|
Quotes of the Day:
"A soldier doesn't fight because he hates what’s in front of him; he fights because he loves what’s behind him."
– G.K. Chesterton
"In war, as in love, to bring matters to a close, you must get close."
– Bonaparte
"What is love? Love is the absence of judgment."
– The Dalai Lama
1. A Mad Scramble Inside The Pentagon Ahead Of DOGE's Arrival
2. Pentagon Prepares Potential Cuts for DOGE - Don't forget the "Preamble to the Foxhole"
3. Will Donald Trump and Elon Musk wreck or reform the Pentagon?
4. America’s military supremacy is in jeopardy
5. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth Press Conference Following NATO Ministers of Defense Meeting in Brussels, Belgium
6. Hegseth warns Europeans 'realities' of China and border threats prevent US from guaranteeing their security
7. Trump and Musk Are Going to War Against Military Veterans
8. China is rehearsing for war, Indo-Pacific commander says
9. China military exercises near Taiwan could be used to conceal attack, US says
10. Trump Plays Hardball to Wean Panama from China
11. DOD wants to cut red tape on foreign arms deals, Hegseth says
12. Countering China’s diplomatic coup
13. Analysis: Putin has waited for this moment for 3 years, as Zelensky is left in the cold
14. Analysis: What does Trump’s push for peace in Ukraine mean for China?
15. Former Pentagon leader Chris Miller joins defense investment firm
16. North Korea rights groups fear their collapse after Musk pushes US funding cuts
17. How Trump could productively reshape the transatlantic defense relationship
18. The Fourth Age: The SOCOM Commander’s Vision for the Future
19. China-Taiwan Weekly Update, February 14, 2025
20. After DeepSeek, America and the EU are getting AI wrong
21. What happened next at USAID
22. How Russell Vought's 'radical constitutionalism' could spark a constitutional crisis
23. Trump ordered to temporarily lift USAid freeze and allow foreign aid funding
24. US special forces landing in Mexico to train marine infantry
25. Elon Musk’s DOGE Targets FOIA Requests at Agency Under its Purview
1. A Mad Scramble Inside The Pentagon Ahead Of DOGE's Arrival
I have two simple test for the staff analysis:
1) If a function is performed by the Joint Staff and the Services is it necessary to have a duplicative function on the OSD staff?
2) The correct question to ask for the OSD staff is what size of a staff is necessary for strategic direction, oversight, and civilian control of the military without duplicating the work of the uniformed military?
Also, it would be great for the wiz kids to identify how much of the staff have grown to satisfy congressional requirements on reporting and to perform other non-military related and no-warfighting functions.
Again we need OSD for strategic direction, oversight, and civilian control. We need the military to be run by the professional military. But the wiz kids need to understand the difference between a business that makes a product and serves a shareholder and those who serve our nation, civilians and military across the federal bureaucracy. The need to understand "from the preamble to the foxhole."
Perhaps the optimal OSD staff would be from the DASD up so that the SECDEF, DEPSECDEF, Under Secretaries, and Assistant Secretaries could focus on strategic direction, oversight, and civilian control of the military without duplicating the work of the Joint Staff and Services. We should keep in mind the Constitution tells us to raise an Army and sustain a Navy and it appoints POTUS as CINC (Congress and the CINC exercise civilian control of the military). There is nothing in the Constitution about OSD. Perhaps we need to reconsider the National Security Act of 1947 and Goldwater Nichols while we are at it /
Then there are the Combatant Commands to consider......Sigh...
All the staffs of OSD, the Services, Defense Agencies, and the Combatant Commands are going to take a haircut. You can either finesse a style cut or get a crew cut or have your head shaved.
All the above is heresy, I know. Easy to armchair quarterback. But if we are going to have the "Great Reset" we should go for broke and optimize the staffs that support the warfighters and let the warfighters do their jobs and prepare to fight our wars.
A Mad Scramble Inside The Pentagon Ahead Of DOGE's Arrival
https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidjeans/2025/02/12/pentagon-doge-elon-musk/
Feb 12, 2025,10:42am EST
Updated Feb 13, 2025, 12:13pm EST
With Elon Musk’s cost cutters due any day, military leaders are eyeing bloated contracts, programs and legacy weapons systems.
By David Jeans, Forbes Staff
D
OGE is coming for the Department of Defense.
After taking the knife to a growing roster of federal agencies, and causing widespread panic at others, employees from Elon Musk‘s Department of Government Efficiency are set to arrive at the Pentagon in the coming days, a person briefed on the effort told Forbes. Charged with cutting $2 trillion from the federal budget, they could bring an unprecedented shakeup to America’s sprawling military and its near $1 trillion budget.
For decades, legislators on both sides of the aisle have struggled to rein in wasteful defense spending with little success, as the Pentagon has been repeatedly embarrassed by reports of egregious overspending — millions in untracked inventory, failed audits, the infamous $10,000 toilet seats. In an interview during Sunday’s Super Bowl, President Trump said he expected DOGE’s review of the military will find “hundreds of billions of dollars of fraud and abuse.”
Now, even as Musk’s cost cutting machine faces mounting court challenges and threats from Democrats, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth is rolling out the welcome mat. “I’ve been in touch with Elon Musk, who’s a great patriot interested in advancing the America First agenda,” he said on Fox News Tuesday. “There are plenty of places we want the keen eye of DOGE, but we will do it in coordination.”
Hegseth said he would focus on cuts to weapons acquisitions and procurement, climate programs and headcount at headquarters. DOGE staffers will be employed directly by the Defense Department to focus solely on executing its cost cutting mandate, a person with direct knowledge said.
“We are seeing the chicken come home to roost.”
Chris Miller, former acting Secretary of Defense
Ahead of their arrival, Pentagon leaders have already begun targeting legacy initiatives by discussing potential cuts to fighter jet programs — long a target of Musk, who has called the F-35 program “obsolete” — pausing upcoming contracts and merging different operations, according to a dozen current and former Pentagon officials and others with knowledge who spoke to Forbes.
“The existing ecosystem of the prime contractors, and legacy cold war personalities, knew what was coming, and decided to ignore it,” said Chris Miller, the former acting Secretary of Defense and a co-author of Project 2025, the conservative blueprint for the Trump administration. “And we are seeing the chicken come home to roost.”
The Air Force, for one, faces major upheaval as it hopes to defend the future of manned aircraft amid the rise of drone warfare. Last week, Hegseth paused planning meetings for a reorganization effort designed to better combat China, which included plans for a sixth generation fighter jet. Any cuts to the program would introduce uncertainty about the Air Force's future manned combat capabilities only two weeks after the service gave General Electric and Pratt & Whitney billions to continue developing new engines for the proposed jet.
The Pentagon and the White House, which is overseeing communications for DOGE, declined to comment. The Air Force did not respond to requests for comment.
Got a tip? Contact David Jeans at djeans@forbes.com or 347-559-5443 on Signal.
Pentagon leaders are also focused on merging three organizations that focus on incubating new technology: the Defense Innovation Unit (DIU), the Chief Digital and Artificial Intelligence Office (CDAO) and the Strategic Capabilities Office, according to three sources. Multiple sources said this move could see the shuttering of the Defense Digital Service, a program aimed at bringing in private-sector tech talent and currently overseen by the CDAO.
“Bringing these organizations together creates a rare opportunity to align innovation efforts with clear, unified goals that can directly enhance national security,” said Tyler Sweatt, CEO of software startup Second Front, which helps companies access military networks, and has received funding from DIU, which has an annual budget of close to $1 billion.
The future of the CDAO’s largest program is also uncertain. Officials this week paused an upcoming contract competition for one of the Pentagon’s primary AI platforms used for making battlefield decisions, known as ADVANA (a mashup of Advanced Analytics), according to a Pentagon official with direct knowledge. Contractor Booz Allen had been awarded a $3.2 billion, three year contract to run ADVANA back in 2021, but a recompete that would turn it into a $15 billion, 10-year contract was supposed to move ahead in coming months. Booz Allen declined to comment.
Part of Hegseth’s strategy has involved embracing Silicon Valley. Last week, he met with Alexandr Wang, the CEO of AI unicorn Scale AI, according to two people with knowledge of the meeting. Scale AI has at least $300 million in contracts from the federal government to provide data labeling services. (Scale AI declined to comment on the meeting.)
Wang was also among a group of leaders from top Silicon Valley defense tech companies — including Anduril, Palantir, OpenAI and Vannevar Labs — who attended a high profile military AI summit last week. The event was hosted by Indo-Pacific Command, which directs U.S. military forces in the region, according to an attendee list seen by Forbes; cloud giants Amazon, Microsoft and Google were also in attendance.
And at least one tech leader is joining the DoD. Emil Michael, a former Uber executive, was selected by Trump to be the undersecretary of defense for research and engineering, where he will oversee the famed Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, better known as DARPA, which has a $4 billion discretionary budget used to develop technologies for warfighters. Announcing his appointment, Trump said Michael would “ensure that our Military has the most technologically sophisticated weapons in the World, while saving A LOT of money for our Taxpayers.”
Despite talk of abandoning expensive weapons systems in favor of low cost drones, prime contractors stand to benefit from some of Hegseth’s big ticket items. For example, Trump’s ‘Iron Dome,’ a plan to build a new missile defense system to take out threats like hypersonic and cruise missiles, could direct billions of dollars to companies like Lockheed Martin and RTX, if it’s feasible. “We can shoot down cruise missiles with lasers now, and that could be part of the solution,” Lockheed’s CEO Jim Taiclet told analysts last week, adding, “I welcome DOGE’s effort and the administration’s effort to reduce the bureaucracy.”
Pentagon officials can look to other agencies for what to expect from DOGE’s arrival. The initiative, which posts a rolling tally of apparent cost cutting measures on X, has claimed credit for ending leases overseen by the General Services Administration, deleted gender identification on the Veterans Affairs website and gained access to sensitive U.S. Treasury payments data. Musk allies have also been installed in key positions at Technology Transformation Services, the IT arm of the federal government, and demanded key admin access, as Forbes reported.
Perhaps most dramatic is the DOGE-driven implosion of USAID, the $70 billion foreign aid agency. Hegseth has aimed to calm concerns around DOGE’s arrival at his department. “The defense department is not USAID,” he said. “USAID has a lot of problems…pursuing globalist agendas that don't have a connection to America first.”
Jeremy Bogaisky contributed reporting.
Update: This story has been updated to remove reference of Shield AI attending the AI summit; the company’s leaders did not attend the event.
2. Pentagon Prepares Potential Cuts for DOGE - Don't forget the "Preamble to the Foxhole"
DOGE is coming. But I wish the first thing the could do is give the DOGE kids an education on DOD
I am reminded of the day we had the late LTG Trefrey visit our SAMS at Fort Leavenworth and spend a few hours writing on the white board around the entire room with a class of 52 SAMS students describing from the "preamble to the foxhole" in 1995 or 1996.. It was one of the most inspiring and brilliant presentations I have ever seen. I know that he routinely taught this at the Army Force Management School at Fort Belvoir for many years/decades even.
I wish he were still alive today to give the presentation to the DOGE wiz kids so they would understand the full scope of their work - starting with the preamble to our Constitution and ending with the soldier in the foxhole defending our nation. I think their algorithms will focus on everything in between the preamble and the foxhole but if they cannot make sure their work lives up to our American values and supports the soldier at the end of the line then they are not really making the full contribution to our national security that we need them to make. They could use the preamble to the foxhole to fully grasp the importance of their work in DOD. It is not just about transparency and cost cutting if it goes against our values and does not help the soldier fight better, smarter, and harder. There is so much potential for the "Great Reset" but we cannot forget the preamble (our values) and the soldier.
The preamble to the foxhole also could be adapted and applied to all agencies of the federal government because it starts with our values and ends with the American citizen. It is what makes serving in the federal government than a business (in business instead of the preamble to the foxhole it is from "the product to the shareholder.")
For those who are not familiar with his work, here is a link to a comprehensive thesis at Kansas University: https://kuscholarworks.ku.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/e052f629-a7bd-427f-b2e2-5057ed0e6cbe/content
See appendix one: The Mother of All Charts (MOAC).
Here is the first image – there are 18 more – but he drew them all by hand on the white board when he gave us the presentation. These obviously have been refined and further fleshed out:
Pentagon Prepares Potential Cuts for DOGE
The Defense Department is taking steps ahead of expected arrival of Elon Musk’s cost-cutting team
By Nancy A. Youssef
Follow
and Lindsay Wise
Follow
Feb. 14, 2025 5:00 am ET
U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth at the Pentagon. Photo: nathan Howard/Reuters
WASHINGTON—In a bid to get ahead of what could be drastic cuts by Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency, some parts of the military are preparing lists of weapons they have long wanted to cancel but couldn’t get past lawmakers seeking to protect spending in their districts.
DOGE members are expected at the Defense Department as soon as Friday, defense officials said. The Pentagon has received a list of DOGE officials assigned to the department but hasn’t publicly released it, they added.
“We welcome DOGE to the Pentagon,” Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said earlier this week.
In the weeks since President Trump took office, DOGE staffers have been embedded at several federal agencies, reviewing government systems to look for excessive spending. Trump signed an executive order Tuesday giving DOGE more authority to reduce the size of the federal workforce.
But DOGE has yet to tackle a budget as large and complex as the Defense Department’s. The department employs three million troops and civilians and has a budget in excess of $800 billion, accounting for at least 12% of the $6.75 trillion federal budget.
Military spending on bases as well as money for weapons systems, ships and vehicles is the cornerstone of local economies around the country, and often large military weapons are built across several states. For example, construction of the F-35 touches 48 states.
By comparison, the U.S. Agency for International Development, which DOGE effectively gutted, had a $40 billion budget and employed 10,000 personnel.
DOGE didn’t respond to a request for comment.
Some military services have already drawn up their own wish lists of cuts. “People are offering up things sacrificially, hoping that will prevent more cuts,” one defense official said.
The Army list includes outdated drones and vehicles that have been produced in surplus and, if cut, could add up to billions of dollars in savings.
“We’re taking a proactive approach to making our spending more efficient,” said Col. Dave Butler, an Army spokesman. “There are several systems that we know won’t survive on the modern battlefield.”
The U.S. Navy is proposing cuts to its frigates and littoral combat ships, people familiar with the plans said.
Total costs of the U.S. Air Force’s F-35 stealth fighter are expected to exceed $2 trillion over several decades. Photo: idrees mohammed/Agence France-Presse/Getty Images
The Air Force declined to comment on any proposed cuts, but Musk in the past has taken aim at the service’s F-35 stealth jet fighters. Musk has called the program, whose total costs are expected to exceed $2 trillion over several decades, a “flop” and its builders “idiots.”
In the past, the services put forth lists of potential cuts in a bid to shift funding toward newer programs they wanted to fund instead. Such lists were often regarded as a political ploy meant to suggest the services were underfunded.
Lawmakers who sought to preserve military spending in their districts would then routinely reject those proposed cuts. The result has been a steadily growing Pentagon budget since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
“It was in the permissive post-9/11 environment that we saw a whole slew of ill-conceived weapons programs,” said Dan Grazier, senior fellow and director of the National Security Reform Program at the Stimson Center, a Washington nonprofit. “Now we are seeing the results—failed program after failed program.”
But with DOGE promising to make major cuts, some services are revamping the list to get ahead of the process.
“They want to inoculate themselves. The services are looking at this as an opportunity to get rid of things they couldn’t before because of constituencies,” said Bryan Clark, senior fellow at Hudson Institute, who closely tracks the U.S. Navy budget.
There is room for major cost savings without dramatically affecting the department because it is so big, Clark said, but until now cuts came at a political cost.
“There is a different mindset now where the administration is willing to make cuts that will upset constituencies,” he said. “You are going to upset a lot of companies who have built their business around government funding, and the new administration is not worried about the reaction it will get from the Hill.”
Defense spending has been cut in the past, particularly after the collapse of the Soviet Union. In the 1990s, the U.S. sought to shrink or close military bases, but the costs of doing so were far higher than expected in the short term and devastated some local economies.
Because much of what the Pentagon operates is on classified systems and accessing them requires security clearances, navigating defense systems may also prove difficult, particularly compared with USAID.
“There are classified systems in the Pentagon that others do not have, and they are classified at different levels, and so some of those are going to be much more difficult and much more sensitive to oversight for someone that may not have an appropriate classification,” said Sen. Mike Rounds, (R., S.D.), who supports Musk’s efforts.
The launch of a SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket from the Kennedy Space Center in Cape Canaveral, Fla., last month. Photo: steve nesius/Reuters
Critics of DOGE’s effort are also likely to flag that Musk has billions of dollars of Pentagon contracts through his companies like SpaceX and its Starlink system, raising potential conflicts of interest.
Democratic lawmakers have already expressed concern, saying that there should be greater oversight over members of DOGE.
“The White House should be enforcing the law and making sure he’s not in conflict,” Sen. Mark Kelly (D., Ariz.) said, of Musk.
And some Republican lawmakers—and Trump administration officials—have indicated they didn’t want to see wholesale cuts of weapons systems or personnel.
A sign in a bathroom at the Pentagon earlier this week.
One place where there could be a target of cuts is at headquarters units, particularly at the Pentagon. The potential for layoffs at the Pentagon, whose hallways feature large posters with messages like “Loose lips sink ships,” has sparked trepidation about DOGE’s arrival among some in the building.
A new—and unofficial—sign that hung in one women’s bathroom read, “Meet the DOGE Team” and featured photos of 15 known members of the cost-cutting organization. Those pictures include Edward Coristine, Anthony Armstrong and, inside a yellow highlighted box, Amanda Scales, a former employee of Elon Musk’s AI company who was recently named chief of staff at the Office of Personnel Management.
Any large cuts that take place, however, are likely to face opposition from both political parties.
“We have big [defense] spenders in both parties. I’m expecting all kinds of squealing as you’re trying to come back to some kind of prepandemic level spending,” said Sen. Ron Johnson (R., Wis.), who supports Musk’s efforts.
Write to Nancy A. Youssef at nancy.youssef@wsj.com and Lindsay Wise at lindsay.wise@wsj.com
3. Will Donald Trump and Elon Musk wreck or reform the Pentagon?
If they remember our values from the preamble and protect the soldier in the foxhole we will be okay.
And here are some of the dilemmas:
Reforming the Pentagon is much harder than other parts of government. America cannot focus on preparing for war in 2035 if that involves lowering its defences today. It cannot simply replace multi-billion-dollar submarines and bomber squadrons with swarms of drones, because to project power to the other side of the world will continue to require big platforms. Instead America needs a Department of Defence that can revolutionise the economics of massive systems and accelerate the spread of novel systems at the same time.
Mr Musk and his boss are conflicted. If Mr Trump prefers sacking generals for supposedly being “woke” or disloyal, he will bring dysfunction upon the Pentagon. If Mr Musk and his mil-tech brethren use DOGE’s campaign to wreck, or to boost their own power and wealth, they will corrupt it. Those temptations make it hard to think that this administration will succeed where others have failed. But the hope is that they will. America’s security depends upon it.
Will Donald Trump and Elon Musk wreck or reform the Pentagon?
https://www.economist.com/leaders/2025/02/13/will-donald-trump-and-elon-musk-wreck-or-reform-the-pentagon?utm
Feb 13th 2025
I
N THE PENTAGON they must surely be on high alert. On February 9th President Donald Trump declared that it would soon become the target for Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). Accusing it of “hundreds of billions of fraud and abuse”, Mr Trump will unleash his insurgents, fresh from feeding foreign aid into the woodchipper. Their work could not be more important, or more risky.
That is because America’s armed forces face a real problem. Not since the Soviet Union launched Sputnik and built huge tank formations at the height of the cold war have America’s military vulnerabilities been so glaring. In the killing fields of Ukraine America is being out-innovated by drone designers; in the seas and skies off China it is losing its ability to deter a blockade or invasion of Taiwan.
The stakes are all the higher because the Pentagon is a place where MAGA ideology meets reality. Mr Trump’s foreign policy is transactional: this week he said he had begun talks with Russia on the future of Ukraine. But it is built on the idea that peace comes through strength, and that is possible only if America’s forces pose a credible threat. And what if DOGE goes rogue in the Pentagon? If Mr Musk causes chaos or corrupts procurement, the consequences for America’s security could be catastrophic.
The problems are clearest in the struggle to turn technology into a military advantage. The drones over Ukraine are upgraded every few weeks, a pace that is beyond the Pentagon’s budgeting process, which takes years. American and European jammers in electronic warfare cost two or three times as much as Ukrainian ones, but are obsolete. Many big American drones have been useless in Ukraine; newer ones are pricier than Ukrainian models.
Another problem is that America’s defence industry has been captured. At the end of the cold war the country had 51 prime contractors and only 6% of defence spending went to firms that specialised in defence. Today, just five primes soak up 86% of the Pentagon’s cash. Wary of driving more primes out of business, the department has opted for a risk-averse culture. Contracts are typically cost-plus, rewarding lateness and overspending. The resulting lack of productivity gains helps explain why building warships in America costs so much more than it does in Japan or South Korea.
Behind this is the nightmare of budgets. Two-year delays are aggravated by congressional squabbling. Pork-barrelling politicians waste money by vetoing the end of programmes. They guard their control over spending so jealously that, without congressional permission, the Pentagon cannot as a rule shift more than $15m from one line to another—too little to buy even four Patriot missiles. When the Pentagon proposed diverting just 0.5% of the defence budget to buy thousands of drones under its “Replicator” initiative in August 2023, winning approval took almost 40 congressional meetings.
Pentagon angst is as old as the military-industrial complex. Past secretaries of defence, including Bob Gates and the late Ash Carter, were philosopher kings next to their new and manifestly unqualified successor, Pete Hegseth. And yet the defence bureaucracy has always seemed to come out on top.
There are two reasons why this moment may be different. One is that the time is ripe. Not only is the threat to American security becoming clear, but a new generation of mil-tech firms, including Anduril, Palantir and Shield AI, is banging on the Pentagon’s doors. Indeed, Palantir is now worth more than any of the five prime contractors.
More controversially, Mr Musk is eager to crack heads together, an enthusiasm which stems partly from the second reason to hope: his experience elsewhere. In the 2010s, to escape the ignominy of paying for rides to the International Space Station on Russian spacecraft, NASA put fixed-price contracts to provide such services out to tender. Boeing offered something called Starliner; Mr Musk’s SpaceX offered Crew Dragon at a much lower cost. Crew Dragon has been a huge success. Starliner has yet to fly a successful mission (and has left Boeing having to absorb billions of dollars of budget overruns).
From 1960 to 2010 the cost of getting a kilogram into orbit hovered at around $12,000; SpaceX rockets have already cut that by a factor of ten, and promise much more. Helsing, Europe’s only defence unicorn, takes a similarly nimble approach to development, continually updating its systems with data from the front lines.
Mr Musk’s task is big and complex. American weapons need more AI, autonomy and lower costs. Where possible, they should be made from cheap off-the-shelf parts that ride on advances in consumer tech. The Pentagon should foster competition and risk-taking, knowing that some schemes will fail. A decade ago Carter set up a unit for innovation, but it was often seen as a threat. The Pentagon needs more of them. It should also listen to combatant commanders, too often drowned out by politics. Hardest of all, Mr Trump will have to get congressional Republicans to give the Pentagon a freer rein to spend and innovate.
