Tag: military industrial complex

Trump Says He Wants a $1.5 Trillion Military Budget

President Trump said in a post on Truth Social on Wednesday that he wants a $1.5 trillion military budget for 2027, a 50% increase from his $1 trillion budget for 2026.

“After long and difficult negotiations with Senators, Congressmen, Secretaries, and other Political Representatives, I have determined that, for the Good of our Country, especially in these very troubled and dangerous times, our Military Budget for the year 2027 should not be $1 Trillion Dollars, but rather $1.5 Trillion Dollars,” the president said.

He added that $1.5 trillion would enable the US to build a “dream military” and claimed it would be possible thanks to his tariff policy.

“If it weren’t for the tremendous numbers being produced by Tariffs from other Countries, many of which, in the past, have ‘ripped off’ the United States at levels never seen before, I would stay at the $1 Trillion Dollar number but, because of Tariffs, and the tremendous Income that they bring, amounts being generated, that would have been unthinkable in the past … we are able to easily hit the $1.5 Trillion Dollar,” Trump wrote.

He also claimed that tariff revenue would also allow him to “pay down Debt, and likewise, pay a substantial Dividend to moderate income Patriots within our Country!”

When he first came into office in 2025, Trump suggested he could substantially cut military spending, but then went on to request the first-ever $1 trillion US military budget. He got it by combining the 2026 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which Congress finalized at $901 billion, with a supplemental military spending bill worth about $150 billion that was included in the so-called “Big Beautiful Bill” passed earlier in 2025.

While 2026 marks the first time the US had an official military budget over $1 trillion, the true cost of annual US military and national security spending has exceeded $1 trillion for many years, when taking into account factors such as the budgets for the Departments of Homeland Security and Veterans Affairs, and the national security share of the interest accrued on the US debt.

Keep reading

U.S. Arms Sales to Taiwan Risk Accelerating China’s Timeline for Unification

President Donald Trump’s administration has announced a massive package of arms sales to Taiwan valued at more than $11 billion that cover eight items, including 420 Army Tactical Missile Systems (ATACMS) and 82 High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems (HIMARS). If completed, it would be one of Washington’s biggest-ever military sales to Taiwan.

The long-standing policy of U.S. arms sales to Taiwan, intended to maintain the status quo in the Taiwan Strait, is having a dangerously counterproductive effect. 11 days after the US announced $11.1 billion in arms sales to Taiwan, China holds the “Justice Mission 2025” exercise, demonstrating its dual focus on deterring Taiwan independence and countering external interference. The drills showcased A2/AD capabilities with a reach potentially extending to Okinawa and Guam.

Analysts increasingly suggest that these arms transfers are not deterring conflict but may instead be compelling China to consider more aggressive options for unification. This dynamic creates a perilous cycle: each new weapons package prompts greater Chinese military pressure, which in turn is used to justify further arms sales. The situation risks spiraling toward a direct military confrontation that neither Washington nor Beijing may be able to control.

1. Arms Sales as a Catalyst for Provocation and Miscalculation

The steady flow of advanced U.S. weaponry to Taiwan risks emboldening Taipei’s leadership, fostering a false sense of security that could lead to reckless provocations against China. Latest arms sale shows Washington has continued to assist Taipei in “rapidly building robust deterrence capabilities”, Taiwan’s defense ministry said in a statement. Weapons transfers are perceived in Taipei as tangible proof of Washington’s security commitment, a perception that may encourage riskier behavior.

This concern is echoed by regional security experts. Lyle Goldstein, director of the Asia Program at Defense Priorities, has warned the U.S. to be wary of a “reckless leader” in Taipei who might miscalculate. William Lai has lurched toward formal independence with a succession of speeches making the case for Taiwanese nationhood.

2. The Erosion of U.S. Credibility and China’s Countermeasures

Washington has long relied on a policy called “strategic ambiguity” to maintain the status quo in the Taiwan Strait. However, this policy is now facing an increasingly severe “credibility” crisis. The paradox lies in the fact that actions aimed at deterring both sides of the Strait are, in turn, eroding the foundation of its own “One China” policy.

