Confirming that he has, indeed, taken a top job at Palantir, a $72 billion high-tech weapons firm and military contractor, former Rep. Mike Gallagher (R-Wis.) is publicly acknowledging that he is looking to trade on his government contacts to create profits in his new role overseeing Palantir’s defense business.
In other words, he didn’t just go through the revolving door. He’s proud of it.
Gallagher, who oversaw the hawkish House Select Committee on China and led the congressional push for a bill requiring TikTok’s Chinese parent company to divest or face a ban on the app in the U.S., is directly cashing in by going to a company whose CEO, Alex Karp, told The New York Times that the U.S. will “very likely” end up in a war with China, Russia and Iran and endorses “scar[ing] the crap out of your adversaries.”
Having spent much of his time in Congress doing exactly what Karp describes — Gallagher also pushed for Taiwan to be armed “to the teeth in the cyber domain” and supported massive military aid packages for Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan — Gallagher says he’s looking to enrich his new employer, Palantir, using the connections in government he formed over seven years as the representative from Wisconsin’s 8th congressional district.
In an interview published this morning by Defense One, Gallagher said::
"I've spent almost a decade now immersed in that world, from the perspective of a legislator. But a lot of my work on the [House] Armed Services Committee was focused on defense innovation, how we create an ecosystem where more companies can succeed. And so my hope is to leverage the network that I built for a decade and apply it to my work at Palantir."
Gallagher concluded the interview by emphasizing that he sees a natural progression from his work as a public servant to his new role, on the other side of the revolving door, working for a multi-billion-dollar weapons firm.
“I just look forward to working with the Defense Department to strengthen and grow the work that's already underway with Palantir,” said Gallgher. “And so it's a really exciting opportunity again, as I said at the outset, a way in my mind to continue the mission that's guided my service in the Marine Corps and in Congress.”
Eli Clifton is a senior advisor at the Quincy Institute and Investigative Journalist at Large at Responsible Statecraft. He reports on money in politics and U.S. foreign policy.
Representative Mike Gallagher (R-WI) walks through the U.S. Capitol, in Washington, D.C., on Tuesday, February 6, 2024. (Graeme Sloan/Sipa USA) via REUTERS
Europeans are surprised and frustrated by President Trump’s decision to call Russian President Putin without consulting Ukrainian President Zelenskyy or other European leadership.
The president made good on his promise to begin negotiations with Russia by having a phone call with President Vladimir Putin on Wednesday, which he described as “lengthy and highly productive” and indicated that further negotiations would begin “immediately.”
“We agreed to work together, very closely, including visiting each other’s nations,” Trump posted on social media. “We have also agreed to have our respective teams start negotiations immediately, and we will begin by calling President Zelenskyy of Ukraine to inform him of the conversation, something which I will be doing right now.”
The president subsequently had a call with the Ukrainian president, during which they discussed opportunities to achieve peace, the U.S.’s readiness to work together at the team level, and Ukraine's technological capabilities -- including drones and other “advanced industries,” according to Zelenskyy.
Many European leaders saw Trump’s call with Putin as a betrayal. The European Union’s foreign policy chief, Kaja Kallas, said that the Americans were giving Russia “everything that they want even before the negotiations” and that any agreement made without the Europeans “will simply not work.”
“This is not how others do foreign policy, but this is now the reality,” said German foreign minister Annalena Baerbock. She insisted negotiations should not “go over the heads of the Ukrainians.”
Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth defended President Trump’s call with Putin, saying that “there is no betrayal there,” but a “recognition that the whole world and the United States is invested and interested in peace, a negotiated peace.” He also softened his comments on Ukrainian NATO membership, saying that “everything is on the table in his (Trump’s) conversations with Vladimir Putin and Volodymyr Zelenskyy.”
Trump said he and Putin may meet for an initial discussion at an undetermined date in Saudi Arabia because “we know the crown prince, and I think it’d be a very good place to be.” Vice President JD Vance will meet with Zeleskyy today on the sidelines of the Munich Security Conference.
On Thursday, after the call, the Kremlin’s spokesperson, Dmitry Peskov, said that the “position of the current (U.S.) administration is much more appealing.” For his part, Zelenskyy noted that he was not pleased that Trump chose to speak with Putin before himself and made it clear that Ukraine “cannot accept it, as an independent country, any agreements (made) without us.” However, he told reporters that he and Trump were “charting our next steps to stop Russian aggression and ensure a lasting, reliable peace. As President Trump said, ‘Let’s get it done.’”
“The Trump-Putin call and Defense Secretary Hegseth's subsequent statement signals a long overdue willingness by Washington not only to engage the Russians in wide-ranging, impactful discussions but to countenance the concessions necessary to make a deal stick,” the Quincy Institute's Mark Episkopos told RS. “The hard work of squaring U.S., European, Ukrainian, and Russian positions is still ahead, and all sides should be prepared for what will be a winding, tortuous road to a negotiated settlement.”
