Latest in National Security News
Get up-to-date national security news from our reporters
Lawmakers agree legislation needed to protect DOD data in bipartisan consensus
Senators expressed concern over security loopholes with U.S. military data.
read more
Trump hosts Turkish President Erdoğan for talks on fighter jets, Russia
During his meeting with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, President Trump completed a deal between Boeing and Turkish Airlines.
read more
Trump administration stifles embassies abroad
Since President Donald Trump’s inauguration, U.S. embassies have largely avoided drawing undue attention from the Oval Office.
read more
Veterans fear Trump administration plans to privatize VA health
A seismic shift is potentially underway in how the VA provides medical care and support, which was accelerated during the first administration of President Donald Trump and is ready to expand over the next four years.
read more
DOD leadership firings spark concerns over support for female officers
In the last weeks, President Trump’s administration has removed the military of most of its top-ranking female military leaders.
read moreTrump’s reversal on Ukraine undermines allies’ trust in U.S., experts say
WASHINGTON — In recent days, President Donald Trump lashed out at Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in the White House and halted American military aid to the war-torn Ukraine.
Then, on Tuesday morning, Zelenskyy stressed that he would sign a minerals deal with the United States.
“My team and I stand ready to work under President Trump’s strong leadership to get a peace that lasts,” he wrote on X. “Regarding the agreement on minerals and security, Ukraine is ready to sign it in any time and in any convenient format.”
Under the draft agreement, Ukraine would not receive any legally binding security guarantees against future Russian aggression, which Kyiv had requested for decades.
Igor Lukes, professor of history and international relations at Boston University, said this deal amounted to a “brutal shakedown” of Ukraine. He compared Ukraine’s dilemma to “some bad movie where some powerful cartel can blackmail a weaker party into conceding everything.”
Trump’s more combative, transactional approach toward Ukraine upended the existing world order, experts say. The U.S. had allied with European nations since World War II, but Trump moved decidedly toward Russia.
In the Oval Office on Friday, Trump and Vice President JD Vance berated Zelenskyy and accused him of not wanting peace.
“You’re gambling with the lives of millions of people. You’re gambling with World War III. You’re gambling with World War III, and what you’re doing is very disrespectful to this country that’s backed you far more than a lot of people say they should have,” Trump told Zelenskyy.
In the days before the visit, Trump called Zelenskyy a “dictator” and falsely blamed the war on Ukraine, not Russia. A U.N. resolution that passed 93-18 condemned Russia’s aggression and demanded it withdraw all of its troops from Ukraine. The U.S. joined Russia, Belarus, and North Korea in opposing it.
Scheherazade Rehman, director of the European Union Research Center at George Washington University, said this foreign policy shift undermined America’s credibility as an ally.
“People around the world, leaders in countries around the world, are not going to trust the United States anymore from one election to the next because foreign policy has completely changed,” Rehman said. “American commitment now doesn’t mean much.”
Following Trump’s Friday meeting with Zelenskyy, leaders from various Western nations reaffirmed their support for Ukraine. The United Kingdom on Sunday hosted a summit of European leaders, who rallied behind Ukraine.
“Every nation must contribute to that in the best way that it can, bringing different capabilities and support to the table, but all taking responsibility to act, all stepping up their own share of the burden,” said U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer during the summit.
However, Lukes said European nations remained politically divided: Some countries, like Estonia and Lithuania, viewed a Russian victory as a threat to their survival, while right-wing leaders like Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán have supported Putin over Zelenskyy.
If the U.S. were to become less active in NATO, Lukes said its European allies would have to “live up to the challenge” of increasing military spending and overcoming Russian misinformation.
“The democratic politicians will have to come together, establish alliances and hope that the voters will not all fall for the lies that they’re being fed on social media by the manipulations, by the Russian intelligence services,” Lukes said.
Trump’s decision to cut off military aid to Ukraine could hamper the nation’s effort to defeat Russia. Zelenskyy told NBC News in February that continuing the fight without U.S. support would be “very, very, very difficult.” Rehman echoed this concern, emphasizing that Ukraine cannot stand against Russia with only European support.
“Without American security support, Ukraine is done. We all know that. Europeans know that, too,” she said.
Supreme Court considers how strict a judgment’s finality is in ‘extraordinary circumstances’
WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court heard oral arguments Monday for BLOM Bank SAL v. Honickman, which focused on how high the bar should be to reopen a case after a ruling had been made.
The case before the court will act as a guidepost for deciding when to consider undoing a final judgment. The high court heard arguments about what would count as extraordinary circumstances and warrant overturning a verdict.
In 2019, Honickman, who represents victims of Hamas terrorist attacks between 2001 and 2003, sued BLOM Bank for allegedly aiding and abetting terrorism by providing financial services to Hamas affiliates. This allegedly would have violated the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act. A U.S. District Court dismissed Honickman’s case because Honickman failed to provide sufficient evidence that the bank was “generally aware” of their role in illegal activities.
While the district court offered Honickman the option to revise the complaint, their lawyers declined and appealed the decision instead, stating that the court required an incorrect, unmeetable amount of evidence to prove the bank’s involvement in terrorism. The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s dismissal that there was insufficient evidence to prove BLOM Bank was aware of the customers’ connections to Hamas. However, the 2nd Circuit said the district court applied an incorrect legal standard for determining aiding and abetting.
Upon return to the district court, Honickman’s attempt to bring forth a revised complaint was denied. The district court stated there were no “extraordinary circumstances” at play that would warrant a new judgment. Honickman appealed the district court’s decision once more. Overturning the lower court’s decision, the appeals court sided with Honickman. The appeals court decided that the district court had been too strict and Honickman should be allowed to amend their complaint when “justice so requires.”
During oral arguments at the Supreme Court, Michael McGinly, the lawyer for BLOM Bank, argued that reconsidering the decided verdict on the case “diluted the stringent standard” used when determining whether to overturn a decided judgment. Additionally, McGinly asserted Honickman already had multiple opportunities to rework their claim but decided not to.
