The Biden administration says it is giving Israel 30 days to address concerns related to the humanitarian crisis in Gaza.
In a letter to two senior Israeli officials dated Oct. 13, Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin said, “We are now writing to underscore the U.S. government’s deep concern over the deteriorating humanitarian situation in Gaza, and seek urgent and sustained actions by your government this month to reverse this trajectory.”
But critics are panning the letter, calling it a political gambit that’s too little and too late.
“I don’t know whether I'm terribly naive, I still have the capacity to be shocked, but the degree of cynicism required to set a 30 day limit … which coincidentally, gets you past the election date,” said Daniel Levy, president of the U.S./Middle East Project. Levy spoke about the letter Tuesday during a panel discussion on Israel’s war in Gaza hosted by the Quincy Institute.
The letter warns that a “failure to demonstrate a sustained commitment to implementing and maintaining these measures may have implications (arms embargo) for U.S. policy under NSM-20 and relevant U.S. law.” The problem with this is that “the Biden administration hasn’t done this (ultimatums) throughout” the last year when it could have, according to Levy.
Others wondered, given atrocities are playing out in real time, whether the Biden administration would act on its ultimatum.
“The U.S. giving Israel 30 days to allow humanitarian aid into Gaza or face cuts in weapon shipments is the most dishonest and morally bankrupt announcement I've seen for a long time,” said former UK diplomat Ian Proud on X. “Surely U.S. voters aren't so stupid they won't spot a big can of worms kicked down the street until after the elections?”
Blinken and Austin say that a minimum of 350 aid trucks per day need to enter Gaza through the four major crossings, as well as a fifth crossing that must be opened. Additionally, they want to ensure that Israel is not preventing essential items from entering Gaza by listing them as “dual use.”
They also insist “that there will be no Israeli government policy of forced evacuation of civilians from northern to southern Gaza.”
Dr. Annelle Sheline, Middle East fellow at the Quincy Institute, said that the letter appears to be a “clear acknowledgement” that the Biden administration knows that Israel is flouting laws governing U.S. military assistance.
Aaron is a reporter for Responsible Statecraft and a contributor to the Mises Institute. He received both his undergraduate and masters degrees in international relations from Liberty University.
Sea-launched, nuclear-armed cruise missiles, or SLCM-Ns, were considered unnecessary for U.S. national security for years. But now, the Navy’s pushing to bring SLCM-Ns back — even if doing so costs taxpayers billions.
Indeed, U.S. Navy Vice Admiral Johnny Wolfe told House Armed Services Committee members on May 7 that the Navy was fast tracking the development of the Sea-Launched Cruise Missile - Nuclear, known as the SLCM-N, along with the Trident II D5 Strategic Weapons System and hypersonic missiles.
Speaking at the “Nuclear Forces and Atomic Energy Defense Activities Programmatic Updates” hearing, Wolfe depicted SLCM-Ns as vital for modernizing both the U.S. nuclear infrastructure and the Navy's deterrence capacity.
SLCM-Ns bring “another option to our decision makers to deter our adversaries. It is an underlay for our triad and certainly it brings a regional weapon and a deterrent that we just don’t have today,” he told the committee.
SLCM-N proponents say the missiles are vital for national security and for maintaining a modern nuclear arsenal with greater availability and regional presence. In fact, critics say, a renewed proliferation of SLCM-Ns today could heighten prospects for nuclear conflict while doing little to meaningfully bolster deterrence.
How SLCM-Ns came out of retirement
Initially proposed by the first Trump administration in 2018, SLCM-Ns mark the return to the realm of nuclear-armed, sea-launched cruise missiles — despite policymakers’ repeated gripes that the program was ultimately unnecessary for national security.
Indeed, the Navy retired its previous TLAM-N missiles, where nuclear-armed Tomahawk land-attack cruise missiles were placed on ships and submarines, in 2013 following a 2010 Obama administration recommendation that the program be retired.
Specifically the 2010 Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) stated that the SLCM-N system “serves a redundant purpose,” as “one of a number of means to forward-deploy nuclear weapons in time of crisis.”
Similarly, deeming that the already expansive range of non-strategic nuclear capacities rendered SLCM-Ns unnecessary, the Navy also moved to shelve the Trump-era SLCM-N initiative in 2022. The Biden administration’s policy statements regarding the FY2023 and FY2024 National Defense Authorization Acts (NDAA) further posited that SLCM-N programming "would divert resources and focus from higher modernization priorities."
