Follow us on social

Shutterstock_594241916-scaled

Groups urge Congress to strengthen rules on defense lobbying

The greased revolving door from the Pentagon to the weapons industry gives former officials easy access for influence peddling.

Reporting | Military Industrial Complex

Fourteen Pentagon contractors hired 1,718 former Department of Defense senior civilian and military officials from 2014 to 2019, raising serious questions about the safeguards in place to limit lobbying by former DoD officials and undue influence by weapons firms over national security policies.

The data, laid out in a Government Accountability Office report this month, resulted in a number of good governance and foreign policy groups, including the Quincy Institute, sending a letter today to House Rules Committee Chair Rep. James P. McGovern (D-Mass.) and Ranking Member Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.), urging them to strengthen revolving door restrictions on former DoD personnel in the 2022 defense authorization bill.

“Existing restraints on lobbying by former DOD officials are woefully inadequate and undermine efforts to prevent undue influence on the national security policies of the United States,” says the letter, organized by the Project on Government Oversight. “Amendments to further limit the revolving door will enhance integrity in the operations of the Department of Defense.”

Specifically, the coalition asks Congress to ban former government employees from registering as lobbyists for two years (an increase over the current one year ban), extend the period in which Pentagon officials must recuse themselves from decisions involving their former employers from one to four years and require contractors to report their hiring of former senior Pentagon officials and officers.

The steps, if implemented, would signal that Congress is serious about combating the fiscal and national security costs of revolving door employment and influence peddling. “Influence peddling by former senior officials on behalf of contractors risks diminishing military effectiveness, undermines competition and performance, and leads to higher costs for the military and taxpayers,” says the letter.

That threat has risen in profile as critical assessments of the U.S. war in Afghanistan show that weapons firms pocketed at least $4.4 trillion since September 11, 2001, while the post-9/11 wars have imposed $8 trillion in past or future costs on taxpayers. 

The revolving door for top Pentagon brass was highlighted in a Washington Post investigation earlier this month. It found “eight generals who commanded American forces in Afghanistan between 2008 and 2018 have gone on to serve on more than 20 corporate boards,” including former chairman of the joint chiefs of staff Ret. Gen. Joseph Dunford Jr., who joined the board of Lockheed Martin.

An investigation by Responsible Statecraft and The Daily Beast earlier this year found that two-thirds of the Afghanistan Study Group, a blue ribbon task force established by Congress that recommended President Joe Biden extend the U.S. troop presence in Afghanistan, have current or recent financial ties to the weapons industry, a financial conflict of interest that went undisclosed by the ASG. 

The amendments highlighted in the letter “would take significant steps toward restoring Americans’ faith in their government and ensuring that the military and its civilian leadership are above reproach in their service to our nation,” says the letter. “Current restrictions have done little to slow the revolving door, and it’s clear that systemic legislative change is needed.”

Image: Anki Hoglund via shutterstock.com
Reporting | Military Industrial Complex
ukraine war
Diplomacy Watch:
Diplomacy Watch: Ukraine and Europe brace for Trump presidency

Russia intensifies fighting after Trump’s win

Regions

After a more than 2 month pause, Russia has begun striking deep into Ukraine once again, sending a reported 96 missiles and drones toward civilian infrastructure in the capital this week

Following the U.S. presidential election, Vladimir Putin has stepped up Russia’s military campaigns. In addition to resuming strikes on Kyiv, Moscow has increased its drone strikes across Ukraine by 44%. Ivan Stupak, a former Ukrainian security officer, says, “In the next few months up to Jan. 20, we are expecting a significantly increasing number of launches towards Ukraine.”

keep readingShow less
Trump Modi
Top image credit: YashSD / Shutterstock.com

How Trump can navigate the new multi-polar world

Global Crises

As President-elect Trump prepares to take office for a second time, he faces a world that has changed profoundly since 2020. While Russia’s invasion of Ukraine may be the most visible shift, two deeper changes in the international order demand America’s attention: the rise of multipolarity and the trend toward “multi-alignment.”

These realities provide an opportunity for the United States to rethink its approach to global affairs, adopting a grand strategy of “restraint.” This isn’t a call to retreat from the world. Instead, it’s an approach that prioritizes prudent balancing and selective blunting — moving beyond the ideal of maintaining U.S. hegemony by enforcing a so-called “rules-based order” and focusing instead on adapting to today’s geopolitical complexity.

keep readingShow less
Kenya
Top image credit: A Kenyan man reads newspapers at a shop in Nakuru following the U.S. presidential election results, where Donald Trump won against Democrat Kamala Harris in a remarkable political comeback. James Wakibia / SOPA Images via Reuters Connect

Like Biden, don't expect Trump to pay much attention to Africa

Africa

As commentators assess the implications of Donald Trump’s election victory for the United States and the world, various publications have asked what Trump’s return will mean for their continent. In one well-informed analysis, the BBC’s Wedaeli Chibelushi highlights “trade, aid, and security” as key sectors. We can also ask what might change in terms of Washington’s political relationships with various African countries, and how such changes would affect the overall balance of U.S. primacy versus restraint.

An initial caveat is necessary – of all the world’s regions, Trump and his team will likely not be thinking much about Africa. When Professor Stephen Walt recently assessed “The 10 Foreign-Policy Implications of the 2024 U.S. Election,” for example, he did not mention Africa – and that’s because the Middle East, Ukraine, NATO, and China, among other issues, will likely consume much more of Trump’s attention than the African continent will.

keep readingShow less

Election 2024

Latest

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.