“What we’re doing is saying the party doesn’t get an opportunity at a dress rehearsal,” McGinly said.
However, Justice Kentanji Brown Jackson expressed concern about the bank’s argument that Honickman had other chances to revise their complaint. She worried this line of reasoning would punish those who appeal the court’s decision instead of first amending their claim to fit within the lower court’s legal standards.
“I think that burdens the right to appeal in a way that is not exactly how these rules should be read,” she said.
Other justices focused on the 2nd Circuit’s assertion that two principles, the strong requirement for overturning final decisions and the allowance of amendments when justice requires it, needed to be considered hand in hand by the district court.
Justices Neil Gorsuch and Elena Kagan questioned McGinly about the necessity of the 2nd Circuit’s balancing act. The justices asked whether only considering the preference to uphold final judgments alone would be enough to allow for amendments in necessary situations.
McGinly said “extraordinary circumstances” would permit revisions in certain cases, and this standard alone should dictate which cases get reopened after a final decision.
Michael Radine, the lawyer for Honickman, chose not to strongly advocate in favor of the 2nd Circuit’s ruling about balancing a judgment as final with the need for amendments to guarantee justice. Instead, Radine focused on how this case fell within the “extraordinary circumstances” required for voiding a judgment.
“It’s fundamentally unfair to lay the consequences of confusion (of the applicable legal standards) at the plaintiff’s doorstep,” Radine said.
Justices questioned Radine about his assertion that this case qualified as “extraordinary circumstances.” They asked if the rule that freely allowed amendments could then be ignored.
Radine reaffirmed that Honickman’s right to amend their complaint and reopen the case was justified by “extraordinary circumstances” alone. He asserted that the preference for judgments to remain final already took into account the need for justice to be served.
The high court’s ruling could impact the future of counter-terrorism litigation. Therefore, the court’s decision could determine how much flexibility terrorism victims would have to appeal those standards while preserving their future right to revise their complaints when the correct legal standard was determined.
“After the October 7 attacks, American victims of the Hamas massacres will be returning to courts. Terrorism cases are unique and challenging cases, and the law should enable them to make their cases as best they can, not slam the courtroom door shut before they’ve had that chance,” Radine wrote to Medill News Service prior to the hearing.
The court is expected to release a decision on the case later this year.
Analysis: Macron, Starmer flatter but fail to extract commitments from Trump
WASHINGTON – Blair House, the residence used to accommodate foreign dignitaries, was busy this week as French President Emmanuel Macron and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer both paid visits to the White House, the first European leaders to do so since President Donald Trump’s January inauguration.
The visits served as a window into Trump’s intentions regarding Europe over the next four years as Macron and Starmer tried to adapt to the new state of transatlantic relations.
Macron’s visit built on an existing history with Trump dating back to the president’s first term. On Monday, Trump repeatedly praised Macron for the speedy restoration of the Notre Dame cathedral in Paris, which reopened late last year in record time after a catastrophic fire in 2019.
Yet even the smiles and friendly words could not hide the tension between the two leaders as they disagreed over several issues, and the visit did not yield the commitments on Ukraine or trade that Europeans had hoped for from the American president.
Neither did Starmer’s visit. Upon his arrival on Thursday, the British leader presented Trump with a formal invitation from King Charles III, a move evidently calculated to appeal to Trump’s fondness of the monarchy.
“The president has this romantic sense of Britain and he loves the royalty,” said Daniel Hamilton, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution’s Center on the United States and Europe, “so he treats the UK in a somewhat different way than the Europeans.”
Starmer sought to make a good impression and avoided most points of contention with Trump.
Ukraine and European Security
The flurry of diplomatic activity came as the Trump administration unexpectedly reopened diplomatic channels with Russia in early February, an action that has left European allies scrambling to adjust, with Macron calling an emergency meeting of European leaders in response.
“The Europeans have not been included in the direct discussions,” Hamilton said, “and so I think they want to hear from Trump himself what’s going on here.”
France and the U.K. have both been very clear that a peace deal in Ukraine cannot be negotiated without Ukraine at the table. Trump, in contrast, has shown a willingness to re-engage Russia without either European or Ukrainian involvement.
The contrast in priorities was on stark display at Monday’s joint press conference.
Speaking in French, Macron repeatedly referenced “la guerre d’agression russe,” “the war of Russian aggression.” Yet just that same morning, the U.S. had joined Russia, North Korea, and other Russia-friendly nations in voting to oppose a U.N. resolution condemning Russia as the aggressor in the war.
Both France and the U.K. have expressed willingness to send peacekeeping troops to Ukraine should an agreement be reached, but have indicated they want a U.S. “backstop,” an assurance that the U.S. would provide some kind of support, still unspecified, if necessary. Trump has consistently avoided making such a commitment, repeatedly insisting a deal first be reached before discussing the details of any U.S. role, much to the frustration of European allies.
Divergence on Russia was a symptom of broader disagreements over the role the U.S. should play in European security.
“The new U.S. administration has kind of thrown grenades at the foundations of postwar European security,” said Anand Menon, a professor of European politics and foreign affairs at King’s College London. “European leaders are desperately worried not only that the U.S. is on the point of selling out Ukraine, but that … more broadly, the U.S. has basically decided that it’s up to Europeans to defend themselves.”
The words and actions of both leaders reflected a recognition that the U.S. is no longer a reliable defense partner.
Starmer arrived in Washington with his government’s recent pledge to increase defense spending, announced the day before his visit. And after his Oval Office meeting with Trump, Macron, speaking for the EU, said it must do more for its own security. “Europe is very clear-eyed about this,” he said.
Trade and Tariffs
Trump “doesn’t think the EU is a good deal for America,” Hamilton said, “which contravenes 80 years of U.S. policy.”
During a meeting with his cabinet on Wednesday, between the Macron and Starmer visits, Trump told reporters that “the European Union was formed in order to screw the United States,” and said he will soon be announcing 25% tariffs on the EU.
