Tag: National security

WHY GOVERNMENT FUNCTIONS SHOULD BE DE-PRIVATIZED

Privatization of government functions gives a private entity control of a public good or service and is often inefficient and risky. The real goal is often to give businesses profits. Democrats need to reverse privatization. DOD contracts for mission critical capabilities need to be de-privatized.

SUMMARY: Privatization of government functions means giving a private entity control of or power over a public good or service. Privatization is often inefficient and can have safety and national security risks. The real goal of many privatization efforts is to give private businesses an opportunity to make profits. Democrats need to reverse decades of privatization to better serve the public. The companies the Department of Defense has contracted with to provide mission critical capabilities need to be nationalized, most notably Elon Musk’s SpaceX.

(Note: If you find a post too long to read, please just skim the bolded portions. Thanks for reading my blog!)

(Note: Please follow me and see my blog posts on Bluesky at: @jalippitt.bsky.social. Thanks!)

(Note: For lots of good news see Jess Craven’s Chop Wood Carry Water blog’s most recent Sunday post here.)

Privatization of government functions or “outsourcing” means more than just contracting for a prison or selling off a municipal water system. It means giving a private entity control of or power over a public good or service – essential things we depend on including public health, clean air and water, safe food, good education, transportation, health care, utilities, and safety.

Privatization is often inefficient (i.e., costs more and/or delivers lower quality goods or services than public provision) and can have safety and national security risks. (See this previous post for more information.) Privatization tends to be inefficient because it adds a layer of management and profits onto public functions. Any cost savings typically come from paying workers less. Public transparency and control over the delivery of services are typically lost and, in addition, government can lose its capacity to deliver basic services. [1] Private, for-profit companies tend to cut corners and purposely avoid expensive to serve individuals to maximize profits, compromising quality and fairness.

The real goal of many privatization efforts is not greater efficiency but a desire of politicians to give private businesses an opportunity to make profits. Some politicians may believe that privatization will produce efficiencies despite significant evidence to the contrary. However, some politicians may be looking to curry favor with private companies and their executives who can give them campaign contributions.

Some examples of failed or unwarranted privatization (in addition to ones in this previous post) include:

  • Privatization of prisons and detention facilities (see posts here and here for more information)
  • Use of ID.me for logging in to government agencies and information (see this post for more information)
  • Use of CLEAR for expedited security clearance at airports. (TSA PreCheck is the public alternative which costs less than one-tenth as much.)
  • Vouchers for K-12 education in private schools. (They divert money from public schools and typically subsidize well-off parents who are already sending their children to private schools.)
  • Privatization of Medicare through so-called Medicare Advantage plans. (Public Medicare is much more efficient than the privatized plans (i.e., lower cost per patient and better outcomes). Medicare would save about $100 billion a year if these private plans were eliminated. See more information here, here, and here.)

Contracts, vouchers, and just allowing the private sector to provide a service (e.g., rail and bus transportation, electricity, and Internet and phone service) are not the only ways to privatize government functions. For example, federal policies have hamstrung the U.S. Postal Service, including prohibiting it from providing some services, to allow private companies to provide a significant portion of package delivery services. The Department of Defense and other government agencies have been taking ownership shares in private companies, such as strategic minerals, chip making, and small defense manufacturing companies. [2] (For detailed information about privatization and its many variants see In the Public Interest.) [3] (For more information on how the Trump administration has been taking ownership interests in private companies and exerting control over private companies in other ways see this previous post.)

It’s usually more efficient and almost always fairer to have government provide the public goods and services that meet essential public needs (e.g., education, health care, water, sewer, waste removal, electricity, communications, transportation, public safety, and defense). Decades of privatization need to be reversed to better serve the public.

When Democrats take control of Congress in January, they should immediately take steps to slow privatization with a goal of halting additional privatization in the short-term. Over the longer term, they should de-privatize important public functions, such as the provision of Medicare and eventually all of health care.

There are situations where the ownership of private companies should be taken over by the government, i.e., they should be nationalized. The clearest examples are companies the Department of Defense has contracted with to provide mission critical capabilities. Specifically, it has contracted critical satellite-based communications and intelligence capabilities to SpaceX, including use of its Starlink and Starshield communications systems. It is not wise or safe to have these capabilities in private hands, let alone the hands of Elon Musk, the owner of SpaceX. He is a significant national security risk given his business interests, contacts, and engagement with Chinese leaders and investors. [4] Ownership of SpaceX needs to be taken over by the federal government. [5] (See this previous post for more information on Musk, SpaceX, and the national security risks they represent.)

[1]      Kuttner, R., 10/13/26, “Time to de-privatize,” The American Prospect (https://prospect.org/2026/10/13/time-to-de-privatize-federal-government/)

[2]      Groz, Z., 10/22/26, “As lawmakers scrutinize Pentagon equity deals, Pentagon keeps making them,” The American Prospect (https://prospect.org/2026/10/22/as-lawmakers-scrutinize-pentagon-equity-deals-pentagon-keeps-making-them/)

[3]      See also Cohen, D., & Potter, C., 1/7/22, “Why privatization is worse than you know,” Public Seminar (https://publicseminar.org/essays/why-privatization-is-worse-than-you-know/), which, among other things, references the book, The Privatization of Everything, by Cohen and Mikaelian.

