SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Whereas some argue, for example, that single-payer healthcare is impossible, those same voices remain "pretty quiet on the F-35 being a money pit." (Photo: Forsvarsdepartementet/flickr/cc)
Nation "Too Broke" for Universal Healthcare to Spend $406 Billion More on F-35
There is always another $27 billion lying around, it seems, when Lockheed Martin needs more money for expensive weapons system
Jul 10, 2017
The nation's most expensive weapons program isn't done showing U.S. taxpayers how much it will ultimately cost them, with Bloomberg reporting Monday that the F-35 fighter jet budget is now predicted to jump by a cool $27 billion.
"Think about [F-35's] $405 billion price tag when a family member dies of a preventable disease. Get angry."
Though the estimated future cost of the program had previously hovered at a mind-boggling $379 billion, an updated draft that could be submitted to Congress as early as today will reportedly exceed $406 billion--a nearly 7 percent increase.
The new cost increases may come as a hit to President Donald Trump, who has bragged about his ability to get weapons manufacturers to offer the Pentagon "better deals."
Rob Garver, national correspondent for the Fiscal Times, made the point this way:
Others simply pointed out how ridiculous it is that a weapons program so fraught with failures is allowed to receive such outlandish funding when lawmakers--mostly Republicans, but also many Democrats--continue to argue that the nation is "too broke" to increase spending on social programs that improve education or healthcare.
\u201cWe got fucking liberals out here saying single-payer is impossible but remaining pretty quiet on the F-35 being a money pit.\u201d— \ud83d\udc51 \ud835\udd7d\ud835\udd94\ud835\udd9e\ud835\udd86\ud835\udd91 \ud83d\udc51 (@\ud83d\udc51 \ud835\udd7d\ud835\udd94\ud835\udd9e\ud835\udd86\ud835\udd91 \ud83d\udc51) 1499712714
\u201cThe F-35 will never, ever be used. Think about it's $405 billion price tag when a family member dies of a preventable disease. Get angry.\u201d— \ud83d\udc51 \ud835\udd7d\ud835\udd94\ud835\udd9e\ud835\udd86\ud835\udd91 \ud83d\udc51 (@\ud83d\udc51 \ud835\udd7d\ud835\udd94\ud835\udd9e\ud835\udd86\ud835\udd91 \ud83d\udc51) 1499712714
An Unconstitutional Rampage
Trump and Musk are on an unconstitutional rampage, aiming for virtually every corner of the federal government. These two right-wing billionaires are targeting nurses, scientists, teachers, daycare providers, judges, veterans, air traffic controllers, and nuclear safety inspectors. No one is safe. The food stamps program, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are next. It’s an unprecedented disaster and a five-alarm fire, but there will be a reckoning. The people did not vote for this. The American people do not want this dystopian hellscape that hides behind claims of “efficiency.” Still, in reality, it is all a giveaway to corporate interests and the libertarian dreams of far-right oligarchs like Musk. Common Dreams is playing a vital role by reporting day and night on this orgy of corruption and greed, as well as what everyday people can do to organize and fight back. As a people-powered nonprofit news outlet, we cover issues the corporate media never will, but we can only continue with our readers’ support. |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
The nation's most expensive weapons program isn't done showing U.S. taxpayers how much it will ultimately cost them, with Bloomberg reporting Monday that the F-35 fighter jet budget is now predicted to jump by a cool $27 billion.
"Think about [F-35's] $405 billion price tag when a family member dies of a preventable disease. Get angry."
Though the estimated future cost of the program had previously hovered at a mind-boggling $379 billion, an updated draft that could be submitted to Congress as early as today will reportedly exceed $406 billion--a nearly 7 percent increase.
The new cost increases may come as a hit to President Donald Trump, who has bragged about his ability to get weapons manufacturers to offer the Pentagon "better deals."
Rob Garver, national correspondent for the Fiscal Times, made the point this way:
Others simply pointed out how ridiculous it is that a weapons program so fraught with failures is allowed to receive such outlandish funding when lawmakers--mostly Republicans, but also many Democrats--continue to argue that the nation is "too broke" to increase spending on social programs that improve education or healthcare.
