Technically, the Pentagon received a disclaimer of opinion, meaning it failed to provide auditors with sufficient data. Of the 28 reporting entities undergoing audits, 9 received an “unmodified” audit opinion, or a clean audit, 15 received disclaimers and thus did not pass, and another three are pending a final decision.
A final entity received a “qualified opinion,” meaning auditors claimed budget misstatements or omissions were present, but that the finances presented were still generally reliable.
Pentagon officials claim progress on budget transparency issues and aim to achieve a clean audit in 2028, as required by the 2024 National Defense Authorization Act. Indeed, Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) and Chief Financial Officer Michael McCord stressed that the Defense Department “has turned a corner in its understanding of the depth and breadth of its [financial] challenges,” despite the disclaimer of opinion received.
"The Department continues to need the sustained investment, senior leadership commitment, and the support of our partners in Congress, federal regulators, the audit community, and our military and civilian personnel to accomplish its audit goals," McCord said. “An unmodified audit opinion has always been the Department's primary financial management goal, and with their help, I know it is achievable."
Others aren’t convinced. “Our Pentagon can’t 'fully account' for a budget that’s worth over $824 billion after they fail their 7th consecutive audit,” Tennessee Congressman Tim Burchett wrote on X. “They should be humiliated.”
Zooming out, U.S. involvement in conflicts overseas has only escalated as war continues in Ukraine and deepens in the Middle East. Ultimately, these conditions do little to promote or reflect defense budget accountability or restraint.
After a more than two-month pause, Russia has begun striking deep into Ukraine once again, sending a reported 96 missiles and drones toward civilian infrastructure in the capital this week.
Following the U.S. presidential election, Vladimir Putin has stepped up Russia’s military campaigns. In addition to resuming strikes on Kyiv, Moscow has increased its drone strikes across Ukraine by 44%. Ivan Stupak, a former Ukrainian security officer, says, “In the next few months up to Jan. 20, we are expecting a significantly increasing number of launches towards Ukraine.”
“Launches” from Russia have indeed been steadily increasing. According to Stupak, there were 818 launches in August, 1,410 in September, and 2,072 in October. Ground attacks have intensified as well, especially in the border area of Kursk, which saw a partial Ukrainian occupation in August of this year.
Russia reportedly built up around 50,000 troops in Kursk to participate in a counter-offensive, with around 10,000 North Korean troops present to assist their Russian allies. Following this build-up, the fighting in Kursk this week has yielded high casualties for Russia. In addition to the 2,000 Russians killed or injured on Tuesday alone, Moscow has also lost at least 88 armored vehicles on the roads to Kursk, as counted by a Ukrainian drone operator.
Other Ukraine War News This Week:
American military contractors will be deployed to Ukraine for the first time since the conflict started. CNN reports that the Biden administration has lifted its ban on the practice, allowing the Department of Defense to contract with private citizens to perform maintenance on vehicles in Ukraine. According to a DOD official, “these contractors will be located far from the front lines and they will not be fighting Russian forces. They will help Ukrainian Armed Forces rapidly repair and maintain US-provided equipment as needed so it can be quickly returned to the front lines.”
On Wednesday, Secretary of State Antony Blinken met with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte in Brussels. Al Jazeera reports that Blinken pledged to increase support for Ukraine before the end of Biden’s administration, saying, “President Biden fully intends to drive through the tape and use every day to continue to do what we have done these last four years, which is strengthen this alliance.” Blinken also indicated that the United States would send a “firm response” to the use of North Korean troops in Russia’s Kursk campaign.
Ukrainian officials are beginning to value security guarantees at least as much as territorial integrity in a future peace deal. According to the New York Times, future talks would not focus as much on geographic boundaries, but on assurances around a cease-fire. A Ukrainian official speaking anonymously said, “the territorial question is extremely important, but it’s still the second question, the first question is security guarantees.” The Times report says that this comes as President-elect Trump has shown an eagerness to bring a swift end to the conflict.
Deputy spokesperson Vedant Patel confirmed that the 10,000 North Korean soldiers were sent to Kursk to assist Moscow in its attempt to take the territory back from Ukrainian forces. Patel said that “Russia’s battlefield success using these DPRK troops will in large part be dictated by how well the Russians can integrate them into their military.”
