Informal Institute for National Security Thinkers and Practitioners

Quotes of the Day:

"Not to be absolutely certain is one of the essential things in rationality.

– Friedrich Nietzsche

"Never fear to keep the company of a strong woman; one day, she might be your only army."

– Che Guevara

"For the record, prejudices can kill and suspicion can destroy, and a thoughtless, frightened search for a scapegoat, has a fall out all its own – for the children, and the children yet unborn. And the pity of it is that these things cannot be confined to The Twilight Zone."

– Rod Serling

1. SOF Week Isn’t Just an Agenda. It’s an Ecosystem

2. Experts Say Special Ops Has Made Good AI Progress, But There's Still Room to Grow

3. Focus: U.S. Defense Secretary Hegseth Calls for Stronger Special Forces Amid 200% Mission Surge.

4. Special Operators Must Lead Throughout the Navy

5. Rep. Jackson Introduced Bill to Recognize SOF Week

6. More data, comms, countermeasures needed for Special Ops aircraft

7. U.S. Special Forces Deploy Across the Philippines for Balikatan 2025

8. Analysts say India and Pakistan know how to de-escalate — but will they?

9. Ukrainian Sabotage Cuts Comms at Russian Military Sites in Moscow Region

10. Trump to Announce Trade-Deal Framework With Britain

11. Fentanyl Crisis Provided Opening for U.S.-China Trade Talks

12. Shippers Are Skeptical of Trump’s Truce With the Houthis

13. Marine Corps expects largest impact from Hegseth’s officer cuts

14. Voice of America will carry One America News programming

15. Trump Says He Hasn’t Decided If Iran Can Enrich Uranium in a New Deal

16. U.S. pushes nations facing tariffs to approve Musk’s Starlink, cables show

17. West Point Is Supposed to Educate, Not Indoctrinate

18. Still Hoping for a Deal with Iran? Here’s Why It Won’t Work

19. Soft Power, Strong Impact: The Enduring Alliance Between USAID and the U.S. Military

20. Leadership, Lethality, and (Data) Literacy: Three Keys to Prepare the Army for the Data-Driven, AI-Enabled Future of War

21. ‘Maduro did not close our bureau – Trump did’: Voice of America journalists speak out

22. Combatant Commands as Customers?

1. SOF Week Isn’t Just an Agenda. It’s an Ecosystem

Another excellent overview of SOF week and what it is really all about.

What SOF Week ultimately reveals is that the future of special operations—perhaps even the future of defense writ large—depends less on platforms and more on people, proximity, and perspective. Strategy is being shaped in the spaces between sessions. Doctrine is being debated behind closed doors. Trust is being transferred, relationship by relationship, across generations and across borders.

This is a competitive advantage.

SOF Week isn’t just where updates are delivered. It’s where understandings are formed. And in a world defined by irregular threats, contested domains, and narrative warfare, that kind of space—real, relational, resilient—isn’t just valuable. It’s vital.

SOF Week Isn’t Just an Agenda. It’s an Ecosystem

By Chad Williamson

May 08, 2025

https://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2025/05/08/sof_week_isnt_just_an_agenda_its_an_ecosystem_1108977.html?mc_cid=e1ccd1e706

By day three of SOF Week 2025 in Tampa, the real insight isn’t just on stage—it’s in the margins.

It comes from a moment in a hallway. A handshake between old teammates. A spontaneous debrief after a panel. A QR code scan at the exhibit floor that leads to something more than a contact—it leads to a connection.

At first glance, SOF Week is structured like any major defense convening, through an agenda packed with panels, pitch sessions, and procurement briefings. And on paper, the content is exceptional. Here’s a snippet from Day 3—just the morning…

SOF Week Exhibition Athletic Training S.W.E.A.T.
Networking Breakfast
PEO Overview: Maritime (M) Q&A
Fireside Chat: His Majesty the King of Jordan & General Fenton
The Criticality of Mental Health Support for SOF Warriors
Treat Your Transition Like an Op: Proactive Planning for Success
Fireside Chat: Artificial Intelligence Innovation and Integration in National Security
Business to Business Matchmaking
PEO Overview: Services
SBIR/STTR Transition Panel
Panel: The SOF Value Proposition in a Volatile World – Global Perspectives from Partner Nations

And yes, the day starts with athletic training—a detail that might raise eyebrows at other conferences but is business as usual in the SOF community.

What makes the session lineup at SOF Week uniquely powerful is not just its breadth—but its intentional blending of tactical, strategic, technological, and human expertise. This is where you hear from U.S. Special Operations Command General Bryan Fenton and His Majesty King Abdullah II of Jordan in the same morning, followed by a conversation on national security AI integration with Palantir’s CTO Akash Jain and TWG Global’s Thomas Tull.

At one end of the agenda, you’ll find SOCOM’s Command Psychologist, Colonel Amanda Robbins, addressing the mental health of elite warriors. At the other, you’ll hear from global military leaders like General Javier Iturriaga del Campo, Commander-in-Chief of the Chilean Army, offering perspective on the SOF value proposition in a volatile world. These aren’t just panels—they’re nodes of strategic convergence. They reflect the operating truth that modern deterrence requires coalition thinking, cognitive readiness, and cross-sector collaboration.

But what gives SOF Week its gravity isn’t the density of sessions—it’s the density of people. The titles on the agenda may guide our calendars, but it’s the titles and bios of the speakers that shape our priorities. More importantly, it’s the relationships that form around those sessions—the proximity to insight, experience, and strategic intent—that reveal what SOF Week is truly about.

That includes the media. In a profession that often operates solo, SOF Week offers something rare—fellowship among storytellers. Off-the-record briefings lead to shared context. Roundtables turn competitors into collaborators. Reporters covering the same space begin to understand each other’s blind spots—and strengths. Trust isn’t just being built between government and industry, but between the very people responsible for telling the story of modern warfare.

Of course, this trust is earned in layers. Many of the most consequential sessions are closed to the press entirely. This is not an oversight. It’s the design. In a domain defined by ambiguity, sensitive partnerships, and threats that can’t yet be named, some conversations are best held off the record.

Even where the media is welcomed—such as off-the-record engagements with different leaders—access comes with discretion. The unspoken agreement is clear, credibility is built on conversation, not coverage.

That ethos echoes throughout the experience. The exhibit floor, for example, is both overwhelming and energizing—a kind of Disney World for the defense industry. Hundreds of companies are demoing the edge of technology, from micro-drones to maritime kits, all vying not just for contracts but for relevance in a rapidly evolving threat landscape. But even here, the real action isn’t on the stage. It’s at the edges of booths, where a quiet introduction might turn into a capability sprint.

From a U.S. perspective, SOF Week reflects the future of joint and international force development. From a global view, it reveals a deeper truth, that interoperability is no longer optional, it’s cultural. And it starts not with equipment or doctrine, but with conversation—connected to a deeper context of cultural proficiency and cultural humility.

What SOF Week ultimately reveals is that the future of special operations—perhaps even the future of defense writ large—depends less on platforms and more on people, proximity, and perspective. Strategy is being shaped in the spaces between sessions. Doctrine is being debated behind closed doors. Trust is being transferred, relationship by relationship, across generations and across borders.

This is a competitive advantage.

SOF Week isn’t just where updates are delivered. It’s where understandings are formed. And in a world defined by irregular threats, contested domains, and narrative warfare, that kind of space—real, relational, resilient—isn’t just valuable. It’s vital.

Chad Williamson is a military veteran and is currently pursuing his graduate degree in national security policy. He lives on Capitol Hill with his wife, Dr. Heather Williamson, and their two chocolate labs, Demmi and Ferg.

2. Experts Say Special Ops Has Made Good AI Progress, But There's Still Room to Grow

Excerpts:

Tull also said that, while he's glad to see how Socom has embraced the need to integrate AI, the level of that embrace must be absolute to keep up with the pacing threat from adversaries like China.

"You're talking about the ability to pull ahead [and] stay ahead; and [if you fall behind in AI development] I'm not sure that you can catch up," he said.

He added that Socom should one day view AI as "the same as breathing or walking" and that it should eventually be part of every decision the command makes.

Both Tull and Jain agreed that SOF continuing to push industry to develop further advancements in AI is a key to future success on the battlefield.

Experts Say Special Ops Has Made Good AI Progress, But There's Still Room to Grow

https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/4177966/experts-say-special-ops-has-made-good-ai-progress-but-theres-still-room-to-grow/

May 7, 2025 | By Matthew Olay, DOD News |

The United States' special operations forces community has made commendable progress in embracing and integrating artificial intelligence into the battlespace over the past year, but it still has room to grow to keep pace with adversaries like China.

That was one of the key messages from today's fireside chat at Special Operations Forces Week 2025 in Tampa, Florida. Technology experts explored SOF's use of AI and its ability to adapt and integrate it for defense, as well as leverage it to deliver innovative technology for national security.

U.S. Special Operations Command's most significant AI-related inroads over the past year have been software-related, according to Akash Jain, a leader in the private sector AI industry whose company partners with DOD.

Jain said following a "pivot" to embracing certain AI technologies last year, Socom has been making significant progress with software.

"I think, with the push by senior leaders … [there's been] an incredible, incredible amount of progress on the acquisition and implementation side for software," Jain said.

"[It's] stuff that's moving really fast and can now become something that everybody across [the] SOF enterprise can use at scale," he added.

Jain said he would rate Socom's overall progress on AI development for the past year as a "six or seven" on a scale of one to 10, noting that he sees areas where the command can continue to grow, including the need to further integrate AI into legacy hardware systems.

Thomas Tull, another AI private sector industry leader, agreed that Socom's renewed push in AI development has been productive.

"[Socom leadership] have all leaned forward and said, 'This is what we're doing, full stop, and we are committed to it'; so, I think you're seeing rapid change for the positive," Tull said.

In terms of AI-related areas where SOF could work to improve, Tull said there's an ongoing need to develop "digital fluency," meaning an ability to not just use AI technology but also understand how it works and then be able to apply it effectively and creatively.

To that end, Tull said Socom has received a head start on improving the command's digital fluency, with roughly 400 of the command's leaders recently completing a Massachusetts Institute of Technology-affiliated six-week course on the topic.

"I think enhancing digital fluency [is important] so that, as you push technology down, you have a workforce that not only is comfortable with it, but frankly, demands it," Tull said.

Tull also said that, while he's glad to see how Socom has embraced the need to integrate AI, the level of that embrace must be absolute to keep up with the pacing threat from adversaries like China.

"You're talking about the ability to pull ahead [and] stay ahead; and [if you fall behind in AI development] I'm not sure that you can catch up," he said.

He added that Socom should one day view AI as "the same as breathing or walking" and that it should eventually be part of every decision the command makes.

Both Tull and Jain agreed that SOF continuing to push industry to develop further advancements in AI is a key to future success on the battlefield.

"[Keep] demanding, keep innovating. That's one of the things that I think separates SOF — globally — is that there is this relentless drive to not be satisfied, to invent new things, to be willing to go first," Tull said, adding that he encourages SOF to be just as demanding when it comes to AI's development.

"Break stuff, come back to us [and] tell us what you need," he said.

Jain called AI's future development an "all-of-American industry" endeavor, and no distinction should be made between the defense industrial base and the non-traditional defense base.

"With AI, I think we have a generational opportunity to kind of set in motion what the future is going to look like," he said.

"So please keep pushing with us and partnering with us. It's been incredible how we've seen that progress over the last year."

3. Focus: U.S. Defense Secretary Hegseth Calls for Stronger Special Forces Amid 200% Mission Surge.

Excerpts:

Recent SOF successes provide tangible proof of their effectiveness. In February 2025, U.S. forces in Somalia’s Puntland region executed a devastating air campaign against Islamic State targets, eliminating over 100 militants including key leaders. This operation, coordinated with local partners, disrupted ISIS terrorist group operations in East Africa and demonstrated the continued threat posed by jihadist networks in the region.

That same month, a U.S. precision airstrike in Syria killed a senior leader of Hurras al-Din, an al-Qaeda affiliate. The operation dealt a significant blow to the group’s command and control capabilities and showcased the enduring U.S. commitment to counterterrorism, even as strategic focus shifts to near-peer competition.

Beyond kinetic missions, SOF’s value is also evident in their diplomatic and training roles. Hegseth cited his recent visit to Panama, where U.S. and Panamanian Special Forces collaborate closely on counter-narcotics and counter-terrorism efforts. “The way in which the Communist Chinese, through malign influence, attempt to leverage their relationships and just straight-up money with local leaders to try to pull them in their direction, it's happening in real time,” he warned, highlighting the importance of U.S. presence and influence in the Western Hemisphere.

Joint training exercises also play a vital role in SOF strategy. Exercises such as Freedom Shield 2025 with South Korea and Tiger Triumph 2025 with India enhance interoperability, preparedness, and mutual trust among partner forces. These drills are more than symbolic—they are critical rehearsals for potential crises and a show of unity against regional threats.

In closing, U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth reiterated that every element of the special operations enterprise, from SO/LIC (Special Operations/Low-Intensity Conflict) to SOCOM (Special Operations Command), has a crucial role in the future of defense. “From day one at the Department of Defense, our overriding objectives have been clear: restore the warrior ethos, rebuild our military, and reestablish deterrence.” With their proven track record, cutting-edge tools, and ironclad alliances, U.S. Special Operations Forces stand at the forefront of this mission—day and night, in over 80 countries, with eyes wide open and weapons ready.

Focus: U.S. Defense Secretary Hegseth Calls for Stronger Special Forces Amid 200% Mission Surge.

https://armyrecognition.com/news/army-news/2025/focus-u-s-defense-secretary-hegseth-calls-for-stronger-special-forces-amid-200-mission-surge?utm

7 May, 2025 - 12:54 Defense News Army 2025

In a compelling address at SOF Week 2025 in Tampa, Florida, U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth highlighted the indispensable role of American Special Operations Forces (SOF) in safeguarding national security and advancing global stability. He emphasized that homeland defense is inherently a global mission, with SOF eliminating over 500 terrorists and capturing at least 600 more in the past six months, often in collaboration with international partners. These operations underscore the strategic importance of SOF in preempting threats before they reach U.S. shores.

Follow Army Recognition on Google News at this link

A U.S. Special Forces operator from the 7th Special Forces Group (Airborne) instructs a SENAFRONT soldier during advanced marksmanship training in Cerro Tigre, Panama, Feb. 19, 2025—demonstrating the vital international partnerships highlighted by Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth as key to U.S. global security and Special Operations Forces' expanding mission scope. (Picture source: U.S. DoD)

U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth opened his address with a clear message: homeland defense is no longer confined to American borders. “In the last six months, SOF (Special Operations Forces) has eliminated over 500 terrorists who threaten our homeland directly,” he declared. “And alongside global SOF partners, your team has captured at least another 600 terrorists.” These numbers not only reflect the lethal effectiveness of U.S. special operators but underscore the global reach and operational tempo of these forces, who work in the shadows to neutralize threats before they strike.

He stressed that these achievements are possible thanks to enduring partnerships with over 60 nations, many of which were represented at the SOF Week event. With more than 6,000 U.S. SOF personnel deployed in over 80 countries, the United States’ global SOF footprint is both vast and strategically positioned to confront threats as they emerge. These alliances, built over decades, are vital to addressing today’s transnational security challenges.

Turning to the Indo-Pacific, Hegseth identified Communist China as the “pacing threat” for the United States. He emphasized SOF's unique capabilities in irregular warfare—capabilities that operate below the threshold of open conflict—to subtly and strategically shape adversary behavior. “We must convince Xi Jinping that today is not the day to test the United States’ resolve,” he stated, explaining that SOF’s global engagements create dilemmas for adversaries that complicate their decision-making calculus. “SOF underpins deterrence in the Indo-Pacific. At the same time, you’re preparing the battlefield and standing ready to help us prevail if China were to choose conflict.”

The U.S. Secretary of Defense also revealed that presidentially directed SOF missions have surged by 200% in the past three years, a clear indication of their increasing relevance in U.S. strategic operations. Whether in open combat or in twilight missions “just short of war,” SOF remains the go-to force for complex, high-stakes assignments that demand precision, discretion, and resilience.

Reflecting on the evolving strategic landscape, Hegseth emphasized the need to rebuild the military’s fighting edge, restore the warrior ethos, and reestablish deterrence. Special Forces, he said, operate like a “tech startup”—agile, nimble, lean, and lethal. They innovate rapidly, integrate emerging technologies, and stretch the boundaries of human performance in ways conventional forces cannot. “Innovation isn’t a buzzword for SOF—it’s a battlefield requirement,” he remarked.

Recent SOF successes provide tangible proof of their effectiveness. In February 2025, U.S. forces in Somalia’s Puntland region executed a devastating air campaign against Islamic State targets, eliminating over 100 militants including key leaders. This operation, coordinated with local partners, disrupted ISIS terrorist group operations in East Africa and demonstrated the continued threat posed by jihadist networks in the region.

That same month, a U.S. precision airstrike in Syria killed a senior leader of Hurras al-Din, an al-Qaeda affiliate. The operation dealt a significant blow to the group’s command and control capabilities and showcased the enduring U.S. commitment to counterterrorism, even as strategic focus shifts to near-peer competition.

Beyond kinetic missions, SOF’s value is also evident in their diplomatic and training roles. Hegseth cited his recent visit to Panama, where U.S. and Panamanian Special Forces collaborate closely on counter-narcotics and counter-terrorism efforts. “The way in which the Communist Chinese, through malign influence, attempt to leverage their relationships and just straight-up money with local leaders to try to pull them in their direction, it's happening in real time,” he warned, highlighting the importance of U.S. presence and influence in the Western Hemisphere.

Joint training exercises also play a vital role in SOF strategy. Exercises such as Freedom Shield 2025 with South Korea and Tiger Triumph 2025 with India enhance interoperability, preparedness, and mutual trust among partner forces. These drills are more than symbolic—they are critical rehearsals for potential crises and a show of unity against regional threats.

In closing, U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth reiterated that every element of the special operations enterprise, from SO/LIC (Special Operations/Low-Intensity Conflict) to SOCOM (Special Operations Command), has a crucial role in the future of defense. “From day one at the Department of Defense, our overriding objectives have been clear: restore the warrior ethos, rebuild our military, and reestablish deterrence.” With their proven track record, cutting-edge tools, and ironclad alliances, U.S. Special Operations Forces stand at the forefront of this mission—day and night, in over 80 countries, with eyes wide open and weapons ready.

4. Special Operators Must Lead Throughout the Navy

This is the challenge. Can we afford to put SOF personnel in non-SOF positions when there are increasing requirements for SOF? Of course it makes sense to have SOF personnel in non-SOF billets to cross level expertise and understanding of all disciplines by SOF and for all disciplines to understand SOF. But what SOF positions go unfilled when we do this? How do we prioritize between the two?

