Tag: military industrial complex

Tucker Carlson Sounds Alarm Over Trump’s Planned ‘Largest Transfer Of Ordinance In Modern History’

After the US was essentially forced to conduct a major and rapid draw down of forces from the Gulf and Mideast region in the wake of Iran’s ‘unexpectedly’ large retaliation for Operation Epic Fury, it seems all that Washington is left to do is arm regional allies to the teeth and wish them the best.

Early this month the US approved two potential Saudi defense packages valued at a whopping $5.75 billion. The forthcoming deals will reportedly focus on transferring extended-range precision bombs and bolstering Abrams tanks in the kingdom.

Ironically this comes at a moment that Saudi-backed coalition forces in Yemen – with all its military tech – are getting rolled back by Ansar Allah fighters in sandals.

Naturally, next on the list comes Israel.

On Tuesday, over a week since the planned Saudi sale was reported, The Washington Post reveals the following:

President Donald Trump’s administration is planning to sell to Israel a munitions package worth $2.8 billion, which will include tens of thousands of highly destructive 2,000-pound bombs, according to a U.S. official familiar with the sale.

The planned sale, which has been informally communicated to relevant congressional committees who weigh in on large arms sales, includes 20,000 MK 84s and 20,000 BLU-117s, the official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said.

WaPo calls the package “the largest” planned sale of 2,000 pound bombs to Israel in years.

Just prior to initial reporting of this dropping at around midday Tuesday, Tucker Carlson revealed on X: “According to an informed federal official, in the coming months the Trump administration plans to send a total of 40,000 Mark 84 and Blu-117 bombs to the government of Israel. Each bomb weighs 2,000 pounds. This appears to be the largest transfer of conventional explosive ordnance from the United States in modern history.”

Carlson put it in perspective in the following commentary:

How big is this shipment? It amounts to 40,000 tons of bombs. For perspective, the largest American air raid of World War Two was the Eighth Air Force’s attack on Berlin in March of 1945. Combined, the 2,023 Allied aircraft involved dropped about 3,000 tons of bombs. That’s 7.5 percent of what Trump is sending to Israel. That same month, March of 1945, the US Army Air Forces began the single most destructive bombing raid in human history, Operation Meetinghouse over Tokyo. More than 100,000 Japanese civilians were killed. By the end of that operation, the US had dropped 1,600 tons of bombs. That’s four percent of what Trump is sending to Israel. World War Two ended five months later, when the US dropped an atomic bomb on the city of Hiroshima. The shipment Trump is sending to Israel amounts to more than three times the destructive power of that nuclear explosion. There is no precedent for what the Trump administration is doing. Nor is there a justification. The government of Israel is not fighting World War Two, or even a war. It is engaged in periodic skirmishes with a guerrilla force in Lebanon, and it is working to exterminate an unarmed civilian population in Gaza. Neither front requires modern 2,000-pound bombs.

The former Fox host further warned this portends Israel could soon go even more ‘gloves off’ and unleash further hell on Gaza and Lebanon, or possibly even Iran – at a moment the US seems to be trying to find an exit from the hot phase of the conflict.

Keep reading

Ukraine Allegedly Spends $190 Million Daily on War

They are just making up numbers at this point. Ukraine’s parliamentary Budget Committee chair Roksolana Pidlasa now says that one day of war costs Ukraine $190 million, up from $140 million per day in 2024. They present these figures as if somebody can open a spreadsheet in Kyiv and calculate what this catastrophe costs down to the dollar. The $190 million is essentially a budgetary accounting figure. It does not remotely represent the TRUE cost of this war.

Even Pidlasa admits the number excludes weapons supplied in kind by Ukraine’s foreign partners. That alone should tell you how meaningless it is to call $190 million the “cost” of one day of war. Over the first eight months of 2026, Ukraine reportedly spent nearly $42 billion on national security and defense while raising only about $39 billion from its own revenues and domestic government bonds. The state can no longer finance even the portion of this war that it previously funded itself. Yet the weapons arriving from Europe and elsewhere can sit outside that headline calculation.

