

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.
President Donald Trump used the White House lawn to host a 21st-century cockfighting match where the birds were human beings. Is this rock bottom?
On Sunday night, President Donald Trump brought the country to a new low. The question is whether the nation has finally bottomed out—and realizes it.
On the White House lawn, Trump hosted Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC) mixed martial arts cage matches. Fighters attacked each other with their fists, feet, knees, and elbows. Blood spewed everywhere; that was the point.
It wasn’t boxing; the combatants wore gloves with much less padding. It wasn’t professional wrestling; the injuries inflicted were real. It was billed as a sporting event, but as commentators observed, it was really 21st-century cockfighting where the birds are human beings.
The UFC said that private funding totaling $60 million paid for the event. But it’s not clear that any private money covered the monumental work of the hundreds of staff from seven federal government agencies, or the estimated $10 to $12 million in supplemental security that the District of Columbia incurred (to be reimbursed from federally appropriated funds for federal events).
Fighters used the Executive Office Building and rooms in the White House as locker rooms. If not sacrilegious, it was something close.
Beyond the abuse of taxpayers’ dollars, Trump’s profiteering was pervasive.
In a post-fight interview, a UFC winner yelled: “Michelle Obama is a man. Am I right America?”
Worse than the event itself and Trump’s profiteering is the fact that it happened on White House grounds. While construction was underway, Marine One—the presidential helicopter—could not land on the South Lawn, its usual location. Fighters used the Executive Office Building and rooms in the White House as locker rooms. If not sacrilegious, it was something close.
President Thomas Jefferson first opened the White House lawn in 1801 when he invited the US Marine Corps Band to perform. Since then, it has been the scene of children’s Easter Egg Rolls (begun by President Rutherford B. Hayes in 1878), a tennis court (President Theodore Roosevelt in 1902), a performing arts venue (President Lyndon B. Johnson in 1965), Willie Nelson’s performance (President Jimmy Carter in 1980), the Beach Boys’ South Lawn Beach Party (President Ronald Reagan in 1983), youth T-ball games (President George H.W. Bush in 2001), and a collaborative arts festival (President Barack Obama in 2016).
The good news is that a recent Reuters poll revealed that only 16% of Americans—including one-third of Republicans—said that holding UFC events on the White House lawn was appropriate.
Determined to make his mark, Trump did not care that it would be an ugly blemish on White House history—or another reflection of how far the nation has descended into Trump’s abyss.
"Trump is considering stealing billions of dollars from the American people" with a $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS, said Rep. Don Beyer.
Democrats in Congress are warning that President Donald Trump is on the verge of "stealing" billions of dollars from American taxpayers in the coming days as his Department of Justice reportedly considers settling his lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service.
The New York Times reported on Tuesday that the DOJ, headed by the Trump loyalist acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, was holding internal discussions about whether to settle the suit that was brought by Trump and his sons, as well as the family's business empire, in January.
The case centers on the IRS's leak of Trump's tax returns during his first term, which occurred after he broke decades of precedent by refusing to release them. The lawsuit alleges that the IRS failed to prevent former IRS contractor Charles Littlejohn from unlawfully disclosing tax information to media outlets, for which he pleaded guilty in 2024.
The leaks, reported by The New York Times and ProPublica, revealed that Trump had engaged in what was described as “outright fraud” and other “dubious” schemes to avoid taxation, and that he paid no federal income taxes in many of the years leading up to his presidency.
The Trumps are seeking a payout of at least $10 billion from the IRS, which is currently being headed by Trump's handpicked Social Security Administration head, Frank J. Bisignano, who reports to Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent.
This creates an extraordinary legal situation widely described as a blatant conflict of interest, since Trump is suing an IRS that he effectively controls, which is being represented by a DOJ he also effectively controls.
For a case to be valid, however, the parties must demonstrate that they are actually on opposite sides; otherwise, the case can be thrown out of court.
US District Judge Kathleen M. Williams of the Southern District of Florida, who is overseeing the case, questioned its constitutionality last month and required the parties to file briefs by May 20 demonstrating whether there is an actual conflict between them.
According to the Times, however, the DOJ is considering settling the case with Trump before that happens, and there'd be little Williams could do to stop it.
Not only could Trump walk away with a payout of several billion dollars—if not the full $10 billion he asked for—according to the Times, the White House and DOJ have also discussed a deal for the IRS to drop all audits into Trump, his family, and his businesses.
Presidents and vice presidents are required under IRS to undergo audits of their annual tax returns, and a 2024 Times report found that if Trump failed an audit, it could cost him more than $100 million.
Trump's presidency has been defined by him and his family profiting from their positions of influence. According to a live tracker from the Center for American Progress, Trump and his family have used the White House to rake in more than $2.6 billion worth of cash and gifts.
In addition to about $1.5 billion from their cryptocurrency ventures, which they've used the White House to promote, they have received direct gifts—like a $400 million luxury jet from the government of Qatar—and legal cash settlements from media and tech companies worth over $90 million. On top of the IRS lawsuit, Trump has also demanded that the DOJ pay him $230 million over past criminal investigations into him.
