Follow us on social

google cta
Shutterstock_1546434269-scaled

Groups urge more oversight of US aid to Ukraine

A transpartisan coalition of advocacy organizations is worried that Congress is asking too few questions about the flow of weapons and money.

Reporting | Europe
google cta
google cta

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.” 


Image: Pla2na via shutterstock.com
google cta
Reporting | Europe
nuclear weapons
Top image credit: rawf8 via shutterstock.com

What will happen when there are no guardrails on nuclear weapons?

Global Crises

The New START Treaty — the last arms control agreement between the U.S. and Russia — is set to expire next week, unless President Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin make a last minute decision to renew it. Letting the treaty expire would increase the risk of nuclear conflict and open the door to an accelerated nuclear arms race. A coalition of arms control and disarmament groups is pushing Congress and the president to pledge to continue to observe the New START limits on deployed, strategic nuclear weapons by the US and Russia.

New START matters. The treaty, which entered into force on February 5, 2011 after a successful effort by the Obama administration to win over enough Republican senators to achieve the required two-thirds majority to ratify the deal, capped deployed warheads to 1,550 for each side, and established verification procedures to ensure that both sides abided by the pact. New START was far from perfect, but it did put much needed guardrails on nuclear development that reduced the prospect of an all-out arms race.

keep readingShow less
Trump Hegseth Rubio
Top image credit: President Donald Trump, joined by Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and Secretary of the Navy John Phelan, announces plans for a “Golden Fleet” of new U.S. Navy battleships, Monday, December 22, 2025, at the Mar-a-Lago Club in Palm Beach, Florida. (Official White House Photo by Daniel Torok)

Trump's realist defense strategy with interventionist asterisks

Washington Politics

The Trump administration has released its National Defense Strategy, a document that in many ways marks a sharp break from the interventionist orthodoxies of the past 35 years, but possesses clear militaristic impulses in its own right.

Rhetorically quite compatible with realism and restraint, the report envisages a more focused U.S. grand strategy, shedding force posture dominance in all major theaters for a more concentrated role in the Western Hemisphere and Indo-Pacific. At the same time however, it retains a rather status quo Republican view of the Middle East, painting Iran as an intransigent aggressor and Israel as a model ally. Its muscular approach to the Western Hemisphere also may lend itself to the very interventionism that the report ostensibly opposes.

keep readingShow less
Alternative vs. legacy media
Top photo credit: Gemini AI

Ding dong the legacy media and its slavish war reporting is dead

Media

In a major development that must be frustrating to an establishment trying to sell their policies to an increasingly skeptical public, the rising popularity of independent media has made it impossible to create broad consensus for corporate-compliant narratives, and to casually denigrate, or even censor, those who disagree.

It’s been a long road.

keep readingShow less
google cta
Want more of our stories on Google?
Click here to make us a Preferred Source.

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.