How Corporations View (and Own) the U.S. Military
The most famous example in recent years is the 2023 NDAA, which contained several provisions regarding Taiwan. One provision allowed Taiwan to receive foreign military financing (FMF) from the U.S. government. FMF usually goes to independent countries, not breakaway provinces. FMF consists of loans and/or grants from the U.S. government for a country to purchase goods and services from the U.S. war industry.
And, just like that, the 2023 NDAA increased U.S. belligerence toward Beijing and made war more likely, profiting corporations all the while.
Corporate Capture Is Not Just Lobbying
Christian. Dec 27, 2025, https://thebusinessofwar.substack.com/p/how-corporations-view-and-own-the?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=1769284&post_id=179499875&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=ln98x&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
A for-profit corporation is a business organization designed to maximize short-term profit. The job of corporate executives is to maximize that profit, while the board of directors makes sure they do so.
The number one way that a corporation maximizes profit is by underpaying its workers.1 Workers create the profit, but don’t receive it. The executives funnel that profit to investors and themselves.
It goes without saying that the workers are not in charge. They are not allowed to make the business decisions in a given corporation. The executives make those decisions. There is no democracy in the workplace.
This is the situation in any industry, including the war industry.
What You Know about Corporate Capture
Big business works hard to influence the U.S. government. Corporate capture happens when it succeeds. Massive corporations work together to influence the government’s institutions and decision-making so that policy and regulation (or lack thereof) increase corporate profit instead of public well-being.
You likely know about think tanks, lobbying, and legal bribery.
- A think tank issues information favorable to those who fund it. Corporations and the super-rich fund think tanks, which create and inflate threats and justify the broad deployment of U.S. troops and sky-high military and intel budgets.
- Corporations and the super-rich hire lobbyists to swarm U.S. Congress and the Pentagon. Lobbyists even draft legislation, which they hand over to politicians.
- Corporations and the super-rich fund the two political parties and individual candidates. Once in office, elected officials pass laws favorable to these big business interests.
Think tanks, lobbying, and legal bribery are a powerful combination, but corporate capture is much more than that. War corporations (known as “military contractors” or “defense companies”) control the mind and the body in several ways.
Control the Mind
- Corporations regularly open (and close) offices and factories. Corporate executives promise a number jobs at a given location, particularly when seeking state and local tax breaks (though the fine print makes sure they never have to come through with all of those jobs or keep workers employed for the long run). Playing the “jobs” card is a way for big business and its politicians to pretend to care about workers.
- Legally designated as 501(c) nonprofits, trade groups (e.g., NDIA, AIA, AUSA) excel at networking active-duty military officers and industry officials, further blurring the line between government and corporate. Corporate viewpoints reign supreme at networking events, such as seminars, breakfasts, and arms fairs. (Additionally, 501(c)4 nonprofits are skilled at using dark money to influence politics.)
- Corporations help to craft policy and strategy on the inside. Corporations have had a hand in strategic initiatives and planning for Navy leadership, strategic plans and policy support for the Air Force, acquisition policy and program development for the Marine Corps, assessments and policy recommendations for the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Logistics, and more!
- The Pentagon gives corporations free labor from military officers. The corporations are allowed to propagandize these officers with recommendations about military policy, which the officers take with them when they return to their military unit.
- Greedy tycoons, including prominent war profiteers, sit on different boards that advise the Pentagon. The Defense Policy Board is one such grouping.
Control the Body
- The U.S. military doesn’t move, bomb, or communicate without corporations. In fact, it doesn’t do anything without corporate goods and services — from the largest aircraft carrier (itself a platform for innumerable goods and services) to the smallest microchip. Comprising the militant body, corporations gobble up more than half of the military budget. There still are uniformed troops (soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines, and guardians), but they are merely users of corporate products… in the eyes of top executives.
- Corporate personnel are everywhere. These “contractors” even outnumber the troops in many military locations.
- The U.S. military isn’t allowed to repair most of its own equipment. Corporations must do it. This is just like corporations preventing farmers from repairing their tractors or you from putting a new battery into your old laptop.