[4]      Kaplan, J., & Elliott, J., 3/26/25, “How Elon Musk’s Space X secretly allows investments from China,” ProPublica (https://www.propublica.org/article/elon-musk-spacex-allows-china-investment-cayman-islands-secrecy)

[5]      Myerson, H., 10/22/26, “SpaceX is a de facto government agency. It should be nationalized.” The American Prospect (https://prospect.org/2026/10/22/spacex-government-agency-nationalized-elon-musk-russia-ukraine-starlink/)

THE RISKS OF PRIVATIZING GOVERNMENT SERVICES

Privatization of government services, promoted by Republicans and some Democrats, rarely delivers greater efficiency. Over 40% of the federal government workforce are now private contractors. The DOD uses contractors extensively; its contracts with Musk’s SpaceX present national security risks.

SUMMARY: Privatization of government services has been promoted by Republicans and some Democrats for over 40 years. Their promises of greater efficiency rarely turn out to be true. Over 40% of the federal government’s workforce are now private contractors. The Department of Defense uses contractors extensively, including for sensitive, mission-critical functions. Its contracts with Elon Musk’s SpaceX company present serious national security risks.

(Note: If you find a post too long to read, please just skim the bolded portions. Thanks for reading my blog!)

(Note: Please follow me and see my blog posts on Bluesky at: @jalippitt.bsky.social. Thanks!)

(Note: For lots of good news see Jess Craven’s Chop Wood Carry Water blog’s most recent Sunday post here.)

Privatization of government services or “outsourcing” has been promoted by Republicans and some Democrats for over 40 years. Proponents claim it will save taxpayers money, improve public services, and increase public sector accountability. This rarely turns out to be true. Once the profit incentive is introduced, prices are likely to go up and quality is likely to go down. Privatization only tends to be successful if there is strong oversight and regulation, as well as real competition.  (See this previous post for more details.)

Poor experiences with privatization at the municipal level led to a wave of de-privatization between 1997 and 2002. Nonetheless, privatization continued to march ahead at the federal level. (I’ve been criticizing privatization since way back in 2012. See previous posts here and here for more information.)

Numerous examples exist of privatization’s failure to deliver its promised benefits. The U.S. health care system is a classic one. The privatized, for-profit system in the U.S. is the costliest system among any of our peer countries and its outcomes are among the worst. All elements of the system are putting profits before patients. (See previous posts here and here for more information on the failures of for-profit health care.)

Other examples of failed privatization include:

  • Rail transportation is more efficient, dependable, and convenient in the rest of the world than with the privatized system in the U.S.
  • Bridges, roads, and parking meters that have been privatized by state and municipal governments often did not produce the desired results.
  • Water, sewer, and solid waste disposal systems’ privatization has been found in most studies to provide no cost or efficiency benefits.
  • Internet service is cheaper and faster where there are municipally run systems and in Europe.

Privatization is also evident in the increasing portion of the federal workforce that is contractors. The total federal government workforce of roughly 9.1 million people can be categorized as follows: [1]

  • 3.7 million contractors (40.7%),
  • 2.0 million civilian employees (22.0%),
  • 1.6 million people paid through various grant programs (17.6%),
  • 1.3 million active-duty military personnel (14.3%), and
  • 0.5 million Postal Service employees (5.5%). [2]

The use of contractors by the Department of Defense (DOD) on the ground in war zones has gone largely unnoticed. However, more contractors have died (8,000) than US service members (7,000) in post 9/11 military activities. Contractors have become a permanent element of the military infrastructure. In the Middle East region, operational and battlefield contractors greatly outnumbered military personnel (43,800 contractors to 15,000 military) in October 2020. There were three contractors for each member of the military in Afghanistan at the end of U.S. involvement in August 2021. [3]

But the DOD’s privatization goes further and, as has become apparent recently, is jeopardizing national security and U.S. foreign policy. The U.S. DOD has billions of dollars of contracts with Elon Musk’s SpaceX company to provide critical military and national security capabilities. For example, Space X has a multi-billion-dollar contract to build a classified spy satellite network for the DOD. It also has contracts for communication services through Space X’s subsidiary, Starlink. [4]

Recently, Trump and Musk were limiting Ukraine’s use of Starlink and its military version, Starshield. Musk claims that Starshield is operated by the US government. The limitations that were imposed on these communications services prevented or slowed warnings of incoming Russian missiles and drones, and also degraded Ukraine’s offensive military capabilities. [5]

It seems likely that the U.S. DOD is similarly dependent on SpaceX communications capabilities. It doesn’t seem wise or safe to have privatized these DOD mission critical capabilities.

