denis Villeneuve at the helm. Looking back at how previous films about nuclear Armageddon have been received may give us a glimpse of how the current administration will respond to it.
Jul 25, 2026
In the recent Netflix movie, A House of Dynamite, an intercontinental ballistic missile of unknown origin is detected streaking across the Pacific on a course that, in less than 20 minutes, will turn Chicago to ash. Efforts to shoot the missile down fail, as the ground-based interceptors, or GBIs, miss their target and, as the seconds count down, the president, played by Idris Elba, has only seven minutes to decide how to respond. The consequences of his decision, which the film leaves open, could mean the end of human civilization and even most life on Earth.
What was the official response to the film? A week before it streamed, the Pentagon’s Missile Defense Agency (MDA) produced a memo attacking the film’s credibility. America’s GBIs, they said, are much more accurate than portrayed in the movie, with a 100% success rate. (The Center for Arms control puts that figure at 55% in carefully controlled tests.) And an article published by the West Point-based Modern War Institute argues that the film’s premise is flawed since no adversary would launch just a single missile at the United States.
It was also judged illogical that the president’s choices were limited to “surrender” or “suicide”—the latter meaning all-out nuclear war. The country could absorb the loss (meaning the 10 million inhabitants of Chicago) and respond only after the missile’s source had been determined. Finally, as the MDA memo helpfully pointed out, the plot of A House of Dynamite is “fictional” and “intended for the entertainment of the audience.” In other words, it’s just another disaster movie.
These themes are not new to governmental pronouncements on films about nuclear war. In the 1959 feature On the Beach, Gregory Peck plays the captain of a submarine that is America’s last surviving naval vessel as it docks in Melbourne, Australia after the entire Northern Hemisphere has been wiped out in a nuclear war—and a cloud of deadly radioactive fallout is inexorably making its way south. After a brief stay and with the inevitability of death by radiation poisoning, the crew votes to return to the US and die at home.
Which way will the Trump administration go in response to Nuclear War: A Scenario the movie? If the film is faithful to the book, it should have an even more devastating impact than The Day After.
Two weeks before the film’s worldwide release, the United States Information Agency produced an “Infoguide” stating that the film was “highly fictionalized and contains scientific inaccuracies.” It argued that, because fallout diminishes rapidly, it would only affect countries directly attacked or those nearby. Moreover, shelters and decontamination measures were effective against fallout and, as far away as the Southern Hemisphere, “if any protection at all were needed, an ordinary basement would suffice.” A later Infoguide reporting on the premier noted: “Most critics review [the] film as pure drama and there has been little emphasis on social and political significance.” In other words, no big deal.
Five years later, in 1964, Doctor Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb, starring Peters Sellers in three different roles, was released. In this dark comedy, a psychotic Air Force General orders the B-52 bombers under his command to attack the Soviet Union, sparking a concerted but unsuccessful effort by the president and his advisers to recall the planes. As a single B-52 gets through and the plane’s pilot rides a nuclear bomb down to its target, it is revealed that the Soviets have a yet-to-be announced “Doomsday Machine” that, upon the country being struck by a nuclear weapon, will automatically trigger the detonation of a massive array of cobalt bombs whose radiation will render the Earth uninhabitable for a century.
Although obviously a farce, the film was panned as “juvenile, offensive, and inaccurate.” As reported in The New Yorker: “An expert at the Institute for Strategic Studies called the events in the film ‘impossible on a dozen counts.’ A former Deputy Secretary of Defense dismissed the idea that someone could authorize the use of a nuclear weapon without the President’s approval: ‘Nothing, in fact, could be further from the truth.’” (These assertions are in doubt following the disclosure of the policy of “pre-delegation,” in force at the time, which gave authority to commanders to deploy nuclear weapons in circumstances where the president could not be reached.)
Two decades later, in the feature film Wargames, Matthew Broderick plays a teenager who successfully hacks into the Pentagon’s supercomputer. Unwittingly, he mistakes its nuclear war command and control function for a computer game—and nearly triggers global thermonuclear war.
This time, the government response was quite different. After viewing the film, President Ronald Reagan asked his chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff if something like that could really happen. After a review, the president was told that, not only was the premise of the film realistic, “the problem is much worse than you think.” Fifteen months later, National Security Directive NSD-145 was issued, launching a sweeping governmental effort to improve cybersecurity.