Reforming the Pentagon is much harder than other parts of government. America cannot focus on preparing for war in 2035 if that involves lowering its defences today. It cannot simply replace multi-billion-dollar submarines and bomber squadrons with swarms of drones, because to project power to the other side of the world will continue to require big platforms. Instead America needs a Department of Defence that can revolutionise the economics of massive systems and accelerate the spread of novel systems at the same time.
Mr Musk and his boss are conflicted. If Mr Trump prefers sacking generals for supposedly being “woke” or disloyal, he will bring dysfunction upon the Pentagon. If Mr Musk and his mil-tech brethren use DOGE’s campaign to wreck, or to boost their own power and wealth, they will corrupt it. Those temptations make it hard to think that this administration will succeed where others have failed. But the hope is that they will. America’s security depends upon it. ■
For subscribers only: to see how we design each week’s cover, sign up to our weekly Cover Story newsletter.
4. America’s military supremacy is in jeopardy
Perhaps this is the overarching question that the President and the DOGE wiz kids have to address. Do we want to maintain military supremacy? Do we need to?
And then the second question is are we willing to pay for that military supremacy?
Obviously there will be vastly different opinions on how to do that but if the answer to those questions is yes then they must guide all decisions that the DOGE wiz kids make.
America’s military supremacy is in jeopardy
To win future wars it needs new weapons, new suppliers and a new system of procurement
https://www.economist.com/briefing/2025/02/13/americas-military-supremacy-is-in-jeopardy?utm
Photograph: Getty Images
Feb 13th 2025|WASHINGTON, DC
O
N THE FRONT lines in Ukraine, war is not nearly as foggy as it used to be. Satellites and drones equipped with many kinds of sensors are always scanning every inch of the battlefield, while artificial intelligence (AI) instantly interprets the data they gather. It is far easier than it would once have been for either side to spot and attack anything that moves—one reason why big, old-fashioned offensives have made so little headway.
Chart: The Economist
America has played a big part in these changes. It has helped Ukrainian forces build drones that are more capable yet cheaper than those deployed in Afghanistan and Iraq, for instance, and develop an AI “kill chain” in which targets are identified and munitions guided to them, often deep behind enemy lines. American firms, too, are in the vanguard of this new era. They visit Ukraine regularly to observe how their weapons are performing and adapt them accordingly. Private capital is flooding into American companies that aim to disrupt the conventional battlefield. In December Palantir, a data firm, became the world’s most valuable defence contractor, supplanting RTX, an aerospace giant. Palantir’s market capitalisation was a fraction of RTX’s when Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022. Now it is much bigger (see chart 1).
Asleep at the cutting edge
Yet for all America’s expertise and innovation, not to mention its vast defence budget, its own armed forces are struggling to adapt. Mark Milley, until late 2023 America’s most senior soldier, argues that the military machine that he oversaw for four years is, in essence, unfit for purpose. In an article he co-wrote last year with Eric Schmidt, a former CEO of Google and backer of a fund investing in military technology, he notes that American firms make the best AI systems, but its armed forces struggle to absorb and deploy them. Troops lack the equipment and training to cope with a drone-saturated battlefield. It takes America years to buy weapons that are evolving month by month. The Pentagon, the pair conclude, needs “a systemic overhaul” in how it fights, what it buys and how it does its shopping.
America’s new president seems to agree. This week Donald Trump announced that he was directing Elon Musk, his woodchipper-wielding agent of change, to take on the Pentagon. Pete Hegseth, the defence secretary, complained in his confirmation hearing last month that the Pentagon is “too insular [and] tries to block new technologies from coming in”. The new national security adviser, Mike Waltz, recently told an interviewer, “We do need great minds and we do need business leaders to go in there and absolutely reform the Pentagon’s acquisition process.” Mr Trump is appointing tech types, such as Emil Michael, a former executive at Uber, to senior defence jobs.
They have their work cut out. To remain a world-beating military power, capable of waging and winning a war with China, they will need to change three things. The first is the armed forces themselves: how they fight and what they fight with. The second is the defence industry that supplies them, which needs rebalancing towards newer, more innovative companies. The third is the least understood and the most resistant to change, but vital to fixing everything else: the pork-barrel politics of defence spending.
There is a heated debate about how much change is needed within the armed forces themselves. Some observers believe that technology is hyped and that orthodox measures of military strength, such as sound tactics, troop numbers and ammunition stockpiles will remain more important. AI will struggle with complex tasks and commanders will not trust it, they argue; difficult terrain will flummox robots. America, this camp thinks, should be pumping money into a bigger army, more shipbuilding and more high-end missiles.
At the other extreme are radicals who believe that everything has changed. An outspoken exponent of this view is Mr Musk. He recently responded to a Chinese drone display by harrumphing, “Some idiots are still building manned fighter jets like the F-35”—implying that swarms of cheap drones could easily defeat a vastly more expensive warplane. A similar, if less abrasive assessment can be found in “Unit X”, by Raj Shah and Christopher Kirchoff, in which the authors describe their struggle a decade ago to establish a forward-looking arm of the Pentagon called the Defence Innovation Unit (DIU). They, too, would do away with entire classes of weaponry. “In a world where hypersonic weapons and anti-ship missiles can easily destroy a navy vessel,” they write, “it no longer makes sense to spend billions of dollars building destroyers and battleships.”
In the middle are more cautious modernisers. They believe it is too early to shred America’s existing force structure entirely. AI and autonomy have not yet advanced to the point where software can handle all the tasks of a human pilot, they insist. Uncrewed surface vessels have worked well in the Black Sea, but would find it hard to cross the Pacific or navigate mid-Atlantic storms. The Chinese drone swarm, they point out, was a choreographed light show which would have fallen to pieces in the face of jamming. Physics imposes hard limits: a small drone will never be able to carry serious firepower across oceans while evading Chinese air defences. “Not everything needs to be gold plated and have all of the capabilities,” says Aditi Kumar, who was DIU’s deputy director until January 20th, “but some systems do.”
In this view, America needs what experts call a “high-low mix”, in which a modest number of complex and high-end platforms and munitions operate alongside a much larger number of cheaper, simpler and mostly uncrewed weapons. Fancy weapons are still essential—American ATACMS and Anglo-French Storm Shadow missiles have made mincemeat of Russian air defences in Crimea, for instance. But they can be used to clear the way for cheaper ones. Or both sorts can be used in tandem, with “loyal wingmen” drones flying alongside crewed jets, for example.
The Goldilocks army
The optimal mix of forces is hotly debated. The question of which high-end weapons to scrap and which to keep is especially delicate. Speaking last year, Mr Milley proposed doubling the number of submarines. These are some of the most complex and expensive weapons in America’s arsenal, but their stealthiness means that they can survive on a sensor-saturated battlefield. But he cast doubt on aircraft-carriers. “We’re going to have a ship that sails with 5,000…sailors on it and the thing will be dead in the water in 20 years, for sure,” he argued. “We can do all the electronic magic [to jam missiles], but the bottom line is: it’s a big piece of steel that saw its best day at Midway.” Mr Milley was similarly doubtful about the F-35: “do we really think a manned aircraft is going to be winning the skies in 2088?” The risk of this approach is that if America finds itself at war before 2030, it could be caught short—equipped with too few legacy systems like the F-35 and not enough new tech to compensate.
Regardless of what America buys, the next question is who should build it. American defence contracts typically involve one buyer, the government, which sets the requirements and carries all the costs of research and development (R&D), which helps explain its conservatism about what it buys. This set-up allows private firms to take on projects with huge costs and long timelines, which would otherwise be too risky: think aircraft-carriers or bombers. But it is a hopelessly unsuitable approach to buying smaller, software-infused gear that has to be updated constantly to remain effective.
Chart: The Economist
In October Shyam Sankar, the chief technology officer of Palantir, published a 4,000-word manifesto titled “The Defence Reformation”. He lamented that the number of big defence firms selling weapons to the Pentagon has shrunk from 51 in 1993 to five today (see chart 2). “Consolidation bred conformity,” he argued, “and pushed out the crazy founders and innovative engineers.” It also changed the identity and ethos of arms-makers. Mr Sankar, who turned down a top job in Mr Trump’s Pentagon, notes that before the fall of the Berlin Wall only 6% of American defence spending went to specialist arms-makers. Most contracts went to companies that had both commercial and military arms. Ford made satellites until 1990, he notes, just as General Mills, better known for its cereal and cookies, made guidance systems for ICBMs.
The commercial world kept them competitive and forced them to invest in research and development at their own risk. Today specialist defence contractors account for 86% of defence spending. Michael Brown, a former head of DIU who is now a partner at Shield Capital, a venture-capital fund, notes that two-thirds of the business of the top ten suppliers to the Pentagon is defence only; in China, the equivalent figure is 30%. “Think about the difference in your mentality as a company.”
As weapons become increasingly reliant on data and code, both the Pentagon and its suppliers are under pressure to absorb the tech world’s risk-taking mindset and rapid development in the form of frequent upgrades and increasing use of AI. “We’re taking cheaper, commercial off-the-shelf components, using software provided by the government,” says Ms Kumar, referring to DIU’s drone development, “and integrating the two and fielding a capability that is substantially lower cost than what the department has been able to do before.”
Big Silicon Valley firms are coming around to working with the Department of Defence. On February 4th Google reversed a long-standing policy barring the use of its AI tools for military purposes. Tech giants and top AI model-makers, such as OpenAI, Anthropic and Meta, have also embraced military business. “They didn’t want to do anything with DoD,” says Yili Bajraktari, who used to work at the Pentagon and now leads the Special Competitive Studies Project, a research group. “Now you have the tech companies all in. They are gung-ho about DoD.” So are investors. Venture-capital deals in the defence industry have grown 18-fold over the past decade, from $500m in 2014 to about $8.7bn in 2024, according to Bain & Company, a consulting firm.
Money can’t buy you readiness
It will be difficult, however, to harness corporate America’s enthusiasm using the government’s procurement system. America’s defence budget, at over $800bn a year, is far and away the world’s biggest, but allocating it is a ludicrously slow and political process. In theory, the administration lays out its defence strategy, the service chiefs tell the secretary of defence what they need to fulfil those goals and the administration then requests the sums necessary from Congress. In practice, things are not nearly so simple. Service chiefs sometimes lobby Congress directly to approve pet projects. Lawmakers often prevent the Pentagon from retiring obsolete weapons if their home state will be harmed. And Congress micromanages, allowing the Pentagon to move around no more than $6bn within the budget, and even then only with the approval of senior members of Congress for each slice of $15m or more.
The most baleful consequence of all this is interminable delay. Drones in Ukraine have their software, sensors and radios swapped out every six weeks or so. Year-old AI is archaic. Yet the gap between the start of the Pentagon’s budget process and any money appearing is—at a minimum—two years. Political deadlock means that budgets are rarely passed on time anyway, leading to “continuing resolutions” in which new programmes cannot be started. Last year saw a six-month delay. Simplifying and accelerating all this, says Mike Horowitz, until recently a deputy assistant secretary of defence, is “the secret to unlocking the innovation problem”.
It is possible to persuade Congress to pay for innovative new schemes, but it is hard work. In August 2023 Kathleen Hicks, the deputy secretary of defence at the time, announced that the Pentagon planned to buy “multiple thousands” of easily upgradeable drones to be ready within two years. This “Replicator initiative” marks “huge progress”, argues Mr Horowitz, who helped run it. “Compared to ‘Pentagon standard’,” he argues, meaning overpriced and slow-to-arrive kit, “Replicator is delivering a lot of capability fast at a low relative price point.” Mr Brown notes that drones with a pricetag of $17,000 apiece during his tenure (2018-22) now cost less than a tenth of that.
But to talk Congress into allocating just $500m to Replicator—about half of one percent of the defence budget—Ms Hicks and her team had to conduct nearly 40 briefings. Moreover, this sort of streamlined procurement is not catching on across the Pentagon, notes Mr Brown: “That’s the part that’s been disappointing.” Another example is Other Transaction Authority (OTA), a procedural innovation that allows departments to buy things without getting bogged down in the Federal Acquisition Regulation, a 2,000-page Talmudic set of rules that has spawned a priesthood of procurement officers. The Pentagon has spent $86bn via OTAs to date, mostly over the past five years, notes Austin Gray, who runs a defence startup. But their use has now “plateaued”, laments Mr Brown.
The Pentagon’s lawyers are wary of rocking the boat, Mr Brown says. “That kind of risk-averse mentality applies to so many things at DoD: don’t take the risk and stick your neck out, because it could get chopped off.” Mr Sankar of Palantir recalls that when ChatGPT was released to public acclaim in 2022 his firm offered to include a similar chatbot free of charge in a product it was making for the army. The army refused because it had not included a formal requirement for such a feature in the original contract.
The future is already herePhotograph: Getty Images
Rocking boats is a speciality of Mr Trump and Mr Musk. Many in their orbit have big ideas about reform. Mr Hegseth has promised “to hire a lot of smart people”. Even some former officials from Joe Biden’s presidency believe that Mr Trump could shake things up for the better at the Pentagon. “If the Trump folks pursue the innovation that some of them say they want,” says Mr Horowitz, “there’s a real opportunity—if they can effectively operate the Pentagon bureaucracy.”
Destruction +/- creativity
That is a big if. At the moment the new administration’s focus seems to be cutting costs rather than reforming the process of procurement. “We’re going to find billions, hundreds of billions of dollars of fraud and abuse,” Mr Trump said of military spending this week. Mr Hegseth, for his part, seems concerned chiefly with rooting out wokeness in the ranks, although he is said to have recently met the ceo of Scale AI, a data firm. But even if he harnesses the brightest minds in IT, they may not have a winning formula for wrangling obstreperous members of Congress.
Yet the task could scarcely be more pressing. “I don’t think we understand the sense of urgency,” warns Mr Bajraktari. “In Washington there is not a sense that there’s a war in continental Europe…and we might likely have a war in Asia.” America’s armed forces will need a drastic overhaul if America is to remain the world’s pre-eminent power. The sort of innovation that is required should come easily, given corporate America’s strengths. Yet politics, as usual, is getting in the way. “Everybody understands the problem we’re in right now,” says Mr Bajraktari. “We’re the number one global power in
software—and our military is not able to use it.” ■
Correction (February 13th 2025): The original version of this story misstated the proportion of the business of the biggest suppliers to China’s department of defence that is defence only.
Stay on top of our defence and international security coverage with The War Room, our weekly subscriber-only newsletter.
5. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth Press Conference Following NATO Ministers of Defense Meeting in Brussels, Belgium
Mr. SECDEF: You can joke about checkers and and think we are playing but if we do not understand GO/ wie chi/BADUK that China and the Dark Quad are playing we are going to have our asses handed to us.
I wonder what the DOGE wiz kids will have to say about maintaining hard power and the resources necessary to do so.
Excerpts:
Leaders of our European allies should take primary responsibility for defense of the continent, which means security ownership by all allies guided by a clear understanding of strategic realities and it's an imperative given the strategic realities that we face. And that begins with increasing defense spending. 2 percent is a start, as President Trump has Trump has said, but it's not enough, nor is 3 percent, nor is 4 percent. More like 5 percent. Real investment. Real urgency.
We can talk all we want about values. Values are important. But you can't shoot values. You can't shoot flags and you can't shoot strong speeches. There is no replacement for hard power. As much as we may not want to like the world we live in, in some cases, there's nothing like hard power. It should be obvious that increasing allied European defense spending is critical as the President of the United States has said.
Also critical is expanding our defense industrial base capacity on both sides of the Atlantic. Our dollars, our euros, our pounds must become real capabilities. The US is fully committed under President Trump's leadership to pursue these objectives in face — in the face of today's threats.
UNKNOWN: Sticking with the US press, let us go with Axios' Zach Basu right in the far right.
Q: Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Given the position you've now staked out, what leverage exactly is Ukraine being left with, especially if the US also plans to wind down its military aid? And then quickly, if a NATO ally is attacked by Russia or any country, will the US unequivocally uphold its obligations under article five regardless of that country's —
DEFENSE SECRETARY PETE HEGSETH: — We've said we're committed to the alliance and that's part of the alliance, right? You pointed out article five. You point out article three — it's just a cheap — I'm not saying it's cheap coming from you — but it's just a cheap political point to say, oh, we've left all the negotiating cards off the table by recognizing some realities that exist on the ground. President Zelenskyy understands the realities on the ground. President Putin understands the realities on the ground. And President Trump, as a dealmaker, as a negotiator, understands those dynamics as well.
By no means is anything that I state here, even though we lead the most powerful military in the world, hemming in the commander in chief, in his negotiations, to ultimately decide where it goes or does not go. Well, he's got all the cards he would like.
And the interesting part is oftentimes while the conventional status quo mindset or the legacy media wants to play checkers, the same checkers game we've been playing for decades, President Trump time and time again finds a way to play chess — as a dealmaker, as a businessman who understands how to create realities and opportunities where they otherwise may not exist.
Take for example, the conversations that our treasury secretary had in Kyiv recently with President Zelenskyy, which will continue in Munich with our vice president and secretary of state, around investments and resources inside Ukraine. I don't want to get ahead of any decision or announcement that could be made there, it could be any number of parameters.
But President Trump as a dealmaker and a businessman recognizes that an investment relationship with Ukraine, ultimately in the long term for the United States, is a lot more tangible than any promises or shared values we might have, even though we have them. There is something to relationships and deals in real ways, whether militarily or economically or diplomatically, that he sees that are possibilities that could forge together a lot of opportunities to show that solidarity that Vladimir Putin will clearly recognize.
That's one of any number of other opportunities that this president will leverage in these high-stake negotiations. So, I just reject on its face the premise that somehow President Trump isn't dealing with a full set of cards when he's the one that can determine ultimately what cards he holds.
Transcript
Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth Press Conference Following NATO Ministers of Defense Meeting in Brussels, Belgium
https://www.defense.gov/News/Transcripts/Transcript/Article/4066734/secretary-of-defense-pete-hegseth-press-conference-following-nato-ministers-of/
Feb. 13, 2025
UNKNOWN: Good afternoon, everyone. We're going to start with the US press. We're going to take two from the US, we'll take two from international, and then we'll go from there depending on the secretary. So, let us start with —
DEFENSE SECRETARY PETE HEGSETH: Now, hold on, John.
UNKNOWN: Sir?
DEFENSE SECRETARY PETE HEGSETH: I'm going to talk first.
UNKNOWN: Roger that.
DEFENSE SECRETARY PETE HEGSETH: It is great to be here at NATO with 31 allies, also with my wife Jenny, who's been meeting with families of US troops both here, in Germany, and we're heading to Poland right after this as well. That's what this is all about for me, for President Trump and the Defense Department.
I also want to express a special thanks to the secretary general, Secretary General Rutte, for your boldness, for your friendship, for your leadership and most especially for your urgency — your urgency of the matter at hand, which is great to see from the leader of NATO. Look forward to working very closely with him and his team.
And before we're talking about what we've done at the ministerial, I want to reaffirm a few things from this podium. First, as we see it, NATO's strategic objectives are to prevent great power conflict in Europe, deter nuclear and non-nuclear aggression, and defeat threats to treaty allies should deterrence fail.
Second, the US is committed to building a stronger more lethal NATO. However, we must ensure that European and Canadian commitment to article three of this treaty is just as strong. Article three says that allies, and I quote, "By means of continuous and effective self-help and mutual aid will maintain and develop their individual and collective capacity to resist armed attack."
Leaders of our European allies should take primary responsibility for defense of the continent, which means security ownership by all allies guided by a clear understanding of strategic realities and it's an imperative given the strategic realities that we face. And that begins with increasing defense spending. 2 percent is a start, as President Trump has Trump has said, but it's not enough, nor is 3 percent, nor is 4 percent. More like 5 percent. Real investment. Real urgency.
We can talk all we want about values. Values are important. But you can't shoot values. You can't shoot flags and you can't shoot strong speeches. There is no replacement for hard power. As much as we may not want to like the world we live in, in some cases, there's nothing like hard power. It should be obvious that increasing allied European defense spending is critical as the President of the United States has said.
Also critical is expanding our defense industrial base capacity on both sides of the Atlantic. Our dollars, our euros, our pounds must become real capabilities. The US is fully committed under President Trump's leadership to pursue these objectives in face — in the face of today's threats.
Yesterday, I had a chance to attend the Ukraine Defense Contact Group. Today, participated in both the NATO ministerial and the Ukraine Council. In both, we discussed Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine. I had the chance to brief allies on President Trump's top priority; a diplomatic peaceful end to this war as quickly as possible in a manner that creates enduring and durable peace.
The American Defense Department fully supports the efforts of the Trump administration and we look to allies to support this important work with leading on Ukraine security assistance now through increased contributions and greater ownership of future security assistance to Ukraine. To that end, I want to thank my UK counterpart, Defense Secretary John Healey, for hosting this Ukraine Defense Contact Group and for his leadership on support of Ukraine.
President Trump gave me a clear mission, achieve peace through strength as well as put America first, our people, our taxpayers, our borders, and our security. We are doing this by reviving the warrior ethos, rebuilding our military and reestablishing deterrence. NATO should pursue these goals as well. NATO is a great alliance, the most successful defense alliance in history.
But to endure for the future, our partners must do far more for Europe's defense. We must make NATO great again. It begins with defense spending, but must also include reviving the transatlantic defense industrial base, rapidly fielding emerging technologies, prioritizing readiness and lethality, and establishing real deterrence.
Finally, I want to close with this. After World War II first General and then President Eisenhower was one of NATO's strongest supporters. He believed in a strong relationship with Europe. However, by the end of Eisenhower's presidency, even he was concerned that Europe was not shouldering enough of its own defense, nearly making, in Eisenhower's words, "A sucker out of Uncle Sam." Well, like President Eisenhower, this administration believes in alliances. Deeply believes in alliances. But make no mistake, President Trump will not allow anyone to turn Uncle Sam into Uncle Sucker. Thank you, and we're glad to take some questions.
UNKNOWN: Thanks very much. Let's start with the US traveling TV pool with Liz Frieden.
Q: Thank you, Secretary Hegseth. You have focused on what Ukraine is giving up. What concessions will Putin be asked to make?
DEFENSE SECRETARY PETE HEGSETH: Well, that's — I would start by saying the arguments that have been made that somehow coming to the table right now is making concessions to Vladimir Putin outright, that we otherwise — or that the President of the United States shouldn't otherwise make, I just reject that at its face.
There's a reason why negotiations are happening right now, just a few weeks after President Trump was sworn in as President United States. Vladimir Putin responds to strength. In 2014 he invaded Crimea, not during the presidency of Donald Trump. Over four years, there was no Russian aggression from 2016 to 2020. In 2022, Vladimir Putin took aggression on Ukraine. Once again, not while President Trump was President of the United States.
So any suggestion that President Trump is doing anything other than negotiating from a position of strength is on its face a historical and false. So when you look at what he may have to give or take, what's in or what's out in those negotiations, we have the perfect dealmaker at the table from a position of strength to deal with both Vladimir Putin and Zelenskyy.
