Executive Summary
Reasons the United States should Fund and Support Ukraine
By Jon M. McGrath, (USA) Member
GLOBAL UKRAINE RAIL TASKFORCE
It’s important to know what obligations the United States has, due of previous administrations. The following is a chronological history of the obligations of the United States and key reasons why it is important to support Ukraine. This is over a year of research and first-hand knowledge on why it’s important to support Ukraine. Vladimir Putin will not stop with Ukraine. Putin will continue into additional countries with unprovoked aggression. Right now, “We send our Funds and Guns, NOT our sons”. I am reminded by one of our Task Force colleagues Peter Gibbons, Chief Security Officer of Network Rail in the United Kingdom. “This war is about Freedom. Either you are for it, or you are against it. It’s that simple.”
Page 1 of
Franklin D. Roosevelt (1933 – 1945)
The United States and the Soviet Union were allies during WW II.
Harry S. Truman (1945 – 1953)
President Truman initiated a policy of containment.
The Truman Doctrine (1947), which stated that the United States would provide military, economic, and political assistance to any country threatened by communist aggression.
Dwight D. Eisenhower (1953 – 1961)
President Eisenhower continued the policy of containment and introduced a policy known as “Massive Retaliation”. Under this policy the United States threatened to use nuclear weapons against any Soviet aggression or aggression against its allies.
John F. Kennedy (1961 – 1963)
Kennedy’s policy was a combination of containment and deterrence. Kennedy sought to bolster NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) and support countries.
Lyndon B. Johnson (1963 – 1969)
Policy on Russian aggression closely followed the principals of containment and deterrence and supporting the allies.
President Johnson engaged in diplomacy with the Soviet Union, participating in arms control negotiations, such as the Strategic Arms Limitations Talks (SALT), which aimed to limit the growth of nuclear weapons.
He pursued military escalation in Vietnam to counter Soviet-backed aggression, maintained a strong nuclear deterrent, and worked to strengthen alliances in diplomatic efforts to manage the tensions of the cold war.
Richard M. Nixon (1969 – 1974)
A strategy known as détente, which aimed to ease tensions and improve relations between the United States and the Soviet Union.
Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty (SALT 1) limits the number of strategic nuclear missiles.
Diplomatic Engagement
Historic visit to Moscow to meet Soviet Leader Leonid Brezhnev.
Signing several agreements including the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty which limited the deployment of anti-ballistic missile systems.
Page 2 of 16
Trade and Cultural Exchanges – Promote increased economic and cultural exchanges between the United States and the Soviet Union, leading to increased cooperation and reduced tension.
Gerald R. Ford (1974 – 1977)
President Ford’s policy included the following:
Continuation of Détente
Helsinki Accords (1975) – Conference held in Finland aimed at promoting cooperation and respect for human rights among countries of Europe including the Soviet Union.
Defense Modernization – President Ford sought to bolster U S Military capabilities particularly in the realm of conventual forces, to maintain a credible deterrent against any potential Soviet aggression or expansion.
Support of Allies – President Ford reaffirmed the United States commitment to its NATO allies, providing military and political support to countries in Europe threatened by Soviet aggression.
Jimmy Carter (1977 – 1981)
Strong Emphasis on Human Rights and Democratic Values – Ratified Helsinki Accords
Arms Control and Enhance Strategic Stability – Pushed Arms Control as a deterrent to a nuclear conflict. Signing of Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty (SALT II) (1975) Limit the number of strategic nuclear weapons possessed by both countries and enhance strategic stability.
Boycott of the 1980 Olympics – In response to the Soviet Unions invasion of Afghanistan. The 1980 Olympics were held in Moscow. Aimed to rally international condemnation for the actions of the Soviet Union.
Support for Opposition Movements – President Carter provided support for countries controlled by the Soviet Union, particularly in Eastern Europe. This support included financial aid for dissident groups and individuals who were advocating for political freedoms and human rights.
Ronald Reagan (1981 – 1989)
Policy rooted in a strong stance against Soviet expansion and a commitment to undermining the Soviet Unions influence during the final days of the cold war.
Peace through Strength – Reagan believed a strong United States Military was a deterrent to counter Soviet Aggression. Reagan believed that a robust defense posture, including a modernized nuclear arsenal, would help prevent Soviet adventurism and protect United States interests and allies.
