impact

Authorities in Tehran have called for international action and solidarity after several hospitals and schools were impacted by United States and Israeli air strikes on the country as Iran continues to fire missiles and drones across the region.

Iranian Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei said on Monday that the two countries “continue to indiscriminately strike residential areas, sparing neither hospitals, schools, Red Crescent facilities, nor cultural monuments”.

“These actions constitute the deliberate commission of the most heinous crimes of international concern. Indifference to this ongoing and extreme injustice will only further darken the future of humanity by jeopardising the shared values upon which our global community stands,” he wrote in a post on social media.

Pir Hossein Kolivand, the head of the Iranian Red Crescent Society, wrote a letter publicised late on Sunday to the president of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), demanding an explicit condemnation of attacks impacting children and educational and medical centres.

He also said monitoring and support mechanisms outlined in the Geneva Conventions must be invoked, adding that the ICRC must “adopt immediate measures” to stop similar incidents from taking place again as the war rages.

“The Red Crescent Society of the Islamic Republic of Iran, as a member of the global Red Cross and Red Crescent movement, declares its full commitment to the fundamentals of humanity, impartiality and independence, emphasising that damaged centres had no military applications,” Kolivand wrote.

ICRC President Mirjana Spoljaric said in a statement at the start of the war on Saturday that rules of war must be upheld as an obligation, not a choice.

“Civilian infrastructure such as hospitals, homes and schools must be spared from attack. Medical personnel and first responders must be allowed to carry out their work safely,” she said.

Hospitals sustain damage

Multiple Iranian hospitals have been damaged as a result of air attacks and were evacuated by authorities, but there are not believed to have been any direct strikes on any hospitals yet.

In Tehran, major strikes on Sunday damaged multiple medical centres located in two areas, according to official accounts, footage circulating on social media and information geolocated by Al Jazeera.

Videos broadcast by state media from the entrance and surrounding area of Gandhi Hospital in northern Tehran showed significant damage after a projectile struck a nearby area.

Mohammad Raeiszadeh, the head of Iran’s Medical Council, told state media from the hospital on Monday that the in-vitro fertilisation department was destroyed along with its equipment, forcing staff to move cells and embryos. Footage also showed an infant being moved by nurses on Sunday night.

The hospital appears to have been damaged after the Israeli military struck buildings housing Iranian state television’s Channel 2 and a communications antenna nearby.

This led to state television programmes being disrupted for several minutes. The broadcaster confirmed that some of its departments were bombed on Sunday without divulging details.

World Health Organization Director General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said reports of damage to the hospital are “extremely worrying” and the United Nations agency is working to verify the incident.

After a separate attack on Sunday, the Iranian Red Crescent Society released a video showing the aftermath of strikes near one of its main buildings located near Khatam al-Anbiya Hospital.

[Translation: Right now. Direct attacks by the Zionist regime and America on the vicinity of the Red Crescent building, Khatam al-Anbiya Hospital, Welfare Organisation, and Motahari Hospital in Tehran]

Footage circulating online showed plumes of smoke rising and debris scattered after the strikes. According to the Red Crescent, the ICRC’s Spoljaric visited the site of the damaged medical treatment facility on Monday and condemned any strikes impacting humanitarian centres.

Khatam al-Anbiya Hospital, the Motahari Hospital specialising in helping burn victims and the Valiasr Hospital are all located nearby. They reported either sustaining some damage or having to hurriedly move patients out.

The main target hit by Israeli warplanes in the area appeared to have been the central headquarters of the Iranian police. Police Chief Ahmad-Reza Radan did not comment specifically on the targeting of the headquarters but confirmed that police buildings were receiving regular direct hits.

On Monday afternoon, fighter jets conducted bombing runs across Tehran once again. Attacks damaged the main building of the province’s medical emergency services, located in Iranshahr Street in the downtown area. Videos released by state-affiliated media showed staff evacuating, and the state-run Tasnim news agency said several staff members were injured.

According to Iranian authorities, the Aboozar Children’s Hospital in western Iran’s Ahvaz and three medical emergency centres in the provinces of East Azerbaijan, Sistan-Baluchistan and Hamedan were also damaged.

The Iranian Red Crescent said that by noon on Monday at least 555 people had been killed after 131 counties across the country were attacked.

During and after the killing of thousands of people during January’s nationwide protests, Iranian authorities have consistently rejected calls for transparency and condemnations by the UN and international human rights organisations for attacks on hospitals by state forces to detain protesters and medical staff helping the wounded. A number of doctors and medical personnel remain incarcerated and face national security and other charges.

Schools, sports centre take hits

In Tehran, an air strike targeting 72 Square in the eastern neighbourhood of Narmak damaged a high school with authorities reporting that at least two children were killed.

Local media said the target of the attack was Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the former populist president who may potentially have a role in shaping Iran’s political future after the killing of 86-year-old Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and other officials. It was unclear whether Ahmadinejad was present at the site of the attack or was harmed.

There were also multiple casualties after a sports centre was targeted in Lamerd in the southern province of Fars, local authorities said on Saturday.

But the single largest casualty incident announced by Iranian authorities was from a girls school in the southern city of Minab.

After two days of working through the debris, authorities said 165 people were killed and 95 wounded, most of them children. The governor on Monday afternoon released a handwritten list of 56 of the victims but did not provide further information.

The US said it was aware of civilian casualty reports from the school and was investigating. The Israeli army said it was not aware of any Israeli or US strikes in that area.

Education International, a global federation that brings together organisations of teachers and other education employees, condemned the school attack.

“Children, teachers, and schools must never be military targets. The killing and wounding of students and educators is an intolerable violation of human rights and a grave breach of international humanitarian law,” it said.

