Informal Institute for National Security Thinkers and Practitioners

Quotes of the Day:

“I like simple things, books, being alone, or with someone who understands.”

– Daphne du Maurier

“Tolerance becomes a crime when it is applied to evil.”

– Thomas Mann

“To write the truth, as I see it; to defend the weak against the strong; to fight for justice; and to seek, as best I can, to bring healing perspectives to bear on their terrible hates and fears of mankind, in the hope of someday bringing about one world, in which men [and women] will enjoy the differences of the human garden instead of killing each other over them.”

– I. F. Stone

1. Hamas Wanted to Torpedo Israel-Saudi Deal With Oct. 7 Attacks, Documents Reveal

2. Trump Sounds Upbeat on Ukraine Cease-Fire as Russia Unleashes Drone Barrage

3. As China targets Taiwan's undersea cables, some locals fear 'grey zone' warfare

4. Ukraine Is Making More Weapons Than Ever—but Still Can’t Fight Russia Alone

5. U.S. Allies Are Still Waiting for Tariff Relief Even After Speedy China Truce

6. The Ditch-America Trade Now Has Its Own Acronym: ABUSA

7. Lawmaker ‘Reborn’ Through Psychedelic Therapy Wants the GOP to Embrace It

8. Trump withdraws nomination of Air Force veteran to oversee special operations forces

9. How To Ensure Trump’s Golden Dome Effort Succeeds

10. Re-politicizing the Military: A Case for Civilian Oversight and Accountability

11. The Army’s response to the Reagan crash should stir Americans to demand honesty.

12. Trump Administration Fires Hundreds of Voice of America Employees

13. Trump Appointee Pressed Analyst to Redo Intelligence on Venezuelan Gang

14. What happens when honest intelligence work can get you fired?

15. US Narratives Versus Reality on Taiwan

16. What is Armed Forces Day? How it's different from other military holidays

17. America Is Winning the Wrong AI Race

18. Australian Matthew Radalj tells of life in China prison

19. U.S. Allies Rally to Support Democracy and Come to Terms With a New U.S. Foreign Policy

20. President Trump’s military parade could cost up to $45 million, Army spokesperson says

21. A Heroine of the French Resistance Gets Her Own Portrait

22. The Tao of Geezerhood

1. Hamas Wanted to Torpedo Israel-Saudi Deal With Oct. 7 Attacks, Documents Reveal

We have read such speculation before but this seems to confirm it. There are always second and third order effects to every action.

Excerpts:

Days before the assault that left nearly 1,200 dead, Yahya Sinwar, Hamas’s Gaza chief, told fellow militants that an “extraordinary act” was required to derail the normalization talks that he said risked marginalizing the Palestinian cause, the document, reviewed by The Wall Street Journal, said.

The plan worked—at a terrible price.

...

The meeting minutes—from an Oct. 2, 2023, gathering of Hamas’s political bureau in Gaza—cite Sinwar as saying, “There is no doubt that the Saudi-Zionist normalization agreement is progressing significantly.” He warned a deal would “open the door for the majority of Arab and Islamic countries to follow the same path.”

For Sinwar and Hamas, who have called for total destruction of Israel and the creation of a Palestinian state between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, this was unacceptable. Sinwar said it was time to unleash an attack that had been in the planning stages for two years.

The goal, he said, is “to bring about a major move or a strategic shift in the paths and balances of the region with regard to the Palestinian cause.” He expected to get help from the other Iranian-backed forces of the so-called axis of resistance to Israel.

Hamas Wanted to Torpedo Israel-Saudi Deal With Oct. 7 Attacks, Documents Reveal

Militant leader Yahya Sinwar feared progress on peace would doom the Palestinian cause

https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/hamas-wanted-to-torpedo-israel-saudi-deal-with-oct-7-attacks-documents-reveal-a70ec560

Displaced Gazans follow a path through wrecked buildings in the Jabalia refugee camp last month. Photo: mohammed saber/Shutterstock

By Marcus Walker

and Summer Said

Updated May 18, 2025 4:38 am ET

Top leaders of Palestinian Islamist group Hamas launched their Oct. 7, 2023, attack on Israel aiming to torpedo peace negotiations between Israel and Saudi Arabia, according to minutes of a high-level meeting in Gaza that Israel’s military said it discovered in a tunnel beneath the enclave.

Days before the assault that left nearly 1,200 dead, Yahya Sinwar, Hamas’s Gaza chief, told fellow militants that an “extraordinary act” was required to derail the normalization talks that he said risked marginalizing the Palestinian cause, the document, reviewed by The Wall Street Journal, said.

The plan worked—at a terrible price.

Iran-backed Hamas’s onslaught of killing and kidnapping sparked an Israeli military campaign to destroy the militants that has killed more than 53,000 Palestinians, according to Gaza health authorities, and left the territory in ruins. That has fueled anger across the Arab world and beyond, halting progress toward normalization, at least for now.

President Trump, visiting Riyadh on Tuesday, acknowledged as much, calling on Saudi Arabia to establish relations with Israel but saying, “You’ll do it in your own time.”

The Israeli military says it found minutes from an Oct. 2, 2023, meeting of Hamas leadership at which Yahya Sinwar said an 'extraordinary act' was needed to confront Israeli-Saudi normalization.

The meeting minutes—from an Oct. 2, 2023, gathering of Hamas’s political bureau in Gaza—cite Sinwar as saying, “There is no doubt that the Saudi-Zionist normalization agreement is progressing significantly.” He warned a deal would “open the door for the majority of Arab and Islamic countries to follow the same path.”

For Sinwar and Hamas, who have called for total destruction of Israel and the creation of a Palestinian state between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, this was unacceptable. Sinwar said it was time to unleash an attack that had been in the planning stages for two years.

The goal, he said, is “to bring about a major move or a strategic shift in the paths and balances of the region with regard to the Palestinian cause.” He expected to get help from the other Iranian-backed forces of the so-called axis of resistance to Israel.

Hamas didn’t respond to a request for comment on the authenticity of the document or its contents. Arab intelligence officials familiar with Hamas and its records said the document appears to be genuine, as do others the Israeli military says it found in Gaza.

A billboard in Tehran last year depicting Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar, shortly after his death in Gaza. Photo: abedin taherkenareh/Shutterstock

Those documents, reviewed by the Journal, show mounting concern among Hamas leaders about the progress of U.S.-brokered talks between Israel and Saudi Arabia. Officials of all three countries were saying in 2023 that differences were narrowing.

This newest cache of Hamas records adds a new link in the chain of events leading up to Oct. 7, 2023, the deadliest day for Israelis since the country’s founding.

The Journal, citing senior members of Hamas and Hezbollah, has reported that another meeting connected to the attack took place on Oct. 2 that year, this one in Beirut involving representatives of Hamas and Iranian security officials. Iran approved the planned attack, those people said.

Other Hamas and Hezbollah officials have disputed that, saying details of the attack, including the scope and the date, were kept tightly under wraps by Hamas’s military wing in Gaza.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Did the attacks of Oct. 7, 2023, derail the possibility of peace in the Middle East? Join the conversation below.

Senior officials from Iran and Hezbollah had been discussing attack options with Hamas since the summer of 2021. Iran also gave Hamas weapons, financing and training over a long period, including combat training in the weeks before Oct. 7, according to intelligence officials from several countries.

But Tehran and Hezbollah made it clear to Hamas that they didn’t want to end up in a direct, all-out war with Israel, according to officials from the axis as well as Israeli intelligence.

Many of the figures directly involved in planning the Oct. 7 attacks are now dead. Sinwar was killed by Israeli troops in Gaza last October. Most of Hamas’s other top leaders in Gaza have also been killed, including some who were present at the Oct. 2 political bureau meeting, such as Marwan Issa.

Israel has also killed top Hamas leaders in exile, including Ismail Haniyeh, who was the most powerful person in the movement along with Sinwar. On Tuesday, an Israeli airstrike in Gaza targeted Sinwar’s brother, Mohammed, head of Hamas’ military operations; it wasn’t clear whether he had been killed.

Among the other internal Hamas documents found by the Israeli military and reviewed by the Journal was a September 2023 report that recommended escalating the conflict in the West Bank and Jerusalem to make Saudi-Israeli normalization more difficult.

The report expressed mistrust of Saudi pledges to uphold Palestinian interests, calling them “weak and limited steps to neutralize” Hamas and stop it from fighting back against normalization.

Saudi relations with the Iranian-backed Hamas had been frosty ever since Hamas violently wrested control of the Gaza Strip from rival Palestinian faction Fatah.

Other Hamas documents the Israeli military found include a military briefing warning that Arab-Israel normalization would destroy the Palestinian cause, left, and a political analysis recommending an escalation of the conflict in the West Bank and Jerusalem.

An internal briefing marked “secret” from August 2022, written by Hamas’s military leadership, concludes: “It has become the duty of the movement to reposition itself to … preserve the survival of the Palestinian cause in the face of the broad wave of normalization by Arab countries, which aims primarily to liquidate the Palestinian cause.”

In response, Hamas was strengthening its coordination with Hezbollah as well as other Palestinian militant factions, the briefing says.

Saudi-Israeli normalization would mark the biggest change in Israel’s political standing in the Middle East since it signed peace treaties with Jordan and Egypt decades ago. In 2020, Israel also established full diplomatic relations with the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain, agreements known as the Abraham Accords.

But a deal with Riyadh has long been the true prize for Israel—and a major goal for Washington, as it seeks to organize a regional coalition to contain Iran.

The heavy toll of death and destruction in Gaza has changed the political calculus for Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. The prince has told a number of foreign visitors in the past year that he can’t proceed with normalization unless Israel meets two conditions: halting the war in Gaza, and agreeing to a diplomatic process would eventually lead to a Palestinian state.

Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman at the Royal Palace in Riyadh during President Trump’s Middle East tour. Photo: Alex Brandon/AP

But the Oct. 7 attack hardened attitudes in Israel, potentially for years to come. Palestinian statehood has become anathema for most of the Israeli political spectrum.

Also among the documents that Israel’s military said it found is a Hamas job advertisement from October 2022, seeking a person to spearhead diplomatic efforts to derail normalization. It isn’t clear where the advertisement was posted—or how much the job paid.

The vacancy at Hamas’s Department of Arab and Islamic Cooperation sought a university graduate skilled in negotiation and communication. Part of the job description: “Marketing the movement’s programs to confront normalization,” including by getting grassroots organizations in the Arab world to boycott entities that supported normal relations with Israel.

Hamas’s plan to derail Israeli-Saudi normalization with a deadly attack on Israel worked—but at a terrible cost in Gaza. Photo: Saher Alghorra/Zuma Press

Write to Marcus Walker at Marcus.Walker@wsj.com and Summer Said at summer.said@wsj.com

Corrections & Amplifications

Gaza’s health authorities say more than 53,000 Palestinians are confirmed killed in the war. An earlier version of this article gave a figure of more than 60,000, which is an estimate by Gaza authorities that includes unidentified dead. (Edited on May 18)

2. Trump Sounds Upbeat on Ukraine Cease-Fire as Russia Unleashes Drone Barrage

Putin showing his true colors?

Trump Sounds Upbeat on Ukraine Cease-Fire as Russia Unleashes Drone Barrage

Russian president has delayed and slow-rolled talks as Trump pushes for a quick peace deal

https://www.wsj.com/world/trump-sounds-upbeat-on-ukraine-cease-fire-as-russia-unleashes-drone-barrage-e9e64cb7?mod=hp_lead_pos4

By Alan Cullison

and Georgi Kantchev

May 18, 2025 8:09 am ET

A house in the Kyiv region stood mostly destroyed Sunday after Russian drone strikes overnight. Photo: valentyn ogirenko/Reuters

Key Points

What's This?

Trump will speak with Putin about peace talks and trade, following up with Zelensky and NATO.
Russia launched a large aerial barrage on Ukraine, killing at least one and injuring three in Kyiv.
Putin aims to stall talks, maintain relations with Trump and pursue economic deals with the U.S.

When President Trump holds a phone call with Vladimir Putin on Monday, he will be facing a Kremlin leader pursuing twin goals: slow-walking peace talks and simultaneously portraying himself as a peace-loving president who could be a valuable trade partner of the U.S.

Russia has shown no sign of letting up in its assault on Ukraine. Moscow launched one of the largest aerial barrages of the war overnight into Sunday, deploying 273 drones across Ukraine. The attacks killed at least one person and injured three in Kyiv, including a 4-year-old.

Trump sounded optimistic on Saturday as he announced plans for his third official call with Putin this year, saying he would speak with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and NATO members afterward. “Hopefully it will be a productive day, a ceasefire will take place,” he wrote on his Truth Social network.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio struck a more cautious note, and signaled that no breakthroughs were in the offing. In an interview on “Face the Nation” that was set to air Sunday morning, he said that the U.S. would need to evaluate separate peace proposals from Russia and Ukraine after the two sides met in Istanbul on Friday.

“We’re trying to achieve peace and end a very bloody, costly and destructive war,” he said. “So there’s some element of patience that is required.”

Putin’s handling of Trump in the first months of his presidency has turned into a study of just how far the Russian president can test the U.S. president’s patience as he frustrates Trump’s campaign promise of brokering a quick end to the war in Ukraine. While Trump has at times expressed annoyance at Putin, he has so far balked at deploying more economic sanctions against Russia.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has so far shown little willingness to give up his long-held aims in the Ukraine war. Photo: Alexander Kazakov/Kremlin Pool/Zuma Press

Talks on Friday between Kyiv and Moscow representatives in Istanbul delivered little progress and showed that Putin is sticking to his maximalist demands in the war: achieving a weakened Ukraine dominated by Moscow. Russia rejected the demand by Kyiv and its allies to have a cease-fire in place before negotiating a long-term peace.

At the same time, the Trump administration can now say that Russia and Ukraine are at least engaging in negotiations. In his comments Sunday, Rubio said the talks “were not a complete waste of time” because they prompted an exchange of prisoners between Russia and Ukraine, and that proposals for a cease-fire could soon lead to broader negotiations.

“Putin aims to stall by avoiding a cease-fire and to keep Trump’s trust by not losing the chance to maintain good relations with the U.S.,” Andrei Kolesnikov, a political analyst based in Moscow. “Putin will try to convince Trump that he remains committed to peace, but the Russian side will continue to reject the ‘first cease-fire, then negotiations’ formula.”

Since his election, Trump’s interactions with the Kremlin have allowed him to claim incipient progress but no peace deal. After a phone call with Putin in February, the U.S. and Russia announced the opening of talks in Saudi Arabia led on the U.S. side by Trump’s close personal friend, Steve Witkoff, whom he appointed as special envoy. Talks have been inconclusive but provoked tensions with European allies and Ukraine, who worried that Trump was cutting a peace deal with the Kremlin without their input.

After another phone call in March, Trump announced that Putin agreed to a partial cease-fire against Ukraine’s energy infrastructure. But the cease-fire never stuck, and Moscow was resistant to any wider truce.

The Kremlin all the while has been appealing to Trump’s commercial instincts by touting the economic rewards of normalizing relations between the U.S. and Russia. Witkoff has traveled to Russia and met four times with Putin, coming out of talks echoing the Kremlin’s talking points about the origins of the war in Ukraine.

President Trump was in the United Arab Emirates on Friday as peace talks took place in Istanbul. Photo: brian snyder/Reuters

Putin has sent his own special envoy, Kirill Dmitriev, to the U.S. The Trump administration granted him a waiver on sanctions so he could travel last month to Washington, where he dangled the prospect of new economic ventures, including oil and Arctic partnerships.

Eric Green, a former White House adviser for Russia during the Biden administration, said Putin will likely try more of the same in the phone call with Trump on Monday, telling Trump that talks in Istanbul last week marked progress and then trying to shift the conversation toward economic deals.

“Obviously Putin wants a free hand in Ukraine, and he wants normalization of relations with the U.S.,” Green said. In his post Saturday, Trump noted that beyond the war he is also looking to discuss trade with Putin on the phone call.

Despite more than 900,000 of its troops killed or wounded in Ukraine, according to Western estimates, Russia has continued to dig in with its war aims.

In Friday’s talks, the Kremlin representatives countered Ukraine’s request for an unconditional cease-fire with a demand for Kyiv’s forces to withdraw from the portions of the Zaporizhzhia, Kherson, Donetsk and Luhansk regions still under Ukrainian control. Moscow declared those regions part of Russia in late 2022 after holding a sham referendum but since then has made limited progress in its attempts to fully conquer them.

Russia also continues to insist on eliminating the “root causes” of the conflict, Kremlin shorthand for Kyiv’s existence as a sovereign state and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s expansion in the former Eastern bloc. Putin’s envoy in Istanbul Vladimir Medinsky explicitly framed the talks as a continuation of the early 2022 negotiations in the same city, where Russia’s demands were effectively a call for Ukraine’s capitulation. Medinsky, a former culture minister, invoked historical parallels to indicate that Moscow is ready for a prolonged war.

You may also like

Embed code copied to clipboard

Copy LinkCopy EmbedFacebook Twitter

0:07

0:01

1:47

Click for Sound

President Trump said that he plans to speak with Russian President Vladimir Putin by phone on May 19 about a cease-fire. His move comes after Ukraine had its first peace talks with Russia in three years. Photo: President of Ukraine/Zuma Press; Turkish Foreign Ministry/AFP/Getty Images; Kremlin Pool/Zuma Press

Hours after the Istanbul meeting, a Russian drone struck a bus in the northeastern Ukrainian region of Sumy, killing nine people and injuring four.

In Kyiv, the air-raid alert sirens began wailing again around midnight on Saturday night. The attack continued for nine hours, until authorities gave the all-clear at 8:54 a.m. Sunday. The bombardment killed a 27-year-old woman and shattered windows and damaged buildings across the capital, authorities said.

Still, Putin has continued to engage with Trump, aware of the consequences of a breakdown in the relationship. Trump has threatened new sanctions several times and questioned in one social-media post whether Putin is “tapping me along.”

At the same time, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.), a close ally of Trump, is forging ahead on a plan to impose steep tariffs on countries that buy Russian oil, gas and uranium, potentially putting pressure on Moscow’s most important revenue stream.

Any new penalties would come at a difficult time for the Russian economy. After weathering Western sanctions throughout the conflict by shifting the economy to a war footing and relying on ample oil exports, Moscow is now facing an abrupt slowdown.

Economic growth slowed sharply in the first quarter of the year to 1.4% year-over-year from 4.5% in the previous quarter as high interest rates, persistent inflation and deep-seated labor shortages weigh on businesses and consumers. Low oil prices in recent months, meanwhile, have hit the Kremlin’s state coffers where oil and gas make up around a third of revenues.

“A potential economic deal with Trump is important for Russia because Putin’s old energy model is not bringing enough money into the budget and Russia is sinking into stagflation,” Kolesnikov, the political analyst, said.

Write to Alan Cullison at alan.cullison@wsj.com and Georgi Kantchev at georgi.kantchev@wsj.com

3. As China targets Taiwan's undersea cables, some locals fear 'grey zone' warfare

A view from Australia. Video at the iink. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-05-17/is-china-cutting-taiwan-internet-cables-as-psychological-warfare/105281582

This covers a lot of ground:

China's 'grey zone tactics' at sea

The ships lurking in Taiwanese waters

The psychological burden of grey zone warfare

Why Ukraine's war terrified some Taiwanese

As China targets Taiwan's undersea cables, some locals fear 'grey zone' warfare

By East Asia correspondent Kathleen Calderwood, Xin-yun Wu, Fletcher Yeung and Jonah Khu on Penghu Island

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-05-17/is-china-cutting-taiwan-internet-cables-as-psychological-warfare/105281582

Fri 16 May

Fidy 16 May

Has Video Duration: 3 minutes 30 seconds.

阅读中文版

At the Port of Anping in Tainan, Taiwan's ancient capital, a large cargo ship named Hong Tai 58 sits decaying and riddled with rust.