But if Trump received even a fraction of what he demanded in a payout from the IRS, it could make the graft from the first year and a half of his presidency look like pocket change, potentially netting him several billion more dollars and possibly even doubling his net worth.
"Trump is considering stealing billions of dollars from the American people," said Rep. Don Beyer (Va.), the ranking House Democrat on the Joint Economic Committee. "He's already the most corrupt president ever by a wide margin, but this would be fraud and theft on a scale even he has never attempted. The largest single act of grand larceny in American history."
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), the ranking member on the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee, added that for the DOJ to hand Trump a settlement "before a court rules" would be a "massive, unprecedented scandal."
"Congress must stop him," the senator added, noting that she had introduced a bill last month that would bar presidents, vice presidents, and their families from collecting settlement payments from the federal government while in office. If they file administrative claims, Warren's bill would also require that the agencies be represented by independent counsels appointed by the court. However, her bill has gotten little traction in a Republican-controlled Congress.
Bharat Ramamurti, who served as the deputy director of the White House National Economic Council under former President Joe Biden, said the IRS lawsuit was a "massive scam" that was "much worse" than Trump's proposal for Congress to provide $1 billion in taxpayer money to pay for his White House ballroom project.
Of the IRS lawsuit, he said, "Democrats should raise hell over it."
"The case for windfall taxes has never been clearer," said 350.org's chief executive.
An analysis released Monday estimates that oil and gas price spikes driven by the US-Israeli war on Iran have so far cost consumers and businesses around the world over $100 billion—money that has flowed into the coffers of some of the wealthiest, most powerful fossil fuel companies on the planet.
The new analysis by 350.org finds that, just over a month into the war, consumers and businesses have lost between $104.2 billion and $111.6 billion to rising oil and gas prices—an estimate that the environmental group acknowledges is likely conservative, given it doesn't account for "wider knock-on effects, such as rising fertiliser and food costs, declines in economic output and employment, or broader inflation driven by fossil fuel price volatility. "
The more than $100 billion, 350.org said, "has been siphoned from ordinary people to oil and gas companies."
“On top of the incalculable suffering of families and communities torn apart by the war, ordinary people around the world are paying an extraordinary price through fossil fuel-driven energy spikes," said Anne Jellema, 350.org's chief executive. "Over $100 billion has gone straight into the pockets of fossil fuel companies, while families struggle to afford energy and basic necessities."
"The case for windfall taxes," Jellema added, "has never been clearer.”

The analysis was published as global oil prices rose again following a weekend missile attack on Israel by Yemen's Houthis and Trump's threat to "take the oil in Iran," signaling another potential escalation in a war that has already killed thousands, sparked an appalling humanitarian crisis, and destabilized the global economy.
One key beneficiary of the chaos is the fossil fuel industry, which is set to reap billions in windfall profits thanks to rising oil and gas prices. Reuters reported late last week that analysts covering Chevron, Shell, and ExxonMobil have significantly raised earnings estimates for the fossil fuel giants in response to war-fueled price surges.
"US shale producers and other companies without major operations in the Middle East should gain the most, benefiting from higher prices without costs associated with shut-in production, stranded tankers, or expensive repairs to war-hit facilities," Reuters noted. "Still, executives said the big profits will probably not boost their planned capital spending on new production."
Earlier this month, Democratic lawmakers in the US Congress introduced legislation that would impose a windfall profit tax on large American oil companies and return the money to consumers in the form of quarterly rebates. The bill stands no realistic chance of getting through the Republican-controlled Congress, which is awash in Big Oil campaign cash.
“American consumers are once again getting squeezed at the gas pump as President Trump’s war of choice in Iran sends gas prices soaring and money flowing to his Big Oil donors,” said US Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), the bill's lead sponsor in the Senate. “We should send any big windfall for Big Oil back to the hardworking people who paid for it at the gas pump."
"The swamp has never been so fetid," wrote New York Times columnist Nick Kristof.
As millions of Americans face down devastating cuts to their healthcare and food assistance, President Donald Trump and his family personally enriched themselves to the tune of at least $1.4 billion during his first year back in office, according to an analysis published by the New York Times editorial board on Tuesday, the one-year anniversary of his second inauguration.
This unprecedented profiteering, which already amounts to 16,822 times the median US household income according to the Times, is almost certainly an undercount, as many sources of the president and his family's wealth remain hidden from public view.
"President Trump has never been a man to ask what he can do for his country. In his second term, as in his first, he is instead testing the limits of what his country can do for him," the board wrote. "He has poured his energy and creativity into the exploitation of the presidency—into finding out just how much money people, corporations, and other nations are willing to put into his pockets in hopes of bending the power of the government to the service of their interests."
Relying on a series of previous analyses from other news organizations, the Times notes several of Trump's key streams of income.
As has been widely documented, most comprehensively by Reuters in October, by far Trump's largest source of income has been his family's investment in cryptocurrencies, which has generated at least $867 million in new wealth for the family. Other investigations suggest the true number could be several billion when accounting for unreported assets and gains that have not yet been realized.
"People who hope to influence federal policy, including foreigners, can buy his family’s coins, effectively transferring money to the Trumps, and the deals are often secret," the Times board wrote.
