

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.
For any city or county in the U.S., simply find your population and area, then do the math to extrapolate the impacts of the genocide based on Gaza’s population and area.
In Fort Wayne, Indiana, this September, I was arrested with a long time activist friend, Cliff Kindy, for blocking the entrance to a Raytheon Corp. facility. We both requested jury trials, and the dates were set for mid-December and early January. Prosecutors dropped the charges in each case, and the trials did not happen.
For my defense, I planned to bring Gaza home to jurors from Allen County, home to Fort Wayne, with wire service photos and by extrapolating the effects of the U.S.-Israeli genocide in Palestine to their own county.
That same approach can be used for any city or county in the U.S. Simply find your population and area, then do the math based on Gaza’s population and area. The genocide statistics were published by Al Jazeera for its summary report on one year of Israel’s U.S.-funded genocide.
U.S. census figures show that Allen County’s population is 395,000—or 18% of Gaza's 2.2 million people—and its area is 660 square miles, roughly 4.5 times that of Gaza’s 144 square miles.
Here, then, is how to bring Gaza home for your city or county.
As of October 2024, Israel’s military has dropped nearly 85,000 tons of bombs—591 tons per square mile—on Gaza, far exceeding that dropped on Dresden, Hamburg, and London combined in World War II.
For Allen County the comparable number is 390,000 tons of bombs at 591 tons per square mile.
More than 43,000 Palestinian bodies, mostly of women and children, were recovered last year. Many thousands more remain buried under the rubble—reliable reports say up to 200,000. Over 97,000 have been wounded. Anesthesia is rarely available.
For Allen County the comparable numbers (18% of the above) are:
According to the Gaza Media Office, 34 hospitals and 80 health centers have been put out of service, 162 health institutions were hit by Israeli forces, and at least 131 ambulances were hit and damaged. Israeli attacks on hospitals and the continual bombardment of Gaza have killed at least 986 medical workers including 165 doctors, 260 nurses, 184 health associates, 76 pharmacists, and 300 management and support staff.
For Allen County the comparable numbers are:
In the past year, 75% of Gaza’s population have been infected with contagious diseases from lack of sanitation, open sewage, and inadequate hygiene. At least 10,000 cancer patients can no longer receive the necessary treatment
For Allen County the comparable numbers are:
More than 10,000 Palestinians are being held in Israeli prisons under grave conditions with at least 250 children and 80 women among them.
For Allen County the comparable numbers are:
According to the United Nation’s Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, as of January 2024, 60% of Gaza’s residential homes and 80% of all commercial facilities have been damaged or destroyed.
For Allen County the comparable numbers are:
When the bombing finally stops, whoever attempts to rebuild Gaza—for luxury Israeli condos or refugee housing—will be exposed to unexploded ordnance (UXO), asbestos, PCBs, and carcinogenic ingredients from the toxic soup left by exploded bombs and artillery shells.
For example, in a heavily bombed area of Vietnam, Quang Tri Province (1,832 square miles), an intensive campaign to find and destroy UXOs has eliminated over 815,000 of them—everything from 1,000-pound bombs to cluster bombs and grenades. Given the area of Gaza and the tons of bombs dropped on it, some 64,100 UXOs may lie in wait.
For Allen County the number of UXOs would be 293,7000
One wonders how the executives of these companies feel about their products being used for mass slaughter in Gaza and dangerous escalation in Lebanon.
It’s a sad but familiar spectacle — as people die at the hands of U.S. weapons in a faraway war zone, the stock prices of arms makers like Raytheon and Lockheed Martin soar. A piece posted yesterday at Forbes tells the tale: “Defense Stocks Hit All-Time Highs Amidst Mideast Escalation.”
One wonders how the executives of these companies feel about their products being used for mass slaughter in Gaza and dangerous escalation in Lebanon. For the most part they’re not talking, although they are glad to occasionally inform their investors that “turbulence” and “instability” means their products will be needed in significant quantities by our “allies.”
And, not unlike the Biden administration, they tend to couch their rhetoric in terms of a “right to self-defense.” They act as if Israel’s killing of 40,000 people and displacing millions more — the vast majority of whom have absolutely nothing to do with Hamas, nor any way to influence their behavior — can somehow be white washed by calling it a defensive operation.
No one who steps outside the bankrupt world of official Washington to look at the impacts on actual human beings in Gaza, the West Bank, and Lebanon can take the notion that U.S. weapons are being used for defense in the current Middle East war seriously.
Peter Thiel and his colleagues at Palantir are an exception to the closed mouthed approach of executives at the larger weapons companies. When asked how he felt about his company’s technology to pick targets in Gaza, he said “I'm not on top of all the details of what's going on in Israel, because my bias is to defer to Israel. It's not for us to second-guess every, everything.” And Palantir CEO Alex Karp flew the entire company board to Israel earlier this year to show solidarity with Israel’s war effort in Gaza.
At least Palantir’s leaders are honest and open about where they stand. Leaders of firms like Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, General Dynamics, and Boeing that supply the weapons that have laid waste to Gaza and are now pounding Lebanon prefer to hide behind euphemisms about promoting defense, deterrence, and stability, and assisting allies.