When asked about the recently formalized military treaty, and the potential of joint Russian-North Korean training drills, the spokesperson said, “the United States is consulting closely with our allies and partners and other countries in the region on the implications of this, on these developments.”
keep readingShow less
Serhii Lahovskyi, 26, hugs Ludmyla Verginska, 51, as they mourn their common friend Ihor Lytvynenko, who according to residents was killed by Russian Soldiers, after they found him beside a building's basement, following his burial at the garden of a residential building, amid Russia's invasion of Ukraine, in Bucha, Ukraine April 5, 2022. REUTERS/Zohra Bensemra
Serhii Lahovskyi, 26, hugs Ludmyla Verginska, 51, as they mourn their common friend Ihor Lytvynenko, who according to residents was killed by Russian Soldiers, after they found him beside a building's basement, following his burial at the garden of a residential building, amid Russia's invasion of Ukraine, in Bucha, Ukraine April 5, 2022. REUTERS/Zohra Bensemra
The deeper Ukraine’s demographic crisis grows as a result of its ongoing war with Russia, the more its long-term viability as a state teeters.
This sentiment is common among Ukrainian expats in Europe, according to several who spoke to me during three visits to Poland in recent years. Most had begun the war with patriotic zeal, with many believing in the possibility of a total Ukrainian victory.
By the summer of 2024, almost all of them had trimmed their expectations as they wrestled with the fear that the United States and its allies had traded hopes of a total Ukrainian victory and for the more practical goal of weakening Russia. The most cynical believe that the United States adopted a mentality reminiscent of the Vietnam War’s Battle of Bến Tre, when an American commander quipped, "it became necessary to destroy the town to save it.”
My earlier visits reflected a more agitated mood, since many refugees and political pundits worried that Russia would continue to advance into Ukraine. By 2023, the Russian campaign had ground to a halt and devolved into brutal trench warfare, so the mood shifted to reflect the widely-held hope that Ukraine would hold on to its territories and perhaps begin to incrementally regain Russian-occupied territory.
Today, most Poles and Ukrainians feel confident that Ukraine will succeed in containing the Russian advance, although they fear the re-election of Donald Trump will result in less support and perhaps even pressure to negotiate a peace deal that would result in the surrender of Russian-occupied territories.
In Ukraine’s case, the demographic figures speak for themselves. According to a report by the Ukrainian Institute for the Future, the overall population had declined to 29 million people in 2023 — compared to 48.5 million in 2001.
Today, the exact figure remains difficult to establish, due to state capacity to conduct surveys throughout the country and the fact that several eastern EU countries have opened their border checkpoints to traveling Ukrainians. The most recent official figure comes from an October UN report, which estimates the population at an optimistic 35 million.
Moreover, the country's demographic pyramid has inverted due to aging, low birth rates, and emigration, such that there are roughly 9.5 million employed people whose taxes provide for 23 million pensioners, children, and unemployed people. However, in many cases, it is unclear whether those receiving government transfers currently reside in Ukraine or collect their benefits abroad. Furthermore, Ukraine depends not only on tax revenues but also on budget support from its allies to pay the salaries of public sector employees.
According to USAID, since 2022, the American government has provided $26.8 billion dollars in direct budgetary support to Ukraine’s government, in addition to billions more in military assistance and in-kind transfers of weapons. A 2023 press release from the U.S. State Department highlighted how American aid funded transfers to Ukrainian public sector employees, government officials, and pensioners. Without the support of the U.S. and its European allies, Ukraine would not only struggle to equip its troops, but also to maintain basic government services.
Thus, Ukraine, fresh off a deal to restructure its international debt, lacks the resources to attract military recruits with competitive salaries. Consequently, it has turned to conscription to shore up its forces, strengthening its military but weakening the economy. A report by the Financial Times from March 2024 found that of the 11.1 million Ukrainian men aged 25 to 60, 7.4 million were either already mobilized or were unavailable for reasons ranging from disability to employment in critical sectors.
Another 900,000 men of military age are not registered in any government systems and thus cannot be conscripted. Of the 3.4 million military-age men in the workforce, 600,000 are considered critical workers and thus unlikely to face conscription. The remaining cohort of potential conscripts therefore numbers just 2.8 million — roughly equal to the number of those who have fled or are disabled.
Consequently, Ukraine faces a 1-for-1 tradeoff between conscripting men into the armed forces or leaving them in the workforce, where they can support the government by paying taxes and otherwise keeping the economy afloat. A few Ukrainian insiders who spoke to me off the record insisted that the Ukrainian economy remains resilient, but admitted that it relies on funding from allies.
The decision to conscript more men will reverberate for generations due to its impact on the fertility rate. If Ukraine conscripts older men, it risks creating more widows and orphans who will likely depend on the state for survival. If it conscripts younger men, it risks further damaging the fertility rate and preventing more Ukrainians from being born at all.
Since Ukraine gained independence from the Soviet Union in 1991, emigration depleted the population while the fertility rate fell to 1.4 births per woman, according to BNE Intellinews. In 2023, Ukraine — including its Russian-occupied territories — saw only 187,000 live births, the lowest rate in 300 years.
In April, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy split the difference by lowering the draft age from 27 to 25. But such actions have led many potential conscripts to take desperate measures. For example, the Wall Street Journal reported in July on the growing number of attempted crossings of the Tysa River on the border with Romania, and frequent drownings that have occurred as a result.