Also it is not an appropriate comparison using the Rangers since they remain members of the Infantry branch and are subject to assignment throughout the infantry to include the Ranger Regiment. And the same is true for the aviators of the 160th SOAR.

Special Operators Must Lead Throughout the Navy

By Lieutenant Christopher Knight and Chief Warrant Officer Cormac McGuiness, U.S. Navy

https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2025/may/special-operators-must-lead-throughout-navy?utm

May 2025 Proceedings Vol. 151/5/1,467

The U.S. Navy should always place officers with the best leadership qualities at the highest levels of command. But as currently structured, the officer corps excludes a significant subset of talented naval professionals—those in naval special warfare (NSW).

The Navy should assign NSW officers and senior enlisted as commanding officers (COs) and command master chiefs (CMCs) in the fleet. These admirals and force/fleet master chiefs should command large formations in the conventional Navy, not be limited to NSW billets. This change would allow the Navy to benefit from the combat experience and culture of its special-operations component and recapture the fighting edge that characterized its World War II–era dominance. Operators such as SEALs and special warfare combat crewmen (SWCC) are uniquely qualified to lead in a way that will inspire and refocus Navy commands at all echelons.

The Problem

The NSW officer and enlisted career tracks create a cadre of specially recruited and selected sailors who are excluded from the highest and most meaningful levels of command in the Navy. Three- and four-star NSW officers typically serve only at joint special operations forces organizations that are mired in interservice rivalry. NSW’s notable absence from the service’s highest posts is not a result of the community failing to produce leaders: SEALs have been elected to both houses of Congress, led NASA’s astronaut office, and regularly rise to high levels of corporate leadership.

In his book On the Psychology of Military Incompetence, Dr. Norman Dixon identifies some of the common flaws in how military institutions select leaders. One mistake the services make is assuming officers who excel at junior levels in a certain type of unit will also excel in command. By selecting only surface warfare department heads to command ships, and only the best ship COs to command carrier strike groups and fleets, the Navy might miss out on strategic thinkers and strong leaders who begin their careers in different communities.

In other military branches, special operations experience is a valuable stepping stone. Army and Air Force special operations officers routinely bounce to their services’ conventional units. The Army has a framework for this career-management practice—the Abrams Charter. When then–Army Chief of Staff General Creighton Abrams reactivated the 1st Ranger Battalion in 1974, he did so in part so the unit’s professionalism and esprit de corps would spread to the rest of the Army when its young leaders went on to command conventional units.

Like NSW, Marine Special Operations Command (MarSOC) struggles with what to do with its leaders. Major Michael Cariello Noblit wrote in Proceedings last November that the Marine Corps perceives that MarSOC “drains talent from the rest of the force.” NSW suffers from the same perception, because the Navy does not benefit from the officers or senior enlisted members within its special operations component. The greatest talent contribution NSW provides to the Navy is via sailors who attrite from SEAL and SWCC pipelines. Insulating NSW careers deprives the Navy of potentially great senior leaders.

Integrate Naval Special Warfare Top-Down

The silently agreed-on difference between an Army Ranger commanding a corps and a SEAL commanding a fleet is that while Army and Air Force special operations are elite versions of the services’ core competencies, what NSW does has nothing to do with what the Navy does. Increasingly, that is no longer true. As Rear Admiral Wyman Howard wrote in 2020, NSW recognizes that it is, once again, a supporting element to its parent service and is working at all levels to realign.

All NSW groups are aggressively pursuing new tactics and equipment to support fleet functions forward of the Navy’s capital assets. NSW has rapidly adapted its maritime infiltration skills toward fleet support, notably during exercises. But NSW capabilities remain enigmatic to many conventional Navy commanders. For fleet commanders to fully understand how NSW capabilities fit into maritime operations across all phases and functions, they must have NSW officers within their organizations or be NSW officers themselves.

Talent Management is Nuanced

A talent management model for SEAL and SWCC leaders in the fleet could emulate the path available for aviators.

Career aviators who excel at squadron command are sent to nuclear power school, as well as navigation and shiphandling training. They are given command of ships and can eventually command carriers. High-performing NSW commanders could follow a similar path after their first command tour. The shipboard commands for which they are eligible would be carefully selected. A NSW officer could command a special boat team, then a landing platform dock. A SEAL delivery team CO could go on to command a submarine outfitted for special operations support.

A NSW officer with the right training in commanding a ship would not introduce additional safety or procedural risks to the unit. Ashore, these officers could employ emerging technologies and unconventional tactics in command of units such as unmanned surface vessel divisions and cyber mission teams.

NSW senior enlisted members would be even easier to integrate into the seagoing navy and might be an even more potent addition to the force. NSW master chiefs have the most combat experience of any community in the Navy. They are routinely in charge of remote combat outposts and formations of special operations craft. As shipboard command master chiefs (CMCs) and chiefs of the boat (COBs), SEAL and SWCC enlisted leaders would increase combat readiness, physical standards, and creative problem-solving capabilities in their units. CMC afloat positions require deckplate leadership and the ability to foster a culture of excellence, sometimes at the expense of the subject-matter expertise that comes with seniority in a certain rate. This is part of the reason why CMCs and master chiefs give up their rates when they are selected.

Again, the aviation community shows a possible career trajectory: Rates such as aircrewmen are already fulfilling CMC roles in the surface navy. Similarly allowing eligible NSW senior enlisted members to serve in CMC and COB afloat jobs would improve command culture across the deckplates. At higher levels of senior enlisted leadership, commanders have already caught onto the magic of NSW master chiefs: Two of them serve as senior enlisted leaders for geographic combatant commanders.

Culture Eats Strategy for Breakfast

NSW’s culture is crucial to its success—more so than its recruiting, selection, training, or resourcing. Officers from their ranks would infuse the seagoing navy with the warrior ethos that has always characterized the SEAL and SWCC communities. That is important because the future of maritime warfare is a fast-paced, complex battlespace that will require innovative multidomain solutions. This is a challenge for the Navy, because the service is highly compartmentalized, but NSW leaders are comfortable with multidomain fights. NSW operates above, on, and below the surface of the water to accomplish missions that depend on relationships with the surface, air, subsurface, space, and cyber components of the joint force.

To meet their mission, NSW leaders must be adept at developing and empowering junior personnel. Such officers in the surface navy would foster the same team environment found at a NSW unit, which would prove to be an asset in a communications-denied environment that demands rapid decisions.

By integrating NSW officers into fleet commands, the Navy could revitalize its seagoing spirit, equipping the force with the leaders and warfighting culture the modern maritime battlefield demands. By adopting the can-do attitude and adaptive multidomain mindset central to NSW operations, the Navy can quickly sharpen its fighting edge and guarantee it is ready to face peer adversaries in the Pacific theater.

Christopher Knight

Lieutenant Knight is 2018 graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy. A naval special warfare officer, he is currently serving at Special Boat Team 22.

Cormac McGuiness

CWO3 McGuiness enlisted in the Navy in 2005. In 2009, he attended special warfare combat crewman (SWCC) selection. He has since served in a variety of special boat detachments and other assignments as an enlisted and warrant officer SWCC at Special Boat Team 20 and Special Boat Team 22.

5. Rep. Jackson Introduced Bill to Recognize SOF Week

SOF is garnering a lot of Congressional support these days (and not just because of SOF Week)

Rep. Jackson Introduced Bill to Recognize SOF Week

Washington, May 6, 2025

https://jackson.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=2349&utm

WASHINGTON — Today, Congressman Ronny Jackson (TX-13), Co-Chair of the Special Operations Forces (SOF) Caucus and Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee’s Intelligence and Special Operations Subcommittee, introduced a joint resolution expressing support for May 5 through May 8, 2025, to be designated as SOF Week. SOF personnel play a vital role in defending the United States’ national security interests in some of the most challenging and dangerous environments throughout the world. This designation would recognize the critical importance of our SOF and honor the courage, commitment, and unique challenges faced by members of the Special Operations community. Senator Joni Ernst (R-IA), Chairwoman of the Senate Committee on Armed Service’s Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities, is leading this joint resolution in the Senate.

“As Co-Chair of the Special Operations Forces (SOF) Caucus and Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee’s Subcommittee on Intelligence and Special Operations, I am honored to advocate for the most lethal and capable force on the planet,” said SOF Caucus Co-Chair Rep. Ronny Jackson. “We place immense responsibility on SOF as they face increasing demands to counter our foreign adversaries. This Caucus gives us a valuable opportunity to ensure our Special Operators have everything they need to protect American interests and remain the most elite force in the world.”

“From Fort Bragg to Naval Base Coronado and everywhere in between, the men and women of U.S. Special Operations Forces (SOF) are a critical part of our national security, playing indispensable roles in unconventional warfare, counterterrorism, training our allies, and undertaking dangerous missions in some of the most hostile environments in the world,” said SOF Caucus Co-Chair Richard Hudson. “As Fort Bragg’s Congressman, I am proud to represent these heroes and lead this legislation to support and honor the SOF community’s service to our country.”

"Our Special Operations Forces play a critical role in our national defense, executing the missions that no one else can,” said SOF Caucus Co-Chair Rep. Scott Peters. “I am lucky to represent Coronado in Congress, which is home to Naval Special Warfare's Headquarters and where future Navy SEALs are made. These servicemembers and their families need the best America can provide — quality of life, training, equipment, facilities, and so much more — I've used my time in Congress to ensure the SEALs have this support in D.C. and to amplify the local challenges the SEAL community faces in Coronado, such as cross-border sewage flows into their training areas. This resolution recognizes what we all know in San Diego— that the SEALs, the rest of the SOF enterprise, and their families, deserve the best, whether they are here at home or serving the nation abroad."

“The extraordinary Special Operations Forces (SOF) deserve recognition and thanks for their service to America. SOF are the quiet professionals—elite service members who take on the toughest missions with bravery and skill,” said SOF Caucus Co-Chair Rep. Kathy Castor. “As Co-Chair of the bipartisan Congressional SOF Caucus and the hometown representative of U.S. Special Operations Command, which is headquartered in Tampa, I am honored to co-lead this resolution. SOF Week brings together military leaders, industry and allies to advance our national security with cutting-edge innovation. Together with my SOF Caucus Co-Chairs, we’re working to ensure that special operators have the resources, care, and recognition they deserve—from top-tier training and equipment to high-quality health care and family support.”

“Our special operators represent the very best of our nation’s force. In this era of Great Power Competition, they play a critical role in defending our country,” said Senator Joni Ernst. “As Chair of the Emerging Threats and Capabilities subcommittee, I’m proud to honor their vital contribution to countering the evolving threats of the 21^st Century and keeping Americans safe.”

Bill text can be found here.

6. More data, comms, countermeasures needed for Special Ops aircraft

More data, comms, countermeasures needed for Special Ops aircraft

militarytimes.com · by Todd South · May 7, 2025

TAMPA, Fla. – Special operators are looking to industry for a suite of upgrades to their fixed-wing aircraft, such as radio frequency countermeasures, new methods for aerial refueling and improved networking.

At the annual Global SOF Foundation Special Operations Forces Week, Special Operations Command officials who develop aircraft shared these and other updates that are needed from its largest to smallest platforms.

For one key platform program, the MC-130J Combat Talon III, operators envision the aircraft as a nexus in the battlefield, connecting the lowest-level operator on the ground with space, air and even commands in the homeland.

To do that, the MC-130J will need some new capabilities. They are currently testing terrain following and avoidance technology that includes dynamic retasking.

They’ll also need networked data from the aircraft systems to work with satellite communications, radio signals, data links and data fusion across multiple platforms.

On the opposite end of the spectrum, the aircraft requires upgraded radio frequency countermeasures and considerably more processing power for all of the data streaming in.

Next steps include a capability release that will include tactical mission route replanner technology, along with tactical flight management and defensive countermeasures, as well as embedded training systems to simulate more complex missions.

Beyond those capabilities, operators are looking to extend the range and reach of the aircraft, improve its communication systems, advance its defensive systems, increase its payload capacity for diverse mission sets and precision airdrop and landing capabilities, said Lt. Col. Andrew Sturgeon, head of mobility for Program Executive Office-Fixed Wing.

The recently named OA-1K Skyraider II is also on the upgrade list, as SOCOM wants modular sensor payloads and weapons enhancements for the propeller-driven airplane, said Lt. Col. Shawna Matthys, who heads the integrated strike program.

For both the Skyraider and the AC-130J Ghostrider, officials are looking for longer-ranging weapons systems for contested environments, air-launched loiter munitions and collaborative weapons options, Matthys said.

Across the entire strike portfolio, which touches nearly every fixed-wing platform, Matthys said those munitions need increased automation and autonomy, advanced navigation and sensing and secure, resilient communications, along with modular payload effects.

That gives operators more options for targeting and destroying targets on various missions.

For its drones, such as the MQ-9A and the MQ-1C, special operators seek hardened data links and communications, “easily adaptable autonomous behavior profiles,” the use of artificial intelligence and machine learning to reduce data link bandwidth requirements and the use of autonomy for the entire kill chain, said Brandi Evans, head of airborne Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance for PEO-Fixed Wing.

Beginning this month, the office’s adaptive airborne enterprise program will look to give operators multi-aircraft control interface software, increase survivability and integrate autonomy onto existing systems, Evans said.

For manned ISR platforms, such as the U-28 and DHC-8 (STAMP), officials are looking to improve sensors, integrate all-weather capabilities and automate aspects of aircraft operation to reduce crew workload, as well as edge data processing.

About Todd South

Todd South has written about crime, courts, government and the military for multiple publications since 2004 and was named a 2014 Pulitzer finalist for a co-written project on witness intimidation. Todd is a Marine veteran of the Iraq War.

7. U.S. Special Forces Deploy Across the Philippines for Balikatan 2025

Just as an aside. When we conducted the TCAV (terrorism) assessment in October of 2001 right after 9-11 and developed the campaign plan for what became known as Operations Enduring Freedom Philippines, the Armed Forces of the Philippines provided access to their strategic planning. One of the things that stood out to us was that there was no mention of China or any external threats at the time (despite support for the Communist Party of the Philippines and the New People Army). Even in 2001 we recognized that China is a potential threat (recall incidents in the region with China such as the EP-3/Hainan incident in 2001). But our long term presence in the Philippines helped to shape the future strategic environment (of course so has China with its malign activities around the Philippine territories and islands)

Excerpts:

Although U.S. special forces in the Philippines have been a hallmark of Washington and Manila’s defense relationship since the Global War on Terror, their focus in assisting local forces grew beyond counterinsurgency and into external defense efforts.

...

The U.S. has employed its special operations capability to assist partners, such as the Philippines and Taiwan, in preparing against China amid growing regional tensions.

U.S. Special Forces Deploy Across the Philippines for Balikatan 2025

https://news.usni.org/2025/05/07/u-s-special-forces-deploy-across-the-philippines-for-balikatan-2025?utm

Aaron-Matthew Lariosa

May 7, 2025 5:27 PM

A U.S. Air Force CV-22 Osprey assigned to the 353rd Special Operations Wing lands on the flight deck of the Whidbey Island-class dock landing ship USS Comstock (LSD-45) during deck landing qualifications as part of Exercise Balikatan 25 in the South China Sea, April 26, 2025. US Air Force Photo

Special operations forces from the U.S. Navy, Army and Air Force are operating throughout the Philippines and the South China Sea for Balikatan 2025.

U.S. Naval Special Warfare Combatant Craft Assault and Medium vessels joined Army 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment MH-60s and MH-47s in Subic Bay for a medical evacuation exercise during the earlier stages of Balikatan. These Navy special operations craft were deployed to the Philippines via Air Force MC-130Js. The Army helicopters have also been spotted throughout the Philippines, practicing low-level flight over water and aerial refueling from special operations MC-130Js from the Air Force.

An Air Force CV-22 landed on USS Comstock (LSD-45) in the South China Sea during Balikatan’s maritime component off Western Luzon in mid-April.

Although U.S. special forces in the Philippines have been a hallmark of Washington and Manila’s defense relationship since the Global War on Terror, their focus in assisting local forces grew beyond counterinsurgency and into external defense efforts.

U.S. Naval Special Warfare SEALs and combatant-craft crewmen have trained with their Philippine Navy counterparts and Coast Guard personnel in the South China Sea and the Luzon Strait.

A U.S. Army crew chief assigned to the 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment (Airborne) looks out the side of a MH-60 Black Hawk helicopter during Exercise Balikatan 25 in Subic Bay, Philippines, April 25, 2025. US Air Force Photo

In March, Philippine and Navy SEALs simulated a gas and oil platform seizure near contested features in the West Philippine Sea, a section of the South China Sea that Manila claims under its exclusive economic zone. U.S. special forces held a small vessel defensive tactics training activity for the Philippine Coast Guard last October in Palawan. Navy Combatant Craft have also trained alongside Manila’s white hulls in the Luzon Strait.

The U.S. has employed its special operations capability to assist partners, such as the Philippines and Taiwan, in preparing against China amid growing regional tensions.

Advanced bilateral special forces cooperation between the U.S. and the Philippines was pledged by Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth as a “key initiative” during his visit to Manila in March. According to a joint statement with his Philippine counterpart, Secretary of National Defense Gilberto Teodoro, the training would focus on “complex landing scenarios” within the Batanes island chain.

These strategically-located islands in the Luzon Strait have been the focus of more bilateral U.S.-Philippine exercises amid concerns of a conflict between China and Taiwan. Philippine military chief Gen. Romero Brawner told troops stationed in the area to prepare for a potential conflict, stating that the country would “inevitably” become involved.

Philippines, U.S. and Australian Forces Simulate Amphibious Invasion in Balikatan

May 1, 2025

In "Aviation"

Marine Corps to Debut New Philippine Rotational Force at Balikatan 2025 Drills

March 27, 2025

In "News & Analysis"

U.S., Filipino Troops Sink Decommissioned Warship in A First for Balikatan Exercise

April 26, 2023

In "Aviation"

Aaron-Matthew Lariosa

Aaron-Matthew Lariosa is a freelance defense journalist based in Washington, D.C.

8. Analysts say India and Pakistan know how to de-escalate — but will they?

There is an infographic at the link that provides a comparison of the two militaries.

https://breakingdefense.com/2025/05/analysts-say-india-and-pakistan-know-how-to-de-escalate-but-will-they/?utm

Analysts say India and Pakistan know how to de-escalate — but will they? - Breaking Defense

"Now India's response, both verbal and written, says and underscores the point that these attacks are proportionate," said Harsh Pant of the Delhi-based Observer Research Foundation. "They are very targeted and precise, and they do not target any Pakistani military installations."