But what about when those allies are engaged in widespread war crimes that prompted the International Court of Justice to say that Israel’s war on Gaza could plausibly be considered a genocide? Is it morally acceptable to just cash the checks and avert one’s eyes, or do the companies profiting from this grotesque humanitarian disaster have a moral responsibility for how their products are being used?
A few years ago, during the height of Saudi Arabia’s brutal invasion of Yemen — enabled by billions of dollars of U.S.- and European-origin weapons — Amnesty International probed this very point. In a report entitled “Outsourcing Responsibility,”the group provided the findings of a survey it had done of 22 arms companies, asking them “to explain how they meet their responsibilities to respect human rights under internationally recognized standards.”
Amnesty noted that "many of the companies investigated supply arms to countries accused of committing war crimes and serious human rights violations, such as Saudi Arabia and the UAE.” None of the companies queried provided evidence that they were doing any sort of due diligence to ensure that their weapons weren’t being used to commit war crimes or human rights abuses. Fourteen companies failed to respond at all, and of the eight that did answer Amnesty’s questions gave variations on the theme of “we just do what the government allows.”
This casts influential arms makers as innocent bystanders who await government edicts before marketing their wares. In fact, weapons manufacturers spend millions year in and year out pressing for weaker human rights strictures and quicker decisionmaking on the sale of arms to foreign clients.
The weapons merchants are right about one thing. It is going to take changes in government policy to stop the obscene trafficking of weapons of war into the world’s killing zones. That will mean breaking the web of influence that ties government policy makers, corporate executives, and many members of Congress to the continued production of weapons on a mass scale. We can’t expect a profit making entity like Lockheed Martin to regulate itself when there are billions to be made fueling conflicts large and small.
Which means the responsibility for ending the killing and the war profiteering it enables falls to the rest of us, from students calling for a ban on arming Israel to union members looking to reduce their dependency on jobs in the weapons sector to anyone who wants a foreign policy driven by what makes us safe, not what makes Palantir and Lockheed Martin rich.
"The greed of these companies is fleecing the American taxpayer and killing Ukrainians," said the senator.
Sen. Bernie Sanders on Thursday said "there's a name for" the billions of dollars in stock buybacks and dividends that major U.S. defense contractors have doled out to their shareholders while taking taxpayer money, and it's this: "war profiteering."
Sanders, the independent from Vermont who chairs the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee in the Senate, took aim at Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics, and RTX—formerly known as Raytheon—for taking in $255 billion in public funds since Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, only to reward shareholders and executives with $52 billion via the benefits of stock buybacks and dividends.
"The greed of these companies is fleecing the American taxpayer and killing Ukrainians," said Sanders. "Congress must investigate."
Sanders reiterated his strong support for backing Ukraine as it continues to defend against Russia's incursion, but said he does not support military contractors "making huge profits on the weapons systems they produce."
With the companies increasing prices for weapons systems and equipment while showering their shareholders with payouts, he said "our taxpayers pay more than they should, and Ukraine receives less weaponry than it needs."
Following the consolidation of dozens of defense contractors into just five companies in the 1990s, the cost of weapons and supplies have risen dramatically. As CBS News reported last year, a stinger missile costs more than $400,000 at Raytheon, now the weapon's sole supplier—a seven-fold increase over its cost in 1991, even accounting for inflation.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) noted when introducing the Stop Price Gouging the Military Act in 2022 that defense contractors "regularly charge the military excessive prices, including $71 for a pin that should have cost less than a nickel and $80 for a drain pipe segment that should have cost $1."
Sanders said the companies are price gouging "all while saying they need emergency supplemental funding to ramp up production for the war effort."
"I strongly support getting the Ukrainians what they need to defend their country," said Sanders. "What I do NOT support is the war profiteering of major defense contractors."
"That the organizers of SXSW have taken the decision to mix the arts with the military and weapons contractors is unforgivable," said one band from Northern Ireland.
More than 100 musical acts have pulled out of the music and cultural festival South by Southwest in protest of the event's close ties to the U.S. Army and numerous defense contractors which have displayed exhibits at the week-long gathering, with one hip hop trio from Northern Ireland saying they would face a "significant financial impact" due to the decision.
The financial loss, said the Belfast-based band Kneecap, "isn't an iota of hardship when compared with the [unimaginable] suffering being inflicted every minute of every day on the people of Gaza."
The Austin For Palestine Coalition (AFPC) has been campaigning in the Texas state capital for several weeks to push bands and speakers to boycott the festival, which is commonly known as SXSW and has been based in Austin since 1987.
Out of at least 105 performers that had announced they are boycotting this year's event as of Wednesday, 60 were from the United Kingdom. All 12 Irish bands that had been scheduled to participate have canceled their appearances.
"That the organizers of SXSW have taken the decision to mix the arts with the military and weapons contractors is unforgivable," said Kneecap in a statement posted to social media. "That they have done so as we witness a genocide facilitated by the U.S. military and its contractors is depraved."
The U.S. is the largest international financial backer of the IDF, providing Israel with nearly $4 billion per year. The Biden administration has also approved numerous weapons sales to Israel since the current escalation began in response to a Hamas-led attack on the country on October 7.
The American musician Ella Williams, also known as Squirrel Flower, noted in her announcement that the International Court of Justice said in January that Israel is "plausibly" committing genocide in Gaza.