- In the same vein, corporations do their best to hog the data pertaining to big-ticket weapons. The most famous example is the Lockheed Martin F-35 jet, the most expensive weapon of all time. The corporation owns the software code and the technical data for the jet. The U.S. military therefore is unable to operate, maintain, or upgrade the jet on its own.
- If you don’t own it, it’s not yours. Many corporations require the U.S. military to license their software, not purchase it outright. Licenses cover everything from accounting software and data integration software to products that monitor communications network and Oracle databases for a massive counterintelligence bureaucracy. Licensing is more profitable than a one-time sale.
- Capitalists move from industry to government and back again. When in government, they implement profit-over-people policies and they acquire knowledge to profit better whenever they leave government. (Top military officers also flock to war corporations in retirement, often becoming executives.)
Corporations don’t just run the show. Corporations are the show.
The Resulting Behavior
This corporate capture — mind and body — guarantees that government policy will help to maximize corporate profit.
The annual military policy bill known as the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) is crafted in the environment described above. Corporate lobbyists and U.S. Congress pack the NDAA with section after section designed to increase corporate profit.
Year after year, the NDAA requires the Pentagon to:
1. Train and arm foreign militaries or paramilitary groups. This increases arms sales and can give the Pentagon some influence over those being trained/armed.
A few examples of many include: training Iraqi forces and Kurdish Peshmerga (2024 NDAA); expanding the training of Eastern European “national security forces” (2025 NDAA); and reinforcing Lebanese military training and equipping (2026 NDAA).
2. Maintain or expand the U.S. military’s presence around the world.
The hundreds of U.S. military bases worldwide increase corporate sales — remember, corporations comprise most U.S. military activity2 — and allow the Pentagon to further bully governments/groups that chart an independent foreign policy or resist corporate domination of their land and resources.
No region is off-limits.
For example, the Pacific Deterrence Initiative, established through the 2021 NDAA and enhanced in all subsequent ones, is the main way the Pentagon militarizes the Pacific. It focuses on building up military infrastructure in the Pacific, purchasing and placing weaponry there, expanding military training and exercises there, and fostering and co-opting regional leaders.
3. Spend money on goods and services made by U.S. war corporations.3 For example, section 1640 of the 2024 NDAA required the Pentagon to establish a nuclear sea-launched cruise missile program. (Sections 1513 of the 2025 NDAA and 1633 of the 2026 NDAA refined the program’s goals.) Guess which corporations the military will pay to develop this weapon!
4. Assess what the official enemies are doing in a given region.
- Assess, for example, what Moscow and Beijing are up to in Latin America and the Caribbean (2024 NDAA, section 7342).
- Devise a strategy for “exposing, and, as appropriate, countering” China’s “malign activities” (2025 NDAA, section 1254).
- Evaluate [alleged] fentanyl trafficking by the Chinese government (2026 NDAA, section 8313) and plan to “respond” to China’s “global” military bases (section 8367).
These are just a few examples.
The assessments are then used to create fear and hype up such “threats.” Look out! [Country you’re taught to fear] is doing X, Y, and Z in [region U.S.-based capitalists want to dominate]! Bigger budgets follow. More money for war corporations.
5. Spend tax dollars on researching more technology for war and espionage. For example, the past three NDAAs have mandated research in artificial intelligence, microelectronics, nuclear weaponry, and much more. Industry does the research. And charges a pretty penny for it. (Meanwhile, corporations don’t use much of their own profit for R&D. Profit goes to execs and investors.)
The most famous example in recent years is the 2023 NDAA, which contained several provisions regarding Taiwan. One provision allowed Taiwan to receive foreign military financing (FMF) from the U.S. government. FMF usually goes to independent countries, not breakaway provinces. FMF consists of loans and/or grants from the U.S. government for a country to purchase goods and services from the U.S. war industry.
And, just like that, the 2023 NDAA increased U.S. belligerence toward Beijing and made war more likely, profiting corporations all the while.
Every subsequent NDAA increased the likelihood of all-out war with China. The 2026 NDAA, for example, further weaponized Taiwan by $1 billion, accelerated U.S.-Taiwan drone and counter-drone programs, encouraged the Pentagon to invite Taiwan to the massive annual military exercise known as RIMPAC, and more.
Full-court Press
Corporate capture is thorough.
