Granderson: Aiding Ukraine has been cheap. Caving to Russia would be far more costly

The Hill Opinion

Running the numbers: What if the US were to stop supporting Ukraine?

Elaine McCusker, opinion contributor January 30, 2025

Many Americans are understandably concerned about the cost of aid to Ukraine. But they are thinking about the issue the wrong way — we should be considering the cost of Ukraine losing.

Analysis conducted at the American Enterprise Institute has determined that Russia defeating Ukraine would cost American taxpayers an additional $808 billion over what the U.S. has planned to spend on defense in the next five years. This is about seven times more than all the aid appropriated to the Pentagon to help Ukraine since Russia’s 2022 invasion.

This estimate is based on a scenario in which the U.S. stops providing aid and the resulting Russian victory requires us to adapt our military capabilities, capacity and posture in order to maintain our security. The study then uses the Defense Futures Simulator to estimate the spending required to deter and, if necessary, defeat Russia in Europe, while also preventing further conflict by emboldened adversaries in the Pacific and the Middle East.

Without U.S. support, Russia would advance in 2025 as Kyiv runs out of weapons. By 2026, Ukraine would lose effective air defense, allowing Russia to conduct continuous large-scale bombings. Ukraine’s conventional forces would continue to courageously fight but would likely collapse by the end of that year, allowing Russia to seize Kyiv and then drive to the NATO border.

An emboldened Russia would reconstitute its combat units, use Ukraine’s resources to bolster its capabilities, station its forces along the NATO frontier, and be ready to attack beyond Ukraine by 2030.

The notion that America should disengage from Europe and save its forces and money misses the global nature of conflict. While Europe should certainly invest more in its own defense, history has violently shown us the dangers of thinking we can ignore our interests in any given region. Such regional conflict is a thing of the past. Nothing has made that more clear than China, North Korea and Iran’s support of Russia’s war effort.

In order to protect itself — nationally, militarily, economically — the U.S. must remain a global power and invest in the capabilities it needs to protect its partners and itself. A failure of American resolve in Europe will only motivate aggression and threaten our prosperity across the globe.

If Ukraine is allowed to fall, Washington will need a military that is larger, more capable, more responsive, and positioned in more locations. To deter or, if necessary, defeat Russia, the U.S. armed forces would need 14 new brigade combat teams, 18 more battle force ships, eight additional Marine Corps infantry battalions, 555 more Air Force aircraft, and 266,000 more uniform personnel for the increased force structure.

The U.S. would need to fortify its presence in Europe, including prepositioning air defenses, supplies and munitions. Efforts to diversify and expand the industrial base that supports our military would also need to move much more quickly than it does now to fulfill the high demands of modern warfare.

Although a conflict on the European continent would be primarily led by land forces under the cover of air forces, Washington would need to invest in naval capabilities as well. The U.S. Navy would have to discard its plans to shrink its overall number of ships, stabilize its carrier fleet at 12 and buy additional craft — submarines, destroyers, frigates, and logistics and support ships to keep the fleet at sea longer.

The U.S. will also have to maintain a higher state of readiness for home-stationed and deployed forces, which means additional training, improvements to facilities and stockpiles of spare parts. It will need more and better special operations forces, which are essential to intelligence gathering, shaping the battlefield and disrupting the enemy.

Given that Russia is an experienced space and cyber power, the U.S. will also need better architecture and command systems for both domains.

Instead, if America and its allies accelerate assistance, a victorious Ukraine would see Russia retreat behind its own borders with a defeated and diminished military, a struggling economy, weakened partnerships, and a healthy dose of domestic challenges.

Ukraine, in contrast, would be vibrant and free, with a thriving industrial base and a modern military. Washington would be able to scale down its deployments and capabilities in Europe. It would still maintain a presence there, but it would be able to dedicate more resources and attention to the Pacific.

Not only is the U.S. safer when it is engaged, but it also saves money. The U.S. is faced with numerous national challenges. Illegal immigration, financing the national debt and an increasingly unpredictable global security environment all compete for attention and resources. But the stakes are especially high in Ukraine.

Even putting aside the security and moral reasons for supporting a free Kyiv, which are immense, backing Ukraine is a financially sound decision for the United States.

Elaine McCusker is a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. She previously served as the Pentagon’s acting undersecretary of defense (comptroller).

More in World
AP: Trump administration revokes deportation protections for 600,000 Venezuelans
AFP: Turkey’s actors, artists under pressure as govt turns up the heat
South China Morning Post: US lawmakers raise concerns about Chinese national ballet performance in Washington

Related:

Granderson: Aiding Ukraine has been cheap. Caving to Russia would be far more costly

The Los Angeles Times – Opinion

LZ Granderson – November 22, 2024

FILE - In this June 28, 2019, file photo, President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin walk to participate in a group photo at the G20 summit in Osaka, Japan. Russia says it will withdraw from an international treaty allowing observation flights over military facilities following the U.S. exit from the pact. Russia's Foreign Ministry said in a statement Friday, Jan. 15, 2021 that the U.S. withdrawal from the Open Skies Treaty last year "significantly upended the balance of interests of signatory states," adding that Moscow's proposals to keep the treaty alive after the U.S. exit have been cold-shouldered by Washington's allies. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh, File)
Then-President Trump and Vladimir Putin of Russia walk together at a 2019 G-20 summit in Osaka, Japan. (Susan Walsh / Associated Press)

After 20 years and $2.3 trillion spent, after more than 100,000 American and Afghan lives lost, one would think our war in Afghanistan would be more of a reference point today. Yet, outside of a few jabs from conservatives regarding President Biden’s handling of the exit, the war was hardly brought up at all this election cycle — despite having ended just three years earlier.

A reminder of how fast society moves and perhaps a glimpse into the future.

When was the last time you heard someone mention Ukraine in casual conversation? Back in February 2022, when Russia invaded, there were vigils in our streets. Now, more than 1,000 days later, after Congress has approved $175 billion in aid, it’s likely to fade into distant memory. President-elect Donald Trump, who has repeatedly questioned funding Ukraine, has vowed to end the war quickly. Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelensky, said he would like to do so through “diplomatic means” next year.

Read more: Opinion: Western aid isn’t prolonging the war in Ukraine. This is

While the average American probably hadn’t thought much about Ukraine before the 2022 invasion, Russian President Vladimir Putin has been thinking about the country for more than 30 years.