"A music festival should not include war profiteers," said Williams. "I refuse to be complicit in this and [withdraw] my art and labor in protest."
AFPC condemned the Army's sponsorship of SXSW as well as festival organizers' decision to welcome defense contractors including RTX, also known as Raytheon; Collins Aerospace; and BAE Systems as participants.
RTX and Collins Aerospace, its subsidiary, make missiles, bombs, and aircraft components that are used by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), which has killed at least 31,341 Palestinians in Gaza since beginning its U.S.-backed bombardment of the enclave in October.
Rania Batrice, a Palestinian American progressive advocate, also announced Wednesday that she was canceling a speaking engagement at the festival.
"As a Palestinian and a human," said Batrice, "I cannot be part of such a callous convening that platforms and celebrates an entity like RTX, which has caused so much death and destruction, and is now complicit in the genocide of my people—including far too many children."
As the boycott grew, SXSW organizers this week defended the contractors, which have participated as exhibitors and sponsored events at the festival, as "leaders in emerging technologies" who "bring forward ideas that shape our world."
They added that "the situation in the Middle East is tragic" and said the festival supports "human rights for all"—a response AFPC called "empty" and "performative."
"These empty words touting 'justice' did not do a great job hiding the fact that SXSW IS forcing musicians to be in bed with warmongers," said the group.
Sitting awkwardly with this phenomenon is a strange fact: According to Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority policy, “Advertisements that are intended to influence public policy are prohibited.”
The first thing commuters saw when stepping into the Metro station beneath the Pentagon in late August was a poster for RTX: the world’s second largest defense contractor, formerly known as Raytheon.
RTX made $30.3 billion in sales to the U.S. government last year, 45% of its total income. To advertise to its biggest customer, why not target government decision-makers in the places they visit most? Thus, the thousands of commuters entering the Pentagon station each day were greeted by more than 60 RTX advertisements plastered across the walls, floors, escalators, and fare gates such that it was physically impossible to pass through the station without seeing one.
This ad campaign wasn’t the company’s first rodeo, either. Ten years ago, RTX placed advertisements in the Pentagon station to promote a satellite control system. That same project is now seven years late and billions of dollars over-cost.
The catch is that, technically, advertisers aren’t supposed to be able to do this, as the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA, which operates the greater D.C. metro system) forbids advertisements that “are intended to influence public policy.” But government contractors, reliant on public policy for their survival, are nonetheless allowed to promote their brands and hawk their products to the officials responsible for deciding whether or not to buy from them. A closer investigation into their marketing tactics reveals how companies like RTX and Google have taken advantage of this lax enforcement to hijack D.C.’s public transportation system for their own gain. WMATA is not just allowing it, they’re profiting from it.

A graph shows the concentration of contractor advertisements at different D.C. Metro stations.
(Graphic: Brett Heinz/ Responsible Statecraft)
As the home to countless government agencies, Washington D.C.’s population is dense with people whose choices at work can affect the entire world. This has made the capital metro system a magnet for government contractors and other advertisers looking to shape policymakers’ activities.
Yet a systematic analysis of that advertising has proven difficult. WMATA does not make advertising data available to the public, and has yet to respond to multiple requests for the data. A similar request was denied by Outfront Media, the private marketing firm contracted by WMATA to handle transit ads.
So, I obtained what information I could the old-fashioned way—I rode the Metro, a lot. For five consecutive weeks, I visited 11 WMATA Metro stations and recorded the names of every advertiser. All were located within one mile of major policymaking institutions: Capitol Hill, the White House, the Pentagon, and the State Department.
Contractor advertising appears to be explicitly targeted at those with the greatest sway over government spending.
The survey recorded 75 different advertisers, excluding transit agencies. Fifteen received at least $5 million in financial awards from the federal government in fiscal year 2023. Four of those were universities and another was United Airlines, while the remaining 10 were government contractors. Altogether, these 10 contractors received approximately $83.1 billion from the federal government in FY2023.
Nine of the 10 advertising contractors count the Department of Defense (DOD) as their largest government customer: Boeing, CACI, General Dynamics, Google, IBM, KPMG, L3Harris, RTX, and SourceAmerica. Ads for McKesson, which does the vast majority of its government contracting for the Department of Veterans Affairs, were spotted only within the McPherson Square station—two blocks away from the VA headquarters.
While this survey was being conducted, Congress was preparing to meet in committee to negotiate the final version of this year’s National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which annually authorizes hundreds of billions of dollars that ultimately go to Pentagon contractors.
The data suggests that contractors are most focused on targeting the Pentagon and Capitol Hill. Contractors made up just 6% of all advertisers in Foggy Bottom-GWU, the only stop near the State Department. In the four stops around the White House, they averaged 9%. Among the three stops closest to Capitol Hill, this number rises to 21%. In the three stations closest to the Pentagon, an average of 46% of all advertisers were contractors.
The Pentagon station, less than 200 feet from the building’s entrance, was 100% occupied by government contractors. In Capitol South, similarly close to the offices of the House of Representatives, one-third of advertisers were contractors. The focus on these two institutions illustrates their importance in keeping contract money flowing: a slim majority of the massive DOD budget goes to contractors each year, and the institution plays a major role in shaping its own budget. The House, meanwhile, is where all budget bills begin. In short, contractor advertising appears to be explicitly targeted at those with the greatest sway over government spending.