Furthermore, Musk is considered a significant national security risk by DOD and intelligence officials, as well as by other intelligence experts. [6] When Trump took office in 2025, there were three DOD investigations of Musk’s and Space X’s repeated failures to file mandatory national security reports of contacts and involvement with foreign entities. [7] Their significant contacts and engagement with Chinese leaders and investors make this a matter of serious concern. Space X has sizeable investments from Chinese investors, but because of its contracts with the DOD, Space X does not want its investments from Chinese investors to be public knowledge. Therefore, it actively works to make sure those investments are laundered through intermediate entities in the Cayman Islands and elsewhere, which keeps investors anonymous. [8]

Roughly half of Musk’s Tesla vehicles are built in China and China is Tesla’s largest market. Tesla’s largest factory is in Shanghai and its construction received a $2.8 billion investment, major tax breaks, and special permissions from the Chinese government. Musk regularly meets with Chinese government and Communist Party officials due to his multiple business interests, current and future, in China.

It seems quite clear that sensitive DOD capabilities should not be privatized to Musk’s company – or anyone else’s for that matter.

My next post will focus on the need to slow, stop, and eventually reverse the privatization of essential government functions.

[1]      Gordon, N., 10/5/17, “Contractors and the true size of government,” Project On Government Oversight (https://www.pogo.org/analyses/contractors-and-true-size-of-government)

[2]      Note: These data are from 2017, but overall these numbers have been relatively stable over time. If anything, the percentage of contractors has increased.

[3]      Cancian, M., 8/30/21, “In Afghanistan, contractors were unsung heroes of US efforts,” Breaking Defense (https://breakingdefense.com/2021/08/in-afghanistan-contractors-were-unsung-heroes-of-us-efforts/)

[4]      Elordi, M., 10/21/24, “Elon Musk’s companies have faced at least 20 federal probes,” Daily Wire (https://www.dailywire.com/news/elon-musks-companies-have-faced-at-least-20-federal-probes-report)

[5]      Roth, A. 10/14/26, “Ukrainian military’s access to Starlink satellite internet suddenly restricted,” The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/oct/14/ukraine-soldiers-combat-access-starlink-satellite-internet-restricted)

[6]      Reich, R., 3/21/25, “Is the Muskrat working for China?” Robert Reich blog (https://robertreich.substack.com/p/is-the-muskrat-working-for-china )

[7]      House Committee on the Judiciary, 2/13/25, “Fact Sheet: Trump administration, DOGE punish agencies investigating Elon Musk’s companies,” (https://democrats-judiciary.house.gov/uploadedfiles/2025.02.13_fact_sheet_re_musk_investigations.pdf

[8]      Kaplan, J., & Elliott, J., 3/26/25, “How Elon Musk’s Space X secretly allows investments from China,” ProPublica (https://www.propublica.org/article/elon-musk-spacex-allows-china-investment-cayman-islands-secrecy)

THE TRUMP FAMILY’S SAUDI ARABIAN CONNECTIONS Part 3

The Trump family’s relationships with Saudi Arabia and its ruler involve billions of dollars of investments and real estate deals. These conflicts of interest and apparent corruption are unprecedented. There are many accessories, and there should be many investigations and prosecutions.

SUMMARY: The Trump family’s relationships with Saudi Arabia and its ruler Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) involve billions of dollars of investments and real estate deals. These conflicts of interest and apparent corruption by a president and his family are unprecedented in American history. The acquiescence and enabling behavior by Republicans in Congress, other officials in the Trump administration, and by the Supreme Court make them accessories. If there were a functioning, independent Department of Justice or Congress, there would be more investigations and prosecutions than one could count.

(Note: If you find a post too long to read, please just skim the bolded portions. Thanks for reading my blog!)

(Note: Please follow me and see my blog posts on Bluesky at: @jalippitt.bsky.social. Thanks!)

The third facet of the Trump family’s friendly relationships with Saudi Arabia and its ruler Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) is the one that financially benefits Trump himself, his family, and the Trump organization. Therefore, it presents huge conflicts of interest that may well be the core explanation for Trump’s friendly relationship that has benefited Saudi Arabia and MBS with deals for nuclear, AI, and military infrastructure and capabilities. As noted in my previous posts (here and here), these deals by the Trump administration represent significant changes in U.S. policies and, in many experts’ views, present serious national security risks.

In President Trump’s first term, he appointed his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, as a senior advisor and Director of the Office of American Innovation. Kushner was involved in various policy initiatives, including peace negotiations with Israel and Arab nations, despite a total lack of public policy, international relations, and diplomacy experience. This role presented conflicts of interest due to his past and current business dealings with Arab leaders and investors. In 2018, it was reported that multiple foreign governments had discussed manipulating Kushner and the Trump administration through Kushner’s financial dealings. MBS bragged to other Arab leaders that he had Kushner in his pocket. [1]

Just as the first Trump presidential term was winding down late in 2020, Kushner founded an investment management firm, Affinity Partners. Kushner had no investment management experience and his sales pitch was described as very amateurish as he worked to raise hundreds of millions of dollars for his firm to manage. A key target was the nearly $1 trillion sovereign wealth fund of Saudi Arabia. Kushner, in overseeing the Trump administration’s foreign policy in the Middle East, along with his father-in-law, President Trump, had cultivated a relationship with the Saudis and in particular with Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS).