In recent months, several other efforts to boost recruitment have failed, and their failure has intensified political divisions within Ukraine.
In May, Zelenskyy announced that his government would suspend consular services for military-age men living abroad. At the time, I was living in Przemyśl, Poland, just 10 kilometers from the Ukrainian border. My Ukrainian interlocutors all expressed some combination of suspicion, anger, and fear.
Corruption and self-interest also play a role. Numerous expats bemoaned the conscription exemptions granted to government officials, as was reported in the Polish newspaper Do Rzeczy. One petition submitted to Zelenskyy’s office calls for conscription of customs officers, who are seen as especially corrupt.
Furthermore, a report from the Kharkiv Anti-Corruption Center found that numerous American-funded contracts for the fortification of Kharkiv were awarded to firms with dubious experience in building such defenses and to businesspeople of questionable repute.
In effect, then, a significant amount of money may have disappeared into the pockets of local power brokers and did not advance the security of Kharkiv, a major industrial center and a key goal of Russia’s campaign.
As Artem, a Ukrainian expat working as a chef in Vienna, told me, “Why would I entrust my future to some corrupt Soviet guy who doesn’t know anything about war? I can better provide for myself and my girlfriend and our kids by living abroad and saving up. Maybe one day we can go back, but not until corrupt leaders stop profiting off of their people’s desperation.”
In July, Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk hosted Zelenskyy in Warsaw, where the two announced an agreement including plans to recruit, train, and equip Ukrainians living in Poland to return to Ukraine to fight.
However, despite initial enthusiasm, Poland’s defense minister, Władysław Kosiniak-Kamysz, noted in an interview that the numbers of volunteers are simply too small.
Revitalized American support might mean more money or better arms for Ukraine’s military but it cannot produce more Ukrainians to carry them into battle. As the Ukrainian government steps up efforts to replenish its troops from a dwindling supply of eligible military-age men, every soldier recruited to the front means one less worker and potentially one less father.
Today, Ukraine needs those men to fill the ranks of its armed forces. Tomorrow, it will need those men to return home, rebuild their lives, rebuild their families, and, ultimately, rebuild their country.
keep readingShow less
Top image credit: Damian Kuzdak via shutterstock.com
Sue Mi Terry, a leading expert on the Korean Peninsula who held senior positions at prestigious think tanks like the Wilson Center and the Council on Foreign Relations, was indicted in July on charges of acting as a foreign agent for South Korea. For over a decade, Terry publicly advocated in favor of South Korean policy positions and fed information to South Korean officials, allegedly in exchange for luxury goods, expensive dinners, and funding for a Korea-focused policy program.
Tucked within that indictment was a rare reference to a little-known congressional disclosure requirement known as a “Truth in Testimony” form. This form asks House hearing witnesses to disclose funding from foreign governments and federal grants related to the hearing subject, among other things, in order for lawmakers to be aware of potential conflicts of interest. It also asks if the witness is a registered foreign agent.
Between 2016 and 2022, Terry testified three times on U.S.-Korea policy and claimed she was not a registered foreign agent each time. The indictment alleged that, “In acting as a foreign agent without registering with the Attorney General and without disclosing her status as a foreign agent, Terry portrayed herself as unbiased and independent, preventing Congress and the American public from fairly evaluating Terry’s testimony as the testimony of an agent of the [Republic of Korea] Government.”
The Department of Justice’s assumption here is that Congress is typically able to fairly evaluate the testimony of witnesses. But on Capitol Hill, avoiding transparency on Truth in Testimony disclosure forms is the norm, not the exception.
Last month, RS reported that between 2021 and 2024, 89 percent of think tank affiliated witnesses at the House Foreign Affairs Committee worked for organizations that accepted foreign government funding. Over half of these witnesses did not disclose any foreign government funding.
Another third of all think tank witnesses come from organizations that do not disclose any donors at all. Many of these “dark money” think tanks simply claim the “Truth in Testimony” questions don’t apply. After all, how could anyone fact-check them?
Ironically — by way of comparison to other think tankers — Terry was relatively forthcoming in her 2022 Truth in Testimony form. Terry, who had been warned by the FBI previously, listed dozens of the Wilson Center’s foreign government donors, including dollar amounts for grant details not listed on the Wilson Center’s website.
But this general lack of transparency is a feature, not a bug, of the current system. Most witnesses exploit a loophole in the system that allows them to testify in their “personal capacity.” In other words, they declare they aren’t representing any entity and are merely testifying on their own behalf, even if they do just happen to work for an organization that receives considerable funding from foreign governments or weapons manufacturers that stand to benefit from the witnesses’ recommendations.