An RTX ad is displayed at the Pentagon City Metro station on September 7, 2023.
(Photo: Brett Heinz/ Responsible Statecraft)
This pattern goes well beyond correlation. Many contractor ads are designed to steer a small number of commuters—agency acquisition officers and congressional appropriations staffers—towards specific government policies. To accomplish this, contractors often use niche language that only their customers would understand. One ad spotted in four stations near Capitol Hill and the Pentagon displayed the tail of a jet above two screens of text: “ENABLES BEYOND BLOCK 4 / ALL THREE F-35 VARIANTS” and “THE SMART DECISION.”
This bizarre message, which caught the attention of social media earlier this year, is promoting RTX’s F135 engine. Estimated to cost $26 million each, these upgrades can be added to “all three” versions of the F-35 jet, whose astronomical cost overruns have helped turn it into the most expensive weapons program in human history. Years ago, Lockheed Martin advertised this same plane in stations near the Pentagon with its own twist on a classic neoconservative slogan: “Peace through strength. Lots of strength.” Today, RTX promises that its add-on goes “beyond” the Block 4 upgrade for these planes (which itself is running $5.9 billion over previous cost estimates).
RTX has bragged to investors about the expensive contracts for its F135 engines, but it still faces competition from other contractors. The conflict between the two is set to be addressed by Congress during conference negotiations for this year’s NDAA. To help secure its new revenue stream, RTX placed ads promoting it in places where the people working on the NDAA will most likely see them, using language that only they would understand. RTX did not reply to a request for comment.
In the past, some firms have been transparent about their narrow audiences. Controversial contractor Palantir, which has handled many confidential contracts, once advertised in the Pentagon station with materials reading: “THOSE WITH A NEED TO KNOW, KNOW.

A Google ad is displayed at the Pentagon Metro station on September 28, 2023
(Photo: Brett Heinz/ Responsible Statecraft)
Outfront Media’s pitch to advertisers for the D.C. market area highlights its large audience of “political leaders, government employees, and corporate contractors.” To help reach them all, they offer a “Rail Station Domination” deal in 13 Metro stations to allow one advertiser to occupy much of the available space within, an opportunity, it says, to “transform commuters’ daily ride into a total ‘brand experience.’”
Outfront’s list of “Domination” stations includes brief descriptions of why they might be attractive to marketers: “U.S. Dept of Defense” for the Pentagon station, and “Capitol Hill” for Capitol South. Two other stations located near various regulatory agencies are listed simply as places to target “Government.” Contractors have long taken advantage of these deals, such as Lockheed Martin’s 2020 “domination” of Capitol South.
The Pentagon station, a prime target for reaching DOD staffers, was one of a kind. The Pentagon is the most expensive station to “dominate” according to Outfront Media data which I obtained, even though it has substantially fewer riders than some of the others. Advertising to the 665,786 commuters estimated to visit the Pentagon station in a four week period costs $198,000 (about 30 cents per commuter), before fees. Yet in Gallery Place-Chinatown, a station in downtown D.C. farther away from government buildings, it costs only $120,000 to reach more than three times as many people (5 cents per commuter).
The Pentagon is the most expensive station to “dominate” according to Outfront Media data which I obtained, even though it has substantially fewer riders than some of the others.
These pricing differences suggest that there is a unique value attached to commuters visiting the Pentagon. Another factor is the Pentagon’s unique layout, in which one advertiser can occupy the entire station for weeks on end, without any competition from others on digital screens. The five “domination” stations visited during this survey averaged 13.6 different advertisers over five weeks; the Pentagon featured only two. In the last week of August, every ad space inside the Pentagon station was occupied by RTX. For the entirety of September, it was Google.
Despite earning little from government contracts last year, Google ran a highly aggressive marketing campaign this September to attract more. Its domination of the Pentagon station featured over 60 ads about their commitment to partnering with the government on cybersecurity policy, one of which implied that the company was already acting in concert with the military: “The U.S. Department of Defense and Google are securing American digital defense systems.”
The company shied away from its nascent attempts to break into government contracting in 2018 after a controversial AI drone deal provoked employee protests. Google executives have more recently reversed course, increased their presence in northern Virginia, and unveiled “Google Public Sector” to fight for more defense contracts. Google Public Sector’s current managing director served as Chief Information Officer at the U.S. Navy until passing through the revolving door in March. The company’s success in winning part of a major software contract late last year suggests its efforts are already paying off.
At the same time that Google was dominating the Pentagon station, a second ad campaign downtown promoted the “Google Public Sector Forum,” where company executives spoke alongside current Pentagon officials. Reached for comment, the Defense Department emphasized that guidelines were in place to ensure that "DOD personnel participating in public engagements” acted in ways “appropriate and consistent with DOD and U.S. government policies.”
Google’s apparent dual advertising strategy reflects its diverse goals in reaching policymakers: accessing the deep pool of DOD contracting funds, lobbying Congress on a wide variety of legislation, and burnishing its image in the face of a historic anti-trust lawsuit filed against it by the Justice Department earlier this year.
Google and Outfront Media did not reply to a request for comment.

