Long-time hawk and critic of President Trump Republican Mitch McConnell has announced that he would not seek re-election to the U.S. Senate.
The perennial incumbent from Kentucky, who consistently opposed what he saw as “isolationism” in the Republican party, was first elected in 1984 and has represented his home state ever since. He is up for reelection in 2026.
McConnell was and is a regular voice of opposition to what he calls the “isolationist movement” in the Republican Party. A long-time supporter of American extension overseas, McConnell supported Buch’s 2002 Iraq War Resolution, as well as further troop surges to the country. Historically, he was hawkish toward Russia as well. He opposed the 2010 ratification of the New Start nuclear reduction treaty between Washington and Moscow, consistently supported sanctions, and worked with Democratic Senate leader Chuck Schumer to send additional aid to Ukraine in 2024.
McConnell has long invited public clashes with President Trump, particularly recently over the Ukraine War. McConnell still supports aid to the country, while Trump previously threatened to cut aid. He also voted against some of Trump’s key appointments, notably Tulsi Gabbard for Director of National Intelligence and Pete Hegseth as Secretary of the Department of Defense.
After announcing his departure from party leadership in 2024, McConnell warned against “right-wing flirtation with isolation and decline.”
“Standing up to China will require Trump to reject the myopic advice that he prioritize that challenge by abandoning Ukraine,” remarked McConnell. “A Russian victory would not only damage the United States’ interest in European security and increase U.S. military requirements in Europe; it would also compound the threats from China, Iran, and North Korea.”
He also criticized Trump’s diplomatic style, saying that “Trump sometimes undermined these tough policies through his words and deeds. He courted Putin, he treated allies and alliance commitments erratically and sometimes with hostility,” concluding that “these public episodes raised doubts about whether the United States was committed to standing up to Russian aggression, even when it actually did so.”
McConnell is not only the longest-serving sitting senator but also the longest-serving Senate party leader in the United States. He became Minority Leader in 2007 and led the Senate GOP until 2024. During his last term, the 83-year-old struggled with regular health problems, including repeated falls and extended “freezes” during press briefings and conferences.
McConnell vowed to reject calls to “give up on American primacy” and to continue fighting what he described as isolationism in the GOP.
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.
Top Photo: Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) listens as U.S. President Donald Trump speaks during a meeting Republican Congressional leaders about tax reform at the White House in Washington, U.S., September 5, 2017. REUTERS/Joshua Roberts
A perpetual fever dream of the National Security Establishment is to speed up the process of buying new weapons. Few should be surprised by this considering that it can take years, and sometimes decades, to field a new piece of hardware.
Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth is expected to shortly issue new acquisition guidance meant to deliver new tech to the troops “at the speed of relevance,” to steal a common Pentagon refrain. Before the new administration’s reformers begin implementing solutions, they need to understand the true nature of the problem.
The current acquisition process is far from perfect and does need to be streamlined, but the process itself is not the primary reason new weapon programs blow through their budgets and fall years behind schedule.
Acquisition programs struggle mainly because they are poorly conceived. The fundamental mindset within the national security establishment is that more technology is always better, but this causes the majority of delays and cost growth. Service leaders and their allies in the defense industry work to pack as many features as possible into every weapon and then wonder why they can’t get all the components to work together properly.
An emblematic example is the F-35’s Distributed Aperture System notably represented by the program’s $400,000 helmet. Fighter pilots need to be able to see what is happening in the sky around them. History has shown that the pilot who spots the enemy first is typically the one who wins.
The best fighters throughout history like the F-86 and the F-16 were designed to improve the pilot’s visibility by having them sit high in the fuselage with a clear bubble canopy. Pilots of those aircraft could use the greatest ocular device yet discovered… the human eyeball.
Such an organic solution apparently would not suffice for the F-35, so designers had to devise something more befitting of the 21st century. Enter the Distributed Aperture System. It uses a series of cameras mounted in the skin of the jet which projects images into the pilot’s helmet visor. Program boosters called the system “magical” and used it as a major selling point for the F-35.
The Government Accountability Office offered a different assessment. In a 2023 report, their analysts singled out the Distributed Aperture System as a primary degrader of the F-35’s full mission capable rate. A reasonable person would be justified to believe that F-35 pilots at least find the system useful.
As it turns out, that is not the case. When asked about the DAS by a documentary crew, an F-35 pilot said that if he needs to see what is beneath him, he simply rolls the jet on its side and looks with his own eyes because he can see “with much higher clarity.”
The term of art for adding needless complexity to weapon programs is “gold plating.” Defense industry leaders engage in the practice for both financial and political reasons. They get to charge the government for the extra costs to research and develop the technologies.
