Sen. Susan Collins Exemplifies the Control of America by Armaments Billionaires

21 April 2026, by Eric Zuesse. (All of my recent articles can be seen here.)

On April 17th, I headlined “The most Hawkish, pro-military and pro-sanctions, U.S. Senators” and presented the rankings of them by each of the 5 leading AIs: ChatGPT, Google (which refused to answer), Grok, Claude, and Deepseek. The two most specific were ChatGPT and Grok; and ChatGPT was the most specific and listed by name the 44 extreme neocnservative Senators, all but one of whom (John Fetterman) is a Republican, and Susan Collins is among them though she is generally considered to be the most liberal Republican U.S. Senator. The Democrat (‘Independent’) Bernie Sanders and the Republican Ron Paul are the least neoconservative U.S. Senators.

Because Collins is the most liberal (or centrist) Republican Senator, I was curious to find where she gets her campaign money. Opensecrets reports her top donors, and the top two are #1 Blackstone Group, and #2 Lockheed Martin. #3 is Senior Star (upper-income for-profit nursing-home chain in the Midwest). #4 is Republican Jewish Coalition. That’s the organization of Jewish-Zionist billionaires who support Israel’s wars against Palestinians, Iranians, and others. America’s taxpayers have long been funding via the U.S. Government, Israel’s Government at the rate of $3.8 billion per year, of which $3.3 billion is then paid to Israel’s Government for it to purchase weapons from Lockheed Martin and other U.S. ‘Defense’ (Aggression) contractors, to slaughter people and destroy their structures in the countries that Israel’s Government hopes to take over.

Her other top donors also come from mega-corporate America and are consistently focusing their political donations on electing neoconservatives to represent the American people. This is the reason why the consistently neoconservative Republican Party — even more consistently than the Democratic Party — are steadily expanding the percentage of U.S. federal budgets now already over 50% — that fund the U.S. War Department. Trump is trying to increase that Department’s annual budget from is present near $1 trillion to $1.5 trillion while cutting programs that serve the American peope, and especialy programs for the poor.

I today asked ChatGPT “Which U.S Senate Democrats have the most consistently voted for increased military spending and increased sanctions?” and got this answer:

I’m checking recent Senate voting patterns on defense spending and sanctions so I can rank this on something concrete rather than vibes.

I’ve got the recent defense-bill and war-powers pattern; now I’m checking which Democrats also line up most reliably on sanctions, since that changes the ranking a lot.

Thought for 1m 44s

Based on recent Senate floor votes plus leadership on sanctions bills/statements, the best-supported answer is that the most consistently hawkish Senate Democrats are:

1. Jack Reed (Rhode Island)
He is the clearest fit. Reed backed the FY2024 NDAA, backed the 2024 $95 billion Ukraine/Israel/Taiwan aid package, backed the FY2026 NDAA, and in 2025 publicly pushed for tougher Russia sanctions while urging more military assistance to Ukraine. He is also the top Democrat on Armed Services, so this is not occasional voting drift but a sustained institutional stance.

2. Jeanne Shaheen (New Hampshire)
Shaheen also looks very consistent: yes on the 2024 aid package, yes on the FY2026 NDAA, and she has been a leading Democratic advocate both for stronger Russia sanctions and for additional Ukraine military aid. She is one of the Democrats most repeatedly visible on the sanctions side of the ledger.

3. Richard Blumenthal (Connecticut)
Blumenthal is one of the strongest sanctions hawks in the caucus. He voted for the FY2024 NDAA, the 2024 aid package, and the FY2026 NDAA, and he co-led the 2025 “hard-hitting” Russia sanctions bill with Lindsey Graham, including the proposed 500% tariff on countries buying Russian energy.

4. Chris Coons (Delaware)
Coons is a strong candidate because he voted for the 2024 aid package, voted to keep military support flowing to Israel even while voting to end Trump’s Iran war, and introduced additional legislation aimed at tightening pressure on Russian oil revenue. He missed the final FY2026 NDAA vote, which is the main thing keeping him from ranking even higher.

5. Chuck Schumer (New York)
Schumer voted for the 2024 aid package and the FY2026 NDAA, voted against the 2026 Sanders resolutions to block arms sales to Israel, and publicly joined calls to restore or maintain tougher Russia sanctions. He is somewhat less “programmatically hawkish” than Reed or Shaheen, but on the specific mix of military aid plus sanctions, he scores high.

6. Mark Warner (Virginia)
Warner backed the 2024 aid package and the FY2026 NDAA, and has repeatedly opposed easing sanctions on Russia. He is a bit less visibly identified with military-spending politics than Reed, but on sanctions and support for military aid he is very solidly in the hawkish lane.

7. Tim Kaine (Virginia)
Kaine backed the 2024 aid package and the FY2026 NDAA and has pushed for stronger sanctions on Russia and Iran. I rank him below Warner because Kaine is also notably more willing than the names above to challenge unauthorized uses of force, so he is not as uniformly hawkish across every military-power question.

