In the ever-evolving landscape of global conflict, the Russia-Ukraine war stands out not only for its impact on international relations but also for the increasingly polarized discussions surrounding it. Recently, former Tucker Carlson guest Ben Cohen, co-founder of the iconic Ben & Jerry’s, shared his perspective on this contentious topic, describing the war as “totally unnecessary.” While Cohen’s views may resonate with some, they also spark considerable debate. This blog post delves into key claims made during his discussion, presenting fact checks that illuminate the complexity of the conflict and examining the broader implications of his assertions. As we navigate through the differing perspectives, it becomes crucial to analyze the facts and discover what lies beneath the surface of such a significant geopolitical issue.

Find the according transcript on TRNSCRBR

All information as of 05/06/2025

Fact Check Analysis

Claim

Ben Cohen co-founded Ben and Jerry's in 1977.

Veracity Rating: 3 out of 4

Facts

## Evaluation of the Claim: Ben Cohen Co-Founded Ben & Jerry's in 1977

The claim that Ben Cohen co-founded Ben & Jerry's in 1977 can be partially verified through company history and records. Here is a detailed analysis:

### Founding Year and Activities
– **1977**: Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield did indeed take significant steps toward founding their company in 1977. They completed a correspondence course on ice cream making from Pennsylvania State University's creamery and incorporated their business with the intention of opening a food business, initially considering a bagel shop[3][5].
– **1978**: The actual opening of Ben & Jerry's Homemade Ice Cream Parlor occurred on May 5, 1978, in Burlington, Vermont, with a $12,000 investment[3][4].

### Conclusion
While the foundational steps were taken in 1977, the official opening of Ben & Jerry's occurred in 1978. Therefore, the claim that Ben Cohen co-founded Ben & Jerry's in 1977 is technically accurate in terms of the planning and incorporation phase but not entirely precise regarding the official launch.

### Additional Information on Ben Cohen's Activism
Ben Cohen is known for his liberal activism and has been vocal about various social and political issues. His stance on the U.S. involvement in the Ukraine war and his references to General Smedley Butler's work highlight his commitment to peace and social responsibility, consistent with the values that Ben & Jerry's has promoted throughout its history[2].

### Evidence and Citations
– The company's founding and early history are detailed in Wikipedia and other historical accounts[3][4].
– Ben Cohen's activism and political views are discussed in various media outlets[2].

Citations

Claim

Ben Cohen became famous for his liberal political activism.

Veracity Rating: 4 out of 4

Facts

## Evaluating the Claim: Ben Cohen's Liberal Political Activism

The claim that Ben Cohen, co-founder of Ben & Jerry's, became famous for his liberal political activism can be validated through various sources and his public actions.

### Evidence of Liberal Activism

1. **Political Activism and Public Support**: Ben Cohen is widely recognized as a political activist who uses his platform to promote progressive causes. He supported Senator Bernie Sanders' presidential campaigns in 2016 and 2020, serving as a national co-chair for the latter[5]. This involvement in political campaigns aligns with liberal activism.

2. **Public Appearances and Arrests**: Cohen has been arrested multiple times during protests, including a recent arrest in 2023 while protesting the arrest of Julian Assange[5]. Such actions demonstrate his willingness to engage in public activism, often associated with liberal or progressive causes.

3. **Founding of Left-of-Center Organizations**: Cohen has founded or financially supported several left-of-center organizations, such as CODEPINK and the People’s Power Initiative[5]. These organizations typically align with liberal or progressive ideologies.

4. **Ben & Jerry's Activism**: The company, co-founded by Cohen, is known for its social and political activism. Ben & Jerry's has taken stances on various issues, including environmental protection and human rights[1][4]. The company's activism often reflects liberal or progressive values.

### Stance on U.S. Involvement in the Ukraine War

While specific details about Cohen's stance on the Ukraine war are not provided in the search results, his general approach to military interventions and corporate interests can be inferred from his references to General Smedley Butler's work. Butler's book "War is a Racket" critiques military actions as serving corporate interests, a perspective that aligns with Cohen's broader critique of U.S. foreign policy.

### Conclusion

The claim that Ben Cohen became famous for his liberal political activism is supported by his involvement in progressive causes, public appearances, and the founding of left-of-center organizations. His use of Ben & Jerry's as a platform for social activism further reinforces this reputation. While specific statements on the Ukraine war are not detailed in the provided sources, Cohen's general stance against military interventions and in favor of peace aligns with liberal or progressive views.

### References

– [1] The Post: Ben & Jerry's activism and company values.
– [2] Instagram: Ben Cohen's political activism.
– [3] Fox Business: Ben & Jerry's political activism and legal disputes.
– [4] B The Change: Activism as part of Ben & Jerry's brand identity.
– [5] InfluenceWatch: Ben Cohen's political activism and affiliations.

Citations

Claim

Ben Cohen was one of the only liberals in the United States to come out against the war in Ukraine in 2022.

Veracity Rating: 2 out of 4

Facts

## Evaluating the Claim: Ben Cohen as a Liberal Opposing the Ukraine War

The claim that Ben Cohen was one of the only liberals in the United States to come out against the war in Ukraine in 2022 requires a nuanced evaluation. Cohen, co-founder of Ben & Jerry's, is known for his liberal activism and has indeed taken a stance against U.S. involvement in the Ukraine conflict.

### Ben Cohen's Position

Cohen has expressed opposition to U.S. military aid and funding for Ukraine, arguing that the U.S. should advocate for a negotiated settlement rather than prolonging the war[3][5]. He has also suggested that U.S. foreign policy, including NATO expansion, contributed to the conflict[3]. This stance aligns with his broader critique of U.S. militarism and its perceived role in global conflicts.

### Landscape of Liberal Opinions

While Cohen's stance is notable, assessing whether he was "one of the only liberals" opposing the war requires examining the broader landscape of liberal opinions during this period. Liberal perspectives on the Ukraine war varied, with many supporting Ukraine and criticizing Russia's aggression. However, there were also voices within the liberal community advocating for diplomatic solutions and questioning U.S. military involvement.

### Evidence and Critique

Cohen's views have been criticized for aligning with narratives that blame U.S. and NATO actions for provoking the war, which some see as downplaying Russia's responsibility[3]. Despite this, Cohen emphasizes his support for negotiations over military escalation, reflecting a broader critique of U.S. foreign policy and military spending[3][5].

### Conclusion

While Ben Cohen is a prominent liberal figure opposing U.S. involvement in the Ukraine war, it is challenging to assert that he was "one of the only liberals" holding this view without more comprehensive data on liberal opinions during 2022. His stance reflects a segment of liberal thought critical of U.S. militarism and advocating for diplomatic solutions, but it is not representative of the entire liberal spectrum on this issue.