Additionally, each new gadget becomes a subcontract to be awarded to a supplier. These suppliers are scattered all over the country. The member of Congress representing the district containing one of these suppliers suddenly has a vested political interest in the program’s survival. The same goes for the state’s two senators.
Sticking with the F-35 example, Lockheed Martin now claims suppliers for that program in all 50 states according to a helpful interactive map created by the contractor.
Once all of these components are built, they have to be assembled into a F-35. Bolting everything together can be problematic, but system integration at the software level is the real trouble in the information age. The Pentagon’s top testing official recently reported that software development in the F-35 program has stagnated as developers discover flaws faster than they can create fixes.
Any acquisition reform proposal coming from the new administration that does not address the gold plating tendency will fail to produce the desired results. Simply streamlining the weapon buying process without fundamentally changing design practices will only deliver warfighters more acquisition failures at a slightly faster pace.
Accountable acquisition reform begins with a shift in thinking. Weapons are only tools people use in combat. As anyone who has reached for a screwdriver knows, the best tools are the simplest ones that can perform the intended function. In the event that U.S. warfighters employ weapons in combat – which the United States must proactively prevent at all costs – they must be effective. Any additional features make the tool more expensive and are just as likely to distract from the task.
Simplicity is a key in weapon design. Simple weapons have shorter development cycles and cost less. Secretary Hegseth can save money and deliver capabilities to the troops faster merely by changing the way people think about weapon design.
The war in Ukraine has served as a reminder to the general public that both Russia and the U.S. have massive nuclear weapons arsenals and that they continue to pose an existential threat to human civilization, and perhaps even to our very survival on the planet.
But do we actually know why? As a nuclear scientist and weapons expert I think it would be helpful to briefly contemplate, as a survival enhancing exercise, the effects of a single nuclear detonation on Washington, Kyiv or Moscow.
Keep in mind that a single Russian Sarmat or SS-18 intercontinental missile carries ten 800-kiloton bombs, and the Russian intercontinental missile arsenal can launch about 400 of those bombs within minutes of a launch command. Let’s focus here on the effects of a single 800-kiloton nuclear detonation at a height of about one mile above an American city.
The detonation of this nuclear weapon would release the near explosive equivalent of a million tons of TNT within a 100 millionths of a second and within a volume of roughly a cubic foot. Because so much energy is released so quickly and in such a small volume, the temperature inside the explosion will reach roughly 100 million degrees celsius, about five times that of the center of the sun.
Within a millionths of a second, the explosive energy heats the surrounding air to a million degrees, creating a “fireball” of superheated air with an inner pressure of tens of millions of pounds per square inch. This fireball initially expands at about one million miles per hour, and within a second becomes a bubble of hot air of about one mile in diameter.
As this superheated air-bubble expands to its maximum diameter, its edges push against the surrounding air, producing a compressed blast wave of enormous power and extent.
The light and heat from the fireball are so intense at this point that a detonation over Detroit or Kiev at night, out of line-of-sight due to the earth’s curvature, could still be seen as a flash of light low in the sky from Washington DC or Moscow, respectively. It will be bright enough at 50 miles to cause retinal burns if individuals happen to be looking towards the detonation.
At a range of nearly eight miles, the fireball will appear almost 100 times brighter than a noon hour desert sun, and will ignite clothing, curtains, grass, and light vegetation.
At five miles, it will appear more than 200 times brighter than a noon hour desert sun, and would cause warping of metal surfaces, explosive combustion of the paint off walls, and ignitions of essentially all combustible materials in the fireballs’s line-of-sight. Brittle concrete and granite surfaces would be so rapidly heated that they would explode into dust. Black smoke from partially combusted materials will fill the air, making it impossible to even read street signs from ground level.
At ranges yet nearer to the detonation, heating effects will be so intense, that human flesh would burn explosively into carbon, and asphalt on the streets would melt and, in some cases, vaporize.
At that point, the resulting fires over an area of between 100 and 150 square miles on Earth would efficiently heat large volumes of air near and above the ground. The energy released by this mass fire would be 15 to 50 times greater than the energy produced by the nuclear detonation. The rising hot air would reach wind speeds of 300 miles per hour and be so intense they would knock airplanes above the fire zone from the sky.
This “chimney effect” would pull cool air from outside the fire zone towards the center of the fire at speeds of hundreds of miles per hour. These superheated ground-winds of more than hurricane force would further intensify the fire.
At the edge of the fire zone, the winds would be powerful enough to uproot trees of several feet in diameter and suck people from outside the fire into it, fill city streets with flames and firebrands, break in doors and windows, and cause the fire to jump, sometimes hundreds of feet, swallowing anything not already violently combusting.
