What Do People Really Think About Pentagon Spending and the Military-Industrial Complex?

When most people hear the term “military-industrial complex” (MIC), they might think of Eisenhower’s famous warning—or they might not be sure what it means at all.

We set out to better understand how people in the US today perceive Pentagon spending, war profiteering, and the MIC’s role in the economy, foreign policy, and society at large.

In late 2024, ReThink Media and the Network to Dismantle the Military Industrial Complex surveyed a nationally representative sample of US adults to explore these issues. The results reveal significant concerns about influence and priorities—alongside mixed or neutral impressions of the MIC itself.

The survey was conducted online from November 27 to December 1, 2024, with 1,789 adults across all 50 states and Washington, D.C. Respondents were selected to reflect national demographics in terms of age, race, gender, and geography. All responses were collected in English.*

Key Findings

1. War profiteering is a broad and bipartisan concern.

One of the most striking points of agreement across the political spectrum was the belief that war profiteering is a problem in the US. A large majority of respondents saw it as at least somewhat concerning, with many describing it as a major issue.

2. Domestic priorities clearly outweigh the military.

Across the board, people prioritized investments in healthcare, education, housing, and infrastructure over military spending. When we asked how important various types of federal investments were, Pentagon spending ranked at the bottom.

3. Language shapes how people think about military spending.

The way military spending is framed has a measurable impact on public opinion. People were most supportive of budget cuts when we referred to the “Pentagon budget,” and least supportive when we used the term “military budget.” “Defense budget” landed somewhere in the middle. (The word “defense” in this context is a euphemism related to the shift in the name of the government agency from “Department of War” to “Department of Defense.” See the Words About War Matter language guide for more on the euphemisms, jargon, and metaphors often used in discussions of war and foreign policy.)

This difference in response wasn’t limited to support for cuts—people were also more likely to say the government spends “too much” when asked about “Pentagon” spending specifically.

4. Many people are unfamiliar with the term “military-industrial complex.”

When asked what words or ideas came to mind when they heard the phrase “military-industrial complex,” about a quarter of respondents said they didn’t know or weren’t familiar with the term. Among those who did respond, many mentioned military bases, weapons, or government spending—but few described the more systemic concept of corporate influence on policymaking.

The word cloud below was generated using the top 50 unique words in the responses to this question, excluding grammatical words.

5. People believe the MIC benefits the economy—and profits from war.

Many Americans see the MIC as having both strengths and drawbacks. A majority agreed that it plays a role in keeping the country safe and contributes to economic growth. At the same time, most respondents believed that it profits from the United States’ ongoing wars and other military involvement around the world and wields too much influence over foreign policy through lobbying and campaign contributions. (Note that we asked these questions to assess support for conventional wisdom that’s more or less false: research shows Pentagon spending is a poor form of economic investment and that the MIC has helped produce catastrophic endless wars and a hyper-aggressive/imperialist military strategy that have undermined security by squandering trillions and making future wars more likely.)

Conclusion

People in the US hold complex and sometimes conflicting views on the military-industrial complex. Many see it as playing a necessary role in national security and the economy. But there is also deep skepticism—particularly around its influence over policymaking, its profit motives, and how it stacks up against other public needs. (For a deeper analysis of the MIC’s widespread influence, see David Vine and Theresa Arriola’s recent commentary in The Nation.)

Language matters. So do tradeoffs. How we frame these issues—whether we’re talking about “Pentagon spending,” corporate profits, or what we could invest in instead—makes a meaningful difference in how the public responds.

* The results you see here are based on responses from this sample, not the entire population. However, by carefully selecting a diverse and representative group, we’re able to estimate what the broader public likely thinks—within a certain range. That’s where the margin of error comes in. For this survey, the margin of error is ±2.32 percentage points, which means that if 60% of respondents answered a question a certain way, the actual percentage in the US population is likely between about 58% and 62%. This is a way of accounting for the natural variation that comes from surveying a sample rather than every single person in the country.

To request access to the full report, please contact analysis@rethinkmedia.org.