War Crimes, War Powers, and American Sovereignty

From war crimes and genocide abroad to moral, constitutional, and debt crises at home: Why Congress must reject the NDAA’s U.S.-Israel military and intelligence merger.

by Dennis Kucinich | Jul 3, 2026 

Against the horrific high- and low-tech butchery of Palestinians and Lebanese by Israeli ethno-nationalist psychopathic killers, this week there will be an effort in Congress to formally merge or integrate the military of Israel and the United States at the most advanced levels.

Section 219 (formerly Section 224) of the 2027 National Defense Authorization Act of 2027, provides for an unprecedented unification. The nearly $4 billion in the NDAA for Israel’s offensive efforts pales next to Israel having direct access to determining use of $1.5 trillion in annual military resources of the United States.

Money can be appropriated one year and withdrawn the next. Institutional integration is permanent.

Section 219 creates permanent mechanisms through which military planning, intelligence sharing, weapons development, procurement, research, artificial intelligence, and strategic coordination become increasingly intertwined between the United States and Israel.

It is a proposal to embed another nation’s military establishment within the long-term planning and strategic architecture of the United States government.

Our own government – House, Senate and Administration – is in moral collapse, placing overwhelming emphasis on militarism instead of adequately funding America – housing, education, food, health, safety, and retirement security. Americans are standing at freeway exits, begging for food, while our tax dollars flow to weapons manufacturers.

While carrying a national debt approaching $40 Trillion, the Administration is increasing spending for its newly dedicated Department of War by 67% to upwards of $1.5 TRILLION per year. Simultaneously, with more than 42 million Americans unable to feed themselves, the administration is cutting federal food programs.

The practical implications extend far beyond dollars. With NDAA Section 219, Congress the legislation would create enduring institutional relationships affecting how those extraordinary military resources are developed, coordinated, and potentially employed.

No Congress has ever before considered legislation of this nature with any foreign nation.

If the Administration’s “America First” claim were to mean anything, it must first mean that America’s Constitution comes first. It must mean that American families, farmers, workers, veterans, and children come first. Section 219 turns that claim into a farce.

Section 219 of the NDAA would cause the United States to become dependent upon Israel making decisions about war, peace, military strategy, intelligence, and U. S. national security. This is the consequence of permanent institutional integration.

One week ago, a UN Commission of Inquiry determined that Israeli security forces deliberately targeted and killed Palestinian children, sometimes as a game, torturing them, subjecting children to sexual violence resulting in “unprecedented death, injury and trauma.”

Since Oct. 7, 2023, the IDF has been instrumental in the deaths of as many as 800,000 Palestinians, including children, emergency health care workers, doctors, nurses, journalists, and educators.

UN investigators and human rights observers have documented the killing of Palestinian children and have accused Israeli forces of deliberately targeting the children of Gaza.

These findings are reinforced by dehumanizing statements from Israeli political figures who have portrayed Palestinian children as future terrorists, so children are targets.

Essential civilian infrastructure has been devastated. Water systems, hospitals, schools, electrical networks, and sanitation facilities have been damaged or destroyed, eacerbating a man-made, humanitarian catastrophe.

In the occupied West Bank, armed “settlers” have been widely reported to have attacked Palestinian communities, burned homes, uprooted olive groves and other crops, destroyed property, and killed livestock, further displacing civilian populations.

Israel has used starvation as a weapon, setting food as a trap and, gunning down Gazans as they rush desperately to feed themselves and their children. Water supplies have been poisoned, wells filled with cement.

Gaza, the West Bank and Lebanon are testing ground sfor increasingly sophisticated military technologies, destroying entire villages with increasingly powerful munitions, and using precision, artificial intelligence-assisted targeting systems. Human rights organizations have raised serious concerns about the speed of targeting decisions, civilian casualty rates, and the implications of delegating life-and-death decisions to algorithmic systems.

White phosphorous and other weapons banned by international treaty are in use.

