A transpartisan coalition of groups calling itself “a diverse network of transparency and advocacy organizations” sent a letter to Senate leaders on Wednesday urging them “to take steps to ensure that all U.S. aid to Ukraine is subject to independent oversight,” primarily by confirming permanent inspectors general at the Departments of Defense and State.
Since Russia launched its invasion in late February, Congress has approved more than $50 billion in humanitarian and military assistance to Ukraine with, as the New York Times noted, “the leaders of both parties rais[ing] few questions about how much money was being spent or what it would be used for.”
Many are also worried that American weapons sent to Ukraine may end up in the wrong hands. Indeed, referring to so-called “Switchblade” drones the United States is supplying Ukraine, a senior Pentagon official said last month that the Defense Department doesn’t know where they are or whether they’re being used. "They're not telling us every round of ammunition they're firing [at] who and at when. We may never know exactly to what degree they've using the Switchblades,” the official said.
The dozen groups that signed the letter to Congress — which include Public Citizen, Taxpayers for Common Sense, and the Quincy Institute — say that “the sheer magnitude and speed at which the federal government is sending aid calls for robust oversight in terms of both spending and monitoring its use.”
The letter comes just days after 22 House Republicans sent a letter to President Biden expressing “grave concern about the lack of oversight and accountability for the money and weapons recently approved by Congress for Ukraine,” adding that “this money has not been tracked in any meaningful way nor have the American people or elected officials been informed of its effectiveness or use.”
The groups said Sen. Rand Paul’s proposal to place such monitoring in the already existing Special Inspector General of Afghanistan Reconstruction — given its expertise and oversight experience — is “reasonable.” But they worry such efforts will delay needed aid to Ukraine. They’re also concerned that Sen. John Kennedy’s proposal to create a new “SIGAR” for Ukraine has deficiencies in transparency and oversight.
“Therefore,” the groups say, “we encourage you—first and foremost—to confirm Rob Storch to be the inspector general at the Department of Defense, and to call on the administration to nominate an inspector general for the Department of State.”
Ben Armbruster is the Managing Editor of Responsible Statecraft. He has more than a decade of experience working at the intersection of politics, foreign policy, and media. Ben previously held senior editorial and management positions at Media Matters, ThinkProgress, ReThink Media, and Win Without War.
Top photo credit: Marjorie Taylor Greene (Shutterstock/Aaron of L.A. Photography) and Tucker Carlson (Maxim Elramsisy/Shutterstock) and Steve Bannon (Shutterstock/lev radin)
Neocons and their allies in Washington, Israel, and beyond are making unrealistic demands about the outcome of U.S. talks with Iran on limiting its nuclear program. But President Trump has absolutely no reason to listen to them and should not take them seriously.
The anti-Iran deal campaign kicked into overdrive last week when Republicans on Capitol Hill sent a letter to the White House calling on Trump to refuse any agreement that doesn’t include the complete dismantlement of Iran’s nuclear program.
“Every Republican senator except Rand Paul signed a letter to President Trump urging the administration to push for an end to Iran’s enrichment capacity,” Andrew Day, senior editor of the American Conservative, told RS. “They know that this demand is unacceptable to the Iranian regime and are clearly hoping to sabotage Trump’s diplomatic efforts.”
Center for International Policy senior non-resident fellow Sina Toossi called the letter’s demand “a poison pill.”
“Demanding zero enrichment, permanent restrictions, and total dismantlement of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure — after the U.S. already broke the 2015 deal — is not a negotiating position,” he told RS.
Meanwhile, others deal opponents say that Iran can be allowed to keep its program for civilian energy production purposes with the caveat that it cannot enrich its own uranium.
The good news for Trump though — and those who see an opportunity to box in Iran’s nuclear program and avoid war — is that this anti-Iran deal coalition has no constituency outside Washington and Israel, and Trump will pay very little to no political price if he just ignores them.