This perceived “duplicity” has triggered a determined and multifaceted response from Beijing. China has introduced economic, diplomatic, and military countermeasures. If the U.S. continues to escalate ties with Taiwan through expanded arms sales or official exchanges – for instance, by supporting the renewal of formal Honduras-Taiwan relations – China may take additional steps, potentially including a full ban on rare earth exports. Recent Chinese sanctions against U.S. defense contractors highlight the resolve behind this stance.

3. From Military Deterrence to the Specter of Actual Combat

In response to what it views as escalating collusion between the U.S. and Taiwan, China is not merely stepping up military deterrence – it is actively preparing for the possibility of turning it into actual combat. The scale and complexity of People’s Liberation Army (PLA) exercises around Taiwan have been systematically upgraded from simple shows of force to integrated rehearsals for invasion scenarios.

The Pentagon’s 2025 report to Congress provides a sobering assessment of Beijing’s evolving calculus. It shows that China expects to be able to fight and win a war on Taiwan by the end of 2027. It outlines a spectrum of military options China is refining, from coercive blockades and precision strikes to the most decisive and risky option: a full-scale joint island landing campaign (JILC), or amphibious invasion. This preparation makes the risk of accidental escalation or miscalculated fire during routine exercises or standoffs a constant danger.

“A conflict would be disastrous for all sides. The US would have to project power several thousand miles away, no mean feat, especially since allied support is not guaranteed, ” Former Reagan White House Official and Expert Doug Bandow writes in his new analysis.

Keep reading

Pentagon Awards $328.5 Million Lockheed Martin Contract to Boost Taiwan’s Air Force

The Pentagon on Dec. 31 announced that Lockheed Martin had been awarded a contract to sell military equipment to Taiwan, as the island remains on high alert amid repeated military drills by Beijing.

In a news release, the Pentagon said it was issuing the $328.5 million ceiling contract to “meet the urgent operational need of the Taiwan Air Force.”

“This contract provides for the procurement and delivery of fifty-five Infrared Search and Track Legion Enhanced Sensor pods, processors, pod containers, and processor containers,” the Pentagon stated.

Foreign military sales worth $157.3 million are obligated at the time of the award. The work, which will be conducted in Orlando, Florida, is expected to be completed by June 30, 2031, the Pentagon stated.

The United States transitioned from officially recognizing Taiwan to maintaining formal diplomatic ties with China after adopting the U.S.-P.R.C. Joint Communique in 1979, essentially recognizing the People’s Republic of China—the Chinese communist regime—as the “sole legal government of China,” according to the State Department.

Even though the United States has upheld unofficial ties with Taiwan since 1979, the Taiwan Relations Act of that same year requires the Pentagon to supply Taiwan with “defensive capability” as a means of allowing the island to defend itself.

Keep reading

US To Fund $8.6 Billion Boeing Contract for Israeli F-15 Fighter Jets

The US Department of War announced on Monday that Boeing has been awarded a contract worth up to $8.6 billion to sell Israel new F-15 fighter jets as part of a deal funded by US military aid.

The Israeli Defense Ministry announced the initial deal in November 2024 and said it would be funded by US aid that was included in a massive foreign assistance bill President Biden signed into law earlier that year. At the time, the F-15 deal was valued at $5.2 billion and included 25 new F-15s.

The updated contract with Boeing has a ceiling of up to $8.6 billion since it includes an option to purchase an additional 25 F-15s. The Pentagon said in its announcement that the work on the fighter jets will be “performed at St. Louis, Missouri, and is expected to be complete by December 31, 2035.”

The US has continued to provide Israel with massive amounts of weapons despite its genocidal campaign in Gaza, which, according to several studies, has likely killed more than 100,000 Palestinians, including tens of thousands of women and children. US military aid and direct military intervention have also supported Israel’s wars in Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, Iran, and the occupation of the West Bank.

According to Brown University’s Costs of War Project, in the two years following the October 7 attack, the US government spent at least $21.7 billion on military aid to Israel and another $9.65 billion to $12.07 billion on US military operations in the region in support of Israel.

Keep reading

US Improperly Tracked Over Half of US Military Aid for Israel

As Israel conducted a brutal onslaught in Gaza over the past two years, the Department of War did not adequately monitor most of the arms sent to Tel Aviv. 

