Follow us on social

Shutterstock_463663361-scaled

DoD: Retired US officers marching into work for foreign governments

DoD laundry list exposes how much money is on offer for military brass looking to cash in on their connections and influence

Analysis | Reporting | North America

Members of Congress have obtained a list of former military officers who have done paid work for foreign governments since 2012. It may be a surprise — or not — that the list includes 77 senior officials (Generals and Admirals), and that the countries that employed them represent some of the most repressive governments in the world (Saudi Arabia, Egypt and the UAE).

Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) requested the information from the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the list was included in a broader memo of responses to their questions relating to the activities of retired officers. According to the OSD, there were 450 notifications of employment for foreign governments from 2012 through 2022. Of them, 12 were denied, 21 were administratively closed or withdrawn, and 11 are pending State or DoD approval.

The top country of employment? The UAE. Of the 47 different nations listed in the report, more than half of the approvals were for work with the Emirates, either with the country directly or with contractors working on behalf of the country. Of the total UAE jobs, only 35 disclosed their compensation. The remaining 185 are listed as “not available” or “not reported.”

The UAE’s prominence in this list is especially notable because, while these DoD officials were working for the UAE, its government was masterminding a number of schemes to illegally meddle in U.S. politics and elections. These provocations and the UAE’s enormous legal influence operation in the U.S. did not go unnoticed by the U.S. intelligence community which, last fall, briefed lawmakers on a classified intelligence report outlining UAE efforts to meddle in American politics and bend U.S. foreign policy to its will, as first reported by John Hudson at the Washington Post.

Despite all of this, the Department of Defense reported to Warren and Grassley that just two requests (less than 1 percent) for work with the UAE government were denied.

Some of the senior officials listed here were real go-getters, gaining permission to work for multiple foreign governments at the same time. For example, Major General Charles J. Dunlap Jr. received eight separate approvals to work for foreign governments, including three for the UAE, as well as Canada, Denmark, Israel, and Scotland. 

Former NSA head General Keith Alexander was the next highest with five  total approvals for work with foreign governments — three with the government of Singapore, one with Saudi Arabia, and one with Japan. (As the Washington Post pointed out yesterday, the Saudi Arabia deal was for $700,000 and was inked after the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi in 2018).

“There seems to be a high demand for retired senior military officers to work for foreign governments, particularly autocracies,” noted our colleague and investigative journalist Eli Clifton.

“The obvious question is: What are these former officers bringing to the table in exchange for six-figure paydays? Is it just their experience? Or is it their connections, influence and stature back in Washington?”

There are some other high profile retirees on this list, too. In 2019 Lt. Gen. Douglas Lute had a contract as a senior adviser from the Jones Group International/Libya for $15,000 a month. Lt. General James Clapper worked for the Office of National Intelligence in Australia for an undisclosed amount. H.R. McMaster, former Trump national security adviser, worked on behalf of the Japanese government at the Hudson Institute, beginning in 2019, for $250,000 annually, according to the list.

In addition, former Trump defense secretary Gen. James Mattis served as a conference presenter in the UAE less than a year after leaving office and separately as an adviser for the UAE, both for an undisclosed amount. Adm. William Fallon, who served as the commander of U.S. Central Command from 2007-2008, is listed as part- owner of the Global Alliance Advisors consulting firm, which was expected to get more than $23 million from the government of Qatar (his own compensation was “in excess of $250,000”).

The OSD responses were shared with Responsible Statecraft in addition to Senator Warren’s new report, “Pentagon Alchemy: How Defense Officials Pass through the Revolving Door and Peddle Brass for Gold,” which will be released during today’s Armed Services Subcommittee on Personnel, which she chairs.

The report details some 672 former government officials, military officers, legislative staff and members of Congress working for the top 20 defense contractors in 2022. Of that number, 91 percent were serving as lobbyists.

The top five contractors in the revolving door are no surprise, either — Boeing (85 hires), Pfizer (73 — which also had a lot of defense contracts during COVID), Raytheon (64), General Dynamics (57), and Lockheed Martin, (53).

Critics say both lists  — the revolving door stateside and work for foreign governments — highlight the need for reform. On the foreign employment side, hundreds  of the names were blocked out as, per DoD rules, the names of individuals with ranks 0-6 and below are withheld. Additionally, while these DoD forms require applicants list their expected compensation for foreign government work, in more than half of all applications this information wasn’t provided.  Needless to say, more transparency is necessary. 

