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
Oil disruption from Iran war won’t end any time soon
REUTERS/Essam al-Sudani/File Photo

People walk near farmland by the Zubair oil field as gas flares rise in the distance, in Zubair Mishrif, Basra, Iraq, amid regional tensions following the recent disruption to shipping in the Strait of Hormuz and the U.S.-Israeli conflict with Iran, March 9, 2026.

Oil disruption from Iran war won’t end any time soon

QiOSK

The US-Israel-Iran war has led to extraordinary volatility in global energy markets this week, and there is little reason to think that it will abate any time soon.

Benchmark Brent crude, which traded below $60 per barrel early this year, jumped to $80 last Thursday. It then bounced to $120 in thin weekend markets and, as of this writing, has settled in around $92. In other words, the range of the recent oil price has been 50% of where it was a mere five days ago.

keep readingShow less
Dan Caine
Top photo credit: Secretary of War Pete Hegseth and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff U.S. Air Force Gen. Dan Caine conduct a press briefing on Operation Epic Fury at the Pentagon, Washington, D.C., March 4, 2026. (DoW photo by U.S. Navy Petty Officer 1st Class Alexander Kubitza)

Did Caine just announce the Morgenthau option for Iran?

QiOSK

Gen. Dan Caine’s formulation of American war aims in Iran is remarkable not because it is bellicose, but because it is strategically incoherent.

In a press conference Tuesday morning, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff did not describe a limited campaign to suppress missile fire, blunt Iran’s naval threat, or even impose a severe but bounded setback on Tehran’s coercive instruments. He described a campaign against Iran’s “military and industrial base” designed to prevent the regime from attacking Americans, U.S. interests, and regional partners “for years to come.” In an earlier briefing he put the objective similarly: to prevent Iran from projecting power outside its borders. Rather than the language of a discrete coercive operation, this describes a war against a state’s capacity to regenerate power.

keep readingShow less
Ilham Aliyev azerbaijan iran
Top photo credit: Azerbaijan president Ilham Aliyev visited Embassy of Islamic Republic of Iran, offered condolences over death of former President Ayatollah Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, in 2017. (Office of the President of Azerbaijan/public domain)

Neocons wanted an Azeri uprising against Iran. They didn't get it.

Middle East

With Iran resisting the U.S./Israeli onslaught for the second week, what was supposed to be a quick transition to a pro-U.S. regime following the decapitation strike that killed Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is fast turning into a quagmire. While the U.S. and Israel continue to sow mayhem on Tehran from the skies, the previously unthinkable option of sending ground troops to Iran is gaining ground.

First, an apparent plan was being hatched to employ Kurdish fighters to take on Tehran. Then, when drones, allegedly flying from Iran although Tehran denied it, struck the Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic of Azerbaijan — hitting an airport terminal and a village school, and wounding four civilians — the stage appeared set for the opening of a northern front against Iran. Here was an alleged act of aggression from Iranian territory against Israel's closest partner in the South Caucasus. It offered the pretext to goad Azerbaijan into joining the U.S.-Israeli war on Iran.

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.