What happened

A federal judge in Washington, D.C., on Thursday threw out Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s revised effort to restrict press access at the Pentagon, saying the Defense Department “cannot simply reinstate an unlawful policy under the guise of taking ‘new’ action.” Suppression of “political speech is the mark of an autocracy, not a democracy,” U.S. District Judge Paul Friedman wrote in his opinion, siding with The New York Times for the second time in a month in its challenge to Hegseth’s restrictions on reporters’ access to Pentagon sources and information.

Who said what

Almost all reporters in the Pentagon press corps walked out in October after Hegseth tied their credentials to an agreement to “publish only information preapproved by Department of Defense channels,” Politico said. Friedman found that unconstitutional in a March 20 ruling, and on Thursday he “voided the key parts of the revised policy,” including banning all unescorted movement through the Pentagon and evicting reporters from their longtime Correspondents’ Corridor offices to an “annex that has yet to be opened.”

“The curtailment of First Amendment rights is dangerous at any time, and even more so in a time of war,” Friedman said. Hegseth is trying to “dictate the information received by the American people” and “control the message” they “hear and see,” he added. “The Constitution demands better. The American public demands better, too.”

What next?

Frieman ordered the Pentagon to “fully restore Times reporters’ access,” The Washington Post said, and to “file a sworn declaration from a department official by April 16 detailing compliance.” A Pentagon spokesperson said the department will appeal the ruling.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s effort to purge the Pentagon of so-called woke ideologies has earned him plaudits from the White House. But his “highly unusual” decision to strike four officers — two women and two Black men — from a recent promotions list has some asking whether the officers were “being singled out because of their race or gender,” said The New York Times. The incident has resurrected a question that has dogged the secretary since his confirmation: Is the Defense Department still the microcosmic American melting pot it once was?

Implying lack of talent

It’s “exceedingly rare” for one-star general promotion lists like the one recently edited by Hegseth to receive “intense scrutiny from a defense secretary,” said the Times. The secretary’s sentiments dovetail with the “broader Trump administration’s attacks” on federal government programs designed to “support and promote the concerns of minority populations,” said Military Times.

Having “honed his communication skills at Fox News,” where talent regularly says “outrageous things as a way of showing their viewers how eager they are to own the libs,” Hegseth has “long stewed” about women in military leadership, said The Atlantic. He has also “hammered on the idea of ‘merit’” to imply that minority officers have been “promoted because of their race rather than their talent.”

“First of all, you’ve got to fire the chairman of the Joint Chiefs,” said Hegseth on The Shawn Ryan Show podcast during his cabinet nomination process in late 2024. Anyone, no matter if they are a “general, admiral or whatever,” who was “involved in any of that DEI woke sh-t” has “got to go.” The secretary acted on those inclinations “almost immediately upon arriving at the Pentagon,” firing multiple senior officers, all Black or women, who were “then replaced with white men,” said The Atlantic.

As secretary, Hegseth has “moved quickly to remake the military as more white and more male,” said historian and journalist Garrett Graff at his Doomsday Scenario newsletter. In firing, among others, the “first Black man to lead a service branch, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Gen. C.Q. Brown, and the first woman to serve as the Chief of Naval Operations, Adm. Lisa Franchetti,” Hegseth has “left the U.S. military without a single woman at a four-star rank.” In Hegseth’s Pentagon, an all-white, all-male Joint Chiefs of Staff is tasked with “overseeing a roughly 1.3 million-strong military that is about 20% female and 43% people of color.”

Erasing history

Hegseth’s recent promotion interference is “just the latest of numerous attacks on women,” said the Congressional Black Caucus and Democratic Women’s Caucus in a joint statement. Hegseth is “trying to erase Black and women’s leadership and history.” In that context, his effort “isn’t an anomaly” but rather part of a “coordinated and sustained strategy.”

To deny promotions “based on their race or gender” would “betray every principle of merit-based service that military officers uphold,” said Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.) on X. Such a move would “also violate federal law.”

What happened

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on Thursday forced out Army Chief of Staff Gen. Randy George. A Pentagon spokesperson gave no reason, saying only that George “will be retiring” as the Army’s top uniformed officer, “effective immediately.” Hegseth also reportedly fired Gen. David Hodne, head of the Army’s new Transformation and Training Command, and Maj. Gen. William Green, chief of the Army Chaplain Corps.

Who said what

With George’s dismissal, Hegseth has “removed most of the leaders of the military services,” The Wall Street Journal said. He has “moved quickly” to reshape the Pentagon, Reuters said, but “firing a general during wartime is nearly without precedent.”

“Senior Army officers reacted with anger and frustration” to George’s abrupt removal, The New York Times said. His tensions with Hegseth were “not rooted in substantive differences” over Army policy, but instead reflected Hegseth’s “long-running grievances with the Army,” his “troubled relationship” with Army Secretary Dan Driscoll and a clash over Hegseth’s “highly unusual” decision to block the promotion of four Army officers, two of whom are Black and two women. George had forged a tight partnership with Driscoll, whom Hegseth “has perceived as a threat” due to his close White House ties, CNN said. “Hegseth can’t fire Driscoll,” an administration official told The Washington Post. “So he’s going to make his life hell.”

What next?

Hegseth was expected to replace George with Gen. Christopher LaNeve, the recently installed Army vice chief of staff and Hegseth’s former top military aide.

What happened

A federal judge in California on Thursday temporarily blocked the Pentagon from labeling Anthropic a “supply chain risk,” a designation that effectively blacklisted the AI company from U.S. government contracts. U.S. District Judge Rita Lin said the “broad punitive measures” imposed by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth likely violated Anthropic’s due process and free speech rights.

Who said what

The ruling was a “clear victory” for Anthropic in its “bitter power struggle with the Defense Department over the use of its Claude system by the military,” The Washington Post said. During negotiations for a $200 million contract, Anthropic wanted to keep safeguards against using its AI on autonomous weapons and surveilling Americans, and the Pentagon rejected any limits imposed by a private contractor. When the dispute became public, Hegseth blacklisted Anthropic using an “obscure government-procurement statute aimed at protecting military systems from foreign sabotage,” Reuters said.

“Nothing in the governing statute supports the Orwellian notion that an American company may be branded a potential adversary and saboteur of the U.S. for expressing disagreement with the government,” Lin wrote in her 43-page ruling. If the Pentagon had real national security concerns, it “could just stop using Claude.”

What next?

Lin paused her ruling for seven days to give the Pentagon a chance to appeal. The outcome of the case and a similar challenge pending in Washington, D.C., have broad “implications for AI use in war,” The New York Times said. While the Trump administration has said it would “transition away” from Anthropic’s AI, the Post said, Claude is “deeply embedded in the military’s systems” and the Pentagon “has been continuing to use it in support of its bombing campaign in Iran.”

‘So you want to be a millionaire? Don’t wait until you’re 20.’

Emil Barr at The Wall Street Journal

If you’re a “20-something and plan to get a few years of experience before taking a real swing at entrepreneurship, you’re already late,” says Emil Barr. The “best age to become an entrepreneur is between 18 and 21.” Venture capitalists “often see young blockchain and artificial-intelligence developers as more competent than those in their 50s” and “those are great industries in which to build a business.” In “fast-moving environments, native fluency can outperform seniority. But that window doesn’t stay open indefinitely.”

Read more

‘The NFL ought to throw a flag on the Pentagon. Here’s why it probably won’t.’

Kevin B. Blackistone at MS NOW

Given its “history of promoting the U.S. military, we shouldn’t be surprised that the NFL has not publicly demanded that the Trump administration cease its callous use of game footage to promote its war against Iran,” says Kevin B. Blackistone. The NFL’s “silence is disingenuous at best or hypocritical at worst given the disclaimer we hear at the end of its games: ‘Any rebroadcast or other use of this telecast without the express written consent of the NFL is prohibited.’”

Read more

‘US promised safety. A nearly blind refugee died cold and alone.’

Khin Mai Aung at USA Today

Rohingya refugee Nurul Amin Shah Alam “represents yet another profound systemic failure in our nation’s treatment of immigrants and refugees,” says Khin Mai Aung. Shah Alam “was detained by U.S. Customs and Border Protection, and then dropped off in the middle of the night outside a closed local cafe in February,” and “later found dead.” It “has been a painful road to realize that our country of adoption may not ultimately be safer or more inclusive than our countries of origin.”

Read more

‘Ivy Leaguers are getting their “MRS” degrees’

Grey Battle at Slate

Ivy Leaguers “have classmates who came back from summer vacation married. This is “different from the story usually told about the Ivy League,” says Grey Battle. These students are “chasing marriage with the same intensity they would approach any status symbol — high school book awards, college likely letters, six-figure jobs after graduation.” Universities “will always have students who are engaged, married or parenting, but their numbers are on the rise.” Some are “directly pushing young straight people to marry.”