The swamp has never been so fetid. President Trump has greedily raked in $1.4 billion (an underestimate) in the last year, often from those seeking favor. E.g. He accepts a Qatari jet and promises US forces will protect Qatar. The corruption is staggering: www.nytimes.com/interactive/...
[image or embed]
— Nick Kristof (@nickkristof.bsky.social) January 20, 2026 at 9:39 AM
It noted one particularly brazen transaction earlier this year, when an investment company owned by a member of the United Arab Emirates' (UAE) ruling family dumped $2 billion into the Trump family's crypto startup World Liberty Financial, just two weeks before the White House announced that the UAE would be given access to hundreds of thousands of the world's most advanced computer chips.
Inking real-estate deals has been another tool nations have used to buy influence with Trump. The Times cites a report from the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics (CREW), showing that the Trump Organization and its partners were planning at least 22 "Trump-branded projects around the globe" over the course of his presidency, including through hotels and golf courses in India, Oman, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Indonesia, and other nations eager to be in the US government's good graces.
In all, since his reelection, the Times calculated that Trump has reaped at least $23 million from licensing his name overseas, at times culminating in the appearance of blatant pay-for-play. In one instance, "the administration agreed to lower its threatened tariffs on Vietnam about a month after a Trump Organization project broke ground on a $1.5 billion golf complex outside of Hanoi. Vietnamese officials ignored their own laws to fast-track the project."
Another CREW analysis from July found that Trump visits his own properties roughly “every other day”—much more frequently than in his previous term—and that many foreign government officials have traveled to these sites to curry favor with the president.
CREW is tracking Trump’s conflicts of interest tied to his real estate empire, including:-Visits to Trump properties-Events held at Trump properties-Promotion of Trump business interests The pattern is clear: it’s all happening more this time around.
— CREW (@citizensforethics.org) July 22, 2025 at 2:56 PM
Trump also infamously accepted a $400 million jet, described as a “flying palace,” from the Qatari government. He plans to use the plane as Air Force One during his presidency and transfer it to his presidential library after leaving office. Shortly after receiving the jet, he pledged to “protect” Qatar and announced lucrative new military and economic partnerships with the country.
Elsewhere, Amazon spent $40 million on a documentary about First Lady Melania Trump, $28 million of which will be given directly to the first lady, which the Times said is far more than has been paid for similar projects. The company's CEO, Jeff Bezos, has critically lobbied the administration for favorable treatment regarding antitrust and defense contracts, and has seen his own wealth soar by nearly $9 billion over the past year.
But Trump’s income from media and tech companies has more commonly arrived in the form of shakedowns. He has made an estimated $90.5 million from settlements from X (formerly Twitter), ABC News, Meta, YouTube, and Paramount since his reelection, none of which, the Times argues, “were justified on the merits.”
"Mr. Trump’s hunger for wealth is brazen," the editorial board wrote. "Throughout the nation’s history, presidents of both parties have taken care to avoid even the appearance of profiting from public service. This president gleefully squeezes American corporations, flaunts gifts from foreign governments, and celebrates the rapid growth of his own fortune."
The report of Trump's looting of the presidency comes as roughly 1.3 million Americans are expected to lose health insurance coverage in 2026 due to Republican cuts to Medicaid and other assistance programs, while more than 20 million are expected to pay higher insurance premiums after the GOP allowed Affordable Care Act subsidies to expire last year. Roughly 1.5 million have already dropped their health coverage this year, according to a report last week from CNBC.
Meanwhile, about 4 million low-income people—including 1 million children—are expected to see their access to food assistance either substantially reduced or totally lost in the coming years due to Republican cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.
While “Drain the Swamp” has remained one of Trump’s signature phrases, portraying the president as a crusader against endemic corruption in Washington, Times columnist Nick Kristof wrote, in the wake of his paper's new report, that under Trump’s watch, “the swamp has never been so fetid.”
"Your family gets higher energy prices and cuts to healthcare. His family gets billions," said Rep. Greg Casar.
In what Public Citizen called "the greatest corruption in presidential history," US President Donald Trump and his family added $5 billion in cash to their fortunes this Labor Day as his new cryptocurrency was opened to the public market.
The currency, known as WLFI, is owned by World Liberty Financial, a company founded by the president's sons, Donald Trump, Jr., and Eric Trump. A Trump business entity owns 60% of the company and is entitled to 75% of the revenue from coin sales.
As the Wall Street Journal reported Monday:
The trading debut was most likely the biggest financial success for the president's family since the inauguration...
WLFI is likely now the Trumps' most valuable asset, exceeding their decades-old property portfolio. While the president's family has continued to pursue property deals around the world since taking office, the fast-moving crypto business has had the biggest early impact.
Crypto is now the dominant source of Trump's wealth. As an investigation by the anti-corruption group Accountable.US found last month, "President Trump's net worth could roughly be $15.9 billion, with about $11.6 billion in uncounted crypto assets," meaning that the digital currencies now make up 73% of his total net worth.
In addition to the tokens owned by World Liberty Financial, it found that two Trump-affiliated companies owned 80% of the $TRUMP meme coin as of May and had collected over $324 million in fees since Trump took office in January.