Do the elementary arithmetic and $190 million every day becomes roughly $69.4 billion annually. But even THAT is not the cost of the war. The IMF says Ukraine’s fiscal deficit excluding budget support grants is running around 21% of GDP in 2026 and is financeable only because of enormous external donor support. The European Union agreed to a €90 billion Ukraine Support Loan for 2026-2027, with €45 billion scheduled for 2026 alone, including €28.3 billion for defense procurement and €16.7 billion for budget support. The IMF now calculates Ukraine’s financing gap at $140.3 billion over 2026-2029. We are no longer discussing a nation capable of independently financing the government and the war simultaneously. We are discussing a state being financially sustained from abroad.

Then there is the destruction nobody can accurately price while the bombs are still falling. The World Bank, European Commission, United Nations, and Ukrainian government estimated in February that reconstruction and recovery would require nearly $588 BILLION over the coming decade. That was based on damage measured only through December 31, 2025. Direct physical damage had already surpassed $195 billion. Transport reconstruction needs exceeded $96 billion, energy approached $91 billion, housing nearly $90 billion, commerce and industry exceeded $63 billion, and agriculture surpassed $55 billion. Fourteen percent of Ukraine’s housing stock had already been damaged or destroyed, affecting more than three million households.

And those numbers were obsolete the moment they were published because THE WAR NEVER STOPPED. You cannot continuously destroy a nation’s productive capacity and pretend that yesterday’s reconstruction estimate represents tomorrow’s bill.

Keep reading

US To Sell Black Hawk Helicopters to Argentina, Despite Renewed Tensions With the UK Over the Falkland Islands

Argentina is arming itself, and the US is helping it.

We have been reporting here on TGP about the renewed designs by Argentina over the oil-rich Falkland Islands – situated off its coast, but currently a British possession.

Argentina and the UK fought over the territories back in 1982, with the Europeans coming out on top.

But since then, a lot has changed, including the fact that the British can’t rely on automatic support from the US, after their Globalist leaders’ refusal to aid in the military operations against Iran.

And today (11), it arises that the US will sell Black Hawk military helicopters to Argentina for the very first first time.

The Telegraph reported:

“The State Department said the proposed $140m (£103m) deal – which would give Buenos Aires four UH-60L helicopters – would improve Argentina’s ability ‘to meet current and future threats’.”

“The move follows Donald Trump’s inflammatory comments about the Falklands, with the US president suggesting he would not help Britain fight an invasion of the islands by Argentina.

Last week, The Telegraph reported that the US could also oppose Britain’s claim to sovereignty over the islands to encourage Andy Burnham to spend more on defense.”

Keep reading

WHO’S LEAKING AMERICA’S MILITARY SECRETS? Top Pentagon Officials Forced to Take Polygraphs After Classified Weapons Stockpile Information Reaches Media

Some of America’s highest-ranking military officials were subjected to polygraph examinations during a sweeping Pentagon investigation into the leaking of highly classified information about the nation’s weapons stockpiles.

President Donald Trump was reportedly furious after sensitive details concerning America’s supply of sophisticated weapons appeared in media reports.

According to leftist CBS News, several dozen officials were questioned earlier this summer, including officials assigned to U.S. Central Command and other combatant commands.

The scale of the polygraph operation was described as extraordinarily rare.

Although high-ranking military and civilian officials with access to top-secret information routinely undergo periodic polygraph examinations, sources told CBS that the large number of officials summoned at once indicated that investigators were conducting a targeted leak probe.

The questioning reportedly covered a range of national-security matters, including whether officials had provided sensitive military information to members of the media.

Two sources claimed that none of the officials failed the questions specifically designed to identify the leaker.

Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Dan Caine was reportedly not among those polygraphed.

The New York Times first reported the broader hunt, saying investigators put roughly 50 members of the Joint Staff through polygraphs in August after a wave of stories about depleted stocks of long-range missiles, Patriot interceptors, and other finite munitions as the United States fights Iran.

