Category: Quick Analysis

NGO’s like Catholic Charities, Lutheran Social Services and the like have been getting big money from the federal government for years to provide assistance to “refugees.” 

On its face, this sounds reasonable.  In the immortal words of Emma Lazarus, in her poem, The New Colossus, “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.”   She even calls the subject of her poem, the Statute of Liberty, the “Mother of Exiles.”  

But in our book. Not Wasting a Crisis, The Lawless Biden Administration,  , at Chapter 21, we describe the abuse of the immigration system by Homeland Security under former Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas:

“Asylum claims asserted by illegal border crossers at the border are screened for ‘credible fear,’ that is, ‘there is a ‘significant possibility’ that he or she could establish in a full hearing before an Immigration Judge that he or she has been persecuted or has a well-founded fear of persecution or harm on account of his or her race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion if returned to his or her country.’ As described by the [Congressional Research Service], ‘Credible fear is a ‘low bar’…[a]ccording to [Government Accounting Office] statistics from fiscal years 2015–2019, about 77% of asylum seekers and 87% of asylum seekers in family units establish credible fear…’DHS…can choose to place undocumented migrants directly into immigration court proceedings….[t]o do so, DHS typically releases the migrant from custody with a notice to appear in immigration court (‘NTA’). The practice of releasing undocumented migrants with NTAs…is sometimes called ‘catch and release.’  This is the loophole that most illegals use to cross over our border and remain in our country.  They claim status as an asylum seeker with a credible fear of persecution if they return home; receive a Notice to Appear in Immigration Court; and are released into our country.”

To summarize what has been happening for the past four years; Homeland Security accepted at face value the majority of claims by illegal border crossers that they were refugees, allowed them into the country, and NGOs like Catholic Charities and Lutheran Social Services received lavish federal grants to provide these “refugees” with a variety of social services, such as food, housing and travel across our land.

This made NGOs a partner to the Biden Administration’s law breaking, a partner who was very well paid for their services out of the public coffers.

Of course, no one expects these NGOs and their allies in the Democrat Party to just give up on their extremely profitable business.  As described by Forbes, “[c]oalitions of Democratic state attorneys general and nonprofits announced lawsuits against President Donald Trump’s administration…over its guidance temporarily pausing nearly all federal assistance, the first in what’s expected to be a series of lawsuits taking aim at the guidance as legal experts argue it’s unlawful…Plaintiffs argued the guidance will have a ‘devastating impact’ on nonprofits that receive government grants, which depend on the federal funds ‘to fulfill their missions, pay their employees, pay their rent—and, indeed, improve the day-to-day lives of the many people they work so hard to serve.’” 

Certainly, there are organizations doing useful and legal work who are justified in asking that their federal funding continue unabated.  But if the mission of the nonprofit is to assist “undocumented” border crossers with questionable claims to refugee status to enter and remain in the United States in violation of the immigration laws, then what is unreasonable about stopping those groups from these unlawful activities?

We can predict that there will be federal judges who believe that the grant money gravy train should continue, and order Homeland Security to keep the spigot open. But even if such judicial activism occurs, the Trump Administration is moving to make such orders irrelevant by keeping these so-called refugees out of the hands of their NGO enablers.

Besides making stronger efforts at closing the border in the past month than the Mayorkas-led Homeland Security did in the last four years, President Trump has also issued an Executive Order “Realigning the United States Refugee Admissions Program.”

” Over the last 4 years,” the order reads, “the United States has been inundated with record levels of migration, including through the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP).  Cities and small towns alike…have seen significant influxes of migrants…The United States lacks the ability to absorb large numbers of migrants, and in particular, refugees, into its communities in a manner that does not compromise the availability of resources for Americans, that protects their safety and security, and that ensures the appropriate assimilation of refugees.” 

Therefore, on this basis, “This order suspends the USRAP until such time as the further entry into the United States of refugees aligns with the interests of the United States.” 

Kind of hard to spend grant money on refugees that aren’t there, isn’t it?

Most important, as this issue gains attention, more and more people are becoming aware of the misuse of public funds perpetrated by the Biden Administration and their allies in non-governmental organizations.

As Fox News host Greg Gutfeld said during his opening monologue late in January of this year, “Something non-government, how can that be bad?  True, it sounds safe, even boring…see, I thought NGOs were actually charities…but NGOs are not charities, far from it.  Many powerful NGOs have fueled America’s illegal crisis by subverting the laws, by actively transporting migrants into the country, moving them from one city to the next to avoid detection, and basically throwing your money around…you must have wondered as you watched the migrants stream across the border, how did they even get to that point? Who was aiding and supplying them…who was behind this? As it turns out, you and I were, without our knowledge.  You assumed that NGOs didn’t have their fingers in your wallet, when in reality they’re pickpocketing you… and they profit from doing things that were considered  illegal for Uncle Sam to do himself.  And they receive a bulk of their funding from us.” 

For years, we have been describing this system of criminal behavior in detail, and in all that time, our warnings have been roundly ignored or discounted.  But one of the most positive effects of the dawning of the Trump Administration is our ability to now watch the new government reveal these methods to the public at large by which the lawless Biden Administration violated our laws. 

Thus, whether or not a federal judge orders the spending to continue becomes irrelevant in many ways. The practice of NGOs using their public funding to help illegal border crossers to break the law is now revealed for all to see.  The issue is no longer shrouded in darkness.

And day light often serves as the best disinfectant.

Judge John Wilson (ret.) swerved on the bench in NYC.

Illustration: Pixabay

Recently, Kristi Noem, the former Governor of South Dakota who now serves as the Secretary of Homeland Security, announced that “the department has stopped all grant funding to nonprofits that operate outside of government control.”   The reason? “[S]ome non-governmental organizations (NGOs), which receive millions in federal grants, have been facilitating illegal immigration by helping aliens cross the U.S. border.” 

 While appearing as a guest on Fox News, Noem stated that “[m]any of these NGOs actually have infrastructure and operations set up in Mexico, on that side of the border, and are telling those illegal immigrants to come to them, and they will get them across the border…they’re not just operating in the United States, they’re operating outside the United States to help make it easier for those who want to break our laws.”

