Excerpts from recent editorials in the United States and abroad:
June 27
Washington Post on retired U.S. military officers working for foreign governments
A bipartisan bill introduced by Sens. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) would close several loopholes identified by The Post in an investigative series published last fall about hundreds of retired U.S. military officers taking lucrative jobs advising foreign governments known for human rights atrocities and political repression. The Retired Officers Conflict of Interest Act would require public reporting about who is working on behalf of which foreign governments and for how much.
The U.S. government battled The Post in court for two years to prevent the disclosure of such data, arguing that it could subject retired officers to “embarrassment” and “harm their public reputation.” Ultimately, a federal judge ruled against such “unconvincing” arguments for not complying with the Freedom of Information Act. “The public has a right to know if high-ranking military leaders are taking advantage of their stations — or might be perceived as doing so — to create employment opportunities with foreign governments in retirement,” wrote U.S. District Judge Amit P. Mehta.
Based on records subsequently turned over, The Post’s Craig Whitlock and Nate Jones reported that 15 retired U.S. generals and admirals have worked as paid consultants since 2016 for the Saudi Defense Ministry and Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, who the U.S. intelligence community has concluded ordered the murder of Post contributing columnist Jamal Khashoggi. The group included a former national security adviser, National Security Agency director and commander of U.S. troops in Afghanistan. Paydays reached into seven figures. Gallingly, Americans’ work for the Saudis expanded after the assassination of our colleague and amid a barbaric crackdown on dissent.
The Constitution’s emoluments clause requires retired military officers to receive congressional approval before accepting compensation from foreign governments, but Congress delegated this authority to the Pentagon and the State Department in 1977. Of 450 applications since 2012, the Pentagon says just 12 have been denied. The Pentagon also confirms that no retired officers have been asked over the past decade to cease working for foreign governments after they received initial approval.
Despite a constitutionally required obligation, scores of retirees identified on LinkedIn by Mr. Whitlock and Mr. Jones say they’ve taken military contracting jobs in the Persian Gulf. There’s no record they ever sought or received federal approval, but there’s no criminal penalty, and enforcement is almost nonexistent.
Someone who works for a foreign government without authorization risks losing retirement pay, but fewer than five people have received this punishment. One of them was retired Army Gen. Michael Flynn, who accepted $38,557 to speak at a 2015 gala for a Russian propaganda outlet where he sat next to Russian President Vladimir Putin. This scandal led Congress to pass legislation in 2019 and 2020 requiring the Pentagon to submit annual reports to lawmakers about retired flag officers working for foreign powers. But these reports include only a few lines of information and don’t name the generals and admirals.
The Warren-Grassley bill would require the government to create a searchable database of retired American officers serving foreign governments. The public would be able to see the name, military service, former office, nature of work, the foreign government they’re employed by and the amount of money they’ve received. The legislation would also create civil penalties of $100,000 or the amount of money received for anyone who works for a foreign government without getting approval. Other penalties for violations could include being prohibited for five years from accepting compensation from foreign governments, serving on a federal advisory committee or retaining a security clearance.
Former diplomats and retired intelligence employees aren’t subject to the emoluments clause because they cannot automatically be called back into service, whereas retired military officers retain their commissions. Last year’s National Defense Authorization Act prohibited Senate-confirmed officials at the State Department from later representing or advising adversary governments, including China, Russia, Iran, Cuba and Syria. It also banned former secretaries and deputy secretaries of state from advising or representing any foreign government. It seems sensible to also require former State Department employees to publicly disclose any income from foreign governments, regardless of its purpose, since part of the reason anyone would hire them is their past work for the United States.
Another problem identified in The Post’s series is members of the military negotiating with foreign governments, or private contractors who do foreign work, while still on active duty. Federal ethics rules require a cooling-off period for military personnel who manage weapons programs before they can accept jobs from contractors they did business with while in uniform. But this doesn’t apply to retiring troops who want to work for foreign governments, including places where they’re stationed.
Mr. Whitlock and Mr. Jones discovered that an Army brigadier general sought permission in 2018 to work as a paid consultant for the defense minister of Qatar while he was acting deputy assistant secretary of defense for the Middle East. This meant he oversaw U.S. defense policy toward the country he was negotiating with. The proposed bill would prohibit that practice.
We’re not opposed to former U.S. government officials advising other countries in retirement. It’s no surprise that foreign powers would be keenly interested in counsel from veterans of the most lethal, and professionalized, fighting force in human history. So long as their work does not jeopardize America’s national security, these men and women have the right to earn an income. If Americans don’t provide counsel, Russia or China might fill the vacuum. Moreover, American advisers can sometimes help keep difficult partners interconnected with the West.
But it’s essential the American public knows what’s happening. Because we favor transparency over restrictions, some language in the Warren-Grassley bill feels too stringent. A provision intended to prohibit military intelligence officers from working for any foreign government for 30 months, except Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, could be interpreted to cover any retiree with a security clearance. That goes too far.
If retired officers collecting generous pensions and health benefits from Uncle Sam are ashamed to publicly reveal that they’re also collecting checks from odious regimes, perhaps they shouldn’t take the money.
ONLINE: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/06/27/military-foreign-payments-disclosure/
___
June 27
Wall Street Journal on the Supreme Court and elections
So much for the radical Supreme Court. A 6-3 majority on Tuesday rejected the argument advanced by some conservatives that the U.S. Constitution bars state courts from reviewing Congressional maps and voting laws. The result isn’t the runaway victory that progressives claim, but it will lead to more election-law controversies.
The dispute in Moore v. Harper centered on a North Carolina House redistricting plan in 2021 that was blocked by a Democratic majority on that state’s High Court. State Justices claimed the gerrymander violated their Constitution’s guarantee to “free elections,” “a right to assemble,” “freedom of speech,” and “equal protection of the laws.”
In other words, partisan state judges read a ban against political gerrymanders into the penumbra of state law. As a result, Democrats carried three more Congressional seats under a court redrawn map last November than they were predicted to under the Legislature’s.
GOP lawmakers argued that the North Carolina court’s ruling violated the U.S. Constitution’s Elections Clause, which requires “the Legislature” of each state to prescribe “