The conduct of the IDF has earned world-wide condemnation. Twenty-nine UN member states do not have diplomatic relations with Israel. The International Criminal Court (ICC) has issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former defense Minister Yoav Gallant.

The Israel newspaper Haaretz recently reported that the ICC prosecutor is also seeking arrest warrants for Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich: “Gaza must be destroyed entirely.” and National Security Minister Itamar Ben Givr, who has said: “All of Lebanon must burn.” Will these be our new partners? If so, the fundamental question becomes: Who are WE?

What is to be lost further in an Israel-U.S. military merger?

If the U.S. combines our military capabilities with the twisted occupation and expansionist ethic of Israel’s use of military technology against civilian populations, will it be long before our own government militarizes the high -tech surveillance infrastructure already in place to use state violence against our own citizens who protest abuse of basic rights?

The First Amendment has already been taken down on college campuses, and in cities and states where Israel critics are sanctioned.

U.S. Immigration and Custom Enforcement (ICE) officials have trained in Israel. The lessons learned there have come to America in terms of deportation, detention, and in some cases, physical abuse, injury and death at the hands of ICE government agents.

Israel kills Arab children so they will not commit crimes in the future. Will Americans, as in the movie Minority Report be pitched into a dystopian world where predictive algorithms enable Israel-U.S. collaborators to hunt down, prosecute and even punish Americans for crimes not committed?

As a Member of Congress, I questioned Benjamin Netanyahu during a hearing which took place prior to the 2003 Congressional vote on going to war against Iraq. He admitted he wanted not only Iraq to be attacked by the United States, but also Libya and Iran. It is widely known that the Israeli Prime Minister pushed President Trump into the disastrous war against Iran.

It is inevitable that as Israel’s aggression is maximally empowered, once placed inside the U.S. war-making establishment, the U.S. will be dragged into the Zionists’ expansionist designs on Iran, Turkey, Egypt and elsewhere. A greater Israel means a lesser United States. Congress, heavily influenced by the Israel lobby, is unable to reclaim its constitutionally based war power

Since the merger is to be voted on, this week, before America celebrates the 250th anniversary of our Declaration of Independence, let us be reminded by Thomas Jefferson’s July 4, 1776 characterization of George III, King of Great Britain: “He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power. He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws….”

Our forefathers did not fight for freedom and for independence at Lexington and Concord, Bunker Hill, Trenton, Saratoga, and Yorktown, nor sacrifice American blood and treasure in battles in World War I and World War II to arrive at July 4, 2026, having willingly forfeited our sovereignty to a foreign nation, losing control of our future and putting in doubt “our lives, our fortunes, our sacred honor.”

Call your congressperson today and tell them to stand for America’s independence and vote for the Massie-Khanna Amendment to remove Section 219 from the NDAA.

---

TAKE ACTION

The merger is timed to be voted on the week of June 29, just before the Fourth of July.

Find your member of Congress: House      Senate

It is urgent that you call your congressional representative today at 202-224-3121 and tell them to Strip Section 219 (House) or Section 1217 (Senate) from the 2027 NDAA.

Congressmen Tom Massie (R-KY) and Ro Khanna (D-CA) will offer an amendment in the House to remove Section 219. Please tell your U.S. Representative: Support the Massie-Khanna Amendment to the NDAA.

Optional telephone script for the House of Representatives:

My name is ______ and I am a constituent. I am calling to urge Representative ______ to support the Massie-Khanna Amendment and to remove Section 219 from the NDAA. Congress should defend American sovereignty, uphold the Constitution, and reject any measure that integrates the executive and military functions of the United States with those of a foreign government. Please pass my message to the Representative. Thank you.

Dennis J. Kucinich served sixteen years in the United States Congress and twice ran for President of the United States on a platform of peace, truth, and constitutional integrity. He led the opposition to the Iraq War and introduced Articles of Impeachment against President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney for misleading the nation into war.