Teddy Riley took to social media late Thursday to walk back earlier comments he’d made about wanting to work with the disgraced R&B singer R. Kelly.

In an interview with The Times published on Wednesday, the veteran producer and musician — widely known as the architect of the New Jack Swing sound that dominated Black pop in the late 1980s and early 1990s — said he’d “talked a few times” with Kelly, who’s serving a 30-year prison sentence after a jury convicted him of racketeering and sex trafficking charges, and that he’s “bringing in investors” to help release some portion of the 25 albums Kelly has said he’s recorded in prison.

“Everybody deserves a second chance,” Riley told The Times. “Everyone deserves to repent, and everyone gets forgiven by God when you come to him. People miss [Kelly’s] music. I’m the messenger to bring R&B back.”

Yet Thursday he appeared to changed course.

“As a producer, I’ve always been excited about the possibilities of music and creative collaboration,” he wrote in an Instagram post. “That excitement has defined my career. But I also understand that words carry weight, and I never want my passion for music to overshadow the very real pain that many people have experienced.

“If my comments caused hurt, I sincerely apologize,” he added. “That was never my intention. I take seriously the impact that abuse and misconduct have had on survivors and their families. Their experiences matter, and they deserve to be acknowledged with care and respect.”

Riley, whose long career has included collaborations with Michael Jackson, Bobby Brown and Keith Sweat, described his plan to work with Kelly as “a creative idea discussed in passing. It is not something that will move forward. Loving music and recognizing its cultural impact does not mean condoning harmful behavior, and I want to be clear about that.

“I have spent my life building a legacy rooted in innovation, integrity, and love for the art form. That remains my focus. I appreciate the dialogue, and I remain committed to moving forward with intention and accountability,” said Riley, who this month published a book, “Remember the Times,” about his life and work.

“Thank you to everyone who continues to support me, my memoir, and the journey,” he wrote on Instagram.

The U.K. is blocking U.S. use of two key bases for an attack on Iran, according to a report by The Times. Both Diego Garcia, an island in the Indian Ocean, and RAF Fairford, a base in the U.K., would be important to any American plans to use long-range bombers in a sustained campaign against Iran.

The move reportedly stems from British legal concerns about an Iran attack as well as a dispute between U.S. President Donald Trump and U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer over the ultimate disposition of Diego Garcia. We will discuss that more later in this story.

We have yet to see any bombers moving to Diego Garcia and, to a lesser degree, Fairford, which would be likely to happen in advance of a sustained aerial bombardment campaign. The decision by the U.K., if the report is accurate, could be a primary reason why these movements haven’t occurred.

As we have frequently reported, Diego Garcia has long been a highly strategic operating location for the U.S. military. Beyond its large airfield that sits in the center of the Indian Ocean, it plays many roles for the Department of Defense, including hosting Space Force operations, serving as a key port for U.S. Navy vessels, including nuclear submarines, and its lagoon provides shelter for a Sealift Command Prepositioning Ship Squadron. 

The island outpost drew particular attention last year after an unusually large force of six B-2 Spirit stealth bombers began arriving in March in a clear show of force aimed primarily at Iran. This is precisely the type of deployment we would have expected to have occurred during the present crisis, but it has not. The B-2s subsequently conducted strikes on Iranian-backed Houthi militants in Yemen and were ultimately replaced by B-52 bombers.

RAF Fairford is the home of the only U.S. bomber forward operating location in the U.K., where American strategic aircraft are frequently forward deployed for Bomber Task Force missions. Major bomber operations have been staged out of the base in the past, including major strikes against Iraq.

Last June, when the U.S. launched the Operation Midnight Hammer attack on Iranian nuclear facilities, the B-2 bombers flew roundtrip from Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri. However, that was a one-night operation. Trump is now considering what is likely to be a week’s long campaign against Iranian leadership, nuclear infrastructure, missile launch sites and associated industry, and other military installations and command and control nodes. 

It would be extremely helpful for the U.S. to use Diego Garcia, and possibly RAF Fairford, to stage, rearm and maintain the B-1, B-2 and B-52 bombers that could be used to strike Iran.

It is about 2,300 miles from Diego Garcia to the eastern border of Iran and about 2,500 miles from RAF Fairford to the western border. By contrast, Whiteman AFB, one of many bases in the U.S. housing strategic aircraft, is located about 6,500 miles from Iran’s western border. Having access to the two U.K. bases would allow the U.S. Air Force to increase the generation of bomber sorties, especially important in the opening of a campaign. It would also help reduce wear and tear on the aircraft and crews.

Though the U.S. has not deployed any bombers to Diego Garcia, we have been reporting that America is transiting scores of fighters, electronic warfare jets, radar planes, aerial refueling tankers and other aviation assets from RAF Mildenhall and RAF Lakenheath to that region. It is unclear if that will change if the fighting starts. Traditionally, these types of limitations are focused on actual combat sorties, not aircraft transiting through in order to get to another destination.

That being said, the U.S. does have other basing options, even for its sensitive B-2 Spirit bomber force. The Air Force has put a high priority on training to operate even these notoriously finicky jets out of unfamiliar and somewhat austere locations. Deployments to the Azores, Iceland and Wake Island, among others, are evidence of this. The B-52s and B-1s are even more flexible and have operated out of multiple allies’ airfields in recent years. But operating from a forward locale in a limited fashion is different than flying from an installation that is pre-equipped with all the amenities needed to keep sortie rates up during a conflict. Regardless, any other country would have to approve the use of bombers based on its soil to attack Iran.

A similar situation involving permission for the use of Diego Garcia took place shortly before Midnight Hammer. The U.K. government said it would have to sign off on the U.S. use of its Diego Garcia base in any bombing raid on Iran, The Guardian reported at the time. Britain was informed of the U.S. military strikes on Iran ahead of time, but did not receive any U.S. request for use of Diego Garcia for that mission, according to Reuters.

