It seems that former Blackwater CEO, international war profiteer, and wannabe colonialist Erik Prince is eager to get back into the action, this time on American soil. Politico reported today that a group of military contractors led by Prince delivered a 26-page proposal to President Donald Trump’s team before the inauguration, detailing how the new administration could enlist the private sector to hit its deportation goals.
The plan states that a “600% increase in activity” is needed for the President to deport 12 million people before the 2026 midterms — an increase that Prince and his allies don’t believe government agencies are equipped to make.
Among the ideas laid out in the $25 billion proposal: a private fleet of 100 deportation planes, privately-run processing camps on military bases, expedited mass deportation hearings, and a “bounty program which provides a cash reward for each illegal alien held by a state or local law enforcement officer.”
Former Trump Advisor Steve Bannon (who still has strong ties to key advisors on the President’s team) expressed support for the plan to Politico. “People want this stood up quickly, and understand the government is always very slow to do things,” he said.
The proposal has clear moral, financial, and legal concerns — but that goes without saying when Erik Prince is concerned.
Prince’s Blackwater Security Consulting group carried out a highly publicized massacre of 17 civilians at Nissour Square in Baghdad in 2007, causing the group to lose its security contract with the U.S. government. Four Blackwater employees were convicted by a U.S. federal court for their involvement in the massacre and then pardoned by President Trump in his first term.
Neither the tragedy of the Nissour Square Massacre nor the embarrassment it represented for the military contracting industry dissuaded Prince, who has continued to push for more privatization and less oversight in military operations.
Fortunately, it seems that his latest pet project isn’t gaining much traction.
Bill Matthews, a co-author of the proposal, told Politico, “We have not been contacted by, nor have we had any discussions with, the government since the White Paper that we submitted months ago. There has been zero show of interest or engagement from the government and we have no reason to believe there will be.”
Gideon Pardo is a Reporting Intern at Responsible Statecraft and a senior at the Medill School of Journalism at Northwestern University. He has previously reported for the Medill Investigative Lab and for the on-campus publication North by Northwestern, where he wrote about campus related news and national politics.
Top photo credit: Erik Prince speaks with political commentator Gordon Chang at CPAC (Photo: Zach D Roberts/NurPhoto)
At CANSEC, North America’s largest arms trade show last week, former NATO Secretary General Lord George Robertson invoked the spirit of Lyndon Johnson’s 1964 speech: “Only by preparing for war will we be able to protect peace.”
Robertson described an era that saw the formation of independent post-Soviet states in Eastern Europe and the NATO-Russia Founding Act of 1997 with Russia’s first President Boris Yeltsin that thawed relations after the Cold War and formalized an agreement of collaboration.
“The Chinese were in the shadows and we all thought that globalization was a wonderful idea,” he intoned.
Now, the NATO alliance is navigating a “grey-zone war without Geneva Conventions” in Ukraine and nuclear threats are normalized in the absence of “Cold War tripwires which prevented accidental and miscalculated Armageddon” as nuclear treaties hang in suspension," Robertson said.
Amid Russia’s war in Ukraine, he added, Trump’s rhetoric around the annexation of Greenland and Canada, and the looming threat of authoritarianism, liberal and democratic values are “all threatened as never before.”
With the NATO summit convening at the Hague this month, members are being called to increase military spending to at least 3% of GDP. The focus is on European re-armament, and what Lord Robertson described as “a new ambivalence of the United States President to the alliance.”
Hosted in Ottawa by the Canadian Association of Defence and Security Industries between May 28 and 29, CANSEC certainly took advantage of the current moment with the trendlines for defense spending set on quantum and cloud computing, artificial intelligence, mesh networks and satellites.
As governments scramble to speed up procurement, CANSEC literally sold the military industry as a tool of foreign policy.
"Sovereign defense capabilities are not only economic drivers but tools of foreign policy that have been sadly underutilized by successive Canadian governments," said Christyn Cianfarani, the head of CADSI, in her welcome.
“If we are attacked, and if we are not prepared, then everything else doesn’t make sense. There won’t be any pensions, there won’t be any education,” declared Lithuania’s former Foreign Minister Gabrielius Landsbergis, referring to his country raising taxes last year to pay for defense. Meeting ambitious NATO spending targets requires “rethinking of the social contract.”
Like others, he pointed to the looming threat of Russia as justification.
“The situation in Europe has never been more dangerous. Europe has not been preparing,” he said.
“For defense to be effective, the only person who needs to believe in Article 5 is Putin,” Landsbergis added, stressing that leaders need to communicate to their electorates the existential risk to NATO and the European Union. “The next war, if it comes, would look a lot like this one and it could again be against Russia.”