What exactly are non-governmental organizations? Simply put, an NGO is ” a nonprofit organization that operates independently of any government, typically one whose purpose is to address a social or political issue.” 

According to the State Department, “[f]rom the earliest days of U.S. history, civil society organizations have played a key role in protecting human rights and advancing human progress… [a]pproximately 1.5 million NGOs operate in the United States. These NGOs undertake a wide array of activities, including political advocacy on issues such as foreign policy, elections, the environment, healthcare, women’s rights, economic development, and many other issues…Many NGOs in the United States operate in fields that are not related to politics. These include volunteer organizations rooted in shared religious faith, labor unions, groups that help vulnerable people, such as the poor or disabled, and groups that seek to empower youth or marginalized populations.” 

As wonderful as these activities are, why would the federal government be involved in providing funding for groups that “empower youth” and “marginalized populations?” The State Department claims the grant money is provided “[t]o fill gaps in programming, the Bureau also supports NGOs that provide relief services overseas. Many of these groups have expertise in a specific region and/or a particular service.”

In other words, these NGOs provide services the government is unable to provide.

The Government Accountability Office reports that NGO’s have received approximately 8 billion dollars in federal funds between 2022 and 2024.  Further, as described by the Philanthropy Roundtable, “[t]oday about 170 social service efforts across the U.S. are supported by Catholic Charities… about two thirds of Catholic Charities’ annual spending comes from government sources (more than half a billion dollars of federal grants alone).” https://www.philanthropyroundtable.org/almanac/catholic-charities/

In 2022, we discussed the efforts made by NGO’s like Catholic Charities to provide assistance to “refugees.” We quoted directly from the website for Catholic Charities USA , which states that “[i]n addition to providing essential services to immigrants and refugees to the U.S. [the group] also advocate(s) for policies that protect family unity and allow newcomers to contribute to and more fully participate in their new communities…Migrants are an especially vulnerable population cared for by Catholic Charities staff and volunteers because they are on the move, far from home, and strangers in a strange land.  After being processed by federal authorities, they arrive at our sites weary from their travels…Catholic Charities serves migrants and refugees along the border and throughout the U.S. interior by providing for basic humanitarian needs such as food, shelter and clothing; assisting families with social work case management; providing asylum-seekers with immigration legal assistance; and resettling refugees from all corners of the world.” 

In fact, as far back as 2020 we made this observation: “For years, the Catholic Charities organizations of various states have been involved in placing immigrants in communities across the United States.  To be fair, Catholic Charities is not the only religion-based organization engaged in this work – Lutheran Social Services and Baptist Child and Family Services are also deeply involved in Refugee Resettlement.  In 2018, the US Conference of Catholic Bishops received $28 million to help resettle refugees.  These funds are spread across awards entitled ‘Refugee Cash and Medical Assistance,’ ‘Residential Service for Unaccompanied Children,’ and ‘Refugee Social Services.’  Lutheran Social Services also received $28 million, and Baptist Child and Family Services received $127 million (spread among several Baptist groups under the umbrella of Baptist Child and Family Services.” 

In that same article from 2020, we also described the impact these efforts at refugee resettlement have had in the State of North Dakota. “[I]n December of 2015, ‘over the past 14 years, Lutheran Social Services has resettled 4,000 refugees from 35 countries in North Dakota.’  Each refugee receives a federal grant of $925 dollars for initial housing costs, however, if you multiplied that cost by 445 immigrants estimated to be resettled in 2016, “that would lead to a cost of $423,650 for fiscal year 2016 to resettle New Americans. (Note – I came up with $411,625 when I did the math.)  Also, with the brunt of the resettlement program here in Cass County, social services estimates that about 15% of its budget goes toward serving refugees.  Their 2014 budget was more than $14,132,517, which means just over $2.1 Million was spent serving the refugee population of Cass County.’”

Judge Wilson’s (ret.) article concludes tomorrow

Illustration: Pixabay

Were Democrats right?  Was Congressional action the only way to “fix” the crisis at the Southern Border?

Of course not.

On the day of his Inauguration, President Donald Trump signed an Executive Order entitled “Protecting the American People Against Invasion.” “Over the last 4 years,” the Order states, “the prior administration invited, administered, and oversaw an unprecedented flood of illegal immigration into the United States.  Millions of illegal aliens crossed our borders or were permitted to fly directly into the United States on commercial flights and allowed to settle in American communities, in violation of longstanding Federal laws…[t]his order ensures that the Federal Government protects the American people by faithfully executing the immigration laws of the United States.”

 The Order provides that the “Secretary of Homeland Security shall take all appropriate action to…[ensure] the successful enforcement of final orders of removal.”  Further, “the Secretary of Homeland Security shall ensure [the enforcement of] Federal laws related to the illegal entry and unlawful presence of aliens in the United States and the enforcement of the purposes of this order.”  Moreover, “[t]he Attorney General, in coordination with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Homeland Security, shall take all appropriate action to prioritize the prosecution of criminal offenses related to the unauthorized entry or continued unauthorized presence of aliens in the United States.”

The Order also states that “the Secretary of Homeland Security shall promptly take appropriate action…to ensure the efficient and expedited removal of aliens from the United States.”

According to the Congressional Research Service, “[t]he proclamation’s reliance on statutory authorities to suspend legal entry of aliens seems to rest on legal arguments that courts have explored…frequently…[t]he Supreme Court has interpreted the President’s delegated authority…broadly, and Presidents have invoked this authority in a variety of contexts to suspend the entry of certain classes of aliens.”   Which is just a roundabout way of saying that yes, the president has the authority to demand that the laws currently in existence be enforced.

What has been the result of this exercise of Presidential power?  Let’s ask CBS News.

“The number of migrants crossing the U.S. southern border illegally in President Trump’s first full month in office plunged to a level not seen in at least 25 years, according to preliminary government data obtained by CBS News. [In February 2025] Border Patrol recorded about 8,450 apprehensions of migrants who crossed into the country unlawfully between official entry points along the U.S.-Mexico border, the statistics show. On some days during a record spike in illegal crossings under the Biden administration, Border Patrol recorded more than 8,000 apprehensions in a single day…In January, Border Patrol agents at the Mexican border recorded 29,000 apprehensions, down 38% from 47,000 in December. The drop from January to February was even more pronounced, amounting to a roughly 70% decrease.” 