Meanwhile, Trump Media, which owns his online platform Truth Social, bought $2 billion worth of Bitcoin in July and reserved another $300 million in Bitcoin options.
As America's self-proclaimed "first crypto president," Trump has sought to curb regulations against the volatile financial assets.
In July, Trump signed the GENIUS Act, which purports to establish the US's first regulatory framework for crypto. However, critics noted that the law designated so-called "stablecoins," of which Trump owns many, as "commodities" rather than "securities," allowing them to face much looser oversight.
Though the bill passed with support from over 100 Democrats, Rep. Maxine Waters (Calif.), the ranking Democrat on the House Financial Services Committee, warned that the bill "legitimizes Trump actively building the most corrupt self-dealing crypto environment this country has ever seen."
Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.) described Trump's latest $5 billion windfall as "blatantly corrupt and a brazen abuse of power."
"The current occupant of the White House," she said, "is putting personal profit above the people, using his power to illegally line the pockets of his family and billionaire friends while hanging everyday families out to dry by ripping away their healthcare, food assistance, raising the cost of consumer goods, gutting the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and more."
While cryptocurrency is often billed as an asset available to everyone that levels the playing field of the finance world, in practice, its ownership is largely concentrated among the wealthiest Americans. According to a Harris poll published in April, nearly half of all crypto owners have a yearly income of over $150,000, putting them in the wealthiest 10% of the country.
"Your family gets higher energy prices and cuts to healthcare. [Trump's] family gets billions," said Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas), the chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. "Corruption, plain and simple."
Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash), a strong advocate for crypto regulation, said that such blatant profiting from the presidency makes Trump "easily the most corrupt president in our country's history," and emphasized that "Republicans in Congress are not lifting a single finger to exercise basic oversight."
According to data from OpenSecrets, just three crypto industry-backed political action committees (PACs) poured over $133 million into the 2024 election. Though they spent the majority of that money supporting Republicans, nearly 40% of it went to Democrats.
But although all this money helped to buy what Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong called "America's most pro-crypto Congress ever," according to Reuters, just 3% of legislators in the US House of Representatives and Senate own these assets themselves, including Sens. Dave McCormick (R-Pa.) and Tim Sheehy (R-Mon.), as well as Reps. Nick Begich (R-Ark.) and Mike Collins (R-Ga.).
But Trump's profiteering far exceeds the crypto holdings of every congressperson put together.
"We have only seen the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the damage that this corruption will inflict on the American people," said Bartlett Naylor, a financial reform advocate with Public Citizen. "The impact of attempts by the Trump family and others to buy and sell politics and politicians will continue to ricochet."
The "garrison state" Eisenhower warned of has arrived, with negative consequences for nearly everyone but giant weapons conglomerates and their competitors in the emerging military-tech sector.
When, in his 1961 farewell address, President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned of the dangers of the unwarranted influence wielded by a partnership between the military and a growing cohort of U.S. weapons contractors and came up with the ominous term “military-industrial complex,” he could never have imagined quite how large and powerful that complex would become. In fact, in recent years, one firm — Lockheed Martin — has normally gotten more Pentagon funding than the entire U.S. State Department. And mind you, that was before the Trump administration moved to sharply slash spending on diplomacy and jack up the Pentagon budget to an astonishing $1 trillion per year.
In a new study issued by the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft and the Costs of War Project at Brown University, Stephen Semler and I lay out just how powerful those arms makers and their allies have become, as Pentagon budgets simply never stop rising. And consider this: in the five years from 2020 to 2024, 54% of the Pentagon’s $4.4 trillion in discretionary spending went to private firms and $791 billion went to just five companies: Lockheed Martin ($313 billion), RTX (formerly Raytheon, $145 billion), Boeing ($115 billion), General Dynamics ($116 billion), and Northrop Grumman ($81 billion). And mind you, that was before Donald Trump’s Big Beautiful Budget bill landed on planet Earth, drastically slashing spending on diplomacy and domestic programs to make room for major tax cuts and near-record Pentagon outlays.
In short, the “garrison state” Eisenhower warned of has arrived, with negative consequences for nearly everyone but the executives and shareholders of those giant weapons conglomerates and their competitors in the emerging military tech sector who are now hot on their trail. High-tech militarists like Peter Thiel of Palantir, Elon Musk of SpaceX, and Palmer Luckey of Anduril have promised a new, more affordable, more nimble, and supposedly more effective version of the military-industrial complex, as set out in Anduril’s “Rebooting the Arsenal of Democracy,” an ode to the supposed value of those emerging tech firms.
Curiously enough, that Anduril essay is actually a remarkably apt critique of the Big Five contractors and their allies in Congress and the Pentagon, pointing out their unswerving penchant for cost overruns, delays in scheduling, and pork-barrel politics to preserve weapons systems that all too often no longer serve any useful military purpose. That document goes on to say that, while the Lockheed Martins of the world served a useful function in the ancient days of the Cold War with the Soviet Union, today they are incapable of building the next-generation of weaponry. The reason: their archaic business model and their inability to master the software at the heart of a coming new generation of semi-autonomous, pilotless weapons driven by artificial intelligence (AI) and advanced computing. For their part, the new titans of tech boldly claim that they can provide exactly such a futuristic generation of weaponry far more effectively and at far less cost, and that their weapons systems will preserve or even extend American global military dominance into the distant future by outpacing China in the development of next-generation technologies.