Take for instance a recent poll conducted by the SSRS Opinion Panel Omnibus in conjunction with the University of Maryland Critical Issues Poll program. That survey found that a large majority of Americans — 69% — favor “a negotiated agreement limiting Iran’s nuclear program to peaceful ends, with stringent monitoring” as opposed to military action. But perhaps more importantly for Trump’s political fortunes, 64% of Republicans surveyed — i.e. his base — agreed.
Opponents of diplomacy with Iran try to obfuscate this reality and muddy the waters. For example, Foundation for the Defense of Democracies CEO Mark Dubowitz — who’s been pushing for regime change in Iran for nearly two decades — promoted a poll last week finding that “76% of Americans say Iran’s nuclear-weapons facilities should be destroyed.”
Of course there is one problem: Iran doesn’t have nuclear weapons or a nuclear weapons program, and thus no nuclear weapons facilities, a fact that the U.S. intelligence community routinely concludes.
But it’s not just the American people or the GOP base that support Trump making a deal with Iran. Some of the more high profile figures in the MAGA-America First world back him too.
“It’s called sanity,” Steve Bannon said last week, referring to the SSRS/UMaryland poll. Bannon, of course, served as a senior adviser to Trump during his first term and remains influential within his orbit and among his supporters.
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), who also has clout with Trump’s base, has been very vocal recently against going to war with Iran. "There is no wedge between the base and President Trump,” she said earlier this month. “The wedge is between Congress and the establishment Republicans that are undermining the president's agenda."
And conservative media star Tucker Carlson, who like Bannon, has close ties to Trump world and is influential with the president’s base, has been similarly calling out neocons and others who are trying to kill Trump’s diplomacy with Iran and push for war.
"Thousands of Americans would die. We’d lose the war that follows. Nothing would be more destructive to our country," he said last month. "Anyone advocating for conflict with Iran is not an ally of the United States, but an enemy.”
Popular right-wing podcaster Charlie Kirk has piled on as well. “[T]here are people in Washington inside the Pentagon and inside the administration who want to launch military strikes on Iran. Often, they say it'd be easy. Just one strike in and out,” he said recently. “Now pause. How often have they actually been correct about the one in and out thing? Has that ever actually been the case?”
“President Trump has consolidated his power over the Republican Party to a remarkable degree and could certainly sign a good deal with Iran without suffering politically,” Day said. “The base still loves him, and lawmakers and conservative media are afraid of him. The elites would fall in line for fear of MAGA turning on them.”
Ryan Costello, policy director at NIAC, agrees. “Trump wouldn't have been elected president twice if his foreign policy echoed the discredited views of the Bush-Cheney wing of the Republican party,” he said. “Trump can have a deal with Iran or he can be pushed into war by adopting rigid and inflexible demands — the vast majority of Americans want him to lead with diplomacy.”
Meanwhile, it appears increasingly unlikely that Democrats — most of whom supported President Obama’s Iran nuclear deal back in 2015 — will try to make much political hay with any agreement Trump makes with Tehran.
“This is not a time for politics on Iran,” Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), a leading Democratic foreign policy voice in the House, said last week. “I support [Trump] trying to get a deal with Iran. I supported the Obama nuclear deal. How about we put the interest of our nation and peace above scoring political points at every moment?”
And what’s perhaps overlooked but maybe equally important: major regional powers like Saudi Arabia, who campaigned hard against Obama’s Iran deal, have changed their tune with Trump.
"Gulf leaders have been broadly supportive of the talks between the Trump administration and Iran because they don't want to be caught in the crossfire of a regional escalation if they fail,” Ali Vaez of the International Crisis Group toldMiddle East Eye last week. “That support doesn't necessarily translate into success at the negotiating table but it's a shift from the 2015 talks.”
Perhaps most importantly, Trump can get a deal with Iran that places strict limits on its nuclear program with incredibly intrusive verification mechanisms that will satisfy his stated goal of preventing Iran from building a nuclear weapon, all without zero enrichment provisions or requiring Iran to dismantle its entire program.
