Trump's Big, Brutal Bill Entrenches US Empire
3 minutes ago
Presented as a 'beautiful' fix for growth and security, HR 1 actually funnels wealth to America's richest, arms a $1 trillion war machine and thickens domestic repression, all with the aim of propping up a waning imperial hegemony.
The 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act' (H.R. 1), heralded as a transformative economic and security package for the United States, is less an economic stimulus than a manifesto for American supremacy. It weds two imperatives of the US ruling class: an upward transfer of wealth and a vast expansion of militarised power, thereby entrenching its domestic and global dominance. Cloaked in rhetoric about jobs, growth and border security, the Bill arrives at a moment when Washington's hegemony is fraying thanks to rising multipolarity, domestic inequality is at an all time high fast – the top 1% hold 32% of wealth – and popular discontent is increasing.
Ruling elites secure dominance not merely through coercion but by manufacturing consent via ideological control over civil society—media, politics, and cultural institutions. The Big Brutal Bill, framed as a 'beautiful' solution to economic and security challenges, exemplifies this process. Its proponents, including Republican leaders and sections of the corporate media, have deployed neoliberal and nationalist narratives to mask the legislation's true aims: redistributing wealth upward, strengthening coercive state mechanisms and escalating militarism to sustain US global primacy. This demands the US power elites discipline both domestic and global populations.
The bill's economic provisions constitute a brazen transfer of wealth from the working and middle classes to the ultra-rich. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that the bill reduces household resources for the poorest 10% by 4% ($940 annually) while boosting incomes for the richest 0.1% by $389,000 for those earning over $4.3 million. Extending the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which directed two-thirds of benefits to the top 20%, the bill amplifies a historical trend: since 1975, the top 1% have sapped $79 trillion from the bottom 90%. Cuts to Medicaid ($930 billion) and SNAP (affecting 4.5 million people) further impoverish the working class, with 15–16 million potentially losing healthcare.
This wealth transfer is not merely economic but ideological. Ruling elites, through Fox News and various well funded corporate think tanks, frame the bill as a universal economic boon, echoing neoliberal myths of 'trickle-down' prosperity. Yet, the bill's regressive tax structure and social cuts weaken the economic base of the working and middle classes, limiting their capacity for resistance. Such policies fragment the potential for a radical 'historic bloc' – a unified working-class alliance capable of challenging capitalist dominance.
The bill's economic impact aligns with America's global imperial strategies. By prioritising corporate tax breaks, it mirrors US strategies in the Global South, where austerity and privatisation entrench elite power. This domestic imperialism treats the US working class as a colonised population, extracting wealth while offering ideological platitudes about 'growth.'
Militarism and War: Coercive Pillars of Hegemony
The bill's $1 trillion military budget, the largest in US history, is a cornerstone of its aggressive imperial agenda, escalating war risks while consolidating ruling-class power. Allocating $400 billion for nuclear warheads, hypersonic missiles, and 200 new bombers, the budget aims to counter multipolar rivals like China and Russia. Yet, this spending dwarfs the military budgets of the next ten states across the world. What this bill shows is the degree to which the US empire relies on military dominance and violence to maintain its increasingly precarious global hegemony. The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute notes that such military modernisation lowers conflict thresholds, with arms races historically preceding wars 70% of the time. This leads to escalating fears of military miscalculation in regions like the South China Sea.
The budget has a dual role: coercion abroad and control at home. Abroad, it reinforces U.S. primacy by projecting power against adversaries, a response to the declining legitimacy of the US-led liberal imperial-international order. Domestically, $50 billion for militarised police and National Guard equipment, alongside $8 billion for 10,000 new ICE agents and private prisons, equips the state to suppress dissent. The bill's provision barring courts from holding officials in contempt further enables authoritarianism, echoing post-9/11 trends where domestic repression accompanied foreign wars (e.g., Iraq). Imperialism is not solely an external phenomenon; it disciplines domestic populations to ensure compliance with elite agendas.