Invoking Canada’s historic wartime mobilization that built up the world’s third largest navy by the end of the Second World War, Canadian Defence Minister David McGuinty said that the government is taking “immediate and decisive action” on the global threats of Russia, China, North Korea and Iran “to ensure our military has the tools to defend our country and continent.”
“We simply cannot afford to wait a decade for the capabilities we need today,” he said.
Over the past seven months, Canada has been developing the country’s first national military industrial strategy and greasing the wheels for the private sector to more easily access Canadian defense contracts.
Wendy Hadwen, Assistant Deputy Minister on the policy’s development at Canada’s Department of National Defence, explained that reforms are based on the 2011 Jenkins report that proposed transformations for the Canadian military research and development sector, including placing higher value on Canadian intellectual property and technological innovation.
“We would like to create the conditions for financial industries to value investing in Canada’s defense industries,” she said. “In the ideal, our defense attachés would be champions of our defense industries. They are not today because we do not have a tradition of using our military to champion industry.”
In addition to simplifying procurement, Canada is working on securing supply chains and designating sovereign military capabilities. To do so, it is looking to other countries’ policies for inspiration, like Sweden’s “Total Defence Strategy” and the U.K.’s newly released review.
As Canada’s blueprint is being developed, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney signaled his intent to sign onto a $1.25 trillion European Union military financing plan called ReArm Europe by July 1, reducing dependency on procurement from the United States. The ReArm vision includes a European savings and investment union to encourage banks to invest in military companies.
The private sector’s growing role in Atlantic rearmament is also being facilitated by NATO-DIANA (Defence Innovation Accelerator for the North Atlantic), an incubator for companies developing dual-use deep technology.
But while Canada looks at developing the domestic military sector and pivot procurement to Europe and other allies like Australia and South Korea, Trump is set on locking Canada more firmly into American strategy.
The Golden Dome missile defense project, announced in January, revives Ronald Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative (“Star Wars”), a Cold War satellite program designed to protect the U.S. from Soviet missiles. It was shelved at the time because of inadequate technology and exorbitant costs.
Equated in scale and ambition with the Manhattan Project, this plan is being resurrected at a breakneck pace to defend against hypersonic missiles. And while the Golden Dome is focused on the U.S., Trump’s executive order demanded a review of “theater missile defense posture to defend United States troops deployed abroad.”
Golden Dome relies on missile sensors, space-based interceptors to destroy missiles, and a satellite communication network. Modeled on the Israeli Iron Dome, it is more complex because it covers massive territory including polar orbits.
Expected costs are $175 billion, with Trump pushing for operation by 2029, though recent estimates expect up to $831 billion over two decades. Trump recently stated that if Canada remains a sovereign nation, the Golden Dome plan will cost it $61 billion dollars. If Canada is annexed, it will be free.
SpaceX was dubbed the “frontrunner” for the Golden Dome’s communications backbone earlier in April. Elon Musk’s satellite company has already made inroads into rural and northern Canada.
Canada has not yet committed to the plan, which has resurrected old debates.
“I do think that the strategic implications of such a system, including both nuclear and space arms racing, would make us less safe,” said Jessica West, senior researcher at Project Ploughshares, referring to the Golden Dome’s global strike capabilities, including those from space.
Defending against long-range missiles is difficult, and losing the deterrent value of nuclear weapons risks an arms race, she said, also referring to Star Wars as a “flashy, but failed, concept.”
The Russia-United States New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) expires next year. The Russian Foreign Ministry has already acknowledged that Russia “may face the need for moving away from restrictions on nuclear and missile arsenals,” and the potential for space to become “another scene of military confrontation.”
Some have argued that Canada should commit to disarmament efforts for hypersonic missiles.
But this past December, former Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister Mélanie Joly called on Canada to be “extremely realist with the threat towards our Arctic” and to be “pragmatic” in the possibility of arming Canada with ballistic missiles. Should this materialize, it would overturn a 2005 decision limiting Canada’s capabilities to radar surveillance and detection.
With NATO rhetoric at CANSEC broadly leaning on Article 3, or the obligation for countries to defend themselves, Canadian missile armament has repeatedly resurged in public debate to defend against North Korea or more recently to protect the Arctic, dubbed “our future Panama Canal.”
Setting the tone for the NATO Summit, CANSEC made it clear that member states are keen on protecting democracy not through arms control and international humanitarian law, but by more closely integrating militaries with the private sector. To do this, they need to sell not just the wars of today, but the wars of tomorrow.
The Bunker appears originally at the Project on Government Oversight and is republished here with permission.
Cutting the Pentagon’s testing office is nuts
Pentagon weapons are pretty much perfect, which is why Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth is slashing the Defense Department’s independent testing office in half.
Just kidding!