“Testifying in one's personal capacity is a way of sidestepping transparency,” explained Eli Clifton, Senior Advisor to the Quincy Institute and Investigative Journalist at Responsible Statecraft. “It's a way of avoiding actually complying with the rules.”
Ninety of the 137 think tank witnesses since 2021 have used this loophole — just over 65 percent. For instance, at a 2023 HFAC hearing on the Abraham Accords, Atlantic Council Distinguished Fellow Daniel Shapiro claimed, “I am representing myself and my personal viewpoints.” By invoking this loophole, he avoided disclosure of the Atlantic Council’s funding from countries such as the UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Bahrain, funders that have a clear stake in expanding the Abraham Accords.
At an HFAC hearing on gray zone tactics, Elisabeth Braw, a Senior Fellow of the American Enterprise Institute — a prominent conservative think tank which does not disclose its funders — invoked this loophole. Braw even initially said that she was representing her employer, before using a pen to cross out her answer and claim she was only representing herself. All eight AEI witnesses since 2021 have invoked this loophole.
In the next session, Congress — including the Senate, which currently does not require any witnesses to disclose potential conflicts of interest — should take critically important steps to better understand potential conflicts of interest behind the witnesses testifying before it. First and foremost, the Truth in Testimony form should be revamped to eliminate the “personal capacity” loophole.
Second, Congress should ask witnesses to disclose organizational funding from private companies that have a vested interest in the committee, such as Pentagon contractor funding of witnesses at the House Foreign Affairs Committee. From 2021-24, think tanks that testified at the HFAC received at least $20 million from the top 100 Pentagon contractors. None of that was disclosed to Congress, simply because lawmakers didn’t ask.
The House Armed Services Committee does ask a similar question, and witnesses are more transparent about funding from weapons manufacturers. When testifying at a hearing about the Replicator Program — a new Department of Defense initiative to develop autonomous swarms of drones — Senior Fellow at the Hudson Institute Bryan Clark disclosed industry funding from Northrop Grumman, Lockheed Martin, and General Atomics, companies which have a stake in the outcome of the hearing. This should be the gold standard of transparency in Washington.
Thanks to a rule introduced by Rep. Katie Porter (D-Calif.) in 2021, witnesses do have to disclose other organizations that they have legal obligations to. “Hearings are opportunities to get answers for the American people — we need to know about foreign influence or any risk of self dealing with the witnesses called before Congress,” said Porter. The 119th Congress could take this a step further by asking about private funding sources related to the committee or hearing.
Lastly, the 119th Congress should ask witnesses to list all high-dollar organizational foreign government funding. The current question only asks witnesses to list foreign government funding “related to hearing’s subject,” leaving the question open for too much interpretation.
“Foreign governments throw around money to think tanks with prestigious names to color their interests as American national security interests.” a congressional staffer, speaking on condition of anonymity, told RS. “We need more transparency to know who is funding these witnesses.”
But a rule is only good as it’s enforced. As is, Congress lacks enforcement mechanisms to ensure non-governmental witnesses comply with truth in testimony disclosure. That should be remedied.
In a recent brief titled “Renovating the People’s House,” Daniel Schuman, executive director of the American Governance Institute, and Zach Graves, Executive Director at the Foundation for American Innovation, proposed empowering the House Ethics Committee to determine whether witnesses have violated truth in testimony requirements and, if so, bar them from future testimony. “Upon a timely review and finding of a violation, the House Ethics Committee should notify the Clerk, who should maintain a public list of persons currently or previously barred,” the report reads.
These recommendations will not fix everything, but witnesses are legally required to tell the truth under oath if they want to testify to Congress. Schuman explained in an email to RS that “If submission of this information is under oath, and you commit perjury, that in theory might raise the stakes and encourage greater compliance.”
These commonsense proposals have bipartisan support in Congress. After Porter’s 2021 rule, Rep. Jim Banks (R-Ind) introduced a rule later that year with 40 co-sponsors that would have, among other things, closed the personal capacity loophole for foreign government funding. “Congress works best when all the cards are face up on the table,” said Banks.
Among those co-sponsors was Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.). In 2020, Johnson also oversaw the publication of the Republican Study Committee National Security Strategy, which proposed a more institutional approach to transparency. The task force report, signed off by Johnson, concluded that “think tanks and similar nonprofit institutions receiving significant funding, over $50,000 a year, from foreign governments, foreign political parties or foreign military entities, should be required to disclose that information for purposes of identifying conflicts-of-interest.”
“Who funds you?” is a normal question in academia, there’s no reason it shouldn’t be a standard question on Capitol Hill. The same way a medical researcher would disclose pharmaceutical funding of their research at a conference or journal, think tank analysts ought to disclose certain private and foreign government funding when testifying on defense policy. If a think tank analyst has good arguments, their arguments will be uplifted — not diminished — by transparency.
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.