Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...

BY CHRIS HOUSTON

As I wrote this, the day prior to the presidential election, I already knew one certain outcome. Whether Kamala Harris or Donald Trump claims victory, one winner is certain: “defense” contractors. With bipartisan backing, spending on arms will continue to grow, fueling the profitability of arms manufacturers and solidifying America’s position as the top arms exporters globally. In the U.S. version of democracy, none of the four pro-peace candidates stand a chance. Jill Stein, one of the alternative candidates is a champion of peace, but she won’t win, because only those with billionaire backers can realistically compete. The U.S. may speak proudly about democracy, but its system heavily favors candidates who align with powerful financial interests — interests deeply intertwined with war.

The military-industrial complex is a term coined by President Eisenhower in his farewell address in 1961. Eisenhower spoke of the influence of the arms industry and warned Americans to “guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence” by it.

Between 2017 and 2020, the U.S. exported $41 billion in weapons, a period that almost entirely coincides with Donald Trump’s presidency. According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, the U.S. was the world’s largest arms exporter during this time. Under President Biden, the trend has continued, with more than $38 billion in arms exports in the first three years of his presidency, not counting 2024. This flow of billions sustains the profitability of America’s weapons industry, which has outpaced the S&P 500 stock performance index. But this isn’t just a steady flow of funds to U.S. war contractors, it’s a surging wave, accelerating year over year. And both Trump and Harris are fully part of this machinery. 

Last month, Trump claimed to be pro-peace, but drone warfare increased under his leadership. In 2019, Trump revoked an Obama-era rule that required reporting on civilian deaths from drone strikes. Last month, Trump tweeted that “During my Administration, we had peace in the Middle East.” I was in Yemen in 2017, and I heard the bombs fall. That wasn’t peace. That was war, enabled by American weaponry.

Then there’s Harris, who has simultaneously spoken of a need for peace, while Vice President in the government that continued to authorize massive arms exports to Israel, a nation that has been credibly accused of genocide. Francesca Albanese, the UN Special Rapporteur on the occupied Palestinian territories, said in March that there were ”reasonable grounds” to believe that Israel was committing genocide. 

As I watch with dismay, Eisenhower’s words resonate. His warning about the military-industrial complex, now 63 years old, has only grown more potent. What he feared has become a behemoth, an alliance of power that thrives on instability and sells the illusion of security. I fear that, regardless of the election result, U.S. foreign policy will remain shaped by billions in war profiteering contracts, endless arms exports, and a willingness to look the other way as allies commit atrocities. For a nation that champions the rule of law, it’s unsettling to see America’s laws to restrict arms sales to human rights abusers ignored when profits are at stake.

The U.S. might have fashioned the world’s leading democratic brand, but what is the substance of its reputation? When only candidates with billionaire backing can make it to the finish line, the claim is weak. This shows in the Economist Intelligence Unit’s Democracy Index 2023, where the U.S. is described as a “flawed democracy” ranking in 29th of 167 nations.

If peace is ever to come, it won’t be through a flawed U.S. democracy influenced by the military-industrial complex. It will come when Americans demand a government that values peace over profit, and human rights over corporate interests.

(Chris Houston is the President of the Canadian Peace Museum, a non-profit organization.)