IMPERIALIST AGGRESSION

US Congress passes defense bill defying Trump anti-Europe rhetoric


By AFP
December 17, 2025


The defense bill aims to tie the Pentagon's hands on troop deployments in Europe - Copyright AFP/File Daniel SLIM

US lawmakers on Wednesday passed a sweeping defense policy bill, signaling ironclad bipartisan support for Europe and delivering a blistering repudiation of President Donald Trump’s increasingly hostile posture toward NATO and America’s closest allies.

The comfortable 77-20 Senate vote sends the $900 billion National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) to the White House, closing out one of Congress’s few remaining rituals of cross-party cooperation even as foreign policy divisions sharpen elsewhere in Washington.

“We ask a lot of the brave Americans serving in uniform. And they give a lot,” Republican Senate Majority leader John Thune said ahead of the vote.

“And I’m proud that this year’s National Defense Authorization Act will help ensure that they have what they need to keep America safe in a dangerous world.”

The action in the upper chamber follows House passage last week and comes amid unease in European capitals over Trump’s rhetoric, especially after the recent White House national security strategy painted Europe as over-regulated, culturally adrift and insufficiently committed to its own defense.

The strategy questioned the continent’s strategic value and openly echoed themes championed by far-right parties, fueling fears of a widening transatlantic rift.

By contrast, the NDAA reflects lawmakers’ determination to anchor the United States firmly in Europe.

The bill bars US troop levels on the continent from falling below 76,000 for more than 45 days and restricts the removal of major military equipment, effectively tying the administration’s hands on any rapid drawdown.

It also boosts resources for frontline NATO states, particularly in the Baltic region, reinforcing the alliance’s northeastern flank.

The measure authorizes roughly $8 billion more than the administration requested, a signal of congressional assertiveness on defense priorities.

Beyond Europe, the NDAA locks in $400 million in security assistance for Ukraine, aiming to preserve a baseline of support even as broader funding debates grind on, and places new limits on any reduction of the 28,500 US troops stationed in South Korea.

As ever, the NDAA drew fire from multiple directions — from conservative critics of Ukraine aid to safety experts warning about aviation provisions rolling back critical air-safety requirements for military aircraft operating in Washington’s restricted airspace.

But none came close to derailing a package long seen as must-pass legislation.

Trump signs $900 bn defense policy bill into law


By AFP
December 18, 2025


The National Defense Authorization Act for 2026, signed into law by US President Donald Trump, aims to tie the Pentagon's hands on troop deployments in Europe - Copyright AFP/File Daniel SLIM

President Donald Trump signed a sweeping defense policy bill into law Thursday that signaled strong bipartisan support for Europe and defied the US leader’s increasingly hostile posture toward NATO and America’s closest allies.

The annual National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), one the few remaining rituals of cross-party cooperation in Congress even as divisions sharpen elsewhere in Washington, sets out the country’s national security and foreign policy priority areas for the coming year, according to lawmakers.

White House spokesperson Anna Kelly said Trump signed into law a measure which raises pay for US troops, codifies the country’s “PEACE THROUGH STRENGTH agenda,” and “funds the Golden Dome” air and missile defense system backed by Trump.

The NDAA, at some $900 billion, also “removes woke priorities” like diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programs opposed by many conservatives, and “requires promotions based on merit, not DEI,” Kelly added.

The Senate easily passed the NDAA measure on Wednesday following the House’s green light last week.

The success comes amid unease in European capitals over Trump’s rhetoric, especially after the recent White House national security strategy painted Europe as over-regulated, culturally adrift and insufficiently committed to its own defense.

The strategy questioned the continent’s strategic value and openly echoed themes championed by far-right parties, fueling fears of a widening transatlantic rift.

By contrast, the NDAA reflects lawmakers’ determination to anchor the United States firmly in Europe.

The bill bars US troop levels on the continent from falling below 76,000 for more than 45 days and restricts the removal of major military equipment, effectively tying the administration’s hands on any rapid drawdown.

It also boosts resources for frontline NATO states, particularly in the Baltic region, reinforcing the alliance’s northeastern flank.

The measure authorizes roughly $8 billion more than the administration requested, a signal of congressional assertiveness on defense priorities.

Beyond Europe, the NDAA locks in $400 million in security assistance for Ukraine, aiming to preserve a baseline of support even as broader funding debates grind on, and places new limits on any reduction of the 28,500 US troops stationed in South Korea.

As ever, the NDAA drew fire from multiple directions — from conservative critics of Ukraine aid to safety experts warning about aviation provisions rolling back critical air-safety requirements for military aircraft operating in Washington’s restricted airspace.

