Date: Friday, 17 April 2026
https://ericzuesse.substack.com/p/the-most-hawkish-pro-military-and
https://theduran.com/the-most-hawkish-pro-military-and-pro-sanctions-u-s-senators
The most Hawkish, pro-military and pro-sanctions, U.S. Senators
17 April 2026, by Eric Zuesse. (All of my recent articles can be seen here.)
#1:
I asked ChatGPT AI, to “rank U.S. Senators by their neoconservatism — their voting support to increase pentagon spending and foreign sanctions” and got this answer:
I’m putting this on objective footing: I’m looking for recent Senate roll calls and scorecards that directly track two things you named—support for higher Pentagon spending and support for foreign sanctions—so the result is transparent rather than impressionistic.
I’ve got a workable proxy now: recent official Senate roll calls on a sanctions bill, the FY2026 defense authorization, the FY2026 defense appropriations bill, and the April 2026 effort to block arms sales to Israel. That will let me sort senators by a simple “hawkish vote count” instead of by my own judgment.
Thought for 1m 56s
“Neoconservatism” is too contestable for me to rank senators by my own judgment, but I can rank them by a transparent proxy built from the two dimensions you named: support for sanctions and support for Pentagon spending. I used four official Senate roll calls from the 119th Congress: the January 28, 2025 cloture vote on H.R. 23, a bill to impose sanctions on the ICC; the October 16, 2025 cloture vote on H.R. 4016, the FY2026 Defense Appropriations bill; the October 9, 2025 passage vote on S. 2296, the FY2026 NDAA; and the April 15, 2026 vote on S.J.Res. 32, which sought to block a proposed arms sale to Israel. For a “hawkish/neocon proxy score,” I counted as hawkish: Yea on H.R. 23, Yea on H.R. 4016, Yea on S. 2296, and Nay on S.J.Res. 32. The current Senate is 53 Republicans, 45 Democrats, and 2 independents, though a few seats changed hands during these votes, so some current senators are not fully comparable across all four roll calls.
On that proxy, the clearest top hawkish tier (4 of 4 hawkish votes, among senators with complete comparable records) is: Banks, Barrasso, Blackburn, Boozman, Britt, Capito, Collins, Cotton, Cramer, Crapo, Curtis, Daines, Ernst, Fischer, Fetterman, Graham, Grassley, Hagerty, Hawley, Hoeven, Husted, Hyde-Smith, Johnson, Justice, Kennedy, Lankford, Lee, Marshall, McConnell, McCormick, Moody, Moreno, Murkowski, Ricketts, Risch, Rounds, Schmitt, Rick Scott, Tim Scott, Sheehy, Sullivan, Wicker, and Young. Those senators backed the ICC sanctions bill procedurally, backed opening debate on FY2026 defense appropriations, voted for the FY2026 NDAA, and opposed the Israel arms-sale disapproval resolution.
A lower-but-still-hawkish tier includes senators who were hawkish on 3 of the 4 votes, with the caveat that this group is more ideologically mixed. Examples include Rand Paul and Jeanne Shaheen: Paul supported the ICC sanctions vote, supported advancing defense appropriations, opposed blocking the Israel arms sale, but voted against the NDAA; Shaheen voted against the ICC sanctions measure, but supported advancing defense appropriations, voted for the NDAA, and opposed the Israel arms-sale disapproval effort. That is why this is best understood as a vote-based hawkishness score, not a perfect measure of “neoconservatism” in the broader intellectual sense.
At the other end, the clearest least-hawkish tier (0 of 4 hawkish votes) includes senators such as Baldwin, Booker, Cantwell, Durbin, Kim, Markey, Merkley, Murphy, Murray, Padilla, Sanders, Schatz, Schiff, Warren, Welch, and Wyden. On this proxy, they opposed the ICC sanctions vote, opposed advancing FY2026 defense appropriations, opposed the NDAA, and supported the effort to force a vote blocking the Israel arms sale.
A large middle tier sits between those poles. For example, Coons, Blumenthal, Gillibrand, Rosen, and Schumer opposed the ICC sanctions vote and defense-appropriations cloture, but voted for the NDAA and opposed the Israel arms-sale disapproval effort, which puts them around 2 of 4 on this proxy. Meanwhile senators such as Kaine, Kelly, Hassan, Heinrich, Hickenlooper, Klobuchar, Luján, Ossoff, Peters, Reed, Slotkin, Warner, Warnock, and Whitehouse backed the NDAA but also backed the Israel arms-sale disapproval effort, leaving them more mixed than the top hawkish bloc.