This ferocious “hurricane of fire” would also be accompanied by the release of large amounts of potentially lethal toxic smoke and combustion gases, creating an environment of extreme heat, high winds, and toxic agents in target areas.
These combined effects will produce a lethal ground-environment for three to six hours while the fire burns most intensely.
Those who tried to escape through the streets would have been incinerated by the boiling hot hurricane-force winds filled with firebrands and flames. Those able to find shelter in the lower-level sub-basements of massive buildings would likely suffocate from fire-generated gases or be cooked alive as their shelters heated to oven-like conditions.
After the fire burns out, the street pavement would be so hot that even tracked vehicles would not be able to pass over it for days. Buried, unburned material from collapsed buildings throughout the fire zone could burst into flames when exposed to air — even months after the firestorm had ended.
As the nuclear debris cloud rises, it will drag with it the radioactive isotopes produced during the detonation of the nuclear weapon. One hour after the detonation, the radioactive isotopes will be about 10,000 times more radioactive than the radiation released in the Chernobyl accident, which occurred in 1986. Since these radioactive isotopes are mostly “short-lived,” within one day the activity levels will drop to several hundred times that of the Chernobyl release.
Some very small fraction of these radioactive materials would be falling to the ground within the hours following the nuclear attack, and since the activity of these materials is so high, they will produce radiation on the ground near and downwind of the target area that will be lethal within hours to exposed individuals.
Facing these realities, can anyone know how to define the meaning of winning a nuclear war?
keep readingShow less
Top Photo Credit: David Cohen via Shutterstock. Safed, Israel-May 1,2017 Jewish Home parliament member Bezalel Smotrich and Ilan Shohat, mayor of the Tzfat, attend the Israel Memorial Day, commemorating the deaths of Israeli soldiers killed
According to reports, far-right Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich said on Sunday that “the goal for 2025 is to demolish more than the Palestinians build in the West Bank.” This comes as the Israeli government is reportedly building almost 1,000 additional housing units in the Efrat settlement close to Jerusalem.
The additional units built for settlers in Efrat would increase the settlement’s size by 40% and block development in the Palestinian city of Bethlehem. The roughly 100 existing settlements in the West Bank host around 500,000 Israeli settlers and are considered illegal under international law.
Sunday’s comments from Smotrich reflect his longstanding hopes for Israeli absorption of the West Bank and the nixing of a two-state solution. He published a lengthy plan in 2017 in this regard entitled “One Hope.”
“We need to and can go back to the post-1948 days, regarding both Israeli Arabs and the Arabs of Judea and Samaria,” he outlined in the plan, the first phase of which is called “Victory Through Settlement.” This, he explained, ”will be realized via a political-legal act of imposing sovereignty on all Judea and Samaria, and with concurrent acts of settlement: the establishment of cities and towns, the laying down of infrastructure as is customary in ‘little’ Israel and the encouragement of tens and hundreds of thousands of residents to come live in Judea and Samaria. In this way, we will be able to create a clear and irreversible reality on the ground.”
"The Arabs of Judea and Samaria will be able to conduct their daily life in freedom and peace, but not to vote for the Israeli Knesset at the first stage” as a way to “preserve the Jewish majority in decision-making in the state of Israel.” He vehemently denies that this system resembles apartheid.
Israel has been carrying out military operations in the West Bank’s north for months now, displacing upwards of 40,000 Palestinians, according to experts, which exceeds displacement levels in 1967 after the Six-Day War when Israel annexed the West Bank from Jordan. The United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) reports that the IDF has killed at least 876 people in the West Bank and East Jerusalem since Oct. 7, 2023.
“The purpose of the operations is to prevent terror from places a few kilometers from Jewish communities and to prevent a repeat of Oct.7,” said an IDF spokesperson, but the actions have come at a significant cost to civilians. Ramy Abu Siriye, a local barber who was displaced from Tulkarem in January, lamented, “The soldiers are taking over one area after another, destroying homes, infrastructure, and roads.”
Annelle Sheline, Quincy Institute Middle East fellow, said everyone loses with annexation: Palestinians, Israelis, the greater region. “The Israeli government continues to undermine the long-term security of Israeli citizens, which can only truly be achieved alongside security for Palestinians.”
Further normalization between Israel and its Arab neighbors may also be in jeopardy if the West Bank is de facto annexed, threatening the prospect of a Palestinian state. Earlier in February, when President Trump floated forcing Palestinians out of the Gaza Strip, the Saudi Arabian foreign ministry confirmed that further normalization with Israel wouldn’t happen until the establishment of a Palestinian state and that their position was “firm and unwavering.”
The State Department has not yet commented on Smotrich’s remarks or the new settlements in the West Bank.
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.