Once ruled by a pirate warlord named Koxinga, who drove out Dutch colonists in the 1662 siege of Fort Zeelandia, Tainan is now where this crumbling vessel and its captain have been detained since February.

One of the ship's anchors is missing, likely left lying on the seabed about 10 kilometres west.

There, it's alleged the captain instructed his sailors to zigzag over the top of Taiwan-Penghu No. 3 communications cable, which connects the 100,000 residents of the outlying Penghu Islands to the rest of Taiwan and the world.

There are 24 of these vital arteries which connect Taiwan to the beating heart of the modern world — the internet — and China has been accused of sabotaging several, including two just this year.

Even though the Chinese Communist Party has never ruled Taiwan, Beijing has labelled what it calls "reunification" as essential to the full rejuvenation of the Chinese nation.

Chairman Xi Jinping has been increasingly strident in his statements, refusing to rule out the use of force to seize Taiwan.

In 2023, the severing of two cables connecting the Matsu Islands, which sit close to the Chinese coast, saw their 14,000 residents nearly completely disconnected from the internet for more than a month.

The vessel and its captain and crew were detained in Tainan in February.(ABC News: Fletcher Yeung)

Communications weren't impacted in Penghu in February.

But the Penghu archipelago sits much nearer to Taiwan's main island, showing how willing Beijing is to encroach closer and closer in its efforts to pressure the self-ruled democracy.

It also offers a preview of how Beijing might try to isolate Taiwan in any future blockade or invasion.

"I think this is a warning sign," said Sheng I-che, a researcher and activist on Penghu Island who previously served as CEO of the ruling Democratic Progressive Party's Penghu chapter.

"We've received a very clear signal, this is the prelude to a coming war.

"Now that we look back, what happened in Crimea in 2014 is gradually happening around Penghu and the surrounding waters of Taiwan."

China's 'grey zone tactics' at sea

But many on Penghu don't share Mr Sheng's grave view of the current situation.

Everything here revolves around the ocean, the local economy largely driven by fishing and tourism.

Speaking to sellers at the largest fish market on the island in the early hours of the morning, few are terribly worried about what happened to the undersea cable — some are even completely unaware.

They are, however, animated about the impact on local livelihoods.

"I didn't feel much pressure [when the cable was cut]," one seller tells the ABC.

"What I worry about are the fishing boats going out to sea. I worry that they might be under more pressure."

Last year, a fishing vessel from Penghu was captured by the Chinese Coast Guard and towed back to China.

The speaker of the local government travelled to Fujian, the province closest to Taiwan, to secure the release of the boat captain.

There have also been recent clashes between fishing boats and the coastguard on both sides around other offshore islands, Kinmen and Matsu, which sit very close to southern China.

The most notable incident was when a Chinese vessel capsized near Kinmen Island early last year while being pursued by the Taiwanese coastguard, resulting in the drowning of the two crew members on board.

Beijing seized that moment, announcing it would step up coastguard patrols around Kinmen, which at its closest is only 2km from the Chinese city of Xiamen, clearly visible from multiple places on the island.

Then, in an unprecedented escalation, six Chinese coastguard officials boarded a Taiwanese tourist boat for about half an hour, checking its papers and planned route, according to Taiwanese officials.

Sheng I-che is a researcher and activist on Penghu Island.(ABC News: Fletcher Yeung)

"When it comes to issues involving fishermen, local residents in Penghu react more strongly," Mr Sheng said.

"Because most of these fishermen are people they know or they're connected to the community in some way, so naturally the threat feels much more personal.

"But what's worth noting is that China has been constantly using so-called grey-zone tactics in this process, a tactic they often use is mixing military and civilian operations."

The ships lurking in Taiwanese waters

The Hong Tai 58 was flying under a flag of convenience, registered to the nearly landlocked African nation of Togo.

Its crew and captain are Chinese, and the Taiwanese coastguard alleges it is funded by China.

Prosecutors say the ship's movements were erratic in the days before the cable was cut, and tracking data shows it had been hanging around the area for some time.

Hsu Geng-rui says he has noticed ships drifting around the area "for one or two months".(ABC News: Fletcher Yeung)

Former navy radar specialist Hsu Geng-rui also noticed its strange journey.

"I keep an eye on the traffic near the submarine cable zones," he said.

"What makes them suspicious is how could there be a ship hanging around this area, drifting here for one or two months. We've even observed some have stayed for over half a year.

"For a ship to keep a crew drifting offshore like that, just the crew's salary alone would cost at least several million New Taiwan Dollars (roughly $150,000) per month.

"So unless there's some government force backing it, normal ship owners wouldn't allow their vessel to just aimlessly drift out at sea."

Hsu Geng-rui keeps an eye on the traffic near the submarine cable zones.(ABC News: Fletcher Yeung)

Mr Hsu has been monitoring military planes and vessels around Taiwan for three decades, during which time he's noticed Chinese military activity increase as well as the incidences of cable cutting, like in February.

The interior of his car is full of radios and tablets with various tracking programs installed.

Is China's undersea cable-cutter a distraction?

Does China's new weapon warrant all this attention? Is there something else we should be looking at?

Usually at night, he holes up in his car for hours, a red light illuminating the cab's interior as he watches and listens.

It's a utilitarian, but powerful set-up.

"Right now, because today's telecom transmission signals are very good, the current range we can receive here covers from just north of Hong Kong all the way to around Fuzhou," he said.

"The last Chinese military drill was called Strait Thunder. There were military activities all around Taiwan.

"In the south, south-east, and south-west areas, there were several warships and even an aircraft carrier."

The psychological burden of grey zone warfare

The cutting of Penghu's telecommunications cable was the second act of alleged Chinese sabotage just this year.

In January, the Trans-Pacific Express Cable System north of Taiwan was cut in another set of suspicious circumstances.

Authorities alleged a Cameroon-registered, Hong Kong-owned freighter named the Shunxing 39 was responsible, and requests were made for help from South Korea as the vessel was headed towards Busan.

The ship's owner at the time denied the ship had cut the cable, calling it a "normal trip".

Weeks later, Taiwan's digital affairs ministry declared that 10 of its undersea cables would be classified as "critical infrastructure", which comes with extra security and increased government oversight.

Prosecutors have also charged the captain of the Hong Tai 58 with violating the Telecommunications Management Act by destroying submarine cable infrastructure, in the first criminal case of its kind in Taiwan.

The other seven crew members have been deported to China.

But there's concern Beijing is exporting these tactics to Europe as well, to help its ally Russia, as Moscow wages war on Ukraine and tries to pressure other nearby countries.

What is Russia's 'shadow fleet'?

Vladimir Putin has a collection of hundreds of rusting tankers covertly carrying Russian crude oil around the world, according to the European Union.

In mid-November, two major subsea cables were damaged within 24 hours of each other, and a Chinese cargo vessel, Yipeng 3, was discovered operating in the area.

One of the cables linked Finland and Germany, while the other connected Sweden and Lithuania.

Investigations by Danish, German and Swedish authorities found evidence of sabotage.

The ultimate aim of acts like this — grey zone warfare — is to exhaust both military and civilian resources, and at least for Taiwan, wear down the public psychologically.

"I think the danger is that, because here in Taiwan, if you ask people whether they want to fight if the war happened tomorrow, it's always 50 to 60 per cent of people want to fight," said Puma Shen, a legislator from the ruling Democratic Progressive Party and criminology professor at the National Taipei University.

Puma Shen believes China wants to get half the Taiwanese population primed to want to surrender.(ABC News: Fletcher Yeung)

"But only 20 per cent say they want to surrender, so for people who have no opinion, it's probably 30 per cent — that's the target group for China's infiltration and cognitive warfare.

"They want to persuade that 30 per cent to move them to the surrender side, and then we will be a 50-50 society that will be the best timing for them to shoot the missile — and 50 per cent of our Taiwanese people will say they want to surrender and want to sign the peace agreement with China."

For its part, China denies sabotaging Taiwan's submarine cables, accusing Taipei of hyping up the Hong Tai 58 incident and politicising the courts.

"The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) authorities have been … blaming the vessel for cutting the cable without investigation — this is clearly a case of 'presuming guilt before investigation,'" Beijing's Taiwan Affairs office stated in April.

"Taiwan's judiciary has already become a political tool for the DPP's 'anti-China' agenda and has lost all credibility."

Why Ukraine's war terrified some Taiwanese

While many members of the public don't seem outwardly panicked about Taiwan's security situation, those in charge of the island's defences do seem to be feeling the urgency.

Between 2019 and 2023, Taiwan's undersea cables were damaged 36 times by external forces or collisions, according to the National Audit Office, although it's unclear how many were accidental versus acts of sabotage.

Then in March, Beijing unveiled a powerful new cable cutter, which it claims can slice through lines at depths of up to 4,000m.

Taipei has started work on reducing its reliance on undersea cables — Taiwan's main telecom company Chunghwa has signed a partnership with UK-European satellite company Eutelsat OneWeb, and the government plans to build its own satellite network, although that will take years.

The Ministry of Digital Affairs is also reportedly in talks with other international satellite companies but negotiations with Starlink, which has been a vital lifeline in Ukraine, failed amid concerns about owner Elon Musk's business connections to China and previous statements about Taiwan.

US intelligence suggests that while no deadline has been set for an actual invasion or blockade of Taiwan, Mr Xi has instructed his country's military to be prepared by 2027.

Poll after poll of the Taiwanese public indicates the majority wants to maintain the current status quo.

Experts fear the targeting of cables is psychological warfare designed to wear Taiwanese people down.(ABC News: Fletcher Yeung)

On the backdrop of an unpredictable second Trump administration, Taiwan is looking increasingly insecure and wondering whether the US would have its back in a war with China.

"We have Trump 1.0 not fighting an overseas war, we have Biden, who clearly stated he would not send troops into Ukraine, and even now it's even more unlikely Donald Trump would get involved in a Taiwan contingency," said Alexander Huang, the international director of the main opposition party the Kuomintang.

"It can be interpreted that the lesson we learned from Ukraine is we need to defend our own homeland."

Taiwan buys an enormous amount of weapons from the US — the backlog alone is worth more than $US20 billion ($31 billion) — and American troops are believed to be in Taiwan training its military.

But there is still plenty of work to be done to fortify the island psychologically.

"What happened there in Ukraine at the very beginning, Russia didn't really cut their internet connection, because they believed they could actually utilise the internet connection to disseminate fake news, disinformation, to disrupt the society," Dr Shen said.

"So here we got two scenarios: One is that China won't cut the cables, but actually uses the internet to do war, or they cut the cables to create chaos."

Local Penghu business owner Huang Shih-En has lived on the island most of his life.

He too worries that some locals don't take the threat seriously enough.

"I believe incidents like this will only increase in the future, and the impact will become deeper and deeper," he told the ABC.

"By the time the impact becomes really serious, if we only react then, I think it will already be too late."

Read the story in Chinese: 阅读中文版

Posted 16 May 202516 May 2025, updated 16 May 2025

4. Ukraine Is Making More Weapons Than Ever—but Still Can’t Fight Russia Alone

Ukraine Is Making More Weapons Than Ever—but Still Can’t Fight Russia Alone

With future U.S. aid in doubt, Kyiv is ramping up production of arms such as its Bohdana howitzer

https://www.wsj.com/world/ukraine-weapons-manufacturing-industry-8a48bbf1?st=MwKDWk&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink

By Isabel Coles

and Ievgeniia Sivorka | Photographs by Iva Sidash for WSJ

Updated May 18, 2025 12:01 am ET

In the first years of Russia’s invasion, Ukraine relied heavily on a host of Western weapons to equip its forces. Now, out of the crucible of war, Kyiv’s own defense industry is producing more arms than ever.

Ukraine had only a single prototype of its domestically produced Bohdana howitzer when Russia invaded. Last year, Kyiv said it produced more artillery guns than all the North Atlantic Treaty Organization countries combined.

While Western allies have been slow to increase arms production, the value of weapons Ukraine’s defense industry can make has ballooned from $1 billion in 2022 to $35 billion over three years of war, even as Russia fires missiles at its factories.

Ukrainian personnel test a component of the Gvozdika howitzer, which is manufactured by the same company that makes the Bohdana.

With support from the U.S. drying up, Ukraine’s defense industry is increasingly key to the country’s ability to sustain the fight against Russia—or underwrite its sovereignty in the event of a peace deal. The more of its own weapons Ukraine can produce, the less vulnerable it will be to the vagaries of international politics or kinks in cross-border supply chains. The country also sees its defense industry as a postwar revenue stream for its battered economy and a way to further integrate itself into the West by becoming one of its suppliers.

“Ukraine will always need its own strong weapons so that we can have our own strong Ukrainian state,” President Volodymyr Zelensky has said.

More than 40% of the weapons used on the front line with Russia are now made in Ukraine, Zelensky said. In some areas, such as drones, unmanned ground systems, and electronic warfare, the figure is close to 100%.

Ukrainian manufacturers are also churning out growing quantities of traditional armaments such as artillery systems, armored vehicles, mines and ammunition of all calibers.

Vitaliy Zagudaiev says his company is producing more than 20 Bohdanas a month.

“In Western countries there’s more competition for the best computer science grads or IT people,” said Rob Lee, senior fellow at the Foreign Policy Research Institute, a foreign-policy think tank. “In Ukraine, much of the best talent has gone into defense.”

But even the robust transformation of its homegrown arsenal won’t be enough for Ukraine to hold back Moscow’s forces alone.

Ukraine needs the U.S. and other Western allies to square up to Russia’s war machine. It can’t produce anywhere near enough ammunition to keep its guns firing, or any of the air-defense interceptors it needs to shield against Russian missiles.

And while arms production has boomed, Kyiv’s budget is strained. This year, the government will only be able to purchase less than half of what defense manufacturers can produce, said Oleksandr Kamyshin, an adviser to Zelensky and former minister of strategic industries.

“It’s painful when you can’t produce and you’ve got nothing to fight with,” he said. “It’s twice as painful when you can produce, but you can’t fund the procurement.”

A member of Ukraine’s military operates the Bohdana howitzer; Ukraine goes through millions of rounds of 155mm ammunition per year.

To harness the spare capacity, some Western governments are funding weapons purchases from Ukrainian defense companies under the so-called Danish model in which instead of supplying Kyiv with Western weapons, they provide funds to purchase arms from Ukrainian defense manufacturers. “Investing directly in these companies might be the best use of available funds in terms of achieving an impact on the battlefield,” said Lee.

The war has served as a testing ground for a range of weapons that hadn’t previously seen active service, providing NATO countries with valuable lessons on how they perform in battle.

Ukraine inherited a swath of the Soviet defense industry when it gained independence, but those manufacturing capabilities quickly went into decline.

A private company developed the Bohdana in 2016, but received no orders before Russia invaded, said Vitaliy Zagudaiev, director general of the Kramatorsk Heavy Duty Machine Tool Building Plant.

2S22 Bohdana self-propelled artillery

Max speed:

Firing range:

Weight:

49.7 miles

24.9 miles

25 tons

In service:

Origin:

2022

Ukraine

155 mm caliber

Crew number

Height:

13.1 ft.

Width: 8.9 ft.

Length: 27.9 ft.

Sources: Army Technology, Army Recognition

Roque Ruiz/WSJ

After Russia invaded in 2022, fears that the system would be captured were so great that Zagudaiev received instructions to dismantle the only prototype. Until then, it had only been used as part of an Independence Day parade.

Soon, however, Zagudaiev received instructions to put the gun back together, to use on the front line. Deployed alongside a French-built Caesar self-propelled howitzer, the Bohdana pounded Russian positions on Snake Island in the Black Sea, forcing Moscow to relinquish the rocky outcrop in the first summer of the war.

Orders for the Bohdana began to roll in, but the plant in eastern Ukraine was in Russia’s crosshairs. Under fire, workers began relocating production to new facilities in the west of the country, but not before more than half the equipment was destroyed. Lead times for replacement orders were too long, so the company made its own equipment.

Production was dispersed to minimize the impact of any Russian attack. If a missile successfully struck one facility, the others could still keep producing. Working round the clock, production of the gun soon outstripped the supply of wheeled chassis on which the Bohdana is mounted.

Ukrainian military personnel on test exercises involving the Gvozdika and Bohdana howitzers.

The company is now producing more than 20 Bohdanas a month, said Zagudaiev. Russia can make about 40 artillery guns over the same period, according to a study by the Kiel Institute. The final Bohdana is only assembled at the last moment to minimize the chances of being targeted before reaching the front line.

“One of the lessons of this war is that the demand for quantity is very high,” said Lee. “It’s not just about having exquisite systems—it’s do you have enough to sustain a high-intensity war for a year or more without significantly degrading your military?”

While the Swedish-built Archer or Germany’s Panzer 200 howitzers have more sophisticated electronics, they take longer to produce and are much costlier. The self-propelled Bohdana costs 2.8 million euros apiece, equivalent to $3.1 million, compared with €8.76 million for the Archer, or about €4 million for the Caesar.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Do you think Ukraine will be able to defend itself if U.S. aid is reduced or withdrawn? Join the conversation below.

And the Bohdana is easier to repair and maintain. “Any part is available within 24 hours,” said Zagudaiev. “We have mobile brigades working on the entire front line.”

About 85% of the Bohdana’s components are now produced domestically, including the barrel, which wears out over time. The company is developing its own chassis to further reduce dependence on imports, Zagudaiev said. Last year, it began producing a towed gun, which is cheaper than the self-propelled version and useful in defense. Feedback from operators on the front line is continually incorporated during design tweaks.

Each of the Bohdana’s electrical or hydraulic systems has a corresponding mechanical system. That makes the gun heavier but means it can keep working in the event of an electrical or hydraulic failure, Zagudaiev said.

The Danish government is funding the purchase 18 Bohdana howitzers for Ukraine’s armed forces.

The Bohdana shows how far Ukraine’s defense industry has come. But efforts to produce NATO-standard 155mm ammunition, central to the war effort, illustrate the obstacles.

Vladyslav Belbas says a lack of financing has held up a project to produce NATO-standard ammunition. Photo: Serhii Korovayny for WSJ

Private company Ukrainian Armor set up a facility to produce 155mm ammunition with the license and drawings transferred by the Czechoslovak Group, which is also supplying propellant, fuses and primers that can’t be produced in Ukraine.

The company, which also makes armored vehicles, had planned to produce 100,000 rounds of 155mm ammunition this year and 300,000 next year—a fraction of the three to four million rounds Ukraine is estimated to go through a year.

The project, however, is on hold because the company hasn’t received funds from the government, said chief executive Vladyslav Belbas.

“We should move faster,” he said. “It’s more than just business for us.”

Write to Isabel Coles at isabel.coles@wsj.com

5. U.S. Allies Are Still Waiting for Tariff Relief Even After Speedy China Truce

See the graphics at the link.

U.S. Allies Are Still Waiting for Tariff Relief Even After Speedy China Truce

Talks with Japan, South Korea and European Union bog down over auto tariffs and U.S. reneging on past deals

https://www.wsj.com/economy/trade/trump-tariff-relief-us-allies-0a18879c?st=oqfx8o&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink

By Jason Douglas

and Timothy W. Martin

Updated May 18, 2025 12:01 am ET

You may also like

Embed code copied to clipboard

Copy LinkCopy EmbedFacebook Twitter

0:03

0:06

0:58

Click for Sound

Ryosei Akazawa, Japan’s minister of economic revitalization, said one Japanese automaker is losing a million dollars every hour because of tariffs. Photo: Stefani Reynolds/Bloomberg News

The U.S. hammered out a trade truce with its foremost geopolitical rival in record time. Reaching agreement with longtime allies is proving more of a slog.

The U.S. drew up a list of 18 key trading partners to focus on in negotiations following President Trump’s April 2 tariff blitz, when he slapped “reciprocal” tariffs on almost all U.S. imports.

Yet aside from one quick agreement with the U.K. and now the tariff rollback with China, none have so far yielded the kind of breakthrough that would bring relief for painful import levies.