Page 3 of 16
Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) – Also known as “Star Wars”, this proposed missile defense system aimed to shield against Soviet intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM’s). SDI faced political and technical challenges that caused its defeat and was not implemented. However, it did serve as a symbol of US resolve and technical superiority and challenge the Soviets to try to keep up with the U S Military advancements,
Support for Anti-Soviet Forces – Reagan provided support to Anti-Soviet Forces and resistance movements in various regions such as: Afghanistan, Nicaragua, and Angola.
This policy was aimed at undermining the Soviets’ expansion and their efforts to
expand their sphere of influence.
Arms Control and Negotiations – Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF)
(1987), which eliminated an entire class of nuclear missiles from Europe.
Reagan’s policies played a significant role in contributing to the eventual collapse of
the Soviet Union.
George H. W. Bush (1989 – 1993)
The Soviet Union had collapsed, and the Cold War had ended. His focus was on a transformation from a communist state to a more democratic system and support Russia’s integration into the international community as a responsible global representative.
President Bush worked with Russian President Boris Yeltsin in the spirit of cooperation to sign the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) and the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE). These agreements aimed to reduce the nuclear arsenals and conventual military forces of both countries across Europe, contributing to a more stable international security environment. President supported the Baltic States of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania as they sought independence from the Soviet Union.
William J. Clinton (1993 – 2001)
Policy focused on transition from Soviet-style to a more Democratic System and pursue engagement and cooperation. The Clinton Administration focused on further arms reduction and signed the SALT II Treaty in 1993 to further reduce nuclear arms of both countries. The ratification and implementation in both counties faced challenges and was abandoned.
Page 4 of 16
Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances – In 1994, the United States along with Ukraine and Russia signed and agreed to give up their nuclear weapons from the former Soviet Union in exchange for assurances of its territorial integrity and sovereignty, including the United States. This memorandum provided a commitment to respect Ukraine’s independence, sovereignty, and existing borders as well as to refrain from threat or use of force against Ukraine.
George W. Bush (2001 – 2009)
President George W. Bush’s policy was initially one of cooperation and a constructive approach toward Russia. However, as time went on the relationship became more strained. In 2007, President George W. Bush met with then Prime Minister Vladimir Putin who later was elected President of Russia in 2000. President Bush condemned Russia’s intervention in Georgia and expressed Georgia’s territorial integrity. This became an area of disagreement and strained their relationship. Bush also proposed a missile defense system in eastern Europe which Russia viewed as a threat to its security.
Barack Obama (2009 – 2017)
President Obama’s policy toward Russia can be characterized by a combination of engagement, diplomacy, and deterrence. President Obama worked to reset the US – Russia relationship in the areas of nuclear non-proliferation, counterterrorism, and addressing global climate change. Over time the relationship became tense.
In 2014, Russia took an aggressive action to annex Crimea and its support for a separatist movement in eastern Ukraine raised concerns about Russian aggression had violated international law. President Obama strongly condemned Russia’s actions in Ukraine and worked to impose economic sanctions on Russia. The United States also provided military assistance to Ukraine to support it defense capabilities. In terms of deterrence, oversaw the deployment of NATO forces to eastern European countries as a show of solidarity and to enhance collective defense against potential Russian aggression.
President Obama faced challenges with Russian cyberattacks targeting U. S. Institutions and interference in the 2016 U. S. presidential election. The Obama administration responded with sanctions against Russian individuals and entities involved in the cyberattacks and expelled Russian diplomats. The President expelled
35 Russian intelligence operatives and imposed sanctions on two (2) leading intelligence services.
Page 5 of 16
Donald Trump (2017 – 2021)
The Trump administration provided lethal military aid to Ukraine to support its defense against Russian-backed separatists in eastern Ukraine. Sanctions were also imposed against Russia in the 2016 presidential election.
Joe Biden (2021 – Present)
President Biden has made it clear that the United States will respond to Russian aggression.
The Biden administration and 50 additional allies have imposed sanctions on Russia in response Russian aggression in Ukraine in addition to financial aid, military support in military equipment, munitions, defense systems, spare parts and equipment to protect critical infrastructure.
There are several reasons to fund Ukraine in its efforts to counter Russian aggression:
Strengthening Strategic Alliances: Ukraine is an important strategic partner for the United States in the region. By providing financial support, the United States can strengthen its relationship with Ukraine and enhance bilateral cooperation. This can include military cooperation, intelligence sharing, and joint training exercises, all of which contribute to regional stability and security.