But wait – I thought it was the system that was broken, and only Congress could fix it!

Clearly, all that was needed to “fix” the Southern Border was enforcement of the laws already on the books.

Increased enforcement at the Border itself is only one prong of the Trump Administration’s efforts to control illegal immigration.  The removal of illegal aliens, particularly those engaged in criminal activities while in the United States, has also become a priority.

“Federal officers swept into sanctuary cities on President Trump’s first full day in office,” The New York Post reported, “nabbing more than 300 illegal migrant criminals – including an attempted murderer and a child molester – to hold them for deportation…[t]he coast-to-coast dragnet – a multi-agency effort led by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) – picked up felons in and around Boston, Denver, Philadelphia, Atlanta, Seattle, Washington, DC, and Miami…It was just the start of what border czar Tom Homan has promised will be a renewed effort to boot 700,000 illegal migrants who have committed crimes from the US – and sanctuary cities will not be spared.” 

Those Sanctuary Cities don’t plan on giving up their illegals anytime soon.  For instance, San Antonio, Texas, claims that “Sanctuary cities offer protection for immigrants who seek the United States in pursuit of the American Dream….this desire to seek safety and bring opportunity into our lives connects us all…Sanctuary cities provide protection and security to undocumented immigrants by forbidding city or law enforcement officials from working with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to inquire into the immigration status of individuals.” 

As pleasant as these sentiments may sound, according to the Department of Justice, “[f]ederal law provides that state and local jurisdictions ‘may not prohibit, or in any way restrict, any government entity or official from sending to, or receiving from, [federal immigration officers] information regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual.’ 8 U.S.C. § 1373(a). 

On this basis, the Justice Department has announced that “Sanctuary jurisdictions should not receive access to federal grants administered by the Department of Justice. The Department will exercise its own authority to impose any conditions of funding that do not violate applicable constitutional or statutory limitations.”

Another element of the Trump Administration’s efforts to halt illegal immigration is outlined in an Executive order entitled “Securing Our Borders.” “Deadly narcotics and other illicit materials have flowed across the border while agents and officers spend their limited resources processing illegal aliens for release into the United States,” the Order states. “These catch-and-release policies undermine the rule of law and our sovereignty, create substantial risks to public safety and security, and divert critical resources away from stopping the entry of contraband and fugitives into the United States.  We have limited information on the precise whereabouts of a great number of these illegal aliens who have entered the United States over the last 4 years. This cannot stand.  A nation without borders is not a nation, and the Federal Government must act with urgency and strength to end the threats posed by an unsecured border.” 

In this regard, “[t]he Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall take all appropriate action to deploy and construct temporary and permanent physical barriers to ensure complete operational control of the southern border of the United States.” Further, “[t]he Secretary shall…issue new policy guidance…including the termination of the practice commonly known as ‘catch-and-release,’ whereby illegal aliens are routinely released into the United States shortly after their apprehension for violations of immigration law.”

The Order also provides that DHS shall “[c]ease using the ‘CBP One’ application as a method of paroling or facilitating the entry of otherwise inadmissible aliens into the United States,” and “[t]erminate all categorical parole programs…including the program known as the ‘Processes for Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans.’”

These directives go far in shutting the door to illegal entry through both our Southern Border, as well as through the Biden Administration’s CBP One on-line app, which allowed “travelers to apply for a provisional [entry visa] prior to arriving at a land border crossing. Travelers who apply for their [entry visa]  ahead of time will experience faster processing times to expedite entry.” 

What a great idea – allowing prospective immigrants to fill out a form on line to expedite their illegal entry into the country!  What could possibly go wrong?

Perhaps the most important Executive Order is the one entitled “Realigning the United States Refugee Admissions Program.” Here, President Trump describes the problem in this fashion; “Over the last 4 years, the United States has been inundated with record levels of migration, including through the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP)…The United States lacks the ability to absorb large numbers of migrants, and in particular, refugees, into its communities in a manner that does not compromise the availability of resources for Americans, that protects their safety and security, and that ensures the appropriate assimilation of refugees. This order suspends the USRAP until such time as the further entry into the United States of refugees aligns with the interests of the United States.” 

To that end, “[t]he Secretary of Homeland Security shall suspend decisions on applications for refugee status…”  However, “[n]otwithstanding the suspension of the USRAP…the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Homeland Security may jointly determine to admit aliens to the United States as refugees on a case-by-case basis, in their discretion, but only so long as they determine that the entry of such aliens as refugees is in the national interest and does not pose a threat to the security or welfare of the United States.”

This action closes the loophole exploited by the majority of illegal aliens who poured through our Southern Border between 2020 and 2024.  Rather than accept all claims of refugee status at face value, these claims will now be examined on a case by case basis, with an eye towards admitting people who do not pose a threat to our country.

Naturally, the challenges to these changes in immigration policy are only beginning.  But the initial results are encouraging.  For instance, according to the ACLU, “[o]n January 20, 2025, shortly after his inauguration, Donald Trump turned off the app [CBP One] which had allowed a limited number of people to make appointments to come to the border and apply for asylum. People who had made appointments months before were turned away that afternoon. On January 23, we filed a motion for a Temporary Restraining Order on behalf of the individual plaintiffs in our case, whose January 25 appointments at the border had been cancelled. We asked that they be allowed to present themselves at the border, apply for asylum, and be paroled into the United States while their claims were adjudicated. On February 6 the court denied that motion on the ground that it had no power to order the parole of anyone into the United States.”

Further, sanctuary cities are fighting back against the suspension of their federal funding. As described by media outlet The Center Square,  “[t]he city of Seattle is joining in a lawsuit against President Donald Trump’s administration for implementing federal policies that target jurisdictions protecting illegal immigrants. The lawsuit was initially filed on Feb. 7 and spearheaded by the County of Santa Clara and San Francisco. King County was the first jurisdiction to join the lawsuit alongside…Portland, Ore., and New Haven, Conn. The lawsuit relates to a Trump-issued executive order and a U.S. Department of Justice memorandum withholding funds and pursued enforcement actions against jurisdictions with policies that limit cooperation with federal immigration authorities.” 