The Northrop Grumman MQ-4C Triton was developed under the Broad Area Maritime Surveillance (BAMS) program.
(Photo: U.S. Navy)
Sitting awkwardly with this phenomenon is a strange fact: According to WMATA policy, “Advertisements that are intended to influence public policy are prohibited.” Ads for specific military equipment are clearly meant to “influence” government acquisitions, which are “public policy” by definition. Nonetheless, Pentagon contractors appear to flaunt this rule with impunity.
While WMATA has declined a number of political ads before, it is still quite common for advertisers to push the limits of what qualifies as “intended to influence public policy.” No one pushes this boundary further than contractors. Prior to the ban’s creation in 2015, contractors openly acknowledged that they hoped to influence public policy. When Northrop Grumman advertised its Broad Area Maritime Surveillance (BAMS) system in the Pentagon station in 2007, a company spokesman said: “There is an ongoing campaign to win the BAMS contract… The Washington, D.C., area is where our customer base is, and we do want to build awareness for our products and services.”
WMATA declined to comment on questions related to the rule due to “pending litigation on this issue.” The American Civil Liberties Union has sued over this and other WMATA policies as violations of advertisers’ free speech rights, and the case was recently approved to move forward.
The seemingly arbitrary enforcement of WMATA’s ban on ads influencing public policy allows contractors to recycle government funds back into efforts to acquire more government funds.
Further complicating matters is a federal law banning contractors from spending public funds on “influencing or attempting to influence” government officials towards providing them with additional contracts. The rule does not seem to have dissuaded contractors, even those who derive the majority of their revenues from the federal government, from targeted advertising campaigns. (DOD spokesman Jeff Jurgensen emphasized that the agency complies with all relevant acquisitions regulations.)
Advertisers subsidize the D.C. Metro system by providing revenue that would otherwise need to come from either commuters or the government. WMATA hired Outfront Media to “maximize the revenue potential” of public transit assets, incentivizing the company to always go with the highest bidder. Still, WMATA’s budget for next year projects that Metro ads will only bring in $10.3 million, roughly 0.75% of the system’s total funding. This might save money on the front end, but advertisements encouraging billions in inefficient government spending could easily wind up costing taxpayers more over time, such that direct subsidies to replace WMATA’s revenues from contractor ads could ultimately save money.
The seemingly arbitrary enforcement of WMATA’s ban on ads influencing public policy allows contractors to recycle government funds back into efforts to acquire more government funds. This cycle encourages public officials to make choices based on power and reach, rather than cost-efficiency, fairness, or a rational defense strategy. As long as companies making money from policymakers’ decisions are allowed to advertise in the D.C. transit system, this corrupt process will continue to thrive.
"As countries need to replenish their weapons, we do think defense companies will do very well," said one expert.
"War is good for business."
That's what one defense executive said at a London arms conference last month, and what the stock market reflected on Monday, as Israel blockaded and bombarded the Gaza Strip—bombing the occupied Palestinian territory's main university, residential buildings, a refugee camp, and a major hospital—in response to Hamas' weekend attack that killed hundreds of Israelis.
The United States, which already gives Israel $3.8 billion in annual military assistance, is now preparing to send additional weaponry and other support. Meanwhile, the stocks of U.S. and European firms that make money off of war soared on Monday.
U.S. companies including Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, and RTX—previously known as Raytheon—were all affected, as were top British, French, Germany, and Italian firms, according to The Wall Street Journal.
Fox Business reported that "shares of General Dynamics, which makes submarines and combat vehicles, rose the most since March 2020 when it gained over 9%."
"Lockheed Martin's stock jump Monday was the biggest for the U.S.' largest defense contractor on a non-earnings day since March 2020, narrowly topping the gains it notched immediately after Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine," Forbes noted. "Northrop Grumman shares also had their best day since 2020."
Barron's pointed out that "separately, Lockheed's board on Friday approved the expansion of Lockheed's stock repurchase program by $6 billion, and the company raised its quarterly dividend to $3.15 a share from $3."
Commenting on the bloodshed in Israel and Gaza over the past few days, Sameer Samana, senior global market strategist at Wells Fargo Investment Institute, told MarketWatch that "clearly it's a huge human tragedy."
"It seems like we're entering a different phase globally with respect to geopolitics," he added, with conflicts appearing more likely compared with recent decades. "As countries need to replenish their weapons, we do think defense companies will do very well."
Less than two months after Russia's invasion last year, William Hartung, a senior research fellow at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, highlighted how such conflicts benefit the arms industry, writing for TomDispatch that "the war in Ukraine will indeed be a bonanza for the likes of Raytheon and Lockheed Martin."
"First of all, there will be the contracts to resupply weapons like Raytheon's Stinger anti-aircraft missile and the Raytheon/Lockheed Martin-produced Javelin anti-tank missile that Washington has already provided to Ukraine by the thousands," he explained. "The bigger stream of profits, however, will come from assured post-conflict increases in national security spending here and in Europe justified, at least in part, by the Russian invasion and the disaster that's followed."
Last December, in Forbes, Hartung warned against using the Russia-Ukraine war to permanently expand the weapons industry:
Plans that have been floated so far include building new weapons factories, dramatically boosting production of ammunition, anti-tank weapons, and other systems, and easing oversight of weapons procurement. These changes will come at a cost that over time will run into tens of billions of dollars above current spending plans, and possibly more—much more.
