Curated foreign policy and national security news for professionals.
Good morning,
This is the Thursday morning edition of The Intel Brief, and like my recent briefings, I think this one contains some updates on historic developments. Let’s begin…
Reporting Period: December 8-11, 2025
Bottom-Line Up Front:
1. On December 9, Representative Massie introduced a bill that would end U.S. membership in NATO. The bill argues that the alliance is redundant and no longer serves American foreign policy and security interests. The introduction of the bill is very likely to result in a unified response from NATO and European allies.
2. On December 8, President Zelenskyy met with E3 leaders in London, United Kingdom. The group discussed the U.S. peace plan, and prepared a revised version to present to President Trump. It is uncertain when, where, or how Zelenskyy will present the revised deal to Trump. Russia has reportedly demanded significant changes to the proposal.
3. On December 8, House and Senate Armed Services Committees published the final draft of the 2026 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). The bill is largely considered bipartisan, following rounds of revisions. It includes a budget higher than what President Trump requested, as well as measures to control attempts to abruptly draw down or reshuffle assets in Europe and South America.
4. On December 9, Secretary of War Hegseth announced the release of GenAI. GenAI is the first Artificial Intelligence approved for use across the Pentagon. It is intended to enhance the training and administrative tasks of military and civilian personnel, and a SIPR version is likely to be integrated to aid warfighting capabilities and mission sets.
Rep. Massie Introduces Legislation To Withdraw U.S. From NATO
Summary
On December 9, Representative Massie introduced a bill that would end U.S. membership in NATO. The bill argues that the alliance is redundant and no longer serves American foreign policy and security interests.
Findings
House Resolution 6508 “NATO Act”: On December 9, 2025, Representative Thomas Massie (R-KY) introduced House Resolution 6508, with the “NATO Act” short title, to remove the United States from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) (U.S. House of Representatives, Rep. Massie).
Section 2. Findings: Massie’s initial argument can be reduced to three general themes:
NATO was founded to contain and deter the Soviet Union and is now redundant, NATO is a provocative institution having violated promises to the Soviet Union not to expand the alliance, and NATO members have not honored defense spending commitments under the 2014 “Wales Pledge" (U.S. House of Representatives).
Massie argues that the EU, receiving security subsidies from the U.S. and being “disincentivized” from burden sharing, should be sufficient at “preventing the emergence of a regional hegemon” (U.S. House of Representatives). Massie’s overall argument is that NATO “is inconsistent with the national security interests of the United States” (U.S. House of Representatives).Section 3. Denunciation of the North Atlantic Treaty: If enacted, the bill would require President Trump to denounce the North Atlantic Treaty for the purpose of withdrawing from the organization, consistent with NATO Article 13 (U.S. House of Representatives).
Section 5. Prohibition on the Use of Funds: If enacted, the bill would restrict the authorization of direct or indirect funds for NATO’s common-funded budgets, including the civil budget, military budget, and Security Investment Program (U.S. House of Representatives).
Why This Matters
I will present the “Why This Matters” in the same way I discussed this with one of my readers:
It appears that the only reason Massie would introduce this bill is because the United States either has the inside track on developments in Europe (an institutional reform, policy change, a social and economic assessment, etc.) and feels betrayed, or because we are using the threat of leaving NATO as a tool of political coercion.
Given the timing of Trump’s new National Security Strategy, and bipartisan provisions in the 2026 NDAA to restrict military reform in Europe and NATO (see third section of this brief), it is suggested that the bill has been introduced to accelerate reform in Europe and pressure political turnover (For example, German subservience regarding immigration reform).
But what is the rhetoric and ideology behind this trend in American politics? Trump’s NSS and his supporters rightly point out that Europe has lost its form. It is struggling to manage migration policy, security reform, industrial and economic decline, and restrictions on civil liberties. The case being made is that long-term, the Europe that is developing is a vestige of the makeup, political direction, and civilizational interests we shared in the post-WWII era (when we rebuilt Europe). That Europe today is not the Europe we built these institutions with, or the Europe we invested in.
That being said, one of the substantial, high-level risks here is that it totally destroys our influence and reputation as a reliable political, economic, and security partner. For example, if this bill gets to the point that it becomes law, and we leave NATO in an abrupt manner, what is the incentive for anyone to enter a pact with the United States? It is true that our security priorities have shifted to the Pacific. But as we attempt to stitch together various bilateral defense pacts into a collective deterrent against China, how do we maintain the precedent as a reliable partner when we step away from our role in NATO?