War and a Possible Coming Techno-Autocracy
Could there indeed be a new, improved military-industrial complex just waiting in the wings, one aligned with this country’s actual defense needs that doesn’t gouge taxpayers in the process?
Don’t count on it, not at least if it’s premised on the development of “miracle weapons” that will cost so much less and do so much more than current systems. Such a notion, it seems, arises in every generation, only to routinely fall flat. From the “electronic battlefield” that was supposed to pinpoint and destroy Viet Cong forces in the jungles of Southeast Asia in the Vietnam War years to Ronald Reagan’s failed vision of an impenetrable “Star Wars” missile shield, to the failure of precision-guided munitions and networked warfare to bring victory in Iraq and Afghanistan during this country’s Global War on Terror, the notion that superior military technology is the key to winning America’s wars and expanding U.S. power and influence has been routinely marked by failure. And that’s been true even if the weapons work as advertised (which all too often they don’t).
And while you’re at it, don’t forget, for example, that, nearly 30 years later, the highly touted, high-tech F-35 combat aircraft — once hailed as a technological marvel-in-the-making that would usher in a revolution in both warfare and military procurement — still isn’t ready for prime time. Designed for multiple war-fighting tasks, including winning aerial dogfights, supporting troops on the ground, and bombing enemy targets, the F-35 has turned out to be able to do none of those things particularly well. And to add insult to injury, the plane is so complex that it spends almost as much time being maintained or repaired as being ready to do battle.
That history of technological hubris and strategic failure should be kept in mind when listening to the — so far unproven — claims of the leaders of this country’s military-tech sector about the value of their latest gadgets. For one thing, everything they propose to build — from swarms of drones to unpiloted aircraft, land vehicles, and ships — will rely on extremely complex software that is bound to fail somewhere along the way. And even if, by some miracle, their systems, including artificial intelligence, work as advertised, they may not only not prove decisive in the wars of the future but make wars of aggression that much more likely. After all, countries that master new technologies are tempted to go on the attack, putting fewer of their own people at immediate risk while doing devastating harm to targeted populations. The use of Palantir’s technology by the Israeli Defense Forces to increase the number of targets devastated in a given time frame in their campaign of mass slaughter in Gaza could foreshadow the new age of warfare if emerging military technologies aren’t brought under some system of control and accountability.
A further risk posed by AI-driven warfare is the possibility that the new weapons could choose their targets without human intervention. Current Pentagon policy promises to keep a human “in the loop” in the use of such systems, but military logic runs counter to such claims. As Anduril President and Chief Strategy Officer Christian Brose has written in his seminal book Kill Chain, the high-tech wars of the future will hinge on which side can identify and destroy its targets most quickly — an imperative that would ensure slow-moving humans were left out of the process.
In short, two possibilities arise if the U.S. military transitions to the “new improved” military-industrial complex espoused by the denizens of Silicon Valley: complex systems that don’t perform as advertised, or new capabilities that may make war both more likely and more deadly. And such dystopian outcomes will only be reinforced by the ideology of the new Silicon Valley militarists. They see themselves as both the “founders” of a new form of warfare and “the new patriots” poised to restore American greatness without the need for a democratic government in the war-making mix. Their ideal, in fact, would be to ensure that the government got out of the way and let them solve the myriad problems we face alone. Ayn Rand would be proud.
Such a techno-autocracy would be far more likely to serve the interests of a relatively small elite than aid the average American in any way. From Peter Thiel’s quest for a way to live forever to Elon Musk’s desire to enable the mass colonization of space, it’s not at all clear that, if such goals could even be achieved, they would be generally available. It’s more likely that such opportunities would be restricted to the species of superior beings that the techno-militarists see themselves as being.
The Ultimate Brawl Between the Big Five and the Emerging Tech Firms?
Still, the techno-militarists face serious obstacles in their quest to reach the top rungs of power and influence, not least among them, the continued clout of old-school weapons makers. After all, they still receive the vast bulk of Pentagon weapons spending, based in part on their millions of dollars in lobbying and campaign expenditures and their ability to spread jobs to almost every state and district in the country. These tools of influence give the Big Five far deeper roots in and influence over Congress than the new tech firms. These large, legacy companies also influence government policy through their funding of hawkish think tanks that help shape government policies designed to regulate their conduct, and so much more.
Of course, one way to prevent the ultimate brawl between the Big Five and the emerging tech firms would be to feed them both with ample funding — but that would require a Pentagon budget that would soar well beyond the present trillion-dollar mark. There are, of course, some projects that could benefit both factions, ranging from Donald Trump’s pet Golden Dome missile defense scheme, which could incorporate hardware from the Big Five with software from the emerging tech firms, to Boeing’s new F-47 combat aircraft program, which calls for unpiloted “wing men” likely to be produced by Anduril or another military tech firm. So, the question of confrontation versus cooperation between the new and old guard in the military sector has yet to be settled. If the rival firms end up turning their lobbying resources against each other and going for each other’s proverbial throats, it could weaken their grip on the rest of us and perhaps reveal useful information that might undermine the authority and credibility of both sides.
