Modern Warfare: Lessons from Ukraine

 by Adam Sharp

Before Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, we had very little insight into what modern warfare would look like.

How would hypersonic and cruise missiles perform? What impact would drones have on the battlefield? How important is artillery in modern warfare? How relevant are tanks? And what about electronic warfare?

All these questions have been answered by this war.

Today let’s review what we’ve learned so far. The future of war is looking more science-fiction by the day.

Drones are Key

The soldier, with a GoPro camera strapped to his helmet, hides in an abandoned building. He’s breathing heavily.

Suddenly, the loud whir of a drone appears. The soldier whispers a prayer and takes cover.

BOOM! The drone explodes nearby. Screaming from a wounded soldier erupts.

I’ve seen this situation play out dozens of times. For both Russian and Ukrainian soldiers.

It’s a terrifying scenario. Sometimes I’ll see a video where a group of soldiers is being attacked by dozens of these killer drones at a time. The whine of a drone’s electric engine has become an ominous sound on the front lines.

These new weapons systems are cheap. A $300 civilian drone combined with a $50 RPG warhead can take out a $4 million tank. This is asymmetric warfare perfected. Tanks will likely maintain a role going forward, but it will be substantially diminished.

Each side uses tens of thousands of these drones per month. They’re so common that 12 gauge shotguns have become essential kit for soldiers on the front-lines. It turns out that birdshot is among the most effective counters. See this video for an example of how effective shotguns can be.

But electronic warfare is also becoming a key defense against drones. The Russian anti-gun drone below works by scrambling a drone’s signal, causing it to crash.

Re-purposed civilian drones have already changed warfare forever. At first they were primarily a scouting tool, but now they’ve become a deadly weapon.

The abundance of weaponized drones on the battlefield has made advancing extremely difficult. A small hidden group armed with a few dozen drones can hold back hundreds of vehicles from advancing.

Of course, there are also dozens of new models of military-grade drones being released every year. There are now mass-produced killer drones of all types being churned out by the tens of thousands. We covered some of the more important modelsback in July.

Ground and Sea Drones

It’s not just flying drones. Unmanned ground combat vehicles (UGVs) are also coming into play. The screenshot below shows Ukraine’s new UGVs armed with .50 caliber machine guns.

For now, these ground-based drones are crude with limited range and ammunition. But within a few years they will evolve into intimidating juggernauts roaming the battlefield. In the near future tanks and artillery will also be unmanned.

Drone warfare extends to the seas. And Ukraine has nearly perfected this form of warfare.

Below is the Magura V5, a Ukrainian sea drone which has sunk a number of valuable Russian warships. It was commemorated with the stamp shown below by the Ukrainian postal service.

The latest version of the Magura can carry an explosive payload of 1,400 lbs. That’s enough to sink almost any ship with proper placement. And the latest models even come equipped with anti-air missiles mounted on the top to counter Russian helicopters and jets.

Sea (and submarine eventually) drones will be an absolutely critical aspect of future wars. Imagine a swarm of 50 of these high-speed sea drones converging on an aircraft carrier strike group, while a swarm of airborne drones attacks from above. It’s virtually impossible to stop such an attack.

The age of mega-ships like aircraft carriers is drawing to a close. It seems likely that naval forces of the future will mostly consist of smaller missile boats and submarines.

Modern Missiles

One part of this war which wasn’t a surprise is Russia’s missile advantage. The country has always specialized in long-range fires, because it realized it couldn’t compete with NATO when it comes to traditional airpower (jets).

That investment has proved to be a wise one. Missiles have been a key advantage in this war. From hypersonic models like the Kinzhal and Iskander-M, to cruise missiles like the Calibr and KH-101, they’ve all been critical to Russia’s progress in the war.

The Iskander has been the most effective missile system of this war. The Iskander is a mobile ground-launched hypersonic missile which Russia mass produces.

