Follow us on social

Shutterstock_600703640-scaled

Pro-bono Ukraine lobbyists quietly profit from defense contractor clients

DC firms working to steer US policy towards getting more weapons for Kyiv are also representing arms makers who stand to benefit.

Reporting | Europe

This article was co-published with The Guardian

Some of Washington’s most powerful lobbyists are giving their services to Ukraine for free and also benefiting from millions in fees from Pentagon contractors who stand to benefit from the country’s ongoing war with Russia. 

Following Russian President Vladimir Putin’s internationally condemned decision to invade Ukraine there was an outpouring of support to the besieged nation from seemingly every industry in America. But, arguably, one of the most crucial industries coming to Ukraine’s aid was Washington’s powerful lobbying industry. 

The invasion has led some of the lobbying industry’s biggest players to do the unthinkable — lobbying for free. While the influence industry may have altruistic reasons for representing Ukraine pro-bono, some lobbying firms also have financial incentives for aiding Ukraine: they’ve made millions lobbying for arms manufacturers that could profit from the war.

The Surge in Pro-Bono Ukraine Lobbying

U.S. law requires agents of foreign principals who are engaged in political activities to make periodic public disclosures of their relationship under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA). Twenty-five registrants have agreed to represent Ukrainian interests pro-bono since the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Before the war, just 11 FARA registrants were working on behalf of Ukrainian interests. "I don’t recall a comparable surge in pro bono work for any foreign principal," said David Laufman, a partner at the law firm Wiggin and Dana, who previously oversaw FARA enforcement at the Justice Department.

Many of these new pro-bono Ukrainian lobbyists are pushing for greater U.S. military support for the Ukrainian military. As one registrant explained in a FARA filing, they intend “to lobby members of the US Government to increase US Department of Defense spending on contracts related to equipment and other efforts which will aid the ability of the Ukrainian military to succeed in its fight against the Russian military.”

While many, if not most, of these pro-bono lobbyists may be doing this work purely out of solidarity with Ukraine, some of the firms working free of charge for Ukraine have an added incentive.

Hogan Lovells

Before winning the speakership in the new Republican Congress, representative Kevin McCarthy warned that Republicans wouldn’t approve a “blank check” for Ukraine aid once they took power. But, just last week the GOP’s biggest fundraiser agreed to provide pro-bono assistance in loosening Congress’s purse strings when it comes to Ukraine.

On February 16, former senator Norm Coleman, senior counsel with law firm Hogan Lovells, who oversaw the raising and spending of over $260 million in funds supporting Republican congressional candidates in the 2022 midterm elections, filed FARA paperwork revealing that he is pro-bono lobbyist for a foundation controlled by Ukrainian oligarch Victor Pinchuk. 

Coleman, who has extensive experience as a lobbyist for foreign interests via his long standing role as an agent for Saudi Arabia, was already busy at work for Ukraine. February 4 emails, disclosed as part of Coleman’s FARA disclosures, revealed him requesting assistance from senators Lindsey Graham and Thom Tillis’s chiefs of staff in hosting an event at the Capitol “...to give members of Congress a better understanding of the horrific loss of life and the tragic agony that the people of Ukraine have experienced over the course of the last year as a direct result of Russian war crimes” and “do as much as possible to ensure continued, strong, bipartisan support for the truly heroic efforts that this administration and Congress have made to provide the essential military and economic assistance to Ukraine.” 

While Hogan Lovells conducts this work pro-bono, two of the firm’s paying clients, Looking Glass Cyber Solutions and HawkEye 360, have extensive Defense Department contracts and an interest in the conflict in Ukraine.

Looking Glass, which paid Hogan Lovells $200,000 in 2022, holds a five year contract with the Department of Defense “to provide tailored cyber threat intelligence data and enhance the mission effectiveness of U.S. military cyber threat analysts and operators” and writes on its website about the role of such threats in Russia’s military strategy. 

HawkEye 360, which also paid $200,000 to Hogan Lovells in 2022, similarly is a Defense Department contractor, specializing in detection and geolocation of radio signals. Their detection network conducted analysis in Ukraine and their website boasts of identifying GPS interference in Ukraine, appearing to be part of Moscow’s “...integration of electronic warfare tactics into Russian military operation to further degrade Ukraine’s ability for self-defense.”