For some of the biggest targets on that list, such as Japan, South Korea and the European Union, one sticking point is cars. The U.S. has so far been reluctant to drop a crippling 25% tariff on imported autos, which particularly hits these allies.

The U.K. did secure a lower auto tariff in its rapid-fire agreement with U.S. negotiators—but only on the first 100,000 vehicles imported each year, far fewer than the carmaking powerhouses send to the U.S. each year.

In earnings reports this month, Toyota, Honda and Nissan blamed tariffs for souring profit forecasts, while data Friday showed Japan’s economy shrank in the first quarter, underlining its vulnerability to an export decline.

Japan’s top trade negotiator, Ryosei Akazawa, said Japan was still seeking the removal of all tariffs Trump has recently imposed, including those on autos and steel as well as the baseline 10% “reciprocal” tariff. He called these levies “deeply regrettable.”

Seoul is also seeking an exemption from tariffs and its trade minister met Friday on South Korea’s Jeju Island with U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer. Noting the local auto-parts industry creates about 330,000 jobs, South Korea’s minister for small and midsize businesses recently pledged support to minimize the damage.

Trade officials from several EU member states said they would push for a better deal than the one the U.K. reached with the U.S., which left tariffs in place for most goods. “I don’t think that’s the level of ambition Europe would be happy with,” said Michał Baranowski, Poland’s deputy economy minister.

For some of the U.S.’s closest allies and trading partners, auto tariffs have become a sticking point. Photo: Hiro Komae/Associated Press

Trump on April 2 announced plans to hit U.S. allies and adversaries alike with steep new tariffs aimed at reining in the U.S.’s yawning trade deficit and rebuilding U.S. manufacturing.

Japan received a 24% tariff, while the EU got 20%. The Trump administration said the tariffs reflected not just other countries’ tariffs on imports from the U.S. but also onerous regulations and other nontariff barriers.

The levy on South Korea was set at 25%, while the U.K., with which the U.S. runs a trade surplus, got the baseline 10% rate that Trump wants to be a floor on almost all U.S. imports.

Days after announcing the new levies, the White House decreed most of those new tariffs would be suspended for 90 days, while car and steel tariffs remained in force. A rush to negotiate better terms began.

Japan was the first country out of the block to start talks, and officials were hoping for a quick deal.

Trump has frequently spoken of his regard for former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, who presented him with a golden golf club after he won the presidency in 2016. Abe’s widow visited Mar-a-Lago late last year following Trump’s second election victory, and the current prime minister, Shigeru Ishiba, was one of the first global leaders to visit the White House after inauguration day.

Unlike China, Japan didn’t retaliate against Trump’s tariffs and Ishiba has been careful to avoid public criticism of the president.

“The Japanese are very careful to not have Trump lose face,” said Shihoko Goto of the Washington-based Mansfield Foundation.

Yorizumi Watanabe, president of Fuji Women’s University in Japan and a former top Japanese trade negotiator, said Tokyo was among the nations most susceptible to U.S. pressure.

“Japan is maybe the easiest one to negotiate because we are totally dependent on the U.S. market and also U.S. defense,” he said.

Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba met President Trump at the White House in February. Photo: Kyodonews/Zuma Press

At the same time, he said, Japan is wary of giving too much away in talks. It already signed a trade pact with the U.S. in 2019 during Trump’s first term in which Japan lowered tariffs on some U.S. agricultural products, such as frozen beef and pork, while the U.S. lowered tariffs on some Japanese goods such as machine tools.

Trump has shown by levying a host of new tariffs that he doesn’t consider the 2019 deal with Japan binding, much as he dispensed with the U.S.-Mexico-Canada agreement he also negotiated during his first term.

In Tokyo, that about-face stung. “Even assuming we reach a new agreement built on a win-win relationship, it’s important to reaffirm that they’re going to observe the rules fully this time,” Yoshihiko Noda, leader of the opposition Constitutional Democratic Party, said in an interview.

Trade experts say Japan could offer to increase imports of U.S. cars and align its car-safety standards with America’s. It could propose buying more corn and other agricultural products, this time including rice, which was excluded from 2019 talks. Japan’s shipbuilding expertise could help the U.S. Navy and rebuild the long-dormant U.S. industry, a Trump priority.

There are hurdles other than tariffs. Analysts say some U.S. trading partners might balk at demands to loosen economic ties with China, or agree to let their currencies appreciate against the dollar. Still, the U.S.-China deal reached in Geneva clears some space for Trump’s team to turn its attention to other countries.

“I’ve been focused on the Asia deals, of which obviously China is the largest,” Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said Tuesday. “We’ve had very productive discussions with Japan,” he said, adding that across Asia “things are going very well.”

Write to Jason Douglas at jason.douglas@wsj.com and Timothy W. Martin at Timothy.Martin@wsj.com

6. The Ditch-America Trade Now Has Its Own Acronym: ABUSA

Graphics at the link.

Excerpts:

Yet, the U.S. retains profound advantages. Inigo Fraser-Jenkins, co-head of institutional solutions at AllianceBernstein, points to demographics, corporate management, profit margins and energy self-sufficiency as long-run reasons for the U.S. to stay ahead.

Go back to those earnings, and it is clear just how far ahead the U.S. already is. Forecast earnings in the rest of the world are still below their 2008 peak, and not much higher than in 2011. In the U.S., earnings over the next year are expected to be about four times what they were in 2011 or 2008.

The problem for investors is that there is both a lot of U.S. exceptionalism still priced in and a lot of opportunity for the rest of the world to catch up. One doesn’t have to accept the sentiment behind ABUSA to think that the rest of the world looks a lot more attractive now.

The Ditch-America Trade Now Has Its Own Acronym: ABUSA

‘Anywhere But U.S.A.’ poses questions: Are U.S. markets in a long, painful decline or was American exceptionalism overdone?

https://www.wsj.com/finance/stocks/the-ditch-america-trade-now-has-its-own-acronym-abusa-15ba3a58?st=DG2cwx&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink

By James Mackintosh

Updated May 18, 2025 12:01 am ET

By the end of December, the U.S. market was the most expensive relative to the rest of the world. Photo: Michael Nagle/Bloomberg News

An investment theme is only complete when it gets its own acronym, and the brokers that gave us BRIC, FANG, PIGS and TMT have captured the latest trend perfectly: ABUSA, or Anywhere But U.S.A.

Last week, global stocks made a new all-time high—so long as the U.S. is excluded. True, U.S. stocks rose above where they started the year for the first time since February, on the back of a strong recovery from the post-Liberation Day lows. But being flat for the year isn’t much to boast about when stocks elsewhere are up 11% in dollar terms.

The big question for investors is whether U.S. underperformance is just the unwinding of last year’s overdone bets on U.S. exceptionalism, or whether the U.S. is beginning a long and painful decline relative to the rest of the world.

My guess is a bit of both, but I’m most confident about the first.

The bet on U.S. exceptionalism was everywhere at the end of last year. As well as the wild excitement about Donald Trump taking the White House again, there was a widespread belief that America had an unassailable lead in innovation, productivity and finance.

U.S. stocks made up two-thirds of the MSCI All-Country World index by value, and all 10 of the world’s most valuable companies were American. The U.S. economy grew way faster than other big industrialized nations over the past five years. And the dollar reached a value not seen since the Plaza Accord to weaken the greenback in 1985. Put another way: Exceptionalism had gone too far.

There’s no need to argue that the U.S. is a basket case in order to think that investors were paying too little attention to stocks elsewhere. Sure, Microsoft, Amazon, Apple and many others are great companies, profit margins are much higher, and the U.S. deserves to trade at a valuation premium. Just not such a big premium.

By the end of December, the U.S. market was by far the most expensive relative to the rest of the world in data that goes back to 2001, trading at 23 times forward earnings against 14 times elsewhere. Even adjusting for the U.S.’s having more companies in go-go growth sectors, this was too much. A rebalance was needed.

That rebalance was triggered by both the shock of Trump’s tariffs and changes elsewhere—themselves partly driven by fear of Trump’s tariffs and partly by the need to respond to U.S. exceptionalism.

The argument that the U.S. will now lose its exceptionalism—rather than that investors got ahead of the actual exceptionalism—isn’t as strong. But several U.S. advantages have been eroded, one is purely temporary, and other regions have at least woken to the need to change.

The erosion is most obvious in areas where the Trump administration has been most aggressive: America’s soft power has suffered internationally, tariffs damage cross-border supply chains, trade deals will be relied on less by companies after being repudiated or breached, and elite U.S. universities find it harder to attract foreign students and researchers. Yet, America retains the most powerful military hard power, shorter supply chains should increase resilience, countries still need trade deals to preserve access to the voracious U.S. consumer, and top U.S. universities will still be among the world’s best, even if a bit less dominant.

This isn’t the instance and total loss of U.S. exceptionalism, just a bit less of it.

The temporary advantage was from massive deficit spending that boosted the U.S. economy. The U.S. grew fast during the postpandemic recovery, but it increased government debt even faster. This can’t continue forever and, when it stops, so will at least some of America’s faster growth rate compared with those of other developed countries. Congress, though, shows no sign of wanting to rein it in soon.

Meanwhile, Europe has finally realized that its high-regulation, high-tax, weak-military model needs to change. Germany plans to spend big on rearmament and infrastructure, while the European Commission has loosened its fiscal shackles and says it will cut the red tape that has been strangling business. If followed through—a big “if” on deregulation—it should help growth.

In China, investors are hopeful that the country will respond to the shock of tariffs by finally boosting consumption, something it has talked about for more than a decade with little to show for it.

“Trump has galvanized and catalyzed other parts of the world to move things forward,” says Guy Miller, chief market strategist at Zurich Insurance.

China also showed that U.S. tech leadership wasn’t as special as many believed, with DeepSeek demonstrating a lower-cost approach to artificial intelligence, while the country advanced further in electric car batteries.

Investors with long memories will recall that for all the benefits of Silicon Valley, Finland’s Nokia and Canada’s BlackBerry were the tech wunderkinds before the launch of the iPhone in 2007. Farther back, there was near-panic about Japan’s leadership in manufacturing and miniaturization of electronics in the 1980s. These things go in cycles.

All this shows up in the analyst consensus for U.S. earnings growth over the next 12 months. It has plunged from 13% to 8% this year, while expected growth in the rest of the world has risen from zero to match that of the U.S.

Yet, the U.S. retains profound advantages. Inigo Fraser-Jenkins, co-head of institutional solutions at AllianceBernstein, points to demographics, corporate management, profit margins and energy self-sufficiency as long-run reasons for the U.S. to stay ahead.

Go back to those earnings, and it is clear just how far ahead the U.S. already is. Forecast earnings in the rest of the world are still below their 2008 peak, and not much higher than in 2011. In the U.S., earnings over the next year are expected to be about four times what they were in 2011 or 2008.

The problem for investors is that there is both a lot of U.S. exceptionalism still priced in and a lot of opportunity for the rest of the world to catch up. One doesn’t have to accept the sentiment behind ABUSA to think that the rest of the world looks a lot more attractive now.

Write to James Mackintosh at james.mackintosh@wsj.com

7. Lawmaker ‘Reborn’ Through Psychedelic Therapy Wants the GOP to Embrace It

Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds (though not mentioned specifically).

Lawmaker ‘Reborn’ Through Psychedelic Therapy Wants the GOP to Embrace It

More Republicans are pushing for new treatments for veterans to help combat PTSD and reduce suicide risk

https://www.wsj.com/politics/policy/republican-psychedelic-drug-therapy-fc313ea2

By Olivia Beavers

May 17, 2025 11:00 am ET

You may also like

Embed code copied to clipboard

Copy LinkCopy EmbedFacebook Twitter

0:22

0:06

2:52

Click for Sound

Rep. Morgan Luttrell opens up about his psychedelic experience in Mexico, where he took ibogaine, a drug that is illegal in the U.S. Photo: Umit Gulsen

Morgan Luttrell says he had never smoked anything, let alone tried drugs in his life. So the retired Navy SEAL had to ask a nearby nurse for guidance on how to inhale a psychedelic drug that was part of the final step of an intense three-day experimental therapy.

Luttrell had traveled to Mexico in 2018 to take ibogaine, a drug that is illegal in the U.S. but is gaining a reputation within the veteran community as a potential treatment to address complicated conditions like post-traumatic stress disorder. Inhaling a separate drug, called DMT, was the final step in the process.

The Texas conservative, now in his second term in Congress, describes his journey as a last resort for people feeling trapped within their own minds, likening his physical experience of the psychedelic trip to an exorcism. After repeated vomiting, he lay on a small mattress at an indoor facility along with other participants. With his eyes closed, a flurry of colors, numbers and then math equations appeared, and he said it was like “looking at a movie screen, but it’s a movie screen of my life.”

The flashes of his past, he said, helped him gain a new perspective on painful life experiences, helping him be “reborn” and saving his marriage.

Newsletter Sign-up

What’s News

Catch up on the headlines, understand the news and make better decisions, free in your inbox daily. Enjoy a free article in every edition.

Preview

Now Luttrell, 49 years old, is finding himself in another position he didn’t expect to be: pushing his party—which popularized the “just say no” slogan in the 1980s and has taken a hard line for decades on drug enforcement—to be more open toward what he says are lifesaving treatments that are currently illegal in the U.S.

Luttrell is among a growing group of Republican lawmakers—many of them veterans—who are making the case for drugs that they say help address issues like PTSD, depression and substance abuse.

“I had the inability to let the previous part of my life go and understand that my current life is what’s most important,” Luttrell said in an interview. He argues the path forward “needs to be medically based.”

Proponents want more research and funding. And if the science supports their claims, some of these members say they hope the Trump administration will back their push to potentially allow usage of these drugs in medically controlled environments. They hope the drugs—including Schedule I drugs like ibogaine, psilocybin and MDMA—can become part of structured treatments and will help curb suicide rates in the veteran community.

Currently there are several trials for psychedelics happening in various corners of the private sector and government, including Veterans Affairs as well as the Pentagon. The FDA last year rejected an MDMA drug submitted by Lykos Therapeutics, citing uncertainty about the data, in a major setback for veterans groups.

Dr. Joseph Ross, a professor of medicine at Yale who studies the impact of Food and Drug Administration policies, said he has heard many stories of psychedelics having a dramatic and positive impact on people’s lives. But he urged caution.

Trials so far “have left a tremendous amount of uncertainty before we’re going to push the regulator to approve it, or have the VA pay for it and expose a large number of people to potential harms as well as just using medications that don’t work,” said Ross, who served on the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review, an independent, nonprofit research institute that recently reviewed MDMA-assisted psychotherapy for PTSD last year. It found “publicly available evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms.”

Rep. Morgan Luttrell says the path forward on the use of psychedelics ‘needs to be medically based.’ Photo: Tom Williams/Zuma Press

Typical double-blind studies can be difficult, since participants and the researchers can tell if they are receiving the drug rather than a placebo, given the immediate physical and mental effects of the drugs.

Lawmakers who back further studies are emphasizing controlled, supervised use and acknowledge potential pitfalls. They fear the drugs could become available broadly, potentially leading to improper, unsafe or recreational use and setting back their efforts.

Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R., Texas), like Luttrell a retired Navy SEAL, spearheaded a bill signed into law in late 2023 that required more research on the use of psychedelics to treat PTSD and traumatic brain injury in veterans and active-duty servicemembers. Luttrell helped him in the effort. The Pentagon has been leading these studies, with the help of the National Institutes of Health.

Rep. Jack Bergman (R., Mich.), the highest-ranking combat veteran in Congress, and Rep. Lou Correa (D., Calif.) lead the Congressional Psychedelics Advancing Therapies, or PATH, Caucus, pushing for “rigorous and urgent clinical research” on psychedelics.

Other Republicans are taking notice. Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks (R., Iowa), a physician, said she began to look differently at psychedelics after meeting with a female veteran in 2022 who detailed how MDMA-assisted treatment had helped her process her sexual trauma and bring her back as a functioning person. Miller-Meeks also said that suicide rates in the veteran community as well new research prompted her and others to think outside the box.

There were 6,407 veteran suicide deaths in 2022, according to a report last year from the VA. The suicide rate for veterans is about double that of nonveterans, according to the report.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Do you think that laws governing the use of psychedelic drugs should be relaxed? Why or why not? Join the conversation below.

Proponents believe the new administration is poised to help, as the Trump team is filled with veterans in high-level positions, including Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Veterans Affairs Secretary Doug Collins. The White House didn’t respond to a request for comment.

“You have a very out-of-the-box president…you now have a Defense secretary that is a younger generation, that is kind of on the troop level,” said Rep. Ryan Zinke (R., Mont.), another former Navy SEAL.

VA spokesman Peter Kasperowicz said that Collins is looking forward to working with Congress on the issue. The secretary’s tenure is “about challenging the status quo in order to find new and better ways of helping veterans,” Kasperowicz said.

Rep. Mike Bost (R., Ill.), chair of the House Veterans’ Affairs Committee who has spoken with Collins, said the secretary is all in on helping veterans, whether through “new policy, or if it’s new procedures.”

Trump ally Elon Musk has previously spoken highly of psychedelics in helping with PTSD and depression. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. accused the FDA last year of aggressively “suppressing” psychedelics, among other alternative treatments.

HHS and the FDA didn’t respond to requests for comment. Musk didn’t respond to a request for comment. A spokesperson for the Military Health System said in a statement that in line with legislation passed for fiscal year 2024, “three awards are currently in negotiation to fund research on this topic.”

Critics say psychedelics have been painted in an overly sunny light.

The public discourse “often presents these studies in an overly positive light and gives them little scrutiny,” said Dr. Jennifer Bauwens, director of the Center for Family Studies at the conservative Family Research Council. She said “interventions that claim panacea-like status” could risk PTSD symptoms becoming worse, in addition to a rise in the street use of psychedelic drugs.

Republican Rep. Lauren Boebert of Colorado, who hails from one of the few states that has decriminalized psilocybin, known as “magic mushrooms,” warned of a slippery slope.

“We see what marijuana has done to Colorado and I hate that,” she said, referring to the state’s legalization of the drug. “That was supposed to be medical marijuana, and now we have recreational drugs everywhere.”

Write to Olivia Beavers at Olivia.Beavers@wsj.com

8. Trump withdraws nomination of Air Force veteran to oversee special operations forces

No explanation provided and I am not aware of one.

Trump withdraws nomination of Air Force veteran to oversee special operations forces

Michael Jensen had been picked to be assistant secretary of defense for special operations and low-intensity conflict.

https://defensescoop.com/2025/05/16/trump-withdraws-nomination-michael-jensen-asd-special-operations/?utm

Jon Harper

May 16, 2025

Listen to this article

3:28

Learn more.

Then U.S. Air Force Maj. Michael Jensen, 26th Special Tactics Squadron commander smiles after assuming command of the squadron in 2014. (U.S. Air Force photo/ Senior Airman Eboni Reece)

President Donald Trump has withdrawn the nomination of retired Air Force Lt. Col. Michael Jensen to be assistant secretary of defense for special operations and low-intensity conflict, according to a notice posted on Congress.gov.

The notice did not provide an explanation for the move, which occurred May 12.

White House spokespeople did not respond to DefenseScoop’s questions about the decision to withdraw the nomination.

Last month, CBS News reported that Jensen was being considered for another position with the White House National Security Council.

The official who holds the ASD SO/LIC job “oversees and advocates for Special Operations and Irregular Warfare throughout the Department of Defense to ensure these capabilities are resourced, ready, and properly employed in accordance with the National Defense Strategy,” according to a Defense Department description of the position.

They’re responsible for exercising “authority, direction, and control of all special operations peculiar issues relating to the organization, training, and equipping of special operations forces,” as well as advising the undersecretary of defense for policy on special ops and irregular warfare policy issues.

Jensen held leadership positions in the SOF community during his military career. Some of his most notable duty assignments included 26th Special Tactics Squadron commander and deputy commander of the 724th Special Tactics Group, which are part of Air Force Special Operations Command.

He also served as a strategy lead in the Air Force’s Checkmate office at the Pentagon.