The impetus behind this latest move, according to The Times, is a dispute over control of Diego Garcia, which is part of the Chagos Islands. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer is pushing for a deal to seek a 99-year lease of the island from Mauritius, which claims rights to this chain. Trump, who has previously backed the plan, on Wednesday blasted it, widening a growing rift between the two allies over the issue.

“I have been telling Prime Minister Keir Starmer, of the United Kingdom, that Leases are no good when it comes to Countries, and that he is making a big mistake by entering a 100 Year Lease with whoever it is that is ‘claiming’ Right, Title, and Interest to Diego Garcia, strategically located in the Indian Ocean,” Trump proclaimed Wednesday on his Truth Social site. “Our relationship with the United Kingdom is a strong and powerful one, and it has been for many years, but Prime Minister Starmer is losing control of this important Island by claims of entities never known of before. In our opinion, they are fictitious in nature.”

In his Truth Social post, Trump pointed to the strategic importance of both Diego Garcia and RAF Fairford in any campaign against Iran.

“Should Iran decide not to make a Deal, it may be necessary for the United States to use Diego Garcia, and the Airfield located in Fairford, in order to eradicate a potential attack by a highly unstable and dangerous Regime — An attack that would potentially be made on the United Kingdom, as well as other friendly Countries,” the U.S. president posited. “Prime Minister Starmer should not lose control, for any reason, of Diego Garcia, by entering a tenuous, at best, 100 Year Lease. This land should not be taken away from the U.K. and, if it is allowed to be, it will be a blight on our Great Ally. We will always be ready, willing, and able to fight for the U.K., but they have to remain strong in the face of Wokeism, and other problems put before them. DO NOT GIVE AWAY DIEGO GARCIA!”

In its story on Thursday, The Times claimed that Trump pulled his support for Starmer’s lease deal after the U.K. refused to allow its bases to be used to strike Iran.

“The White House is drawing up detailed military plans for a strike against Iran involving the use of both Diego Garcia and RAF Fairford in Gloucestershire, which is home to America’s fleet of heavy bombers in Europe,” The Times stated. “Under the terms of long-standing agreements with Washington, these bases can only be used for military operations that have been agreed in advance with the government.”

The Times “understands that the UK is yet to give permission for the US to use the bases in the event that Trump orders a strike on Iran, owing to concerns that it would be a breach of international law which makes no distinction between a state carrying out the attack and those in support if the latter have ‘knowledge of the circumstances of the internationally wrongful act,’” the publication proffered. “The president spoke to the prime minister on Tuesday night, and the two men discussed Trump’s ultimatum to Iran over its nuclear program. The following day, Trump made his statement attacking the Chagos deal.”

The U.K. MoD Defense Ministry (MoD) declined to talk about operational details, but did declare its support for Trump’s push to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of Iran.

“There is a political process ongoing between the US and Iran, which the UK supports,” the U.K. MoD told us in a statement. “Iran must never be able to develop a nuclear weapon, and our priority is security in the region.”

A White House official told us that “President Trump’s first instinct is always diplomacy, and he has been clear that the Iranian regime should make a deal. Of course, the President ultimately has all options at his disposal, and he demonstrated with Operation Midnight Hammer and Operation Absolute Resolve that he means what he says.”

We have reached out to the White House, the Pentagon, U.S. Central Command, U.S. IndoPacific Command and the U.K. Ministry of Defense for more details.

Despite the controversy over Diego Garcia, the U.S. buildup of forces continues unabated. For instance, just this morning, another flight of F-22 Raptor stealth fighters left Langley Air Force Base in Virginia, most likely bound for Mildenhall or Lakenheath. You can read more about the massive influx of forces to the Middle East in our story here.

Whether the U.K. will end up fully enforcing restrictions against the U.S. use of its bases in a kinetic operation against Iran, only time will tell. In the meantime, how this is impacting U.S. war planning isn’t clear, but if it sticks, it will certainly alter those plans and reduce the magnitude of U.S. bombers’ role in a conflict.

Contact the author: howard@thewarzone.com

The United States spends more on its military than any other country. Military spending by the U.S. made up almost 40% of the total military spending worldwide in 2023, according to a report by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI). When adjusted to 2024 dollars, the U.S. spent $5.74 trillion on WWII alone. That’s more than WWI, Vietnam, Korean, or the post-9/11 Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

U.S. military spending is expected to increase by 10% over the next decade. Congress approved and signed the Department of Defense’s (DOD) new budget into law for fiscal year 2024, which included $841.4 billion in funding for the Air Force, Navy, Army, Marine Corps, National Guard, and more.

According to projections by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), military expenditures will reach $922 billion (in 2024 dollars) by 2038. Almost 70% of that increase will be for the operation and maintenance of military personnel. The DOD requested $850 billion for 2025 to spend on the military. That’s about 3% of the GDP and relatively low compared to other times in U.S. history. The financial methods used to fund these expenditures will include increasing taxes and the national debt.

This level of military spending has national and global impacts and affects the economy.

Analyzing U.S. Military Spending from WWI to Post-9/11

Looking at military spending by war can show us how wars and defense spending affected the U.S. economy, factors that influenced military spending, and trends in defense spending over the years.

The total amount spent on each major U.S. war has been inflation-adjusted to 2024 dollars. All estimates are of the costs of military operations only and do not reflect the costs of veterans’ benefits, interest on war-related debt, or assistance to allies.

WWI (1917 – 1918): $466.91 Billion

The total cost of World War I was about $466.91 billion in 2024 dollars. When WWI began in 1914, the U.S. was in a recession. However, the economy began to recover and boom after European demand for U.S. goods increased during the war. 

