

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.
Four years of arms sales data tell the same story: Israel doesn’t pay for most of the weapons the US sells it—US taxpayers do.
The Trump administration expects US taxpayers to fund not only its own military adventurism but Israel’s as well.
Ending American subsidies for Israel’s wars is one reason why Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), and Peter Welch (D-Vt.) recently filed Joint Resolutions of Disapproval opposing $659 million in President Donald Trump-approved bomb sales to Israel, with many of the bombs coming directly from US stocks.
“Given the horrific destruction that Israel’s extremist government has wrought on Gaza, Iran, and Lebanon, the last thing in the world that American taxpayers need to do right now is to provide 22,000 new bombs to the [Benjamin] Netanyahu government,” Sanders said in a statement.
Van Hollen added that “Congress must use all the tools at our disposal to end Trump’s war, including stopping the transfer… of taxpayer-funded bombs to the Netanyahu government.”
All told, US taxpayers funded $17.8 billion in arms sales to Israel under President Joe Biden—$11.9 billion government-brokered and $5.9 billion commercial—81% of the $22 billion in sales from 2021-2024.
The senators are right to highlight US taxpayers’ role in these arms deals. That they’re reported as sales belies who’s actually paying for them. Americans, not Israelis, pay for the vast majority of US arms sales to Israel.
US arms sales to Israel aren’t really sales, at least not in the typical sense. Israel’s position as purchaser in these weapons deals isn’t synonymous with funder. This is made clear in the arms sales notifications themselves.
Consider the four most recent notified arms sales to Israel published in the Federal Register: $740 million for armored personnel carriers, $1.98 billion for tactical vehicles and accessories, $3.8 billion for attack helicopters and related weaponry, and $150 million for utility helicopters and parts. After “Prospective Purchaser,” all these notifications list Government of Israel. After “Funding Source,” all list Foreign Military Financing—or FMF, the US military aid program through which Israel receives at least $3.3 billion a year.
In practice, FMF functions as a gift card for Israel to spend on weapons. US taxpayers are stuck paying for the gift card. The only trace of Israeli funding in those $6.7 billion in arms sales is in the tactical vehicle deal, where National Funds follows FMF on the funding source line.
What about the pair of sales including 22,000 bombs, objected to by Sanders, et al.? Both deals are funded by FMF, or in other words, US taxpayers.
This is, of course, a small sample size. But four years of arms sales data tell the same story: Israel doesn’t pay for most of the weapons the US sells it—US taxpayers do.
This fact undermines the economic justification for these arms sales. By foreclosing any claims that they bring significant foreign investment into the US, the case for these sales collapses into the same flawed job creations argument that many hawks use to defend lavish government spending on the military.
The jobs argument is itself a tacit admission of a weak national security justification. A policy that truly concerned the nation’s very existence wouldn’t have to be sold in terms as banal as job creation. The security justification alone would be convincing enough.
Military spending is the least efficient way a government can create jobs. Using military aid to boost employment is like buying a plane ticket to watch a film: Yes, there’s an in-flight movie; no, that doesn’t justify the expense.
Even that analogy is generous. The relationship between military spending and jobs is not self-evident. In 1985, the US military budget was $295 billion—$746 billion in today’s dollars—and there were 3 million workers in the US arms industry. By 2021, the US military budget had increased by $132 billion in real terms—to $879 billion—while the number of arms industry workers had dropped to 1.1 million. Despite military spending increasing 18% above inflation, there was a 63% drop in arms industry employment.
American arms sales are either US government brokered (“Foreign Military Sales”) or commercial (“Direct Commercial Sales”). I collected data on both via the Defense Security Cooperation Agency’s (DSCA) Historical Sales Books and the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls’ (DDTC) Section 655 Reports, respectively. Both yearly publications tally the value of authorized arms sales.
The Biden administration authorized $22 billion in arms sales to Israel, including more than $13.2 billion in US government-brokered sales and over $8.7 billion in commercial sales. According to the DSCA report, 90% of the government-brokered deals were funded with US military aid. The DDTC report doesn’t specify the funding source, but 68% is a reasonable estimate based on the average annual share of FMF funding that Israel reportedly spends on commercial sales.
