Department of Defense Dissolves Controversial Acquisition Office Amid GOP Criticism

The Department of Defense has officially closed its Office of Net Acquisition, a unit likened to a think tank, that faced intense scrutiny from Republican lawmakers. Critics claim this office played an unwelcome role in the investigations surrounding former President Donald Trump’s ties to Russia.

Sean Parnell, the Pentagon chief spokesperson, announced that civilian employees will be reassigned to critical missions. The DOD has also outlined plans to restructure the office to better align with its overarching strategic goals.

Initially intended to deliver long-term strategic analyses for the Department of Defense, the office came under fire from Republicans who alleged that it engaged in numerous projects not relevant to its designated mission.

In a statement, Senator Chuck Grassley, a Republican from Iowa, lauded the decision, stating it could save American taxpayers over 20 million dollars each year. He labeled the office as wasteful and ineffective, suggesting a decisive shift in defense spending priorities.

Focus on Geopolitical Tensions

In recent years, the office concentrated on developing strategies regarding potential military conflicts with China. One such strategy, dubbed ‘AirSea Battle,’ aimed at creating a blinding campaign targeting the People’s Liberation Army using stealth bombers and submarines to neutralize China’s long-range surveillance capabilities prior to naval engagements.

Senator Grassley has raised concerns about the contracting practices associated with the Office of Net Acquisition for several years.

Concerns Over Quality of Work

The office had struggled to produce reliable classified assessments over the last few years. An analyst, Adam Lovinger, raised alarms in emails directed at Director James Baker, alleging that the office favored high-cost, academically styled papers over actionable classified assessments.

Lovinger described the quality of contractor submissions in these emails, characterizing them as derivative and overly reliant on secondary sources. He recalled that one of the studies was essentially copied from a World Bank report.

Controversial Government Contracts

Lovinger pointed out questionable contracts awarded to Stefan Halper, an FBI informant who monitored the Trump campaign during the 2016 election cycle. A report from the DOD inspector general confirmed that Halper had not provided adequate documentation for the four studies he worked on as a contractor, despite those contracts being valued at $1 million.

Spanning from 2012 to 2016, these studies were meant to analyze relations between the U.S., Russia, China, and India.

The inspector general’s findings revealed that Halper failed to substantiate any of the meetings he claimed to have attended as part of these contracts. According to the report, ONA personnel could not produce evidence demonstrating that Halper visited proposed locations or engaged with the listed participants as outlined in the contract agreements.

Scrutinizing Connections to the Trump Campaign

In one instance concerning a study on what U.S.-China relations might resemble in 2030, Halper suggested potential travel to London and Tokyo. The contract was fixed-price based on the acceptance of deliverables, which eliminated the necessity for him to submit travel receipts.

Contracts exhibited that Halper identified a Russian intelligence official as a consultant for an ONA initiative, reconnecting to a figure cited in the Trump dossier that was utilized to surveil campaign aide Carter Page. This incited speculation about whether Halper used U.S. taxpayer funds to forge relationships with Trump campaign operatives, according to Grassley.

Investigating Connections to Russian Election Interference

Halper also served as a confidential human source for the FBI’s investigation into Russian interference during the 2016 election, documenting conversations with campaign officials. Senator Grassley has accused ONA of obstructing his inquiries into Halper’s associations within the broader context of the Trump-Russia investigations.

Divided Opinions on the Office’s Closure

Meanwhile, Senator Jack Reed, the top Democrat on the Armed Services Committee, criticized the office’s closure as shortsighted. Reed argued that dismantling the Office of Net Acquisition would ultimately weaken the DOD’s capacity to prepare for potential future conflicts.

This move by the Department of Defense carries substantial implications for how the military approaches procurement and strategic planning in an evolving geopolitical landscape.

Ultimately, the decision to dissolve this office reflects broader tensions within defense spending and strategic direction as lawmakers from both parties advocate for transparency and accountability.