Trump has frequently claimed that the U.S. is treated unfairly by enemies and allies alike, and the EU, in particular, has long been a target.
“He only focuses on the trade deficit in goods with the European Union,” Hamilton said. “But the U.S. has a trade surplus in services with the EU, which he never mentions.” The mischaracterization is political, he said, and designed to appeal to his base.
With the EU already vowing to respond to new tariffs in kind, the chances of a trade war appear to be increasing.
“The EU could punish the United States very badly if it wanted to,” Hamilton said, adding that as America’s most important trading partner, the EU wields considerable leverage.
Léonie Allard, a visiting fellow at the Atlantic Council’s Europe Center, pointed out the irony of Trump’s provocation.
“You cannot engage in a trade war and these measures and tariffs that weaken the European economy if you want them to spend more on defense,” she said.
Trump’s displeasure with the EU means Brexit will likely prove a boon to U.S.-U.K. relations during this administration. Meeting with Trump in the Oval Office on Thursday, Starmer tried to differentiate Britain from continental Europe.
“Our trade, obviously, is fair and balanced,” Starmer said. “And in fact, you’ve got a bit of a surplus. So we’re in a different position there.”
But with the U.S. and the EU ever more at odds, balancing relations with both leaves the U.K. walking a very fine line.
“If we’re seen to be cozying up to the US,” Menon said, “I think some people in the European Union will say, ‘well, if you’re taking the side of the United States, don’t expect any friendly treatment from us.’”
For now, it seems, the visits did little to move the needle, neither on trade nor on Ukraine. But perhaps that was not the intent.
“This visit, I think, was not about deliverables,” Allard said. “It was about delivering a message from the Europeans saying, ‘we’re ready.’”
Supreme Court to decide about supervised release
WASHINGTON – Supreme Court justices heard arguments Tuesday on which factors courts can consider when revoking supervised release for criminal defendants when not all possible factors are explicitly listed under federal law.
Supervised release is when someone follows strict conditions after they have finished their sentence from federal prison, unlike parole, which releases someone early on good behavior.
The case was brought by Edgardo Esteras, who served 27 months in federal prison for drug trafficking related convictions before starting a six-year supervised release in Ohio in 2020. However, in 2023 a compliance check uncovered a firearm, violating Esteras’ release terms and leading to his arrest.
At his revocation hearing, Judge Benita Pearson described Esteras’s behavior as “dangerous” and “disrespectful” and sentenced Esteras to an additional two years in prison and three more years of supervised release after that.
At the core of Esteras v. United States is whether judges like Pearson can consider factors such as the seriousness of the offense and promoting respect for the law when revoking supervised release, even though those factors aren’t explicitly listed in the law Congress wrote.
Under the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, federal courts can impose supervised release for those convicted of federal crimes. This means that after serving a prison sentence, individuals remain under court supervision as they transition back into society. During this time, they must follow specific conditions set by a judge, and violations could result in additional prison time.
Comparably, parole, which allows early release from prison for good behavior, lets judges consider factors like the seriousness of the original crime, respect for the law, and just punishment when handling violations. However, while the Sentencing Reform Act requires judges to weigh these factors during initial sentencing, the Act omits them for supervised release violations.
The Supreme Court is weighing whether judges can consider the seriousness of the original crime when deciding if someone should return to prison for violating supervised release since supervised release is not meant to further punish someone but to rehabilitate.
“If you violate your parole, you have done a morally wrong thing…we put some faith in you, we let you out early,” said Jacob Schuman, a law professor at Temple University who wrote an amicus brief in support of Esteras. “But that doesn’t apply to supervised release. Nobody did you any favors by giving you supervised release. You haven’t done anything morally wrong.”
This issue has divided nine of the U.S. Circuit appellate courts. Chief Judge Jeffrey Sutton of the Sixth Circuit, in his majority opinion, wrote that the statute does not limit judges to only the enumerated factors, granting discretion in considering broader judicial principles, including deterrence and community safety. Four additional circuits ruled similarly, while four others sided with Esteras.
Masha Hansford, arguing for the government, said judges should have the option—but not the obligation—to consider factors like the seriousness of the offense, respect for the law, and just punishment. She compared it to a college allowing students to take extra courses beyond the required prerequisites for declaring a major.
19,418 people violated the terms of their supervised release in 2021, which is about 30% of all people on supervised release, according to the U.S. Courts.
Brooklyn Law School Professor Cynthia Godsoe said a judge’s job is to interpret and apply laws, not create new rules or expand their powers beyond what the law permits.
“What we argued in the amicus brief is judges overstepping their role to impose these sentences,” Godsoe said. “Even if you’re not incarcerated, you’re still under supervision.”
Godsoe’s bottom line: Congress deliberately omitted factors regarding what judges can and can’t consider regarding supervised release revocation.
Justice Neil Gorsuch approached the issue from a “linguistic perspective,” arguing that the statute’s language did not explicitly prohibit judges from considering additional factors. “I’m not sure it quite goes so far to say you must not consider other factors,” he said, noting the statute’s absence of a clear “must-not” clause.
If the Supreme Court rules in favor of Esteras, it will standardize the factors judges can consider when revoking supervised release, ensuring they adhere strictly to those explicitly listed in federal law.
Justice Samuel Alito expressed concern about the practical implications of restricting judicial considerations during supervised release revocation hearings.
“How is the judge going to consider the nature and circumstances of that offense without considering the severity of the offense?” Alito asked.
Germany’s Likely Next Chancellor Pushes for Independence from the U.S., Signaling Shift in U.S.-German Relations
After winning the German elections, Friedrich Merz, the leader of Germany’s mainstream conservatives and likely the next chancellor, stated Sunday that Germany must “achieve independence from the United States, step by step.”
This marks a significant shift in U.S.-German relations, as the two countries have been strong allies for decades. Experts link this change to President Trump’s statements distancing the United States from Europe and NATO during the first month of his presidency.