Read more

What happened

Anthropic on Monday sued Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, the Defense Department and several other federal agencies in federal court, arguing that the administration’s move to blacklist the AI firm as a national security risk was “unprecedented and unlawful.” The Constitution “‌does not allow the government to wield its enormous power to punish a company for its protected speech,” Anthropic said in its filing.

Hegseth last week formally designated the company a “supply chain risk” over Anthropic’s insistence that its AI tool Claude not be used for autonomous lethal weapons or mass surveillance of Americans. President Donald Trump said on social media that all federal agencies must stop using Claude within six months.

Who said what

The supply-chain risk designation “effectively cuts off Anthropic’s work with the Defense Department” and its contractors, The New York Times said, and it “has never been used on an American company.” The label is “usually reserved for Chinese and Russian firms suspected of helping foreign spies,” The Washington Post said. The Pentagon’s “unprecedented step” came “even as Anthropic’s tools were playing a central role” in “Trump’s bombing campaign in Iran.”

“It is absurd for the government to argue that Anthropic is the kind of company meant to be addressed by this statute,” especially when the Pentagon “has repeatedly sought to obtain Anthropic’s services for national defense,” Georgetown University law professor Mark Jia told the Post. It would be “perfectly reasonable” for the Pentagon to cancel its contracts with Anthropic because they don’t believe a private company should set policy or determine when “autonomous lethal weapons are ready for prime time,” Dean Ball, a former Trump White House AI policy adviser, said on “The Ezra Klein Show.” But they don’t have the “statutory power” to “completely destroy the company” in “a kind of political assassination.”

What next?

The White House is “preparing an executive order formally instructing the federal government to rip out Anthropic’s AI from its operations,” Axios said, and it “could be issued as soon as this week.” Anthropic’s “standoff with the Defense Department has cost it Uncle Sam as a customer,” The Wall Street Journal said, but it has also brought a “surge of public goodwill” and a “momentary advantage in the ferocious talent war between rival artificial intelligence labs.”

After months (if not years) of saber-rattling, President Donald Trump this past weekend made good on his longstanding threat to take military action against Iran, authorizing U.S. armed forces to partner with the Israeli military in a massive show of force against multiple Iranian targets. In this, his biggest military action to date, the man who ran for office on a platform of “no new wars” has shown the world an emerging new doctrine for the use of American military force. While there’s little question that Trump’s attack on Iran is intended in no small part as a message for the rest of the world, the specifics and logic of that message remain very much in question.

‘Coherent and prudent’ strategy

In many ways, Trump’s is the “anti–Powell Doctrine,” said Foreign Affairs, citing the policies established by then-General and eventual Secretary of State Colin Powell during the first Iraq war. While that philosophy held that war should only be undertaken as a last resort after exhausting other options and “in pursuit of a clear objective, with a clear exit strategy, and with public support,” Trump’s doctrine holds that military action is merely “one of several tools available” to be used to “increase leverage, maximize surprise, and produce outcomes.” The U.S under Trump appears “increasingly intent” on relying on “discrete yet disruptive military action” over “prolonged interventions,” said Responsible Statecraft. The administration operates to “secure advantage without costly military entanglements or the fatigue of colonial or quasi-imperial overreach,” even as it challenges the “post–World War II international institutional architecture.”

This new doctrine’s use of “tailored, overwhelming force to maximize deterrence and achieve long-term strategic benefits” marks a “coherent and prudent” strategy on the part of the president, said The Wall Street Journal. By “systematically pressuring exposed adversaries,” such as Venezuela or Iran, the “influence of strategic rivals is undercut.” And if the “military components” are “one part of its effectiveness,” it’s Trump himself who is “another” for having “proved to be the only U.S. president willing to wage a true war of attrition against Tehran.”

Trump’s ordering of military operations in Africa, Central America and the Middle East has been seen as an “escalating cycle of force,” stoking fears that are “understandable given the administration’s inflammatory rhetoric,” said the National Post. The “common thread,” however, is “not escalation, but political opportunism,” wherein force is applied solely when “political and military costs appear low” and in “pursuit of quick wins that serve a limited foreign policy agenda.” As the administration frames every military action for “maximum political effect,” this pattern “becomes clear” when combined with Trump’s “over-the-top rhetoric” and bluster: His is a doctrine designed to “project strength” while avoiding the “political costs of sustained engagement.”

National interests made ‘personal’

The new Trump doctrine is about “removing foreign leaders who threaten the U.S., without being drawn into a military quagmire,” explained Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) to “Meet The Press,” per MS Now. But critics contend that Trump is “creating the worst of both approaches to intervention” by “using U.S. military force aggressively and recklessly” while simultaneously counting on his adversaries to “capitulate” as they have “in business and politics.”

Broadly, Trump’s moves against Venezuela, and now in the Middle East, are designed to “cement America’s status as the number one energy superpower,” as he said at a recent rally. In the wake of his attack on Venezuela earlier this year, Trump’s decisions were seen as more than just a “return to such de facto imperialism,” as outdated notions of “great spaces” of influence, said The Guardian. Instead, Trump’s pledge to “run” Venezuela on behalf of oil companies signals the “internationalization of one aspect of his regime — what has rightly been called the logic of the mafia state.” Here, corruption is not conducted clandestinely, but rather “public procurement is rigged,” with large companies “brought under the control of regime-friendly oligarchs,” who in turn “acquire media to provide favorable coverage to the ruler.”

Under this iteration of Trump’s rule, America is “not a state looking after itself” but rather “leadership, and in particular one leader” tapping national resources to “serve his very individual and selfish interests,” said Phillips O’Brien, an international studies professor at the University of St. Andrews, on Substack. This dynamic “destroys much international relations theory,” which assumes that “regime type/leadership matters very little” since they are all merely looking to “get as big and strong as they can in a chaotic world.” In other words, America’s war on Iran is a “war of choice, chosen by Donald Trump to meet some very personal needs.”

What happened

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth Tuesday gave Anthropic until Friday to allow the Pentagon unrestricted access to its Claude artificial intelligence tool or face serious consequences.

In a “tense meeting,” Axios said, Hegseth told Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei that if his firm did not drop its safety guardrails, the Pentagon would cancel its $200 million contract and “declare Anthropic a ‘supply chain risk,’ or invoke the Defense Production Act to force the company to tailor its model to the military’s needs.”

Who said what

Anthropic has “aggressively positioned itself to be a key player in national security” and was the first AI firm to “integrate its technology into the Pentagon’s classified networks,” The Washington Post said. But tensions have mounted over Amodei’s “ethical concerns about unchecked government use of AI,” The Associated Press said, especially for “fully autonomous armed drones” and “AI-assisted mass surveillance that could track dissent.” Some Trump administration officials have lambasted Anthropic’s “hard-line on domestic surveillance and AI weapons” as “Woke AI,” NPR said.

Tuesday’s meeting “ended in a stalemate,” as Amodei “reiterated the company’s red lines and said they wouldn’t interfere with the Pentagon’s operations,” The Wall Street Journal said. Either of Hegseth’s threatened sanctions “would be nearly unprecedented,” and a supply-chain risk designation would affect “a swath of companies, including many in the tech sector.” Defense Production Act experts “questioned whether it could be used to force Anthropic to drop the limitations it seeks to maintain,” the Post said.

What next?

The Pentagon’s threats are “extreme,” legally questionable and “strategically counterproductive,” Lawfare said. But the “deeper problem” is that the “terms governing how the military uses the most transformative technology of the century are being set through bilateral haggling between a defense secretary and a startup CEO,” not by Congress.

What happened

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth ordered Army Secretary Dan Driscoll to fire senior military adviser and chief public affairs official Col. David Butler, news organizations reported Tuesday. Driscoll thanked Butler for his “lifetime of service in America’s Army and to our nation” but did not address the reason for his “upcoming retirement.” Separately, Homeland Security spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin Tuesday said she was resigning after a year tenaciously defending President Donald Trump’s increasingly unpopular immigration crackdown.

Who said what

Butler was “one of the Army’s best communicators,” Fox News said, and Driscoll “had resisted Hegseth’s pressure to fire” him for months. It is “unusual for a defense secretary to weigh in on the firing of an Army spokesman,” The New York Times said. Hegseth blamed Butler for “news articles late last year that compared him unfavorably” to Driscoll, a close friend of Vice President JD Vance, but the defense secretary has also “made no secret of his hatred” for Butler’s former boss, Gen. Mark Milley.