Promoting Democracy and Rule of Law: Ukraine has made significant progress in its democratic transformation since gaining independence. The United States has a vested interest in supporting and nurturing democratic values worldwide. By providing financial assistance, the United States can help Ukraine consolidate its democratic institutions, promote the rule of law, and protect human rights. A stable and democratic Ukraine can serve as a beacon for other countries in the region.
Demonstrating Commitment to International Norms: Russian aggression in Ukraine violated international law, undermined territorial integrity, and challenged the post-Cold War European security order. By funding Ukraine, the United States can demonstrate its commitment to upholding international norms, including respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity. This sends a strong message to other countries facing similar challenges and reinforces the importance of a rules-based international system.
Page 6 of 16
Countering Russian Influence: Russia's actions in Ukraine represent a broader pattern of assertive behavior and attempts to influence neighboring countries. By providing financial support to Ukraine, the United States can help counterbalance Russian influence in the region. This support can contribute to Ukraine's ability to resist further aggression and promote stability, which ultimately serves American interests by preventing the expansion of Russian influence.
Humanitarian Considerations: The conflict in Ukraine has resulted in a significant humanitarian crisis, with thousands of deaths, widespread displacement, and infrastructure damage. By providing funding, the United States can help address urgent humanitarian needs, provide medical aid, support the delivery of essential services, and alleviate the suffering of affected populations.
Historical and Cultural Ties: Russia and Ukraine share a complex history intertwined by cultural, linguistic, and historical connections.
1. Ukraine was once part of the Soviet Union and has a significant Russian- speaking population. Some Russians view Ukraine as an integral part of their historical and cultural heritage, leading to a perception that Russia has a right to exert influence and control over Ukrainian territory.
Historical Agreements: It is worth noting that these arguments should be considered alongside broader diplomatic efforts, political considerations, and a comprehensive approach to resolving the conflict. Financial assistance alone may not be sufficient to address the complexities of the situation, and a holistic approach involving diplomacy, negotiations, and regional cooperation is essential.
2. Geopolitical Influence: Ukraine holds strategic importance for Russia from a geopolitical perspective. Its territory provides access to the Black Sea, enabling Russia to maintain a significant presence in the region and project power in the Mediterranean. Controlling Ukrainian land would enhance Russia's geopolitical leverage and secure its interests in Eastern Europe.
3. Security Concerns: Russia has expressed concerns over its security and the protection of ethnic Russians living in Ukraine. The Russian government claims to intervene in Ukraine to safeguard the rights and well-being of Russian-speaking populations, particularly in Crimea and eastern Ukraine.
Page 7 of 16
However, these concerns have been met with significant criticism, as the actions taken by Russia have violated Ukraine's sovereignty and international law.
4. Energy Resources: Ukraine possesses significant energy resources, including natural gas reserves and transit routes for Russian energy exports to Europe. Russia has historically used its control over energy supplies as a means to exert influence over neighboring countries. By gaining control over Ukrainian territories, Russia could maintain a stronger grip on energy resources and maintain leverage over European energy security.
5. Geostrategic Balance: For Russia, maintaining a sphere of influence in Eastern Europe is crucial to maintaining a balance of power within the region. Ukraine's alignment with Western institutions, such as the European Union and NATO, threatens Russia's perceived dominance in its near abroad. By bringing Ukraine into its orbit or preventing its alignment with the West, Russia seeks to preserve its regional influence and counterbalance Western powers.
6. Historical Insecurities: Russia has historically been concerned about encroachment from the West. The expansion of NATO and the European Union into former Soviet territories is seen by Russia as a threat to its own security and influence. Acquiring land from Ukraine can be viewed as a defensive measure aimed at protecting Russia's perceived sphere of influence and preventing further Western encroachment. It is important to emphasize that these factors do not justify Russia's actions or the violation of Ukraine's sovereignty. The international community widely condemns Russia's aggression and calls for a peaceful resolution to the conflict based on respect for Ukraine's territorial integrity and the principles of international law.
Russia's Quest for Natural Resources in Ukraine: Motivations and Implications Russia's interest in Ukraine extends beyond geopolitical considerations and historical ties. The abundance of natural resources present in Ukraine has also played a significant role in Russia's desire to gain control or influence over Ukrainian territories. This essay delves into the natural resources coveted by Russia in Ukraine, examining their motivations and the potential implications of their pursuit.
Page 8 of 16
1. Energy Resources: One of the primary natural resources that Russia seeks in Ukraine is energy, particularly natural gas reserves. Ukraine possesses vast reserves of natural gas, and it has historically been a crucial transit route for Russian gas exports to Europe. By gaining control over Ukrainian territories, Russia can secure its energy supply lines, maintain a dominant position in the European energy market, and exert influence over European energy security.