“The breakup of the Soviet Union was the collapse of a historic Russia,” he said in a documentary that aired on Russia’s airwaves. Putin has also referred to his country’s 1991 fall as “the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the 20th century.” For those keeping score at home, he’s ranking the end of the U.S.S.R. as worse than both world wars and the 20 years in Vietnam. “We lost 40% of the territory, production capacities and population. We became a different country. What had been built over a millennium was lost to a large extent.”

Read more: Biden for the first time OKs Ukraine’s use of U.S.-supplied long-range missiles in Russia

Make Russia Great Again may not lend itself to a pronounceable acronym, but it does clearly define Putin’s foreign policy agenda. It’s one predicated on a worldview that sees Ukraine as a rebellious commonwealth and not an independent democracy.

“Throwing off oppression” is a story we know well in this country. It’s a story we teach our children and base our exceptionalism on. It’s a story of freedom. But as we all know, freedom isn’t free.

Under the Biden administration, America was willing to help Ukraine pay to keep its freedom. The incoming Trump administration has signaled this will likely not continue. Other nations will go on to help Ukraine in its fight, but without America’s military and economic power, this coalition will struggle to hold together against Russia’s might.

The gamble in not providing aid to Ukraine is that should that country fall, it won’t satisfy Putin. His desire to restore his country’s glory has been burning for three decades. Why would he stop just as resistance crumbles?

The phrase “elections have consequences” isn’t just about domestic politics. There are consequences abroad as well. When most voters supported Trump’s candidacy, did they fully understand what walking away from Ukraine would mean?

As former Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.) told me: “Ukraine gave up its nukes, in exchange for peace. The fact that Russia is attacking now means that only nukes work as a deterrent, so you can expect nuclear proliferation throughout the world.”

Read more: Column: Trump talks tough on Russia now, but as president he bowed to Putin

As president, Trump was slow to respond after Russia fired on and captured Ukrainian vessels and sailors back in 2018. Based on that lukewarm response, and his comments about helping Ukraine, it does make one wonder if Trump has any “red line” for Putin, and if so, what it is and what he is prepared to do to defend it. Unfortunately, there weren’t many opportunities to have these conversations during this election cycle. If there had been, perhaps voters would have a better understanding about the money for Ukraine. According to Kinzinger, a member of the Air National Guard and an Air Force veteran who served in Afghanistan and Iraq, “the money spent on weapons is actually produced here in the United States and we send our old [weapons] to Ukraine. So, we’re actually building jobs and refreshing our own weapons.”

Normally the U.S. pays to have old weapons destroyed, Kinzinger said.

None of this rose above the noise that surrounded a campaign season saturated with misinformation. Trump’s pitch for isolationism, or his willingness to ignore Ukraine, apparently resonated with many voters. And given our habit of quickly moving on from talking about war, it’s doubtful many of us would even remember just how much supporting Ukraine cost us.

On the other hand, we might find abandoning Ukraine and caving to Russia has a far steeper cost — one that will be impossible for us to forget.

More in Politics
People: Trump Vowed to ‘Immediately’ Bring Down Egg Prices. His New Press Secretary Says Sudden Spike Is Biden’s Fault

Trump makes moves to expand his power, sparking chaos and a possible constitutional crisis

Associated Press

Trump makes moves to expand his power, sparking chaos and a possible constitutional crisis

Nicholas Riccardi – January 29, 2025

President Donald Trump arrives to speak at the 2025 House Republican Members Conference Dinner at Trump National Doral Miami in Doral, Fla., Monday, Jan. 27, 2025. (AP Photo/Mark Schiefelbein)

Just a little over a week into his second term, President Donald Trump took steps to maximize his power, sparking chaos and what critics contend is a constitutional crisis as he challenges the separation of powers that have defined American government for more than 200 years.

The new administration’s most provocative move came this week, as it announced it would temporarily halt federal payments to ensure they complied with Trump’s orders barring diversity programs. The technical-sounding directive had enormous immediate impact before it was blocked by a federal judge, potentially pulling trillions of dollars from police departments, domestic violence shelters, nutrition services and disaster relief programs that rely on federal grants. The administration on Wednesday rescinded the order.

Though the Republican administration denied Medicaid was affected, it acknowledged the online portal allowing states to file for reimbursement from the program was shut down for part of Tuesday in what it insisted was an error.

Legal experts noted the president is explicitly forbidden from cutting off spending for programs that Congress has approved. The U.S. Constitution grants Congress the power to appropriate money and requires the executive to pay it out. A 50-year-old law known as the Impoundment Control Act makes that explicit by prohibiting the president from halting payments on grants or other programs approved by Congress.

“The thing that prevents the president from being an absolute monarch is Congress controls the power of the purse strings,” said Josh Chafetz, a law professor at Georgetown University, adding that even a temporary freeze violates the law. “It’s what guarantees there’s a check on the presidency.”

Democrats and other critics said the move was blatantly unconstitutional.

“What happened last night is the most direct assault on the authority of Congress, I believe, in the history of the United States,” Sen. Angus King, an independent from Maine, said Tuesday.

While some Republicans were critical, most were supportive.

“I think he is testing the limits of his power, and I don’t think any of us are surprised by it,” said Sen. Kevin Cramer, a North Dakota Republican who is close with Trump.

At first blush, the Trump administration appeared to be following the correct procedures in identifying potential spending cuts, and the Impoundment Control Act outlines a procedure for how they could become permanent, said Rachel Snyderman, a former official at the Office of Management and Budget who is now at the Bipartisan Policy Center.

Congress must eventually sign off on any cuts the administration wants to make, Snyderman said, though she noted that no president since Bill Clinton, a Democrat, has been successful in getting that done. Congress did not act on $14 billion in impoundment cuts Trump proposed during his prior term, she said.

“We have to see what the next steps are,” Snyderman said.

The attempt to halt grants came after Trump, who during the campaign pledged to be “a dictator on day one,” has taken a number of provocative moves to challenge legal constraints on his power. He fired the inspectors general of his Cabinet agencies without giving Congress the warning required by law, declared that there is an immigrant “invasion” despite low numbers of border crossings, is requiring loyalty pledges from new hires, challenged the constitutional guarantee of birthright citizenship and is moving career staff out of key positions at the Department of Justice to ensure his loyalists control investigations and prosecutions.

On Tuesday evening, the new administration made its latest move, trying to prune the federal workforce by offering pay until the end of September for those who agree to resign by the end of next week.

The Trump actions have all led to a cascade of court challenges contending he has overstepped his constitutional bounds. A federal judge in Seattle has already put on hold Trump’s attempt to revoke birthright citizenship, calling it a blatant violation of the nation’s foundational legal document. On Tuesday, nonprofit groups persuaded a federal judge in Washington to put the administration’s spending freeze order on hold until a fuller hearing on Feb. 3.