No one's going to get everything that they want, understanding who committed the aggression in the first place. But I challenge anyone else to think of a world leader at this moment who, with credibility and strength, could bring those two leaders to the table and forge a durable peace that ultimately serves the interests of Ukraine, stops the killing and the death, which president has been — Trump has been clear he wants to do and hopefully ultimately is guaranteed — or guaranteed by strength of Europeans who are there prepared to back it up.
Q: To follow up on that — follow up. Thank you, sir. Why not invoke article five then for the NATO peacekeeping forces that could potentially be deployed? Like, how does that deter President Putin?
DEFENSE SECRETARY PETE HEGSETH: Well, I would say I want to be clear about something as it pertains to NATO membership not being realistic outcome for negotiations. That's something that was stated as part of my remarks here as part of a coordination with how we're executing these ongoing negotiations, which are led by President Trump.
All of that said, these negotiations are led by President Trump. Everything is on the table in his conversations with Vladimir Putin and Zelenskyy. What he decides to allow or not allow is at the purview of the leader of the free world of President Trump. So I'm not going to stand at this podium and declare what President Trump will do or won't do, what will be in or what will be out, what concessions will be made or what concessions are not made.
I can look as our team has of what's realistic, likely on an outcome. I think realism is an important part of the conversation that hasn't existed enough inside conversations amongst friends. But simply pointing out realism, like the borders won't be rolled back to what everybody would like them to be in 2014, is not a concession to Vladimir Putin. It's a recognition of hard power realities on the ground after a lot of investment and sacrifice first by the Ukrainians and then by allies and then a realization that a negotiated peace is going to be some sort of demarcation that neither side wants. But it's not my job as the Secretary of Defense to define the parameters of the President of the United States as he leads some of the most complex and consequential negotiations in the world.
UNKNOWN: Sticking with the US press, let us go with Axios' Zach Basu right in the far right.
Q: Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Given the position you've now staked out, what leverage exactly is Ukraine being left with, especially if the US also plans to wind down its military aid? And then quickly, if a NATO ally is attacked by Russia or any country, will the US unequivocally uphold its obligations under article five regardless of that country's —
DEFENSE SECRETARY PETE HEGSETH: — We've said we're committed to the alliance and that's part of the alliance, right? You pointed out article five. You point out article three — it's just a cheap — I'm not saying it's cheap coming from you — but it's just a cheap political point to say, oh, we've left all the negotiating cards off the table by recognizing some realities that exist on the ground. President Zelenskyy understands the realities on the ground. President Putin understands the realities on the ground. And President Trump, as a dealmaker, as a negotiator, understands those dynamics as well.
By no means is anything that I state here, even though we lead the most powerful military in the world, hemming in the commander in chief, in his negotiations, to ultimately decide where it goes or does not go. Well, he's got all the cards he would like.
And the interesting part is oftentimes while the conventional status quo mindset or the legacy media wants to play checkers, the same checkers game we've been playing for decades, President Trump time and time again finds a way to play chess — as a dealmaker, as a businessman who understands how to create realities and opportunities where they otherwise may not exist.
Take for example, the conversations that our treasury secretary had in Kyiv recently with President Zelenskyy, which will continue in Munich with our vice president and secretary of state, around investments and resources inside Ukraine. I don't want to get ahead of any decision or announcement that could be made there, it could be any number of parameters.
But President Trump as a dealmaker and a businessman recognizes that an investment relationship with Ukraine, ultimately in the long term for the United States, is a lot more tangible than any promises or shared values we might have, even though we have them. There is something to relationships and deals in real ways, whether militarily or economically or diplomatically, that he sees that are possibilities that could forge together a lot of opportunities to show that solidarity that Vladimir Putin will clearly recognize.
That's one of any number of other opportunities that this president will leverage in these high-stake negotiations. So, I just reject on its face the premise that somehow President Trump isn't dealing with a full set of cards when he's the one that can determine ultimately what cards he holds.
UNKNOWN: Great. Now shifting to the international press, we'll take the French wire service Agence France Presse with Max Delaney.
Q: Thank you very much, Secretary of Defense. Can you — you've spoken about trying to force both Putin and Zelenskyy to the table. Can you give a guarantee that no deal will be forced on Ukraine that they do not want to accept? And also, that you will include Europe in the negotiations about their own — about an issue that concerns European security? And can you tell us whether the US will continue to supply arms to Ukraine during any negotiations?
DEFENSE SECRETARY PETE HEGSETH: Well, to the first part of your question, that's not ultimately my decision. The president will lead these negotiations alongside our secretary of state, our national security advisor, and numerous other officials that will be involved. And ultimately, we've played our role in talking to our NATO allies about what that would look like.
President Trump, I want to point out, I've got the truth's right here that he posted, called both, in case we missed it, Vladimir Putin and President Zelenskyy, called them both. Any negotiation that's had will be had with both.
I also am very encouraged by what the secretary general has said here. Clearly attuned to the realities of the moment, the need for peace, and that the NATO alliance and European members will play a role in that.
Ultimately, President Trump speaking to those two countries is central to the deal being made. But it affects a lot of people, of course. So, I'm not going to be involved in those intimate diplomatic negotiations. That's for the pros atop the Trump administration who do diplomacy and negotiations. Ultimately as security assistance, we have continued to provide what has been allocated.
I think it would be fair to say that things like future funding, either less or more, could be on the table in negotiations as well. Whatever the president determines is the most robust carrot or stick on either side to induce a durable peace, understanding, obviously, the motivations that Vladimir Putin has had on Ukraine for quite some time. Thank you.
UNKNOWN: We'll have a second international press outlet. We'll go with the German paper Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung with Dr. Thomas Gutschker.
Q: Thanks a lot. Thomas Gutschker of Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. Good afternoon. Mr. Secretary, two questions, please. The first one regarding the new Defense Investment Pledge.
When you and President Trump speak about raising it to 5 percent, do you mean European allies only, or do you mean the US as well, which is currently at 3.4 percent according to NATO statistics? And if the latter is true, when do you think the US could possibly reach the goal of spending 5 percent on defense? That's number one.
Number two, you said yesterday that Europeans need to take ownership of their own conventional security. So, should Europeans expect that ultimately the US would withdraw the bulk of their forces from Europe and just leave in place what is necessary for nuclear deterrence? I know there's a revision going on. I don't expect you to name any numbers but maybe give us an outlook of what we should expect. Thank you.
DEFENSE SECRETARY PETE HEGSETH: Thank you. I think nobody can or should contest the extent of America's willingness to invest in national security. We have a budget of $850 billion spent on defense. I'm in the business of ensuring that every dollar of that is used wisely, which is why we're pushing a Pentagon audit and making sure that we're cutting fat so that we've got more at the tip of the spear.
3.4 percent is a very robust investment, larger than most of our allies within NATO. Any defense minister or secretary of defense that tells you they wouldn't want more would be lying to you, I understand that. Ultimately, we have our own budgetary considerations to be had, but I don't think an unwillingness of NATO allies to invest in their own defense spending can be dismissed away by trying to point at the $900 billion that America has invested around the globe to include the NATO alliance and saying that's not enough.
So, ultimately, we are very much committed to the NATO alliance and to our allies. But without burden sharing, without creating the right set of incentives for European countries to invest, then we would be forced to attempt to be everywhere for everybody all the time, which in a world of fiscal restraints is, again, to get back to that word reality, just not reality.
So, yes, we will continue to spend robustly. Our expectation of our friends, and we say this in solidarity, is you have to spend more on your defense, for your country, on that continent, understanding that the American military and the American people stand beside you as we have in NATO, but can't have the expectation of expectation of being the permanent guarantor, as I alluded to, from what even Eisenhower observed post-World War II.
That shift has to happen. The peace dividend has to end. There are autocrats with ambitions around the globe from Russia to the communist Chinese. Either the West awakens to that reality and creates combat multipliers with their allies and partners to include NATO, or we will abdicate that responsibility to somebody else with all the wrong values.
You mentioned Europe, we have not said in any way that we're abandoning our allies in Europe. There have been no decisions based on troop levels. Again, that's a discussion to be had by the commander in chief in these high-stake negotiations. And that would most likely come later on. But there is a recognition that the ambitions of the communist Chinese are a threat to free people everywhere, to include America's interests in the Pacific.
And it makes a lot of sense, just in a commonsense way, to use our comparative advantages. European countries spending here in defense of this continent, in defense of allies here against an aggressor on this continent with ambitions. That strikes me as the right place to — and I don't say that in a condescending way. I say that in a common sense, practical way.
Investing in defense on the continent makes sense. We support that as well. It also makes sense comparatively and geographically for the United States, along with allies in the Pacific like Japan and South Korea and the Philippines and Australia and others, to also invest in allies and partners and capabilities in the Pacific to project power there in service of deterrence. That deterrent effect in the Pacific is one that really can only be led by the United States.
We wish we could lead everywhere at all times. We will stand in solidarity with allies and partners and encourage everyone to invest in order to have forced multiplication of what we represent, but it requires realistic conversations. Those with disingenuous motives in the media, I don't mean to look at you, just saying anyone, that suggests it's abandonment are trying to drive a wedge between allies that does not exist.
We are committed to that NATO alliance. We understand the importance of that partnership, but it can't endure on the status quo forever in light of the threats we face and fiscal realities. Europe has to spend more. NATO has to spend more. Has to invest more. And we're very encouraged by what the secretary general has said and frankly, by — behind closed doors, what a lot of our allies have said as well acknowledging that reality.
And that's why when I say make NATO great again, it's what President Trump set out to do in 2017. The press said President Trump is abandoning NATO. He's turning his back on our NATO allies. That's what is — that's what the headlines read in 2017 and 2018. What actually happened? That tough conversation created even more investment to the point where now almost every NATO country is meeting the 2 percent goal that was said to be egregious when he first said it. Now European countries are stepping up and President Trump continues to ring the alarm bell that even more investment is required considering where we are.
So suggestions of abandonment otherwise continue to be disingenuous and we are — we are proud to be part of this alliance and stand by it.
UNKNOWN: Sir —
DEFENSE SECRETARY PETE HEGSETH: — I'll take a couple more.
UNKNOWN: Sure. Why don't we take one from a US outlet and one from an international outlet. With the US outlet — pardon me, sir, what we're going to take from the US is Logan Rateck from Newsmax, please.
Q: Mr. Secretary, you talked about what — you talked about expanding the defense industrial base and also expediting foreign military sales. Can you expand on that a little bit and how important that is to NATO?
DEFENSE SECRETARY PETE HEGSETH: Well, one of the self-evident conclusions of the — of the war in Ukraine was the underinvestment that both the European continent and America has had, unfortunately, in the defense industrial base, the ability to produce munitions, emerging technologies rapidly and field them was a blind spot exposed through the aggression against Ukraine.
Ukraine has responded to that, as we've had a chance to listen to a great deal. Europe is responding to that, and so is America. We have to do more to ensure — whether you call it the arsenal for democracy or defending the free world, if America can't build and export and build and provide rapid capabilities because we're too stale or static or bureaucratic or the Pentagon is bloated, then we're not able to field the systems we need in the future.
So deep and dramatic reforms are coming at the Defense Department with the leadership of President Trump to ensure that we're investing robustly in our defense industrial base. A great example is shipbuilding. We need to vastly increase our ability to build ships and submarines, not just for ourselves, but to honor our obligations to our allies as well.
And we will do that. Foreign military sales is another thing I mentioned this morning with the secretary general. We have for a long time been the country by with and through that our allies are able to supply major platforms and weapon systems like the F-35 and the Patriots and others. Whatever the system is, we need to reform that process so it's quicker, so a request today isn't delivered seven years from now, but three years from now with less red tape and with the most efficient and effective technology possible.
We hear that from our allies, and that's part of being a good faith partner is we're going to invest in our defense industrial base. We're going to make sure foreign military sales are as rapid as possible, which again is a force multiplier for American power, which is something we want to do in a contested world.
UNKNOWN: For our final question, we'll go to an international outlet. The Japanese service NHK with Tsuchiya Tsujita, please.
Q: Tsuchiya from NHK, the Japanese TV station, thank you very much. I would like to ask about China. As you mentioned that the US will be prioritizing and deterring China, what role will you be expecting Japan and IPv4 countries to play in this context?
DEFENSE SECRETARY PETE HEGSETH: Sure. I mean, first of all, I would point out that President Trump has expressed a strong relationship with Xi Jinping. We don't have an inevitable desire to clash with China. There's a recognition that there are divergent interests which lead to a need for strength on the American side to ensure our interests are advanced and that ultimately any aggression is deterred. That's a real thing, but we don't feel like conflict is inevitable and certainly don't seek conflict with China. And that's why President Trump has that good relationship with Xi Jinping.
But it was prudent for us to work with allies and partners in the Pacific to ensure that that deterrence, hard power deterrence, not just reputational, but reality exists. And that's why a lot of my first phone calls as Secretary of Defense were to Pacific allies, to Australia, to Japan, to South Korea, to the Philippines and others and will continue because that, just as this alliance in Europe is critical, working by with and through allies and partners in that region who understand the reality of the ascendant Chinese threat will be critical.
It can't be America alone. It won't be America alone if we are to deter that. So it's — it is a focus. I've articulated that from day one. America achieves strength, whether it's in this — in the — in the — in peace through the Ukrainian conflict or deterring it in the Pacific through strength. There's a reason why Donald Trump emphasizes peace through strength at every moment.
My job, my job alone as the Secretary of Defense is to ensure he has the strongest, most capable, most lethal military possible. Heaven forbid we have to use it. It's meant and built for deterrence. But if we have to, we can close with and destroy our enemies and bring our men and women home with success as quickly as possible. Thank you very much for being here.
UNKNOWN: Thank you, everyone.
6. Hegseth warns Europeans 'realities' of China and border threats prevent US from guaranteeing their security
The headline is a sobering and blunt interpretation of the SEDEF's remarks. And Elbridge Colby has not even been confirmed as the USD(P) and the SECDEF is already channelling his thoughts. I wonder if he will make the same statements about South Korea, JApan, and the Philippines? (and yes the argument back to me would be: aren't all these security challenges interrelated? in my opinion yes they are).
Read between the lines here: "No active plans." That is likely because Elbridge Colby has not been confirmed and is not yet on board. The SECDEF is waiting for Bridge's srtategic thinking of China, China, China.
But I do strongly agree with the SECDEF that Europe must take ownership of their conventional defense and lead.
Excerpts:
The U.S. defense secretary called on Europe to "take ownership of conventional security on the continent."
"European allies must lead from the front," he went on. "Together, we can establish a division of labor that maximize our comparative advantages in Europe and Pacific, respectively."
Hegseth said on Tuesday the U.S. has no active plans to draw down forces in Europe but remains committed to analyzing U.S. troop postures across the globe. Speaking at U.S. Africa Command headquarters in Stuttgart, Germany, he said the U.S. is committed to having a presence in Europe while emphasizing the continent should not rely on that presence for security.
Hegseth warns Europeans 'realities' of China and border threats prevent US from guaranteeing their security
foxnews.com · by Morgan Phillips Fox News
Video
Hegseth says Defense force posture under review post-Biden admin, adds DOGE 'welcome at the Pentagon'
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said force posture across the world will be reviewed to account for the different "strategic assumptions" between President Donald Trump and former President Joe Biden.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth warned Europeans this week that "realities" prevent the U.S. from being its security guarantor, and to expect a drawdown of U.S. forces in the region.
"We are focusing on security of our own borders. We also face a peer competitor in the Communist Chinese with the capability and intent to threaten our homeland and core national interests in the Indo-Pacific," Hegseth told a meeting of a Ukraine Defense Contact Group in Belgium on Wednesday.
"The U.S. is prioritizing deterring war with China in the Pacific. Recognizing the reality of scarcity and making the resourcing trade-offs to ensure deterrence does not fail. Deterrence cannot fail."
This was Hegseth’s first trip to the headquarters of the NATO alliance.
HEGSETH BANS FUTURE TRANS SOLDIERS, MAKES SWEEPING CHANGES FOR CURRENT ONES
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, center, participates in physical training with the 1st Battalion, 10th Special Forces Group (Airborne), a U.S. Army Special Forces battalion based in Stuttgart, Germany. (DefSec Hegseth on X)
The U.S. defense secretary called on Europe to "take ownership of conventional security on the continent."
"European allies must lead from the front," he went on. "Together, we can establish a division of labor that maximize our comparative advantages in Europe and Pacific, respectively."
Hegseth said on Tuesday the U.S. has no active plans to draw down forces in Europe but remains committed to analyzing U.S. troop postures across the globe. Speaking at U.S. Africa Command headquarters in Stuttgart, Germany, he said the U.S. is committed to having a presence in Europe while emphasizing the continent should not rely on that presence for security.
UKRAINE REGAINING PRE-2014 BORDERS IS ‘UNREALISTIC OBJECTIVE,’ HEGSETH SAYS IN FIRST NATO VISIT
"We are focusing on security of our own borders. We also face a peer competitor in the Communist Chinese with the capability and intent to threaten our homeland and core national interests in the Indo-Pacific," said Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. (DefSec Hegseth on X)
"The European continent deserves to be free from any aggression, but it ought be those in the neighborhood investing the most in that defense," he said. "That’s common sense. You defend your neighborhood, and the Americans will come alongside you in helping in that defense."
Roughly 100,000 U.S. troops are deployed across Europe, about a third of which are in Germany, according to Defense Department figures. Some 375,000 U.S. forces are assigned to the Indo-Pacific Command.
During his first term, President Donald Trump began pulling thousands of troops out of Europe.
Under the Trump administration, the U.S. has begun to bolster its troop presence on the southern border. Some 1,500 more U.S. troops deployed to the southern border last week, bringing the total up to 3,600.
HEGSETH SAYS DOGE WELCOME AT PENTAGON AS DEFENSE DEPARTMENT REVIEWS MILITARY POSTURE GLOBALLY
German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius, UK Defense Secretary John Healey, U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte and Ukraine's Defense Minister Rustem Umerov attend a meeting of the Ukraine Defense Contact Group. (REUTERS/Johanna Geron)
Hegseth also said that any European peacekeeping forces sent to help Ukraine win the war against Russia must not be from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and would not be protected under Article 5, a provision that states an attack on one NATO country is an attack on all.
The defense secretary said the U.S. does not believe allowing Ukraine into NATO is a "realistic outcome of a negotiated settlement."
Hegseth also called on NATO countries to step up after Trump recently called on them to boost defense spending to 5%.
"The United States will no longer tolerate an imbalanced relationship which encourages dependency."
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
Earlier this week, Ukrainian President Voldymyr Zelenskyy suggested that security guarantees for Ukraine without the U.S. are "not real security guarantees."
"There are voices which say that Europe could offer security guarantees without the Americans, and I always say no," he told The Guardian. "Security guarantees without America are not real security guarantees."
foxnews.com · by Morgan Phillips Fox News
7.Trump and Musk Are Going to War Against Military Veterans
Rolling Stone siding with the military and veterans? I guess the enemy of my enemy is my friend for Rolling Stone.
Trump and Musk Are Going to War Against Military Veterans
The president’s new executive order gives Musk and DOGE carte blanche and sets limits on hiring veterans and transitioning active duty military personnel
By Michael Embrich
Rolling Stone · by Michael Embrich · February 13, 2025
Donald Trump’s new executive order, titled “Implementing the President’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) Workforce Optimization Initiative,” outlines exactly how Trump and Elon Musk plan to dismantle the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and strip transitioning military veterans and their families overseas of the generous federal hiring incentives they rely on.
This executive order seeks to impose severe hiring restrictions and would disproportionately harm veterans, who make up one-third of the federal workforce. Requiring agencies to hire only one new employee for every four who leave will drastically reduce VA staffing levels. At a time when the veteran population is aging and the VA’s mission has expanded under Biden, this policy will lead to massive delays and outright denials in health care, benefits processing, and disability claims — the essential services veterans depend on to survive.
The order also forces agencies to implement immediate reductions in force, prioritizing cuts to positions not explicitly mandated by law. In practice, this means slashing administrative staff, veteran outreach programs, and transition assistance. Many of these programs help veterans adjust to civilian life, with federal employment serving as a stable career path for thousands. Active-duty military members stationed overseas also rely on these programs for critical support, from child care to helping their spouses secure employment in foreign countries where they may lack language skills or legal work status.
What’s worse, this executive order makes hiring at VA more bureaucratic and politicized. Each new hire must be approved by a DOGE “Team Lead,” creating unnecessary hurdles in filling critical positions. As we have learned over the past few weeks, these “team leads” can be 19-year-old kids who go by names like “bigballs,” or 25-year-old men who have recently gone on racist tirades about how we should “Normalize Indian Hate.”
The VA is already grappling with severe workforce shortages, particularly in medical and benefits processing roles. This new hiring bottleneck guarantees growing backlogs, delayed care, and increased suffering for veterans. But that may be the goal. If Musk and DOGE aim to dismantle the government, they achieve two objectives at once — denying care to veterans while making the VA so dysfunctional that veterans either forgo medical treatment or are forced into the private sector.
For years, politicians have promised to fix the VA and take care of veterans. But this Trump executive order does the opposite — it throws veterans under the bus and a few other fast moving objects. First, by cutting veteran federal workers who make up a huge part of the workforce; second, by slashing the very services those same veterans need; third, by denying our military service members and their families adequate support overseas and here at home; and finally, doing anything but making sure veterans have a stable place and support system to build a life post-service.
Trump couldn’t care less about veterans — he never served and doesn’t understand or respect those who do. It’s not clear whether Musk has taken an oath to the U.S. Constitution. Neither man can begin to grasp the sacrifices military members and their families make every day to keep Americans safe. Their reward? A callous system run by billionaires who claim to want to slash government spending — except when it comes to the White House budget or the tens of billions Musk’s companies receive from U.S. taxpayers. Right now, Trump and Musk are scrambling to find revenue to fund their mass deportation schemes and extend the trillions in tax cuts Trump passed in 2017, which are set to expire. Those cuts primarily benefited corporations and the wealthiest Americans.
Musk and Trump have claimed that he’s saving the U.S. government lots of money, no one can give a real number. What we do know is that number is getting smaller as the State Department is poised to spend $400 million to buy “armored” Teslas. Like naming a government agency after a crypto meme coin (DOGE), or launching a new crypto meme coin, Musk and Trump are just getting started with their giant grift.
As for our veterans and military service members, their message is clear: Good luck, you’re on your own.
Michael Embrich is a veteran, former member of the Secretary of Veterans Affairs’ Advisory Committee on the Readjustment of Veterans, and former congressional staffer.
Rolling Stone · by Michael Embrich · February 13, 2025
8. China is rehearsing for war, Indo-Pacific commander says
The Admiral has given us a new phrase to add to the Dark Quad and Axis of Chaos/Authoritarians/Dictators and that is the "Triangle of Troublemakers"
Excerpts:
Paparo also evinced concern about recent cooperation between China, Russia, and North Korea, which he called a “triangle of troublemakers.”
“We see their coordination on everything from joint bomber patrols that penetrate the American [air defense identification zone] to shared anti-satellite capabilities and advanced submarine technologies from the seabed to the heavens.”
