On Wednesday, Pentagon Comptroller Mike McCord revealed that the Department of Defense had failed its sixth audit in a row, with no significant improvements over the last year.
“We are working hard to address audit findings as well as recommendations from the Government Accountability Office,” McCord said in a statement. “The Components are making good progress resulting in meaningful benefits, but we must do more.”
In a repeat of last year’s audit, just one in four of the Pentagon’s auditing units received a clean bill of financial health, though auditors claimed they made some progress in accounting for the agency’s $3.8 billion in assets. McCord said that a clean audit likely remains years away, according to Reuters.
The Pentagon remains the only federal agency to have never passed an audit. Its failure to make significant progress has drawn scrutiny from lawmakers, including Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), who called for an independent audit of the department.
“The recent failure of the Pentagon's 6TH audit couldn't make it clearer that we need accountability & transparency,” Paul posted on X. “No institution is above scrutiny, especially the DoD [with] the largest budget of ANY [federal] agency.”
The Republican-led House Oversight Committee also slammed the Pentagon for its financial troubles, arguing in a post on X that the department’s “inability to adequately track assets risks our military readiness and represents a flagrant disregard for taxpayer funds, even as it receives nearly a trillion dollars annually.”
Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) said the news showed that it’s “time to stop misdirecting hundreds of billions of dollars away from domestic and human needs to pad unnecessary budget lines for endless wars, failed weapons, & the Pentagon’s corporate handouts.”
The news could reinvigorate efforts to impose a 1 percent budget cut on any parts of the military that fail an audit, a policy that would “provide a much greater incentive to get financial books in order,” according to Jennifer Knox of the Union of Concerned Scientists.
“[T]his isn’t just a matter of clean accounting; it’s a matter of security,” Knox argued. “Ensuring that defense dollars are spent effectively and appropriately will improve performance while reducing spending.”
Connor Echols is the managing editor of the Nonzero Newsletter and a former reporter for Responsible Statecraft. Echols received his bachelor’s degree from Northwestern University, where he studied journalism and Middle East and North African Studies.
Top Photo: Russian small missile ships Sovetsk and Grad sail along the Neva river during a rehearsal for the Navy Day parade, in Saint Petersburg, Russia July 21, 2024. REUTERS/Anton Vaganov
Today, there are only three global naval powers: the United States, China, and Russia. The British Royal Navy is, sadly, reduced to a small regional naval power, able occasionally to deploy further afield. If Donald Trump wants European states to look after their own collective security, Britain might be better off keeping its handful of ships in the Atlantic.
European politicians and journalists talk constantly about the huge challenge in countering an apparently imminent Russian invasion, should the U.S. back away from NATO under President Trump. With Russia’s Black Sea fleet largely confined to the eastern Black Sea during the war, although still able to inflict severe damage on Ukraine, few people talk about the real Russian naval capacity to challenge Western dominance. Or, indeed, how this will increasingly come up against U.S. naval interests in the Pacific and, potentially, in the Arctic.
This was brought into sharp focus on April 22, when the Royal Navy deployed its Carrier Strike Group 25 on an eight-month deployment to the Indo-Pacific. Aboard the aircraft carrier, HMS The Prince of Wales, his battleship grey hair perfectly set like a character from a low-budget Top Gun movie, Prime Minister Keir Starmer said the deployment shows the UK’s “commitment to global stability. That is an incredible message to our adversaries. It is an incredible show of unity to our allies and our commitment to NATO.”
I wasn’t persuaded by this message. Supported by a frigate each from Canada, Norway, and Spain, almost half of Britain’s fighting ships embarked from Portsmouth and Devonport to much fanfare. When I say half of the ships, I mean, specifically, 1 aircraft carrier, 1 destroyer, 1 frigate, and 1 attack submarine. That’s right, four vessels.
That means the Royal Navy now has only one destroyer, two frigates (a third frigate is currently in Oman), and one attack submarine to defend British shores. Nine other ships are in dry docks, and another three are undergoing maintenance. Three of the Astute Class attack subs — only launched in 2014 — have been under repair for an average of two years each, and HMS Daring, “the world’s most advanced air defense destroyer,” has been in the dry dock since 2017.
If President Trump thought Britain could take more responsibility in Europe for naval security in the Atlantic, he would be wrong. The United Kingdom, the world’s first naval hegemon, now has nine fighting ships that are seaworthy, not including the nuclear missile submarines that are Britain’s Continuous At Sea Deterrent.
