Category: Quick Analysis

Judge Juan Merchan Must Recuse Himself from Hearing the Case of Donald Trump

By John H. Wilson

In April and May of 2023, we discussed several of the weaknesses of the criminal case brought against former President Donald Trump.  In particular, we described the legal insufficiency of the indictment, which does not “asserts facts supporting every element of the offense charged and the defendant`s…commission thereof with sufficient precision to clearly apprise the defendant…of the conduct which is the subject of the accusation.”   We also noted that the majority of the charges brought against Trump are most likely time-barred by New York’s Statute of Limitations. https://www.usagovpolicy.com/is-trumps-indictment-beyond-the-statute-of-limitations/

In both articles, we also noted that the Judge assigned to hear the case against the former President, Juan Merchan, had previously donated small sums to several anti-Trump organizations, and was unlikely to dismiss the charges on either of these grounds.  According to the New York Post, Merchan “donated $35 to Democratic causes in 2020, including $15 to President Biden’s campaign and $10 to a group dedicated to ‘resisting … Donald Trump’s radical right-wing legacy.’ Federal Election Commission records show Merchan made three small-dollar donations within the span of two days in July 2020 through ActBlue, the Democratic Party’s preferred online fundraising platform. The veteran judge contributed $15 earmarked for the ‘Biden for President’ campaign on July 26, 2020, and then the following day made $10 contributions to the Progressive Turnout Project and Stop Republicans” . 

Given the small amounts involved, no one seriously argued that Judge Merchan should be removed from the case after having made these contributions, even though  “FEC records show that Merchan listed his occupation as  ‘judge’  on the donation form, and his employer as the New York State Office of Court Administration.”  This is, however, an issue of some seriousness. 

Under Rule 100.5(A)(1) of the Rules of the Chief Administrative Judge for the State of New York,  “[n]either a sitting judge nor a candidate for public election to judicial office shall directly or indirectly engage in any political activity except (i) as otherwise authorized by this section or by law, (ii) to vote and to identify himself or herself as a member of a political party, and (iii) on behalf of measures to improve the law, the legal system or the administration of justice. Prohibited political activity shall include…(h) soliciting funds for, paying an assessment to, or making a contribution to a political organization or candidate. (Emphasis added.) 

This means that despite the modest sums donated by Judge Merchan, he is prohibited from making ANY contribution, in ANY amount, to the Biden campaign, or any other political organization.

It’s not as if Judge Merchan wouldn’t be aware of these rules.  According to CNN, “Merchan launched his legal career in 1994…as an assistant district attorney in the trial division in the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office…[i]n 2006, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg…appointed Merchan to Family Court in the Bronx, and Democratic Gov. David Paterson appointed him to the New York State Court of Claims in 2009, the same year he began serving as an acting New York Supreme Court judge.”   With more than 23 years of experience as a judge, Juan Merchan would certainly know he is prohibited from making contributions in any amount to political campaigns and organizations. 

But he did it anyway.

Further, under Rule 100.3(E)(1) “[a] judge shall disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned.”  Making campaign contributions to the current President, and then hearing the case of that President’s opponent in this year’s election would certainly qualify as a reasonable question regarding Merchan’s impartiality.

But this is only one basis under which Judge Merchan’s removal from the Trump case is both appropriate and necessary.  There is more substantial basis for this matter to be taken away from Judge Merchan.

Rule 100.3(E)(1) continues as follows; “[a] judge shall disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including but not limited to instances where… (d) the judge knows that the judge or the judge’s spouse, or a person known by the judge to be within the sixth degree of relationship to either of them, or the spouse of such a person…(iii) has an interest that could be substantially affected by the proceeding.”

According to the website Living DNA, a First Degree of Relationship is a Parent to a Child, while a Sixth Degree is a second cousin.  In between are Grandparents and grandchildren, great-grandparents and great-grandchildren, Aunts, Uncles, Nieces, Nephews and First Cousins. 

It stands to reason, then, that if Judge Merchan had a cousin, or a nephew, or a grandchild who was known to the Judge, and that person had “an interest that could be substantially affected” by a proceeding over which Judge Merchan was presiding, he would have to legally and ethically recuse himself from the handling of that matter.

But what if that person is of the first degree of relationship, that is, a child of the Judge?

Meet Loren Merchan, who is, according to the New York Post, “president of Authentic Campaigns, a Chicago-based progressive political consulting firm whose top clients include Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), who was the lead prosecutor in Trump’s first impeachment trial, and the Senate Majority PAC, a major party fundraiser…Schiff’s campaign for US Senate scored an eye-popping $20 million in aid since he began soliciting donations off the presumptive GOP presidential front-runner’s unprecedented 34-count indictment last April, according to Federal Election Commission records…The Senate Majority political action committee, which supports Democratic Senate campaigns, pocketed $73.6 million since it also began firing off fundraising emails following the ex-president’s indictment…The super PAC has done more than $15 million in business with Authentic since 2019, including email fundraising and branding assistance, while Schiff’s Senate campaign paid Authentic more than $10 million for digital advertising and other consulting services the past year, records show.” 

Let us understand what the New York Post has revealed here.  Loren Merchan is the president of an organization that has been paid ten million dollars by the Senate Majority PAC, which has earned the money to pay Loren’s company by fundraising that is, at least, partially based on exploiting the indictment of former President Trump.  Clearly, then, this person has an interest that could be substantially affected by a trial over which Judge Merchan is currently presiding.

But is there a relationship between Judge Juan Merchan and Loren Merchan, the President of Authentic Campaigns?

Let’s ask the judge himself.

“This Court’s daughter is the President and Chief Operating Officer of Authentic Campaigns, Inc., a digital marketing agency that works with Democratic Party candidates as well as non-profit organizations,” Judge Merchan wrote in his August 2023 decision denying Donald Trump’s motion for the judge’s removal from the case. 

But yes, you read that right.

Loren Merchan is the daughter of Juan Merchan – of the first degree of relation to the Judge.

So why is Juan Merchan hearing the case of Donald Trump at all?  Why hasn’t he followed Rule 100.3 of the Rules of the Chief Administrative Judge for the State of New York?