This drive to rapidly expand the size and reach of the military-industrial complex is both unnecessary and unwise. The rush to do so while reducing existing safeguards against waste and poor performance risks promoting price gouging and substandard production even as it ties up funds that could be used more effectively on other urgent priorities.
Oil prices also climbed on Monday in response to the violence in the Middle East.
The Associated Press explained that "the area under conflict is not home to major oil production, but fears that the fighting could spill into the politics around the crude market sent a barrel of U.S. oil up 4.1% to $86.16. Brent crude, the international standard, rose 3.9% to $87.91 per barrel."
"These tax breaks are nothing but corporate handouts," the lawmakers said in a letter to the CEOs of four military-industrial complex giants.
A pair of Democratic U.S. lawmakers on Wednesday sent a letter to the CEOs of four of the largest corporations in the military-industrial complex asking how their firms would benefit from Republicans' proposed expansion of a Trump-era tax cut under which the companies stand to save billions of dollars.
In their letter to heads of Raytheon, General Dynamics, Lockheed Martin, and Northrop Grumman, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Rep. Chris Deluzio (D-Penn.) took aim at Republican efforts to extend provisions of the nearly $2 trillion Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA), signed into law by then-President Donald Trump in 2017.
One of those provisions, the so-called research and experimentation (R&E) deduction, would give the weapon-makers billions of dollars in retroactive tax breaks.
"A revival of the R&E tax break would add to the billions in savings your companies have already received from the 2017 Trump tax cuts."
" House Republicans, thanks to aggressive lobbying by Northrop Grumman, are trying to extend these tax giveaways while continuing to demand massive cuts to critical government programs relied on by millions of Americans," the letter states.
"A revival of the R&E tax break would add to the billions in savings your companies have already received from the 2017 Trump tax cuts, but it is far from clear if that is the best use of taxpayer dollars," the lawmakers continued. "As Congress continues to debate corporate tax reform and government funding levels—including proposals for further corporate tax giveaways, large increases [in] military spending, and cuts to other critical government programs—we should understand how your company and other massive corporations will be rewarded."
The lawmakers noted that Raytheon, Lockheed Martin, and Northrop Grumman have acknowledged they would save between $500 million and $2 billion for 2022 alone if the R&E deduction is retroactively extended.
"These tax breaks are nothing but corporate handouts," the letter asserts. "Meanwhile, Republicans plan on paying for their bill by gutting the clean energy credits passed through the Inflation Reduction Act. These energy credits will help grow the U.S. economy up to $200 billion and create up to 1.3 million jobs nationally by 2030, mainly by incentivizing investments in research and domestic manufacturing."
On Wednesday, Warren—who last month partnered with Sen. Mike Braun (R-Ind.) and Rep. Mike Garamendi (D-Calif.) to reintroduce legislation to crack down on price gouging by military contractors—led a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on what she called "the need to root out waste" and profiteering.
The Biden administration is asking Congress to authorize $886 billion in military spending in the 2024 National Defense Authorization Act, which was passed by the GOP-controlled House of Representatives earlier this month. The bill is currently before the Senate.
Speaking on the Senate floor Wednesday, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.)—who earlier said he would vote against the measure—"in the richest country on Earth, we do not need to force false choices. We can fund critical domestic priorities while maintaining a strong military, caring for our veterans, and getting Ukraine what it needs."
"But it will require the wealthy and corporations to pay their fair share in taxes, and it will require members of Congress to care less about the profits of Lockheed Martin, Boeing, or Raytheon, and more about the needs of working people," Sanders added. "Now is the time to rethink what we value as a society and to fundamentally transform our national priorities."
“Huge CEO compensation,” William Hartung observes, “does nothing to advance the defense of the United States and everything to enrich a small number of individuals.”
Does anyone have a sweeter deal than military contractor CEOs?
The United States spent more last year on defense than the next 10 nations combined. A deal just brokered by the White House and House Republicans increases that amount even further—to $886 billion. Defense contractors will pocket about half of that.
Just eight years ago, the national defense community made do with over $300 billion less. But making do with “less” doesn’t come easy to corporate titans like Dave Calhoun, the CEO at Boeing, the nation’s second-largest defense contractor.
In 2021, the most recent year with complete stats, the nation’s top five weapons makers—Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Raytheon, General Dynamics, and Northrop Grumman–grabbed over $116 billion in Pentagon contracts and paid their top executives $287 million.
In March, Boeing’s annual filings revealed that Calhoun had missed his CEO performance targets and would not be receiving a $7 million bonus. As a result, Calhoun had to be content with a mere $22.5 million in 2022—but to sweeten the deal, the Boeing board granted their CEO an extra stack of shares worth some $15 million at today’s value.
The Government Accountability Office may have had incidents just like that in mind when it urged the Pentagon to “comprehensively assess” its contract financing arrangements a few years ago.
This past April, the Department of Defense finally attempted to do it.
“In aggregate,” its report concludes, “the defense industry is financially healthy, and its financial health has improved over time.” But despite “increased profit and cash flow,” the DoD found, corporate contractors have chosen “to reduce the overall share of revenue” they spend on R&D.