Liana Fix, a fellow for Europe at the Council on Foreign Relations, said during an Atlantic Council discussion on Tuesday that Germany had an opportunity to embrace Trump’s approach. It could have better relations with Russia, distanced itself from Ukraine, and maintained a strong alliance with the United States. She suggested that Germany could have taken the position, “Well, if Trump is throwing Ukraine under the bus, we better defend our security. Sort of Poland’s eastern border rather than Ukraine’s western border.”
However, after Trump’s latest statements on Europe, Fix said, this is no longer an option because Trump seemed to have connected Ukraine and European security.
“Now it’s very clear that these two issues are linked, that if Ukraine comes under the bus, NATO and European security are also up for grabs,” she said. “That is something which is good for Ukraine because it makes the Europeans and Germans realize that Ukraine’s security is linked to Europe’s security, in Trump’s thinking and in their own thinking.”
Earlier this month, Trump threatened the European Union with tariffs after imposing them on Canada and Mexico. In January, he questioned whether the U.S. should be spending anything on NATO, though he added that it “should certainly be helping them.” Additionally, he strengthened ties with Vladimir Putin, organizing Russia-U.S. peace talks on the war in Ukraine without inviting Ukrainian representatives.
Jörn Fleck, senior director at the Atlantic Council’s Europe Center, said during Tuesday’s discussion that if Trump continues to question America’s commitment to European security, Germany’s new chancellor will be forced to consider how to “protect its core national interests without reliance on a seemingly unreliable ally in Washington, D.C.”
“I think the downside of those comments is clear. It risks fueling or fanning anti-American sentiments,” Fleck added, referring to Trump’s rhetoric, which he described as equating Washington with Moscow.
Fleck also warned that Trump’s administration might respond to Merz’s remarks dismissively, suggesting they could say: “Go right ahead, knock yourself out.”
Yet, following the election results, Trump congratulated the winning party and emphasized similarities between American and German societies.
“Much like the USA, the people of Germany got tired of the no common sense agenda, especially on energy and immigration, that has prevailed for so many years,” Trump wrote on his Truth Social page.
Immigration is indeed one of the biggest concerns in Germany, much like in the United States. The far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) party, which opposes immigration, finished second in the elections, nearly doubling its support compared to 2021. Elisabeth Zerofsky, a contributing writer for The New York Times Magazine, said during Tuesday’s discussion that when she asked young AfD supporters what concerns them most, they cited immigration.
“This is an interesting response, coming from a part of Germany that has not had high levels of migration,” Zerofsky said. “There is some migration there, but not a huge amount. But there’s this perception. And it’s, of course, being boosted by the AfD that our country is not ours anymore. It’s been taken away from us.”
Before Germany’s elections, JD Vance and Elon Musk expressed support for the AfD party. Vance met with the party’s leader, Alice Weidel. When Musk virtually joined their rally in the German city of Halle, calling them “the best hope for Germany.”
Power vacuum leaves space for China, threatening national security
WASHINGTON – In a rapidly changing global landscape, the Trump administration’s foreign policy received mixed reviews from lawmakers as policy experts outlined plans to ensure American national security at a House Oversight and Government Reform hearing on Tuesday.
“Trump, if anything else, is a disruptor who recognizes that it’s time to go from the old to the new,” said Charles Kupchan, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Affairs, a nonpartisan think tank, and professor of international affairs at Georgetown University.
The Subcommittee on Military and Foreign Affairs met to discuss emerging global threats to American national security, specifically China. Republican lawmakers reiterated their support for President Donald Trump while Democrats on the committee voiced concerns about Trump’s approach with U.S. allies in Europe and Asia in the first month of his presidency.
“Does this administration know who our adversaries really are or who our allies really are?” asked Rep. Suhas Subramanyam (D-Va.). “Russia is not our friend…China is not our friend…Europe is not our enemy…Mexico is not our enemy…Canada is not our enemy.”
According to the World Economic Forum, China has become sub-Saharan Africa’s largest bilateral trading partner. China is also now the European Union’s largest external import partner.
China’s goal by 2049 encompasses both its military and technological gains. According to a U.S. Department of Defense report to Congress last year, China’s strategy “determinedly pursues political, social, economic, technological, and military development to increase [their] national power and revise the international order to support [their] system of governance and national interests.”
“While the U.S. still leads China in more technologies than vice versa, the playing field is rapidly evolving,” said Michael Brown, Eric Chewning, and Pavneet Singh in a 2020 report published by the Brookings Institute. “China challenges U.S. technology leads in AI, genetic engineering, quantum computing and quantum sensors,” they continued.
“The world in 2025 could not be more different than the one President Trump inherited in 2017,” said Jacob Olidort, the director of the Center for American Security at the America First Policy Institute, a conservative think tank aimed at promoting President Trump’s “America First” foreign policy.
Olidort is the former Director of Research at the Jewish Institute for National Security of America’s Gemunder Center for Defense and Strategy. He said that President Trump’s foreign policy strategy is the “exact right” one right now.
Brent Sadler, a retired U.S. Navy Captain and senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation’s Center for National Defense, said the U.S. cannot allow China to make gains with its allies.
“If we cannot secure our own supply chains and sustain a wartime economy, we are vulnerable to coercion by a China that effectively controls the terms of trade, be its network of ports and maritime dominance,” he said.
Meaghan Mobbs is a senior fellow for the Independent Women’s Forum, a conservative non-profit that focuses on policy issues of concern to women. She is leading the forum’s launch of a center for American Safety and Security. “Our adversaries are exploiting the vacuum we created, and have now left behind,” she told the committee.
Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-Mass.) said the Trump administration’s halting of U.S. foreign aid benefits China’s global influence and harms U.S. national security.
“We have strayed from the enduring purpose of U.S. foreign assistance to defend human rights and basic freedoms abroad in the interest of U.S. national security,” he said.