“[O]n May 4,2023,[the New York State] Advisory Committee [on Judicial Ethics] issued an opinion in direct response to this Court’s earlier inquiry,” Judge Merchan wrote. “On the specific issue of the employment of this Court’s daughter, the Committee wrote ‘the matter currently before the judge does not involve either the judge’s relative or the relative’s business, whether directly or indirectly. They are not parties or likely witnesses in the matter, and none of the parties or counsel before the judge are clients in the business. We see nothing in the inquiry to suggest that the outcome of the case could have any effect on the judge’s relative, the relative’s business, or any of their interests.’ Defendant has failed to demonstrate that there exists concrete, or even realistic reasons for recusal to be appropriate, much less required on these grounds. The speculative and hypothetical scenarios offered by Defendant fall well short of the legal standard.”

In other words, Judge Merchan sought an opinion from the Advisory Committee on Judicial Ethics, and he was told that his daughter’s business, which profits handsomely by fundraising for Democrats, does not present any conflict of interest for Judge Merchan in his presiding over the trial of Donald Trump.

Unfortunately for the former President, Judge Merchan has the right to rely upon this Advisory Opinion. “The Judiciary Law [of New York State] provides that any action a judge takes in accordance with a formal advisory opinion of the Advisory Committee is ‘presumed proper’ for purposes of any subsequent investigation by the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct.” 

For the sake of argument, then, let us assume that Judge Merchan is actually able to act fairly and impartially in hearing the case against Donald Trump, and that his daughter’s profitable work on behalf of Democrats will have no impact on his ability to be fair.

There is yet another basis for Judge Merchan’s removal.

Under Rule 100.2 of the Rules of the Chief Administrative Judge for the State of New York, “[a] judge shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all of the judge’s activities” (Emphasis added.) This includes an admonishment that “[a] judge shall respect and comply with the law and shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.”

Hearing the criminal case brought against the Republican candidate for President while your own daughter runs a company that makes millions of dollars working with Democrats and their candidates for office certainly has the appearance of impropriety, and does not promote public confidence in the impartiality of Judge Merchan, does it?

Recently, Donald Trump’s attorneys brought a second motion asking the Court once more to recuse itself.   “’Authentic and Your Honor’s daughter are making money by supporting the creation and dissemination of campaign advocacy for President Trump’s opponent, political rivals, and the Democrat party,’ Trump’s lawyers wrote in court papers.”  But this motion was also denied by Judge Merchan.  

So the trial of Donald Trump continues.  But knowing that the Judge has contributed to the campaign of Joe Biden and other progressive Democrat causes, and that his daughter makes her money by fundraising for Democrats, leads to one nagging question;

Does anyone really believe for a minute that Judge Juan Merchan can be fair and impartial here?

Judge John Wilson (ret.) served on the bench in NYC

The riots by pro-Hamas demonstrators across the U.S. are a dress rehearsal for plans by Progressives seeking to influence the 2024 presidential elections through violent protests.

Organizations such as Black Lives Matter are structurally organized to use any means necessary to keep GOP candidates, particularly Donald Trump, off the ballot. As their own website https://blacklivesmatter.com/blm-demands/ states: “Trump must also be banned from holding elected office in the future…Permanently ban Trump from all digital media platforms…”

It’s not a tactic restricted to domestic leftists. Mark Thornton, writing for the Mises wire calls it “direct violent revolutionary action against the institutions of capitalism, such as security forces, property, particularly business property, and the rule of law. This approach is often adopted by Marxists, socialists, and fascists as a means of gaining power. At the root of the chaos and upheaval on our streets is an attempt at disrupting society and taking more control of it by Marxists, socialists, and ‘anarchists.’

Sources both in government and in thoughtful organizations are beginning to comprehend the strategy.

Homeland Security Subcommittee on Oversight, Investigations, and Accountability Chairman Dan Bishop (R-NC) recently noted that a “threat to free expression is the contemporaneous phenomenon of more and more left-wing, organized violence that likewise appears designed to co-opt and suppress open debate… mention left-wing violence and the prevarications begin: Some will claim that it’s not that big of a deal, or that Antifa is a myth. And we all remember state-aligned media’s fervent effort to label fiery, violent rioting as quote – “mostly peaceful…” Our colleges and universities – once the symbol of free and open debate – are increasingly scenes of violent intimidation by left-wing extremists to silence those with whom they disagree. It’s past time to recognize that these are not random or spontaneous outbursts of violence. Far from it. Self-styled anti-fascist and anarchist groups, often exploit bona fide causes deliberately to organize and deploy street violence for political ends. They use sophisticated tactics to assault law enforcement officers, destroy property, and spread fear and disorder…These groups are sophisticated. They are well-trained and financed. They have extensive logistical support. And, they are extremely clever in masking their activities.”

Writing  in City Journal, Christopher Rufo notes that “The resurgence of public protests in support of Hamas has revealed a disturbing truth: the left-wing rioting following George Floyd’s death in 2020 was not an anomaly, but a tactic that activists can repurpose for any cause. Whether by coincidence or design, these recent outbursts could be a dress rehearsal for possible violence during next year’s election campaign…Progressives are restless and ready. Left-wing activists have established a constellation of institutions to support public demonstrations. Protest NGOs, media entities, research centers, black-bloc (Antifa) networks, and bail funds are all finely tuned to mobilize mass movements. The Left carefully manages its licit and illicit factions: progressive political leaders tacitly delegate the dirty work to anarchist and racialist factions, which can change costumes—for example, from a BLM mask to a Palestinian keffiyeh—at any moment.”