\u201cWe got fucking liberals out here saying single-payer is impossible but remaining pretty quiet on the F-35 being a money pit.\u201d— \ud83d\udc51 \ud835\udd7d\ud835\udd94\ud835\udd9e\ud835\udd86\ud835\udd91 \ud83d\udc51 (@\ud83d\udc51 \ud835\udd7d\ud835\udd94\ud835\udd9e\ud835\udd86\ud835\udd91 \ud83d\udc51) 1499712714
\u201cThe F-35 will never, ever be used. Think about it's $405 billion price tag when a family member dies of a preventable disease. Get angry.\u201d— \ud83d\udc51 \ud835\udd7d\ud835\udd94\ud835\udd9e\ud835\udd86\ud835\udd91 \ud83d\udc51 (@\ud83d\udc51 \ud835\udd7d\ud835\udd94\ud835\udd9e\ud835\udd86\ud835\udd91 \ud83d\udc51) 1499712714
The nation's most expensive weapons program isn't done showing U.S. taxpayers how much it will ultimately cost them, with Bloomberg reporting Monday that the F-35 fighter jet budget is now predicted to jump by a cool $27 billion.
"Think about [F-35's] $405 billion price tag when a family member dies of a preventable disease. Get angry."
Though the estimated future cost of the program had previously hovered at a mind-boggling $379 billion, an updated draft that could be submitted to Congress as early as today will reportedly exceed $406 billion--a nearly 7 percent increase.
The new cost increases may come as a hit to President Donald Trump, who has bragged about his ability to get weapons manufacturers to offer the Pentagon "better deals."
Rob Garver, national correspondent for the Fiscal Times, made the point this way:
Others simply pointed out how ridiculous it is that a weapons program so fraught with failures is allowed to receive such outlandish funding when lawmakers--mostly Republicans, but also many Democrats--continue to argue that the nation is "too broke" to increase spending on social programs that improve education or healthcare.
\u201cWe got fucking liberals out here saying single-payer is impossible but remaining pretty quiet on the F-35 being a money pit.\u201d— \ud83d\udc51 \ud835\udd7d\ud835\udd94\ud835\udd9e\ud835\udd86\ud835\udd91 \ud83d\udc51 (@\ud83d\udc51 \ud835\udd7d\ud835\udd94\ud835\udd9e\ud835\udd86\ud835\udd91 \ud83d\udc51) 1499712714
\u201cThe F-35 will never, ever be used. Think about it's $405 billion price tag when a family member dies of a preventable disease. Get angry.\u201d— \ud83d\udc51 \ud835\udd7d\ud835\udd94\ud835\udd9e\ud835\udd86\ud835\udd91 \ud83d\udc51 (@\ud83d\udc51 \ud835\udd7d\ud835\udd94\ud835\udd9e\ud835\udd86\ud835\udd91 \ud83d\udc51) 1499712714
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.
LATEST NEWS
A Week After Hiking Trump Recession Odds, Goldman Sachs Does It Again
"Trump and House Republicans are crashing the economy, raising your cost of living, and driving us toward a recession," said the chamber's top Democrat. "What happened to the so-called golden era of America?"
Apr 07, 2025
A week after Goldman Sachs raised the chance of a U.S. recession in the next 12 months from 20% to 35%, the Wall Street giant elevated it to 45% on Sunday, following President Donald Trump's worse-than-anticipated tariff announcement.
Goldman Sachs' note—tilted, Countdown to Recession—points to "a sharp tightening in financial conditions, foreign consumer boycotts, and a continued spike in policy uncertainty that is likely to depress capital spending by more than we had previously assumed."
The analysis is based on expectations that negotiations early this week will lead to "a large reduction in the tariffs" that Trump is set to impose on Wednesday. If that doesn't happen, Goldman's forecast is expected to change for the worse.
Since Trump's "Liberation Day" announcement last Wednesday, "at least seven top investment banks have raised their recession risk forecasts," Reuters noted Monday, "with JPMorgan putting the odds of a U.S. and global recession at 60%, on fears that the tariffs will not only ignite U.S. inflation but also spark retaliatory measures from other countries, as China has already announced."
China initially responded to Trump on Friday with 34% import duties on all American goods. The U.S. president hit back on Monday, further escalating his trade war with the Chinese government by threatening to impose an additional 50% tariff. Citing a White House official, CNBC pointed out that "U.S. tariffs on China will total 104% if Trump's latest threat takes effect."
Trump wrote in a Truth Social post: "Additionally, all talks with China concerning their requested meetings with us will be terminated! Negotiations with other countries, which have also requested meetings, will begin taking place immediately."
Stocks have plummeted over the past week, and were "swinging Monday following a manic morning where indexes plunged, soared, and then sank again as Wall Street tossed around a false rumor," The Associated Press reported.
"A White House account on X said a rumor circulating that Trump was considering a 90-day pause on his tariffs was 'fake news,'" the AP continued. "The intense and sudden moves show how hard financial markets are straining to see hopes that Trump may let up on his stiff tariffs, which economists see raising the risks of a global recession."
