Why did Mike Turner disclose Russia’s anti-satellite weapon?

.

There is great dissatisfaction in the intelligence community over House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Turner’s (R-OH) decision to brief the full House of Representatives on an evolving Russian nuclear-armed, anti-satellite system. While Turner did not explicitly publicize the system in question, he is not an idiot. He knew that once the full House was briefed, the source and nature of this system would quickly leak. So why did he do it?

One reason is that this leak supports Turner’s push to reauthorize a key government surveillance program. But it may also provide new financial benefits to some of Turner’s top corporate donors.

As I reported Wednesday, the intelligence community believes that the Russian weapons system is designed to use a nuclear weapon to destroy U.S. civilian and military satellite constellations in war. If deployed, it would constitute a clear breach of the 1967 Outer Space Treaty. It is unclear whether Russia already has deployed facilitating or preparatory elements of the system or is simply preparing to do so. Highly classified U.S. intelligence is responsible for the government’s knowledge of this program.

Turner says we needed to know about the Russian program to respond to its threat. He may have feared that the Biden Administration would keep the relevant information classified, thus providing time and space for Russia to advance its program. This would be a reasonable concern in the context of the Administration’s cautious approach to dealing with Russian escalation concerns. Still, other factors also appear to be in play.

For one, the Washington Post reports that intelligence on the Russian system was gathered via Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act — I understand from sources that other collection methods were also involved — which allows for warrantless surveillance of foreigners outside the U.S. While government agencies have reformed their use of FISA 702 in response to controversy over their prior use of it to surveil Americans, many in Congress oppose reauthorizing it. Turner, however, strongly supports the program’s reauthorization, which faces a House vote in the near future. Turner likely sees his disclosure of the Russian anti-satellite system as a means of bolstering support for FISA 702 in Congress.

Yet Turner had another possible reason to disclose the Russian program: securing new funding for defense industry interests in Ohio’s 10th Congressional District.

Turner is renowned in Congress and by Washington lobbyists — the CGCN Group is one of his top donors in the 2024 election cycle — for his securing of patronage for business interests in his district. And these interests would appear to be well-placed to benefit from Turner’s disclosure of the new Russian system. The defense firms Leidos, Lockheed Martin, L3 Harris, and Northrop Grumman are all top donors to Turner in the 2024 election cycle.

They have good reasons to be so.

After all, Turner’s district is home to two Space Force operational units and the National Air and Space Intelligence Center. NASIC is based out of Wright-Patterson Air Force Base and leads the Defense Department’s foreign air and space threat analysis. Thus, NASIC would be central to any assessments related to the Russian system in question here. But NASIC is also a source for major contracts to private defense companies such as Leidos, for example. Similarly, L3 Harris has an $80 million contract from the Air Force Research Laboratory at Wright-Patterson AFB. These interests and others would be front-runners to win government contracts issued in response to the Russian system.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

Top line: Turner effectively disclosed an extremely sensitive intelligence product that had previously been briefed only to the leaders of both parties and intelligence committees in Congress. Russia now knows that the U.S. knows at least somewhat of what it is up to. Turner knew he was risking intelligence sources and methods when he went public. The question is why.

Turner’s national security rationale is credible, but other motives also seem likely to be involved.

Related Content