Chelsea Clinton’s ‘best friend’ got $11 million in defense contracts but has no security clearance

Chelsea Clinton’s ‘best friend’ got $11 million in defense contracts but has no security clearance
Chelsea Clinton introduces Hillary Clinton at the 2016 Democratic National Convention (Image: YouTube screen grab via BS NewsHour)

A company whose president is “best friends” with former first daughter Chelsea Clinton received more than $11 million in contracts over the last decade from a highly secretive Defense Department think tank, but to date the group lacks official federal approval to handle classified materials, according to sensitive documents TheDCNF was allowed to view.

Jacqueline Newmyer, the president of a company called the Long Term Strategy Group (LTSG), has over the past ten years received numerous Department of Defense (DOD) contracts from a secretive think tank called Office of Net Assessment (ONA).

ONA is so sensitive, the specialized think tank is housed in the Office of the Secretary of Defense and it reports directly to the Secretary.

To date, LTSG has received $11.2 million in contracts, according to USAspending,gov, a government database of federal contracts.

But after winning a decade of contracts from ONA, only now is the federal agency in the process of granting clearance to the company. LTSG never operated a secure room on their premises to handle classified materials, according to the Defense Security Service, a federal agency that approves secure rooms inside private sector firms. LTSG operates offices in Washington, D.C., and Cambridge, Mass.

“The Long Term Strategy Group is currently in process for a facility clearance with the Defense Security Service,” the agency informed TheDCNF in an email.

Newmyer declined to address her company’s lack of facilities to handle classified material. “With regard to your questions about the status of our facilities, those are best directed to the US government, which has authority over such matters,” she said in an email to TheDCNF.

She also declined to say whether her company is footing the bill for the new secure facility, or if the burden is falling to taxpayers via the ONA.

Adam Lovinger, a whistleblower and 12-year ONA veteran, has repeatedly warned ONA’s leadership they faced risks by relying on outside contractors, as well as the problem of cronyism and a growing “revolving door” policy where ONA employees would leave the defense think tank and join private contractors to do the same work.

Others outside ONA have drawn similar conclusions about ONA’s reliance on outside contractors. USA Today complained in August 2013 that the same set of contractors never seem to leave ONA, “While Democratic and Republican administrations come and go, ONA and its team of outside advisers remains the same. Contract records show the office relies on studies from outside contractors.”

Clinton and Newmyer first met while attending Sidwell Friends School, an exclusive private Quaker school in the nation’s capital. They were in each other’s wedding parties, and in 2011 Chelsea referred to Newmyer as her “best friend.”

In numerous emails harking back to when she was secretary of state, Hillary Clinton actively promoted her daughter’s BFF and attempted to assist her in securing Defense Department contracts.

Secretary Clinton put Newmyer in contact with Michèle Flournoy, former President Barack Obama’s undersecretary of defense, according to the emails from Clinton’s private email server and released by the State Department under a lawsuit filed by the watchdog group Judicial Watch.

Hillary followed up in a July 19, 2009 email, asking Newmyer, “By the way, did the DOD contract work out?”

ONA was supposed to work on complicated future warfare scenarios when it was originally set up in the 1970s.

The think tank’s first director, Andrew Marshall, was adored by a coterie of ONA staff. Adding to Marshall’s mystique, he was called “Yoda,” after the quirky “Star Wars” series character. Marshall lasted in the DOD post for 42 years and retired at the age of 93 in 2015.

Last year, Lovinger sent a series of memos to James H. Baker, ONA’s new director, raising many problems Baker “inherited” from Marshall, including the use of contractors. ONA has a reputation for issuing “‘sweet- heart contracts’ to a privileged few,” Lovinger told Baker in a Sept. 30, 2016 email chain.

ONA’s leadership, led by Baker, did not take kindly to Lovinger’s warnings and allegedly retaliated against the staffer, according to Sean Bigley, a federal security clearance attorney who also represents him.

Baker suspended Lovinger’s security clearance in May for “security infractions,” and launched numerous investigations.

The suspension came after Lovinger had been detailed to the National Security Council. He was removed from the NSC after losing his security clearance, and now languishes inside a DOD satellite office doing make-work.