Later in 1983, the television movie The Day After, which reached a record-breaking 100 million viewers, was the first American film to attempt a realistic depiction of the aftermath of a nuclear attack on an American city. The story revolves around a doctor, played by Jason Robards, as he tries to deal with the horrific effects of blast, fire, and radiation on the citizens of Lawrence, Kansas—targeted because of its nearby nuclear missile silos.
In this case, the response was mixed. The White House initially discouraged the making of the film. The Pentagon urged—unsuccessfully—to have the script make clear that the Soviets fired first and later refused to allow the filmmakers to use stock footage of real nuclear detonations. Henry Kissinger criticized the film as “simple minded” and in danger of leading the country to “make policy by scaring ourselves to death.” But the film’s graphic portrayal of the effects on the population of an American city could not be dismissed as easily as some of its predecessors, and Reagan wrote in his diary, “It’s very effective & left me greatly depressed.” It has been argued that the film influenced him to soften his Cold War rhetoric and to meet with Mikhael Gorbachev in Iceland in 1986, where the complete abolition of nuclear weapons was discussed. Unfortunately, that meeting ended without agreement; however, a year later, subsequent negotiations led to the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, which resulted in the elimination of a whole class of nuclear weapons.
Which way will the Trump administration go in response to Nuclear War: A Scenario the movie? If the film is faithful to the book, it should have an even more devastating impact than The Day After. With today’s sophisticated special effects, it will, no doubt, create hyperrealistic imagery and make the absolute absurdity of nuclear war manifest. But will the administration call it unrealistic, inaccurate, alarmist or just fiction, as with On the Beach, Doctor Strangelove, or A House of Dynamite? Or will they see it as a prompt to take this existential threat seriously and move to reduce or eliminate the world’s nuclear stockpiles?
Regardless of the response, the movie should motivate us all to work to build a constituency for change in order to end the madness and build a saner world.
Keep ReadingShow Less
As Families Struggle to Afford Groceries, House GOP Approves Billions More for Illegal Iran War
"By voting for this budget resolution, Republicans are saying that this war is more important than lowering Americans’ costs."
Jul 23, 2026
House Republicans on Wednesday approved a $95 billion budget framework that would pump more money into US President Donald Trump's illegal Iran war and push states to adopt restrictions on voting rights, all while Americans struggle to afford groceries and other necessities.
Every present House Democrat and just three members of the GOP caucus—Reps. Thomas Massie of Kentucky, Warren Davidson of Ohio, and Kevin Kiley of California—voted against the budget measure, which would yet again set in motion the filibuster-proof reconciliation process that the Republican majority has used to ram through tax cuts for the rich, attacks on safety net programs, and other unpopular agenda items.
The new budget blueprint, which is seen as facing tougher prospects in the narrowly Republican-controlled Senate, would provide up to $73 billion in additional funding for the US military, mostly for the Iran war. The measure also includes $10 billion to prod states to adopt voter ID requirements, a top priority of the Trump administration ahead of the 2026 midterms.
Leor Tal, campaign director at the Unrig Our Economy coalition, said in response to Wednesday's vote that "once again, Republicans in Congress chose to put their unnecessary war in Iran over the American people."
"It is unconscionable that any member of Congress would vote to put a cent of taxpayer money towards this war that is raising Americans’ costs and costing servicemembers their lives," said Tal. "By voting for this budget resolution, Republicans are saying that this war is more important than lowering Americans’ costs. It’s time for Republicans in Congress to put an end to this seemingly endless war."
Analysts have placed the financial cost of the Iran war at roughly $1,100 per American household so far, accounting for higher prices for energy, groceries, and other essentials. With families across the country reeling from federal food aid cuts implemented under an earlier Republican budget package, a recent poll found that two-thirds of Americans say they would describe the cost of groceries as unaffordable—up from 45% prior to the US assault on Iran.
The budget measure that House Republicans adopted on Wednesday would do nothing to alleviate the nation's worsening cost-of-living crisis, which Trump has repeatedly dismissed as a hoax perpetrated by his political opponents.
"With grocery bills on the rise and skyrocketing gas prices at the pump, working families are struggling to make ends meet, and Republicans have no plan for them," Rep. John Larson (D-Conn.) said Wednesday. "Taxpayer dollars should be used to support the American people, not double down on this president’s failed agenda and foreign wars. Congress needs to cut off funding for the war before more Americans are killed, not write a multi-billion-dollar blank check to the Pentagon."