On the other side of the aisle, lawmakers gave more pause when it came to dispensing foreign aid as a part of a U.S. strategy to use “soft power,” a term Mobbs used to describe non-military partnerships and the spread of American culture and ideals abroad.
“I believe that the United States should be very cautious in extending itself too far,” said Rep. Eli Crane (R-Ariz.).
Mobbs, who disagreed with the Biden administration’s use of “too much” soft power, said that the U.S. should use “smart power” – a combination of soft power and military power – to combat China and other global threats like Russia.
“Soft power is not charity, it is a weapon. One that revealed, can shape the battlefield before its first shot is fired,” Mobbs said. “Beijing understands this. Moscow understands this. The question is do we understand this?”
“Delinquent” and “obsolete:” Trump’s rhetoric threatens transatlantic stability of NATO
WASHINGTON – Leaders representing the United States and Russia met this week to discuss an end to the war in Ukraine as European NATO leaders and the Ukrainians themselves were iced out of the negotiations despite their enormous stake in the issue. But it’s only one snub in a long line of affronts to NATO at the hands of President Donald Trump, dating back to his first term.
“NATO countries must pay MORE, the United States must pay LESS. Very Unfair!” Trump tweeted back in 2018. He accused member countries of not pulling their weight in defense spending, calling them “delinquent” and the alliance “obsolete.”
Since taking office for the second time last month, he has again singled out this issue. In a speech to the World Economic Forum in Davos just days after his inauguration, Trump demanded the alliance increase the target for defense spending to 5% of gross domestic product, more than double the current 2% guideline.
NATO introduced the 2% goal in 2014. At the time, only three of 28 member countries met that target; estimates for 2024 show 23 countries reaching it, out of 32 (four countries joined in the interim). It’s generally agreed that the jump over the last decade is likely due to several factors, including pressure applied by the Trump administration during its first term.
But even though NATO members’ defense spending is on the rise, Trump has made clear he believes it is not enough.
Why 5%?
“For a number of members of the alliance, that 5% number is eye-watering,” said Susan Colbourn, a professor at the University of Toronto whose research specializes in NATO and European security.
For reference: in 2024, the U.S. spent an estimated 3.4% of its GDP on defense – more than the 2% guideline but well short of the 5% Trump envisions.
Yet speaking to reporters after his comments in Davos, Trump declined to commit the U.S. to the 5% mark, setting up a double standard that will likely make the new 5% target a tough sell to allies.
“Nobody’s going to go to 5% if we don’t,” said Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), who sits on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
Kaine and his committee colleague Sen. Pete Ricketts (R-Neb.) both acknowledged that NATO countries do need to spend more on defense, an assessment widely shared by experts.
“Increased defense spending, particularly by the non-U.S. members of the alliance, is absolutely a good investment and necessary,” said Colbourn.
Mark Rutte, the secretary general of NATO, has already indicated that defense spending must increase, and Colbourn expects the issue to be on the agenda at NATO’s June summit at The Hague.
How the additional funds should be spent remains unclear.
“You shouldn’t increase defense spending just to increase defense spending,” said Katherine Dahlstrand, a fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. “You should be doing so with a clear goal in mind as to where you’re going to put that money, what can I spend it on?“
Dahlstrand said that much of that money should be going towards equipment, including air defense and munitions stock. Currently, NATO policy commits members to putting 20% of their defense spending towards new equipment.
The Future of NATO
“The cynical interpretation,” said Colbourn, “is that 5% is calibrated intentionally to be so high that it is impossible for the allies to meet, and then could be used as a pretext for President Trump to in some way revise or overhaul the United States participation in NATO.”
During his first term, Trump reportedly discussed pulling the U.S. out of NATO with aides on multiple occasions. The current Trump administration did not respond to multiple requests for comment.
An exit via executive order, however, is no longer an easy option. A bill passed by Congress in 2023 included a measure, introduced by Sen. Kaine and former senator and now Secretary of State Marco Rubio, requiring a two-thirds Senate majority to withdraw from NATO.
But Trump doesn’t need to officially pull the U.S. out of NATO to cause serious damage to the alliance, Colbourn said.
The backbone of NATO is Article V of its charter, the mutual self-defense clause that calls on all members to come to the aid of any one member country that is attacked.
But each time Trump threatens America’s commitment to NATO allies, for example, by questioning America’s Article V pledge or contemplating the seizure of Greenland, a territory belonging to NATO member Denmark, the damage is felt, said Colbourn.
“All of those signals and statements erode the credibility of the alliance itself,” Colbourn said. “It’s ultimately based on things like trust and confidence that the core pledge at the heart of the treaty will work.”
If NATO falls apart, she said, it would put the world in “a period of considerable realignment in the overall patterns of international politics.”
With Russia’s war in Ukraine ongoing and China sizing up Taiwan, she noted parallels to the world order of the 19th century, when great powers carved up the globe into spheres of influence. The delicacy of this moment is not lost on lawmakers.
“At this critical moment, when Vladimir Putin continues to inflict his campaign, his war against democracy, we need that NATO commitment to be stronger than ever,” said Rep. Gabe Amo (D-R.I.), the vice ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.
“And at the end of the day, this is about our allies,” he added. “A safe Europe means a safe America.”
Published in conjunction with 
As Trump Shifts on Ukraine, Europeans Rally In Fear That They Now Face Danger
WASHINGTON — Hundreds of Ukrainian flags waved alongside those of the United States, Lithuania, Latvia, Georgia, Belarus, Norway, Finland, and other nations in a display of solidarity with Ukraine at Saturday’s protest in front of the Lincoln Memorial.
As February 24 marked three years of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, people around the world raised concerns over President Trump’s foreign policy and his ties to Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Ilona Doerfler from Kyiv has been living in the United States for more than 30 years and considers it her second home. She actively spoke out about the danger of Trump getting closer with Russia because in her opinion the U.S. future depends on Ukraine.
“I think our futures are tight now. If we let tyranny be built in Ukraine, it will continue with fighting democracy in the United States. It will not stop in Ukraine. It will propel its evil power into the U.S.,” said Doerfler.