By Colin Clark

on May 07, 2025 at 9:59 AM

breakingdefense.com · by Colin Clark · May 7, 2025

Residents look at a wreckage of an unknown aircraft in Wuyan area of Pampore, about 15kms from Srinagar. India launched “Operation Sindoor”, striking nine sites in Pakistan. Pakistan reports missile attacks on six locations, killing at least eight and injuring 35, calling it an “act of war.” (Photo by Saqib Majeed/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images)

SYDNEY — After a night that saw India strike nine targets in Pakistani-claimed territory and claims that Indian jets were shot down, the two nuclear-armed states appear to be signaling that neither side wants to escalate the situation further — a good sign, but one that still leaves the region on tenterhooks, according to analysts.

India acted to retaliate against Pakistan for what Delhi claimed was Islamabad’s support for terrorists who killed 26 tourists on April 22 in India-administered Kashmir. In today’s strikes, by India, 26 civilians were killed and 46 wounded, according to a Pakistan military spokesperson.

Pakistan claimed it downed five Indian aircraft; India has not confirmed any such losses, but multiple media reports indicate that two French-made fighter jets, either Mirage or Rafales, were likely downed. The Indian army has said that artillery bombardments by Pakistan killed 15 civilians and injured another 43 since Tuesday night.

“Our intelligence monitoring of Pakistan-based terrorist modules indicated that further attacks against India were impending. There was thus a compulsion both to deter and to pre-empt,” Indian Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri told a briefing today.

“These actions were measured, non-escalatory, proportionate, and responsible,” Misri said, in an apparent attempt to reassure Pakistan that India did not plan to escalate its military actions.

Three analysts told Breaking Defense that both countries have extensive experience managing each other’s expectations and the levels of violence involved.

“Now India’s response, both verbal and written, says and underscores the point that these attacks are proportionate,” said Harsh Pant of the Delhi-based Observer Research Foundation. “They are very targeted and precise, and they do not target any Pakistani military installations.”

Since 2016, India has tried to build around the idea of “surgical strikes” as a response to Pakistan, something Pant described as building a structure of deterrence that both sides understand.

A Singapore-based analyst, Ian Chong, told Breaking Defense in an email that “India and Pakistan have significant experience handling escalation with each other, but each situation is not exactly the same.”

That may mean they need outside pressure “to avoid the situation unraveling out of control” especially since they both have domestic “incentive to show resolve to each other,” Chong said.

An infographic titled “Military capabilities of India and Pakistan” created in Ankara, Turkiye on May 7, 2025. (Photo by Yasin Demirci/Anadolu via Getty Images)

The third analyst, Kim Heriot-Darragh, said “It’s not in India or Pakistan’s interest to allow this to escalate — and their respective militaries are broadly familiar with each other’s capabilities and doctrine, which helps limit the potential for unintended escalation.”

At the same time, Heriot-Darragh, a fellow at the India Institute at the University of Melbourne, cautioned that “events like this move fast, and the international community shouldn’t be complacent about the potential for this to worsen before it improves.”

He reinforced the idea that “India’s strikes were calibrated to signal that there are costs for Pakistan enabling or benefitting from terrorist activities in support of its own objectives – and to fulfill domestic Indian expectations for a muscular response. But it has also been mindful of the need not to squander international support, or target the Pakistani military, which would pose a greater risk of escalation.”

Regional Response

Even putting aside the concerns that both states are nuclear armed, any expanded conflict between Pakistan and India will be watched closely by other regional actors.

Should the fighting escalate in coming days and spill over to the Indian Ocean and begin to threaten trade routes, Chong said Australia, Japan, and South Korea are “more likely to try to encourage some resolution to Indian-Pakistan tensions.” But, he noted, “they have limited leverage on India and Pakistan.”

Already, some regional leaders have weighed in urging calm.

Japan’s Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshimasa Hayashi said his country has expressed “strong concern that this situation may lead to further retaliatory exchanges and escalate into a full-scale military conflict.” Japan’s defense minister met with India’s defense minister just two days before, during which the two countries pledged to increase defense cooperation. The two sides will create a new consultative body “to further strengthen cooperation and coordination in the defense field,” Defense Minister Gen Nakatani said in a statement.

“I am monitoring the situation between India and Pakistan closely,” American Secretary of State Marco Rubio said. “I echo @POTUS’s comments earlier today that this hopefully ends quickly and will continue to engage both Indian and Pakistani leadership towards a peaceful resolution.”

The biggest wild card in all this could be Beijing.

Should China take advantage of India’s preoccupation with Pakistan to improve its position along the Actual Line of Control that marks the divide between the two countries high in the Himalayas, that would greatly complicate the situation.

“The question is whether there will be spillover into the Indian Ocean and if Beijing decides to take advantage of the situation to press its own claims against India. I think the latter situation, which is potentially quite escalatory, is less likely at this point. Beijing has a lot to handle in its trade war with the United States and in handling its own economy,” Chong, associate professor at the National University of Singapore, said.

In a thread on X, Andrew Small, a senior fellow with the German Marshall Fund, said he expects that, “China won’t want to be too visibly embroiled in Pak response (beyond unavoidable fact that they will be using Chinese weapons): it’s trying to stabilize ties with India now (as w/others) to consolidate China’s position to face the US so will tread slightly delicately.”

But, he said, China will want to show support for Pakistan broadly, as a message to others that Beijing will stand by its friends.

“China won’t want significant escalation (few do) but I suspect won’t mind the chance to test Chinese against Western weapons on India’s side,” Small, the author of a 2015 book on Chinese-Pakistani relations, concluded. “I doubt Beijing will see the Indian strikes as excessively escalatory.”

So far, at least, China is calling for both sides to exercise restraint, while first criticizing India’s strikes.

“China finds India’s military operation early this morning regrettable. We are concerned about the ongoing situation,” Foreign Ministry spokesman Lin Jian said in answer to a reporter’s question in Beijing. “We urge both sides to act in the larger interest of peace and stability, remain calm, exercise restraint and refrain from taking actions that may further complicate the situation. We stand ready to work with the international community to continue to play a constructive role in the deescalation of the ongoing tensions.”

breakingdefense.com · by Colin Clark · May 7, 2025

9. Ukrainian Sabotage Cuts Comms at Russian Military Sites in Moscow Region

Video and graphic at the link.

Partisans remain relevant in the modern era.

Excerpt:

A video posted by the agency showed the aircraft burning in the distance, with the message: “Resistance to Putinism is growing.”

Ukrainian Sabotage Cuts Comms at Russian Military Sites in Moscow Region

Atesh partisans sabotaged a transformer in Russia’s Moscow region, disrupting communications at several military sites.

by Kyiv Post | May 8, 2025, 12:13 pm

https://www.kyivpost.com/post/52250

Photo:Atesh

Share Flip

A representative of the Ukrainian partisan movement Atesh carried out a sabotage operation in Russia’s Moscow region, disrupting communications at multiple Russian armed forces’ facilities.

The movement shared photos and video of the operation on Telegram.

According to Atesh, the sabotage attack took place in the village of Mohyltsy, where one of its agents destroyed equipment at a transformer substation supplying electricity and telecommunications to the area.

The partisans did not specify exactly when the sabotage occurred.

As a result of the attack, communications were reportedly disrupted at several key military facilities, including the 629th Anti-Aircraft Missile Regiment (military unit 51857), the 21st Separate Operational Brigade (military unit 3641), and a military town housing units 20007, 03523, and 51084.

Communication problems were also reported at the 483rd Military Investigative Department of Russia’s Investigative Committee and a SberLogistics distribution warehouse that services Defense Ministry contracts.

“The disruption of communications and power supply caused chaos in command, hindered planning, and disrupted coordination among military facilities,” the report read.

On May 5, partisans reported destroying another transformer substation in the Russian Saratov region, which cut power to two cellular base stations.

Those stations provide communications for critical sites, including the GazPromMash oil refinery, the Pirogrup plant, and a Russian military mobilization center.

In late April, Ukraine’s Main Intelligence Directorate (HUR) announced the destruction of a Russian Su-30SM fighter jet in what it called a “successful sabotage operation.”

A video posted by the agency showed the aircraft burning in the distance, with the message: “Resistance to Putinism is growing.”

According to HUR, the incident took place at the Rostov-on-Don Central airfield, where the jet reportedly caught fire and was completely destroyed. The agency said that saboteurs managed to infiltrate the airfield and destroy the aircraft, identified by the tail number “35.” The Su-30SM is estimated to be worth around $50 million.

“The scale of forces ready to resist the Kremlin and carry out acts of demilitarization of the aggressor state is growing,” the HUR statement said.

To suggest a correction or clarification, write to us here

You can also highlight the text and press Ctrl + Enter

Kyiv Post

Kyiv Post is Ukraine’s first and oldest English news organization since 1995. Its international market reach of 97% outside of Ukraine makes it truly Ukraine’s Global – and most reliable – Voice.

10. Trump to Announce Trade-Deal Framework With Britain

Will this be the start of the deals?

Trump to Announce Trade-Deal Framework With Britain

The deal is expected to be framework of an agreement with tariff adjustments

https://www.wsj.com/politics/policy/trump-to-announce-trade-agreement-with-britain-bf937c67

By Natalie Andrews

, Brian Schwartz

and Max Colchester

Updated May 8, 2025 4:29 am ET

A trade deal with the U.K. would be the first for President Trump in his second term. Photo: leah millis/Reuters

Key Points

What's This?

Trump is expected to announce a trade deal framework with the U.K. on Thursday.
The announcement is expected to include tariff adjustments.
The trade deal with the U.K. would be Trump’s first in his second term.

WASHINGTON—President Trump is expected to announce a framework of a trade deal with the U.K. on Thursday, the first in what the White House hopes is a series of trade agreements since it imposed tariffs against allies and adversaries, according to people familiar with the negotiations.

The announcement, which Trump teased late Wednesday on Truth Social as being with a “big, and highly respected country,” is expected to be a framework for an agreement with tariff adjustments.

“This announcement is likely just an agreement to start the negotiations, identifying a framework of issues to be discussed in the coming months,” said international trade attorney Tim Brightbill. “We suspect that tariff rates, non-tariff barriers, and digital trade are all on the list—and there are difficult issues to address on all of these.”

The White House didn’t respond to a request for comment.

A U.K. government spokesperson said, “Talks on a deal between our countries have been continuing at pace and the prime minister will update later today.”

The U.S. is the U.K.’s biggest single trading partner. British officials have argued that the trading relationship between the two nations is broadly balanced. Trump, a keen Anglophile, in the past has said he thought a deal could be worked out.

Until as recently as this week, British officials remained skeptical that a deal would be signed off imminently, and some were taken by surprise by Trump’s announcement. The pact won’t be a comprehensive trade agreement and some details remain yet to be finalized, the officials cautioned.

Last month, the U.S. imposed a new 10% tariff on most goods imported from the U.K., as part of the baseline tariff it imposed on all nations, and Britain is also subject to the 25% tariffs Trump imposed on all steel and aluminum imports on March 12.

The U.K. is hoping to get a reduction on the 25% tariffs the U.S. is levying on steel and automobiles, but the baseline 10% tariff will likely remain in place, officials say. In return, Britain is offering concessions on a digital tax it levies on big U.S. tech companies, according to officials familiar with the matter.

The expected pact will be a far cry from the comprehensive trade deal Downing Street previously sought to negotiate with the U.S. after Britain quit the European Union a few years ago. Those talks ended after British officials balked at the prospect of giving America’s large pharmaceutical and agricultural industries free access to the U.K. market.

The framework due to be presented Thursday will be much more narrowly focused on removing barriers to trade in specific sectors and boosting wider cooperation between the two countries, those officials say.

Trump has paused sweeping tariffs on dozens of countries to allow for negotiations but has kept the 10% baseline tariff in place, as well as severe levies on Chinese imports, which have already led to some consumer-price increases on a variety of goods, including baby strollers, cribs and toys. The president has played down price concerns, saying last week that “maybe the children will have two dolls instead of 30.” At the same time, Trump’s unpredictable trade announcements have made investors nervous and pushed major stock indexes lower.

Trump is seeking an array of benefits for the U.S., including agreements that trading partners purchase more U.S. goods and curb nontariff barriers. Trump argues that tariffs will encourage more manufacturing in the U.S.

A trade deal with the U.K., which earlier this week announced the completion of a trade agreement with India that had been stuck for years, would be the first for Trump in his second term. Administration officials have said they are also in close talks with India and Japan, and the president is readying to go to the Middle East next week.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has said his priorities include striking trade deals with countries in Asia. On the sidelines of a Milken Institute Global Conference in Los Angeles earlier this week, Bessent told a crowd that he has been particularly impressed with Indonesia’s trade framework, without providing further details, a person in attendance said.

Vice President JD Vance on Wednesday said the U.S. is engaging with “most nations,” both friends and adversaries. “We just want a little bit more fairness, or to use the president’s word, reciprocity,” he said at a conference in Washington, calling trade discussions the “early innings.”

Bessent and U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer are traveling to Switzerland on Thursday to meet Beijing’s lead economic representative, the first direct talks over trade between senior officials on both sides.

Write to Natalie Andrews at natalie.andrews@wsj.com, Brian Schwartz at brian.schwartz@wsj.com and Alex Leary at alex.leary@wsj.com

Appeared in the May 8, 2025, print edition as 'Trump to Announce Trade Agreement With Britain'.

11. Fentanyl Crisis Provided Opening for U.S.-China Trade Talks

Has anyone ever asked China for what purpose does it allow precursor fentanyl chemicals to be exported to the Cartels in Mexico? What is the legitimate business purpose? What is China's true intent behind this? (I think we can guess when we read Unrestricted Warfare).

Fentanyl Crisis Provided Opening for U.S.-China Trade Talks

Planned meeting in Switzerland to be first direct talks over trade during Trump’s second term

https://www.wsj.com/world/china/fentanyl-crisis-provided-opening-for-u-s-china-trade-talks-6c8ed5c2?mod=hp_lead_pos2

By Lingling Wei

, Brian Schwartz

and Alex Leary

May 7, 2025 9:00 pm ET

Senior Chinese security official Wang Xiaohong has shown interest in engaging further with the U.S. on fentanyl. Photo: Ng Han Guan/Associated Press

Key Points

What's This?

U.S. and China to hold trade talks in Switzerland, a result of Beijing’s outreach on fentanyl.
Trump administration seeks China’s help to stop the flow of fentanyl precursors.
Both countries aim to de-escalate trade tensions, with the U.S. considering tariff reductions.

Beijing’s outreach to Washington over fentanyl created an opening for trade talks between the two nations, according to people in both capitals who are familiar with the matter, paving the way for a bilateral meeting in Switzerland this weekend.

For weeks, the U.S. and China have been looking for ways to walk back from what were essentially tit-for-tat trade embargoes. The Chinese in late April sent the Trump administration questions seeking clarity on how the president wants China to crack down on trafficking of the chemical ingredients used to make fentanyl, the people said. In response, the White House gave Beijing a list of suggestions.

Chinese leader Xi Jinping’s security czar, Wang Xiaohong, had privately expressed interest in further engaging with Trump officials to address the issue by potentially meeting with them in the U.S. or another country.

The Trump team’s list included a request that Beijing send a strong message to those involved in trafficking the chemicals, known as precursors, according to the people familiar with the matter. Such messages could involve warnings of severe punishment. Precursors produced by Chinese companies, often sold over the internet, flow from China to criminal groups in Mexico and elsewhere that produce fentanyl and traffic it into the U.S.

Now both sides are readying for what will be the first direct talks over trade between senior officials on both sides during President Trump’s second term.

“The United States has been clear about our expectations with regards to stopping the flow of chemical precursors from China to illicit drug producers in Mexico,” National Security Council spokesman James Hewitt said. A White House spokesperson didn’t respond to a request for comment.

A positive step

The exchanges on fentanyl have been viewed by both sides as a step toward finding a way out of the hostilities between the world’s two largest economies that have rattled global markets and businesses. Against that backdrop, people familiar with the matter said, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer and their Chinese counterpart, Vice Premier He Lifeng, agreed in the past few days to meet in Switzerland late this week.

The meeting comes after Bessent on Sunday told people at a private event at the Peninsula hotel in Beverly Hills, Calif., that his priorities include striking new trade deals with countries in Asia, according to one person there. Bessent told the crowd, which was gathered on the sidelines of the Milken Institute Global Conference, that he has been particularly impressed with Indonesia’s trade framework, without providing further details, the person added.

Getting in Trump’s ear

Chinese officials had spent months trying to get through to Trump’s inner circle, but to no avail. Then in the past couple of weeks, Trump and his cabinet members spoke publicly about having active conversations with the Chinese side—assertions that Beijing disputed until late last week.

In a first sign of softening, China’s Commerce Ministry said Friday that Beijing was evaluating comments and messages from U.S. officials that “expressed their willingness to negotiate with China on tariffs.”

He, the vice premier who acts as Xi’s economic right-hand man, was already scheduled to be in Switzerland from Friday through Monday before committing to meet with Bessent and Greer, according to people who consult with Chinese officials. He, pronounced like “huh,” will then visit France as part of Beijing’s effort to court Europe amid its strained relations with Washington.

The developments coincided with the swearing-in Wednesday of former Republican Sen. David Perdue as U.S. ambassador to China. A self-professed China watcher with extensive corporate experience in Asia, Perdue had been a vocal Trump ally in the Senate and supported efforts to counter perceived military and economic threats from Beijing. It wasn’t clear if he would travel to Switzerland for the talks.

Asked about his expectations for the meetings, Trump said Wednesday, “We’ll see,” and referred to the substantial trade deficit with China. He said he wasn’t willing to reduce tariffs to spur negotiations with Beijing. Trump also said he wanted Perdue to promote stability in the Indo-Pacific, stop the flow of fentanyl and “seek fairness and reciprocity for the American worker.”

How to de-escalate

Both U.S. and Chinese officials have indicated that the key objective for the meeting in Switzerland is to de-escalate tensions that have led bilateral trade to essentially dry up, increasing inflationary pressure in the U.S. and threatening to plunge China into a deep recession.

Bessent in recent days has described the tariff levels imposed since Trump took office as unsustainable. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said in a recent interview with CNBC that Bessent was planning to deal directly with China while he would focus on dozens of other countries.

Some White House officials are hoping the talks in Switzerland could lead to the beginning of the end of what they have described as a “total trade embargo” between the two countries, according to an administration official. It is unclear, however, how widespread that sentiment is among Trump’s aides. Notably, Peter Navarro, Trump’s senior trade adviser, won’t attend the coming talks in Switzerland.

Fentanyl is directly tied to some of Trump’s tariffs, but not all of them. Soon after starting his second term, Trump hit China with 20% tariffs over its role in a drug-overdose crisis that kills tens of thousands of Americans every year. Beijing refused to engage, with Chinese officials arguing that the U.S. was using the fentanyl issue as a pretext for its trade assault on China.

That posture turned out to be a miscalculation by the Xi leadership. Since then, Trump has raised U.S. import duties on Chinese goods to 145%. Those steeper U.S. levies came after the president announced his so-called reciprocal tariff regime on many nations, seeking to rebalance global trade to more favorable terms for the U.S.