A Heritage study notes “The relationship between Palestinians and the global Marxist networks that birthed Black Lives Matter has an old pedigree. Palestinian activists were in Ferguson, Missouri, in 2014, when BLM was forged into a global movement. But their ties with BLM’s architects actually precede BLM’s founding. This is something that must be borne in mind by people who—still, to this day, somehow—appear confused as to why BLM organizations defend the killing spree and gang rapes carried out by the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas in Israel on Oct. 7… Steve Tamari, a professor of Middle East history at Southern Illinois University Edwardsville, wrote that December of how he had run up to a black marcher waving the flag and said, ‘Hey, that’s my flag,’ and the man replied, ‘This is our intifada.’ According to Tamari, the Palestinian contingent was 200-strong and had its own superstar leaders. Among those who spoke were firebrands Linda Sarsour, Suhad Khatib, and artist Remi Kanazi, who performed at an Oct. 12 rally with Cornel West…”

Watch those city-closing pro-Hamas demonstrations carefully. They are what can be expected in the fall, as the 2024 presidential campaign enters its critical phase.

Illustration: Pixabay

The Heritage Foundation has released its  latest report on economic freedom. We provide the Executive Summary here.

The cumulative downward pressure on the world economy is the product of bad economic policy choices from the coronavirus pandemic period, higher inflation, Russia’s ongoing invasion of Ukraine, and a broader conflict in the Middle East, among other economic and geopolitical tensions.

The abrupt and shortsighted renunciation of the principles of economic freedom in many countries has further risked not only undercutting much-needed stronger economic recovery, but also sacrificing long-term economic resilience and prosperity. Many countries around the world, for example, are already mired in a greater debt burden that prolongs economic stagnation.

A return to business as usual will not suffice. In addition to the impacts of the pandemic on public finances, countries face many long-term structural challenges in the policy areas of transparency, efficiency, openness, and government effectiveness.

More than ever, it should be remembered that a nation’s true capacity for lasting growth and prosperity hinges on the quality of its institutions and economic system. Many nations around the globe are now at a crossroads. The question is whether they will recognize the paramount need to correct the current policy course and reinvigorate their commitment to preserving and advancing economic freedom, which has proven to be crucial to human flourishing and the achievement of real progress.

KEY FINDINGS OF THE 2024 INDEX OF ECONOMIC FREEDOM

• The 2024 Index, which considers economic policies and conditions in 184 sovereign countries from July 1, 2022, through June 30, 2023, reveals a world economy that, taken as a whole, is “mostly unfree.” Regrettably, the global average score for economic freedom has fallen further from the previous year’s 59.3 and is now the lowest it has been since 2001: only 58.6.
• Globally, fiscal soundness has deteriorated significantly. Rising deficits and mounting public debt in many countries have undermined and will likely further undercut their overall productivity growth and ultimately lead to economic sluggishness rather than vibrant growth.
• Despite the notable downturn in global economic freedom, there continues to be a clear relationship between improved economic freedom and improved economic dynamism as well as greater overall well-being. No matter what their existing level of development may be, countries can measurably boost their economic growth by implementing policies that reduce taxes, rationalize the regulatory environment, open the economy to greater competition, and fight corruption, all of which will also help to advance their overall economic freedom.
• The standard of living, measured by incomes per capita, is much higher in economically freer countries. Countries rated “free,” “mostly free,” or “moderately free” in the 2024 Index generate incomes that are more than double the average levels in other countries and more than three times higher than the incomes of people living in economically “repressed” countries.
• As documented once again in the 2024 Index, economic freedom also correlates significantly with overall well-being, which includes such factors as health, education, the environment, innovation, societal progress, and democratic governance.
• As shown in the ranking table below, only four countries (down from seven in the 2022 Index) recorded economic freedom scores of 80 or more, putting them in the ranks of the economically “free;” 22 countries earned a designation of “mostly free” by recording scores of 70.0 to 79.9; and an additional 55 countries were considered at least “moderately free” with scores of 60.0 to 69.9. Thus, a total of 81 countries, or slightly less than half of the 176 countries graded in the 2024 Index, have institutional environments in which individuals and private enterprises benefit from at least a moderate degree of economic freedom in the pursuit of greater economic development and prosperity.
• On the opposite side of the spectrum, more than 50 percent of the countries graded in the 2024 Index (95 economies) have registered economic freedom scores below 60. Of those, 62 are considered “mostly unfree” (scores of 50.0 to 59.9), and 33, including China and Iran, are in the economically “repressed” category.
• Within the top 10 rankings, a notable reshuffling has taken place. Singapore has maintained its status as the world’s freest economy, demonstrating a high level of economic resilience. Switzerland is the world’s second freest economy, followed by Ireland, and Taiwan has moved up to the fourth slot, the highest rank the country has ever achieved in the Index of Economic Freedom. Both New Zealand and Australia have lost their top-tier economic freedom status, with Australia no longer among the world’s 10 freest economies.
• Especially notable is the continuing decline within the “mostly free” category of the United States, whose score plummeted to 70.1, its lowest level ever in the 30-year history of the Index. The U.S. is now the world’s 25th freest economy. The major causative factor in the erosion of America’s economic freedom is excessive government spending, which has resulted in mounting deficit and debt burdens.

All in all, the ongoing recovery remains uneven and uncertain with strikingly different outcomes across countries, sectors, and demographic groups. Output and employment gaps remain in many countries, particularly in emerging markets and developing economies, suggesting that countries face vastly different policy challenges during recovery and beyond.

Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, some believed that the threat of nuclear war was over, or at least substantially reduced. Sadly, that was not accurate. Today, the United States is in greater danger than ever of an atomic attack, not just from Russia, but from China,  North Korea and Iran. General Anthony Cotton, U.S. Strategic Forces Commander, testified about the danger before the Senate Armed Forces Committee.  We reproduce key portions of his statement:

Strategic competition is on the rise, including in the nuclear domain, as evidenced by Russia’s comprehensive nuclear modernization efforts and the PRC’s rapid and opaque nuclear weapons buildup. The emphasis on nuclear capabilities by potential adversaries, coupled with the incorporation of technologies like hypersonic weapons (HSW) and fractional orbital bombardment (FOB) capabilities, significantly escalates global security risks. As noted in the 2022 Nuclear Posture Review, the PRC and Russia also likely possess capabilities relevant to chemical and biological warfare that pose a threat to U.S., Allied, and partner forces, military operations, and civilian populations.