The military-industrial complex benefits immensely, with $250 billion in contracts to firms like Boeing and Raytheon. Since 2001, some arms firm stocks have outperformed the Standard & Poor 500 by 600%, and contractor CEOs earn $20–$30 million annually. This economic-militaristic nexus incentivises instability, geopolitical tensions, and war, as historical examples like Iraq ($39 billion to Halliburton) demonstrate. Ruling elites are leveraging coercion to secure economic power, with war profits reinforcing their hegemony.
Ideological Consent: Nationalism and Distraction
The bill's militaristic and economic aims are cloaked in nationalist ideology, a classic tactic to secure consent. Its $10 billion for 'countering foreign disinformation' doubles as domestic propaganda, while border wall and ICE funding ($8 billion) symbolise 'defending America.' These measures rally nationalist sentiment, particularly among the 55% of Republicans who support the budget for 'security'. Such symbols unify subordinate classes under ruling-class leadership, diverting attention from wealth transfers and social cuts.
Put crudely, American elite nationalism is little more than an instrument to mask class conflict. By demonising immigrants and foreign adversaries, the bill aligns segments of the working class with elite interests, dampening class consciousness. SIPRI data suggests nationalist surges increase war risks by 15–20% within five years, as publics tolerate aggression. The bill's narrative of 'preventing a recession' and 'securing borders' obscures its role in impoverishing millions, a hegemonic sleight of hand.
Crisis of Hegemony and Resistance
It is not a coincidence that the bill has emerged in a moment of hegemonic crisis. Rising inequality, multipolarity and public opposition signal eroding consent. Yet, the ruling elite counters this through intensified coercion (military, police) and ideological manipulation (nationalism, neoliberalism). Crises of hegemony require constant renewal, explaining this aggressive consolidation. However, cracks exist: there are widespread denunciations of the bill as a 'wealth transfer' and 'war machine'. Without a unified and organised counter-hegemonic movement, however, this resistance remains fragmented.
The Big Brutal Bill is a masterclass in imperial hegemony, blending wealth transfers, militarism, and nationalism to entrench the power of the American Establishment. Its $1 trillion military budget escalates war risks by fuelling arms races and domestic repression, while its economic provisions siphon wealth from the working and middle classes to the ultra-rich. The bill is an example of what Gramsci would call a 'war of position' – fortifying US capitalism amid crisis, reflecting the American state's dual nature: coercive abroad, exploitative at home. Resistance requires exposing these truths and building a historic bloc to challenge the ruling class's grip.
Inderjeet Parmar is a professor of international politics and associate dean of research in the School of Policy and Global Affairs at City St George's, University of London, a fellow of the Academy of Social Sciences, and a columnist at The Wire. He is an International Fellow at the ROADS Initiative think tank, Islamabad, and author of several books including Foundations of the American Century. He is currently writing a book on the history, politics, and powers of the US foreign policy establishment.
The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Mint
14 minutes ago
- Mint
90-day pause on Trump tariffs set to expire soon. Can renewed trade barriers complicate US Fed's rate cut path?