Butler’s “previous work as the senior spokesman” for Milley “appears to be a factor in his removal,” The Washington Post said, citing inside sources. But Hegseth also “takes issue with Driscoll’s rising profile and increasing responsibilities within the Trump administration,” and the firing is part of their “latest clash.” Hegseth had blocked dozens of Army promotions for months, and Butler, nominated for brigadier general, “elected to submit his retirement paperwork rather than hold up his colleagues’ promotions,” the Post said. “Current and former defense officials expressed astonishment at Butler’s ouster.”

What next?

McLaughlin is “leaving DHS next week,” Politico said, and will be replaced by her deputy, Lauren Bis, and new hire Katie Zacharia, a frequent Fox News guest.

What happened

U.S. District Judge Richard Leon Thursday blocked the Pentagon from penalizing Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.) over his involvement in a video reminding military officials of their obligation to refuse illegal orders. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth pushed for the senator and former Navy fighter pilot to be formally censured and demoted for the video, which also involved five other congressional Democrats with military or intelligence backgrounds.

Who said what

“This court has all it needs to conclude that defendants have trampled on Sen. Kelly’s First Amendment freedoms and threatened the constitutional liberties of millions of military retirees,” Leon, a George W. Bush appointee, wrote in his 29-page opinion. “To say the least, our retired veterans deserve more respect from their government, and our Constitution demands they receive it!”

Kelly’s lawsuit against Hegseth and other Pentagon officials is “just one front in a broader dispute that has spiraled between the group of Democratic lawmakers and the Trump administration since they posted the video,” The Associated Press said. Earlier this week, U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro’s office tried to get a grand jury to indict the six Democrats for seditious conspiracy, but failed to “convince a single juror that they had met the threshold to bring charges,” NBC News said.

What next?

Leon’s ruling bars the Pentagon from acting against Kelly while his lawsuit plays out. Hegseth said he would appeal. “Sedition is sedition, ‘Captain,’” he wrote on social media. Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.) “has been told the Justice Department could seek a new indictment” as soon as today against her, Kelly and the four other Democrats in the video, the AP said. “This might not be over yet,” Kelly said on social media, “because this president and this administration do not know how to admit when they’re wrong.”

What happened

The Federal Aviation Administration’s abrupt hourslong closure of El Paso’s airspace Wednesday stemmed from a standoff between the Transportation Department, Defense Department and Department of Homeland Security over testing an anti-drone laser weapon, according to news organizations. The FAA late Tuesday grounded all flights in and around El Paso and a nearby stretch of New Mexico for 10 days, citing “special security reasons,” before backtracking Wednesday morning amid an outcry in Washington, D.C., and Texas.

Who said what

Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy said on social media that the FAA and Pentagon had “acted swiftly to address a cartel drone incursion” and the “threat has been neutralized.” Trump administration officials have been “slinging blame back and forth in private” about the extraordinary airspace closure, Axios said, but their “official statements mirror Duffy’s language around a drone incursion.” Lawmakers and El Paso officials said that explanation made little sense, in part because drone incursions from Mexico are a daily occurrence along the border.

The drone “assertion” was also “undercut by multiple people familiar with the situation, who said that the FAA’s extreme move came after immigration officials earlier this week used an anti-drone laser” from Fort Bliss, which abuts El Paso International Airport, The New York Times said. The FAA and Pentagon had a Feb. 20 meeting scheduled to “discuss the safety implications of deploying” the military’s “high-energy laser,” but Customs and Border Protection officials preemptively “deployed the technology” without giving the FAA “enough time to assess the risks to commercial aircraft.”

FAA officials are concerned because “high-powered lasers can temporarily blind or distract pilots, leading to eye injuries and potential loss of aircraft control, particularly during takeoffs and landings,” The Wall Street Journal said. In this case, CBP used the laser to “counter what officials believed to be a drone” but “was actually a party balloon.” According to “several sources,” CBS News said, “one balloon was shot down.”

What next?

The incident was “yet another in a line of misfires between the FAA and Defense Department, including last year’s 67-fatality midair crash over the Potomac River,” Politico said. Sens. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and John Cornyn (R-Texas) said they wanted a classified briefing on the incident from the FAA and Pentagon.

Stars and Stripes is the official newspaper of the U.S. Department of Defense, but it has always made independent editorial decisions — until now. The Defense Department has announced that Stars and Stripes will now be under the control of the Pentagon, which plans to move the newspaper’s coverage away from what it calls “woke distractions.” Many critics say this is just the latest in the Trump administration’s crackdown on press freedoms.

What did the commentators say?

The Defense Department will be “returning Stars and Stripes to its original mission: reporting for our warfighters,” said Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell in a statement on X. The Pentagon is going to “refocus its content away from woke distractions that syphon morale, and adapt it to serve a new generation of service members.” Stars and Stripes will now highlight “warfighting, weapons systems, fitness, lethality, survivability.” It will also no longer publish newswire reports from outlets like The Associated Press, according to Parnell.

This marks a significant shift for Stars and Stripes, which was first published during the Civil War and has been “editorially independent from Defense Department officials since a congressional mandate in the 1990s,” said The Hill. But the change “follows the Trump administration’s restrictions on Pentagon journalists,” most of whom have chosen to “give up working from the building rather than sign on to new, constricting rules imposed by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.” The news also comes after The Washington Post reported that applicants to Stars and Stripes are “being asked how they would support the president’s policy priorities.”

The government additionally published a Federal Register rule that “struck previous policy regarding Stars and Stripes’ business operations, including a requirement for a civilian editor and an independent ombudsman,” said The Guardian. All of these updates have drawn “immediate censure from press freedom groups as the latest attempt by the Pentagon to stifle criticism and control what is written about it.”

American troops “deserve credible, trustworthy news guaranteed by the First Amendment, a cornerstone of the Constitution they defend,” said Tim Richardson, the journalism and disinformation program director for PEN America, in a statement. The Pentagon’s action “tramples both the First Amendment and the congressional mandate that the publication remain editorially independent.” Stars and Stripes itself raised similar concerns. The “people who risk their lives in defense of the Constitution have earned the right to the press freedoms of the First Amendment,” said Stars and Stripes Editor-in-Chief Erik Slavin in an article for the newspaper.

What next?

Amid the takeover, there is “growing unease among the staff about the Pentagon's plans for the paper and its original reporting,” said Business Insider. Many staffers are also reportedly worried about their jobs after it was “reported the Pentagon plans to staff Stars and Stripes with more active-duty personnel.” This could potentially mean “layoffs for civilian reporters and fewer stories that spotlight problems.”

If the Department of Defense “begins to dictate what the coverage should be, what the ‘news’ should be in Stars and Stripes,” the newspaper “loses its credibility and harms its mission to provide fair and impartial news to the military community,” said Stars and Stripes Ombudsman Jacqueline Smith to Business Insider. Smith also published an op-ed calling for more independent assistance for the newspaper.

What happened

Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.) on Monday sued Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and the Pentagon over the Trump administration’s retaliation for his appearance in a video reminding military members of their obligation to reject illegal orders. Kelly, a retired Navy captain, is asking a federal court to block Hegseth’s “unlawful and unconstitutional” bid to reduce his rank and pension and other threatened punishments “for engaging in disfavored political speech.”

Who said what

Kelly’s lawsuit “seeks to reverse the administrative rebuke” from Hegseth, the Arizona Republic said, “but it could also establish new clarity on whether the Pentagon can invoke military law to effectively limit what a senator who oversees that agency can say.” The lawsuit says the First Amendment’s free speech guarantee “applies with particular force to legislators speaking on matters of public policy.”

It is “rare, if not jarring,” for a sitting senator to sue the defense secretary, The Associated Press said, but Kelly is the latest of several lawmakers to “push back against what they see as an out-of-control executive branch.” Hegseth “wants our longest-serving military veterans to live with the constant threat that they could be deprived of their rank and pay” because he or a future defense secretary “doesn’t like what they’ve said,” Kelly said in a statement. “That’s not the way things work in the United States of America, and I won’t stand for it.”

What next?

U.S. District Judge Richard Leon has scheduled a Thursday hearing on Kelly’s request for a temporary restraining order, and the “next steps in the case” could “come quickly,” The Washington Post said. Hegseth directed Kelly to respond to his censure by Jan. 20, but the senator’s lawyers are asking Leon to block the proceedings from moving forward while his challenge is litigated.

What happened

The Pentagon said Monday it might recall Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.) to active duty to court-martial or otherwise punish him for telling military service members they “can refuse illegal orders.” Kelly, a retired Navy combat veteran and astronaut, was one of six lawmakers who reminded service members of their legal obligations in a video last week, but he was the only one still subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said. President Donald Trump accused the lawmakers of “sedition.”