Taken individually, these developments are concerning; they are only exacerbated by the increasing levels of cooperation between and among the PRC, Russian Federation, DPRK, and Islamic Republic of Iran, which creates the possibility for simultaneous crises and raises the risk of opportunistic aggression. For example, Russian and PRC bombers flew joint patrols over the western Pacific this past November and conducted a joint maritime patrol near the Aleutian Islands over the summer. The DPRK and Iran have also delivered arms to Russia to support its war against Ukraine. This increasing cooperation and the risk of simultaneous crisis or conflict place a premium on credible, robust, and flexible joint force response options that signal our readiness and commitment to potential adversaries, Allies, and partners.

THE PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA

   The 2022 NDS identified the PRC as the Department’s pacing challenge and our most consequential strategic competitor. PRC leadership has stated that the expansion of nuclear UNCLASSIFIED 4 capabilities is necessary to achieve “great power status,” and potentially perceives its nuclear arsenal as a key deterrent to U.S. intervention in the region. While the PRC’s long-term nuclear strategy and requirements remain unclear, the trajectory of its efforts points toward a large nuclear and more diverse force with a high degree of survivability, reliability, and effectiveness. The PRC currently has a nuclear triad consisting of bombers, submarines, and land-based missiles. Its H-6N bomber is equipped to carry air-launched ballistic and cruise missiles, and the PRC is actively developing a strategic stealth bomber, the H-20. The PRC also has six JIN-class ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs) equipped with new third-generation JL-3 submarinelaunched ballistic missiles (SLBMs), capable of striking the continental United States from PRC littoral waters. Additionally, the PRC has approximately 1,000 medium and intermediate-range dual-capable conventional or nuclear ballistic missiles capable of inflicting significant damage to U.S., Allied, or partner forces and homelands in the Indo-Pacific.

As I reported to Congress in January 2023, the PRC’s arsenal of land-based intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) launchers currently exceeds that of the United States. Today, the PRC likely has more than 500 operational nuclear warheads and, should it continue building weapons at its current pace, could have more than 1,000 nuclear warheads by 2030. In 2022, it built three new ICBM fields, with at least 300 missile silos, each capable of housing the solid-propellant CSS-10 Mod 2 ICBM. The PRC also maintains road mobile CSS-20 ICBMs, each armed with multiple independently targetable reentry vehicles (MIRV), and is developing a new generation of mobile ICBMs. These developments, combined with the PRC’s increasing counter-space and cyber capabilities, pose a complex, but not insurmountable challenge to U.S. strategic deterrence

RUSSIAN FEDERATION

The 2022 NDS identified Russia as an acute threat. Its unprovoked war against Ukraine has caused the largest conflict on the European continent since World War II and undermines the rules-based international system. The invasion has also highlighted Russia’s willingness to employ nuclear coercion and attempt to influence decision making within the United States and our North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Allies. Russia’s violation of specific obligations within the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) further exacerbates this issue.

Russia is currently in possession of the largest and most diverse nuclear arsenal of any nation. In September 2023, it proclaimed the RS-28 SARMAT ICBM had been placed on combat duty. Additionally, Russia continues to field new SEVERODVINSK-class nuclearpowered cruise missile submarines, as well as DOLGORUKIY-class SSBNs, armed with the SSN-32 Bulava SLBM.

Beyond Russia’s traditional strategic triad, it is expanding and modernizing its nuclear options. These include nuclear-capable hypersonic systems such as the Tsirkon land attack cruise missile and the Kinzhal air-launched ballistic missile, the last of which Russia has employed frequently against Ukraine in a conventional role. These hypersonic systems add diversity and flexibility to Russia’s nuclear arsenal and complement its stockpile of approximately 2,000 theater nuclear weapons that do not fall under New START limits.

DEMOCRATIC PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF KOREA

The DPRK views its nuclear arsenal as a means to ensure regime survival and influence Republic of Korea and U.S. forces in the area. The DPRK is developing and fielding mobile short-,intermediate-, and intercontinental-range nuclear capabilities that place the United States homeland and regional Allies and partners at risk. DPRK leadership recently declared that the country’s status as a nuclear weapons state “has now become irreversible,” and it is possible the DPRK will resume nuclear testing in order to demonstrate its capabilities.

ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN

The Islamic Republic of Iran continues to expand its nuclear program by increasing its stockpile of highly enriched uranium and deploying additional advanced centrifuges, which has shortened the time Iran would need to acquire enough fissile material for a nuclear weapon. Iran already possesses the region’s largest arsenal of conventional ballistic missiles, which threaten U.S. regional bases and are capable of reaching as far as Southern Europe. Iran also continues to proliferate advanced conventional weapons to non-state militia groups across the Middle East— which have been used in countless attacks against U.S. and partner personnel and interests across the region, undermining regional stability.

Photo: Pixabay

“It’s going to get bad this summer, really bad!” Those were words spoken earlier this week by a former US Marine Colonel with extensive experience in the European command. As summer approaches there is growing concern in Washington about the expansion and intensification of the war in Ukraine. Russia is biding its time this spring while it replenishes its ammunition supplies and secures more volunteers to fight on the front lines. 

Mounting losses over the last year means that President Vladimir Putin must reach further into the outer regions of Russia to recruit soldiers. Those regions are mainly populated by non-ethnic Russians with contempt for a government in Moscow that has forgotten them and ignored their needs in the past. It raises a challenge for Putin. This spring Russia is experiencing increasing ethnic tension and greater anti-Kremlin sentiment in areas as far away as Siberia.

Putin faces a major task in maintaining a “volunteer” military as the number of able-bodied Russians willing to fight in Ukraine dwindles, with the war passing the second-year mark. According to Sergey Sukhankin of the Jamestown Foundation, Moscow is relying heavily on “so-called ‘volunteer’ battalions assembled from the outer regions of Russia.” So far, Putin’s strategy has enabled the government to avoid discontent building to unmanageable levels among ethnic Russians living in and near Moscow. 

