PRESS ROOM

North Korean leader Kim Jong-un’s January 1st speech at a Worker’s Party Central Committee meeting put the final nail in the coffin of President Trump’s “maximum pressure and engagement” policy

The attacks on the U.S. embassy in Baghdad may be bringing the U.S. and Iran to the brink of war. It didn’t have to be this way, and now that we’re here, further escalation is not the answer.

But Ben Freeman, director of the Foreign Influence Transparency Initiative at the Center for International Policy, argues that just because something is legal doesn’t mean it’s ethical. “Even if Senator Ericksen isn’t directly cashing in on his office, he’s making money as a foreign agent while serving as an elected official,” Freeman said. “At the very least this poses a lot of questions about potential conflicts of interest,” Freeman added. “It’s fair to say his constituents would prefer he fight for their interests, not a dictator’s. Do we really want our representatives to be on the payroll of foreign powers?”

It’s the season for year-end reviews, and no topic deserves greater attention than Donald Trump’s erratic and dangerous foreign policy. Thankfully, John Glaser, Christopher Preble, and Trevor Thrall of the Cato Institute have produced a new book that is just what the doctor ordered. As a bonus, it goes beyond an analysis of this year’s fights and follies to the beginning of the Trump administration, and beyond that to the key indicators of Trump’s foreign policy views that predate his brief time as Commander-in-Chief.

CAP and Katulis’ relationship with UAE lobbyists goes back further. A recent report by Ben Freeman of the Center for International Policy found that UAE “foreign agents,” most commonly Harbour’s Richard Mintz, contacted Katulis “at least 11 times according to their 2018 FARA filings, primarily regarding a ‘CAP group trip to UAE/KSA’ in late April and early May 2018,” writes Freeman (who also provided In These Times the FARA documents for this article.). The records show that then, as now, Mintz was the main contact for Katulis.

In many ways, the annual National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) represents a Christmas tree. In the fiscal year 2020 version, a massive $738 billion defense spending bill, every interest group has tried to hang something on it. Marco Werman talks with William Hartung, who directs the Arms and Security Project at the Center for International Policy, about what the NDAA says about US priorities at the moment.

Given that the December 29 raid has backfired on Washington so seriously within the Iraqi political system, will Washington now choose to double down and get into an even more overt confrontation with Iran? Let us hope not. Regional and international politics would have great impact on any such scenario. Within the region, an adventurous and politically and legally embattled Israeli prime minister might be eager for more confrontation between Washington and Tehran, but no other significant regional power would welcome it. At the global level, Washington is likely to receive not support, but condemnation, for the recklessness of its actions in Iraq.

"What North Korea refers to as a new path is new in the sense that it will differ from its relatively engaging posture the past two years, but will actually be a return to the posture it maintained notably in the Obama era. It will focus on developing its military leverage and economic resistance to sanctions, while demanding unconditional peace and normalisation before there can be any talk on denuclearisation."

Ben Freeman, the director of the Foreign Influence Transparency Initiative at the Washington, DC-based Center for International Policy, told MEE expanding giving to the Republican party made sense after 2016. "If you are looking to rub elbows with high-ranking party offices - the Mitch McConnells and Devin Nuneses - your best bet is to hit up the party. You are in the loop with everybody," he said. "This actually fits the mold of what we typically see in the foreign influence space. Foreign lobbyists aren't picking sides, they're doing whatever they can to influence both sides and that often means giving substantial sums of money to both parties."

Mayor Pete swore off 2020 campaign money from lobbyists—but there are still questions around his foreign-linked money.

William Hartung and Sonali Kolhatkar discuss the NDAA and pentagon spending.

The political fear of losing elections by being seen as either “soft” on defense or unconcerned about the fate of military-industrial jobs in one’s home state or district made many Democrats view taking on the Pentagon as the true “third rail” of American politics. And the military itself has blindly adhered to a strategy of global dominance that’s essentially been on autopilot, no matter the damaging consequences of near-endless war and preparations for more of it.