“Before October 2023, the DoD conducted enhanced end‑use monitoring (EEUM) of defense articles the US Government provided to Israel,” a report released by the Pentagon’s Inspector General explained. “However, after October 2023, the DoD only partially complied with the requirements for conducting EEUM of defense articles provided to Israel.”

Prior to the Hamas attack in southern Israel, about 70% of weapons sent to Israel were properly monitored by the Department of War. After Israel began its genocidal military campaign, oversight dropped to 44% according to the IG. The report audited $13.4 billion in security assistance that Washington gave to Tel Aviv from October 2023 to April 2024. 

The IG warned that the lack of oversight meant the Pentagon could “not ensure accountability of sensitive US defense articles provided to Israel.

After the October 7, 2023, attack, the US rushed additional military aid to Israel. The arms fueled Israel’s onslaught in Gaza that has likely killed over 100,000 Palestinians and destroyed most of the Strip. 

The Department of War has also failed to properly track billions of dollars in weapons the US sent to Ukraine. Weapons from Ukraine turned up in the hands of African militants and European criminals. 

Keep reading

China’s Military AI and Biotechnology Directed at the United States

Soldiers in a brigade attached to the 83rd Group Army of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army conduct virtual reality exercises. Photo: Screenshot from China Central Television

According to a congressional report, the People’s Liberation Army continues to exploit military-civil fusion to integrate commercial and academic research into military systems. Military-Civil Fusion is China’s national strategy to merge civilian technology, research institutions, and industry with the defense sector in order to build a world-class military.

The strategy aligns commercial innovation with military requirements across fields ranging from artificial intelligence to semiconductors, pooling state and private resources to accelerate military development. Chinese authorities describe military-civil fusion as a core component of comprehensive national power and a central driver of long-term military modernization.

Through state laboratories, funding programs, conferences, and industrial parks, China has ensured sustained private-sector participation in this effort. As a result, it has made significant advances in artificial intelligence and large language models that underpin many emerging PLA technologies. AI reasoning systems support cyber operations, command decision-making, and influence campaigns, while also enabling autonomous and unmanned platforms, drone swarms, and loyal wingman UAVs.

These capabilities increasingly intersect with developments in quantum computing, quantum sensing, and quantum communications, which China has identified as priorities for national security and future warfare.

Chinese leader Xi Jinping has described quantum technologies as drivers of industrial transformation, and Beijing is investing in post-quantum cryptography, military applications of quantum sensing, and ground- and space-based infrastructure for a global quantum communications network with both civilian and military uses.

Quantum communications support nuclear command, control, and communications by enabling hardened and interception-resistant links, while quantum sensing has potential applications in anti-submarine warfare by enabling detection methods that do not rely on active sonar.

Semiconductor self-sufficiency remains a parallel strategic objective. In 2024, firms including Semiconductor Manufacturing International Corp and Huawei Technologies received substantial local government funding to accelerate chip indigenization. Although China continues to lag the West in the most advanced GPUs, it is pursuing alternative pathways through nontraditional microchip technologies, including photonic components developed by state research institutes.

Domestic chip production underpins military resilience by enabling continued weapons manufacturing under sanctions and securing supply chains for missiles, drones, and radar systems. Alternative chip architectures support AI processing and reduce reliance on advanced Western GPUs, sustaining production capacity during conflict.

Keep reading

Trump’s big, bad battleship will fail

President Trump announced on December 22 that the Navy would build a new Trump-class of “battleships.” The new ships will dwarf existing surface combatant ships. The first of these planned ships, the expected USS Defiant, would be more than three times the size of an existing Arleigh Burke-class destroyer.

Predictably, a major selling point for the new ships is that they will be packed full of all the latest technology. These massive new battleships will be armed with the most sophisticated guns and missiles, to include hypersonics and eventually nuclear-tipped cruise missiles. The ships will also be festooned with lasers and will incorporate the latest AI technology.

If you think you have heard this story before, you would be right. This will be the fourth time this century that the national security establishment has attempted to build a new surface combatant ship for the Navy. For those of you who may not be keeping score, the previous three attempts have been horrendous failures.