Despite these repeated objections, Congress continued to fund the SLCM-N and its associated warhead.
Wolfe’s witness testimony indicated that the Navy’s Strategic Systems Programs (SSP) was standing-up a SLCM-N program office, established in March 2024, and was “conducting the assessments needed to deliver a weapon system that meets Warfighter needs.”
Meanwhile, experts warn the Navy’s push for this cruise missile could bolster prospects for nuclear conflict and provoke other logistics- and security-related issues.
“The nuclear-armed sea-launched nuclear cruise missile is especially destabilizing because an adversary would have a hard time telling a nuclear armed one from the non-nuclear missile, making an accidental nuclear exchange more likely,” the Quincy Institute’s William Hartung told RS.
“This is a big deal, and [a] major reversal for the Navy, which for years said it did not want nor need this weapon,” Geoff Wilson, Distinguished Fellow and Strategic Advisor for the National Security Reform Program at the Stimson Center, explained.
Wilson supposed that introducing nuclear warhead-studded missiles to vessels and territories unprepared to receive them could also complicate Naval logistics while possibly frustrating relationships with allies.
“How much thought has gone into how these weapons will change the missions of these boats, which would now be barred from making port calls in key allied nations like Japan, which does not allow U.S. nuclear weapons into its territory?” Wilson asked.
The SLCM-N could also scuttle other diplomatic ventures with adversaries. “The focus on the SLCM-N seems to undermine President Trump's stated interest in having nuclear arms control and strategic stability talks with Russia and China,” Jennifer Kavanagh, Senior Fellow and Director of Military Analysis at Defense Priorities, told RS. “It will be hard to convince Moscow and Beijing that Washington is serious about these negotiations if it is simultaneously surging the development of a new nuclear weapon.”
And Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz) depicted SLCM-N as a strategic mishap in the event of a war with China. At a May 20 Senate Armed Services Subcommittee on Strategic Forces hearing, he suggested the cruise missile's placement on Virginia class submarines could bludgeon the submarines’ traditional warfighting capacities.
“The likelihood that we have to use the conventional [warfighting capacity]…of a Virginia class submarine in a conflict with China is rather high, if we got into a conflict. The probability that we would use the nuclear systems aboard this [Virginia class] submarine are actually rather low. So, we're going to sacrifice the exquisite capability of this platform [by attaching an SLCM-N to it], and it's going to become a little less capable,” Kelly mused. “It could be significant.”
Breaking the bank
The SLCM-N push calls for billions of taxpayer dollars amid already runaway military budgets, where the DoD, already proposing a whopping $1 trillion defense budget for next year, also intends on spending almost a trillion more on other nuclear weapons in the years to come.
“Last year Congress authorized $322 million for SLCM-N. The continuing resolution added at least $150 million to the program, and the new ‘reconciliation’ bill currently in front of Congress would add $2 billion to the program over the next four years,” Wilson explained. “That is a lot of money for a weapon the Navy said it didn't want consistently over the last two administrations.”
“This has all the makings of a ‘Washington warhead’ that will do little to improve U.S. deterrence or international strategic stability,” Wilson concluded. “I sincerely hope that Congress will change course and exercise some actual oversight into [the] strategic rationale behind the program.”
keep readingShow less
Top photo credit: The Lockheed Martin Corporation on display during the Seoul International Aerospace and Defense Exhibition(ADEX) 2023 at the Seoul Air Base on October 18, 2023 in Seongnam, south of Seoul. (Photo by Chris Jung/NurPhoto)
President Donald Trump announced some $200 billion in potential arms sales to Saudi Arabia and Qatar a week ago — this is huge potential business for major U.S. defense contractors like RTX, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman and General Atomics, all of which deploy armies of lobbyists in Washington each year to influence such contracts.
A new bipartisan bill dropping this week will impose some of the strictest bans to date to make sure former government officials aren’t lobbying on behalf of those big companies or foreign countries to get their share of this massive federal pie. In fact, the legislation will make it a crime to do so.
House Foreign Affairs Committee colleagues Reps. Warren Davidson (R-Ohio) and Sara Jacobs (D-Calif.) are planning to introduce the No Revolving Doors in Foreign Military Sales (FMS) Act, which aims to tackle a space that has been growing exponentially due in part to major current conflicts in Israel and Ukraine and the desire of partner countries to arm up and enhance “deterrence.”