Hogan Lovells did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

BGR

BGR Government Affairs (BGR), a lobbying and communications firm, began working pro-bono for two Ukrainian interests last May, the contracts are with Vadym Ivchenko, a member of Ukraine’s parliament, and Elena Lipkivska Ergul, an advisor to Ukraine president Volodymyr Zelenskyy.

In 2022 BGR made more than half a million dollars lobbying for Pentagon contractors, some of whom are already profiting from the Ukraine war. Raytheon, for example, which paid BGR $240,000 to lobby on its behalf in 2022, according to OpenSecrets, has already been awarded more than $2 billion in government contracts related to the Ukraine war.

Indeed, two days before Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, a BGR adviser was publicly calling for increased military aid to Ukraine in the face of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s recognition of the so-called Luhansk and Donetsk People's Republics as independent states. 

“Militarily, the United States and NATO allies need to get far more serious about helping Ukraine defend itself,” wrote BGR Senior Adviser Ret. Amb. Kurt Volker in an article published by the Center for European Policy Analysis (CEPA). 

His article, “Buckle Up: This is Just the First Step,” was promoted on the BGR website. CEPA did not disclose Volker’s BGR affiliation in the article. The affiliation is disclosed elsewhere on CEPA's site. 

“BGR has no conflict of interest and is proud of its work on behalf of Ukraine and all of its clients,” said BGR President Jeffrey H. Birnbaum in a statement responding to questions about whether their work posed any conflict of interest.

Mercury

Mercury Public Affairs (Mercury), a lobbying, public affairs and political strategy consultancy, began working pro-bono for GloBee International Agency for Regional Development ("GloBee"), a Ukrainian NGO, in mid-March 2022. While the firm made headlines for agreeing to work for a Ukrainian client pro-bono, the firm's FARA filing later in the year shows that Mercury’s work consisted of sending just four emails on Globee’s behalf in the first three-and-a-half months of this arrangement.

Mercury, like BGR, was also working on behalf of Pentagon contractors in 2022, while working for a Ukrainian client pro-bono. All told, Mercury reported being paid more than $180,000 for lobbying on behalf of Pentagon contractors in 2022.

Mercury’s work for a Ukrainian client is also notable because prior to the Ukraine war the firm had, for years, been working on behalf of Russian interests. This work included lobbying on behalf of Russia’s Sovcombank, as well as a Russian energy company founded by Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska. Deripaska was recently implicated in a scheme to violate US sanctions, which included payments to a former FBI agent that had previously investigated him. Mercury dropped both of these Russian clients when the Ukraine war began, but not before earning nearly $3 million from these Russian interests in the five years before the firm agreed to work for a Ukrainian client pro-bono, according to FARA filings.

Mercury did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

Navigators Global

On April 29, 2022 Navigators Global, which describes itself as an “issues management, government relations and strategic communications firm,” registered under FARA to represent the Committee on National Security, Defence, and Intelligence of the Ukrainian Parliament. According to the firm's FARA filing, they reached out to dozens of key members of Congress on behalf of the Ukrainian parliament — including eight phone calls, texts, and emails with now-Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy — and contacted the House and Senate Armed Services Committees two dozen times. 

As Navigators Global was doing this pro-bono lobbying of the policymakers in Congress with, arguably, the greatest sway over U.S. military assistance to Ukraine, the firm was also raking in revenue from Pentagon contractors. Specifically, in 2022 Navigators Global also made $830,000 working on behalf of Pentagon contractors, according to lobbying data compiled by OpenSecrets. The firm’s lobbying filings also show that their work for these contractors was directed, amongst other issues, at the “FY23 National Defense Authorization Act,” the defense policy bill that increased spending on the “Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative” by half a billion dollars. 

Navigators Global did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

Ogilvy

On August 26, 2022 Ogilvy Group, a massive advertising and public relations agency, registered under FARA to work with the Ministry of Culture and Information Policy of Ukraine on the Ministry’s “Advantage Ukraine Initiative.” The initiative's website describes it as the “Investment initiative of the Government of Ukraine,” and perhaps unsurprisingly, the top investment option is Ukraine’s defense industry. Ogilvy is joined in this endeavor by fellow FARA registrants Group M and Hill & Knowlton Strategies, as well as the marketing company Hogarth Worldwide which has not registered under FARA.  