Who said what

The Pentagon said it launched a “thorough review” after purportedly receiving “serious allegations of misconduct” against Kelly. Hegseth said on social media that “the ‘Seditious Six’” had encouraged “our warriors to ignore the orders of their commanders,” and Kelly’s “conduct” will “be addressed appropriately.”

“Experts on military law said the inquiry was almost unprecedented,” The Washington Post said. Setting aside the legal and constitutional issues of the Pentagon trying to discipline a sitting senator at the behest of the defense secretary and president, Kelly’s remarks were “a 100% accurate representation of what the law says,” Yale Law School military justice expert Eugene Fidell told The Wall Street Journal. “No American citizen should have to deal with this type of preposterous investigation.”

What next?

“If this is meant to intimidate me” and other lawmakers, “it won’t work,” Kelly said on social media. “I’ve given too much to this country to be silenced by bullies who care more about their own power than protecting the Constitution.” The targeting of Kelly, Reuters said, “could be seen as a message” to top military officers recently purged by Hegseth, “who have stayed silent following their removals.”

What happened

Defense Department officials on Thursday briefed House members about President Donald Trump’s ongoing military strikes on alleged cocaine smugglers off the coast of South America. But the White House pulled the lawyers scheduled to attend the classified briefing, limiting its utility, Democrats said afterward. Senate Democrats said that they were not invited to a separate intelligence briefing on the attacks held Wednesday for their GOP colleagues, in a breach of longstanding tradition.

Who said what

The Pentagon has acknowledged 14 strikes so far, killing 61 people. But the administration does not know their identities, Rep. Sara Jacobs (D-Calif.) told reporters after the briefing. “They said that they do not need to positively identify individuals on the vessel to do the strikes,” only “prove a connection” to one of the drug gangs Trump has targeted, even if that connection is “as much as three hops away.”

Most of the questions at the briefing “focused on the legal basis for the strikes,” amid “bipartisan allegations” that Trump’s team is “carrying out extrajudicial killings,” Axios said. But “they didn’t even show up with the lawyers,” said Rep. Seth Moulton (D-Mass.). And when lawmakers asked about the legal justification, “they just said that they can’t answer these questions because the lawyers aren’t here.”

What next?

Lawmakers pressed the Pentagon briefers for a classified Justice Department memo laying out the legal argument for the strikes, but the officials “would not say when they would turn it over,” The New York Times said. The delay, a U.S. official told the Times, “was because the White House does not want to show members of Congress the memo.” But the pushback from House Republicans “suggests there is some bipartisan momentum for more oversight,” Politico said.

What happened

Dozens of reporters covering the Pentagon cleared out their desks and turned in their access badges Wednesday after refusing to sign a restrictive new press policy imposed by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. Leaving the Pentagon press area after 18 years was “sad,” said The Atlantic’s Nancy Youssef, “but I’m also really proud of the press corps that we stuck together.”

Who said what

News organizations were “nearly unanimous” in rejecting the new rules, which would “leave journalists vulnerable to expulsion if they sought to report on information — classified or otherwise — that had not been approved by Hegseth for release,” The Associated Press said. “They want to spoon-feed information to the journalist, and that would be their story,” retired U.S. Gen. Jack Keane said on Fox News, Hegseth’s former employer and one of the outlets that rejected the restrictions. “That’s not journalism.”

Hegseth’s “sweeping restrictions” on press access were “orchestrated with advice from his longtime personal lawyer” Tim Parlatore, whose “dual status as a mid-ranking military officer” and Hegseth’s civilian “legal fixer” has “troubled some defense officials,” The Washington Post said. Pentagon officials “anticipate” legal challenges to the rules.

What next?

News organizations “vowed they’d continue robust coverage of the military,” though they will be doing so “further from the seat of its power,” the AP said. Military officials tipped off reporters because “they knew the American public deserved to know what’s going on,” NPR’s Tom Bowman said in an essay. “With no reporters able to ask questions,” it appears Hegseth and his team will “rely on slick social media posts, carefully orchestrated short videos and interviews with partisan commentators and podcasters.”

What happened

News organizations from across the ideological spectrum Monday said they would not sign a new Defense Department press policy that limits the information reporters can request from Pentagon employees and requires journalists to have an escort even in unclassified parts of the building, among other restrictions. The policy is Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s latest move to limit press access at the Pentagon.

Who said what

The new requirements “violate our First Amendment rights, and the rights of Americans who seek to know how taxpayer-funded military resources and personnel are being deployed,” said The Atlantic’s editor-in-chief, Jeffrey Goldberg. The New York Times, Newsmax, The Wall Street Journal, CNN, The Washington Post, Reuters, The Washington Times and Task & Purpose were among the other organizations that said they would not sign by this evening’s deadline.

Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell said reporters were having a “full-blown meltdown” over “common sense” restrictions that ask them “just to acknowledge that they understand what our policy is.” Hegseth posted a series of wave-goodbye emojis over online statements from news organizations. Trump’s former Pentagon spokesperson John Ullyot said Hegseth “should drop the Soviet-style restrictions” and follow the lead of the president and “every other Cabinet secretary by engaging regularly, confidently and conversationally with reporters of all stripes.”

What next?

The Pentagon Press Association said most of its members “seem likely to hand over their badges” rather than “acknowledge a policy that gags Pentagon employees and threatens retaliation against reporters who seek out information that has not been preapproved for release.” The “only publication that has said it will sign the agreement is the right-wing One America News,” The Washington Post said. “Fox News, Hegseth’s former employer, has not yet said whether it would sign the pledge.”

What happened

Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker assailed President Trump for his threat to send the National Guard into Chicago, calling it an illegal and "un-American" scheme hatched by a "wannabe dictator." Trump cited Chicago, New York, and Baltimore as possible next targets for federal intervention, while claiming his takeover of Washington, D.C.'s police force and deployment of National Guard troops and federal law enforcement agents to the nation's capital had made the "hellhole" city safe. The Washington Post reported that the Pentagon has spent weeks sketching out a plan that would see thousands of Illinois National Guard deployed in Chicago; the use of active-duty troops had also been discussed. Calling the nation's third-most populous city "a killing field," Trump said he could "solve Chicago" in a week or less. Pritzker noted Chicago has seen a 32% homicide drop since last year, and that many Republican-run cities have higher murder rates. Trump's real goal is not to fight crime, the Democrat said, but "to lay the groundwork to circumvent our democracy, militarize our cities, and end elections."

Trump signed an executive order directing Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to create a "quick reaction force" in the guard "available for rapid nationwide deployment" to "cities where public safety and order has been lost." Under Hegseth's orders, some of the more than 2,200 guard troops in D.C. began carrying weapons on patrol. The troops have largely been stationed in heavily touristed areas like the National Mall, and some have been assigned to trash removal and landscaping duties.

Trump said Democrats who oppose his blue-city interventions are walking into a "trap," and that his shows of force would be welcomed by a crime-weary public. "They say, 'He's a dictator, he's a dictator,'" Trump said at an Oval Office event. "A lot of people are saying, 'Maybe we'd like a dictator.' I don't like a dictator." He dismissed questions about whether he can legally deploy soldiers to Chicago without Gov. Pritzker's approval. "I have the right to do anything I want to do," he said. "I'm the president of the United States."

What the columnists said

"No thank you," said the Chicago Tribune in an editorial. We've seen what's unfolded in D.C., where residents have endured "the dystopian presence" of armed soldiers patrolling neighborhoods that fit nobody's "definition of crime-riddled." The show of military power in Georgetown and on the Mall exposes the supposed "crime emergency" as "little more than a pretext for Trump to display his vision of a muscular executive branch intervening in the affairs of urban America." That's "the last thing Chicago needs."

"Trump is selling a dangerous lie about the city I've made a life in," said Kimberly Atkins Stohr in The Boston Globe. D.C. is a vibrant metropolis where, despite Trump's claims, nobody was afraid to go out to dinner. But restaurants are suffering now because residents are staying home, spooked by an armed occupation that "bears all the hallmarks of a fascist regime." In immigrant neighborhoods, there are deserted streets and a "palpable sense of fear," said Daniella Silva and Megan Lebowitz in NBCNews.com. Residents report groups of ICE agents grabbing men off the streets and checkpoints where every driver is asked for identification. Margarita, a Salvadoran immigrant who runs a restaurant, said half her employees are afraid to come to work. "People are traumatized," she said.

This is tricky territory for Democrats, said Rachael Bade in Politico. Eight in 10 Washingtonians oppose Trump's D.C. occupation, but Trump "is playing to a national audience." Crime stats in D.C., Chicago, and other cities may be down, but citing numbers only goes so far when people feel unsafe, and Democrats who dismiss their concerns are playing a losing game. They need to look at last week's Harvard poll, which showed that 54% of voters think Trump's actions in Washington are "justified and necessary."