Israel Is an Apartheid State – and Its Weird Marriage Laws Show Us How

Israel is the only country in the world that does not recognise its own nationality. Why? Because a common national identity would sabotage Israel’s carefully veiled system of segregation

by Jonathan Cook | Jul 3, 2026 | 

Israel’s supporters have gone apoplectic over a short post on X from the journalist Mehdi Hasan, highlighting Israel’s peculiar marriage laws.

Hasan asks: “Did you know that you can’t have a civil or secular marriage in Israel?”

He’s not wrong. Israel has banned civil marriage. You can wed only in a ceremony strictly controlled by religious authorities. If you want a civil marriage, you have to travel to another country.

Why, you might reasonably wonder. Isn’t Israel a modern, secular, western-style liberal democracy? After all, that’s what our politicians and media keep telling us.

The most popular rejoinder to Hasan from Israel’s apologists – that the situation is no better in Saudi Arabia – is not quite the flex they seem to imagine. So Israel offers the same human rights protections as Saudi Arabia? Impressive.

Others have pointed out that Israel inherited the so-called “millet” system from the Ottoman empire, which gave the leaders of each confessional group across the Middle East autonomous control over their community’s religious affairs.

Doubtless, 150 years ago the system worked relatively well in reducing communal tensions in religiously diverse parts of a large empire. It prevented officials in Constantinople – modern-day Istanbul – from getting dragged deeply into the day-to-day affairs of its often distant subjects.

But 150 years ago, Britain sent children up chimneys to sweep them. The law was changed around that time to stop this abusive and dangerous practice.

Israel was established nearly eight decades ago, supposedly as a secular, western-style liberal democracy. It has had 78 years to change those archaic Ottoman marriage laws.

Why hasn’t it done so?

All the bluster decrying Hasan’s post is a desperate attempt to deflect attention away from the fact that Israel’s antiquated marriage laws survive because they are useful to Israel.

In fact, they are more than that. They are a core component of Israel’s version of apartheid – a racist system of segregation Israel has successfully shielded from the view of western publics with the help of western politicians and media.

‘Demographic threat’

Israel’s ban on civil marriage is central to its efforts to prevent what past racist societies, such as apartheid South Africa and the American Deep South, termed “miscegenation” – that is, sexual relations between different ethnic groups. You might remember that the Nazis had unpleasant views on this subject too.

Here is the current finance minister, Bezalel Smotrich, opposing miscegenation in 2016:

Preventing assimilation in the Jewish state is completely legitimate and not at all racist. You are assuming as a basis for the discussion that preventing intermarriage is wrong, while ignoring the fact that most [Jewish] girls who go with Arabs are poor girls who are being used.

Former education minister Rafi Peretz called mixed marriages involving Jews a “second Holocaust”.

In Israel, such views are entirely mainstream. In 2018, Yitzhak Herzog, Israel’s current president and the former leader of an ostensible leftwing Israeli party, described mixed marriages among American Jews as a “plague” for which a “solution” had to be found – presumably by copying Israel’s approach.

In Israel, the chief concern is not about marriages between Jews and the Palestinians under occupation – which Israel and its supporters like to present, bogusly, as a straightforward “security” matter.

In the occupied territories, Israel uses far blunter methods than laws to prevent any kind of intimate relations developing between Jews and a captive Palestinian population. It prefers physical containment and violence.

Palestinians under occupation are forcibly separated from Israeli Jews. They are hemmed into their own tightly confined ghettoes by Israel’s network of steel and concrete barriers; by the Israeli army; by checkpoints; by separate, apartheid roads in the West Bank; and by Jewish militias living on stolen lands in so-called “settlements”.

There is little chance of interaction, let alone intermarriage, in such circumstances – except when Israeli soldiers or armed Jewish settlers come rampaging into Palestinian communities to destroy crops, kill livestock, poison wells, torch homes and cars, and beat up – and sometimes kill – the inhabitants.