The Davidson/Jacobs bill will impose a three-year moratorium or “cooling off period” on any lobbying by former Pentagon or State Department officials associated with FMS during their time in government on behalf of new employers in the defense industry and/or foreign actors who have contracts or are seeking contracts for foreign military sales.
“We must keep these deals free from conflicts of interest — they are too critical in protecting our national security. By enforcing a three-year lobbying ban, we close the door on undue influence within this critical process,” Davidson said in a statement.
The DoD currently has a blanket one-year cooling off period for lobbyists (two years for highest ranking officers) but critics have long complained that the rules are inconsistently enforced across departments and there are persistent loopholes that are easily exploited.
“Unfortunately, the loopholes that keep the revolving door spinning allow former civil servants who were involved in foreign military sales to immediately work for the defense industry or foreign actors once they leave the executive branch,” said Jacobs. For example, the definition of “lobbying” is fungible, with former officials instead hired as “consultants” who can do everything to influence their former employer without triggering official lobbying rules.
But the new bill makes it a penalty for former government officials to engage “knowingly” with “any communication or appearance before any officer or employee of any Federal department or agency or Congress to influence such foreign military sales.”
Davidson — who also wants to compel the Pentagon to pass a financial audit — told RS that the new lobbying measure stems from the House Foreign Affairs Committee's foreign arms sales task force and that there's momentum to pass it, whether as a stand alone provision or as part of a bigger bill like the NDAA.
"This is a time where some of this kind of legislation can actually have a chance to move," he said. "You have people that work for the government, do the sales, and then right after they do the sales they wind up working for defense contractors. And you could see an obvious conflict of interest there."
To say the revolving door is a problem is an understatement, especially with the major contractors that stand to benefit the most from these major deals. The aforementioned Trump deal includes $1 billion worth of drones from RTX (formerly Raytheon) for Qatar. Meanwhile General Atomics stands to make $2 billion from selling Qatar its advanced MQ-9B aircraft.
Meanwhile, most of the nearly 2,000 former DoD employees (both civilian and military) who went to work in the defense industry from 2014 to 2019 went to major prime contractors and mostly in those companies’ weapons divisions. According to the GAO in 2021, the most, 315, went to work for RTX.
Over 80 percent of retired generals after 2018 went to work for the arms industry as board members, advisers, executives, consultants, lobbyists, or members of financial institutions that invest in the defense sector, according to a more recent report by the Quincy Institute. Since 2019, defense contractors have spent over $216 million directly lobbying the federal government, according to OpenSecrets.
These dynamics produce two major conflicts of interest: weapons companies have an edge paying former Pentagon and State Department officials big bucks because they know they can influence their former colleagues making decisions in the highly competitive foreign sales space. Second, officials still on the job at these agencies can feather their post-retirement nests with prospective defense companies by helping them game the system while they still have direct influence over government contracts.
While he wasn’t working for a weapons company, Adm. Robert Burke was convicted just the other day of bribery for accepting a job with a $500,000 salary and stock options while he was still working for the Navy. He did this in exchange for help to steer contracts to Next Jump, a technology services company that did work with the military.
Bill Hartung, who wrote the Quincy study, said the Davidson/Jacobs bill was a good start.
“It doesn't address the loopholes that apply to the huge numbers of folks who leave DoD to go to industry each year — over 1,700 in one recent year, according to GAO. But it addresses a critical issue and could serve as a model for strengthening revolving door strictures on other officials leaving DoD to work or industry,” he noted.
A third potential risk that the bill hopes to address is undue influence from foreign countries that hire former government employees as lobbyists and consultants, creating a situation where countries that shouldn’t be getting our weapons because obtaining them may not be in the U.S. national security interest, have a Washington conduit that makes it happen anyway.
“It should go without saying,” said Jacobs, “U.S. arms sales should be made to promote U.S. national security, not to get ahead professionally or cash in.”
keep readingShow less
Top photo credit: Sen. Lindsey Graham (U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) speaks outside the White House following the Oval Office meeting between Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy and U.S. President Donald Trump, in Washington, D.C., U.S., February 28, 2025. REUTERS/Nathan Howard)
While tariffs make wars more likely, embargoes make wars difficult to avoid. Senator Lindsey Graham’s Sanctioning Russia Act calls for 500% tariffs on dozens of countries and essentially amounts to an embargo.