My hometown of Chicago and other big cities "really are irreparably broken," said Jeffrey Blehar in National Review. But in Chicago, so vast it makes D.C. look like "a torn postage stamp," flooding the Loop with troops won't fix anything, no matter how "brilliant" it might be politically. And there's another catch: It's blatantly illegal. Trump's lust for power can't override a Constitution that "grants police powers to the states," not the federal government.

Trump's goal of a civil rapid reaction force is sparking alarm among some former National Guard brass, said Anne Flaherty in ABCNews.com. The guard's mission is to help fight foreign enemies or aid Americans "in times of extraordinary crisis." But Trump wants units whose purpose is to "dominate and police the American people," said retired Maj. Gen. Randy Manner. "And that is extremely disturbing." Using troops for domestic law enforcement could have unsettling consequences, said retired Maj. Gen. Linda Singh. "What happens if there's an escalation and civilians are killed?" she said. "We are setting precedents we can't come back from."

America has turned a dangerous corner, said Garrett Graff in his newsletter. We've suddenly become a country "where armed officers of the state shout, 'Papers please!'" at people heading home from work, a country where masked men throw people into unmarked cars, "disappearing them into an opaque system where their family members beg for information." Now Trump is threatening domestic opponents such as Pritzker with D.C.-like occupations, claiming "emergency powers in a moment where the only emergency is his own abuse of power." This "is what American fascism looks like."

What next?

We now have a clear sign that Trump "intends to expand the U.S. military's role in domestic law enforcement," said Zachary Cohen in CNN.com. His National Guard executive order also calls for every state to create specialized units focused on "public order issues." But questions remain "about how the order will work in practice." The guard "already has reaction forces" in each state and territory, who are under the command and control of governors. Trump's order doesn't say what authority the new units would report to if they're deployed over a governor's objection. Nor does it say how such units would train "or whether there would be coordination between those units across the states." Whatever the details, the alarming upshot is clear, said William Kristol in The Bulwark. The National Guard is being "turned into the president's own rapid domestic deployment force, to be used at his unchecked discretion." The guard deployments in Los Angeles and Washington were "presented as exceptional." Now "it is to become the rule."

By extending military honors to Ashli Babbitt, the Air Force veteran shot and killed by police as she breached a restricted area during the Jan. 6 Capitol riot, the White House is not simply paying respect to a veteran. Babbitt will receive military funeral honors nearly six years after her death became a rallying cry for MAGA faithful. Consequently, President Donald Trump is continuing a years-long effort to reframe Jan. 6 participants as patriotic heroes maligned by the previous administration. In doing so, Trump is delivering on the historical revisionism he promised on the 2024 campaign trail.

'The previous determination was incorrect'

Providing military funeral honors for Babbitt is "long overdue," said Air Force Undersecretary Matt Lohmeier on X. In 2021, then-Lt. Gen. Brian Kelly, Air Force deputy chief of staff for Manpower, Personnel and Services, denied a request from Babbitt's family for similar honors in a letter citing the "circumstances preceding her death." However, after reviewing those circumstances and additional unspecified information that has "come forward since then, I am persuaded that the previous determination was incorrect," Lohmeier said in an Aug. 15 message to the Babbitt family notifying them of the reversal. Lohmeier is a former Space Force officer fired for claiming that "Marxism was rampant in the ranks of the military," said Military.com.

The undersecretary also invited the Babbit family to visit the Pentagon so he could "personally offer my condolences." The decision "comes on the heels of a wrongful death settlement" that saw the government agree to a nearly $5 million payout for the Babbitt family, said Fox News.

Babbitt and her death have "continued to be a focal point" for the president and various conservative lawmakers and activists who have "organized to support the Jan. 6 rioters," said The Washington Post. Trump has cast Babbitt as a "martyr" in his "broader push to rewrite the history" of the "violent effort to overturn the 2020 presidential election."

Trump is working to reframe the day as a "patriotic stand, given he still denies he lost that election," said The Associated Press. Judicial Watch, the conservative legal advocacy group that represents the Babbitt family, "cited Trump's pardons and clemencies" of 1,500 insurrection participants as one reason why the Biden administration's decision should be reversed, said Task and Purpose.

Critics contend that the granting of military honors in particular represents a "broader shift" in Trump's effort, said Newsweek. By taking a "step further" beyond his previous overtures, the president is both "legitimizing the actions of the rioters" and "blurring the line between service to the country and an assault on democratic institutions."

Indefensible or true leadership?

Babbitt's death, cleared by federal prosecutors, is "absolutely tragic," said former GOP congressman and Air National Guard Lt. Colonel Adam Kinzinger on X. "I wish it hadn't happened." But given that she "dishonored her service by committing insurrection," Babbitt being awarded funeral honors is "in itself a dishonor."

There is "no better example of how a leader is supposed to act" than in Lohmeier's letter to the Babbitt family, said former National Security Adviser and Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn (Ret.) to Fox News. Military funeral honors vary based on rank, but "typically involve the playing of 'Taps' and the folding and presentation of the American flag to the next of kin by at least two uniformed service members," said Military.com.

What is the Pentagon running low on?

Drones, missiles, ammunition, nearly everything. Weapons shipments have strained U.S. stockpiles, particularly deliveries to Ukraine, which burned through a year's worth of American 155mm artillery in just eight weeks in 2022, and to Israel. This month, the Pentagon paused transfers to Ukraine of Patriot missiles, precision-guided rockets, howitzer rounds, and more while it assessed inventory (though President Trump partly reversed that order). Middle East skirmishes have also eaten up material. In the $1.5 billion campaign to protect Red Sea shipping against Yemen's Houthi rebels, the U.S. fired 125 Tomahawks and 155 standard missiles and had seven Reaper drones shot down. And the Houthis are a ragtag militia compared with the real threat: China. When the Center for New American Security gamed out war with China, the U.S. fired 90% of its anti-ship cruise missiles and 80% of its land-attack weapons in less than a week. We'd better hope the next conflict is short-term, Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.) said in May, "because we don't have enough munitions to sustain a long-term fight."

Can't the U.S. replace the weapons?

Not fast enough. The defense budget is about $850 billion a year, but 22% goes to military salaries, and the biggest chunk, 39%, is for operations and maintenance. Only about 17% goes toward weapons procurement. And even if the Pentagon wanted to spend more, the U.S. industrial base has atrophied since the end of the Cold War. At this point, it "may be incapable of meeting the munitions demand created by a potential future fight against a peer adversary," the Army Science Board said in a 2023 report. Defense analyst Mackenzie Eaglen, who co-authored that report, told The Atlantic that it's "a miracle the U.S. military has anything that blows up, ever." While companies are modernizing production, the process requires new equipment and skilled workers and will likely take years to complete. Shipbuilding, too, is lagging: The Navy had some 600 ships in 1987 and 300 now.

Why is shipbuilding lagging?

The U.S. industry dried up. Thanks to 19th-century laws requiring that any voyage between two U.S. ports be made in a U.S. vessel, American shipbuilding was protected from international competition and lost its competitive edge. The U.S. did ramp up the building of naval and cargo ships during World War II but sold them off after the war and dismantled the shipyards. Because of high costs, red tape, and a loss of subsidies, the U.S. now produces almost no oceangoing commercial ships: just five in 2022, compared with China's 1,794. And the few military ships the U.S. has built tend to be insanely expensive. The Navy spent $22.5 billion to build three Zumwalt-class destroyers, for example, only to cancel the program because the gun on them would be too costly. Restoring U.S. shipbuilding will be a "generational project," said Jake Sullivan, national security adviser under President Joe Biden, since "we don't have the backbone of a healthy commercial shipbuilding base to rest our naval shipbuilding on top of."

How did we get to this point?

It's partly that weapons production and shipbuilding declined along with the general drop-off in U.S. manufacturing. But it's also the result of winning the Cold War. The Clinton administration swept into office in 1993 expecting to enjoy a peace dividend, and it slashed defense spending by some 15%, nearly two-thirds of which came from weapons procurement. That put many of the big defense contractors out of business, and by the end of the 1990s, the U.S. defense industrial base had shrunk from over 100 firms to just five. To this day, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, Northrup Grumman, General Dynamics, and Boeing dominate the market. Critics say this lack of competition has stifled innovation and poured defense dollars into costly and outdated weapons systems like fighter jets, guided missiles, and aircraft carriers.

What should we be building instead?