China is rehearsing for war, Indo-Pacific commander says
defenseone.com · by Jennifer Hlad
Adm. Samuel J. Paparo, commander of U.S. Indo-Pacific Command, delivers a keynote address at the Hawaii Military Affairs Council’s Biannual State of the Indo-Pacific event in Honolulu, Jan. 14, 2024. Petty Officer 1st Class John Bellino / U.S. Indo-Pacific Command
Recent Chinese military exercises around Taiwan are practice for “the forced unification” of the island to the mainland, Adm. Sam Paparo said Thursday.
|
February 13, 2025 05:26 PM ET
By Jennifer Hlad
Managing Editor, Defense One
February 13, 2025 05:26 PM ET
WAIKIKI, Hawaii—The Chinese government is “on a dangerous course” and its military’s “aggressive maneuvers around Taiwan right now are not exercises, as they call them. They are rehearsals,” U.S. Indo-Pacific Command leader Adm. Sam Paparo said today.
The Chinese actions—which just this month have included sending multiple spy balloons, naval vessels, and military planes around the island—are “rehearsals for the forced unification of Taiwan to the mainland,” Paparo said at the Honolulu Defense Forum.
What’s more, China’s “increasingly complex multi-domain operations demonstrates clear intent and improving capability,” he said
When Paparo took command of U.S. Pacific Fleet in 2021, the Chinese military did a summer exercise with one brigade. The following year, the exercise grew to six brigades. In summer 2024, it was 42 brigades—as well as 150 Chinese navy vessels, 200 amphibious assault craft practicing “breach of obstacles and outward movement to military operations in urban terrain,” he said.
The rapid increase in aggressive actions and drills has also made it more possible that the “fig leaf of an exercise” could disguise intentions, the admiral said—adding that AI “would be a very effective tool to suss out that kind of warning.”
Paparo also evinced concern about recent cooperation between China, Russia, and North Korea, which he called a “triangle of troublemakers.”
“We see their coordination on everything from joint bomber patrols that penetrate the American [air defense identification zone] to shared anti-satellite capabilities and advanced submarine technologies from the seabed to the heavens.”
Paparo also painted a troubling picture of U.S. readiness with maintenance backlogs, munition stockpiles running low, and aging platforms. But he said that despite those challenges, the United States maintains “war-winning advantages” in space, counter-space, and cyber, and a “generational advantage” in submarines.
Alluding to the Navy’s “hellscape” concept of using a swarm of unmanned systems in the air, on land, and at sea to defend Taiwan, he said the idea is not to replace troops, but rather to give “warriors the advantage they deserve.”
The technology for such a defense already exists, he said, and the “concepts are proven,” but the challenge is to scale and integrate it.
“Technology alone is not going to win this fight,” Paparo said, but added that the Pentagon must act quickly to streamline its acquisition system so that “procurement [moves] at the speed of combat, not at the speed of committee.”
9. China military exercises near Taiwan could be used to conceal attack, US says
As we have done in the past (re: Iraq 2003).
China military exercises near Taiwan could be used to conceal attack, US says
Financial Times · by Demetri Sevastopulo · February 13, 2025
China’s military exercises around Taiwan have become so extensive that they could soon be used as a “fig leaf” to conceal an attack on the island, according to the top US military commander in the Indo-Pacific.
Speaking at the Honolulu Defense Forum, US Navy Admiral Samuel Paparo also warned about rising co-operation between China, Russia and North Korea, describing it as an “emerging axis of autocracy”.
“China, Russia and North Korea have formed a triangle of troublemakers,” Paparo told the event sponsored by the Pacific Forum think-tank.
The People’s Liberation Army had significantly increased activity around Taiwan in recent years, leaving it more difficult to distinguish between large-scale exercises and actual preparations for an attack, Paparo said.
“We’re very close to that [point] where on a daily basis the fig leaf of an exercise could very well hide operational warning,” he said.
“Their aggressive manoeuvres around Taiwan right now are not exercises as they call them, they are rehearsals. They are rehearsals for the forced unification of Taiwan to the mainland.”
Referring to the growing co-operation between China, Russia and North Korea, Paparo said the US had seen “co-ordination in everything from bomber patrols that penetrate American ADIZ [air defence identification zones] to shared anti-satellite capabilities and advanced submarine technologies from the seabed to the heavens”.
Highlighting an example of increased Russian activity in the Indo-Pacific, one US defence official said Russia had launched seven newly built submarines, including three nuclear-powered boats armed with nuclear weapons, in the Indo-Pacific since the start of its full-scale invasion of Ukraine.
The others were two nuclear-powered submarines carrying guided missiles, and two attack submarines.
Paparo expressed concern about China’s rising military activity, saying that the US had to move more quickly to close critical gaps, such as increasing the amount of weapons the Pentagon had at its disposal in the Indo-Pacific. American defence officials are concerned about not having enough weapons in the case of a war over Taiwan.
“Our magazines run low. Our maintenance backlogs grow longer each month . . . we operate on increasingly thin margins for error,” Paparo said. “Our opponents see these gaps, and they are moving aggressively to exploit them.”
Paparo, who recently hosted a summit on artificial intelligence, said the US military needed to move with more urgency in acquiring and deploying different kinds of “unmanned systems”. He said AI would be a “key tool” to help the US improve early warning signs of any possible attack on Taiwan.
Paparo has called for increased production of autonomous systems to deploy in contested areas such as the Taiwan Strait to create a “hellscape” to deter or scupper a Chinese invasion.
But he also warned that the US needed to quickly reform its procurement system, which many defence experts agree needs a comprehensive overhaul.
“This is a hard truth. Technology alone is not going to win this fight. We’ve also got to reform defence bureaucracy with unprecedented urgency,” he said. “Procurement at the speed of combat, not at the speed of committees.”
Financial Times · by Demetri Sevastopulo · February 13, 2025
10. Trump Plays Hardball to Wean Panama from China
Excerpts:
10. Latin American Inroads
On November 14, 2024, Chinese President Xi Jinping and Peruvian President Dina Boluarte officiated the opening of a deep-water port in Chancay, Peru, which has seen US$1.3 billion of investment from Beijing. A leading investor in this port is Cosco Shipping, a Chinese state-owned shipping giant.
In early November 2024, China Merchants Port Holdings, a Chinese state-owned port operator, signed a letter of intent with the Brazilian port authority, Portos do Parana, where China Merchants would build smart and green ports in Brazil. Portos do Parana said the next stage of its cooperation with China Merchants was further auctions and concessions at the port of Paranagua, Brazil’s second biggest port by tonnage. China Merchants owns a majority stake in the Paranagua Container Terminal.
The US is the biggest trading partner of Latin America and the Caribbean, followed by China. In 2023, US merchandise trade with Latin America and the Caribbean was US$1.14 trillion, according to the US Congressional Research Service. In that year, China’s trade with that region was US$488 billion, according to official Chinese data.
However, the rapid growth of China’s trade with Latin America and the Caribbean leads some analysts to believe China will one day overtake the US as the biggest trader in the region. Over the past 25 years, trade between China and the region has multiplied over 20 times to nearly US$500 billion in 2023, Pepe Zhang, a senior fellow of the Adrienne Arsht Latin America Center of the Atlantic Council, a US think tank, told a US Congressional hearing on May 23, 2024.
Business/Economy
Trump Plays Hardball to Wean Panama from China
China’s growing influence over Latin American ports spurs Trump’s threat to take over
https://www.asiasentinel.com/p/trump-plays-hardball-wean-panama-from-china?utm
Feb 14, 2025
∙ Paid
By: Toh Han Shih
Chinese ship passes through the canal
So far, the US has not retaken the Panama Canal, as US President Donald Trump recently threatened. But his hardball tactics, including the threat of military force, have compelled Panama to sever ties with the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), making it the first Latin American country to both endorse and end cooperation with China’s trillion-dollar initiative to connect with other nations through infrastructure such as ports and roads.
Washington’s fear of Beijing’s growing influence on ports in Latin America is a key factor in the repeated threats. The US has expressed concern over the possibility of the Chinese Communist Party’s access to dual-use port technology which would allow it to gather intelligence about US ships, such as transshipment patterns and naval routes. But while the People’s Liberation Army Navy has access to Chinese-owned ports under domestic laws and policies, they require host country permission to use Chinese-operated foreign ports. These ports are also often ill-suited for military support and operations. Despite Trump’s assertions, it has no ownership of the canal, which is operated by the Panama Canal Authority, an agency of the Panamanian government, not Chinese soldiers.
At a US Congressional hearing on January 28, US Federal Maritime Commissioner Daniel Maffei cited China’s global influence over maritime commerce but said, “If you’re just focusing on Panama, that’s only part of it. I don’t believe China currently has control over the Panama Canal.”
Although the party plays no role in the operation of the canal, there has long been a misplaced concern in the US Congress about Chinese control because of substantial operations by the Hong Kong-based CK Hutchison Holdings. The company, which has interests in over 53 ports in 24 countries, has no direct ties with the BRI. In 2021, it renewed the Panama contract until 2047 with significant tax breaks although Panama, under pressure from Washington, has been reviewing the contract. No action has been taken.
There are five ports along the canal. Balboa and Cristobal, the two ports at either end of the canal, are operated by Panama Ports Company, which is 90 percent owned by the Hong Kong-listed conglomerate, according to CK Hutchison’s 2023 annual report. Li Ka-shing, Hong Kong’s richest man, owns 30.36 percent of CK Hutchison, according to the website of the Hong Kong Stock Exchange. Although Li had warm relations with a previous Chinese President, the late Jiang Zemin, the Hong Kong tycoon’s relations with Xi are less friendly. In 2019, while massive protests rocked Hong Kong, the Chinese Communist Party’s central legal affairs commission in Beijing publicly accused Li of “harboring criminality” and “watching Hong Kong slip into the abyss.”
Li Ka-shing’s business empire has been accused by the Chinese leadership of not being faithful to the motherland by pulling its investments out of mainland China, a China watcher told Asia Sentinel. “However, if senior executives of Li’s company get a call from a top Beijing official to give preference to Chinese ships, there is no reason for those senior executives to say no.”
Chinese interests do operate a single Panama port. That is the Land Bridge Group, a Hong Kong-listed logistics and energy company owned by mainland billionaire Ye Cheng, which operates a port on Panama's Margarita Island at the Atlantic entrance to the canal, directly across from the Hutchison operation to handle bulk commodities between South American and Asian countries. Land Bridge primarily has interests in oil and gas in Australia. It is not owned by the Chinese Communist party.
Since December, Trump has repeatedly threatened to take over the canal, notwithstanding a tweet on December 23, 2024 by Panamanian President Jose Raul Mulino that the canal is not for sale. Under the Panama Canal Treaties, Panama enjoys sole ownership of the canal, and reportedly President Mulino refused to discuss the canal during US Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s February 2 meeting with Mulino and Foreign Minister Javier Martínez-Acha in the Panamanian capital.
“China is running the Panama Canal that was not given to China, that was given to Panama foolishly, but they violated the agreement, and we’re going to take it back, or something very powerful is going to happen,” Trump told reporters in early February.
“The statement is – like many he has made – meant to pressure the other side into some kind of deal, rather than a statement of something that is going to actually happen,” said Dane Chamorro, the head of global risk and intelligence at Control Risks, an international risk consultancy. “Panama will have no choice but to make some concessions to the US, for example, it just announced it would withdraw from the BRI program. In many ways, this is similar to what has happened in the last month with Canada, Mexico, and Colombia, all of which are overwhelmingly dependent on the US economy.”
On February 2, Rubio informed the two top Panamanian officials that Trump found “the current position of influence and control of the Chinese Communist Party over the Panama Canal area is a threat to the canal and represents a violation of the Treaty Concerning the Permanent Neutrality and Operation of the Panama Canal”, according to the US State Department press release. “Secretary Rubio made clear that this status quo is unacceptable and that absent immediate changes, it would require the United States to take measures necessary to protect its rights under the Treaty.”
In threatening military force, Rubio is asserting the Monroe Doctrine promulgated by US President James Monroe on December 2, 1823. This doctrine deems any political intervention by a foreign power in the Americas as a potentially hostile act against the US. Trump operates according to the “Don Corleone Doctrine”, said Niall Ferguson, a senior fellow of the Hoover Institution of Stanford University, referring to the Hollywood gangster movie where the mafia boss, Don Corleone, made offers that couldn’t be refused on pain of reprisal.
Sino-US rivalry over Latin America.
“American policymakers are increasingly concerned about China’s influence in Latin America,” said a report of the Center for a Secure and Free Society (SFS), a US think tank, on October 18, 2022. The SFS spearheads the effort of the US government to counter Venezuela, Russia, Iran, and China’s expansion in Latin America and the Caribbean, according to its website. “American military leaders have raised alarm about a surge in Chinese-owned or controlled ports in Latin America and the Caribbean. According to US Southern Command, Chinese companies are constructing at least 40 ports on both sides of the Panama Canal in Mexico, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Chile, Argentina, Brazil, Cuba, and the Bahamas.”
Many of these Chinese state-owned companies “have ties to the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) and are involved in around 40 port infrastructure projects, from Mexico down to Peru, that combined with 11 satellite ground stations in Latin America, provide China with strategic positioning in the Western Hemisphere,” the SFS report added.
Latin American Inroads
On November 14, 2024, Chinese President Xi Jinping and Peruvian President Dina Boluarte officiated the opening of a deep-water port in Chancay, Peru, which has seen US$1.3 billion of investment from Beijing. A leading investor in this port is Cosco Shipping, a Chinese state-owned shipping giant.
In early November 2024, China Merchants Port Holdings, a Chinese state-owned port operator, signed a letter of intent with the Brazilian port authority, Portos do Parana, where China Merchants would build smart and green ports in Brazil. Portos do Parana said the next stage of its cooperation with China Merchants was further auctions and concessions at the port of Paranagua, Brazil’s second biggest port by tonnage. China Merchants owns a majority stake in the Paranagua Container Terminal.
The US is the biggest trading partner of Latin America and the Caribbean, followed by China. In 2023, US merchandise trade with Latin America and the Caribbean was US$1.14 trillion, according to the US Congressional Research Service. In that year, China’s trade with that region was US$488 billion, according to official Chinese data.
However, the rapid growth of China’s trade with Latin America and the Caribbean leads some analysts to believe China will one day overtake the US as the biggest trader in the region. Over the past 25 years, trade between China and the region has multiplied over 20 times to nearly US$500 billion in 2023, Pepe Zhang, a senior fellow of the Adrienne Arsht Latin America Center of the Atlantic Council, a US think tank, told a US Congressional hearing on May 23, 2024.
Toh Han Shih is a Singaporean writer in Hong Kong and a regular contributor to Asia Sentinel
11. DOD wants to cut red tape on foreign arms deals, Hegseth says
Excellent. I think we all want to cut this red tape. It is especially necessary to strengthen our silk web of alliances.
DOD wants to cut red tape on foreign arms deals, Hegseth says
Defense News · by Jen Judson · February 13, 2025
The Defense Department wants to reform how it sells weapons to foreign countries, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said Thursday.
The U.S. foreign military sales, or FMS, process involves years of back-and-forth between the U.S. and countries interested in buying American-made weapons before anything ends up on foreign soil. The process, which has been criticized for its slow pace, has been the focus of reform efforts prompted by the war in Ukraine.
In 2023, the Pentagon, State Department and Congress launched an effort to reform the FMS process, establishing a Tiger Team focused on pressure points and barriers to advancing desired sales.
“We need to reform that process so it’s quicker, so a request today isn’t delivered seven years from now but three years from now with less red tape and with the most efficient and effective technology possible,” Hegseth said in a press briefing directly following a NATO Defense Ministerial meeting in Brussels.
In 2024, a year after the Tiger Team worked to reform the FMS process, the Pentagon was still trying to implement many of its recommendations.
However, one challenge persists: No matter how quickly the U.S. government moves to make the reforms to speed up the approval of a sale, industry still has to build the weapons on order.
Defense firms have begun expanding manufacturing and have worked to ramp up production on munitions and other high-demand weapons, but building more production capacity also takes time and money.
Demand for American weapons systems has also spiked since the start of the war in Ukraine. Total U.S. FMS were well above $80 billion in fiscal 2024 by the end of the third quarter — higher than the total in FY23 and more than $30 billion over sales in FY22.
Hegseth’s comments to reform FMS were paired with his repeated emphasis that European countries must invest more toward the deterrence of Russian aggression and the overall security in Europe.
“One of the self-evident conclusions of the war in Ukraine was the underinvestment that both the European continent and America has had, unfortunately, in the defense industrial base,” Hegseth said. “The ability to produce munitions, emerging technologies rapidly and field them was a blind spot exposed through the aggression against Ukraine. … Europe is responding to that and so is America.”
Hegseth repeated the Trump administration’s conviction that NATO allies should invest more in defense and spend 5% of their gross domestic product as a continued commitment to the alliance.
“Leaders of our European allies should take primary responsibility for defense of the continent,” Hegseth said. “That begins with increasing the defense spending; 2% is a start, as President Trump has said, but it’s not enough.”
When asked if the U.S. would also meet a 5% spending goal, Hegseth pointed to the U.S. defense budget, which stands at $850 million, representing 3.4% of America’s GDP.
“I think nobody can or should contest the extent of America’s willingness to invest in national security. … 3.4% is a very robust investment, larger than most of our allies within NATO.”
Hegseth also stressed European countries should increase their share of support to Ukraine.
“The American Defense Department fully supports the efforts of the Trump administration, and we look to allies to support this important work with leading on Ukraine security assistance now through increased contributions and greater ownership of future security assistance to Ukraine.”
About Jen Judson
Jen Judson is an award-winning journalist covering land warfare for Defense News. She has also worked for Politico and Inside Defense. She holds a Master of Science degree in journalism from Boston University and a Bachelor of Arts degree from Kenyon College.
12. Countering China’s diplomatic coup
Chess will not counter Go/Wei Chi. We have to play and win the correct game. And Go is probably not even complicated enough. This is like is like playing Monopoly on a three dimensional chess board with one side playing football and the other side playing soccer, and a third or more sides playing baseball and all following rugby rules.
Countering China’s diplomatic coup
China has turned much of the global south against Taiwan. That could be laying the ground for forced unification
https://www.economist.com/leaders/2025/02/13/countering-chinas-diplomatic-coup?utm
Photograph: Getty Images
Feb 13th 2025
I
N JUST A few weeks the Trump administration has unleashed a dizzying number of initiatives and controversies abroad, from imposing tariffs and cutting America’s international aid budgets to starting talks with Vladimir Putin over the war in Ukraine and reimposing “maximum pressure” on Iran. Yet America’s biggest long-term challenge remains China and, as we report, amid the turmoil of America’s election campaign in 2024 and the disruption of Donald Trump’s first weeks in office, the People’s Republic has been busy strengthening its position.
Barely noticed, China has pulled off a diplomatic coup by turning more of the world against the self-governing island of Taiwan. Most countries, including Western ones, recognise China rather than Taiwan. Until recently, most of them also either acknowledged that China claimed sovereignty over Taiwan, advocating a peaceful resolution of the dispute, or took no position on the question. But over the past 18 months a large number of countries in the global south have signed up to a new diplomatic position. They now support “all” efforts by China to unify the island with the mainland. The Economist reckons that 70 countries have now endorsed this harder language.
Such a tweak may seem semantic. But it matters because Taiwan is already a flash-point and the new language offers China diplomatic protection if it uses force. The Biden administration made great efforts to renew America’s alliances in Asia, partly to deter a Chinese attack on Taiwan. Even so, the situation remains delicate. At times Joe Biden appeared to depart from the intricate American position of “strategic ambiguity”. This is aimed at discouraging China from attacking, but without emboldening Taiwan so much that it declares independence. Before America’s elections, China held military exercises that simulated a devastating blockade of Taiwan.
Since taking office, Mr Trump has not laid out his policy on Taiwan, though he has threatened to impose tariffs on its chipmaking industry. His administration includes China hawks, such as Marco Rubio, the secretary of state, and cheerleaders for China, such as Elon Musk. On February 7th, after talks between Mr Trump and Ishiba Shigeru, the Japanese prime minister, the two used tougher language than usual over Taiwan, saying that they “opposed any attempts to unilaterally change the status quo by force or coercion”. But at points in the past Mr Trump has appeared to belittle Taiwan’s desire to withstand Chinese bullying. He may yet be open to a deal that sells out Taiwan in return for concessions from China.
A full invasion of the island by China is possible, and Xi Jinping, China’s president, has asked the People’s Liberation Army to be ready to go to war by 2027. Another option would be a quarantine, or inspection regime, that seeks to cripple Taiwan’s economy while falling short of an act of war.
China’s diplomatic effort appears to be aimed at minimising the censure it would face in either scenario. By getting much of the world to formally legitimise “all” action taken by China, Mr Xi may hope to make it harder for America to enforce sanctions against it. Already, the Western embargo of Russia, which lacks UN backing, has proved impossible to enforce fully around the world. Any attempt to impose similar measures on China in a Taiwan crisis may be even less successful. Alongside this pre-emptive lawfare, China is also seeking to increase its self-sufficiency in everything from semiconductors to food.
Mr Trump’s return to the White House, along with his resentful and transactional America-first worldview, raises questions about America’s commitment to its partners in Asia. The diplomatic coup over Taiwan is a reminder that, amid these doubts, China is busy making plans.■
Subscribers to The Economist can sign up to our new Opinion newsletter, which brings together the best of our leaders, columns, guest essays and reader correspondence.
13. Analysis: Putin has waited for this moment for 3 years, as Zelensky is left in the cold
An ominous headline and article.
Analysis: Putin has waited for this moment for 3 years, as Zelensky is left in the cold | CNN
CNN · by Nick Paton Walsh · February 13, 2025
Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelensky attends a meeting with Germany's defense minister in Kyiv on January 14, 2025, amid the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
Tetiana Dzhafarova/AFP/Getty Images
CNN —
For three years he was the center of the room, but now is perhaps unsure if he is even in the right one.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has been a totemic figure of the West’s unified stance against a marauding, autocratic Russia. A Churchillian presence forcing Europe into a moral stance against a Kremlin head who had so successfully sought to divide and bribe them for years.
Yet Zelensky cut a reduced figure on stage alongside US Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent on Wednesday in Kyiv. He had hoped to meet US President Donald Trump in person to discuss a wide-ranging vision of peace, after the US president suggested Friday they might meet imminently, and his team immediately set about trying to schedule it. Instead he was presented with what Zelenksy called “serious people” – and a largely financial deal handed over by Bessent, the US billionaire turned money-man, which he didn’t sign.
The meeting, potentially in Saudi Arabia, revives questions from his first term over whether Trump is too eager to deal with Russian leader Vladimir Putin.
Clipped From Video
video
Related video Trump resumes US contact with Putin via phone call, planned meeting
It was during Bessent’s brief visit that news broke Trump had been busy elsewhere: holding perhaps his second phone call in recent days with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Trump had said Saturday they had spoken earlier, but the Kremlin declined to confirm it.
This time, the exchange had been sweetened by the unexpected release Tuesday of American prisoner Marc Fogel from Russian custody. Trump greeted the released 61-year-old wrapped in the Stars and Stripes, providing a perfect televised moment of rehabilitation for the Kremlin in the eyes of ordinary Americans. Why not make a decent deal with Moscow if they’re just good guys sending our guys home?
It’s been 48 hours of fever dreams, malarial night sweats and tremors for Zelensky. European leaders used to travel a day by rickety train for a photo op alongside him. Now he is second on Trump’s call sheet after Putin, a man under International Criminal Court indictment for alleged war crimes against Ukraine, who poisons his own people.