This only intensified when the U.S. entered WWI in 1917, causing a massive increase in federal spending due to shifting the economy from peacetime to wartime production. Entering the war also created new manufacturing jobs and left more jobs open in the labor force, as many young men were drafted into the military. The government also funded the war by increasing taxes and selling Liberty bonds to Americans, who were later paid back the value of their bonds with interest. 

Funding WWI increased the U.S. national debt to over $25 billion by the war’s end. However, the U.S. emerged from WWI as an economic world power. Going into the 1920s, the national debt decreased, the government had a budget surplus, and stock market returns increased. The effect lasted until the economy crashed in 1929, the beginning of the Great Depression.

WWII (1941 – 1945): $5.74 Trillion

The U.S. spent nearly $6 trillion on World War II in 2024 dollars. In the peak year of spending, WWII expenditures made up 35.8% of the national GDP. Federal government spending on WWII was unprecedented.

The U.S. had one of the most significant periods of short-term economic growth between 1941 and 1945, largely fueled by government spending on WWII. The government-funded WWII mainly by increasing taxes and taking on debt. Government debt grew to more than $258 billion by the end of WWII. Tax rates also increased sharply, resulting in even families in poverty having to pay taxes. The average tax rate for top incomes rose up to 90% as well.

War-time production also boomed during this time, with over 36% of the estimated GDP solely dedicated to producing war goods. Over this short period, the U.S. produced 17 million rifles and pistols, over 80,000 tanks, 41 billion rounds of ammunition, 4 million artillery shells, 75,000 vessels, and about 300,000 planes, among other equipment and services needed for the war. However, with so many resources going into war production, it became harder for families to purchase household items like washing machines, irons, water heaters, and food that had to be rationed.   

When the U.S. entered WWII, it was reeling from the effects of the Great Depression, the most severe and prolonged recession in modern world history, from 1929 to 1941. Many attribute government spending on WWII to the end of the Great Depression. However, this broken window fallacy challenges the notion that going to war is good for a nation’s economy.

The theory also suggests that a boost to one part of the economy can cause losses in another part. While WWII reduced unemployment from the Great Depression as many were enlisted or worked in factories, the standard of living declined because of rationing and high taxes. Private sector jobs and production fell, along with overall consumption and investment.

Korean War (1950 – 1953): $476.69 Billion

The U.S. spent about $476.69 billion on the Korean War in 2024 dollars. While it was technically a civil war between the two opposing sides of the Korean peninsula, the U.S. and the United Nations joined in 1950 to support South Korea in a clash over democracy versus communism.

The U.S. funded the Korean War by implementing higher tax rates, contrasting funding by debt as in WWII. To do this, the government enacted the Revenue Act of 1950, increasing income tax rates to WWII levels. Individual and corporate taxes were raised again in 1951.

This was a financially turbulent time as the government had to implement price and wage controls to respond to the inflation created by additional government spending. Consumption and investment, two key factors contributing to the GDP, slowed down during this time and did not go back to pre-war levels.

Vietnam War (1962 – 1973): $1.03 Trillion

The U.S. spent about $1 trillion on the Vietnam war between 1962 to 1973. Military operations for the Vietnam War ramped up more slowly than WWII and the Korean War, with troop deployments starting in 1965. However, the U.S. had been providing aid and military training to South Vietnam since 1954 when Vietnam split into communist North Vietnam and the democratic South.

President John F. Kennedy expanded military aid in Vietnam as the conflict escalated between the North and the South, and President Lyndon B. Johnson continued that trend after Kennedy’s assassination. Escalating U.S. involvement in Vietnam was, in part, due to fears of the domino theory—the belief that if communism took over in Vietnam, it would spread through all of Southeast Asia.

The U.S. funded the war effort mainly by increasing taxes and advancing an expansive monetary policy that eventually led to high inflation in the mid-70s. Non-military spending was also very high during this time (unlike in previous wars, where military spending was significantly higher than non-military spending), largely due to President Johnson’s Great Society social programs, which included domestic policy initiatives such as work-study, Medicare, Medicaid, increased aid to public schools, and more.

Financing the war through increasing taxes and expansionary monetary policy left a lasting effect on the economy. It fueled inflation and caused the market to stagnate, which eventually turned into stubborn stagflation.

Afghanistan and Iraq Wars (2001 – 2021): $3.68 Trillion

The U.S. spent a total of $3.68 trillion in 2024 dollars on the Afghanistan and Iraq Wars over two decades. Military spending reached record levels under President George W. Bush, who launched the war in Afghanistan and the War on Terror in response to the September 11, 2001 attacks and the Iraq War in 2003.

The Afghanistan and Iraq Wars began in weak economic conditions owing to the recession from 2001 to 2002 after the Dotcom Bubble burst. Since this was the first time in U.S. history when taxes were cut during a war, both of these wars were completely funded by deficit spending. The government used an expansionary monetary policy that included low interest rates and fewer bank regulations to help stimulate the economy, but it was unsustainable in the long term for the U.S. government’s finances. The Federal Reserve Board increased interest rates again in 2006 and 2007 to help curb the housing bubble before the Great Recession in 2008. 

Military spending on operations in the Middle East peaked at nearly $964.4 billion in 2010, although it decreased in 2012 after the Budget Control Act of 2011, which was enacted in part to limit military spending to help bring down the growing national debt. However, annual caps on military spending were removed as of 2021. The Iraq War ended in 2011 under President Barack Obama, while the Afghanistan War ended in 2021 under President Joe Biden.

Key Drivers Behind U.S. Military Spending

Breakdown of U.S. Military Spending Components

Every year, the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) proposes a total budget and its specific allocations, which then go through Congress for approval. 