However, the Trump Administration is also fighting to enforce its policies.  ABC News reports that “[t]he Justice Department is taking legal action against the state of New York and Gov. Kathy Hochul…over its alleged resistance to supporting the Trump Administration’s crackdown on illegal immigration…[Attorney General Pam] Bondi said the lawsuit was centered around New York’s Green Light Law that she claimed prohibits the state’s sheriff’s department and other agencies from sharing motor vehicle data with federal authorities for purposes of immigration enforcement.” 

New York is not the only Sanctuary state or City being sued by the federal government. According to Reuters, “[t]he U.S. Justice Department sued the state of Illinois and city of Chicago…seeking a court order blocking…several Illinois and Chicago laws that ‘interfere with and discriminate against’ [federal] immigration policies. The lawsuit said sanctuary laws such as the Illinois TRUST Act, which prevents state and local law enforcement from assisting federal civil immigration enforcement, violate the U.S. Constitution’s ‘Supremacy Clause’ that states that federal law preempts state and local laws that may conflict with it.” 

Regardless of these efforts to either protect or challenge the Biden Administration’s status quo on immigration, President Trump’s actions to control illegal immigration are wildly popular.  The Pew Research Center notes that “[t]here is widespread public support for the ramp-up of deportations. A majority of Americans also approve of an increased military presence at the U.S.-Mexico border, which is another component of Trump’s executive actions… 59% of U.S. adults say they approve of Trump increasing efforts to deport people who are living in the U.S. illegally, including 35% who strongly approve… 47% approve of Trump’s plans to cut federal funds to cities and states if they do not help federal deportation efforts. Another 52% disapprove of this… 44% approve of the administration suspending asylum applications from people seeking to live in the U.S, while 55% disapprove. 

Of course, these results generally depend upon which party you belong to. “74% of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents say the Trump administration is doing the right amount to deport immigrants who are in the U.S. illegally. Another 12% say it’s doing too little and 13% say it’s doing too much. By comparison, 73% of Democrats and Democratic leaners say the administration is doing too much on deportations, 21% say the administration’s approach is about right, and just 4% say it’s doing too little.”

It remains to be seen if the Courts are as enthusiastic about the return to Common Sense immigration policies as is the majority of the public.  But so far, the early results are encouraging.

Judge John Wilson served on the bench in NYC

Illustration: Pixabay

Within several months, “Dream Chaser,” a unique spaceplane that looks like small version of the Space Shuttle, will take off on its first mission.

The Dream Chaser cargo system, manufactured by Sierra Space in Louisville, Colorado, consists of two major elements: the Dream Chaser spacecraft and the Shooting Star cargo module. As a lifting body spacecraft, Dream Chaser is designed to be reused up to 15 times, and is modified from the HL-20 spacecraft developed at NASA.

The spaceplane’s cargo module companion, Shooting Star, is designed to support delivery and disposal of pressurized and unpressurized cargo to and from the space station. The cargo module can be used only once and is disposed of prior to re-entry.

The Dream Chaser system will launch with its wings folded aboard a ULA (United Launch Alliance) Vulcan Centaur rocket from Space Launch Complex 41 at Cape Canaveral Space Force Station in Florida. The fairing panels will protect the spacecraft during ascent but are jettisoned once in orbit. Solar arrays mounted on the cargo module and wings of Dream Chaser are deployed during its autonomous rendezvous to the space station.

During its first flight, Sierra Space will conduct in-orbit demonstrations to certify Dream Chaser for future missions. Teams at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida, NASA’s Johnson Space Center in Houston, and the Dream Chaser Mission Control Center in Louisville, Colorado, will monitor the flight. Sierra Space flight controllers will control the Dream Chaser spacecraft on the launch pad until the spacecraft is handed over to the Sierra Space ground operations team at NASA Kennedy following landing.

Far-field demonstrations will be conducted outside the vicinity of the space station before the spacecraft enters the approach These demonstrations will be required before Dream Chaser can enter joint operations with the NASA team at the Mission Control Center in Houston. These include demonstrating attitude control, translational maneuvers, and abort capabilities.

Near-field demonstrations, which must happen closer to the space station, include activating and using light detection and ranging sensors, responding to commands sent from the space station, retreating from the station when commanded, and holding its approach, first at 1,083 feet (330 meters), then 820 feet (250 meters), and finally, at 98 feet (30 meters) from the station. Following successful completion of the demonstrations, Dream Chaser will move towards the space station.

As Dream Chaser approaches the orbiting laboratory, it will hold a final time approximately 38 feet (11.5 meters) from the space station, when a station crew member will use Canadarm2 robotic arm to grapple a fixture on the spacecraft’s cargo module before teams on the ground install the cargo module to an Earth-facing port on the Unity or Harmony module.

On its first flight to the International Space Station, Dream Chaser is scheduled to deliver over 7,800 pounds of cargo. On future missions, Dream Chaser is being designed to stay attached to the station for up to 75 days and deliver as much as 11,500 pounds of cargo. Cargo can be loaded onto the spacecraft as late as 24 hours prior to launch. Dream Chaser can return over 3,500 pounds of cargo and experiment samples to Earth, while over 8,700 pounds of trash can be disposed of during reentry using its cargo module.

Dream Chaser will remain at the space station for about 45 days before it is uninstalled using Canadarm2. The spacecraft can land as quickly as 11 to 15 hours after departure, and there are daily opportunities if weather criteria are met. Landing weather criteria for Dream Chaser generally require crosswinds at less than 17.2 miles per hour (15 knots), headwinds under 23 mph (20 knots), and tailwinds below 11.5 mph (10 knots). Thunderstorms, lightning, and rain within a 20-mile radius of the runway or 10 miles along the approach path are not acceptable conditions for landing. Detailed flight rules will guide controllers in determining whether landing opportunities are favorable.