President Donald Trump, left, and and Russia President Vladimir Putin arrive for a meeting in Helsinki on July 16, 2018.
Brendan Smialowski/AFP/Getty Images
We simply do not know the details of what Trump and Putin spoke about. But we can be sure the Kremlin head has waited for this moment for three years – yearning for the time when his grotesque tolerance of hundreds of Russian daily dead can be converted into a crack in Western unity, or NATO’s European members being told by their American guarantor they are on their own.
Trump and Putin set the tone it seems, and Zelensky got the post-brief. Trump even gloated that Putin had used his campaign slogan of “common sense,” suggesting the Kremlin head continues to study his adversary carefully to flatter. Trump ended his second post about his call with Zelensky with the remarkable switcheroo of “God bless the people of Russia and Ukraine!”
US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, UK Chief of Defense Admiral Sir Tony Radakin, UK Defense Secretary John Healey, Ukraine's Defense Minister Rustem Umerov, and NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte at NATO headquarters in Brussels on February 12.
Omar Havana/AP
Related article NATO allies scramble for direction as Trump team signals concessions to Moscow
Hours earlier, Zelensky’s hopes over the key tenets of a peace deal had been torn up by new US Secretary of Defense Peter Hegseth. Ukraine will not be part of NATO. Ukraine will never return to its 2014 borders. Any peacekeeping forces between Russia and Ukraine will not be American, but European or non-European. Europe must look after itself. The first two points we knew – Ukraine having failed to retake territory in its 2023 counteroffensive, and likely being too chaotic in the coming decade to make the grade for the world’s most sophisticated military alliance.
But the makeup of any future peacekeeping forces was crucial. Zelensky had openly demanded – in a stream of interviews in the past week that had begun to seem like negotiating a peace deal in the media – that Americans be involved with peacekeeping, as security guarantees without America were “worthless.” Hegseth was swift to burst that bubble, fanciful as the notion was that the US would insert its men and women as prime targets in the most brutal battlefield on earth.
Instead, we are seeing the bones of a peace plan emerge in public that is close to one posited by retired Gen. Keith Kellogg back in April, when he was a private citizen and not presidential envoy to Ukraine and Russia. Kellogg suggested a peacekeeping force manned by Europeans. He said Ukraine should give up on NATO membership. He proposed a ceasefire (and has since in interviews suggested elections might then follow in Ukraine). And importantly, he said Ukrainian aid should be turned into loans that Kyiv would one day repay. Perhaps this formed part of Bessent’s proposal to Zelensky on Wednesday.
A Ukrainian serviceman carries his dog from a AS-90 self-propelled artillery vehicle after firing towards Russian positions at the frontline in the Pokrovsk direction, Donetsk region, Ukraine, Dec. 23, 2024.
Evgeniy Maloletka/AP
Rare earth minerals were discussed in Kyiv on Wednesday too, although this is not necessarily great news based on precedent. When Trump was briefly enticed to support Afghanistan in 2017 because of its purported trillion dollars’ worth of minerals, he regardless signed a deal with the Taliban to let them take over just over two years later.
There are reasons to hope Trump’s approach is based on more immutable principles and sophisticated groundwork. He and his team have clearly had confidential discussions, and seem to be articulating a plan Kellogg formulated a while ago. That takes some discipline. But it also takes application, guile and patience to see it through. Putin has this in droves, and victory in Ukraine will dictate both his personal survival, legacy, and the balance of powers globally for decades. For Trump, the war in Ukraine is the thing he thought he could fix in 24 hours after coming to power, that would never have started had he been in office in 2022.
It is not his priority. Zelensky is not either. The man on top of his call sheet is Putin. He is who he seeks to make a peace with, even though the United States is not technically at war in Ukraine. And that is, for now, all we need to know.
CNN · by Nick Paton Walsh · February 13, 2025
14. Analysis: What does Trump’s push for peace in Ukraine mean for China?
Excerpts:
“We also face a peer competitor in the Communist Chinese with the capability and intent to threaten our homeland and core national interests in the Indo-Pacific,” Hegseth said. “The US is prioritizing deterring war with China in the Pacific, recognizing the reality of scarcity, and making the resourcing tradeoffs to ensure deterrence does not fail.”
Beijing is no doubt paying close attention to Hegseth’s pronouncement, which comes as the US earlier this month ramped up its economic competition with China, launching a blanket 10% tariff on all Chinese imports, with the potential of more to come.
China has welcomed what had been an unexpectedly warm start to the second round of a Trump administration, with the US leader repeatedly expressing positive views about Chinese leader Xi Jinping and the potential for cooperation between the two.
Officials in Beijing had also likely been hoping that Trump’s upending of US foreign policy would weaken American alliances in Asia. China has bristled at a tightening of relationships between the US and partners such as Japan, South Korea and the Philippines under former President Joe Biden.
...
Speaking to CNN’s Kaitlin Collins on Wednesday, former Trump national security advisor John Bolton said that Beijing now sees the US as “unwilling to act against unprovoked aggression in the center of Europe.”
“What are they thinking now about Taiwan?” Bolton said.
Analysis: What does Trump’s push for peace in Ukraine mean for China? | CNN
CNN · by Simone McCarthy · February 13, 2025
Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese leader Xi Jinping met in Beijing last May.
Alexander Ryumin/Sputnik/AFP/Getty Images
Hong Kong CNN —
Clarity is beginning to form around US President Donald Trump’s plans for ending Russia’s war in Ukraine, with his administration appearing to accept some of the Kremlin’s key demands that Ukraine should not join NATO or return to its pre-2014 sovereign borders.
Amid the dust of what looks to be Trump’s blowing up of the previous US position on peace, another administration priority is also coming into focus: an attention shift away from Europe and toward China.
Speaking at a meeting in Brussels Wednesday, US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said that “stark strategic realities prevent the United States of America from being primarily focused on the security of Europe.”
One focus needed to be US border security, he told counterparts gathering to discuss Ukrainian security – another was Beijing.
“We also face a peer competitor in the Communist Chinese with the capability and intent to threaten our homeland and core national interests in the Indo-Pacific,” Hegseth said. “The US is prioritizing deterring war with China in the Pacific, recognizing the reality of scarcity, and making the resourcing tradeoffs to ensure deterrence does not fail.”
Beijing is no doubt paying close attention to Hegseth’s pronouncement, which comes as the US earlier this month ramped up its economic competition with China, launching a blanket 10% tariff on all Chinese imports, with the potential of more to come.
China has welcomed what had been an unexpectedly warm start to the second round of a Trump administration, with the US leader repeatedly expressing positive views about Chinese leader Xi Jinping and the potential for cooperation between the two.
Officials in Beijing had also likely been hoping that Trump’s upending of US foreign policy would weaken American alliances in Asia. China has bristled at a tightening of relationships between the US and partners such as Japan, South Korea and the Philippines under former President Joe Biden.
Chinese leader Xi Jinping shake hands with Russian President Vladimir Putin at the 16th BRICS Summit in Kazan, Russia on October 22, 2024.
Kristina Kormilitsyna/PHOTOHOST AGENCY/Anadolu/Getty Images
Related article Xi and Putin hail tightening ties in call hours after Trump inauguration
Now, it’s clear they’ll be watching closely how the US may adjust its posture and its focus in a region where Beijing hopes to expand its influence and assert its claims over the South China Sea and the self-ruling democracy of Taiwan.
They’re also likely to have another pressing concern: whether Trump’s overtures to Russian President Vladimir Putin will pull Moscow – a critical ally for Xi in his rivalry with the West – away from Beijing and toward Washington.
China’s Foreign Ministry on Thursday said it “welcomes the strengthening of communication and dialogue” between the US and Russia.
“China supports all efforts conducive to a peaceful resolution of the crisis and will continue to maintain communication with all relevant parties, playing a constructive role in promoting the political resolution of the crisis,” ministry spokesperson Guo Jiakun said in a regular press briefing.
Xi and Putin memorably declared a “no limits” partnership days before Russian tanks rolled over the border to Ukraine. The two have continued to tighten ties during the war, with China emerging as a key economic lifeline for Russia, including through the provision of dual-use goods that NATO leaders said were powering Russia’s defense industrial complex. Beijing has defended that as normal trade.
The relationship has long been predicated on the two leaders’ shared disdain for NATO and US alliances more broadly. Putin and Xi have worked in tandem to build out non-Western international groupings, while ramping up joint military drills and supporting one another in forums like the United Nations.
That means a warming of Putin’s ties with Washington could have a far-reaching impact on China’s ability to push back against pressure from the US and advance Xi’s vision for an alternative to an America-led world order.
And more immediately, it also raises questions about how and whether Xi will feature in brokering an end to the conflict alongside Trump – or be sidelined in a process in which Chinese officials have long telegraphed Beijing could play a key role.
Meanwhile, observers have said that Beijing may also be paying close attention to how the US and the international community handle the potential resolution of this conflict with an eye to its own designs on Taiwan.
China’s Communist Party claims the island as its own, despite never have ruled it, and Xi has vowed to take control of it, by force if necessary.
The US is the self-ruled island’s main arms supplier and is bound by law to provide Taiwan with the means to defend itself.
Speaking to CNN’s Kaitlin Collins on Wednesday, former Trump national security advisor John Bolton said that Beijing now sees the US as “unwilling to act against unprovoked aggression in the center of Europe.”
“What are they thinking now about Taiwan?” Bolton said.
CNN · by Simone McCarthy · February 13, 2025
15. Former Pentagon leader Chris Miller joins defense investment firm
Excerpts:
Miller told Defense News in the same interview that he’s spent a lot of time with investors over the last few years and was drawn to the firm’s focus on investments in companies developing emerging and enabling technology. That’s largely because of his own conviction that the Pentagon is not doing enough to engage with smaller, nontraditional technology firms, he said.
“This is a hot market,” said Miller, who is now chief strategy officer at autonomy company DZYNE Technologies. “I don’t think the Department of Defense has done what’s necessary to actually incentivize the investments that are going into defense tech and dual use.”
Without broader investment in military technology — beyond companies like Anduril and Palantir that have significantly expanded their defense footprint in recent years — DOD risks sending a signal that smaller firms don’t actually “have a shot,” Miller said.
Bartholomew and Miller said they’re encouraged by some DOD moves in recent years, including the creation of the Office of Strategic Capital and investment in the Defense Innovation Unit. Miller also pointed to the Pentagon’s Strategic Capabilities Office as a leader in operationalizing new technology.
Former Pentagon leader Chris Miller joins defense investment firm
Defense News · by Courtney Albon · February 13, 2025
Former Acting Defense Secretary Christopher Miller has joined Fulcrum Venture Group, a private capital firm investing in early-stage defense technologies.
Fulcrum’s managing partner, Andrew Bartholomew, a Marine Corps veteran, founded the firm in 2024 after sensing a lack of both first-hand military experience and differentiation in the current venture capital market. Since then, the group has invested in seven companies that make a range of defense technologies, from AI-enabled analytics to advanced manufacturing.
“We’re really focused on the upstream enabling technologies and processes that enable the drone ecosystem and the defense ecosystem more broadly,” Bartholomew told Defense News in an interview. “And we’re trying to leverage insights from guys like Chris Miller to make sure we understand what needs are coming down the pipe and what technologies we can get in front of today.”
Miller, a retired colonel in the Army Special Forces who led the Pentagon during the last few months of President Donald Trump’s first administration, will serve as an adviser at Fulcrum.
Miller told Defense News in the same interview that he’s spent a lot of time with investors over the last few years and was drawn to the firm’s focus on investments in companies developing emerging and enabling technology. That’s largely because of his own conviction that the Pentagon is not doing enough to engage with smaller, nontraditional technology firms, he said.
“This is a hot market,” said Miller, who is now chief strategy officer at autonomy company DZYNE Technologies. “I don’t think the Department of Defense has done what’s necessary to actually incentivize the investments that are going into defense tech and dual use.”
Without broader investment in military technology — beyond companies like Anduril and Palantir that have significantly expanded their defense footprint in recent years — DOD risks sending a signal that smaller firms don’t actually “have a shot,” Miller said.
Bartholomew and Miller said they’re encouraged by some DOD moves in recent years, including the creation of the Office of Strategic Capital and investment in the Defense Innovation Unit. Miller also pointed to the Pentagon’s Strategic Capabilities Office as a leader in operationalizing new technology.
But Miller said he wants to see their potential better harnessed within the department.
Miller said that while he’s optimistic that Trump’s new defense team and Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, may be able to create sufficient change within the Pentagon to drive acquisition reform and broaden the defense industrial base, his experience in the Pentagon is that bureaucratic inertia often stifles disruption — especially if reform efforts aren’t implemented in a strategic way.
“I think it’s a great forcing function if done maturely and used strategically,” Miller said of DOGE. “But breaking the status quo … is really, really, really going to be hard.”
About Courtney Albon
Courtney Albon is C4ISRNET’s space and emerging technology reporter. She has covered the U.S. military since 2012, with a focus on the Air Force and Space Force. She has reported on some of the Defense Department’s most significant acquisition, budget and policy challenges.
16. North Korea rights groups fear their collapse after Musk pushes US funding cuts
I guess we at the Committee for Human Rights in North Korea and the North Korean Young Leaders Assembly are lucky that we have never been dependent on funding from NED or other government funding. I guess it is a good thing that they have snubbed our requests for funding support while they provided it to all these foreign groups. (though HRNK did receive some very helpful funding from the Obama administration and the first Trump Administration but none at all from the Biden Administration - and we would like to receive support again from State because we believe we are working to support US national security interests and American values).
But frankly speaking the problem if with grants from NED and DRL at State ANd DRG at USAID, etc is that no one is looking at a coherent strategy to achieve effects that support the Korean people in the north seeking change and solving the Korea question which supports US national security interests by putting the peninsula on a path to peace, stability, prosperity, unification, and then denuclearization. My 12 words: Unification first, then denuclearization; the path to unification is through human rights.
If I were advising the DOGE team I would recommend that one agency of the USG must harness all these capabilities to ensure campaigns are executed in support of a national strategy to protect the interests of the US through, with, and by upholding American values. (And yes I know the counterargument is that there are those who do not want the work of some organizations "tainted" by association with some of the others - but it is time for us to grow up and accept the reality that such attempts to keep them separate do not counter the criticism that will always come from our adversaries and critics. We would be better off synchronizing and orchestrating our activities rather than trying to prevent external criticism that will come regardless of how we organize our capabilities ).
-
Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor (DRL) - State Department: DRL promotes democratic governance, defends human rights, and works against authoritarian regimes’ oppression. Within the JIATF, DRL provides diplomatic expertise, legal frameworks, and international coordination for political warfare campaigns.
-
National Endowment for Democracy (NED): NED supports civil society, independent media, and opposition movements resisting authoritarian rule. As part of the JIATF, NED will finance and empower grassroots organizations, ensuring non-military means of resistance remain viable.
-
Bureau for Democracy, Human Rights, and Governance (DRG) - USAID: DRG works to enhance democratic resilience through electoral integrity, rule of law, and anti-corruption initiatives. Within the JIATF, DRG will support the governance aspects of resistance efforts and provide stabilization mechanisms post-regime change.
-
Bureau of International Information Programs (IIP) - State Department: IIP leads public diplomacy efforts to engage international audiences through strategic communications, digital engagement, and counter-disinformation initiatives. Within the JIATF, IIP will coordinate messaging strategies and public diplomacy efforts to counter adversarial narratives and strengthen democratic discourse.
-
Army Special Forces (Green Berets) - USSOCOM: Special Forces are the U.S. military’s primary unconventional warfare experts. They will train, advise, and assist indigenous resistance forces, conduct direct action missions in denied environments, and integrate into political-military planning.
-
Civil Affairs (CA) - USSOCOM: Civil Affairs units engage with local populations, build legitimacy, and shape operational environments through governance support. In the JIATF, CA will provide critical infrastructure expertise and assist in post-regime stabilization efforts.
-
Psychological Operations (PSYOP) - USSOCOM: PSYOP forces conduct influence campaigns to counter adversary propaganda, galvanize resistance movements, and shape global narratives in favor of U.S. interests. Within the JIATF, they will execute strategic and tactical information warfare operations against the Dark Quad.
-
Special Activities Division (SAD) - Central Intelligence Agency (CIA): SAD conducts covert action, paramilitary operations, and psychological warfare in denied areas. SAD's presence in the JIATF ensures clandestine intelligence collection, direct action capabilities, and influence operations are integrated into the broader strategy.
-
Voice of America (VOA), Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL), and Radio Free Asia (RFA): These U.S. government-funded media organizations provide unbiased reporting, counter disinformation, and amplify the voices of resistance movements. As part of the JIATF, they will enhance information operations by exposing authoritarian corruption, highlighting democratic alternatives, and rallying international support.
.
North Korea rights groups fear their collapse after Musk pushes US funding cuts
Trump administration’s freeze of NED funds deals a blow to DPRK human rights groups and could be gift for Kim Jong Un
https://www.nknews.org/2025/02/north-korea-rights-groups-fear-their-collapse-after-musk-pushes-us-funding-cuts/
Ifang Bremer February 14, 2025
Elon Musk (middle) inside the Oval Office with U.S. President Donald Trump | Image: The White House
The U.S. Treasury Department has frozen funds of the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), NK News has learned, imperiling groups working to improve North Korean human rights. The freeze is the latest in a series of financial and political shifts which organizations say could decimate advocacy and aid work related to North Korea.
NED, a nonprofit that distributes grants from an annual congressional appropriation through the State Department’s budget, serves as a critical source of funding for many NGOs working on North Korean human rights.
The freeze comes after Elon Musk, tasked by President Donald Trump with cutting government spending under the newly created Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), called NED an “evil organization” that “needs to be dissolved.”
“For the first time in our 41-year existence, we are unable to meet our obligations to our grantees. While NED was not directly impacted by the suspension of foreign aid, we have unfortunately been unable to access our previously approved funds,” the nonprofit wrote in a notice to grantees seen by NK News.
The organization told grantees that while it remains hopeful the situation will change, “once you run out of money, consider your NED grant agreement suspended.”
NED’s inability to access its funds comes just weeks after Washington suspended U.S. foreign assistance programs under the Department of State, another major source of funding for North Korean human rights work.
Joanna Hosaniak, deputy director general of the Citizens Alliance for North Korean Human Rights, a group that has received NED grants, said that a continued freeze means that almost the entire field of North Korean human rights organizations “will be closing doors within the next few months.”
This includes “all human rights investigation and advocacy and support for the North Korean defectors community and refugees in third countries,” she told NK News.
Hanna Song, executive director of the Database Center for North Korean Human Rights (NKDB), another NED grantee, echoed these remarks.
“In the short term, I think a lot of small organizations will have to stop their operations. And that creates a long-term issue. For years, we’ve been trying to get more escapees to be at the forefront of the movement, to invest in a younger generation. That takes a lot of investment, and NED was really good at doing that.”
“It’s only in the past five or six years that NGOs have been able to offer even a modest salary. Even then, the pay was still low considering [employees’] education and skills. But it was enough to attract talent, and that’s what this movement deserves — smart, dedicated people who can solve an issue like North Korea,” Song said.
NED has not responded to NK News inquiries about the freeze or its future.
WHY RIGHTS GROUPS RELIED ON NED
For years, many North Korean human rights organizations have struggled to secure funding outside of NED, despite efforts to diversify.
Some groups have managed to fund their operations through other means. The Washington D.C.-based Committee for Human Rights in North Korea told NK News it had been operating exclusively on private funding for a few years now. But Seoul-based NGOs in particular have relied on NED for a range of reasons.
One issue is that many international grant programs prioritize countries where NGOs can operate on the ground. But for most North Korea-focused groups, this is impossible. “You can’t expect to have the same type of human rights programs that you do even in Syria, Myanmar, that you have in North Korea because we’re not on the ground,” Song said.
“So many times we try to apply for funding in other places, but since South Korea is not a developing country, we’re not eligible to apply. But the U.S. had people who understand the landscape, and it took a really long time for them to figure out their funding structure.”
A major challenge with South Korean government funding, Song added, is that it does not cover operational costs. “So they expect you to be able to do the activities without actually paying people,” she said.
Hosaniak agreed, saying that funding from individual donors and the South Korean government is insufficient to sustain operations.
“Support from individual donors is not even enough to cover rental fees for the office and utilities, and South Korean government funds do not allow spending money on salaries and office maintenance,” she said.
ROK-based rights groups’ domestic funding schemes are also under pressure in the wake of South Korean President Yoon Suk-yeol’s impeachment following his declaration of martial law.
Last month, the main opposition Democratic Party attempted to cut funding for DPRK human rights programs, while the Ministry of Unification abruptly canceled a seminar to discuss policy recommendations for increasing North Koreans’ access to information, as political turmoil continues to unfold in South Korea.
A GIFT TO KIM JONG UN?
The Trump administration’s decision to freeze funding used to promote democracy in authoritarian states has raised concerns that it could inadvertently benefit repressive regimes.
Hosaniak of Citizens Alliance called the freeze a prelude to the “forced closure of this critical civil society space,” which she argued “is a great gift to Kim Jong Un, Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin.”
Her concerns echoed those of human rights groups working on China, who have described the funding suspension as an unsolicited concession to the Chinese Communist Party.
However, some analysts argue that the move is primarily a domestic political decision rather than an intentional retreat from international human rights promotion.
Benjamin Engel, a visiting professor at Dankook University, told NK News that while the NED freeze could be perceived as benefiting China and North Korea, the Trump administration is cutting NED and the U.S. Agency for International Development funding because “they think it’s a ‘waste’ of American taxpayers’ money.”
“This is for the Republican base, which wants a retreat from U.S. internationalism and a refocus on domestic problems,” he explained, adding that while the freeze “has great consequences for U.S. foreign policy, it’s about domestic politics.”
All the while, the human rights situation in North Korea has continued to deteriorate. Earlier this month, U.N. human rights experts called on Pyongyang to clarify whether it executed two women forcibly repatriated from China.
And last year, the DPRK regime continued to enforce restrictive laws intended to deter citizens from accessing outside information and increase ideological control over the population. It also took more steps to seal its borders throughout the year, likely to prevent defections.
Edited by Alannah Hill
17. How Trump could productively reshape the transatlantic defense relationship
I like the idea I read from Dr. Rebecca Grant to get our allies to spend 5% of GDP on defense spending by having the US spend 5% as well. It is a simple concept and one which we could work on with all our allies. If we could get everyone to commit 5% of the GDP on their own defense imagine the power of our silk web of alliances.
I know it would be hard but to our allies I would just say, adopt the NIKE method: "Just do it."
Imagine what having all allies spending 5% of their GDP would do to strategic competition with the Dark Quad of China, Russia, Iran, and north Korea. They would not be able to match the hard power of the allies and because of that we could effectively compete in the gray zone between peace and war where the Dark Quad now has the comparative advantage since we are so focused on deterrence. But 5% of GDP on defense spending would be an iron clad deterrent and the ultimate deterrent because the Dark Quad cannot compete. So then we can really put our intellectual capital toward competing in the gray zone to take away their advantage there.
We need some kind of new slogan: "5% to Deter the Dark Quad."