He added, “still, the administration has just taken a colossal leap forward not just to resolve the Ukraine war but to stake out a new, more propitious architecture of European security and to reap all of the long-term geopolitical rewards therefrom.”
According to The Washington Post, Russian authorities released an American prisoner, Marc Fogel, after being imprisoned for three and a half years on drug charges. Trump said that a Russian prisoner would be released to Moscow as part of a deal with the Kremlin and added that the exchange “could be a big, important part in getting the war over."
Ukraine may be open to giving the United States access to its mineral industry in exchange for continued financial assistance. In an interview with the Associated Press, Zelenskyy's chief of staff, Andrii Yermak, remarked, “we really have this big potential in the territory which we control." He continued, “we are interested to work, to develop, with our partners, first of all, with the United States.” Trump showed support for such a plan earlier this month.
China has said it is ready to play a significant role in the Ukraine-Russia negotiation process. The Wall Street Journalreported that “the offer, however, is being met with skepticism in the U.S. and Europe, given deep concerns over the increasingly close ties between Beijing and Moscow.” The Journal speculates that this offer could be a vehicle for Xi to increase contact with President Trump as he seeks to negotiate away from the aggressive economic measures promised by the Trump administration.
There were no Department of State press briefings this week.
keep readingShow less
Top image credit: President Donald J. Trump greets Marc Fogel at the White House after his release from a Russian prison, Tuesday, February 11, 2025. (Official White House Photo by Daniel Torok)
In less than 3 weeks, President Trump secured a ceasefire in Gaza, spoke directly to Russian President Vladimir Putin and Ukrainian President Volodomyr Zelensky, and kickstarted diplomacy to end the Ukraine war. At the same time, he has also put forward some idiotic ideas, such as pushing Palestinians out of Gaza and making Canada the 51st state.
But it raises important questions: Why didn't the Biden administration choose to push for an end to the wars in Gaza and Ukraine? Why didn't the majority of the Democrats demand it? Instead, they went down the path of putting Liz Cheney on a pedestal and having Kamala Harris brag about having the most lethal military in the world while Trump positioned himself as a peace candidate — justifiably or not.
Undoubtedly, Trump's plans in Gaza may make matters worse and his diplomacy with Putin may fail. But that isn't the point.
The point is: Why did Trump choose to pursue diplomacy and seek an end to the wars, and why did the Democrats under Biden choose to transform the party into one that embraced war and glorified warmongers like Cheney, while protecting and enabling a genocide?
What happened that caused the party to vilify its own voices for peace — such as Reps. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) and Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) — while embracing some of the architects of the Iraq war?
And all of this, of course, in complete defiance of where the party base was (throughout the Gaza war, the base supported a ceasefire with 70% majority, for instance).
A profound reckoning is needed within the Democratic Party to save it from slipping into becoming neocon by default.
And with the pace at which Trump is moving, that reckoning needs to come fast. It will, for instance, be a severe mistake if the party positions itself to the right of Trump and reflexively opposes him on every foreign policy issue instead of basing the party's positions on solid principles, such as centering diplomacy, military restraint, and peace. Trump currently speaks more about peace than the Democrats do.
A senior Democratic lawmaker asked me rhetorically last week if I knew anyone who was happy with the foreign policy of Biden and voted for Harris on that basis.
I was happy to hear that the question was being asked. That's a good first step.
keep readingShow less
Top photo credit: U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth speaks next to German Defence Minister Boris Pistorius during a meeting of the Ukraine Defense Contact Group on the eve of a NATO defence ministers' meeting at the alliance's headquarters in Brussels, Belgium February 12, 2025. REUTERS/Johanna Geron
U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth showed unusual candor in his remarks today to the NATO membership about the terms of peace for Ukraine. Although they are unlikely to see things this way, he deserves special gratitude from the Ukrainian and European establishments, for his statement dispels the illusions in which they have been indulging themselves — illusions that if continued could hold up the peace process and increase the dangers to Ukraine.
In remarks before a meeting of the Ukraine Defense Group of NATO defense ministers and in advance of the Munich Security Conference next week, Hegseth said the following:
“We want, like you, a sovereign and prosperous Ukraine, but we must start by recognizing that returning to Ukraine’s pre-2014 borders is an unrealistic objective. Chasing this illusionary goal will only prolong the war and cause more suffering.
