Former service members often build second careers using skills they acquired in uniform. Many become airline pilots, defense contractors, consultants, or instructors. Some work overseas. Yet under certain circumstances, providing military-related training or expertise to a foreign military can expose a veteran to federal criminal liability.
The legal framework behind those cases is more complicated than a simple prohibition on teaching foreign troops. Instead, it stems from U.S. export-control laws that treat certain military assistance as a regulated export.
The State Department regulates the export and temporary import of defense articles and defense services under authority granted by Congress in Section 38 of the Arms Export Control Act, which is codified at 22 U.S.C. § 2778. Executive Order 13637 delegates and organizes export-control responsibilities within the executive branch, and the State Department implements those authorities through the International Traffic in Arms Regulations, commonly known as ITAR.
In plain terms, Congress created the legal authority, the executive branch assigned responsibility for administering it, and the State Department established regulations governing what military-related items and services may be provided to foreign governments and foreign persons.
When Training Becomes a Defense Service
Violations of these export-control provisions do not necessarily depend on the disclosure of classified information. In some circumstances, prosecutors may allege that regulated defense services were provided without authorization even when the information or training at issue was unclassified.
Under ITAR, defense services can include providing assistance, instruction, training, consulting, or advice related to controlled military capabilities and defense articles. Depending on the circumstances, military flight instruction, tactical aviation training, operational consulting, and similar activities may qualify as defense services requiring State Department authorization before they can be provided to foreign military personnel.
The restrictions do not prohibit all work with foreign militaries. Former service members routinely work with allied governments, foreign defense contractors, and international security programs.
The legal issue arises when activities qualify as regulated defense services under U.S. export-control regulations and are provided without the authorization required by the State Department’s Directorate of Defense Trade Controls.
Growing Concern Over Pilot Recruitment
Public attention to the issue increased significantly in 2022 when Britain’s Ministry of Defence warned that China was attempting to recruit former Western military pilots through private companies and intermediaries.
British officials stated that former military aviators were being offered substantial compensation in exchange for sharing expertise that could improve the capabilities of the People’s Liberation Army.
The warning prompted investigations across several allied countries and heightened scrutiny of military flight training programs involving former Western service members.
Intelligence officials were concerned about efforts to recruit former Western fighter pilots to train Chinese military personnel and provide operational knowledge derived from their military experience.
The concern among Western governments is not necessarily that classified information is being transferred. Rather, officials argue that advanced military training, tactics, operational procedures, and aviation expertise can provide substantial value to foreign militaries even when the information involved is unclassified.
Recent Cases Illustrate the Risk
Several recent cases have brought the issue into public view.
Former Marine Corps pilot Daniel Duggan was indicted in 2017 on charges that he conspired to export defense services to China through a South African flight school that allegedly helped train Chinese military pilots. U.S. prosecutors contend that the training constituted regulated defense services provided without the required authorization. Duggan was arrested in Australia in 2022 and has spent the past several years fighting extradition to the United States. Australian courts have repeatedly rejected his challenges, most recently in 2026, although he continues to contest both the allegations and his extradition.
In February 2026, federal prosecutors announced charges against former Air Force pilot Gerald Eddie Brown Jr., alleging he provided defense services to Chinese military pilots without obtaining approval from the State Department.
In 2007, former Army National Guard member Lance Brooks pleaded guilty to exporting defense services without the required State Department authorization after providing training on grenade launchers to personnel from the United Arab Emirates. The case was not Brooks’ only encounter with federal export-control laws. While on bond and awaiting sentencing for the first offense, he was charged again in 2008 for allegedly acting as an unlicensed broker in connection with efforts to sell 270,000 rounds of ammunition to the Jamaica Constabulary Force without the required authorization.
Federal authorities have also pursued corporate defendants. In 2012, Academi LLC, formerly known as Blackwater Worldwide, entered into a deferred prosecution agreement and agreed to pay millions of dollars to resolve allegations that it violated the Arms Export Control Act and ITAR.
Among other allegations, the government contended that the company provided military training and defense services involving foreign personnel without obtaining the required approvals from the State Department.
Although the specific facts differ from case to case, prosecutors have generally relied on the same underlying theory: that the defendants provided regulated defense services without obtaining the approvals required under U.S. export-control laws.
The National Security Logic Behind the Law
Modern militaries invest years and significant resources developing specialized expertise in aviation, intelligence, logistics, and combat operations.
U.S. officials argue that some forms of military instruction and assistance can be just as valuable to a foreign military as physical defense equipment, which is why Congress authorized the State Department to regulate certain defense services alongside traditional military exports.
For veterans pursuing international opportunities, the cases serve as a reminder that military experience does not automatically become unregulated once service ends. Depending on the nature of the work, providing military-related training or assistance to a foreign military may require prior authorization from the U.S. government.
Federal prosecutors have made clear that they are increasingly willing to pursue criminal charges when they believe those requirements have been ignored.
Read the full article here