Siberian units fighting on the front have sustained heavy losses and, according to Sukhankin, it “sets a dangerous precedent and poses the risk of inflaming animosity between Russia’s regions and its federal center.” The Buryatia-based Baikal battalion, which was formed 20 months ago, lost so many volunteers that there are no more to join the unit after a battle outside the village of Petropavlivka in Kharkiv Oblast in which over 180 were killed, according to the New Times of Russia. 

The story is played out again and again. One of the local elites from the Public Chamber of the Republic of Buryatia questioned whether it was “The stupidity and sloppiness of the military command or is this deliberate sabotage….” This region is one of the poorer areas in Russia. Residents often lack military compensation for the disabilities or deaths of their family members fighting in a war, in which well over 1,300 of their neighbors lost their lives. When they receive money for enlisting it is a low, one-time payment of 100,000 rubles (about US $1,000). The publication Novayagazeta.eu says that the region has the fourth highest total losses in all of Russia.

Units from other autonomous regions that received less dangerous assignments and suffered fewer losses are more closely involved in promoting “military-patriotic” education for local youth and supporting Putin’s war. They, in essence, serve as a war propaganda machine for the Kremlin. There is growing evidence, despite Kremlin disinformation efforts this spring, that Putin cannot count on the majority of non-ethnic Russians to support the war effort in Ukraine. Without the backing of Russia’s ethnic minorities Putin’s buildup of arms will be of little use. Sukhankin says that “one should not forget about the pro-Ukrainian Sibir battalion and its leader Vladislav Ammosov, an ethnic Yakut who worked in Russia’s military intelligence agency for 15 years before defecting to fight for Ukraine.” Putin does not have an easy path to victory in front of him. The war is likely to intensify this summer with the replenished armaments, but so is anti-Kremlin sentiment. Add to it, Putin faces challenges to find the bodies to send to the front lines.

Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.

Photo: Russian Defense Ministry

The Department of Defense (DoD) is taking note of the “unique challenges” posed by Russia in Latin America.

Daniel P. Erikson, deputy assistant Secretary of defense for the Western Hemisphere, warned of the danger at an Atlantic Council event on “China and Russia in Latin America and the Caribbean.”

There are some very important elements to the challenges posed by both China and Russia that require a whole-of-government response because they are pursuing economic, political and diplomatic interests, he said, noting that “With so many challenges, the department has had to prioritize and deal with core risks or threats to U.S. and allies’ interests.”

Besides military partnerships, Erickson outlined, “…it’s critical that the U.S. private sector, U.S. industry and relevant U.S. agencies are engaging with this region to ensure that we can make available offerings — whether it’s in defense, cyber, or in other areas — to meet the core national security needs of the countries there.”

Countries in the region are facing transnational criminal organizations, climate threats, and border disputes. “So, they look at the risk posed by as something that is going to come, perhaps, in the future — but not today. And so, really, educating our partners and making sure they’re aware of how some of the decisions that they make today could create long-term risk for them is really critical,” Erickson explained.

The intensified push by Moscow and Beijing in the western hemisphere has many concerned both at the Pentagon and elsewhere. The United States Institute for Peace warns that “Russia’s information operations in Latin American are much deeper and more complex than what is commonly understood. Using a variety of instruments, Moscow has worked to create an environment favorable to Russia and to keep Latin American elites from aligning with Washington on a variety of issues, particularly the war in Ukraine.”

That concern was noted several years ago in a U.S. Army analysis. which stressed that earlier this century, “Russian inroads into Latin America have increased significantly in recent years…with Putin’s rise to power in 2000 after Yeltsin’s resignation, Latin America began to occupy an increasingly prominent role in the Kremlin’s foreign policy priorities…These growing ties coupled with the increased Russian presence in Latin America, especially in Nicaragua, Venezuela, and Cuba, triggered discussions about Russia’s return to Latin America.” Now,  Argentina, Mexico, Cuba, Venezuela, and other Latin American and Caribbean countries are increasing military ties with Russia.

In this sense, Russia’s military cooperation with Latin America is not only technical, but also politico-military, in that it has an important political component.¹⁸ However, it is important to take into account the relative low volume of military spending across the region, as well as the tendency among most countries to buy armaments from the United States or Europe.¹⁹ For example, arms sales to Latin American countries accounts for less than 15 percent of Russian total arms exports and, in trade terms, countries like Nicaragua and Venezuela are not among the first destinations of Russian exports.²⁰

The Army study cites a number of examples. Two that stand out include Moscow sending “Tu-160 bombers to carry out military exercises with Venezuela, and conducting war games with Caracas in which a small Russian fleet was sent to the Caribbean to participate in joint military maneuvers with the Venezuelan navy.”

Evan Ellis, from The Center for Security and International Studies (CSIS) Evan Ellis, Senior Associate (Non-resident) with the Americas Program, testified before the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Western Hemisphere, Civilian Security, Migration and International Economic Policy on the topic of Russian influence in Latin America and the Caribbean.

He informed Congress that “Russia has demonstrated its intent and capability, however limited, to conduct military and other strategic activities oriented against the U.S. and our partners in the Western Hemisphere. Its key vehicle for doing so has been collusion with anti-U.S. authoritarian regimes in the region, including Venezuela, Nicaragua, and Cuba.

“Recent demonstrations of Russia’s hostile intent toward the U.S. and our partners in the Western Hemisphere include Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov’s January 2022 suggestion that Russia might deploy military forces to Venezuela or Cuba,  Deputy Prime Minister Yuri Borisov’s February 2022 signing of a pact to increase military cooperation with Venezuela,3 and Nicaragua’s June 2022 re-authorization for limited numbers of Russian troops and equipment to enter the country for training missions and other forms of support. Most recently, Russian actions also include announced participation by a team of snipers, along with teams from China, Iran, and seven other countries, in an upcoming military sniper competition in Venezuela, the first time the competition has been held in the country.”

Illustration: Pixabay

Too many in Washington are far less interested in protecting against foreign military threats than in pushing a separate agenda. The defense budget may hold steady, but accounting for inflation, even a small increase is actually a cut.