Instead, they’re “significantly increasing the share of revenue paid to shareholders in cash dividends and share buybacks.” Those dividends and buybacks have jumped by an astounding 73%!
Contractor CEOs have been lining their pockets accordingly.
In 2021, the most recent year with complete stats, the nation’s top five weapons makers—Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Raytheon, General Dynamics, and Northrop Grumman–grabbed over $116 billion in Pentagon contracts and paid their top executives $287 million, Pentagon-watcher William Hartung noted this past December.
Taxpayers subsidize these more-than-ample paychecks. Corporate giants like Boeing and Raytheon depend on government contracts for about half the dollars they rake in. For Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics, and Northrop Grumman, it’s at least 70%.
“Huge CEO compensation,” Hartung observes, “does nothing to advance the defense of the United States and everything to enrich a small number of individuals.”
Even before Biden and Republicans agreed to increase spending, the National Priorities Project at the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS) calculated the “militarized portion” of the federal budget at 62% of all discretionary spending.
We have precious little to show for this enormous expenditure.
“The post-9/11 ‘war on terror,’ for example, has cost more than $8 trillion and contributed to a horrific death toll of 4.5 million people in affected regions,” the IPS report notes. “Meanwhile, a U.S. military budget that outpaces Russia’s by more than 10 to one has failed to prevent or end the Russian war in Ukraine.”
So what can we do? The IPS analysts advocate reducing the national military budget by at least $100 billion and reinvesting the savings in social programs.
Progressive members of Congress, meanwhile, have also been pushing for a major change in contracting standards. Rep. Jan Schakowsky’s (D-Ill.) “Patriotic Corporations Act” would give companies with smaller pay gaps between their CEOs and workers a leg up in the bidding for federal defense contracts.
Or we could go the FDR route. In the year after Pearl Harbor, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt issued an order limiting top corporate executive pay to $25,000 after taxes—a move Roosevelt said was needed “to correct gross inequities and to provide for greater equality in contributing to the war effort.”
By the war’s end, America’s wealthy were paying federal taxes on income over $200,000 at a 94% rate. That top rate hovered around 90% for the next two decades and helped give birth to the first mass middle class the world had ever seen.
Miracles can happen.
It’s beyond absurd to hand-wring about the area of the discretionary budget that appears least likely to face cuts—and, by any reasonable account, the most able to survive them.
The Wall Street Journal is very concerned about the effects of the debt limit fight… on military contractors. In an article (5/12/23) headlined “Debt-Ceiling Fight Weighs on Defense Industry,” the paper reported, “If the U.S. defaults on its debt and is unable to pay all its bills this summer, the pain will fall squarely on the defense industry.”
A default could disrupt payments to military contractors, the Journal pointed out, and even a temporary suspension of the debt ceiling for several months “would raise the likelihood the Defense Department will have to make do with a temporary budget known as a continuing resolution.” This would likely “inflate the costs of military programs, delay the launch of new ones, and prevent production increases.” In short, weapons producers might feel a momentary pinch after years of war profits.
Where are the voices opposed to increased military spending, who represent the majority of the U.S. public rather than the minority of war profiteers?
But, given the unlikelihood of outright default, the more concerning scenario for the Journal has to do with budget talks. The piece noted that, as the largest item on the discretionary side of the federal budget—which excludes social programs like Social Security and Medicare, which are funded on an ongoing basis—military spending could soon find itself on the chopping block. And who’s taking the pain? Your friendly old drone supplier:
Concerns that military spending could be cut—or, at best delayed—in a debt-ceiling fight have weighed heavily on investor sentiment toward the biggest military contractors. Shares in Lockheed Martin are down this year more than 7%, with General Dynamics and Northrop Grumman off 15% and 20%, respectively.
Dear God, no! We must take action to address the “‘wall of worry’ among investors”!
All the valiant fighters for justice are concerned. We hear from a congressional representative who castigates Republicans who “play chicken with the full faith and credit of our country” and “jeopardize our national security.” Then an Air Force secretary is brought in to sound the alarm about the strategic harms of failing to fund the military.
Where are the voices opposed to increased military spending, who represent the majority of the U.S. public rather than the minority of war profiteers? Probably off playing hacky sack. The Journal evidently couldn’t reach them.
There’s a hint of hope, though! The piece notes:
While Republicans are seeking a spending freeze, many members have voiced support for a larger increase in the military budget, though it would come at the cost of cuts in other areas.
What these other areas would be remains unspecified. But let’s take a look. According to a recent analysis by The New York Times (5/8/23), if the military budget, along with veterans’ health and the border patrol, are spared from cuts, each remaining area of the discretionary budget would have to be cut in half to satisfy the Republican spending caps. That includes Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, the Department of Education, the Department of Justice, the Department of Labor, and the Environmental Protection Agency, among others.
It’s beyond absurd to exclude this context, and instead hand-wring about the area of the discretionary budget that appears least likely to face cuts—and, by any reasonable account, the most able to survive them.
Again, as The Washington Post (4/26/23) has reported, “Republicans have promised to focus… cuts on federal healthcare, education, science, and labor programs, while sparing defense.”