An Iskander-M launcher via Wikipedia

The Iskander-M has a range of up to 500 kilometers and carries a warhead of up to 700kg (1,534 lbs). It moves fast, with a burnout speed of Mach 5.9. It can maneuver during flight, and contains decoys and flares which are released as it approaches its target. Each launcher carries 2 missiles and is often accompanied by a reloading vehicle.

The Iskander-M has proven very difficult to intercept, as we covered back in October. The Patriot missile defense system has mostly been outmatched by it.

Iskander missiles are used to strike valuable targets such as command centers, Patriot missile defense systems, ammo/fuel depots, and HIMARS rocket launchers.

Speaking of HIMARS, this American-made rocket system has proven to be an extremely effective weapon for Ukraine.

HIMARS launching a guided rocket, via Wikipedia

The HIMARS system fires 227 mm guided rockets at ranges up to 150 km. The warheads are relatively small at around 200 lbs, but have proven effective at taking out enemy command centers and other valuable targets. Each “pod” contains 6 rockets and is disposable. HIMARS can also fire a single larger ATACMS missile with a ~450 lb warhead.

Early on, the HIMARS was a wonder weapon for Ukraine, having devastating effects on Russian ammo/fuel depots and troop concentrations.

However, as the war has gone on, Russia has figured out how to “spoof” the satellite signals used to guide HIMARS rockets, and the weapons system has become less effective as a result. I’m sure the engineers at Lockheed Martin are working on fixing this, but it’s going to be an ongoing game of cat and mouse for the foreseeable future.

This is another takeaway from the Ukraine/Russia war. Electronic warfare is absolutely critical in modern conflicts.

Conclusions

The Ukraine war has been a wakeup call to the world. Drones are going to be the focal point of future conflicts. When a $350 piece of equipment can take out a $4 million tank and 4 specialist soldiers, the game has changed.

Soon, tanks and artillery units will also be unmanned.

Due to the rise of drones and unmanned systems, electronic warfare will become increasingly important. If you can jam the signal, you can stop the weapon. I expect future battlefields to be absolutely flooded with radio signals and microwaves.

We didn’t even get to AI in this piece, but will look to cover that in depth in the future. Drones and missiles are already becoming capable of autonomous action. But both sides are understandably secretive about their capabilities.

The bottom line is that the hunter-killer robots from The Terminator are moving from sci-fi to reality.

Combined with this new generation of hypersonic missiles, it’s a completely different landscape than it was just 20 years ago.

I am hopeful the war in Ukraine ends soon, but it has given us a rare peek into what modern warfare truly looks like. And it’s terrifying.

This is the age of asymmetric warfare. Pinpoint long-range weapons systems have eliminated the advantage of large troop concentrations and capital ships like aircraft carriers.

For a long time, only superpowers like America and Russia had access to these types of systems. Now they have proliferated throughout the world. The implications have yet to be fully realized.

https://dailyreckoning.com/modern-warfare-lessons-from-ukraine/

The War On Pete Hegseth

 by 'Cynical Publius' via American Greatness,

I have had enough. I can no longer sit still while the Deep State does its very best to smear Secretary of War Pete Hegseth and have him removed from his post via lies, rumors, propaganda, and innuendo. It feels exactly like version 2.0 of the “Trump/Russia Collusion” disinformation campaign, and it needs to be called out for what it is.

Enough.

I am here to defend the best Secretary of War/Defense since Caspar Weinberger.

What we have seen in the last few weeks is clearly an orchestrated, carefully constructed character assassination campaign against Hegseth.