In a separate vote on Wednesday, House Republicans voted to authorize an unprecedented $1.15 trillion military budget for the coming fiscal year. Reps. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) and Mark Pocan (D-Wis.), co-chairs of the Defense Spending Reduction Caucus, said in a joint statement that "while millions of Americans are struggling to afford basic necessities, Congress is choosing to authorize over $1 trillion for the Pentagon, once again funneling billions of taxpayer dollars to defense contractors instead of investing in the needs of working people."
"The American people are sick and tired of funding atrocities abroad and want this war with Iran to end," said Omar and Pocan. "Yet year after year, the Pentagon fails its audit with virtually no accountability, while Congress continues to increase military spending. We should be investing in affordable housing, healthcare, education, and good-paying jobs—not bankrolling defense contractors."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Have You Even Heard of RASCOM? A Command for America's Robot Army
Lawmakers are pushing for a new combatant command they say will speed up the military’s uptake of robotic and autonomous systems. Experts warn they are ignoring serious flaws with this approach.
Jul 19, 2026
Even as the Pentagon mulls culling its combatant commands to reduce its bureaucratic bloat, lawmakers are itching to prop up another one — based on robots and AI.
Combatant commands like CENTCOM (Central Command) and AFRICOM (Africa Command) — sprawling military headquarters which oversee operations and activities across their assigned region or function — are notorious for their high operational costs and continued pushes for more responsibilities, including entanglements abroad.
The Department of Defense has weighed paring the commands back in response, floating restructuring plans last December that would reduce their number from 11 to 8. But lawmakers are going in the opposite direction, pushing for a new combatant command they say will speed up the military’s uptake of robotic and autonomous systems.
As experts tell RS, the new command is poised to create more redundancy, waste, and inefficiency — and the mission creep that comes with it — while stifling efforts to deploy such technologies in practice.
Embracing the future of warfare?
Tucked into the Senate Armed Services Committee’s (SASC) version of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for FY 2027, a provision called section 917 would allow for the creation of a Robotic and Autonomous Systems Command (RASCOM).
By centralizing oversight over autonomous systems, lawmakers hope RASCOM will help the military adopt them as quickly as possible. In particular, they aim to overcome difficulties that have plagued previous procurement efforts.
In a press release, SASC chairman Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) hailed the prospective combatant command as a means to help the military “embrace 21st century warfare.”
RASCOM “would standardize the way the entire armed services use unmanned systems in combat,” Wicker wrote, The armed service branches would be able to set up offices within RASCOM, “ensuring that [they all] adopt the latest systems.”
Runaway bureaucratic bloat
But another combatant command would be at odds with the Pentagon's stated goal of reducing its sprawling bureaucratic overhead.
DoD Secretary Pete Hegseth “has righteously complained about bloat in the GOFO [General and Flag Officers] corps, saying he wants to cut the number of [four-star generals] by 20%," Justin Logan, director of defense and foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute, told RS. "Another place to park a four-star and his buddies flies in the face of that.”
A new combatant command would also take up work the Pentagon is already doing through its deployment of uncrewed systems across its operation. And, as Jennifer Kavanagh, Defense Priorities’ director of military analysis, tells RS, the administrative structure needed for a new combatant command will “duplicate functions provided elsewhere, including at the leadership level.”
What’s more, combatant commands rarely remain limited to their original missions. Instead, they often push for greater budgets, more responsibilities, and more sway over the direction of U.S. military policy.
“If RASCOM is created, it will face the same institutional incentives to expand its mission,” Gary Sampson, a national security strategist and retired U.S. Marine Corps intelligence and international affairs officer, told RS.
“Just like the Navy pushes for Naval spending and CENTCOM pushes for wars in the Middle East, RASCOM would act as a sales team for robotics and autonomous systems,” Logan predicted, referencing CENTCOM officials’ persistent support for continued U.S. military engagement in the Middle East. “That is the job of companies who manufacture autonomous systems, not the U.S. government.”
Standing up and maintaining another command would also be costly. “This is the last thing the Pentagon needs given its already massive budget,” Kavanagh said.
And, once established, RASCOM may prove difficult to get rid of. As Dan Grazier, who directs the Stimson Center’s National Security reform program, tells RS, “there would be entrenched interests that... have a stake in seeing it continue.”
“Even if the [command’s] headquarters is stood down later, many functions, personnel, and institutional interests tend to persist and migrate elsewhere,” Sampson said.
