Follow us on social

Congress moves to make Selective Service automatic

Congress moves to make Selective Service automatic

Raising the specter of the draft, this NDAA amendment seems ill-timed

Analysis | Military Industrial Complex


Ronald Reagan vowed to get rid of Selective Service during his 1979 presidential campaign, saying that the military draft “rests on the assumption that your kids belong to the state.”

“That assumption isn’t a new one,” he said. “The Nazis thought it was a great idea.”

Selective Service, in which men aged 18-26 are mandated to register voluntarily, survived Reagan and remains in place to this day. Failure to register is considered a felony. According to Matt Welch at Reason, there have only been 14 convictions under this law and none since 1986, though some 100,000 men per year don't register and risk penalties like getting student loans, working a government job, or obtaining a driver's license, depending on where they reside.

Now, nearly 50 years after America’s last war of conscription in Vietnam, lawmakers are supporting legislation that sounds like they’re preparing for another full draft.

The 2025 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that passed the House on Friday contained a measure that would register men automatically with Selective Service. Whereas for a half century young men were supposed to fill out the proper paperwork on their own time, now all men would automatically be in the Selective Service database when they turn 18.

Maybe congressional members will vote next to send these boys to Ukraine or Gaza? Not likely, since Congress has largely ceded warmaking authority to the Executive over the last 20 years. Are you comfortable with President Joe Biden or possibly Donald Trump making those life-and-death decisions about your son or male relative?

While it is a felony not to register currently, there is still a shred of the voluntary left. Automatically registering young men for what is essentially a draftee list rips the last veil away. And though there is no active conscription for war today, this would make it a lot easier for Uncle Sam to start it.

Denunciations over the amendment came quick. “Why and Where will we be sending our kids to war?” pleaded former Democratic Congressman and current House candidate Dennis Kucinich. “Does anyone hear the drums of war and see the erosion of our individual liberty?” he added.

“I will veto any legislation to reinstitute the draft,” vowed independent presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. To date, Biden or Trump haven’t commented.

The House effort was spearheaded by Democratic Congresswoman Chrissy Houlahan of Pennsylvania. Automatic registration was included in the House Armed Services Committee’s version of the NDAA that passed in May, advancing through the committee in a 57 to 1 vote.

According to Defense News, Houlahan said during a debate in May, "By using available federal databases, the [Selective Service] agency will be able to register all of the individuals required and thus help ensure that any future military draft is fair and equitable."

"This will also allow us to rededicate resources — basically that means money — towards reading readiness and towards mobilization … rather than towards education and advertising campaigns driven to register people."

Supporters believe automatic registration will cut down on bureaucratic red tape. It’s curious that members of Congress actually concerned about red tape in Washington would start by making it easier to reinstitute the draft.

Maybe forcing men off to foreign lands for unclear reasons where so many will not come back deserves deeper thought, deliberation, and yes, perhaps mountains of bureaucracy and red tape standing between human beings and war? Houlahan has raised the specter, so let's dust it off and take a look.

Of the 58,220 U.S. military members killed in Vietnam, 17,671 of them were draftees. That’s 30 percent. They had no choice in the matter.

When 2020 Democratic presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg was calling for mandatory national service five years ago, Cato’s Doug Bandow noted that “the military doesn’t want conscripts or short‐termers. The armed services learned during the Vietnam War that those who don’t want to be there tend to develop discipline problems…”

The Heritage Foundation’s James Jay Carafano said about the political practicality of another draft, “The lesson of Vietnam, and previous wars, is that drafts require political consensus. However, such consensus cannot be presumed before a conflict.”

Is there any semblance of a national consensus on America’s fueling of the Russia-Ukraine conflict?

Military drafts have existed in every American war through Vietnam when the last draftees were deployed in 1972. Both Bandow and Carafano cite that war and potential lessons learned for a good reason.

The year before the U.S. invaded Iraq in 2003, Brookings’ Bruce Chapman observed, “We eliminated the draft three decades ago in part because the armed services found that they needed relatively fewer recruits to serve longer than conscription provided. As the numbers that were needed shrank, the unfairness of the draft became ever more apparent-and offensive.”

“The government took advantage of its free supply of almost unlimited manpower by underpaying its servicemen, thereby losing many recruits who might have chosen a military career,” Chapman added, noting that conscripts can actually devalue the military in the eyes of men who otherwise might have made a career in it.

It’s safe to say that Rep. Houlahan has unlikely considered the many reasons a restoration of the military draft would be an awful idea.

It could be that she and other members of Congress who support the automatic Selective Service can't fathom why moving in this direction is bad on its face, and that's exactly why these people shouldn’t have any kind of power over the lives of America’s young boys and men. Especially this power.

Their lives should matter more than office efficiency.


Pennsylvania National Guard Soldiers bound for Africa mission, Dec. 2023. (photo by Pennsylvania National Guard )
Pennsylvania National Guard Soldiers bound for Africa mission, Dec. 2023. (photo by Pennsylvania National Guard )
Analysis | Military Industrial Complex
POGO The Bunker
Top image credit: Project on Government Oversight

Bombers astray! Washington's priorities go off course

Military Industrial Complex

The Bunker appears originally at the Project on Government Oversight and is republished here with permission.


keep readingShow less
Trump Zelensky
Top photo credit: Joshua Sukoff / Shutterstock.com

Blob exploiting Trump's anger with Putin, risking return to Biden's war

Europe

Donald Trump’s recent outburst against Vladimir Putin — accusing the Russian leader of "throwing a pile of bullsh*t at us" and threatening devastating new sanctions — might be just another Trumpian tantrum.