Military spending includes many different categories. The largest category is generally operation and maintenance, including military training and planning, maintenance of equipment, and a majority of the military healthcare system. In 2023, $318 billion was spent on military operation and maintenance.

The next biggest spending category is military personnel, which goes toward pay and retirement benefits for service members. About $184 billion was spent on military personnel in 2023. Other military spending categories include acquiring weapons and systems, research and development of weapons and equipment, and smaller categories such as building military facilities and family housing.

Influences on U.S. Military Expenditure

Military spending can be influenced by several factors, such as wars, international tensions, and government expenditures. For example, military spending dropped significantly during the 1990s after the end of the Cold War before increasing again in the 2000s because of the War on Terror and wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.  

A shift in government priorities can affect military spending. After the Budget Control Act of 2011 was passed, military spending decreased, placing annual limits on defense spending—although these limits no longer exist.

Due to the U.S.’s involvement in other countries’ economic and political landscape, humanitarian aid and development in other countries can further affect future military spending decisions. 

Advancements in science and technology influence military spending, too. Developments in medical research, artificial intelligence, and new technologically advanced military systems affect defense spending. The Defense Appropriations Act for FY 2024 approved $21.43 billion in funding for science and technology, about $3.6 billion above the budget requested by the DOD. The bill also included more than $100 million over the requested amount for adopting artificial intelligence.

Economic Impact of U.S. Military Spending

The U.S. government has historically used a combination of methods to help fund wars including increasing taxes, pulling back on non-military spending, debt, and managing the money supply. All of these methods have affected the economy in various ways.

For example, WWII and the post-9/11 wars were largely funded by debt, whereas the Korean and Vietnam wars were financed by increasing taxes and inflation. One common thread between the wars, however, is that they increased pressure on inflation. Though inflation can be useful for reducing debt, the overall effects harm the economy and cause issues such as eroding purchasing power and reducing international competitiveness.

Military spending can also spur technological growth and innovation, creating demand and new jobs. However, some argue that defense spending on military research can divert talent away from other industries. High levels of military spending during WWII helped end unemployment and even increased income distribution. However, consumption and investment decreased because of resource redirection to the war effort. 

While military spending has had some positive effects over the years, the macroeconomic effects of military spending on major U.S. wars have been largely negative, according to an analysis by the Institute of Economics and Peace. War financing through debt, taxation, or inflation puts pressure on taxpayers, reduces private-sector consumption, and decreases investment.

U.S. Military Spending Relative to GDP

It’s important to note that while current U.S. military spending is higher than at any point of the Cold War (when adjusted for inflation), it is still low when considering defense spending as a percentage of the country’s GDP. The DOD has requested $850 billion in spending for 2025, which is about 3% of the GDP—that’s relatively low compared to other times in U.S. history. Looking at military spending in terms of GDP reveals that the U.S. economy has generally grown faster than military spending, so its share of the GDP has been lower. Military spending in the U.S. increased by 62% between 1980 and 2023, from $506 billion to $820 billion after adjusting for inflation. However, military spending still trails behind overall federal spending, which increased 175% over the same period.

The Bottom Line

The U.S. spends more on its military than any other country. The government has financed major wars by increasing taxes and debt and adjusting the money supply. Although military spending has reduced unemployment and has led to new developments in technology, the financing methods have increased inflationary pressures, causing negative long-term effects such as decreased purchasing power.

The larger macroeconomic consequences of large-scale military spending have included issues such as higher taxes, inflation, and larger government budget deficits.

Palestinians are marking the start of the holy month of Ramadan in Gaza where the impact of Israel’s genocidal war continues to be felt, despite a ceasefire in place since October.

French President Macron and Brazilian leader Lula expected to attend summit aimed to outline global AI governance and collaboration.

India is hosting an artificial intelligence summit this week, bringing together heads of state and tech executives with hot-button issues on the agenda, including job disruption and child safety.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi will on Monday afternoon inaugurate the five-day AI Impact Summit in New Delhi, which aims to declare a “shared roadmap for global AI governance and collaboration”.

“This occasion is further proof that our country is progressing rapidly in the field of science and technology,” and it “shows the capability of our country’s youth”, he said in an X post on Monday.

Touted as the biggest edition yet, the Indian government is expecting 250,000 visitors from across the sector, including 20 national leaders and 45 ministerial-level delegations.

It comes at a pivotal moment as AI rapidly transforms economies, reshapes labour markets and raises questions around regulations, security and ethics.

From generative AI tools that can produce text and images to advanced systems used in defence, healthcare and climate modelling, AI has become a central focus for governments and corporations across the world.

The summit, previously held in France, the United Kingdom and South Korea, has evolved far beyond its modest beginnings as a meeting tightly focused on the safety of cutting-edge AI systems into an all-purpose jamboree trade fair in which safety is just one aspect.

‘AI should be used for shaping humanity’

India – the world’s most populous nation and one of the fastest-growing digital markets – sees the summit as an opportunity to project itself as a bridge between advanced economies and the Global South.

Officials said the country’s experience in building large-scale digital public infrastructure, including digital identity and payment platforms, offers a model for deploying AI at scale while keeping costs low.

“The goal is clear: AI should be used for shaping humanity, inclusive growth and a sustainable future,” India’s Minister for Electronics and Information Technology Ashwini Vaishnaw said.

French President Emmanuel Macron and Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva are among the world leaders who are attending the summit.

Google Chief Executive Sundar Pichai, Qualcomm CEO Cristiano Amon, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman, Microsoft President Brad Smith and AMI Labs Executive Chairman Yann LeCun are also expected to attend.