In a Sept. 13, 2017 letter to DOD officials, Bigley charged: “A review of the ‘case file’ in this matter illuminates a picture of intentional whistleblower retaliation against Mr. Lovinger; personal and political vendettas against Lovinger by Baker …”

Although Lovinger has since been exonerated for all the accusations, he still faces the possibility of a revocation of his clearance. His case is currently pending before DOD officials.

Baker decided in a recent move to “reclassify” Lovinger’s ONA position to one that now requires new skills he doesn’t possess.

Bigley complained about this new act of retaliation in a Sept. 21 letter to the DOD acting general counsel:

The practical effect of Baker’s plan, if executed, is that Mr. Lovinger will become a surplus employee and will be terminated; he does not possess the skill set applicable to the proposed reclassification.

Lovinger is the only staff member Baker has “reclassified,” according to Bigley.

One of Lovinger’s main complaints about ONA was that many of the reports by contractors imparted very little new information to the think tank. “Over the years ONA’s analytic staff has expressed how they learn very little from many (if not most) of our often very thin and superficial contractor reports,” he wrote in the Sept. 30, 2016 email.

Some of LTSG’s reports bear out Lovinger’s critique. A September 2010 LTSG report, titled “Trends in Elite American Attitudes Toward War,” came to the astounding conclusion that “American intellectuals have for the last century held considerably more cosmopolitan views than their non-intellectual counterparts.”

Another LTSG report was “On the Nature of Americans as a Warlike People.”

Lovinger also suggested in a March 3, 2017 memo that contractor studies should be peer reviewed. “There has never been an external review of these contractors’ research products,” he said, adding, “It is now clear that over several decades the office transferred millions of dollars to inexperienced and unqualified contractors.”

Others outside of ONA have been even more critical of the think tank. Carlos Lozada criticized the think tank as “an opaque bureaucratic outfit,” in a Washington Post review of a book about Marshall, ONA’s founder.

Michael C. Desch said “a systematic scrutiny of [ONA’s] work is long overdue” in the December 2014 issue of  The National Interest. He recommended that ONA, “like so many now-superfluous parochial schools, should close its doors.”

On the liberal front, author Jeffrey Lewis wrote a scathing attack on ONA in the Oct. 24, 2014 edition of Foreign Policy Magazine. “Marshall funded a fair number of crackpots,” he charged.

Lewis cited two studies on Iraq “written by a crackpot who thinks Saddam Hussein planned the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and 9/11, and a study on “Islamic Warfare” by “the guy who fabricated both a Ph.D. and an interview with Barack Obama.”

Lovinger has also been critical of the revolving door at ONA, where previous government staffers went to work for ONA contractors.

Phillip Pournelle, who was ONA’s military adviser from November 2011 to December 2016, now works at LTSG as its “director for gaming and analysis,” according to his LinkedIn page. Steve Rosen, also a long-time ONA consultant, was originally Newmyer’s professor at Harvard. But Newmyer and Rosen hit it off, and they “co-taught” a Harvard class together in 2006.

Both Pournelle and Rosen are today two top executives in a company that has only eight employees, according to its LinkedIn account.

Newmyer and Rosen are also top officers in a nonprofit they created together called the American Academy for Strategic Education, which is dedicated to educating a rising generation of strategic thinkers,” according to its website. The organization has raised $894,000 since its operation in 2013, according to their IRS 990 filing. The Academy paid Newmyer and Rosen $45,000 each in 2015.

Since serving as president of LTSG, Newmyer has participated in many prestigious bodies on national security and she was enrolled in a Ph.D. program at Harvard Kennedy School’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs.

But her Ph.D. had little to do with today’s international conflicts or in contemporary military strategy. Her dissertation was on “a comparison of seminal works on strategy and statecraft from ancient China, the medieval Middle East, and early modern Europe,” according to a Harvard profile of her.

Adam Lovinger did not consent to an interview for this article. The Office of Net Assessment did not reply to a DCNF inquiry.

This report, by Richard Pollock, was cross posted by arrangement with the Daily Caller News Foundation.

LU Staff

LU Staff

Promoting and defending liberty, as defined by the nation’s founders, requires both facts and philosophical thought, transcending all elements of our culture, from partisan politics to social issues, the workings of government, and entertainment and off-duty interests. Liberty Unyielding is committed to bringing together voices that will fuel the flame of liberty, with a dialogue that is lively and informative.


Commenting Policy

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.

You may use HTML in your comments. Feel free to review the full list of allowed HTML here.