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.
Europeans are surprised and frustrated by President Trump’s decision to call Russian President Putin without consulting Ukrainian President Zelenskyy or other European leadership.
The president made good on his promise to begin negotiations with Russia by having a phone call with President Vladimir Putin on Wednesday, which he described as “lengthy and highly productive” and indicated that further negotiations would begin “immediately.”
“We agreed to work together, very closely, including visiting each other’s nations,” Trump posted on social media. “We have also agreed to have our respective teams start negotiations immediately, and we will begin by calling President Zelenskyy of Ukraine to inform him of the conversation, something which I will be doing right now.”
The president subsequently had a call with the Ukrainian president, during which they discussed opportunities to achieve peace, the U.S.’s readiness to work together at the team level, and Ukraine's technological capabilities -- including drones and other “advanced industries,” according to Zelenskyy.
Many European leaders saw Trump’s call with Putin as a betrayal. The European Union’s foreign policy chief, Kaja Kallas, said that the Americans were giving Russia “everything that they want even before the negotiations” and that any agreement made without the Europeans “will simply not work.”
“This is not how others do foreign policy, but this is now the reality,” said German foreign minister Annalena Baerbock. She insisted negotiations should not “go over the heads of the Ukrainians.”
Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth defended President Trump’s call with Putin, saying that “there is no betrayal there,” but a “recognition that the whole world and the United States is invested and interested in peace, a negotiated peace.” He also softened his comments on Ukrainian NATO membership, saying that “everything is on the table in his (Trump’s) conversations with Vladimir Putin and Volodymyr Zelenskyy.”
Trump said he and Putin may meet for an initial discussion at an undetermined date in Saudi Arabia because “we know the crown prince, and I think it’d be a very good place to be.” Vice President JD Vance will meet with Zeleskyy today on the sidelines of the Munich Security Conference.
On Thursday, after the call, the Kremlin’s spokesperson, Dmitry Peskov, said that the “position of the current (U.S.) administration is much more appealing.” For his part, Zelenskyy noted that he was not pleased that Trump chose to speak with Putin before himself and made it clear that Ukraine “cannot accept it, as an independent country, any agreements (made) without us.” However, he told reporters that he and Trump were “charting our next steps to stop Russian aggression and ensure a lasting, reliable peace. As President Trump said, ‘Let’s get it done.’”
“The Trump-Putin call and Defense Secretary Hegseth's subsequent statement signals a long overdue willingness by Washington not only to engage the Russians in wide-ranging, impactful discussions but to countenance the concessions necessary to make a deal stick,” the Quincy Institute's Mark Episkopos told RS. “The hard work of squaring U.S., European, Ukrainian, and Russian positions is still ahead, and all sides should be prepared for what will be a winding, tortuous road to a negotiated settlement.”
He added, “still, the administration has just taken a colossal leap forward not just to resolve the Ukraine war but to stake out a new, more propitious architecture of European security and to reap all of the long-term geopolitical rewards therefrom.”
According to The Washington Post, Russian authorities released an American prisoner, Marc Fogel, after being imprisoned for three and a half years on drug charges. Trump said that a Russian prisoner would be released to Moscow as part of a deal with the Kremlin and added that the exchange “could be a big, important part in getting the war over."
Ukraine may be open to giving the United States access to its mineral industry in exchange for continued financial assistance. In an interview with the Associated Press, Zelenskyy's chief of staff, Andrii Yermak, remarked, “we really have this big potential in the territory which we control." He continued, “we are interested to work, to develop, with our partners, first of all, with the United States.” Trump showed support for such a plan earlier this month.
China has said it is ready to play a significant role in the Ukraine-Russia negotiation process. The Wall Street Journalreported that “the offer, however, is being met with skepticism in the U.S. and Europe, given deep concerns over the increasingly close ties between Beijing and Moscow.” The Journal speculates that this offer could be a vehicle for Xi to increase contact with President Trump as he seeks to negotiate away from the aggressive economic measures promised by the Trump administration.