I’ve just finished reading “The Royal and Russian Navies, Cooperation, Competition and Confrontation,”written by Britain’s former Naval Attache to Moscow, (Ret.) Captain David Fields RN, and Robert Avery OBE, retired Principal Lecturer at the Defence Centre for Languages & Culture at the UK’s Defence Academy. The authors argue that while we have focused most of our attention on Russia’s army in Ukraine, its navy has rearmed at a fast clip. And thinking about Russia as a relic of its Cold War self is a huge mistake.
Despite being half the size of Britain, economically, laboring under sanctions and the tight fiscal constraints of the war in Ukraine, Russia’s naval yards have built new vessels non-stop for the past decade. Since 2011, Russia has taken delivery of 27 submarines, 6 frigates, 9 corvettes, 16 small missile ships, and other logistic support vessels. Many more are under construction and will arrive by the end of this decade. As the Russians say, “quantity has a quality all of its own.”
Russia now has a terrifying ability to threaten NATO countries through capabilities tested during the Ukraine war, such as its Kalibr Land Attack Cruise Missile, which has been used extensively against Ukrainian critical infrastructure. Its new ships are being fitted for the Tsirkon hypersonic missile and other innovations such as an underwater nuclear drone. I’ve been studying Russia long enough to remember the 2015 accidental (really, not accidental) TV leak of Russia’s plans for a nuclear torpedo.
The Royal Navy, on the other hand, has continued to shrink in the teeth of defense cuts, and each new efficiency drive makes it smaller. The two Albion-class landing vessels, in service for only 20 years, are laid up, and negotiations about their sale to Brazil are at an advanced stage. The increase in defense spending to 2.5% of GDP will mostly be swallowed by the MoD’s bloated procurement programs that are typically delayed and always over budget. It will not produce a rapid conveyor belt of ship-building that has seen Russia overtake Britain at a rapid pace since the Ukraine crisis started.
The book also underlines the importance of dialogue as a key component of deterrence and reminds the reader of the significant naval cooperation that took place between the two navies after the Cold War. When HMS Battleaxe sailed into Baltiysk in 1992, the first Royal Navy ship visit to modern-day Russia, it discovered the remnants of the Soviet Navy, most ships rusting over and unseaworthy, in a dilapidated dockyard. This was an allegory, perhaps, of the Royal Navy today. Fast forward to 2010, and the tide was already turning. The Russian Navy had become the main beneficiary of Russia’s state armament program, and a Russian admiral was saying the UK’s decision to give up the Nimrod Maritime Patrol Aircraft in 2010 made his “life easier.”
When Russia invaded Crimea in 2014, practically all direct engagement between the Royal and Russian navies was cut at the instigation of the UK government. Today, the UK and Russia have no serving military attachés in their respective embassies in London and Moscow for the first time since 1941. Our modern generation of seafarers are now only able to view Russians through binoculars, periscopes, and gun sights. And they have more guns than we do. Britain has literally watched a modernizing Russian navy sail off into a distant horizon as we’ve criticized Russia from an ivory conning tower.
From his ridiculous photo op on the deck of HMS The Prince of Wales, it’s not clear that Keir Starmer has understood that the world now contains just three global naval powers: the United States of America, China, and Russia.
Russian naval ambitions have now grown in the High North (Arctic) and in the Pacific.
While Britain’s modest Carrier Strike Group steams east, Russia has already been active in joint naval exercises with China and Iran, as well as ship visits to Myanmar and other locations. Britain has practically no scope to control Russia’s increasingly assertive naval posture in Asia.
This decade-long lack of engagement — not just by Britain but by America pre-Trump — has left us sailing blind on how Russian doctrine and tactics have shifted in the forge of war in Ukraine. It's clear to me that in this new world order of military burden sharing between America and Europe, Britain would be better placed keeping its handful of ships in the Atlantic, while America increasingly comes into contact with the Russian Navy in the Pacific.
keep readingShow less
Top photo credit: Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky ( Maxim Elramsisy/Shutterstock)
In President Donald Trump’s first 100 days, his administration has arrested and detained, without due process, visa holders and other non-citizens in the U.S. for speaking out against Israel’s military actions in Gaza.
That’s not how the administration frames it, but that is the connective tissue in each of the cases.
On Wednesday, the same day Palestinian Columbia University student Mohsen Mahdawi was released on bail pending a Habeas hearing after a judge determined that he did not pose a risk to the public, Republican Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky blasted the Congress for pushing new speech restrictions, particularly antisemitism measures that would restrict criticism of Israel on school campuses.