It’s a bad time to underfund national security. How defense dollars are used is vital.  While key, front-line needs are crucial, the Defense Department spends money on items such as placing solar panels on the Pentagon and pursuing nonexistent internal threats from its own service personnel.  Even as dangers lurk in Ukraine, the Middle East, the Indo-Pacific and on America’s own southern border, some of those entrusted with the defense of the nation are using the their budget to pursue political goals.

The most important element of our defense, the men and women who serve, is in deep trouble. In 2023, the military fell short of its recruitment goal by an astounding 41,000. A Military Times report stated that “One possibility [for missing recruitment goals]  that is increasingly resonating with veterans is that the military is too ‘woke.’ Sen. Tommy Tuberville, R-Ala., for example, is among a group of Republican senators who have repeatedly blamed recruiting problems on the Biden administration for trying to build a ‘woke Army.’

Key defense fundamentals, both conventional and strategic, are facing challenges.

An essential element of updating our nuclear deterrent is behind schedule. According to Rep. Mike Rogers, Chair of the House Armed Services Committee, the Sentinel land-based missile program, a key part of the modernization program, is not doing well.   “Sentinel is absolutely necessary for the future of our nuclear deterrent… The Department must ensure that Sentinel is ready in time to replace the current ICBMs before they reach the end of their lives. Failure is not an option.”

As an actual assault on U.S. interests becomes more likely than at any time since the Cold War, eyes that should be focused on the threat are looking elsewhere.

In an August address to West Point cadets, Deputy Defense Secretary Kathleen Hicks said “Climate change is a national security issue…”

A Heritage Foundation study reports that “The Department of Defense has taken on the most ambitious climate change policy agenda in its history. On January 27, 2021, President Joe Biden declared by executive order “that climate considerations shall be an essential element of United States foreign policy and national security” and directed that: ’The Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff shall consider the security implications of climate change.’”

Our major adversary, China, grows stronger at sea as the U.S. falls behind. Beijing has built a navy larger than America’s. In fact, the U.S. Navy’s fleet is now smaller than it was in 2007.

 Mackenzie Eaglen, writing for the American Enterprise Institute reports that “The Navy has been making ends meet for now, but can only surge at this tempo for a limited period of time as deployment extensions continue to place additional wear and tear on overworked crews and aging ships. Furthermore, the fleet is set to slowly but steadily get smaller before it gets any bigger, as early retirements pile up and replacements slow….Battle force retirements have largely outpaced new procurement for the past two decades. Unstable funding and changing demands have left industry to cut down their shipbuilding operations to stay profitable, hollowing out domestic shipbuilding capacity and limiting our ability to build the fleet of the future. As former Chief of Naval Operations…Adm. Mike Gilday bluntly put it… ‘’The fleet is aging. As ships become older, they become more expensive and difficult to maintain. Ships are being tied in up in compounded maintenance delays, taking numerous ships off the line. Copious maintenance delays for the surface fleet resulted in less than 68 percent surface fleet ships deemed “mission-capable,” last year. Submarines face a similar situation, with just 63 percent of attack submarines available in the last year, further shrinking the true size of our Navy.”

While Democrats have engaged in diverting military funds and attention away from defense and towards environmental and woke goals, Republicans have made their share of mistakes, as well. The border is a key issue and Biden’s negligence continues to produce current harm and future threats. But the GOP’s leveraging withholding of support for Ukraine and Israel for border policy reform is a poor strategy, simply replacing one threat with another.

The current National Defense Authorization Act has been criticized as one that fails to address the threat from America’ “Pacing challenger,” China. A Heritage analysis points out that ‘Not long ago, House Republicans could have credibly argued that they were Capitol Hill’s toughest China hawks. Despite that track record, lame-duck Financial Services Committee Chairman Patrick McHenry (R-NC) and a few cronies were allowed to strip out virtually all of the important China-related national security provisions from this year’s National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).”

Photo: Chinese frigate firing. (China Defense agency)

Iran’s missile attack on Israel, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, China’s maritime assaults on the Philippines are not isolated issues. They are the direct result of the projection of weakness that began with the Obama Administration and reasserted by President Biden.

Moscow, Beijing, Tehran and Pyongyang are strengthening their armed forces and meeting closely to strengthen their ability to work as a unified front to engage in current and planned armed assaults against the United States

While the U.S. has protected its ships in the Mideast from attacks and worked with Israeli forces to shoot down the Iranian missiles and drones, its has taken little action to deflect further attacks other than pinpoint attacks on the antiship launch sites. Biden has informed Israel that America would not assist Netanyahu in any counterattack that would dissuade future assaults.  

The Axis partners perceived Biden’s feckless withdrawal from Afghanistan, his excessively hesitant provision of advanced weaponry to Ukraine, his reluctance to confront China despite numerous serious provocations as indications of an Administration that does not take military threats seriously, similar to the nonresponse by the Obama Administration’s failure to respond even diplomatically to Putin’s takeover of Crimea and Xi’s invasion of the Philippine Exclusive Economic Zone, which was condemned by the World Court at the Hague.

Regarding Ukraine, U.S. Representative Mike Rogers (R-AL), Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee has stated “Since the start of the war, President Biden’s Ukraine policy has been plagued by hesitation. Every major weapons system the United States has provided—from Stingers, to Abrams, to ATACMS —only came after serious Congressional pressure. And it usually arrived months late and in insufficient numbers.”

Of course, political wrangling tying Ukraine aide to attempts to get Biden to reverse his open border policy didn’t help matters.
 

Those nonactions, combined with the President’s inadequate defense budget proposals and the reality that the U.S. Army, Navy and Air Force will be smaller at the end of his first term than at the beginning of it have greenlighted aggression across the globe. In April, U.S. Senator Deb Fischer (R-Neb.), a senior member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, questioned Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Charles Q. Brown, Jr., about the failures of President Biden’s proposed defense budget and the need to update America’s strategic posture, including by modernizing its nuclear deterrent.

Biden’s increased defense cooperation with several Pacific nations including Japan, Australia, New Zealand North Korea and the Philippines, as well as his approval of the admission of Sweden and Finland into NATO are all excellent moves. But it can also be seen as a way to push off America’s role as defender of the free world onto other nations.

