

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.
War profiteers like Luckey are all the same. For them, more war means more money.
Last week, we watched a US-made Tomahawk missile murder more than 160+ Iranian school children. We watched in horror, helpless to stop the incoming massacres as the US and Israel carpet-bombed Iran, then Lebanon, displacing millions of people from their homes. The pure, unrelenting terror continues to unfold. We are shocked and devastated, but we are also enraged — because for every bomb the US and Israel drop, a bunch of men in cushy offices profit off all the death.
There is an urgent need to identify and address the burgeoning war profiteers that are leading the world headfirst into planetary destruction. War does not end in Venezuela or Iran. It will continue until all avenues are exhausted, until there are no resources left to plunder because they have destroyed everything.
I call your attention to Peter Thiel, founder of military tech company Palantir, who just last week visited with Japan’s prime minister last week and was dubbed “America’s shadow president” across Japanese media. I call your attention to Ethan Thornton, founder of Mach Industries, who is attempting to create dangerous hydrogen-powered weapons (and almost killed a coworker in the process). I call your attention to Rob Slaughter, cofounder of Defense Unicorns, whose company has “built the software backbone of the War Department” (and whose surname is rather apt). And I call your attention to Palmer Luckey, self-proclaimed “radical Zionist” and founder of Anduril, a military tech company that supplies the U.S. military with AI and autonomous weapons.
There are many more corporate executives selling weapons and making a killing off of killing. But today we are going to talk about Anduril founder Palmer Luckey, the Tony Stark wannabe who so very badly wants to believe he’s the good guy. Recently, after CODEPINK launched a petition calling him out for his crimes, he claimed that he’s actually saving lives.

This is how war profiteers have always tried to sell war to people. It’s for the greater good! If we don’t kill them, they will probably try to kill us at some much later date! As much as they want us to believe that their pre-emptive wars of aggression are necessary, the truth is we don’t need to security dilemma ourselves into functioning like soulless robots; we’re actually evolved humans who can participate in dialogue, the great human superpower. It’s not a hard conclusion to draw: murder is not the solution to a disagreement with your neighbor, just as systematic murder is not the solution to a disagreement with another nation.
Besides, we all know war isn’t about saving American lives. Instead, American lives are spent carelessly to accomplish elite agendas, and then veterans are discarded like broken utensils. Tell us, Luckey, whose lives were saved by slaughtering civilians in My Lai in 1968 or in Haditha in 2005? Whose lives were saved by taking out every hospital in Gaza? Whose lives were saved by bombing 160+ school children in Iran?
No, murder is not about saving lives, just as war is not about accomplishing everlasting peace. It’s about men in safe, cushy offices far away from the battlefield amassing as much wealth as possible before they have to join the rest of us as dirt in the ground.
You can tell our petition bothered Luckey, because a few minutes later, he tweeted this:

It’s certainly an odd argument to make — that Anduril should never have had the opportunity to exist. It’s almost a direct admission of guilt, if you think about it. A shrugging of responsibility for Anduril’s existence, as if Luckey didn’t build the company himself from the ground up. It’s the world’s fault for needing Anduril, right? He’s just another cog in the machinery of fate. Helpless, unable to withstand his destiny of building murder machines. It’s funny how these war profiteers want all the recognition for what they make until they start getting recognition for the consequences of what they make. Well, we should never have existed anyway!
Luckey also wonders why the media thinks he wants tech to be more involved in the military, as if those words haven’t repeatedly come from his own mouth. He’s been rather urgent about advocating for advanced military tech to counter Russia, China, and Iran, even going so far as to actively prepare for a “simultaneous conflict” by developing advanced, rapid-production military systems. He’s an especially big fan of war on China, and instated a “China 27” strategy, which states that Anduril won’t design and produce any new weapons that won’t be ready by 2027 — the date the War Department set on war with China.
Last year, Anduril secured a $99 million US Air Force contract for autonomous software and a ten-year, $642 million Marine Corps contract for counter-drone systems. Secretary of War Pete Hegseth visited Anduril’s headquarters, where he proclaimed: “We are rebuilding the Arsenal of Freedom.”
Anduril, now valued at nearly $31 billion, was named after the Lord of the Rings sword, “Flame of the West,” a fitting title for a tool of the imperial West’s perpetual exploitation and murder of innocents abroad. The company is also responsible for the “border protection system” of lasers and identification software, inspired by Trump’s dream for a border wall, and has released new wearable headsets that Luckey claims “turn soldiers into superheroes.”