“A durable peace for Ukraine must include robust guarantees to ensure that the war does not begin again. …That said, the United States does not believe that NATO membership for Ukraine is a realistic outcome of a negotiated settlement. Security guarantees must be backed by capable European and non-European troops. If these troops are deployed as peacekeepers at any point, they should be deployed as part of a non-NATO mission and should not be covered under Article 5. …To be clear: As part of any security guarantee, there will not be U.S. troops deployed to Ukraine.”
In practice, Hegseth’s statement also rules out European troops for Ukraine. Russia has made clear that it will accept only troops from genuinely neutral countries as peacekeepers, and European leaders have stated that they would only deploy their own troops if given a cast-iron assurance by the U.S. that America would come to their aid if attacked — an assurance that Hegseth has just ruled out.
And while Hegseth restated the U.S. commitment to the defense of NATO within its existing borders, he is also expected to repeat Trump’s demand that European countries raise their own defense spending to five percent of GDP. On the one hand, this is a strong indication of the Trump administration’s belief that in the future, Europeans themselves must be chiefly responsible for Europe’s defense.
On the other hand, it isn’t going to happen. Given the combination of economic stagnation, budgetary pressures and the erosion of support for establishment parties, such an increase is out of the question — especially if this means spending the money not on European but on U.S. weaponry. In consequence, while the Trump administration will remain in NATO, friction between Washington and Europe can be expected to increase, and U.S. support for European agendas to diminish.
The truth of the matter is that European establishments find themselves in the position of a cartoon character who has run out over the edge of a cliff, and continues running on air for several seconds before realizing that there is no ground underneath him, at which point he falls with a shriek. For years now, European policies towards Russia and Ukraine, and hopes of expanding the EU eastwards, have not just been predicated on support and encouragement from the United States, they have tagged along behind the U.S. Under EU President Ursula von der Leyen and foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas, the EU’s central bureaucracy virtually transformed itself into the political and economic wing of NATO. The wing is still flapping, but where’s the bird?
Some European establishments are still flapping pretty hard. In response to Hegseth’s comments, UK Defense Secretary John Healey said that “We hear your concerns on stepping up for Ukraine, and we hear your concerns on stepping up for European security. We are and we will.” CNN commented that “The UK may quickly be supplanting the US as Ukraine’s closest western ally.”
Given the absurd disproportion between U.S. and British military and economic resources, if any British official, politician, analyst, or journalist actually believes that this is a viable policy, they are criminal lunatics. If they don’t, and are just posturing for effect, they are wasting their own and everybody else’s time, because nobody in the world believes in the masquerade — least of all in Moscow or Kyiv, where President Zelensky has declared that “There are voices which say that Europe could offer security guarantees without the Americans, and I always say no. Security guarantees without America are not real security guarantees.”
The idea of European troops for Ukraine was in any case not just foolish, but evidence of cognitive dissonance in European thinking. For on the one hand, the need to take a hard line against Russia has been publicly justified by the argument that if not stopped in Ukraine, Russia will in future “test” NATO by taking some action against Poland or the Baltic States — although there is no actual evidence that this is part of Russia’s plans, and the U.S. Article 5 guarantee to NATO would make this hideously dangerous for Russia.
On the other hand, some of the very same analysts have proposed sending European troops to Ukraine, thereby giving Russia the opportunity to “test” Western resolve at far lower risk.
If they stand on the defensive within their existing borders, NATO and the EU are in fact extremely safe. No conceivable Russian gains could justify the risks Russia would run in attacking them. Moreover, while Europe certainly should increase its military spending, it does not need to spend fortunes on extremely expensive high-tech weapons platforms.
The key military lesson of the Ukraine War has been that low-cost killer and surveillance drones, if available in adequate numbers, can make it impossible to mass armor and infantry for a traditional offensive. Tanks have virtually disappeared from the front lines on both sides. The Russians have been reduced to bringing up troops in tiny packets, because larger concentrations are immediately spotted and decimated. The same factor would apply to any war between Russia and the West, and we can be sure from the way it has changed its tactics that the Russian high command realizes this perfectly well.
In his statement to the other NATO defense ministers, Hegseth repeatedly stressed the words “realistic” and “realistically.” Realistically, it was obvious for years before the Ukraine War that NATO countries would never fight to defend Ukraine; and on the eve of the invasion, the Biden administration and every other NATO government refused to give Ukraine a timetable for membership. Yet at the same time, they preserved the public illusion that Ukraine would one day join NATO, and they refused to negotiate a treaty of neutrality with Moscow.
Since the failure of the Ukrainian counter-offensive in 2023, 16 months ago, it has been obvious that Ukraine could not regain its lost territories, but Western officials went on committing themselves publicly to this outcome and rejecting territorial compromise. Something in the region of a quarter of a million human beings have now died so that Western establishments could continue to propagate these illusions. It is time to let them go, and we should be grateful to Hegseth for saying so.
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.