Nonetheless, there is still a potential vulnerability in Israel’s system of segregation.

In 1948, Israel expelled 80 per cent of the Palestinian population from their homes and lands in an area that was henceforth to be called, not Palestine, but the “Jewish” state of Israel.

A few Palestinians remained, however, inside those borders – mostly from oversight or error. Despite covert efforts by Israel for several years after the 1948 war to force them out of the state, its officials soon came under international pressure to give these stranded Palestinians citizenship – even if in practice, as we shall see, this conferred on them very inferior rights.

Even today, Israel is extremely worried about a supposed threat from its third-class Palestinian “citizens” – officially termed “Israel’s Arabs”. Given a higher birth rate, their numbers have grown exponentially over eight decades. They now comprise a fifth of Israel’s population.

Israeli journalists, academics and politicians, including prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, regularly call the country’s Palestinian citizens a “demographic threat”, and endlessly worry about the “Palestinian womb”.

No state of all its citizens

But Israel faces a countervailing pressure. If it makes its treatment of Palestinian citizens too obviously racist and oppressive, some outsiders might start to realise it is not the secular western-style liberal democracy it claims to be.

You will hear the pro-Israel lobby in the West tell you that so-called “Israeli Arabs” have exactly the same rights as Israel’s Jewish population, guaranteed by Israel’s Declaration of Independence. That is not even remotely true.

Adalah, a leading legal rights group in Israel, has a database showing more than 70 laws that explicitly discriminate between Jewish citizens and Palestinian citizens. These laws form the core of Israel’s apartheid system.

Israel’s Basic Laws, a sort of constitution, explicitly exclude any principle of civic equality. Every attempt by a Palestinian party in Israel to get a debate in the parliament on Israel becoming a “state of all its citizens” – that is, a liberal democracy – is barred from discussion. And in 2018 the Israeli government passed a Nation-State Law declaring that Israel belongs exclusively to the Jewish people, not to all citizens who live there.

As with Palestinians under occupation, Israel has almost entirely confined its Palestinian citizens to their own segregated, underfunded, under-resourced communities (townships) on less then 3 per cent of the country’s territory.

A small minority of Palestinian citizens inside Israel live in segregated, deprived neighborhoods of what are misleadingly termed “mixed” cities. Other Palestinian citizens, the most oppressed of all, live in communities inhabited by their families for centuries but which have been criminalized by an Israeli state that refuses to recognise them.

Many hundreds of Jewish rural communities, by contrast, operate effectively as exclusive membership clubs. They have the power to exclude Palestinian citizens – a right they take full advantage of.

Separate planning structures ensure massively overcrowded Palestinian communities inside Israel are unable to build new homes and expand. Palestinian children are schooled in a separate and much inferior education system.

For the who wish to dig deeper, I have written a lengthy essay setting out the details of Israel’s apartheid system here.

The ban on civil marriage inside Israel’s borders is not usually cited, even by critics, as an example of its apartheid system of rule. But the ban persists because it is the ideal way to conceal segregation under the veneer of equal treatment.

Israel’s Palestinian citizens must marry in ceremonies conducted by their religious community’s leaders: by Muslim clerics, or by various Christian churches, or by the Druze clergy.

It is the same for Jews in israel. They must be married by an Orthodox rabbi.

So everyone faces the same restrictions. But the point is this: the equality of treatment ensures very unequal outcomes. It is designed that way.

Fascist thugs

Inside Israel, intermarriage is only possible if one party can convert to their partner’s religion.

Israel’s Orthodox rabbinate makes it impossible for Palestinians under occupation to convert to Judaism in Israel, with the head of its conversion authority stating in 2016 that any such applicants are rejected “without review because of their ethnic origin”.

Meanwhile, Israel makes it almost as difficult for anyone else considered a non-Jew to convert to Judaism, most especially Palestinian citizens. Over decades, there have been only a handful of such cases.

