Justin Amash

Michigan Congressmen Blame Justin Amash After Their State Is Passed Over for Missile Defense Site

They were hoping to hit the Department of Defense jackpot.

|

Rep. Justin Amash (R–Mich.) is facing heat at home after his state was passed over for a proposed missile defense site; his colleagues in Congress think Amash's outspokenness about unchecked defense spending is to blame.

Following a vetting period, the Department of Defense (DOD) issued a letter stating that it would be choosing Fort Drum in New York over Fort Custer in Michigan as the site for a potential Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) interceptor. The proposed ICBM interceptor would be designated to defend the East Coast from foreign attacks. The project, however, is currently in limbo as the Pentagon determined that the ICBM sites in Alaska and California are sufficient.

The decision inspired a bout of drama from Michigan Republicans, who ultimately decided that Amash's stances on defense spending accountability were to blame for the department's decision to look elsewhere for this hypothetical project.

"We always thought and were led to believe that on the merits, the Fort Custer site would be the best for the taxpayer and the defense of the country to build a new missile defense site. In fact, in the letter the Pentagon provided to the Committee on Armed Services, it makes clear that Fort Custer provided clear strategic advantages. It also states that the decision could be re-evaluated, and we would encourage them to do so," wrote Republican Reps. Fred Upton, Bill Huizenga, Tim Walberg, Paul Mitchell, and Jack Bergman.

"It appears that Congressman Amash's consistent opposition to all defense spending bills over the years was too much for the Pentagon to accept. It did not help, and now they selected New York for the new missile defense site."

Amash responded to his critics on Twitter.

"It appears that my colleagues' consistent support for trillions in new debt over the years was to buy the Pentagon's affection," he wrote. "Taxpayer dollars for defense should be used to boost Americans' safety, not to boost politicians. The Department of Defense is not a jobs program."

This is nothing new from Amash, who has made limited government and fiscal accountability the center of his campaigns and rhetoric for years. But he's faced significant backlash from members in his own party in recent months. Just this year alone, Amash stepped away from the House Freedom Caucus, said President Trump "engaged in impeachable conduct" based on findings in the Mueller report, and has criticized other Republican politicians who have failed to challenge Trump's trade war and spending.

While his actions have earned him cheers from his more libertarian-leaning supporters, conventional Republicans may be looking to unseat him. A third Republican primary challenger announced for Amash's seat on Thursday and mid-June poll also showed one of his pro-Trump challengers with an early lead.

NEXT: Enumerated Powers and the Census Case

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “In fact, in the letter the Pentagon provided to the Committee on Armed Services, it makes clear that Fort Custer provided clear strategic advantages.”
    “It appears that Congressman Amash’s consistent opposition to all defense spending bills over the years was too much for the Pentagon to accept.”

    Assuming this project ever goes forward: If Fort Custer has clear advantages, I would like a hearing on why the American people are not allowed to utilize those advantages. And if the only answer that is found is political retribution, those people should be tried for treason: intentionally harming the defense of this country for personal/political gain… yeah, yeah, never gonna happen I know. but within the untold number of federal statutes, there should be some law against this and with this much coverage it shouldn’t be that hard to prove.

    1. Game. Set. Match.

      IF the MI location is truly the best spot, and was denied because Amash poo-pooed astronomical ”defense” spending and they wanted him to suffer for it, whoever made that decision should go to jail.

      This posturing is so incredibly stupid it makes my head hurt.

    2. “And if the only answer that is found is political retribution, those people should be tried for treason: intentionally harming the defense of this country for personal/political gain”

      That is not the legal definition of treason. You’ll find the legal definition of treason in the Constitution, where it happens to be the only crime specifically defined in the entire document.

    3. Treason? Get in line. First we need to start by convicting and executing nearly the entire democrat party, plus all the RINOs.

  2. The project, however, is currently in limbo as the Pentagon determined that the ICBM sites in Alaska and California are sufficient.

    meh

  3. The Department of Defense is not a jobs program.

    Oh sweet summer child.

  4. I’d think that an ICBM interceptor site designed to protect the East Coast would be located an optimal distance from the East Coast for ICBM interception, based on where the ICBM might be coming from. Russia, China, Iran, France? Alaska and California might be fine for Arctic or Pacific routes based on Russian, Chinese and North Korean threats but we probably could stand to give Michael Bloomberg a slingshot and station him in a rowboat somewhere off the coast of New Jersey to keep an eye out for Iranian incoming.

    1. Canada burned down our capitol once; mark my words they are just waiting for an opportunity to finish the job.

      1. John Candy warned us about this.

  5. Who wants to defend MI? Only the warmongering New Yorkers deserve protection from ICBMs.
    Or maybe only NY deserves the pollution of defense missiles? I am surprised that the NY politicians allow such evil polluters as missiles into the state. Aren’t missiles much, much worse than simple guns?

  6. According to the wiki article the missile has a 56% probability of a kill. Maybe the money would be better spent working on a better missile.

    1. why? your post makes no sense.

  7. The ICBM missile defense systems have never been shown to be effective in anything approaching a realistic test.

    The Missile Defense Agency has ceased providing intercept information and declined to answer technical questions about decoys on grounds of national security. In other words, it doesn’t work and the defense they are most concerned about is their funding.

  8. Is this really new? My father always told me that Wisconsin got very little in Defense Department funds because Senator Bill Proxmire, (the originator of the Golden Fleece Award) was a big critic of the Department spending.

  9. Dengan hadirnya permainan Togel Singapore ini adalah pilihan yang sangat tepat sekali untuk anda pecinta taruhan togel. Dalam permainan togel ini setiap orang yang ada diharuskan melakukan tebakan angka yang akan keluar pada setiap pasarannya

  10. […] of key financial supporters, primary challengers, and freelance sniping from Michigan’s congressional Republicans. “In this hyperpartisan environment,” Amash lamented today, “congressional […]

  11. […] of key financial supporters, primary challengers, and freelance sniping from Michigan’s congressional Republicans. “In this hyperpartisan environment,” Amash lamented today, “congressional leaders use every […]

  12. […] of key financial supporters, primary challengers, and freelance sniping from Michigan’s congressional Republicans. “In this hyperpartisan environment,” Amash lamented today, “congressional […]

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.