Good morning,

This is the Monday morning edition of The Intel Brief. Let’s review key geopolitical updates from the weekend.

Reporting Period: 27-31 March 2025

Bottom-Line Up Front:

State Department To Reorganize, Dissolve USAID

Summary
On 28 March, the U.S. State Department notified Congress it will reorganize the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). The State Department is moving functions and roles into its department, effectively dissolving USAID.

Findings

• Reorganization: The Trump administration has made reform of USAID a core foreign policy goal. Viewing the agency as fraught with bureaucracy, misuse of funds, and support for unnecessary overseas programs.
  Whatever funds, roles, and employees remain of USAID, they are scheduled to be absorbed into the State Department by 1 July 2025.

• Program Continuity: While there are no public specifics, the programs that will remain are described as such:

• Legal Challenges: Media speculates that the USAID dismantlement could run into legal challenges, either from federal judges or former USAID employees.
  As of now, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has approved the reorganization and downsizing.

Why This Matters
The effective dissolution of USAID is a major shift in decades of U.S. foreign policy precedent. Much of the change is due to the Department of Government Efficiency’s (DOGE) findings on the type of projects USAID was funding abroad.

Trump and his administration feel the agency was not a sufficient custodian of U.S. taxpayer dollars and that its programs were not worth their cost. Critics call the decision a major blow to the U.S.’s ability to generate soft power, and an even bigger blow to the global community’s ability to fight humanitarian crises.

Sources: CNN, UPI, Axios

Army’s Program For New Patriot Radar Is On Track

Summary
Defense News reports that the U.S. Army has made significant progress in the development of Patriot’s new Lower-Tier Air and Missile Defense Sensor (LTAMDS). The new radar will improve air defense capabilities with Patriot.

Findings

• Troubleshooting: In 2019 the U.S. Army awarded Raytheon a contract to deliver prototypes for a new radar to modernize the Patriot air defense system’s sensor suite. The original contract gave 5-year deadline for a prototype, and now, after being granted an extra year, the program is at a production paradigm shift.

• Progress: The Lower-Tier Air and Missile Defense Sensor (LTAMDS) has made significant progress.

• Capability: It is uncertain what Lozano’s statements mean. “Doubles legacy Patriot radar capability” could mean multiple things, such as radar range, sensor refresh rate, and real-time target tracking.

Why This Matters
If the LTAMDS is as great an improvement as Lozano suggests, then Patriot will significantly improve its capabilities. This would mean Patriot missiles can engage targets faster and at greater ranges, increasing the U.S.’s stand-off capabilities and diminishing an adversary’s long-range strike potential.

It also means fewer Patriot systems, theoretically, need to be operational in an AO at one time, and that others can displace to avoid detection and cover new ground.

Finally, as radar technologies advance, it is possible that the LTAMDS will have electronic warfare countermeasures, giving the sensors greater fidelity and accuracy against electromagnetic threats.

Sources: Defense News

European Commission Outlines “Preparedness Union Strategy”

Summary
On 26 March, the EU Commission announced that it is developing a new crisis response strategy. The strategy includes improvement to civil response capability, military deterrence, and multinational cooperation efforts.

Findings

• Preparedness Union Strategy: The purpose of the new EU strategy is to coordinate EU Member State actions on the following:

  • Protect vital services essential to societal functions.

  • Ensure population preparedness for crises.

  • Increase preventative measures, including civil protection and crisis response.

  • Improve coordination with external partners to respond to crises, risks, and emerging threats.

• Action Plan: The strategy includes “30 Key Actions” detailed in an “Action Plan,” intended to guide EU Member States as they work towards fulfilling the strategy on a national level.

  The EU Commission outlined key objectives of the action plan:

  • Establish minimum preparedness criteria for essential services, like hospitals, schools, transportation, and telecommunications.

  • Grow critical stockpiles of equipment and materiel.

  • Grow the availability of natural resources, including water.

  • Encourage civilian populations to meet basic measures, beginning with a 72-hour supply of essentials for weathering crises.

  • Bring crisis preparedness to classrooms, including an “EU Preparedness Day.”

  • Establish an “EU Crisis Hub.”

  • Conduct regular, EU-wide crisis exercises that involve military, civil, and law enforcement groups.