“We’re either a free society governed by the Constitution, or we’re not. We need to challenge hate with reason, not censorship.”
Paul was specifically addressing the Antisemitism Awareness Act which would codify a Trump-era executive order declaring that antisemitism is a prohibited form of discrimination in schools and universities, and would use the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s working definition of antisemitism in assessing cases of antisemitic discrimination through the Department of Education.
Critics say that it would allow the government to conflate criticism of Zionism and the Israeli government with antisemitism and serve as a dangerous tool to shut down free speech. Paul wondered aloud if campus police would be used in enforcing new speech rules, and how.
As The Jewish Chronicle reported after the vote was postponed, Sen. Paul was part of “a testy hearing on Wednesday that covered objections to the bill ranging from whether a Christian would be barred from saying that Jews killed Jesus, to the acceptability of making contemporary political allusions to Nazi Germany and even the comedy of Jerry Seinfeld and Joan Rivers.”
Paul cited the landmark 1969 Brandenburg v. Ohio case, in which Ku Klux Klan member Clarence Brandenburg was convicted under two Ohio laws of allegedly inciting violence against Jews and African-Americans with his speech.
Brandenburg claimed that his punishment violated the First Amendment. The Supreme Court agreed with him.
“Brandenburg was a Nazi and an antisemite and he said horrible things,” Paul said. “And the First Amendment, the Constitution, the Supreme Court ruled that you can say terrible things.”
The senator compared the American concept of free speech with Europe’s recent crackdowns on speech.
“That’s unique about our country,” Paul said. “In Europe, you can’t say anything. In Europe, if you call a boy who thinks he’s a girl a boy, you can go to jail for that. If you say something about the Holocaust in Europe, you can go to jail.”
To Paul’s point, in 2019, 38-year-old Kate Scottow of Hertfordshire, England, was arrested for “misgendering” a transgender individual. Last year, 61-year-old Neal Lloyd of England was arrested over his Facebook posts about the Israel-Palestine conflict.
Do we want to replicate Europe’s speech laws in the U.S.? Paul raised the question.
“This is what we’re doing,” he insisted. “We’re codifying what Europe did to speech. It’s a terrible idea.”
The Congressional debate is taking place as non-citizen students have been snatched away ostensibly for what they said or wrote about Israel.
The State Department had accused Mahdawi, the former co-president of Columbia University’s Palestinian Student Union, of using “threatening rhetoric and intimidation” against Jewish students during a protest on campus in 2024. A 34-year-old permanent resident of the U.S. who was born and raised in a Palestinian refugee camp in the West Bank before moving to the U.S. and going to Columbia University, Mahdawi was detained by ICE agents while at his naturalization hearing in Vermont on April 14. He was never formally charged with a crime.
We don't know if the other non-citizen students detained by immigration authorities in the last month have actually been involved in threats or intimidation, or even genuine antisemitism, or real support for Hamas, because the administration has been deliberately vague about its reasons for detaining them. Secretary of State Marco Rubio says the administration has the right to deport non-citizens when their "presence and activities in the United States would have serious adverse foreign policy consequences and would compromise a compelling U.S. foreign policy interest."
Mahdawi may be the lucky one. Others are still in detention awaiting hearings.
Columbia University graduate Mahmoud Khalil claims he was arrested on March 8 for a speech he gave during campus protests, though he too was never charged with anything. A judge has said the administration’s attempt to deport him will be decided in court.
Tufts University graduate student Rumeysa Ozturk was snatched off the street near her home in Somerville, Massachusetts, on March 25 for what appears to be an op-ed she wrote for the school newspaper criticizing Israel's war on Gaza, and still awaits potential deportation. Badar Khan Suri, a postdoctoral fellow at Georgetown and an Indian national, was arrested by federal agents in March. He has been accused by Department of Homeland Security officials of spreading Hamas propaganda, something his family and supporters vehemently deny.
In each of these cases, the detainees’ support for the Palestinians’ plight and criticism of Israel’s war in Gaza appear to be the primary reasons behind their arrests, which is illegal according to the U.S. Constitution.
But if America did ignore the First Amendment and allowed rigid UK-style speech laws instead, how far would it go? Do the purveyors of the new antisemitism speech legislation on Capitol Hill know that this could boomerang on them when their ideological opponents someday get back into power?
As journalist Glenn Greenwald observed about the antisemitism legislation, “this is not a hate speech code applying to foreign nationals. It's a hate speech code that applies to American citizens, American faculty members, where people can be punished for the expression of ideas on college campuses cheered for by the right wing faction that has long claimed there's nothing worse than hate speech codes and other forms of suppression of ideas on college campuses.”