Throwing a wrench at military preparedness
Beyond concerns over bureaucratic bloat and mission creep, experts observe that RASCOM’s proposed organizational structure could create other operational problems.
For example, most existing combatant commands are organized around geographic missions, or by function. In contrast, RASCOM would be structured around a class of tools.
Brandon Carr, a senior studies associate at the Quincy Institute, tells RS this “logic is well-intentioned” but “likely to be counterproductive.”
“So many future robotic and autonomous systems will become part of an individual service member’s personal equipment,” Carr said. The “technology does not lend itself to a unified command with centralized control.”
To best promote innovation, he said, “robotic and autonomous systems should be integrated and deployed down to the lowest levels of each service.”
Others contend RASCOM’s centralized approach could hinder autonomous systems' use on the battlefield.
David Deptula, the dean of the Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies, wrote last month that a combatant command “would risk centralizing control in a way that makes [autonomous] capabilities less responsive to the commanders who need them most.”
That could create a “seam in command and control” that adversaries would exploit in combat, Deptula wrote. (The Mitchell Institute is financially supported by weapons contractors.)
More broadly, Grazier cautioned against an over-reliance on autonomous systems, warning that adversaries will inevitably look for and leverage their weaknesses.
“We’re spending a crazy amount of money building this robot army. When it’s disrupted [by enemy combatants], our skills to operate without it will have atrophied,” Grazier warned. “We’re actually building in the means of our own defeat.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Disgusting': Hegseth Gloats Over Illegal US Assault on Iranian Infrastructure
Pentagon Secretary Pete Hegseth posted a photo of a surveillance tower at an Iranian port collapsing due to US airstrikes.
Jul 17, 2026
US Pentagon Secretary Pete Hegseth late Thursday gloatingly posted a photo of an Iranian tower collapsing due to the Trump administration's massive, illegal assault on the Middle East country's infrastructure, including bridges, railways, and power facilities.
The photo Hegseth posted to social media appeared to show the surveillance tower at Iran’s Chabahar Port enveloped in smoke and crumbling to the ground amid US forces' aggressive bombing campaign. Ryan Costello, policy director at the National Iranian American Council (NIAC), called Hegseth's post "disgusting online revelry in the bombardment of Iran and its infrastructure."
The Associated Press reported that US strikes on bridges and other infrastructure in southern Iran overnight into Friday killed at least eight people.
"The highway and railway bridge strikes appeared aimed at cutting off Bandar Abbas, Iran’s main port, from roads leading into the Islamic Republic’s central region onward to Tehran, the capital," AP noted.
US strikes, authorized by President Donald Trump, also targeted Iranian power infrastructure amid extreme heat.
The latest wave of US attacks came days after Trump threatened to "knock out all of [Iran's] power plants" and bridges "unless they get to the table and negotiate."
Deliberately attacking civilian infrastructure is a war crime. Kenneth Roth, former executive director of Human Rights Watch, said Friday that while "there may be some nominal military use of the bridges," the US attacks "potentially disrupt the movement of goods needed for Iran’s 90 million people."
"Trump doesn't care, but military commanders, who could face prosecution, should," Roth added.
https://t.co/jZlSVRePRC pic.twitter.com/Nj5o0oiphH
— Pete Hegseth (@PeteHegseth) July 17, 2026
NIAC said Friday that "the distinction between military and civilian infrastructure has become increasingly blurred," as "bridges, ports, airports, railways, power networks, and communications facilities sustain civilian life and economic activity, even if they at times are used for military purposes."
"Their destruction produces civilian casualties, isolates communities, interrupts emergency services, restricts food and fuel distribution, and leaves civilians without electricity during extreme summer heat," the group added. "As the campaign expands, the humanitarian consequences are therefore likely to grow even if Washington continues to classify the targets as militarily relevant."
On Thursday, NIAC released a report detailing the "civilian catastrophe" inflicted by the US-Israeli war on Iran, which began in late February. Estimates indicate that the civilian death toll from the war on Iran could be over 2,000—including hundreds of children, a majority of them killed in a US strike on an elementary school in Minab on the first day of the war.
Additionally, millions of Iranians have been displaced by the US-Israeli bombardment and more than 125,000 "civilian units"—including residential housing—have been damaged or destroyed," NIAC observed in its report.