Trump tapped Jensen for the ASD SO/LIC role in February, but the Senate Armed Services Committee didn’t hold a confirmation hearing for him before the nomination was withdrawn this week.

The duties of ASD SO/LIC are currently being performed by Colby Jenkins, an Army Special Forces veteran. Christopher Maier held that role in a Senate-confirmed capacity during the Biden administration.

At the SOF Week conference in Tampa, Florida, earlier this month, Jenkins said the special ops community needs “multidomain” formations that can wage high-tech warfare using AI, cyber and electronic warfare capabilities, among other tools, according to a Defense Department news release.

“The future of SOF is relentless: smaller teams, faster decisions, smarter systems [and] harder targets,” Jenkins said.

He noted that commandos’ know-how and human performance on the battlefield will also be critical.

“Because in the end, it is not the weapon, the drone, or the system that wins the contest. It is the person who knows when and how to use all of that technology and who refuses to quit; that person secures victory for us,” Jenkins said, according to the release.

In February, U.S. Special Operations Command published an updated strategy called “SOF Renaissance,” that lays out SOCOM’s vision for how the force needs to transform to meet future challenges by adopting new technologies and other reforms, including modernization efforts geared toward surface and subsurface maritime platforms; next-generation intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance; mission command systems; and collaborative and autonomous unmanned systems.

Written by Jon Harper

Jon Harper is Managing Editor of DefenseScoop, the Scoop News Group’s online publication focused on the Pentagon and its pursuit of new capabilities. He leads an award-winning team of journalists in providing breaking news and in-depth analysis on military technology and the ways in which it is shaping how the Defense Department operates and modernizes. You can also follow him on X (the social media platform formerly known as Twitter) @Jon_Harper_

9. How To Ensure Trump’s Golden Dome Effort Succeeds

Excerpts:

To avoid unrealistic overreach that undermines more attainable goals, it should also be made clear that Golden Dome is not about defeating a full-scale nuclear attack from Russia and China. The defense against a nuclear attack on the United States should instead rely on a modernized nuclear triad that persuades any potential adversary that a nuclear attack on the United States would invite a devastating response, thereby making the aggression unwise.

Finally, the significant costs associated with the endeavor should be mitigated with innovative efforts, including sensors (dirigibles and unmanned aircraft equipped with radars) that operate up to the near-space region and non-kinetic engagement systems such as directed energy that complement kinetic space-based systems.

President Trump and his administration deserve credit for sounding the alarm and taking initial action to begin to address the growing missile threat, as does Congress for putting nearly $25 billion on the table. Now, it is up to Congress to appropriate the funding and up to the Pentagon to turn the vision into reality in a manner the U.S. taxpayers can afford.

How To Ensure Trump’s Golden Dome Effort Succeeds

By Mark Montgomery & Bradley Bowman

May 17, 2025

https://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2025/05/17/how_to_ensure_trumps_golden_dome_effort_succeeds_1110839.html?utm

Every President since the 9/11 attack on the United States has said defense of the homeland is the number one national security priority, yet the only U.S. airspace defended from cruise missile threats is a small portion of Washington, DC, and the entire country is increasingly vulnerable to conventional missile threats from China and Russia. That puts Americans at risk and increases the chances of adversary aggression abroad.

The good news is that President Donald Trump has initiated an effort to build a broad defense against these threats — nicknamed “Golden Dome” — and many in Congress are seeking to support his vision with significant “one-time” funding. But this ambitious missile defense effort will not succeed unless Congress and the Pentagon take additional steps. Congress needs to appropriate sufficient base defense discretionary funding, and the Department of Defense (DoD) must task the right leaders to design the architecture and ensure that the new effort prioritizes and integrates space-based capabilities as well as innovative solutions closer to Earth, including those involving dirigibles and unmanned aerial vehicles.

Russia and China are sprinting to build long-range cruise and hypersonic weapons that can strike anywhere in the United States with conventional warheads. That’s a problem because the United States would struggle even to detect an inbound cruise missile attack in most cases. Indeed, we can expect Americans would first learn of the cruise missile attack when the explosions start.

Many Americans might be surprised to learn our homeland is so vulnerable, but the 2023 embarrassment associated with the Chinese spy balloon exposed unacceptable vulnerabilities in the ability of the U.S. military to detect threats operating at unusual altitudes and speeds. These challenges are exacerbated when one considers the difficulty in detecting low-flying cruise missiles.

So, how did we get to this point?

For years, both Republicans and Democrats talked about the return of great power competition but failed to devote sufficient resources to missile defense. That is why the United States homeland and regional missile defense capabilities are so lacking.

Indeed, insufficient funding continues to result in costly delays to vital missile defense programs.

Lt. Gen. Heath Collins, the director of the Missile Defense Agency, said on May 6 that reduced funding levels have slowed the Glide Phase Interceptor (GPI) program, which is vital to America’s ability to defeat hypersonic weapons. The speed, trajectory, and maneuvering capabilities of hypersonic glide vehicles make them particularly difficult to defeat. Unfortunately, GPI operational capability is not expected until 2035.

The primary cause of the delay?: “resourcing,” Collins says.

Unfortunately, the GPI is not the only program experiencing delays caused, at least in part, by insufficient funding.

The Next-Generation Interceptor (NGI) is another example. NGI is a necessary and overdue upgrade for the ground-based interceptors in Alaska and California that serve as the primary defense against a North Korean ballistic missile attack on Americans at home. That program is delayed by about 18 months, and Collins says funding played a role in the delay.

This helps explain why President Trump’s January 27 Executive Order is so important. It recognizes the threat to Americans, catalyzes an overdue response, and establishes clear direction for the defense department. This process, however, will be more difficult than many realize, requiring integration over time of efforts to detect, track, and engage from space to near space to airborne to ground and shipboard systems. The United States also needs both short-term solutions that leverage existing systems and technologies as well as longer-term solutions that require research and development investments today that could pay off in the 2030s.

In its reconciliation efforts, Congress has included nearly $25 Billion in funding — with a prudent emphasis on the space-based aspects of future missile defense. That reconciliation funding should be in addition to a base discretionary defense budget in fiscal year 2026 that is at least 3 to 5 percent higher than inflation compared to fiscal year 2025 enacted levels.

To be clear, though, sufficient funding is not enough. The Pentagon will also need strong leadership that should come from an empowered four-star leader with space and missile defense expertise.

Moreover, the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) should be formally assigned as the lead engineer and be responsible for overall system architecture. The abysmal performance of the Defense of Guam mission development effort from 2021-2024 makes clear that MDA is the only place with the engineers who can design such a comprehensive architecture. The pace of development required will mean MDA needs authorities outside the normal Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System (JCIDS).

To avoid unrealistic overreach that undermines more attainable goals, it should also be made clear that Golden Dome is not about defeating a full-scale nuclear attack from Russia and China. The defense against a nuclear attack on the United States should instead rely on a modernized nuclear triad that persuades any potential adversary that a nuclear attack on the United States would invite a devastating response, thereby making the aggression unwise.

Finally, the significant costs associated with the endeavor should be mitigated with innovative efforts, including sensors (dirigibles and unmanned aircraft equipped with radars) that operate up to the near-space region and non-kinetic engagement systems such as directed energy that complement kinetic space-based systems.

President Trump and his administration deserve credit for sounding the alarm and taking initial action to begin to address the growing missile threat, as does Congress for putting nearly $25 billion on the table. Now, it is up to Congress to appropriate the funding and up to the Pentagon to turn the vision into reality in a manner the U.S. taxpayers can afford.

Retired U.S. Navy RADM Mark Montgomery and Bradley Bowman are senior directors at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies where they lead FDD’s Air and Missile Defense Program.

10. Re-politicizing the Military: A Case for Civilian Oversight and Accountability

This should provoke some discussion. Congress does provide the ultimate civilian oversight of the military after all.

Excerpts:

In answering Lt. Col. Stuart Scheller’s question—How can the military build a screening system to assess the performance of key leaders?—the answer requires something bold and often unpopular: politicians must assert more influence over military affairs.

...

The military is a tool of national power—yet not an independent one. Civilian leaders must guide it with moral clarity, strategic insight, and public accountability. That requires reasserting political authority, not retreating from it. Politicians need to evaluate generals the way they would any senior official—by their integrity, performance, and alignment with national values.

When done responsibly, re-politicizing the military is not a threat to democracy. It is the very mechanism by which democracies control force, maintain trust, and uphold moral legitimacy in war.

Re-politicizing the Military: A Case for Civilian Oversight and Accountability

by S.L. Nelson

May 17, 2025

https://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2025/05/17/re-politicizing_the_military_a_case_for_civilian_oversight_and_accountability_1110816.html?utm

Military and foreign policy professionals often warn against the “politicization of the military.” Yet the phrase has become so reflexive and vague that it obscures the reality: the U.S. military is already an intensely political institution.

In answering Lt. Col. Stuart Scheller’s question—How can the military build a screening system to assess the performance of key leaders?—the answer requires something bold and often unpopular: politicians must assert more influence over military affairs.

They should evaluate military leadership for three key reasons: to uphold the morality of war, to ensure trust in institutional decision-making, and to enforce accountability when performance falters.

Moral Responsibility Is Political Responsibility

In wartime, civilian leaders are not merely strategists or managers but moral actors. Delegating war-making authority does not absolve them of ethical accountability. Even decisions operational in appearance—targeting, casualty thresholds, or force posture—carry profound political and moral weight.

Winston Churchill offers a clear example. In preparation for Operation Overlord, the Allied invasion of Nazi-occupied France, Churchill demanded that bombing plans limit civilian casualties to under 10,000. When Air Marshal Arthur Tedder forecast 160,000 potential civilian deaths, Churchill objected: “You are piling up an awful load of hatred.” That wasn’t simply an emotional response but a political judgment. Churchill understood that high civilian deaths could damage Britain’s postwar legitimacy and moral authority.

Churchill regularly took responsibility for decisions that blurred the lines between tactics and grand strategy. He considered deploying metal chaff to jam German radar but recognized that the Luftwaffe might adopt the tactic in return, threatening British civilians. The technical details were military in nature, but the consequences were political and human. He assumed the burden, knowing the final accountability lay with elected leadership.

Trust Between Civilians and the Military Is Built on Moral Clarity

In Western democracies, trust between civilian leaders and the military is foundational—and reciprocal. Political leaders trust the military to execute orders professionally and within the law. In turn, the military trusts that political decisions have moral and democratic legitimacy. That trust collapses if civilian leaders defer too much to generals or if generals act as the final arbiters of war strategy.

Again, Churchill provides a model. He personally approved withholding some Ultra intelligence—intercepted Nazi communications—to protect British codebreaking capabilities, even though this meant allowing some Allied convoys to sail into known danger. A purely tactical view might suggest this was a military decision. Churchill, however, knew that if something went wrong, the blame would fall on commanders unless a civilian leader took responsibility. So he did. Trust between political and military leadership was preserved because the moral chain of accountability remained intact.

Political Rhetoric Is Often a Tool for Strategy

Political statements in wartime deserve nuanced analysis, especially when they appear misguided or offhand. Analysts and military leaders often err by taking such statements at face value. Eliot Cohen, for example, critiques Churchill’s fixation on invading Norway in his book Churchill and His Generals, suggesting it showed poor strategic sense. He echoes the views of generals who believed Churchill’s public obsession with Norway reflected strategic incoherence.

But Churchill’s focus on Norway likely served a deeper strategic aim: deception. British intelligence actively ran misinformation campaigns suggesting that Norway was a major target. False plans, fake radio traffic, and misleading deployments were designed to divert German forces. Churchill’s public posture reinforced this ruse. Delegating this entirely to the military could have undermined the effort. By owning the deception at the political level, Churchill protected operational security and trust among commanders.

Cohen’s mistake is in separating military objectives from political strategy. In democratic war-making, the two are inseparable.

The Accountability Gap in Today’s Military Leadership

Churchill and his contemporaries evaluated and, when necessary, removed military leaders with far greater frequency than today’s political leadership does. During World War II, U.S. and British generals were dismissed for underperformance. In contrast, modern military leaders rarely face consequences, even in the wake of strategic failures like Iraq, Afghanistan, or the 2020 Abbey Gate bombing.

The modern U.S. military lacks robust systems for evaluating general officers. Promotions and assignments at the highest levels rely heavily on internal endorsements—what some call the “old boys’ club.” The result is an accountability vacuum. Without objective metrics or external scrutiny, failures are quietly passed over, and performance is difficult to measure.

It is time for politicians to change this dynamic. Civilian leadership should scrutinize generals as they do Cabinet members or agency heads. Just as Secret Service Director Kimberly Cheatle resigned after a bipartisan loss of confidence, generals should be held accountable when public trust is lost.

The pressure must extend to senior officers who recommend underperforming subordinates. If a general’s advancement damages public trust, those who vouched for them should also be scrutinized. This would incentivize commanders to develop a genuine performance culture—not one based solely on reputation or political safety.

Congress and the Media Must Reassert Oversight

Congressional oversight of the military has been inconsistent and often toothless. Hearings on Benghazi, Syria, and Afghanistan withdrawals have yielded few consequences. Testimony usually includes bureaucratic evasions—“We were waiting for guidance” or “Our hands were tied.” These are not explanations; they are excuses that avoid acknowledging bad calls or poor leadership.

Congress needs to elevate its role by pushing for external performance audits, clear criteria for command fitness, and whistleblower protections. The media, too, should be willing to investigate and expose leadership failures—not just battlefield heroics or cultural controversies.

Civilian leaders ought to invest in developing new generations of political-military advisors capable of bridging the knowledge gap. It’s not enough to say, “Let the generals decide.” Politicians need the confidence and understanding to ask hard questions and make final calls that reflect the will and welfare of the people.

Civilian Oversight Is Not Micromanagement

Some argue that more political involvement risks micromanagement or undermining operational flexibility. That danger exists—but so does the greater danger of unchecked military autonomy. Civilian oversight doesn’t mean interfering in tactical decisions. It means guiding strategic direction, setting ethical boundaries, and evaluating outcomes. It’s about asserting that in a democracy, warfighting ultimately serves political goals—not the preferences of the Pentagon.

The chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan is a case in point. Military leadership failed to speak hard truths to policymakers, and civilian leaders ignored their advice. Either way, accountability was blurred. That outcome wasn’t just a planning failure. It was a breakdown in the civil-military relationship. Rebalancing that relationship is essential to preventing future fiascos.

The Moral Imperative of Oversight

The military is a tool of national power—yet not an independent one. Civilian leaders must guide it with moral clarity, strategic insight, and public accountability. That requires reasserting political authority, not retreating from it. Politicians need to evaluate generals the way they would any senior official—by their integrity, performance, and alignment with national values.

When done responsibly, re-politicizing the military is not a threat to democracy. It is the very mechanism by which democracies control force, maintain trust, and uphold moral legitimacy in war.

S.L. Nelson has served from the tactical to strategic level as a military officer. His views are his own and do not represent the position of the U.S. DoD.

11. The Army’s response to the Reagan crash should stir Americans to demand honesty.

An essay from the Claremont Institute.

Occam's razor? It was simply a tragic accident.

Or we can find a conspiracy anywhere to confirm our agendas and preconceived notions.

Excerpts:

Of course it’s possible that the D.C. air crash was merely the merging of multiple human and technical factors unrelated to any ideological commitments. But given the Army’s method of handling such situations, the burden of proof rightly falls on them to prove otherwise.

As the Obama Administration pushed the Army to get women successfully through the grueling Ranger School in 2015, some Army officials anonymously admitted that women were being given preferential treatment to ensure they would graduate from a course that is extremely rigorous, even for the strongest men. The Army destroyed the training records for the first women who attended the course.

Then-Chief of Public Affairs Maj. Gen. Malcolm Frost slandered Susan Keating for reporting on allegations that the Army failed to hold women ranger trainees to its stated standards. Had Frost consulted a history book, he might have known that the Ranger School fiasco followed a long trail of dishonesty from an Army that brought us Agent Orange, told lies about Jessica Lynch and Pat Tillman, and went so far as to arrest reporters during the Civil War, among many other dishonorable actions.

Retired U.S. Navy Admiral William McRaven let it slip during a recent CNN interview that generals and admirals, and those still hoping to attain those ranks, cannot be trusted to be truthful. If previous actions are indicators of future behavior, we should assume any records that might cast a shadow on Capt. Lobach’s capability and her command’s decision to put her in the air that night no longer exist. Even with new leadership at the top of the DoD, the entrenched bureaucracy continues to focus on preserving itself above all else.

The tragedy over the Potomac may be an innocent accident. Or it may be tragic proof that DEI initiatives literally kill. But because of the Army’s tendency to obfuscate, it will likely be years before we know the truth.

The Army’s response to the Reagan crash should stir Americans to demand honesty.

https://americanmind.org/salvo/low-trust-military/?utm

Sir Winston Churchill is known to have remarked that “In wartime, truth is so precious that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies.” That timeless mindset of deception has proven effective at enabling militaries to surprise adversaries on the battlefield throughout the history of human warfare. But when such tactics carry over into how the military communicates with citizens, ethical lines have clearly been crossed. This undermines the military officer’s oath of office and sows distrust among the public that the military is supposed to serve. Such a case is presently before us.

A recent report in the New York Times revealed that the pilot of the UH-60 Blackhawk helicopter that knocked American Airlines flight 5342 from the sky in January made several errors. The pilot ignored a warning to change direction and collided with the plane, killing everyone on both aircraft. This information was not released by the U.S. Army nor the Department of Defense, even though the official policy of both is maximum disclosure, minimum delay. But in this and countless other cases, the military’s actions are hostile to official DoD policies.

The Army took unprecedented actions to delay releasing the pilot’s identity, as all traces of her online persona were wiped from the web. Once the public learned that former Biden White House aide U.S. Army Capt. Rebecca Lobach piloted the helicopter on that tragic night, they had virtually nothing to use to evaluate her. We were assured she was a stellar soldier, but we have heard nothing from those who served alongside her.

Was Lobach allowed multiple retry attempts for repeatedly failing required check rides? Was her entire unit threatened not to speak with the press? We don’t know. But I do know from 20 years of experience as a military public affairs officer that there is ample precedent for commanders breaking regulations by ordering troops not to talk with the media. This often happens when there is a chance that the truth would be embarrassing to the military, or when a senior officer lied and the force feels it’s better to perpetuate that lie than to come clean.

That’s exactly what happened when Bowe Bergdahl abandoned his unit in Afghanistan in 2009. The Army allowed a narrative to develop in which Bergdahl merely fell behind on a patrol. Meanwhile, members of his unit were threatened and forced to sign non-disclosure agreements. Only after his return in 2014 did many of those former soldiers feel safe speaking out, thus pressuring the Army to court-martial a deserter it had been publicly holding up as a hero. Frequently, the military’s communication malpractice swings the door open for a number of theories to proliferate on military-affiliated tragedies and scandals.

Well known for its thoroughness and professionalism, the National Transportation Safety Board will no doubt ascertain the technical causes of the crash. But what are the potential cultural factors?

Was Capt. Lobach rushed to levels beyond her mastery because of her sex and sexual orientation? (The latter was alluded to in the tribute statement released by her family through the Army, another seismic departure from procedure.) That has been a hallmark of military practice in recent years. Did her female commander show preference for a fellow female aviator? If so, it would be far from the first time this has happened in the ranks. Why did the instructor pilot not take the controls? Is it possible he doubted the command would have his back in taking action that could have a detrimental effect on an officer who had recently worked for President Biden?

It has been open knowledge across the military for years that for a white male to question or criticize anyone other than another white male is a high-risk endeavor for which the pain of retaliatory investigation eagerly awaits. This same fear no doubt plays a role in why half of eligible U.S. Army officers decline consideration for battalion command, a requirement to be considered for promotion to colonel.