Drones. The U.S. arsenal is heavy on high-tech stuff like Tomahawk cruise missiles ($2 million each), interceptor missiles (up to $28 million) and F-35 fighter jets ($100 million). But as Russia's invasion of Ukraine has shown, quantity trumps quality in a protracted war. Kyiv has stayed in the fight thanks partly to its use of cheap drones that can swarm. Yet even if the Pentagon wanted to reorient around drones, its procurement process is clogged with red tape and designed for weapons systems that take 15 years to develop. "Drone innovation is happening at warp speed," said Mark D. Jacobsen, a former professor at the Air Force's Air War College, "but Defense Department acquisition is happening at industrial speed."

Are changes underway?

Yes. Production of artillery ammo has accelerated and is expected to increase fivefold this year. The big spending bill passed earlier this month added $25 billion for munitions, $29 billion for shipbuilding, and $16 billion for drones. And the Army is planning a $36 billion overhaul to equip its 10 combat divisions with 1,000 drones each and improve anti-drone defenses. To pay for that, it will halt procurement of things drones can take out, like tactical vehicles and M10 light tanks. "You've got to identify the attributes of a future force," said Gen. Mark Milley, former chair of the joint chiefs. "We are in the midst of really fundamental change here."

China arms up

While the U.S. remains the most advanced military in the world, China has been adding weapons, ships, and aircraft carriers at a rate five to six times faster—and it's increasingly producing them at home rather than buying them from Russia. Since China has a manufacturing-dominant economy and plentiful raw materials, it is effectively already operating on a wartime footing, while the U.S. would need to adjust its industries and workforce if a major conflict broke out. The contrast is particularly stark at sea: Chinese shipbuilding capacity is 230 times larger, thanks largely to dual-use shipyards, and China now has the bigger navy. Many Pentagon insiders believe Beijing is planning to attack Taiwan in 2027, which could spark a war with the U.S. "They are certainly putting a lot of resources into the capabilities," says Gen. David W. Allvin, Air Force chief of staff. "Will they fight? I don't want to find out."

What happened

The U.S. bombing of three Iranian nuclear sites on Saturday damaged but did not destroy core components of Tehran's nuclear program and likely only set it back by months, not years, according to an initial assessment from the Pentagon's intelligence arm, shared with CNN and other news organizations Tuesday. The assessment, if accurate, contradicted President Donald Trump's repeated claim that the "bunker buster" strikes he ordered had "completely and fully obliterated" the Iranian facilities at Fordo, Natanz and Isfahan.

Who said what

The Defense Intelligence Agency judged that "at least some of Iran's highly enriched uranium, necessary for creating a nuclear weapon, was moved" before the U.S. strikes "and survived," The Associated Press said, and that Tehran's "centrifuges, which are required to further enrich uranium to weapons-grade levels, are largely intact." The DIA assessment "is that the U.S. set them back maybe a few months, tops," a person familiar with the report told CNN.

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said the DIA's "alleged 'assessment' is flat-out wrong" and was leaked to "demean" Trump. "Everyone knows what happens when you drop 14 30,000-pound bombs perfectly on their targets: total obliteration."

Trump "started using the word 'obliterated' before he received his first battle damage report" and has "closely monitored which members of his administration have used the same language," The New York Times said. Trump "had been eager to celebrate his success" at a NATO summit that started last night in the Netherlands, but his "upbeat demeanor" from the "fragile ceasefire" he cajoled and cursed Israel and Iran into accepting "crumbled" after the "damaging" intelligence findings became public.

What next?

The damage assessment by the DIA and other spy agencies "is ongoing, and could change as more intelligence becomes available," CNN said. The White House canceled classified top-level House and Senate briefings on the Iran strike Tuesday and rescheduled them for later this week, fueling speculation about the effectiveness of the attack. "They don't delay briefings that have good news," Rep. Mike Quigley (D-Ill.) told The Washington Post.

The U.S. service academies are under attack—by the Pentagon, said Greg Jaffe in The New York Times. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth last week ordered West Point and other military academies to purge their libraries of books covering "divisive concepts" such as race, gender, and the treatment of Native Americans. The service academies, Hegseth and President Trump declared in a memo, cannot teach that "America's founding documents are racist or sexist." The Defense Department suggested using search terms including "anti-racism," "diversity in the workplace," "gender transition," "white privilege," and "critical race theory" to weed out forbidden books. The Naval Academy has already purged almost 400 books, including acclaimed works by Toni Morrison and Maya Angelou. As Trump and Hegseth "ratchet up the pressure" in the culture wars, several West Point professors have resigned in protest, while the academy's leaders find themselves "in an increasingly difficult spot."

After 13 years teaching philosophy at West Point, I am resigning because the academy has "abandoned its core principles," said Graham Parsons, also in the Times. Hegseth's censorship requires professors "to indoctrinate, not educate." The claim that historical realities like racism and sexism "are too dangerous even to be contemplated" by cadets is absurd. So is telling future military leaders they can't "question their own government." Meanwhile, the Supreme Court last week temporarily allowed the Pentagon to enforce Hegseth's ban on transgender troops, said Mark Joseph Stern in Slate. Litigation over that ban continues in lower courts, but the military's estimated 1,000 members who self-identify as transgender now have 30 days to resign and leave, despite no evidence they undermine military readiness. "No more dudes in dresses," Hegseth sneered.

It's Hegseth, not trans troops or books, who's undermining the military, said Laura Jedeed in The Nation. With his "penchant for sharing classified information" on unsecured apps, the unqualified former Fox News host "is a liability in every possible sense." His top aides have already quit or been fired. Hegseth is keeping his job for one reason: Trump has long fantasized about invoking the Insurrection Act and sending the army into the streets to round up migrants or protesters. Trump knows that many career military officers believe they serve the Constitution, not an authoritarian president, and might say "no" to an illegal order. Hegseth's mission is "changing that 'no' into a 'yes.'"

What happened

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth was fighting to hold on to his Cabinet position this week after reports that he used a second Signal chat—which included his wife, brother, and personal lawyer— last month to discuss detailed plans for a U.S. military strike on rebel camps in Yemen. The New York Times reported that Hegseth, a former Fox News host, had created chaos "unmatched in the recent history" of the Pentagon, and that after he fired three top aides last week and accused them of leaking to the press, his circle of advisers "is in shambles." A fourth recently departed aide, former Pentagon spokesman John Ullyot, said in a Politico column that the Defense Department is "in a full-blown meltdown" under Hegseth's leadership and that "it's hard to see" him retaining his post. NPR reported that the Trump administration has begun a search for Hegseth's replacement.

President Trump said Hegseth "is doing a great job" and denied seeking to replace him. Hegseth maintains the information he shared about the Yemen strikes on two Signal chats—the first with a journalist mistakenly included—was "informal" and not classified. But NBC News reported that the plans Hegseth detailed came directly from a general using a secure government system. The inclusion of Hegseth's wife—a former Fox producer with no military background—in the chat has raised questions about her frequent presence in Hegseth's official meetings. While some Republicans are standing by Hegseth, GOP Rep. Don Bacon called him "an amateur" and said he was acting "like he's above the law."

What the columnists said

Hegseth is blaming the media and "former disgruntled employees" for his troubles, said The Wall Street Journal in an editorial, but the press "didn't make up the staff turmoil, or the embarrassing Signal chat." The "infighting, dismissals, and leaks" look like "the self-inflicted mistakes of a management neophyte." Hegseth vowed to be a disruptor of the status quo at the Pentagon, but, as Republican Sen. Mitch McConnell warned when he voted against Hegseth's confirmation, that's not a "sufficient credential" to be put in charge of America's defense and 3.4 million military and civilian employees. If he wants to keep his job, he needs to bring in competent, experienced staff.

Actually, "it's time for Hegseth to go," said Max Boot in The Washington Post. He's "in way over his head," and is "undermining the military's effectiveness." A lower-level employee would have been fired, if not criminally charged, for "such flagrant misbehavior" as boasting about an imminent U.S. attack via a commercial app on his personal phone. Time to hand the job "to someone who has the right experience and qualifications to lead one of the world's largest and most complex organizations."

Trump doesn't want to sack Hegseth because he thinks it "will only encourage and empower the press," said David A. Graham in The Atlantic. But that's a "dangerous game to play with national security." If Trump won't take a "political loss now, what kind of geopolitical loss does he risk later?"

What happened

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's chief of staff, Joe Kasper, stepped down Thursday. With his departure and the firing of three top Hegseth aides over leak accusations they deny, Hegseth's "circle of top advisers" has "shrunk in recent days to little more than his wife, lawyer and two lower-level officials," Politico said, leaving the inexperienced "first-time government official without trusted staff who understand Washington — just as he faces fallout from a series of scandals that have led to rampant speculation" about his standing with President Donald Trump.