There were no Department of State press briefings this week.
keep readingShow less
Top image credit: President Donald J. Trump greets Marc Fogel at the White House after his release from a Russian prison, Tuesday, February 11, 2025. (Official White House Photo by Daniel Torok)
In less than 3 weeks, President Trump secured a ceasefire in Gaza, spoke directly to Russian President Vladimir Putin and Ukrainian President Volodomyr Zelensky, and kickstarted diplomacy to end the Ukraine war. At the same time, he has also put forward some idiotic ideas, such as pushing Palestinians out of Gaza and making Canada the 51st state.
But it raises important questions: Why didn't the Biden administration choose to push for an end to the wars in Gaza and Ukraine? Why didn't the majority of the Democrats demand it? Instead, they went down the path of putting Liz Cheney on a pedestal and having Kamala Harris brag about having the most lethal military in the world while Trump positioned himself as a peace candidate — justifiably or not.
Undoubtedly, Trump's plans in Gaza may make matters worse and his diplomacy with Putin may fail. But that isn't the point.
The point is: Why did Trump choose to pursue diplomacy and seek an end to the wars, and why did the Democrats under Biden choose to transform the party into one that embraced war and glorified warmongers like Cheney, while protecting and enabling a genocide?
What happened that caused the party to vilify its own voices for peace — such as Reps. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) and Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) — while embracing some of the architects of the Iraq war?
And all of this, of course, in complete defiance of where the party base was (throughout the Gaza war, the base supported a ceasefire with 70% majority, for instance).
A profound reckoning is needed within the Democratic Party to save it from slipping into becoming neocon by default.
And with the pace at which Trump is moving, that reckoning needs to come fast. It will, for instance, be a severe mistake if the party positions itself to the right of Trump and reflexively opposes him on every foreign policy issue instead of basing the party's positions on solid principles, such as centering diplomacy, military restraint, and peace. Trump currently speaks more about peace than the Democrats do.
A senior Democratic lawmaker asked me rhetorically last week if I knew anyone who was happy with the foreign policy of Biden and voted for Harris on that basis.
I was happy to hear that the question was being asked. That's a good first step.
No one has ever accused the U.S. military of being a lean, mean, fighting machine. A call to give it $200 billion more split between this year and next won’t do anything to change that reality. But that’s what the new chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee wants to do. Senator Roger Wicker (R-MS) thinks the money should be pumped into President Trump’s “Iron Dome for America” missile defense shield, as well as “key investments in areas such as shipbuilding, submarines and the Air Force’s next-generation fighter,” Valerie Insinna of Breaking Defensereported.
Such an increase would represent “a magnificent opportunity to make the Defense Department and defense procurement more efficient and modern,” Wicker said. (Did Wicker increase his three kids’ allowances when they made poor choices?) Admiral Mike Mullen, when he was serving as chairman of the Joint Chiefs a decade ago, was closer to the mark when he said the Pentagon’s civilian and military leaders “lost their ability to prioritize” amid the Defense Department’s post-9/11 cash gusher. But Wicker maintains that forcing the Pentagon to buy more commercially, outside of the Defense Department’s crazy procurement process, could generate big benefits.
There’s no doubt that the Big Five defense contractors — Lockheed, Raytheon, Boeing, General Dynamics, and Northrop — have become too cozy inside a bureaucracy designed to serve their interests while keeping interlopers out. “There’s a lot of programs around here that we’ve spent a lot of money on that, when you actually wargame it, don’t have the impact you want them to,” Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth markedly understated February 7. The Defense Department bureaucracy is part of the problem. “There are thousands of additional Pentagon positions, headquarters positions, other positions that have been created over the last 20 years that don’t necessarily translate to battlefield success,” he added. “It’s not just the fraud, waste and abuse stuff — it’s systems, it’s hierarchies, it’s layers that we can review, reduce.”