A few others worth mentioning:

John Fetterman is probably the most openly hawkish Democrat in rhetoric and on Israel/Iran questions: he voted for the 2024 aid package, voted for the FY2026 NDAA, and was the lone Democrat to vote against the 2025 and 2026 Iran war-powers efforts. But I have less direct sanctions-legislation evidence for him than for Blumenthal, Shaheen, Coons, or Warner, so I would list him as an honorable mention rather than top-tier on your exact two-part test.

Kirsten Gillibrand also belongs in the discussion: she voted for the 2024 aid package and FY2026 NDAA and voted against the 2026 effort to block arms sales to Israel. She looks hawkish on military-support votes, though I found less direct sanctions leadership than for the names above.

So, if you want the shortest bottom line:

Most consistently pro–military spending + pro-sanctions Democrats:
Reed, Shaheen, Blumenthal, Coons, Schumer, Warner, and Kaine
with Fetterman and Gillibrand close behind, especially on military-aid and Israel/Iran questions.

I can also turn this into a stricter ranked scorecard of all current Senate Democrats using a transparent vote-by-vote method.

Please do.

Here is a structured, vote-based scorecard of Senate Democrats, using the clearest recent indicators of “hawkishness” on your two criteria:

• Military spending / aid (NDAA votes, Ukraine/Israel aid packages)
• Sanctions posture (Russia/Iran sanctions advocacy or legislation)

I’m weighting this as:

• +2 = consistently supports both spending and sanctions leadership
• +1 = strong on spending, moderate on sanctions
• 0 = mixed / inconsistent
• −1 = frequently opposes or conditions military spending / sanctions

Context: defense bills like the NDAA routinely pass with overwhelming bipartisan support (often 70–85+ votes), so the real signal comes from who never breaks and who also pushes sanctions policy .

🧭 Tier 1 — Most consistently hawkish (Score: +2)

These Democrats combine reliable pro–military spending votes + active sanctions advocacy

• Jack Reed
• Jeanne Shaheen
• Richard Blumenthal
• Chris Coons
• Mark Warner

Why these rank highest:

• Consistent “yes” on NDAA + Ukraine/Israel aid
• Public leadership on Russia sanctions / Iran pressure
• Committee roles (Armed Services, Foreign Relations, Intelligence) reinforce pattern

👉 These are the closest analogues to what used to be called “liberal internationalists” or “Democratic hawks.”

🧭 Tier 2 — Strongly hawkish but slightly less consistent (Score: +1.5 to +2)

• Chuck Schumer
• Tim Kaine

Pattern:

• Very consistent on aid + sanctions
• Occasionally more cautious on war powers / executive authority

👉 Kaine in particular is a structural outlier: hawkish on sanctions, but more restrictive on presidential war-making.

🧭 Tier 3 — Hawkish on military aid, less proven on sanctions (Score: +1 to +1.5)

• John Fetterman
• Kirsten Gillibrand
• Michael Bennet
• Maggie Hassan

Pattern:

• Strong support for Ukraine/Israel aid packages
• Generally align with sanctions, but not major drivers of sanctions policy

👉 Fetterman stands out rhetorically as one of the most openly pro-military Democrats, but with less legislative track record on sanctions than Tier 1.

🧭 Tier 4 — Mainstream Democrats (Score: 0 to +1)

Large group including:

• Amy Klobuchar
• Cory Booker
• Raphael Warnock
• Tammy Duckworth

Pattern:

• Usually vote for defense bills and aid
• But not consistently leading on sanctions
• Occasionally break on specific issues

👉 This is the center of the Democratic caucus.

🧭 Tier 5 — Mixed / selective support (Score: −0.5 to 0)

• Jon Tester
• Sherrod Brown
• Bob Casey Jr.

Pattern:

• Support defense spending but sometimes:
  • oppose specific aid packages
  • resist certain sanctions or interventions

👉 Often reflect domestic/economic priorities over foreign-policy hawkishness

🧭 Tier 6 — Least hawkish / most oppositional (Score: −1)

• Bernie Sanders
• Elizabeth Warren
• Jeff Merkley
• Chris Murphy

Pattern:

• Frequently:
  • vote against higher military budgets
  • push to restrict arms sales
  • oppose or condition sanctions (especially humanitarian concerns)

👉 Example: very small minority of senators vote against major defense increases

🧮 Bottom line (simplified ranking)

Most consistently hawkish Democrats (top cluster):

1. Reed
2. Shaheen
3. Blumenthal
4. Coons
5. Warner

Next tier:
6. Schumer
7. Kaine

Then:
8. Fetterman / Gillibrand / Bennet / Hassan

⚠️ Important nuance (this matters)

• The Senate is structurally pro-defense: even many “moderates” vote yes most of the time.
• So the real distinction is:
  • Who always supports + leads sanctions policy (Tier 1)
  • vs. who just votes yes most of the time (middle tiers)

If you want, I can:

• Convert this into a numerical score for every single Democratic senator, or
• Break it down specifically by Russia vs Iran vs China sanctions, which actually produces a slightly different ranking.

—————

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse’s latest book, AMERICA’S EMPIRE OF EVIL: Hitler’s Posthumous Victory, and Why the Social Sciences Need to Change, is about how America took over the world after World War II in order to enslave it to U.S.-and-allied billionaires. Their cartels extract the world’s wealth by control of not only their ‘news’ media but the social ‘sciences’ — duping the public.