Who said what

Defense officials describe Hegseth as "paranoid and increasingly isolated," The Washington Post said. He is leaning on a few trusted advisers and has become "keenly focused on daily news coverage dissecting his missteps and decision-making." His staff is "focused on building an aura around Hegseth by pushing out videos of his memo signings and early morning workouts," Politico said, potentially delaying "less photo-worthy" tasks like finishing the Pentagon's expected $1 trillion budget.

Hegseth "sees his videos and social-media posts" as "appealing to the current force and the MAGA base," but he's also "increasingly concerned about how Trump is perceiving the situation and the possibility of being fired," The Wall Street Journal said. The series of leaks — about a planned classified Chinese war briefing for Elon Musk, his wife's attendance at sensitive meetings and his sharing of secret Yemen attack plans in two unsecured Signal groups chats — have left Hegseth "rattled."

Publicly, Hegseth has come out swinging, blaming "disgruntled" former officials for the leaks and insisting he did not share classified information in the Signal chats. But "additional revelations have continued to emerge," the Post said. The Associated Press reported Thursday that Hegseth had an unsecured, or "dirty," internet line installed in his Pentagon office so he could use Signal on a second computer, raising the possibility that "sensitive defense information could have been put at risk of potential hacking or surveillance."

What next?

Trump has "indicated he will stand by the defense chief," the Journal said, but he has also "begun to ask people around him about Hegseth's performance, and his advisers have closely watched his recent media appearances."

'The office that won the Cold War, RIP'

The Wall Street Journal editorial board

There is a "brief word on the dismantling of a little-known Pentagon office that helped America win the Cold War," says The Wall Street Journal editorial board. The Office of Net Assessment "exists to ponder threats lurking over the horizon and stress-test military planning assumptions." America is "more vulnerable than at any point since at least the Cold War." The Trump administration is "making no sustained argument about how it plans to deter — or win — a future conflict."

Read more

'Alcohol warning labels may not be enough to change Americans' behaviors'

Simar Bajaj at Time

When "done correctly, warning labels are important — not necessarily as a transformative public health intervention but as public recognition of a product's harms and catalyst for further action," says Simar Bajaj. Even "calling for updated labels offers a useful spotlight, regardless of whether it alters drinking habits," but "changing behaviors demands much more." These "warnings, alongside a larger suite of regulations, such as higher alcohol taxes, will likely be the most evidence-based, cost-effective way to save lives."

Read more

'As Azerbaijan plummets deeper into authoritarianism, will Trump respond as promised?'

Thomas Becker at Newsweek

The Red Cross "recently announced that Azerbaijan ordered it to leave the country. The United States and the rest of the international community must not sit idly by," says Thomas Becker. The Red Cross is the "latest casualty in Azerbaijan's purge of international non-governmental and media organizations that has sparked concern." Donald Trump "condemned the persecution and displacement of ethnic Armenians from Nagorno-Karabakh," and he "should prove his words were more than an empty campaign promise."

Read more

'The pandemic never ended'

Laura Weiss at The New Republic

Covid-19 "wasn't only about these beginnings, it's about the horrors we still experience today," says Laura Weiss. People "say 'during the pandemic' when they mean 'during lockdown,'" and this is the "product of ignorance and misinformation, coming from the top down." This is "about the health of a nation, and the world, and the lessons we could have learned." There "was a moment of solidarity, somewhere within the trauma." But "now, things couldn't feel more different."

Read more

Unlike his first term effort to laud "my generals" straight out of "central casting" who would "keep us so safe," President Donald Trump has taken a different tack toward the military during his second administration. Eschewing previous attempts to work with existing leadership (many of whom ultimately earned positions on the president's list of perceived enemies), Trump is opting for a more wholesale approach this time around. He has replaced top Pentagon brass and, alongside Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, is working to change the way America goes to war. Capitalizing on his prerogative as commander in chief to oversee a military more to his liking, Trump's plans to remake the armed forces are transforming one of the nation's foundational institutions.

'Quiet but seismic recalibration'

During his short tenure atop the Pentagon, Hegseth has so far focused on creating a military that is "more aggressive on the battlefield" while being "potentially less hindered by the laws of armed conflict," The New York Times said. Hegseth has "prioritized the 'lethality' of the armed forces by 'reviving warrior ethos'" on Trump's behalf, The Hill said. To that end, Hegseth has engaged in a "quiet but seismic recalibration" by "broadening the range of people who can be targeted" in airstrikes and special operations raids, CBS News said. This move "signals a return to more aggressive counterterrorism policies" like those from Trump's first term.

Beyond merely expanding the rules of engagement for certain types of combat operations, Hegseth is also planning a "sweeping overhaul of the Judge Advocate General's corps" (JAG) to further make the Pentagon "less restricted by the laws of armed conflict," The Guardian said. By also "retraining military lawyers," they can then "provide more expansive legal advice to commanders" regarding "more aggressive tactics" and a "more lenient approach in charging soldiers with battlefield crimes."

'Roadblocks' or 'role models'?

Hegseth has vociferously defended his decision to fire a suite of Army JAG attorneys last month, insisting they might present "roadblocks to orders that are given by a commander in chief." Crucially, JAG officials merely advise commanders on the potential legalities of a given situation, rather than participate in enacting and following through on orders. Given Trump's "history of suggesting that he would use troops against U.S. citizens despite federal legal restrictions," Military.com said, the traditionally apolitical JAG Corps could soon find itself "at the center of such historic and consequential legal decisions."

"My fear is there will be officers in the room that say, 'sure, we will shoot them in the legs,'" said Rear Adm. James McPherson (Ret.) to "PBS Newshour," referencing Trump's alleged push for protesters to be shot during the 2020 George Floyd demonstrations. Sometimes a JAG attorney has to be a "roadblock if someone desires to do something illegal," said former Navy JAG and Emory University Law Professor Mark Nevitt to NPR.

More intangibly, any perceived politicization of the JAG Corps could permanently alter the reputation of a group that has "often been a role model for other nations," said Military.com. The corps has garnered "great respect and even deference to U.S. perspectives on the law when working with allies and partners."

President Trump shredded “America’s soft power” by gutting USAID, said Max Boot in The Washington Post. “Now he seems bent on damaging U.S. hard power too.” Hours after Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced plans last week to cut 5,400 civilian Pentagon employees, Trump conducted his own “Friday-night massacre.” He fired a half-dozen top military leaders, including Gen. Charles Q. Brown Jr.—the second African-American to serve as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff—and Adm. Lisa Franchetti, chief of Naval Operations.

Hegseth offered no rationale for the dismissals, except that they would somehow refocus the military on its “core mission of deterring, fighting, and winning wars.” But it’s telling that Trump’s chosen replacement for Brown is Lt. Gen. Dan “Razin” Caine, a white, retired, three-star Air Force officer. Caine’s selection tells “Black and female officers that their prospects for promotion may be gravely limited,” said Fred Kaplan in Slate. Worse is Trump’s stated reason for the pick: that when he met Caine during a 2018 visit to troops in Iraq, Caine put on a MAGA hat and told him, “I think you’re great, sir. I’ll kill for you, sir.” Trump’s proud sharing of this story—denied by Caine and other officials—is a “nerve-wracking” clue to the president’s plans for the military once he’s cleansed its upper ranks of diversity and suspected disloyalty.

Gen. Brown “is an honorable man,” said Rich Lowry in National Review, but he had to go. The former F-16 pilot “used his position as a political soapbox,” releasing an emotional video after the 2020 killing of George Floyd about the challenges of being Black in the Air Force. Brown’s job is to be a killer, not to pontificate on “hot-button political and social issues.” Like many of the other fired generals, he is a bland product of an “ossified” system that rewards “bureaucratic conformity” over original thinking. That’s doubly true of the military lawyers known as “judge advocates general” (JAGs), said The Wall Street Journal. When Trump fired the three JAGs overseeing the Army, Navy, and Air Force last week, it set off a predictable “media panic” about imminent “lawlessness.” In truth, the JAGs had long favored “risk elimination over mission success,” leaving America’s military far less lethal and effective than it needs to be in this dangerous world.

Call me paranoid, said Charles P. Pierce in Esquire, but yes, it does feel “troublesome” that Trump specifically fired the lawyers charged with resisting illegal presidential orders. Nor was it reassuring when Hegseth explained the JAGs had been fired to stop them from being “roadblocks to anything that happens.” We know what kind of “anything” Hegseth might have in mind, said Paul McLeary in Politico. The former Fox News host promotes a swaggering “warrior ethos” that rejects the Geneva Conventions. In Trump’s first term, he successfully lobbied Trump to pardon two soldiers charged with war crimes and to reinstate Eddie Gallagher, a Navy SEAL accused of killing civilians and stabbing a teenage ISIS prisoner to death.