The campaign began in the early days of November when the leaders of the Sedition 6 introduced legislation known as the “No Troops in Our Streets Act,” legislation clearly designed to undermine the roles of President Trump and Secretary Hegseth in the military chain of command. Then, of course, on November 18, the Sedition 6—led by Senators Mark Kelly and Elisa Slotkin—launched their infamous video calling (via innuendo and plausible deniability) for military members to disobey lawful orders they disagree with politically by pretending such lawful orders are “unlawful.” For the next eight days, the Deep State went into a full media onslaught that seemed designed to foment a military mutiny against Trump and Hegseth. Suddenly, these wannabe seditionists were forced to hit the brakes on their information operation, as on November 26 two West Virginia National Guard soldiers patrolling the streets of Washington, D.C., in support of anti-crime operations were shot by an Afghan civilian with former ties to the CIA, and America saw an easy connection between that attack and the calls to undermine Trump, Hegseth, and the anti-crime mission.

But the Deep State never rests and was quick to shift gears and change the subject away from their own perfidy. On November 28, the Washington Post published its anonymously sourced hit piece on Hegseth, alleging that he personally directed war crimes, and in a matter of minutes, the entire Democrat hierarchy and its minions in the national media ran with Nancy Pelosi’s beloved “wrap-up smear” in a transparent effort to remove Hegseth.

We now know, of course, it was all a lie. The Democrats and the national media want you to believe that two “fishermen” survived a first strike on their drug-laden speedboat and were then floating in the water helplessly like Rose and Jack at the end of “Titanic,” and we gunned them down as helpless victims and in violation of the Geneva Conventions. In reality, the two narco-terrorists were back on board their partially damaged boat, seeking to conduct damage control and recover their WMD cargo. The narco-terrorists and their lethal cargo were lawful targets under all U.S. laws and all treaties to which the U.S. is a party. No war crimes were involved—just an effective and entirely lawful military strike on narco-terrorists who kill thousands of Americans annually. The Washington Post lied, as is its wont in any matter involving the Trump Administration.

But the damage was done, and too many Americans are still clinging to the lies. In fact, it was an opinion piece I saw today by the desiccated remains of George Will, published in that same Washington Post and uncritically repeating all of that tabloid’s original lies, that pushed me over the edge and caused me to rise to the defense of Pete Hegseth with this article.

As a veteran of the same wars Hegseth fought in and as a retired Army colonel who also fought the Beltway wars of the Pentagon, I take the attacks on Hegseth personally, as he is trying to fix all of the ills that I saw so clearly in my time in service. My sincere belief is that at this time in American history, Pete Hegseth is the perfect person to serve as Secretary of War.

I’ll explain why.

America’s military spent 20+ years engaged in a GWOT battle that, after its first few years, became a predominantly political, economic, diplomatic, and law enforcement mission where the military was not the right tool in the DIME-FIL (DIME-FIL = The “elements of national power” under U.S. military doctrine, or diplomatic, informational, military, economic, financial, intelligence, and law enforcement) toolbox. “Nation building,” ridiculously restrictive, JAG-inspired rules of engagement, social justice experimentation, Military Transition Teams and Security Force Assistance Brigades, and the bastardization of combat arms units away from their mission-essential tasks all created a U.S. military that was risk averse to a crippling degree, lacked adequate training and equipment readiness levels for high-intensity conflict, had broken morale and poor retention/recruiting, and was more concerned about DEI than closing with and destroying the enemy.

The military that Donald Trump inherited from Joe Biden in January of this year was a broken shell of the military that entered the GWOT in 2001. It had lost its focus on lethality, valued skin color and genitalia more than warfighting competency, and was not even able to fully recognize its own missions in a world rife with peer competitors bent on high-intensity global or regional domination, such as China and Russia. Yes, low-intensity conflict was still on the menu in places like Yemen, Syria, and the battles against narco-terrorists, but a military trained for high-intensity conflict can adjust to low-intensity conflict quickly, but it does not work so well the other way around.

As Donald Trump took office, what America needed was a Secretary of War who was intimately familiar with these failures—somebody who had fought those GWOT battles and understood our failings deep in his or her soul. Such a person could not be one of the Perfumed Princes who engineered and would repeat our failures. Instead, it needed to be someone with muddy boots who had experienced the mess we had become at a deeply personal, tactical level.

