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
Trump Netanyahu
Top image credit: White House April 7, 2025

Polls: Americans don't support Trump's war on Iran

Military Industrial Complex

While there are serious doubts about the accuracy of President Donald Trump’s claims about the effectiveness of his attacks on Iranian nuclear sites, the U.S./Israeli war on Iran has provided fresh and abundant evidence of widespread opposition to war in the United States.

With a tenuous ceasefire currently holding, several nationwide surveys suggest Trump’s attack, which plunged the country into yet another offensive war in the Middle East, has been broadly unpopular across the country.

keep readingShow less
Could Trump's Congo-Rwanda mineral deals actually save lives?
Top photo credit: Foreign Minister of the Democratic Republic of the Congo Thérèse Kayikwamba Wagner, left, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, center, and Foreign Minister of Rwanda Olivier Nduhungirehe, right, during ceremony to sign a Declaration of Principles between the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Rwanda, at the State Department, in Washington, D.C., on Friday, April 25, 2025. (Graeme Sloan/Sipa USA)

Could Trump's Congo-Rwanda mineral deals actually save lives?

Africa

There may be a light at the end of the tunnel as representatives from the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and Rwanda are hoping to end the violence between them by signing a peace deal in a joint signing ceremony in Washington today.

This comes after the United States and Qatar have been working for months to mediate an end to the conflict roiling the eastern DRC for years.

keep readingShow less
Trump steve Bannon
Top photo credit: President Donald Trump (White House/Flickr) and Steve Bannon (Gage Skidmore/Flickr)

Don't read the funeral rites for MAGA restraint yet

Washington Politics

On the same night President Donald Trump ordered U.S. airstrikes against Iran, POLITICO reported, “MAGA largely falls in line on Trump’s Iran strikes.”

The report cited “Charlie Kirk, a conservative activist and critic of GOP war hawks,” who posted on X, “Iran gave President Trump no choice.” It noted that former Republican Congressman Matt Gaetz, a longtime Trump supporter, “said on X that the president’s strike didn’t necessarily portend a larger conflict.” Gaetz said. “Trump the Peacemaker!”

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

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.