Fact of the matter is, Luckey likes to think of himself as a type of superhero or Lord of the Rings character, bumbling through an adventure, taking down bad guys, and stacking up points. But in doing so, he’s treating reality as a sort of faraway game, entirely detached from human suffering. It’s not all that different from what the White House is doing—just check out this recent White House tweet, which compared the bombing of Iran to a Wii sports game.
War profiteers like Luckey are all the same. They exist in some fantastical bubble, getting high on the idea that they’re helping save-the-world, while the government takes their fresh-baked drones and missiles and sends them to schools, hospitals, and residential buildings to take out unsuspecting families, destroy infrastructure, and wreak widespread destruction. But the truth is — even if it’s deep-deep-down in the dark voids of their souls — Luckey and friends know exactly which part they’re playing and choose not to care.
What does Luckey do with his blood money other than enthusiastically participate in a “B-boys club” group chat (B as in billionaire)... Well, he has amassed quite the collection of vehicles, including a 1969 Ford Mustang, a Tesla Model S, a 2001 Honda Insight, a 1967 Disneyland Autopia car, a UH-60 Black Hawk helicopter, a 1985 ex-Marine Corps Humvee, a Mark V Special Operations Craft, two submarines, and multiple motorcycles, among many others. … I wonder if we converted USD to human lives, how many people had to die for Luckey to afford each vehicle?
It’s a simple equation: more war means more money for war profiteers. So it’s really no surprise Luckey is hellbent on war with China, which would make him billions and could afford him another few submarines for his imaginary underwater adventures. The U.S. has invested trillions of dollars into preparing for war on China ($3.4 trillion to be exact, a number larger than the total amount spent on 20 years of war in Afghanistan). Every incremental increase to the War Department budget is justified with the same reason: we need to counter China, we need to counter China, we need to counter China. China has become the ultimate war budget enhancer, and all the slippery politicians and war profiteers have taken advantage of it.
Unfortunately, war is the main driver of U.S. technological advancement. So instead of developing advanced technology to improve infrastructure, build high-speed railways, and raise the standard of living, the tech industry is creating headsets for soldiers to optimize killing during battle. They are making autonomous robot drones that pick their next targets according to data sets, rather than valuing human life. They are using AI to draft battle strategies and risking escalation to unforeseen, unredeemable heights.
Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, China… These nations are not the enemies of ordinary people in the U.S. Our enemies are internal: the war profiteers, the ruling class, the “B-boys club” members, and the military tech founders. It is the ruling elites who drive war, all for profit. And it is always the people who suffer. Even now, we suffer as all our taxpayer money is funneled into new contracts with companies like Anduril instead of supporting the health and well-being of the American people. And so overseas, children are murdered, so guys like Palmer Luckey can add to their rare car collections.
Instead of pointing at manufactured enemies overseas, we must confront all the war profiteers in the United States, driving us into more war. Their power rests solely on one thing: convincing us that they are the good guys, and that innocent people in Iran, Lebanon, Venezuela, China, and elsewhere are bad and deserving of death. Let’s make sure Palmer Luckey knows that we will never let him get away with profiting off murder.
After the American public soured on the Iraq War, many groups that pushed for the invasion tried to downplay their role in the debacle. Here we go again.
As the US-Israeli military campaign against Iran intensifies, Americans have shown little appetite for another war in the Middle East. Far fewer Americans support the war than in previous conflicts at this stage, including Iraq, Afghanistan, or Kosovo.
Washington think tanks, however, have been far more enthusiastic. They also happen to be funded by weapons contractors that stand to profit handsomely from the war.
For instance, many fellows employed by the Hudson Institute are supportive of strikes on Iran. As the Trump administration built up its military presence, Hudson Institute fellow Rebeccah Heinrichs went on Fox News and celebrated Trump’s initiative to “push the regime over” as a “major strategic opportunity for peace and stability in the Middle East.” After a week of strikes, Heinrichs celebrated the escalation of the military campaign. “We have a lot more of those kinds of munitions, and now I would suspect that we are just going to continue to destroy the production capabilities and any other storage facilities that they have deeply buried underground, so that’s good for the United States,” Heinrichs told Fox.
The Hudson Institute has received over $4 million from the defense industry since 2019, with Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, and General Atomics CEO Neal Blue among their largest donors. Those companies’ weaponry has been used extensively in Iran. Northrop Grumman manufactures the $2 billion B-2 stealth bombers that are used to strike Iran. Lockheed Martin manufactures a variety of aircrafts used in the attacks, as well as the $300 million THAAD radar system that was recently destroyed by Iran. General Atomics, for its part, produces the MQ-9 Reaper drones used in the campaign. RTX, the manufacturer of the Tomahawk missile that killed 168 girls at their elementary school in Minab, Iran, is also a major donor.
