WarCosts – Bias and Credibility

WarCosts is rated Left-Center with Mostly Factual factual reporting by Media Bias Fact Check.

Bias Rating: LEFT-CENTER (-2.5)
Factual Reporting: MOSTLY FACTUAL (3.6)
Country: USA
MBFC’s Country Freedom Rating: MOSTLY FREE
Media Type: Website
Traffic/Popularity: Minimal Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: MEDIUM CREDIBILITY

History

WarCosts is a data and advocacy website launched in March 2026 that tracks the financial and human costs of U.S. wars, military interventions, weapons programs, overseas bases, defense contractors, and military spending. The site says its mission is to make the costs of American military power visible through publicly available data and that it covers U.S. conflicts and interventions dating to the American Revolution.

WarCosts is part of TheDataProject.AI, a collection of searchable public-data websites. Kian O’Connor and Scott Leonard founded TheDataProject.AI, which operates numerous platforms covering government spending, healthcare, lobbying, immigration, elections, and other public datasets. WarCosts says its information comes primarily from government records, the Congressional Research Service, SIPRI, Brown University’s Costs of War project, academic research, and established investigative organizations.

Read our profile on the United States government and media.

Funded by / Ownership

WarCosts is owned and operated by TheDataProject.AI. The parent organization lists an address in Newark, Delaware, while other business profiles identify operations in Santa Barbara, California. WarCosts states that it is free to use, carries no advertising or paywall, and receives no defense-industry sponsorship or think-tank funding.

The site does not clearly disclose detailed financing for TheDataProject.AI or identify outside investors or revenue sources supporting WarCosts. However, it publicly discloses ownership, contact information, methodology, and major data sources.

Analysis / Bias

WarCosts consistently promotes a noninterventionist and anti-militarist perspective that combines progressive spending priorities with classical-liberal and libertarian arguments about government power. Its About page argues that military spending should be viewed as money that could instead stay with taxpayers or fund schools, infrastructure, and healthcare, citing figures ranging from James Madison and Dwight Eisenhower to Ron Paul.

For example, How Much Does the US Spend on Military? contrasts defense spending with universal healthcare, free public university tuition, eliminating medical debt, housing, and other domestic programs. It also compares U.S. military spending unfavorably with countries such as Canada, Germany, and Japan that provide broader social benefits. This opportunity-cost framing generally aligns with progressive criticism of U.S. defense spending, although the site also presents tax relief as an alternative use of military expenditures.

Similarly, The War Economy: How War Drives the US Economy argues that military spending produces fewer jobs and less public benefit than expenditures on education, healthcare, clean energy, or infrastructure. Meanwhile, its Foreign Aid coverage describes some assistance as military hardware, regime support, and “strategic bribes,” demonstrating more overt advocacy language.

Factual sourcing is generally extensive and includes SIPRI, the Pentagon, Congressional Research Service, Brown University’s Costs of War project, government audits, and academic studies. However, WarCosts sometimes uses emotionally loaded language such as “American Empire,” “war machine,” and “the official number is a lie,” and figures are not always consistent across pages. For example, different sections cite approximately $886 billion, $895 billion, and $968 billion for military spending depending on the measure used, while estimates of total historical war costs also vary substantially. Although differing methodologies can explain some variation, clearer labeling and consistency would improve reliability.

Failed Fact Checks

• None found from major fact-checking organizations.

Overall, we rate WarCosts Left-Center Biased because it consistently uses anti-militarist framing, criticizes defense spending and contractors, and frequently compares these costs with healthcare, education, housing, and other domestic spending. We rate it Mostly Factual due to strong underlying sourcing offset by advocacy language, methodological inconsistencies, and limited financial transparency. (D. Van Zandt 10/22/2026)

Source: https://www.warcosts.org/

Last Updated on October 22, 2026 by Media Bias Fact Check

Left vs. Right Bias: How we rate the bias of media sources