A combination of Dream Chaser’s 26 reaction control system thrusters will fire to commit the spacecraft to deorbit. Dream Chaser will re-enter Earth’s atmosphere and glide to a runway landing at Kennedy’s Launch and Landing Facility in the style of NASA’s space shuttle, becoming the first spacecraft to land at the facility since the final space shuttle flight in 2011.

Once Dream Chaser is powered down after landing, the Sierra Space ground operations team will transfer it to the Space System Processing Facility to perform necessary inspections, off-load remaining NASA cargo, and begin the process of preparing it for the next mission.

Illustration: NASA

Part 2 of Allies Negligent in Defense

According to Lt.-Gen. (retd) Michael Maisonneuve, writing in Canada’s National Post “Canada’s military is short 16,000 troops, its branches are operating below readiness thresholds half the time, and its budget is being cut as wars erupt worldwide…the Canadian Armed Forces are broken down…First, personnel. Units are established with a structure that enables efficient operation and success. A unit that loses 15 per cent of its personnel is deemed officially combat ineffective in wartime. Our CAF — regular and reserve — count some 100,000 positions. Currently there are reports of 16,000 positions unfilled. So, on average, you could say that, missing 16 per cent of its personnel, our Forces are combat ineffective.”

The crisis was echoed by a Heritage analysis first published in the National Interest: “The Canadian government is one of the few NATO allies that fails to meet the 2 percent defense expenditure threshold. Canada is more than capable of meeting its obligations and has done so before…Canada’s continued underinvestment leaves its NATO obligations unmet and weakens the overall defense of the alliance as a whole and the North American continent… Canada isn’t a small country, nor is it a poor one. It’s perfectly capable of meeting its treaty obligations. Yet it spends a mere 1.37 percent of its GDP on defense, or roughly $30.5 billion a year. Despite having the sixth largest GDP among NATO countries, Canada ranks twenty-seventh in defense spending as a proportion of GDP. For comparison, the United States is the third-highest NATO member ranked in percentage of GDP (3.38 percent), behind only Poland and Estonia… The need to spend more on defense is particularly salient for Canada, as threats to NATO don’t only come from Eastern Europe. Canada also needs to take Arctic and North American security far more seriously as the Arctic emerges as a critical area of concern, rich in untapped resources and new navigation routes that are attracting attention from our adversaries.”

The Hub, a not-for-profit digital news outlet committed to independent analysis and spirited debate about Canada’s past, present and future reports that “The current state of Canada’s military and defence spending has been the subject of international criticism and a source of growing isolation from key allies. In a world of evolving geopolitical tensions and new and emerging threats, Canada’s underinvestment in national defence represents a major vulnerability… How does Canada compare to the rest of the NATO membership on defence spending relative to the size of their economies? …quite poorly. Out of 30 NATO members for which there is data (Iceland and Sweden are not included in the NATO spending figures), Canada ranks the fourth lowest in terms of defence spending relative to the size of its economy, only ahead of Spain, Belgium, and Luxembourg.”

The authoritative military website Warontherocks reported in 2024 that “Canada’s military is in a “death spiral.” This is how Minister of National Defense Bill Blair described the state of Canada’s armed forces … Blair’s comments referenced the military’s dire recruitment and retention crisis. The Canadian Armed Forces are short 16,000 people — …While the Canadian government has signed several high-profile contractsf or new equipment such as F-35s, Predator drones, and P-8A Poseidons, at this rate, there may not be anybody to use these capabilities when they come online…Canada’s ability to meaningfully contribute to major allied operations is in doubt for the foreseeable future… To understand Canada’s current military crisis, it is important to recognize how little importance Canadians ascribe to defense. Although recent polls indicate that attitudes are changing, particularly among conservative-leaning voters, Canadians have rarely seen defense as a priority. Surrounded by three oceans and neighboring the world’s largest military power, Canadians have rarely thought that defense spending was a worthwhile investment, particularly when compared with popular social programs.”

Photo: On December 13, a launch and naming ceremony was hosted by Seaspan Shipyards in Vancouver, B.C., for the new Joint Support Ship (JSS), HMCS Protecteur. (Canada Defence Ministry photo)

America’s key allies are seriously negligent in providing for their own defense. Not  only have they utterly failed to meet the growing challenges from China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran, but the have actually allowed their already inadequate militaries to deteriorate to levels not seen in over a century and a half.

A brief look at two of Washington’s most important allies, the United Kingdom and Canada, illustrates just how drastic the crisis is.

Let’s start with the UK, which was once the world’s foremost sea power.  

 One study found that “The British Royal Navy’s operational capacity has reached a historic low…The decline leaves the fleet at its smallest operational size in over a century, raising concerns about national security and Britain’s ability to respond to global threats.”

One would assume that sinking—no pun intended– to that level would provide an incentive to take action.  Unfortunately, the opposite is true. London has plans to sell off key components. The Army Recognition site reports that “According to information published by Daily Mail on January 26, 2025, the UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) is reportedly preparing to sell two of its amphibious assault ships, HMS Albion and HMS Bulwark, to Brazil for a sum that undervalues their prior maintenance and refit costs. This move, part of a broader cost-cutting strategy, raises questions about the Royal Navy’s future amphibious capabilities and the strategic implications of offloading key assets at a time of increasing global instability.”

Selling vessels from an already undersized fleet is bad enough. Selling them for below market value is a further indication that the British government is disinterested in its own defense. Zona Militar adds that “British media outlets have reported criticism of the price set for their potential sale. According to reports, the offer made to the Brazilian government amounts to £20 million, a figure considered low compared to the investments made in these units over the past 14 years.”