New Delhi declaration

The summit has the loose themes of “people, progress, planet” – dubbed the “three sutras”.

Like previous editions, the India AI Impact Summit is not expected to result in a joint binding political agreement. It is more likely that the event could end with a nonbinding pledge or declaration on goals for AI development.

Last year’s edition, the Paris AI Action Summit, was dominated by United States Vice President JD Vance’s speech in which he rebuked European efforts to curb AI’s risks by warning global leaders and tech industry executives against “excessive regulation” that could hobble the rapidly growing AI industry.

AI summits have evolved since the first meeting in November 2023, barely a year after the launch of ChatGPT, which stoked excitement and fear about the capabilities of generative artificial intelligence.

That meeting at a former code-breaking base north of London was attended only by official delegations from 28 countries and the European Union, along with a small number of AI executives and researchers, and was focused on keeping AI safe and reining in its potentially catastrophic risks.

Seth Hays, author of the Asia AI Policy Monitor newsletter, said talk at the summit would likely centre around “ensuring that governments put up some guardrails, but don’t throttle AI development”.

“There may be some announcements for more state investment in AI, but it may not move the needle much, as India needs partnerships to integrate on the international scene for AI,” Hays told the AFP news agency.

WASHINGTON — President Biden is considering a ban on imports of Russian oil while weighing actions that would boost energy production by autocracies in the hopes of mitigating the effects on American consumers and global energy markets, U.S. officials said.

“What the president is most focused on is ensuring we are continuing to take steps to deliver punishing economic consequences on [Russian President Vladimir] Putin while taking all action necessary to limit the impact to prices at the gas pump,” White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki said Monday.

Until now, the economic strangulation of Russia by the West over its unprovoked invasion of Ukraine has avoided its robust energy sector, with administration officials suggesting that such a move could weaken the global economy.

But as Russia increases its unrelenting bombardment of Ukrainian cities, political pressure on the West has grown to do more to put pressure on Putin to stop the onslaught. U.S. officials said the Biden administration is considering easing restrictions on imports of oil from Venezuela to alleviate the void left by Russian oil bans, a politically problematic step.

It has also sought to convince Saudi Arabia, which has been under fire from U.S. and European officials over its human rights record, to boost oil production.

Biden spoke Monday for more than an hour with German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, French President Emmanuel Macron and British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, although the official White House readout of the conversation did not explicitly state that they discussed a ban on Russian energy.

According to the White House, “the leaders affirmed their determination to continue raising the costs on Russia for its unprovoked and unjustified invasion of Ukraine. They also underscored their commitment to continue providing security, economic and humanitarian assistance to Ukraine.”

Psaki said administration officials were also discussing whether the U.S. would send military aircraft to Poland should its leaders provide Soviet-era bombers to support Ukraine, but noted that the White House was not “preventing or blocking or discouraging” officials in Warsaw. “They are a sovereign country. They make their own decisions, but it is not as easy as just moving planes around,” she said.

The U.S. has been reluctant to get ahead of European allies in responding to Putin’s aggression. And while an oil embargo from Washington would have some effect, doing so in concert with Europe would deliver a far greater impact. Europe imports 4 million barrels of Russian oil a day, compared with 700,000 barrels imported daily by the U.S.

U.S. Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken said Sunday during an interview with CNN that the administration was indeed exploring the “prospect” of an energy ban “in a coordinated way” with allies, although he did not rule out the possibility that Washington could act on its own to bar Russian oil.

The administration may not have much of a choice. Members of both political parties have introduced bills in both houses of Congress to block such imports.

“We may have to pay more at the pump because of this attack and our bipartisan response, but it is worth it to ensure that Putin pays the price for his paranoid adventurism and his attack on a peaceful democracy,” Rep. Jimmy Panetta (D-Carmel Valley), who has co-sponsored a bill to ban Russian oil, said in a statement.

Rep. Lou Correa (D-Santa Ana), who supports the measure, said a Russian oil ban may only have limited success if the U.S. cannot persuade other countries to join the effort.

“I don’t believe Europe and some of the other countries are ready to say no to Russian energy, so that’s the challenge right now,” Correa said in an interview. “Not only does Russia have nukes, but also people have to buy their energy from the Russians.”

Congress is weighing an oil ban as it pushes to pass a measure to send Ukraine billions of dollars in emergency assistance. Senate Majority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) on Monday called for passage of a $12-billion aid package this week, saying it “will provide both humanitarian and military assistance for Ukraine: funding for refugees, medical supplies, emergency food supplies, as well as funding to support weapons transfers into Ukraine, and help for our eastern flank NATO allies.”

In a letter to House Democrats on Sunday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) said Congress intended to pass $10 billion in emergency aid for Ukraine as part of a larger government funding measure. The House is also exploring legislation that would “further isolate” Russia from the world economy, Pelosi said.

Banning Russian oil imports would probably lead to higher prices at the pump in the U.S. and globally. Gas is averaging $4 a gallon nationwide, up from $2.77 a year ago, according to AAA. The average price of gas in California during that same period has risen from $3.75 to $5.34.

In a clear signal of how seriously the Biden administration is considering a Russian oil ban, U.S. officials traveled over the weekend to Caracas, Venezuela, for talks about potentially easing sanctions imposed on the South American nation by the Trump administration in 2019. President Trump took that step after declaring President Nicolas Maduro’s election victory a sham and recognizing another politician, Juan Guaido, as the country’s rightful leader, a position Biden has affirmed.

Those measures built upon similar sanctions imposed by President Obama, signaling the long history of trouble Washington has had with Caracas and its socialist leaders.