U.S. policy toward Ukraine has shifted significantly since Donald Trump took office, which was one of the key topics addressed at the protest. Within his first month as a president, he arranged peace talks with Russian officials, excluding Ukrainian representatives. Trump has demanded half of Ukrainian natural resources. He also accused Volodymyr Zelenskyy of seizing power without elections and called him a dictator with an approval rating of 4%.
It remains unclear where Trump obtained this statistic. According to IBIF Ukraine, a project that researches Ukrainian society, 63% of Ukrainians approve of Zelenskyy’s presidency. Elections in Ukraine were canceled due to martial law, as they are impossible amid active combat, territorial occupation, and the displacement of millions of Ukrainians.
In his press conference with French President Emmanuel Macron Monday, Trump was asked why he trusted Putin. He said, “I believe he wants to make a deal.”
Last week, he inaccurately blamed Ukraine for starting the war and keeping it going.
“I think I have the power to end this war, and I think it’s going very well. But today I heard, ‘Oh, well, we weren’t invited.’ Well, you’ve been there for three years,” Trump told reporters at his Mar-a-Lago resort. “You should have never started it. You could have made a deal.”
Europeans from countries that know first hand what it is like to be Russia’s neighbor, gathered for the demonstration. They expressed alarm and warned Americans that Putin cannot be trusted. People were walking with posters of Putin’s pictures which capture “Donald [Trump], FYI, this is a dictator.”
“There is only one godless, ruthless dictator in this war”—Vladimir Putin,” said Michael Sawkiw, Jr., president of the Ukrainian Congress Committee of America
“If we stand up to him, all of Europe may be free and the life of the world may move forward into broad sunlit uplands,” Sawkiw added. “But if we fail, then the whole world, including the United States, including all that we have known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new dark age made more sinister.”
Also present at the protest was Andriy Smolensky, a Ukrainian soldier who lost both his arms and his eyesight on the front line. Speaking about Trump’s negotiations with Putin, he drew a historical parallel to World War II.
“I want to start from the phrase, ‘This deal is going to bring peace to our times.’ That was the phrase that Premier Minister [Neville] Chamberlain said after making a deal with Adolf Hitler,” said Smolensky, referencing a potential peace deal on Trump and Putin’s terms.
Smolensky said that he knows Trump could bring peace to Ukraine, but it must be a just peace, not one that favors Putin.
Due to growing concerns over Trump’s foreign policy, many in Europe fear that a U.S.-Russia peace agreement would signify Putin’s victory, potentially paving the way for further invasions.
European ambassadors to the U.S. also joined the Saturday protest, showing solidarity with Ukraine. Leena-Kaisa Mikkola, Finland’s ambassador to the U.S., expressed concerns for her country’s future, given its 833-mile border with Russia. Finland only joined NATO in 2023, a decision prompted by the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
European Ambassadors to the U.S. stand together in front of the Lincoln Memorial with Ukrainian and European Union flags. (Sofia Sorochinskaia/MNS)
“What’s happening in Ukraine is affecting all of us. We want to honor the Ukrainians who are paying for their lives, fighting against an aggression that invaded their country three years ago,” said Mikkola.
Norway’s ambassador to the U.S., Anniken Huitfeldt, also reaffirmed her country’s commitment:
“I talk on behalf of the Norwegian government and we will stand by Ukraine.”
“It’s more important than ever, in our opinion, to stand up for the common boundaries and support Ukraine,” said Huitfeldt.
Toby Davis, a former political analyst at the State Department, walked by the Lincoln Memorial carrying a Georgian flag. She wanted to remind fellow demonstrators that parts of Georgia also remain occupied by Russia.
“I could not possibly not come out and support Ukraine and remind everyone that Georgia too is under attack,” said Davis. “I am hoping that the American government understands that they must be strong in support of Georgia and in support of Ukraine. If they want peace through strength, then they have to show strength.”
The Baltic countries are very concerned about being invaded by Russia if the United States let Putin win. Nevertheless, since they are NATO members, it would be a different situation for Russia, since all NATO countries would have to intervene.
Vesta Matze was among more than a dozen demonstrators waving Lithuanian flags. She was born and raised in a Lithuanian city just 30 miles from the Russian border. Supporting Ukraine now feels more important than ever to her. She said Lithuania could be next.
“Russia very openly speaks about it now, that the next one will be us,” said Matze. “We are maybe seven times smaller than Ukraine. Ukraine did a lot of work for everybody in Europe. They save our peace.”
Former VA inspector general sues for his job back
WASHINGTON — For months, Reta Mays’ treachery slipped through the cracks at the VA hospital center in West Virginia where she worked as a nursing assistant. By injecting insulin in elderly patients who didn’t need it, she murdered seven people from 2017 to 2018.
She eventually confessed, but in the meantime, the VA’s Office of Inspector General, led by Michael Missal, began investigating where things had gone wrong. Three years later, in 2021, Missal’s office released a damning report.
Before they hired her, the VA failed to adequately check Mays’ background. She lacked any official certificates or licenses as a caregiver and was accused of using excessive force against inmates in her previous job as a correctional officer
As he did throughout nine years as an inspector general, Missal’s report made the agency look bad by shining a light on its mistakes. Like the dozens of other inspector generals, known as federal watchdogs, Missal and his office are supposed to be independent so they can conduct thousands of vital reports and recommendations for their parent agencies.
In his first week back in office, President Donald Trump broke precedent by firing 17 inspector generals, including Missal. Some are now suing to get their jobs back.
Last Wednesday, on Feb. 12, Missal and seven other former inspector generals filed a lawsuit against the president, claiming he had broken the law by failing to inform Congress 30 days in advance of the removals and provide detailed explanations.
“The firing of the independent nonpartisan inspectors general was a clear violation of the law,” Missal said in an interview with USA Today. “The IGs are bringing this action for reinstatement so that they can go back to work fighting fraud, waste and abuse on behalf of the American people.”