The British think tank Geostrategy notes that a “a powerful perception of maritime decline, fanned on by Russian and Chinese discursive statecraft, has set in…geopolitics has worsened, as identified in the recent Integrated Review and Integrated Review Refresh, as well as the associated defence command papers. From December 2023, the UK got a glimpse of this as Iranian-backed Houthis began to strike and disrupt container shipping in the Red Sea. But this is only scratching the surface. Significant state-based threats have also emerged in other theatres: the same month, Venezuela threatened Guyana – to which HMS Trent was dispatched to Georgetown as a deterrent. More significantly, Russia has become a revisionist foe in Euro-Atlantic waters, including those surrounding the British Isles, while the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) fleet is growing at an astonishing rate in the Indo-Pacific…Both Russia and the PRC have long had revisionist intent, but their growing material power – particularly at sea – now gives them the means to act on it to shape the international order in accordance with their interests. In the words of James Cleverly, then Foreign Secretary, during his speech to the Mansion House in April 2023:

At this moment, China is carrying out the biggest military build-up in peacetime history…And as we see this happening; as we watch new bases appearing in the South China Sea and beyond, we are bound to ask ourselves: what is it all for? Why is China making this colossal military investment? And if we are left to draw our own conclusions, prudence dictates that we must assume the worst.”

Britain’s naval decline is mirrored in the rest of its armed forces. As noted by the United Kingdom Defence Journal (UKDJ) “According to the data release, the total number of UK Regular Forces based in the UK has decreased to 132,360 as of 1 April 2024, a notable decline from 156,970 in 2014. This represents a reduction of 24,610 personnel, or approximately 15.7%…The continuous reduction in the number of UK Regular Forces highlights a decade-long trend of downsizing. This decline reflects strategic shifts within the MOD, influenced by budgetary constraints, changes in defence policy, and a re-evaluation of military needs. Back in May 2024, it was reported that the Ministry of Defence’s latest quarterly service personnel statistics revealed a significant decline in the number of personnel in the British Army and other branches of HM Armed Forces. The total strength of UK Forces service personnel, including reserves, stands at 183,230, marking a decrease of 5,590 personnel, or 3%, from 1 April 2023.”

Tomorrow: Canada’s Vanishing Military

Photo: HMS Sutherland (British Defence Ministry photo)

It is time for religious leaders to stick to actual fulfilling their mission to attend to the spiritual needs of the people, and to stop misusing their pulpits to broadcast their often-ill-informed political biases. From Pope Francis to the Archbishop of Canterbury, to local Episcopal bishops in Washington, and hucksters like the “Reverand” Al Sharpton, there seems to be no limits to their ignoring the example Jesus Himself set to distinguish the temporal from the heavenly. Yes, there are also pastors on the Right who cross that line too, but not to the extent of their leftist counterparts.

Famously, despite the deep crises facing the Israel of his era, Jesus himself, the founder of all Christianity, refused to take part in the politics of the time. As noted in one group that discusses the topic, [In Jesus’ time] “the common farmer, fisherman, or craftsman’s family lived through a highly volatile political period. Overbearing religious leaders who despised and oppressed them, wealthy elites who ripped them off, racial and ethnic tension with neighbors, and sporadic violent outbreaks between an oppressive occupying army. So where was Jesus in all of this? Did he align with the religious elites? With the wealthy and powerful? Or did he start an uprising to overthrow them? None of the above.”

Compare that to Church leaders today. The New Statesman writes: The list of issues Justin Welby [Archbishop of Canterbury] has intervened on since becoming Archbishop of Canterbury is long. He has railed in the Church Times against Remainers “whingeing”. He has come out against payday lending sites, Universal Credit and tax avoidance. He has told everyone he thinks Brexit is dividing the country. More recently, he has consistently condemned the government’s plans to send asylum seekers to Rwanda. In 2022, he said the plans were ‘the opposite of the nature of God.'”

Writing for U.S. News, Michael King reports that “I have read the Bible cover to cover and never once did I see a story of Christ or his disciples getting involved in a political campaign. They were one hundred percent focused on spreading the Gospel. I’m sure that’s true of other religions as well.”

A New York Post story describes one outrageous example: “A Catholic charity that receives billions in government funding has stirred controversy for a video teaching migrants in the country illegally how to evade US immigration law. In the video, distributed by Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Milwaukee’s Refugee & Immigration Services Program, immigration attorney Barbara Graham outlines step-by-step instructions for how migrants can thwart authorities conducting lawful investigations at their workplace.”

Pope Francis has not been shy about his criticism of American border policy, economic system, criminal justice practices, and more. Indeed, he has even been blunt in his criticism of U.S. Catholics. As discussed in YouGov “Shortly after Pope Francis began his papacy in 2013, he was unknown among 44% of Americans. Those with an opinion of him — including roughly equal shares of Democrats and Republicans — were far more likely to hold positive views of the pope than negative ones. Today, Americans continue to view Pope Francis in a positive light, though views of him have become politically polarized: More Democrats than Republicans view him favorably, even as more Republicans than Democrats view the Catholic Church favorably…Pope Francis is thought of favorably by more Americans than the Catholic Church is, though Roman Catholics view him somewhat more negatively than they view the Catholic Church overall. More Americans have a very or somewhat unfavorable view of the Catholic Church (43%) than have a very or somewhat favorable one (38%). But Pope Francis is viewed unfavorably by just 26%, while 43% view him favorably. Majorities of Roman Catholics have a favorable view of the Catholic Church (77%) and of Pope Francis (66%).”

Miranda Devine describes the sabotage of what was supposed to be a unifying Inaugural Prayer Service at Washington’s National Cathedral. “Jaws dropped throughout Washington’s National Cathedral when an egomaniacal female Episcopal bishop sabotaged the Inaugural Prayer Service with a left-wing rant from the pulpit about illegal migrants and LGBT issues, aimed directly at President Trump, who was sitting politely in the front pew. What the Right Rev. Mariann Edgar Budde, 65, was supposed to do Tuesday, at the historical interfaith service, was to bless the incoming administration and pray for God’s guidance and protection for the nation.” Instead, she abandoned this vital task and replaced it with a political tirade.

Illustration: Pixabay

Rep. John Moolenaar, who chairs the Congressional select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party, outlined Beijing’s threat in recent remarks at the Wilson Center.

