Since January of 2017, Brian Mast has served as the Congressman representing the 21st District of Florida. Mast, a Republican, has developed a reputation for being a far-right conservative and a War Hawk. Mast has echoed the same neoconservative ideology of former Vice President Dick Cheney. At a time when the world is in chaos, it is critical to examine how Mast's foreign policy positions personify the ongoing pro-war sentiment in Congress.

To provide context, prior to serving in Congress, Mast served in the United States Army for over a decade. In addition, Mast also served voluntarily in the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF). While Mast's military service is admirable, his ongoing promotion of endless military conflict overseas only harms the US going forward. Mast's outspoken promotion of endless war and military intervention has made him a prominent hawk in the House of Representatives. While many of his contemporaries have embraced a noninterventionist approach, Mast has remained steadfast in his support for the more traditional neoconservative foreign policy.

During the 118th Congress, Mast voted against two resolutions that aimed to scale back the US military presence overseas. Matt Gaetz, Mast's Republican colleague, used a war powers resolution to force a vote that directed the President to withdraw US troops from both Syria and Somalia. Mast was a confident "Nay" vote and believed the measure was unnecessary. At the time, the two resolutions were viewed as a test to see which factions of the Republican party still dominate. Mast's vote against both measures shows that he does not believe the US should stop intervening in international conflicts. In fact, Mast was a vocal opponent of the repeal of the authorization for the use of force in Iraq. Mast's "nay" vote was just another example of his preference for US militarism. Though Mast claims to be a small government conservative, his votes against reigning in executive authority regarding war suggest otherwise.

Congressman Mast's record could easily be believed to be completely ideological. However, Mast's campaign finances have shown his close ties to the Pro-Israel lobby as well as the defense contracting sector. According to the Federal Elections Commission (FEC), Congressman Mast has received over $100,000 in campaign donations from the defense contracting sector. This includes prominent defense companies such as Raytheon, Boeing, and Lockheed Martin. While the amount may seem small, Mast represents a deep red, Republican district. The amount of money Mast needs per election year is mild compared to candidates in swing districts across the country. This leaves more room for defense companies such as Raytheon to have more influence on Mast's policy positions. In addition, Mast has received over $1.5 million in campaign donations from the pro-Israel lobbying sector. This includes the very influential organization AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee). AIPAC has steadily held the reputation that the US must support Israel no matter what. This includes during Israel's ongoing genocide in the Gaza Strip. As stated before, Mast represents a deep red district that requires less campaign funding compared to more competitive districts. This is a valuable point to showcase how Mast accepting large sums of campaign contributions from AIPAC is funding more than just his campaign. AIPAC's donations have only shaped how Congressman Mast operates as a U.S. Representative. With human rights organizations across the world calling Israel's assault on Gaza a genocide, Mast has continued to deny the claim and defend Israel. Mast's views copy the same sentiment of AIPAC, who also believe Israel is in an ongoing assault on Gaza. The fact is, Mast, a sitting US Congressman, votes more in line with a lobbying organization than on the actual truth.

To continue, Congressman Mast's pro-war stances go beyond just the promotion of direct interventionism overseas. Mast has also been an ardent supporter of the usage of crippling sanctions on countries that are at odds with the United States. For example, during Mast's first term in Congress, an interventionist, he sponsored legislation that would have severely sanctioned Iran, North Korea, and Russia. These sanctions would directly affect the economic and material well-being of everyday, innocent people in those countries. Mast believed that this would cause these countries to curtail any type of defense programs that could potentially be harmful to the United States. A hawkish approach that mirrors the disastrous foreign policy from the likes of Henry Kissinger and Donald Rumsfeld. Objectively, Mast's concerns regarding the three countries have arguable justifications. The approach Mast advocates for, however, only repeats the same antigationistic history of US foreign policy. Economic sanctions specifically toward countries like North Korea and Russia only hurt innocent people and not the ones who are in power. Innocent people that Mast, the self-proclaimed pro-life congressman, clearly does not care about.

Moreover, Mast's positions regarding the ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine have not only been reckless but contradictory. While a freshman representative in Congress, Mast argued for severe economic sanctions to curtail any Russian interference with US elections. However, Mast was notably silent when Donald Trump engaged in a scandal with Ukrainian President Zelensky. Mast voted against the impeachment of Donald Trump that resulted from the Ukraine scandal. Congressman Mast then became a vocal supporter of Ukraine in the early months of Russia's invasion. He consistently voted for more weapons and advocated for the use of military troops to be deployed. Mast even voted against an amendment that banned the usage of cluster munitions in the ongoing war. Mast then pivoted to voting against aid in Ukraine, citing it as a wasteful use of taxpayer dollars. Subsequently, Mast has since reversed the position and continued to advocate for lethal weapons to be sent to Ukraine. On the three-year anniversary of Russia's invasion of Ukraine, Mast condemned President Putin's actions in Ukraine and advocated for Europe to "meet the moment." Mast accused Putin and Russia of using North Korean troops while receiving financial backing from both China and Iran. In this statement, Mast advocated for Europe to outspend Russia in military weapons as well as military recruitment. Mast even stated Europe cannot have a strong alliance with America unless it can hold its own against Russia. A very casual way for a sitting US Representative to advocate for the escalation of conflict overseas. A clear reminder that Mast's reckless foreign policy is purely political.

Recently, Mast lambasted Iran for attacking Israel. As previously mentioned, Mast has been a large recipient of the top pro-Israel lobby. Subsequently, Mast has been a vocal supporter of Israel. It must be noted that Mast was lambasting Iran for a retaliatory strike that was initiated by Israel. Mast, however, did not seem to care about the facts, only that he remained vocal in his loyalty to Israel. Regarding Iran, Mast has been a consistent critic, specifically over the Iran Nuclear deal that occurred during the Obama administration. Mast applauded the Trump administration's withdrawal from the program. During Israel's air strikes toward Iran, Mast supported the strikes,- stating they were an intelligence driven operation for the safety of the world. He believed that the escalation was good and helped not only America's top ally, Israel, but the United States as well. He believed it was a vital response to Iran's nuclear program. Although the degree of Iran's nuclear program has never been confirmed, Mast has been adamant that Iran possesses nuclear weapons that could lead to catastrophic consequences around the world.

If the Republican Party is truly the party of "America First," then they will have to rectify the many members like Brian Mast who support a foreign government over their own. In concept, "America First" is ideal and gives the notion that US foreign policy will be for the betterment of America. In practice, it is nonexistent and only a marketing strategy to persuade disenchanted voters. Congressman Brian Mast is the personification of this contradiction. Mast claims to be an "America First" patriot who will fight for the sovereignty of the American people. Then Mast will vote for any foreign war and promote the escalation of conflict in any region. Mast believes the hard-earned tax dollars of the American people should be used to intervene in international affairs instead of on the American people. Thus, Brian Mast is indeed a war hawk who will put the lives of Americans at risk for his own ideological and political purposes.

FEC DATA:

Huntington Ingalls - $1,000
Leidos - $2,000
General Electric - $3,500
L3Harris Technologies - $5,000
Raytheon - $22,500
Boeing - $13,000
Lockheed Martin - $35,000
General Dynamics - $16,000
Honeywell - $16,000
Kratos - $15,600
Pro-Israel America - $2,000
US-Israel PAC - $17,000
Republican Jewish Coalition - $1,000
AIPAC - $1,094,658.59