But count on one thing: neither sector has the best interests of the public in mind, so we need to prepare to fight back ourselves regardless of how their battle plays out.
Okay, then, what could we possibly do to head off the nightmare scenario of a world run by Peter Thiel, Elon Musk, and crew? First, we’ll need the kind of “alert and knowledgeable” citizenry that Dwight D. Eisenhower pointed to so long ago as the only antidote to an ever more militarized society. That would mean concerted efforts by both the public and the government (which would, of course, have to be run by someone unlike Donald J. Trump — already a project in itself!).
At the moment, the tech sector is indeed increasingly embedded in the Trump administration and he owes a number of them a distinct debt of gratitude for helping him over the top in the 2024 election. Despite his very public and bitter falling out with fellow narcissist Elon Musk, the influence of the tech sector within his administration remains all too strong, starting with Vice President J.D. Vance, who owes his career to the employment, mentoring, and financial support of Silicon Valley militarist Peter Thiel. And don’t forget that a substantial cohort of former employees of Palantir and Anduril have already been given key posts in this administration.
Creating a counterweight to those new-age militarists will require a full-scale societal effort, including educators, scientists, and technologists, the labor movement, non-tech business leaders, and activists of all stripes. Silicon Valley workers did, in fact, organize a number of protests against the militarization of their handiwork before being beaten back. Now, a new wave of such activism is all too desperately needed.
Just as many of the scientists who helped build the atomic bomb spent their post-Hiroshima and Nagasaki lives trying to rein in or abolish nuclear weapons, a cohort of scientists and engineers in the tech sector needs to play a leading role in beginning to craft guardrails to limit the military uses of the technologies they helped develop. Meanwhile, the student movement against the use of U.S. weapons in Gaza has begun to expand its horizons to target the militarization of universities writ large. In addition, environmentalists need to double down on criticisms of the immense energy requirements needed to power AI and crypto, while labor leaders need to reckon with the consequences of AI destroying jobs in the military and civilian sectors alike. And all of this has to happen in the context of a far greater technological literacy, including among congressional representatives and workers in government agencies charged with regulating the suppliers of new military technologies.
None of that is, of course, likely to happen except in the context of a resurgence of democracy and a committed effort to fulfill the unmet rhetorical promises that undergird the myth of the American dream. And speaking of contexts, here’s one that anybody preparing to protest the further militarization of this society should take into account: contrary to the belief of many key figures from the Pentagon to Wall Street to Main Street, the peak of American military and economic power has indeed passed, never to return. The only rational course is to craft policies that maintain American influence in the context of a world where power has been defused and cooperation is all too essential.
Such a view, of course, is the polar opposite of the bombastic, bullying approach of the Trump administration, which, if it persists, will only accelerate American decline. And in that context, the key question is whether the widespread harm inherent in the new budget bill — which will only continue to wildly enrich the Pentagon and big arms firms of both kinds, while hitting the rest of us across the political spectrum — could prompt a new surge of public engagement and a genuine debate about what kind of world we want to live in and how this country could play a constructive (rather than destructive) role in bringing it about.
Sen. Bernie Sanders has introduced legislation that would require the Pentagon to return a portion of its budget as a penalty for failing audits, but lawmakers from both parties have declined to consider the bill.
The Pentagon announced late last week that it failed its seventh consecutive audit as the sprawling, profiteering-ridden department wasn't able to fully account for its trillions of dollars in assets.
As with its past failures to achieve a clean audit, the U.S. Defense Department attempted to cast the 2024 results in a positive light, with the Pentagon's chief financial officer declaring in a statement that "momentum is on our side."
The Pentagon is the largest U.S. federal agency and is responsible for roughly half of the government's annual discretionary spending, with its yearly budget approaching $1 trillion despite long-standing concerns about the department's inability to account for vast sums of money approved by lawmakers and presidents from both major parties.
The latest financial assessment published Friday by the Defense Department's inspector general office estimates that the Pentagon has $4.1 trillion in assets. It is the only major federal agency that has never passed a clean audit, as required by law.
"Of the 28 reporting entities undergoing stand-alone financial statement audits, nine received an unmodified audit opinion, one received a qualified opinion, 15 received disclaimers, and three opinions remain pending," the Pentagon
said Friday.
Since the department's first failed audit in 2018, Congress has authorized trillions of dollars in additional military spending. According to the Costs of War Project, more than half of the department's annual budget "is now spent on military contractors" that are notorious for overbilling the government.
"The Pentagon's latest failed audit is a great signal to the incoming administration for where they can start their attempts at slashing government spending," Lindsay Koshgarian, director of the National Priorities Project at the Institute for Policy Studies, told Common Dreams. "Instead of gutting veterans' benefits or the Department of Education as planned, they should start with the one major government agency that has never passed an audit, the Pentagon."
Progressive watchdogs and lawmakers have long cited the Pentagon's failure to pass a clean audit as evidence of the department's pervasive waste and fraud. The Pentagon buried a 2015 report identifying $125 billion in administrative waste out of concern that the findings would be used as a justification "to slash the defense budget," as The Washington Post reported at the time.