Sure, the Pentagon chief issued a memo(PDF) May 27 gutting the place. But unfortunately, with a kennelful of dogs like the multi-service F-35 fighter, the Navy’s Constellation-class frigate, the Marines’ V-22 tilt-rotor, and the Army’s hypersonic Dark Eagle drone, the Pentagon needs more oversight and rigorous testing, not less.
DOT&E is charged with overseeing the testing done by the military services, which tends to be performed with kid gloves. The Project On Government Oversight has been pushing for more thorough weapons testing even before DOT&E’s creation in 1983.
Hegseth has declared war on DEI, but it’s not like these uber-testers are pushing the diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts denounced by the administration (unless you’re talking about diversity of expertise when it comes to testing multi-billion-dollar weapons, taxpayer equity in what they’re buying, and including professionally skeptical outsiders to ensure the biggest bang for the buck).
DOT&E’s annual report is one of the few independent sources of information available on the arcane — but vital — topic. “Hegseth’s memo highlights a key misunderstanding — or rejection — of why Congress created an independent testing office in the first place,” Greg Williams, The Bunker’s boss here at the Project On Government Oversight, said. “The law tries to make sure weapons are evaluated outside the chain of command that develops and promotes them.”
Let’s face it: The Trump administration doesn’t like oversight, whether it’s from universities, law firms, or the press. Last week it challenged the century-old Government Accountability Office, whose solid reports have been a bracing tonic to Pentagon privilege for years.
What’s now unfolding before taxpayers’ green eyeshades is nothing less than internal accountability self-destruction.
Army prematurely pushes platform into production
The U.S. military is always racing to get ahead of … well, something that the fog of future war hides. But the Army is willing to cut corners to get the replacement for its UH-60 Black Hawk to the troops sooner rather than later, even if it means accepting greater risk that it won’t perform as promised.
Basically, the service wants to begin building its new aircraft before prototype flight tests are completed on its recently named MV-75 tiltrotor (previously known as the V-280, and the Future Long Range Assault Aircraft). Improved modeling, MV-75 backers say, will lead to prototypes that will closely match the final design. That means they won’t have to wait, cooling their rotors, for pesky test-pilot reports on what needs fixing before production begins. The Army incredibly predicts this will cut the MV-75’s testing schedule from the typical four to 10 years, to two.
We’ve seen this movie before. It doesn’t end well. Tilt-rotors — well, the Pentagon’s own V-22(PDF) is the only model in production — are notoriously unreliable and, therefore, costly to maintain. Like the V-22, the Pentagon’s F-35(PDF) is flown by three services — the Air Force, the Navy, and the Marines. It too has been plagued by cost overruns and delayed deliveries, due in no small part because the Pentagon rushed it into production.
The MV-75 program could end up costing $70 billion. Its accelerated fielding is already making the Army rethink its speed and range “requirements,” which are roughly double those of the Black Hawk. “Rather than pursue perfect, we are pursuing an aircraft that is close to being what we asked for,” Colonel Jeffrey Poquette, the MV-75 program manager says. The Army brass, he adds, would rather get the MV-75 sooner rather than “design yourself to death.”
Missile defense’s red flag on Guam
René Kladzyk here at the Project On Government Oversight had a grim story May 29 about lousy U.S. military barracks on the Pacific island of Guam. In fact, Navy Secretary John Phelan told POGO he was “appalled” and “very upset” after touring them on a recent visit. Alas, it’s only the tip of the iceberg for conditions on the U.S. territory. That’s also where the Pentagon is building an $8 billion missile shield to defend it and Guam’s extensive U.S. military assets against attacks from China and/or North Korea.
President Trump recently declared how good, fast, and cheap “The Golden (née Iron) Dome for America” continental aerial (i.e., more than mere missiles) shield will be. Two days later, the Government Accountability Office told a much different story about the much smaller Guam Defense System (GDS) — including its lack of decent housing. “Guam already faces a housing shortage for military personnel,” the GAO said. The U.S. military population there is projected to grow from 10,000 now to 20,000 in 2033. “GDS planners have expressed doubts about their ability to build housing on time.”
Beyond housing, the watchdog agency tallied a list of what’s missing from Guam to support the personnel who will be needed to tend to its expanded missile-defense system. They range from schools, to medical facilities, to commissaries, to drinking water. In fact, the U.S. is having trouble maintaining the simple missile defense shield currently in place. The Army had to scramble to secure its launchers and radars from a 2023 typhoon, and is leaving “spare parts unprotected outside” leading to “corrosion of spare parts.”
The GAO interviewed Pentagon officials about Guam’s missile defense before Trump unveiled his Golden Dome initiative. They said Guam’s modest missile defense system “will be the department’s largest and most complicated, presenting communication and planning challenges among the various DOD stakeholders.”
The price of maintaining military aircraft is likely to spike as the world’s air forces buy ever more complicated warplanes, Defense News’ Stephen Losey reported May 23.