Chief Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell told CBS Friday night the Department “does not comment on internal personnel or investigative matters but takes all leaks of classified national security information extremely seriously and investigates accordingly.”

“Securing classified information is critical to ensuring the security of the United States and of our troops deployed around the world,” Parnell said.

Keep reading

Donald Trump Just Asked SCOTUS To End the Trans Military Circus Once and For All

Joe Biden let the Pentagon run gender experiments on the military for four years.

Now a pair of Obama and Clinton judges think they outrank the Commander in Chief.

And Donald Trump just asked the Supreme Court to end the transgender military circus once and for all.

The Judges Who Think They Command the Military

Two Democrat-appointed judges on the D.C. Circuit – one picked by Obama, one by Clinton – ruled in June that Pete Hegseth can’t discharge the transgender troops currently serving under an injunction.

That ruling declared the Hegseth policy was likely driven by “hostility” rather than military necessity.

The Trump-appointed dissenter on that same panel said it plainly: the Constitution assigns authority over military service to Congress and the Commander in Chief – not to federal judges.

The Trump-appointed judge was right.

Solicitor General John Sauer called the majority ruling “gravely erroneous” and filed a petition for certiorari on August 28.

He argued the policy doesn’t discriminate against transgender people – it disqualifies individuals with gender dysphoria, a medical condition that affects deployability and readiness.

The government isn’t required to build a perfect case when it comes to military standards. It only has to show a reasonable connection to readiness – and that bar is obvious.

Why SCOTUS Already Answered This Once

This isn’t new territory for the justices.

In May 2025, the Supreme Court’s conservative majority already paused a separate injunction – a Washington state judge’s order blocking the broader ban across the entire military.

That ruling cleared the way for the Pentagon to implement the policy and begin separating trans-identifying service members who hadn’t voluntarily left.

The D.C. Circuit’s June 2026 ruling in Talbott v. United States reopened a hole the Supreme Court had already sealed – protecting a group of individual plaintiffs from discharge while their case heads toward a January 2027 trial.

Keep reading

Global Empire as Domestic Policy

While many mainstream commentators blanch at the characterization of the United States as an empire, the hard data show that it is today impossible to seriously dispute. The U.S. military operates between 750 and 800 bases around the world, located in around 80 foreign countries and territories. Because there is no fixed or standard definition of “base” for these purposes, there is no accepted number, and some estimates place the figure at closer to 900. The U.S. is also known to operate dozens of secret military bases and black sites, further complicating attempts to settle upon an exact and definitive number.

Just as the number of military bases is disputed, experts have continued longstanding disagreements about how best to tally up total military spending. As the Peter G. Peterson Foundation observed earlier this year, “The United States continues to lead the world in defense spending by a wide margin. In 2025, defense spending by the United States accounted for 33 percent of all military expenditures by countries around the world,” with its nearly trillion-dollar outlay that year exceeding the combined spending of the other six biggest military spenders. This number is down from 2025’s value of nine to six largely because several other countries dramatically increased their military spending (Germany, for example, upped its spending by 24 percent). Breaking Defense reports, “The Pentagon is betting big on a $1.15 trillion discretionary budget request with a further $350 billion coming from the reconciliation process — together adding up to a historic $1.5 trillion defense budget.” The Trump administration’s discretionary funding request of $1.15 trillion marks the first time in history that a discretionary defense request has exceeded $1 trillion on its own. In the previous budget, for FY 2026, the total number hit the $1 trillion mark with a combination of  $848 billion in discretionary spending and $113.3 billion in mandatory reconciliation spending.