The Trump administration has considered slashing the 145% tariffs—in some cases by more than half—in a bid to de-escalate tensions with Beijing. Administration officials also have said the U.S. wouldn’t act unilaterally and would need to see some action from Beijing.

“It’s encouraging progress,” said Ting Lu, chief China economist at Nomura, referring to the coming meeting in Switzerland. “But markets might need to lower their expectations on the pace for reaching a real deal for slashing the tariffs.”

Write to Lingling Wei at Lingling.Wei@wsj.com, Brian Schwartz at brian.schwartz@wsj.com and Alex Leary at alex.leary@wsj.com

12. Shippers Are Skeptical of Trump’s Truce With the Houthis

Shippers Are Skeptical of Trump’s Truce With the Houthis

With an unclear deal and the Gaza war continuing, top carriers have no plans to return to the Red Sea soon

https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/trump-houthis-truce-shipping-industry-a3b01ecf

By Stephen Kalin

, Costas Paris

and Benoit Faucon

May 7, 2025 11:00 pm ET

Flames and smoke rising from a Yemeni port following U.S. airstrikes last month. Photo: Houthis Al-Masirah TV/Shutterstock

Key Points

What's This?

Shippers are hesitant to return to Red Sea routes despite a tentative U.S.-Houthi cease-fire deal due to security concerns.
The cease-fire’s vague terms and continued war in Gaza raise doubts about the safety of commercial shipping.
Attacks on commercial ships will continue to be considered a threat by some until the Houthis are disarmed.

Shippers aren’t yet confident enough to return to routes through the Red Sea, despite a tentative cease-fire deal between the U.S. and Yemen’s Houthi militia.

The top five container-shipping companies said they were assessing the deal announced Tuesday by President Trump but had no immediate plans to return to the area where the Houthis began targeting merchant ships in late 2023 in response to the war in the Gaza Strip.

“We are not going back any time soon,” said Nils Haupt, a spokesman for German liner Hapag-Lloyd. “It’s a good development, but it needs a lot of security guarantees for the Red Sea to be considered safe for big merchant ships.”

Attacks in the Red Sea

Confirmed Houthi attacks

(Nov. 19, 2023-Apr. 28, 2025)

saudi Arabia

Red Sea

Yemen

San'a

Houthi-

controlled

territory

Eritrea

ethiopia

Gulf of Aden

100 miles

Sources: Acaps (Houthi territory); The Washington Institute for Near East Policy (attacks)

Emma Brown/WSJ

Shippers said the area will remain volatile as long as the war continues. And while the Houthis and U.S. pledged not to attack each other while the cease-fire holds, the agreement is vague and makes no clear mention of ending attacks on commercial shipping, said Christopher Long, intelligence director at security firm Neptune P2P Group and a former British naval officer.

A Pentagon official said there is still work to be done to guarantee safe navigation, which could include limited Navy escorts for crossing ships as the truce begins and diplomacy to get the Houthis to stop attacking Israel. The Houthis said Wednesday that they fired drones at Israel. The Israeli military said it had intercepted a drone attack.

“It will take some time before the southern Red Sea is safe, and we are working on it,” the official said. “It will also depend on how the Houthis behave.”

Following more limited operations by the Biden administration last year, Trump ordered the Pentagon to escalate the bombing campaign in Yemen for nearly two months, aiming to stop Houthi attacks that have driven shippers away from one of the world’s most important waterways.

Traffic through the Red Sea is down by 60%. Carriers have switched to longer and more expensive routes around the Cape of Good Hope. Analysts say it could take months to restore shippers’ confidence.

Marine Corps expects largest impact from Hegseth’s officer cuts

Stars and Stripes · by Svetlana Shkolnikova · May 6, 2025

Gen. Christopher Mahoney, assistant commandant of the Marine Corps, attends a meeting at Joint Base Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, on April 24, 2025. (Juaquin Greaves/U.S. Marine Corps)

WASHINGTON — Service officials on Tuesday said it was too soon to tell how they will be impacted by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s order to pare down the military’s senior ranks, but the Marine Corps will likely be affected the most.

“Our ratio of Marines to general officers is the highest in the [Defense Department],” said Gen. Christopher Mahoney, the service’s assistant commandant. “So any cut we’re going to have to look very, very closely at.”

Hegseth on Monday ordered a minimum 20% cut to the number of four-star generals and admirals on active duty, as well as a corresponding 20% reduction of four-star positions in the National Guard and a 10% reduction of general and flag officers across the military.

“We’re going to shift resources from bloated headquarters elements to our warfighters,” Hegseth said.

There are about 800 general-level officers in the military, with 44 at a four-star rank.

The Marine Corps has 2,700 Marines for every general officer, Mahoney said Tuesday in his testimony to a House Armed Services Committee subpanel examining readiness. The service has 64 general officers, including two four-star officers, he said.

The number of active-duty general or flag officers is set by Congress. The cap is 219 for the Army, 171 for the Air Force, 150 for the Navy, 64 for the Marine Corps and 21 for the Space Force.

Gen. James Mingus, vice chief of staff of the Army, said the Army was aware of the Pentagon’s review of general officers before Monday’s announcement and had begun restructuring months earlier to better streamline leadership.

“We knew we were over-structured,” he said. “We had too much, too many headquarters.”

Still, he said it was “probably a little too early to tell in terms of what the overall impacts” of Hegseth’s order are going to be.

Lt. Gen. Adrian Spain, the Air Force deputy chief of staff for operations, and Adm. James Kilby, vice chief of naval operations, said they also could not yet predict the potential consequences of the reduction plan.

“We look forward to seeing the exact language following the announcement,” Spain said. “I have every confidence that we’ll be able to work with the department to minimize any particular mission or readiness impacts of the decisions.”

The reaction from lawmakers on Capitol Hill has been mixed.

Republican Mike Rogers of Alabama, the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, said the military was “top-heavy” and Hegseth was right to review the issue.

“I look forward to working with him on this effort to maximize strategic readiness and operational effectiveness,” he said in a post on X on Monday.

But Sen. Jack Reed of Rhode Island, the top Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, said he was skeptical of Hegseth’s motive after he already fired a raft of military leaders in recent months.

Among those let go were the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Air Force Gen. Charles “CQ” Brown; the Navy’s top officer, Adm. Lisa Franchetti; and Air Force Gen. Timothy Haugh, who oversaw U.S. Cyber Command and the National Security Agency.

“We need efficiency at the Department of Defense,” Reed wrote on X on Tuesday. “But personnel decisions should be based on facts & analysis, not arbitrary percentages. Eliminating the positions of many of our most experienced officers without justification could cripple the military.”

In a video announcing the changes, Hegseth said the reduction plan will be done “carefully, but it’s going to be done expeditiously.”

Stars and Stripes · by Svetlana Shkolnikova · May 6, 2025

14. Voice of America will carry One America News programming

A couple points for consideration. I urge my VOA friends to think this through. First, pushing back on this makes you seem like some elitist, globalist left wing organization. It undermines VOA credibility (and I know the argument will be that the extreme views of OAN will undermine VOA and American credibility). Whether you like it or not OAN provides the views of some Americans and in full transparency VOA has to consider them and global target audiences need to understand them if they want to understand America.

If this is the only way to get VOA back to doing its work then I say you have to bite the bullet. OAN will not be creating any relevant content for target audiences in denied areas, When I watched OAN when it was on our cable service when it first came out it had no commercials - All the public service messages between the news reports were patriotic public service announcements. They were kind of like mini civics classes or "civics sound bites." They were basically explanations of our founding documents as well as other American historical events. It was patriotic American cheerleading. Those actually could be useful. I don't know what they are doing now because the cable service we have no longer carries ONA and their twtter/X feed is for subscribers only (I guess you have to be willing to enter their echo chamber). VOA has long made use of Reuters and Associated Press reports to supplement their news reporting. While some find OAN an extreme media outlet (slanted in one political direction) it may not be too big of a distraction to the target audience. VOA journalists will report the news and they already have trusted reputations (and despite the concerns their reputations will not be harmed by OAN reports). When American names from OAN appear, the target audience will be able to discern who is doing the reporting and they will separate the wheat from the chaff. Also, I doubt OAN is going to do any reporting in the target languages. They can use machine translation perhaps but that will not be lost on the target audiences. They will know what is what and who is who. Ironically some of the people who are most aware of propaganda (which is what some would call OAN) are those in denied areas who are used to their own dictators' information control. While I think this is really a foolish idea and not one that serious people would consider, if the current administration wants to use OAN, that is its prerogative. Choose your battles wisely. So again, if it is the only way to get VOA back to doing its job you will have to hold you nose to get the professional journalists back out there reporting for the good of US national security.

VOA's mission is to explain US policy to foreign target audiences. VOA reports the specific policies and then interviews academics, practitioners, former government officials, etc., to provide further depth to the explanation. OAN may provide one interpretation of those policies. And it is a realistic view because there are a number of Americans who support their interpretations.

Lastly, if VOA is representative of a free press (and I believe it is the best representative of a free press in the modern era not despite but because it is solely US government funded) it should respect that OAN has a point of view and it should be willing to provide it air time just as it provides all points of view with air time. VOA should not be engaged in any appearance of censorship. Of course the counter-argument will be that it will not longer longer have a free press reputation if the US government is directing only certain messages and points of view be transmitted to global target audiences. This violates the "firewall" concept that VOA has long operated under and its reputation has been sustained becasue successive US admintrations have respected the concept. End this is what beings VOA legitimacy and credibility with target audeinces. But as long as VOA can report from all points of view, including OAN then it can protect its reputation which is the most important thing it must do to continue to support US national security through the information instrument of national power - which is its fundamental mission.

Voice of America will carry One America News programming

Staffers at the government-funded broadcaster condemned the announcement from Kari Lake, given OAN’s right-wing slant and support of President Donald Trump.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/style/media/2025/05/07/oan-voice-of-america-one-america-news-kari-lake/?utm

May 7, 2025 at 11:41 a.m. EDTToday at 11:41 a.m. EDT

5 min

885

Kari Lake speaks during a campaign rally with Donald Trump in Prescott, Arizona, in October. (Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post)

By Scott Nover

Voice of America will carry programming from the right-wing TV network One America News, according to a post on X from Kari Lake on Tuesday night.

Lake, a senior adviser to the U.S. Agency for Global Media (USAGM), the government body that oversees Voice of America, announced that the agency agreed to provide “newsfeed services” to Voice of America, as well as to the Office of Cuba Broadcasting and Radio Martí, which distribute news into Cuba.

Get concise answers to your questions. Try Ask The Post AI.

Skip to end of carouselThe Style section

Style is The Washington Post’s place for news from the front lines of culture — arts, media, politics, trends and fashion. For more Style stories, click here. To subscribe to the Style Memo newsletter, click here.

End of carousel

“In my current role as Senior Advisor to USAGM, I don’t have editorial control over the content of VOA and OCB programming, but I can ensure our outlets have reliable and credible options as they work to craft their reporting and news programs,” Lake wrote in a post on X announcing the agreement. “And every day I look for ways to save American taxpayers money. Bringing in OAN as a video/news source does both. OAN is one of the few family-owned American media networks left in the United States. We are grateful for their generosity.”

In the statement, Lake said that she reached out to OAN to supply news to U.S. broadcasts to Cuba. OAN in return offered its news and video services “free-of-charge.”

Follow Trump’s second term

Charles Herring, president of OAN, confirmed to The Washington Post that the programming is free. “OAN will be supplying an extensive amount of programming, including ‘Hungry Heroes,’ a series that highlights the incredible work performed by our first responders and military,” Herring wrote in a text message Wednesday morning.

The Trump administration is fighting in court to defend a March executive order dismantling the USAGM. The order led to more than 1,000 Voice of America staffers being placed on paid administrative leave, and broadcasting has stopped for the first time in the organization’s history. Voice of America began broadcasting in 1942 to combat Nazi propaganda during World War II.

U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth issued a preliminary injunction April 22 blocking the executive order from taking effect — a move that would have sent most VOA staffers back to work this week. But on Saturday, a three-judge federal appeals court panel in Washington that included two Trump appointees stayed parts of the injunction, including the part that sent staffers back to work. The injunction still requires VOA to fulfill its statutory mandate.

Some Voice of America staffers returned to work Tuesday — fewer than 20 out of more than 1,300 staffers — according to three people familiar with the situation, who spoke on the condition of anonymity out of concern for retaliation and given the pending litigation.

Lake’s announcement was met with outrage from Voice of America staffers, who pointed to OAN’s right-wing slant and support of President Donald Trump.

“VOA is not to be the voice of left America nor the voice of right America,” said Steve Herman, chief national correspondent for VOA.

“USAGM cannot dictate [that] VOA run OAN content. It would be a violation of our fire wall and our charter, which are laws,” he said.

VOA White House bureau chief Patsy Widakuswara and press freedom editor Jessica Jerreat, plaintiffs in one of the lawsuits against the government over the executive order, said this agreement violates the congressional mandate of VOA.

“Congress mandated VOA to report reliable and authoritative news, not to outsource its journalism to outlets aligned with the president’s agenda,” they wrote in a statement. “VOA already has talented and professional journalists ready to tell America’s story in line with the VOA Charter, but we are blocked from our own newsroom. That is why we will continue fighting for our rights in court.”

David Seide, senior counsel for the Government Accountability Project, which is representing plaintiffs in litigation against the government, called the announcement “shocking and illegal” and said it will be challenged in court.

Lake is a journalist turned Republican politician who unsuccessfully ran for Arizona governor in 2022 and the U.S. Senate in 2024. She has promised to use VOA as a “weapon” to fight an “information war.”

Lake did not respond to The Post’s request for comment Tuesday night after sources told The Post of the deal, and she later posted her statement on X announcing the news. The White House and the USAGM did not respond to requests for comment.

OAN is owned by Herring Networks, which was started by Charles’s father, Robert Herring, more than two decades ago. Gaining prominence in the Trump era, OAN has largely run to the political right of the more prominent conservative outlet Fox News. Last year, OAN settled a defamation lawsuit with Smartmatic, the voting technology company, over its coverage of the 2020 election. The terms of the settlement were not disclosed.

In the first Trump administration, a federal district judge found that the then-CEO of the USAGM violated the “firewall” that ensures that the agency’s networks aren’t mouthpieces of the government and effectively barred the president from interfering with the networks’ content.

What readers are saying

The comments overwhelmingly express concern and disapproval over Voice of America (VOA) carrying programming from One America News (OAN), citing fears of it becoming a propaganda tool akin to those used by authoritarian regimes. Many commenters draw parallels to Nazi propaganda,... Show more

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

All comments 885

Trump Says He Hasn’t Decided If Iran Can Enrich Uranium in a New Deal

The president’s latest comments add to the administration’s mixed messages as it pursues talks for a new nuclear pact with Tehran

https://www.wsj.com/politics/national-security/trump-says-he-hasnt-decided-if-iran-can-enrich-uranium-in-a-new-deal-7745ef8d?mod=politics_lead_pos3

By Laurence Norman

and Michael R. Gordon

May 7, 2025 5:12 pm ET

President Trump in the Oval Office on Wednesday. Photo: Samuel Corum/Press Pool

President Trump said Wednesday that he hasn’t decided whether Iran should be allowed to enrich uranium under a new nuclear deal, signaling that the White House might be flexible on a central issue in the talks.

Asked if Iran can have a civilian enrichment program if it didn’t produce weapons-grade material that could be used in a bomb, Trump said: “We haven’t made that decision yet.”

Trump’s comments in the Oval Office are the latest in a series of mixed messages the administration has sent about what nuclear work Iran would be allowed to do under a potential deal.

Earlier in the day, Vice President JD Vance said Iran couldn’t have an enrichment program that could enable Tehran to develop a nuclear weapon.

“We don’t care if people want nuclear power,” he said at a conference in Washington. “But you can’t have the kind of enrichment program that allows you to get to a nuclear weapon and that’s where we draw the line.”

Secretary of State Marco Rubio has ruled out any Iranian uranium-enrichment program, telling an interviewer last month that Tehran would be required to “import enriched material” if it wanted to run nuclear reactors for power and other civilian purposes.

Enriching uranium is a critical part of a nuclear program and can be used to produce fuel for civilian power reactors or weapons-grade fissile material for a nuclear weapon.

A National Security Council spokesman didn’t respond to a request for comment on Trump’s statement on enrichment but pointed to remarks the president made in an interview with Hugh Hewitt that any agreement would require “total verification” and would need to be “strong.”

Trump has repeatedly said that if the U.S. cannot reach a nuclear deal with Iran, he would consider military action to knock out Tehran’s nuclear program. Vance said Wednesday the talks with Iran were on a good path.

“I will say so far so good. We have been very happy by how the Iranians have responded to some of the points that we’ve made,” Vance said.

Talks between the U.S. and Iran could resume this weekend in Oman, according to a person involved in the discussions. Oman has so far mediated between the two sides.

Iran has long insisted that it has the right to enrich uranium and that its nuclear program is entirely peaceful. Retaining its enrichment program has been the central red line Tehran has set in talks with previous U.S. administrations. But U.S. officials say that could provide Tehran a potential pathway to produce nuclear material for a bomb.

A fundamental question for the White House is whether it should allow Iran to carry out a low level of enrichment that would be subject to rigorous monitoring as part of a compromise—or if it should risk jeopardizing a deal by banning Iran from doing any uranium enrichment of its own.

U.S. intelligence agencies have told Congress that Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei hasn’t given the go-ahead to build a nuclear device, though he is under pressure to do so.

On Wednesday, Ali Shamkhani, a senior aide to Khamenei, said on X that the U.S. and Iran were “determined to continue on the right path of talks.”

“Sanction removal & recognition of Iran’s right to industrial enrichment can guarantee a deal,” he said.

From the start of the talks, the U.S. position on enrichment has wavered. In an interview with the Journal shortly before talks started, U.S. Special Envoy Steve Witkoff said the U.S.’s starting position was that Iran should dismantle its nuclear program but made clear that the U.S. was open to compromise.

Later In April, Witkoff suggested in an interview with Fox News that Iran could continue to enrich under a deal up to 3.67%, far below the 90% weapons grade fissile material. The next day, Witkoff said the U.S. position remained that Iran must “stop and eliminate its nuclear enrichment.”

Write to Laurence Norman at laurence.norman@wsj.com and Michael R. Gordon at michael.gordon@wsj.com

16. U.S. pushes nations facing tariffs to approve Musk’s Starlink, cables show

But isn't it part of every Chief of Mission's job to advocate for US business around the world? Is it any different than trying to get countries to buy Boeing aircraft or General Dynamics weapons systems or buy American wheat?

And what other capability (US or foreign) competes with or is superior to Starlink? Isn't rapid global communications the engine that fuels economic development around the world? Is this only an issue because it is Musk's company? Again, what other company has developed this capability? You may not like Musk but you have to credit him with the innovation and development of the important (and perhaps indispensable) capability.

