Category: Quick Analysis

To summarize Hur’s additional reasons for not recommending a prosecution of Joe Biden for his retention of classified documents; Hur believes that jurors hearing any such case would believe that Biden may have thought it was no big deal that he had these documents, may not have had these documents in his possession at the time he made the statement admitting to possession of these documents, and may have been referring to other documents, even though Biden and his ghostwriter were discussing Biden’s opposition to Obama’s troop surge in Afghanistan, the subject of those same classified documents.

These reasons, in addition to the “maybe he forgot” defense, all lead Hur to conclude that any prosecution of Joe Biden couldn’t possibly succeed.

These jaw-dropping findings are made even more incredible by the additional evidence of wrong doing discussed in Hur’s Report; “FBI agents recovered from unlocked drawers in the office and basement den of Mr. Biden’s Delaware home a set of notebooks he used as vice president. Evidence shows that he knew the notebooks contained classified information. Mr. Biden wrote down obviously sensitive information discussed during intelligence briefings with President Obama and meetings in the White House Situation Room about matters of national security and military and foreign policy…at least three times Mr. Biden read from classified entries aloud to his ghostwriter nearly verbatim.”

Let us understand these findings; besides the “classified stuff” that Biden told his ghostwriter he’d found in the basement of his Virginia home, Biden also kept notebooks that contained classified information in an unsecured location at his Delaware home, materials that he discussed with his ghostwriter, who did not have any security clearance.

Further, Hur details Biden’s purposeful reasons for retaining these notebooks; “[w]hen Mr. Biden left office, he also knew his staff decided to store notecards containing his classified notes in a Secure Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF) at the National Archives, and he knew his notebooks contained the same type of classified information. As he told his ghostwriter during a recorded interview, the same staff who arranged to secure his classified notecards ‘didn’t even know’ he had retained possession of his classified notebooks. Twice in 2017, Mr. Biden visited the National Archives SCIF to review his classified notecards while writing his book. Yet he kept his notebooks, which also contained classified information, in unlocked drawers at home. He had strong motivations to do so and to ignore the rules for properly handling the classified information in his notebooks. He consulted the notebooks liberally during hours of discussions with his ghostwriter and viewed them as highly private and valued possessions with which he was unwilling to part.”

Despite this evidence for Biden’s willful retention of classified documents while a private citizen, Hur persists in claiming that :”[w]e do not…believe this evidence would meet the government’s burden at trial – particularly the requirement to prove that Mr. Biden intended to do something the law forbids. Consistent with statements Mr. Biden made during our interview of him and arguments made by the White House Counsel and Mr. Biden’s personal counsel, we expect Mr. Biden’s defense at trial would be that he thought his notebooks were his personal property and he was allowed to take them home, even if they contained classified information.”

Let us restate these facts; Joe Biden maintained notebooks in which he kept classified information.  Biden knew there was classified information contained in those notebooks, and he conveyed classified information to a person without a security clearance (his ghostwriter) on at least three occasions.

Do these allegations remind you of a recent case involving another public figure?  Someone who was prosecuted and convicted of the unauthorized removal and retention of classified materials?

David Petraeus had a very storied career – up to a point.  As he is described in a Factual Statement provided by the US Attorney’s Office in 2015, Petraeus “was a United States Army four-star general when he retired from the Army on or about August 31, 2011. From on or about July 4, 2010, to on or about July 18, 2011, (he) served as Commander of the International Security Assistance Force (“ISAF”) in Afghanistan. From on or about September 6, 2011, to on or about November 9, 2012, (he then) served as Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (“CIA”).” 

According to the US Attorney’s office, “[d]uring his tenure as Commander of ISAF in Afghanistan, [General Petraeus] maintained bound, five-by-eight-inch notebooks that contained his daily schedule and classified and unclassified notes he took during official meetings, conferences, and briefings. The notebooks had black covers and, for identification purposes, [General Petraeus] taped his business card on the front exterior of each notebook. A total of eight such books (hereinafter the “Black Books”) encompassed the period of [General Petraeus’] ISAF Command and collectively contained classified information regarding the identities of covert officers, war strategy, intelligence capabilities and mechanisms, diplomatic discussions, quotes and deliberative discussions from high-level National Security Council meetings, and…discussions with the President of the United States of America.”  These Black Books also “contained national defense information, including Top Secret//SCI and code word information.”