All told, US taxpayers funded $17.8 billion in arms sales to Israel under President Joe Biden—$11.9 billion government-brokered and $5.9 billion commercial—81% of the $22 billion in sales from 2021-2024. That’s nearly $18 billion in subsidies disguised as sales.
US taxpayers deserve a refund, not more of the same from Trump.
The German government has long been one of the most vehement defenders and top financial contributors to Israel's assault on Gaza.
Israel's approval of a plan to take over Gaza City—over the objections of human rights groups and the country's own military leaders—marked a red line for one of its closest allies on Friday, with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz announcing his government would halt sales of weapons that could be used by Israel in its occupation of the besieged enclave.
Merz said that "the even harsher military action by the Israeli army in the Gaza Strip, approved by the Israeli cabinet last night, makes it increasingly difficult for the German government to see" how Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's stated goal of defeating Hamas and securing the release of hostages will be achieved.
Netanyahu's security ministers approved a proposal to direct the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) to fully take over Gaza City in the northern part of the enclave, which has already been badly damaged by the assault Israel began in October 2023 but has not been entirely razed like several other cities. Israeli hostages are believed to be in central Gaza.
The move is thought to be the first step in Netanyahu's plan to fully occupy Gaza, which United Nations human rights chief Volker Türk said Friday would "result in more massive forced displacement, more killing, more unbearable suffering, senseless destruction, and atrocity crimes" against Palestinian civilians.
Merz said Friday that "under these circumstances, the German government will not authorize any exports of military equipment that could be used in the Gaza Strip until further notice."
Germany has been a vehement defender of Israel's bombardment of Gaza, which it began in retaliation for a Hamas-led attack—and which has killed more than 61,000 people, the majority of whom have been women and children. Israeli soldiers have long said they’ve been directed to kill civilians, and Israel's assault has also included a near-total blockade on humanitarian aid which has starved to death nearly 200 Palestinians so far, about half of whom have been children.
"Under these circumstances, the German government will not authorize any exports of military equipment that could be used in the Gaza Strip until further notice."
In the first 19 months of the war, Germany was one of the biggest international suppliers of weapons to the IDF, issuing arms export licenses worth 485 million euros ($564 million). The country has provided firearms, ammunition, weapons components, electronic equipment, and armored vehicles, according to Merz’ government.
Germany has not followed the lead of France, the United Kingdom, and Canada, which have recently signaled they would join the vast majority of U.N. member states in recognizing Palestinian statehood, and it opposed the suspension of the European Union-Israel Association Agreement last month.
Germany's center-left Social Democratic party has been calling on Merz to halt arms sales for months as Israel has blocked nearly all humanitarian aid and escalated attacks, including a ground offensive, following a brief cease-fire. The Integrated Food Security Phase Classification, a U.N.-backed monitor of worldwide hunger, said last month that famine is unfolding across Gaza due to the blockade.
Social Democratic Vice Chancellor Lars Klingbeil said Merz' decision was "just."
"The humanitarian suffering in Gaza is unbearable," said Klingbeil.
The German public has also expressed plummeting support for their government's complicity in Israel's bombardment of Gaza, with 66% of Germans saying Merz should "exert greater influence over Israel to change its actions in Gaza" in a poll published this week by the country's public broadcaster.
German citizens' growing disapproval of Israel's attack on Gaza has matched that of the public in the United Kingdom, which has also supplied military aid to Israel since October 2023, mostly in the form of parts of F-35 fighter jets.
A poll last month by YouGov showed Britons increasingly support and sympathize with Palestinians and oppose the Israeli government's actions in Gaza.
Prime Minister Keir Starmer on Friday denounced the Israeli plan to take over Gaza City, calling for "a cease-fire, a surge in humanitarian aid, the release of all hostages by Hamas, and a negotiated solution."
But Starmer made no mention of ending all arms exports to Israel.
"If the government was truly horrified by Israel's occupation of Gaza, it would stop supplying them with the weapons they need to carry it out," said former Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn, now an independent member of Parliament. "The Prime Minister can condemn Israel's plans all he wants. He cannot hide the truth: His government is complicit in genocide."