The Project on Government Oversight (POGO) notes that many “obvious examples of programs many would consider ‘military spending’” under commonsense definitions are not a part of the Pentagon budget, including spending for veteran benefits, the Coast Guard, and even nuclear weapons. Looking at five different methodologies, a POGO report published in June points out that all five share at least one conclusion: “Military spending in the United States has long been radically underestimated.” (Not unrelated to this slippery accounting is that fact that the Pentagon hasn’t passed an audit in years, failing its eighth in a row at the end of last year.) This recent POGO report finds that “the true total military budget for the last fiscal year (FY 2025) was significantly higher than $1 trillion: It was likely between $1.5 trillion and $1.8 trillion.” If we count interest payments associated with debts for military spending, then “the range is between $1.7 trillion and $2.3 trillion.”

We rarely consider the domestic political implications of Washington’s globe-spanning empire, yet government spending on war and empire functions as the de facto national industrial policy of the United States, largely determining which cutting-edge technologies receive the most investment, which companies will enjoy massive state-guaranteed markets, and which physical objects will be the focus of the country’s industrial production capacity. Through the military empire, the state becomes both the architect of and primary consumer for a huge industrial sector. And while it has grabbed more headlines this year due to the parlous speculative bubble surrounding AI, the political consequences of the connection between the global military empire and the private sector tech industry remain woefully under-discussed in the mainstream discourse. The federal government is funneling billions to AI companies willing to work directly with the military, overpowering objections from employees and the investor market.

Just this week it was reported that “Palantir’s Maven Smart System, an artificial intelligence-powered military platform, is now an official program of record for the Pentagon.” The executive and strategic leadership of major technology companies also increasingly connects and overlaps with the military and national security establishment, often through the Pentagon’s Defense Innovation Unit and liaisons dedicated to recruiting talent and procuring products from the tech sector. As we have already witnessed for decades, cutting-edge technologies developed for the war and empire inevitably end up being deployed domestically against Americans inside the country. Now more than 50 years ago, the Senator Frank Church Committee showed that the intelligence agencies used programs originally designed for foreign surveillance to monitor Americans here at home without warrants. We still have not seriously reckoned with this connection between the policies and technologies of the empire and the ways our own government sees us and governs us.

Since classical antiquity, astute observers have understood that this kind of worldwide military empire is fundamentally incompatible with the rule of law, constitutional government, and even the thinnest definitions of democracy. The administration of such an empire demands secret and centralized forms of decision-making and thus necessarily precludes transparency, accountability, and popular sovereignty. Contemporary political language has managed to disguise what is patently a system of permanent war and empire in the terminology of a liberal and rules-based order of international law and free trade. We have consigned terms like imperialism and colonialism to the history books even as we continue these systems in different forms today. Even the liberal side of our mainstream discourse no longer seriously questions the political system of war and empire that actually governs the country. We will not understand the form of domestic politics we have in the U.S. today until we stop trying to separate it from the imperatives of empire.

Keep reading

Defense firms soar on ample military spending, testing manufacturing schemes

The year 2025 was another record setter for global defense companies, so much so that production bottlenecks in Western nations — not the usual industry lamentations about lacking government spending — began creeping up as the key problem many NATO countries are facing today.

Companies in the United States and Europe rode a wave of significant defense-spending increases on both sides of the Atlantic. In Europe, individual national budget increases, as well as the European Union’s increasing involvement in brokering and financing joint procurement, continued to increase the revenue of defense industry players large and small.

In the United States, the 2025 Reconciliation Act is set to pump most of the legislation’s total $156 billion into acquisition — on top of the regular defense budget of roughly $900 billion for that year.

“Now, it’ll take years for that enacted money to actually flow to the companies and to their financial statements,” said Mark Cancian, a senior adviser in the defense analysis program at the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies. “But it will be a big boost for many companies.”

Keep reading

Let’s End Military Integration, Support for US Foreign Policy

The world is better off for Carney walking away from the Trump trade negotiations. But we must demand far more from Ottawa in terms of distancing the country from Washington’s economic and military bullying.

Mark Carney was right to walk away from economic negotiations with the Trump administration. The US’ ever-growing list of demands, including controlling Canada’s ability to sign accords with other countries, reflects Washington’s bid to dominate in service of massive corporate interests. In other words, Trump is employing a sort of ‘Donroe Doctrine’ light towards Canada.