While the Ogilvy Group spread “the message that Ukraine is still open for business,” as its statement of work with the Ministry explains, Ogilvy Government Relations was lobbying for Pentagon contractors who paid the firm nearly half-a-million dollars in 2022. While these two Ogilvy organizations are technically separate entities, they are owned by the same parent company WPP. At least one of the contractors that Ogilvy Government Relations lobbies for, Fluor, would appear to directly benefit from increased U.S. military support for Ukraine and heightened U.S. military presence in Europe more generally. In 2020, the U.S. Army Europe’s 7th Army Training Command awarded Fluor with a five year Logistics Support Services contract, which a Fluor spokesman explained, “positions Fluor for future work with the U.S. European Command and the U.S. Africa Command headquarters located in Germany.” Fluor paid Ogilvy Government Relations $200,000 for lobbying in 2022, according to OpenSecrets.

Ogilvy did not respond to a request to comment on the record.

***

As the war in Ukraine heads into its second year, U.S. defense spending continues to balloon. “There’s high demand for weapons to transfer to Ukraine and to replenish shrinking U.S. stockpiles…contractors are seeing billions of dollars in Ukraine related contracts,” Julia Gledhill, who investigates defense spending at the government watchdog the Project On Government Oversight, explained in an interview. Weapons and defense contractors received nearly half — $400 billion — of the $858 billion 2023 defense budget. With this, the flood of money to weapons firms, and their expenditures on lobbyists, will only continue to grow. For many lobbying firms, those expenditures may create growing financial incentives to conduct pro-bono work steering U.S. policy in directions generating synergies with the interests of their paid clients.

This article was amended on March 3 2023 to clarify the US charges made against Oleg Deripaska.

This article was amended on March 17 2023 to clarify CEPA's disclosure of Volker's BGR affiliation elsewhere on their website.


Image: esfera via shutterstock.com
Reporting | Europe
Pedro Sanchez
Top image credit: Prime Minister of Spain Pedro Sanchez during the summit of Heads of State and Government of the European Union at the European Council in Brussels in Belgium the 26th of July 2025, Martin Bertrand / Hans Lucas via Reuters Connect

Spain's break from Europe on Gaza is more reaction than vision

Europe

The final stage of the Vuelta a España, Spain’s premier cycling race, was abandoned in chaos on Sunday. Pro-Palestinian protesters, chanting “they will not pass,” overturned barriers and occupied the route in Madrid, forcing organizers to cancel the finale and its podium ceremony. The demonstrators’ target was the participation of an Israeli team. In a statement that captured the moment, Spain’s Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez expressed his “deep admiration for the Spanish people mobilizing for just causes like Palestine.”

The event was a vivid public manifestation of a potent political sentiment in Spain — one that the Sánchez government has both responded to and, through its foreign policy, legitimized. This dynamic has propelled Spain into becoming the European Union’s most vocal dissenting voice on the war in Gaza, marking a significant break from the transatlantic foreign policy orthodoxy.

Sanchez’s support for the protesters was not merely rhetorical. On Monday, he escalated his stance, explicitly calling for Israel to be barred from international sports competitions, drawing a direct parallel to the exclusion of Russia over its invasion of Ukraine. “Our position is clear and categorical: as long as the barbarity continues, neither Russia nor Israel should participate in any international competition,” he said. This position, which angered Israel and Spanish conservatives alike, was further amplified by his culture minister, who suggested Spain should boycott next year’s Eurovision Song Contest if Israel participates.

More significantly, it emerged that his government had backed its strong words with concrete action, cancelling a €700 million ($825 million) contract for Israeli-designed rocket launchers. This move, following an earlier announcement of measures aimed at stopping what it called “the genocide in Gaza,” demonstrates a willingness to leverage economic and diplomatic tools that other EU capitals have avoided.

Sánchez, a master political survivalist, has not undergone a grand ideological conversion to anti-interventionism. Instead, he has proven highly adept at reading and navigating domestic political currents. His government’s stance on Israel and Palestine is a pragmatic reflection of his coalition that depends on the support of the left for which this is a non-negotiable priority.