Five Ways to Get NATO Allies to Spend 5%
By Rebecca Grant
https://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2025/02/13/five_ways_to_get_nato_allies_to_spend_5_1091162.html?mc_cid=22a017cc98
How Trump could productively reshape the transatlantic defense relationship
If rearming Europe and ending the war in Ukraine deters China, all the better.
By Alexandra de Hoop Scheffer
Acting President, German Marshall Fund
February 13, 2025 07:00 AM ET
defenseone.com · by Alexandra de Hoop Scheffer
The Trump administration wants NATO allies in Europe to “pay their fair share” for defense, while their governments want to build strategic autonomy, boost domestic defense industries, and fend off Russian aggression—now and in the future. Can Donald Trump’s tariffs—imposed and threatened—lead the sides to reconcile these worldviews?
European leaders, having prepared for months to respond to tariffs, have signaled they are ready to buy more American weapons and defense systems as part of a deal. The Trump administration should welcome this and indeed press European NATO allies to spend more on U.S. arms and technology—but also, crucially, to invest more in homegrown innovation and defense industrial capabilities.
Doing this would help rebalance transatlantic trade and continue to shift the burden of the bloc’s defense to European NATO countries, and it would also support longer-term European rearmament. This is a prerequisite for one of President Trump’s main policy goals: securing a ceasefire and lasting peace in Ukraine.
If rearming Europe and ending the war in Ukraine deters China, all the better.
A key question is how much new spending is realistically on the table. Last month at Davos, President Trump called on NATO members to increase their defense spending from 2 percent to 5 percent of GDP. This is beyond what any member state, including the U.S., currently spends on defense.
NATO has unofficially called on members to raise spending to between 3 percent and 3.5 percent of GDP, and European NATO members are probably ready to talk about the 3.5 percent figure, which matches current U.S. defense spending levels. Using 2025 GDP estimates, that translates to €630 billion per year, far more than the €350 billion or so they spent last year.
The Trump administration might be inclined to press for 5 percent and accept less from European capitals that agree to buy from American defense suppliers. But the U.S. would have more success by collectively holding European counterparts to the already ambitious 3.5 percent target.
Getting firm commitments will be a hard sell in either case. The continent’s sluggish growth and debt rules make new spending a challenge and European defense budgets have soared since Russia’s 2022 full-scale invasion. While Italy and Spain spend less than 2 percent, most European NATO members meet the bloc’s 2-percent guideline, and frontline countries like Poland manage to spend more than 4 percent on defense.
Poland’s approach shows higher spending is feasible—and the Italian and Spanish economies are some of the best-performing in the EU. But in all cases, finding extra funds will mean trading off other domestic priorities. The guns-versus-butter argument is not purely rhetorical in a time of budget cuts, political turbulence, and low growth.
This is why investment is key. European arms suppliers are fragmented and cannot meet rising demand. American arms contracts in 2025 and 2026 could help fill the gap, but leaning on allies to meet the 3.5-percent target would enable new investment in Europe’s domestic defense industries. With proper investment, European national and joint capacities could be significantly built out by 2026 and U.S. supply could then be redirected to other priorities.
Sending this kind of powerful signal soon would strengthen the allied position in negotiating and maintaining a ceasefire in Ukraine. It is obvious to Putin and others that a Europe that is materially more committed to its own defense and rearmed would be more reliably able to counter and deter future Russian aggression.
Tensions are sure to rise, but an all-out trade war between the U.S. and Europe would be the worst possible outcome of tariff negotiations and a major strategic loss for the United States. Damaging European economies would weaken their ability to sustain the spending required to meet strategic goals on Ukraine and Russia.
European allies are known to make tough decisions when faced with perceived major threats. U.S. tariffs are sure to have this clarifying effect, and the Feb. 14-16 Munich Security Conference could be where leaders come to alignment.
With Germany holding elections in February, Poland doing so in May, and continued uncertainty in French parliament, European leaders will soon be tempted to turn away from the hard questions of finding funds for more defense spending. NATO allies led by the U.S. have a small window in which to bolster their negotiating position with Russia and signal long-term shift towards European NATO responsibility.
The U.S. should seize this opportunity to rebalance trade and responsibility for transatlantic defense for years to come—and deter Russia and China in the process.
Dr. Alexandra de Hoop Scheffer is acting president of the German Marshall Fund of the United States.
defenseone.com · by Alexandra de Hoop Scheffer
18. The Fourth Age: The SOCOM Commander’s Vision for the Future
One hour podcast at the link with General Fenton and CSM Shorter and August Cole
https://irregularwarfare.org/podcasts/the-fourth-age-the-socom-commanders-vision-for-the-future/
The Fourth Age: The SOCOM Commander’s Vision for the Future
February 13, 2025 by Louis Tobergte, Ben Jebb Leave a Comment
Episode 124 explores the evolution and future of Special Operations Forces (SOF) through the lens of “The Fourth Age,” a work of fictional intelligence examining future SOF capabilities and missions. Our guests discuss how SOF has evolved through distinct eras since World War II and examine how emerging technologies and domains will shape special operations in the 2030s and beyond.
Our guests begin by exploring the utility of storytelling and “useful fiction” in military education and planning. They then examine the historical development of SOF through three distinct ages, from its OSS origins through the Cold War and Global War on Terror. Finally, they discuss how SOF is evolving to meet future challenges through the integration of space, cyber, and emerging technologies while maintaining its core human element.
General Bryan P. Fenton is the Commander of U.S. Special Operations Command. He has previously commanded at every level from Detachment Command in 7th Special Forces Group through commanding Joint Special Operations Command. He is a graduate of the University of Notre Dame and has served on active duty for over 37 years.
Command Sergeant Major Shane Shorter is the Command Senior Enlisted Leader for U.S. Special Operations Command. He enlisted in the Army as an Infantryman in 1988 and joined special forces in 1992. He spent much of his career in 1st Special Forces Group and recently served as senior enlisted leader for Special Operations Command Pacific, U.S. Indo-Pacific Command, and the Joint Special Operations University.
August Cole is an author exploring the future of conflict through fiction and fictional intelligence storytelling. With P.W. Singer, he is the co-author of the bestseller “Ghost Fleet: A Novel of the Next World War” and “Burn In: A Novel of the Real Robotic Revolution.” He is a co-founder and managing partner at Useful Fiction, focusing on defense and security.
Louis Tobergte and Ben Jebb are the hosts for Episode 122. Please reach out to them with any questions about this episode or the Irregular Warfare Podcast.
The Irregular Warfare Podcast is a production of the Irregular Warfare Initiative (IWI). We are a team of volunteers dedicated to bridging the gap between scholars and practitioners in the field of irregular warfare. IWI generates written and audio content, coordinates events for the IW community, and hosts critical thinkers in the field of irregular warfare as IWI fellows. You can follow and engage with us on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, YouTube, or LinkedIn.
Subscribe to our monthly newsletter for access to our written content, upcoming community events, and other resources.
19. China-Taiwan Weekly Update, February 14, 2025
China-Taiwan Weekly Update, February 14, 2025
https://understandingwar.org/backgrounder/china-taiwan-weekly-update-february-13-2025
Data Cutoff: February 11, 2025
Taiwanese civil society groups have now submitted recall petitions targeting 31 opposition Kuomintang (KMT) legislators and 13 legislators from the ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP). Recall efforts could shift the balance of power within the Legislative Yuan (LY) by reducing the KMT-led majority. These 44 recall petitions have received signatures from more than 1 percent of the eligible voters in their electoral district, clearing the first threshold to initiate a recall election. The next step is for recall petitioners to get signatures from at least 10 percent of eligible voters within the relevant electoral district within 60 days. Once Taiwan’s Central Election Commission verifies these signatures, the recall vote can commence. If a majority of voters vote to recall the elected official, and this majority exceeds 25 percent of eligible voters in the district, a special election must be held within three months to fill the vacated seat. The LY currently has no majority party, with the DPP holding 51 seats, the KMT holding 54 (including two KMT-aligned independents), and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) holding 8 seats. The opposition has a majority in practice, however, because the KMT and TPP have typically aligned on key issues. The DPP could regain control of the LY if its supporters can successfully recall and replace six KMT legislators and maintain all contested DPP legislative seats.
KMT- and TPP-backed amendments to Taiwan’s Public Officials Election and Recall Act could make recall efforts more difficult, however. The opposition parties passed an amendment on December 20, 2024, requiring those who propose or sign a recall initiative to provide a copy of their ID card instead of their ID numbers and addresses. The Executive Yuan requested a reexamination of the amendment in January 2025, but the LY voted along party lines to preserve the amendment on February 11. The TPP, though not facing a potential recall of its elected legislators, has voiced its opposition to the mass recall campaign. Acting TPP Chairman Huang Kuo-chang called DPP efforts to recall KMT legislators an act of “green authoritarianism,” a reference to the DPP official party color. President William Lai Ching-te has 10 days to sign the bill into law after the LY sends it to him. Petitions that complete both rounds of signature collection before the bill is signed into law will not be subject to the amendment, though it is possible that the KMT may use this amendment as an opportunity to challenge the legality of recall proceedings.
South Korea’s National Intelligence Service (NIS) accused the PRC’s artificial intelligence (AI) start-up DeekSeek of “excessively” collecting and storing user data on February 10. The NIS said, “unlike other generative AI services, it has been confirmed that chat records are transferable as it includes a function to collect keyboard input patterns that can identify individuals and communicate with Chinese companies’ servers.” Several South Korean government agencies such as the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy; Ministry of National Defense; Ministry of Foreign Affairs; and state-run Korea Hydro & Nuclear Power restricted or blocked access to DeepSeek for their employees due to security concerns on February 6. PRC Foreign Ministry spokesperson Guo Jiakun said the PRC “attaches great importance to and legally protects data privacy and security,” adding that the PRC has “never demanded, nor will it require, enterprises or individuals to collect or store data in an illegal manner,” in response to the South Korean government agencies’ ban on the app. South Korea joins a growing list of countries, including the United States , Australia, Italy, and the ROC, that have banned the app for government employees due to security risks. The concerns are linked to the PRC’s National Intelligence Law, which could allow the state to access corporate data.
The PRC appears to be exploiting divisions between the Cook Islands and New Zealand, which have a free association arrangement. The Cook Islands will sign a comprehensive strategic partnership with the PRC as the PRC seeks to expand influence and access in the South Pacific. PRC MFA spokesman Guo Jiakun said that the Cook Islands has been “an important partner of China in the South Pacific region” since relations were established in 1997 and that bilateral ties are “not directed against any third party” in a regular press conference on February 10. The MFA has not released information detailing the terms of the comprehensive strategic partnership at the time of writing. A Cook Islands government readout detailed that Cook Islands Prime Minister Mark Brown would travel to Beijing from February 10–14 to sign the agreement, which “presents an opportunity to enhance cooperation across key sectors, including trade, investment, and tourism; infrastructure; climate resilience and renewable energy; agriculture; maritime and oceans, including shipping and seabed minerals development.”
Key Takeaways:
- Taiwanese civil society groups have now submitted recall petitions targeting 31 opposition Kuomintang (KMT) legislators and 13 legislators from the ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP). Recall efforts could shift the balance of power within the Legislative Yuan (LY) by reducing the KMT-led majority.
- Taiwan’s Ministry of the Interior (MOI) investigated claims that Taiwanese and PRC companies helped Taiwanese nationals illegally procure PRC identification cards in support of an expansion of CCP United Front soft power operations against Taiwan.
- The ROC Ministry of National Defense (MND) reported sighting six PRC high-altitude balloons near Taiwan in one day, with one passing directly over the main island.
- The PRC’s new directive restricting online publication of military-related information reflects the PRC’s heightened sensitivity to leaks that expose military capabilities and the reinforcement of CCP control over the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) by silencing narratives that challenge party authority.
- PRC General Secretary Xi Jinping met with South Korea’s National Assembly Speaker Woo Won-shik in Harbin, Heilongjiang Province on February 7, 2025. The meeting reflects the PRC’s growing efforts to strengthen ties with South Korea amid its escalating trade war with the U.S. and political instability in South Korea.
- The PRC’s appointment of Lu Shaye as special representative for European Affairs signals that Beijing intends to take a more aggressive posture in negotiations with the European Union.
20. After DeepSeek, America and the EU are getting AI wrong
Ease up????
Excerpts:
Another hurdle is privacy rules. Even big tech firms, with their huge compliance teams, now launch their ai products in Europe with a delay. Imagine the costs for startups. German manufacturers sit on a wealth of proprietary data that could feed productivity-enhancing ai tools. But fear of breaching regulations deters them. A wise relaxation of rules, as well as harmonised enforcement, would help Europe exploit AI’s potential.
Uncle Sam needs to wake up, too. China’s advances suggest that America has less monopoly power over ai simply by having a hold over cutting-edge chips. Instead, it needs to attract the world’s best talent, however distasteful that may be to maga Republicans.
America should also change how it engages with its allies. In Paris Mr Vance rightly warned against the use of Chinese infrastructure (and the fact that China signed the summit’s declaration on ai governance may explain why America declined to). But America would more successfully discourage the adoption of Chinese AI if it were more willing for its friends to use its technology. In his final days in office Joe Biden proposed strict ai controls that would hinder exports even to partners like India. Revising those would nudge countries to use American tech rather than pushing them into China’s embrace. American ai now faces competition. If it wants to reign supreme, Uncle Sam will have to entice, not threaten.
After DeepSeek, America and the EU are getting AI wrong
Europe has a chance to catch up, whereas America should ease up
https://www.economist.com/leaders/2025/02/12/after-deepseek-america-and-the-eu-are-getting-ai-wrong?utm
Photograph: EPA/Shutterstock
Feb 12th 2025
T
he attempt at global harmony ended in cacophony. As Emmanuel Macron’s ai summit drew to a close on February 11th J.D. Vance, America’s vice-president, bluntly set out an America-first vision for artificial intelligence (AI), castigated Europe for being too rule-bound and left before the usual group photograph. eu countries, for their part, struck a collaborative tone with China and the global south, while stressing the need to limit the risks of using ai.
Both Europe and America should rethink their approach. After the work by DeepSeek, China’s hotshot model-maker, Europe has been given an unexpected chance to catch up—if it can cast off its regulatory straitjacket. America can no longer behave as if it has a monopoly on ai. It should change how it wields power over its allies.
Chart: The Economist
The pace of innovation is astonishing. Barely six months ago AI looked as if it needed a technological breakthrough to become widely affordable. Since then reasoning and efficiency techniques have emerged, enabling DeepSeek to develop models close to the frontier even though it cannot use cutting-edge American chips. And DeepSeek is just exhibit A. Researchers everywhere are racing to make ai more efficient. Those at Stanford and the University of Washington, for instance, have trained models more cheaply still. Once there were concerns that the world did not contain enough data to train advanced systems. Now the use of synthetic data seems to be having good results.
For Europe, which looked hopelessly behind in AI, this is a golden opportunity. In contrast to Google’s search engines, where network effects mean that a winner takes all, no law of computing or economics will stop European firms from catching up. Better policy can help close the gap. Mr Macron is rightly encouraging investment in data centres. But just as important is cutting through the red tape that prevents companies from innovating and adopting ai. The EU’s ai Act is fearsomely stringent: a startup offering an ai tutoring service, by one account, must set up risk-management systems, conduct an impact assessment and undergo an inspection, as well as jumping through other hoops.
Another hurdle is privacy rules. Even big tech firms, with their huge compliance teams, now launch their ai products in Europe with a delay. Imagine the costs for startups. German manufacturers sit on a wealth of proprietary data that could feed productivity-enhancing ai tools. But fear of breaching regulations deters them. A wise relaxation of rules, as well as harmonised enforcement, would help Europe exploit AI’s potential.
Uncle Sam needs to wake up, too. China’s advances suggest that America has less monopoly power over ai simply by having a hold over cutting-edge chips. Instead, it needs to attract the world’s best talent, however distasteful that may be to maga Republicans.
America should also change how it engages with its allies. In Paris Mr Vance rightly warned against the use of Chinese infrastructure (and the fact that China signed the summit’s declaration on ai governance may explain why America declined to). But America would more successfully discourage the adoption of Chinese AI if it were more willing for its friends to use its technology. In his final days in office Joe Biden proposed strict ai controls that would hinder exports even to partners like India. Revising those would nudge countries to use American tech rather than pushing them into China’s embrace. American ai now faces competition. If it wants to reign supreme, Uncle Sam will have to entice, not threaten. ■
Subscribers to The Economist can sign up to our new Opinion newsletter, which brings together the best of our leaders, columns, guest essays and reader correspondence.
21. What happened next at USAID
Excerpt:
Mr Rubio, a supporter of PEPFAR and other foreign aid during his Senate career, may yet have a chance to repair some of the damage he has overseen. But Mr Trump has offered his top diplomat little cover to do so and appears more impressed by Mr Musk’s claim that foreign aid is essentially a corrupt racket
What happened next at USAID
A textbook case of how not to cut wasteful government spending
https://www.economist.com/united-states/2025/02/13/what-happened-next-at-usaid?utm
System errorPhotograph: Jim Huylebroek/ New York Times/ Redux/ Eyevine
Feb 13th 2025|Lilongwe and Cape Town
Listen to this story.
O
N JANUARY 28th the secretary of state, Marco Rubio, issued an “emergency humanitarian waiver” to exempt life-saving aid from Donald Trump’s freeze on all foreign assistance. Two weeks later, in Malawi, a country of 20m in southern Africa that is the world’s seventh-poorest by GDP per person, most local charities have stopped working and about 5,000 people—many of them health workers—have lost their jobs, says Mazisayko Matemba of the Health and Rights Education Programme, an NGO. “We expect more people to get infections and start dying.”
From South Africa to Afghanistan, the picture is similar. Mr Rubio issued two edicts that sought to rescue PEPFAR, a successful anti-AIDS initiative, as well as other “core life-saving” medical, food and shelter programmes from Elon Musk’s demolition crew at the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). Mr Musk has rapidly dismantled USAID, but DOGE tore apart foreign aid systems so quickly—closing offices, firing thousands of contractors, freezing bank accounts—that Mr Rubio’s waivers have so far proved meaningless, say aid workers in multiple countries. “Even when a waiver has been issued, there’s no way to execute it because the payment system has been broken,” says Kate Almquist Knopf, a former USAID Africa director based in Nairobi.
In Malawi, the antiretroviral drugs PEPFAR pays for are one of the major reasons why life expectancy has risen from 45 in 2000 to 63 in 2022. In South Africa, the $440m America spends every year fighting HIV and TB in the country accounts for about 17% of the government’s budget for tackling the diseases. Jeremy Nel, who runs one of the biggest HIV clinics in South Africa, in Johannesburg, says the staff in the hospital who were funded by PEPFAR were told on January 27th they could not come to work. They are still waiting for instruction from USAID, “but it is unclear whether USAID even exists anymore,” he says. “The number one problem has been the abruptness of the transition.”
Francois Venter, who runs a health NGO in the same city, points out that HIV programmes cannot be stopped and started “at the drop of a hat”. Charities don’t have financial reserves or access to loans; they need to know that the invoices they send will be reimbursed. The disruption in recent weeks “won’t cause death overnight but what it will do is set our progress back years,” says a doctor who until recently was funded via PEPFAR.
Mr Rubio has sounded defensive about the rapid and performatively cruel way that USAID has been dismantled. Initially, he blamed USAID staff for not co-operating. On February 10th, Mr Rubio conceded that there had been “some hiccups about how to restart the payment programmes, but all that’s going to get taken care of here very quickly.” PEPFAR and other lifesaving programmes “will continue”, he added, but he warned that PEPFAR is likely to shrink.
In the meantime, local and international charities face insolvency. A few large commercial and non-profit groups with diversified revenue may survive, executives in the sector say, but the business model for many charities reliant on USAID contracts is largely cash-in, cash-out, with little scope to build up reserves or borrowing power. When DOGE stopped payments, it cut off $750m to $1bn in money owed to contractors for work already completed, one executive estimates.
Across Africa, aid workers are parsing just how life-saving a programme must be to qualify for the Trump administration’s backing. Direct food aid may be allowed, but how about cash vouchers to buy food in the market? Medicine to fight HIV may be allowed, but how about education programmes to stop transmissions? Does the provision of seeds to villagers who will starve if they don’t plant before the next wet season count as life-saving? In Washington, there is no one to answer the phone and sort out such questions, aid officials say. “This was done so ignorantly, without an understanding of what’s required at both ends of the implementing chain,” says Nathaniel Raymond, executive director of the Humanitarian Research Lab at Yale University’s School of Public Health.
Mr Rubio, a supporter of PEPFAR and other foreign aid during his Senate career, may yet have a chance to repair some of the damage he has overseen. But Mr Trump has offered his top diplomat little cover to do so and appears more impressed by Mr Musk’s claim that foreign aid is essentially a corrupt racket. ■
Stay on top of American politics with The US in brief, our daily newsletter with fast analysis of the most important political news, and Checks and Balance, a weekly note from our Lexington columnist that examines the state of American democracy and the issues that matter to voters.
Explore more
United States
This article appeared in the United States section of the print edition under the headline “Long knives”
22. How Russell Vought's 'radical constitutionalism' could spark a constitutional crisis
Sure a clickbait headline but listen to the read report (or read it below).
This is the fundamental question of our time. Do we believe in Mr. Vought's "radical constitutionalism?" Or do we believe in three equal branches of government with a separation of powers and checks and balances as our founding fathers envisioned and designed for our federal democratic republic?
Undermining the legitimacy of the judicial branch by saying they are unelected and serve life terms fails to acknowledge the thinking and vision of our founding fathers, Justices are appointed by the Executive and confirmed by the Legislative branch (Senate) (they are appointed and approved by elected officials) and they serve life terms so they are able to judge impartially on the Constitution without influence by partisan politics. Our direct democratically elected officials (House and then later the Senate 2 and 6 years) are our indirectly elected Executive (4 years through the Electoral College) and our life appointed justices all serve to check and balance each other through elections and Constitutional interpretation and ensure that power is not concentrated in any one branch forge main prutorse of preventing tyrannical rule by one person balance with presenting the role of the tyranny of the majority to protect the individual liberty of all Americans.
So do we want Mr Vought's vision here? It seems he does not believe in the Constitution that we all took an oath to support and defend. Or perhaps I am completely misinterpreting and misunderstanding his words which is very possible.
Excerpts:
RUSSELL VOUGHT: The president has to move executively as fast and as aggressively as possible with a radical constitutional perspective to be able to dismantle that bureaucracy in their power centers.
...
VOUGHT: And I think there are a couple of ways to do it. Number one is going after the whole notion of independence
There are no independent agencies. Congress may have viewed them as such, SEC or the FCC, CFPB, the whole alphabet soup, but that is not something that the Constitution understands. So there may be different strategies with each one of them about how you dismantle them. But as an administration, the whole notion of an independent agency should be thrown out.
...
VOUGHT: It is the president's most important tool to dealing with the bureaucracy and administrative state and the nice thing about President Trump is he knows that, and he knows how to use it effectively.
...
VOUGHT: We want the bureaucrats to be traumatically affected. We want, when they wake up in the morning, we want them to not want to go to work. Because they are increasingly viewed as the villains. We want their funding to be shut down so that the EPA can't do all of the rules against our energy industry, because they have no bandwidth financially to do. We want to put them in trauma.