US Fed Rate Cut: US President Donald Trump's tariff policies have added a layer of complexity to the Federal Reserve's rate-cut deliberations, as the US central bank remains concerned about potential inflationary fallout from higher tariffs. Now, ahead of the expiry of the 90-day pause on tariffs this week on July 9, Trump said on Sunday that the US is close to finalising several trade agreements in the coming days and will notify other countries of higher tariff rates by July 9. Trump in April announced a 10% base tariff on most countries and higher "reciprocal" rates of up to 50%. Trump also threatened an extra 10% tariff on countries aligning themselves with what he called the anti-American policies of the BRICS group of developing nations. While no substantial trade deals are in place yet, the concerns for the economy continue to linger, further impacting the US Fed's rate cut decision. The US Fed Chief Jerome Powell has already communicated that the central bank will 'wait and learn more' about how these tariffs are filtering into higher inflation before they start to focus on interest rates. Other Fed officials also say that the unclear trade policy and the chance that adding or bringing back higher fees could push prices up again means they will be careful and rely on data before cutting rates. Pranay Aggarwal, Director and CEO of Stoxkart said the approaching expiry of the 90-day pause on Trump-era tariffs could reignite trade tensions, especially between major economies like the US and China. "If renewed trade barriers are introduced, we may see a ripple effect on global inflation, supply chains, and investor sentiment. For the US Federal Reserve, this adds another layer of complexity; rising trade-related inflationary pressures could delay or limit the scope of planned rate cuts, as the Fed continues to balance between cooling inflation and supporting growth," Aggarwal added. Palka Arora Chopra, Director, Master Capital Services believes the reimposition of trade barriers by the US, and may further postpone any rate cuts. Delayed rate cuts also don't bode well for emerging markets (EMs) like India, as higher US interest rates curb FII inflows into EMs. In the last policy meeting, the US Fed along expected lines kept the rates unchanged at 4.25-4.5%, while the Fed's dot plot continued to signal two rate cuts for 2025. The dot plot is a chart published by the US Fed that shows the FOMC's future path on interest rates. Last week, data showed US job growth was unexpectedly solid in June, further easing pressure for the Fed to cut rates. Minutes from the US Fed's last meeting due later this week could shed more light on the US central bank's rate cut path. Indian stock market has traded on a backfoot ahead of the tariff pause deadline. On Monday, July 4, both BSE Sensex and NSE Nifty ended with small cuts as investors continued to stay on the sidelines. Analysts believe From an Indian market perspective, such developments often translate into increased volatility. "Additionally, any global uncertainty tends to impact foreign institutional investor (FII) flows, which are a key driver of Indian equity markets. While India remains structurally strong, short-term knee-jerk reactions cannot be ruled out if global trade disruptions escalate," Aggarwal said. Meanwhile, commenting on the impact of a possible US-India trade deal, Chopra said that the larger impact on Indian stock markets hinges upon the outcome of the trade negotiations: a deal would sell well, while failure would certainly have a spillover effect on exporters and general market sentiment. Disclaimer: This story is for educational purposes only. The views and recommendations made above are those of individual analysts or broking companies, and not of Mint. We advise investors to check with certified experts before making any investment decisions.
Hindustan Times
17 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Inside the secret military dialogue between Britain and Argentina
America's top brass worries about the South Atlantic. It is a jumping-off point for Antarctica , where Russia and China boast 15 bases between them, scrambling to lock down resources . It is linked to the Pacific by the Strait of Magellan, the only safe maritime route between the two oceans other than the drought-hit Panama Canal . Traffic through the Strait is surging, as is illegal Chinese fishing on either side. China is pushing infrastructure projects across the region. America's top generals have visited Argentina's deep south three times in the last two years. At first glance the United States is well positioned to manage any threat. President Javier Milei of Argentina is a hyper-willing ally. Britain has Typhoon fighter jets and the HMS Forth patrol vessel stationed in the Falkland Islands. But Argentina's armed forces are in bad shape. Britain's are focused on defending the Falklands (sovereignty over which Britain has and Argentina claims) from Argentina. As a legacy of the Falklands war, Britain has tight restrictions on weapons sales to Argentina. These have hamstrung the latter's efforts to improve its armed forces