While progressive economists and working-class people have highlighted how Trump's "batshit crazy" tariffs are expected to impact everyday Americans—as the cost of the duties are passed on to consumers—many executives are also blasting the president's policy.
One respondent to a CNBC CEO Council survey called Trump's tariffs "disappointingly stupid and illogical," and said that "without faith that our government knows what it is doing, it is impossible for businesses to thrive."
According to CNBC, other CEO responses included:
- "This is the Trump recession."
- "Trump has imposed tariffs on component parts that are simply unavailable in the U.S. and never will be. He has surrounded himself with an incompetent cadre of yes men and women unable or unwilling to offer him cogent counsel."
- "We imagine that our suppliers will have to swallow part of the tariff, and we will have to pass on part of the tariff to our customers. We are controlling what we can control, pricing and sourcing decisions. We can't control the impact of tariffs on the consumer mindset, which we imagine could be significant."
Democrats in Congress also continued to call out the Republican president on Monday.
"Trump and House Republicans are crashing the economy, raising your cost of living, and driving us toward a recession,"
said the chamber's minority leader, Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.). "What happened to the so-called golden era of America?"
'Wrongheaded Cruelty': Observers Bash Rubio Decision to Revoke All Visas Held by South Sudanese
"South Sudan is about to blow up into potentially another country-wide civil war, putting civilians at risk. But yea let's force people to go back now," wrote one professor.
Apr 07, 2025
U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio on Saturday announced that the United States is revoking visas for all South Sudanese passport holders, "effective immediately"—sparking criticism from several observers, including those who pointed out that the country could soon tip into another civil war.
Rubio announced on X that the move, which includes restricting any "further issuance" of visas, comes in response to the South Sudanese government's failure to return "its repatriated citizens in a timely manner."
"This is wrongheaded cruelty," wrote Rebecca Hamilton, a professor at American University Washington College of Law and executive editor at the digital law and policy journal Just Security, on X on Saturday. "The vast majority of South Sudanese in this country (or, frankly inside South Sudan, right now) have no say in what their government does. They are here working, studying, building skills essential for their nascent country."
Mike Brand, an adjunct professor at the University of Connecticut and Georgetown University who focuses on human rights and atrocities prevention, wrote on Saturday: "South Sudan is about to blow up into potentially another country-wide civil war, putting civilians at risk. But yea let's force people to go back now."
South Sudan is the world's youngest country, having only declared independence from Sudan in 2011 following two lengthy civil wars.
The young nation was once again plunged into civil war in 2013 due to violence between warring factions backing President Salva Kiir and his deputy, Riek Machar. A peace deal was brokered in 2018, though the country has still not held a long-delayed presidential election and Kiir remains in power today, according to Time.
Fears of full-on civil war returned when, last month, Machar was arrested and his allies in government were also detained. Machar's opposition political party declared the country's peace deal effectively over, per Time.
Shortly after Rubio's announcement on Saturday, Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau wrote on X that the government of South Sudan had refused to accept a South Sudanese national who was "certified by their own embassy in Washington" and then repatriated. "Our efforts to engage diplomatically with the South Sudanese government have been rebuffed," Landau wrote.
On Monday, the government of South Sudan released a statement saying that the deportee who was not permitted entry is a citizen of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, not South Sudan. The government also said it has maintained consistent communication and cooperation with the U.S. government regarding "immigration and deportation matters."
In the early 2000s, thousands of "lost boys" stemming from a civil war in Sudan that began in the 1980s and eventually led to South Sudan's independence were resettled in the United States.
John Skiles Skinner, a software engineer based in California, reacted to Rubio's announcement by writing on Bluesky: "I taught a U.S. citizenship class to South Sudanese refugees in Nebraska, 2006-2007. Fleeing civil war, they worked arduous jobs at a meat packing plant. Many had no literacy in any language. But they studied hard for a citizenship exam which many native-born Americans would not be able to pass."
In 2011, the Obama administration granted South Sudan nationals in the United States "temporary protected status" (TPS)—a designation that shields foreign-born people from deportation because they cannot return home safely due to war, natural disasters, or other "extraordinary" circumstances. The Biden administration extended it, but the designation is set to expire early next month.
As of September 2024, the U.S. provides TPS protections to 155 people from South Sudan.
In a Monday post for Just Security, Hamilton of American University and a co-author wrote that "while there has been no public determination by the secretary of homeland security regarding an extension of TPS for South Sudanese, Rubio's announcement presumably means [U.S. Department of Homeland Security] Secretary Kristi Noem is planning to terminate their TPS."
Observers online also highlighted that Duke University star basketball player Khaman Maluach, whose family left South Sudan for Uganda when he was a child, could be impacted by the State Department's ruling.