U.S. pushes nations facing tariffs to approve Musk’s Starlink, cables show

Some countries have turned to the satellite internet firm in conjunction with trade talks, State Department staffers wrote. The U.S. has a strategic interest in countering Chinese internet providers, but Musk’s role complicates the picture.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2025/05/07/elon-musk-starlink-trump-tariffs/

May 7, 2025 at 2:06 p.m. EDTYesterday at 2:06 p.m. EDT

10 min

1579

A SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket streaks across the sky on Oct. 18, 2024, as seen from Alexandria, Virginia. The rocket carried 20 Starlink satellites into low Earth orbit. (Robert Miller/The Washington Post)

By Jeff Stein and Hannah Natanson

Less than two weeks after President Donald Trump announced 50 percent tariffs on goods from the tiny African nation of Lesotho, the country’s communications regulator held a meeting with representatives of Starlink.

The satellite business, owned by billionaire and Trump adviser Elon Musk’s SpaceX company, had been seeking access to customers in Lesotho. But it was not until Trump unveiled the tariffs and called for negotiations over trade deals that leaders of the country of roughly 2 million people awarded Musk’s firm the nation’s first-ever satellite internet service license, slated to last for 10 years.

The decision drew a mention in an internal State Department memo obtained by The Washington Post, which states: “As the government of Lesotho negotiates a trade deal with the United States, it hopes that licensing Starlink demonstrates goodwill and intent to welcome U.S. businesses.”

Lesotho is far from the only country that has decided to assist Musk’s firm while trying to fend off U.S. tariffs. The company reached distribution deals with two providers in India in March and has won at least partial accommodations with Somalia, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Bangladesh, Pakistan and Vietnam, although this is probably not a comprehensive count.

Follow Trump’s second term

A series of internal government messages obtained by The Post reveal how U.S. embassies and the State Department have pushed nations to clear hurdles for U.S. satellite companies, often mentioning Starlink by name. The documents do not show that the Trump team has explicitly demanded favors for Starlink in exchange for lower tariffs. But they do indicate that Secretary of State Marco Rubio has increasingly instructed officials to push for regulatory approvals for Musk’s satellite firm at a moment when the White House is calling for wide-ranging talks on trade.

In India, government officials have sped through approvals of Starlink with the understanding that doing so could help them cement trade deals with the administration, according to two people familiar with the matter, speaking on the condition of anonymity to reflect private deliberations.

Skip to end of carouselHelp us report on the Trump administration

The Washington Post wants to hear from anyone with knowledge of the Trump administration’s inner workings. You can contact our reporters by email or Signal encrypted message.

Jeff Stein: jeffrey.stein@washpost.com or (917) 887-2891 on Signal.

Hannah Natanson: hannah.natanson@washpost.com or (202) 580-5477 on Signal.

End of carousel

“It’s not likely to be an explicit element of the trade negotiations with the U.S., but the Indian side sees this as an important lubricant that facilitates a deal,” said one of the people briefed on the matter by Indian leadership.

Asked for comment on the satellite firm, the State Department said in a statement: “Starlink is an American-made product that has been game-changing in helping remote areas around the world gain internet connectivity. Any patriotic American should want to see an American company’s success on the global stage, especially over compromised Chinese competitors.”

Musk is a key political ally of Trump’s who spent $277 million backing the president and other Republicans in last year’s elections, and he’s been working in the administration overseeing the U.S. DOGE Service, though he has said he’ll soon step down.

A White House spokesman said the administration would not abide conflicts of interest.

“The only consideration in the Trump administration’s trade negotiations with other countries is what’s best for the American people — which includes American companies succeeding at home and abroad,” spokesman Kush Desai said in a statement. “President Trump will not tolerate any conflicts of interest, and every administration official is following ethical guidelines set by their respective agencies.”

Spokespeople for India, Lesotho and several other countries did not respond to requests for comment, nor did SpaceX.

A Post opinion column last week also reported on Starlink’s expansion in Lesotho, Bangladesh and other countries.

Some experts say the move makes strategic sense for the Trump administration. The United States is engaged in a competition with China over telecommunications around the world, and Starlink is the biggest domestic and international player in satellite internet connectivity.

Trump's second presidency

Trump holds swearing-in ceremony for new China ambassador amid trade tensio...

May 7, 2025

Here’s what Trump’s budget proposal cuts by agency

May 2, 2025

Trump nominates five red-state lawyers for federal judgeships

May 7, 2025

Trump appoints former ‘Real Housewives’ star to Holocaust Museum board

May 7, 2025

AG Pam Bondi, FBI director Kash Patel tout drug- and sex-crime arrests

May 7, 2025

Jon Voight had concepts of a plan to fix Hollywood. Trump pounced.

May 7, 2025

Trump military border charges sow confusion in federal courts

May 7, 2025

Bernie Sanders pleads with Shari Redstone not to settle Trump lawsuit

May 7, 2025

Biden criticizes Trump for ‘appeasement’ of Putin in interview

May 7, 2025

Fed keeps interest rates steady amid concerns on tariffs’ economic risks

May 7, 2025

Trump’s tariffs hit baby industry hard, threatening parents with price hike...

May 7, 2025

DOGE aims to pool federal data, putting personal information at risk

May 7, 2025

Judge presses Trump administration on returning 2nd wrongly deported man

May 6, 2025

Proposed cuts to housing programs could affect millions, experts warn

May 6, 2025

At Trump’s urging, USPS board to name FedEx official as postmaster general

May 6, 2025

Canadian leader says his country isn’t for sale, Trump says ‘Time will tell...

May 6, 2025

Trump administration plans to end Energy Star program for home appliances

May 6, 2025

Trump wants to reopen Alcatraz. Californians are deeply skeptical.

May 6, 2025

Trump administration abruptly removes vice chair of the NTSB

May 6, 2025

Canada’s new leader tries charm after tough talk on Trump

May 6, 2025

“When Elon’s name is attached to anything, there’s all sorts of feelings. But if he weren’t the CEO of SpaceX, I don’t think most people would have a problem with the U.S. government advocating for American companies to get international market access,” said Evan Swarztrauber, a senior fellow at the Foundation for American Innovation, a technology policy think tank.

Swarztrauber added: “We want American satellite companies to do well abroad, especially as our main competition is China. The U.S. has a lead in space, and we should double down on getting other countries to grant regulatory approvals for our companies. Otherwise, it will be Chinese companies that benefit from market access.”

Starlink’s international expansion could unlock multibillion-dollar revenue streams. Capturing just 1 percent of India’s consumer broadband market could generate nearly $1 billion annually, with comparable upside in Latin America and Africa, according to Kimberly Siversen Burke, director of government affairs at Quilty Space, a space-sector intelligence firm. She noted these are early estimates based on Quilty Space’s financial model.

The cables obtained by The Post shed new light into how U.S. officials are encouraging countries worldwide to adopt Starlink.

Such efforts are not entirely new. The Biden administration was pushing embassies to adopt Starlink and other satellite-based internet services, the cables show. In early December, an “informational” cable went to diplomatic posts with then-Secretary of State Antony Blinken’s signature, touting the benefits of “low Earth orbit (LEO) satellites,” calling them “a resilient alternative to traditional internet service providers.” At the time, 50 American overseas posts were using LEO services, the cable stated, but the State Department planned to expand the technology to more posts across the globe.

Blinken’s cable explicitly said the department wanted to push additional options, not just Starlink: State “will increase the number of available LEO vendors as they become available in the marketplace,” the cable stated.

Under Trump, Rubio has signed at least two cables asking department staffers worldwide to promote American satellite services — including Starlink, mentioned by name in both missives — to combat “Russian space incumbents” and Chinese companies offering the same service. The cables labeled Russian and Chinese satellite-based internet services a potential threat to America’s national security.

The cables appeared to go beyond Blinken’s December communication, which detailed plans for more American posts to adopt satellite-based internet, by instructing post staffers to persuade the countries where they are to choose the service.

On March 28, one of the cables shows, an “action request” went out with Rubio’s signature citing Starlink by name and arguing that “U.S. government advocacy is essential to maintain and extend their global ‘first-mover’ advantage.’”

A later cable shows the U.S. Embassy staff in Turkey delivering some of Rubio’s talking points to a top Turkish space official, who the cable says had expressed interest in purchasing satellite services like those offered by Starlink and Amazon’s Project Kuiper. (Amazon founder Jeff Bezos owns The Post.)

Some of the cables came after Trump announced worldwide tariffs of varying levels on April 2.

One State Department cable, issued in mid-April, said a top Malian official had met with staff members at the embassy in Bamako and shared his country’s interest in procuring Starlink. A comment added by embassy staffers noted that Mali is “in the process of developing a legal framework and platform to register and identify all Starlink users” and that, once that’s in place, the Bamako embassy’s “Deal Team” had already “identified” one Malian company “preparing to set up a Starlink franchise.”

At least two countries have explicitly discussed or moved toward adopting Musk’s Starlink as a means of avoiding Trump’s tariffs and negotiating a better trade deal with the United States, the cables show.

The 49 percent tariff rate on goods from Cambodia “came as a shock” to Cambodian government officials and the country’s private sector because they had hoped to avoid such measures, according to a cable from the U.S. Embassy in Phnom Penh on April 4, two days after Trump announced the import taxes.

The day after Trump’s announcement, the cable shows, leaders of the American Chamber of Commerce in Cambodia — a nonprofit made up of U.S. and Cambodian companies, known as AmCham — met with Ministry of Economy and Finance officials to discuss what the country could or should do to smooth relations with the Trump administration.

Representatives for AmCham urged “decisive action in offering concessions to the United States,” the cable reported, which included “recommending that Cambodia offer duty-free access for U.S. imports (specifically mentioning Ford vehicles) and expeditiously approve Starlink’s market entry request.”

An earlier cable from the Phnom Penh embassy, dated March 28, shows Cambodian government officials were already considering such a strategy before the import duties were rolled out: “Post has observed the Cambodian government — likely due to concern over the possibility of U.S. tariffs — signal its desire to help balance our trade relationship by promoting the market entry of leading U.S. companies such as Boeing and Starlink,” the cable stated.

Another cable from April 17 reported that Starlink was pushing for a license to operate in Djibouti. A comment added by State Department staffers noted Starlink’s entry into Djibouti would be an opportunity to open the country’s market and boost “an American company.” Embassy staffers wrote they would help Starlink as much as they could: “Post will continue to follow up with Starlink in identifying government officials and facilitating discussions.”

So far, the U.S. government has not struck any trade deals since the tariffs were announced.

W. Gyude Moore, a fellow at the Center for Global Development, a Washington-based think tank, said it appears more African countries are approving Starlink than were before the Trump administration, although precise data is difficult to come by.

He said it is difficult for African officials to disentangle U.S. government demands from Musk’s. For instance, the Trump administration was exerting new pressure on South Africa just as Starlink stepped up its attempts to advance in the country.

“If you were a South African government official and this was before you, it’d be very difficult to separate,” Moore said. He added: “It might be that there’s nothing formal — that there’s no direct pressure on them — but people can conclude for themselves that Musk is close to Trump, and if I stall his business here, it could affect my country. They can see their life might be a lot easier if seen or perceived as getting along with Elon Musk.”

John Hudson and Adam Taylor in Washington and Karishma Mehrotra in New Delhi contributed to this report.

17. West Point Is Supposed to Educate, Not Indoctrinate

A very troubling read.

I did not go to West Point but I am a strong advocate of its mission (and all our service academies). I have seen the very positive effects of a West Point (and Annapolis and Colorado Springs) education and long admired the graduates throughout my career (but do not let them know that). I have been fortunate to engage with students from all three academies in recent years and I am continually impressed with their knowledge and focus on learning and most importantly their desire to serve our nation. They need the broadest education possible to be the best leaders they can be.

Opinion

Guest Essay

West Point Is Supposed to Educate, Not Indoctrinate

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/08/opinion/west-point-trump-military.html

May 8, 2025, 5:01 a.m. ET

Credit...Damon Winter/The New York Times

By Graham Parsons

Dr. Parsons is a professor of philosophy at the United States Military Academy at West Point, where he studies and teaches military ethics.

It turned out to be easy to undermine West Point. All it took was an executive order from President Trump and a memo from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth dictating what could and couldn’t be taught in the military and its educational institutions.

In a matter of days, the United States Military Academy at West Point abandoned its core principles. Once a school that strove to give cadets the broad-based, critical-minded, nonpartisan education they need for careers as Army officers, it was suddenly eliminating courses, modifying syllabuses and censoring arguments to comport with the ideological tastes of the Trump administration.

I will be resigning after this semester from my tenured position at West Point after 13 years on the faculty. I cannot tolerate these changes, which prevent me from doing my job responsibly. I am ashamed to be associated with the academy in its current form.

The trouble began around the time Mr. Trump was sworn in for his second term as president. That week, West Point administrators pressured me to withdraw an article about the military’s obligation to be politically neutral that had been accepted for publication at the national security blog Lawfare. The administrators did not find fault with the article but said they were worried that it might be provocative to the incoming administration. Reluctantly, I complied.

Then came the executive order from Mr. Trump on Jan. 27 and Mr. Hegseth’s memo two days later. Mr. Trump’s order prohibited any educational institution operated by the armed forces from “promoting, advancing or otherwise inculcating” certain “un-American” theories, including “gender ideology” and the idea that “America’s founding documents are racist or sexist.”

Mr. Hegseth’s memo went further, adding that the service academies were prohibited even from providing instruction about such topics. Mr. Trump and Mr. Hegseth also ordered that the academies shall “teach that America and its founding documents remain the most powerful force for good in human history.”

Sign up for the Opinion Today newsletter Get expert analysis of the news and a guide to the big ideas shaping the world every weekday morning. Get it sent to your inbox.

These were brazen demands to indoctrinate, not educate.

Whatever you think about various controversial ideas — Mr. Hegseth’s memo cited critical race theory and gender ideology — students should engage with them and debate their merits rather than be told they are too dangerous even to be contemplated. And however much I admire America, uncritically asserting that it is “the most powerful force for good in human history” is not something an educator does.

Another problem with Mr. Hegseth’s memo was its vagueness. Did critical race theory mean the specific work of scholars like Derrick Bell and Kimberlé Crenshaw? Or did it mean any discussion of the complexities of race in society? Did gender ideology refer to the view that biological females can be men? Or did it refer to any examination of the role of gender in our lives?

Rather than interpreting Mr. Hegseth’s demands narrowly, West Point seems to have read them broadly. What followed was a sweeping assault on the school’s curriculum and the faculty members’ research.

Department heads ordered reviews of syllabuses and then demanded changes. West Point scrapped two history courses (“Topics in Gender History” and “Race, Ethnicity, Nation”) and an English course (“Power and Difference”). The sociology major was dissolved and a Black history project at the history department was disbanded. Department leaders forced professors to remove from their courses works by James Baldwin, Toni Morrison, Alice Walker and other women and men of color.

One of my supervisors ordered professors to get rid of readings on white supremacy in Western ethical theory and feminist approaches to ethics in “Philosophy and Ethical Reasoning,” a course I direct that is required for all cadets. A West Point student debate team was even told that it couldn’t take certain positions at a forthcoming competition.

And these are just some of the episodes I am aware of. (Terence Kelley, a spokesman for West Point, told The Times that while it may be unusual for a typical college or university to modify policy based on presidential executive orders or to limit research and debate, West Point personnel must abide by military regulations and policy and that such changes are “in no way unique to the current administration.”)

Neither Mr. Trump’s order nor Mr. Hegseth’s memo mentioned faculty research. Nevertheless, on Feb. 13, the dean’s office shared a memo outlining a policy requiring faculty members to get approval from their department heads to do any writing, talks, social media posting or other public expressions of our scholarship if it is affiliated with West Point. I am writing this essay without having secured approval.

Though the memo does not say so, administrators have told me that any parts of my research that seem to conflict with the Trump administration’s politics will not be approved. Many faculty members, including me (I study, among other things, masculinity and war), can no longer publish or promote our scholarship.

(Mr. Kelley told The Times that while this policy was updated on Feb. 13, it dates to April 2023. In my experience, however, that was not how it was applied until this year. This past September, for example, I published without such approval an opinion essay in The Times about the military’s obligation to be politically neutral — an argument along the lines of the essay I was asked not to publish this year in Lawfare.)

I expected — naïvely, I now realize — that West Point’s leaders would set an example for the cadets by raising their voices in defense of the values and mission of the institution. Instead, I have seen an eagerness to reassure the Trump administration that the academy is in its pocket.

There are many costs to West Point’s capitulation. One is that the academy is failing to provide an adequate education for the cadets. The cadets are no longer able to openly investigate many critical issues like race and sexuality or be exposed to unfamiliar perspectives that might expand their intellectual horizons. As for the faculty members, West Point no longer seems to recognize our duties to our disciplines and our students. Even if we preserve our jobs, we are sacrificing our profession.

Furthermore, the cadets are being sent the message that the debates in which they are not allowed to engage are those the Trump administration considers settled. The lesson many cadets are learning is that it is inappropriate for them to question their own government — a dangerous message to convey to future Army officers.

Then there’s the message that the cadets are learning about West Point. Cadets are told constantly that they are to lead a life of honor, to choose the harder right over the easier wrong, to have moral courage. But now they are learning that these are just empty slogans. What actual leaders do, it seems, is whatever protects their jobs. I fear the cadets will remember this lesson for the rest of their lives.

Finally, there’s the threat to America’s constitutional order. Academic freedom is important at any institution of higher learning, but it has an additional importance at a military academy. The health of our democratic system depends on the military being politically neutral. Protecting freedom of thought and speech in the academic curriculum at West Point is an important way to avoid political partisanship. By allowing the government to impose an ideological orthodoxy on its classrooms, West Point is abandoning its neutrality and jeopardizing a critical component of the very constitutional order that the military exists to protect.

West Point seems to believe that by submitting to the Trump administration, it can save itself in the long run. But the damage cannot be undone. If the academy can’t convincingly invoke the values of free thought and political neutrality when they are needed most, it can’t accomplish its mission. Whatever else happens, it will forever be known that when the test came, West Point failed.

Still Hoping for a Deal with Iran? Here’s Why It Won’t Work

https://smallwarsjournal.com/2025/05/08/still-hoping-for-a-deal-with-iran-heres-why-it-wont-work/

by Loqman Radpey

05.08.2025 at 06:00am

A third round of nuclear talks between the United States and Iran took place in Oman during the last week of April 2025. More rounds are expected, with both sides pushing hard to get what they want out of the deal. But what exactly has changed since the U.S. pulled out of the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA)? Why are some U.S. officials still holding out, talking about “very good progress” like this time will somehow be different? That’s where we need to ask a more foundational question: Can there ever be a reliable, enforceable nuclear and missile non-proliferation agreement with Iran—one that Iran would actually honor? Answering that requires understanding the regime at its core.