General (Ret.) Jack Keane, Chairman of the Institute for the Study of War, took to the airwaves to claim the US should "take Iran off the map." In a segment on Fox, Keane made the case against exiting the conflict prematurely over rising oil prices; "Are we saying we can't accept several weeks of oil prices being higher than what they should be to take Iran off the map as a predator in the Middle East for decades to come?" asked Keane. "I think we're much tougher than that frankly."
ISW, Keane’s think tank, has received funding from major Pentagon contractors General Dynamics and CACI, but recently delisted the names of both donors from the website. In response to a request for comment, Alexander Mitchell, Director of External Relations at ISW, said, “ISW does not share information about our supporters or their giving histories outside standard 990 reporting.” ISW does list several other corporate sponsors on its website.
The Atlantic Council, which accepts more funding from the defense industry than any other think tank, hired an Israeli national security insider in the lead-up to the war, who used his new perch to make the case for US attacks. Michael Rozenblat, who the Atlantic Council describes as a “visiting research fellow from the Israeli security establishment,” published an article titled “Six reasons why Trump should choose the military option in Iran” less than two weeks before the strikes, framing an attack as a “moral imperative.” Rozenblat concluded that “a decisive US-led coalition effort aimed at regime change may offer a more sustainable strategic outcome” in Iran.
Last year, the Atlantic Council published a report recommending that the US procure more THAAD and SM-3 missiles to deal with threats abroad, including Iran. The manufacturers of those missiles, RTX and Lockheed Martin, have given the Atlantic Council $850,000 and $700,000 respectively since 2019. Both systems have been used extensively for missile defense against Iran.
War has been good for those donors’ pocketbooks. As stock exchanges opened the week after the US-Israeli attack on Iran, the share price of weapons manufacturers RTX, Northrop Grumman, and Lockheed Martin soared.
On March 12, the senior director of the Atlantic Council Scowcroft Center Matthew Kroenig defended the military campaign on Iran during a debate with Trita Parsi of the Quincy Institute, which publishes RS. “Removing the Islamic republic from the chessboard, or significantly weakening it for years or a decade I think stands to greatly improve regional and global security, and the lives of ordinary Iranians,” said Kroenig.
Many of the most outspoken voices pushing for regime change in Iran come from dark money think tanks, which reveal nothing at all about their donors. Around 40% of the US top think tanks fall into this category, according to the Quincy Institute’s newly updated Think Tank Funding Tracker.
The Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD), a prominent dark money think tank, has been advising the US to topple the Iranian regime for years. Founded with a goal to “enhance Israel’s image in North America,” FDD played a critical role in pushing Trump to withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal.
On the day of the US-Israeli strikes, FDD CEO Mark Dubowitz and senior analyst Ben Cohen wrote in an op-ed that “the survival of this regime – a nuclear-seeking, terror-sponsoring, protest–crushing dictatorship – is far more dangerous than the risks that come with its collapse.” Dubowitz has been cheering on the regime change effort since, recently retweeting an AI-generated video from Mossad encouraging Iranians to work with Israeli intelligence in overthrowing the Islamic Republic. FDD’s experts are invited to testify to the House Foreign Affairs Committee more than almost any other think tank, second only to the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
The Jewish Institute for National Security of America (JINSA) is another dark money think tank pushing for the military campaign on Iran. JINSA’s fellows include Benjamin Netanyahu’s former National Security Advisor, the former Commander of the Israeli Air Force, and Trump’s former Iran adviser, Elliott Abrams, as well as over a dozen retired US generals and admirals. In 2020, after the US assassinated Iranian military officer Qasem Soleimani, two JINSA scholars argued in the Washington Post that the United States “must keep up the attacks against Iranian assets in the region and join Israel in rolling back Iranian aggression,” with the goal of provoking a regime collapse.
When the military operation on Iran began, JINSA published an open letter signed by 75 retired generals and admirals in support of the war. Blaise Misztal, Vice President for Policy at JINSA, argued in an article titled “Iran is not Iraq” that fears of repeating the failures of Iraq are overblown.
In a recent appearance on Fox Business, JINSA strategic advisor Vice Admiral Robert Harward described the closure of the Strait of Hormuz as a “short-term problem” and argued that ending the war on Iran now would “only exacerbate” problems in the region.
Many other think tank experts have expressed support for the US pursuing a military campaign against Iran. Analysts from the Washington Institute, which was founded as a spin-off of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, have long pushed for Congress to pre-emptively authorize the use of military force against Iran.