In practice, this means that in any relationship between a Palestinian citizen of Israel and an Israeli Jew, it almost always falls to the Israeli Jew to convert to the religion of the Palestinian citizen, whether a Muslim, Christian or Druze. That entails the Jewish partner losing their Jewish status and the many consequential privileges inside Israel that derive from that status.

Israel has found this is a much better solution than apartheid South Africa’s, where blacks and whites were explicitly barred by law from marrying. Israel can achieve the same result more quietly.

Given the entirely segregated structure of Israeli society, and the strong social taboos among Israeli Jews on “miscegenation”, the number of intermarriages in Israel between Jews and Palestinian citizens barely reaches double digits each year.

There are even groups like Lehava – Israel’s version of the Ku Klux Klan – that go around beating up Palestinians caught anywhere near the Jewish neighbourhoods of Jerusalem and terrorising any young Jewish women suspected of being romantically involved with a Palestinian. Lehava hold noisy and disruptive protests to shame the odd Jewish woman who converts and marries a Palestinian citizen.

All of this happens with a quiet wink from the authorities. The current police minister, Itamar Ben Gvir, has long been a patron of the fascist, Jewish supremacist thugs of Lehava.

In the rare cases of a Jew converting and marrying a Palestinian citizen, the Palestinian partner faces innumerable legal and social obstacles to integrating into a Jewish community to which they do not belong.

Instead, the Jewish partner moves to a Palestinian community – an Israeli version of a township like Soweto – and educates their children inside the vastly inferior “Arab” school system. The former Jew loses most of the ethnic privileges they previously enjoyed inside the world’s only “Jewish” state.

Faced with this as their future, such couples often seize the opportunity for neither to convert and instead marry and live abroad.

Unwelcome guests

None of these difficulties are accidental. It is exactly how you would expect an apartheid system that prefers to obscure its apartheid character to structure its laws – and thereby help its lobby in the West, including the western political and media class, to claim that Israel is “the only democracy in the Middle East”.

Israel learnt from the mistakes of the old South Africa. It mastered the modern arts of public relations – or at least it did until Benjamin Netanyahu tore up the script by erasing Gaza.

Inside Israel, the apartheid system extends far beyond marriage laws to touch all areas of life.

Here is another way Israel has obscured its apartheid system – again not in the occupied territories, but inside Israel itself.

The same system that denies Israelis the possibility of a civil or secular marriage also refuses to recognise that they have any kind of civil or secular identity, simply as Israelis. By law, everyone in Israel must belong to a confessional group, identified as a Jew, Muslim, Christian or Druze.

Which makes sense of another little-known fact about Israel: Israel is the only country in the world that does not recognise its own – in this case, Israeli – nationality. Why? For the simple reason that, were Israelis to share a common national identity, it would be much harder for the Israeli state to operate its apartheid system.

Israeli nationality exists only as a fiction on Israeli passports to allow the population to travel internationally. Inside Israel, everyone is identified by their confessional group.

In Israel, “Jewish” is treated as a nationality. Remember the 2018 Nation State Law. What it declared is that the state of Israel belongs exclusively to the “nation” of Jews – that is, to every Jew around the globe, not just those living in Israel.

Muslims and Christians are lumped together into a similarly artificial “Arab” nationality, while the Druze have their own, different nationality. The same Nation State Law makes clear that the state of Israel does not belong to these other, non-Jewish “nations”, despite their families having lived on the same lands for centuries. Palestinian citizens are nothing more than guests – and unwelcome ones at that.

This segregation carries through to Israel’s ID cards. These cards, which must be carried at all times, used to include a section that expressly showed the “nationality” of each Israeli. But this section attracted uncomfortable scrutiny during a lengthy and ultimately unsuccessful legal battle by a group of dissident Israelis seeking recognition of an Israeli nationality. Officials removed the category from the card. However, Israel’s population register still includes a nationality classification.