Many of the inspector generals had years of experience ferreting fraud and waste in federal agencies, including the Pentagon, the Departments of State, Education, Labor and Agriculture.
Trump’s dismissal of the inspector generals, including some of his own appointees, soon sparked widespread criticism.
“Inspector General Missal has served his office with integrity and led a number of unbiased investigations during the Biden and first Trump administrations that Congress relied on to perform its oversight duties and improve the quality of care and benefits delivered to our nation’s veterans,” said Rep. Mark Takano (D-Calif.).
According to last week’s lawsuit, Missal’s access to the VA’s devices, networks and buildings was quickly cut off.
Two days later after the lawsuit was filed, a federal judge denied the inspector generals any chance of immediate reinstatement to their jobs, potentially lengthening the legal battle ahead. The judge then gave the Trump administration a week to respond to their requests.
Neither Missal nor his legal team responded to requests for comment before this story’s publication.
While the Trump administration never explicitly explained his firing, the Mays’ investigation was one of the many instances in which Missal uncovered scathing health scandals and exorbitant spending at the VA during his nine years in office.
Under his tenure at the VA, Missal charged the Trump administration’s acting VA secretary with blocking access to data on whistleblower complaints. He also uncovered critical flaws in a $10 billion electronic health record system at a VA hospital in Spokane, Washington.
Missal was appointed in 2015 as the VA’s inspector general by former President Barack Obama and confirmed by the Senate. At the time, the job had been vacant for almost two years.
Missal’s acting predecessor Richard Griffin resigned following allegations that he interfered with federal investigations. A group of VA employees also revealed that Griffin’s office had attempted to retaliate against whistleblowers.
Missal’s appointment, as many hoped, turned the page.
“For far too long, the VA OIG’s lack of permanent leadership has compromised veteran care, fostered a culture of whistleblower retaliation within the agency, and compromised the independence of the VA’s chief watchdog,” Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wisc.), who served then as the chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, said at the time.
Before the VA, Missal had a long history working in law firms. He spent over 25 years as a partner at K&L Gates LLP in Washington D.C., specializing in government enforcement and business protection services.
He also helped oversee multiple large-scale bankruptcy protection cases involving the New Century Financial Corporation and WorldCom.
Missal became one of the longest serving VA inspector generals, since the inspector general positions were first widely established in 1978 under the Jimmy Carter administration.
At the time, Carter suggested that inspector generals could be “perhaps the most important new tools in the fight against fraud.” He viewed the move even more essential to restore public trust, after the Watergate scandal involving President Richard Nixon,
Since Carter, Presidents Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama have made similar efforts to safeguard the presence of inspectors general within the government.
Published in conjunction with
On the Anniversary of Navalny’s Death, Russians gather outside the White House to Mourn and Demand Freedom for Political Prisoners
WASHINGTON — A few dozen Russian immigrants in Washington gathered outside the White House Sunday to honor the memory of opposition leader Alexei Navalny, who died in a Russian prison one year ago.
As a show of solidarity, recordings of Navalny’s past speeches at rallies played through a speaker in the background.
“We are ready to push this Putinist vacuum out of politics and replace it with ourselves,” Navalny’s voice rang out from a speaker. “Every day, do something to make things harder for the authorities and better for the people. Do something to weaken this regime.”
At a time when President Trump has made concessions to Putin to try to negotiate a peace in Ukraine, Russians in several U.S. cities gathered to remember Navalny and protest Russia’s authoritarian tactics.
Among those attending the demonstration was Dmitry Valuyev, president of the nonprofit organization Russian America for Democracy in Russia. He said one of the event’s goals was to inform Americans about the brutal realities of Vladimir Putin’s regime, especially under Donald Trump’s new administration.
“The Russian government does not respect diplomacy. The Russian government fears strength,” Valuyev said. “We live here now, and it is our duty to remind the administration, to remind Congress, to remind Americans of what the Putin regime is, of who Putin is. To remind them every time someone tries to reestablish dialogue or restore relations.”
After Valuyev’s speech, the crowd began chanting, “Russia without Putin. Never forgive, never forget,” in both Russian and English.
Alexei Navalny was poisoned with the nerve agent Novichok in Russia in 2020. He was transported to a hospital in Germany, where he survived, and later made the decision to return to Russia. In the winter of 2021, he was arrested upon crossing the border. He faced multiple criminal charges, and his combined prison sentence exceeded 30 years.
February has been a tragic month in modern Russian history. On February 24, 2022, Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine—a fact protesters highlighted with their posters. Some attendees also wore badges reading, “I am Russian, and I Stand with Ukraine.”
In addition to Navalny, another opposition leader, Boris Nemtsov, was assassinated in February. A potential successor to Russia’s first president, Boris Yeltsin, Nemtsov was ultimately sidelined in favor of Putin. On February 27, 2015, he was shot in the back near Red Square.
Given this string of February tragedies, several demonstrators said, “In the beautiful Russia of the future, there will be no February.”
In August 2024, under President Biden’s administration, Russia and the United States staged the largest prisoner exchange between East and West since the Cold War, with Russia and Belarus jointly releasing 16 people. It remains unclear how political prisoners in these countries will fare under the Trump administration.
Former U.S. Ambassador to Georgia Ian Kelly, who served on the board of the Free Russia Foundation, said he would be surprised if the White House initiated another prisoner swap, suggesting that European governments would likely push for it instead.
“That’s not to say that Washington is monolithic,” Kelly said. “I don’t really anticipate there being a big push from the White House, but there might be some push from Congress. You have people like [Republican] Senator [Roger] Wicker [of Mississippi], who was on the Helsinki Commission and has been very vocal about human rights abuses in Russia. There are also members of the Democratic Party who are very keen to see political prisoners released.”
Earlier this month, three political prisoners were released in Belarus, one of whom was a U.S. citizen. Belarus remains under the authoritarian rule of Alexander Lukashenko and heavily influenced by Russia.
