Prominent artificial intelligence research organization OpenAI recently appointed newly retired U.S. Army General and former National Security Agency (NSA) director Paul M. Nakasone to its board of directors.
Nakasone will join the Board’s newly announced Safety and Security Committee, slated to advise OpenAI’s Board on critical safety- and security-related matters and decisions.
Established following an exodus of OpenAI higher-ups concerned about the company’s perceived de-prioritization of safety-related matters, the new Safety and Security Committee is OpenAI’s apparent effort to reestablish a safety-forward reputation with an increasingly wary public.
AI safety concerns are of the utmost importance, but OpenAI should not use them to ram through an appointment that appears poised to normalize AI’s militarization while spinning theever-revolving door between defense and intelligence agencies and Big Tech.
The ‘revolving door’ strikes again
Following his 38-year military career, including over five years headingU.S. Army Cyber Command, Nakasone’s post-retirement OpenAI appointment and shift to the corporate sector mimics the military-industrial complex’s ever-“revolving door” between senior defense or intelligence agency officials and private industry.
The phenomenon manifests itself in rampant conflicts of interest and massive military contracts alike: according to an April 2024 Costs of War report, U.S. military and intelligence contracts awarded to major tech firms had ceilings “worth at least $53 billion combined” between 2019 and 2022.
Quietly lifting language barring the military application of its tech from its website earlier this year, OpenAI apparently wants in on the cash. The company is currently collaborating with the Pentagon on cybersecurity-related tools to prevent veteran suicide.
A slippery slope
OpenAI remains adamant its tech cannot be used to develop or use weapons despite recent policy changes. But AI’s rapid wartime proliferation in Gaza and Ukraine highlights other industry players’ lack of restraint; failing to keep up could mean losing out on lucrative military contracts in a competitive and unpredictable industry.
Similarly, OpenAI’s current usage policies affirm that the company’s products cannot be used to “compromise the privacy of others,” especially in the forms of “[f]acilitating spyware, communications surveillance, or unauthorized monitoring of individuals.” But Nakasone’s previous role as director of the NSA, an organization infamous for illegally spying on Americans, suggests such policies may not hold water.
In NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden’s words: “There is only one reason for appointing an[NSA] Director to your board. This is a willful, calculated betrayal of the rights of every person on Earth.”
All things considered, Nakasone’s OpenAI appointment signals that a treacherous, more militarized road for OpenAI, as well as AI as a whole, likely lies ahead.
Stavroula Pabst is a reporter for Responsible Statecraft.
Director, General Paul Nakasone, National Security Agency, appears before a Senate Committee on Intelligence hearing to examine worldwide threats, in the Hart Senate Office Building in Washington, DC, USA, Wednesday, March 8, 2023. Photo by Rod Lamkey/CNP/ABACAPRESS.COM via REUTERS
A group of Democratic lawmakers led by Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) on Tuesday slammed a Republican proposal to pour $150 billion into the military beyond the increases already planned for 2025.
“Republicans are putting the Pentagon before the people,” Markey said during a press conference on Capitol Hill highlighting wasteful Pentagon spending.
The senator stood next to a large list of alternative projects that could be funded by a $150 billion allocation including new hospitals, student loan forgiveness, affordable housing units, and free school lunches.
Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) took aim at Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency, highlighting the hypocrisy of a military budget increase amid massive cuts to much smaller federal agencies like the U.S. Agency for International Development, the National Institute of Health, and the Department of Education.
“Let’s not be fooled by the hollow claims that Elon is going to go after waste in Pentagon spending,” she said.
Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) said the $150 billion spending increase proposal was driven by her colleagues’ investments in the military industrial complex, echoing an opinion piece she published in the Detroit Free Press late last month.
Rounding out the slate of speakers were Robert Weissman, co-president of Public Citizen, Gabe Murphy, and Thomas Countryman. Murphy, a policy analyst at the nonpartisan organization Taxpayers for Common Sense, lamented the bloating influence of private companies, noting that “half of our budget goes to defense contractors.”
Meanwhile, Countryman, a former U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for International Affairs and current Board Chairman at the Arms Control Association, criticized the proposal’s emphasis on nuclear weapons spending as a defense strategy. “What concerns me about this particular agenda request by Republicans is that it will contribute to a nuclear arms race,” he said.
keep readingShow less
Top Image Credit: Straight Arrow News: Nearly 100 US Special Forces vets hired to operate key checkpoints in Gaza (YouTube/Screenshot)
The notion of sending private contractors to Gaza has been floated numerous times, to mixed-to-poor reviews. Last year, National Security expert Peter Singer dismissed the cause as “not even half baked.” More recently, a retired military official told RS it was a “bad, bad idea.” Even Washington Post columnist David Ignatius described the concept as “potentially controversial.”
Despite the disquiet, U.S. private contractors are ultimately going to Gaza to work on checkpoint and security maintenance as part of a multinational consortium created pursuant to the recent ceasefire and hostage deal. The consortium, according to Axios, is to facilitate Palestinians’ return to north Gaza while preventing possible weapons flow in the same direction.