Finally, from a military and strategic perspective, the removal of American forces and facilities from Europe would be a massively expensive endeavor, not to mention the incalculable cost of losing joint intelligence, training opportunities, and force posture. As an example, Rapid Global Mobility is a U.S. Air Force concept, but the idea applies to the U.S. military’s total global disposition; forward deployed assets, rotated regularly, allow us to deliver a relevant, decisive, and efficient force to an area of operations when we need to. It is what allowed for the recent Operation Midnight Hammer in Iran, or what acts as our main deterrence force in the First Island Chain today.
By removing conventional assets from Europe that are liabilities to expeditionary warfare, like armor or some artillery, we aren’t really doing anything besides enabling malign actors, weakening our global response capability, and degrading our soft power.
Zelenskyy In London, Moscow Makes Demands As Peace Talks Enter “Critical Stage”
Summary
On December 8, President Zelenskyy met with E3 leaders in London, United Kingdom. The group discussed the U.S. peace plan, and prepared a revised version to present to President Trump. It is uncertain when, where, or how Zelenskyy will present the revised deal to Trump. Russia has reportedly demanded significant changes to the proposal.
Findings
Zelenskyy in London: On December 8, Ukrainian President Zelenskyy met with British Prime Minister Starmer, French President Macron, and German Chancellor Merz in London, United Kingdom (AP News, Sky News). Zelenskyy and the E3 leaders held talks to “ramp up support to Ukraine and economic pressure on Putin” while peace talks remain at a “critical moment” (AP News, Sky News). The group stated they “welcome the fact that these talks are continuing at every level” but that while European leaders work on revisions to the U.S. plan, a sense of Western “unity” must remain (AP News). Zelenskyy told reporters that the U.S. peace plan is 20 points, down from 28, and that security guarantees are a primary concern in order to deter future Russian aggression (AP News).
U.S. Remarks and Next Steps: Outgoing U.S. Envoy to Ukraine, Keith Kellogg, stated that Russia is demanding “major changes” to the current version of the U.S. peace plan (Business Standard).
Kellogg said two outstanding issues remain territory (i.e. what Ukraine will give up) and the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant under Russian control (i.e. who will own and operate it) (Business Standard). Kellogg did not identify security guarantees, EU membership, or NATO membership as outstanding issues (Business Standard).
On December 9, Zelenskyy is reportedly planning to present President Trump a revised peace plan (Newsweek). The proposal reportedly excludes ceding territory to Russia (Newsweek).Putin’s Decree: On December 9, The Kyiv Post reports that Russian President Putin signed a decree ordering 100,000 reservists to assemble for training in 2026 (Kyiv Post). While the activation during Winter is typical for Moscow, it suggests Putin’s intent to sustain long-term operations, as there is a chance the reservists will be activated for combat duty.
The same report states that Russia is activating year-round conscription on January 1, 2026, which will effectively make the draft a permanent, predictable mechanism (Kyiv Post).
Why This Matters
It will be interesting to see what happens once Zelenskyy presents his version of the peace plan to Trump. Both Russia and the U.S. have criticized Ukraine and Europe’s demands, but for different reasons.
Trump maintains the position that Russia is negotiating from dominance, due to battlefield dispositions, defense industrial output and support, and manpower pools. If Ukraine could confidently sustain the war into the future, then Zelenskyy’s demand to retain its territory may have greater weight. Additionally, the criticisms of Europe are that its leaders, in Zelenskyy’s ear, are making demands and proposals it cannot live up to. Europe is struggling on its own defense goals, and cannot sustain Ukraine indefinitely. Trump’s remarks are not overtly pro-Ukraine, but they do address an uncomfortable component of the war, which is that if it continues, Ukraine may find itself in continually worsening conditions to negotiate from.
Finally, Putin’s changes to conscription and reservist activation are mechanisms that suggest long-term wartime sustainment. Should the war continue past Winter, Moscow wil continue to send fresh troops to the frontlines in Ukraine. In a different scenario, a peace deal is reached and these troops will be the base for Russia’s military reconstruction, itself a different kind of risk for NATO and Ukraine.