Since signing of JCPOA in July 2015, the U.S. has cycled through two Republican and two Democratic administrations. Iran, however, has remained the same. Its leadership structure and its ideological base have not budged. It does not matter whether a so-called “reformist” like Rouhani or Pezeshkian or a “hardliner” like Raisi is in office—the fundamental nature of the regime does not change.

What we are dealing with is not a state that responds to international norms, but an ideological theocracy rooted in Perso-Shia supremacy and anti-Western resistance. Western analysts and policymakers in mainstream media too often ignore this fact. Instead of confronting the regime’s deeply held beliefs and intentions, they try to explain Iran’s actions as rational, strategic responses to outside pressures or search for the rational justifications of its behaviors. But that analysis falls short. This is not just a question of carrots and sticks—it is about identity.

Iran’s leaders see their survival as dependent on resisting the liberal international order. To them, the Islamic Republic is not just a government—it is a mission. Abandoning its anti-American, anti-Israel, and anti-liberal stance would not just be a political shift; it would be ideological suicide. That’s why previous deals have failed. For instance, Trump justified his withdrawal in May 2018 by arguing that the agreement, as “a windfall of cash,” did not curb Iran’s malign activities. Instead, it provided financial resources that “enriched the Iranian regime and enabled its malign behavior.” Iran’s compliance is always temporary, tactical, and reversible; as John Bolton, former National Security Advisor, rightly points out, “there is no 100% way to verify compliance.”

Yes, there has been a major shift in U.S. policy over time. Obama and Biden have leaned toward diplomacy and engagement through imposing soft and easily evaded restrictions set to expired before 2030, while Trump pursued maximum pressure. But the other side has remained fundamentally static. What has changed is Iran’s current position of weakness. Years of sanctions and a series of blows to its regional proxy network—dealt by Israel—have put the regime on the back foot. That is not a sign of transformation. It is just a moment of vulnerability that Iran will try to exploit.

Iran has already attempted to assassinate Trump —still continues to threaten his life. So while Trump may believe his pressure campaign forced Iran to the table, it is just as true that Iran’s threats pushed him into negotiating. In fact, it is no stretch to say Iran brought its terror to the U.S. before the U.S. brought pressure to Iran. Tehran can easily flip the narrative and claim it forced Trump to the table.

As Ambassador John Bolton often says, “Trump has Trump’s philosophy,” but that should not stop him and Congress from understanding what Taqiyya means— the deeply held belief and the common practice of deception Iran uses in the service of survival. Iran changes its tone and appearance depending on circumstances, but never its core values. It may dial down its “Death to America” slogans or quietly pull the U.S. flag from under university doorsteps during talks, but its hostility toward the U.S., Israel, and liberalism as a whole remains.

Iran’s leadership sees Israel not just as a geopolitical rival, but as the embodiment of colonialism and an extension of “colonizers” or American and Western influence. Its anti-Zionist obsession is not strategic—it is theological. This is not a regime that can be dissuaded from its goals through mutual interest and diplomacy alone. Internally, Iran’s oppressed national and ethnic and minorities—Kurds, Baluchis, Arabs, and others—have tried peaceful resistance and civil disobedience. The result? Brutal crackdowns and ongoing repression.

At some point, U.S. policymakers will have to face the truth: this regime is not interested in real compromise, and deterrence does not work on a fanatically religious system—it is a waste of oxygen. If the Trump administration had fully understood this, it might have prepared to “move on” —as it may with peace talks between Ukraine and Russia— and let Israel to take decisive action against Iran’s nuclear infrastructure. That may still be the only viable path to stopping Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

In the end, what the U.S. is asking of Iran is not just to change behavior—it is to abandon its ideological foundation. That is not something the regime can do without collapsing. And its supporters and proxies, from Iraq to Lebanon to Yemen, know that too.

Tags: Foreign Policy, Iran, Middle East security, nuclear deterrence, nuclear nonproliferation

About The Author

Loqman Radpey
Dr Loqman Radpey is a fellow at the Middle East Forum with over a decade of experience analyzing the legal and political dimensions of conflicts in the Middle East, including the Kurdistani regions in Iran, Iraq, Turkey, and Syria. He is the author of ‘Towards an Independent Kurdistan: Self-Determination in International Law’ (published by Routledge in 2023), the first comprehensive historico-legal account of Kurdish aspirations for statehood. His upcoming work will appear in The Cambridge History of International Law (Volume XI).

19. Soft Power, Strong Impact: The Enduring Alliance Between USAID and the U.S. Military

I have long been a believer in USAID. Every bureaucracy makes mistakes and is subject to criticism but USAID has done so much more good than the critics will ever know or understand.

But something is happening with the "great bureaucratic reset" that is taking place in the US government. Based on reports it appears the SECSTATE is going to have all the soft power instruments of power (diplomacy, development, information) consolidated within his portfolio as both SECSTATE and NSA (some reports say he will remain dual hatted for some time). He now has the remnants of USAID under his control and has the opportunity to craft a new development capability. Perhaps he will get VOA and RFA/RFE/RL as well. What we could be seeing is manifestation of George Kennan's political warfare vision with the State in the lead conducting perhaps what some might call conventional statecraft.

Think about this memo for today:

https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1945-50Intel/d269

269. Policy Planning Staff Memorandum0

Washington, May 4, 1948.

The Problem

The inauguration of organized political warfare.

Analysis

1. Political warfare is the logical application of Clausewitz’s doctrine in time of peace. In broadest definition, political warfare is the employment of all the means at a nation’s command, short of war, to achieve its national objectives. Such operations are both overt and covert. They range from such overt actions as political alliances, economic measures

[Page 669]

(as ERP), and “white” propaganda to such covert operations as clandestine support of “friendly” foreign elements, “black” psychological warfare and even encouragement of underground resistance in hostile states.

2. The creation, success, and survival of the British Empire has been due in part to the British understanding and application of the principles of political warfare. Lenin so synthesized the teachings of Marx and Clausewitz that the Kremlin’s conduct of political warfare has become the most refined and effective of any in history. We have been handicapped however by a popular attachment to the concept of a basic difference between peace and war, by a tendency to view war as a sort of sporting context outside of all political context, by a national tendency to seek for a political cure-all, and by a reluctance to recognize the realities of international relations—the perpetual rhythm of [struggle, in and out of war.]1

3. This Government has, of course, in part consciously and in part unconsciously, been conducting political warfare. Aggressive Soviet political warfare has driven us overtly first to the Truman Doctrine, next to ERP, then to sponsorship of Western Union [1–1/2 lines of source text not declassified]. This was all political warfare and should be recognized as such.

4. Understanding the concept of political warfare, we should also recognize that there are two major types of political warfare—one overt and the other covert. Both, from their basic nature, should be directed and coordinated by the Department of State. Overt operations are, of course, the traditional policy activities of any foreign office enjoying positive leadership, whether or not they are recognized as political warfare. Covert operations are traditional in many European chancelleries but are relatively unfamiliar to this Government.

5. Having assumed greater international responsibilities than ever before in our history and having been engaged by the full might of the Kremlin’s political warfare, we cannot afford to leave unmobilized our resources for covert political warfare. We cannot afford in the future, in perhaps more serious political crises, to scramble into impromptu covert operations [1 line of source text not declassified].

6. It was with all of the foregoing in mind that the Policy Planning Staff began some three months ago2 a consideration of specific projects in

[Page 670]

the field of covert operations, where they should be fitted into the structure of this Government, and how the Department of State should exercise direction and coordination.

Essay| The Latest

Soft Power, Strong Impact: The Enduring Alliance Between USAID and the U.S. Military

https://smallwarsjournal.com/2025/05/08/soft-power-strong-impact-the-enduring-alliance-between-usaid-and-the-us-military/

by Ted J. Kim

05.08.2025 at 06:00am

Members of the Honduran Armed Forces carry a box containing some of the 8000 diagnostic testing kits donated by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and the International Organization for Migration (IOM) to Honduras to fight the COVID-19 coronavirus pandemic, at the airport in Tegucigalpa on April 29, 2020. - The novel coronavirus has killed at least 224,402 people since the outbreak first emerged in China in December, according to a tally from official sources compiled by AFP at 1900 GMT on Wednesday. (Photo by Orlando SIERRA / AFP) (Photo by ORLANDO SIERRA/AFP via Getty Images)

Soft power has been a cornerstone of U.S. foreign policy since World War II—from the Marshall Plan’s reconstruction efforts to the global distribution of COVID-19 vaccines. These initiatives have promoted global stability, built enduring alliances, and advanced American interests around the world. Central to this strategy was the evolving partnership between the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and the U.S. military—an interdependence of foreign assistance and defense that lies at the heart of American statecraft. While the military delivers security, stability, and logistical capabilities in conflict zones and disaster areas, USAID complements these efforts by overseeing humanitarian assistance operations, promoting good governance, supporting democratic institutions, and driving long-term economic development through targeted programs and partnerships.

From counterinsurgency operations in Vietnam to postwar reconstruction efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, and from disaster relief in Haiti to health emergencies in West Africa, the enduring partnership between USAID and the U.S. military has been a defining feature of U.S. foreign engagement. Though outcomes have ranged from notable successes to sobering setbacks, these joint efforts reflect a sustained commitment to aligning national security objectives with the pursuit of long-term global stability.

Brief background on USAID

At the height of the Cold War, President John F. Kennedy sought a more focused and efficient strategy to counter the global influence of the Soviet Union through foreign aid. The Soviet Union had been funding and building major industrial and infrastructure projects worldwide—including power plants, dams, railways, factories, hospitals, and schools—with notable examples like the Aswan High Dam in Egypt and the Bhilai Steel Plant in India. Frustrated by what Kennedy saw as the State Department’s cumbersome bureaucracy, he advocated for the creation of a government agency solely dedicated to international development. Following the passage of the Foreign Assistance Act in 1961, USAID was established as an independent government agency. More than six decades later—long after the fall of the Soviet Union — USAID has played a pivotal role in shaping U.S. foreign policy and advancing American interests abroad.

Most recently, USAID has operated in over 100 countries, tackling global challenges in partnership with foreign governments, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and private organizations. Its efforts go beyond immediate relief, focusing on long-term solutions that foster economic development, strengthen democratic institutions, and improve public health. In fiscal year 2024, USAID had a budget of approximately $21.7 billion. In addition to its own funding, the agency also managed foreign aid resources from other U.S. government departments—such as the Departments of Agriculture and State—bringing its total disbursements to more than $42 billion. The Defense Department’s 2024 budget was $841 billion, while USAID operated on just 2.58% of that— demonstrating the agency’s outsized impact on national security despite its limited resources.

Nation-Building —Not a Dirty Phrase, but a Strategic Imperative

The partnership between USAID and the U.S. military dates back to the Vietnam War in pursuit of shared national security objectives. In 1967, they jointly launched the Civil Operations and Revolutionary Development Support (CORDS) program — a civilian and military initiative aimed at countering insurgencies. Working in close coordination, USAID and the military supported rural development in partnership with the South Vietnamese government, focusing on building infrastructure, providing economic aid, and enhancing village security to help stabilize rural communities and undermine the Viet Cong’s influence. Even though the program was not successful and the broader objectives were not achieved, CORDS marked the beginning of a coordinated partnership between USAID and the U.S. military. It set a precedent for future joint efforts to align development initiatives with national security objectives.

Following the Balkan conflicts of the 1990s, USAID worked closely with the U.S. military in humanitarian relief, reconstruction, and post-war development across the region. The agency provided over $2 billion in emergency aid, including food, shelter, and medical care for refugees and displaced persons. USAID also supported large-scale infrastructure rebuilding, helped establish democratic institutions and civil society, and backed economic revitalization through support for small businesses and market reforms. With support from the U.S. peacekeeping mission, USAID facilitated the return of refugees. By the end of July 2004, approximately 1 million people had returned to their pre-war homes in Bosnia and Herzegovina. This figure includes about 440,000 former refugees and 560,000 internally displaced persons. In addition, the U.S. military played a key role in peacekeeping operations and supported efforts to bring war criminals to justice.

After Saddam Hussein’s regime fell in 2003, Congress approved $18.4 billion for the Iraq Relief and Reconstruction Fund to help rebuild the country. Operating under the oversight of the U.S. Department of State, USAID implemented development initiatives across key sectors such as infrastructure, governance, healthcare, and education. For instance, USAID improved primary education by rebuilding nearly 3,000 schools, providing over 20 million textbooks, training more than 133,000 teachers, and encouraging more interactive teaching—leading to a 19% rise in school enrollment since 2003. Additionally, USAID has helped expand political participation in Iraq by supporting elections at all levels, including the 2005 Constitutional Referendum. This included setting up a voter registration system, training thousands of election monitors, and encouraging public involvement through debates, town halls, and education campaigns. USAID also supported the creation of Iraq’s new constitution by providing expert advice, gathering public feedback through national surveys, and helping groups like the Iraqi Women’s National Coalition contribute to its development.

The U.S. military worked in close coordination with USAID to support reconstruction efforts in Iraq. Amid widespread unrest, they played a vital role in maintaining peace and security. They trained and supplied the Iraqi Army and police so those forces could eventually take over security responsibilities. The military also carried out missions to fight groups like al-Qaeda in Iraq. In addition, the military helped with rebuilding efforts by forming Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRTs). These teams included both military members and civilian experts, like those from USAID, who worked together to improve local government and support development. This teamwork between military and civilian groups showed a coordinated approach that combined security efforts with rebuilding and promoting democracy in a challenging, post-war environment.

Likewise, in Afghanistan from 2001 to 2021, PRTs integrated USAID, the U.S. military, and other government agencies in a combined civil-military effort to strengthen governance, advance development, and enhance security. While some may view foreign security assistance to Afghanistan as a failure—drawing parallels to the outcome of the Vietnam War—there were also significant achievements that emerged from these efforts. Over two decades, USAID played a crucial role in building infrastructure, expanding healthcare, and dramatically increasing educational opportunities, particularly for women and girls. Before U.S. intervention, Afghan women were largely excluded from education, employment, and public life. Through targeted USAID initiatives, millions of girls gained access to schooling for the first time. Many went on to attend university and pursue professional careers, transforming not only their own lives but their communities as well.

These gains were ultimately undermined by the sudden collapse of the U.S.-backed Afghan government, which fell within days—much faster than many in the U.S. government had anticipated, even after two decades of nation-building efforts. Nevertheless, USAID delivered meaningful improvements to individual lives, strengthened societal resilience, and laid the groundwork for future progress that was once unimaginable. Given these complex and challenging circumstances, it would be inaccurate to dismiss the entirety of foreign assistance as a total failure. And while Afghanistan’s future remains uncertain, history offers reminders that nations can change course— Vietnam itself has become a U.S. ally in Asia after decades of conflict, as both countries seek to counter China’s growing influence in the region.

Since 2022, USAID has also been instrumental in addressing the humanitarian crisis aspect of Ukraine’s war efforts. The agency has delivered essential food, medical supplies, and sanitation items while also helping to restore energy infrastructure by providing generators and transformers. To bolster Ukraine’s economy and strengthen its resilience amid ongoing conflict, USAID has committed $250 million to the agricultural sector—a critical industry that not only sustains the country’s food security but also drives exports and economic recovery. Additionally, it has supported education by funding the printing of over 3 million textbooks, ensuring students can continue their studies despite the ongoing conflict.

Crisis Management—More Than Just a Military Responsibility

USAID and the U.S. military often work together to respond to major disasters around the world, combining their unique strengths to deliver timely and effective aid. USAID, through its Office of U.S. Foreign Disaster Assistance (now part of the Bureau for Humanitarian Assistance), leads the civilian response by providing emergency food, shelter, and medical care while coordinating with local and international partners. The U.S. military supports these efforts by leveraging its logistical capabilities, such as airlifting supplies, transporting personnel, and providing engineering and medical support in hard-to-reach areas. Together, they help stabilize disaster zones, save lives, and lay the groundwork for recovery in the aftermath of natural disasters, conflicts, or public health emergencies.

In response to the devastating 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami, USAID and the U.S. military launched a coordinated humanitarian effort to assist Indonesia and other affected countries. USAID quickly deployed disaster response teams and provided emergency funding for food, water, shelter, and medical care. Meanwhile, the U.S. military initiated Operation Unified Assistance, mobilizing ships, aircraft, and personnel to deliver aid to remote and heavily damaged areas. Helicopters from the USS Abraham Lincoln brought relief supplies to coastal villages cut off by the disaster. Meanwhile, Navy sailors and Marines worked tirelessly on the ground—clearing debris, delivering aid, and setting up emergency shelters. Their coordinated response delivered critical relief and to the devastated communities. This joint response demonstrated the U.S. government’s ability to combine civilian expertise with military logistics and manpower to provide rapid, large-scale humanitarian assistance in times of crisis.

Another excellent example of the partnership is the 2010 Haiti earthquake when the devastating 7.0-magnitude quake displaced more than a million people and severely damaged the country’s infrastructure. The U.S. military launched Operation Unified Responses, deploying over 22,000 personnel to assist in relief efforts. U.S. forces took control of Port-au-Prince’s airport to manage aid flights, helped reopen the damaged seaport, and delivered vital supplies by air and sea. Navy and Marine units provided medical care, cleared debris, restored infrastructure, and supported search-and-rescue missions. The USNS Comfort treated thousands of injured survivors, while military engineers and logistics teams helped stabilize key systems. Working closely with USAID, and in coordination with the UN and various NGOs, the U.S. military played a crucial supporting role in the aftermath of the disaster.

USAID spearheaded extensive reconstruction efforts, funding the rebuilding of hospitals and clinics to restore essential healthcare services. It also improved access to clean water and sanitation systems, reducing the risk of disease outbreaks in temporary settlements. Additionally, USAID supported large-scale housing projects, helping displaced families transition from makeshift camps to secure living conditions. Without USAID’s planning and oversight, many reconstruction projects risk abandonment or falling into disrepair due to poor maintenance—wasting resources and prolonging instability in affected regions.

Perhaps more significantly, USAID and the U.S. military teamed up to tackle the Ebola global health crisis originating in West Africa. In January 2014, Guinea struggled to contain the Ebola virus due to weak healthcare infrastructure, delayed response, and cultural practices that contributed to the rapid spread. As the epidemic worsened, the U.S. government declared a global health emergency in September 2014, prompting the U.S. military to intervene under Operation United Assistance (OUA). The mission focused on providing logistical and medical support, particularly in Liberia, where 3,000 troops were deployed to assist in the response. The military established a field hospital for infected healthcare workers, constructed treatment centers, and provided medical training and logistical support. By early 2015, as the situation improved, the military began scaling down operations, officially ending OUA on April 30, 2015.