and pushed it towards buying Chinese planes and weaponry, alarming the United States. Now a mix of factors, including Mr Milei's unusual perspective on the islands and American enthusiasm for Argentina's military modernisation, have created an openin At first glance the United States is well positioned to manage any threat. President Javier Milei of Argentina is a hyper-willing ally. g for a new strategic arrangement in the South Atlantic. Quietly, after a long hiatus, dialogue between the Argentine and British defence ministries has restarted. Argentina wants Britain to loosen its restrictions on arms purchases. Britain wants discreet acceptance of its role in the rest of the South Atlantic even while Argentina maintains its constitutional claim over the Falklands. Britain also wants Argentina to work with it on practical matters to improve life on the Falklands. The warming began in February 2024, a few months after Mr Milei took office. British defence attachés visited the ministry of defence in Argentina for first time in three years. In September that year the British and Argentine foreign ministers met and arranged a visit by Argentines to the graves of family members on the Falklands. They also agreed to share fisheries data and to restart monthly direct flights to the Falklands from Argentina. Defence dialogue then ramped up. An Argentine delegation visited London in January. Next, a British one is expected to visit Buenos Aires. Mr Milei wants to modernise his country's armed forces with the best NATO-compatible equipment. He is cutting government spending savagely, but raising the defence budget from 0.5% of GDP to 2% over the next seven years. Last year Argentina applied for NATO-partner status. Britain is interested in a deal, too, but cautious. It shares the American concerns about the South Atlantic. Argentina's de facto acceptance of Britain's relevance in the region would facilitate closer co-operation on everything from science to security, not just with Argentina but also with its neighbours, Chile and Uruguay. But while the Argentine families visited in December, Argentina has not yet shared fishing data or restarted flights, stepping stones to progress on arms policy. The islanders are wary. 'We feel very secure,' says Leona Roberts of the Falklands' Executive Council, 'but we would probably not be wildly comfortable with the UK supplying military equipment to Argentina.' Britain has long blocked sales of military equipment with British components to Argentina, even by third countries. Given the strength of Britain's arms industry this has been a serious constraint. In 2020 it blocked the sale of Korean fighter jets with some British parts. The stated policy is to block sales that could 'enhance Argentine military capability'. Yet there is wriggle room. Britain may allow sales that 'are not detrimental to the UK's defence and security interests'. A first step could be to interpret that clause more flexibly. The shape of things to come There are several reasons to believe a new arrangement is possible. Few consider Argentina a real threat to the Falklands. 'It's militarily unthinkable…[Britain] would wipe us off the planet,' says Alejandro Corbacho, a military historian at the University of CEMA in Buenos Aires. Britain seems more willing to reconsider its restrictions if Argentina planned to make large purchases, as that would boost Britain's defence industry. If so, that would suggest the embargo is more about politics than protecting the Falklands. Britain knows its restrictions are anyway losing bite as more countries make military kit. That the United States wants a new arrangement matters too. In public statements it has offered 'steadfast' support for the modernisation of Argentina's armed forces. In private, one American with knowledge of the matter calls Argentina 'a huge partner' but says its military is 'in very sore need of equipment and training'. But that equipment must be Western, not Chinese. Britain's embargo makes that harder. Continued intransigence could end up bolstering those in a post-Milei government that believes Argentina's future, in weaponry and politics, runs through China rather than the West. Argentina's dalliance with American adversaries is real. Mr Milei likes trading with the Asian giant. In 2023, before he took office, a Chinese firm looked set to build a large port near the Argentine entrance to the Strait. That project collapsed amid intense objections both foreign and domestic, but China, which operates a space station in Patagonia, remains keenly interested in the region. Under the last administration Argentina was 'gnat's-ass close to buying Chinese fighter aircraft', warns the American. In 2021, weeks before the invasion of Ukraine, the previous government signed a deal with the Russian ministry of defence allowing Argentine officers to travel to Russia for training. During Joe Biden's presidency the United States pushed Britain to let Argentina buy modern F-16 fighter jets with a British-made ejector seat. Britain was reluctant and an alternative was found. Argentina bought older F-16s from Denmark with $40m of American money. These did not have British parts, so its approval was not required. However, the United States still sought to explain and justify it to Britain, which accepted it. That was progress. 