Moreover, it needed to be someone who understood information operations and the climate of global, instantaneous messaging that is our new day-to-day.

This person did not need to have a comprehensive understanding of military procurement and the military/industrial complex that accompanies Beltway jockeying with Congress and defense contractors—those skills are widely available and could easily be obtained by hiring effective subordinates with the shared vision of a military that needed to be once again focused on lethality.

What might such a person have looked like?

Well, he or she would need to have the following qualifications:

1. A military career that involved killing the enemy up close and personal in the most efficient manner possible. An infantryman, if possible. A Combat Infantryman Badge would be double plus good.

2. Muddy boots experience leading troops in direct combat in Iraq and/or Afghanistan.

3. Deep experience in leading one of the failed coalition training missions in Iraq or Afghanistan.

4. Someone who shared the dark personal struggles of every veteran who had come home from our endless wars.

5. A final military rank that meant he or she was never a Perfumed Prince and was never polluted by the Beltway mind virus that seems to infect every soldier, sailor, airman, Marine, or Guardian who ever pins on a star.

6. Deep experience in information operations, such as being a best-selling author on military affairs or being a military expert on a major news network.

Those are the qualifications that were needed to turn America’s military around and restore it to once again being the premier warfighting force in world history. We did not need more of the same. We did not need a former Raytheon board member. We did not need a former congressman who cared more about politics than winning wars. We did not need yet another retired general who was an architect of our useless, endless wars. What we needed was someone who truly understood the errors of the GWOT, understood that the mission of the U.S. military is to close with and destroy the enemy in the most violent and expeditious manner possible, and who had the chops in the 24/7 modern information environment to wage information warfare just as effectively as his opponents.

One American and one American only had those qualifications: Pete Hegseth, and that man is doing everything I could have ever hoped for to restore the pride and skill we have lost. His focus on lethality and warfighting skill is the one and only antidote to the intentional failures that have scarred veterans like Hegseth and me over the past 24 years.

Please realize this: Hegseth is a threat to anyone who prefers the Obama/Biden vision of an impotent social justice military. He is a threat to anyone who thinks R2P (R2P = “Responsibility to Protect,” i.e., a leftist, globalist doctrine popularized under the Obama Administration that says the U.S. military has a core mission of protecting foreign populations against the deprivations of their own or neighboring governments or warlords. Although legitimate in some instances, it prioritizes the national interests and lives of foreigners over the national interests of the USA and the lives of American servicemen and servicewomen) is a core competency of the American military. He is a threat to anyone who thinks enriching the military/industrial complex is more important than winning wars. Basically, he is a threat to anyone who sees the military as a politicized force and not an effective warfighting endeavor. In other words, Hegseth is a threat to the Beltway defense establishment that has exchanged failure for dollars since the days of Robert McNamara.

Which is why it is so very, very important that the same defense establishment (elected, unelected, and media) smear him in every way imaginable and at every opportunity. When you see and hear the abject lies of the Sedition 6 and their ilk, and when you see and hear wholly fabricated, libelous stories like the “Kill Them All” Hoax, realize why this is happening. These fake news stories are designed to attack and defeat an existential threat to the leftist vision of a social justice American military that exists to enrich defense industry campaign contributors.

Like Donald Trump, Pete Hegseth is an existential threat to the leftist evils that nearly defeated America and the Constitution via Barack Obama and Joe Biden.

It takes a strong man to withstand the onslaught of the Deep State, with all of its lies, libel, and propaganda. Donald Trump is one man who withstood that fire of infamous defamation. Pete Hegseth is another.

We all owe Pete Hegseth our gratitude for the personal cost he is enduring in the name of freedom. He could be sitting at home enjoying his writings and his Fox News appearances. Instead, he is enduring the cowardly slings and arrows of powerful liars as he strives to fix the ills that have long beset our nation’s military.