At Sunday’s protest, demonstrators carried a variation of the Russian flag without the red stripe, which symbolizes blood and war. In its place was a second white stripe.
Mikhail Dobrolyubov, a physicist holding one of these flags, said that while the Russian flag once stood as a symbol of opposition to the Soviet Union, it no longer represents a free Russia.
“After everything Russia has done under this flag—in Ukraine, in other places, in Moldova, in Georgia, but first and foremost in Ukraine—I believe that a free, democratic Russia cannot continue to use this flag,” Dobrolyubov said.
One protester, Nabi Aganabiyev, moved to the U.S. two and a half years ago and called it the only country “where human rights and freedoms are respected and upheld.” He emphasized that demonstrations outside the White House should not only remind Americans of the horrors of the Russian regime but also support Russians who cannot freely express themselves at home. However, he was disappointed by the low turnout.
“People, he [Putin] has been in power for 25 years, he sits on the throne. Don’t forget that,” Aganabiyev said. “Alexei Navalny wasn’t afraid to speak about it, Nemtsov wasn’t afraid to speak about it. They gave their lives, and we can’t even spare ten minutes to come to a protest and show the White House that we are not just 20 or 30 people, that we are thousands, and that we are not afraid.”
Some protestors noted that since Navalny’s death, the Russian opposition had significantly weakened. Yuri Petrenko, a Russian attendee, held a poster showing a gravestone with Navalny’s photo and the dates of his life. He admitted that he had never imagined the politician would die in prison and now struggles to see who could replace him.
“For me, Navalny was the main figure of the political opposition in Russia,” Petrenko said. “Without Navalny, things are really difficult for Russia.”
At least one Belarusian joined the demonstration, including Milava Baburina. She had wanted to leave Belarus after the 2020 protests against the presidential election, which declared Lukashenko, who has ruled the country since 1994, the winner. Her brother is currently a political prisoner in Belarus.
“I believe that freedom in Russia also means freedom for my country,” she said. “These two dictators [Putin and Lukashenko] are tied to each other. If one falls, it will be easier to get rid of the other.”
In Russia, people who oppose Putin have continued to face punishment. According to the independent Russian watchdog OVD-Info, more than 40,000 people were detained at protest rallies in Russia between 2020 and 2024.
During Sunday’s demonstration, organizers repeatedly explained safety protocols, which were reminiscent of the instructions given at protests in Russia about what to do in case of arrest. Only this time, they warned attendees about what to do if ICE officers showed up. Do not give your names or IDs, and just head home.
Congress urged to support Syria
WASHINGTON – Two foreign policy experts pushed Congress to support the new Syrian government as a means of stopping Russian and Iranian influence, and a bipartisan group of senators embraced their message.
Former President Bashar al-Assad was forced out of office by a rebel group, the Islamist Hayat Tahir al-Sham (HTS), in December 2024. The Senate Committee on Foreign Relations held its first hearing on Syria’s regime change.
“I think you have bipartisan agreement that we have a real opportunity with the fall of the Assad regime to see a whole new era in Syria and a new era for U.S. interests in the Middle East,” Michael Singh of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy told Medill News Service after the hearing. “It’s going to take patience, it’s going to take laying out some benchmarks for this new government.”
After many years of sanctioning Syria, senators were grappling with how to redirect US foreign policy in the country in order to minimize the roles Russia and Iran have played.
Singh and Dana Stroul, also of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, testified at the hearing. Both supported lifting sanctions on Syria, which were put in place during Assad’s rule, if the new government meets benchmarks that serve the U.S. interest.
“I think there is a shared interest. Nobody wants to see ISIS reconstitute,” Stroul said at the hearing.
Sen. Jim Risch (R-Idaho), the committee chair, said in the hearing that he wanted to prevent Syria from serving as a launch pad for terrorists and limit Russian and Iranian influence.
Russia and Iran were allies with the Assad family, which led Syria for over 50 years. The Russian government took in Bashar al-Assad after the regime’s fall.
“The regime was committing a variety of atrocities and all kinds of war crime violations,” Robert S. Ford, who served as U.S. Ambassador to Syria during the Obama administration, said in an interview on Wednesday. “Chemical weapons were used and barrel bombs were used and hospitals were bombed.”
Washington had not yet removed sanctions on Syria which were put in place after Syria was declared a state sponsor of terrorism in 1979. The group currently leading Syria, HTS, led by Ahmed al-Sharaa, was named a foreign terrorist organization by the Department of State in 2018.
“They [HTS] have not conducted any terrorist attacks from Syrian territory since at least 2013,” Ford said. “They have pledged not to allow any other organization to use Syria as a launching pad for terrorist attacks.”
Stroul recommended in the hearing that the U.S. continue to keep troops in Syria for counterterrorism purposes. Experts testified that ISIS could fill the vacuum if American troops were pulled out. Last year there were about 2,000 U.S. troops in Syria according to the Department of Defense.
Some senators on the committee warned that if the U.S. failed to increase its support for al-Sharaa’s government in Syria, Russia, Iran, ISIS or another adversary would expand its influence.
“I think we can’t emphasize enough that there are U.S. interests at stake in Syria,” Singh said. “The risk of terrorism is at stake. What’s happening in terms of Iran’s power projection, Russia’s power projection, that’s at stake. The flow of refugees into the Middle East and Europe. There are sort of big implications to what happens in Syria. You get things right in Syria and you could undermine Iran and Russia.”
Watch: Senators agree to increase U.S. military presence in the arctic, disagree on how
WASHINGTON — Senators on the Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee agreed the U.S. must increase its military presence in and relations with Greenland as China and Russia also try to establish Arctic military dominance.
However, senators are divided on how to strengthen this relationship. Republicans favor making Greenland a U.S. territory or entering a Compact of Free Association. Democrats support strengthening existing relationships with Greenland.
Watch the video report here:
Medill Today | Wednesday, October 30, 2025