  • Work with NATO to enhance deterrence and counter emerging threats in climate, cyber, space, and industrial domains.

Why This Matters
Europe’s new crisis preparedness strategy is a step in the right direction. It shows Europe is serious about controlling its own security. It also suggests EU partners, many of which are in NATO, are genuinely concerned that Russia will launch a series of hybrid warfare campaigns against Eastern European nations that were once in the Soviet bloc, such as the Baltic nations.

In other words, while Europe looks to reestablish its military might for the sake of deterrence, EU leaders know the continent needs greater unity in responding to crises if they are to successfully deter Russia and, if necessary, beat it in a war.

Sources: EU Commission, EEAS, POLITICO

Ukraine Backtracks On Minerals Deal With U.S., Peace Deal With Russia

Summary
President Zelenskyy recently stated he would not support a minerals deal with the U.S. or peace with Russia if conditions attempt to block Ukraine’s accession to the EU. Zelenskyy’s growing demands for Ukraine are juxtaposed by insufficient military aid from Europe and continued offensives by Russia’s military.

Findings

• Ukraine’s Interests: President Zelenskyy expressed caution regarding a new U.S. proposal granting access to Ukraine's critical minerals. He emphasized that any agreement must not jeopardize Ukraine's European Union (EU) accession.

• Minerals Deal: The latest U.S. proposal reportedly includes terms that would grant Washington control over Ukraine's natural resources through a joint investment fund. Zelenskyy stated that Ukrainian legal experts are reviewing the proposal to ensure it aligns with national interests and does not conflict with EU accession goals.
  The Trump admin previously stated such a deal would give the U.S. strategic interests in Ukraine, and therefore security guarantees to Kyiv.

• U.S. Aid Repayment: President Trump has previously stated he intends for Ukraine to pay back the “loans” the U.S. has given Ukraine. Zelenskyy stated that previous U.S. military aid to Ukraine should not be considered loans requiring repayment, highlighting the need for equitable terms in any minerals agreement.

• Peace Negotiations with Russia: Russian President Putin has proposed placing Ukraine under temporary external governance to facilitate new elections and advance peace talks. This suggestion implies that current Ukrainian leadership lacks legitimacy due to the expiration of Zelenskyy's term amid martial law, a narrative Russia is likely to exploit to delay peace negotiations. Zelenskyy rejected negotiations with Putin but indicated openness to dialogue with Russian representatives presenting genuine plans to end the conflict.

Why This Matters
Ukraine's approach to the U.S. minerals deal and Russian peace negotiations underscores its strategic balancing act between economic security and ensuring national sovereignty. This is becoming exceedingly difficult for Zelenskyy as Ukraine continues to slowly lose ground on the battlefield, and both sides continue to violate aspects of partial ceasefires.

Kyiv’s hesitation to finalize a minerals deal with Washington reflects a broader effort to ensure that economic agreements do not undermine its long-term goal of EU integration. However, Russia has previously stated a peace deal can not be reached, let alone upheld, should Ukraine seek formal alignment with the West and its institutions, specifically the EU and NATO.

Ukraine seeks foreign investment in critical industries but is wary of agreements that could cede excessive control over its natural resources. However, while a deal would be lucrative for the U.S., it would also facilitate U.S. cash flow as Ukraine looks to rebuild its economy.

On the diplomatic front, Zelenskyy’s refusal to engage with Putin’s proposal signals that he will not accept peace terms dictated exclusively by Moscow. Instead, Kyiv is positioning itself to negotiate by leveraging Western support. Again, much like EU or NATO accession for Ukraine, Putin is unlikely to adhere to demands laid out by the EU.

The bottom line is that Zelenskyy must work quickly to secure a deal that satisfies the Trump administration before Russia gains more ground on the battlefield. While Zelenskyy is right to attempt to preserve Ukraine’s full territorial integrity and national sovereignty, while also seeking to guarantee those conditions into the future, battlefield conditions do not currently favor Ukraine. Likewise, despite high enthusiasm and broad support, Europe’s aid is insufficient to change battlefield realities.

Sources: The Kyiv Independent, Reuters, Al Jazeera

End Brief

That concludes the Monday morning edition of The Intel Brief.

Thank you for the continued support. If you want to leave some feedback, email me directly: [email protected]

Thanks again,

Nick