These are men and women who braved Iraq and Afghanistan—but who find navigating the minefield of grievance culture too high a risk.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth recently acknowledged this truth in signing what he called a “no walking on eggshells policy.” Beyond that, the military has done its best to drum common sense out of its soldiers. Consider how nearly every single military physician and commander went along with masks, shots, and the six-foot social distancing rule without requesting or offering a single point of proof.

Of course it’s possible that the D.C. air crash was merely the merging of multiple human and technical factors unrelated to any ideological commitments. But given the Army’s method of handling such situations, the burden of proof rightly falls on them to prove otherwise.

As the Obama Administration pushed the Army to get women successfully through the grueling Ranger School in 2015, some Army officials anonymously admitted that women were being given preferential treatment to ensure they would graduate from a course that is extremely rigorous, even for the strongest men. The Army destroyed the training records for the first women who attended the course.

Then-Chief of Public Affairs Maj. Gen. Malcolm Frost slandered Susan Keating for reporting on allegations that the Army failed to hold women ranger trainees to its stated standards. Had Frost consulted a history book, he might have known that the Ranger School fiasco followed a long trail of dishonesty from an Army that brought us Agent Orange, told lies about Jessica Lynch and Pat Tillman, and went so far as to arrest reporters during the Civil War, among many other dishonorable actions.

Retired U.S. Navy Admiral William McRaven let it slip during a recent CNN interview that generals and admirals, and those still hoping to attain those ranks, cannot be trusted to be truthful. If previous actions are indicators of future behavior, we should assume any records that might cast a shadow on Capt. Lobach’s capability and her command’s decision to put her in the air that night no longer exist. Even with new leadership at the top of the DoD, the entrenched bureaucracy continues to focus on preserving itself above all else.

The tragedy over the Potomac may be an innocent accident. Or it may be tragic proof that DEI initiatives literally kill. But because of the Army’s tendency to obfuscate, it will likely be years before we know the truth.

Chase Spears served as a U.S. Army public affairs officer for 20 years and is host of the Finding Your Spine podcast. Among other pursuits, he enjoys writing about courage, civil-military relations, communication ethics, and policy. Chase holds a Ph.D. in leadership communication from Kansas State University, where his research focused on the political realities of military norms and actions. You can find him on social media at @drchasespears and read his work at chasespears.com.

Bureaucracy

DEI

Department of Defense

LGBTQ

Military

Sex

The American Mind presents a range of perspectives. Views are writers’ own and do not necessarily represent those of The Claremont Institute.

The American Mind is a publication of the Claremont Institute, a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization, dedicated to restoring the principles of the American Founding to their rightful, preeminent authority in our national life. Interested in supporting our work? Gifts to the Claremont Institute are tax-deductible.

12. Trump Administration Fires Hundreds of Voice of America Employees

I will continue to beat the drum for our great Voice of America. We are making a strategic mistake.

I am reminded of Capt Willard (Martin Sheen) in Apocalypse Now:

"Every minute I stay in this room, I get weaker. And every minute Charlie squats in the bush, he gets stronger."

Well, every day that Voice of America is off the air, America's security weakens and the axis of dictators grows stronger and more easily oppresses its people. (perhaps a little extreme and hyperbolic but I want to get your attention)

I stand by for all the criticism from those who have never listened to VOA or worked with them or even know how they accomplish their mission to support US national security.

Trump Administration Fires Hundreds of Voice of America Employees

The layoffs amounted to over a third of the media organization’s staff, and came as the Trump administration put up for sale the federal building in Washington that houses the network.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/15/us/politics/trump-voice-of-america-firings.html?unlocked_article_code=1.IE8.iSsV.P-j0-W23ruJQ&smid=url-share

Nearly 600 journalists and contractors were fired by the Trump administration on Thursday.Credit...Gene J. Puskar/Associated Press

By Minho Kim and Tim Balk

May 15, 2025

The Trump administration on Thursday fired nearly 600 employees at Voice of America, a federally funded news network that provides independent reporting to countries with limited press freedoms.

The layoffs targeted contractors, most of them journalists but also some administrative employees, and amounted to over a third of Voice of America’s staff. They signaled that the Trump administration planned to continue its efforts to dismantle the broadcaster despite a court ruling last month that ordered the federal government to maintain robust news programming at the network, which President Trump has called “the voice of radical America.”

In another sign of the Trump administration’s hostility toward the broadcaster, the federal building in Washington that houses the media organization was put up for sale on Thursday.

Michael Abramowitz, the director of Voice of America, said in an email to his staff on Thursday that the firings were “inexplicable.”

“I am heartbroken,” he said. Mr. Abramowitz has sued to stop the Trump administration from closing the news organization.

Kari Lake, a senior adviser at the U.S. Agency for Global Media, which oversees Voice of America, said that the Trump administration had acted within its legal authority.

“We are in the process of rightsizing the agency and reducing the federal bureaucracy to meet administration priorities,” Ms. Lake, who is leading the efforts to ramp down the operations of Voice of America, said in a statement. “We will continue to scale back the bloat at U.S.A.G.M. and make an archaic dinosaur into something worthy of being funded by hardworking Americans.”

She added: “Buckle up. There’s more to come.”

Some of the journalists who were terminated on Thursday were from countries with repressive governments that persecute journalists for independent reporting, Mr. Abramowitz said in the email to employees on Thursday.

Those journalists now have to leave the United States by the end of June, as their immigration status is tied to employment at the news organization.

In a letter sent on Thursday to employees who had been fired, the Trump administration cited “the government’s convenience” as a reason for the terminations. The employees were under so-called personal services contracts, making them easier to let go than regular full-time employees with full civil service protections.

Mr. Trump has accused the outlet, which delivers news to countries with repressive regimes — including Russia, China and Iran — of spreading “anti-American” and partisan “propaganda.”

In March, Ms. Lake, a Trump ally and unsuccessful candidate for governor and Senate in Arizona, had declared her own workplace “unsalvageable.” She has also claimed that the U.S. Agency for Global Media and its newsrooms were rampant with “waste, fraud and abuse,” without providing evidence.

Ms. Lake said last week that Voice of America would incorporate content from One America News Network, a pro-Trump television channel that has endorsed falsehoods about the 2020 presidential election.

Voice of America, which was founded in 1942, halted operations on March 15, a day after Mr. Trump signed an executive order seeking to gut the U.S. Agency for Global Media. Its news programming has been partly restored since the April court ruling that stopped the Trump administration from dismantling the agency and other newsrooms it oversees.

The Trump administration has challenged the April ruling, claiming that the lower court had gone too far in halting other firings that took place in March.

In early May, a federal appeals court paused parts of the April lower court order that required the Trump administration to rehire the employees.

The Trump administration did not appeal parts of the April order that mandated the resumption of Voice of America’s news programming. The lower court found that Congress had required the executive branch to keep the network as “a consistently reliable and authoritative source of news.”

The Trump administration has since kept most of Voice of America’s operations shuttered while restoring parts of its service. Its Mandarin and Persian services, for example, were restored. But the news organization’s English website has stopped updating since March 15.

Lydia DePillis contributed reporting.

Minho Kim covers breaking news and climate change for The Times. He is based in Washington.

13. Trump Appointee Pressed Analyst to Redo Intelligence on Venezuelan Gang

What does this mean for the future of the IC?

Trump Appointee Pressed Analyst to Redo Intelligence on Venezuelan Gang

The move followed a disclosure that intelligence agencies disagree with a key factual claim Trump made to invoke a wartime deportation law.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/16/us/politics/trump-appointee-venezuela-gang.html?utm

Joe Kent, the acting chief of staff for Tulsi Gabbard, the director of national intelligence, on Capitol Hill last month. Mr. Kent told a senior intelligence analyst to do a new assessment of the relationship between Venezuela’s government and the gang after the initial version countered a White House narrative, officials said.Credit...Rod Lamkey/Associated Press

By Julian E. Barnes Maggie Haberman and Charlie Savage

Reporting from Washington

May 16, 2025

A top adviser to the director of national intelligence ordered a senior analyst to redo an assessment of the relationship between Venezuela’s government and a gang after intelligence findings undercut the White House’s justification for deporting migrants, according to officials.

President Trump’s use of a wartime law to send Venezuelan migrants to a brutal prison in El Salvador without due process relies on a claim that U.S. intelligence agencies think is wrong. But behind the scenes, a political appointee told a career official to rework the assessment, a direction that allies of the intelligence analyst said amounted to pressure to change the findings.

Mr. Trump on March 15 invoked the law, the Alien Enemies Act, to summarily remove people accused of being members of the gang, Tren de Aragua. The rarely used act appears to require a link to a foreign state, and he claimed that Venezuela’s government had directed the gang to commit crimes inside the United States.

On March 20, The New York Times reported that an intelligence assessment in late February contradicted that claim. It detailed many reasons that the intelligence community as a whole concluded that the gang was not acting under the Venezuelan government’s control. The F.B.I. partly dissented, maintaining that the gang had some links to Venezuela’s government based on information all the other agencies did not find credible.

The administration was alarmed by the disclosure. The next day, a Friday, the deputy attorney general, Todd Blanche, announced a criminal leak investigation, characterizing The Times’s detailed description of the intelligence assessment as “inaccurate” and “false” while insisting that Mr. Trump’s proclamation was “supported by fact, law, and common sense.”

The following Monday, Joe Kent, the acting chief of staff for Tulsi Gabbard, the director of national intelligence, told a senior intelligence analyst to do a new assessment of the relationship between Venezuela’s government and the gang, the officials said. The analyst, Michael Collins, was serving as the acting chair of the National Intelligence Council at the time.

An official who has reviewed messages about the assessment said Mr. Kent made the request to Mr. Collins in an email, asking him to “rethink” the earlier analysis. The official said Mr. Kent was not politicizing the process, but giving his assessment and asking the intelligence officials to take into account the flows of migrants across the border during the Biden administration.

The National Intelligence Council is an elite internal think tank that reports to Ms. Gabbard and that policymakers can commission to undertake special analytical projects. The council canvasses spy agencies across the executive branch for its information.

While officials close to Ms. Gabbard said Mr. Kent’s request was entirely appropriate, other intelligence officials said they saw it as an effort to produce a torqued narrative that would support Mr. Trump’s agenda. But after re-examining the relevant evidence collected by agencies like the Central Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the council on April 7 reaffirmed the original findings.

Inside the administration, even some officials who do not think Mr. Kent injected politics into the intelligence report are angry for what they see as a blundering intervention. Little new information had been collected in the month after the original assessment and his request for a redo, so there was no reason to expect the council to come up with different findings.

Sign up to get Maggie Haberman's articles emailed to you. Maggie Haberman is a White House correspondent reporting on President Trump. Get it sent to your inbox.

From the beginning, politics surrounded the request for an intelligence assessment.

The original assessment stemmed from a White House request, according to former American officials.

It is not clear who specifically inside the White House made the request.

Inside the administration, Stephen Miller, Mr. Trump’s homeland security adviser, spearheads immigration policy. He has developed numerous ways to leverage existing laws — sometimes via aggressive interpretations — to better seal the border and accelerate deportations. Invoking the Alien Enemies Act to avoid time-consuming asylum and deportation hearings is one of those innovations.

In response to the White House request, Mr. Kent asked the National Intelligence Council to produce its initial analysis. The resulting report was dated Feb. 26, according to officials familiar with it.

Image

Stephen Miller, the homeland security adviser, has developed numerous ways to leverage existing laws, such as the Alien Enemies Act, to avoid time-consuming asylum and deportation hearings and accelerate deportations.Credit...Eric Lee/The New York Times

Details remain unclear of the White House deliberations that led to Mr. Trump, two weeks later, signing a proclamation that made purportedly factual findings that contradicted the executive branch intelligence community’s understanding of what was true.

After the assessment came to light and Mr. Kent asked Mr. Collins to rethink that analysis, Mr. Collins agreed to produce an updated assessment, according to people briefed on the events.

Some intelligence officials took Mr. Kent’s intervention as an attempt to politicize the findings and push them in line with the Justice Department arguments and the Trump administration policy. Mr. Collins, according to those officials, worked to navigate the politics and to protect the analytic integrity of the National Intelligence Council’s work as he began drafting a “sense of the community memo.”

The officials who described the matter spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive internal deliberations. Intelligence officials declined to make Mr. Collins available for an interview.

Olivia C. Coleman, a spokeswoman for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, said requesting the intelligence assessment on the gang’s ties to the Venezuelan government was “common practice.” She also defended Mr. Kent, saying, without detail, that the timeline presented in this article was “false and fabricated.”

“It is the deep state’s latest effort to attack this administration from within with an orchestrated op detached from reality,” Ms. Coleman said.

Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, said Mr. Trump’s policy on deporting Venezuelans to El Salvador had made America safer. “President Trump rightfully designated Tren de Aragua as a foreign terrorist organization based on intelligence assessments and, frankly, common sense,” she said.

After Mr. Trump sent planeloads of Venezuelans to El Salvador, a complex series of court fights have erupted and courts have blocked, for now, further use of the act for deportations. On Friday, the Supreme Court extended the freeze.

As the National Intelligence Council drafted the second analysis, multiple officials said, Mr. Collins and his colleagues tried to describe how most of the spy agencies had reached their consensus conclusion doubting any direct connection between the Venezuelan government and Tren de Aragua, and why the F.B.I. saw things partly differently.

The memo, dated April 7, concluded that the Venezuelan government “probably does not have a policy of cooperating with T.D.A. and is not directing T.D.A. movement to and operations in the United States.” It detailed why the intelligence community as a whole thought that, echoing accounts of the February assessment, like how the government treats Tren de Aragua as a threat and how the gang’s decentralized makeup would make it logistically challenging for it to carry out instructions.

The memo also went into greater detail about a partial dissent by the F.B.I. in a way that made clear why most of the intelligence community thought the bureau was wrong.

F.B.I. analysts largely agreed with the consensus assessment, the memo said, but they also thought that “some Venezuelan government officials” had helped gang members migrate to other countries, including the United States, and used them as proxies.

The basis of that conclusion came from law enforcement interviews of people who had been arrested in the United States — and “most” of the intelligence community judged those reports “not credible.”

The existence of the council’s memo and its bottom-line findings came to light in a Washington Post article on April 17. Publicly, the Trump administration and its supporters and influencers have reacted by vilifying Mr. Collins.

On April 20, Laura Loomer, a far-right activist who successfully lobbied the administration to fire other security officials, attacked the National Intelligence Council on social media as “career anti-Trump bureaucrats” who “need to be replaced if they want to promote open borders.” In the same post, she pasted images of Mr. Collins’s LinkedIn profile and of an Associated Press article about the council’s memo.

Three days later, Ms. Gabbard and her deputy chief of staff revealed on social media that they had made a criminal leak referral about the Post article. And, as reported by Fox News this week, Ms. Gabbard also removed Mr. Collins and his deputy from leading the council.

Image

Tulsi Gabbard, the director of national intelligence, and her circle have amplified posts portraying the National Intelligence Council, an elite internal think tank, as a hive of biased, deep-state bureaucrats.Credit...Kenny Holston/The New York Times

As discussion of the removals circulated, Ms. Gabbard and her circle have amplified posts portraying the council as a hive of biased, deep-state bureaucrats.

An official briefed on the matter has denied that Mr. Collins’s removal was connected to the Venezuela assessment or to Ms. Loomer. But other officials have said they believe Mr. Collins has been made a scapegoat.

When the council produced a draft memo, Mr. Kent insisted on several edits to its final form. The details of his changes remain unclear.

But his reaction to the final memo was surprising, the officials said: Mr. Kent was happy about it, and pushed to have it declassified so that it could be discussed publicly, the officials said.

Mr. Kent’s request for declassification set in motion a chain of events that led to the agency’s release of the report this month in response to a Freedom of Information Act request. Because the memo directly contradicts what Mr. Trump claimed — and is now public as an officially acknowledged document — it is generally seen as a legal and public relations fiasco for the administration.

The official who had reviewed the messages about the assessment said Mr. Kent’s reaction, recorded in emails to Mr. Collins, is clear evidence that he was not politicizing the process but merely wanted a fuller discussion of what intelligence agencies knew and the F.B.I.’s take on the issue. But other current and former officials questioned that narrative. Why, they asked, if Mr. Kent was pleased with the redone assessment, was Mr. Collins fired?

It is not entirely clear why Mr. Kent seemed to believe that the memo supported Mr. Trump’s claim. But he and other officials who shared his view were focused on the section exploring the F.B.I.’s partial dissent.

A line says that reports generated by U.S. law enforcement agencies have “the most focus on T.D.A. and its activities in the United States” because, unlike purely foreign intelligence agencies like the C.I.A., they can interrogate domestic prisoners.

But the memo also stressed multiple reasons to be skeptical. Among other things, because of their legal troubles, detainees had an incentive to fabricate “valuable” information, the memo said. And, it said, agencies had not observed the Venezuelan government directing the gang, which would likely require extensive communications, coordination and funding between government officials and gang leaders “that we would collect.”

Mr. Kent has a history of embracing alternative versions of reality that align with his political views but are not supported by evidence. For example, as recently as his confirmation hearing in April, he promoted the conspiracy theory that the F.B.I. secretly instigated the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the Capitol by Trump supporters trying to block Congress from certifying Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s electoral victory.

Julian E. Barnes covers the U.S. intelligence agencies and international security matters for The Times. He has written about security issues for more than two decades.

Maggie Haberman is a White House correspondent for The Times, reporting on President Trump.

Charlie Savage writes about national security and legal policy for The Times.

A version of this article appears in print on May 18, 2025, Section A, Page 1 of the New York edition with the headline: Analyst Was Told To Redo Findings On Venezuelans. Order Reprints | Today’s Paper | Subscribe

14. What happens when honest intelligence work can get you fired?

It has a chilling effect.

Opinion

David Ignatius

What happens when honest intelligence work can get you fired?

The U.S. appears to be on the verge of finding out.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2025/05/16/ignatius-tulsi-gabbard-dni-venezuela-trump-firing/?utm

May 16, 2025 at 6:31 p.m. EDTMay 16, 2025

Tulsi Gabbard, the director of national intelligence, answers questions during a House committee hearing on March 26. (J. Scott Applewhite/AP)

Sherman Kent, the godfather of intelligence analysis, argued that the first obligation for his profession was to give policymakers accurate and unbiased information, through what he called “a mastery of background knowledge, evaluation and structuring of all-source material, and tradecraft expertise.”

Make sense of the latest news and debates with our daily newsletter

That operating principle went out the window last week, as Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard fired the top two officials of the National Intelligence Council (NIC), Fox News reported. The officials had overseen a careful analysis that challenged arguments that the Venezuelan government directs the Tren de Aragua gang — which is President Donald Trump’s rationale for invoking the Alien Enemies Act against the gang’s members.

Telling inconvenient truths to presidents is what intelligence analysts are supposed to do. CIA analysts have done this for decades — for instance, in challenging U.S. military strategies during the Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Presidents never like to be told they’re wrong, and they often persist in misguided policies, regardless of the evidence. But in this administration, it seems, truth-telling is a cause for dismissal.

Opinions on the Trump administration

Opinion

Editorial Board

Congress needs to vote on Qatar’s $400 million ‘gift’

May 16, 2025

Opinion

Thomas Hochman and Pavan Venkatakrishnan

House Republicans are about to wreck Trump’s nuclear-powered dream

May 15, 2025

Opinion

Dana Milbank

This is what happens when we have a morally lost president

May 16, 2025

Opinion

Marc Thiessen

Yes, Trump can accept an airplane from Qatar. Here’s why he shouldn’t.

May 14, 2025

Opinion

William K. Reilly

This program should make a DOGE bro swoon. It’s imperiled instead.

May 14, 2025

Opinion

Editorial Board

The best way to end a presidential ‘emergency’

May 14, 2025

Opinion

Max Boot

Trump is an inept dealmaker, but at least he’s good at reversing course

May 14, 2025

Opinion

Marc Fisher

Invited, then uninvited: How Trump’s Kennedy Center is policing art

May 14, 2025

Opinion

Dana Milbank

Trump needs that Qatari 747 — for all his evasive maneuvers

May 12, 2025

Opinion

Natasha Sarin

Trump’s attack on nonprofits has an ugly history

May 12, 2025

Opinion

Jacob T. Levy

Qatar’s gift to Trump reveals a loophole big enough to fly a jumbo jet thro...