In addition to Jew, Arab and Druze, there are more than 120 other categories to deal with all the anomalies. I was just one such anomaly after I married a Palestinian Christian and entered a lengthy and difficult naturalisation process. My nationality was classed as “British”.

Why all this complexity? Why all this unique weirdness?

Because Israel needs to conceal its system of apartheid. The old South Africa simply said: one law for whites and another for blacks.

Israel knows this no longer plays well. So it has devised a convoluted, baffling system that few understand as a way to avoid attracting attention and criticism.

Special Jewish rights

So let’s end with just one example of how Israel’s apartheid system works in practice.

Notionally, Israel confers on all its citizens – Jews, Muslims, Christians, Druze – equal rights as citizens. But with a sleight of hand, it then undermines those equal rights by conferring superior “national” rights on one group only, Jews. If there is a conflict between a citizenship right and a Jewish “national” right, you’ve probably already guessed that the Jewish national right takes precedence.

Education is a good illustration. All Israeli citizens enjoy a right to have their children educated, because education is a citizenship right. But lots of veiled manoeuvres – like extra budgets for National Priority Areas, special subsidies for Jewish religious schools, funding from the diaspora, and bigger tax disbursements from central government for Jewish local authorities – mean Jewish schools are far better funded than “Arab” schools.

Education for Israel’s Palestinian citizens has been underfunded for eight decades. So even though Israel’s apologists will claim the funding gaps are slowly narrowing, the continuing shortfall simply compounds a decades-long historical injustice. Arab schools are so far behind they can never catch up without aggressive additional funding Israel clearly has no intention of ever providing them with.

There are massive shortages of classrooms and staff in dilapidated school buildings. Old books are often grossly outdated and poorly translated into Arabic by the state. Palestinian educational leaders have no input into the curriculum the community’s children are taught. There are strict controls by Jewish (usually racist) officials over what can be taught and who can teach. And on top of all this, huge cultural biases in qualifying tests make it far harder for Palestinian citizens to gain entry to universities in Israel.

There are many other problems in education. For example, nearly one in 10 Palestinian children in Israel live in historic communities built on lands that the Israeli state now wishes to “Judaise” – reserve for the Jewish population – and are therefore denied all recognition.

Treated like criminals, these children rarely have schools in their communities because no permanent buildings are allowed. What buildings there are cannot be connected to the electricity or water grids. Even children of kindergarten age must typically travel long distances – sometimes close to 60 km a day – to get to a licensed school.

The forms of discrimination in education alone are endless. But they do not stop there. The discrimination is replicated in all major facets of life for Israel’s more than 2 million Palestinian citizens through these conceptual and legal contortions over religion, citizenship and nationality.

None of this should be a surprise. It is exactly what you would expect in an apartheid state like Israel.

Originally appeared on Jonathan Cook’s Substack.

Jonathan Cook is the author of three books on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and a winner of the Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism. His website and blog can be found at www.jonathan-cook.net.

The Salesman in the Oval Office

Mark Rutte brought a whiteboard to Washington. A German general had already set the date.

by Thomas S. Karat | Jul 3, 2026 | 

On June 24, in the Oval Office, the secretary general of NATO stood up from his chair, walked over to a pair of presentation boards, and began a sales pitch. Mark Rutte had brought charts. He pointed at the first one and gave it a brand name. He called it the “Trump Trillion,” the extra money Europeans and Canadians have poured into defense since Donald Trump first took office in 2017 – $1.2 trillion all told, with more than $250 billion of it in the past two years alone. Then he turned to the president and delivered the line a salesman saves for the close. “This,” he said, pointing at the boards, “is your evidence.”

It is worth pausing on the spectacle. A man who governed the Netherlands for fourteen years, the longest-serving prime minister in his country’s history, was doing flip-chart duty in another man’s house, naming the product after the customer the way you name a hospital wing after the donor who paid for it. This is the same Mark Rutte who, at last year’s summit, called Trump “daddy.” The performance in June was of a piece: gratitude as theater, flattery as policy. “For me,” he told the room, “you are first of all the leader of the free world.”