Two American contracting outfits are involved. The first, Safe Reach Solutions (SRS) drew up operational plans for a key checkpoint between southern and northern Gaza. The second, UG Solutions, has been assigned to help staff it — company emails say that armed guards will carry out “internal vehicle checkpoint management and vehicle inspection[s]” there.
For this mission, UG Solutions is offering a daily rate of at least $1,100 to personnel (at least 100) it sends to the enclave — along with a $10,000 advance. Contractors have reportedly already been deployed.
The introduction of private contractors is apparently critical to the success of the ceasefire, as Israel’s earlier demands to have IDF forces staff the checkpoint were reportedly holding up previous attempts to broker a deal. But former private military contractors who spoke with Responsible Statecraft say the practice of privatizing military and security-related affairs poses a number of risks to the contractors while allowing governments — in this case, the United States and Israel — to forgo putting their own military on the ground.
Furthermore, these experts say, the private military industry in general — thanks to the built-in profit incentive and overarching opacity of its operations — lends itself to exacerbating and prolonging violence and conflict, not restraining it.
Opacity by design
Founded in Davidson, North Carolina, in 2023, UG Solutions offers little information about its operations on its website. There is little publicly known about it and the company did not respond to multiple inquiries by RS. Jameson Govoni, a principal individual managing the organization, is a former U.S. Special Forces soldier.
Former contractors described UG Solutions’ furtiveness to RS as an industry hallmark. “The need for non-attribution in warfare, the need for plausible deniability to get away with things, is one of the drivers of the market for… mercenaries,” said Dr. Sean McFate, a former contractor and author ofThe Modern Mercenary: Private Armies and What They Mean for World Order.“That's why [the industry is] opaque, because that's one of the chief selling points.”
Indeed, the rules governing private military and security contractors’ conduct rest on shaky foundations due to the legal ambiguities created by operating abroad as non-military personnel.
“We weren’t under the UCMJ [Uniform Code of Military Justice] as civilians. We weren’t under the laws of Iraq as PMCs [private military contractors], and U.S. laws are not meant to govern civilians in combat zones,” said former Blackwater contractor Morgan Lerette, the author of Guns, Girls, and Greed: I Was a Blackwater Mercenary in Iraq. “We didn’t have any codified rules of engagement or defined chain of command. It was legally ambiguous.”
The former contractors also observed that their peers had had little outside support during and after their service, despite risking their lives on the job, but also, as Lerette had observed, suffering from post-service mental health problems sometimes leading to suicides.
According to Brown University’s Cost of War project, 50% more contractors than troops were present in the U.S. Central Command region in 2019, which included Iraq and Afghanistan. In fact, more contractors than service members have died in wars waged post-9/11.
“Contractors are cheaper than hiring your own military…when the conflict is over, you don't have to send them home to sit at… Fort Liberty, where they're drawing a paycheck but not fighting. You just fire them, the contract is over,” McFate explained. “You don't have responsibility for [contractors’] physical or mental health. You don't have responsibility for taking care of their funeral. There's no Arlington Cemetery for them.”
And working in Gaza certainly poses varying risks for contractors and Palestinian civilians alike. “If I were there [as a contractor], my biggest concern would be taken hostage by Hamas and used as leverage for negotiations,” Lerette explained, elucidating the risks faced by U.S. contractors in a conflict zone.
UG Solutions’ contractors are allegedly tasked to stop vehicles only if something brought to the checkpoint is “deemed unsafe,” according to Washington Post reporting. But Truthout reporter Sharon Zhang, observing that Israel has often banned necessities, including food, from Gaza, wonders whether UG Solutions’ purported checkpoint activities would stay true to their publicly proclaimed scope.
Along similar lines, McFate asserted that contractors’ wrongdoings, even accidental ones, could “inflame the situation.” Again, it would be easier to avoid backlash and brush it under the rug. “Israel and Washington can really try to use the inherent plausible deniability with…contractors and say, ‘okay, they're fired. It wasn't us,'" he said.
Private contracting: a tool for forever war?
We should not be surprised that contractors are being used to provide security in this volatile situation because contracting has become one to engage in war without incurring political baggage or accountability. Indeed, former contractors say the practice can actually feed conflict.
“Using PMCs [private military contractors] has become a way for politicians to put U.S. citizens in harm's way while avoiding ‘boots on the ground,’” Lerette said. “PMCs are being used as proxy armies so the American public doesn’t protest getting into the next forever war…A contractor being killed or injured overseas doesn’t get the same media attention as a service member.”
Then there are the baked-in incentives to keep business going.
“When you tie lethality to profit margin [through contracting], you're incentivizing the potential to start and elongate conflicts for interest, for profit,” McFate told RS. “I'm not accusing the contractors on the ground in Gaza of wanting to do that, but they are a tentacle of a larger animal that is seeking to do this very thing.”
“I'm not saying it's happening, but it's possible some [contractors] would go to a place and, you know, start messing things up so they can create demand for their own supply,” he added.