USAID’s response to the Ebola outbreak extended beyond immediate crisis management, demonstrating a long-term commitment to strengthening global health security. Through initiatives like the Ebola Grand Challenge, launched in October 2014, USAID advanced protective gear innovations and faster diagnostic tools to improve outbreak response. Its 2015-2016 recovery efforts focused on rebuilding healthcare systems, training health workers, and enhancing disease surveillance across West Africa, ensuring affected regions were better prepared to prevent and respond to future health crises. While the U.S. military played a critical role in halting the outbreak, these short-term, high-impact operations did not align with the long-term strategies required to build sustainable healthcare systems.

The Strategic Role of USAID in U.S. Foreign Policy

History has shown that the strategic partnership between USAID and the U.S. military is a vital component of American foreign policy, advancing humanitarian goals while reinforcing national security. Time and again, USAID has delivered life-saving assistance in some of the world’s most challenging environments. Its longstanding collaboration with the U.S. military highlights how civilian and defense institutions can work together to stabilize fragile states, rebuild critical infrastructure, and promote democratic governance.

Dismantling USAID would not only abandon decades of global leadership but also severely undermine America’s ability to compete on the world stage. As adversaries like China, Russia, and Iran increasingly expand their soft power—investing in infrastructure, spreading state-controlled media narratives, and propping up authoritarian regimes often hostile to U.S. interests—America cannot afford to divest the very instruments that have long advanced its values and strategic influence. In a world marked by instability, public health crises, and intensifying geopolitical competition, preserving and strengthening USAID isn’t just sound policy—it’s essential to maintaining U.S. leadership and global credibility.

Author’s Note

During my research for this article, I uncovered a deeply alarming reality—references from USAID websites have been systematically erased. These crucial records and vital information, once publicly accessible, have vanished, leaving behind only fragmented traces in Google’s cached pages and indexed results. This isn’t just an academic concern—it appears to be a deliberate attempt to erase a crucial part of USAID history. The invaluable contributions and humanitarian efforts that USAID has carried out for years are being scrubbed from public record, raising urgent questions about transparency, accountability, and the manipulation of historical truth. I urge you to see for yourself—visit any USAID website and witness what has disappeared or is simply ‘Not Found.’

Disclaimer

The views and opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not reflect the official policy, position, or endorsement of any organization, agency, or institution. Any references to organizations, agencies, or events are for informational purposes only and do not imply their approval or support of the content herein.

Tags: counterinsurgency, humanitarian aid, international development

About The Author

Ted J. Kim
Ted J. Kim is a retired U.S. Coast Guard Commander who served as the Senior Defense Official and Defense Attaché (SDO/DATT) to Haiti from 2014 to 2017. During his tour, he worked closely with USAID, other U.S. government agencies, and various NGOs on U.S. military humanitarian missions, including disaster relief efforts following Hurricane Matthew and a USNS Comfort visit. He is married to a former USAID education advisor, is a proud parent of two rescue cats from Haiti, and resides with his family in Washington, D.C.

20. Leadership, Lethality, and (Data) Literacy: Three Keys to Prepare the Army for the Data-Driven, AI-Enabled Future of War

I am sure there is job waiting for Major Phelps at USSOCOM (or the Army) to implement his ideas but it will have to wait for at least two years while he goes to serve as an SF company commander, battalion S3, and/or battalion XO for branch qualification (now KD)

If we manage talent what should we do with an officer like this? Or should we just follow DA PAM 600-3 blindly. And of course if we put him in some key job to maximize his talents for the future of our military and he does not get his KD jobs we just put him at risk for promotion because our industrial personnel management system will destroy his career.

If we think data literacy is so important and this innovative officer has the ideas necessary, why do we not encourage him to expand and develop them for the good of the military and nation and protect him from the personnel management system? Just wondering. (And I don't know Major Phelps at all and I am making these comments based solely on his excellent article here - but someone should take a look at him and his talents and manage him effectively).

Excerpts:

As the US Army continues to adapt to emerging threats and technological advancements, data literacy will become increasingly important. The future of warfare will be defined by the ability to integrate and exploit data across domains, and leaders who possess strong data literacy skills will be at the forefront of this transformation.

Artificial intelligence will play a central role in enhancing data utility, providing the analytical power needed to process and interpret battlefield data. However, the effectiveness of AI will depend on human leaders’ ability to understand and apply its insights. Data literacy will be the bridge connecting AI-generated intelligence to actionable decision-making, shaping the outcomes of future conflicts.

For the US Army, then, building data literacy is not a luxury. It cannot be an afterthought. The Army must prioritize data literacy as a critical skill for its leaders. By integrating data literacy into PME, fostering it within the operational force, and encouraging self-development, the Army can ensure that its leaders are prepared to navigate the complexities of modern warfare. The battlefield of the future will be shaped by those who master data and AI, and the Army must equip its leaders to meet this challenge head-on.

Leadership, Lethality, and (Data) Literacy: Three Keys to Prepare the Army for the Data-Driven, AI-Enabled Future of War - Modern War Institute

mwi.westpoint.edu · by Charlie Phelps · May 7, 2025

Share on LinkedIn

Send email

In the dead of night, deep behind enemy lines, a US Army Special Forces team prepared for a mission that could turn the tide of conflict: neutralize an enemy command post orchestrating a series of destructive missile strikes on coalition forces. The landscape was a labyrinth of obstacles—rough terrain, dense vegetation, and a well-entrenched adversary. Yet, the team was armed with more than just weapons. Two scouts from a local resistance organization guided their patrol. The scouts’ first encounter with Green Berets was ten years ago during a peacetime training exchange. The team also wielded a powerful asset: an AI-driven data system providing real-time intelligence from an array of sources—satellites, drones, and cyber channels automated to offer protection to the small patrol. As they navigated the hostile terrain, their wrist displays flickered with crucial updates. The AI had pinpointed an approaching enemy patrol, undetected by traditional sensors operating independently of one another. With a few taps, the team leader accessed a dynamic map showing the patrol’s precise location and movement pattern. Adjusting their approach, the soldiers avoided detection and pressed on toward their target. Upon reaching the objective, the team broadcasted a piece of malware that disrupted the command post’s electromagnetic spectrum masking, allowing for target designation by low earth orbit assets. Moments later, a pinpointed ground-based hypersonic missile, guided by AI-processed data, obliterated the command post. The mission’s success was a testament not only to the operators’ skill but also to their technology-enabled mastery of data and employment of AI-enabled systems.

This scenario highlights a crucial reality of contemporary warfare: data and artificial intelligence are not merely supplementary tools but essential elements for achieving success in large-scale combat operations and multidomain operations. The US Army’s Field Manual 3-0 underscores the importance of integrating data and AI across multiple domains—land, air, sea, cyber, and space—to secure victory. Data literacy has emerged as a fundamental competency for Army leaders, enabling them to leverage these advancements effectively and stay ahead in the complex and dynamic operational environments of modern warfare.

The Evolution of Warfare and the Role of Data

Warfare has continuously evolved, shaped by technological advancements and strategic innovations. Historically, each major technological leap—from the longbow to the tank—redefined military tactics and outcomes. Today, the transformative power lies in the realm of data and digital technologies. This shift is particularly evident in the context of multidomain operations—the Army’s operational concept—where success hinges on the ability to synthesize and act upon vast amounts of data across various domains.

In the digital age, data and AI represent the latest in a long line of transformative technologies. The ability to collect, analyze, and act upon data has become a critical factor in determining operational success. Unlike previous technological advancements, data and AI offer the ability to process and interpret information on a scale and at a speed previously unimaginable. This capability enables real-time decision-making and enhances the precision and effectiveness of military operations.

Data has emerged as a strategic asset, crucial for maintaining a competitive military edge. The sheer volume of data generated on the contemporary battlefield—from a growing and increasingly diversified network of sensors—requires advanced methods of analysis and interpretation. The ability to integrate and analyze data from multiple sources allows military leaders to gain a comprehensive understanding of the battlespace. This understanding is crucial for anticipating enemy actions, optimizing resource allocation, and executing complex maneuvers. Data-driven insights enable commanders to make informed decisions and adapt rapidly to changing conditions, enhancing operational effectiveness and reducing the risk of failure.

Data Literacy: A Critical Skill for Modern Leaders

Data literacy begins with the ability to understand and interpret data accurately. Leaders must be able to read and analyze data from various sources, identifying key trends and insights that inform operational decisions. This skill is crucial for tasks such as target identification, resource allocation, and threat assessment. Data literacy also involves critical thinking and the ability to make data-driven decisions. Leaders must question assumptions, evaluate the reliability of data sources, and assess the implications of data-driven insights. This critical approach ensures that decisions are based on accurate and relevant information, reducing the risk of errors and enhancing operational effectiveness. In a multidomain environment, where the situation can change rapidly driven by inputs from disparate sensors, data literacy allows leaders to adapt quickly and make informed decisions in real time. For instance, AI-generated predictions about enemy movements can help commanders anticipate and counter enemy actions, while data-driven insights into supply chain logistics can optimize resource distribution.

Given the critical importance of data literacy, the Army must prioritize its development across all levels of leadership. Building data literacy should be a multifaceted approach, encompassing professional military education, operational force training, and individual self-development.

Data Literacy in Professional Military Education

Professional military education (PME) is the cornerstone of leadership development in the Army. Integrating data literacy into PME curricula ensures that future leaders are equipped with the skills necessary to navigate the complexities of modern warfare.

Doing so should be built on three key fundamental approaches. The first is incorporating data analysis and AI into curricula. PME programs should include dedicated courses on data analysis, AI, and machine learning. These courses should provide both theoretical knowledge and practical exercises, allowing students to apply these concepts to real-world scenarios. For example, wargames can be enhanced with AI-driven simulations, requiring students to interpret data and adjust their strategies accordingly. Use of case studies and the case methodology of teaching offers an avenue for exposing leaders to data analysis in application-based learning environments.

Second, data literacy should be integrated into all aspects of PME, including leadership, logistics, and operational planning. Leaders need to understand how data impacts every facet of military operations and be able to incorporate data-driven insights into their decision-making processes. Case studies, guest lectures from data science experts, and collaborative projects with civilian institutions specializing in data analytics can enhance this learning experience.

Third, PME institutions should emphasize the ethical use of data and AI. Discussions on responsible data use, algorithmic biases, and the implications of data-driven decisions on human rights and international law are essential. This ethical foundation will ensure that future leaders use data and AI responsibly and effectively.

Building Data Literacy in the Operational Force

The operational force is where data literacy directly translates into mission success. This means that the Army must also focus its efforts here, implementing strategies to build data literacy at the unit level to ensure that all leaders are proficient in using data to enhance operational effectiveness.

One important way to do this is to introduce continuous training and education. Ongoing data literacy training programs should be accessible to all soldiers. These programs can be delivered through online platforms, workshops, and in-person sessions. Topics should range from basic data interpretation to advanced AI applications, tailored to the specific needs of different units and roles. This training should be integrated into regular unit activities, reinforcing its importance in military readiness.

Another key step is the creation of data literacy mentorship programs within units to accelerate data literacy. Leaders with advanced data skills can mentor their peers and subordinates, creating a culture of learning and collaboration. These mentors can guide others in understanding data-driven tools and applying them in operational contexts.

Finally, improving data literacy only matters if soldiers and leaders have the opportunity to utilize these skills, so fielding data-driven tools and systems is vital. The Army should continue to develop and field user-friendly data-driven tools, and these tools should be integrated into daily operations, from planning to execution, allowing leaders to practice data-driven decision-making. Additionally, training in these tools should focus on interpreting outputs and applying them in real-world scenarios.

Encouraging Self-Development in Data Literacy

Individual self-development is crucial for building data literacy. Leaders must take personal responsibility for enhancing their understanding of data and AI, recognizing the importance of this skill set for their professional growth and operational effectiveness.

This requires, first and foremost, access to online learning resources. Subscriptions to courses, webinars, and e-books covering topics from basic statistics to advanced machine learning can help leaders stay current with the latest developments.

It also requires, however, a culture of lifelong learning. The Army should take deliberate steps to foster a culture that values continuous learning and self-improvement. Leaders should be encouraged to set personal learning goals related to data literacy and share their knowledge with others. Recognizing and rewarding those who take the initiative to improve their data skills can support this culture.

Finally, the Army must encourage critical thinking and curiosity, both of which are essential for data literacy. Leaders should be encouraged to question assumptions, seek out new information, and apply data-driven insights in complex environments.

The Future of Warfare: Data-Driven and AI-Enhanced

As the US Army continues to adapt to emerging threats and technological advancements, data literacy will become increasingly important. The future of warfare will be defined by the ability to integrate and exploit data across domains, and leaders who possess strong data literacy skills will be at the forefront of this transformation.

Artificial intelligence will play a central role in enhancing data utility, providing the analytical power needed to process and interpret battlefield data. However, the effectiveness of AI will depend on human leaders’ ability to understand and apply its insights. Data literacy will be the bridge connecting AI-generated intelligence to actionable decision-making, shaping the outcomes of future conflicts.

For the US Army, then, building data literacy is not a luxury. It cannot be an afterthought. The Army must prioritize data literacy as a critical skill for its leaders. By integrating data literacy into PME, fostering it within the operational force, and encouraging self-development, the Army can ensure that its leaders are prepared to navigate the complexities of modern warfare. The battlefield of the future will be shaped by those who master data and AI, and the Army must equip its leaders to meet this challenge head-on.

Major Charlie Phelps is currently enrolled in the Command and General Staff Course at Fort Leavenworth. He is a Special Forces officer who recently served as an instructor in the Department of Behavioral Sciences and Leadership and tactical officer at West Point.

The views expressed are those of the author and do not reflect the official position of the United States Military Academy, Department of the Army, or Department of Defense.

Image credit: Sgt. Alejandro L. Carrasquel Vazquez, US Army

Share on LinkedIn

Send email

mwi.westpoint.edu · by Charlie Phelps · May 7, 2025

21. ‘Maduro did not close our bureau – Trump did’: Voice of America journalists speak out

‘Maduro did not close our bureau – Trump did’: Voice of America journalists speak out

Workers at the esteemed news service say they’re being silenced by the president – but they’re vowing to fight back

The Guardian · by Lauren Gambino · May 7, 2025

Carolina Valladares Pérez, a Washington-based correspondent for the government-funded international news service Voice of America, has reported from places where press freedom is severely restricted – war zones and autocratic states – in the Middle East and across Latin America. Intimidation and threats from state officials were not unusual – but she always managed to get the story out.

Now for the first time in her career, Valladares Pérez says she has been silenced – not by a faraway regime, but by the government of the United States.

“Nicolás Maduro did not close our bureau,” she said, of Venezuela’s authoritarian leader. “Donald Trump closed it. I find this astonishing.”

Valladares Pérez is one of hundreds of VoA journalists who remain shut out of their newsroom nearly two months after Donald Trump signed a late-night executive order aimed at dismantling their parent company, the US Agency for Global Media (USAGM). The journalists had been hopeful they might be able to return to their broadcasts this week – VoA was even included in the rotation of news outlets assigned to cover the president as part of the White House press pool. But whiplashing court orders and a newly announced “partnership” to broadcast a hard-right, pro-Trump news outlet have clouded their path forward.

“We have 3,500 affiliates around the world – these are television stations, radio stations, digital affiliates, who depend on our content,” said Patsy Widakuswara, VoA’s White House bureau chief, who is the lead plaintiff in a lawsuit challenging the president’s authority to gut an independent agency. “The void is going to be filled by our adversaries – it already is.”

VoA’s pro-democracy programming reaches hundreds of millions of people across the globe, broadcasting in 47 languages. It is often the only alternative to state-run media in places where press freedom is severely restricts, including in Russia, China and Iran. But the administration has denigrated the outlet as the “Voice of Radical America” and accused it of producing “propaganda”.

Voice of America signage in Washington. Photograph: Bonnie Cash/AFP/Getty Images

Following Trump’s March edict, VoA’s broadcast went dark for the first time since its founding during the second world war, initially to counter Nazi propaganda. Some radio stations began playing music instead of the news. VoA’s website remains frozen in time, the homepage dated to that Saturday morning. As many as 1,300 VoA employees have been placed on administrative leave.

The order also directed USAGM to cancel the federal grants that support VOA’s sister outlets Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Radio Free Asia and the Middle East Broadcasting Networks. Without funding, those broadcasters have struggled to remain operational.

The Trump administration has defended the decision to cut the broadcasters as part of its effort to downsize the federal government and slash what it described as “frivolous expenditures that fail to align with American values or address the needs of the American people”.

“Shut them down,” the Trump ally and adviser Elon Musk declared on X earlier this year, as his so-called “department of government efficiency” began its work.

In response to the president’s March order, Kari Lake, a fierce Trump loyalist and prominent election denier who was installed as a special adviser to the US’s global media agency, declared that VoA’s networks were “not salvageable”. But it appears the former local news anchor turned unsuccessful Republican candidate is now working to bring the news outlet back on air and online in some capacity.

In a statement on Monday, Lake said “the plan has always been to have meaningful, comprehensive, and accurate programming. However, this administration was halted in its tracks by lawfare, which prevented the implementation of much-needed reforms at VoA.”

On Tuesday night, she announced on X that the One America News Network (OAN), which has perpetuated conspiracy theories about the 2020 election and was sued by voting-machine companies for promoting claims of election fraud, will provide VoA’s “newsfeed and video service free-of-charge”.

Last month, a federal judge blocked the Trump administration’s efforts to dismantle VoA, as well as Radio Free Asia and the Middle East Broadcasting Networks. But VoA staff and journalists remain on administrative leave while the court process plays out.

The judge, US District Judge Royce Lamberth, later ordered the administration to restore funding Congress appropriated for Radio Free Europe, but the ruling was paused on appeal.

On Saturday, a divided panel of three circuit court judges paused parts of the ruling, ordering the Trump administration to return the VoA employees back to work. In a dissent, federal appeals court judge Cornelia Pillard warned that the stay “all but guarantees that the networks will no longer exist in any meaningful form” by the time litigation is resolved.

Challenging the ruling, attorneys representing the VoA journalists have asked the full US court of appeals for the DC circuit to rehear the case en banc.

The Trump administration’s attempt to dismantle the US’s largest and oldest international broadcaster is part of a broader crackdown on press freedom in the US, journalists and experts say. In late April, the president also signed an executive order aimed at slashing federal funding for NPR and PBS, accusing the news outlets of similarly spreading “radical woke propaganda”.

“The reason we have such a huge audience is because we’re not propaganda,” Widakuswara said. “Much of our audience lives in places where there is government propaganda, and they can smell it a mile away. They turn to us because they trust us.”

Ilan Berman, senior vice-president at the American Foreign Policy Council, said VoA and its sister outlets were an “indispensable” asset in the information war, countering anti-American narratives and disinformation in unfree societies.

“Authoritarian regimes understand very well that controlling information is essential to controlling their populations,” Berman, who serves on the board of RFE/RL and MBN, wrote in an email, while traveling in the Middle East, where he said media outlets hostile to the US already saturate the airwaves.