In 2011, after the General’s return from Afghanistan,  the Department of Defense (DOD) “historian gathered and organized the classified materials that [General Petraeus] collected during his DOD tenure. [General Petraeus]  never provided the Black Books to his DOD historian. Instead, [General Petraeus] personally retained the Black Books.”

General Petraeus than began work with a biographer named Paula Broadwell on his memoirs.  “[D]uring a conversation, recorded by his biographer, [General Petraeus] stated that the Black Books were ‘highly classified’ and contained ‘code word’ information: Biographer: By the way, where are your black books? We never went through,.. PETRAEUS: They’re in a rucksack up there somewhere. Biographer: Okay .. . You avoiding that? You gonna look through ’em first? PETRAEUS: Umm, well, they’re really – I mean they are highly classified, some of them. They don’t have it on it, but I mean there’s code word stuff in there.”

Nonetheless, despite their “highly classified” status, General Petraeus eventually let Broadwell, who was the General’s mistress as well as his biographer, have access to these Black Books.  Subsequently, according to NPR, “[t]he nature of Petraeus’ relationship with Army reservist Paula Broadwell emerged during an FBI investigation that was sparked by allegations from another woman, Jill Kelley, that she was receiving harassing emails. Those messages were reportedly traced to Broadwell.” 

According to the US Attorney’s 2015 Statement of Facts,  “[o]n or about October 26, 2012, [General Petraeus] was interviewed by two FBI special agents…[General Petraeus] was advised that the special agents were conducting a criminal investigation. During that interview, the special agents questioned [General Petraeus] about the mishandling of classified information. In response to those questions, [General Petraeus] stated that (a) he had never provided any classified information to his biographer, and (b) he had never facilitated the provision of classified information to his biographer. These statements were false. [General Petraeus] then and there knew that he previously shared the Black Books with his biographer.” 

The end for Petraeus came “[o]n or about April 5, 2013, [when] the FBI executed a court-authorized search warrant…and seized the Black Books from an unlocked desk drawer in the first-floor study of the [General’s] Residence.”In April of 2015, “Petraeus was sentenced…to two years of probation and handed a $100,000 fine for the unauthorized removal and retention of classified material.” 

In other words, General Petraeus, willfully kept notebooks that contained classified information in his personal possession, in an unsecured location, and shared the information contained in those notebooks with his biographer, who did not have security clearance. 

Just how is this conduct different from that of Joe Biden, who basically did the exact same thing?

In a footnote buried in Chapter 13 of his Report, Special Counsel Hur notes that “[t]here are significant similarities between Petraeus’s case and Mr. Biden’s.”  However, Hur believes ” the differences are more significant.”

Hur then details these supposed differences.  “First, Petraeus’s retention of notebooks violated numerous nondisclosure agreements he signed as an employee of the Department of Defense. By contrast, by virtue of his unique constitutional role as vice president, Mr. Biden signed no such nondisclosure agreements or attestations. Second, Petraeus lied when questioned by FBI agents, telling them he had not provided classified information to his biographer…Mr. Biden’s case began with a proactive self-disclosure, and he has cooperated with the Department of Justice and special counsel by consenting to multiple searches of his personal residence and offices. Third, there was stronger evidence of willfulness in Petraeus’s case, in light of his lies and obfuscations, whereas Mr. Biden has asserted his rightful ownership of his notebooks .”

These differences, according to Hur, justify the fact that  “Petraeus was charged only with a misdemeanor,” and President Biden should not be charged with anything.

Other than General Petreaus signing a series of non-disclosure agreements, and lying to the FBI, all other aspects of both cases are similar.  Petraeus knew he shouldn’t maintain possession of his Black Books.  Biden knew, or had good reason to know, that he should not keep personal control of his notebooks.  Petreaus kept his notebooks in an unlocked desk in his residence, an unsecured location; Biden did the same.  Petreaus shared the classified information contained in those Black Books with his biographer, who had no security clearance; ditto for Biden.

Clearly, these similarities outweigh the minor differences. But there are some additional differences in the outcome of each case that are not discussed by Robert Hur. 

Petreaus is not “a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory.”  The General did not have a Special Counsel to make excuses for him, arguing that he probably “forgot” that he had these documents after referencing them and describing their specific location, that his Black Books weren’t the documents he was talking about, that these notebooks weren’t even in his residence while he discussed their existence, that he thought he was entitled to maintain these documents in his possession, and keep that information from his staff.