The disgusting disinformation campaign against Hegseth needs to be challenged vigorously, and I encourage all of you readers to help lead the counterattack.

https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/war-pete-hegseth

US Signs Pact With Kenya Under 'America First' Global Health Plan

 The U.S. will provide more than $1.6 billion to Kenya's health system under a new five-year agreement signed on Thursday, the first such agreement reached under the Trump administration's overhaul of foreign aid.

The administration in September announced a new "America First Global Health Strategy" that calls for poorer nations to play a bigger role in fighting HIV/AIDS, malaria, tuberculosis and polio in their countries and eventually transition from aid to self-reliance.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Kenyan President William Ruto signed an agreement on the bilateral compact in which Kenya pledged to increase its own health spending by $850 million over the five years. Other African countries are expected to sign similar deals in the coming days, U.S. officials said.

The new U.S. model for global health follows the dismantling of the U.S. Agency for International Development earlier this year.

The U.S. provided $440 million to health and population programs in Kenya in 2024, the year before the Trump administration's cuts to foreign aid, according to government foreign assistance data, the majority of it - $310 million – going to tackle HIV/AIDS.

Rubio said the new approach would move funding from what he called the "NGO industrial complex," which he said took a disproportionate share of U.S aid intended to help patients.

"We're not doing this anymore," he said at the signing ceremony on Thursday.

The health compact will move U.S. funding from non-governmental groups to the Kenyan government, which would gradually take responsibility for health workers initially funded by the U.S. It also calls for faith-based providers to be treated the same as private providers in receiving government reimbursement.

Rubio also thanked Kenya for its role leading a gang suppression force in Haiti and called for more countries to contribute to bringing stability to the Caribbean nation.

Ruto echoed that call on Haiti and praised the Trump administration's health initiative while also crediting past U.S. assistance with saving millions of Kenyan lives.

"I assure you that every shilling and every dollar will be spent efficiently, effectively, and accountably," Ruto said.

https://www.medscape.com/s/viewarticle/us-signs-pact-kenya-under-america-first-global-health-plan-2025a1000y0o

T2D Remission Possible, but Better Implementation Needed

 Being diagnosed with type 2 diabetes (T2D) can be a life-changing event but doesn’t necessarily mean a lifetime of taking medications to manage blood sugar levels, suggests evidence presented at the Diabetes Canada and Canadian Society of Endocrinology and Metabolism (CSEM) Professional Conference 2025.

Various interventions have the potential to send T2D into remission, defined by Diabetes Canada as a return to prediabetes or normal glucose concentrations without the use of antihyperglycemic medications for at least 3 months.

Although many of these T2D remission interventions have been tested for effectiveness in randomized controlled trials (RCTs), more work is needed to understand how to implement these often-intensive strategies in the real world, said Megan Racey, PhD, research coordinator in the School of Nursing at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario.

Racey is the corresponding author of a systematic review and meta-analysis published in Diabetes Care, the findings of which she presented at the conference.

“Research can often focus on the individual’s capacity and capabilities to do these [remission] programs,” she pointed out. “However, we know that there are structures and systems in place that lead to T2D in the first place, which aren’t necessarily supported by current research.”

Drug and Behavioral Interventions Effective

For the meta-analysis, Racey and her colleagues reviewed 18 RCTs from 11 countries published between 2008 and 2025. These studies investigated the impact of pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic interventions, such as behavior, lifestyle, or meal-replacement strategies, on T2D remission. Surgical interventions were excluded from the analysis.

Study durations ranged from 12 weeks to 18 months, with a total of almost 8000 participants aged 42-59 years who had been diagnosed with T2D within 7 years prior to the start of the study.

Most participants were not taking insulin, although they may have been using other diabetes medications such as metformin, insulin, GLP-1s, and SGLT2 inhibitors. Medications sometimes were combined with lifestyle changes and delivered mostly in clinical settings by healthcare professionals. Only one study examined medication on its own.