Carving out one country in the world and making it forbidden to criticize its government is the complete antithesis of the Constitution’s protections and a betrayal of the American tradition. The First Amendment allows anyone on American soil to critique the U.S. government, but now condemning a foreign government could land you in jail or deported to another country?
On what grounds? By what logic? By whose laws?
Rand Paul is right. One would think that putting America first might include putting its First Amendment first, too.
keep readingShow less
Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelenskiy and U.S. President Donald Trump meet, while they attend the funeral of Pope Francis, at the Vatican April 26, 2025. Ukrainian Presidential Press Service/Handout via REUTERS
The U.S.-Ukraine minerals agreement is not a diplomatic breakthrough and will not end the war, but it is a significant success for Ukraine, both in the short term and — if it is ever in fact implemented — in the longer term.
It reportedly does not get Ukraine the security “guarantees” that Kyiv has been asking for. It does not commit the U.S. to fight for Ukraine, or to back up a European “reassurance force” for Ukraine. And NATO membership remains off the table. Given its basic positions, there is no chance of the Trump administration shifting on these points.
But since the Ukraine peace process appeared to run out of steam, and Trump threatened to “walk away” from the talks, Kyiv and Moscow have been engaged in an elaborate diplomatic dance of semi-proposals and hints to try to ensure that if Trump does walk away, he will blame the other side for the talks’ failure.
This agreement makes it far more likely that he will blame Russia, and therefore that he will continue military and intelligence aid to Ukraine. He may also, as threatened, try to impose additional sanctions on Russia — though given the resistance of most of the world to these sanctions, and tensions over tariffs between the U.S. and Europe, it is not at all clear how effective new sanctions would be.
Continued U.S. military and intelligence aid will not win the war for Ukraine, nor allow it to drive the Russians from occupied territory. It will however help the Ukrainian army to slow down Russia’s advance on the ground and impose heavy casualties on the Russian army. This should not be taken by the Ukrainians or their European supporters as an excuse to maintain impossible conditions for peace that will make a settlement impossible; because the military and economic odds are still strongly against Ukraine, and a collapse of Ukraine’s exhausted troops is a real possibility.
However, it will make it more likely that Russia will abandon or heavily qualify its impossible demands, for example for Ukrainian disarmament and withdrawal from additional territory.
As far as the deal itself is concerned, it is clearly far more favorable for Ukraine than Trump’s original — and grotesque — proposal that Ukraine should essentially hand its entire reserves of minerals to the U.S. in compensation for U.S. aid. Under the new agreement, the profits of mineral extraction will be equally shared.
As Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said: “This agreement signals clearly to Russia that the Trump administration is committed to a peace process centered on a free, sovereign, and prosperous Ukraine over the long term. … President Trump envisioned this partnership between the American people and the Ukrainian people to show both sides’ commitment to lasting peace and prosperity in Ukraine. And to be clear, no state or person who financed or supplied the Russian war machine will be allowed to benefit from the reconstruction of Ukraine.”
Nor under this deal will any U.S. money go to develop mineral extraction in the Russian-occupied areas of Ukraine.
According to Trump, “The American presence will, I think, keep a lot of bad actors out of the country or certainly out of the area where we’re doing the digging."
Despite Western rhetoric, absolute Western security guarantees for Ukraine after a peace settlement have never really been on offer, because the Biden administration and almost every other NATO government stated repeatedly that they would not fight to defend Ukraine. This deal, if implemented, will however ensure a strong continued U.S. interest in Ukraine. It greatly reduces the risk that in the event of future Russian aggression, the U.S. would simply look away and not respond as it has in this war, with military supplies and extreme sanctions.
But the deal won’t be implemented until the war comes to an end. Thereafter, it will depend on the willingness of U.S. private companies to invest in this sector — and that will depend on their assessment of both the risks and the profits involved. For it is vital to note that this agreement does not commit the U.S. government to invest in Ukraine; and to judge by the present profitability of minerals extraction in the world, it is not certain that private investors will see major benefits from doing so.
China has developed its rare-earth sector on such a scale mainly through huge state-directed investment; and no-one has so far done a thorough analysis of the actual profitability and scale of most of these Ukrainian resources. So, only a tactical success for Ukraine and one over which there hang many questions; but nonetheless one that hopefully will lead Moscow to respond with some serious and acceptable peace proposals of its own.
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.