The Saudi officials screening investment opportunities recommended not investing with Affinity Partners because of its lack of investment management experience and lack of a clear strategy, among other factors. However, MBS overruled them and invested $2 billion with Kushner’s firm. United Arab Emirates and Qatar invested about $1.5 billion. Along with other mostly foreign investors, Affinity Partners raised over $6 billion. This generated over $100 million in fees for Kushner and his partners based on a fee structure the Saudi analysts had called excessive. [2]

In Trump’s second term starting in 2025, Kushner was again involved in Mideast negotiations as well as negotiations with Russia on Ukraine. (Trump’s and Kushner’s Russian connections are, of course, a whole other story.) In 2025, Kushner privately brokered the $55 billion Saudi purchase of the huge video game company Electronic Arts. (MBS reportedly loves video games and has played them with Kushner.) In 2026, even as the U.S. war on Iran was on-going and Kushner was serving as a negotiator, he was meeting with the Saudis to secure additional billions of dollars for his Affinity Partners investment firm. [3]

In February 2025, the Saudi’s sovereign wealth fund, known as its Public Investment Fund (PIF), sponsored its third annual investment conference in Miami. President Trump was again the headline speaker. Kushner and Donald Trump, Jr., were also present to schmooze with Saudi officials and businessmen. PIF has made billions of dollars of investments in the U.S., including in Kushner’s Affinity Partners, Trump’s golf resorts, and with other former Trump administration officials, such as former Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin. [4] One commentator noted that you don’t need an army to have power and influence in the world, you just need to have a sovereign wealth fund with a trillion dollars as the Saudis do. By the way, the proposed purchase of CNN and Warner Brothers Discovery by Paramount (which is owned and run by Trump’s friends the Ellisons) is funded by the sovereign wealth funds of Saudi Arabia, Abu Dhabi, and Qatar. If the deal goes through, those three countries’ funds would own 49.5% of the new company with the possibility that their share might grow to controlling majority interest. [5]

In January 2026, less than two months after hosting MBS at the White House, Trump announced $7 billion in private real estate development projects by the Trump organization in Saudi Arabia. Previously, in late 2024, shortly after Trump’s election as president, his son, Eric, who is leading the Trump organization, had announced a separate $3 billion real estate project in Saudi Arabia. The Trump organization also has real estate projects in Oman and the United Arab Emirates (UAE). [6]

President Trump’s son Donald, Jr., also has an investment firm. It’s called 1789 Capital and has extensive investments in defense companies. Don Jr. was intimately involved with vetting candidates for Pentagon jobs in 2025. Shortly thereafter, at least four companies 1789 Capital was invested in got Pentagon contracts. Trump sons, Don Jr. and Eric, are also the officers of a shell company that has invested in mining interests, including one that has a $1.6 billion U.S. government contract to obtain tungsten from Kazakhstan. [7]

The billions of dollars in business deals described above present conflicts of interest for and apparent corruption by the President and his family that are unprecedented in American history. These examples are just an overview. There’s much more, such as the Trump family’s crypto businesses.

This post and my previous two posts (here and here) highlight some dramatic government and private actions by Trump, his family members, and his administration that present mind-boggling conflicts of interest. One commentator stated that Jared Kushner is effectively on Saudi Arabia’s payroll. Although President Trump and his family are the primary culprits, the acquiescence and enabling behavior of Republicans in Congress and other officials in the Trump administration, as well as of the Supreme Court, make them accessories. If there were a functioning, independent Department of Justice or Congress, there would be more investigations and prosecutions than one could count.

For lots of good news see Jess Craven’s Chop Wood Carry Water blog’s most recent good news Sunday posts here.

[1]      Michel, C., July-August 2026, “They went to Jared,” Mother Jones (https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2026/06/jared-kushner-affinity-partners-fund-saudi-arabia-qatar-uae-israel-middle-east-deals-nepotism-iran-war-gaza-peace-deal-diplomat-steve-witkoff-donald-ivanka-trump/)

[2]      Michel, C., July-August 2026, see above

[3]      Michel, C., July-August 2026, see above

[4]      Human Rights Watch, 2/19/25, “Saudi Arabia: Public Investment Fund meeting whitewashes abuses,” (https://www.hrw.org/news/2025/02/19/saudi-arabia-public-investment-fund-meeting-whitewashes-abuses)

[5]      Meyerson, H., 7/21/26, “When the anti-Sharia law demagogues fall silent,” The American Prospect (https://prospect.org/2026/07/21/anti-sharia-law-republicans-paramount-warner-bros-chip-roy-keith-self-tommy-tuberville/)

[6]      Kile, M., 1/13/26, “Trumps announce $7B in new Saudi Arabia projects – including mansions ‘where winners reside’ – after Crown Prince’s White House visit,” People (https://people.com/trump-international-announces-saudi-arabia-projects-weeks-after-crown-prince-white-house-visit-11884610)

[7]      Makdisi, N., 7/26/26, “The business of war: Trump’s critical minerals grift,” Common Dreams (https://www.commondreams.org/opinion/trump-minerals-grift)

THE TRUMP FAMILY’S SAUDI ARABIAN CONNECTIONS Part 2

Trump’s friendly relationship with Saudi Arabia and its ruler is evident in his administration’s sales to them of military equipment and artificial intelligence (AI) technology, and his visits to Saudi Arabia. Trump’s extravagant military spending and sales have been called the “Bloody New Deal.”