Democratic attorneys general also rushed to court to block the order. New Mexico Attorney General Raul Torrez, a Democrat, said the swiftness of the court action against Trump’s spending freeze demonstrates the “carelessness” of the order.

“My hope is that the president, working with Congress, can identify whatever his priorities are and can work through the normal constitutional order that is well established that limits the power of Democratic and Republican presidents,” he said.

The grant freeze — administration officials described it as a “pause” — fit with a long-sought goal of some Trump allies, including his nominee to run the Office of Management and Budget, Russell Vought, to challenge the constitutionality of the Impoundment Control Act. They contend the president, as the person in charge of distributing funds, should be able to have some control over how the money goes out.

Though there’s little doubt the new administration wanted a court fight over its power to control spending, experts agree that this was likely not the way they hoped to present it.

“This is a really sloppy way of doing this,” said Bill Galston, of the Brookings Institution, adding that he thought it was an administration error. “This is just classic Trump. He believes it’s better to be fast and sloppy than slow and precise.”

In her first press conference, Trump’s new press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, on Tuesday urged organizations that need the grants to call the administration and show how their operations are “in line with the president’s agenda.”

“It’s incumbent on this administration to make sure, again, that every penny is accounted for,” Leavitt said.

Republican lawmakers largely took the freeze in stride.

“This isn’t a huge surprise to me,” said Rep. Dusty Johnson of South Dakota during the House Republican retreat at one of the president’s Florida golf resorts. “Clearly, Donald Trump campaigned in no small part on the idea that the Biden administration was putting out a lot of money that was not consistent with Donald Trump’s values.”

But Democrats and others were furious at the move, which seemed designed to undercut congressional authority.

“If President Trump wants to change our nation’s laws, he has the right to ask Congress to change them,” Sen. Bernie Sanders, an independent from Vermont, said in a statement. “He does not have the right to violate the United States Constitution. He is not a king.”

Chafetz, of Georgetown University, said the lack of pushback from Republican members of Congress was especially alarming because the legislative branch is the one whose powers are most at risk in the latest power play.

Even if Trump loses the legal battle, Chafetz said, he and his followers might feel like they’ve won by pushing things to this extreme.

“Damaging the institutions they don’t like,” he said, “seems to be their whole theory of governance.”

Riccardi reported from Denver. Associated Press writers Kevin Freking and Lisa Mascaro in Washington and Morgan Lee in Albuquerque, New Mexico, contributed to this report.

More in Politics
The Hill: Republicans leave Florida frustrated with lack of final plan to pass Trump agenda
The Hill: Buttigieg fires back at Trump after remarks on midair collision: ‘Despicable’

Trump’s First Big Fiasco Triggers Stephen Miller’s Rage—Take Note Dems

The New Republic

Trump’s First Big Fiasco Triggers Stephen Miller’s Rage—Take Note Dems

Greg Sargent – January 29, 2025

Admitting failure is anathema to the authoritarian leader, who is perpetually in danger of being diminished only by those who are resentful of his glory—which is why White House adviser Stephen Miller is frantically searching for scapegoats to blame for the unfolding disaster around President Donald Trump’s massive freeze on federal spending. “Welcome to the first dumb media hoax of 2025,” Miller angrily tweeted on Tuesday night. “Leftwing media outright lied, and some people fell for the hoax.”

What Miller is actually angry about is that the media covered this fiasco aggressively and fairly. Miller insists that the press glossed over the funding pause’s supposed exemption for “aid and benefit programs.” But this is rank misdirection: The funding freeze, which is likely illegal, was indeed confusingly drafted and recklessly rolled out. This is in part what prompted the national outcry over the huge swath of programs that it threatened, Medicaid benefits included—and the media coverage that angered Miller.

All of which carries a lesson for Democrats: This is what it looks like when the opposition stirs and uses its power in a unified way to make a lot of what you might call sheer political noise. That can help set the media agenda, throw Trump and his allies on the defensive, and deliver defeats to Trump that deflate his cultish aura of invincibility.

“This has been a red-alert moment for weeks—but now no one can deny it,” Senator Chris Murphy, the Connecticut Democrat who has argued for an emergency footing against Trump, told me. “For my colleagues that didn’t want to cry wolf, the wolf is literally chomping at our leg right now.”

Until this crisis, the Democratic opposition has mostly been relatively tentative and divided. Democrats were not sufficiently quick, forceful, or unified in denouncing Trump’s illegal purge of inspectors general and his deranged threat to prosecute state officials who don’t comply with mass deportations. Internal party debates suggest that many Democrats believe that Trump’s 2024 victory shows voters don’t care about the dire threat he poses to democracy and constitutional governance, or that defending them against Trump must be reducible to “kitchen table” appeals.

But the funding-freeze fiasco should illustrate that this reading is highly insufficient. An understanding of the moment shaped around the idea that voters are mostly reachable only via economic concerns—however important—fails to provide guidance on how to convey to voters why things like this extraordinary Trumpian power grab actually matter.

Democrats need to think through ways to act collectively, to utilize something akin to a party-wide strategy, precisely because this sort of collective, concerted action has the capacity to alert voters in a different kind of way. It can put them on edge, signaling to them that something is deeply amiss in the threat Trump is posing to the rule of law and constitutional order.

Generally speaking, some Democrats have several objections to this kind of approach. One is that voters don’t care about anything that doesn’t directly impact them and that warnings about the Trump threat make them look unfocused on people’s material concerns. Another is that if Democrats do this too often, voters will stop believing there’s real cause for alarm.

The funding-freeze fiasco got around the first objection for Democrats because it did have vast material implications, potentially harming millions of people. But Democrats shouldn’t take the wrong lesson from this. A big reason this became a huge story was also that it represented a wildly audacious grab for quasi-dictatorial power. Democratic alarms about this dimension of the story surely helped prompt wall-to-wall coverage. Democrats can learn from that.

Faiz Shakir, a progressive dark-horse candidate for Democratic National Committee chair, suggests another way around the first objection—that Democrats can seize on Trump’s abuses of power in a way that does appeal to the working class. The party, he argues, can enlist elected officials and influencers with working-class credibility to explain that those abuses should matter, not just to working-class voters’ bottom lines but, critically, because his degenerate public conduct should disgust them as well. He says Democrats can argue: “The way he is acting is a betrayal of working-class values and your working-class interests.”