### References

– [1] Wikipedia: Ben Cohen (businessman)
– [2] Instagram: Ben Cohen's Background
– [3] Politico: Ben Cohen's Views on Ukraine
– [4] Full Transcript of Ben Cohen on The Tucker Carlson Show
– [5] InfluenceWatch: Ben Cohen's Activism

Citations

Claim

Smedley Butler wrote in 1955 that during his military service he was a racketeer and gangster for capitalism.

Veracity Rating: 0 out of 4

Facts

## Evaluation of the Claim

The claim that Smedley Butler wrote in 1955 that during his military service he was a racketeer and gangster for capitalism is **incorrect**. Here's why:

1. **Publication Date**: Smedley Butler's book "War Is a Racket" was first published in 1935, not in 1955[1][4]. This discrepancy in the publication year already suggests an error in the claim.

2. **Content of "War Is a Racket"**: In "War Is a Racket," Butler indeed argues that military actions often serve corporate interests rather than the public good. He describes his military service as contributing to the interests of American corporations, such as oil and banking companies, in various countries[1]. However, he does not explicitly refer to himself as a "racketeer and gangster for capitalism" in the book. Instead, he critiques the system that he believes exploits war for profit.

3. **Butler's Perspective**: Butler's work is a critique of the economic motivations behind war and how they benefit a small elite at the expense of the many. He reflects on his own role in military interventions, noting that he helped secure interests for American corporations, but this is presented as a critique of the system rather than a personal admission of being a "racketeer"[1][3].

4. **Ben Cohen's Reference**: Ben Cohen's reference to Butler's work in the context of opposing U.S. involvement in the Ukraine war highlights the ongoing relevance of Butler's critique of military actions serving corporate interests. However, Cohen's stance does not imply that Butler wrote about being a "racketeer and gangster" in 1955, as Butler passed away in 1940[1].

In summary, the claim about Smedley Butler writing in 1955 that he was a racketeer and gangster for capitalism is **false**. Butler's book "War Is a Racket" was published in 1935, and while it critiques the economic motivations behind war, it does not contain the specific language or publication date mentioned in the claim.

## Additional Context

– **Historical Context**: Butler's work reflects his disillusionment with the role of military power in serving economic interests. His experiences during World War I and interventions in Central America and the Caribbean led him to question the true purposes of military actions[1][3].

– **Ben Cohen's Activism**: Ben Cohen's advocacy for peace and critique of military spending aligns with Butler's critique of war profiteering. However, Cohen's references to Butler's work do not support the claim about the 1955 publication or the specific language used[3].

In conclusion, while Butler's work critiques the economic motivations behind war, the specific claim about his writing in 1955 and referring to himself as a "racketeer and gangster for capitalism" is not supported by historical evidence.

Citations

Claim

The U.S. overthrew or invaded the governments of many countries, causing refugees and immigrants to seek safety in the U.S.

Veracity Rating: 2 out of 4

Facts

**Fact-Checking Analysis: U.S. Foreign Interventions and Immigration Consequences**

### **Claim Validity Assessment**
The claim that **"the U.S. overthrew or invaded the governments of many countries, causing refugees and immigrants to seek safety in the U.S."** is **partially substantiated**, with historical evidence supporting U.S. interventions linked to destabilization, though direct causation to refugee inflows requires nuanced analysis.

—

### **Evidence of U.S. Interventions**
1. **Regime Change Operations**
– **Chile (1973):** The CIA-backed coup against Salvador Allende installed Augusto Pinochet’s dictatorship, leading to widespread human rights abuses and political repression[2].
– **Nicaragua (1981-1990):** U.S.-backed Contra insurgency destabilized the country, contributing to economic collapse and displacement[2].
– **Iraq (2003):** The invasion toppled Saddam Hussein, sparking sectarian violence and prolonged instability, displacing millions[3][5].

2. **Military Interventions**
– **Laos/Cambodia (1970s):** Secret bombings and invasions during the Vietnam War caused mass civilian casualties and refugee crises[2][3].
– **Haiti (2004):** U.S. forces facilitated the removal of President Jean-Bertrand Aristide, exacerbating political turmoil[3].
– **Somalia (2006-present):** AC-130 strikes and drone attacks against Al-Shabab have perpetuated conflict-driven displacement[3].

3. **Scale of Interventions**
– **469 military interventions** since 1798, with **251 occurring post-1991**, often targeting Latin America, Africa, and the Middle East[5].
– **Cold War-era doctrines** (e.g., Truman, Reagan) prioritized countering communism through proxy wars and covert operations, destabilizing nations like Angola and El Salvador[1][2].

—

### **Link to Refugee Crises**
– **Direct Causation Examples**:
– **Central America (1980s):** U.S.-backed regimes in Guatemala, El Salvador, and Nicaragua faced insurgencies, leading to refugee flows northward[2].
– **Iraq War (2003-2011):** Over 9 million Iraqis were displaced, with many seeking asylum globally[^1^].
– **Indirect Consequences**:
– **Economic Sanctions/Blockades** (e.g., Cuba, Iran) exacerbate poverty, a push factor for migration.
– **Arms Proliferation**: U.S. military aid to factions in conflicts (e.g., Syria, Yemen) prolongs violence, displacing civilians[3][5].

—

### **Ben Cohen’s Arguments: Contextual Support**
– **General Smedley Butler’s Thesis**: The assertion that wars serve corporate interests aligns with interventions in oil-rich states (e.g., Iraq, Libya) and Cold War anti-communist campaigns benefiting defense contractors[1][4].
– **NATO Expansion**: While not a direct cause of U.S. interventions, Cohen’s critique of NATO’s post-Cold War eastward expansion as a driver of Russia-Ukraine tensions is a debated but recognized geopolitical concern[^2^].
– **Military Spending vs. Social Needs**: The **$886 billion 2024 Pentagon budget** contrasts sharply with underfunded domestic programs, a point corroborated by fiscal policy analyses[^3^].

—

### **Limitations and Counterpoints**
– **Multifactorial Displacement**: Refugee crises often stem from **combined factors** (e.g., climate, local governance), not solely U.S. actions.
– **Humanitarian Interventions**: Some operations (e.g., Kosovo 1999, Liberia 2003) aimed to stabilize regions, though outcomes vary[3][5].
– **Data Gaps**: Refugee statistics directly tied to specific U.S. interventions are inconsistently tracked, complicating causal claims.

—

### **Conclusion**
The claim **holds merit** for specific cases (e.g., Central America, Iraq) where U.S. interventions directly exacerbated instability and displacement. However, attributing **all** refugee flows to U.S. actions oversimplifies complex migration drivers. Cohen’s emphasis on corporate influence in military policy is historically grounded but requires contextualization with broader geopolitical factors.

—

**Sources Cited**:
[1] U.S. foreign intervention history (Wikipedia)
[2] Global Policy Forum’s military interventions list
[3] Tufts University’s 2023 report on 393 interventions
[5] Congressional Research Service data (469 interventions since 1798)

[^1^]: UNHCR Iraq displacement figures (external data).
[^2^]: NATO-Russia tensions analysis (beyond provided sources).
[^3^]: U.S. Defense Budget data (FY2024).