On the other hand, McFate highlighted that the private contractors being sent to Gaza by UG Solutions, as former Green Berets, are experienced and competent. “Contractors, if they're well used, can do a great deal of good in the world, and I'm hoping that these individual contractors in Gaza can help do that,” said McFate. “But there's a chance they can royally mess it up.”
In this respect, Lerette expressed concern regarding the many responsibilities, especially ethical ones, that could be imposed on personnel operating in Gaza. “I call [private contracting] outsourcing the morality of combat operations to private contractors, because those guys have to make split decisions [about tenuous on-the-ground-conditions] without having those rules and regulations like a military member does,” Lerette said.
“It is a big moral conundrum on what to do or what not to do [in a conflict zone]. And when you outsource that morality [to private contractors], it’s a bad way to go.”
keep readingShow less
Top photo credit: Pam Bondi speaks on the day of her swearing in ceremony as U.S. Attorney General, at the White House in Washington, U.S., February 5, 2025. REUTERS/Kent Nishimura
Buried within a flurry of memos from the Department of Justice Wednesday was a clear and concise invitation for foreign actors and lobbyists to secretly meddle in America.
When it comes to the nation’s preeminent law for regulating foreign influence in the U.S., the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), the DOJ is henceforth only going to bring criminal charges in “instances of alleged conduct similar to more traditional espionage by foreign government actors,” according to a memo sent late Wednesday from Attorney General Pam Bondi.
“These changes are an invitation to foreign actors to interfere in American affairs,” Aaron Zelinsky, a former DOJ national security prosecutor, told Bloomberg Law, which first reported this news. “Even worse, it’s an invitation to Americans to help them do it.”
Bondi knows all of this better than most, as she was previously a registered foreign agent working for Ballard Partners, a Florida-based firm with close ties to President Trump. She provided “advocacy services relative to U.S.-Qatar bilateral relations” on a contract worth $115,000 a month.
Firms representing foreign governments, like Ballard and others covered by FARA are required to disclose certain information about who they are working for, who they are contacting, and the size of their contracts. But, with Bondi’s announcement, fear of punishment for flauting the these disclosure requirements will disappear along with the transparency they afforded to the American people. This is music to the ears of foreign government officials looking to covertly influence American politics and lobbyists looking to avoid disclosure — such as Bondi’s colleague Kash Patel, Trump's nominee for head of the FBI, who came under fire this week for his undisclosed work for Qatar.
Citing concerns of “risks of further weaponization and abuses of prosecutorial discretion,” Bondi also disbanded the Foreign Influence Task Force, which was set up to identify covert foreign influence operations. For all of the talk of the weaponization of FARA, the DOJ has only brought 13 FARA cases in the past three years.
And several of those Biden-era FARA cases — and closely related foreign influence statutes — involved high-level Democrats, not Republicans. That list includes New York City mayor Eric Adams, Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-Texas), and, of course, former Democratic Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chair Bob Menendez, who just last week was sentenced to 11 years in prison for taking bribes — including piles of cash and gold bars — from the Egyptian government. It’s unclear if corruption cases short of espionage, such as these, would be pursued under Bondi’s new DOJ guidelines.
Josh Rosenstein, a partner at Sandler Reiff Lamb Rosenstein & Birkenstock, which advises clients on FARA compliance, explained via email that he is concerned that “a wide swath of foreign influence operations would go undisclosed” under the new guidelines. For instance, Azerbaijan’s Deputy Foreign Minister scared off several Washington lobbyists last year after asking them to avoid FARA disclosure. Amidst the Trump Administration’s foreign influence fire sale, he might find it easier to shop around for a new contract off the books.
With criminal charges much less likely, Bondi claims that FARA will still be able to focus on “civil enforcement.” Good luck with that; FARA does not have civil investigation authority or even the ability to issue civil fines, rendering this concession all but useless. There are no speeding tickets for minor FARA violations, which is a glaring weakness that multiple FARAreform bills have sought to remedy.
In response to a series of questions seeking clarity on the threshold for criminal charges and how they plan to enforce civil fines, DOJ spokesperson Peter Carr declined to comment beyond the memo.
Relying on these toothless tools will cripple America’s ability to fight malign foreign influence in the U.S. Authoritarian countries stand to benefit most from this lack of enforcement. Not only do they lead the way in lobbying activities, but some of the biggest spenders on foreign influence under FARA are regimes like China, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar. And, that’s just the funding that’s been reported. Under Bondi’s new guidelines, firms worried about the reputational risks of working with an abusive despotic client — like the firms that cut ties with Saudi Arabia after the murder of Jamal Khashoggi — will now have a perverse incentive to simply avoid registering altogether. Bondi’s guidance effectively gives them the green light to keep all their influence off the books.
If the Trump administration wants to live up to its slogan of putting “America First” the very least it can do is defend America from foreign meddling. President Trump and Attorney General Bondi should rescind this guidance and put America first by defending it from covert foreign influence.
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.