Shakir also suggests an intriguing way for the party to act in concert. As chair, he’d aggressively encourage as many elected officials as possible to use the video-recording studio at the DNC in moments like these, getting them to record short takes on why voters should care about them, then push the content out on social media.*

Shakir said he sees a model in Murphy, who regularly serves up short, hyper-timely videos that use phrases like “Let me tell you why this matters.”

https://twitter.com/i/status/1884297054136021224

The goal, Shakir said, would be to provide Democrats with research and recording infrastructure enabling elected officials to find their own voices and flood information spaces with civic knowledge. This also would give Democrats who want to stick to a “kitchen table” approach a way to shape their own warnings around that.

Minnesota Democratic Party Chair Ken Martin, a leading DNC chair candidate, agrees that speed and unity are paramount. “We can’t be waiting several days to organize a response to each of these things from Trump—we have to move quick,” Martin said, adding that the “larger party apparatus” should all be “singing from the same sheet of music.”

The second objection to a concerted approach—that it risks a “cry wolf” effect—is also seriously flawed. It’s already clear some Democrats are using this to avoid hard fights, for instance in hints about “working with” Elon Musk or Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who each pose serious threats to bedrock ideals of public service. Also, if Democrats bestow bipartisan legitimacy on Trumpian moves like appointing those two walking civic basket cases, it complicates sounding the alarm in even more grave situations.

“It is hard for us to argue that our democracy is falling if we’re helping to confirm all of his nominees,” Murphy told me.

Taking too much of an à la carte approach to Trump’s abuses of power also risks squandering leverage. Democratic strategist Jesse Lee notes that the party’s lawmakers could consider a unified, future-oriented approach to abuses like the funding freeze. “The fight is real and here,” Lee said, arguing that Democrats can “make it clear” to GOP leaders that “they will get no Dem votes bailing them out while this power grab is in place.” (On Wednesday, the Trump administration rescinded the funding pause, strengthening the case for an aggressive opposition.)

Nobody denies that the Democratic Party is a big, sprawling, highly varied organism with elected officials facing a huge spectrum of different political imperatives. Of course there will be variation in how they approach each Trumpian abuse. But as Brian Beutler puts it, the answer to this cannot be to “lodge passing complaints about Trump’s abuses of power, but turn every conversation back to the cost of groceries.” This incoherently implies that the abuses themselves are not serious on their own terms.

How to corral Democrats who don’t want to sound warnings in particular situations is not easy to solve. But some of the ideas above are a start. And regardless, at a minimum, we need clearer signs that party leaders, at the highest levels, are seriously thinking through how to act concertedly in ways that clearly signal to voters that we’re in a civic emergency, and will argue to wayward Democrats that this is in their interests as well.

“People will not take us seriously if we don’t do our jobs every day like we’re in the middle of a constitutional crisis,” Murphy told me. “Today, everybody understands that he’s trying to seize power for corrupt purposes. But tomorrow, we have to start acting with purpose to stop what he’s doing.” If you doubt the efficacy of this, Stephen Miller’s anger confirms it as clearly as anyone could want.

This article is about a breaking news story and has been updated. It has also been edited to include mention of the DNC’s existing recording studio.

Trump’s Milley retribution sends chilling signal to military brass, critics say

The Hill

Trump’s Milley retribution sends chilling signal to military brass, critics say

Brad Dress – January 29, 2025

Hegseth cutting Milley’s security detail, eyes stripping him of starScroll back up to restore default view.

President Trump this week revoked a security detail for retired Gen. Mark Milley and announced an investigation into the former Joint Chiefs chair’s conduct, enacting promised retribution while also sending a chilling message to military brass.

Trump, who also revoked Milley’s security clearance in orders to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, has long clashed with Milley, who has been outspoken against the president in books and public comments.

But taking public revenge against him and launching an investigation are moves with little precedent in civil-military relations, and Democratic senators and experts called his actions reckless and petty.

“I think it is completely unjustified,“ said Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.). “Another act of retribution and revenge that shows the smallness of the president.”

Richard Kohn, emeritus professor at the University of North Carolina and an expert on civil-military relations, said Trump’s move will discourage senior officers from doing their jobs and honestly advising the president, noting a former Joint Chiefs chair has never had their security detail revoked before.

“Trump will be very difficult to deal with because he’s really a very insecure person,” Kohn said. “I think he feels jealous of the legitimacy and the respect that senior officers get in American society. So as a result, it just makes it more difficult for them to do their job and to deal with political leadership in an honorable and candid way.”

Pentagon chief of staff Joe Kasper confirmed that Milley’s security detail and clearance were revoked and that the Defense Department Office of Inspector General will conduct an investigation into Milley’s conduct, which will include a review of whether a star can be revoked from the retired four-star general.

Kasper said that “undermining the chain of command is corrosive to our national security.”

“Restoring accountability is a priority for the Defense Department under President Trump’s leadership,” Kasper said in a statement.

Trump signaled he was out for revenge against Milley on the campaign trail, suggesting at one point the retired general should be executed, and on his first day back in office he decried pardons that former President Biden issued for Milley and other Trump foes.

Just hours later, the Pentagon confirmed that a portrait of Milley recognizing him as a former chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff was taken down.

But critics say taking away Milley’s security detail is a much more serious move, risking the life of the former highest-ranking military officer who carried out Trump’s orders to strike on a top Iranian commander, Qassem Soleimani, in early 2020.

Trump has also revoked security details for other former officials-turned-critics: former national security adviser John Bolton and former CIA Director Mike Pompeo, both of whom Iran has threatened.

Roger Petersen, a professor of political science emeritus at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who studies civil-military relations, said he was concerned about Trump’s actions creating a more politicized civilian-military environment, particularly among high-ranking officials.

Petersen, the author of “Death, Domination, and State-Building: The US in Iraq and the Future of American Intervention,” also raised concerns that the current chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. CQ Brown, might resign if pressured to adhere to orders.

“That is giving a signal to military officers that if you go against the Trump program, we can reach you even in retirement, and affect your pension and your status,” he said.

Democrats were quick to slam Trump for revoking the security detail for someone he’s feuded with.

“Just like John Bolton, like Pompeo, these folks have been under real threats to their lives,” said Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.). “It’s wrong for the president to do that. We protect these individuals.”

Kelly expressed concern about the impact on the military at large, adding it sends a message that if “you do not fall in line, that there are consequences.”

Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.), ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said Milley “and other former Trump Administration officials continue to face credible, deadly threats from Iran because they carried out President Trump’s order to kill Iranian General Soleimani.”