...
VOUGHT: And guess what? We have in Donald Trump a man who is so uniquely positioned to serve this role.
A man whose own interests perfectly align with the interests of the country. He has seen what it has done to him, and he has seen what they are trying to do to the country. That is nothing more than a gift of God.
...
VOUGHT: We're trying to build a shadow office of Legal Counsel so that when a future president says, what legal authorities do I need to shut down the riots? We want to be able to shut down the riots and not have the legal community or the defense community to come in and say, that's an inappropriate use of what you're trying to do.
CHAKRABARTI: This is a reading that rejects the constitutional concept of three co-equal branches of government. And in recent days, the Trump administration has been vocally heading towards a showdown with the judicial branch in particular, as many of the president's recent executive orders are being challenged and struck down in district courts, members of the administration and their supporters in the media have talked openly about defying lower court orders until cases reach the Supreme Court.
So that's why in a recent op-ed in the New York Times, Russell Vought was deemed quote, probably the most important person in Trump 2.0. The author of that op-ed is Damon Linker. He's a senior lecturer in the Department of Political Science at the University of Pennsylvania, and he joins us now.
How Russell Vought's 'radical constitutionalism' could spark a constitutional crisis
https://www.wbur.org/onpoint/2025/02/12/russell-vought-radical-constitutionalism-trump-constitutional-crisis
47:04
Resume
February 12, 2025
FILE - President Donald Trump listens as acting director of the Office of Management and Budget Russel Vought speaks during an event on "transparency in Federal guidance and enforcement" in the Roosevelt Room of the White House, Wednesday, Oct. 9, 2019, in Washington. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci, File)
Russell Vought, head of Trump's Office of Budget and Management, believes the president has the power to completely dismantle any aspect of the federal government he chooses. Bipartisan leaders say Trump and Vought are trying to provoke a constitutional crisis.
Guests
Damon Linker, senior lecturer in political science at the University of Pennsylvania. Author of the Substack "Notes from the Middleground."
Beth Reinhard, investigative reporter at the Washington Post. She wrote a profile on Russell Vought for the Washington Post titled “Trump loyalist pushes ‘post-Constitutional’ vision for second term."
Transcript
Part I
MEGHNA CHAKRABARTI: President Donald Trump often deploys the term radical to smear people he does not like. He called former Vice President Kamala Harris a radical Marxist. The media is quote, "the radical left media." He regularly labels Democrats as the radical left and opponents in general as quote "radical left thugs" or "radical left lunatics."
There are radicals, too, within his own current administration, self-professed radicals.
RUSSELL VOUGHT: The president has to move executively as fast and as aggressively as possible with a radical constitutional perspective to be able to dismantle that bureaucracy in their power centers.
CHAKRABARTI: This is Russell Vought, head of the President's Office of Management and Budget.
He's speaking here with Tucker Carlson right after Trump was elected in November. And as you heard, Vought openly embraces and endorses what he himself calls a radical constitutional perspective.
VOUGHT: And I think there are a couple of ways to do it. Number one is going after the whole notion of independence
There are no independent agencies. Congress may have viewed them as such, SEC or the FCC, CFPB, the whole alphabet soup, but that is not something that the Constitution understands. So there may be different strategies with each one of them about how you dismantle them. But as an administration, the whole notion of an independent agency should be thrown out.
CHAKRABARTI: Just to reiterate, Russell Vought rejects the entire historical belief and practice that any agency in the federal government can be independent. He says the Constitution does not state any such independence exists in the executive branch, and as such, he wants to eliminate all of those agencies. And as head of the Office of Management and Budget, Vought has the power to achieve that vision.
CHAKRABARTI: Again, that's Vought on the Tucker Carlson Show. The Office of Management and Budget produces the President's Budget.
It is distinct from the budget produced by Congress. The President's budget is a wish list because the Constitution says Congress has the ultimate power of the purse. According to its website, the OMB also quote, oversees the performance of federal agencies and administers the federal budget as approved by Congress. Vought, however, believes OMB's primary function is to ensure that all agency policies and initiatives are in line with the president's values.
He described this vision clearly in a 25-page section of Project 2025. That's the Heritage Foundation's blueprint for total transformation of the federal government. OMB is, quote, "Air traffic control," according to Vought. It quote, ensures that all policy initiatives are flying in sync and with the authority to let the planes take off and at times ground planes that are flying off course." End quote.
Russell Vought believes that independent agencies, by default, are flying off course because they are independent. Again, in his self-identified radical constitutionalist view, those agencies need to be eliminated. Here's Vought in 2023 speaking to a private group. The recording was obtained by ProPublica.
VOUGHT: We want the bureaucrats to be traumatically affected. We want, when they wake up in the morning, we want them to not want to go to work. Because they are increasingly viewed as the villains. We want their funding to be shut down so that the EPA can't do all of the rules against our energy industry, because they have no bandwidth financially to do. We want to put them in trauma.
CHAKRABARTI: The Trump administration has already begun dismantling USAID, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the Department of Education is likely next. Again, here's Vought at a private event in a recording obtained by ProPublica.
VOUGHT: And guess what? We have in Donald Trump a man who is so uniquely positioned to serve this role.
A man whose own interests perfectly align with the interests of the country. He has seen what it has done to him, and he has seen what they are trying to do to the country. That is nothing more than a gift of God.
CHAKRABARTI: Vought combines a deification of Trump with a radical, again, his word, reading of the Constitution that puts almost all of the power of the federal government in the president's hands.
In this view, Congress's power of the purse is by default diminished. The judiciary exists mostly to rubber stamp the president. Vought, in fact, describes in detail how he and the current Trump administration are moving to achieve that consolidation.
VOUGHT: We're trying to build a shadow office of Legal Counsel so that when a future president says, what legal authorities do I need to shut down the riots? We want to be able to shut down the riots and not have the legal community or the defense community to come in and say, that's an inappropriate use of what you're trying to do.
CHAKRABARTI: This is a reading that rejects the constitutional concept of three co-equal branches of government. And in recent days, the Trump administration has been vocally heading towards a showdown with the judicial branch in particular, as many of the president's recent executive orders are being challenged and struck down in district courts, members of the administration and their supporters in the media have talked openly about defying lower court orders until cases reach the Supreme Court.
So that's why in a recent op-ed in the New York Times, Russell Vought was deemed quote, probably the most important person in Trump 2.0. The author of that op-ed is Damon Linker. He's a senior lecturer in the Department of Political Science at the University of Pennsylvania, and he joins us now.
Welcome to On Point.
DAMON LINKER: Thanks. Great to be here.
CHAKRABARTI: Why do you think that Vought as the head of OMB is the most powerful or most important person in Trump 2.0? Since a lot of the attention recently, and we even did a show about this yesterday, has been on others like Elon Musk.
LINKER: I think all the clips that you've been sharing help to make that clear, but I'm happy to connect some dots.
But basically Vought, unlike someone like Elon Musk, who's breezing in here, he has a million things going on, he's the head of several private businesses, and has business all over the world, and can easily be distracted, is not an accountant by training, is not an expert in how the federal government functions, and so will tend to crash into walls all over the place.
Vought is someone who is, he is very intelligent, and he grasps intimately how the executive branch actually functions from the inside. He studied it, he was the acting and then the actual director of OMB in the first Trump administration, through the last 18 to 24 months of that administration. And as Trump lost the election and then began his disastrous refusal to accept the results, OMB was actually coming very close to beginning to execute the kinds of things we're seeing now.
And so what has happened is Trump, he, Trump has picked many of the same people who worked for him the last time, the ones he deemed sufficiently loyal and devoted to him and his agenda. But he's also hired a lot of new people and those who worked for him before are often in different roles. Vought though is back and he's right back in exactly the same job he was serving in before. And that is because I think Trump and the people closest to him as advisors grasp that Vought understands how this stuff works.
He knows where the money comes from, where it's going and how it can be shut off, change direction and manipulated at a moment's notice. And we are starting to see the consequences of that every day now.
CHAKRABARTI: So let me ask you, regarding his overall approach to how he reads the Constitution, as you pointed out, we played those clips where he specifically says he simply does not believe that the Constitution identifies any possibility of an independent agency within the executive.
And he calls that radical constitutionalism. How radical is that reading in comparison to what has been mainstream legal interpretation of the constitution for, say, the past century or so?
LINKER: If you come from the institutions, organizations, institutes where Vought has cut his teeth in his career, it's not that unusual at all.
But these are all pretty hard institutions like the Claremont Institute in California they have been working for decades on fashioning these kinds of arguments, looking back at the history of the 20th century and saying, in effect, that beginning with the progressive movement in the opening years of the 20th century, with Theodore Roosevelt's ambition to curtail the trusts that existed in the late 19th century.
Facilitating the robber barons and the Gilded Age and its great expansion of wealth, mainly for the upper classes and then continuing into Woodrow Wilson's attempt to create an administrative state that would persist across presidential administrations.
Basically, people with expertise and knowledge of how the government works and how the problems that affect a large continent-wide nation in the modern world understand the regulations that are required for it to function and for public safety to be ensured. That this would exist and persist across presidents from party to party, and then this really reached its early pinnacle with the New Deal, with FDR winning election by overwhelming majorities and expanding the scope of the federal government into areas where it didn't exist before.
Now this at first was extremely controversial. The Supreme Court knocked down a series of New Deal expansions of federal power. Then FDR in 1936 won reelection by even a wider margin. Democrats took even more seats in both houses of Congress, and he, FDR, then threatened the court with the court packing scheme, and it never ended up happening, but it had the effect of basically scaring the Supreme Court into reversing course and then endorsing the New Deal.
Part II
CHAKRABARTI: Today we are talking about Russell Vought. He is President Trump's head of Office of Management and Budget. It's a position he held in the first Trump administration as well. And he professes what he himself calls a radical constitutionalist view of the power of the presidency.
And it's a view that could or seems to be bringing the Trump administration already in conflict with the judicial branch of the United States. So let's listen to a little bit of what Vought said during his Senate confirmations hearings. These are the most recent ones to get him confirmed to head of OMB in Trump 2.0.
He was asked many questions ... about the extent of executive power and including this question by Democratic Senator Andy Kim of New Jersey.
KIM: I guess I'll ask it in a different way. Do you believe that the president has the authority to set interest rates?
VOUGHT: Sir, I'm not going to speak to the matter. That's not a, it's a hypothetical that is best entertained --
KIM: It's not a hypothetical. It's that I'm trying to get a sense of your understanding of the power of the president. You will serve, if confirmed, in the office of the president. And I want to have a sense of your understanding of what the president is allowed to do and not allowed to do. And I think that's a very valid concern.
VOUGHT: Again, Senator, I'm here for the president's agenda. And my view of OMB is that it is a very important office. It touches all aspects of the federal government and that it is important for the president to have someone in this role that wants to accomplish his agenda and not their own personal agenda. That's what I'm known for, and that's what I'll continue to be if confirmed.
CHAKRABARTI: That's Russell Vought in his confirmation hearings for the head of OMB. Now, it's extremely common for anyone in a confirmation hearing to aggressively avoid answering questions. That's become a norm in Senate confirmation hearings.
But, Damon Linker, let me just get a quick answer from you on this, because Senator Kim asked a very specific question of Vought, which is, does he believe that the president has the authority to set interest rates? Who in the United States right now has that authority?
LINKER: That's, the Federal Reserve does that.
And the Federal Reserve is one of these independent agencies that's supposed to be independent of the elected president. I don't know for sure whether Vought would, in all truthfulness answer that question in the affirmative. Yes, a president can set interest rates, but I don't think he thinks it's legitimate that the Fed alone can do it.
CHAKRABARTI: Yes, because he didn't answer that the Fed is the one, is the body that sets interest rates. Interestingly, the president does get to name the head of the Fed though.
LINKER: That's true. Although their terms are not, they're not one of these political appointees like the heads of the various cabinet level departments, and the agencies that a new president typically appoints, like the normal way it works with the FBI director, which has a 10-year term. The Fed has terms that go beyond the scope of individual administrations of four years.
You can, as president, demand that the Fed chair step down early, and then they can either say, okay, or they can fight it. But Vought would, I think, very clearly take the stand that Trump or any president can do whatever they wish. If they want a new Fed chair, they should be able to fire the person and put a new one in at any time.
CHAKRABARTI: Okay, Damon, hang on here for just a second, because I want to explore a little bit about Russell Vought's background and what brought him to this view of radical constitutionalism. So to do that, I want to bring Beth Reinhard into the conversation. She's an investigative reporter at the Washington Post and she's written a profile on Russell Vought.
It's called Trump Loyalist Pushes Post-Constitutional Vision for a Second Term. Beth, welcome to On Point.
BETH REINHARD: Thank you so much.
CHAKRABARTI: Okay. So first of all, earlier in the show, we played one specific clip from Vought where he talked about Donald Trump being a gift from God. How religious is Russell Vought? And in fact, I think I've read him as being a self-identified Christian nationalist.
REINHARD: He is. In fact, he wrote an essay for Newsweek, said what's wrong with being a Christian nationalist, recognizing that term, sets off alarms with some people, especially when you're talking about the federal government. But yes, he was raised religiously. He's described it as a very strong Bible preaching, Bible teaching church.
He went to Christian camps. He went to an evangelical Christian college, Wheaton College. So that is his background. And that's something he definitely carries with him. He's very anti-abortion, he's mostly thought of in terms of cutting the budget and fiscal issues, but he's also a real social conservative as well.
CHAKRABARTI: In that Newsweek essay that you cited, he essentially, definitely, he says he wants an institutional separation between church and state. So I guess he doesn't want the state to interfere with churches. But he definitely, on the other hand, he says that Christianity should be very deeply influencing government and society.
So that's his sort of, his view of the role of Christianity in American life. Now in your reporting on him, were people able to make connections between his faith and the view of the constitution that he has arrived at, as being one that pretty much is, it consolidates most power around the president?
REINHARD: I'm not sure that the people I talked to made that connection exactly. I think his view of the constitution is informed quite a bit by what Trump has experienced over the last 10 years, the attacks and what his supporters have cast as lawfare, as this unlawful, politically motivated vendetta against him. So Vought seems to think that it's the left that has walked away from the constitution, that they have trampled on it, and so in his view, the right needs to respond in kind.
And if the rules have changed, there needs to be a level playing field in his view. That's what he means when he talks about a post constitutional order or radical constitutionalism. He's saying that the left has basically trashed what we think of as these values, and so the right needs to rest control of what he calls, the administrative state, the unelected federal bureaucrats who make up the federal government. As y'all were talking earlier, many of us view these as professionals with expertise.
The right tends to view them as dangerous, unelected bureaucrats who predominantly have a very liberal agenda.
CHAKRABARTI: So this is an important point you're making, Beth, and I appreciate it, because I keep using the phrase, Vought's own phrase of radical constitutionalism, but I think he, it seems like he's using this word radical because, as you said, he actually says it by himself.
He believes that we are living, quote, in a post constitutional time, right? Because of the independence of these agencies, because of how he sees the left as having, he believes, corrupted the United States. In fact, in your story, Beth, you quote one of the tweets from Vought saying, do not tell me that we are living.
But before he was in the first Trump administration as OMB, like what was his path, in terms of consolidating Trump loyalists, building this network of legal thinkers and actors in Washington that could send in Trump 2.0, so quickly deploy the changes we've been seeing over the past just three weeks.
REINHARD: In the interim between the two administrations, Vought was working at the Center for Renewing America, which was a nonprofit that is part of a constellation of Trump, pro Trump groups that were largely staffed by former Trump officials and future Trump officials. So it was like a government in waiting.
And they wrote policy, and were very active politically in supporting the president's agenda and his reelection, and in tearing down the Biden administration. And so he's been very much a part of this army of Trump loyalists who were ready to hit the ground running when Trump won, and was also a key player in the Project 2025 blueprint that the Heritage Foundation was behind.
Russ wrote the chapter on the executive office of the president. So his views of an extremely powerful executive, of a unitary executive, they're all out there, laid out in black and white. And as I'm sure many listeners know, that document became very controversial.
Trump and the campaign tried to distance themselves from it. But in fact, it was a blueprint and it's something that they are, the language in it, the policies in it are being largely adopted in the last few weeks.
CHAKRABARTI: So let me ask you one more question here, Beth. The view that Russell Vought advances of the constitution, as Damon Linker was telling us earlier, it has been around for a long time amongst far-right circles, right?
The far right think tanks that are in Washington, but also in your story, you write that Russell Vought has said unequivocally that this is the new blueprint for the entire Republican party. How successful has he been in achieving that vision?
REINHARD: I think he's been pretty successful. He was placed, I think, very deliberately as someone who was in charge of the platform at the RNC convention, the Republican party didn't even do a platform last time.
There was some concern, like we don't want to have to be tied down by these promises and we'd rather just stay loose and do what Trump wants, but this time they put him there, I think, deliberately.
And so he's very much at the center of all of that.
CHAKRABARTI: Beth Reinhard is an investigative reporter at the Washington Post, and she wrote a recent profile on Russell Vought, headlined, Trump Loyalist Pushes Post-Constitutional Vision for a Second Term, and we have a link to that at onpointradio.org. Beth, thank you so much for joining us today.
REINHARD: Thank you.
CHAKRABARTI: Damon Linker, let me turn back to you here. Because I want to really explore how far this radical constitutionalist view goes in theory and in practice. Because not that long ago, just actually just earlier this month. As you probably know, Bob Bauer and Jack Goldsmith, two formerly very highly placed legal counsels in both Republican and Democratic White Houses, they co-wrote an article on the Substack Executive Functions, and here's what they say regarding Russell Vought.
They say there's a possibility that, quote, the administration does not care about compliance with current law, might not care about what the Supreme Court thinks either, and is seeking to effectuate radical constitutional change.
And they pin this view on Russell Vought.
Do you think they're going too far?
LINKER: No, not at all. I think that the piece you're talking about is a must read. It's very good. Both of those people, Goldsmith and Bauer are usually quite rhetorically restrained and professional in the way they examine the law and they're not ones to raise alarms. And so when they start talking that way, I sit up and take notice.
I do think that Vought wants to do, the reason why I actually want to go back. I was telling this kind of long history. I apologize for that earlier, before the last break, and we ran out of time. I don't want to go back and try to keep telling that story. But the reason why I went back that far is to try to make the point that Vought is someone who, effectively, I believe, wants to re-adjudicate that settlement in the New Deal.
Where the Supreme Court flipped and said, actually, the federal government can do all of these things that we used to think were unconstitutional in regulating the country.
And Vought is leading a charge to reverse that settlement and say, in effect, that was wrong. We were never allowed to do it in the first place, it's unconstitutional, and therefore, as you've indicated, we've been living in a kind of post constitutional reality for close to a century now. That is, whether or not you accept that, and I think it's a very radical claim.
The fact is that the baseline for the last 80 or so years has been that reality, and shifting from that baseline back to something like what Vought prefers, is by any definition, a radical lurch. And the courts are going to respond to that and say, what do you mean the president can impound money that Congress has appropriated and shut down agencies that have been treated as legitimate for decades by Congress? How can that be legal?
And that is where we are today, with every day now, a new federal judge, sometimes five federal judges in a single day, coming out and saying this or that executive order by the Trump administration is either illegal or unconstitutional.
And that isn't going to stop. It's going to continue. There are any number of fronts that we could discuss, but it is not a looming constitutional crisis. I would say it is a slowly unfolding multi front constitutional crisis that is going to define this entire presidency.
CHAKRABARTI: So let me just draw a bright line under this, and you tell me if I'm overstepping here. But given the language that we've been hearing over the ... let's just say the past 72 hours, from other members of the Trump administration. It seems as if, well, let's actually well in a second. We're going to hear from the vice president JD Vance and a clip from him.
But it seems as if there's now, the Trump administration is publicly advancing a view that says anytime a court issues a stay or a ruling against a presidential action, that it's the court's ruling that is illegitimate, am I overreaching on that?
LINKER: No, I do think there are some who have stated that in the most extreme view, which is, in effect, we don't have to listen to a court injunction. We don't have to abide by it. We can keep doing what we're doing because we were elected, and this judge was probably a non-elected appointee, and we have therefore more democratic legitimacy than that judge.
Our court system is huge, sprawling, unwieldy in the sense that like we have federal judges all over the country, and they weigh in on things happening in Washington in almost a kind of haphazard way. And so that gives, I think, some leeway to the Republicans and saying, Oh, who is this random judge in New Hampshire to tell me I can't do this, but it's a looming crisis.
Part III
CHAKRABARTI: We're talking about President Donald Trump's head of Office of Management and Budget.
His name is Russell Vought. He's hugely influential in the Trump administration, and he is a proponent of what he himself calls radical constitutionalism. Now, the essence of that as Vought has written back in 2022, is this quote, "The Right needs to throw off the precedents and legal paradigms that have wrongly developed over the last 200 years to study carefully the words of the Constitution, how the founders would've responded in modern situations to the encroachment of other branches."
Now one of the responses that Vought seems to believe the founders would have had is to consolidate a vast majority of the power of the federal government around the president of the United States. And he got a lot of questions about that in his confirmation hearings, his most recent ones, to, once again, become head of OMB. Okay. Here's a moment from Russell Vought's confirmation hearings, the most recent ones. You're going to hear Democratic Senator Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut questioning Vought about the Impoundment Control Act of 1974.
Now, this is the law that requires a president to spend money in the way that Congress has appropriated it.
BLUMENTHAL: Do you believe the Impoundment Control Act is constitutional?
VOUGHT: No, I don't believe it's constitutional, the President ran on that view, that's his view and I agree with that.
BLUMENTHAL: Have you read Train vs. New York? That's the United States Supreme Court saying it is constitutional. You're saying that you're going to just defy the courts, the Office of Legal Counsel under both administrations, including then Attorney Rehnquist, afterward becoming Supreme Court Justice, wrote for the Office of Legal Counsel, you are simply going to take the law into your own hands.
VOUGHT: I did not say that, nor did I imply that, on behalf of the incoming administration. I said earlier to a question from Senator Peters that the incoming administration is going to have to take the President's view on this, as he stated in the campaign. Work it through with the lawyers of the Department of Justice, some of whom who are coming before Congress just today, if confirmed. And to put that through a policy process. And I can't prejudge that policy process, but I certainly can't announce the parameters of what it would produce.
BLUMENTHAL: I am astonished and aghast that someone in this responsible a position would in effect say that the president is above the law. And that the United States Supreme Court is entitled to their opinion, but mine should supersede it. It's just baffling.
CHAKRABARTI: Senator Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut there questioning Russell Vought, and as you heard, Vought said that the incoming administration is going to have to take the president's view on this. Normally, executive orders, and this was regarding the freezing of federal funds, by the way, normally, executive orders are run through the Office of Legal Counsel.
It seems as if a lot of the executive orders coming out of the new Trump administration have not gone through that process. So here's another moment. This is Democratic Senator Lisa Slotkin of Michigan talking to Russell Vought about how he would adhere to the constitution.
SLOTKIN: Can you confirm for me, please, that you will abide by the Constitution and current law as it is not what you wish it to be.
VOUGHT: I absolutely will abide by the Constitution at all times.
SLOTKIN: Uh huh. And your interpretation does not, pardon the pun, trump the interpretation of the Supreme Court or current practice on the books.