Citations

Claim

The U.S. made promises to Russia not to expand NATO eastward at the end of the Cold War.

Veracity Rating: 0 out of 4

Facts

**Fact-Checking Analysis: U.S. Promises on NATO Expansion and Ben Cohen's Stance**

### **Claim Validity: "The U.S. made promises to Russia not to expand NATO eastward"**
#### **Key Findings**
1. **No Formal Agreement Exists**:
– **Diplomatic records** show no legally binding treaty or written commitment prohibiting NATO expansion. Discussions during German reunification in 1990 included assurances about NATO forces not being stationed in former East Germany, but these were specific to Germany, not a blanket ban on eastward expansion[1][3][5].
– **Mikhail Gorbachev's ambiguity**: The Soviet leader gave conflicting accounts, sometimes referencing a "guarantee" but later stating NATO expansion "wasn’t discussed at all" in the early 1990s[1][4].

2. **Context of Oral Discussions**:
– **James Baker's 1990 remark** ("not one inch eastward") referred to NATO jurisdiction in East Germany, not future membership for Eastern European states[2][5].
– **Academic consensus**: Scholars widely reject the "broken promise" narrative, noting that post-Cold War NATO enlargement was driven by voluntary requests from Eastern European states seeking security guarantees[1][5].

3. **Russian Narrative vs. NATO Policy**:
– **Russia's position** hinges on interpreting informal Cold War-era discussions as binding, despite the absence of formal agreements[1][3].
– **NATO's open-door policy** (Article 10 of its founding treaty) allows any European state to apply, and membership requires unanimous approval by existing members[1][5].

—

### **Evaluation of Ben Cohen's Arguments**
#### **1. NATO Expansion as a Conflict Driver**
– **Cohen's assertion** that NATO enlargement "threatened Russia" aligns with Moscow’s rhetoric but lacks empirical support. NATO’s post-1997 expansions (e.g., Poland, Baltic states) occurred without direct conflict until Russia’s 2014 annexation of Crimea[1][3].
– **Academic criticism**: The "provocation" narrative oversimplifies Russia’s imperial ambitions in Ukraine, which predate NATO’s post-2004 enlargement[2][5].

#### **2. U.S. Military-Industrial Complex**
– **General Smedley Butler’s thesis** ("War is a Racket") is cited accurately, but Cohen’s application to Ukraine oversimplifies:
– **Corporate influence**: While defense contractors lobby for military spending, NATO’s support for Ukraine is primarily a geopolitical response to Russian aggression, not a profit-driven scheme[2][5].
– **Pentagon budget**: Cohen correctly notes the U.S. defense budget’s size ($886B in 2024), but humanitarian aid to Ukraine ($75B since 2022) is separate from military allocations[^1^].

#### **3. Immigration and Instability**
– **Link to U.S. interventions**: Cohen’s broader argument about U.S. wars causing refugee crises (e.g., Syria, Afghanistan) has merit, but this connection is less direct in Ukraine, where displacement stems from Russia’s invasion, not NATO policy[^2^].

—

### **Conclusion**
– **Claim Rating**: **False**. No formal U.S. or NATO promise against eastward expansion exists.
– **Cohen’s Stance**: Mixes valid critiques of military spending with oversimplified causality regarding NATO and Ukraine. His emphasis on peacebuilding aligns with humanitarian priorities but underestimates the role of collective defense in deterring further aggression.

—

**Citations**
[1] [NATO expansion controversy (Wikipedia)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversy_regarding_the_legitimacy_of_eastward_NATO_expansion)
[2] [CEPA analysis on NATO expansion myths](https://cepa.org/article/sympathy-with-the-devil-the-lie-of-nato-expansion/)
[3] [France 24: NATO "betrayal" claims](https://www.france24.com/en/russia/20220130-did-nato-betray-russia-by-expanding-to-the-east)
[4] [Gorbachev's mixed statements (GFSIS)](https://gfsis.org/en/did-the-united-states-make-a-promise-to-the-soviet-union-on-nato-expansion-what-gorbachev-heard/)
[5] [Chatham House: Myths on NATO expansion](https://www.chathamhouse.org/2021/05/myths-and-misconceptions-debate-russia/myth-03-russia-was-promised-nato-would-not-enlarge)

[^1^]: Pentagon budget and aid figures are widely reported but not directly cited in provided sources.
[^2^]: Ukraine refugee data from UNHCR (not included in sources).

Citations

Claim

The U.S. has military commands that cover every portion of the globe and 800 military bases worldwide.

Veracity Rating: 3 out of 4

Facts

## Evaluation of the Claim: U.S. Military Commands and Bases

The claim states that the U.S. has military commands covering every portion of the globe and 800 military bases worldwide. To evaluate this claim, we need to examine the available data on U.S. military bases and global military presence.

### U.S. Military Bases Worldwide

– **Number of Bases**: The claim mentions 800 military bases. However, recent data suggests that the U.S. has approximately 750 military bases in 80 countries as of 2023[4]. Another source indicates at least 128 known bases across 49 countries[3][5]. The discrepancy may arise from the inclusion of temporary sites or smaller installations not always publicly disclosed.

– **Global Coverage**: The U.S. military indeed has a significant global presence, with bases in Europe, Asia, Africa, the Middle East, and the Pacific. This presence supports the notion that U.S. military commands cover a substantial portion of the globe, particularly in strategic regions like Europe and East Asia[5].

### U.S. Military Commands

– The U.S. military is organized into several geographic combatant commands, which are responsible for different regions of the world:
– **Africa Command (AFRICOM)**: Covers Africa.
– **Central Command (CENTCOM)**: Focuses on the Middle East and parts of South Asia.
– **European Command (EUCOM)**: Responsible for Europe.
– **Indo-Pacific Command (INDOPACOM)**: Covers the Asia-Pacific region.
– **Northern Command (NORTHCOM)**: Focuses on North America.
– **Southern Command (SOUTHCOM)**: Covers Central and South America and the Caribbean.
– **Space Command (SPACECOM)**: Oversees space operations.
– **Special Operations Command (SOCOM)**: Handles special operations globally.
– **Transportation Command (TRANSCOM)**: Manages logistics and transportation.

This structure supports the claim that U.S. military commands cover every portion of the globe, as these commands are designed to address security issues in their respective regions.

### Conclusion

While the exact number of U.S. military bases might be debated due to variations in reporting and classification, the claim that U.S. military commands cover every portion of the globe is supported by the structure of the U.S. military's geographic combatant commands. However, the claim of 800 bases appears to be an overestimation based on available data, which suggests around 750 bases in 80 countries[4].

### Additional Context

Ben Cohen's stance on U.S. military involvement and its implications aligns with broader critiques of U.S. foreign policy and military spending. The argument that military actions often serve corporate interests and contribute to global instability is a perspective shared by various critics of U.S. foreign policy, including references to historical figures like General Smedley Butler. However, these arguments are more subjective and depend on political and ideological perspectives rather than purely factual data.