It is lobbying; funding political parties and campaigns; establishing and funding think tanks; lying about jobs; using trade groups to imbricate military and industry; crafting policy and strategy on the inside; using boards to advise the Pentagon; flooding the military with corporate goods, services, and personnel; hogging data and requiring licensing; occupying the top Pentagon positions; and propagandizing military officers directly.
The troops are users of corporate goods and services.
Military bases are avenues of corporate profit.
That is how big business sees the U.S. military. And it has achieved its vision.
Christian Sorensen is a researcher focused on the U.S.-based corporations profiting from war. A U.S. Air Force veteran, Sorensen is associate director of the Eisenhower Media Network (EMN), a group of military and intel veterans who disagree with U.S. foreign policy and believe a better world is possible.
#9 TOP STORY OF 2025: Why six Australian Jews accused leading local Zionist of antisemitism
By David Glanz | 27 December 2025
When a leading Zionist calls six other Australian Jews “antisemitic” – and worse – over criticisms of Israel, the issues are deep. Hence this February piece, by those six, was so vital, well-received and much read.
Six Melbourne Jews, labelled “antisemites” by prominent lawyer Mark Leibler, have made a formal complaint against him to the Australian Human Rights Commission. Dr David Glanz details their position.
IMAGINE calling a group of Jews ‘repulsive and revolting human beings’.
At a time when Nazi thugs are openly organising on our streets and swastikas are being daubed on Jewish buildings, it’s surely the stuff of Far-Right memes. Inspiration for more foul graffiti.
But the author of the words was certainly no Nazi. The phrase was written by Mark Leibler AC, one of Melbourne’s leading lawyers, a member of the University of Melbourne Council, a former president of the Zionist Federation of Australia and the current chair of the Australia Israel & Jewish Affairs Council.
Mr Leibler wrote the words as part of a post on Twitter/X that he paid to promote, reaching some 400,000 people.
His target was anti-Zionist Jews in general and – given that we were organising an anti-Zionist rally the day after the post – surely the five of us, some of whom are migrants from Israel.
Mr Leibler didn’t pull his punches. He went on to say that our relatives killed in the Holocaust would be rolling in their graves.
And – this stings, given our track record of anti-racism – that we are ‘vicious antisemites’.
Now Mr Leibler is entitled to his support for Zionism. The idea that Jews would be best served by the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine is, after all, a political position and one that has been contested within Jewish communities for some 140 years.
He is also entitled to defend the State of Israel and its actions in Gaza over the past 16 months.
We disagree with him on both counts. We organised our rally at Parliament House because we wanted to put on the public record that some Jews oppose the settler colonial conquest of Palestine and the consequences that have flowed from that, including apartheid laws within Israel and the West Bank and the ongoing genocide in Gaza.
We know that we are a minority within the Jewish community. We don’t claim to speak for all Melbourne Jews — quite the opposite. Our argument is that no one, including Mr Leibler, gets to speak for all Jews.
But we know that the number of Jews standing against the genocide and in solidarity with Palestine is growing, not just in Melbourne but around the world.
Over the past 16 months there have been impressive and lively rallies by dissenting Jews in the U.S., a Jewish bloc of up to 1,000 on Palestine rallies in London and, here in Melbourne, Jews taking part in each of the 71 weekly rallies for Palestine, with Jews often invited to speak from the platform.
We include in our ranks the descendants of Holocaust survivors and those who lost family in the Nazi death camps.
So the one thing we are certain Mr Leibler is not entitled to do is to dismiss us as beyond the pale. We have a right to speak, to be heard (and disagreed with) as Jews.
We have submitted a complaint about Mr Leibler’s post on X to the Australian Human Rights Commission.
As we are all Jews, and as Mr Leibler attacked us as such, we would argue that his post is not just offensive but antisemitic.
And given that our rally was to highlight the issue of discrimination against Palestinians and all victims of racism, we would argue that Mr Leibler’s post was an attempt to victimise us by exposing us to ridicule and contempt as Jews in the public arena.
It is also insulting. We include in our ranks the descendants of Holocaust survivors and those who lost family in the Nazi death camps.
We don’t want money or revenge. A public apology would suffice.