“…the Chinese Communist Party [CCP] poses a military threat to America and our allies, an economic threat to our companies, and an ideological challenge around the world…

“…the CCP understood that Communism can never compete with freedom when it comes to human happiness or prosperity. They knew that the only way they could win was for us to lose. The policies undertaken by the Chinese Communist Party – from poisoning our nation with fentanyl to crippling our economy through abusive trade practices and IP theft – are all aimed at destroying American society. The CCP approaches the United States as an enemy to be harmed rather than as a partner. For the past two years, the Select Committee has demonstrated how the CCP’s aggression in areas like fentanyl, IP theft, transnational repression, Taiwan, and trade are all different fronts in the same war. There is nothing normal about the CCP’s state-led, mercantilist industrial policy that cripples American industry through illegal subsidies, IP theft, and the use of slave labor. There is also nothing normal–let alone, most favored–about our trading relationship with China. It is time for US law to reflect that through new tariff rates that target strategic sectors and boost supply chain resilience. Congress must work with the Administration to reduce the flow of de minimis shipments into the United States, a loophole that this year alone will allow more than a billion shipments to enter the United States – exempt from duties, taxes, and strict scrutiny. We must stem the flow of American capital and tech that is fueling the Chinese military modernization and human rights abuses. American dollars should not finance companies that are developing technology that could someday be used against American service members in a conflict, nor aiding the CCP’s genocide of Uyghur Muslims…”

Some of Moolenaar’s concerns are echoed in research from the Center for Strategic and International Studies “The present period is one of intensifying rivalry, with neither country content with the status quo. Both the United States and China are engaged in a sprawling competition that spans military, economic, technological, diplomatic, and ideational realms, including global governance. Currently, Washington and Beijing do not have any broadly shared purpose that could help the relationship weather shocks and generate resilience.”

The Rand organization,  noting that the incoming Presidential Administration will be tasked with dealing with the dilemma, conducted discussions with experts on how the critical issues, including economic tensions, China’s military aggression, and its growing closeness  with Russia, will be addressed.

Kristen Gunness, a senior policy researcher at RAND, professor of policy analysis at the Pardee RAND Graduate School, and former Director of the Navy Asia Pacific Advisory Group at the Pentagon, believes that “Among the most salient issues is China’s support for Russia. It is also crucial to address China’s influence operations and disinformation campaigns and to push back on and deter Chinese military aggression in the Indo-Pacific region.”

Jennifer Bouey, the Tang Chair for China Policy Studies, a senior policy researcher and epidemiologist at RAND, and a professor of policy analysis at the Pardee RAND Graduate School, Jennifer Bouey The geopolitical rivalry with China has consumed significant American effort and resources—and remains a work in progress. This is the challenge of our times, not just for the United States and China, but also for the world. warns that “The United States must find ways to compete with China without compromising its own values, economy, and security. The challenge to the United States also includes maintaining channels for high-level meetings to negotiate on new threats (e.g., AI, biosecurity) and avoiding wars.”

China is a unique adversary, unlike any the United States has ever faced in the last two centuries. It has the same advantage in industrial resources that America had in World War II. Its nuclear arsenal is growing rapidly, and it currently possess the world’s largest army and navy, along with an advanced scientific and technological capability.

Photo:  China’s first Type 054B frigate, the Luohe, was commissioned in the People’s Liberation Army Navy recently in a military port in Qingdao, east China’s Shandong Province. (China Defence Ministry photo)

The members of the Axis of Evil are moving significantly closer together. North Korea has supplied troops and China is providing economic and material support. The closest relationship may well be between Moscow and Tehran.

Iran’s provision of drones has been widely discussed, but the relationship goes far beyond that.  According to the semi-official Russian News source RT, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian’s recent visit to Moscow “…opened up a new chapter in bilateral relations between Russia and Iran that have existed for 400 years.”

Russian Prime Minister Mikhail Mishustin noted that the two powers will sign “a treaty on comprehensive strategic partnership between the Russian Federation and the Islamic Republic of Iran. This major new treaty will lay a solid foundation for the development of our cooperation in the long-term perspective. I want to underscore that Russian-Iranian relations, which are based on the principles of friendship, mutual respect and consideration of each other’s interests, are looking to the future. The Russian Government will ensure that all the decisions made at the highest level are implemented in full.”

Russia’s semi-official news outlet RT has reported that Russian President Vladimir Putin has expressed support for the construction of a gas pipeline to Iran which could eventually supply up to 55 billion cubic meters (bcm) of gas to the Islamic Republic annually.  “The pipeline project is part of a broader strategic agreement between Russia and Iran signed on Friday, as well as a memorandum signed by Russian state gas major Gazprom and the National Iranian Gas Company in June 2024 and aimed at facilitating Russian gas supplies to the Islamic Republic.

The defense site War on the Rocks From the 1990s to 2022, Russia provided… important military assistance to Iran across the ground, aerospace, and naval domains… In addition to Russian support to Iran’s nuclear program, this assistance included the provision of tanks, armored vehicles, anti-tank missiles, combat aircraft, helicopters, and surface-to-air missiles, among others. Assistance — at least in the 1990s — also entailed unofficial transfers by low-level Russian entities to Iran’s ballistic missile and suspected chemical and biological weapons programs. Since 2022, Russia’s defense relationship with Iran has taken a big leap forward. Cooperation has moved past the previous patron-client dynamic, with Iran emerging as a key enabler of Russia’s air and ground campaign in Ukraine. Military-technical collaboration has intensified in existing areas, while also advancing to new frontiers such as the joint development of novel uncrewed aerial vehicles. Amid a general weakening of past constraints on cooperation, Iran and Russia have also taken steps to further institutionalize their defense relationship. Western capitals should accept an uncomfortable reality: Even if Russia’s war against Ukraine were to end, there is little hope that the Iran-Russia defense relationship will revert to its pre-2022 status quo. Both countries have identified needs for future military contingencies that they can help each other meet — even if Iran will continue to be more reliant on advanced technology from Russia than vice versa. Traditional instruments such as diplomatic pressure or sanctions are unlikely to be effective in checking this cooperation so long as both Iran and Russia view Washington and its allies as their main adversaries. As a result, the best the United States and its partners can do is to disrupt this cooperation on the margins and focus on undermining it in the most sensitive areas. Specifically, Washington should focus on complicating Iran’s and Russia’s procurement of electronics for high-end defense goods and seek to derail or deter impending deals or deliveries through strategic disclosures.