Michael Rubin, writing for the American Enterprise Institute noted that “Aggressors perceive weakness when they see Biden. At issue is not only his physical frailty and declining mental acuity. Secretary of State Antony Blinken and National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan looked shell-shocked after Chinese Politburo Member Yang Jiechi and Foreign Minister Wang Yi dressed them down in a March 2021 summit in Anchorage. The two Biden aides came in overconfident and cocky and did not understand how much older Chinese officials would both perceive them and test them. The desperation with which Biden, Blinken, and Sullivan approached Iran nuclear negotiations and hostage-taking further solidified the perception of America’s enemies that Washington was profoundly unserious and that its redlines ephemeral.  Mishandling the Afghanistan withdrawal will haunt America for decades…Irredentists have taken notice. Not only does Iran believe it and its proxies Hamas and Hezbollah can act with impunity, but so do many other dictators.”

Seth Cropsey, in an article for The Hill explains that “…searches for a chimerical relaxation of tensions with China where none is to be found except in Washington’s accession to Beijing’s wishes. The efforts imply a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of statecraft. President Joe Biden and his closest advisers seem to believe that their role is to win a war of words, and that the hard edge of statecraft — military force — is an aberration, not a fundamental reality of international politics. The danger is that the Biden administration’s genteel convictions will smooth the nation’s path into a much larger and more dangerous contest of wills.”

If Biden fails to support Israel in its response to Iran, the “Axis of Evil” powers may perceive it to be a prominent example that the current White House has embraced a neo-pacifist philosophy that frees them to take hostile action.

Following the end of the first cold war, an unrealistic belief that “History was at an end” and that great power competition was a thing of the past led to a drastic impact not only on the existing U.S. military, but also on the industrial infrastructure required to supply it.

A newly released Defense Department report on the National Defense Industrial Strategy examines the problem.

The 59-page National Defense Industrial Strategy lays out long-term priorities that will supposedly guide DOD actions and resource prioritization in order to create a modern, resilient defense industrial ecosystem with the goal of deterring U.S. adversaries.

“We are implementing the National Defense Industrial Strategy now to ensure that our defense industrial base continues to both strengthen our national security here at home while reassuring and supporting allies and partners,” said Laura D. Taylor-Kale, assistant secretary of defense for industrial base policy, in unveiling the strategy from the Pentagon.

Taylor-Kale underscored the urgent need to shore up the defense industrial base as U.S. adversaries build up their military power to levels not seen since World War II. She noted China’s increasing threat to upend existing international order. She also highlighted the United States’ continued support for Ukraine as it defends itself from Russian aggression and for Israel in its fight against Hamas.”

 We excerpt key points:

 The so-called “peace dividend” and “procurement holiday” that followed saw dramatic cuts in military force structure, weapons production, and corresponding stockpiles of munitions and materials. Most notably, the traditional Defense Industrial Base (DIB) consolidated in the wake of the Secretary of Defense meeting with the major prime contractors and their suppliers in 1993 at what became known as the “Last Supper.”

Significantly, this post-Cold War period saw the wider contraction of America’s overall production capacity across many industries. Commercial manufacturing and related supply chains migrated overseas, including materials and components relevant to military needs. Over three decades the People’s Republic of China became the global industrial powerhouse in many key areas – from shipbuilding to critical minerals to microelectronics – that vastly exceeds the capacity of not just the United States, but the combined output of our key European and Asian allies as well.

The events of recent years dramatically exposed serious shortfalls in both domestic manufacturing and international supply chains. The COVID-19 crisis demonstrated America’s near wholesale dependency on other nations for many products and materials crucial to modern life.4 Longstanding mobilization authorities, such as the Defense Production Act, were needed in the first months of the crisis to prevent expected shortages in medical equipment and other crucial items.

The Russian Federation’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, followed the next year by attacks by Hamas on Israel, uncovered a different set of industrial demands and corresponding risks. The U.S. defense industry has been called on to surge production of military equipment in large quantities, especially munitions – from 155mm military artillery shells, a staple of armies since the First World War, to the most sophisticated missile defense systems.

The National Defense Industrial Strategy (NDIS) – the first of its type to be produced by the Department of Defense – provides a path that builds on recent progress while remedying remaining gaps and potential shortfalls. This NDIS recognizes that America’s economic security and national security are mutually reinforcing and, ultimately, the nation’s military strength depends in part on our overall economic strength.

How do we prioritize and optimize defense needs in a competitive landscape undergirded by geopolitical, economic, and technological tensions? Tradeoffs typically occur between cost, speed, and scale. However, the lessons learned since the “Last Supper” and highlighted by current acute threats illustrate that the DoD needs to move aggressively toward innovative, next-generation capabilities while continuing to upgrade and produce, in significant volumes, conventional weapons systems already in the force.

As such, the DoD seeks to be more adaptable to changes in the competitive landscape. We must optimize for dynamic production and capabilities. In addition to the traditional defense industrial base, we will accelerate the growth of a more diverse, dynamic, and resilient modern defense industrial ecosystem.

To date, the federal government has enacted industrial policies that guide the NDIS. This includes a range of Executive Branch policy actions. For instance, Executive Order (EO) 13806 called for policies that promote a vibrant domestic manufacturing center, a vibrant DIB, and resilient domestic supply chains. More recently, EO 14017 called for action to strengthen America’s supply chains. Additionally, EO 14028 emphasized the need for the private sector to recognize and continuously adapt to the constantly evolving cyber-threat to ensure products are built and operate effectively, while ensuring that critical information and technologies are protected.

In the international capital and trade arena, EO 14083 elaborates and expands on the existing list of factors that the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) considers when reviewing transactions for national security risks. Complementing this CFIUS reform, EO 14105 regulates outbound investments in which United States capital is being invested in certain entities within certain countries of concern, and it provides a mechanism to limit U.S. investment in adversarial defense economies, limiting those adversaries’ ability to compete with the U.S. DIB.