If Carney would have given Trump an easy win it would have further emboldened the bully. The successful kidnapping of Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro, for instance, clearly boosted Trump’s confidence to launch war on Iran.

So, the world — and Canada — benefits from Ottawa refusing to completely cower to Trump. To the extent a country can resist US pressure, it should.

Even if his words exaggerate Ottawa’s resistance, Canadians should celebrate US trade representative Jamieson Greer comparing Canada to China. A year ago, Beijing responded in kind to US economic pressure, effectively winning a trade war with Washington.

Now China is refusing to buckle to Trump’s recently declared “MOST CRUSHING ECONOMIC OPERATION EVER TAKEN AGAINST ANY COUNTRY” policy towards Iran. On Monday US Treasury secretary Scott Bessent announced, “an economic onslaught against Iran.” At the press conference announcing, “Operation Economic Outcast” Bessent also slammed Canada and the prime minister for walking away from the economic negotiations.

While the treasury secretary targets Iran and Canada at the same press conference, Ottawa continues to support US economic attacks against that country. A week ago, Canada introduced a new round of sanctions on Iran. As part of its pushback against Trump, Ottawa should declare its opposition to the US’ illegal economic war on Iran. Ottawa should begin rescinding its many sanctions on that country.

Canada should also follow China in defying Washington’s devastating oil and economic blockade on Cuba. The Chinese have given large numbers of solar panels, as well as foodstuff, to the Caribbean nation in response to Trump ratcheting up its economic strangulation of that country.

Ottawa has done the opposite. Dovetailing with Trump’s bid to squeeze the island, Ottawa introduced a travel advisory that led to flights being cancelled and dissuaded travel to the tourist-dependent economy. The loss of Canadian tourists has cost Cuba tens of millions, probably a hundred million dollars. Ottawa has even refused to defend Canadian corporate interests ensnared by the ‘Donroe Doctrine’ in Cuba and has sanctioned vessels associated with Russia considered defying Trump’s patently illegal oil embargo.

The most obvious break from Washington Ottawa must pursue is to lessen its integration with the US war machine. In a sign of the military’s ongoing deference towards a military led by an annexationist president, Canadian Captain Daniel Hrichishen just began the International Junior Officer Leadership Development Course (IJOLD) at Hanscom Air Force Base in Massachusetts. According to its site, IJOLD gives foreign soldiers “exposure to the host nation’s military culture, history, decision-making, and learning methods, fostering a multicultural exchange that enhances professional military education and better prepares them for future joint operations.”

Hrichishen is among dozens of Canadian soldiers participating in similar exchanges, which should be immediately paused. Ottawa also needs to pause military overflights, training missions and some of its hundreds of military accords with the US military.

There’s no better time for leftists and internationalists to press to lessen Canadian support for the US empire. If we can’t weaken the bonds of empire while an annexationist president wages economic and political attacks against Canada when will be able to?

Keep reading

Poland, US Discuss Establishing Permanent American Military Bases

Poland and Pentagon officials are in discussions about possibly locating several American military bases in the country, Polish Deputy Defense Minister Paweł Zalewski said after a meeting of the North Atlantic Council at NATO headquarters in Brussels Aug. 27.

Zalewski said he met with Pentagon policy chief Elbridge Colby about plans for the bases and defense policy.

“The American presence in Poland can encompass various defense capabilities,” Zalewski told Polish Radio after the meeting. “We believe it doesn’t have to be concentrated in one place. Of course, there are several locations we want to discuss with the U.S. side where such a presence would be truly massive. However, we are still talking about several bases and several locations.”

Poland formally requested new permanent U.S. military bases in June after Trump pledged to send 5,000 additional troops to the country. About 10,000 U.S. troops are already stationed in Poland, which spends about $15,000 for each, according to the country’s defense department.