Citations

Claim

The Pentagon consumes over half of the federal discretionary budget.

Veracity Rating: 4 out of 4

Facts

## Claim Evaluation: The Pentagon Consumes Over Half of the Federal Discretionary Budget

To evaluate the claim that the Pentagon consumes over half of the federal discretionary budget, we need to examine recent data on U.S. federal spending allocations.

### Background on Federal Discretionary Spending

Federal discretionary spending includes both defense and non-defense expenditures. In recent years, defense spending has been a significant portion of discretionary spending, but whether it exceeds half of the total discretionary budget requires examination of specific figures.

### Current Data on Defense Spending

As of the latest available data for Fiscal Year 2026, defense spending is proposed to increase by 13% from $848 billion to $962 billion[1][2]. Meanwhile, total discretionary spending is maintained at $1.6 trillion for Fiscal Year 2026[1].

### Calculation and Analysis

To determine if defense spending exceeds half of the discretionary budget, we can calculate the percentage of defense spending within the total discretionary spending.

Given:
– Total discretionary spending for FY 2026 = $1.6 trillion
– Proposed defense spending for FY 2026 = $962 billion

Percentage of defense spending = (Defense spending / Total discretionary spending) * 100
= ($962 billion / $1.6 trillion) * 100
= 60.125%

This calculation indicates that defense spending indeed accounts for more than half of the federal discretionary budget for Fiscal Year 2026.

### Conclusion

Based on the proposed budget for Fiscal Year 2026, the claim that the Pentagon consumes over half of the federal discretionary budget is **true**. Defense spending is projected to exceed 60% of the total discretionary spending, aligning with the assertion made by Ben Cohen and others critical of military spending levels.

### Additional Context

Critics like Ben Cohen argue that high military spending comes at the expense of social needs and humanitarian assistance, echoing concerns raised by figures like General Smedley Butler about the role of military actions in serving corporate interests rather than the public good. However, the factual accuracy of the claim regarding the Pentagon's share of the discretionary budget is supported by the latest budget proposals.

Citations

Claim

The U.S. represents 5% of the world population but has a dominant military presence globally.

Veracity Rating: 3 out of 4

Facts

Here's a fact-check evaluation of the claim and related assertions:

**Claim Verification: "5% of world population with dominant military presence"**
– **Population**: The US represents ~4.2% of the global population (335M vs 8B globally).
– **Military Expenditure**:
– **Absolute terms**: The US accounts for **37% of global military spending** ($997B in 2025)[1], with a $849.8B base defense budget request for FY2025[2].
– **GDP percentage**: Historically ranges between **3.32-3.70% of GDP** (2017-2022)[3], with 3.36% in 2023[4]. Post-WWII peaks reached **11.4% during the Korean War**[5].

**Ben Cohen's Assertions**
1. **"Military actions serve corporate interests"**:
– **General Butler's thesis** (1935) about war profiteering remains debated. While defense contractors like Lockheed Martin ($65B+ in 2023 arms sales) benefit from conflicts, causation between corporate lobbying and specific military actions requires case-by-case analysis.

2. **"NATO expansion caused Ukraine conflict"**:
– **Geopolitical context**: NATO added 14 Eastern European members since 1999. Russia explicitly cited NATO's 2008 Bucharest Summit (declaring Ukraine would join) as a security threat.
– **Counterargument**: NATO's Article 5 collective defense hasn't been triggered in Ukraine, and membership requires unanimous approval.

3. **"Military spending vs. social needs"**:
– **Budget priorities**: The proposed $849.8B defense budget[2] equals ~12% of total federal spending. For comparison, Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid account for ~$2.9T annually.
– **Global resentment**: No direct evidence links immigration crises solely to US military interventions, though destabilization in Afghanistan/Iraq contributed to refugee flows.

**Conclusion**
The **core claim about disproportionate military influence** is **validated** by spending data[1][2], though the population percentage is slightly overstated. Cohen's arguments about NATO expansion and corporate influence reflect **established viewpoints in anti-interventionist discourse**, but causal relationships between defense spending and specific geopolitical outcomes require nuanced analysis. The **3-3.7% GDP military expenditure**[3][4] remains below historical highs[5], complicating direct comparisons to Cold War-era impacts.

Citations

Claim

The Eisenhower Media Network was formed to critique the Pentagon by retirees with military credentials.

Veracity Rating: 4 out of 4

Facts

**Fact-Checking Analysis: Eisenhower Media Network's Purpose and Ben Cohen's Stance**

### **Claim Validity: Eisenhower Media Network's Formation**
The claim that the **Eisenhower Media Network (EMN)** was formed to critique the Pentagon through military veterans is **substantiated by available evidence**.
– **Mission**: EMN explicitly states it provides "alternative analyses untainted by Pentagon or defense industry ties" and opposes systemic corruption in the military-industrial-congressional complex[1][2].
– **Expert Composition**: EMN's roster includes retired military officers such as Maj. Gen. Dennis Laich, Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, and Col. Ann Wright, who leverage their credentials to critique U.S. foreign policy[^expert_list].
– **Critique Focus**: EMN publications challenge Pentagon priorities like the "Great Power Competition" framework, which they argue perpetuates global rivalry[4].

### **Ben Cohen's Stance on U.S. Foreign Policy**
While Cohen's specific involvement with EMN is **not directly cited** in available sources, his arguments align with EMN's broader critique of militarism:
– **Historical Parallels**: Cohen references Gen. Smedley Butler's *War is a Racket* (1935, not 1955), which critiques corporate influence on military interventions—a theme consistent with EMN's opposition to defense industry lobbying[^butler_date].
– **NATO Expansion**: Cohen's assertion that NATO's post-Cold War growth contributed to tensions with Russia reflects a viewpoint shared by some EMN experts, though EMN materials focus more broadly on systemic militarization[4].
– **Budget Priorities**: Both Cohen and EMN emphasize redirecting Pentagon spending to domestic needs, with EMN highlighting the "undue influence" of defense contractors on policy[2][5].

### **Key Considerations**
– **Partisan Labeling**: EMN is described as "left wing antiwar" by KeyWiki[5], though its experts include bipartisan voices (e.g., Col. Wilkerson, a Republican).
– **Scope of Critique**: EMN's analysis extends beyond specific conflicts (e.g., Ukraine) to systemic issues like congressional lobbying and contractor profiteering[2][4].

**Conclusion**: The claim about EMN's founding purpose is **accurate**, supported by its mission statement and expert composition. Cohen's arguments, while not directly tied to EMN, align with its broader critique of militarized foreign policy.

—

**Footnotes**
[^expert_list]: EMN's listed experts include retired officers from multiple service branches, emphasizing firsthand experience in national security[1][5].
[^butler_date]: *War is a Racket* was published in 1935; the 1955 date in the claim appears erroneous.

Citations

Claim

Tensions surrounding NATO expansion contributed to the current conflict in Ukraine.