There was something the charts did not show, and the German military had already put it in writing. On its own website, the Bundeswehr states that it assumes Russia could be capable of a large-scale attack on NATO territory from 2029. This is not loose talk from a podium; it is the premise of Germany’s first comprehensive military defense concept, a document that for the first time translates the country’s National Security Strategy into concrete operational planning. The country’s highest-ranking soldier, Chief of Defence General Carsten Breuer, lays out a three-tier timeline around the date: ready to “fight tonight” now, grown by 2029 to withstand a major assault, and able by 2039 to deter one outright. “It has never been this serious,” he says. The head of the German army, Lieutenant General Christian Freuding, has put the same year more bluntly, telling reporters at an air show in Berlin that “2029 is not a German timeline” but NATO-agreed intelligence, on which all 32 members concur, and that Russia might move sooner. “We must be ready to fight.”

So this is the arithmetic an American taxpayer is being asked to fund. While the secretary general was in Washington congratulating the president on a trillion dollars, the German military was telling the public that the money buys a conventional war on the European continent inside of four years. The charts and the countdown belong to the same project. One is the invoice; the other is what it pays for. It is a strange way to celebrate. Rutte presented as a triumph the same rearmament that the alliance’s own commanders treat as preparation for a war they expect within four years.

The date itself deserves more scrutiny than it gets. It is not the product of an intercepted Russian war plan. It is an extrapolation – a projection of Russian rearmament trajectories, troop counts, and tank production, run forward and rounded to a year. That a forecast can be assembled does not make it a prophecy, and a Russia grinding through its fifth year in Ukraine, having taken more than a million casualties to move the front a few miles, is not obviously a Russia poised to overrun nuclear-armed NATO. But the number works, and it works precisely because it is frightening. A date does what an argument cannot: it forecloses debate and starts a clock.

The consensus is also less unanimous than the word implies. At that same Berlin air show, NATO’s own Supreme Allied Commander Europe, the American general Alexus Grynkewich, told reporters he had “watched the intelligence very closely” and reached the opposite conclusion: Russia, he said, is not looking for a conflict with the alliance, because it understands that NATO is a defensive bloc with decisive asymmetric advantages. The man responsible for actually fighting the war the German generals are dating does not appear to believe it is coming. That disagreement, between the alliance’s top commander and the capital doing the loudest warning, is the part the whiteboard leaves off.

Rutte reached for history in the Oval Office, and he reached badly. The trillion-dollar surge, he told Trump, achieved “something which since Eisenhower has not been achieved” – Europeans equalizing their defense spending with the United States. It is hard to imagine a more self-defeating name to invoke. Dwight Eisenhower’s most enduring words were not about getting allies to spend more. They were a warning. In his farewell address from this same White House in 1961, the general who had commanded the largest war machine in history told Americans to “guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex.”

That is the irony at the center of the whole performance. The “Trump Trillion” is the unwarranted influence Eisenhower named, rebranded as an achievement and propped on an easel. Rutte even itemized the spoils: by his own count at the boards, the spending has created roughly 112,000 jobs in American defense plants, with a $300 billion order backlog already on the books. He offered these numbers as good news, and for the contractors they are. A war economy is, among other things, a jobs program – and it was being sold to a president who likes his name on buildings by a man who had just put it on the war.

To understand how Rutte became one of Europe’s most enthusiastic evangelist for rearmament, it helps to remember what he did when the politics ran the other way. In April 2011, Prime Minister Mark Rutte took an axe to his own country’s military. His government cut 12,000 jobs from the Dutch armed forces – more than one in six uniformed personnel – sold off nineteen F-16s, scrapped seventeen transport helicopters and a fleet of minehunters, and decommissioned every last one of the Netherlands’ sixty tanks. The army that emerged was hollowed out to the point where, by 2016, Dutch defense spending had fallen to 1.17 percent of GDP, well below even the European average.