“Not only will adopting a hardline ‘no enrichment’ position push Iran from the negotiating table entirely, it is not necessary for an effective agreement and would not fully address Iran’s proliferation risk,” the Arms Control Association’s Kelsey Davenport wrote recently, adding that “dismantling the infrastructure does not erase the knowledge Iran has gained about uranium enrichment.”
In short, she concluded, the U.S. “can find the right combination of limits and monitoring to block Iran’s pathways to nuclear weapons while allowing Iran to retain a less risky level of uranium enrichment.”
keep readingShow less
Top photo credit : Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman reacts next to U.S. President Donald Trump during the Saudi-U.S. Investment Forum, in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, May 13, 2025. REUTERS/Brian Snyder
President Donald Trump's recent whirlwind tour of the Middle East was a spectacle of calculated opulence and diplomatic signaling, highlighting the significance of the visit to the Gulf monarchs.
Fighter jets escorted Air Force One into Saudi, Qatari, and Emirati airspace, and once on the ground, the president’s hosts unfurled lavish displays of hospitality: traditional sword dances, Arabian horses, and gleaming military salutes.
Yet, amid this carefully choreographed fanfare, Israel, the United States’ long-declared major strategic partner, was conspicuously absent from the itinerary. The decision to bypass Israel, particularly at a time of acute regional tension as a result of the Gaza conflict, reveals a core tenet of Trump's approach to statecraft: the relentless pursuit of headline-grabbing “wins” and achievable outcomes that can be quickly packaged for political consumption.
The Gaza quagmire, a gordian knot of historical grievances and harsh contemporary realities, offers no such low-hanging fruit. Speaking in Doha on May 15, President Trump himself condemned the October 7 Hamas attack as "one of the worst, most atrocious attacks anyone has ever seen." Yet, these strong words were delivered from Qatar, a key mediator in the conflict, not from Jerusalem (which Trump controversially recognized as Israel's capital during his first term).
With ceasefire negotiations between Israel and Hamas repeatedly stalling, the prospect of Trump brokering a breakthrough remains increasingly distant. For a president who thrives on the image of a dealmaker, a visit to Israel under current circumstances only risks highlighting impotence.
In contrast, the Gulf states offered a far more fertile ground for success. With their investment-hungry Sovereign Wealth Funds and increasing assertiveness in regional diplomacy, nations like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Oman have transformed themselves into indispensable economic partners and political mediators. Their financial muscle and sophisticated diplomatic backchannels are shaping outcomes not just in the Israeli-Palestinian arena but across a range of geopolitical hotspots, from Russia-Ukraine to the Indian subcontinent and in ongoing nuclear talks between the U.S. and Iran.
Beyond the Arabian Peninsula, Syria’s carefully curated re-entry into the regional fold provided another stage for Trump to claim a diplomatic victory. At the U.S.-Saudi Investment Forum in Riyadh, he declared, "After discussing the situation in Syria with the Crown Prince [Mohammed bin Salman]... and also with President Erdogan of Turkey… I will be ordering the cessation of sanctions against Syria in order to give them a chance at greatness."
He wished the war-torn nation "good luck," urging it to "show us something very special" — a pronouncement met with roaring applause and a standing ovation.
This move, culminating in a direct meeting between Trump and Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa, was hailed by al-Sharaa in a subsequent national address where he described the decision as "historic and courageous.” Al-Sharaa added that "it alleviates the suffering of the people, helps their rebirth and lays the foundations for stability in the region."
For Trump, facilitating Syria’s return, however complicated the road ahead, offers a narrative of peacemaking and decisive action.
It would be a misreading, however, to interpret this selective engagement as the death knell of the U.S.-Israel alliance. The strategic partnership is too deeply institutionalized, too interwoven with decades of bipartisan U.S. policy and substantial security commitments, to be undone by a single presidential itinerary.
The U.S. State Department, as recently as April, reiterated that "steadfast support for Israel’s security has been a cornerstone of American foreign policy." This support translates into over $130 billion in cumulative bilateral assistance and an ongoing 10-year Memorandum of Understanding that funnels $3.3 billion in annual Foreign Military Financing and $500 million towards missile defence programs.
