Follow us on social

President-joe-biden-delivers-remarks-to-department-f89fe4-1024-e1688932501220

Biden roils oversight community with nominations for Ukraine aid watchdogs

The administration is facing blowback for passing over the acting inspectors general at USAID and the State Department.

Reporting | Washington Politics

The White House sent waves through the oversight community yesterday when it announced  its nominations for new inspectors general for the State Department and U.S. Agency for International Development, or USAID.

In a move that a senior official in the oversight community called “unusual” and “surprising,” the Biden administration passed over the women currently serving in the roles in favor of two male candidates with limited foreign policy experience.

“The nominations were surprising to many in the IG community given the visibility and the attention to the work that these two women were [doing] and continue to do on the most prolific foreign policy oversight issues we’ve ever had,” the official told RS. “Ukraine has been their number one priority.”

The news comes as debates in Washington rage over how to best conduct oversight of the $113 billion that Congress has allocated to support Ukraine’s defense against Russian troops. The State Department and USAID are responsible for $46.1 billion of those funds.

In the House defense policy bill passed earlier this month, Republicans included a measure to establish a special inspector general for Ukraine aid, modeled after the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction, or SIGAR. On Wednesday night, the Senate shot down a similar amendment to its version of the annual defense policy bill in a 20-78 vote.

President Joe Biden opposes efforts to create a special IG for Ukraine and said he wants to remove it from the final version of the bill. In a White House statement, the administration argued that a special watchdog would be unnecessary given that there are already “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 some worry that removing the current acting inspectors general could have a negative impact on those investigations. “Any new IG, there’s a learning curve,” the official said. “There’s a degree of diplomacy that’s involved,” they added, noting that the current IGs have “had those in-person meetings with the Ukrainians in Kyiv.”

Paul Martin, who now heads up the IG office at NASA, was nominated to replace Nicole Angarella as the USAID IG, and Cardell Richardson, Sr., the top watchdog of the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, is slated to take over from Diana Shaw at State. Martin has never held a foreign policy-related position, while Richardson has largely served in roles related to the military and intelligence communities.

It is unclear why the Biden administration chose to pass over Angarella and Shaw. The White House did not respond to a request for comment.

Biden nominated Angarella for the USAID IG position back in 2021, but her candidacy languished due to squabbles between the White House and Senate leaders. Her nomination expired when the new Congress took office in January. Shaw, for her part, has served as the acting IG for State since late 2020 but was never nominated to officially take over the role.

If Congress moves quickly to approve Martin and Richardson’s nominations, it will be welcome news to those who worry about the limits on “acting” officials. As Lynne Halbrooks — a former acting IG for the Pentagon — told RS last year, long vacancies can have a “devastating” effect on an agency’s internal operations, “which ultimately might have an effect on the oversight mission.”

But it remains unclear whether the nominees will have an easy path forward in the Senate, especially given ongoing partisan battles over Ukraine aid oversight.


President Joe Biden delivers remarks to Department of Defense personnel, the Pentagon, Washington, D.C., Feb. 10, 2021. (DoD photo by Lisa Ferdinando)
Reporting | Washington Politics
Iran
Top image credit: An Iranian man (not pictured) carries a portrait of the former commander of the IRGC Aerospace Forces, Brigadier General Amir Ali Hajizadeh, and participates in a funeral for the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) commanders, Iranian nuclear scientists, and civilians who are killed in Israeli attacks, in Tehran, Iran, on June 28, 2025, during the Iran-Israel ceasefire. (Photo by Morteza Nikoubazl/NurPhoto VIA REUTERS)

First it was regime change, now they want to break Iran apart

Middle East

Washington’s foreign policy establishment has a dangerous tendency to dismantle nations it deems adversarial. Now, neoconservative think tanks like the Washington-based Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) and their fellow travelers in the European Parliament are openly promoting the balkanization of Iran — a reckless strategy that would further destabilize the Middle East, trigger catastrophic humanitarian crises, and provoke fierce resistance from both Iranians and U.S. partners.

As Israel and Iran exchanged blows in mid-June, FDD’s Brenda Shaffer argued that Iran’s multi-ethnic makeup was a vulnerability to be exploited. Shaffer has been a vocal advocate for Azerbaijan in mainstream U.S. media, even as she has consistently failed to disclose her ties to Azerbaijan’s state oil company, SOCAR. For years, she has pushed for Iran’s fragmentation along ethnic lines, akin to the former Yugoslavia’s collapse. She has focused much of that effort on promoting the secession of Iranian Azerbaijan, where Azeris form Iran’s largest non-Persian group.

keep readingShow less
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

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.