Just to refresh everyone’s memory, the Navy already attempted to build a modern version of the battleship in the early 2000’s. That was the Zumwalt-class destroyer program. Navy leaders wanted to build 32 such ships that would be armed with a futuristic gun system to support Marine amphibious assaults. The gun could never be built in a cost effective way so it was cancelled. That left the ship without a clear mission and the entire program was stopped after only three ships had been built. Each of those ships still don’t have a clear mission and now exist as $8 billion anchors around the Navy’s neck.

Less than a month before the president announced this latest shipbuilding program, the Secretary of the Navy cancelled the Constellation-class frigate program after Navy leaders sunk nearly $9 billion into it and before a single hull had been commissioned. That announcement was shocking because the Constellation frigates were intended to be a low risk replacement for the earlier, failed Littoral Combat Ship program.

The Littoral Combat Ships were supposed to be the Navy’s workhorse ships that would hunt mines and submarines, fight other surface ships, and provide security for the rest of the fleet. They were originally to employ a complicated modular design that would see each ship have mission systems swapped out in port to give them the specialized capabilities for their next deployment. The scheme failed spectacularly when modules didn’t work and cost soared. The ships also proved to be quite fractious and suffered several embarrassing mechanical breakdowns. Several Littoral Combat Ships had to be rescued at sea and towed back to port.

The Littoral Combat Ship program was expected to help the Navy increase the size of the fleet because each ship was supposed to cost a mere $220 million when the program began in 2002. By the time Navy officials gave up on the program 15 years later, the cost of each hull had grown to over $600 million.

Keep reading

Trump-Class Battleship Announced as U.S. Seeks to Compete With China’s Naval Expansion

“They’ll be the fastest, the biggest, and by far, 100 times more powerful than any battleship ever built,” President Trump said at a Mar-a-Lago press conference announcing plans for the new Trump-class battleship. He referenced historic ships such as the Iowa, Missouri, Wisconsin, and Alabama, noting that while they were formidable in their era, the new vessels would surpass them by a wide margin.

The ships, the first battleships built since 1944, will serve as the centerpiece of what Trump describes as a revitalized U.S. Navy and a future “Golden Fleet.” Speaking alongside Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, and Secretary of the Navy John Phelan, Trump said the idea originated during his first term, when he asked, “Why aren’t we doing battleships like we used to?”

Trump said the Navy will initially build two large surface combatants, with a long-term goal of expanding the class to 20 to 25 ships. The lead vessel will be the USS Defiant, which he said could be delivered in roughly two and a half years, though longer-term Navy planning places construction in the early 2030s.

According to Navy officials, the Trump class would be the largest U.S. surface combatant built since World War II, displacing roughly 30,000 to more than 35,000 tons, far larger than existing destroyers.

The ships are intended to function as heavily armed offensive platforms, capable of operating independently, alongside carrier strike groups, or as the command-and-control hub of a surface action group. Navy descriptions emphasize long-range strike, fleet coordination, air and missile defense, surface warfare, and anti-submarine operations.

The Trump class is expected to use proven combat systems already deployed on Flight III Arleigh Burke-class destroyers, including the SPY-6 radar and large vertical launch missile magazines. Planned armaments include hypersonic Conventional Prompt Strike weapons, with design margins for future systems such as directed-energy weapons, rail guns, and nuclear-capable sea-launched cruise missiles. Navy leaders have described the ships as delivering unmatched firepower and creating a new layer of deterrence at sea.

Keep reading

WMDs for a MIC in Need

In the closing days of 2025, the White House turned an opioid crisis into a national security drama. Standing in the Oval Office during a Mexican Border Defense Medal ceremony on December 15, President Donald Trump declared that he would sign an executive order to classify fentanyl as a “weapon of mass destruction,” calling the announcement “historic.” Treating a synthetic painkiller like a nuclear bomb says more about Washington’s mindset than about the drug. Though drug overdose deaths declined in 2024, 80,391 people still died and 54,743 of those deaths were from opioids. Those numbers mark a public‑health emergency. Rather than tackle fentanyl abuse as a medical or social problem, the administration reframed it as an existential threat requiring military tools. Labeling a narcotic a WMD creates a pretext for war and sidesteps due process. This move grows out of a political culture that uses fear of invisible enemies—terrorists, microbes, drugs—to justify extraordinary power.