'The US government was also interested in whether the broader export controls could be ended,' says a former American official. A spokesperson for the British government says it has 'no current plans to review the UK's export-control policy for Argentina'. But it is easy to imagine Britain's position shifting. The Trump administration is pushy, ignores orthodoxy and is close to Mr Milei, whose pro-Western stance probably helps Britain to be flexible. His conciliatory tone and taboo-breaking on the Falklands is crucial. He openly admires Margaret Thatcher, who led Britain during the Falklands war. He admits that the islands 'are in the hands of the UK' and assures that Argentina will not try to retake them by force. Recently, he even seemed to imply that the islanders have a right to self-determination, Britain's position. Domestic politics remain a formidable barrier in both countries. Argentina appointed a new foreign minister in October. Despite enthusiasm in other parts of government, better ties with Britain seem less of a priority for the new man. For its part, Britain worries about who comes after Mr Milei. Selling arms to a Milei-led Argentina may be okay, but he will leave office in 2027 or 2031. An attempt in 2016 to reset relations was torn up after the left-wing Peronists returned to power. It would be embarrassing to help Argentina modernise its armed forces only for that to happen again. In both countries the flag-waving opposition could paint an agreement as a concession and use it to whip up anger. In Britain, Nigel Farage's Reform UK party is surging in the polls and could easily pressure the government over any new arrangement, framing it as a betrayal of the war dead, perhaps. In Argentina the Peronists have already attacked Mr Milei for his stance on the Falklands. With mid-term elections in October he and his team may prefer to steer clear of the issue for now. Yet the overriding logic of Mr Milei's foreign policy is airtight alignment with the United States (notwithstanding trade with China). Britain has a similar, if less absolutist, tradition. The Trump administration is so exercised about Chinese influence in Latin America that it threatens to seize the Panama Canal. It is also clear about the threat in the South Atlantic. If it pushes harder its two allies may draw a similar conclusion—and act accordingly.
NDTV
22 minutes ago
- NDTV
"Why Are You In My Country?" American's Racist Rant Against Indian Man Sparks Outrage
A video has surfaced on social media, capturing a disturbing instance of racial profiling and discrimination against an Indian-origin man. In the clip, the American approaches the man, who is of Indian descent, and demands to know why he's in "his country." The American expresses hostility, stating that there are too many Indians in "white countries" and that Americans are fed up with the situation. He tells the Indian-origin man to return to India, showcasing a xenophobic and racist attitude. The Indian man, visibly confused, chooses not to engage with the aggressive individual. "Why are you in my country? I don't like you guys here. There are too many of you guys here. Indians! You guys are flooding all the white countries. I am tired of it. Americans are sick of this sh**. I want you to go back to India," he says. "Tired of this fu**** brown people invading the country. fu**** bullshit," the American says, contunuing his rant. Watch the video here: Anti Christian behaviors — Abrahamic Lincoln (@AbrahamicLs) July 6, 2025 The video has sparked massive outrage, with many condemning the American man's behaviour as unacceptable and discriminatory. Some have called for action against the individual, while others have highlighted the need for greater awareness and understanding between cultures. One user wrote, "Nothing, they're just intimidated by Indians! They know how talented, capable, and progressive we are. It only shows their insecurities. They see us as a threat." Another commented, "Who are you to ask him to leave the USA? Who gave you the permission? He is an American. He is successful, but you are not, so it's not his problem. Who told u that USa is a white country? USA belongs to non-Christian, non white, red INDIANS." A third said, "If all migrants leave America today, the country wouldn't even exist anymore, and the land would go back to the native people." A fourth added, "You do know that white people are not originally from America, right?" This incident is part of a growing trend of hate crimes and xenophobic attacks against Indians and other minorities in Western countries. Indian Americans often face discrimination in various domains like the workplace, housing, education, and public spaces, often tied to skin colour, religion, or cultural stereotypes. While they are among the most educated and affluent ethnic groups in the US, with over 4.2 million people of Indian origin, discrimination remains a significant issue.