The Venezuela economy is reeling, despite sitting on some of the world’s largest oil reserves, and Maduro is likely eager to be free of the sanctions. However, his economy and many of his government agencies are deeply intertwined with Russian assets and advisors. Any lenience by the White House toward Maduro, even if it’s driven by a desire to crack down on Putin, could undercut Biden’s messaging about the existential threat that autocracies present to democracies.

Psaki on Monday batted away questions about a potential rapprochement with Caracas, telling reporters that any easing of sanctions was “leaping several stages ahead” of where talks currently stand.

Complicating matters has been Venezuela’s decision to imprison six executives from the Citgo oil company for the last four years. Five are U.S. citizens and the sixth a U.S. permanent resident. They were convicted in show trials on trumped-up embezzlement charges and other crimes, according to their families and human rights activists.

Psaki said discussions about the release of the men and sanctions relief were taking place “in different channels,” and not tied together.

Republicans, who have seized on the potential energy crisis to call for stepping up domestic fossil fuel production, have already made clear that they will hit the White House hard should it look to offset any ban on Russian oil by looking to foreign suppliers.

Florida Sen. Marco Rubio criticized Biden in a tweet Sunday, saying: “Rather than produce more American oil, he wants to replace the oil we buy from one murderous dictator with oil from another murderous dictator.”

Oxlade-Chamberlain has been training with Arsenal in recent months and thanked the Premier League leaders for helping him to hit the ground running in Glasgow.

“It means a lot,” he said after his dramatic return to competitive action.

“I have to say a big thank you to everyone at Arsenal, giving me the chance to keep my fitness up, and an even bigger thanks to the manager here for giving me the chance to put on this kit and play for this amazing club.

“When you get those opportunities, you want to be able to pay back with moments of quality like that.

“It’s been difficult. Sometimes the way things go in football, especially when you cross that 30-years-of-age barrier, you’re not as valuable as you once were in a business sense.

“I knew I still had a lot to give and training every day for the last three months where I was training gave me the confidence that I can still offer a lot to the game.

“I’m delighted to be here and have the opportunity to do that and help these boys.”

The 32-year-old’s last-gasp goal takes Celtic within a point of Rangers – who drew 1-1 at Motherwell – in second and closer to Hearts, while O’Neill’s side carry that game in hand over both.

“Tonight is a great start for me, but more importantly keeps our goals alive and keeps us going in the right direction,” Oxlade-Chamberlain added.

He says he leapt at the chance to move to Parkhead, with a wee push from his dad.

“It’s an amazing opportunity. When it came up, I didn’t doubt it for one second,” he said.

“My dad’s from an era where this club means a lot. He was straight away telling me ‘I’ll get you in the car and drive you up there myself’.

“It’s a great start, but I know there’s a lot more to it than 13 minutes.”

As the high school boys’ basketball playoffs begin this week, these are the players who have reached or exceeded expectations to be at the top of their game during the regular season.

Let’s offer a salute for rising up:

Jason Crowe Jr., Inglewood: In each of his four seasons, Crowe has gotten better. Already the state’s all-time scoring leader with more than 4,000 points, he’s learned to draw fouls with his aggressiveness and increased strength instead of relying on three-point shooting. He leads the state, averaging 43.8 points.

Christian Collins, St. John Bosco: The best uncommitted player in California has been a model of consistency. The 6-foot-9 senior remains focused and hungry with each game, raising his skills and intensity to be a prime MVP candidate.

Kaiden Bailey, Santa Margarita: The Georgia Tech commit has truly become an outstanding point guard, ready to score if needed and pass if needed. When he went scoreless against St. John Bosco, he found another way to contribute with eight assists. The ability to recognize what is required will be key to his future success.

Joe Sterling, Harvard-Westlake: His three-point shooting skills are fantastic. The Texas commit is also learning to use his strength inside when needed. He faced adversity at the end of the regular season when his team lost three out of four games, so let’s see how he responds in the Open Division playoffs.

Brandon McCoy, Sierra Canyon: Give McCoy credit. He’s gotten better in his senior year even though he was already a top college prospect. Maybe it’s because he’s healthy. He’s jumping better and has become more explosive and versatile for the No. 1 team in California.

Cherif Millogo, St. Francis: Few knew what kind of influence the 7-4 center would have after transferring from Boston and missing a year because of a knee injury. He’s been a breath of fresh air. His skills are tremendous, along with his smiles and friendliness to fans and teammates alike.

Kevin Keshishyan, Los Altos: A 6-7 junior, Keshishyan entered this week averaging 20.4 points and 8.2 rebounds, proving his summer development was no fluke.

Eli Garner, Damien: It’s his fourth year playing on varsity and his best. He’s a scorer, rebounder and defender. Whatever coach Mike LeDuc asks of him, he delivers.

Devin Wright, Redondo Union: The son of former 12-year NBA player Dorell Wright has come on strong with big games against quality opponents, signaling the Sea Hawks have a fourth option to join SJ Madison, Chris Sanders and Chace Holley.

Gene Roebuck, La Mirada: The junior guard is averaging 22.4 points and kept his team competitive against one of the toughest schedules this season.

Maxwell Scott, Corona del Mar: A junior guard, Scott is close to automatic from three-point range when left open. He’s helped the Sea Kings reach the Open Division playoffs for the first time in school history.

NaVorro Bowman Jr., Sherman Oaks Notre Dame: He’s stamped as the best guard from the class of 2027. His shooting and scoring skills are elite. His strength keeps growing.

Will Conroy Jr., Village Christian: As a freshman, Conroy leads his team in scoring at 27.5 points a game and leads his team when games are close, showing poise beyond his age at 15 years old.

Jaden Bailes, JSerra: The transfer from San Diego St. Augustine keeps performing big in big games by making clutch shots.

Dylan McCord of Thousand Oaks has been one of the top three-point shooters this season.