"The evidence compiled in this report, independently corroborated across UN agencies, human rights organizations, and satellite analysis, points to a pattern of harm to civilians, homes, schools, and medical infrastructure that warrants urgent international attention," NIAC said.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'End This Illegal War': Senate Dems Set to Block Trump Military Budget Over Renewed Iran Assault
"Simply throwing more money at an out-of-control military operation is not strategy," said Sen. Tammy Duckworth.
Jul 14, 2026
Senate Democrats appeared set to block President Donald Trump and the Republican Party's sprawling, $1.15 trillion annual military policy bill in a procedural vote scheduled for Tuesday after the White House formally notified lawmakers of an extension of its illegal Iran war.
Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said she would oppose advancing the 2027 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) unless lawmakers agree to attach her amendment prohibiting any of the bill's funds from going toward the war on Iran. Duckworth said in a statement that "simply throwing more money at an out-of-control military operation is not strategy. It’s a recipe for a forever war."
“The Senate cannot authorize $1.14 trillion in defense spending—the largest defense budget ever proposed in our nation’s history—for Donald Trump to continue his illegal and disastrous war that Americans do not want," Duckworth added. "The stakes couldn’t be higher, and I cannot support a defense authorization bill that doesn’t include my amendment to end this illegal war."
The procedural vote on the NDAA is scheduled for 2:40 pm ET, and it needs 60 votes to advance—requiring the support of some Senate Democrats.
Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), who spearheaded earlier efforts to halt Trump's Iran war using the War Powers Act, told reporters on Monday that "it’ll probably be hard to get there this week," referring to the 60-vote threshold needed to advance the NDAA. Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), who is seen as a critical swing vote, said Monday that she's "undecided" on the legislation.
Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) said he would vote no, calling the NDAA "essentially an Iran war authorization bill."
"A totally unprecedented 50% increase in spending to fund the war without any meaningful restraints," Murphy wrote on social media.
Just Foreign Policy, an anti-war advocacy organization, said Monday that no senator who has supported legislative efforts to end the Iran war should back additional funding for the military as long as the illegal conflict continues.
"The ceasefire has collapsed, US bombs are falling on Iran again, and oil prices are climbing... all after Americans were told this war was over," the group wrote in a new petition urging lawmakers to "defend the Constitution, stop the Iran war, and vote NO on the NDAA."
"Congress has additional leverage to force compliance: the power of the purse," the petition continued. "If members block the NDAA... and reject any Iran war supplemental—Trump cannot ignore them."
In addition to the $1.15 trillion NDAA, the Trump administration is pushing for at least $67 billion in supplemental Pentagon funding to "address urgent needs related to" the Iran war, which is now in its fourth month despite the president's insistence in late March that it would be over "within two to three weeks."
Late last week, Trump formally notified Congress of new "strikes against targets within Iran," insisting the attacks were "consistent with" the War Powers Act.
Critics accused the president, who has never sought congressional authorization for the war, of cynically trying to restart the 1973 law's 60-day clock after declaring the ceasefire with Iran "over." The War Powers Act requires "automatic termination of the use of US forces engaged in hostilities 60 days after the president has reported (or was required to report) on the use of force."
"Any assertion by the Trump administration that he gets 60 more days to act without Congress has no foundation in law," said Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), who on Monday unveiled a new war powers resolution aimed at ending the president's assault on Iran.
"By forcing a new vote to end this war, we make it clear that Congress insists on the removal of troops from the region barring an authorization of force accompanied by a truly viable strategy—both of which have been lacking," Schiff added.
Keep ReadingShow Less
‘Of the Pentagon, by the Congress, and for the War Profiteers’: Ad Blasts Trump Military Budget
“The $1.5 trillion Pentagon budget request represents more than $9,000 per individual taxpayer."
Jul 13, 2026
As the Republican-controlled US Congress advances President Donald Trump's requested $1.5 trillion budget for "rebuilding" a military that's already more powerful than any armed force in human history, a group of former national security officials is urging Americans to challenge "out of control" Pentagon spending.
On Monday, the Eisenhower Media Network published a full-page advertisement in USA Today written by EMN executive director and retired Maj. Gen. Dennis Laich decrying what he called a military budget "of the Pentagon, by the Congress, and for the War Profiteers."
Invoking Thomas Paine's 1776 essay "Common Sense" and former Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower's repeated warnings about the dangers of the then-burgeoning military-industrial complex, the ad asserts that "time and reason strongly suggest that the US 'defense' budget is out of control, unsustainable, and absent of accountability."