We have been denigrated and impugned. But the suffering of the Palestinians makes any slight we have experienced pale to nothing in comparison.
And that is the tragedy. While Mr Leibler uses his position of power to attack us as the “wrong sort of Jews”, some 2 million Palestinians in Gaza squat in the rubble of their homes, their hospitals and schools, their mosques and churches, and mourn their tens of thousands of dead.
Our rally called for an end to the suffering and discrimination. It was joined by many Jews and our non-Jewish supporters.
Mr Leibler’s post was a calculated and pre-emptive smear to undermine our rejection of all forms of racism, including antisemitism and Islamophobia.
He was obviously concerned about our impact. We must be doing something right.
Dr David Glanz, Nachshon Amir, Shahar Amir, Dr Keren Tova Rubinstein and Dr Guy Gillor are anti-Zionist Jews in Melbourne, who organised a rally against genocide and racism at the Victorian Parliament.
Should We Have an Enquiry or a Tantrum?
27 December 2025 Terence Mills, https://theaimn.net/should-we-have-an-enquiry-or-a-tantrum/
Michael McCormack, former leader of the National Party, had a surprising and emotional outburst before the Christmas break. Surprising in that rarely has he shown this level of energy, certainly not when he was National’s leader and on the back-bench he has barely made a contribution beyond regretting the defection of his mate Barnaby Joyce down the rabbit-hole of One Nation.
Mr McCormack was incensed that federal parliament had not been recalled following the Bondi shootings and he was particularly upset that Anthony Albanese had not initiated a national Royal Commission to complement and duplicate the Royal Commission set up by the New South Wales government: he was also enraged that new gun ownership regulations legislated in NSW, and probably to be adopted nationally, would impact unfairly on the activities of farmers – farmers and professional shooters will be restricted to 10 weapons but with a ban on automatic weapons that allow multiple shots without reloading, similar to those used by the alleged shooters at Bondi and gun licences will need to be renewed every two years rather than being perpetual licenses – poor farmers, how will they get by?
He may have been spurred into activity after Sussan Ley, the coalition’s prime ministerial hopeful, noted that Penny Wong, despite close scrutiny, had not been observed shedding a tear over the Bondi killings – evidently an inexcusable failing on the part of a female minister!
I got the impression that Mr Mc Cormack’s emotional tirade was not so much about Bondi, Royal Commissions or guns but rather it was about the fact that he, as a deposed former party leader, now sitting on the back-benches, was the only voice in the National Party available to speak out particularly as his leader, David Littleproud was completely silent on these issues: Mc Cormack may well have been echoing his former colleague Barnaby Joyce who had little faith in the current leadership of the National Party.
For the record, the New South Wales government have initiated a Royal Commission that will look into, among other matters:
- The nature, prevalence, and drivers of antisemitism in Australia leading up to the Bondi attack, including actions of governments, law enforcement, and broader society.
- An examination of Islamic extremism and neo-nazi ideology long with recommendations to strengthen counter terrorism systems.
Albanese has resisted political and emotive pressure to having a separate Royal Commission to that proposed by Premier Minns in New South Wales. He has noted that:
“There was no royal commission called by the Howard government after Port Arthur. There was no royal commission called by the Abbott government after the Lindt [Cafe] siege, there hasn’t been a royal commission held recently that has not had an extension of time. We know who the perpetrators are here … We know what the motivation is, that they are motivated by the evil ideology of ISIS and a perversion of Islam.”
Albanese has, alongside hate speech reforms and changes to gun laws, announced a review into federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies which will be led by former intelligence chief Dennis Richardson, and he has offered the co-operation of both the government and federal agencies with the NSW commission.
Those insisting on a separate federal Royal Commission say that it would not necessarily take years to conclude and that they could call on the appointed Commissioner to have a preliminary report by the end of April. That, of course is nonsense as the whole point of a Royal Commission is to be broad ranging, hear from all and sundry and probe into the dark corners that usually are hidden; you cannot expect quick fix responses and the Royal Commissioner would undoubtedly resist that sort of pressure.
1 This month
of the week – Disrupting War & Militarism in Oceania. Active solidarity. Radical practice.
Antinuclear 