Trump Backs 'Blatantly Unconstitutional' Proposal to Send US Citizen Inmates to El Salvador Prisons
"You may not deport a U.S. citizen, period," said one legal expert.
Apr 07, 2025
With a deadline looming for the Trump administration to return a Maryland resident to the U.S. after expelling him along with hundreds of other people to an El Salvador detention center under a shadowy deal with the Central American country, U.S. President Donald Trump on Sunday stunned observers by expressing a desire to send U.S. citizens into El Salvador's prison system.
In a press briefing aboard Air Force One Sunday evening, Trump was asked by a reporter about an offer made by Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele to accept prisoners sent by the U.S. from its federal prison population.
"I love that," Trump said. "If we could take some of our 20-time wise guys that push people into subways and hit people over the back of the head and purposely run people over in cars, if he would take them, I would be honored to give them."
"I don't know what the law says on that," he added. "I have suggested that, why should we stop at people who cross the border illegally?"
Podcaster and former Obama administration staffer Jon Favreau said Trump's remarks could be summed up as: "He wants to send American citizens to a foreign gulag."
Trump has invoked the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, which permits the U.S. government to detain and deport noncitizens during wartime, to expel 238 Venezuelan migrants to El Salvador, where they are being held in the country's Terrorism Confinement Center (CECOT). About two dozen people who were originally from El Salvador were also sent to the prison, including Kilmar Abrego Garcia—a Maryland man who had legal protected status, was not convicted of a crime, and had previously received a court order barring the U.S. from deporting him to his home country for fear of persecution and torture.
Trump said several times in his comments Sunday that he was unsure of the legality of sending U.S. federal prison inmates to a foreign prison system.
In February, after Bukele first offered to imprison U.S. citizens, Lee Gelernt of the ACLU told NPR that the idea was a "non-starter."
"You may not deport a U.S. citizen, period," Gelernt, deputy director of the group's Immigrants' Rights Project, told the outlet. "The courts have not allowed that, and they would not allow it... It would be blatantly unconstitutional to deport a U.S. citizen."
Secretary of State Marco Rubio also touted Bukele's offer at the time, calling it "an extraordinary gesture never before extended by any country."
Trump's remarks on potentially expanding his deal with the Salvadoran president to include U.S. citizens followed U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis's order mandating the return of Abrego Garcia to the U.S. with a deadline of 11:59 pm Monday.
Xinis on Sunday rejected the administration's request to lift the order, saying Abrego Garcia's expulsion had been "wholly lawless" and that the "risk of harm shocks the conscience."
On Monday, the administration asked the U.S. Supreme Court to block Xinis' order, saying her demand that the White House adhere to the Constitution was "district-court diplomacy" and accusing the judge of trying to "seize control over foreign relations."
The administration has attacked the district court in Washington, D.C. in recent days over the order, with homeland security adviser Stephen Miller calling on Congress last week to "step up" and abolish the panel by refusing to fund it.
The White House has called Abrego Garcia's expulsion and imprisonment in El Salvador an "administrative error" and claimed the Maryland father is no longer under U.S. jurisdiction, so the administration cannot order him to be returned.
"We suggest the judge contact President Bukele because we are unaware of the judge having jurisdiction or authority over the country of El Salvador," said White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt last week.
Washington Monthly contributor David Atkins said that under the same logic, "there is also nothing that prevents them from shipping American citizens to a gulag in El Salvador and saying, 'Nothing we can do.'"
Hope people understand the trajectory that we’re on: if the executive is arguing that it has no recourse once people here end up in a prison in El Salvador, then that’s the precedent for there being no recourse when this starts happening to United States citizens.
[image or embed]
— Alexander Ross (@alexander-ross.bsky.social) April 4, 2025 at 7:03 PM
As Trump expressed interest in expelling U.S. citizens to a foreign prison system, Aaron Reichlin-Melnick of the American Immigration Council pointed out that the details of the White House's deal with Bukele have not been publicly disclosed.
"We literally know nothing about it, other than we're paying them $6 million," said Reichlin-Melnick. "No law in the United States authorizes us to pay another country to imprison people. And yet! They're doing it."
Setareh Ghandehari, advocacy director for Detention Watch Network, told Newsweek Monday that the deal with Bukele is being used "as a tool of propaganda with the core objective to dehumanize and villainize people while carrying out their cruel mass detention and deportation agenda unchecked."
"Bottom line, Trump and Bukele's partnership deepens collaboration with authoritarian leaders," said Ghandehari, "further jeopardizing democratic values in the U.S. and around the world."
Most Popular
We cover the issues the corporate media never will.
Please support our journalism.