"Only the American people can rein it in," Laich argued.
The advertisement notes that the US military budget is already "larger than the next eight nations (most of whom are allies) in the world combined, while American citizens lack healthcare, childcare, and other basic needs."
The ad continues:
The defense industry’s lobbyists team up with US politicians, who receive campaign financing from the industry, to draft the annual National Defense Authorization Act, which sets military policy, the expensive weaponry to be purchased, and the overall military budget. The industry takes the ensuing windfall and puts it toward stock buybacks, which increase the share price, making the rich richer; dividend payments for shareholders; eight-figure annual compensation packages for corporate executives; and the continual political graft (campaign contributions and lobbyists) that keeps the wheel spinning. Incredibly, some contracts stipulate that only the contractor may repair and maintain equipment. The most embarrassing example of this practice is the F-35 stealth fighter, which is grossly over budget, behind schedule, and is only 25% fully mission capable.
"Money talks in America, but few members of Congress choose to talk about the $39 trillion national debt to which military spending is a major contributor," Laich wrote.
"Additionally, the Pentagon cannot tell the American taxpayer where the money went, since it is unable to pass a financial audit as required by law—something every other department of the federal government is able to do," the ad notes. "Now, they are requesting a 50% increase in the defense budget to $1.5 trillion. This is equivalent to your child asking for more money a day after receiving his/her allowance. When you ask what happened to the money he/she received yesterday, the child can’t answer the question, but yougive him/her more money regardless."
Laich accused "uniformed bureaucrats" of lacking "the courage to stand up against a draft dodger and a Rambo-wannabe," an apparent swipe at Trump and, perhaps, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.
Meanwhile, despite having the best-funded and most powerful military on paper, the ad points out that since World War II, "the US has won one war (the first Gulf War), lost four (Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Iran), and tied one (Korea). Iran may be as much an embarrassment as a loss. The United States has failed to achieve its stated objectives in any recent war."
The ad asks, "What football coach could keep his job with a 1-4-1 record?"
"The $1.5 trillion Pentagon budget request represents more than $9,000 per individual taxpayer," EMN said. "If we Americans are tired of seeing our tax dollars spent on endless wars, bombing campaigns, and military excess while our own communities struggle with the costs of healthcare, childcare, education, and infrastructure, then the time has come to do what Thomas Paine asked Americans to do 250 years ago: challenge the assumptions that have become accepted simply because they are old."
"The courage required today is not to defeat an empire abroad, but to confront one at home—the military-industrial-congressional complex—and reclaim a government that serves the American people rather than the interests of perpetual war," the ad concludes.
EMN's advertisement follows an ad released by Hegseth in May touting Trump's $1.5 trillion proposal, which would add nearly $7 trillion to the US national debt over the next decade, according to the nonpartisan watchdog group Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.
A survey conducted in May by ReThink Media and the Costs of War Project at Brown University's Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs revealed that nearly 60% of Americans believe the proposed Pentagon budget is too large, including 40% who say $1.5 trillion is “much too high” to spend on the military.
Last month, US Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) introduced the Slash the Pentagon Act, which would set a hard cap of $750 billion on the amount Congress could authorize for national defense spending in fiscal year 2027.
"As Americans struggle to pay for healthcare, rent, electricity, groceries, and gas... Trump has spent over $100 billion on his expensive, dangerous, and unnecessary war with Iran," Markey said at a Capitol Hill press conference introducing the legislation. “We should invest in our hospitals, schools, affordable housing, and the real security American families need right now—not expensive wars and weapons that make us less safe.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Pentagon Official Admits Musk AI Tool Grok Was Used to Help Fire '2,000 Munitions' at Iran
The Defense Department's chief AI officer said the US military used a Grok model to help "deploy over 2,000 munitions to 2,000 distinct targets" in Iran "within 96 hours."
Jun 17, 2026
A Pentagon official revealed in a court filing earlier this week that the US military used a version of trillionaire Elon Musk's artificial intelligence tool, Grok, to help carry out attacks on Iran.
Cameron Stanley, the Pentagon's chief digital and AI officer, wrote in a sworn statement to a federal court in Mississippi that the US military "relies on derivatives of [Musk-run xAI's] commercial offerings known as the Grok Gov Model." The model, which is used within the Pentagon's Maven Smart System, "enabled US forces to deploy over 2,000 munitions to 2,000 distinct targets within 96 hours during Operation Epic Fury," the Trump administration's name for the illegal war the president launched against Iran in late February.