The president is known for abrupt reversals. Or it could be a bargaining tactic ahead of potential Ukraine peace talks. But there’s a third, more troubling possibility: establishment Republican hawks and neoconservatives, who have been maneuvering to hijack Trump’s “America First” agenda since his return to office, may be exploiting his frustration with Putin to push for a prolonged confrontation with Russia.

Trump’s irritation is understandable. Ukraine has accepted his proposed ceasefire, but Putin has refused, making him, in Trump’s eyes, the main obstacle to ending the war.

Putin’s calculus is clear. As Ted Snider notes in the American Conservative, Russia is winning on the battlefield. In June, it captured more Ukrainian territory and now threatens critical Kyiv’s supply lines. Moscow also seized a key lithium deposit critical to securing Trump’s support for Ukraine. Meanwhile, Russian missile and drone strikes have intensified.

Putin seems convinced his key demands — Ukraine’s neutrality, territorial concessions in the Donbas and Crimea, and a downsized Ukrainian military — are more achievable through war than diplomacy.

Yet his strategy empowers the transatlantic “forever war” faction: leaders in Britain, France, Germany, and the EU, along with hawks in both main U.S. parties. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz claims that diplomacy with Russia is “exhausted.” Europe’s war party, convinced a Russian victory would inevitably lead to an attack on NATO (a suicidal prospect for Moscow), is willing to fight “to the last Ukrainian.” Meanwhile, U.S. hawks, including liberal interventionist Democrats, stoke Trump’s ego, framing failure to stand up to Putin’s defiance as a sign of weakness or appeasement.

Trump long resisted this pressure. Pragmatism told him Ukraine couldn’t win, and calling it “Biden’s war” was his way of distancing himself, seeking a quick exit to refocus on China, which he has depicted as Washington’s greater foreign threat. At least as important, U.S. involvement in the war in Ukraine has been unpopular with his MAGA base.

But his June strikes on Iran may signal a hawkish shift. By touting them as a decisive blow to Iran’s nuclear program (despite Tehran’s refusal so far to abandon uranium enrichment), Trump may be embracing a new approach to dealing with recalcitrant foreign powers: offer a deal, set a deadline, then unleash overwhelming force if rejected. The optics of “success” could tempt him to try something similar with Russia.

This pivot coincides with a media campaign against restraint advocates within the administration like Elbridge Colby, the Pentagon policy chief who has prioritized China over Ukraine and also provoked the opposition of pro-Israel neoconservatives by warning against war with Iran. POLITICO quoted unnamed officials attacking Colby for wanting the U.S. to “do less in the world.” Meanwhile, the conventional Republican hawk Marco Rubio’s influence grows as he combines the jobs of both secretary of state and national security adviser.

What Can Trump Actually Do to Russia?
 

Nuclear deterrence rules out direct military action — even Biden, far more invested in Ukraine than Trump, avoided that risk. Instead, Trump ally Sen.Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), another establishment Republican hawk, is pushing a 500% tariff on nations buying Russian hydrocarbons, aiming to sever Moscow from the global economy. Trump seems supportive, although the move’s feasibility and impact are doubtful.

China and India are key buyers of Russian oil. China alone imports 12.5 million barrels daily. Russia exports seven million barrels daily. China could absorb Russia’s entire output. Beijing has bluntly stated it “cannot afford” a Russian defeat, ensuring Moscow’s economic lifeline remains open.

The U.S., meanwhile, is ill-prepared for a tariff war with China. When Trump imposed 145% tariffs, Beijing retaliated by cutting off rare earth metals exports, vital to U.S. industry and defense. Trump backed down.

At the G-7 summit in Canada last month, the EU proposed lowering price caps on Russian oil from $60 a barrel to $45 a barrel as part of its 18th sanctions package against Russia. Trump rejected the proposal at the time but may be tempted to reconsider, given his suggestion that more sanctions may be needed. Even if Washington backs the measure now, however, it is unlikely to cripple Russia’s war machine.

Another strategy may involve isolating Russia by peeling away Moscow’s traditionally friendly neighbors. Here, Western mediation between Armenia and Azerbaijan isn’t about peace — if it were, pressure would target Baku, which has stalled agreements and threatened renewed war against Armenia. The real goal is to eject Russia from the South Caucasus and create a NATO-aligned energy corridor linking Turkey to Central Asia, bypassing both Russia and Iran to their detriment.

Central Asia itself is itself emerging as a new battleground. In May 2025, the EU has celebrated its first summit with Central Asian nations in Uzbekistan, with a heavy focus on developing the Middle Corridor, a route for transportation of energy and critical raw materials that would bypass Russia. In that context, the EU has committed €10 billion in support of the Trans-Caspian International Transport Route.

keep readingShow less
Syria sanctions
Top image credit: People line up to buy bread, after Syria's Bashar al-Assad was ousted, in Douma, on the outskirts of Damascus, Syria December 23, 2024. REUTERS/Zohra Bensemra

Lifting sanctions on Syria exposes their cruel intent

Middle East

On June 30, President Trump signed an executive order terminating the majority of U.S. sanctions on Syria. The move, which would have been unthinkable mere months ago, fulfilled a promise he made at an investment forum in Riyadh in May.“The sanctions were brutal and crippling,” he had declared to an audience of primarily Saudi businessmen. Lifting them, he said, will “give Syria a chance at greatness.”

The significance of this statement lies not solely in the relief that it will bring to the Syrian people. His remarks revealed an implicit but rarely admitted truth: sanctions — often presented as a peaceful alternative to war — have been harming the Syrian people all along.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

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.