An article by military analyst William Hartung from last month in Forbes (4/26/23) likewise opened:
House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) announced the outlines of a possible Republican budget plan last week, and the big winner was the Pentagon [emphasis added]. Even as McCarthy called for a freeze in the federal discretionary budget at Fiscal Year 2022 levels as a condition for raising the debt ceiling—a move that he promised Freedom Caucus members when they grudgingly supported his election as speaker in January—he signaled that the Department of Defense would not be impacted.
This is a completely different story from the one that The Wall Street Journal has chosen to promote, and one that has far more basis in reality.
But let’s raise a glass to Raytheon. May they get through these tough times and thrive. If there’s one thing the world is lacking, it’s enough weapons contracts for war profiteers.
"Using U.S. tax dollars, including the dollars of those of us who stood there, Raytheon bought up the very freedom they claim they’re building weapons to defend."
The Merchants of Death even own our sidewalks. That’s what we were told when we arrived at Raytheon Technologies in Arlington, Virginia, on Valentine’s Day, February 14th, to issue a “Contempt Citation” for Raytheon’s failure to comply with a subpoena issued last November by the Merchants of Death War Crimes Tribunal, a People’s Tribunal scheduled for November of 2023.
Raytheon knew we were coming. The police were waiting and would not permit us to enter the enormous building even though other businesses and a public restaurant resided inside. “You’re not allowed in,” the police said. “The owner of the building said no to you.” Others were free to enter for lunch or to conduct business. The officers were polite. Respectful. “We are only doing our job,” they said, seeming more like a hired corporate police force than a public police force.
“And you cannot remain on the sidewalk,” the police said. We responded that it was a public sidewalk. “Not anymore,” the police said. “Raytheon bought the sidewalk. And the sidewalk across the street.” When asked how a private corporation can buy a public sidewalk, the officers shrugged not knowing the answer. “You can move down there,” they said, pointing to a corner across the busy street.
We asked to see a deed proving this bizarre acquisition of public property. Lo and behold, the police dutifully produced a deed stamped by the recorder of deeds office indicating Raytheon did in fact own the sidewalk all the way to the street.
Using U.S. tax dollars, including the dollars of those of us who stood there, Raytheon bought up the very freedom they claim they’re building weapons to defend. Freedom of speech and assembly is drastically reduced when corporations as powerful as Raytheon control the halls of Congress, the Pentagon, the White House, and our corporate media.
In fact, in the belly of the beast of the Raytheon building was the corporate media itself, an ABC television affiliate which refused to talk to us last November. When we had approached an ABC spokesman outside, they refused to admit they worked for ABC despite wearing ABC attire. From corporate wars to corporate police to corporate media, all in one monstrous, taxpayer-funded building.
In 2023, approximately $858 billion will be taken from the paychecks of US citizens to help squelch our most fundamental Constitutional rights of privacy and assembly.
Across the street from Raytheon, we unfurled our banners and carried our signs. We held Raytheon in contempt for refusing to comply to a subpoena issued by the people of the world. We noted their shame of their own corporate behavior such that they purchased police and public sidewalks to keep public scrutiny away.
A young woman approached, noticing our signs. She was an Afghan refugee who had been there during the invasion. She and her family had suffered immensely from the US bombing. Her father barely made it out alive. She was crying as she spoke. Off to the side, a man in a suit carefully took pictures of each of us. We were photographed everywhere we went this Valentine’s Day.
To evidence Raytheon’s complicity in war crimes, we read the names of the 34 victims—26 of them schoolboys—killed in the horrific 2018 bombing of a school bus in Yemen. The bomb, a 500-pound Paveway laser-guided bomb was made by Lockheed Martin while Raytheon was responsible for the infrared system which targeted the bus.
Under the careful eye of our National Security State, we traveled to the Pentagon to deliver a subpoena compelling Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin to testify before the Tribunal. Mr. Austin, before being Secretary of Defense was, of course, on the Board of Directors at Raytheon. This, after retiring from the military.
Mr. Austin had cashed in at Raytheon and was now in the catbird seat at the Pentagon sending billion-dollar contracts to his former employer. He is certain to cash in a second time when he leaves his current office. And so, we had a subpoena asking Secretary Austin to speak about these allegations epitomizing the “Revolving Door” between the military, defense contractors, and public office.
A dozen police waited. They counted the number in our group making hand signals between themselves. “You’ve just come from the Raytheon building,” they said to me. “And you plan on spending one hour here. And then you’re going to the Hyatt Hotel for a protest.” I asked how they knew that, especially the information about the Hyatt Hotel since that had not been made public, and the police officer smiled and said, “We have our ways.”
We were told we could protest in a small, fenced-in grassy area away from the metro stop, out of sight from most. We, the people, had been corralled behind a fence in a small grassy patch to peacefully exercise our freedom of speech as the billion-dollar behemoth of war and death, surveillance and repression, stood before us.
Similar actions of subpoena delivery had been carried out the same day in San Diego, California; Asheville, North Carolina; and New York City. Surveillance and corporate resistance had occurred at each location.
Valentine’s Day, this day meant for the opening of hearts, was one of recognizing the Orwellian state in which we live, funded by our own dollars. Our military not only consumes our money, but our freedoms as well.
We again read the names of the dead, sang, some prayed. As we were leaving, one of the police officers cheerfully said, “It’s 64° outside and a beautiful day. Why not enjoy it and go play golf.” A frightfully common thought in such perilous times.