SUMMARY: Trump’s (and his family’s) friendly relationship with Saudi Arabia and its ruler Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) is evident in his administration’s huge sales to Saudi Arabia of military equipment and artificial intelligence (AI) technology. Other signs of the close relationship are that the first foreign visits of each Trump presidential term have been to Saudi Arabia and that MBS was given the royal treatment on his visit to the White House. Trump’s extravagant military spending and sales have been called the “Bloody New Deal.”

(Note: If you find a post too long to read, please just skim the bolded portions. Thanks for reading my blog!)

(Note: Please follow me and get notices of my blog posts on Bluesky at: @jalippitt.bsky.social. Thanks!)

One example of Trump’s friendly relationship with Saudi Arabia and its leader Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) is his administration’s huge sales of military equipment and of artificial intelligence (AI) technology to Saudi Arabia. (See more below.) Another example of the close relationship is Trump’s recent deal to provide nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia described in my previous post. Trump, and his family, have maintained and built this friendly relationship despite Saudi Arabia being an autocratic, Islamic country whose leader, MBS, is widely believed to have ordered the murder of Jamal Khashoggi, the Washington Post columnist, and whose members were the planners and most of those who executed the 9/11/2001 terrorist attack on the U.S.

Evidence of Trump’s close relationship with the Saudis was made clear in that his first foreign visit of his first term was to Saudi Arabia, not a geographically close ally as is traditional. In May 2017, Trump and Jared Kushner met with Saudi King Salman, then Saudi defense minister MBS, and other Saudi leaders. Trump signed a $110 billion arms deal (growing to $350 billion over ten years) with Saudi Arabia, representing a substantial expansion of the U.S. – Saudi relationship.

Later in 2017, Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, went to Saudi Arabi for a private meeting with MBS, who had just become the Crown Prince and was taking control of the Saudi government. From late 2017 through January 2019, MBS undertook a purge and shakedown of the Saudi government, ruling royalty, and wealthy Saudi businessmen under a claim of ending corruption. Roughly 500 people were detained: some were beaten and tortured, at least 17 required hospitalization, and some ended up in prison. Assets of up to $800 billion were surrendered or seized. Trump indicated his support for MBS and lack of concern about the purge, shakedown, and their victims. (On June 30, 2026, PBS’s Frontline program aired a 90-minute report, The Crown Prince and the President, which documents many examples of the Trump family’s close relationship with MBS. It’s available on multiple streaming services.)

In 2019, President Trump vetoed multiple efforts to block U.S. military assistance to Saudi Arabia for its war on Yemen and the Houthis, despite strong evidence of significant civilian casualties.

In May 2025, President Trump’s first major international trip of his second term was to Saudi Arabia. The four-day visit focused primarily on securing business deals and investments. He met with Crown Prince MBS and King Salman and participated in a Saudi-U.S. Investment Forum.

In November 2025, MBS visited the White House, receiving the lavish treatment usually reserved for a head of state. (Note: MBS is the Crown Prince not the King, although he is effectively ruling Saudi Arabia. This was his first visit to the U.S. since the murder of Khashoggi in 2018.) The Trump administration approved the sale of an estimated $1 billion worth of advance artificial intelligence (AI) chips – up to 35,000 of them – to Saudi Arabia. This was a major reversal of U.S. policy which had previously restricted export sales of these chips to protect U.S. technology and national security. In particular, there is concern that this AI technology would be obtained by China due to Saudi Arabia’s existing economic and technological cooperation with China. Saudi Arabia’s state-backed AI company has signed contracts with nearly a dozen U.S. firms for AI technology and data centers in Saudi Arabia. [1] During this visit, MBS announced that Saudi Arabia would be investing up to $1 trillion in U.S. investment firms and infrastructure projects.

In March 2026, the Trump administration approved a $142 billion sale of military equipment and support to Saudi Arabia. This included 48 of the U.S.’s most advanced stealth fighter jets, the F-35. This represents a significant shift in U.S. arms export policy as only Israel had previously been able to obtain these fighter jets. This has raised national security concerns due to the sensitive technology in these jets, in particular because of Saudi Arabia’s connections with China. [2]

In July 2026, the Trump administration approved $2 billion in sales of Advanced Precision Kill Weapon Systems to Saudi Arabia, including 20,000 missiles.