So, in plain terms: on the specific measures you asked about, the Senate’s most consistently hawkish bloc is mostly Republican, with John Fetterman standing out as the main Democrat who voted like that bloc across all four measures; the least hawkish bloc is concentrated among progressive Democrats and the two independents who caucus with Democrats.
I can turn this into a full 1-to-100 spreadsheet-style ranking with each senator’s 4-vote score and exact vote pattern.
Please do.
Here is a complete, transparent ranking of U.S. Senators (current roster) using the proxy you specified:
Scoring method (explicit):
Total possible = 4 (most “hawkish”) → 0 (least)
TIER 1 — Score: 4 / 4 (Most consistently hawkish)
Banks, Barrasso, Blackburn, Boozman, Britt, Capito, Collins, Cotton, Cramer, Crapo, Curtis, Daines, Ernst, Fischer, Fetterman, Graham, Grassley, Hagerty, Hawley, Hoeven, Husted, Hyde-Smith, Johnson, Justice, Kennedy, Lankford, Lee, Marshall, McConnell, McCormick, Moody, Moreno, Murkowski, Ricketts, Risch, Rounds, Schmitt, Rick Scott, Tim Scott, Sheehy, Sullivan, Wicker, Young
👉 Interpretation:
This bloc is the clearest match to your definition (strong support for both sanctions + Pentagon funding).
TIER 2 — Score: 3 / 4 (Strongly hawkish, but with one deviation)
Examples include:
👉 Interpretation:
Still strongly aligned with interventionist / sanctions-heavy policy, but with at least one ideological or procedural exception.
TIER 3 — Score: 2 / 4 (Mixed / centrist-hawkish)
Coons, Blumenthal, Gillibrand, Rosen, Schumer
Also broadly includes:
Kaine, Kelly, Hassan, Heinrich, Hickenlooper, Klobuchar, Luján, Ossoff, Peters, Reed, Slotkin, Warner, Warnock, Whitehouse
👉 Interpretation:
TIER 4 — Score: 1 / 4 (Mostly non-hawkish)
A smaller transitional group (varies depending on vote patterns), including some Democrats who:
TIER 5 — Score: 0 / 4 (Least hawkish)
Baldwin, Booker, Cantwell, Durbin, Kim, Markey, Merkley, Murphy, Murray, Padilla, Sanders, Schatz, Schiff, Warren, Welch, Wyden
👉 Interpretation:
Key Structural Takeaways
Important caveats (to keep this rigorous)
If you want next step
I can:
#2:
I asked Google with its AI the same thing and got “Your search did not match any documents.”
#3:
I asked Musk’s x.ai/grok AI and got:
Thought for 1m 5s
There is no single, official, or comprehensive public ranking of all 100 U.S. Senators by "neoconservatism" defined strictly as voting support for increasing Pentagon (Department of Defense) spending and imposing/expanding foreign sanctions. These issues produce lopsided, often bipartisan votes in the Senate, with limited differentiation among most members. The annual National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) is the clearest measurable proxy for Pentagon spending support, as it authorizes hundreds of billions in defense programs and routinely includes topline increases. Major sanctions bills (e.g., on Russia, Iran, or China) typically pass by overwhelming margins or voice vote, with opposition limited to small groups of progressives or specific cases.
Key Data from Recent Votes
The most recent major vote on Pentagon spending was on the FY2026 NDAA (S. 2296), an original bill authorizing appropriations for military activities of the Department of Defense (and related programs). It passed 77-20 (3 not voting). This bill continued the pattern of record-high defense authorizations (in the $900 billion+ range in recent cycles).
Senators who voted NAY (lowest support for increasing/maintaining high Pentagon spending):
Not voting: Catherine Cortez Masto (D-NV), Ted Cruz (R-TX), Thom Tillis (R-NC).
These 20 (plus the not-voters, depending on context) represent the clearest low-support group on Pentagon spending increases. Progressive groups often highlight these "no" votes as opposition to excessive militarism.
Sanctions Support
Foreign sanctions votes show far less variation. Recent examples include Russia-related measures (advanced by voice vote in committee) and broader packages tied to Ukraine/foreign aid or adversary-specific bills. Opposition is rare and usually comes from the same progressive bloc or, occasionally, isolationist-leaning members on niche issues. No major recent sanctions roll call produced a large bloc of "no" votes comparable to the NDAA.
Conclusion on combined metric:
Broader Context and Caveats
In short: Neoconservatism per your definition is highest among defense-hawk Republicans and centrist Democrats who backed the latest NDAA; it is lowest among the 20 senators who voted against it. If you want analysis of a specific senator, Congress session, or additional votes (e.g., a particular sanctions bill), provide more details for a deeper dive.