Stanley's statement came as part of a lawsuit that the NAACP brought against xAI earlier year, accusing Musk's company of illegally operating dozens of polluting gas turbines for its Colossus 2 data center, which powers Grok.
Defending xAI, Stanley claimed in his statement that if Grok "cannot be deployed, refined, and upgraded" across the Pentagon "due to either limitations in energy supply or limited reserve compute capability, such as those requested by plaintiffs in this matter, the many tools deployed by military and civilian personnel alike which rely on Grok Gov Models would be severely impacted."
The Defense Department acknowledged shortly after launching its assault on Iran that the US military was "leveraging a variety of advanced AI tools" to help "sift through vast amounts of data in seconds so our leaders can cut through the noise and make smarter decisions faster than the enemy can react."
In a March 12 letter to Pentagon Secretary Pete Hegseth, a group of more than 120 House Democrats demanded details on "the role of artificial intelligence... in selecting targets, assessing intelligence, and making legal determinations during Operation Epic Fury."
The lawmakers specifically asked whether AI tools were used to identify an Iranian elementary school as a target. On the first day of the Iran war, the US military bombed a girls' school in southern Iran, killing more than 150 people—mostly young children.
Stanley's statement did not identify any of the "2,000 distinct targets" he said were attacked with the help of the Grok Gov Model.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Social Security Trust Fund and Trump's Outrageous Pentagon Budget
The proposed increase in military spending by Republicans dwarfs the shortfall projected in the Social Security program for 2034. It would be nice if the media would point this out.
Jun 12, 2026
The release of the 2026 Social Security Trustees Report got the usual suspects (a.k.a. “very serious people”) genuflecting about the large projected shortfall. As of 2034, the program is projected to be unable to pay full benefits. This would mean a 22 percent cut in benefits if no additional revenue is added.
There are three points worth making here.
- As an economic matter, the projected depletion of the trust fund and resulting shortfall in the program means nothing;
- The main reason for the projected shortfall is the upward redistribution of income over the last half-century;
- The projected shortfall is far less money than the increase in military spending that Donald Trump is requesting for his 2027 budget.
Trust Fund Accounting
On the first point, the spending to repay the bonds held from the trust fund in 2033 comes from the Treasury. Its impact on the economy would be the same as the spending in 2034, when the trust fund no longer holds any bonds.
There is an issue that the law gives the program a claim to the funds needed to repay the bonds it holds. Social Security does not have a claim to the money needed to pay full benefits once the last bonds are sold and the trust fund is depleted.
This is an important legal point, but from an economic standpoint, it is money from the Treasury in both cases. If the country could afford to pay full benefits in 2033 when the trust fund held bonds. It can afford to pay full benefits after it has sold all its bonds, however the law would need to be changed.
Upward Redistribution Hurt Social Security’s Finances
In 1982, the last time the program had a major overhaul, just 10 percent of wage income went to high wage earners whose income escaped taxation by being over the cap (currently around $185,000) for wages subject to the 12.4 percent Social Security tax. In the last quarter century, close to 17 percent of wage income went over the cap.
This upward redistribution of wage income, coupled with the redistribution from wages to profits in the last quarter century, has substantially reduced the amount of revenue going into the trust fund. It shouldn’t be surprising that the people who engineered the upward redistribution of the last half-century — through trade policy, stronger patent and copyright protections, bank bailouts, and tech policy — now want to reduce people’s Social Security benefits.
Donald Trump’s Increase in Military Spending is Twice the Size of the Shortfall Projected for 2034
The media seem to take pride in reporting huge budget numbers without providing any context that would make them meaningful to their audience. The projected Social Security shortfall is a great example. The usual group of budget hawks is being brought out to tell us that it is a huge program, which we can’t afford, and requires cuts.
Yet, we did not hear the same chorus in response to Donald Trump’s proposed increase in the military budget from $864 billion in the last year of the Biden presidency to $1,500 billion in 2027. Even adjusting for inflation between the two years, the increase would still be close to $590 billion. There was no rationale given for why the country suddenly needs to spend so much more on its military. Trump certainly did not propose this sort of massive increase in spending in his campaign.
The proposed increase in military spending dwarfs the shortfall projected in the Social Security program for 2034.