May 11, 2025

Opinion

Jason Willick

Forget ‘Project 2025.’ Trump’s executive power blueprint came out in 1988.

May 11, 2025

Opinion

Edith Pritchett

Trump’s new national holidays

May 9, 2025

Opinion

Fareed Zakaria

A perfect economic storm might be coming our way

May 9, 2025

Opinion

Dana Milbank

As the world goes to hell, Trump is living his best life

May 9, 2025

Opinion

Gary Winslett

Manufacturing is thriving in the South. Here’s why neither party can admit ...

May 14, 2025

Opinion

Lidiya Yankovskaya

Why I’m still performing at Trump’s Kennedy Center

May 7, 2025

Opinion

Natasha Sarin

The Trump administration’s tax math doesn’t add up

May 7, 2025

Opinion

Marc Fisher

Trump logic: ‘We want to help vets.’ ‘I help vets.’ ‘You’re fired.’

May 7, 2025

Gabbard compounded the mistake by ordering a bureaucratic reshuffle of intelligence analysis. She will relocate the National Intelligence Council from the CIA to her ODNI headquarters. And her organization will also take over production of the President’s Daily Brief, the document that shapes national security policy decisions across the government, according to the New York Times. This is ironic, given that one of Gabbard’s aims was to streamline and downsize her office.

Follow Trump’s second term

Intelligence community angst is the last thing Trump needs at a time when he has taken on unusually challenging foreign-policy missions, including attempting to negotiate peace in the Ukraine and Gaza wars and to strike a new nuclear deal with Iran.

Rather than searching analysis, Trump might get mush. As the 2002 CIA study of Kent’s legacy noted: “When an intelligence staff has been screened through [too fine a mesh], its members will be as alike as tiles on a bathroom floor — and about as capable of meaningful and original thought.”

The trigger for Gabbard’s putsch was probably an April 7 report by the National Intelligence Council titled “Venezuela: Examining Regime Ties to Tren de Aragua.” After reviewing the evidence, the report said that the Venezuelan government of President Nicolás Maduro “probably does not have a policy of cooperating with TDA and is not directing TDA movement to and operations in the United States.” Intelligence reports alleging such direct links are “not credible,” the report argued.

The dry report had big implications, because Trump’s rationale for his March 14 decision to invoke the Alien Enemies Act to deport allegedly TDA-linked migrants was that the group acted “at the direction, clandestine or otherwise, of the Maduro regime in Venezuela.” U.S. District Judge Stephanie L. Haines cited Trump’s assertion in her ruling this week that the TDA deportations under the Alien Enemies Act were legal and that the court couldn’t challenge whether Trump has “sufficient support” for his claims.

The price for questioning Trump’s contention became viscerally clear this week. Gabbard fired acting NIC director Michael Collins and his deputy, who had overseen the Venezuela report (along with hundreds of other products reviewed by the NIC).

The purge followed a social media campaign against Collins by MAGA activist Laura Loomer, who had earlier pressed successfully for the firing of Lt. Gen. Timothy Haugh, the director of the National Security Agency, along with a half-dozen staffers of the National Security Council.

On April 20, Loomer had posted a brief work history for Collins and a complaint: “Why do we still have Biden holdovers and career anti-Trump bureaucrats at the National Intelligence Council undermining President Trump and his agenda?” In a later post, she repeated the demand that “the NIC senior officials should be fired,” again with details about Collins.

The MAGA message was underlined by the Fox News story on Tuesday breaking the news that Collins and his acting deputy would be fired. “‘It takes time to weed them out and fire them,’ one official told Fox News Digital, adding that ‘plans to eliminate non-essential offices within ODNI that we know are housing deep state leakers are underway.’”

Intelligence analysts “are terrified,” said a longtime senior CIA official who talked with analysts after they emerged from an all-hands meeting in which Gabbard’s move was announced. “They want to do their jobs,” this official said. With an inexperienced DNI and her staff looking over their shoulders, “people will second-guess themselves. They will worry that if someone decides they’re ‘deep state,’ they will lose their security clearances and their jobs,” this former official said.

John McLaughlin, a former CIA acting director who for many years supervised the agency’s analysts, said the advice he would give young officers today is “just keep doing your job professionally.” The abiding rule for a good analyst, he said, is: “Be humble. Open your eyes. You don’t know everything. You’re predicting the future. Be explicit about what you know and don’t know.”

The unlikely truth is that this approach, sometimes careful to a fault, is what in fact characterizes the intelligence professionals MAGA derides as the deep state. Sometime in the future, Trump will ask his intelligence advisers about a policy initiative — Will this work? Does it make sense? — and there won’t be anyone left to give him an honest answer.

What readers are saying

The comments express significant concern over the implications of firing intelligence officials for providing analysis that challenges presidential policies. Many commenters argue that this practice undermines the integrity of intelligence work, leading to decisions based on... Show more

This summary is AI-generated. AI can make mistakes and this summary is not a replacement for reading the comments.

All comments 638

By David Ignatius

David Ignatius writes a twice-a-week foreign affairs column for The Washington Post. His latest novel is “Phantom Orbit.” follow on X@ignatiuspost

15. US Narratives Versus Reality on Taiwan

A view from a Chinese scholar in Edinburgh. This seems to be providing a PRC/CCP view (or at least an approved view). This may be helpful to those who wish to counter the PRC/CCP narrative.

https://www.e-ir.info/2025/05/13/us-narratives-versus-reality-on-taiwan/?utm

Excerpts:

Most scholars who scrutinise the CCP’s rhetoric and behaviour toward Taiwan find no evidence that Beijing has adopted an “armed-reunification” policy or that Taiwan has never been treated as a threat that needs to be defeated. Alarms about an imminent invasion typically rest on ambiguous indicators—such as the CIA director’s unsubstantiated claim that force will be used by 2027—and focus mainly on the potential damage to U.S. strategic interests if Washington “loses” Taiwan. Driven by this Munich-type fear, the United States has shifted its own policy: both the Trump and Biden administrations declined to criticise President Tsai’s pro-independence moves while markedly deepening U.S.–Taiwan security ties.

A more immediate concern is President Lai Ching-te’s rhetoric, which frames the cross-Strait relationship as “authoritarianism versus democracy” and, for the first time, officially designates the mainland a “foreign hostile force.” This step is unprecedented: it is the first occasion on which the Republic of China has labelled the mainland “foreign,” contradicting its own constitution, and the first since democratisation in the late 1980s that it has called the mainland “hostile.” Although the civil war remains unresolved, both sides tacitly pursued peaceful engagement for more than three decades. Lai’s departure from that consensus—coupled with domestic power plays such as the eight-month detention of an opposition leader and mass recall campaigns against opposition legislators—is destabilising cross-Strait relations and deepening polarisation within Taiwan.

The Trump administration still lacks a coherent Taiwan policy. Nevertheless, it removed from the State Department Fact Sheets the long-standing statement that Washington “does not support Taiwan’s independence,” adopted when the United States shifted diplomatic recognition to the PRC. Since the advent of the Lai administration, Taiwan has already played its most valuable card—TSMC, the world’s leading chipmaker—by committing to relocate significant assets and portions of its value chain to the United States. If Lai continues provocative moves reminiscent of the Chen era, Trump’s Taiwan policy is likely to become increasingly volatile. Should the current Sino-US trade talks yield even a preliminary accord, Trump may scale back US commitments to Taiwan; if the negotiations collapse, he is likely to continue wielding the “Taiwan card” to pressure Beijing.

Looking ahead, the Taiwan question is poised to grow more dangerous and unpredictable. Even a reduction in US security commitments would not deter the Lai administration from edging toward the “red line,” a course that would compel Beijing to intensify military exercises around the island. Lai’s strategy deliberately exploits Beijing’s established pattern of reacting forcefully to moves toward de jure independence, thereby creating a self-fulfilling narrative of a “threatening China” that sustains his domestic support. Tellingly, while depicting Beijing as bent on invasion, he has not sought economic decoupling: the mainland remains Taiwan’s largest trading partner. To restore a measure of stability and prosperity in cross-Strait relations, Washington may need to revert to the Bush-era approach—checking Lai’s manoeuvres and co-managing the issue with Beijing.

US Narratives Versus Reality on Taiwan

https://www.e-ir.info/2025/05/13/us-narratives-versus-reality-on-taiwan/?utm

Zhehao Du

Download PDF

May 13 2025 • 538 views

Ivan Marc/Shutterstock

As Sino-US relations deteriorate, the Taiwan question has become an increasingly dangerous flashpoint—one that some analysts believe could even spark a third world war. The dominant, US-led, Western narrative casts the “Fourth Taiwan Strait Crisis” as the product of mainland China’s expanding military power and alleged “authoritarian turn,” illustrated by its handling of Hong Kong and its purportedly coercive posture toward Taiwan. Within this frame, a mainland “invasion” is treated as the logical, almost inevitable outcome of Sino-US rivalry. Conversely, Taiwan is depicted as a lone democracy bravely resisting authoritarian menace, its own cross-Strait policy largely ignored; Taipei appears merely a passive target. Paradoxically, although Western discourse often presents Taiwan as an “independent state,” it simultaneously strips Taiwan of agency—even though Taipei’s policy choices decisively shape cross-Strait stability.

Before analysing the triangular dynamics among the United States, mainland China, and Taiwan, the historical character of the dispute must be clarified. Contrary to the prevailing US portrayal of a major power seeking to invade a small, independent neighbour, post-war instruments—the Cairo Declaration, the Potsdam Declaration and the Hirohito surrender broadcast—restored sovereignty over Taiwan to China. After Japan’s defeat, the Chinese Civil War resumed; the Kuomintang-led Republic of China retreated to Taiwan following its defeat by the Chinese Communist Party. Because no peace treaty has ever been signed, the two sides remain, de jure, in a state of civil war.

Regarding Taiwan’s legal status, both the Republic of China (Taiwan) and the People’s Republic of China constitutions claim sovereignty over the whole of China, encompassing both Taiwan and the mainland. The United Nations designates Taiwan as “a province of China,” and the 2016 South China Sea arbitral award referred to its administration as the “Taiwan Authority of China Taiwan Authority of China.” Globally, 180 states maintain diplomatic relations with the PRC: some accept the One-China Principle (explicitly recognising PRC sovereignty over Taiwan), while others, notably the United States, adopt a more ambiguous One-China Policy—acknowledging Beijing’s claim without formally recognising it and opposing formal Taiwanese independence.

The dispute is therefore one of contested sovereignty, not a case of an independent state confronting foreign aggression. Reunification has remained Beijing’s core objective since the ROC government retreated to Taiwan. In the 1990s, under Jiang Zemin, mainland policy shifted from advocating armed “liberation” to promoting peaceful reunification—a position that has largely persisted. Within this wider strategy of peaceful reunification, the mainland has pinned its hopes on the people of Taiwan while concentrating on its own modernisation and economic growth. The premise is that, by becoming economically advanced and fostering Taiwan’s dependence on the mainland—supported by shared historical and cultural ties—Taiwan will be drawn toward reunification. Complementing this “carrot” is a “stick”: Beijing signals it will step up military activity and diplomatic pressure if Taipei pursues de jure independence.

The coercive and intimidating measures Washington now attributes to Beijing have, in fact, occurred before. The dynamic involves three moves, which marks US–mainland China–Taiwan interactions. First, a crisis is triggered when Taiwanese leaders push for de jure independence, provoking mainland military and diplomatic pressure. Second, the United States intervenes, reaffirming its One-China policy and urging Taipei to halt provocative initiatives. This dynamic began under Lee Teng-hui (1988–2000), who defined cross-Strait ties as a “special state-to-state” relationship, and continued under Chen Shui-bian (2000–2008), who promoted independence-leaning measures such as referendums and a UN membership bid. Both episodes prompted increased mainland military activity; in each case, the United States—particularly under the Bush administration—essentially co-managed the issue with the mainland against Taiwan’s independence moves.

Cross-Strait relations have not always been this tense. Only a decade ago, the two sides’ leaders met in Singapore—the first face-to-face encounter since the Chinese Civil War. Under Ma Ying-jeou (2008–2016), a high level of economic, cultural, and political links expanded markedly. Beijing and Taipei even observed a “diplomatic truce”: the mainland stopped pressuring other states to switch recognition, and Taiwan joined several international organisations. Writing in International Security, Scott Kastner concluded that the risk of conflict had fallen considerably. These gains rested on Ma’s acceptance of the 1992 Consensus that both sides belong to “One China.”

The present downturn, and Washington’s recalibrated Taiwan policy, began after Tsai Ing-wen (2016–2024) and Donald Trump took office. Tsai rejected the 1992 Consensus and adopted policies edging toward de jure independence. Beijing in turn reverted to the more coercive stance it had used against the Chen Shui-bian administration. Notably, the mainland conducted no major exercises in Tsai’s first two years, waiting to see whether she would return to the One-China framework. Of ten large-scale drills held between 2018 and 2024, eight responded directly to US initiatives that deepened security and political ties with Taiwan.

As argued above, Beijing’s recent increase in military activity and diplomatic pressure does not mark a fundamental shift toward armed reunification. These moves remain consistent with earlier patterns, and some studies even suggest the mainland’s response fell short of the intensity of its previous actions than past episodes. Contrary to the dominant Western narrative that blames the current crisis on China’s military build-up, Beijing’s Taiwan policy has largely remained stable.

If the Mainland had genuinely decided to pursue forcible reunification, its behaviour would contradict basic strategic logic. A campaign almost certain to trigger U.S. intervention would compel the PLA to avoid giving Washington grounds to deepen military ties with Taipei. The exercises around Taiwan were chiefly reactive—aimed at deterring pro-independence steps and U.S. interference—rather than proactive efforts to gain a decisive advantage. Encouraging closer U.S.–Taiwan cooperation would, in fact, weaken the PLA’s relative position. Moreover, a strategy dependent on surprise would not involve widely publicised, live-streamed drills. In short, had Beijing adopted an offensive reunification strategy since 2016, its observable behaviour would look markedly different from what we have seen.

Most scholars who scrutinise the CCP’s rhetoric and behaviour toward Taiwan find no evidence that Beijing has adopted an “armed-reunification” policy or that Taiwan has never been treated as a threat that needs to be defeated. Alarms about an imminent invasion typically rest on ambiguous indicators—such as the CIA director’s unsubstantiated claim that force will be used by 2027—and focus mainly on the potential damage to U.S. strategic interests if Washington “loses” Taiwan. Driven by this Munich-type fear, the United States has shifted its own policy: both the Trump and Biden administrations declined to criticise President Tsai’s pro-independence moves while markedly deepening U.S.–Taiwan security ties.

A more immediate concern is President Lai Ching-te’s rhetoric, which frames the cross-Strait relationship as “authoritarianism versus democracy” and, for the first time, officially designates the mainland a “foreign hostile force.” This step is unprecedented: it is the first occasion on which the Republic of China has labelled the mainland “foreign,” contradicting its own constitution, and the first since democratisation in the late 1980s that it has called the mainland “hostile.” Although the civil war remains unresolved, both sides tacitly pursued peaceful engagement for more than three decades. Lai’s departure from that consensus—coupled with domestic power plays such as the eight-month detention of an opposition leader and mass recall campaigns against opposition legislators—is destabilising cross-Strait relations and deepening polarisation within Taiwan.

The Trump administration still lacks a coherent Taiwan policy. Nevertheless, it removed from the State Department Fact Sheets the long-standing statement that Washington “does not support Taiwan’s independence,” adopted when the United States shifted diplomatic recognition to the PRC. Since the advent of the Lai administration, Taiwan has already played its most valuable card—TSMC, the world’s leading chipmaker—by committing to relocate significant assets and portions of its value chain to the United States. If Lai continues provocative moves reminiscent of the Chen era, Trump’s Taiwan policy is likely to become increasingly volatile. Should the current Sino-US trade talks yield even a preliminary accord, Trump may scale back US commitments to Taiwan; if the negotiations collapse, he is likely to continue wielding the “Taiwan card” to pressure Beijing.

Looking ahead, the Taiwan question is poised to grow more dangerous and unpredictable. Even a reduction in US security commitments would not deter the Lai administration from edging toward the “red line,” a course that would compel Beijing to intensify military exercises around the island. Lai’s strategy deliberately exploits Beijing’s established pattern of reacting forcefully to moves toward de jure independence, thereby creating a self-fulfilling narrative of a “threatening China” that sustains his domestic support. Tellingly, while depicting Beijing as bent on invasion, he has not sought economic decoupling: the mainland remains Taiwan’s largest trading partner. To restore a measure of stability and prosperity in cross-Strait relations, Washington may need to revert to the Bush-era approach—checking Lai’s manoeuvres and co-managing the issue with Beijing.

What is the difference between Armed Forces Day and other military holidays?

The difference between Memorial Day, Veterans Day and Armed Forces Day is in who is being honored.

Veterans Day honors those who previously served in war while Memorial Day honors those who died in war.

The USO says the holiday was designed to expand public understanding of what type of job is performed and the role of the military in civilian life.

The holiday covers the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, Space Force and Coast Guard. Some military members may bristle at the Coast Guard being included during peacetime, however definitions in the National Security Act of 1947 include the guard in the definition of "Armed Forces."

What is Armed Forces Day? How it's different from other military holidays

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2025/05/16/armed-forces-day-2025/83660956007/

James Powel

USA TODAY

0:15

1:31

Armed Forces Day is celebrated Saturday, May 17 this year.

The holiday serves as a time to honor serving members of the military as well as those who have previously served, according to the USO.

The holiday is celebrated every year on the third Saturday of May, which falls during National Military Appreciation Month and is shortly after VE Day and shortly before Memorial Day.

Here's what you need to know about Armed Forces Day.

What is the difference between Armed Forces Day and other military holidays?

The difference between Memorial Day, Veterans Day and Armed Forces Day is in who is being honored.

Veterans Day honors those who previously served in war while Memorial Day honors those who died in war.

The USO says the holiday was designed to expand public understanding of what type of job is performed and the role of the military in civilian life.

The holiday covers the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, Space Force and Coast Guard. Some military members may bristle at the Coast Guard being included during peacetime, however definitions in the National Security Act of 1947 include the guard in the definition of "Armed Forces."

When was the first Armed Forces Day?

The first Armed Forces Day took place on May 20, 1950.

When President Harry Truman issued the proclamation starting the holiday earlier in the same year, he called upon the nation to, "participate in exercises expressive of our recognition of the skill, gallantry, and uncompromising devotion to duty characteristic of the Armed Forces in the carrying out of their missions."

The celebration was created by then-Secretary of Defense, Louis Johnson, on Aug. 31, 1949 to replace recognition days for the individual service branches, according to the USO.

President John F. Kennedy turned the celebration into a national holiday in 1961.

17. America Is Winning the Wrong AI Race

America Is Winning the Wrong AI Race

‘General intelligence’ is an ever-receding goal. We should focus on practical implementation instead.

https://www.wsj.com/opinion/america-is-winning-the-wrong-ai-race-technology-war-34ee352e?utm

By Mehdi Alhassani and Anthony Bak

May 16, 2025 4:41 pm ET

Data center servers and components containing Nvidia chips on display at GTC conference in San Jose, Calif., March 19. Photo: stephen nellis/Reuters

The U.S. is winning an AI race—but it’s the wrong one. American policymakers have assumed that artificial general intelligence, or AGI, is achievable relatively soon, and so the aim has been to maintain an 18-month lead over China in reaching it. Washington has restricted Beijing’s access to advanced chips, built AI energy infrastructure, and imposed export controls on other components. This has kept the U.S. ahead in the sprint for AGI, but it’s a contest that can’t be won. America should turn to a different, winnable AI race.

