Follow us on social

52019176965_8fa3af048f_k

Will proposed watchdog for Ukraine aid make it past the White House?

Despite concerns from Republicans, the Biden administration says current oversight efforts are more than enough.

Analysis | Washington Politics

Since the new Congress took over in January, Republican lawmakers have been fighting to establish a special inspector general for Ukraine aid. The proposal — modeled on the special IGs for Afghanistan and Iraq — has slowly gained momentum as the war has settled into an apparent stalemate, signaling the possibility of a long and expensive conflict.

The idea earned a boost last month when Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) added a provision to an annual defense bill that would authorize funding for a Ukraine oversight office. Gaetz’s amendment made it through the House Armed Services Committee, and the Appropriations Committee approved funding for a special IG in a parallel bill. So the proposal is now poised to make it through the House, barring a significant twist in the amendments process.

But a major stumbling block remains. In a statement from the White House Office of Management and Budget, the Biden administration said it wants the provision removed, setting up a fight when the House and Senate versions of the National Defense Authorization Act go to conference later this year.

The White House argued that current oversight efforts — which include a joint plan from several inspectors general — are already more than enough, citing “multiple investigations regarding every aspect of this assistance — from assessing the processes for developing security assistance requirements to evaluating the end-use monitoring processes for delivered assistance.”

But others are not so sure. John Sopko — the long-time Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction — slammed the administration’s approach to Ukraine aid oversight in an interview with RS earlier this year. 

“This is the problem of the three IGs. They can come up with a way to coordinate their work, but the DoD IG cannot look at State programs. The State IG cannot look at AID programs,” Sopko said. “They’re going to try their best, but I think there’s something like 14 or 17 separate U.S. oversight bodies. So you got 17 of those, plus you have like 50-some countries involved, and each one of them has an oversight body. I mean, this is like herding cats.”

“You just can’t spend that much money that fast without having money being diverted and weapons being diverted,” he added. “We are naive if we think just because it’s a noble cause there won’t be corruption.”

It remains unclear whether Sopko’s arguments will prove persuasive to the Senate, which voted down previous efforts to establish a special Ukraine watchdog from Sens. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) and Rand Paul (R-Ky.). 

But persuasion may not matter in this case. In recent years, the president and congressional leaders have largely negotiated the final NDAA behind closed doors after a version of the bill passed the House and Senate. Given the importance of consistent funding for the military, the draft agreed by leadership has generally gotten a quick rubber stamp from each chamber.

In other words, the proposal’s success largely hangs on whether House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) is willing to fight for it. McCarthy has previously expressed support for expanding oversight of Ukraine aid. But only time will tell if he is ready to battle the White House to get it.


President Joe Biden holds a meeting with military and civilian defense leadership, including Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark A. Milley, at the White House, April 20, 2022. (DoD photo by Lisa Ferdinando)
Analysis | Washington Politics
Ratcliffe Gabbard
Top image credit: Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and CIA director John Ratcliffe join a meeting with U.S. President Donald Trump and his intelligence team in the Situation Room at the White House in Washington, D.C., U.S. June 21, 2025. The White House/Handout via REUTERS

Trump's use and misuse of Iran intel

Middle East

President Donald Trump has twice, within the space of a week, been at odds with U.S. intelligence agencies on issues involving Iran’s nuclear program. In each instance, Trump was pushing his preferred narrative, but the substantive differences in the two cases were in opposite directions.

Before the United States joined Israel’s attack on Iran, Trump dismissed earlier testimony by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, in which she presented the intelligence community’s judgment that “Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and Supreme Leader Khamanei has not authorized the nuclear weapons program he suspended in 2003.” Questioned about this testimony, Trump said, “she’s wrong.”

keep readingShow less
Mohammad Bin Salman Trump Ayatollah Khomenei
Top photo credit: Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad Bin Salman (President of the Russian Federation/Wikimedia Commons); U.S. President Donald Trump (Gage Skidmore/Flickr) and Iran’s Ayatollah Khamenei (Wikimedia Commons)

Let's make a deal: Enrichment path that both Iran, US can agree on

Middle East

The recent conflict, a direct confrontation that pitted Iran against Israel and drew in U.S. B-2 bombers, has likely rendered the previous diplomatic playbook for Tehran's nuclear program obsolete.

The zero-sum debates concerning uranium enrichment that once defined that framework now represent an increasingly unworkable approach.

Although a regional nuclear consortium had been previously advanced as a theoretical alternative, the collapse of talks as a result of military action against Iran now positions it as the most compelling path forward for all parties.

Before the war, Iran was already suggesting a joint uranium enrichment facility with Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) on Iranian soil. For Iran, this framework could achieve its primary goal: the preservation of a domestic nuclear program and, crucially, its demand to maintain some enrichment on its own territory. The added benefit is that it embeds Iran within a regional security architecture that provides a buffer against unilateral attack.

For Gulf actors, it offers unprecedented transparency and a degree of control over their rival-turned-friend’s nuclear activities, a far better outcome than a possible covert Iranian breakout. For a Trump administration focused on deals, it offers a tangible, multilateral framework that can be sold as a blueprint for regional stability.

keep readingShow less
Trump Netanyahu
Top image credit: White House April 7, 2025

Polls: Americans don't support Trump's war on Iran

Military Industrial Complex

While there are serious doubts about the accuracy of President Donald Trump’s claims about the effectiveness of his attacks on Iranian nuclear sites, the U.S./Israeli war on Iran has provided fresh and abundant evidence of widespread opposition to war in the United States.

With a tenuous ceasefire currently holding, several nationwide surveys suggest Trump’s attack, which plunged the country into yet another offensive war in the Middle East, has been broadly unpopular across the country.

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.