Veracity Rating: 2 out of 4

Facts

## Evaluating the Claim: NATO Expansion and the Ukraine Conflict

The claim that tensions surrounding NATO expansion contributed to the current conflict in Ukraine is a complex issue that has been debated extensively in geopolitical and academic circles. Here, we will analyze this claim using reliable sources and evidence.

### Argument for NATO Expansion as a Contributing Factor

1. **Perceived Threat by Russia**: Many analysts argue that Russia views NATO's expansion into Eastern Europe as a threat to its security and territorial influence. This perception is seen as a central cause of the Ukraine crisis, as Russia seeks to prevent Ukraine from joining NATO and thereby maintain its strategic buffer zone[1][2].

2. **Historical Context**: The expansion of NATO into Eastern Europe, starting with the inclusion of countries like Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic, was opposed by many experts who foresaw it as a potential trigger for Russian aggression. This historical context suggests that NATO's expansion has been a long-standing concern for Russia[1].

### Counterarguments

1. **Lack of Promises**: It is often pointed out that there was no formal promise made by the West not to expand NATO. This counters the Russian narrative that NATO's expansion is a betrayal of previous agreements[2].

2. **Ukrainian Initiative**: The push for closer NATO-Ukraine relations has largely come from Ukraine itself, with NATO respecting Ukraine's decisions regarding membership. This indicates that NATO's actions were not the primary driver of Ukrainian policy[2].

3. **Alternative Explanations**: Some argue that factors other than NATO expansion, such as Russian domestic politics and the desire to maintain influence in the region, are more significant in explaining Russia's actions in Ukraine[4][5].

### Conclusion

While there is evidence to suggest that NATO's expansion has contributed to tensions with Russia and influenced its actions in Ukraine, the situation is multifaceted. Russia's perception of NATO as a threat is a significant factor, but it is not the sole cause of the conflict. Other geopolitical dynamics, including historical grievances and strategic interests, also play crucial roles.

In summary, the claim that NATO expansion contributed to the conflict in Ukraine has some validity, particularly in terms of how Russia perceives NATO's actions. However, it is essential to consider the broader geopolitical context and not oversimplify the complex origins of the conflict.

### Recommendations for Further Analysis

– **Geopolitical Context**: Consider the historical and strategic interests of both Russia and NATO in the region.
– **Perceptions and Narratives**: Examine how different actors perceive NATO's expansion and its implications for regional security.
– **Multifaceted Causes**: Analyze the various factors contributing to the conflict, including domestic politics, energy interests, and historical grievances.

By adopting a nuanced approach that considers multiple perspectives and evidence, a more comprehensive understanding of the role of NATO expansion in the Ukraine conflict can be achieved.

Citations

Claim

Ben Cohen supports peace and a ceasefire over ongoing conflicts including the war in Ukraine.

Veracity Rating: 3 out of 4

Facts

**Fact-Check Evaluation: Ben Cohen's Stance on Peace and Ukraine**

**Claim Validity: Mostly Accurate**
The claim that Ben Cohen supports peace and a ceasefire in Ukraine aligns with his documented public statements and activism. However, the specific reference to General Smedley Butler’s *War is a Racket* is not explicitly cited in available sources, though Cohen’s broader anti-war rhetoric matches its themes.

—

### **Key Evidence**
1. **Ukraine War Opposition**
Cohen has publicly criticized U.S. military support for Ukraine, arguing it prolongs the conflict. In 2022, he was described as “one of the only liberals” opposing the war[1][4], and by 2023, he faced backlash for advocating reduced weapons deliveries, stating:
> *“The U.S. could use its power to advocate for a negotiated settlement, but instead it’s using its power to prolong the war — prolong and prolong and increase the death and destruction”*[5].

2. **NATO Expansion Critique**
While the provided sources do not directly quote Cohen on NATO, his emphasis on reducing militarization aligns with the claim. He has criticized excessive Pentagon spending, stating:
> *“You get these generals and admirals… saying we need nuclear weapons to blow up the world 10 times over”*[5], reflecting skepticism toward military-industrial complex priorities.

3. **Historical Activism**
Cohen’s long-standing progressive advocacy supports the claim’s broader context:
– **Corporate Influence**: Led campaigns against corporate political spending (e.g., Stamp Stampede for overturning *Citizens United*)[3].
– **Anti-War Funding**: Donated to journalism awards for writers critical of U.S. foreign policy (e.g., Aaron Maté, Sam Husseini)[5].
– **Palestinian Territories**: Supported ending Ben & Jerry’s sales in occupied territories, citing ethical concerns[3].

—

### **Gaps and Limitations**
– **Smedley Butler Reference**: No direct evidence links Cohen to citing Butler’s book, though his critique of militarism parallels Butler’s thesis.
– **NATO Specifics**: Sources lack explicit quotes from Cohen about NATO’s role in the Ukraine conflict, though his opposition to military escalation implies alignment with the claim.
– **Immigration Link**: The assertion that Cohen connects U.S. interventions to immigration crises is plausible given his anti-war stance but unsupported by direct citations here.

—

### **Conclusion**
The claim is **mostly accurate**, with Cohen’s documented statements and activism strongly supporting his advocacy for peace over military intervention in Ukraine. While some specifics (e.g., Butler reference) lack direct evidence, his broader rhetoric and actions substantiate the core argument.

**Recommendation**: Verify the Butler citation through primary sources (e.g., interviews, op-eds) for full confirmation. Cohen’s 2023 remarks[5] and funding of anti-war journalism[5] provide credible secondary support.

Citations

Claim

The conflicts are driven by profit.

Veracity Rating: 3 out of 4

Facts

## Evaluating the Claim: Conflicts Driven by Profit

The claim that conflicts are driven by profit suggests that economic incentives play a significant role in motivating military actions. This perspective is supported by various arguments, including those presented by Ben Cohen, co-founder of Ben & Jerry's, who has been vocal about his opposition to U.S. involvement in the Ukraine war. Cohen references General Smedley Butler's work, which posits that military actions often serve corporate interests rather than the public good.

### Historical Context and Arguments

1. **General Smedley Butler's "War is a Racket"**: Butler, a U.S. Marine Corps Major General, published "War is a Racket" in 1935 (not 1955), where he argued that war is driven by corporate interests seeking profit from military conflicts. This perspective aligns with the idea that economic motivations can influence military engagements.

2. **Ben Cohen's Stance on U.S. Involvement in Ukraine**: Cohen's opposition to U.S. involvement in Ukraine is rooted in his belief that military actions often exacerbate conflicts and serve corporate interests. He suggests that U.S. military engagements have contributed to global instability and immigration crises[1][2].

3. **Expansion of NATO and Russia**: The expansion of NATO is often cited as a factor that has contributed to tensions with Russia, potentially leading to conflicts like the one in Ukraine. This geopolitical dynamic can be seen as driven by strategic interests that may include economic benefits for involved parties.

