A Chainsaw Protest in the Shadow of Power
Spotlights flashed and cell phones snapped as Ben Cohen, co-founder of Ben & Jerry’s, fired up a chainsaw outside the U.S. Capitol this week, slicing through a scale model of the Pentagon stuffed with prop dollar bills. The spectacle, part street theater and part urgent call to action, wasn’t about ice cream or quirky flavors. Instead, Cohen’s message was blunt: America’s obsession with military spending is bleeding taxpayer money, enriching the powerful, and threatening the very values we claim to defend.
The protest, dubbed the “Department of Pentagon Excess” (DOPE), offered more than dramatic visuals. Cohen, along with retired Army Colonel Larry Wilkerson and former intelligence analyst Josephine Guilbeau, hammered home a pointed argument: cut 30% from the Pentagon budget — about $303 billion — and hand it back to American families. The chainsaw-wielding entrepreneur made the case that waste and bloat in military budgets serve the interests of defense contractors and ideologues, not the security of average Americans.
It’s a message likely to rile conservatives who treat military spending as sacrosanct — a political “third rail.” Suffice it to say, DOPE’s protest arrives at a fraught moment: a possible government shutdown looms, and the Trump administration is proposing a historic increase in defense spending, pushing Pentagon budgets to highs unseen since the Cold War. Are we really safer for it, or just poorer and more divided?
The Cost of Endless War: Who Really Benefits?
Behind the showmanship of Cohen’s protest sits a grim reality. According to a Department of Defense inspector general report, the Pentagon has failed successive audits, unable to account for trillions in assets and outlays. More than $800 billion pours annually into the sprawling defense apparatus — far more than the next several countries combined. Where does it all go?
Retired Col. Larry Wilkerson, once Chief of Staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell, offered a dire warning: “If we continue this trajectory, by 2030 all federal dollars could be consumed by the military and entitlements.” This isn’t idle speculation. A Congressional Budget Office analysis suggests that unchecked defense spending, alongside mandatory programs, will crowd out investments in education, healthcare, and infrastructure — the basic pillars of a thriving democracy.
Josephine Guilbeau, a former Army intelligence analyst, voiced what many in progressive circles have long suspected: the so-called security state too often functions as a pipeline for wealth redistribution — upwards. In her words, the military-industrial complex “exists not to protect American citizens but to wage war, colonize, steal resources, and enrich the already wealthy.” Her perspective echoes the late President Eisenhower’s historic warning against the unchecked influence of the “military-industrial complex.”
“We are no longer protecting Americans from monsters — now, the monster is us.” — Ben Cohen
Even those inside the system acknowledge the bloat. Pentagon officials tout recent $15 billion in savings by rooting out wasteful contracts. While a drop in the bucket compared to total spending, these efforts are cited as evidence that some reform is possible. Yet as Harvard economist Linda J. Bilmes observes, “Modest internal tweaks cannot substitute for a fundamental reassessment of our security priorities.”
The Real Security Deficit: From Streets to Social Fabric
What’s lost when the Pentagon’s budget swells? Across the country, you see crumbling schools, unaffordable healthcare, opioid-ravaged communities, and families living one missed paycheck from disaster. These aren’t abstract budget lines. They’re the day-to-day challenges facing millions of Americans, especially in under-resourced urban and rural areas. Redirecting a fraction of defense dollars could radically reshape public life: safe housing, modernized infrastructure, decent jobs, and access to mental health services are all within reach — but only if we reassess our true priorities.
Cohen, himself the target of predictable right-wing attacks for his wealth and liberal politics, invites us to look past caricatures and culture-war distractions. His critique isn’t about weakening national defense — it’s about reclaiming what security should mean in a democracy. Why should military contractors prosper as teachers pay out of pocket for classroom supplies and bridges crumble in working-class towns? As Pew Research surveys now show, a majority of Americans from both parties believe too much is spent on the military — a trend accelerating since the end of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Beyond that, the specter of militarization at home — from ICE raids to domestic deployments in the streets — unsettles many onlookers. Cohen voiced alarm: “What’s happening now in our cities was once the warning sign we looked for in other countries. It’s chilling to see those tactics here.” Cases like the heavy-handed police responses to protests, often backed by pentagon-provided hardware, underscore how military priorities have shifted inward, reshaping civil society and, at times, threatening fundamental liberties.
Of course, the answers aren’t easy — global threats persist, and any rational defense review requires nuance. Yet, the question Cohen’s protest thrusts into the public eye is urgent: If the Pentagon is flush while communities wither, what are we really defending?
Cutting Through the Noise: Towards Accountable Security
Detractors are quick to dismiss Cohen’s spectacle. They point to his personal fortune, progressive causes, and claim he misunderstands the geopolitics of the modern world. Some, buoyed by Trump-era messaging, argue that increased military budgets have kept the U.S. out of new wars – as if deterrence alone justifies doubling down on a broken system. But does security really come from ever-larger arsenals and unchecked spending?
A closer look reveals that bloat has not brought clarity or consensus to America’s foreign policy. Instead, it has contributed to a weary public, deepening polarization, and the hollowing out of domestic investment. As Professor Bilmes concludes, “Security isn’t measured by the size of your stockpile, but by the resilience and well-being of your society.”
This debate is far from settled. Yet the chainsaw at the Capitol cut through more than a wooden model — it sliced open a necessary conversation about where our values truly lie, and what kind of future our budgets are really building.