But none came close to derailing a package long seen as must-pass legislation.

Invest in the Planet, Not the Pentagon

Alliyah Lusuegro

December 19, 2025

FacebookTwitterRedditBlueskyEmail

Photo by Karl Anderson

Ten years ago as of December 2025, nearly every country in the world made a promise. By signing the Paris Agreement, governments committed to limit global temperature rises to no more than 2°C — and ideally 1.5°C — to avoid the most devastating impacts of a warming planet.

Recognizing their historic responsibility for greenhouse gas emissions, the Paris Agreement called on wealthier countries like the United States to contribute funding to help poorer countries adapt. And it envisioned the economic and social transformations needed to keep the planet from overheating to unlivable levels.

In practice, that means phasing out fossil fuels, scaling up renewable energy, and investing in sustainable systems — from agriculture to transportation — to keep our world powered and going.

Unfortunately, that’s not what our leaders are doing.

With the world’s largest economy and the greatest chunk of historical emissions, the United States should be contributing an estimated $446 billion per year to meet its fair share of global climate action. Instead, Washington has repeatedly abandoned global leadership — joining the Paris Agreement in 2016, pulling out in 2020, rejoining a year later, and withdrawing again this year.

For the past century, at least 80 percent of U.S. energy consumption has come from fossil fuels like natural gas, coal, and oil. Today, domestic energy demand is soaring as Big Tech and private corporations race to build massive, water and energy-intensive AI data centers — further locking in fossil fuel dependence.

Meanwhile, rather than aligning its national priorities with climate commitments, the U.S. government has doubled down on a different and dangerous path: wars and weapons.

The Pentagon is the most carbon intensive institution on the planet, with emissions exceeding those of entire nations like Sweden, Denmark, and Portugal. And those emissions will likely grow as Pentagon spending continues to skyrocket.

Congress recently approved a $900 billion Pentagon budget. When combined with the $156 billion boost for the Pentagon from Trump’s so-called “Big Beautiful Bill,” that brings the total to over $1 trillion for the U.S. war machine.

That’s right: a trillion dollars.

At the same time, the Trump administration made sweeping cuts to environmental programs that took decades to build.

The Environmental Protection Agency’s budget was slashed by more than half — from $9.14 billion for 2025 to just $4.16 billionfor 2026. And Trump has cancelled or frozen $29 billion in environmental grants for local communities, undermining efforts to secure clean air and water, clean up contaminated sites, improve public health, and create jobs.

The National Priorities Project of the Institute for Policy Studies, my organization, found that we’ve spent $79 billion on Foreign Military Financing over the last decade alone. In these deals, the U.S. provides grants to other countries to purchase U.S.-made weapons. On the flip side, only $2 billion has gone to the Green Climate Fund, the primary pool of money supporting nations most impacted by, yet least responsible for, climate change. (Under Trump, the figure is actually $0.)

So in addition to cutting our own renewable programs to spend more on the carbon-intensive Pentagon, we’re also spending nearly 40 times more helping other countries do the same rather than helping them adapt to our warming planet.

Ordinary people are already paying the price for these choices. Floods, hurricanes, and wildfires are growing more frequent and destructive, driving up recovery expenses and insurance costs. Utility bills are climbing, too, due to extreme temperatures and energy-thirsty AI data centers.

Ten years after the Paris Agreement, the choice is clear. We can continue down a path of fossil fuels and endless wars, or we can invest in climate solutions that actually keep people safe. Business as usual will leave homes destroyed, families hungry, and people sicker and more vulnerable.

The clock is ticking. It’s time to stop funding destruction and start putting money towards just, healthy futures for all.

Alliyah Lusuegro is the Outreach Coordinator for the National Priorities Project at the Institute for Policy Studies.

Great Power Imperialism or Democratic Global Governance?

Lawrence Wittner

December 19, 2025

FacebookTwitterRedditBlueskyEmail

Image by Javier Miranda.

Pundits frequently remark on the warm and friendly relationship between Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump. In explanation, some suggest that Putin possesses compromising material on Trump. Others point to their autocratic style and their rightwing agendas.

But another factor plays a role in the Putin-Trump bromance: their embrace of great power imperialism.

For example, their aggressive policies toward Ukraine and Venezuela are remarkably similar. Putin began his takeover of Ukraine by charging that its government was controlled by “fascists” and, moreover, that its closer relations with Western Europe would irreparably damage Russian national security. Similarly, Trump has sought to overturn the Venezuelan government, arguing that it is controlled by drug traffickers and represents a significant menace to U.S. national security.