In testimony before Congress, Dana Stroul, Kassen Fellow and Director of Research for the Washington Institute warned that the Moscow-Tehran relationship threatens the United States. “The U.S. view is that the People’s Republic of China is the strategic competitor willing and able to reshape the current global order, and Iran-Russia cooperation is quickly evolving into Iran-Russia-China cooperation. The risk of a Russia-Iran-China revisionist axis challenging the security and sovereignty of the U.S. network of allies and partners is one of the most pressing and urgent security priorities of this century… Iran-Russia cooperation existed before Moscow’s watershed 2015 decision to militarily coordinate with Tehran and intervene in Syria on behalf of the Assad regime. But it has now evolved from tactical cooperation to a full-fledged defense partnership.”

“Motivations and worldviews that drive increasing Iranian-Russian cooperation include:

• Animosity toward “Western” values-based global engagement (including representative governance and rights-based agendas), which is viewed as threatening to regime survival.
• Focus on internal resilience in the face of international pressure through sanctions and economic decoupling.
• Discontent with the current rules-based international order and a shared desire to challenge and reshape it, particularly through proactive engagement in Africa, Latin America, and with China.

“This strategic orientation of “resistance” drives cooperation in the following areas:

• Military coordination: Two-way military transfers and defense technology exchanges that threaten the security of U.S. partners in Europe and the Middle East. Citizens in Ukraine and across the Middle East are suffering from the same Iranian-origin attack drones.
• Nuclear nonproliferation: Russia is unlikely to oppose, and more likely to facilitate, Iran’s continued creep toward nuclear weapons threshold status.
• Sanctions: As the two most sanctioned countries in the world, Tehran and Moscow are actively engaged in activities to circumvent and weaken the potency of Western sanctions.
• Diplomacy: Russia is using its seat on the UN Security Council to shield Iran from accountability for its destabilizing actions and violations of international law.
• Domestic suppression: Iran and Russia are exchanging best practices to crush protests, undermine citizen organization efforts, and maintain mass surveillance programs against their own people.” Photo: Mikhail Mishustin’s meeting with President of the Islamic Republic of Iran Masoud Pezeshkian

Change is in the air and not only in Washington. A few decades ago, Russia was the dominant power in the communist world. Beijing relied on Moscow as a child depending on a parent for protection and nurturing. Those roles are reversed today. Western sanctions have limited Russia’s global engagements, especially its activities in the Arctic region. Since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, China has expanded its involvement in the high north. In 2018 it proclaimed itself a “near Arctic state,” despite sitting 930 miles (1,500 km) from that region. Moscow’s unspoken concerns in 2025 are continuing to grow as developments between the two appear to indicate Beijing is expanding its behind-the-scenes activities in a likely attempt to emerge as the dominant Arctic power. 

At first Putin welcomed China’s engagement given the restrictions that sanctions imposed on his country. As Beijing expanded its operations and redefined itself, Kremlin concerns increased and led it to oppose the near Arctic state characterization. “In 2020, the Russian Foreign Ministry’s special envoy in the Arctic Council at the time stated that Russia ‘disagree[d] with’ the characterization of the PRC as a near Arctic state, instead agreeing with then-U.S. Secretary of State Michael Pompeo that ‘there are two groups of countries—Arctic and non-Arctic,’” according to Paul Goble of the Jamestown Foundation. While he says Kremlin concerns are not the same as an immediate breakdown in relations, it may be possible for the West to exploit these differences in the future. 

With Russia’s resources increasingly consumed by its ongoing war in Ukraine, it is likely that an ambitious China will continue to use the opportunity to move forward in the Arctic. Beijing is constructing new ice breakers and developing infrastructure in and along the Northern Sea Route (NSR) and beyond. Although public statements by the two states continue to be positive, there are indications that their shared interests have limits. Last November, the first meeting of the “Sub-commission on Cooperation on the NSR of the Russian-Chinese Commission for the Preparation of Regular Meetings of Heads of Government” was held in St. Petersburg. Tensions emerged as differences in their perspectives saw Russia concentrating primarily on security issues as in the past while China spoke explicitly about its economic approach on the NSR. Beijing claims economics leads any security interest it has in the region. 

If the West is to combat China’s rise in influence in the Arctic, it needs to understand that the containment of one power may lead to a significant rise in the other. China may have plans to push Russia out of its dominant position in the Arctic. Observers, such as Vasily Koltashov, an expert at the Plehkanov University of Economics in Moscow, is highly skeptical that China will remain an ally of Russia’s. He suggests that China is gaining strength at Russia’s expense, according to Goble. Koltashov says that Moscow will remain allied only if it can control Beijing’s regional involvement. That will mean that China’s investments cannot challenge Putin’s position or exploit its deteriorating circumstances. He points out that Putin may not be able to stop events, and that Russia could be “transformed into the periphery of China.”

Koltashov is not alone in his viewpoint. Goble points out that other Russian analysts, although quieter in their predictions, also see the China challenge as a real concern for the Kremlin. In recent months there are an increasing number of Russian language articles discussing the challenge China poses to Putin and Russia. Discrepancies become evident when examining the level of Russian cargo traffic over the last year on the NSR. Moscow’s planned goals for maritime tonnage do not meet the actual tonnage of reported cargo traffic. Russia also failed to meet its predicted schedule for icebreaker construction, leading some analysts in Washington to call the NSR a “black hole” for the 2025 Russian budget. 

If Putin backs off further, it opens additional opportunities for China’s aggressive Xi Jinping to decide to fill the gap. The Kremlin is unlikely to simply cede control of the Arctic to China. If Beijing continues to quietly and slowly move into a more prominent position, however, it may be able to achieve its long-term strategic gains in the region. Russia, in the end, may not be able to stop the security challenge to its sovereignty over the high north. The Trump Administration and other Western leaders need to consider that China and Russia may publicly speak in friendly terms, they may not always coordinate as allies. It is time to design an approach to containment that works for the free world.

Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.

Illustration: Pixabay