General Petreaus did not have an advocate in the US Attorney’s office who was looking for reasons not to charge him.

But Joe Biden does.

In other words, rather than seek a basis to charge President Biden for the unlawful retention and dissemination of classified information to unauthorized persons, Robert Hur looked for every reason possible not to charge Joe Biden with this, or any other, crime related to his retention and dissemination of classified information.

For this reason, if no other, the Hur Report is nothing more than almost 400 pages of pure whitewash.  

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

“Down is up, up is down. Good is Wicked, Wicked is Good. The times are changing. This is what Oz has come to.”

Danielle Paige, Wicked

As we have discussed, the Report issued by Special Counsel Robert Hur states “[o]ur investigation uncovered evidence that President Biden willfully retained and disclosed classified materials after his vice presidency when he was a private citizen.”  Nonetheless, Hur concludes that “the evidence does not establish Mr. Biden’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” 

In our last article, we examined one of the grounds for Hur’s decision not to recommend prosecution of Joe Biden; his finding that “at trial, Mr. Biden would likely present himself to a jury, as he did during our interview of him, as a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory. Based on our direct interactions with and observations of him, he is someone for whom many jurors will want to identify reasonable doubt. It would be difficult to convince a jury that they should convict him – by then a former president well into his eighties – of a serious felony that requires a mental state of willfulness.”

Today, we analyze Hur’s decision to exonerate Biden despite the evidence for the President’s willful retention of classified materials while not in office.

As described in Chapter 11 of the Report, “[i]n a recorded conversation on February 16, 2017, at Mr. Biden’s rental home in Virginia, Mr. Biden told Mark Zwonitzer (a writer working with Biden) that Mr. Biden had ‘just found all the classified stuff downstairs.’ According to what Mr. Biden told Zwonitzer, ‘all the classified stuff’ related to President Obama’s 2009 decision to surge American troops to Afghanistan, and to a pivotal moment when Mr. Biden sent President Obama his handwritten Thanksgiving memo opposing the troop surge. Photos of the Virginia home show that the lowest level ‘downstairs’-where Mr. Biden told Zwonitzer he had ‘just found all the classified stuff’-included rooms that Mr. Biden used as work and storage spaces.” (Citations omitted.)

Hur goes on to claim that “Mr. Biden could have found the classified Afghanistan documents at the Virginia home in 2017 and then forgotten about them soon after.” Hur justifies this amazing assertion with his finding that  “Mr. Biden’s memory…appeared to have significant limitations…[i]n his interview with our office, Mr. Biden…did not remember when he was vice president [and forgot]…when his son Beau died.”

Hur admits that the “best case for charges would rely on Mr. Biden’s possession of the Afghanistan documents in his Virginia home in February 2017. when he was a private citizen and when he told his ghostwriter he had just found classified material.”  However, in addition to the ludicrous “maybe he forgot” defense, Hur finds further reasons to decline to prosecute Biden for this allegation.

According to Hur, “[w]hen Mr. Biden told his ghostwriter about finding ”all the classified stuff downstairs,’ his tone was matter-of-fact. For a person who had viewed classified documents nearly every day for eight years as vice president, including regularly in his home, finding classified documents at home less than a month after leaving office could have been an unremarkable and forgettable event.”

Hur continues in this nonsensical vein; “Another viable defense is that Mr. Biden might not have retained the classified Afghanistan documents in his Virginia home at all. They could have been stored, by mistake and without his knowledge, at his Delaware home since the time he was vice president, as were other classified documents recovered during our investigation. This would rebut charges that he willfully retained the documents in Virginia.”

But didn’t Biden himself say to Zwonitzer that he found the “classified stuff” in the basement of that same Virginia home?  Hur has a preposterous answer for that question; “[J]urors may hesitate to place too much evidentiary weight on a single eight-word utterance to his ghostwriter about finding classified documents in Virginia, in the absence of other, more direct evidence…no witness, photo, email, text message, or any other evidence conclusively places the Afghanistan documents at the Virginia home in 2017.”

As if this analysis wasn’t incredible enough, Hur adds that “[i]n addition to this shortage of evidence, there are other innocent explanations for the documents that we cannot refute. When Mr. Biden told his ghostwriter he ‘just found all the classified stuff downstairs,’ he could have been referring to something other than the Afghanistan documents.”

The report concludes tomorrow

Illustration: Pixabay

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

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