If this bill were to pass, it would cause an economic calamity on a scale never before seen in our country.
In its insistence that Moscow be a permanent enemy of the United States, the foreign policy establishment is pushing to impose more punitive measures on Russia should they refuse to negotiate a peace deal with Ukraine. The Sanctioning Russia Act seeks to inflict a series of additional sanctions and prohibitions of various financial transactions with Russia.
Yet, the most consequential and outright reckless provision of the bill seeks to enact minimum 500% secondary tariffs on countries who trade with Russia. Though the bill seeks to punish Russia, it will also punish America’s allies and even the United States itself. The global policemen in Washington are so incredulous that they cannot force peace between Russia and Ukraine that they formally abandoned even the pretense that their meddling is in America’s interests.
Specifically, the bill directs the President to impose 500% tariffs on all goods and services imported into the United States from a country that “knowingly sells, supplies, transfers, or purchases oil, uranium, natural gas, petroleum products, or petrochemical products that originated in the Russian Federation.” This tariff is subject to increase by no less than 500% every 90 days, meaning some countries could face 1,000% tariffs in just a few months.
In response to its invasion of Ukraine, the United States and its allies imposed some 16,000 sanctions, froze Russia’s sovereign assets, and implemented a series of severe financial restrictions. As the war wages in its fourth bloody year, it is safe to say that these measures unequivocally failed to alter Moscow’s war aims.
This inevitable failure was, of course, easily predictable to anyone who honestly assessed Russia’s motives for launching the war. The Kremlin views maintaining influence over Ukraine as necessary to prevent Ukraine’s alignment with the West, particularly preventing its efforts to join NATO, as a core national security interest. Countries will go to great lengths to secure what they deem are core interests, and given the tremendous amount of blood and treasure it has expended, Russia is no different.
Therefore, one should not expect additional punitive measures to alter Moscow’s strategic calculus in any meaningful manner.
Dozens of countries continue to trade with Russia directly and indirectly including key strategic allies and even the United States itself. In 2024, the United States imported $624 million worth of enriched uranium and plutonium directly from Russia. The United States, like many other countries, has also seen Russian crude oil imported from third countries who buy Russian oil and then sell it abroad. Are the proponents of this legislation honestly seeking to require the President to enact a 500 % tariff on ourselves?
What other countries would this bill implicate? According to the UN Comtrade Database, Israel imported $10.6 million in plastics from Russia in 2024. Do supporters of this bill really want to slap a 500% tariff on Israel while it is engaged in a multifront war? Last year, Taiwan, who many consider to be key to the U.S. defense posture in Asia, was Russia’s top consumer of naphtha — a petrochemical used in the production of plastics. Does anyone truly think that imposing a 500% tariff on all Taiwanese goods entering the United States will put them in a better position to defend themselves from potential Chinese aggression?
Likewise, Japan, another key ally in Asia, imported some $3.6 million worth of liquified natural gas (LNG) and hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of plastics and rubber from Russia in 2024.
Our allies in Europe would also be severely affected. Despite strong rhetoric condemning Moscow, imports of Russian LNG into the European Union (EU) rose by 19.3% in 2024. In the first 15 days of 2025, EU countries imported over 837,000 metric tons of Russian LNG, with Germany, France, Belgium, and Spain being key importers. According to Trade Data Monitor, Ukraine itself is estimated to have imported over $200,000 in petroleum products from Russia in 2024, and up until January 1, 2025, Ukraine was facilitating the transfer of Russian gas to Europe via its trans-national pipelines.
The country that will be harmed the most under this legislation will be the United States, both economically and strategically. If implemented, these tariffs would make U.S. trade with most of the world untenable, raise prices for American consumers, and risk further weakening the dollar.
It would also degrade our relations with several important allies at a time when geopolitics is increasingly volatile. The United States should be leveraging its allies now more than ever as we face a myriad of pressing priorities, including an unsustainable $36 trillion national debt. Instead, this misguided legislation would drive many of our allies away and into the arms of other trading partners, including China. The bill certainly will not do anything to convince Russia to sue for peace in Ukraine. Rest assured that Moscow would welcome the United States sowing further division with its key trading partners.
Never underestimate Washington’s ability to make things worse. The Sanctioning Russia Act of 2025 will cut off our nose to spite our face. Congress should reject this misguided bill and instead focus its efforts to advance realistic peace negotiations in Ukraine and pursue policies that advance America’s national interests
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.