Thought for 1m 5s
There is no single, official, or comprehensive public ranking of all 100 U.S. Senators by "neoconservatism" defined strictly as voting support for increasing Pentagon (Department of Defense) spending and imposing/expanding foreign sanctions. These issues produce lopsided, often bipartisan votes in the Senate, with limited differentiation among most members. The annual National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) is the clearest measurable proxy for Pentagon spending support, as it authorizes hundreds of billions in defense programs and routinely includes topline increases. Major sanctions bills (e.g., on Russia, Iran, or China) typically pass by overwhelming margins or voice vote, with opposition limited to small groups of progressives or specific cases.Commondreams +1
Key Data from Recent Votes
The most recent major vote on Pentagon spending was on the FY2026 NDAA (S. 2296), an original bill authorizing appropriations for military activities of the Department of Defense (and related programs). It passed 77-20 (3 not voting). This bill continued the pattern of record-high defense authorizations (in the $900 billion+ range in recent cycles).Senate
Senators who voted NAY (lowest support for increasing/maintaining high Pentagon spending):
Not voting: Catherine Cortez Masto (D-NV), Ted Cruz (R-TX), Thom Tillis (R-NC).Senate
These 20 (plus the not-voters, depending on context) represent the clearest low-support group on Pentagon spending increases. Progressive groups often highlight these "no" votes as opposition to excessive militarism.The Hill
Sanctions Support
Foreign sanctions votes show far less variation. Recent examples include Russia-related measures (advanced by voice vote in committee) and broader packages tied to Ukraine/foreign aid or adversary-specific bills. Opposition is rare and usually comes from the same progressive bloc or, occasionally, isolationist-leaning members on niche issues. No major recent sanctions roll call produced a large bloc of "no" votes comparable to the NDAA.Rollcall +1
Conclusion on combined metric:
Broader Context and Caveats
In short: Neoconservatism per your definition is highest among defense-hawk Republicans and centrist Democrats who backed the latest NDAA; it is lowest among the 20 senators who voted against it. If you want analysis of a specific senator, Congress session, or additional votes (e.g., a particular sanctions bill), provide more details for a deeper dive.
Dive deeper.
Thought for 51s
Deeper analysis of U.S. Senators by neoconservatism (defined strictly as voting support for increasing Pentagon/DoD spending + foreign sanctions) confirms the pattern from the FY2026 NDAA: a clear, stable divide with limited variation across recent Congresses. There remains no official, comprehensive public ranking or composite scorecard that weights every relevant vote for all 100 senators on these two exact metrics (dozens of NDAA amendments, defense appropriations bills, and sanctions packages would be required). However, the data sharpens the picture significantly: Pentagon spending votes (especially the annual NDAA) provide the strongest, most measurable proxy because they are high-stakes, recorded roll calls authorizing ~$900B+ in topline increases. Sanctions legislation shows near-universal bipartisan support, with opposition confined to the same small group that opposes high defense spending.
Refined Data on Pentagon Spending Votes
The FY2026 NDAA (authorizing record ~$901 billion in military activities, including a 3.8–4% troop pay raise, weapons priorities, acquisition reforms, and China-related restrictions) passed the Senate 77-20 (3 not voting) on its key versions in late 2025. This mirrors prior years (e.g., similar 77-20 or near-unanimous Republican support + most Democrats in 2023–2025 cycles). The bill is the clearest test of support for increasing/maintaining elevated Pentagon spending.
Senators voting NAY on the FY2026 NDAA (lowest support for Pentagon spending increases):
These 20 senators represent the consistent “restraint” or anti-increase bloc (primarily progressive Democrats, plus two libertarian-leaning Republicans and one Independent). They are the clearest outliers on your metric:
(Not voting or specific critics in related votes: e.g., Ted Cruz (R-TX) raised narrow objections on one provision but aligned with the majority overall.) This group overlaps almost exactly with NAY voters on prior NDAAs and DoD appropriations bills. For context, a 2023 NDAA had only 11 NAYs but the same core names (Booker, Markey, Lee, Sanders, etc.). Progressive and libertarian senators in this bloc routinely support amendments to cut or cap defense toplines.
Highest support tier (the 77 YEAs): This includes nearly all Republicans (except Lee and Paul) and a large majority of Democrats—especially those on the Senate Armed Services Committee (which drafts and strongly backs these bills). Committee leaders like Chairman Roger Wicker (R-MS) and Ranking Member Jack Reed (D-RI) exemplify the pro-increase consensus. Armed Services members as a group receive significant defense-sector attention and reliably defend topline growth against cuts.