The U.S. commitment to maintaining Israel's Qualitative Military Edge remains official policy, enshrined in assessments and legal frameworks such as the United States-Israel Strategic Partnership Act of 2014, which formally declared Israel a "major strategic partner." Indeed, influential policy circles, such as the Heritage Foundation, advocate not for a dismantling of the relationship, but for its evolution into an "equal strategic partnership" by mid-century — one less reliant on unidirectional aid and more focused on “burden-sharing,” as the White House described it.
The Abraham Accords, a signature achievement of Trump's first term, also visibly remain on his agenda. During his meeting with Syria's al-Sharaa, Trump extended an invitation for Syria to join the normalization agreements. This persistence highlights a continued U.S. interest in fostering a broader regional realignment that benefits Israel.
Nevertheless, the immediate optics and objectives of Trump's latest Middle Eastern foray were clear. The photo opportunities with Gulf leaders, the announcements of colossal investment deals, and the facilitation of Syria's reintegration provided far more political points than a visit to Israel, currently mired in the complexities of the Gaza war and the strained international standing of its current leadership.
Even Trump's own musings on Gaza, voiced in Doha — "I have concepts for Gaza that I think are very good. Make it a freedom zone. Let the United States get involved and make it just a freedom zone" — suggest a preference for grand, if vague, U.S.-led solutions conceived from afar, rather than as a result of direct engagement with the intractable realities on the ground.
In Riyadh, Trump proclaimed a new era of American engagement, one where the U.S. would refrain from "giving you lectures on how to live." This rhetoric, appealing to autocratic sensibilities in the Gulf, aligns seamlessly with a foreign policy that values transactional gains over ideological crusades. The Gulf capitals, with their investment windfalls and willingness to facilitate Trump's peacemaker image, currently offer a more conducive environment for this approach than Israel.
Thus, Trump’s decision to skip Israel on this occasion appears less a fundamental strategic pivot and more a tactical deferral. A recognition that, for now, the diplomatic wins he craves lie elsewhere. The enduring structures of the U.S.-Israel alliance may persist, but its operational dynamics under Trump are clearly hostage to the president's unyielding quest for deal-making pageantry.
keep readingShow less
Top photo credit: Inmates remain in their cell, during a tour in the "Terrorism Confinement Center" (CECOT) complex, which according to El Salvador's President, Nayib Bukele, is designed to hold 40,000 inmates, in Tecoluca, El Salvador October 12, 2023. REUTERS/Jose Cabezas
A cacophony of right-wing commentators now believes that El Salvador, under Nayib Bukele’s dictatorship, is the “safest” country in the Western Hemisphere. Bukele himself certainly wants us to believe it’s because he’s gone to war with the gangs.
They’re all wrong — and disastrously so.
According to El Faro, the country’s most respected investigative outlet, the relative peace in El Salvador is not the result of a decisive war on gangs, but rather, of a secret pact negotiated directly between Bukele’s own Director of Prisons Osiris Luna and his head of the Social Fabric Reconstruction Unit, Carlos Marroquín, and gang leaders, starting in late 2019. He also took on similar negotiations with gangs as a mayor of San Salvador, from 2015 to 2018.
These revelations are based on extensive access to prison intelligence, government documents, and insiders within the security apparatus and the gangs themselves.
The U.S. Treasury backed these findings in 2021, sanctioning Luna and Marroquín and other Bukele allies for offering financial incentives and prison perks to MS-13 and Barrio 18 leaders in exchange for reducing homicides and supporting Bukele’s party in elections.
Numerous Latin American leaders have gone to jail for these kinds of deals — including Salvadoran cabinet members. Politicians of all stripes, including from Bukele’s former FMLN party, have negotiated with gangs; these pacts in El Salvador go back at least two decades. Negotiated peace isn’t a new solution, Bukele’s deal just worked, for now.
