During the 2024 elections, a cohort of voters cast their ballots for Donald Trump because they wanted to see something different. For decades, the US leaders have entered wars with little public support. First, they sent troops off to kill innocent people in illegal attacks on countries like Iraq and Afghanistan. Plenty of Americans watched their children arrive home in body bags. Since then, in lieu of sending troops, American leaders have increasingly sent off tax dollars — siphoned from paychecks, as everyday people struggle to cover the cost of living in the wealthiest country in the world. Trump told the world that he would be a peace president, and some people believed him.
Trump has refused to end the wars as promised, demonstrating that he is no different from his predecessors when it comes to conflict. As swaths of his supporters burn their MAGA hats over the Jeffrey Epstein affair and his far-right media allies like Tucker Carlson and Candace Owens split off over issues like Gaza, Iran, or Ukraine, dramatic contradictions are chipping away at Trump’s political capital. His lip service, dedicated to making life more affordable and making the country “great again,” is beginning to be drowned out by the fact that his decisions only serve the single largest recipients of US tax dollars: the weapons industry. This fact is made obvious in his shifts on Ukraine, his failure to achieve a ceasefire in Gaza, and his request for an increase in war spending.
Trump recently announced the US would sell weapons to European countries to arm Ukraine. This stance flies in the face of his messaging about the Ukraine war during the election cycle and his first months in office. Just months ago, Trump insisted negotiations were the only way to end the war. Officials close to him were announcing there wouldn’t be an armed solution to the conflict. Vice President JD Vance staunchly opposed the US arming Ukraine, even voting against further funding for Kyiv while he was still in the Senate. Now, both Vance and Trump are talking about stalled negotiations and arming Ukraine, albeit through different channels: sales to European neighbors instead of pure handouts to Ukraine directly. What’s behind that shift?
Just last month, NATO countries in Europe capitulated to Trump’s request to raise their defense spending from 3% of their GDPs to 5% of their GDPs. For reference, the nearly $1 trillion US defense budget amounts to about 3.4% of the country’s GDP. Conveniently, this plan to arm Ukraine via weapons sales to EU countries came right after.
The US is the largest dealer of weapons in the world.
Who benefits from countries dramatically raising their defense spending? War spending doesn’t just consist of paying for troops on the ground or maintenance of weapons — rapid increases in funds to war budgets require countries to buy expensive weapons systems. Sure, there are weapons companies in Europe, but the United States is home to the industry’s juggernauts. The US is the largest dealer of weapons in the world. Trump isn’t exactly being coy about his intentions; in his announcement, he was very proud that the US was going to make money off Ukraine’s defense.
Moscow has already criticized the decision to arm Ukraine via weapons sales to the EU, arguing that it signals a lack in US interest to bring Kiev to the negotiating table.
On top of this about-face Ukraine, Trump bombed Iran and continues to arm Israel in its genocide on Gaza — with no ceasefire deal in sight. Trump entered his new term as a strong supporter of Israel, but also boasting his ability to be able to achieve a ceasefire and “make deals.” Weapons sales and shipments to Israel benefit the same weapons companies whose profits soar from the war in Ukraine.
Whether Israel buys the weapons itself or the US is procuring the weapons to send to Israel — the profits still land in the hands of weapons CEOs. Moreover, garnished paychecks are what finances anything the US procures — especially given the passage of the “Big Beautiful Bill” that gives massive tax breaks to the wealthiest people in the country. In March, Secretary of State Marco Rubio bypassed Congress, using “emergency” powers to send $4 billion in weapons to Israel. Lawmakers also fast-tracked a $7 billion sale to Israel in February after also reversing the pause on 2,000-pound bombs that have wiped out tens of thousands of Palestinians in Gaza.
Why would Trump earnestly push for a comprehensive ceasefire in Gaza, which would prevent Israel’s ability to wage all-out war whenever it decides to again, if so many American companies have so much profit to gain from the genocide against Palestinians? Public opinion is comprehensively against the US further arming Israel. Trump’s ability to not only ignore the general opinion of most Americans — including his own base — clearly illustrates that his politics are not motivated by anything other than profit and protection for the companies making this genocide possible.
At home, Trump is promising a $1 trillion topline for the Pentagon budget, with the “Big Beautiful Bill” pushing that number even higher given its allocation to “defense” spending. Why would a “peace president” need a war budget that size? If he actually intends to make peace deals, why increase defense spending to that degree? What is the justification?
The answer, like his reasons for arming Ukraine and Israel, is simple. The Costs of War Project at Brown University published a report that said from 2020 t0 2024, “private firms received $2.4 trillion in contracts from the Pentagon, approximately 54% of the department’s discretionary spending of $4.4 trillion over that period.” The percentage of spending from the Pentagon budget that goes directly to private military contractors like Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Raytheon, and others has consistently hovered around 50% in recent years — including Trump’s first term as president.
There is a financial and vested interest in US leaders’ continual stoking of the fires of war. In the weeks prior to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, a Raytheon executive referred to “tensions” in Eastern Europe and said, “I fully expect we’re going to see some benefit from it.” Since then, Raytheon and companies like Raytheon have made billions of dollars off the death and destruction not only in Ukraine, but also in Gaza and other places around the world.
Trump’s change in stance on arming Ukraine, his continued support for Israel, and his proposal for another increase to the Pentagon budget all act to benefit the exact same cohort that has kept the American economy in a chokehold for decades. The weapons companies that profit from weapons sales and run away with chunks of Americans’ paychecks also line the pockets of people in Congress through political contributions and board positions after they leave office.
Whether voters undergo dramatic political shifts to the left or right — it is clear people want something different. What stands in the way of that is an economy completely centered around war spending and exporting weapons. If there are people that stand to profit off forever wars, there will be forever wars — no matter what lies the president tells everyone. If the US centers its economic stability on weapons exports and jobs in the defense sector, there will always be a financial argument against stopping war.
So, Trump isn’t the peace president. But in the current system where corporations stand to benefit from wars and genocide — is the concept of a “peace president” even possible? Or does the dramatic shift in priorities the people are yearning for need to come from the bottom instead of the top?