Stateside, Sen. Warren has proposed legislation that would put a four-year ban on major contractors  hiring senior DoD officials or any former employers who worked on their contracts while in government, along with a number of other measures. Quincy Institute defense analyst Bill Hartung says so many of these relationships are brokered to influence U.S. policy and to create business for the military industrial complex, prioritizing “war and preparations for war over dialogue and diplomacy.” 

“The more that can be done to rein in these widespread conflicts-of-interest, the better chance we will have of crafting a foreign policy that serves the interests of the public, not self-interested corporations and foreign entities.”


(Tianyu Han/Shutterstock)
Analysis | Reporting | North America
Rand Paul Donald Trump
Top photo credit: Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) (Shutterstock/Mark Reinstein) and President Trump (White House/Molly Riley)

Rand Paul to Trump: Don't 'abandon' MAGA over Maduro regime change

Washington Politics

Sen. Rand Paul said on Friday that “all hell could break loose” within Donald Trump’s MAGA coalition if the president involves the U.S. further in Ukraine, and added that his supporters who voted for him after 20 years of regime change wars would "feel abandoned" if he went to war and tried to topple Nicolas Maduro, too.

President Trump has been getting criticism from some of his supporters for vowing to release the files of the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein and then reneging on that promise. Paul said that the Epstein heat Trump is getting from MAGA will be nothing compared to if he refuses to live up to his “America First” foreign policy promises.

keep readingShow less
Trump ASEAN
Top photo credit: U.S. President Donald Trump looks at Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., next to Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim when posing for a family photo with leaders at the ASEAN Summit in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, October 26, 2025. Vincent Thian/Pool via REUTERS

‘America First’ meets ‘ASEAN Way’ in Kuala Lumpur

Asia-Pacific

The 2025 ASEAN and East Asia Summits in Kuala Lumpur beginning today are set to be consequential multilateral gatherings — defining not only ASEAN’s internal cohesion but also the shape of U.S.–China relations in the Indo-Pacific.

President Donald Trump’s participation will be the first by a U.S. president in an ASEAN-led summit since 2022. President Biden skipped the last two such summits in 2023 and 2024, sending then-Vice President Harris instead.

keep readingShow less
iran, china, russia
Top photo credit: Top image credit: Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov and and Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi shake hands as Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Ma Zhaoxu looks on during their meet with reporters after their meeting at Diaoyutai State Guest House on March 14, 2025 in Beijing, China. Lintao Zhang/Pool via REUTERS

'Annulled'! Russia won't abide snapback sanctions on Iran

Middle East

“A raider attack on the U.N. Security Council.” This was the explosive accusation leveled by Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov this week. His target was the U.N. Secretariat and Western powers, whom he blamed for what Russia sees as an illegitimate attempt to restore the nuclear-related international sanctions on Iran.

Beyond the fiery rhetoric, Ryabkov’s statement contained a message: Russia, he said, now considers all pre-2015 U.N. sanctions on Iran, snapped back by the European signatories of the 2015 nuclear deal (JCPOA) — the United Kingdom, France, Germany — “annulled.” Moscow will deepen its military-technical cooperation with Tehran accordingly, according to Ryabkov.

This is more than a diplomatic spat; it is the formal announcement of a split in international legal reality. The world’s major powers are now operating under two irreconcilable interpretations of international law. On one side, the United States, the United Kingdom, France, and Germany assert that the sanctions snapback mechanism of the JCPOA was legitimately triggered for Iran’s alleged violations. On the other, Iran, Russia, and China reject this as an illegitimate procedural act.

This schism was not inevitable, and its origin reveals a profound incongruence. The Western powers that most frequently appeal to the sanctity of the "rules-based international order" and international law have, in this instance, taken an action whose effects fundamentally undermine it. By pushing through a legal maneuver that a significant part of the Security Council considers illegitimate, they have ushered the world into a new and more dangerous state. The predictable, if imperfect, framework of universally recognized Security Council decisions is being replaced by a system where legal facts are determined by political interests espoused by competing power blocs.

This rupture followed a deliberate Western choice to reject compromises in a stand-off with Iran. While Iran was in a technical violation of the provisions of the JCPOA — by, notably, amassing a stockpile of highly enriched uranium (up to 60% as opposed to the 3.67% for a civilian use permissible under the JCPOA), there was a chance to avert the crisis. In the critical weeks leading to the snapback, Iran had signaled concessions in talks with the International Atomic Energy Agency in Cairo, in terms of renewing cooperation with the U.N. nuclear watchdog’s inspectors.

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.