The world is watching. So are the people of Sudan. The question is whether the United States will choose complicity—or conscience. We must act now.
In a world deluged with crises—each vying for our limited attention—the catastrophe unfolding in Sudan has remained largely invisible to the American public. Yet, by almost any measure, it is among the most severe humanitarian emergencies of our time. Over 30 million people—two-thirds of Sudan’s population—now require humanitarian support. More than 12 million have been displaced, and famine threatens to claim countless lives. This is not a distant tragedy; it is a crisis in which American policy and the interests of American capitalists are deeply entangled.
Now, Congress is poised to vote on a set of resolutions that could finally interrupt the United States’ role in fueling this disaster. You can call your Senator and ask them to support S.J.Res.51, S.J.Res.52, S.J.Res.53, and S.J.Res.54—the Joint Resolutions of Disapproval by Senator Chris Murphy et. al. that would block more than $3.5 billion in proposed arms sales to the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Qatar. The Congressional Switchboard is at 202-224-3121.
This legislation is likely to come up this week and that makes this a rare moment of real leverage for American activists and concerned citizens. The urgency is clear: unless Congress acts, the U.S. risks deepening its complicity in Sudan’s suffering.
At the epicenter of Sudan’s unraveling is the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), a paramilitary group whose origins trace back to the notorious Janjaweed militias involved in the Darfur genocide in the early 2000s. The RSF has been implicated in a series of systematic atrocities: targeted ethnic violence, mass killings, forced displacement, and widespread sexual violence. Investigations by the United Nations, Human Rights Watch, and Amnesty International have all pointed to the same grim conclusion: the RSF’s actions constitute war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and, in the assessment of the U.S. State Department, genocide.
The mechanics of how these atrocities are sustained have already come into focus. According to Amnesty International, recently manufactured Emirati armored personnel carriers are now in the hands of the RSF. Flight data and satellite imagery have revealed a pattern: cargo planes departing from the UAE, landing at remote airstrips in Chad, and then offloading weapons and equipment that would soon appear on the front lines in Sudan. A New York Times investigation concluded that the UAE was “expanding its covert campaign to back a winner in Sudan, funneling money, weapons and, now, powerful drones” to the RSF.
What makes this all the more alarming is that the UAE is one of America’s closest military partners—and a major recipient of U.S. arms. Despite repeated assurances to Washington that it would not arm Sudan’s belligerents, the UAE has continued these transfers, as confirmed by the Biden Administration in one of its last acts as well as by members of Congress.
There is, however, another angle to this story—an angle that speaks to the corrosion of U.S. foreign policy by incredibly narrow financial interests. President Donald Trump and his family have cultivated deep financial ties with both the UAE and Qatar. The UAE has invested $2 billion in a Trump family crypto venture; Qatar has bestowed a $400 million on that luxury aircraft everyone’s heard about, intended for the U.S. presidential fleet, in a gesture that blurs the line between diplomacy and personal favor. These transactions are not just unseemly; they are emblematic of this new era in which U.S. foreign policy is increasingly shaped by the private interests of a handful of oligarchs.
To call this “kleptocracy” is not hyperbole. The intertwining of arms sales, foreign influence, and personal enrichment undermines both U.S. standing and the interests of the average American. Each weapon sold, each deal brokered, risks making the United States more complicit in the suffering of Sudan’s civilians.
To call this “kleptocracy” is not hyperbole. The intertwining of arms sales, foreign influence, and personal enrichment undermines both U.S. standing and the interests of the average American.
The Sudan crisis is a reminder that America’s actions abroad are neither abstract nor inconsequential—and all the uniqueness of the Trump 2.0 administration hasn’t changed that. U.S. policies still reverberate in the lives of millions. As citizens, we have a responsibility to demand that our leaders act not out of expedience or self-interest, but out of a sense of justice and human dignity. With a congressional vote imminent, the window for meaningful action is open—but it is closing fast.
The world is watching. So are the people of Sudan. The question is whether the United States will choose complicity—or conscience. Please call your Senators today at 202-224-3121.