Small-to-medium companies remain leery of doing business with the Defense Department despite years of effort and legislation designed to expand its industrial base, John A. Tirpak reported May 26 in Air & Space Forces Magazine.
Jamie McIntyre, CNN’s Pentagon correspondent from 1992 to 2008, wrote May 30 of the war now underway between the Pentagon and the reporters who cover it for the Washington Examiner, where he is now a columnist.
Once again, The Bunker is taking next week off. We’ll be back June 18. Kindly consider forwarding this on to colleagues so they can subscribe here.
keep readingShow less
Top photo credit: An Abrams M1A2 Main Battle Tank is loaded onto a trailer headed to Vaziani TrainingArea May 5, 2016, in preparation for Noble Partner 16. (Photo by Spc. Ryan Tatum, 1st Armor Brigade Combat Team, 3rd Infantry Division)
With the stroke of a pen, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth has gutted the Pentagon’s weapon testing office.
His order is intended to “eliminate any non-statutory or redundant functions” by reducing the office to 30 civilian employees and 15 assigned military personnel. The order also terminates contractor support for the testing office.
The ostensible reason for the change is to save $300 million at a time when billions are being added to the defense budget.
But any potential savings in the short term will eventually be drastically eclipsed by the money wasted fielding faulty weapons. In fact, this move will end up endangering troops by sending them into combat with gear that has not been properly vetted.
The real problem with this move is simple: reducing the size of the testing office reduces its oversight capacity. The office of Director, Operational Test & Evaluation (DOT&E) maintains an oversight list of all the programs it monitors. The testing office currently has 272 programs in its portfolio including the latest model of the M1A1 Abrams, the B-21 bomber, and the Ford-class aircraft carrier. It will soon also include programs like the F-47, the Navy’s anticipated F/A-xx, plus whatever new systems Silicon Valley creates.
To put this into perspective consider this: to adequately monitor a program like the F-35, the testing office has a civilian action officer covering a slate of related programs. That individual can’t attend all the meetings or review the reams of data generated during the testing events. For support and analysis, DOT&E contracts other civilians with specific expertise. DOT&E works with federally funded research and development centers like the Institute for Defense Analysis, MITRE, Applied Research Associates, and Virginia Tech to provide the manpower to monitor testing events, attend planning meetings, analyze data, and write reports.
With reduced capacity, the testing office will, by necessity, have to rely more on the analysis provided by the military services and the defense industry. Neither are the intended neutral arbiters Congress needs to properly oversee the performance of the Pentagon’s new weapons.
Congress created the testing office in 1983 over the furious objections from both the defense industry and Pentagon leadership. At the time, a bipartisan core of lawmakers believed they were not being told the full truth about the performance of new weapons. They also had plenty of evidence that tests were being compromised. A constant flow of news articles detailing failed weapon tests appeared on the pages of the Washington Post and the New York Times about programs like the Sergeant York air defense gun and the Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicle.
The saga of the latter has been immortalized in the book and film The Pentagon Wars.
The individual military services each have their own operational test agencies. The Air Force Operational Test & Evaluation Center, the Navy’s Operational Test & Evaluation Force, Marine Corps Test and Evaluation Activity office, and the Army Test and Evaluation Command conduct the operational test events. The role of DOT&E with its supporting personnel is to help design the tests, ensure they are conducted properly, and then independently analyze and report the results of them.
The entire purpose of operational testing is to determine whether a new weapon is both combat effective and suitable for use with the troops. It’s not good enough for a weapon to work in a controlled laboratory environment. It has to work in the hands of the troops who will operate it and in the conditions in which they fight.
An expert marksman testing a new rifle might be able to hit the bullseye every time on an indoor range. Such a result might lead some people to believe the rifle is effective. But if a soldier takes the same rifle into the field and it immediately jams due to the humidity swells the ammunition by a few microns, the weapon is neither effective or suitable.
It’s better to discover problems like that before the weapon goes into full production and certainly better than when the soldier is in a firefight.
The question of whose interests are really being served must be asked. The best interest of the men and women serving in the ranks is to make sure their weapons and equipment have been thoroughly evaluated before being placed in their hands. The American taxpayers have an interest to see that their hard-earned money isn’t buying weapons that don’t work.
Service leaders have a professional interest to see their pet projects move rapidly through the process. Many of them also have a financial interest because upon their retirement from the military, they take lucrative positions in the defense industry. The industry executives have an interest in making sure the government buys their wares. A testing report showing that a new weapon isn’t performing well threatens the future of a marquee product, hence the animosity towards the testing office.
But ultimately, the military won’t benefit from hollowing out the testing office. While the move may save a few dollars in the short term, the troops will end up paying the price when they end up fighting not only the enemy, but their own faulty gear.
Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.