Overall, the analysis showed that patients in a pharmacologic intervention group were 1.75 times more likely to achieve diabetes remission than those in a control group. In the nonpharmacologic RCTs, the likelihood of achieving diabetes remission was 5.80 times greater for those in the intervention group than for those in the control group.

“Both intervention types demonstrated other benefits,” said Racey, “such as significant reductions in HbA1c and body weight, improved quality of life, and lower risk for hypoglycemia and diabetes relapse.”

While the risk ratios were higher for nonpharmacologic studies, remission rates declined over time, especially for nonpharmacologic interventions. “This [finding] highlights the challenge of sustaining behavior change and the importance of multimodal strategies that include medications,” said Racey.

Patient-Centered Approach

When researchers looked at the specific components included in the interventions, they found that “diabetes remission really requires an interdisciplinary team,” said Racey. “All these studies use a range of doctors, healthcare professionals, nurses, dietitians, and other research staff.”

Also common among the studies was a tailored approach based on patient preferences, values, and needs, which “is required to ensure long-lasting behavior changes,” she said. Tailoring included things such as addressing individual barriers, considering cultural and ethnic factors, and helping participants set and meet goals.

While progress has been made in understanding the best practices for helping patients achieve T2D remission, more research is needed, she said. For example, there are questions about which people might benefit most from certain interventions, and given the lack of information in RCTs about patient or provider satisfaction, “it’s unclear if these programs will work for everyone.”

Furthermore, T2D “tends to impact people who are more vulnerable to social and economic barriers,” she said. “So, the [diabetes remission] program really needs to be offered in an accessible and equitable way.”

Prevention Programs Offer Insights

Racey suggested that diabetes prevention programs (DPPs) may offer insight into how to structure remission programs equitably. “We can learn…how they’re breaking down barriers to reach those people who need the interventions most.”

DPPs, which focus on healthy eating and physical activity, “have demonstrated great success at reducing the progression of prediabetes to T2D without negative side effects,” said Mary Jung, PhD, professor in the School of Health and Exercise Sciences at the University of British Columbia in Kelowna, British Columbia.

These programs are often delivered in clinical settings, however, which can make them inaccessible to some segments of the population. “We believe that more interventions must be delivered in community settings,” said Jung, who presented results from her team’s research on a 4-week community-based DPP. They found that changes in clinical outcomes were comparable to those achieved in more time-intensive and costly programs.

Community-based DPPs “have the potential to reach those most in need without the cost,” she added.

This meta-analysis research was supported by the McMaster Evidence Review and Synthesis Team and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research Knowledge Mobilization Grant. Racey and Jung reported having no relevant financial relationships.

https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/t2d-remission-possible-better-implementation-needed-2025a1000y41

Pelosi and Greene retirements thrust $38M-a-year pension perk for Congress into spotlight

 The vast majority of the record number of congressional lawmakers not seeking re-election next year, including Reps. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) and Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), will collect annual pension benefits that cost taxpayers some $38 million per year to payout. 

The timing of Greene’s abrupt retirement, as well of the six-figure sum Pelosi will receive after serving nearly 40 years in Congress, have brought attention to the little-known perk for ex-pols and renewed calls to end the program.

“I can’t read her mind, but it certainly seems as if it was timed to make sure she got vested,” Demian Brady, the vice president of research for the National Taxpayer Union Foundation, said of the Georgia Republican’s last day in the House. 

3

Rep Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Georgia) announced her retirement from Congress last month.via REUTERS

Under federal law, members of Congress qualify for annual pension benefits only after completing five full years of service. 

Brady was one of the first to point out that Greene, who began serving on Jan. 3, 2021, and will leave office on Jan. 5, 2026, picked a departure date that gives her just enough time to meet the eligibility threshold. 

“She wasn’t in there for very long,” the taxpayer advocate continued. “So it’s not a huge pension, but it’s a little extra that she’s going to get.” 