VOUGHT: Again, administration goes through a very extensive policy process with the lawyers of the Department of Justice to abide by the Constitution.
SLOTKIN: This is what I'm saying. You can see how this bureaucratic, wonky answer you keep giving, right?
You're claiming to be an outsider that says you're going to shake things up, but you're giving the most wonky answers. I just want to hear that when you hold up your hand, like many of us have done in this room, to put themselves in harm's way. That you're going to protect and defend the Constitution as interpreted by the people who are in a position to interpret it like our Supreme Court.
And that's what bothers me about you. It's not that we disagree on policy. It's that basic tenet that a lot of us have had to do in this room on both sides of the aisle. That's all I care about. With that I'll yield back. But I just, I wish from nominees that we see across the board just be straight on the U.S. Constitution.
CHAKRABARTI: Okay. Damon Linker, let me ask you this. Is it possible that Russell Vought is simply just clearer, more concrete, and more open about presidents doing what they want than previous presidents have been even as they've acted? Somewhat similarly, I'm thinking about President Joe Biden's desire to cancel billions of dollars of student loan debt, right?
In June of 2023, the Supreme Court struck down that student loan forgiveness program, totally struck it down. But Joe Biden, after that, still found a way to cancel $48 billion of debt by using other existing federal student loan forgiveness programs. Now, many Republicans and conservatives look at that and say, he didn't abide by the Supreme Court either.
So what difference is there between that and Donald Trump and Russell Vought's saying that the president has such broad based, unitary powers.
LINKER: Your question about forgiving student debt under the Biden administration answered itself, in the fact that you did distinguish between what the Supreme Court decided, and then the fact that the Biden administration continued to try to cancel selective categories of student debt under existing means of doing that, not through the way that the Supreme Court said was unconstitutional.
So you could say that was fudging, but if the Biden administration had been reelected and continued into a second term, then there would have been new court cases about those new ways that Biden was doing it, and then if the Supreme Court said that those were also unconstitutional, I guarantee you, Biden would have stopped.
This is very different, though. What Vought is saying here is that, as we've already discussed, he believes independent agencies are unconstitutional. That means, for instance, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Federal Communications Commission, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Federal Reserve banking system, and so forth.
There are many others. And he believes that the president should be able to get rid of these agencies by either firing the people who work there, in defiance of civil service protections that are legal. Or by starving the agencies of appropriated monies, and the appropriated monies have come from Congress. And his view on this impoundment issue is that the president of the United States can look at what Congress has appropriated and treat them as a ceiling, but not a floor.
In other words, that states what Congress says the maximum that those agencies can spend, but I as president can decide to say that actually the floor that they will spend is zero dollars, and I will impound that money and use it for something else. Vought also believes that the president has unilateral authority to impose tariffs.
And that gives a revenue stream to the president by way of the tariffs that are collected from imports. You put those two things together and you have cut the power of the purse out of Congress's legitimate authority. You now have a president who can cut funds that have been appropriated by Congress at will, and then fund his own programs by way of collecting tariff monies apart from income taxes and other taxes.
So if that succeeded, we would effectively have, we will have lived through a kind of constitutional revolution in which the presidency has vastly changed.
CHAKRABARTI: Okay. So let's talk more about how, before our very eyes right now, it seems as if Vought and other members of the Trump administration are trying to get to this remaking of the constitutional order, as you said.
Again, I've been quite surprised by how over the past 72, 96 hours, there's been a lot of vocal support from various aspects of the Trump administration, various people and in the media for this idea of undermining the legitimacy of rulings from lower courts. For example, here is Scott Jennings.
In 2006, he was appointed to the George W. Bush administration as special assistant to the president and deputy director of political affairs. After that, he moved into PR in Kentucky and runs the largest PR firm there. He's also a CNN opinion contributor. And here's what he said this week on CNN's News Night.
(CROSSTALK) Let me just understand where you stand. If a district court judge rules in a way that the president dislikes, should the president listen or should the president defy?
JENNINGS: If a district court judge tries to usurp the authority of the chief executive of this country, he should absolutely defy it. There's a difference between broad policy decisions and discrete disputes between parties. That's the difference. If I want a policy decided, I'll take it to the Supreme Court.
But what about checks and balances? Scott, you're all about checks and balances.
JENNINGS: Of a district court judge who elected them. (CROSSTALK)
CHAKRABARTI: So that second voice was Scott Jennings there saying that if he wants a policy decided, he'll take it to the Supreme Court.
But of course, for a case to get there, it has to work its way up the district court and the federal judiciary system. Now, here is Deputy White House Chief of Staff Stephen Miller. He recently said on Fox News, actually just this past Sunday, that what President Trump is doing is not attacking democracy.
Miller says Trump is restoring it.
MILLER: What we continue to see here is the idea that rogue bureaucrats who are elected by no one, who answer to no one, who have lifetime tenure jobs, who we would be told can never be fired, which of course is not true. That the power has been cemented and accumulated for years, whether it be with the Treasury bureaucrats or the FBI bureaucrats or the CIA bureaucrats or the USAID bureaucrats, with this unelected shadow force that is running our government and running our country. Donald Trump is engaging in the most important restoration of democracy in over a century by saying that we are going to restore power to the people through their elected president and his appointed officers.
CHAKRABARTI: Deputy White House Chief of Staff Stephen Miller. Here's another one. This is Vice President JD Vance, but you're about to hear something he said before he became Vice President, and it's about his view regarding the power of the court system in the United States. Now, again, just this past weekend, Vice Vance said in a tweet that, quote, judges aren't allowed to control the executive's legitimate power, end quote.
Back in 2021 he basically said the same thing during a podcast interview, and this is, of course, while he was a candidate back then for U.S. Senate.
JD VANCE: Fire every single mid-level bureaucrat, every civil servant in the administrative state. Replace them with our people. And when the courts, because you will get taken to court, and when the courts stop you, stand before the country, like Andrew Jackson did, and say the Chief Justice has made his ruling, now let him enforce it.
CHAKRABARTI: Okay so there is the now current, now vice president, back when he was a senatorial a candidate, saying put the loyalists in the entire administration and then defy the courts when they say you can't do that.
By the way Damon, I'm going to get back to you in a second here, but this quote from Andrew Jackson which Russell, which, excuse me Vice President Vance cited is actually from a very important case. It's from Worcester v. Georgia in 1832, when the Supreme Court of the United States held that the people of the Cherokee Nation had distinct and sovereign powers. And so therefore could not be forcibly removed from their lands, even though Andrew Jackson nevertheless defied the courts and did just that. The actual quote, by the way, that Jackson uttered was this, "The decision of the Supreme Court has fell stillborn, and they find it cannot coerce Georgia to yield to its mandate."
I'm not sure that's the kind of case that you want to lean on as a moral authority for defying the Supreme Court. But, Damon Linker, I do want to ask you, overall, do you see what Bauer and Goldsmith see, they believe that this whole spew of executive orders is not just designed to advance policy, but to provoke enough cases that some of them will eventually end up before the Supreme Court. And there will be a challenge to the court to either stand up to radical constitutionalism or do what you said earlier, a complete revolutionary remake of the Constitution.
LINKER: Yeah, I do say that when I said earlier that we're in a kind of slow rolling constitutional crisis that will last the entirety of this Trump administration. That's what I had in mind. I think that their strategy is move aggressively on a million fronts, try to redraw the lines of executive power, disregard the separation of powers, dare Congress to stop him, and so far, they show no inclination to do, and then ride the judicial system all the way up to the Supreme Court.
Along the way, not abiding by injunctions and stays that judges try to impose, that normally would freeze the action, to give relief to the people who have been disadvantaged by this move, people who have been fired or removed like the inspectors general who were removed a couple of weeks ago in defiance of a law in Congress.
And eventually, these will make it to the Supreme Court, and that is where the showdown is going to happen. Because you can make the case, if you're a Republican and a Trumpist, you can say, random district court judge in New Hampshire tells the president he can't do something. We're not going to cease and desist while we wait to hear what the final decision is from the Supreme Court.
And I think that's ill advised, imprudent, and dangerous. But that at least implies that in the end, they will abide by what the Supreme Court ultimately decides. But I really fear that we're going to end up with a showdown between John Roberts and Trump.
And I don't know how that's going to play out.
This program aired on February 12, 2025.
Latest episode
Paige Sutherland Producer, On Point
Paige Sutherland is a producer for On Point.
More…
Meghna Chakrabarti Host, On Point
Meghna Chakrabarti is the host of On Point.
More…
23. Trump ordered to temporarily lift USAid freeze and allow foreign aid funding
Should the ruling be ignored because Mr. Vought thinks the President does not have to abide by court decisions?
Does the president have the power to ignore a federal judge's ruling? Should he have such power?
Surely this will go to the Supreme Court. What if the Supreme Court upholds the lower court ruling? Can the president then ignore that ruling?
That said, I am not sure the judge's ruling itself here is Constitutional or in keeping with the constitution). He is likely going to be described as an activist judge because he is making hsi decision based on the harm it is causing to people countries around the world? Is that an appropriate action for a judge to take? What is the Constitutional basis for such a ruling and is he intervening in what is a policy action and decision?
Such dilemmas.
Trump ordered to temporarily lift USAid freeze and allow foreign aid funding
Judge challenges administration’s dismantling of US foreign assistance and sets five-day deadline to prove compliance
The Guardian · by / · February 14, 2025
A federal judge has ordered Donald Trump’s administration to temporarily lift a funding freeze that has shut down US humanitarian aid and development work around the world, and he has set a five-day deadline for the administration to prove it is complying.
The judge’s ruling late on Thursday cited the financial devastation that the near-overnight cutoff of payments has caused suppliers and non-profits that carry out much of US aid overseas.
The ruling was the first to challenge the Republican administration’s funding freeze. It comes amid a growing number of lawsuits by government employees’ groups, aid groups and government suppliers asking courts to roll back the administration’s fast-paced dismantling of the US Agency for International Development, or USAid, and US foreign assistance overall.
‘Disruptive, unfair and cruel’: jobs lost and treatment stopped as USAid freeze hits HIV care in Zimbabwe
Read more
Trump and his aide Elon Musk say the six-decade-old aid agency and much of foreign assistance overall is out of line with the Republican president’s agenda.
Administration officials “have not offered any explanation for why a blanket suspension of all congressionally appropriated foreign aid, which set off a shockwave and upended” contracts with thousands of non-profit groups, businesses and others, “was a rational precursor to reviewing programs”, Judge Amir H Ali said in his ruling.
Contractors, farmers and suppliers in the US and around the world say the Trump administration’s funding freeze has stiffed them on hundreds of millions of dollars in pay for work already done, has forced them to lay off staff and is rapidly putting many near the point of financial collapse.
Farmers and other suppliers and contractors describe fortunes in undelivered food aid rotting in ports and other undelivered aid at risk of theft.
The judge ordered the administration to notify every organization with an existing foreign-aid contract with the federal government of his temporary stay. He set a Tuesday deadline for the administration to show it had done so and was otherwise complying with the order.
There was no immediate public response from the Trump administration.
The judge issued the temporary order in the US in a lawsuit brought by two organizations, the Aids Vaccine Advocacy Coalition and the Global Health Council, representing health organizations receiving US funds for work abroad.
In his order, the judge noted that the Trump administration argued it had to shut down funding for the thousands of USAid aid programs abroad to conduct a thorough review of each program and whether it should be eliminated.
However, lawyers for the administration had failed to show they had a “rational reason for disregarding ... the countless small and large businesses that would have to shutter programs or shutter their businesses altogether”, the judge added.
Sign up to This Week in Trumpland
Free newsletter
A deep dive into the policies, controversies and oddities surrounding the Trump administration
Privacy Notice: Newsletters may contain info about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. For more information see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
after newsletter promotion
The ruling also bars the secretary of state, Marco Rubio, and other Trump officials from enforcing stop-work orders that the Trump administration and Musk have sent to the companies and organizations carrying out foreign aid orders.
The judge also rejected the Trump administration’s argument that it was buffering the impact of the funding freeze and offering waivers to allow funding to keep flowing to some aid partners. He cited testimony that no such waiver system yet existed and that the online payment system at USAid no longer functioned.
In a separate ruling in another lawsuit on Thursday, a judge said his temporary block on a Trump administration order that would pull all but a fraction of USAid staffers off the job worldwide would stay in place at least another week.
US district judge Carl Nichols closely questioned the government about how it could keep aid staffers abroad safe on leave despite the administration’s dismantling of USAid. When a justice department attorney could not provide detailed plans, the judge asked him to file court documents after the hearing.
USAid staffers who until recently were posted in Congo had filed affidavits for the lawsuit describing the aid agency as all but abandoning them when looting and political violence exploded in the country’s capital last month, leaving them to evacuate with their families.
The Guardian · by / · February 14, 2025
24. US special forces landing in Mexico to train marine infantry
I have not found any mainstream reporting on this. In Fact this obscure source is the only report I have seen. Is this really taking place or this disinformation?
Military
US special forces landing in Mexico to train marine infantry
https://www.borderreport.com/news/military/us-special-forces-landing-in-mexico-to-train-marine-infantry/
by: Julian Resendiz
Posted: Feb 12, 2025 / 03:09 PM CST
Updated: Feb 13, 2025 / 11:22 AM CST
EL PASO, Texas (Border Report) – A Mexican Senate commission has approved the entry of members of the U.S. Army’s 7th Special Forces Group (Airborne) into the country starting this week.
The Americans will come fully armed as part of a mission to train the Mexican Navy’s Infantería de Marina (marine infantry) on conventional and non-conventional types of combat.
The training takes place from Feb. 17 through March 30 at the Luis Carpizo naval facility in the state of Campeche, according to Sen. Alejandro Moreno Cardenas, president of the Mexican Senate’s Naval Ministry Commission.
The Americans are landing in a C-130 airplane in Campeche two days prior to the start of the training, Moreno said.
US sends 220 soldiers into Mexico
The commission unanimously approved the mission without discussion or dissent on Tuesday. The vote came at the request of President Claudia Sheinbaum Pardo, the senator said.
The 7th Special Forces Group, whose motto is De Opresso Liber! (Free the oppressed!), has participated in peacekeeping operations in Panama, Peru and Ecuador, and has been deployed to Afghanistan. Also known as Green Berets, they participated in operation Just Cause, which resulted in the January 1990 capture of Panamanian dictator Gen. Manuel Noriega, wanted in the U.S. on drug charges.
Two members of the Mexican Navy’s Marine Infantry stand guard on a pier in Baja California. (Government of Mexico)
Sheinbaum and President Donald Trump earlier this month reached a deal to postpone crushing 25% tariffs on Mexican exports to the United States in exchange for Mexico stepping up its fight against the drug cartels flooding America with the deadly illicit drug fentanyl.
Border Report Live: Threat of tariffs paying off for Trump
In return, the U.S. is supposed to step up its interdiction of firearms being illegally crossed into Mexico.
Mexico in the past has let in American military advisers into its territory, but always on training missions, U.S. security experts say.
“It’s important to say the Green Berets’ role is going to be just that: Training,” said Scott Stewart, vice president of intelligence for international security consultant TorchStone Global. “It’s not like they’re sending in the SEALs, the Delta (Force) or the (Army) Rangers. It’s not like we are seeing the deployment of combat troops or combat aircraft.”
1,000 Mexican troops arrive in Tijuana to patrol border
Mexican news media, however, earlier this month reported the presence of an alleged American spy plane off the coasts of Baja California and possibly Sinaloa. The Mexican government denied any unauthorized air incursions.
Stewart said the Mexican government may have allowed the presence of such an airplane so it could pass on intelligence to its law enforcement agencies.
“That may be an attempt to increase signals intelligence – that plane is a vacuum, it sucks up all communications – but I think it would be intelligence to pass to the Mexican marines and not necessarily in preparation for a U.S. airstrike or something,” Stewart said.
Cartel feud at Mexico’s southern border placing migrants and civilians in jeopardy
Signals intelligence means decrypting and interpreting cellphone, radio and radar signals that have been intercepted from an adversary.
Mexico has traditionally been very guarded when it comes to letting in American troops – ever since the U.S. took half of its territory in 1848, political experts say. That is unlikely to change even with the threat of tariffs if Mexico doesn’t continue to slow the flow of migrants or fentanyl to the U.S.
Stewart agrees.
“I think this is mostly designed to prompt the Mexican government to do more and at the same time it looks like the Americans are trying to help them by training them some more,” he said.
isit the BorderReport.com homepage for the latest exclusive stories and breaking news about issues along the U.S.-Mexico border
The truce on the Mexican tariffs ends in March.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
25. Elon Musk’s DOGE Targets FOIA Requests at Agency Under its Purview
Hey DOGE wiz kids: What is good for the goose is good for the gander. You are working to improve government transparency. Well now you are working for the government (and the American people) Your work has to be as transparent as all the government work you are exposing. If you can't stand the heat then get out of the kitchen.
But I do hope you can stand the heat and that you will be completely transparent because I hope the potential good work you can do is successful. (Also just remember the only government agency that is responsible for breaking things and killing people is the military - that is not your job).
Elon Musk’s DOGE Targets FOIA Requests at Agency Under its Purview
The government efficiency group also wants to be notified when there’s any attempt at oversight from Congress, inspectors general, even the Government Accountability Office.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2025-02-14/elon-musk-s-doge-wants-to-be-notified-about-foias?cmpid=foia-files&utm
Elon Musk, chief executive officer of Tesla Inc., left, and US President Donald Trump in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, DC, US, on Tuesday, Feb. 11, 2025.Photographer: Aaron Schwartz/CNP
By Jason Leopold
February 14, 2025 at 10:30 AM EST
Save
Translate
Happy FOIA-lentines Day! I just coined that. Federal agencies are required to respond to FOIA requests within 20 business days. Well, guess what? Today, Valentine’s Day, will be 20 business days since Jan. 20, Inauguration Day. That means anyone who filed requests the day Donald Trump was sworn in as president will start receiving acknowledgment letters and decisions on their requests. You may even get some records if you’re lucky. Don’t expect any roses. If you’re not already getting FOIA Files in your inbox, sign up here.
Valentine’s Day aside, this past week has been dominated by news of billionaire Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency. Known as DOGE, the group has taken aim at the federal bureaucracy and already effectively sidelined two government agencies, the US Agency for International Development and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
The lack of transparency surrounding DOGE’s efforts is off the charts. The DOGE strike team itself operates in secrecy. In the case of the CFPB, after the team members appeared at the agency’s Washington headquarters, they often refused to talk to employees or disclose their names, and carried out work in a basement conference room where they covered its windows in paper, according to a photograph of their workspace seen by FOIA Files.
Not even the Freedom of Information Act, it seems, will serve as a check on what Musk and DOGE are up to as they burrow inside federal agencies. It’s already been widely reported that DOGE is part of the Executive Office of the President, and therefore not subject to the FOIA. Instead, the records DOGE creates and receives are considered presidential records. That means they wouldn’t be available to requesters until years after a president leaves office—assuming the records are actually preserved.
In theory, there are ways to get around that. For example, you could send a request to a federal agency where DOGE was present and ask for documents about its work. In my experience over the years, that has sometimes been successful. DOGE, however, appears to be a step ahead by making that approach prone to failure.
DOGE and FOIA
Earlier this week, I reported on DOGE’s takeover of the CFPB. One of the standout documents I reviewed was an “Assignment Agreement,” or a memorandum of understanding between DOGE and CFPB that bears the seal of the Executive Office of the President. It explained that authority for the CFPB operation emanated from a Jan. 20 executive order and would center on “software modernization.” It also said DOGE "will discuss projects and the overall engagement with CFPB on an as needed basis."
The document laid out how the CFPB is supposed to work with the DOGE team. It says that the agency will maintain records for DOGE, "including all project-related documents that must be maintained pursuant to the Federal Records Act and CFPB policy."
That seemed to indicate that requesters could target DOGE documents by filing requests directly with agencies. But then I came across a bullet point in the memo that stopped me. It specifically mentioned FOIA and was the first time I noticed this administration cite the public records law in any document.
In particular it says CFPB shall “promptly notify and coordinate with [US DOGE Service’s] Office of General Counsel if the assignees’ work in this matter becomes the subject of a request for information (such as under the Freedom of Information Act or by the media) or any oversight inquiries from, for example, a Congressional committee, any federal Office of Inspector General, or Government Accountability Office (GAO).”
The bullet point from the memorandum of understanding that cites the FOIA and oversight of DOGE’s work at the CFPB.
The key word is “coordinate.” It’s standard for federal agencies to instruct how a FOIA request should be handled if it relates to another agency’s “equities.” For example, the CFPB’s FOIA regulations state that the “agency that received the request should coordinate with the originating agency to seek its views on the disclosability of the record.”
The bullet point doesn't flat out say that documents won’t be released. But given DOGE’s unusual remit and pattern of secrecy, there is reason to wonder just how such coordination with DOGE on FOIA requests will work and whether other agencies received the same directive. (A White House spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment.)
“Evade scrutiny”
Lauren Harper, an expert on government secrecy at the Freedom of the Press Foundation, told me she’s “skeptical there will be any good faith attempt by DOGE” to release records. She thinks it’s possible DOGE may be laying the foundation to avoid any scrutiny of its work. That’s because the bullet point in the memorandum is really broad.
DOGE doesn’t just want to know when agencies receive FOIA requests related to its work. It also wants a heads up when there’s any attempt at oversightfrom Congress, inspectors general, even the Government Accountability Office, or GAO, the nonpartisan research arm of Congress.
“To me, that bullet point says ‘tell us when you're getting these requests so we can put something in place, a memo or something, that controls the flow of information and prevents the agency from releasing records,’” Harper said. “That bullet point is so sweeping. I would love to be wrong, but I believe ‘coordinate’ has a different meaning here.”
And then there’s the question of DOGE’s organizational status. Trump’s Jan. 20 executive order designated DOGE a “temporary organization established in the Executive Office of the President” and said it “shall be dedicated to advancing the President’s 18-month DOGE agenda.” Such an organization wouldn’t ordinarily be subject to the FOIA.
But Anne Weismann, a former Justice Department attorney who oversaw the agency’s FOIA litigation and now teaches a FOIA clinic at George Washington University Law School, said DOGE appears to be in practice functioning more like a federal agency and therefore should be subject to the FOIA.
“They are not just advising the president,” Weismann said “This is not a committee or entity that was formed to come in and say, ‘We've looked at all government spending and here's what you should cut. That’s not what they’re doing.”
By declaring DOGE to be part of the Executive Office of the President, Weismann said, it seems like the White House is “dodging and weaving to try to avoid transparency.” Ultimately, she worries it’s part of “a broader effort by this administration to evade scrutiny.”
In the past, Musk has positioned himself as an advocate of transparency. He once even declared that in all but the most extreme circumstances, “all information in the government should be public.”
Got a tip about DOGE and FOIA? Send me an email: jleopold15@bloomberg.net or send me a message on Signal: +1-213-270-4334.
De Oppresso Liber,
David Maxwell
Vice President, Center for Asia Pacific Strategy
Senior Fellow, Global Peace Foundation
Editor, Small Wars Journal
Twitter: @davidmaxwell161
Phone: 202-573-8647
email: david.maxwell161@gmail.com
| 