These deals, coordinated through the intelligence service, have been deliberately concealed and officially denied by the administration — because acknowledging they exist within his own government would undermine his image as a no-compromise strongman engaged in a just war against narco-terrorist gangs.
Bukele’s government is jailing politicians from past governments who signed deals, but that is all part of rewriting history. He is also prosecuting critics, purging the judiciary, and aggressively going after El Faro’s journalists, to conceal the truth.
Part of Bukele’s truce is to allow gangs to run their networks within the prisons, while their wealth and power remain untouched. In exchange, they have to keep homicides and violent crimes down. The leader of Barrio 18, one of the country’s two most powerful gangs, also alleges that they helped Bukele rise to power directly.
Data suggests that drug outflows from El Salvador have not stopped increasing, including for cocaine. Peace will be kept as long as the money keeps flowing — yes, that is a narcostate.
Thousands of gang members from El Salvador’s most brutal gangs have bled into neighboring countries, bringing instability, crime, and violence to Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, and other countries. Salvadoran gangs are even reaching Chile. The crisis isn’t solved, it’s just moving zip codes.
The truce deal is quite thin; gangs seeking a better cut of the drug market or better prison conditions could, in a moment, plunge the country once again into a bloody war. This time, there will neither be security, nor democracy left.
In Bukele’s crackdown, the rule of law is completely gone, with the Supreme Court being replaced by loyalists, and no term limits or checks on Bukele’s power. He has called those who dare speak out “terrorist sympathizers”, threatening them with jail where “the only way out is in a coffin.”
Thousands of innocent people have been swept up, without a trial, access to a lawyer, or even basic necessities in prison – all while drug kingpins get special privileges. More than 400 detainees have died in extrajudicial detention from beatings, starvation, and untreated illness — their bodies returned to families with signs of torture.
Many Latin American countries, past and present, have tried Bukele’s model of suspending all rights while targeting, jailing, or killing suspected gang members. Bukelismo is now the most popular security philosophy in Latin America. The fact that you haven’t heard it working anywhere else is no accident.
At best, “Mano Dura” (hard hand) has a very mixed track record. At worst, it destroys democracy while reinforcing what social scientist Graham Denyer Willis called the “killing consensus” between the state and gangs.
In Colombia, the Peace Agreement hasn’t been fully implemented, with FARC dissidents having expanded their operations into Venezuela and Ecuador, ELN resuming their attacks in Catatumbo, and a continuing harsh military campaign only fueling further killings and displacement.
In Ecuador, Daniel Noboa’s state of exception has not decreased the homicide rate, while he has used security forces to crack down on protests and opposition. InSight Crime’s analysis points to gang reorganizing as a result.
In Honduras, Xiomara Castro also suspended all constitutional rights, including freedom of speech, association, and assembly, copying Bukele’s playbook. Yet the homicide rate is still one of the highest in the world, as are the violent crime and extortion rates, and there are countless cases of state security forces using torture, forced disappearances, and murders of political opponents.
Throughout Latin America, some of the areas with the highest rates of incarceration and police killings, continue to have some of the highest murder, crime, and violent crime rates in the world.
Almost all Latin American countries have some form of a “state of exception” with high state violence, extreme police power, a corrupt criminal justice system that favors the security state, and extreme incarceration and overcrowding rates. Full martial law won’t improve those odds.
El Salvador already tried “Mano Dura” and “Súper Mano Dura” in the 2000s, jailing tens of thousands of suspected gang members. The outcome was: Gangs grew stronger, more centralized, and more violent, operating directly from prisons.
People want revenge and quick solutions, which is understandable after decades of violence and corruption. But adopting Bukele’s vision is a fast track into a fascist abyss, where power is concentrated in the hands of a small political-criminal elite, while there are no free elections, no free speech, and no dissent.
Bukele and his allies have pushed the dangerous lie that the only way to deal with gangs is to wage war, dismantle democracy, and accept the jailing or killing of innocents as collateral damage. That is dead wrong.
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.