This instinct for pragmatic divergence extends beyond Gaza. Sánchez has flatly refused to commit to NATO’s target of spending 5% of GDP on defense demanded by the U.S. President Donald Trump and embraced by NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, citing budgetary constraints and social priorities.

Furthermore, Spain has courted a role as a facilitator between great powers. This ambition was realized when Madrid hosted a critical high level meeting between U.S. and Chinese trade officials on September 15 — a meeting Trump lauded as successful while reaffirming “a very strong relationship” between the U.S. and China. This outreach is part of a consistent policy; Sánchez’s own visit to Beijing, at a time when other EU leaders like the high representative for foreign policy Kaja Kallas were ratcheting up anti-Chinese rhetoric, signals a deliberate pursuit of pragmatic economic ties over ideological confrontation.

Yet, for all these breaks with the mainstream, Sánchez’s foreign policy is riddled with a fundamental contradiction. On Ukraine, his government remains in alignment with the hardline Brussels consensus. This alignment is most clearly embodied by his proxy in Brussels, Iratxe García Pérez, the leader of the Socialists and Democrats (S&D) group in the European Parliament. In a stark display of this hawkishness, García Pérez used the platform of the State of the Union debate with the EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen to champion the demand to outright seize frozen Russian sovereign assets.

This reckless stance, which reflects the EU’s broader hawkish drift on Ukraine, is thankfully tempered only by a lack of power to implement it, rendering it largely a symbolic act of virtue signaling. The move is not just of dubious legality; it is a significant error in statecraft. It would destroy international trust in the Eurozone as a safe repository for assets. Most critically, it would vaporize a key bargaining chip that could be essential in securing a future negotiated settlement with Russia. It is a case of ideological posturing overriding strategic calculation.

This contradiction reveals the core of Sánchez’s doctrine: it is circumstantial, not convictional. His breaks with orthodoxy on Israel, defense spending and China are significant, but driven, to a large degree, by the necessity of domestic coalition management. His alignment on Ukraine is the path of least resistance within the EU mainstream, requiring no difficult choices that would upset his centrist instincts or his international standing.

Therefore, Sánchez is no Spanish De Gaulle articulating a grand sovereigntist strategic vision. He is a fascinating case study in the fragmentation of European foreign policy. He demonstrates that even within the heart of the Western mainstream which he represents, dissent on specific issues like Gaza and rearmament is not only possible but increasingly politically necessary.

However, his failure to apply the same pragmatic, national interest lens to Ukraine — opting instead for the bloc’s thoughtless escalation — proves that his policy is more a product of domestic political arithmetic than coherent strategic vision. He is a weathervane, not a compass — but even a weathervane can indicate a shift in the wind, and the wind in Spain is blowing away from unconditional Atlanticism.

US think tanks are the world's least transparent
Top image credit: Metamorworks via shutterstock.com

US think tanks are the world's least transparent

Washington Politics

According to a new survey, North American think tanks are tied as the least transparent of any region. The poll, conducted by On Think Tanks, surveyed 335 think tanks from over 100 countries. The accompanying report, released today, found that only 35% of North American think tanks (mostly from the U.S.) that responded to the survey disclose funding sources. By comparison, 67% of Asian think tanks and 58% of African think tanks disclose their funding sources.

And there are signs that think tank funding transparency is trending towards more opacity. Just last month, the Center for American Progress — a major center-left think tank with $46 million in annual revenue — announced that it would no longer disclose its donors. The think tank said it was taking this “temporary protective step” out of concern that the Trump administration could target them.

keep readingShow less
Fort Bragg horrors expose dark underbelly of post-9/11 warfare
Top photo credit: Seth Harp book jacket (Viking press) US special operators/deviant art/creative commons

Fort Bragg horrors expose dark underbelly of post-9/11 warfare

Media

In 2020 and 2021, 109 U.S. soldiers died at Fort Bragg, the largest military base in the country and the central location for the key Special Operations Units in the American military.

Only four of them were on overseas deployments. The others died stateside, mostly of drug overdoses, violence, or suicide. The situation has hardly improved. It was recently revealed that another 51 soldiers died at Fort Bragg in 2023. According to U.S. government data, these represent more military fatalities than have occurred at the hands of enemy forces in any year since 2013.

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.