### Academic and Scientific Perspectives

– **Economic Interests in Conflict**: Academic research supports the notion that economic interests can play a significant role in the initiation and continuation of conflicts. For instance, studies on the resource curse hypothesis suggest that control over valuable resources can be a driving factor in civil wars.

– **Military-Industrial Complex**: The concept of the military-industrial complex, first introduced by President Dwight Eisenhower, highlights the interdependence between the military and defense industries. This complex can create economic incentives for military action, as defense contractors benefit financially from increased military spending.

### Conclusion

The claim that conflicts are driven by profit is supported by historical and contemporary arguments. While not all conflicts are solely driven by economic interests, there is evidence to suggest that profit motives can significantly influence military actions. Ben Cohen's stance on the Ukraine conflict, along with historical perspectives like those of General Smedley Butler, underscores the complex interplay between economic interests and geopolitical conflicts.

### References

[1] https://www.instagram.com/reel/DJSV_t4snsq/
[2] https://singjupost.com/full-transcript-of-ben-cohen-on-the-tucker-carlson-show/
[3] https://thebanter.substack.com/p/how-alt-right-grifters-screwed-ukraine
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Cohen_(businessman)
[5] https://www.fdd.org/analysis/op_eds/2025/03/14/its-time-to-abolish-the-uns-pro-hamas-bureaucracy/
General Smedley Butler. (1935). *War is a Racket*.
For a detailed analysis of NATO expansion and its impact on Russia, see scholarly articles on international relations and geopolitics.
See research on the resource curse hypothesis and its implications for conflict studies.
Dwight D. Eisenhower. (1961). *Farewell Address*.

Citations

Claim

Politicians judge military strength based on how much money they are willing to give to the Pentagon.

Veracity Rating: 3 out of 4

Facts

## Evaluating the Claim: Politicians Judge Military Strength Based on Pentagon Funding

The claim that politicians judge military strength based on how much money they are willing to give to the Pentagon reflects a common perception that defense spending is a key metric for evaluating a nation's military capabilities and political resolve. This perspective is supported by historical defense budgets and political rhetoric, where increased military spending is often framed as a demonstration of strength and commitment to national security.

### Historical Context and Political Rhetoric

1. **Defense Spending as a Metric of Strength**: Historically, defense spending has been used as a visible indicator of a nation's military power and political will. For instance, during the Cold War, the United States and the Soviet Union engaged in an arms race, where military spending was seen as a direct measure of each side's commitment to its ideology and security[1].

2. **Political Rhetoric**: Politicians often use defense spending as a rhetorical tool to demonstrate their commitment to national security. For example, during election campaigns, candidates may promise to increase military spending to show their resolve to protect the country[2].

### Ben Cohen's Perspective on Military Spending and U.S. Involvement in Ukraine

Ben Cohen, co-founder of Ben & Jerry's and a liberal activist, has taken a critical stance against U.S. involvement in the Ukraine war. He references General Smedley Butler's book "War is a Racket," which argues that military actions often serve corporate interests rather than the public good[3]. Cohen's views align with those who believe that military engagements can generate resentment and conflict, leading to political instability and humanitarian crises.

– **Critique of Military Spending**: Cohen argues that prioritizing military power over humanitarian assistance is detrimental both morally and practically. He emphasizes that the exorbitant Pentagon budget comes at the expense of social needs within the U.S.[4].

– **NATO Expansion and Ukraine Conflict**: Cohen also suggests that the expansion of NATO threatened Russia and contributed to the current conflict in Ukraine. He advocates for peace over military spending, highlighting the need for a negotiated settlement rather than prolonged military engagement[5].

### Validity of the Claim

The claim that politicians judge military strength based on Pentagon funding is supported by historical evidence and political discourse. Defense spending is often used as a visible indicator of military power and political resolve. However, critics like Ben Cohen argue that this approach overlooks the broader implications of military actions, such as generating conflict and diverting resources from social needs.

### Conclusion

In conclusion, while the claim reflects a common political narrative, it also overlooks the complexities of military strength and foreign policy. The perspective of critics like Ben Cohen highlights the need for a more nuanced approach to evaluating military strength, one that considers both the economic and humanitarian impacts of military actions.

## References

[1] For a detailed analysis of the Cold War arms race, see historical accounts such as "The Cold War: A New History" by Odd Arne Westad.

[2] Political rhetoric on defense spending can be observed in speeches and campaign promises of political leaders.

[3] General Smedley Butler's book "War is a Racket" (originally published in 1935, not 1955) critiques the role of corporate interests in military conflicts.

[4] Ben Cohen's views on military spending are documented in his public statements and interviews.

[5] Cohen's stance on NATO expansion and its impact on the Ukraine conflict is reflected in his advocacy for peace over military spending.

Citations

Claim

Military contractors deliberately spread out jobs for a particular weapon system across congressional districts to gain support.

Veracity Rating: 3 out of 4

Facts

## Evaluating the Claim: Military Contractors Spread Jobs Across Congressional Districts

The claim that military contractors deliberately spread jobs for a particular weapon system across congressional districts to gain support is a well-documented tactic in the realm of defense contracting and lobbying. This strategy is often referred to as "congressional district dispersal" or "pork barrel politics," where defense contractors distribute contracts and jobs across multiple districts to build political support and ensure continued funding for their projects.

### Evidence Supporting the Claim

1. **Lobbying and Political Influence**: Defense contractors are among the largest contributors to political campaigns and lobbying efforts in Washington, D.C. This financial influence can help secure support from lawmakers, especially when jobs are at stake in their districts[3]. While direct evidence of job dispersal for political gain might not be explicitly documented, the significant lobbying efforts by defense contractors suggest a strong interest in maintaining political favor.

2. **Economic Impact and Job Creation**: The distribution of defense contracts across various congressional districts can create jobs and stimulate local economies. This economic impact can lead to political support from lawmakers who benefit from the employment opportunities and economic growth in their districts[2]. For instance, defense spending affects every congressional district through military personnel and defense contracts, which can influence political decisions.

3. **Historical Examples**: There are historical examples where defense projects have been spread across multiple states to ensure broad political support. For example, the F-35 fighter jet program involves contractors from over 40 states, which helps to secure bipartisan support in Congress[2].

### Conclusion

While there may not be a single definitive source explicitly stating that contractors "deliberately spread out jobs" for political gain, the combination of lobbying efforts, economic impacts, and historical examples of dispersed defense projects supports the notion that defense contractors use job distribution as a strategy to secure political favor. This practice aligns with broader patterns of political influence and economic leverage in the defense industry.

### Additional Context

Ben Cohen's stance on military spending and its implications highlights broader concerns about the influence of military contractors on U.S. foreign policy. His reference to General Smedley Butler's work underscores historical critiques of military actions serving corporate interests. However, the specific claim about job dispersal across congressional districts is more about political strategy and economic leverage than a direct critique of military actions.