(McCord family)

Dylan McCord, Thousand Oaks: The senior guard has made 113 threes while averaging 22.5 points. He set a school record with 10 threes in a single game.

Kamrynn Nathan, Elsinore: The junior guard is averaging nearly 25.2 points a game for the only unbeaten team left in the Southern Section.

Ethan Hill, Brentwood: Only a sophomore, he looks like a 6-7 football player yet can throw around his body in basketball. Once he gets the ball inside, the options are either watch him score or foul him.

Phillip Reed, Palisades: The freshman guard will be the player to watch as the Dolphins go for a City Section Open Division championship. His scoring skills and ability to find open teammates will be key to the Dolphins’ development.

Richie Ramirez, Mater Dei: He’s been an important addition as a junior guard, averaging 22.5 points a game.

Cayman Martin, Crespi: He played junior varsity last season as a sophomore after moving from Japan and has been a revelation with each game.

Two lawsuits accusing the world’s largest social media companies of harming children begin this week, marking the first legal efforts to hold companies like Meta responsible for the effects their products have on young users.

Opening arguments began today in a case brought by New Mexico’s attorney general’s office, which alleges that Meta failed to protect children from sexually explicit material. A separate case in Los Angeles, which accuses Meta and the Google-owned YouTube of deliberately designing their platforms to be addictive for children, is set to begin later this week.

TikTok and Snap were also named in the original California lawsuit but later settled under undisclosed terms.

The New Mexico and California lawsuits are the first of a wave of 40 lawsuits filed by state attorneys general around the US against Meta, specifically, that allege that the social media giant is harming the mental health of young Americans.

New Mexico case

In the opening argument in the New Mexico case, which was first filed in 2023, prosecutors told jurors on Monday that Meta – Facebook and Instagram’s parent company – had failed to disclose its platforms’ harmful effects on kids.

“The theme throughout this trial is going to be that Meta put profits over safety,” said lawyer Donald Migliori, who is representing the state of New Mexico against Meta.

“Meta clearly knew that youth safety was not its corporate priority… that youth safety was less important than growth and engagement.”

Prosecutors say they will provide evidence and testimony that Meta’s algorithms and account features not only enticed young people and made them addicted to social media, but also fostered a “breeding ground” for predators who target children for sexual exploitation.

Late last month, in the process of discovery, the New Mexico attorney general’s office said the company did not put in safeguards to protect children from accessing sexualised chatbots on Facebook and Instagram.

In emails obtained by the court, some of Meta’s safety staff had expressed objections that the company was building chatbots geared for companionship, including sexual and romantic interactions with users, according to the Reuters news agency.

The artificial intelligence chatbots were released in early 2024. The documents cited in the state’s filing do not include messages or memos authored by Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg. In October 2025, Meta added parental controls to the chatbots.

California case

The California case is more wide-reaching and alleges that Meta and YouTube, which is a unit of Alphabet-owned Google, used deliberate design choices that sought to make their platforms more addictive to children to boost profits.

The case centres around a 19-year-old identified only by the initials KGM. The case could determine how thousands of other, similar lawsuits against social media companies will play out.

KGM claims that her use of social media from an early age made her addicted to the technology and exacerbated her depression and suicidal thoughts.

“Borrowing heavily from the behavioral and neurobiological techniques used by slot machines and exploited by the cigarette industry, Defendants deliberately embedded in their products an array of design features aimed at maximizing youth engagement to drive advertising revenue,” the lawsuit says.

Executives, including Zuckerberg, are expected to testify at the trial, which will last six to eight weeks. It is unclear if they will attend the New Mexico case.

The tech companies dispute the claims that their products deliberately harm children, citing a bevvy of safeguards they have added over the years and arguing that they are not liable for content posted on their sites by third parties.

“Recently, a number of lawsuits have attempted to place the blame for teen mental health struggles squarely on social media companies,” Meta said in a recent blog post. “But this oversimplifies a serious issue. Clinicians and researchers find that mental health is a deeply complex and multifaceted issue, and trends regarding teens’ well-being aren’t clear-cut or universal.

Narrowing the challenges faced by teens to a single factor ignores the scientific research and the many stressors impacting young people today, like academic pressure, school safety, socio-economic challenges and substance abuse.”

A Meta spokesperson said in a recent statement that the company strongly disagrees with the allegations outlined in the lawsuit and that it is “confident the evidence will show our longstanding commitment to supporting young people”.

Jose Castaneda, a Google spokesperson, said the allegations against YouTube are “simply not true”.

“Providing young people with a safer, healthier experience has always been core to our work,” he said in a statement.

High stakes

The outcome of the cases could shape the future of social media.

“In my mind, an existential question for social media services is whether they’re liable for harm suffered by users from using the services. If so, the damages could be more money than the defendants have, Eric Goldman, a professor at the Santa Clara University School of Law, told Al Jazeera.

“We’re talking about massive financial stakes, and we’re also talking about the ability of the plaintiffs to veto or potentially override editorial decisions by the services about what’s in the best interests of their audiences,” he said.

“It’s essentially taking away power from the services to decide and handing it to plaintiffs’ lawyers. So, not only could there be existential damages, but there could also be a massive loss of editorial control over their services. The stakes could not be higher for social media services or the internet.”

Goldman said this was because the same argument could be used to shape claims against video game makers and generative AI, which refers to AI that can create original content, including text and video.

“If these theories work against social media, they might also work against video games, against generative AI, and who knows what else. That’s why I said the stakes are so high for the internet,” he added.

There are already lawsuits that claim that interactions with OpenAI’s ChatGPT led to instances of suicide and murder-suicide.

On Wall Street, Meta stock is trending up by more than 3 percent in midday trading.