2. Agricultural Resources: Ukraine boasts fertile farmlands and is 70% of its land mass. It is often referred to as the "breadbasket of Europe." Its agricultural sector is a significant contributor to its economy, producing grains, oilseeds, and other agricultural commodities. Russia's interest in Ukrainian agricultural resources stems from the potential to strengthen its own food security and reduce its reliance on food imports. Control over Ukrainian agricultural lands would provide Russia with a reliable source of food production and export potential.
3. Mineral Resources: Ukraine possesses a wide range of mineral resources, including iron ore, coal, manganese, titanium, and other valuable minerals. These resources are crucial for industrial production, including steel, machinery, and chemical manufacturing. Russia's interest in Ukrainian mineral resources lies in securing access to these vital inputs for its own industrial and economic needs.
4. Water Resources: Ukraine is home to several major rivers, including the Dnieper and Dniester, which are essential water sources for both agricultural and industrial purposes. Control over Ukrainian territories would give Russia greater influence over water resources, enabling it to manipulate water flow, irrigation, and hydroelectric power generation. This control could provide Russia with leverage over Ukraine's agricultural productivity and energy infrastructure.
Page 9 of 16
Implications and Concerns:
Economic Dependency: If Russia were to gain control over Ukrainian natural resources, it could deepen Ukraine's economic dependency on Russia. This would grant Russia significant leverage over Ukraine's economy and potentially hinder its economic development and diversification efforts.
Environmental Concerns: The extraction and exploitation of natural resources come with significant environmental challenges. If Russia were to gain control over Ukrainian territories with valuable resources, there would be concerns about the environmental impact of resource extraction, potentially leading to ecological degradation and long- term environmental consequences.
Geopolitical Leverage: Russia's control over Ukrainian natural resources would enhance its geopolitical leverage in the region. The ability to manipulate energy supplies, agricultural exports, and industrial inputs would give Russia significant influence over Ukraine, neighboring countries, and even European nations dependent on Ukrainian resources.
Violation of Ukraine's Sovereignty: Russia's pursuit of Ukrainian natural resources raises serious concerns about the violation of Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity. The quest for resources cannot justify the infringement of international law and the rights of a sovereign nation. Conclusion: While natural resources undoubtedly play a role in Russia's interest in Ukraine, it is crucial to approach this issue with caution and respect for Ukraine's sovereignty. The pursuit of resources should not come at the expense of Ukraine's independence, stability, and economic development. The international community must prioritize a peaceful resolution to the conflict, upholding Ukraine's territorial integrity.
Page 10 of 16
What rare earth minerals does Ukraine possess?
Ukraine possesses several rare earth minerals, which are a group of elements that are vital for various industrial and technological applications. While Ukraine's rare earth mineral reserves are not as extensive as those of other countries such as China or Russia, it still holds significant potential in this regard. Some of the rare earth minerals found in Ukraine include:
1: Ukraine is known to have substantial reserves of zirconium minerals, particularly in the central and eastern regions. Zirconium is a valuable rare earth mineral used in various industries, including nuclear energy, aerospace, and electronics.
Titanium: Ukraine is one of the largest producers of titanium minerals globally. The country's titanium reserves are primarily concentrated in the Crimean Peninsula and the Kryvyi Rih region. Titanium is a crucial rare earth mineral utilized in aerospace, defense, and chemical industries.
Niobium: Ukraine possesses significant niobium reserves, particularly in the Kryvyi Rih iron ore basin. Niobium is a rare earth metal with exceptional strength and heat resistance properties, making it valuable for applications in steel production, superalloys, and electronics.
Rare Earth Elements (REEs): Ukraine also possesses some deposits of rare earth elements, including lanthanum, cerium, neodymium, and samarium. These elements are integral components in the manufacturing of magnets, electronic devices, energy-efficient lighting, and renewable energy technologies. It is important to note that the exact extent of Ukraine's rare earth mineral reserves and their commercial viability may vary based on ongoing exploration and development efforts. Furthermore, the conflict in eastern Ukraine has had significant implications for the exploration and extraction of these minerals, impacting the country's ability to fully exploit its rare earth resources.