Last year, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) introduced an amendment to the annual National Defense Authorization Act that would have required the Pentagon to return a portion of its budget to the Treasury Department's general fund as a penalty for failing audits.
"Year after year the establishment on both sides of the aisle have prevented these amendments from receiving a single roll call vote," Warren Gunnels, Sanders' staff director, wrote on social media over the weekend.
This story has been updated to include comment from Lindsay Koshgarian of the National Priorities Project.
"Neither taxpayers nor the Congress should buy the hype surrounding these new technologies without careful oversight and scrutiny."
A new report released Monday sounds the alarm on the growing influence of profit-hungry venture capital firms that are promoting weapons systems powered by artificial intelligence, a rapidly emerging technology that experts and watchdogs warn could be an
existential threat to humanity if not strongly and properly regulated.
The
report, published by the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, cautions that venture capital (VC) firms and their allies in Washington, D.C. are "determined to move full speed ahead on the development and deployment of weapons based on AI and other technological innovations, despite many unanswered questions about the costs and risks involved."
Michael Brenes and William Hartung, the report's authors, implore Congress to pursue concrete policy actions to regulate the torrent of VC money flowing into the development of AI-powered military technology—so-called "miracle weapons"—as the Pentagonactively courts Silicon Valley startups.
Citing data from PitchBook, The Financial Times reported last year that "U.S. venture investment in defense startups surged from less than $16 billion in 2019 to $33 billion in 2022."
The Quincy Institute report observes that "the surge in VC investment in emerging arms technology is being spearheaded by a handful of firms and individuals," including "the Founders Fund, started by Peter Thiel, who is also the co-founder of PayPal and the arms technology firm Palantir; and Andreesen Horowitz, whose 'American Dynamism Fund' invests in notable emerging tech firms like Anduril and Shield AI."
"Given the risks of catastrophic malfunction and hair-trigger wars conducted with minimal human input, we need a vigorous national debate before moving full speed ahead on military applications of AI and other emerging technologies," Hartung, a senior research fellow at the Quincy Institute, said in a statement Monday.
Brenes, a nonresident fellow at the Quincy Institute, said that "hugely consequential decisions" about the role of AI in U.S. military technology and operations "cannot be driven by narrow considerations of corporate profit."
"Neither taxpayers nor the Congress should buy the hype surrounding these new technologies without careful oversight and scrutiny," said Brenes. "Otherwise, we will see yet another round of cost overruns for systems that do not work as advertised."
"With defense startups growing in number, and enticing military and political leaders, it will be exacerbated in an era of 'big tech.'"
The new report comes amid sustained outrage over the U.S. tech giant Google's AI partnership with Israel, which has used artificial intelligence in its devastating military assault on Gaza.
The report also comes months after the Biden administrationannounced its "Replicator" initiative, a project the Pentagon characterized as an attempt to counter China with an "AI-empowered military."
"Since we need to break through barriers and catalyze change with urgency, we've set a big goal for Replicator: to field attritable autonomous systems at a scale of multiple thousands, in multiple domains, within the next 18 to 24 months," Deputy Defense Secretary Kathleen Hicks said in a speech last year.
Hicks' remarks drew immediate alarm from watchdog organizations, which have criticized the Pentagon's lack of transparency surrounding its AI efforts.
In March, a coalition of groups spearheaded by Public Citizensent a letter to the Pentagon warning that "autonomous weapons are inherently dehumanizing and unethical, no matter whether a human is 'ultimately' responsible for the use of force or not."
"Deploying lethal AI weapons in battlefield conditions necessarily means inserting them into novel conditions for which they have not been programmed, an invitation for disastrous outcomes," the letter reads. "'Swarms' of the sort envisioned by Replicator pose even heightened risks, because of the unpredictability of how autonomous systems will function in a network. And the mere ambiguity of the U.S. position on autonomous weapons risks spurring a catastrophic arms race."
The Quincy Institute report specifically calls on Congress to "establish a revamped Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) that could provide oversight of the industry and ensure that Silicon Valley startups do not manufacture promises that cannot be delivered."
The report also urges Congress to shutter the revolving door between the federal government and military contractors, which gives private companies further influence over consequential policy outcomes.
"This is not a new problem," the report acknowledges. "But with defense startups growing in number, and enticing military and political leaders, it will be exacerbated in an era of 'big tech.' Republican Representative Mike Gallagher recently announced that he was joining Peter Thiel's Palantir after resigning from Congress. This is while Gallagher promotes belligerent views on China in mainstream outlets like Foreign Affairs, arguing that the United States is in the throes of a 'New Cold War' with China that must be won by 'rapidly increasing U.S. defense capabilities to achieve unmistakable qualitative advantages over Beijing.'"
"It will be up to interested members of Congress, working with the administration, to craft specific proposals and regulations to manage the role of private money in the development of emerging military technologies," the report states.
Worker pay, already failing to keep pace with cost-of-living increases, is at risk of being further suppressed as artificial intelligence and other technologies threaten to automate 27% of existing jobs in wealthy countries.