Poland’s priorities are to secure defense capabilities the country currently lacks, such as reconnaissance and command functions, rather than simply increasing troop numbers, Zalewski said.

The bases would be a permanent strategy for the United States and not just a reaction to the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, according to Poland.

“A permanent U.S. presence would reflect America’s long-term strategic interest in the country, not merely respond to the recent activities of Russia,” Zalewski said.

The discussion also included nuclear weapons logistics, according to the deputy defense minister.

He added, however, that Poland didn’t want nuclear warheads stationed in the country.

“Poland does not want to have nuclear warheads on this territory,” Zalewski said. “We want to participate in NATO nuclear deterrence but that does not mean to have nuclear warheads on our territory.”

Poland’s Minister of National Defense Wladyslaw Kosiniak-Kamysz appeared to clarify the comments in a statement on X later in the day.

“To dispel any doubts: Poland remains steadfastly interested in participating in the NATO Nuclear Sharing program,” Kosiniak-Kamysz said in the post. “We are also conducting talks regarding the proposal for participation in the European nuclear protective umbrella. Our government’s stance on these issues is unequivocal.”

The Pentagon didn’t respond to a request for comment about the bases by publication time.

Colby visited Belgium this week to meet with European allies and press them to increase their defense expenditures as Washington evaluates its policy toward the region.

The Pentagon asked the allies to assess their commitment to U.S. foreign policy goals as part of a European Force review launched in June by War Secretary Pete Hegseth. The review examines the future deployment of about 80,000 U.S. troops across Europe, with nearly half of them expected in Germany.

Colby introduced the new framework, which he dubbed “NATO 3.0,” earlier this year.

Some countries are concerned the review will result in U.S. troop cuts in Europe. President Donald Trump has threatened to withdraw troops from countries that refused to help the United States secure the Strait of Hormuz during the Iran conflict.

In May, the Pentagon ordered the withdrawal of 5,000 troops from Germany after tensions flared between Trump and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz over the Iran war.

NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte said Friday that Europe and Canada had accepted a more equitable share of defense spending since last year.

“Still, there is much more to be done and we’ll get there,” Rutte said.

Keep reading

US Military Shoots Down 3 Mexican Cartel Drones With Laser

A laser system was used to shoot down three drug cartel drones in southern Texas, close to the Mexican border, the U.S. military said on Aug. 27.

The North American Aerospace Defense Command and U.S. Northern Command, in a joint statement, said an Army Multipurpose High Energy Laser (AMP-HEL) was used overnight on Aug. 25-26 in the Rio Grande Valley.

The Joint Task Force-Southern Border (JTF-SB) deemed the three drones to be hostile and posing a physical threat to U.S. military personnel and their partners in U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP).

Maj. Gen. Curtis Taylor, commander of JTF-SB, said the successful operation against the drones was a testament to the readiness, vigilance, and technological edge of his force.

US Will ‘Not Tolerate Hostile Surveillance’

“Cartel networks are increasingly employing unmanned aircraft systems to facilitate illicit human-smuggling and actively spy on our personnel and law enforcement partners,” Taylor said. “By integrating layered countermeasures alongside advanced directed-energy capabilities like this laser system, we have made it clear that we will not tolerate hostile surveillance.”

Ammon Blair, a former U.S.Border Patrol agent and senior fellow at the Texas Public Policy Foundation’s Secure & Sovereign Texas Initiative, told The Epoch Times in March 2025 that he recalled hearing cartel-operated drones overhead while working along the Texas border.

“You’d be running, and you’d have a drone right above your head and tracking every move you made,” Blair said at the time.

In February, the airspace around El Paso International Airport was closed for 7 hours for “special security reasons.”

The White House told The Epoch Times in an emailed statement at the time that Mexican cartel-operated drones had breached U.S. airspace and that the Department of War took action to disable them.

In other parts of Mexico, cartels have used drones to drop explosives in deadly attacks, but there is no suggestion the drones in the Texas incident were armed.

Keep reading