Page 11 of 16
Ukraine possesses significant oil and gas reserves, although exploration and production activities have faced challenges due to various factors, including geopolitical tensions and limited investment. Here are some key details about Ukraine's oil and gas reserves:
Natural Gas Reserves: Ukraine has substantial natural gas reserves, primarily located in the Dnieper-Donets Basin in the eastern part of the country. According to estimates, Ukraine's proven natural gas reserves are around 1.1 trillion cubic meters. However, it is important to note that the extraction of these reserves has been affected by the ongoing conflict in eastern Ukraine and limited investment in infrastructure and technological advancements.
Shale Gas Potential: Ukraine also has significant potential for shale gas production. The country's largest shale gas reserves are located in the Olesska field in western Ukraine. The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimated Ukraine's technically recoverable shale gas resources at 1.2 trillion cubic meters, making it one of the largest shale gas reserves in Europe. However, the development of shale gas resources has been hindered by regulatory challenges and the need for advanced technologies and investment.
Oil Reserves: Ukraine's oil reserves are comparatively smaller than its natural gas reserves. The majority of Ukraine's oil reserves are located in the Carpathian region in western Ukraine and the Black Sea Shelf. The country's proven oil reserves are estimated to be around 395 million barrels. However, Ukraine has not been a significant oil producer, and its oil production has declined in recent years.
Dependence on Imports: Despite having significant reserves, Ukraine has been dependent on natural gas imports from other countries, mainly Russia. This dependency has been a key concern for Ukraine's energy security and has prompted efforts to diversify its energy sources and reduce reliance on imported gas.
Reforms and Potential Investment: Ukraine has undertaken reforms in the energy sector to attract foreign investment and modernize its infrastructure. Efforts have been made to enhance transparency, improve the regulatory framework, and create a more favorable investment climate. These reforms aim to stimulate exploration and production activities and unlock the full potential of Ukraine's oil and gas reserves. It is important to note that the ongoing conflict in eastern Ukraine has significantly impacted the exploration and production of oil and gas reserves in the region. The resolution of the conflict and increased investment in infrastructure and technologies are crucial for Ukraine to fully exploit its oil and gas potential and enhance its energy independence.
Page 12 of 16
The sea ports of Ukraine play a significant role in the country's economy and have strategic importance for both international trade and national security. Here are some key points highlighting the importance of Ukrainian sea ports:
International Trade: Ukraine's sea ports serve as major gateways for international trade, facilitating the import and export of goods. They handle a significant portion of Ukraine's foreign trade, enabling the country to connect with global markets and participate in international supply chains.
Access to the Black Sea: Ukraine's sea ports provide the country with direct access to the Black Sea, which is an important maritime route connecting Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. This location allows Ukrainian ports to serve as vital transshipment hubs for goods moving between these regions.
Export of Commodities: Ukrainian sea ports handle large volumes of key commodities, such as grain, iron ore, coal, and oil products. Ukraine is one of the world's leading exporters of grain, and its ports handle substantial grain shipments, contributing to the country's agricultural sector and generating export revenue.
Energy Sector: Ukraine has oil and gas reserves in its territorial waters, and its sea ports are crucial for the transport and export of energy resources. Odessa and Yuzhnyi ports, for example, play a significant role in the export of Ukrainian oil products and natural gas.
Industrial and Manufacturing Support: Sea ports in Ukraine are essential for the transportation of raw materials, equipment, and components needed by various industries and manufacturing sectors. They provide logistical support and supply chain infrastructure, ensuring the efficient delivery of goods to domestic industries and facilitating their export.
Regional Connectivity: Ukrainian sea ports contribute to regional connectivity by serving as important transportation links for neighboring countries. They provide transit routes for landlocked countries such as Moldova, Belarus, and parts of Russia, enabling them to access global markets through Ukrainian ports.
Page 13 of 16
7. National Security: The control and security of sea ports are crucial for Ukraine's national security. They are vital for the country's defense capabilities, allowing for the deployment and resupply of naval forces. Additionally, ensuring the security and integrity of ports is important to prevent illegal activities, such as smuggling and trafficking, which can have adverse social and economic consequences. In conclusion, the seaports of Ukraine are of immense importance for the country's economy, international trade, regional connectivity, and national security. They support various industries, facilitate the movement of goods, and enable Ukraine to participate in global trade networks.
