Follow us on social

google cta
Hawley

Hawley amendment to create special watchdog for Ukraine aid rejected

The Republican senator said Americans deserve to know the $113 billion appropriated for Kyiv is well-spent and accounted for.

Analysis | Europe
google cta
google cta

A measure that would create a special inspector general to oversee U.S. Ukraine aid has failed. Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) had hoped to attach an amendment to a broader bill repealing the 2022 and 1991 Authorizations for the Use of Military Force (AUMFs).

The vote Tuesday night was 26 for and 68 against Hawley's amendment. All but two votes for the measure came from Republicans. The two Democrats in favor were Sens. Jon Tester of Montana and Jon Osoff of Georgia. Sen. Kristin Sinema, an Independent from Arizona, also voted for the amendment. Republicans were decidedly split, with 22 voting against their colleague.

A final vote for the AUMF bill is expected this week.

Hawley has joined other Republican colleagues in calling for oversight of the over $113 billion in aid that has been appropriated for Ukraine since the beginning of the war a year ago. Of that total, over $75 billion has been spent.

Earlier in March, Hawley (R-Mo.) and Sen. J.D. Vance (R-Ohio) introduced a standalone bill that would create a Special Inspector General for Ukraine Assistance (SIGUA) to oversee all military and non-military U.S. assistance, direct the new office to submit quarterly reports to Congress on obligations and expenditure of U.S funds and the provision of weapons and equipment, and track the Ukrainian government’s compliance with anti-corruption measures, among other provisions.

"(Ukraine) is now the largest recipient of United States overseas aid, we need to have one watchdog that is fully accounting for everything we spent and how it’s being used," Hawley told Fox News this week "It’s very simple."

He said he envisioned the SIGUA to be much like the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan (SIGAR) John Sopko, who the senator called "tough and tenacious."

Sopko, who has been SIGAR since 2012, found that at least $19 billion in U.S. taxpayer funds sent to Afghanistan was lost to waste, fraud and abuse from 2002 to 2020. It could have been much more than that, given that Sopko's office only combed through $63 billion of the $134 billion the U.S. appropriated for reconstruction during that period.

But this is only part of the story. SIGAR had a heck of time even tracking the funds in the early days of Sopko's tenure. At one point, his office reported that at least $45 billion spent before 2010 (SIGAR was created in 2008, mind you; he wasn't on the job until 2012) on rebuilding Afghanistan couldn't readily be found. According to Sopko at the time, this wasn't an abuse or fraud issue, but accounting chaos: The Pentagon didn't record everything the same way, and as a result, was only able to turn over data for $21 billion of the $66 billion it spent during that time period.

This only speaks for the need to get one's arms around the billions that have already been sent to Ukraine in the form of weapons and economic assistance, supporters of Hawley's efforts say. "Oversight on aid today means a safer Europe tomorrow. It is not in America's, Europe's or Ukraine's interest for the us to send over $115 Billion in aid, much of it lethal arms, without taking care to ensure it doesn't get redirected to corrupt bureaucrats or worse, potential terrorist cells which could render the entire region vastly more dangerous for decades," charges Saurabh Sharma, president of the conservative American Moment.

"Senator Hawley's amendment is a practical solution to helping prevent a long tail of undesirable outcomes," he added.

Nevertheless, Hawley and Vance will now have to find another way to create SIGUA after today's vote. Critics of the legislation, which included Hawley's own GOP colleague, Sen. James Risch from Idaho, said a SIGUA would be duplicating some 60 auditing and reporting processes already in place to keep track of the money. In other words, this isn't Afghanistan and they don't need a SIGUA.

"(We) have found zero siphoning of U.S. dollars," Risch said on the floor before the vote. "This is an expenditure that is not necessary because it is being looked after already."


Senator Josh Hawley, R-Mo. (DoD Photo by Navy Petty Officer 1st Class Dominique A. Pineiro)
google cta
Analysis | Europe
Did the US only attack Iran because of Israel?
Top image credit: President Donald J. Trump holds a joint news conference at the White House with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Feb. 4, 2025. (Shutterstock/ Joshua Sukoff)

Did the US only attack Iran because of Israel?

QiOSK

In the months that led up to the Iraq War, the Bush administration went to extraordinary lengths to convince the world of the need to oust Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. Leading officials laid out their case in public, sharing what they claimed was evidence that Iraq was moving rapidly toward the deployment of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. When U.S. tanks rolled across the border, everyone knew the justification: the U.S. was determined to thwart Iraq’s development of weapons of mass destruction, however fictitious that threat would later prove to be.

In the months that led up to the Iran War, the Trump administration took a different tack. President Trump spoke only occasionally of Iran, offering a smattering of justifications for growing U.S. tensions with the country. He claimed without evidence that Iran was rebuilding its nuclear program after the U.S.-Israeli attack last June and even developing missiles that could strike the United States. But he insisted that Tehran could make a deal with seven magic words: “we will never have a nuclear weapon.”

keep readingShow less
Starmer Macron Merz
Top image credit: France's President Emmanuel Macron, Britain's Prime Minister Keir Starmer and Germany's Chancellor Friedrich Merz arrive at Kyiv railway station on May 10, 2025, ahead of a gathering of European leaders in the Ukrainian capital. LUDOVIC MARIN/Pool via REUTERS
Europe's snapback gamble risks killing diplomacy with Iran

Craven Europeans give US and Israel a blank check for illegal war

Middle East

In the aftermath of the new U.S. and Israeli strikes on Iran, the transatlantic alliance has offered a response that confirmed what many both in the West and outside knew all along: that for London, Paris, Berlin, and Brussels, the "rules-based international order" has been reduced to a simple, brutal premise: might makes right, provided the might is Western.

The joint statement from the E3 — France, Germany, and the United Kingdom — is a master class in evasion. "We did not participate in these strikes, but are in close contact with our international partners, including the United States and Israel," they declared. The text also lists all the references and rationalizations used by Iran hawks — “nuclear program, ballistic missile program, regional destabilization and repression against its own people.”

keep readingShow less
Trump Iran
Top image credit: Hundreds of people attend a pro-democracy demonstration against U.S. President Donald Trump in Washington, D.C., U.S., on February 28, 2026. Demonstrators cited a number of reasons for their opposition to Trump, including his involvement with sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein, ICE raids, authoritarian policies, and today’s bombing of Iran. (Photo by Allison Bailey/NurPhoto) via REUTERS CONNECT

How does this war with Iran end? Or does it?

QiOSK

Now that President Trump has launched an illegal, unprovoked war of choice on Iran, the next question inevitably becomes: how does this end? Or, what are some off ramps Trump can take to end it before the situation turns out of control?

There are three broad scenarios; the first and most likely is that Trump continues this until he gets some sort of regime implosion and then declares victory, while also washing his hands of whatever follows.

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.