The DoD has taken action to support these Executive Orders. Since the supply chain-focused executive order (EO 14017) was issued in February 2021, the DoD has obligated over $893 million using the Defense Production Act for investments in five critical sectors (kinetic capabilities, microelectronics, energy storage and batteries, strategic and critical materials, and castings and forgings). The DoD will address technological challenges with forward-looking initiatives such as the Industrial Base Analysis and Sustainment (IBAS) program aimed at maintaining the health of vulnerable DoD suppliers and capabilities.

Additionally, the DoD maintains the Manufacturing Technology program (ManTech), a DoD investment portfolio that seeks to develop advanced manufacturing processes, techniques, and equipment to develop, produce, and sustain weapon systems, and Additive Manufacturing (AM) Forward, a voluntary compact among large manufacturers to help small suppliers increase use of additive manufacturing. Increased investment in artificial intelligence-powered predictive capability will help the DoD accomplish these technological challenges.

Guided by this first-of-its-kind strategy, the DoD will develop more resilient and innovative supply chains, invest in small- and medium-sized businesses, and strengthen and grow American innovation and manufacturing ecosystems across both the private sector and the governmentowned organic industrial base (OIB). DPA, IBAS, ManTech, AM Forward, and similar efforts will bolster and expand America’s ability to innovate and produce the warfighting capabilities at a speed and scale that will help guarantee the ability to fight and win in any conflict.

We need to shift from policies rooted in the 20th century that supported a narrow defense industrial base, capitalized on the DoD as the monopsony power, and promoted either/or tradeoffs between cost, speed, and scale. We need to build a modernized industrial ecosystem that includes the traditional defense contractors – the DIB primes and sub-tier defense contractors who provide equipment and services – and also includes innovative new technology developers; academia; research labs; technical centers; manufacturing centers of excellence; service providers; government-owned, contractor-operated (GOCO) facilities; and finance streams, especially private equity and venture capital. As we build a modernized industrial ecosystem, we remain mindful of the environment in which private industry operates and look to work with them to tackle adverse impacts which can manifest during change and modernization.

The DoD seeks to catalyze generational rather than incremental change in order for our industrial base to meet the strategic moment. The contraction of the traditional DIB (both commercial and organic) was a generation-long process and it will require another generation to modernize the DIB. The DoD cannot address the current challenges alone. Defense production and services are part of a vast, diverse, and global ecosystem that draws from technology and manufacturing sectors.

Accordingly, building a more robust, modernized defense industrial ecosystem will require a dynamic effort across the U.S. government to create the legal and policy conditions that allow new entrants into the defense production and services community. We must solicit entrants of all types: large and small, domestic, and foreign, and those with no previous relationship to the DoD or defense production. This will require reinvigoration and the development of new dialogues and relationships. The DoD must consider the impact of government policies and decisions on industry, just as its adherents must appreciate their critical role in providing for the defense of the nation and consider the impact of their business practices on national security.

Photo: WWII poster emphasizing the defense industrial base

The 2024 campaign season is in full swing. Missing in much of the rhetoric is the deteriorating fortunes of the nation. Despite massive increases in spending and a stratospheric increase in the national debt, key indicators show that the U.S. has gotten worse in key areas.  The challenge affects both the nation as a whole, and the lives of individual citizens.

The dilemma has been noted by commentators on the right, left, and center.

Last June, the Atlantic noted that “In the past 50 years, despite overall economic growth, the quality of life for most Americans has declined.” 

The American Enterprise Institute points out that “Economic freedom peaked by 2000 and stagnated and declined in the early 21st century.”

 Nicholas Eberstadt, writing for Commentary in 2017 said that “…things have been going badly wrong in America since the beginning of the 21st century. It turns out that the year 2000 marks a grim historical milestone of sorts for our nation. For whatever reasons, the Great American Escalator, which had lifted successive generations of Americans to ever higher standards of living and levels of social well-being, broke down around then—and broke down very badly. The warning lights have been flashing, and the klaxons sounding, for more than a decade and a half. But our pundits and prognosticators and professors and policymakers, ensconced as they generally are deep within the bubble, were for the most part too distant from the distress of the general population to see or hear it.”

In 2008, when then-candidate Barack Obama promised to “fundamentally transform” America, the national debt was $10 trillion. It is now over $34 trillion. Our infrastructure has not improved, our armed forces are smaller, social security’s funds continue to dwindle.

 This has all occurred even though tax revenue has risen. In FY 2008, government revenue totaled $2.7 trillion. In 2023, the federal government collected $4.44 trillion. The Fed budget in 2008 was $2.983 trillion. In 2024 it was $6.5 trillion.

There has been little to show for all that extra spending.

In 2008, The United States was the world’s leading (some said only) superpower. Now, it is under siege by Russia, China, and Iran. Russia has a larger nuclear force, and China has a larger navy. There were 1,540,000 military servicemembers protecting the nation in 2008.  In 2024, that figure has been reduced to 1,284,500.   In 2008, Ukraine was whole. Now, Crimea has been taken over by Russia and the rest of the nation is under siege.

America’s manufacturing industry has been declining since before the year 2000. The Mckinsey Global Institute noted in 2021 that “…over the past two decades—[America’s] global share [of manufacturing] has fallen from 25 to 17 percent since 1997, with the net loss of 4.6 million jobs.”

The average price of a basic food basket in the United States amounted to just over 210 U.S. dollars as of January 2023, increasing by nearly 9 percent from the previous year. Back in 2019, the average value of a food basket was around 156.5 U.S. dollars.

Race relations have taken a turn for the worse.  A Pew research poll in 2008 found that “found that whites, blacks and Hispanics all have generally favorable opinions of one another and all tend to see inter-group relations in a more positive than negative light.” Jared Gans, writing in The Hill, reported in 2023 that “A Washington Post-Ipsos poll … showed that 51 percent of Black respondents said they expect racism will get worse, while 37 percent said they expect it will stay about the same. Only 11 percent said it will get better. 

The unauthorized illegal population in 2008 was about 11.6 million.   In 2023, it was 49.5 million

So far, the precipitous decline in the nation’s condition has not been highlighted.  The presidential candidates must do so.

Illustration: Pixabay