Adjusting for inflation (assuming 2.5 percent annually), Trump’s requested increase would be just under $700 billion in 2034 dollars. By contrast, the Social Security Trustees project that the program will face a $314 billion shortfall in its annual budget in 2034.
We can argue about what should be considered big and what should be considered small, but there is zero doubt that Trump’s proposed increase in military spending is hugely larger than the projected shortfall in Social Security. If anyone thinks that Social Security poses a big problem for the budget, they must believe that Trump’s military spending poses a much bigger problem, since it is more than twice as large.
And, as noted earlier, we are already paying the money for Social Security; it is just coming out of a different pocket. The proposed increase in military spending, at 1.6 percent of GDP, will be newly committed funds coming from the Treasury, which will impose substantial demands on the economy. Any honest person who says funding Social Security poses a serious budget problem must believe that Trump’s military spending poses a far bigger problem.
Keep ReadingShow Less
In 'Troubling Escalation' Against Free Press, Pentagon Bans Reporters From Public Affairs Office
"Banning journalists from the press office in the Pentagon, where they worked professionally in previous administrations, is simply a sign that current DOD leadership fears accountability," said one reporter.
Jun 02, 2026
The Trump administration's "asinine attempts to silence objective journalism just hit a new low," said one press freedom advocate late Monday after the Pentagon announced that the US Department of Defense would mark its press office as a classified area, banning journalists from the space where they've previously talked openly with DOD officials.
Reporters on the military are currently largely banned from the building altogether as litigation is ongoing over the administration's requirement that journalists have an escort to move about the Pentagon, but the new policy means that should they be able to return, they would be even more limited in their access to public affairs officers whose job it is to keep the press and public informed.
"For multiple administrations, Pentagon reporters have used the press office to meet with public affairs officers and have open conversations about what America's armed services are doing in order to keep the public informed," said Ben Grazda, an advocacy manager for Reporters Without Borders North America.
Calling Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth "petulant" and pointing to his unsuccessful demand that journalists sign "loyalty pledges," Grazda added that "journalists will continue their tenacious reporting and hold the Pentagon accountable for the money, operations, and lives they impact every day."
The Washington Post reported that Pentagon speechwriters will be moved into the public affairs office, which will be equipped with the Secret Internet Protocol Router Network, or SIPRNet, which is used to transmit classified information.
“This is the most transparent war department in history. No amount of spin from the Fake News media will change that. The Pentagon Press Office has been redesignated as a Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility due to speechwriters from the Office of the Secretary of War sharing the facility," said Jose Valdez, the acting Defense Department press secretary, on social media on Monday, referring to Hegseth by the title he prefers.
Despite Valdez's claims, journalists referred to the decision as "Orwellian" and noted that Hegseth is further curtailing press access to the Pentagon as the US is mediating talks to end the war the US and Israel started against Iran in February.
The policy was also announced as The New York Times reported that Hegseth had blocked the promotions of nine Navy officers who had been selected by senior Navy admirals, appearing to "violate the rules governing a promotion system that is supposed to be apolitical and merit-based."
"Banning journalists from the press office in the Pentagon, where they worked professionally in previous administrations, is simply a sign that current DOD leadership fears accountability," said Times reporter Trip Gabriel.
The decision to close the press office to members of the press comes eight months after hundreds of journalists walked out of the Pentagon in protest of a new policy barring them from seeking information that the Trump administration had not authorized for release.
That policy was struck down by a federal court earlier this year, but the government has appealed the ruling.
The National Press Club called the Pentagon's newest policy "a remarkable and troubling escalation in the Defense Department’s ongoing effort to restrict independent reporting."
"This move does not occur in isolation," said Mark Schoeff Jr., a reporter at CQ Roll Call and president of the organization. "It follows a troubling pattern of escalating restrictions on Pentagon coverage, including efforts to limit journalists to pre-approved information, revoke credentials for routine reporting practices, and physically remove reporters from long-standing workspaces and access without an escort."
"Calling a press workspace ‘classified’ does not make the government more transparent," said Schoeff. "It creates yet another obstacle between journalists and the information Americans have a right to know, especially at a moment when the public needs clear, unfiltered information about the US military."
"Independent reporting on the US military is not optional," he added. "When journalists are pushed farther from the institutions they cover, the American people are left with less information, less transparency, and less oversight. Any effort to restrict that access should alarm everyone who values a free and informed society."
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More
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