“It is unconscionable and recklessly negligent for President Trump and Secretary Hegseth to revoke General Milley’s security detail for their own political satisfaction,” he said in a statement. “The Administration has placed Milley and his family in grave danger, and they have an obligation to immediately restore his federal protection.”

Republicans, however, were hesitant to comment on the move, both in person and on social media. Sen. Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.) said he was unclear about the revocation of the security deal and hadn’t yet talked to Hegseth. Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) did not answer a request for comment on Capitol Hill.

Milley and Trump’s feud has simmered for years. The retired U.S. Army general was tapped by Trump in 2019 to lead the Joint Chiefs, but the two soon clashed over the role of the military in responding to racial justice protesters in 2020. Milley also publicly apologized for appearing in a controversial photo shoot with Trump during the rioting.

Trump has also ripped Milley over reports the general called his Chinese counterpart to assure them that in the final days of Trump’s presidency, there was not a risk of escalating conflict or nuclear war.

Trump has tried to refute reports that Milley stopped him from launching an attack on Iran. The dispute is at the center of a now-shuttered Justice Department classified documents case against Trump, who was cited in an indictment as reading from an apparent classified document to make the case to people that Milley recommended an attack on Iran.

Milley, who retired in 2023, has admitted that he has been a source for anti-Trump commentary in books about his presidency. In the 2024 book “War” by journalist Bob Woodward, Milley called Trump “fascist to the core.”

Trump, in turn, has called Milley a “loser” and said he’s guilty of treason.

It’s unclear what exactly the Defense Department inspector general will investigate regarding Milley’s conduct.

In 2022, Sens. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Jim Banks (R-Ind.), who was then in the House, requested the inspector general investigate Milley. But Inspector General Robert Storch, who Trump fired last week, decided to drop the case after finding it unwarranted.

In a statement late Tuesday night, Pentagon spokesperson John Ullyot said the inspector general will “conduct an inquiry into the facts and circumstances surrounding Gen. Milley’s conduct so that the Secretary may determine whether it is appropriate to reopen his military grade review determination.”

Milley’s call to his Chinese counterpart to reassure them could potentially be seen as overriding the chain of command, but Milley has also said he had spoken with a civilian counterpart before. Active-duty military have been punished for speaking against civilian authorities, including retired Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, whose aides were caught mocking then-Vice President Biden, leading to former President Obama firing him in 2010.

But most of Milley’s public criticism has come after retirement and not in active duty, analysts say.

Kohn, from the University of North Carolina, said although Milley has spoken a bit too candidly after leaving office, he does not believe there is anything to investigate.

“I don’t think he spoke against Trump. I think he tried to inform people and inform the other political leadership of how he behaved in the last, let’s say, six to eight months of his tenure, and why he did what he did,” he said. “But he didn’t really speak against Trump, except by implication.”

Peter Feaver, also a civil-military relations expert at the University of North Carolina, agreed.

Hegseth cutting Milley’s security detail, eyes stripping him of star

The Hill

Hegseth cutting Milley’s security detail, eyes stripping him of star

Ellen Mitchell – January 28, 2025

Hegseth cutting Milley’s security detail, eyes stripping him of star

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth is set to announce the immediate rescission of the personal security detail and security clearance for former chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, retired Army Gen. Mark Milley, several news outlets are reporting.

The Trump administration is also aiming to demote Milley in retirement. Hegseth is expected to direct the Pentagon’s new acting Inspector General to conduct a review board to see if enough evidence exists for the four-star general to be stripped of a star based on his actions to “undermine the chain of command” during President Trump’s first term, multiple senior administration officials told Fox News, which first reported on the plan.

Additionally, a second portrait of Milley inside the Pentagon will be removed as soon as Tuesday night. That portrait sits in the Army’s Marshall Corridor on the third floor and honors Milley’s service as a former chief of staff of the Army. The first portrait of him, which was removed just hours after Trump was sworn into his second term on Jan. 20, depicted his time as the chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Taking down both Milley portraits means there will be no imagery of him inside the Pentagon.

Defense Department officials declined to comment on the potential directives, and the White House did not respond to a request for comment.

Trump and Milley have long had an acrimonious relationship, starting in Trump’s first term, when Milley apologized for accompanying the president for a photo opportunity at Lafayette Square near the White House in 2020 during racial justice unrest in the nation’s Capitol.

Later, in the final days of Trump’s first term, Milley reportedly — without Trump’s knowledge — reassured Chinese officials there would be no threat to China amid fears of instability within the White House. The incident infuriated Trump to the point that he posted on Truth Social that Milley was “treasonous,” suggesting he be executed.

Since then, Trump has often vowed to take revenge against his enemies, naming Milley often as one such foe.

But Trump might be hard-pressed to stick Milley with any criminal charges, as the retired general was given a preemptive pardon issued by former President Biden on Jan. 20, his last day in office.

Milley — who in public and private has reportedly called Trump unintelligent and a “fascist to the core” — had been assigned personal security details since 2020, when Iran vowed revenge for the Trump-ordered drone strike killing of Iranian military officer Qasem Soleimani.

The removal of Milley’s security detail follows Trump’s decision last week to also end protective security details for his former national security adviser John Bolton, former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and his onetime deputy Brian Hook.

Chef José Andrés responds to President Trump’s ‘dismissal’ weeks after earning Presidential Medal of Freedom

Good Morning America

Chef José Andrés responds to President Trump’s ‘dismissal’ weeks after earning Presidential Medal of Freedom

Kelly McCarthy – January 21, 2025

Humanitarian and chef José Andrés spoke out Tuesday after President Donald Trump claimed he had “fired” Andrés from the President’s Council on Sports, Fitness & Nutrition shortly after being sworn in for his second term.

Andrés served as co-chair of the federal advisory committee for two years, having been appointed to the position on March 23, 2022.

Trump posted what he called a “Official Notice of Dismissal” on social media early Tuesday morning, stating that his office would be “identifying and removing over a thousand Presidential Appointees from the previous Administration, who are not aligned with our vision to Make America Great Again.”

“Let this serve as Official Notice of Dismissal for these 4 individuals, with many more, coming soon: Jose Andres from the President’s Council on Sports, Fitness and Nutrition, Mark Milley from the National Infrastructure Advisory Council, Brian Hook from the Wilson Center for Scholars, and Keisha Lance Bottoms from the President’s Export Council — YOU’RE FIRED!” he wrote.

Andrés responded in his own social media post later on Tuesday morning, stating that he had already submitted his resignation earlier in the month, at the conclusion of his two year term.

“I submitted my resignation last week…my 2 year term was already up 🤷‍♂️😅,” the James Beard Award winner wrote on X.