Brady calculated that under the Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS) benefit formula for members of Congress, at age 62, Greene will start collecting her $8,717 per year pension, which the expert noted is “lower than the average.”  

Based on actuarial data, Greene’s total pension payouts could amount to more than $265,000 over her lifetime, according to Brady. 

3

Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi (D-California) will not seek re-election and will received a six-figure pension after 40 years of service.AP

Meanwhile, Pelosi’s estimated pension figure – given the pay bump she received as House speaker and her election to the House before reforms made the system less generous –  will be “one of the most substantial” on record for any current or former member of Congress in FERS, Brady noted. 

The California Democrat will benefit from an estimated $107,860 per year upon retirement in 2027. 

The most recent publicly available data shows retirement benefits for former members of Congress totaled more than $38 million in 2022, according to Congressional Research Services. 

The average annual annuity received under FERS was $45,276. A separate pension plan under the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) – which is closed to lawmakers who began service after 1984 – doled out an average $84,504 to 261 enrollees in 2022. 

In 2018, when there were roughly 100 additional CSRS enrollees and 60 fewer in FERS, total pension payouts amounted to more than $53 million per year. 

Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), a Greene ally, has been one of the biggest proponents for eliminating congressional pensions – but he doesn’t blame the congresswoman for accepting the benefits. 

“Senators can opt out of paying into FERS but Representatives may not,” Massie told The Post. “So Representative Greene was unable to decline participation in FERS.

3

The record number of congressional lawmakers bowing out and receiving a pension will cost taxpayers some $38 million a year.REUTERS

“If a member is required to pay into the program, they should be able to receive it.” 

Massie said he plans to “reintroduce soon” legislation to end the eligibility of House lawmakers in the FERS program, as well as a separate bill that would “make participation optional for Representatives.” 

“If congressmen want to save for retirement, they should do so with 401(k)-type plans, rather than rely on taxpayers to take care of them even after leaving Congress,” he said. “To tackle out-of-control federal spending, Congress must lead by example by ending defined-benefit pensions for Members of Congress.”

Florida Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis, a former congressman, publicly pledged in 2013 that he would not accept his pension benefits despite paying into the system and authored the legislation Massie (an original co-sponsor) intends to put forward once again. 

“I didn’t run for Congress for the perks,” DeSantis said at the time. “I ran for office to be the type of citizen legislator our Founding Fathers envisioned and to change the prevailing culture in Washington.”

In the aftermath of Greene’s resignation announcement, the Florida governor reupped his call to axe the benefit program. 

“I don’t begrudge others who made a different choice,” DeSantis wrote on X last week, when a user noted his 2013 decision. “The important thing is to reform the system for everyone, namely, by ending congressional pensions.”

In a separate post, the former GOP presidential primary candidate noted that members of Congress also accrue retirement benefits through a separate program, the Thrift Savings Plan. 

“How many private sector workers get a pension and a 401k? End Pensions in Congress,” DeSantis demanded.  

The governor also revealed that when he introduced his bill to end the taxpayer-backed program it “needless to say, did not get a terribly warm reception among the members.”

Brady, the congressional pension expert and reform advocate, agreed that current lawmakers are the biggest obstacle to ending congressional pensions. 

“I think the big roadblock are career politicians,” he told The Post. “They spend their whole, you know, decades and decades in public office, and so they’re going to want that pension once they get out. 

“I think that’s the main block on any reforms going forward.” 

Although he doesn’t view Greene’s retirement date – which also falls on the eve of the first day of legislative business in 2026 – as something that is “really going to move the ball forward” on reform, he credits the congresswoman for inadvertently “raising a lot of awareness” about congressional pensions. 

Greene and Pelosi did not respond to The Post’s requests for comment.

https://nypost.com/2025/12/05/us-news/pelosi-and-greene-retirements-thrust-38m-a-year-perk-for-ex-lawmakers-into-spotlight-end-pensions-in-congress/