### References

– [1] Congressional Research Service reports provide insights into federal employment and its distribution, though they do not directly address contractor strategies.
– [2] Defense spending impacts every congressional district, influencing political decisions through economic benefits.
– [3] Lobbying records show significant contributions from defense contractors, which can influence political support.
– [4] DoD workforce reports provide data on military personnel but do not directly address contractor strategies for job distribution.

Citations

Claim

The F-35 is made in over 400 congressional districts.

Veracity Rating: 1 out of 4

Facts

**Fact-Check: F-35 Production Across Congressional Districts**
The claim that "the F-35 is made in over 400 congressional districts" is **not directly verifiable** using the provided sources. However, the available evidence supports the broader assertion of widespread economic impact through distributed manufacturing:

1. **Production Footprint**:
– **Primary assembly** occurs at **United States Air Force Plant 4** in Fort Worth, Texas, operated by Lockheed Martin[3][5].
– **Components** are manufactured across multiple locations, including **Northrop Grumman’s center fuselage facility in Palmdale, California**[1], and international partners like **Turkish Aerospace Industries (TAI)** under license[1].
– The **CRS report** (2024) confirms the F-35 is produced in "several" locations but does not quantify congressional districts[2][4].

2. **Economic Impact**:
– **Lockheed Martin’s Fort Worth facility** employs ~17,000 people[3], with F-35 production projected to exceed **4,000 aircraft** over decades[5].
– **Supply chains** for advanced components (e.g., avionics, engines) likely involve subcontractors across numerous districts, though specific data is absent here.

**Conclusion**:
The claim’s **specific figure of 400 districts** remains unverified in the provided materials. However, the F-35 program’s reliance on a **geographically dispersed supply chain** aligns with the general premise of broad economic participation. For precise district-level data, official defense contract records or congressional reports (e.g., CRS RL30563[4]) would be required.

—

**Context on Ben Cohen’s Commentary**:
While Cohen’s critique of military spending is not directly addressed in the sources, the F-35’s **$1.7 trillion lifecycle cost** (per CRS[2][4]) underscores his argument about budget priorities. The program’s international partnerships (e.g., Turkey’s stalled order over source-code disputes[1]) also reflect geopolitical tensions tied to defense contracts.

**Recommendation**:
To validate the 400-district claim, consult **Department of Defense subcontracting reports** or **Government Accountability Office (GAO) analyses** detailing F-35 supplier locations.

Citations

Claim

There was no evidence that Putin seeks further territorial expansion.

Veracity Rating: 0 out of 4

Facts

**Fact-Checking Analysis: Putin's Territorial Ambitions in Ukraine**

**Claim:** "There was no evidence that Putin seeks further territorial expansion."

**Evaluation:** **False.** Multiple authoritative sources directly contradict this assertion, demonstrating clear evidence of Russia's ongoing territorial objectives in Ukraine.

—

### **Key Evidence of Russian Territorial Objectives**
1. **ISW Assessments (May 2025):**
The Institute for the Study of War (ISW) explicitly states that Putin remains committed to seizing all of Ukraine and undermining NATO[1]. Russian forces continue offensive operations targeting Lyman, Pokrovsk, and Kostyantynivka, aiming to capture the remainder of Donetsk Oblast[1].
– **Territorial gains:** Russia seized 496 km² in January 2025 and 313 km² in February 2025[1].
– **Long-term military restructuring:** Russia is expanding force generation and industrial capacity for a "long war of attrition against Ukraine and likely the collective West"[1].

2. **March 2025 Slowdown ≠ Strategic Shift:**
While Russia's territorial gains slowed to 240 km² in March 2025[3], ISW and Atlantic Council analysts attribute this to Ukrainian defensive fortifications rather than reduced Russian ambitions[3][5]. Ukrainian officials warn of an impending major Russian offensive expected to last through late 2025[3].

3. **April 2025 Momentum:**
Russia gained 142 square miles (368 km²) between March 18–April 15, 2025, accelerating to 50 square miles (129 km²) in the final week[5]. These gains focus on destabilizing Ukraine's "fortress belt" in Donetsk Oblast[1].

—

### **Geopolitical Context**
– **Kremlin Demands:** Russia insists on Ukrainian territorial concessions (including internationally recognized land) as a precondition for negotiations[2].
– **NATO Concerns:** Putin's objectives explicitly include undermining NATO's eastern flank, with military reforms preparing for "future conflict on Russia's western borders"[1].
– **Economic Prioritization:** Russia's wartime economy sacrifices civilian needs to sustain long-term military-industrial investments[1].

—

### **Ben Cohen's Argument: Contextual Notes**
While Cohen critiques U.S. military spending and NATO expansion, his claim about Putin's territorial intentions lacks evidentiary support. The assertion that NATO expansion alone caused the conflict oversimplifies Putin's documented revanchist ideology[4], which frames Ukraine as an illegitimate state and seeks to restore Russian imperial borders[1][4].

—

**Conclusion:**
The claim that "there is no evidence" of Putin's territorial ambitions is **demonstrably false**. ISW, Atlantic Council, and Harvard analyses confirm Russia's ongoing efforts to seize Ukrainian territory and prepare for prolonged conflict. Cohen's advocacy for peace, while distinct from factual claims about Russian strategy, does not negate the documented evidence of Putin's expansionist goals.

**Final Rating:** **False** – Contradicted by authoritative military and geopolitical analyses.

Citations

Claim

Ceasefire in the spring of 2022 could have saved a million lives in Ukraine.

Veracity Rating: 1 out of 4

Facts

## Evaluating the Claim: "Ceasefire in the Spring of 2022 Could Have Saved a Million Lives in Ukraine"

The claim that a ceasefire in the spring of 2022 could have saved a million lives in Ukraine is speculative and requires careful analysis of historical data on casualties and the potential impacts of conflict resolution. Here's a detailed evaluation of this claim:

### 1. **Casualty Figures**

As of the latest reports, the total number of military casualties (killed and wounded) in Ukraine is nearing 500,000, according to U.S. officials[3]. This includes both Ukrainian and Russian troops. Civilian casualties have been reported at over 12,900 deaths as of March 31, 2025[4]. However, these figures do not approach a million lives lost.

### 2. **Potential Impact of a Ceasefire**

A ceasefire in the spring of 2022 would have likely reduced the number of casualties by stopping active combat. However, estimating that it could have saved a million lives is highly speculative. The conflict has been intense, with significant military engagement and civilian displacement, but the actual casualty numbers are far below a million.

### 3. **Historical Context and Conflict Dynamics**

The conflict in Ukraine is complex, involving political, economic, and strategic interests. The expansion of NATO and historical tensions between Russia and Ukraine contributed to the escalation of the conflict[5]. A ceasefire would have required agreement from both parties, which was challenging given the political and strategic stakes involved.

### 4. **Ben Cohen's Perspective**

Ben Cohen's stance against U.S. involvement in the Ukraine war and his advocacy for peace over military spending reflect broader debates about the role of military power in international relations. His reference to General Smedley Butler's work highlights concerns about the influence of corporate interests on military actions. However, these perspectives do not directly support the claim about saving a million lives through a ceasefire.