“America and its allies have unfortunately been playing defense for a while now,” he added. “And the shuttering of our messaging outlets is only going to make those voices stronger, and ours weaker.”

Desperate to return to work, Widakuswara has been leading the charge to raise awareness of VoA’s plight and keep newsroom morale up amid the turbulence of the last several weeks. On 4 May, the account, @savevoanow was suspended by X, the platform owned by Musk, for allegedly “violating rules against inauthentic accounts”. The account has since been restored but it unnerved Widakuswara and her colleagues, who have vowed not to remain silent.

“What we’re fighting for is not just for our job but our continued editorial independence,” the White House reporter said.

A ‘reward to dictators and despots’

The silencing of VoA has alarmed press freedom advocates but drew gleeful reactions from Chinese and Russian state media. “We couldn’t shut them down, unfortunately, but America did so itself,” said Margarita Simonyan, editor-in-chief of the Kremlin-backed RT network, who cheered Trump’s “awesome decision”.

The Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), a prominent press freedom organization, called Trump’s effort to eliminate the news outlets a “reward to dictators and despots” and urged Congress to restore the agency it created “before irreparable harm is done”.

“When a US president is behaving this way domestically towards media, it creates a kind of permission structure for world leaders to treat the press the same way in their home countries,” said Katherine Jacobsen, the CPJ’s Canada and Caribbean program coordinator.

US-based foreign journalists whose visas are now in jeopardy because of the dismantling of USAGM say deportation to their home countries would put them at risk of reprisal, imprisonment and possibly even death at the hands of authoritarian governments.

“In Burma, Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia, there were people who fought for freedom and democracy, and they came to work at RFA,” Jaewoo Park, a journalist for Radio Free Asia in Washington, recently told the Guardian. “It’s very risky for them. Their lives are in danger if Radio Free Asia doesn’t exist.”

According to the agency, 10 of its journalists remain jailed or imprisoned around the world – in Myanmar, Vietnam, Russia, Belarus and Azerbaijan.

At the annual White House Correspondents’ Association dinner, the organization’s president, Eugene Daniels, voiced solidarity with VoA’s journalists.

“To our friends at Voice of America, I can’t wait until you’re back at the White House grounds to continue reporting important stories for audiences around the world, especially in countries where leaders suppress the freedom of expression and the press,” he said during a speech that eschewed punchlines in favor of a robust defense of the first amendment and press freedom.

Valladares Pérez is also looking forward to that day.

“Our reporters want to go back to work. Our job is not to be at home, being silent and not publishing,” she said. “Our job is to take our microphones, to keep talking, reaching our audiences and telling them what’s happening in the US. This is our mission.”

The Guardian · by Lauren Gambino · May 7, 2025

22. Combatant Commands as Customers?

Excerpts:

What Shouldn’t Change?

While empowering combatant commands will improve the defense ecosystem, there are some things that should not be changed.

First, do not elevate the role of combatant commands in creating policy and strategy. At times commands already play an outsized role in policy. America’s elected leaders and their appointees need to drive policy and strategy. Commands should have an increased role in the capabilities and technology needed to achieve policy ends, not in defining those policy ends.

Second, do not give commands authority to organize, train, and equip. Geographic commands should not develop into mini military services (with the possible exception for functional commands like Special Operations Command and Cyber Command). The commands should not get their own special authorities for acquisition or recruiting. Their jointness and warfighting focus is what makes the commands’ voices important, and that should remain their responsibility.

Conclusion

Large, complex systems of systems — with billions of dollars and millions of people — are hard to centrally plan and control effectively and efficiently. This is well recognized in economics, but the Department of Defense still functions more like a centrally-planned economy than the free market that is driving American prosperity. This must change, and one key aspect of that change is empowering the consumers — the combatant commands. The Department of Defense and Congress should start making incremental changes now that will decentralize and accelerate decision-making. Now is the time.

Combatant Commands as Customers? - War on the Rocks

warontherocks.com · by Justin Johnson · May 8, 2025

From Elon Musk to Sen. Bernie Sanders, there is widespread agreement that the Department of Defense is way too slow in how it develops, acquires, deploys, maintains, and upgrades technology. However, the analysis behind this agreement often stops at point solutions and fails to wrestle with the systemic disconnect between a centrally-planned Defense Department and a decentralized free market. And until recently, the conversation has largely failed to recognize one of the most important voices in the defense ecosystem — the joint warfighter, as embodied in the combatant commands.

If the Department of Defense were its own economy, with a (perhaps soon) $1 trillion budget and 3.4 million in the workforce, economists would advise against trying to centrally plan and manage such a large, complex systems of systems. Unfortunately, the defense system in the U.S. functions more like a centrally-planned command economy than like the free market that is driving American prosperity. To better deliver capabilities to warfighters rapidly and affordably, the Pentagon should decentralize and accelerate decision-making.

One key aspect of that change is empowering the customers — the combatant commands. Combatant commands are how the U.S. military organizes its forces, either by specific regions of the world or by special functions. In the economy that is the Defense Department, the military services (Army, Navy, etc.) generate and provide the forces that the combatant commands employ and consume. These commands have the responsibility for protecting America’s interests in a given area in peacetime, conflict, or war.

This operational responsibility focuses the attention of the commands on capabilities that work today and in the near future. They need new technology, but don’t have time to wait for empty promises, whether they come from Silicon Valley or traditional defense companies. Ultimately, if a capability doesn’t work, the command will suffer the consequences.

Policymakers should expand the ability of combatant commands to behave like the customers they are — choosing to put their resources against capabilities that best meet their needs.

If combatant commands are fully enfranchised in delivering results, this would create precisely the engine of progress policymakers should champion, transforming commands into powerful market forces, driven by one imperative alone: Find the provider — service, agency, or company — that guarantees mission success now. As an executive at Metrea, a defense company, I have an interest in contracting outcomes. However, in this role, and in prior roles in the Pentagon and on Capitol Hill, I have seen time again that good incentives are the lifeblood of successful systems.

While there are big systemic changes to consider, there are also some simple and relatively easy changes that the Pentagon and Congress can make in the Fiscal Year 2026 budget to empower the joint warfighter.

Become a Member

The Challenge (Failure?) of Central Planning

At a high level, the White House, the Pentagon, and Congress are all seeking the same strategic goal when it comes to equipping the military: get the right amount of the right amounts and types of forces, with the best training and technology, consistently over time. This resource allocation and future prediction challenge is a classic economic problem. For example, at a national level, how does the government ensure that American citizens get the right amount of the right things (food, housing, work, etc.) consistently over time? Spoiler alert — the government doesn’t do this. Instead, it trusts the free market to solve these things. While far from perfect, the decentralized supply and demand of the U.S. free market has produced a $29 trillion economy that is dynamic, innovative, and leads the world.

The goals are the same for the military — dynamic, innovative, and world-leading. Unfortunately, the defense resource allocation system has evolved into something that is functionally the world’s largest centrally-planned economy. In fact, at approaching $1 trillion, the U.S. defense ecosystem is larger than all of the world’s remaining command economies combined. In the Pentagon, committees of well-intentioned people are trying to predict the future and manage both supply and demand. This central planning system takes almost 2.5 years on average to approve that something is a required joint capability, and then another three years to resource it via the budget process. If the Pentagon’s command economy is left to itself, it can take up to six years to start responding to a problem or opportunity.

As noted, there is widespread agreement that the current system does not deliver what warfighters need. Washington has talked about defense acquisition reform for decades, and made many important adjustments such as middle tier acquisition, the growing use of Other Transaction Authorities, and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth’s recent software acquisition pathway memo. While these efforts have created new and ideally faster acquisition pathways, they have not fundamentally changed the centrally planned system that is the Department of Defense.

At the national economic level, the problems with central planning are not new. In fact, many communist and totalitarian regimes, such as China in 1978, have recognized that centrally-planned economies struggle, and have evolved toward a more free market system. It’s time that the U.S. defense ecosystem does the same.

Before making specific policy suggestions, one significant critique should be addressed. The U.S. military itself is not a free market. There is a commander-in-chief and a chain of command, and Congress has the power of the purse. But just as the U.S. military empowers lower-level officers and enlisted leaders to understand the mission and make tactical decisions at the edge (mission command), the military should similarly trust its people to understand guidance and intent from above and make more acquisition and resource decisions at the edge. The priorities and strategy should be set at the top, but the system should decentralize authority and responsibility for execution and then hold people accountable for their successes and failures.

Bring Back the Free Market

The Defense Department processes for requirements, resourcing, acquisition, and allocation of forces are a complicated mess that can’t be fixed easily or quickly. But Congress and the Pentagon can and should seek to add more free market forces. This will generally increase the speed and effectiveness of decision-making in this complex system of systems.

One of the most important elements of a free market is that consumers have agency. They evaluate how to spend their time and money to achieve objectives, and their choices become important signals to the producers. These decisions and signals are dynamic — if the price of gas goes up, some people will drive less, some will buy electric cars, and some will take public transportation. And the producers are both seeking to prepare for future opportunities and react to current changes. A sudden increase in demand for electric cars may mean that prices go up in the near term. But that increased price will likely drive more companies to enter the electric car market in the future. The key is that resource allocation decisions are decentralized and dynamic. While far from perfect, free market systems are more efficient and effective than command economies at resource allocation in large complex systems.

In the Department of Defense, the combatant commands are the consumers — the demand side — and the military services and various defense agencies are the producers — the supply side. The commands have the responsibility of defending American interests in a particular region (e.g., Indo-Pacific Command) or domain (e.g., Space Command) by integrating all the capabilities provided by the military services into a joint force. But currently the commands have little timely input into what tools they have to protect America in daily competition or in conflict. Instead they rely on the slow processes of Global Force Management and the Joint Capabilities Integration Development System. And although the commands participate in the development of the Defense Department’s budget (via the budget process), the Pentagon historically has not given them much of a voice, or valued their inputs, forcing commands to rely on unfunded priority lists and help from Congress. In summary, the combatant commands have the responsibility for protecting America’s interests. They have valuable insights and signals to send to the system, and have an interest in making trades (a Patriot battalion or an Aegis destroyer?) to best meet their missions. However, the interaction between these consumers and the providers is not a dynamic market, but a bureaucratic multi-year process requiring thousands of people and millions of manhours annually.

Instead, combatant commands should be empowered. The President and the Secretary of Defense already set priorities and strategy for the commands. They should also give the commands more authority to truly function as customers. With real agency commands would be able to choose between various “products” offered by military services, while also being able to buy products and services from other agencies (such as the Defense Innovation Unit or the General Services Administration) or from the commercial sector. Over time this should incentivize all producers to offer products that are more joint, such as the Air Force buying anti-ship weapons. And it should incentivize commands to be better stewards of the resources they are provided.

What Should Change?

Changing a complex system is not easy and it involves both the executive branch and Congress. Together they should seek to merge the various processes that govern requirements, budgeting and force management. They should give combatant commands more budgetary authority. And they should move combatant command budgets into the defense-wide accounts.

Merge These Three Processes

Currently, the Department has three largely independent processes, one for allocating military forces (Global Force Management), one for allocating budget (Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution), and a third for determining joint requirements (Joint Capabilities Integration Development System). In a free market, these are not independent stovepipes, but all producers are trying to determine what customers want and need, both now and in the future, and are competing to meet those needs. Moving the Defense Department in this direction will take some time, but here are some potential initial steps.

First, Congress should direct the Pentagon to report on how the full lifecycle cost of force deployment is considered in Global Force Management. For example, when multiple force elements (e.g., an Aegis destroyer and a Patriot battery) could meet the same combatant command need, how are the full lifecycle costs of that decision evaluated and highlighted for senior leaders? Or how much does it really cost to keep a carrier strike group in the Red Sea longer than initially planned? This assessment should not just count the cost of fuel, pay, and munitions, but also include the full costs of deferred maintenance and percentage of service life used.

Second, the Pentagon should make the Global Force Management process more market-based. Combatant commands should bid for forces, with a total campaigning budget that is allocated to each command by the secretary of defense. Bidding allows commands that are given more resources by the Secretary to “pay” more for specific high-demand assets, while commands with less to “spend” can bid for lower-demand assets. In addition to allocating the forces, the bidding process provides a powerful, tangible signal to the force providers on what commands really value.

Direct Budget Authority, But with Guardrails

Combatant commands should be able to behave more like customers, which means having money to buy things. The Global Force Management process mentioned above is for “off the shelf” military capabilities — things that military services already own and operate like DDG 51s and F-35s. Commands also should be able to “buy” things that the services are developing or producing. For example, Indo-Pacific Command may want to increase the rate of missile production and so might contribute some of their budget to the relevant existing program. The commands should also be able to buy from external providers, including other government agencies, allies and partners, or the private sector.

To be clear, while commands should have increased budget authority, they do not need more or special acquisition authorities. The commands can already leverage the acquisition expertise and authority of a wide variety of organizations such as the Defense Innovation Unit, the defense agencies, and the military services. If a command has the budget, they can bring those resources to any of these expert acquisition organizations.

Commands should not resource things that create a sustainment bill for a military service or agency without the endorsement from that sustainer. This means that commands should generally be investing in either existing acquisition programs, consumables (munitions, etc.), or commercially available, technically mature solutions with low to no switching costs. This third category would allow software-as-a-service and other as-a-service models where the government can unsubscribe or switch to a different solution in the future. Commands should be resourced in two windows: inside the Pentagon budget process, and in execution via appropriations from Congress.

First, the Pentagon should give combatant commands a fund to spend inside the Defense Department budget process, whereby they can give some of their funding toward programs that services and agencies are already running. For example, if Indo-Pacific Command had $10 billion to spend inside the budget process, they could allocate it toward any priority munitions programs that the services are underfunding, or toward increasing steaming days for the Navy (which would connect with the Global Force Management discussion above), or any other priority gaps.

Second, Congress should give combatant commands more execution year discretionary budget authority to be put toward consumables or mature commercially available solutions. The funding should be scaled by priority of the combatant command and based on behavior and outcomes of the command over time. And generally, this funding should be flexible but required to be spent quickly (such as operations and maintenance money) so that the commands remain focused on current problems, and do not get drawn into multi-year research and development projects.

Moving These Budgets

Currently combatant command budgets are carried by one of the military services. For example, Indo-Pacific Command’s budget is buried deep inside the Navy’s budget. The Office of the Secretary of Defense sometimes has to step in during the budget review to ensure that commands get the headquarters funding they need. In budget exercises, like the recent 8 percent reprioritization of the FY26 budget, the military services may be tempted to underfund the commands in order to protect their own priorities.

The Department of Defense and Congress should move combatant command budgets out of the services and include them in the defense-wide budget. This simple, budget neutral step will increase the voice of the commands, and improve transparency for Congress. Commands should still rely on their “host” service for life support, but they should have greater budget independence.

What Shouldn’t Change?

While empowering combatant commands will improve the defense ecosystem, there are some things that should not be changed.

First, do not elevate the role of combatant commands in creating policy and strategy. At times commands already play an outsized role in policy. America’s elected leaders and their appointees need to drive policy and strategy. Commands should have an increased role in the capabilities and technology needed to achieve policy ends, not in defining those policy ends.

Second, do not give commands authority to organize, train, and equip. Geographic commands should not develop into mini military services (with the possible exception for functional commands like Special Operations Command and Cyber Command). The commands should not get their own special authorities for acquisition or recruiting. Their jointness and warfighting focus is what makes the commands’ voices important, and that should remain their responsibility.

Conclusion

Large, complex systems of systems — with billions of dollars and millions of people — are hard to centrally plan and control effectively and efficiently. This is well recognized in economics, but the Department of Defense still functions more like a centrally-planned economy than the free market that is driving American prosperity. This must change, and one key aspect of that change is empowering the consumers — the combatant commands. The Department of Defense and Congress should start making incremental changes now that will decentralize and accelerate decision-making. Now is the time.

Become a Member

Justin Johnson spent over a decade working on defense budgets and policy on Capitol Hill and at the Heritage Foundation before spending four years in a variety of senior positions in the Pentagon from 2017 to 2021. He is now head of strategy at Metrea, which delivers effects-as-a-service to national security partners.

Image: U.S. Navy photo by Chief Mass Communication Specialist Shannon M. Smith.

Commentary

warontherocks.com · by Justin Johnson · May 8, 2025

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

Experts Say Special Ops Has Made Good AI Progress, But There's Still Room to Grow

Focus: U.S. Defense Secretary Hegseth Calls for Stronger Special Forces Amid 200% Mission Surge.

Special Operators Must Lead Throughout the Navy

Rep. Jackson Introduced Bill to Recognize SOF Week

More data, comms, countermeasures needed for Special Ops aircraft

U.S. Special Forces Deploy Across the Philippines for Balikatan 2025

Related

Aaron-Matthew Lariosa

Analysts say India and Pakistan know how to de-escalate — but will they? - Breaking Defense

"Now India's response, both verbal and written, says and underscores the point that these attacks are proportionate," said Harsh Pant of the Delhi-based Observer Research Foundation. "They are very targeted and precise, and they do not target any Pakistani military installations."

Regional Response

Ukrainian Sabotage Cuts Comms at Russian Military Sites in Moscow Region

Trump to Announce Trade-Deal Framework With Britain

The deal is expected to be framework of an agreement with tariff adjustments

Fentanyl Crisis Provided Opening for U.S.-China Trade Talks

Planned meeting in Switzerland to be first direct talks over trade during Trump’s second term

A positive step

Getting in Trump’s ear

How to de-escalate

Shippers Are Skeptical of Trump’s Truce With the Houthis

With an unclear deal and the Gaza war continuing, top carriers have no plans to return to the Red Sea soon

Marine Corps expects largest impact from Hegseth’s officer cuts

Voice of America will carry One America News programming

Trump Says He Hasn’t Decided If Iran Can Enrich Uranium in a New Deal

The president’s latest comments add to the administration’s mixed messages as it pursues talks for a new nuclear pact with Tehran

U.S. pushes nations facing tariffs to approve Musk’s Starlink, cables show

West Point Is Supposed to Educate, Not Indoctrinate

Still Hoping for a Deal with Iran? Here’s Why It Won’t Work

About The Author

269. Policy Planning Staff Memorandum0

Soft Power, Strong Impact: The Enduring Alliance Between USAID and the U.S. Military

Brief background on USAID

Nation-Building —Not a Dirty Phrase, but a Strategic Imperative

Crisis Management—More Than Just a Military Responsibility

The Strategic Role of USAID in U.S. Foreign Policy

Author’s Note

Disclaimer

About The Author

Leadership, Lethality, and (Data) Literacy: Three Keys to Prepare the Army for the Data-Driven, AI-Enabled Future of War - Modern War Institute

‘Maduro did not close our bureau – Trump did’: Voice of America journalists speak out

A ‘reward to dictators and despots’

Combatant Commands as Customers? - War on the Rocks