Past and present administrations have blurred the line between law enforcement and warfare. Since September 2025 the United States has launched more than twenty strikes on boats in the Caribbean and Pacific suspected of carrying narcotics, killing over eighty people. Experts note that little proof has been made public that the vessels contained drugs or that blowing them out of the water was necessary. Yet the assaults continued, and on December 10 the U.S. Navy seized a sanctioned Venezuelan oil tanker off Venezuela’s coast, sending oil prices higher. Trump boasted it was the largest tanker ever seized and said, when asked about the cargo, “We keep it, I guess.” Caracas denounced the action as “blatant theft.” The administration justified the operation as part of its anti‑drug campaign, but the target was not an unmarked speedboat; it was a carrier of crude oil, the sanctioned state’s main revenue source. Calling fentanyl a WMD makes such seizures look like acts of defense and blurs war and policing.

For students of recent history, this conflation of domestic threats with existential danger is hauntingly familiar. After September 11, 2001, President George W. Bush and his advisers claimed Iraq was developing anthrax, nerve gas and nuclear weapons. Vice President Dick Cheney insisted there was “no doubt” Saddam Hussein possessed WMD and was amassing them for use against America and its allies. Those arguments resonated with a populace still traumatized by the attacks. Fear allowed hawks to portray preemptive war as the only way to prevent a “mushroom cloud,” and in March 2003 the United States invaded Iraq. Investigations later found no factual basis for the claims that Iraq possessed WMD or collaborated with al‑Qaida. The smoking gun was a phantom, but by the time the truth emerged, Baghdad had been captured and the region destabilized for a generation.

One of the most tragic figures in that saga was Secretary of State Colin Powell. On February 5, 2003, he sat before the United Nations Security Council holding a glass vial he said could contain anthrax. He described Iraq’s alleged weapons labs and insisted the case was based on “solid intelligence.” The performance helped clinch support for war. Years later it became clear the intelligence was false and cherry‑picked, and no WMD were found. Powell later admitted the presentation was wrong and had blotted his record. Using a decorated officer’s credibility to sell a war built on falsehoods shows how propaganda can override reason.

The consequences of the Iraq War were catastrophic. The Defense Department records 4,418 U.S. service members dead in Operation Iraqi Freedom, including 3,481 killed in hostile action. Brown University’s Costs of War Project estimates that the post‑9/11 wars have cost the United States around $8 trillion and killed more than 900,000 people. About $2.1 trillion of that went to the Iraq/Syria theater. These figures exclude indirect deaths and future costs for veterans’ care. Millions of Iraqis were killed, injured or displaced, fueling sectarian violence and extremism. The war enriched defense contractors and expanded the military‑industrial complex while leaving ordinary people to pay the bill.

Keep reading

Hypersonics, AI, Space Weapons, & Directed Energy: Lawmakers Release Defense Bill As Expiring Obamacare Subsidies Marinate On Back-Burner

With Congress in its second-to-last week in session for this year, lawmakers on the House Armed Services Committee released the final bill text of the 2026 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) Sunday night, which allocates a topline of roughly $8 billion over the $892.6 billion the Department of Defense had requested, and what the House version of the NDAA provided which stuck to the Pentagon’s request. 

The NDAA is the annual law passed by Congress that sets the budget, policies, and legal authorities for the U.S. military and national defense programs. It shapes everything from troop pay to weapons development and foreign military aid.

“This year’s National Defense Authorization Act helps advance President Trump and Republicans’ Peace Through Strength Agenda by codifying 15 of President Trump’s executive orders, ending woke ideology at the Pentagon, securing the border, revitalizing the defense industrial base, and restoring the warrior ethos,” House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) said in a Sunday statement. 

The $8B increase is a ‘compromise‘ – as the Senate tried to jack the budget up by $32 billion over the department’s request. According to Breaking Defense, Rep. Adam Smith, the ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee, noted that appropriators would have the last word on the final budget, but was optimistic that the $8 bullion figure was in the ballpark.

Keep reading