He continued, “I was honored to serve as co-chair of the President’s Council on Sports, Fitness, and Nutrition. My fellow council members – unpaid volunteers like me – were hardworking, talented people who inspired me every day. I’m proud of what we accomplished on behalf of the American people…like a historic partnership between the White House and every major sports league to increase access to sports and health programs for kids.”

Andrés concluded his post by expressing his hope that Trump “exercises his presidential authority so the Council can continue to advocate for fitness and good health for all Americans.”

“These are bipartisan issues…nonpartisan issues,” he wrote. “May God give you the wisdom, Mr. President, to put politics and name calling aside…and instead lift up the everyday people working to bring America together. Let’s build longer tables….”

Less than three weeks ago, the Spanish American chef and World Central Kitchen founder was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom, in part due to his work providing relief to “communities affected by natural disasters and conflict around the world,” the White House stated at the time.

PHOTO: President Joe Biden presents the Presidential Medal of Freedom to Chef and head of World Central Kitchen Jose Andres in the East Room of the White House, in Washington, D.C., Jan. 4, 2025. (Ken Cedeno/Reuters)
PHOTO: President Joe Biden presents the Presidential Medal of Freedom to Chef and head of World Central Kitchen Jose Andres in the East Room of the White House, in Washington, D.C., Jan. 4, 2025. (Ken Cedeno/Reuters)More

As he was presented the highest civilian honor in the East Room of the White House, Andrés took a moment to point upward as a way to honor the lives of his WCK colleagues and aid workers killed by Israeli airstrikes in Gaza last year.

Trump has moved quickly to exact ‘retribution.’ More revenge could come: ANALYSIS

ABC News

In a new interview for the latest episode of his “Longer Tables” podcast, Andrés’ longtime friend and esteemed chef Eric Ripert asked while hosting the live taping at the Cayman Cookout about the emotional moment in the White House.

“We lost some friends working with WCK — especially somebody like Zomi [Frankcom], who’s a woman I spent many years working with on many missions and in many emergencies, and this was a way to say, ‘This medal is for you all,'” Andrés said. “It was a very simple way to say you are the ones that deserve this.”

Democratic attorneys general prep for role as last line of defense in Trump era

Oregon Capitol Chronicle

Democratic attorneys general prep for role as last line of defense in Trump era

Ben Botkin – November 18, 2024

Oregon House Speaker Dan Rayfield, D-Corvallis, on stage at the annual Oregon Leadership Summit in Portland on Dec. 11, 2023.
Oregon House Speaker Dan Rayfield, D-Corvallis, on stage at the annual Oregon Leadership Summit in Portland on Dec. 11, 2023.

Yahoo is using AI to generate takeaways from this article. This means the info may not always match what’s in the article. Reporting mistakes helps us improve the experience.Generate Key Takeaways

Then-Oregon House Speaker Dan Rayfield, D-Corvallis, on stage at the annual Oregon Leadership Summit in Portland on Dec. 11, 2023. Rayfield, elected Oregon attorney general, will be one of 23 Democratic attorneys general during the next Trump administration. (Michael Romanos/Oregon Capital Chronicle)

After Donald Trump entered the White House in 2017, Democratic attorneys general in the U.S. quickly started conference calls every Tuesday morning to strategize and map out legal steps.

Within weeks, that quickly turned into legal action, when Washington state Attorney General Bob Ferguson launched a lawsuit challenging Trump’s travel ban that barred most people from predominantly Muslim nations from entering the U.S., even if they had valid visas. Oregon Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum joined the lawsuit, which led to a court action that blocked Trump’s executive order within about a week of its passage. 

As Trump prepares for a new term in office, 23 Democratic attorneys general will be a watchdog against any Trump-led initiatives that they believe are unconstitutional, illegal or both. The landscape has changed: Rosenblum is retiring from the role and former Oregon House Speaker Dan Rayfield will become the next attorney general. Ferguson was elected governor of Washington. The two are the last Democratic attorneys general who were in office when Trump started his first term.

In the second Trump term, attorneys general now have a four-year history of court actions that their predecessors took on wide-ranging issues like immigration, health care and the environment. And they often prevailed in court, an outcome that highlights the remarkable power that attorneys general have, through the court system, to unravel executive orders and directives from the most powerful elected leader in the world. 

“We kind of have a track record and a set of expectations of how he has operated in the past,” Rayfield said in an interview with the Capital Chronicle. “The attorneys general are just a check and balance on that power. When he oversteps and pursues, whether it’s discriminatory or unlawful policies, you are that backstop for that.”

Oregon worked closely with Washington and other states during the first Trump term, as Democratic attorneys general collaborated. Ferguson sued the first Trump administration nearly 100 times, losing only three times, the Washington State Standard reported. Oregon joined many of those cases, as did other states.

Among the cases, all with more than a dozen states participating: Oregon sued in 2017, when Trump’s Environmental Protection Agency head delayed a designation of what regions of the country met new ground-level ozone pollution standards. In 2018, Oregon sued to block the federal government from asking people about their citizenship status during the 2020 census. Oregon also joined a lawsuit challenging the Trump administration’s immigration policy of separating children from families that crossed the border of Mexico without documentation. 

During that first Trump administration, there were a lot of things that just came out of the blue. So you have to be ready under those scenarios.

– Oregon Attorney General-elect Dan Rayfield

Rayfield said the legal fight for states to set stricter emissions controls for vehicles than federal standards — opposed by Republican attorneys general — is an example of an issue where he would fight for Oregon’s right to do so. 

Another key issue is reproductive health and preserving access to care, including the abortion medication mifepristone, Rayfield said. 

Attorneys general also serve as a watchdog of federal actions regardless of whether a member of their party is president. For example, Rosenblum and other attorneys general have sued the federal Food & Drug Administration during the Biden administration for its restrictions on mifepristone. 

Rayfield said he understands the fears about what impact a Trump administration will have on immigration. It’s one issue among many that he’ll keep tabs on with his Oregon Department of Justice attorneys. 

“Those concerns are very real and scary in those communities,” he said. “But what I’d like to do is be able to see where Trump begins to move in that direction, and then see how that unfolds.”

At the same time, Rayfield said his role as attorney general is not simply to be a foil to Trump. The role exists regardless of who the president is, he said. 

“You have to be firing on all cylinders,” he said.

That’s because the attorney general does much more than decide when to sue the federal government. Oregon’s attorney general leads the Oregon Department of Justice, which has nearly 1,500 workers statewide and an annual budget of about $406 million. The attorney general defends state agencies from lawsuits and advocates on behalf of residents in areas like consumer protection, help with collecting child support and raising public awareness about scammers. 