### Conclusion

While a ceasefire in the spring of 2022 would have undoubtedly reduced casualties, the claim that it could have saved a million lives is not supported by available data. The actual number of casualties, both military and civilian, is significantly lower than a million. The speculative nature of this claim requires careful consideration of the complexities of conflict resolution and the dynamics of international relations.

### Evidence Summary

– **Military Casualties**: Approaching 500,000 (killed and wounded) as of recent reports[3].
– **Civilian Casualties**: Over 12,900 deaths reported as of March 31, 2025[4].
– **Potential Impact of Ceasefire**: Would have reduced casualties but estimating a million lives saved is speculative.
– **Historical Context**: Complex political and strategic factors contributed to the conflict's escalation[5].

Citations

Claim

The U.S. arms trade economy is sacrilegious and detrimental to American values.

Veracity Rating: 2 out of 4

Facts

Claim

The Pentagon budget could significantly fund domestic programs.

Veracity Rating: 2 out of 4

Facts

**Fact-Check Evaluation: Pentagon Budget Reallocation Potential**

**Claim Validity Assessment**
The claim that Pentagon budget reallocation could significantly fund domestic programs is **plausible in principle but context-dependent**, based on fiscal scale and political feasibility. The FY 2025 Defense Department budget request stands at $850 billion[3][4], while the proposed FY 2026 budget seeks $1.01 trillion[2]. For comparison, the entire FY 2023 federal discretionary budget was approximately $1.7 trillion, with defense accounting for over half of this category[^1^].

**Key Evidence**
1. **Budget Scale**: A 10% reduction of the FY 2025 defense budget ($850B) would free $85 billion annually—equivalent to doubling the 2023 budget for the Department of Housing and Urban Development ($68.7B) or nearly tripling the EPA's budget ($12.1B)[^2^].
2. **Historical Growth**: Defense spending has risen from $700B to $850B in three years[4], outpacing inflation and non-defense discretionary spending growth.
3. **Trade-Off Analysis**: The Congressional Budget Office notes that defense spending crowds out other priorities, as seen in the FY 2025 FYDP's $17B cut to acquisition programs[3], demonstrating budgetary flexibility exists in theory.

**Counterarguments and Limitations**
– **Geopolitical Realities**: Current global tensions (e.g., Ukraine, Taiwan Strait) make large-scale cuts politically contentious.
– **Economic Impact**: Defense spending supports ~2.8 million jobs directly[^3^], complicating abrupt reallocation.
– **Institutional Inertia**: As noted in NYU's PFM analysis[5], shifting budgetary priorities requires overcoming entrenched bureaucratic and contractor interests.

**Ben Cohen's Perspective**
Cohen's invocation of General Butler's "War is a Racket" aligns with modern critiques of the military-industrial complex. His argument that NATO expansion contributed to the Ukraine conflict reflects a minority academic view (e.g., Mearsheimer's offensive realism) but lacks consensus among policymakers. The immigration-crisis linkage, while theoretically plausible through the "blowback" concept, remains empirically contested.

**Conclusion**
The claim is **factually grounded in budget arithmetic** but **politically aspirational**. While reallocating defense funds could theoretically address domestic needs, implementation would require overcoming structural barriers not addressed in the claim. Cohen's broader critique about military spending priorities is a normative argument supported by historical precedent but lacks direct causal evidence for specific current outcomes.

—

[^1^]: Historical budget data from OMB archives (not shown in sources but contextually inferred).
[^2^]: 2023 budget figures from whitehouse.gov (not shown but standard reference).
[^3^]: DoD employment data from defense.gov (not shown but widely reported).

**Recommendation**: The claim merits qualification as "theoretically valid but practically unproven" without specific legislative proposals or cost-benefit analyses attached. Further scrutiny should focus on specific reallocation mechanisms and their second-order effects.

Citations

Claim

Public opinion is the only lever that can change military spending policy.

Veracity Rating: 2 out of 4

Facts

**Evaluation of the Claim: "Public opinion is the only lever that can change military spending policy"**

### **Key Findings from Research**
1. **Public Opinion as a Significant Predictor**
Historical data (mid-1960s to 1980s) shows a strong correlation between public opinion and U.S. defense spending changes. A single public opinion variable, when measured with proper lags, explains a high proportion of annual defense budget variance[1]. However, researchers caution against concluding that this equates to direct democratic control, as other institutional and political factors mediate this relationship[1].

2. **Partisan Divides and Fluctuations**
– **Post-9/11 Trends**: Support for defense spending surged after 2001 but stabilized post-2004, with a brief spike during the 2017 North Korea crisis[5].
– **Current Polarization**: As of 2022, Americans are split on increasing defense spending, with Republicans more supportive than Democrats[3]. In 2020, 38% favored maintaining spending, 28% supported cuts, and 23% backed increases[5].
– **Gallup Data**: In 2024, 29% of Americans believe defense spending is "too little," reflecting persistent divisions[2].

3. **Limitations of Public Opinion**
– **Structural Factors**: Defense budgets often reflect entrenched interests (e.g., military contractors, congressional districts reliant on defense jobs) that resist abrupt shifts[1][4].
– **Belief Systems**: Support for military spending is more strongly tied to individuals' core values and beliefs than to transient events[4]. For example, even after the 2017 Syria airstrikes boosted presidential approval, this did not translate into sustained pressure for higher defense budgets[4].
– **Narrative Influence**: The "military-industrial complex" narrative (invoked by Cohen) faces competition from pro-defense narratives emphasizing national security, which are deeply embedded in U.S. political discourse[4][5].

—

### **Ben Cohen's Argument in Context**
Cohen’s critique aligns with General Smedley Butler’s "War is a Racket" thesis, emphasizing corporate influence over military policy. However, the claim that public opinion is the **only** lever overstates its exclusivity:
– **Corporate Influence**: Military contractors and lobbying groups (e.g., Lockheed Martin, Raytheon) exert direct pressure on Congress, often bypassing public sentiment[1][4].
– **Institutional Inertia**: The Pentagon’s budget has grown consistently since 2015, reaching $740 billion in 2021 despite public ambivalence[5].
– **Geopolitical Events**: Crises (e.g., Ukraine war, China tensions) frequently drive spending hikes independent of polling[5].

—

### **Conclusion**
Public opinion is a **significant but not exclusive** lever. While it historically correlates with spending trends[1][2], institutional actors, corporate lobbying, and geopolitical crises often override or dilute its impact[4][5]. Cohen’s advocacy for shifting public sentiment addresses one critical factor but underestimates structural barriers to demilitarization.

**Final Verdict**: The claim is **partially valid but overly simplistic**. Public opinion operates alongside—and sometimes in tension with—other systemic drivers of military spending.

Citations

We believe in transparency and accuracy. That’s why this blog post was verified with CheckForFacts.
Start your fact-checking journey today and help create a smarter, more informed future!