Foreign Sanctions Votes: Even Less Differentiation
Major sanctions packages (Russia, Iran, China, etc.) typically advance by voice vote in committee or overwhelming recorded margins. Recent examples:
In short: Sanctions do not create meaningful additional splits. The pro-sanctions consensus is even broader than on defense spending. The lowest-neoconservatism group is more likely to push back on sanctions in favor of engagement (e.g., via amendments or statements), while the majority (and especially Foreign Relations Committee members) treat them as standard tools.
Tiered “Neoconservatism” Ranking (Per Your Definition)
Because votes are lopsided and sanctions nearly unanimous, a full 1–100 ordinal ranking isn’t feasible or meaningful without subjective weighting. Instead, here is a data-driven tier system based on the dominant NDAA/appropriations pattern (stable across 2023–2026) plus sanctions context:
|
Tier |
Description |
Approximate Size |
Key Examples / Characteristics |
|
Highest Neoconservatism |
Consistent YEAs on NDAA + defense appropriations; lead/sponsor sanctions; Armed Services or Foreign Relations members |
~60–70 senators |
Most Republicans (esp. Wicker, other Armed Services Rs); centrist Democrats on Armed Services (e.g., Reed). They drive topline increases and embed sanctions. |
|
High / Establishment |
Strong but not leadership-level support; occasional restraint amendments but never block NDAA |
~10–20 senators |
Many non-committee Republicans + moderate Democrats who back final passage. |
|
Middle / Mixed |
Generally support but may back minor cuts or carve-outs on specific sanctions |
Small number |
Some fiscal-conservative Rs or foreign-policy pragmatists. |
|
Lowest Neoconservatism |
Routine NAYs on NDAA spending increases; most likely to oppose or limit sanctions |
Exactly the 20 listed above |
Progressive Democrats + Paul/Lee/Sanders. They are the only ones producing recorded opposition on your metrics. |
Within-party notes:
Why This Is the Deepest Feasible Ranking
If you want an even deeper dive on a specific senator, a particular bill/amendment, a prior Congress, or a custom composite (e.g., adding Ukraine/Israel aid votes that often bundle sanctions), provide details and I can pull exact roll calls. Otherwise, the 20 NAY senators above are the unambiguous lowest on neoconservatism by your criteria, while the broad majority (especially defense committee leaders) rank highest.
#4:
I asked Anthropic’a chaton.ai/claude and got “I’d love to assist you with this! However, you’ve reached the limit of free messages [I had used it only once before and was not impressed.] Consider upgrading to Premium.”
#5:
I asked China’s chat.deepseek.com and got:
A specific, quantified ranking of all 100 U.S. Senators by their support for "neoconservatism" based on voting records for Pentagon spending and sanctions is not available. No official index ranks legislators solely on these two specific metrics combined.
However, there are recognized methods to identify which Senators generally align with this foreign policy posture. Here is how you might determine the answer:
Since the political landscape shifts with each new Congress, you can compile a ranking by cross-referencing these specific voting records on the Senate floor.
——
MY COMMENTS:
An obvious falsehood in those appeared to me only in the grok AI article, where its “Lowest Neoconservatism” category included “Exactly the 20 listed above,” which weren’t listed above, and which certainly were far fewer than 20 because all of the other categories added together would have been from around 55 to around 95 Senators, together. I have seen some neocon votes even from the least-necon ones such as Bernie Sanders, Rand Paul, and Mike Lee, the three that probably are the only ones who actually belong in the “Lowest Neoconservatism” category. It certainly isn’t 20, and even those three vote neocon from around 30% to 60% of the time. So, that “20” was way off. My preference is Chat GPT.
Obviously, neoconservatism — the U.S. Deep State attitude that got America invading Iraq on the basis of lies, and Libya on the basis of lies, and Syria on the basis of lies, and now Iran on the basis of lies, and that produced sanctions on the basis of lies against all of them, and against Russia, etc., and that now has the U.S. Congress and President spending over 65% of all congressionally authorized funds (in the War Department and other federal Departments) for ‘defense’ (aggression) while cutting all other Departments but the War Department and Homeland Security — that ideology has consistently, ever since at least 2001, been the overwhelmingly dominant foreign-policy ideology in this ‘democratic’ country. Almost no one of the incumbents in Congress for at least the past 25 years has been a decent human being, almost none of them decent, in either Party, and this includes in the Democratic and not only the Republican Party — both of the billionaires’ two Parties. They’re virtually all mass-murders and liars — the opposite of decent. And they are supposed to represent the American people, which they obviously do not. This isn’t a democracy and it isn’t a republic but instead a supremacist-fascist-imperialist regime and the only empire that remains in the entire world. Like all previous empires, it provides an impression of its extreme evilness, especially to the countries that it hasn’t yet acquired as its colonies (‘allies’) — which it intends to acquire (for the benefit of its billionaires).
And there are big quality-differences between the various AIs.
—————
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.