This is the man now touring Western capitals to demand that all of Europe rearm to five percent of GDP for a war with Russia. The contradiction is not hypocrisy for its own sake; it is the tell. When austerity was the fashion and the budget needed balancing, Rutte found the Russian threat invisible enough to gut his own army. Now that rearmament is the fashion, he finds the same threat existential enough to reorder the entire continent’s economy around it.

This conviction tracks the career, not the intelligence. A man who scrapped his nation’s last tank does not, fifteen years later, rediscover the Russian menace by reading a new cable. He rediscovers it because a larger chair came open.

And the larger chair was a gift. The record of how Rutte got the job of NATO secretary general is not hidden in a back room; the principals narrated it themselves. At their first Oval Office meeting after Trump’s reelection, the president recalled the appointment: “We had to support him, and we supported him as soon as I heard the name.” Rutte, for his part, addressed the president as “dear Donald” and credited him personally with the European spending surge. A hawkish posture, a record of Atlanticist loyalty, a willingness to flatter – and then the most powerful military office on the continent. One need not allege a secret transaction to see the shape of the thing. The services were rendered in public, and so was the reward.

There is a blunt word for a public official who performs gratitude this lavishly for a foreign patron while steering his own continent toward a war, and readers can supply it themselves. What can be said without embellishment is that a war between Russia and Europe serves no Dutch interest anyone has been able to articulate. The man pushing hardest for the confrontation is the same one who decided, when it suited his budget, that the Netherlands scarcely needed an army at all. Whoever he is now serving, it is not the country he used to run.

Here is where the spectacle turns from farce to something colder, and where it should matter most to Americans. While Rutte thanked Trump for securing Europe’s defense, Trump’s own Pentagon was quietly dismantling it. On June 12 – the day after the German general set his 2029 date, twelve days before the whiteboard – the New York Times reported that the United States plans to sharply reduce the aircraft and warships it makes available to NATO in Europe: the number of F-16 and F-15E fighter jets cut from roughly 150 to 100, maritime reconnaissance aircraft cut from 26 to 15, all eight aerial refueling tankers withdrawn, and a missile submarine, an aircraft carrier, several warships, and a bomber task force reassigned to other theaters.

The Pentagon’s own European commander put the policy bluntly, calling the alliance’s reliance on American forces an “unhealthy codependence” that “needs to change, and it will change.” Read the two events side by side. The man being credited in the Oval Office with Europe’s security is, in the same fortnight, documented withdrawing it. Rutte is locking Europe into a war economy and a war date at the precise moment the guarantor he is flattering heads for the exits. The Europeans get the bill, the militarized society, and the 2029 countdown. The Americans whose president’s name is on the chart are quietly packing up the carriers.

That is the trap, and it is worth naming for what it is. An American is being asked to watch a foreign official flatter the president into branding a continental war machine, and to feel good about the jobs it creates, while the American military walks away from the obligation to defend the place that machine is being built to fight over. The “Trump Trillion” is not a gift to the United States. It is a European war economy with an American label, sold by a man who gutted his own army when it was convenient and rediscovered the Russian threat at the exact moment a bigger office opened up.

Eisenhower told Americans, from that same room, to stay alert to exactly this: the slow capture of a free society by the machinery of permanent war, and the men who profit from calling it security. Sixty-five years later, a Dutch politician stood in the Oval Office, pointed at a chart, and thanked another president for ignoring him. The applause in Washington was real. So is the date the generals have circled. Somebody should ask who pays when the clock runs out – and why the country whose name is on the war is already heading for the door.

Thomas Karat writes investigative work published at karat.substack.com and the Libertarian Institute, drawing on a corporate career and academic training as a behavior analyst to examine how institutions manufacture consent and influence.