Saudi Arabia is the largest purchaser of U.S. military equipment and second only to Israel in the technology and sophistication of the weapons systems it buys. The sale of these advanced weapons systems to Saudi Arabia is undoubtedly making Israel uncomfortable.

The hundreds of billions of dollars in military sales to the Saudis, the tens of billions of dollars in ordnance being used in the Iran War, and Trump’s request for a $1.5 trillion defense budget and an $80 billion supplemental appropriation for the Iran War are making the defense industry very happy. This unprecedented funding of the military-industrial complex has been called the “Bloody New Deal.” [3]

My next post will review the real estate and financial deals between Trump family members and Saudi Arabia.

For lots of good news see Jess Craven’s Chop Wood Carry Water blog’s most recent good news Sunday posts here.

[1]      Graham, E., 11/20/25, “U.S. greenlights AI chip exports to Gulf tech giants after Saudi Crown Prince’s Wahington visit,” CNBC (https://www.cnbc.com/2025/11/20/us-approves-ai-chip-exports-to-gulf-after-saudi-crown-prince-visit.html)

[2]      Kumar, A., 3/30/26, “U.S. approves F-35 stealth fighter jet sale to Saudi Arabia under strategic defense deal,” The Defense News (https://www.thedefensenews.com/US-Approves-F-35-Stealth-Fighter-Jet-Sale-to-Saudi-Arabia-Under-Strategic-Defense-Deal/)

[3]      Manning, S., 3/23/26, “Trump’s proposed military spending would be a ‘Bloody New Deal’,” Union of Concerned Scientists (https://blog.ucs.org/sean-manning/trumps-proposed-military-spending-would-be-a-bloody-new-deal/)

THE TRUMP FAMILY’S SAUDI ARABIAN CONNECTIONS Part 1

SUMMARY: The Trump administration’s recent deal to support Saudi Arabia’s development of a nuclear energy program represents a major shift in U.S. policy and risks accelerating the nuclear arms race in the Middle East and globally. It is in stark contrast with Trump’s position on neighboring Iran’s nuclear energy program. It has again put a spotlight on the Trump family’s relationship with Saudi Arabia and its ruler Mohammed bin Salman (MBS). This friendly relationship highlights the hypocrisy of Trump’s and other Republicans anti-Muslim rhetoric and policies.

(Note: If you find a post too long to read, please just skim the bolded portions. Thanks for reading my blog!)

(Note: Please follow me and get notices of my blog posts on Bluesky at: @jalippitt.bsky.social. Thanks!)

The Trump administration’s recent deal to support Saudi Arabia’s development of a nuclear energy program has again put a spotlight on the Trump family’s friendly relationship with Saudi Arabia and its ruler Mohammed bin Salman (MBS). President Trump, son Eric, and son-in-law Jared Kushner have conflicts of interest, present national security risks, and face ethical dilemmas in their relationship with MBS and Saudi Arabia.

It’s important to give this relationship some context. Saudi Arabia is an autocratic, Islamic country that uses Sharia law for parts of its society and places severe restrictions on women. MBS is also widely believed to have ordered the murder of Jamal Khashoggi, the Washington Post columnist. Saudi Arabians were the planners and most of those who executed the 9/11/2001 terrorist attack on the U.S.

Trump’s friendly relationship with MBS and Saudi Arabia highlight the hypocrisy of his anti-Muslim rhetoric and policies. The silence of other Republicans in the face of this nuclear technology deal, sales of military hardware, and other dealings with Saudi Arabia highlight their hypocrisy in their vilification of Muslims and vocal opposition to supposed efforts to implement Sharia law in the U.S.

This most recent example of the cozy relationship between Trump and MBS is an unprecedented, 30-year agreement to support Saudi Arabia’s development of nuclear energy and related technology. The deal gives a monopoly worth billions of dollars to U.S. companies, benefiting Westinghouse in particular (which was bailed out by Trump after it filed for bankruptcy in 2017). Notably, the deal does NOT include monitoring and inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency to ensure that nuclear fuel isn’t enriched into weapons grade material, despite MBS’s statement that if Iran builds a nuclear weapon, Saudi Arabia will too. The agreement must be approved by Congress, although a veto-proof two-thirds majority in both the House and Seante would be required to reject it, which is unlikely.