Yet Rayfield said it’s important to be ready for the unexpected. 

“During that first Trump administration, there were a lot of things that just came out of the blue,” he said. “So you have to be ready under those scenarios. I think it is a state of really knowing what our values are here in Oregon, and then being ready to partner with other attorneys general to make sure that we’re upholding those values. Because it is a team effort in kind of being that last line of defense.”

It was a lot of tweets. We weren’t really used to a president that personally tweeted, so we had a lot of clues from that and, of course, the executive orders themselves.

– Oregon Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum

 Oregon Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum speaks about House Bill 2005, which bans undetectable firearms, on Monday, Aug. 21, 2023, at a ceremonial bill signing. Rosenblum, who is retiring, co-chaired a national group of Democratic attorneys general during the first Trump term. (Ben Botkin/Oregon Capital Chronicle)
Oregon Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum speaks about House Bill 2005, which bans undetectable firearms, on Monday, Aug. 21, 2023, at a ceremonial bill signing. Rosenblum, who is retiring, co-chaired a national group of Democratic attorneys general during the first Trump term. (Ben Botkin/Oregon Capital Chronicle)More
Rosenblum reflects

For Rosenblum, the early days of monitoring the Trump administration in 2017 quickly showed the need for organization. Rosenblum, who served as co-chair of the Democratic Attorneys General Association during the Trump administration, helped lead those early efforts.

The organization hired a staffer to help track policy changes coming from the White House. And of course, Trump’s prolific tweets — before the social media company now known as X  banned him — offered hints about what was ahead. Current owner Elon Musk, a Trump supporter who the president-elect named as head of a quasi-governmental “Department of Government Efficiency,” restored Trump’s account in 2022, but Trump continues to primarily use his own social media company, Truth Social.

“It was a lot of tweets,” Rosenblum said. “We weren’t really used to a president that personally tweeted, so we had a lot of clues from that and, of course, the executive orders themselves.”

The group realized that to preserve resources, they needed to work together and coordinate on cases. 

“We realized that, ideally, in order to conserve resources and also to address issues that were not specific to our states, but that were harming our own constituents in terms of their rights and their freedoms, that we needed to really step it up and work together,” Rosenblum said. “So we did that on pretty much everything that came our way.”

That helped keep costs down during the four-year Trump term, and Rosenblum said her office never needed to hire outside legal counsel to handle the cases. It also helped to have help from states with better-staffed offices, including Washington, California, New York and Illinois, she said.

The weekly conference calls continued, even after Trump exited office and during the Biden administration. Rosenblum said they were a good way to communicate and collaborate on potential national lawsuits and other issues.

Rosenblum said she expects the office will have a smooth transition through Rayfield. Like Rayfield, she said the role of watchdogging the federal government does not replace an attorney general’s role in pocketbook issues like consumer protection. 

“You definitely don’t stop doing your daily bread and butter work of what being attorney general is, and that’s really important to the people of Oregon,” Rosenblum said. 

MSNBC: Chris Hayes: With executive actions, Trump bets the courts are on his side. That’s a risky gamble.

USA Today: USDA inspector general escorted out of her office after defying White House

Duckworth: Trump’s Pentagon pick has less experience than Applebee’s manager

The Hill

Duckworth: Trump’s Pentagon pick has less experience than Applebee’s manager

Alexander Bolton – January 10, 2025

Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), a decorated combat veteran and member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, says President-elect Trump’s pick to lead the Department of Defense is dangerously unqualified and has less management experience than someone running an Applebee’s restaurant.

“The manager of the average Applebee’s has probably managed more people than Pete Hegseth,” Duckworth said during a press call Friday, referring to Trump’s nominee to head the Pentagon.

Duckworth’s sharp criticism comes a few days before Hegseth is scheduled to testify at his Tuesday Senate confirmation hearing.

“Pete Hegseth’s nomination to serve as secretary of Defense is dangerous. Being secretary of Defense is a very serious job and putting someone as dangerously unqualified as Mr. Hegseth into that role is something that should scare all of us,” she told reporters, previewing the challenges Hegseth will face before the Armed Services panel next week.

The Democratic senator argued that Trump has tapped a “television personality” without sufficient experience to lead almost 3 million troops and civilian employees.

“I want to know what’s the largest budget he’s ever run. You’re talking about the Pentagon that has a budget of over $830 billion,” Duckworth said.

She said the largest organization that Hegseth appears to have led is an infantry platoon, “which at most is 40 guys.”

She also called him the “most unqualified nominee ever picked for this role.”

Duckworth held the press call to lay out her concerns about Trump’s nominee, insisting that her objections to Hegseth aren’t motivated by politics but by what his confirmation would mean for national security.

She complained that Sen. Jack Reed (R.I.), the ranking Democrat on the Armed Services Committee, will likely be the only Senate Democrat who will meet with Hegseth before his hearing.

“I have many questions for him, more questions than I can fit into the mere seven minutes each senator will be given during the hearing,” she said.

Duckworth also noted that rank-and-file Democrats on the Armed Services panel may not have a chance to fully review the FBI background check on the nominee, an investigation Democrats believe will be critical to assess a sexual assault allegation from 2017 and alleged mismanagement of Concerned Veterans for America (CVA), an advocacy group.

Hegseth has vigorously denied the assault allegation and dismissed claims of unprofessional conduct and mismanagement at CVA as smears.

“I don’t think I’ll be able to look at the FBI investigation before the hearing,” Duckworth said.

“I know that I and the other Senate Dems have requested access” to the FBI background report, she said.

“Before we broke for the holidays, the Republicans had indicated that we would be able to see them, but now it looks like they’re looking to just the ranking member and the chairman and the rest of us will not be able to see them,” she said of the results of the FBI’s investigation.

Russia is feeling the full impact of sanctions and the strain could force an end to the war this year, think tank says

Business Insider

Russia is feeling the full impact of sanctions and the strain could force an end to the war this year, think tank says

Jennifer Sor – January 9, 2025

  • Russia’s economic pain will intensify this year, according to the Atlantic Council.
  • The think tank said Russia is feeling the full effects of sanctions after nearly three years of war.
  • Continued strain could cause Moscow to end the war in Ukraine this year, a note from the group said.

After almost three years of waging war in Ukraine, Russia is feeling the full impact of its economic punishment from the West — and it could prompt the Kremlin to end the war in Ukraine as soon as this year, a note from the Atlantic Council said this week.