Experts shift the goal post for AGI, or “true intelligence” such as you’d see in a person, with each AI advance. Mastering chess and writing a coherent essay were once held out as AGI benchmarks. AI can now do both, but clear, obvious gaps with human capabilities persist. AGI is a philosophical goal—a perpetually receding horizon—rather than a practical target for strategic victory.

But even if experts could arrive at a stable definition for AI technological supremacy, trying to be the first nation to hit that goal isn’t a smart policy priority. Because of how AI advances, foreign competitors will quickly catch up and likely using far fewer resources.

Model capabilities increase logarithmically with the hardware resources used to train them. In effect, this means you can make a model 90% as good as the model on the current frontier of AI performance with only 10% of the hardware. This is why limiting access to graphics processing units won’t stop America’s competition. Foreign companies and governments, even those with a fraction of the resources, will still be able to push neck-and-neck with U.S. companies. It was inevitable that a Chinese model like DeepSeek—open-source, cheaply trained—would come along to challenge American pre-eminence in AI, regardless of how tightly Washington controlled chip exports.

Moreover, key AI hardware and software are rapidly becoming more efficient. Something like Moore’s Law—the observation that CPUs double in capacity about every two years—has proved roughly true for GPUs, too. At the same time, algorithmic improvements are driving model efficiency hard enough that smaller models can quickly catch up to those on the cutting edge of AI capability. The sort of advanced AI that today requires historic data-center investments will become accessible to more global players with moderate infrastructure tomorrow.

While America can’t stop global AI model competition, what we can do is lead the race for AI implementation. What will determine if a nation is ahead on AI isn’t if it has the best models first, but if it is translating AI into widespread benefits for society. This means bringing the best models into organizations’ core missions and processes, from the factory floor to the operating room to the battlefield.

Consider healthcare. Hospitals collect reams of data. The ability of a nurse or doctor to synthesize critical factors in a patient’s case rapidly can be the difference between his getting better and worse, or even life and death. Leading hospitals have started using AI-driven systems to capture bed capacity, diagnoses, staffing patterns, surgical operations and more. Decisions that would have taken hours or even days can be made in seconds.

Nascent AI uses have their challenges. In healthcare, for instance, lawmakers will have to clarify carefully medical data-privacy laws. Patients need to be confident that their private information isn’t being stored or used improperly, while healthcare practitioners need to avoid getting bogged down in useless box-checking and paperwork that does little to protect patients’ rights. Lawmakers will have to craft similarly nuanced domain-specific legislation as AI usage spreads to different fields.

In manufacturing, AI can encourage progress toward what may seem like opposing goals—efficiency and resiliency. On the factory floor, AI models can detect defects, letting companies catch faulty parts before they ship. AI can also more quickly identify the root causes of mistakes and prevent future faults. Outside factory walls, AI can capture every link in a supply chain, monitoring real-time disruptions and allocating resources accordingly.

On the battlefield, AI can make militaries faster and more lethal than ever before. The Maven Smart System, backed by Palantir’s platform, has been able to improve targeting efficiency 100-fold by integrating weapons systems, satellite data, intelligence, force-readiness data and force tracking. Before, finding and verifying military targets could require as many as 2,000 soldiers, but with this AI-driven platform the U.S. military can accomplish the same objective with 20 soldiers. Now, soldiers can collaborate with models and work together much more efficiently with other service members across different functions and the chain of command. All this data comes together for a final decision that’s still left up to a human.

The Maven Smart System helped turn a unit that was large enough to be easily visible to enemies into one so small that it’s nearly invisible, and it will grow in capability as the government and commercial collaborators make further investments. This radically improves deterrence, even in the face of numerical disadvantage.

This is the sort of AI competition that matters. There isn’t one goal but many spread across the economic and policy worlds. To make progress, the U.S. must focus on carefully smoothing the path for AI integration in each sector and rapidly invest in unleashing the technology’s transformative power to improve lives and solve real-world problems. That’s what winning the AI race looks like.

Mr. Alhassani is Palantir’s head of government affairs and public policy. He served as a special assistant at the National Security Council, 2009-12. Mr. Bak is Palantir’s head of AI implementation. He serves on the National AI Advisory Committee’s Subcommittee on Law Enforcement.

You may also like

Embed code copied to clipboard

Copy LinkCopy EmbedFacebook Twitter

0:11

0:00

4:28

Click for Sound

The Trump administration will regulate a crypto-currency industry for which the Trump family is heavily invested—with stakes in, among others, a meme coin, a stable-coin and a World Liberty Financial coin.

Appeared in the May 17, 2025, print edition as 'America Is Winning the Wrong AI Race'.

18. Australian Matthew Radalj tells of life in China prison

Life in China for a foreigner (in prison).

A cautionary tale that shows the brutality of the Chinese system.

Australian Matthew Radalj tells of life in China prison

BBC

'You start to go crazy': The Australian who survived five years in a Chinese prison

57 minutes ago

Stephen McDonell

China correspondent

Reporting fromBeijing

EPA

Australian Matthew Radalj was held for five years in a Beijing detention centre, similar to the one pictured above in 2012

Sharing a dirty cell with a dozen others, constant sleep deprivation, cells with lights on 24-hours a day; poor hygiene and forced labour. These are some of what prisoners in Chinese jails are subjected to, according to Australian citizen Matthew Radalj, who spent five years at the Beijing No 2 prison – a facility used for international inmates.

Radalj, who is now living outside China, has decided to go public about his experience, and described undergoing and witnessing severe physical punishment, forced labour, food deprivation and psychological torture.

The BBC has been able to corroborate Radalj's testimony with several former prisoners who were behind bars at the same time he was.

Many requested anonymity, because they feared retribution on loved ones still living inside the country. Others said they just wanted to try to forget the experience and move on.

The Chinese government has not responded to the BBC's request for comment.

A harsh introduction

"I was in really bad shape when I arrived. They beat me for two days straight in the first police station that I was in. I hadn't slept or eaten or had water for 48 hours and then I was forced to sign a big stack of documents," said Radalj of his introduction to imprisonment in China, which began with his arrest on 2 January, 2020.

The former Beijing resident claims he was wrongfully convicted after a fight with shopkeepers at an electronics market, following a dispute over the agreed price to fix a mobile phone screen.

He claims he ended up signing a false confession to robbery, after being told it would be pointless to try to defend his innocence in a system with an almost 100% criminal conviction rate and in the hope that this would reduce the time of his incarceration.

Court documents indicate that this worked at least to some extent, earning him a four-year sentence.

Once in prison, he said he first had to spend many months in a separate detention centre where he was subjected to a more brutal "transition phase".

Matthew Radalj

Radalj had lived in Beijing for a number of years when he was arrested in January 2020

During this time prisoners must follow extremely harsh rules in what he described as horrific conditions.

"We were banned from showering or cleaning ourselves, sometimes for months at a time. Even the toilet could be used only at specific allotted times, and they were filthy - waste from the toilets above would constantly drip down on to us."

Eventually he was admitted to the "normal" prison where inmates had to bunk together in crowded cells and where the lights were never turned off.

You also ate in the same room, he said.

According to Radalj, African and Pakistani prisoners made up the largest groups in the facility, but there were also men being held from Afghanistan, Britain, the US, Latin America, North Korea and Taiwan. Most of them had been convicted for acting as drug mules.

The 'good behaviour' points system

Radalj said that prisoners were regularly subjected to forms of what he described as psychological torture.

One of these was the "good behaviour points system" which was a way – at least in theory – to reduce your sentence.

Prisoners could obtain a maximum of 100 good behaviour points per month for doing things like studying Communist Party literature, working in the prison factory or snitching on other prisoners. Once 4,200 points were accumulated, they could in theory be used to reduce prison time.

If you do the maths, that would mean a prisoner would have to get maximum points every single month for three-and-half years before this could start to work.

Radalj said that in reality it was used as a means of psychological torture and manipulation.

He claims the guards would deliberately wait till an inmate had almost reached this goal and then penalise them on any one of a huge list of possible infractions which would cancel out points at the crucial time.

These infractions included - but were not limited to - hoarding or sharing food with other prisoners, walking "incorrectly" in the hallway by straying from a line painted on the ground, hanging socks on a bed incorrectly, or even standing too close to the window.

AFP/Getty

The gates to Beijing No. 2 prison, pictured in 2012, where Radlj was held

Other prisoners who spoke about the points system to the BBC described it as a mind game designed to crush spirits.

Former British prisoner Peter Humphrey, who spent two years in detention in Shanghai, said his facility had a similar points calculation and reduction system which was manipulated to control prisoners and block sentence reductions.

"There were cameras everywhere, even three to a cell," he said. "If you crossed a line marked on the ground and were caught by a guard or on camera, you would be punished. The same if you didn't make your bed properly to military standard or didn't place your toothbrush in the right place in the cell.

"There was also group pressure on prisoners with entire cell groups punished if one prisoner did any of these things."

One ex-inmate told the BBC that in his five years in prison, he never once saw the points actually used to mitigate a sentence.

Radalj said that there were a number of prisoners - including himself - who didn't bother with the points system.

So authorities resorted to other means of applying psychological pressure.

These included cutting time off monthly family phone calls or the reduction of other perceived benefits.

Food As Control

But the most common daily punishment involved the reduction of food.

The BBC has been told by numerous former inmates that the meals at Beijing's No 2 prison were mostly made up of cabbage in dirty water which sometimes also had bits of carrot and, if they were lucky, small slivers of meat.

They were also given mantou - a plain northern Chinese bread. Most of the prisoners were malnourished, Radalj added.

Another prisoner described how inmates ate a lot of mantou, as they were always hungry. He said that their diets were so low in nutrition – and they could only exercise outside for half an hour each week – that they developed flimsy upper bodies but retained bloated looking stomachs from consuming so much of the mantou.

Prisoners were given the opportunity to supplement their diet by buying meagre extra rations, if money from relatives had been put into what were called their "accounts": essentially a prison record of funds delivered to purchase provisions like soap or toothpaste.

They could also use this to purchase items like instant noodles or soy milk powder. But even this "privilege" could be taken away.

Radalj said he was blocked from making any extra purchases for 14 months because he refused to work in the prison factory, where inmates were expected to assemble basic goods for companies or compile propaganda leaflets for the ruling Communist Party.

AFP/Getty Images

Media were given rare access to see inside another Beijing prison - No 1 - back in 2012

To make things worse, they were made to work on a "farm", where they did manage to grow a lot of vegetables, but were never allowed to eat them.

Radalj said the farm was displayed to a visiting justice minister as an example of how impressive prison life was.

But, he said, it was all for show.

"We would be growing tomatoes, potatoes, cabbages and okra and then – at the end of the season – they would push it all into a big hole and bury it," he added.

"And if you were caught with a chilli or a cucumber in general population you would go straight to solitary confinement for eight months."

Another prisoner said they would occasionally suddenly receive protein, like a chicken leg, to make their diet look better when officials visited the prison.

Humphrey said there were similar food restrictions in his Shanghai prison, adding that this led to power struggles among the inmates: "The kitchen was run by prison labour. Those who worked there stole the best stuff and it could then be distributed."

Radalj described a battle between African and Taiwanese groups in Beijing's Prison No 2 over this issue.

The Nigerian inmates were working in the kitchen and "were getting small benefits, like a bag of apples once a month or some yogurt or a couple of bananas", he said.

Courtesy Matthew Radalj

Radalj, pictured with his father, says he has a responsibility to those still imprisoned

Then the Mandarin-speaking Taiwanese inmates were able to convince the guards to let them take over, giving them control of precious extra food items.

This led to a large brawl, and Radalj said he was caught in the middle of it. He was sent to solitary confinement for 194 day after hitting another prisoner.

Inside solitary, he finally had the lights turned off only to realise he'd be with very little light nearly all of the time, giving him the opposite sensory problem.

His small food ration was also cut in half. There were no reading materials and there was nobody to talk to while he was held in a bare room of 1.2 by 1.8 metres (4ft by 6ft) for half a year.

"You start to go crazy, whether you like it or not, and that's what solitary is designed to do… So you've got to decide very quickly whether your room is really, really small, or really, really big.

"After four months, you just start talking to yourself all the time. The guards would come by and ask 'Hey, are you okay?'. And you're like, 'why?'. They replied, 'because you're laughing'."

Then, Radalj said, he would respond, in his own mind: "It's none of your business."

'I've had 100 operations and will never stop' - inside China's cosmetic surgery boom

Aboard the 'silver trains', China's retirees do their bit to offset Trump's tariffs

The small-town mayor accused of trafficking and spying for China

Another feature of Chinese prison life, according to Radalji, was the fake "propaganda" moments officials would stage for Chinese media or visiting officials to paint a rosy picture of conditions there.

He said, at one point, a "computer suite" was set up. "They got everyone together and told us that we'd get our own email address and that we would be able to send emails. They then filmed three Nigerian guys using these computers."

The three prisoners apparently looked confused because the computers were not actually connected to the internet - but the guards had told them to just "pretend".

"Everything was filmed to present a fake image of prisoners with access to computers," Radalj said.

But, he claims, soon after the photo opportunity, the computers were wrapped up in plastic and never touched again.

The memoirs

Courtesy Matthew Radalj

Radalj kept a journal in prison (pictured) detailing his time behind bars

Throughout much of the ordeal, Radalj had been secretly keeping a journal by peeling open Covid masks and writing tiny sentences inside, with the help of some North Korean prisoners, who have also since been released.

"I would be writing, and the Koreans would say: 'No smaller… smaller!'."

Radalj said many of the prisoners had no way of letting their families know they were in jail.

Some had not made phone calls to their relatives because no money had been placed in their accounts for phone calls. For others, their embassies had not registered family telephone numbers for the prison phone system. Only calls to officially approved numbers worked.

So, after word got round that the Australian was planning to try to smuggle his notes out, they passed on details to connect with their families.

"I had 60 or 70 people hoping I could contact their loved ones after I got out to tell them what was happening."

He wrapped the pieces of Covid mask as tight as he could with sticky tape hoarded from the factory and tried to swallow the egg-sized bundle without the guards seeing.

But he couldn't keep it down.

The guards saw what was happening on camera and started asking, "Why are you vomiting? Why do you keep gagging? What's wrong?"

So, he gave up and hid the bundle instead.

When he was about to leave on 5 October 2024, he was given his old clothes which had been ripped five years earlier in the struggle over his initial arrest.

There was a tear in the lining of his jacked and he quickly dropped the notes inside before a guard could see him.

Radalj said he thinks someone told the prison officers of his plan because they searched his room and questioned him before he left.

"Did you forget something?" the guards asked.

"They trashed all my belongings. I was thinking they're gonna take me back to solitary confinement. There will be new charges."

But the guard holding his clothes never knew the secret journal had been slipped inside.

"They were like, 'Get out of here!'. And it wasn't until I was on the plane, and we had already left, and the seat belt sign was switched off, that I reached into my jacket to check."

The notes were still there.

Life After Prison

Courtesy Matthew Radalj

Radalj married his long-time girlfriend after finally making it back home

Just before he had boarded the plane in Beijing a policeman who had escorted him to the gate had used Radalj's boarding pass to buy duty free cigarettes for his mates.

"He said don't come back to China. You're banned for 10 years. And I said 'yeah cool. Don't smoke. It's bad for your health'".

The officer laughed.

He arrived back in Australia and hugged his father at Perth airport. The tears were flowing.

Then he got married to his long-time girlfriend and now they spend their days making candles and other products.

Radalj says he is still angry about his experience and has a long way to go to recover properly.

But he is making his way through the contact list of his former inmate friends – "I have spent the best part of six months contacting their families, lobbying their embassies so they might try to do a better job of helping them during their incarceration."

Some of them, he said, haven't spoken to people back home for nearly a decade. And helping them has also helped with the transition back to his old life.

"With freedom comes a great sense of gratitude," Radalj says. "You have a deeper appreciation for the very simplest things in life. But I also have a great sense of responsibility to the people I left behind in prison."

19. U.S. Allies Rally to Support Democracy and Come to Terms With a New U.S. Foreign Policy

Excerpt:

Delivering the final keynote speech, former Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen emphasized the need for democracies around the world to band together in a “new geopolitical landscape” characterized by “uncertainty and unpredictability.” Tsai said: “The rules of engagement have changed, so our strategies must too.” During her two terms in office, which ended last May, Taiwan increased defense spending by 80 percent, implemented major reforms in hardware and personnel, countered information warfare, and became the world leader in chips powering AI development. All this helped keep China’s ambitions in check, she said. “Taiwan shows democracy can survive.” While the road ahead for democracy will be hard and rocky, the Copenhagen gathering of government and industry leaders, young tech entrepreneurs, and democracy activists provided ample cause for hope.

U.S. Allies Rally to Support Democracy and Come to Terms With a New U.S. Foreign Policy

Two things emerged clearly from this week’s Copenhagen Democracy Summit, the eighth annual gathering convened by Anders Fogh Rasmussen.

Article by Linda Robinson

May 16, 2025 2:48 pm (EST)

https://www.cfr.org/article/us-allies-rally-support-democracy-and-come-terms-new-us-foreign-policy

cfr.org · by Linda Robinson

High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Kaja Kallas looks on as she speaks at the Copenhagen Democracy Summit Ritzau Scanpix/Mads Claus Rasmussen via REUTERS

Two things emerged clearly from this week’s Copenhagen Democracy Summit, the eighth annual gathering convened by Anders Fogh Rasmussen.

Article by

May 16, 2025 2:48 pm (EST)

High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Kaja Kallas looks on as she speaks at the Copenhagen Democracy Summit Ritzau Scanpix/Mads Claus Rasmussen via REUTERS

Article

Current political and economic issues succinctly explained.

Two things emerged clearly from this week’s Copenhagen Democracy Summit, the eighth annual gathering convened by former Danish Prime Minister and former Secretary General of NATO Anders Fogh Rasmussen. The disruptive foreign policy of U.S. President Donald Trump has jolted many countries into the stark realization that they must do more, quickly, to shoulder the burden of protecting and advancing democracy, in the face of massive, unprecedented reductions in U.S. spending assistance and defense commitments that have anchored global security since the end of World War II. Second, as their initial shock has worn off, many leaders have become increasingly vocal in rejecting the Trump administration’s apparent embrace of what Rasmussen called “might makes right” as an operating principle.

There was universal condemnation of the idea, floated by President Trump, of formally recognizing Russia’s seizure of Ukrainian territory as part of a deal to end Russia’s aggression. “We will never recognize territorial acquisition,” Croatia’s Prime Minister Andrej Plenković said, noting that his Balkan nation had been subject to just such a playbook three decades ago, in that case by Serbia. Rasmussen minced no words in challenging Trump’s benign view of Putin, saying that the Russian leader’s objective is to roll back NATO forces from Eastern and Central Europe, as he demanded in 2021.

Even greater outrage was voiced over Trump’s explicit and repeated suggestions that he might seize territory from some of the oldest and most loyal U.S. allies, including Denmark, the host country, which President Trump has suggested relieving of Greenland. Greenland’s former prime minister, Múte Bourup Egede, who is currently the deputy PM, flatly stated that “We are not a property,” and that the country “belongs to the Greenlandic people.” Mark Garneau, a former Canadian foreign minister from the Liberal Party, similarly rejected the idea that Canada would become the fifty-first U.S. state, as Trump has repeatedly suggested. Former UK Prime Minister and Conservative Party leader David Cameron bluntly noted that the U.S. administration is friendlier to its enemies than its allies.

Women Around the World

Women Around the World examines the relationship between the advancement of women and U.S. foreign policy interests, including prosperity and stability. 1-2 times weekly.

View all newsletters >

It is not clear whether Washington will adapt its tone or approach, as it seems to revel in making threats, stirring the pot, and demanding concessions. Current and former officials who spoke at the gathering hope for a return to normal state-to-state diplomacy to address frictions between and among allies, including defense burden-sharing, trade deals, and critical minerals development. But they recognized that old assumptions have been shattered, and there is no room for complacency. Rasmussen urged NATO countries to raise their defense spending to 4 percent of GDP by 2028, noting that last year Russia spent 7 percent of its GDP on defense, more than all of Europe combined. Such a hike would certainly challenge major allies Britain, France, and Germany, who have struggled to reach the previously agreed 2 percent target. Smaller countries have already stepped up, however: Denmark, Poland, and Estonia currently lead NATO members in contributing over 3 percent of GDP, and the current NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte has made 3.5 percent his target for all members to pledge at next month’s NATO summit.