In fact, both national leaders seem to be driven by more traditional concerns. Before Ukraine’s recent independence, that land, for centuries, had been part of the Russian empire, and, through reconquest, Putin has sought to restore Russia’s imperial glory. As for Trump, the flimsiness of the drug trafficking charges and his obsession with military power and fossil fuels suggest that he is primarily concerned with using military power to oust a stubbornly independent regime and, thereby, gain control of Venezuela’s oil reserves, the largest in the world.

Both Putin and Trump began gradually with a display of vast military might, hoping to intimidate these smaller nations and secure their goals. When Ukraine resisted capitulation, a full-scale invasion ensued. The same pattern appears to be playing out in U.S. relations with Venezuela.

Meanwhile, like sophisticated mob bosses, Trump and Putin are attempting to avoid conflict with one another by staking out different territory.

In accord with this approach, the Trump administration’s official National Security Strategy, released on December 4, promotes an arrangement for the two great powers to focus on separate imperial spheres. Avoiding any suggestion that Russia is a threat to the United States, the document instead criticizes European officials for blocking U.S. efforts to end the Ukraine War on terms advanced by Putin. It also prioritizes reestablishing “strategic stability with Russia.” Europeans, it adds disparagingly, face “civilizational erasure” thanks to the immigration of non-white people, and should support Europe’s rightwing, “patriotic” parties, which follow the Russian line on European affairs.

Having more or less abandoned Europe to the Russian imperium, the Trump National Security Strategy allocates Latin America to the United States. Invoking what it calls the “Trump Corollary” to the Monroe Doctrine, the document declares that “the United States must be preeminent in the Western Hemisphere as a condition of our security and prosperity―a condition that allows us to assert ourselves confidently where and when we need to in the region.” This assertion, the document explains, includes the use of “lethal force.”

Naturally, the Russian government is pleased by Trump’s new National Security Strategy. “The adjustments we’re seeing . . . are largely consistent with our vision,” declared the Russian regime’s official spokesperson, Dmitry Peskov. “We consider this a positive step.”

Thus far, the Venezuelan conflict, like its Ukrainian counterpart, is being managed within this collaborative framework. Although the Russian government has provided substantial military aid to the Maduro government in the past, it has rejected Maduro’s more recent and pressing request for military hardware to fend off a U.S. military invasion. Instead, Russian support for the embattled regime has been reduced to statements, by lower-level officials, expressing alarm and concern. “We hope that the Trump administration will refrain from further escalating the situation,” observed Russia’s Deputy Foreign Minister on December 7, and “we urge it to do so.”

The tepid nature of this support for Venezuela might reflect Russia’s preoccupation with the demands of its military invasion of Ukraine. But it might also result from Putin’s acceptance of the Trump administration’s proposal that, when it comes to empire, the Western Hemisphere belongs to the United States, while Europe belongs to Russia.

Of course, this relapse into the crude great power imperialism of the past comes as a shock to a world that has witnessed the gradual development of international law and attempts at its enforcement. Are we really condemned to live on a planet where military might makes right?

Not necessarily, for there is an alternative for coping with the stormy world of international relations: democratic global governance.

Nations have been working to develop a less violent, more equitable world for more than a century and, as a result, there are now international institutions in existence that have begun the slow, painstaking process of building it. These include the United Nations, the International Court of Justice, and the International Criminal Court (ICC).

Now, given the revival of retrograde behavior, it’s necessary to empower them further.

A key measure along these lines would be to break the disproportionate influence of the great powers in the UN Security Council. Article 109 of the UN Charter provides a procedure for amendments through convening a Charter Review Conference. This conference could democratize international security operations by ending or modifying the veto in the Security Council. Or it could simply abolish the Security Council and transfer its responsibilities to the General Assembly, where majority rule prevails.

Other reform measures include adding a UN Parliamentary Assembly, with representatives chosen by the people rather than by governments, and increasing the jurisdiction and use of the International Court of Justice.

Democratic global governance could also be enhanced by increasing the number of countries ratifying the Rome Statute of the ICC. At present, only 125 nations are parties to the ICC, with some of the most powerful, such as the United States, Russia, China, India, and Israel, remaining holdouts―one additional illustration of how the great powers manage to operate with impunity in the realm of international affairs.

Great power imperialism can be ended. But it will take a major effort on the part of people and nations.

Dr. Lawrence Wittner is Professor of History emeritus at SUNY/Albany and the author of Confronting the Bomb (Stanford University Press.)