The think tank pointed to the pressures building on Russia’s economy, primarily those stemming from Western sanctions. The sanctions packages over the last several years have included measures like cutting Russia off from SWIFT, the international financial communication system, as well as trade restrictions on several of Russia’s key exports, like oil and gas.

According to Mark Temnycky, a fellow at the think tank, those measures have had a definite impact on Russia’s economy, even after the Kremlin seemed to shrug off the initial volley of restrictions.

“Three years later, the picture looks different. The Russian economy is now beginning to see the full effects of international sanctions. If these trends continue, then the full impact of these financial punishments, combined with strong Ukrainian resistance to Russian forces, could at last put enough pressure on the Kremlin to end its war,” Temnycky said.

He pointed to various signs of economic strain in Russia, which suggested that the nation may not be able to continue its war effort for much longer.

Russia’s ruble, for one, has plunged more than 50% in value against the dollar and the euro — partly due to sanctions pressure on Russian institutions, according to an analysis from the Kyiv School of Economics. The ruble traded at around 102 against the dollar on Thursday, close to the lowest level since Russia first began its invasion of Ukraine in 2022.

Russia’s energy business also appears to be struggling after years of trade restrictions and dwindling oil prices. Russia’s total energy revenue tumbled by nearly a quarter in 2023, and the government expects oil and gas revenue to keep shrinking until 2027, according to a draft budget viewed by Bloomberg.

Russian inflation is also soaring, with consumer prices rising 9.5% year-over-year in the last week of December, according to the nation’s central bank.

Even Putin has acknowledged that Russia’s inflation rate was “alarming,” a rare admission from the Russian leader of the problems facing the country.

“Putin’s points on inflation were telling. The Russian leader seldom discusses problems pertaining to Russian society. Thus, the fact that he felt the need to acknowledge inflation as a serious issue suggests that something greater is afoot,” Temnycky said, adding that Russia appears to be on track to enter a recession in 2025.

Other economists have warned of more pain headed for Russia’s economy in the coming year. The nation could see a “significant strain” on its budget in 2025, with the economy at risk of falling into a period of Soviet-style stagnation, economic experts previously told BI.

“Putin and the Kremlin will have to determine how to try to address these financial woes,” Temycky added. “This suggests that 2025 will be a difficult year for Russians and the economy. Time will tell how significant these events will be.”

Trump’s pick for defense secretary bodes ill for military sexual assaults

Akron Beacon Journal

Trump’s pick for defense secretary bodes ill for military sexual assaults

Christopher Kilmartin and Ronald Levant – January 8, 2025

When it comes to preventing and responding to military sexual assaults, leadership matters a great deal. Thus, we are very concerned about the safety of our service women and men under President-elect Donald Trump and his nominee for secretary of defense, Pete Hegseth.

Both men have sexual assault allegations against them, and in both cases, there is reliable evidence that corroborates these reports. Trump seems to be an especially egregious offender who is named in more than 20 reports. This is not a case of he said, she said; it is a case of he said, they said.

The U.S. military publishes reliable estimates of sexual assaults every two years based on those both officially reported and recorded by survey. And this is not a problem only for women in the ranks — many of the assault victims are men.

Tracking the numbers tells us about the possible role that the president, as commander-in-chief, has in the increase or decrease in incidents in which a soldier experiences intentional harm from someone who wears the same uniform and took the same vow to serve and protect.

In 2006, the military estimated that there were about 34,000 assaults. That number dropped steadily the next 10 years by more than half (14,900), and the reporting rate nearly tripled between 2012 and 2016, from 11% to 32%. Although nearly 15,000 assaults are still 15,000 too many, we were going in the right direction: fewer assaults, more reports.

Experts believe that victim advocacy is the main factor in the rise of reporting rates. And several things happened to prevent the problem in the first place: more vigorous enforcement and removal of offenders from the ranks, leadership training, both for senior officers and on down the chain of command, bystander intervention training for all members, and environmental interventions.

But then in 2020, the number increased by more than a third to 20,600. (Reporting rates held fairly steady at 30%.) And then came the worst news of all: the 2022 number was 36,000, with the reporting rate dropping to 23.6%.

While the military changed how it collected data for the 2022 report, it still showed a shocking number of assaults and several steps back in progress.

The sharp increases in 2020 and 2022 were data collected during the first Trump administration.

The 2024 number, the first under President Joe Biden and the latest data available, once again indicated progress: 29,061 estimated assaults, more than 6,000 fewer than in 2022, though still higher than it had been 14 years earlier. We know Biden prioritized reducing this number: At his direction, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin ordered an independent commission to develop solutions to the crisis, including changes to the military justice system.

But now, we have a man found liable for sexual abuse at the head of the armed services again, and he has made matters even worse by nominating another man accused of sexual assault as second in command.

Defense secretary nominee Pete Hegseth meets Dec. 5, 2024, with Senator-elect Jim Banks, R-Indiana, on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C.
Defense secretary nominee Pete Hegseth meets Dec. 5, 2024, with Senator-elect Jim Banks, R-Indiana, on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C.

A story about how much leadership matters: I (Kilmartin) was invited to San Antonio, Texas, in 2011 to do a training for Sexual Assault Awareness and Prevention Month on three military bases.

At the first base, the general showed he was serious and passionate about reducing on-base violence by engaging in the training. At the second base, the “mandatory” training for 300 people resulted in only about 60 attendees. And at the third base, where attendance was voluntary, I presented to seven people.

The contrast in the leadership of these three bases could not have been sharper, and so I was appalled but not surprised that just a few months later, a scandal broke of frequent sexual assaults of recruits by their military training instructors.

Since leadership is so important, having a commander-in-chief from 2017-2021 who has been reported for sexual assault by more than 20 women could have been a critical factor in the 2022 increases. We fully expect that the 2024 numbers, the last under Biden, who has a long record of working to end gender-based violence, will again show a decrease.

The important lesson from the 2006-2016 progress is that we know what works, and so the task for the military is to redouble their efforts. Having two leaders with such callous disregard for others’ rights will surely make this work even more challenging than ever. Congressional pressure on Trump to nominate a defense secretary with a strong record on this critical issue would be a step in the right direction.

Christopher Kilmartin is a Fredericksburg, Virginia, author, trainer and activist in preventing violence in schools, the military, and the workplace internationally. His latest book is “The Fictions that Shape Men’s Lives” from Routledge.

Ronald Levant is a former president of the American Psychological Association and professor emeritus of psychology at the University of Akron. His latest book is “The Problem with Men: Insights on Overcoming a Traumatic Childhood from a World-Renowned Psychologist” from Koehler Books Publishing.