Mette Frederiksen, Denmark’s current two-term prime minister, steered clear of the conference this year, as she is seeking to conduct quiet diplomacy with the Trump administration. However, her defense minister, Troels Lund Poulsen (who also heads the center-right Liberal Party), touted Denmark’s pioneering role in investing directly in Ukraine’s burgeoning defense industry, which helped the country quickly ramp up its arms production from three to forty billion euros. He said it would be difficult, but not impossible, for Denmark to increase its defense spending to 4 percent of GDP.

The bigger problem for Europe is translating those funds into the wide array of defense capabilities the United States has long supplied, including lift, logistics, precision strike, air defense, and intelligence and surveillance capacity. Former Dutch defense minister Kajsa Ollongren told the gathering that she considers NATO to have already made a commitment offering Ukraine NATO membership, albeit without setting a date, as Kyiv’s leader, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, wants. “Why wouldn’t we want Ukraine in NATO,” she said, “when it has Europe’s strongest and most capable armed forces?” It will not be easy to replace the United States if it steps back from providing twenty thousand forces to bolster European deterrence, but Ollongren urged that planning begin now. New NATO members Finland and Sweden, as well as Türkiye have large active and reserve forces, and the UK and France would likely be called upon to bolster the nuclear deterrence umbrella should the U.S. commitment falter.

The European Union has produced a flurry of responses to fill the gap left by waning and uncertain U.S. commitments. The EU foreign affairs and security chief, Kaja Kallas, delivered a wide-ranging, rousing keynote speech, proclaiming, “We must fight for democracy. We cannot take it for granted…. We have to be active citizens of our democracies.” She announced that the EU was preparing a new package of sanctions on Russia and noted that it has already put forward an eight hundred-billion-euro plan to rearm Europe, which seeks to increase European defense capability. Kallas, the former Estonian prime minister, also reiterated her personal view that Europe should use frozen Russian assets to fund Ukraine’s reconstruction. She said, “I may get in trouble for expressing this view, but as a lawyer, I can make that argument.” An early advocate of pursuing accountability, Kallas also noted that she had just come from the announcement of a war crimes tribunal in Lviv, where evidence of Russian atrocities will be presented. She concluded by underlining the importance of defending free media and fighting disinformation, vowing greater EU support in the face of waning U.S. support.

Delivering the final keynote speech, former Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen emphasized the need for democracies around the world to band together in a “new geopolitical landscape” characterized by “uncertainty and unpredictability.” Tsai said: “The rules of engagement have changed, so our strategies must too.” During her two terms in office, which ended last May, Taiwan increased defense spending by 80 percent, implemented major reforms in hardware and personnel, countered information warfare, and became the world leader in chips powering AI development. All this helped keep China’s ambitions in check, she said. “Taiwan shows democracy can survive.” While the road ahead for democracy will be hard and rocky, the Copenhagen gathering of government and industry leaders, young tech entrepreneurs, and democracy activists provided ample cause for hope.

Creative Commons: Some rights reserved.

This work is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) License.

View License Detail

cfr.org · by Linda Robinson

20. President Trump’s military parade could cost up to $45 million, Army spokesperson says

Wow.

President Trump’s military parade could cost up to $45 million, Army spokesperson says

https://wtop.com/dc/2025/05/president-trumps-military-parade-could-cost-up-to-45-million-army-spokesperson-says/?utm

Linh Bui | linh.bui@wtop.com

May 16, 2025, 10:06 AM

The massive military parade being held on President Donald Trump’s 79th birthday in D.C. is part of the celebrations for the Army’s 250th anniversary.

A Heroine of the French Resistance Gets Her Own Portrait

In “The Art Spy,” Michelle Young shines new light on the heroic French curator Rose Valland.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/17/books/review/the-art-spy-michelle-young.html?referringSource=articleShare&smid=nytcore-ios-share&utm

Share full article

Often, Rose Valland has been portrayed as “a mousy, art-spinster Resistance workhorse.” Michelle Young attempts to paint a fuller picture of the woman and her life. Credit...Everett/Shutterstock

By Nina Siegal

Nina Siegal is the author of three novels and “The Diary Keepers: World War II Written by the People Who Lived Through It.” She is a regular contributor to The New York Times from Amsterdam.

May 17, 2025

Buy Book ▾

When you purchase an independently reviewed book through our site, we earn an affiliate commission.

THE ART SPY: The Extraordinary Untold Tale of WWII Resistance Hero Rose Valland, by Michelle Young

In 1980, while living in Belgium, the historian Lynn H. Nicholas read an obituary in The International Herald Tribune of the art curator Rose Valland, a French Army captain who had received the Legion D’Honneur for recovering more than 60,000 artworks stolen during World War II.

Nicholas was struck by the sheer number of works — and wondered what had happened to the rest. This inspired a decade-long quest to piece together the story, resulting in her landmark 1994 book “The Rape of Europa,” which raised public consciousness about Holocaust theft and helped spark an international restitution movement.

Valland’s unique role, that of a female spy working on behalf of the French Resistance, has long deserved its own special treatment. Michelle Young’s new book, “The Art Spy,” places Valland at the center of the action, and illuminates aspects of her personal life and details about her spying methods that have received scant attention in the past.

Young, an award-winning journalist, has an energetic and novelistic writing style. Her book is broken into bite-size chapters featuring dramatic cliffhangers and vivid sensory details that enhance the historical events. However, the book leans at times toward hagiography, focusing solely on Valland’s commitment to beautiful objects without fully developing her as a human being.

The story primarily takes place at the Jeu de Paume museum, where Valland worked her way up from an unpaid assistant, to head of collections, to the position of the rare, salaried female curator.

After France fell to Germany, the Nazis requisitioned the museum as a sorting facility for art plundered from French Jewish dealers and citizens disenfranchised by the state. The head of the French national collections, Jacques Jaujard, instructed Valland to stay in the building, by any means necessary, and to keep inventories of all the artworks that passed through German hands. She did this with meticulous rigor, managing to fade into the background just enough that the Germans didn’t suspect her — until late in the war.

Despite the claims of the book’s promotional materials, Valland’s story hasn’t been entirely untold. In 1961, she published her French memoir, “Le Front de l’Art,” which sold well and inspired Hollywood’s 1964 Burt Lancaster vehicle, “The Train.”

She’s been portrayed in various fictionalized and historical accounts, including Hector Feliciano’s “The Lost Museum” and Robert Edsel’s “Monuments Men.” George Clooney’s 2014 adaptation of Edsel’s book featured Cate Blanchett as “Claire Simone,” a guarded, tight-lipped and bespectacled museum curator who conceals her espionage activities from Matt Damon’s James Rorimer (until he seduces her).

In many such accounts, Valland is portrayed as a mousy, art-spinster Resistance workhorse. Young offers a more nuanced view, revealing Valland’s private life outside the Jeu de Paume. In fact, Valland had a long-term relationship with Joyce Heer, a German-British woman who served as a secretary at the United States Embassy during the war. Heer, described as a stunning, blond polyglot who could help Valland decipher German documents, seems to have been Valland’s outgoing and charming counterpart.

The shortcomings of previous books are partly a result of Valland’s habitual modesty and secrecy. Her memoir, published in English last year as “The Art Front: The Defense of French Collections 1939-1945,” and translated by Ophélie Jouan, is rigorously objective and unfortunately rather dry fare.

Young has expertly plucked the emotive elements of Valland’s account, and mined her correspondence with Jaujard, her work confidant, for additional tidbits that offer more depth. But, still, the archival cupboard remains rather bare.

Image

In the end, there doesn’t appear to be enough new material or subjective insight available to sustain an entirely new take on Valland; what Young was able to discover still doesn’t quite manage to draw us into her private world.

Young pads the account with a secondary protagonist, Alexandre Rosenberg, the son of the famous French Jewish art dealer Paul, who represented nearly all of the major modernist artists of his era and was a close personal friend to Picasso and Matisse. After vainly attempting to flee the occupied Vichy France, Alexandre became an early recruit to the Free French and helped to liberate Paris. This story, too, has been told in various iterations, and was a key plotline in Patrick Bishop’s recent book, “Paris 1944.”

It has been more than 30 years since Nicholas published “The Rape of Europa,” and it’s fair to assume that a new generation of readers may know little about the Nazi occupation of Paris and the art looting that ensued. Those readers will discover a compelling roundup of what we know so far about this fascinating moment. Anyone familiar with the history, however, will have to be satisfied with just a few new informational nuggets in a well-told recap.

THE ART SPY: The Extraordinary Untold Tale of WWII Resistance Hero Rose Valland | By Michelle Young | HarperOne | 390 pp. | $29.99

22. The Tao of Geezerhood

This is only for those of us who are of a certain age who are considering our mortality.

The Tao of Geezerhood

My younger self’s sense of self-respect rested on the assumption I was someone who didn’t just look at scenery but actively engaged with it. But that obviously wasn’t true anymore.’

By Stephen Harrigan

05.16.25 — Culture and Ideas

https://www.thefp.com/p/the-tao-of-geezerhood?utm

“There comes a time when we all have to accept embarrassment and decrepitude,” writes Stephen Harrigan. (Robert Abbott Sengstacke via Getty Images

Growing old is a process, but being old is a shock. Paul Simon was only in his mid-20s when he wrote the lyric “How terribly strange / To be 70,” but his hunch was accurate. You’re caught up in the normal current of life, the days drifting by just like they always have, and out of nowhere comes this “Wait, what?” moment, this hammer blow of reality notifying you that—actuarially if not actually—your life meter is now in the red zone.

Now that I’m 76, this unwelcome epiphany happens to me every few months, and it takes a moment to work through my initial reaction that a mistake has been made, that a decade or so has been misplaced, and to allow the truth to settle in: I’m a geezer. But it’s one thing to absorb that fact, it’s another to accept it. It’s too easy to feel ashamed of your decelerating body, as if aging was not an inevitable development but some sort of character flaw.

For gentlemen of a certain age, urology is the midwife of humility. Things you didn’t know were possible or could even be permitted in a sane world are done to you by doctors and nurses piloting tiny cameras through alarmingly bendy parts of your body. In my case, the discovery of a plus-size prostate led to surgery followed by six months or so of what I wanted to think of as mere leakage and was not yet ready to admit was incontinence. I tried thin “shields” and thick pads before the truth forced me to resort to full-on adult underwear.

At first, I was a craven, furtive consumer, worried that ordering adult diapers through Amazon would somehow announce my embarrassing condition to the world at large—something which I guess I’m now doing voluntarily. What changed my attitude, what brought me out of the shadows, was the picture on the Depend box. Here was a smiling, middle-aged guy with a robust dad bod, grinning at me and proudly posing in a T-shirt and his moisture-retaining undergarment. Bro!

My new friend, I realized, would have no patience with my timorous online shopping and its promise of discreet packaging, but would boldly enter a real-life drugstore and chat with the cashier as she scanned the bar code on his 48-pack of maximum absorbency diapers. The guy on the box gave off the vibe of someone who had fully accepted his plight and had no more concern about what he was packing under his pants than he had about the color of his socks.

My monsoon season finally came to an end, but the lesson of acceptance lingered. The image of that anonymous male diaper model stays with me. I think of him as a kind of life coach, his role not to prevent bad things from happening but to remind me that I can always do a better job of dealing with them when they come, especially if they involve the normal humiliations of aging that nobody really has the right to whine about.

If we’re fortunate enough to make it into, say, our 70s, there are always more afflictions queued up and ready to be deployed. It wasn’t long after the muscles in my bladder started working again that others went offline. A friend who spotted my drooping eyelid during a Zoom call said I should get it checked out, and after visits to an ophthalmologist and a neurologist, I was diagnosed with myasthenia gravis, a disease I had never even heard of. Naturally, the first thing I did was google which celebrities had also suffered from it, so that I could turn to them for a parasocial sympathy hug. It turned out to be an odd-lot fellowship that included Christopher Robin Milne, the son of A.A. Milne, the creator of Winnie-the-Pooh; Wilma Mankiller, the first woman to lead the Cherokee Nation, and—most resonantly to a baby boomer like me—Phil Silvers, who played Sergeant Bilko in a 1950s sitcom.

Myasthenia gravis is rare, but I’ve noticed it trending in the last year or so in drug commercials, so maybe it’s not as rare as I was told. It’s an autoimmune disorder in which the body produces rogue antibodies that interfere with neuron transmission, leading to intermittent muscle weakness all over the place—in my case, mostly around the head and neck, causing my eyelid to droop and my smile to sometimes turn into a pirate’s snarl.

Fortunately, a mild daily dose of prednisone was enough to set me right again, that is until I was in the middle of a cross-country family road trip from Texas to Southern California. The symptoms that I thought had been rounded up and settled down were let loose when a case of Covid snuck in and unlocked the corral. Even though I was testing negative for the virus by then, the muscles in my voice box were so compromised and constricted I sounded like Daffy Duck, and my neck was so weak that just holding my head up felt like trying to balance a bowling ball on the end of a broomstick.

It was summer, and we were in Arches National Park in Utah, a place I had long wanted to see and explore. When we pulled up to the parking lot for the trailhead leading to Delicate Arch, one of the park’s major landform attractions, I tried to persuade myself that despite my fatigue I could still make the three-mile round-trip hike in the savage heat to the base of the arch. My old self’s sense of self-respect rested on the assumption that I was able and ready, that I was still someone who didn’t just look at scenery but actively engaged with it.

I made it about 50 yards, until I could no longer ignore the fact that I was turning into a 75-year-old mass of melting protoplasm. I returned to the parking lot with my wife and daughter, both of whom were perfectly content not to trek across the high desert in July. But I was deflated, and a little disoriented when it came to my carefully cultivated identity. As a father, and even a grandfather, I had grown used to leading the way, but now I felt like a child again, longing to hang with the older kids but unable to keep up. I didn’t sulk, or at least I don’t think I did. I knew that with time and a temporary uptick in medication I would get better. But I also had to admit the fact that, at this age, with time I would also get worse.

Watching wistfully through the windshield of our air-conditioned car as my son-in-law and two granddaughters followed the trail, I remembered another left-behind codger, someone I had glancingly met long ago. The youngest of our three daughters was 1-day-old, and we were bringing her home from the hospital. When I punched the down button, the elevator doors opened upon an elderly man in a wheelchair who had just been discharged from one of the less joyful floors above. The nurse beside him brightened when she saw the newborn baby in my wife’s arms.

“Oh look, Mr. Ford,” she said. “She’s going home, too. It’s her first trip.”

“Her first trip,” he repeated in a huffy tone. “I wish it was my first trip.”

That was 41 years ago, but I still remember that the man was named Mr. Ford and I can still recall his unsmiling face. Maybe he just had a dry sense of humor and didn’t mean to sound so sour, didn’t mean to be expressing disapproval that a new life was just beginning while the clock was ticking down on his own. But he made me wonder if there were people out there who held an actual grudge against the young, and when I reached the age of that man (as I have now), if I would ever run the risk of turning into one of them.

There comes a time when we all have to accept embarrassment and decrepitude, when we realize that the past can’t be recaptured and that there are destinations we’re no longer capable of reaching. And we can either be the grumpy man on the elevator or the go-for-it dude on the diaper box. On that day in Utah, watching my young granddaughters bounding across a treeless tableland toward a sandstone arch on the horizon, there really wasn’t that much of a choice.

Stephen Harrigan, 76, is a writer who lives in Austin, Texas. His latest book, Sorrowful Mysteries: The Shepherd Children of Fatima and the Fate of the Twentieth Century, was published last month.

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

De Oppresso Liber,

David Maxwell

Vice President, Center for Asia Pacific Strategy

Senior Fellow, Global Peace Foundation

Editor, Small Wars Journal

Twitter: @davidmaxwell161

email: david.maxwell161@gmail.com

If you do not read anything else in the 2017 National Security Strategy read this on page 14:

"A democracy is only as resilient as its people. An informed and engaged citizenry is the fundamental requirement for a free and resilient nation. For generations, our society has protected free press, free speech, and free thought. Today, actors such as Russia are using information tools in an attempt to undermine the legitimacy of democracies. Adversaries target media, political processes, financial networks, and personal data. The American public and private sectors must recognize this and work together to defend our way of life. No external threat can be allowed to shake our shared commitment to our values, undermine our system of government, or divide our Nation."

Access NSS HERE

Company Name | Website

Hamas Wanted to Torpedo Israel-Saudi Deal With Oct. 7 Attacks, Documents Reveal

Militant leader Yahya Sinwar feared progress on peace would doom the Palestinian cause

Trump Sounds Upbeat on Ukraine Cease-Fire as Russia Unleashes Drone Barrage

Russian president has delayed and slow-rolled talks as Trump pushes for a quick peace deal

China's 'grey zone tactics' at sea

The ships lurking in Taiwanese waters

The psychological burden of grey zone warfare

Why Ukraine's war terrified some Taiwanese

As China targets Taiwan's undersea cables, some locals fear 'grey zone' warfare

China's 'grey zone tactics' at sea

The ships lurking in Taiwanese waters

Is China's undersea cable-cutter a distraction?

The psychological burden of grey zone warfare

What is Russia's 'shadow fleet'?

Why Ukraine's war terrified some Taiwanese

Ukraine Is Making More Weapons Than Ever—but Still Can’t Fight Russia Alone

With future U.S. aid in doubt, Kyiv is ramping up production of arms such as its Bohdana howitzer

U.S. Allies Are Still Waiting for Tariff Relief Even After Speedy China Truce

Talks with Japan, South Korea and European Union bog down over auto tariffs and U.S. reneging on past deals

The Ditch-America Trade Now Has Its Own Acronym: ABUSA

‘Anywhere But U.S.A.’ poses questions: Are U.S. markets in a long, painful decline or was American exceptionalism overdone?

Lawmaker ‘Reborn’ Through Psychedelic Therapy Wants the GOP to Embrace It

More Republicans are pushing for new treatments for veterans to help combat PTSD and reduce suicide risk

Trump withdraws nomination of Air Force veteran to oversee special operations forces

Moral Responsibility Is Political Responsibility

Trust Between Civilians and the Military Is Built on Moral Clarity

Political Rhetoric Is Often a Tool for Strategy

The Accountability Gap in Today’s Military Leadership

Congress and the Media Must Reassert Oversight

Civilian Oversight Is Not Micromanagement

The Moral Imperative of Oversight

The Army’s response to the Reagan crash should stir Americans to demand honesty.

Trump Administration Fires Hundreds of Voice of America Employees

Trump Appointee Pressed Analyst to Redo Intelligence on Venezuelan Gang

What happens when honest intelligence work can get you fired?

Further Reading on E-International Relations

What is the difference between Armed Forces Day and other military holidays?

What is Armed Forces Day? How it's different from other military holidays

What is the difference between Armed Forces Day and other military holidays?

America Is Winning the Wrong AI Race

‘General intelligence’ is an ever-receding goal. We should focus on practical implementation instead.

Australian Matthew Radalj tells of life in China prison

'You start to go crazy': The Australian who survived five years in a Chinese prison

A harsh introduction

The 'good behaviour' points system

Food As Control

'I've had 100 operations and will never stop' - inside China's cosmetic surgery boom

Aboard the 'silver trains', China's retirees do their bit to offset Trump's tariffs

The small-town mayor accused of trafficking and spying for China

The memoirs

Life After Prison

U.S. Allies Rally to Support Democracy and Come to Terms With a New U.S. Foreign Policy

Women Around the World

President Trump’s military parade could cost up to $45 million, Army spokesperson says

Related stories

A Heroine of the French Resistance Gets Her Own Portrait