The deal’s transfer of nuclear technology presents a clear risk of nuclear weapons proliferation and a stark contrast with Trump’s position on neighboring Iran’s nuclear energy program, which Trump has gone to war to destroy. Saudi Arabia and Iran are long time Middle East rivals, and this deal will strengthen Iran’s claim that it should have nuclear technology. The agreement, whose text has not been made publicly available, is being described differently by different parties (which is not unusual with Trump’s deals) and may allow Saudi Arabia to build and operate its own uranium enrichment facilities. Such facilities, which Iran has, can enrich nuclear power fuel to make weapons grade nuclear material. [1] Note: A day after the Saudi Arabia nuclear deal was signed, President Trump apparently added a new condition: that Saudi Arabia normalize diplomatic relations with Israel. Saudi Arabia has clearly stated in the past that it would not do so without a path to a Palestinian state, something Israel has rejected. [2]

Providing nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia is a major shift in U.S. policy, a reversal of 50 years of U.S. nuclear nonproliferation efforts, and risks accelerating the nuclear arms race in the Middle East and globally. Other U.S. allies are likely to ask for similar arrangements, in particular the ability to enrich nuclear fuel on-site, which the U.S. has prohibited for decades. It also opens the door for China and Russia to share nuclear technology with their allies because the U.S. has done so. [3]

Back in 2016, Trump’s campaign rhetoric included support for building nuclear power plants in Saudi Arabia. At that time, son-in-law Kushner and others formed a company to engage in such a project. During Trump’s first term as president, White House ethics and national security officials warned that selling nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia might violate the Atomic Energy Act and that it presented national security risks. [4]

My next posts will review U.S. sales of military equipment and artificial intelligence (AI) technology to Saudi Arabia. They will also describe the real estate and financial deals between Trump family members and Saudi Arabia.

For lots of good news see Jess Craven’s Chop Wood Carry Water blog’s most recent good news Sunday posts here.

[1]      Hjelmgaard, K., 7/23/26, “Saudi Arabia gets nuclear deal. Iran gets bombed. What’s in the pact?” USA Today (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2026/07/23/us-saudi-nuclear-deal-iran-raises-regional-arms-race-fears/91020032007/)

[2]      Sanger, D. E., & Demirjian, K., 7/24/26, “Trump makes Saudi-Israel ties a must for nuclear deal,” The Boston Globe from the New York Times

[3]      Schwartz, F., Wu, J., & Ewing, G. R., 7/22/26, “Trump’s Saudi nuclear deal risks igniting a Middle East arms races, lawmakers warn,” Politico (https://www.politico.com/news/2026/07/22/saudi-nuclear-pact-fears-regional-enrichment-01009142)

[4]      Cox Richardson, H., 7/22/26, Letters from an American blog (https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/p/july-22-2026))

SIGNALGATE: AN UNFORGIVABLE NATIONAL SECURITY BREACH

Top Trump administration officials in the military and intelligence agencies have committed an unbelievable and unforgivable breach of national security. Investigations by Congress and the military are essential. Officials responsible should resign, be fired, or be impeached, and perhaps prosecuted.

(Note: If you find a post too long to read, please just skim the bolded portions. Thanks for reading my blog!)

There is NO EXCUSE for top Trump administration officials communicating secret military plans over Signal, an unsecured, commercial messaging app, whose use is SPECIFICALLY PROHIBITED by Defense Department policy. Included in the Signal chat group discussing the March 15 attack in Yemen, before and during the action, were:

  • Secretary of Defense Hegseth and Secretary of State Rubio,
  • The President’s National Security Advisor Waltz and Chief of Staff Wiles,
  • The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Director Ratliffe and the Director of National Intelligence Gabbard,
  • Vice President Vance, and others.

None of them, over the four-day chat (3/11 – 3/15), raised a red flag over the illegal use of an unsecured communication channel, with a reporter accidentally included no less. This is astounding. Any government employee of lower rank who engaged in such a breach of security would be fired immediately and jailed without bail. Concerning elements of this national security breach include:

  • The incompetence, inexperience, and cavalier attitude toward sensitive information of these top Trump administration official is stunning and unacceptable.
  • This strongly implies that senior Trump administration officials are regularly having very sensitive communications over an unsecured, commercial messaging app in violation of the law.
  • Some of them were using their personal, unsecured phones. Experts have stated that it’s highly likely foreign intelligence services are monitoring their personal phones. (Official government-issued secured phones have special encryption and other security features, including the inability to download apps, such as Signal, WhatsApp, X, etc. that make a phone vulnerable to hacking.) [1]
  • Secretary of Defense Hegseth repeatedly lied about what had occurred and Gabbard and Ratliffe lied under oath at a Senate hearing. [2]
  • President Trump stated he had no knowledge of the breach on March 24. Based on the pre-attack messaging, which Trump was not part of, it appears the decision to go ahead with the strikes was made by deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller, not the President, which is startling. Stunningly, the acting chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff for the military was also not included.
  • The name of at least one CIA operative was revealed in the messaging. [3]
  • The revelation of a specific, targeted individual and on-the-ground intelligence about him, while the strike was on-going, is breathtaking and put intelligence sources at risk. (Apparently some of the intelligence and sources were Israeli and the Israelis are furious about the compromising of their information and sources.)
  • It must be assumed that Russia and China (and maybe other adversaries such as Iran and North Korea) have the ability to intercept these unsecured communications, according to multiple experts. An internal bulletin from the National Security Agency warned staff in February 2025 not to use Signal, citing concerns that the app was vulnerable to Russian hackers. [4]
  • The Signal messaging app being used by top Trump administration officials deletes communications after a set period of time – days or a few weeks. This violates federal laws requiring the preservation of documents and communications. Signal may well have been deliberately used here and in other communications to evade having a public record. [5]

All members of Congress, and particularly any with military service backgrounds, should be enraged and determined to get to the bottom of this. It is a national security breach of breathtaking seriousness that could or may have endangered the lives of military and intelligence personnel. Our troops and our country are clearly not being kept safe. If the Iranians had access to the messaging and had alerted their Houthi allies (the targets) to prepare for the attack, including anti-aircraft weaponry, the U.S. jets and pilots would have been at serious risk and the success of the mission would likely have been compromised.

