A bipartisan bill has been proposed by Senators Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) to address the loopholes identified in a series of investigations conducted by The Post. The investigations revealed that many retired U.S. military officers were taking lucrative jobs advising foreign governments known for human rights violations and political repression. The Retired Officers Conflict of Interest Act aims to improve transparency by requiring public reporting on individuals working for foreign governments and the amount of compensation they receive.
The U.S. government initially resisted disclosing this information, citing concerns over potential embarrassment and harm to the officers’ reputations. However, a federal judge ruled that such arguments were unconvincing and that the public has a right to know if high-ranking military leaders are taking advantage of their positions for personal gain.
The investigative series by The Post uncovered that 15 retired U.S. generals and admirals have worked as paid consultants for the Saudi Defense Ministry and Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman since 2016. These individuals included former national security advisers, directors of the National Security Agency, and commanders of U.S. troops in Afghanistan. The payments received by these officers reached amounts in the seven figures. It is troubling to note that the number of Americans working for the Saudis increased even after the assassination of journalist Jamal Khashoggi and a crackdown on dissent.
Under the current system, retired military officers are required to obtain congressional approval before accepting compensation from foreign governments. However, this authority was delegated to the Pentagon and the State Department in 1977. Since then, only 12 out of 450 applications have been denied by the Pentagon. Furthermore, no retired officers have been asked to cease working for foreign governments after receiving initial approval in the past decade.
The Warren-Grassley bill aims to address these issues by mandating the creation of a searchable database that provides information on retired American officers working for foreign governments. The public would have access to details such as their name, military service, former position, nature of work, employing foreign government, and the amount of compensation received. The bill also introduces civil penalties for individuals who work for foreign governments without approval, with potential consequences including fines of $100,000 or the amount received, a five-year prohibition on accepting compensation from foreign governments, and restrictions on federal advisory committee participation and security clearances.
There is a distinction between retired military officers and former diplomats and intelligence employees in terms of emoluments. The emoluments clause in the Constitution applies to retired military officers, who are required to receive congressional approval for compensation from foreign governments since they retain their commissions and can be called back into service if needed. In contrast, former diplomats and intelligence employees cannot be called back into service and are therefore not subject to the emoluments clause. However, it would be sensible to require former State Department employees to disclose any income obtained from foreign governments due to their past work for the United States, regardless of its purpose.
One issue highlighted by The Post’s investigations is the involvement of active-duty personnel in negotiations with foreign governments or private contractors engaged in foreign work. While federal ethics rules impose a cooling-off period for military personnel who manage weapons programs before accepting jobs from contractors they previously worked with, this does not apply to retiring troops who wish to work for foreign governments. The proposed bill would prohibit this practice.
It is important to note that the proposed bill does not seek to restrict former U.S. government officials from advising other countries in their retirement. The expertise of veterans from the U.S. military can be valuable to foreign powers. As long as their work does not compromise national security, these individuals should be allowed to earn an income. However, transparency is crucial, and the American public should be informed about these activities.
Overall, the Warren-Grassley bill shows promise in addressing the issues raised by The Post’s investigations. However, some of the language in the bill may be overly stringent, particularly regarding the prohibition of military intelligence officers working for any foreign government for a period of 30 months. It is important to strike a balance between transparency and unnecessary restrictions. Ultimately, if retired officers are hesitant to publicly disclose their work for questionable regimes, they should reconsider accepting money from such sources.
Denial of responsibility! VigourTimes is an automatic aggregator of Global media. In each content, the hyperlink to the primary source is specified. All trademarks belong to their rightful owners, and all materials to their authors. For any complaint, please reach us at – [email protected]. We will take necessary action within 24 hours.