Congressional Committees Publish Final NDAA Language
Summary
On December 8, House and Senate Armed Services Committees published the final draft of the 2026 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). The bill is largely considered bipartisan, following rounds of revisions. It includes a budget higher than what President Trump requested, as well as measures to control attempts to abruptly draw down or reshuffle assets in Europe and South America.
Findings
NDAA Final Text: On December 8, the text of the 2026 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) was published by the House and Senate Armed Services Committees (House Armed Services Committee). The NDAA is 3,086 pages long and details the funding for the U.S. military, energy sector, and defense industrial and procurement policies (U.S. House).
Details: A one-page summary of the NDAA styles it as the implementation of Trump’s “Peace Through Strength” agenda (House Armed Services Committee).
Highlighted initiatives are reforming defense acquisition, strengthening deterrence, expediting innovation, and rebuilding the defense industrial base (House Armed Services Committee).
POLITICO notes that the bill affords $8 billion more in funding than Trump requested, and that it would “repeal decades-old Middle East war powers” to recoup war-declaring authorities to Congress (POLITICO). The same article states that the bipartisan bill introduces measures that the Pentagon must meet in order to reduce the U.S. military posture in Europe and South Korea, a rebuke of Trump’s recent National Security Strategy (POLITICO).
Status: The NDAA legislation has passed in the House 312 to 112 (U.S. Congress). Once the final verbiage is reviewed, it will be presented to the Senate for a vote (U.S. Congress). If it passes in the Senate, it will be presented to President Trump and signed into law.
Follow the status of the bill here.
Why This Matters
The NDAA, despite being overdue, is a strong piece of bipartisan legislation and is likely to pass in the Senate before heading to the White House for ratification.
That being said, the bill is taking some criticism from both parties, with Democrats calling out a failure to ban a Central Bank Digital Currency (X) and some Republicans calling it “America Last” due to aid being sent abroad, including Ukraine, Taiwan, the Baltics, and the Philippines (X). Overall, those who voted against the bill cite dissatisfaction over the $900 billion budget (X).
Additionally, the break from the Trump admin by some House Republicans shows a desire to retain some of America’s core foreign policy tenets in lieu of the recent NSS being published. That being said, it could be a point of contention between Trump and Republicans (especially as the Department of War and White House are preparing for expanded strikes in Venezuela).
Department Of War Releases AI Platform For U.S. Military Personnel, Work
Summary
On December 9, Secretary of War Hegseth announced the release of GenAI. GenAI is the first Artificial Intelligence approved for use across the Pentagon. It is intended to enhance the training and administrative tasks of military and civilian personnel, and a SIPR version is likely to be integrated to aid warfighting capabilities and mission sets.
Findings
Announcement: On December 9, Secretary of War Pete Hegseth announced that the Department of War (DoW) has launched an Artificial Intelligence (AI) platform for civilian, contractor, and military personnel (Department of War).
GenAI: The new platform is dubbed “GenAI” and leverages Google’s Gemini as the AI system or agent (Department of War). The DoW will issue a cost-free AI training to personnel (Department of War).
Security: The DoW noted that “security is paramount” and the GenAI tools will be certified as Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) and Impact Level 5 (IL5) (Department of War). Although not mentioned in the release, it is very likely that there will be a SIPR (Secret Internet Protocol Router) variant of GenAI (Department of War).
Why This Matters
This is the first mass-deployment of AI across the Pentagon, and the rapid adoption is intended to accelerate deficiencies in training, administration, finance, and research across the DoW and down to the unit level.
However, if the GenAI is expected to increase creative thinking, enhance problem-solving, and expand the education of personnel, there are risks there. AI is deeply imperfect, and often provides inaccurate or irrelevant data when it generates responses. This risks an increase to laziness, waning due diligence, poor information vetting, originality, and less human decisionmaking. Having AI do the work for personnel also degrades their ability to learn and apply skills that benefit the DoW and their roles later in life.
On one hand, it is good to see the Pentagon take rapid adoption of a modern, advancing technology, but on the other hand, we have no indication of how this will be used or misused, or if it will make DoW-wide improvements in the more administrative and training-related areas.
End Brief
That concludes this brief.
Thank you for reading!
— Nick
This publication is an Open-Source Intelligence (OSINT) product and does not contain Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) or Classified Information.