A big missing part of the defense budget
The pay that U.S. troops earn is part of the U.S. defense budget. But the money we spend taking care of them once they’re out of uniform isn’t. Instead, it’s funded by the Department of Veterans Affairs, an entirely separate Cabinet agency. Yet there’s no true accounting for the cost of the U.S. military unless you calculate just how much we’re spending on our nearly 16 million veterans: while the Pentagon paid troops $236 billion in total compensation last year, the VA spent $365 billion(PDF) on former troops.
“After experiencing very little growth from 1980 to 1999, VA’s budget has more than quadrupled in real terms” — not counting inflation — “since 1999,” the Congressional Budget Office says in a new report(PDF). The two biggest chunks of the VA’s budget are for benefits and medical care. “Each of those programs is approaching the size of DoD’s military personnel budget,” CBO says. The VA is seeking $369 billion this year, 9.8% more than in 2024.
This quadrupling of costs — in real terms — is happening despite the fact that the number of U.S. veterans has been shrinking. And not only that: “Furthermore, the number of combat veterans has been decreasing as a share of veterans who receive disability compensation — even though the United States was engaged in operations in Iraq and Afghanistan for more than 10 years,” the agency added. “Because of policy changes, veterans who served after 9/11 (known as Gulf War II veterans) are more likely to get benefits, whether they served in combat or not.”
Veterans deserve every penny they’ve got coming to them. And taxpayers deserve to have each one counted as part of the defense budget. The VA’s skyrocketing spending is just as much a part of the cost of waging war as the boots, bullets, and battleships bought by the Pentagon.
Sudden paint job for the Pentagon’s new boss
The Bunker believes troops and veterans deserve their pay and benefits — and we feel the same about the dwellings that house many active-duty service personnel. In fact, René Kladzyk here at the Project On Government Oversight has reported on the persistent problems with the Pentagon’s push to privatize military housing, including the widespread mold and rigged oversight that shortchange those in uniform and their families.
So it caught our attention when a pair of House Appropriations Committee Democrats questioned the $49,900 “emergency” paint job for Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s government-owned home in a February 7 letter to the new defense chief. “It was not until February 5, 2025,” Reps. Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida and Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut wrote, “that the committee learned that you would be the occupant of this family housing unit.”
“Family housing unit” and “$49,900…for an ‘emergency’ paint job” are rarely paired together when it comes to federal military barracks housing. “How does that use of funds comply with the Administration’s stated goal of government efficiency?” the lawmakers asked. All told, they asked Hegseth to explain the $137,297 the Army spent sprucing up his home before he moved in.
Defense secretaries, unlike the uniformed members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and other top officers, usually live in their own homes. The lawmakers asked why Hegseth needs government housing at an unidentified location near the Pentagon, and how much rent he is paying.
The flappable defense chief exploded after Jennifer Griffin, Fox News’ Pentagon reporter, tweeted about the letter. Surprisingly, he lumped the straight-arrow Griffin among “Trump haters” for simply posting the lawmakers’ newsworthy inquiry. “Any/all house repairs were going to happen no matter who was moving in — and were all initiated by DoD,” Hegseth harrumphed.
The Bunker has no doubt some faceless Pentagon bureaucrat ordered the spiffing up. That’s the autopilot nature of defense spending that has bedeviled the U.S. military for decades. But if Hegseth truly believes the work was to be done “no matter who was moving in,” the man has no business trying to run the Department of Defense.
Crewless aircraft are a double-edged sword when it comes to nuclear strategy, increasing deterrence but also the chances of escalation, Lawrence J. Korb, a former top defense official, and political scientist Stephen Cimbala, wrote February 7 in The National Interest.
The fiber-optic cables that knit together the world are increasingly being shredded by ships most likely belonging to China and Russia, Gabriella Gricius wrote February 5 for the Jamestown Foundation.
Thanks for connecting with The Bunker this week. Consider forwarding this on to your chums so they can subscribe here.
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.