The Middle East Forum, meanwhile, recently published an article pushing Congress to appropriate funds not just for missile stockpiles but also nation-building efforts in Iran. Gregg Roman, the Executive Director of the Middle East Forum, suggested the US should fund “transitional governance planning” including “constitution-drafting support, judicial reform expertise,” and “lustration frameworks that remove regime loyalists” in Iran.
The Atlantic Council, the Hudson Institute, FDD, JINSA, the Washington Institute, and the Middle East Forum did not respond to a request for comment.
After the American public soured on the Iraq War, many groups that pushed for the invasion, including FDD, tried to downplay their role in the debacle.If the US-Israel bombing campaign on Iran continues on its perilous trajectory, one can’t help but wonder whether these pro-war organizations will once again attempt to memoryhole their supporting role in America’s latest military misadventure.
The Democrats could push Trump—or go around him to make better inroads with working people—but will they dare to take that leap? One would hope so, but don’t hold your breath.
Trump has decided that the government should not give money to defense contractors who then reroute our tax dollars via stock buybacks to stockholders and executives.
A stock buyback, for those unfamiliar, is when a corporation repurchases its own shares, thus boosting the share’s price, a legalized form of stock manipulation. CEOs, who are paid mostly in stock incentives, and large investors directly benefit from stock buybacks, and unlike with dividends, don’t have to pay taxes until they sell their shares.
In the weapons industry, this isn’t news. Studies show that defense contractors spent three times more on dividends and stock buybacks than on capital investments needed to fulfill their contracts over the last decade. In Europe, it was the other way around with defense companies spending twice as much on capital investments compared to dividends. (They don’t do stock buybacks.)
The New York Times cited a Department of Defense study during the Biden administration that “found that top US defense contractors spent more on returning cash to shareholders in the form of dividends and stock buybacks between 2010 and 2019 compared to the previous decades, while spending on research and new or upgraded factories had declined.”
You’ve got to wonder why the Biden administration didn’t try to stop this scam. Maybe it feared looking anti-military. Or maybe it thought such an action would be too upsetting to their Wall Street donors who feast on stock buybacks?
Now we have Trump doing what the Democrats should have done long ago, announcing he will stop buybacks and cap executive salaries at profligate defense contractors:
How about Preventing Mass Layoffs?
If the Democrats wanted to show more concern for working people they would jump all over this executive order and push legislation to expand it to include a prohibition of compulsory layoffs at all defense contractors. If a contractor wants to change staffing levels, they should offer voluntary financial buyout packages. No one should be forced to leave.
This is an easy case to make. Why should taxpayers give money to corporations that then lay off taxpayers so that they can shovel more and more of our tax dollars to the wealthy? If the problem is that these defense contractors fail to deliver products on time they need more workers, not fewer.
Instead of wallowing in the Epstein files, the Democrats should declare again and again that mass layoffs are the weapon of choice to enrich executives and Wall Street. Fight for the damn jobs!
In April, the Labor Institute, in cooperation with the Center for Working Class Politics, produced a YouGov survey of 3,000 voters in Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. In the survey, we asked voters to evaluate a state ballot initiative we invented that read:
“Corporations with more than 500 employees that receive taxpayer-funded federal contracts are prohibited from conducting involuntary layoffs of American workers. All layoffs during the life of a taxpayer-funded contract must be voluntary, based on employer financial incentives. No one shall be forced to leave.”
Overall, 42 percent supported the proposal, while 26 percent opposed it and 32 percent were not sure. The no-layoff proposal was brand new, unheard of by anyone before the survey was administered, yet it tied for fifth in popularity among 25 economic proposals. Furthermore, we reported that:
“Respondents from key demographic groups that Democrats have struggled to reach in recent electoral cycles showed robust support for the policy, which was tied for fifth among respondents without a four-year college degree and those whose family income was less than $50,000 per year, and tied for sixth among respondents who reported a declining standard of living and those who live in rural areas and small towns.”
This no-layoffs policy would be a big winner for the Democrats leading up to the mid-terms. But it would not be a winner for the financial backers of the party who cherish their stock buybacks.
So here we are again. Trump outflanking the Democrats on a populist economic proposal, like cancelling NAFTA, one that the Democrats failed to address while in power. In this case, the Democrats could push Trump even further by tying job stability to federal defense contracts, something that working people would greatly value but would be upsetting to Wall Street.
The Democrats could push Trump, but will they dare to take that leap? One would hope so, but don’t hold your breath.
The failure to rigorously defend working people over the last forty years against needless mass layoffs may be why so many voters right now are willing to consider a new political party, independent of the two billionaire parties.
Much more on that to come.