As corporate profits soar, the real income of workers in 38 wealthy countries has fallen by an average of nearly 4% over the past year, and the situation could deteriorate further as artificial intelligence and other forms of technology threaten to automate 27% of existing jobs in the same nations.
That's according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development's (OECD) latest annual employment outlook, published Tuesday, which stresses the "urgent need to act."
"OECD countries may be on the brink of an AI revolution."
One of the report's key findings is that in most high-income countries, labor markets have "stabilized" since the Covid-19 pandemic unleashed economic chaos more than three years ago. The OECD unemployment rate was 4.8% in May 2023, compared with 5.3% in December 2019. However, joblessness varies widely among the club's members, from 12.7% in Spain to 3.6% in the United States and 2.4% in the Czech Republic.
Tight labor markets typically improve workers' bargaining power, yielding wage gains. But despite historically low unemployment rates in many OECD countries, the report finds that real wages across the bloc declined 3.8% between the first quarter of 2022 and the first quarter of 2023.
Nominal wages increased 5.6% from Q1 2022 to Q1 2023, but that wasn't enough to offset the ongoing cost-of-living crisis, the report indicates. As a result of high and persistent inflation—a phenomenon that many experts say is inseparable from corporate profiteering—real income decreased by as much as 15.6% in Hungary, 10.4% in the Czech Republic, and 0.7% in the United States.
Several earlier analyses have shown that since the Covid-19 pandemic and Russia's invasion of Ukraine disrupted international supply chains—rendered fragile by decades of neoliberal globalization—highly consolidated corporations have capitalized on myriad crises to justify price hikes that far outpace the rising costs of doing business, padding their bottom lines at the expense of working-class consumers.
The OECD's new report also acknowledges that "profits have often risen more than labor compensation."
"Going forward," the report notes, "evidence suggests there is some room for profits to absorb further wage adjustments to recover some of the losses in purchasing power gradually without generating significant price pressures or resulting in a fall in labor demand."
Workers' incomes could take additional hits due to technology-induced automation.
"While firms' adoption of AI is still relatively low, rapid progress including with generative AI (e.g. ChatGPT), falling costs, and the increasing availability of workers with AI skills suggest that OECD countries may be on the brink of an AI revolution," the report states. "It is vital to gather new and better data on AI uptake and use in the workplace, including which jobs will change, be created or disappear, and how skills needs are shifting."
"The potential for substitution remains significant, raising fears of decreasing wages and job losses."
The report estimates that 27% of existing jobs in OECD countries are at high risk of automation, from AI and other technologies. If even a fraction of those jobs are automated, it could lead to a surge in unemployment—weakening workers' bargaining power in relation to employers and setting the stage for further wage repression.
"High-skill occupations, despite being more exposed to recent progress in AI, are still at least risk of automation," says the OECD. "Low- and middle-skilled jobs are most at risk, including in construction, farming, fishing, and forestry, and to a lesser extent production and transportation."
According to the report, 63% of finance workers and 57% of manufacturing workers are worried about job loss due to AI in the next 10 years.
The OECD makes three key recommendations to policymakers:
Stefano Scarpetta, OECD director for Employment, Labor, and Social Affairs, wrote Tuesday that "despite the renewed worries about a jobless future, the impact of AI on job levels has been limited so far."
"However," he added, "it is also clear that the potential for substitution remains significant, raising fears of decreasing wages and job losses."
Exxon posted a staggering $19.7 billion in profits in the third quarter of 2022 as consumers continued to face high energy costs.
Fresh off posting the highest quarterly profit in its history, the U.S.-based fossil fuel giant ExxonMobil sued the European Union on Wednesday in an attempt to stop the bloc from imposing its recently approved windfall tax targeting major oil and gas companies.
The Financial Times, which first reported the new lawsuit, noted that the challenge takes aim at the European Council's "legal authority to impose the new tax—a power historically reserved for sovereign countries—and its use of emergency powers to secure member states' approval for the measure."
"The new tax is due to take effect from December 31 and will apply a levy of at least 33% on any taxable profits in 2022-23 that are 20% or more above average profits between 2018 and 2021," the newspaper explained.
In a statement, Exxon spokesperson Casey Norton insisted the company recognizes that sky-high energy costs are "weighing heavily on families and businesses" but claimed the tax would "undermine investor confidence, discourage investment, and increase reliance on imported energy."
Reuters reported Wednesday that Exxon's chief financial officer has estimated the E.U.'s windfall tax could cost the corporation around $2 billion through the end of next year—a fraction of the company's 2022 profits.
Approved in late September amid a mounting cost-of-living crisis across Europe, the windfall tax was presented as an effort to generate additional revenue to "provide financial support to households and companies" struggling with high energy costs. Oil and gas companies like Exxon have been accused of exploiting global energy market chaos spurred by Russia's war on Ukraine to hike prices and pad their bottom lines.
In late October, Exxon announced it brought in $19.7 billion in profits from July to September, its largest-ever quarterly haul. The company also announced it would raise its dividend and expand its share buyback program, rewarding wealthy investors as consumers continue to face elevated prices at the pump.
According to a recent filing, Exxon has also been rewarding its top executives, boosting the annual salary of CEO Darren Woods from $1.70 million to $1.88 million for the coming year.