The military itself should undertake a rigorous investigation with decisive punishment for those guilty of compromising national security. [6]

Reporters and internet sleuths have found personal information about phones and email addresses for a number of the chat participants, including usernames and passwords for email accounts for Hegseth, Waltz, and Gabbard. This makes it highly likely that foreign adversaries have been monitoring everything they have communicated since their nominations. [7]

There are many serious implications of this breach of national security. Here are a few:

  • Allies will NOT be sharing sensitive intelligence with the U.S. because they cannot trust that it will be kept secure. (This exacerbates their concerns raised by Trump’s behavior in his first term and his taking of classified documents to Mar-a-Lago at the end of it.)
  • U.S. soldiers’ lives are at-risk because Trump administration members are not maintaining security about upcoming military actions and allies won’t be sharing their intelligence.
  • U.S. CIA agents’ lives are at-risk because Trump administration members will include their names in unsecured communications and allies won’t be sharing their intelligence.

If you haven’t already, please contact your US Representative and Senators to express your concerns and outrage about this astonishingly dangerous national security breach. (And if you have been in touch with them, it can’t hurt to contact them again.) Ask them to demand a full investigation of the unsecured communication about the March 15 military action in Yemen. Ask them to demand the resignations, firing, impeachment, and/or prosecution of the officials involved. Hypocritically, Hegseth, Rubio, Gabbard, and Ratliffe have all stated the importance of secure handling of sensitive information and the need for accountability when it is mishandled in past attempts to criticize Democrats for supposed breaches of national security. Just imagine what Republicans would be saying if a Democrat had committed a breach anywhere near this serious!

You can find contact information for your US Representative at  http://www.house.gov/representatives/find/ and for your US Senators at http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm.

[1]      Hubbell, R., 3/27/25, “Signalgate: A crack in the façade?” Daily Edition Newsletter (Signalgate: A crack in the facade? – by Robert B. Hubbell)

[2]      Queally, J., 3/26, “Here are the texted war plans that Hegseth said ‘Nobody was texting’ on Signal,” Common Dreams  (https://www.commondreams.org/news/war-plans-signal-hegseth)

[3]      Cox Richardson, H., 3/24/25, “Letters from an American,” (March 24, 2025 – by Heather Cox Richardson)

[4]      Cox Richardson, H., 3/26/25, “Letters from an American,” (March 26, 2025 – by Heather Cox Richardson)

[5]      Hubbell, R., 3/25/25, “Criminal recklessness,” Daily Edition Newsletter (https://roberthubbell.substack.com/p/criminal-recklessness)

[6]      Editorial, 3/26/25, “A ‘gross error’ that needs to be punished,” The Boston Globe

[7]      Hubbell, R., 3/28/25, “Let’s ‘create a ruckus’,” Daily Edition Newsletter (Let’s “create a ruckus.” – by Robert B. Hubbell)

PROTEST NATIONAL SECURITY BREACH ETC.

ACTION #1: Please contact your US Representative and Senators to ask them to demand a full investigation of the major national security breach around the March 15 military attack in Yemen. They should demand the resignations, firings, or impeachment of the officials involved. There’s NO EXCUSE for them communicating secret military plans over an unsecure, commercial messaging app whose use is SPECIFICALLY PROHIBITED by Defense Department policy. Included in the chat group were the:

  • Secretaries of Defense and State,
  • President’s National Security Advisor and Chief of Staff,
  • Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Director and the Director of National Intelligence,
  • Vice President, and others.

Any government employee of lower status who engaged in such a breach of security would be immediately jailed without bail. The incompetence, inexperience, lack of qualifications, and cavalier attitude toward sensitive information by these senior officials is stunning, egregious, and unacceptable. I will have more detail on this in my next post.

You can find contact information for your US Representative at  http://www.house.gov/representatives/find/ and for your US Senators at http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm.

Note that many offices only accept messages on a voice mail system. In most cases, you can call outside of regular business hours and leave a message.

ACTION #2: Join a protest rally or march in-person if you can.

  • Big, nationwide HANDS OFF! protests are planned for Saturday, April 5. Go to Indivisible to find an event near you. Let’s make this a huge event!
  • Nationwide protest rallies at Tesla dealerships this Saturday, March 29. Put in your zip code at #TeslaTakedown and find a rally near you. These rallies have been very effective. They’ve gained media attention, and, as I’m sure you’ve heard, Tesla sales and its stock price are down substantially.