The Task Force’s Steering Committee
TASK FORCE Members:
Honorable Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur, Honorary Chair – Co-Chair of Ukrainian Congressional Caucus in the US House of Representatives
Jolene Molitoris, Chair – former US Federal Railroad Administrator
Nick Brooks, Co-Chair – Secretary General of Alliance of Rail New Entrants in Europe (ALLRAIL)
Ray Chambers, Vice Chair – President of US Association of Innovative Passenger Rail Operations (AIPRO)
Yuriy Maslikov – CEO of the privately owned Ukrainian freight rail operator Ost-West Logistik Netzwerk GmbH (OWLN)
Lord Tony Berkeley – member of the UK House of Lords and former President of the European Rail Freight Association (ERFA)
Jon M. McGrath – Chairman of McGrath Rail, Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA and Former Chairman of the National Railroad Construction & Maintenance Assoc, Washington DC
Peter Gibbons – Chief Security Officer at UK rail infrastructure manager Network Rail
Tim Hollaway – Former Polish rail freight operator – Recording Secretary
Katharina Dekeyser (ALLRAIL) – Alternate to Mr Brooks
Mason Baxter (AIPRO) – Alternate to Mr Chambers
Jon Michael McGrath II – Alternate to Mr McGrath
Page 14 of 16
About the Author: Jon M. McGrath has just returned from Kyiv, Ukraine as a member of the Global Ukraine Rail Task Force meeting with the CEO and Management Team of the Ukrainian Railway and their Railway Labor Union. January 13, 2024
“I found the CEO of the Ukrainian Railways, Yevhen Lyashchenko (Ukrzaliznytsia, UZ) very knowledgeable, dynamic, and credible as well as his progressive management team. In addition, Oleksandr Pertsovskyi, CEO Passenger Rail at Ukrainian Railways is very knowledgeable and a first-class leader. The Ukrainian Railways are referred to as the second Army with 267,333 union railway employees across Ukraine as of January 2024. The Trade Union of Railwaymen and Transport Workers of Ukraine are also on the front lines helping Ukraine continue to operate and ensuring passengers and freight reach their destination on time. They are referred to as the “Iron Family”. We met in Kyiv with the President of the Railway Union of Ukraine, Olexiy Semerun who leads the largest group of workers in Ukraine.” McGrath said.
About the Author
A fifth-generation railroader, Jon M. McGrath started working for his father at the age of 14 on a track crew. Eventually moving up to equipment operator, track foreman, superintendent, vice president and president. Jon M. McGrath is currently Chairman & CEO of McGrath Rail a firm founded by his Second Great Grandfather in 1865 to build western expansion track for the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad (CB&Q), the mother road of what today is known
as the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway Company (BNSF). Since joining the family firm in 1973, McGrath has provided management and consultation on numerous projects across the United States. The McGrath firm designs, constructs, inspects, and maintains railroads for short line, military, mass transit, industrial railroad, and amusement park customers. McGrath has been involved in the construction of several Intra-City and Inner-City Mass Transit Systems across the United States including San Diego, Long Beach, Los Angeles, Sacramento, San Jose, San Francisco, Portland, Dallas, Galveston, Oklahoma City, Baltimore and Washington, DC. A native Tulsan, McGrath was educated at Bishop Kelley High School, Crowder College, The University of Oklahoma, and Tuck Business School at Dartmouth College.
Page 15 of 16
McGrath was on the Leadership Team for the 4-to-fix the County (Tulsa) in 2005 to fund needed repairs at Expo Square, Bridges, Roads, Flood Mitigation and Tulsa County Parks. He is the former Chairperson of the National Railroad Construction & Maintenance Association based in Washington, DC. He sat on their Board of Directors for 26 years and is a member of their Railroad Hall of Fame. McGrath formerly served on the Tulsa Industrial Authority for 18 years and the Board of Directors at the MidwayUSA Foundation. Jon M McGrath also served as Vice Chairman of the Tulsa Port Authority, Board of Directors, the most inland navigable river port in the United States. McGrath currently serves as Chairman of the Google AERO Games, a STEM competition for high school youth teams across Eastern Oklahoma based at Rogers State University in Claremore, Oklahoma and is an elected member of the Board of Directors of the Association for Innovative Passengers Rail Operators (AIPRO) based in Washington, DC. In 2021, McGrath received the Commanders Commendation for Outstanding Public Service from the US Army Corp of Engineers. Jon M. McGrath is a voting citizen of the Cherokee Tribe and Nation. In February 2022, McGrath was elected to the Global Ukraine Rail Task Force and will serve as Task Force Lead on the post war reconstruction. McGrath is a Private Pilot and enjoys travel.
Jon M. McGrath Post Office Box 4502
Tulsa, OK USA 74159-0502 1-918-688-7245
Jon@McGrathRail.com www.McGrathRail.com
Page 16 of 16