Trump’s purge has nothing to do with “lethality, or promoting ‘warfighters,’ or any other buzzwords,” said Tom Nichols in The Atlantic. It’s the next step in his pursuit of total power. After capturing the intelligence services, the Justice Department, and the FBI, the Pentagon is “the last piece he needs to establish the foundations for authoritarian control of the U.S. government.” With “his generals” in charge, Trump can start building a military that is loyal to him—and not to the Constitution. “It is praetorianism, plain and simple.”

What happened

President Donald Trump began the weekend by firing top military leaders including Gen. Charles Q. Brown Jr., the chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and ended it by announcing he was appointing right-wing pundit and podcaster Dan Bongino as deputy director of the FBI. Trump said he would nominate retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Dan Caine as the next joint chiefs chair.

Who said what

Trump's "Friday night purge" of Brown, Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Lisa Franchetti, the top lawyers for the Army, Navy and Air Force and other senior officers thrust the Pentagon "into uncharted territory," The Washington Post said. Critics warned of the "encroachment of political warfare on an organization bound by the Constitution to remain nonpartisan."

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth defended Trump's Pentagon firings on "Fox News Sunday," saying other presidents had also fired generals and Trump "deserves to pick his key national security advisory team." Asked about Georgetown Law professor Rosa Brooks' post on X that firing "any lawyers who might try to slow you down" is what you do when "you're planning to break the law," Hegseth said he wanted military "lawyers who give sound constitutional advice and don't exist to attempt to be roadblocks to anything."

What next?

Appointing Bongino as No. 2 to FBI Director Kash Patel puts "two steadfast Trump loyalists" who "have never served as FBI agents" in charge of the nation's premier law enforcement agency, The New York Times said. They will be the "least experienced leadership pair" in bureau history. Patel was also "expected to be sworn in early this week as the acting director of the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives," the Post said.

'Hegseth is dangerous but not for the reasons you think'

Ben Rhodes at The New York Times

Pete Hegseth is "unqualified to run a nuclear-armed organization with a budget approaching a trillion dollars," but "that's the point," says Ben Rhodes. Donald Trump "doesn't want someone to effectively manage the Pentagon; he wants to disrupt it." Hegseth's "hostility to constraints on American behavior overlaps with Mr. Trump's recent foreign policy pronouncements." It "would be wrong to discount the possibility of a transformation of our military, just as it's wrong to understate the depth of resentment."

Read more

'Cutting airplane contrails is an easy climate win'

Mike Berners-Lee at the Financial Times

Reducing contrails is the "closest thing we have to a silver bullet to dramatically reduce the climate impact of aviation," says Mike Berners-Lee, and there's a "cost-effective way to tackle them." We "would need to reroute less than 2% of flights to halve their impact — that's a huge reduction for very little effort." With "flights over North America, Europe and the north Atlantic accounting for more than half of global contrail impact, the U.S. seriously needs to catch up."

Read more

'The short shelf life of corporate DEI'

Ilan Kapoor at Al Jazeera

The "ostensible reason for this business change of heart on DEI is that" it's "now 'outdated,'" but "there is a notable business logic behind it," says Ilan Kapoor. The "timing of the announcement by a series of major corporations is revealing of their calculation that DEI is no longer beneficial to their brands." The "often tokenistic inclusion of minorities under the guise of 'equity' provides the illusion of creating greater equality. But it doesn't and hasn't."

Read more

'Justice Juan Merchan got it just right with Donald Trump's sentencing'

Chicago Tribune editorial board

"Donald Trump, felon, will remain exactly that," says the Chicago Tribune editorial board. Justice Juan Merchan "reminded both citizen Trump and President-elect Trump that the laws of the land apply to him as they do every other American." They "don't always apply equally, as the pragmatic Merchan clearly recognized when he declined to punish Trump for his crimes. But they do apply," and "all the more welcome, then, was the bracing reminder for him."

Read more

President-elect Donald Trump has been busy selecting potential Cabinet nominees, and there is perhaps no more consequential choice than the person he has nominated to run the Defense Department, Pete Hegseth. Trump has pledged to undertake a vast yet controversial overhaul of the federal government, and the Defense Department is no exception. This has some ranking members at the Pentagon worried about the next phase of America's defense policy with Hegseth as defense secretary.

Hegseth, a Fox News commentator and Army National Guard veteran, was close to Trump during his first term and emerged as a strong loyalist to the former (and now future) president. But his selection as defense secretary reportedly caught even Trump's closest allies off guard, and many are calling Hegseth unqualified for the job; It "appears that one of the main criteria that's being used is, how well do people defend Donald Trump on television?" Eric Edelman, the Pentagon's top policy official in the Bush administration, said to Politico. And a defense industry lobbyist offered another assessment to Politico, asking, "Who the fuck is this guy?" Hegseth has also been accused of sexual assault; he has denied these allegations but admitted to paying his accuser.

With Hegseth at the helm, he could determine how American military spending, defense policy and foreign policy are determined for the foreseeable future — or even whether soldiers are deployed on American streets.

A 'rapid erosion' of the military

The "greatest danger the military faces" from Trump's second term is a "rapid erosion of its professionalism, which would undermine its status and respect from the American people," Richard Kohn, a military historian and professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, said to The Washington Post. Trump "does not have a real understanding of civil-military relations, or the importance of a nonpartisan, nonpolitical military." Similar concerns have been raised about Hegseth.

Trump "boosted the Pentagon's budget, pressed U.S. allies to spend more on their own defense and loosened battlefield restrictions," when he was president, said Dan Lamothe, Missy Ryan and Alex Horton at the Post. But the nature of Trump's first term meant Pentagon officials were often "flat-footed," and Trump "left them scrambling to discern what exactly Trump wanted."

Trump also has "wide latitude to interpret the law and U.S. troops cannot disobey legal orders they consider to be morally wrong," Phil Stewart and Idrees Ali said at Reuters. There is a "widespread public misperception that the military can choose not to obey immoral orders. And that's actually not true," Kori Schake, a member of the conservative think tank American Enterprise Institute, said to Reuters. There will be an "enormous chaos premium in a second Trump term, both because of the policies he will attempt to enact and the people he will put in place to enact them."

Trump may focus more on non-combat aspects

Trump and Hegseth may choose to focus less on deploying the military and more on its cultural issues. The president-elect has previously pledged to purge the military of "wokeism," a sentiment echoed by Hegseth. The "abortion issue is going to be a big one for both the DOD and the VA," Leo Shane III, the deputy editor of the Military Times, said to "PBS NewsHour."

Trump "banned the recruiting and the enlisting of transgender individuals into the military," said Shane. He didn't kick people out who were already enlisted, but "would not let new ones join. Would not be a surprise to see him put that back in place," along with similar recruiting blocks.

These issues have also come to the forefront with Hegseth, and this will likely continue if he is confirmed as defense secretary. He has "made it clear on his show and in interviews that, like Trump, he is opposed to 'woke' programs that promote equity and inclusion," Lolita C. Baldor and Tara Copp said at The Associated Press. And while Hegseth has also "said diversity in the military is a strength, he said it was because minority and white men can perform similarly but the same isn't true for women."

What happened

A federal judge in Boston Tuesday sentenced Jack Teixeira, a Massachusetts Air National Guard member who leaked classified military documents on Discord, to 15 years in prison. Teixeira, 22, was arrested in April 2023 and pleaded guilty in March to six counts of willful retention and transmission of national defense information under the Espionage Act. Jodi Cohen, special agent in charge of the FBI's Boston office, called Teixeira "one of the most prolific leakers of classified information in American history."

Who said what

Teixeira posted classified information on the social media app Discord nearly every day for more than a year, Cohen said after Tuesday's sentencing hearing. He "grossly betrayed our country and the oath he took to safeguard its secrets in order to boost his ego and impress his friends," and the "exceptionally grave damage he caused will impact our national security for decades to come." The documents Teixeira shared included secret information on how the U.S. transported military equipment to Ukraine and how it would be used, and reports on Russian and Ukrainian troop movements that may have compromised America's intelligence-gathering methods.

The case "raised questions over how easily a relatively low-level member of the guard" had accessed "some of the country's most sensitive secrets," The New York Times said. In the subsequent investigation, The Washington Post said, military officials "disciplined at least 15 people after finding that a 'lack of supervision' and a 'culture of complacency' had permitted Teixeira to sneak photographs of classified information out of his workplace" even after colleagues "raised concerns after he was observed looking up government secrets to which his military job did not require access."

What next?

Teixeira is separately "set to face a military court-martial in the spring," the Times said. If convicted, he "could be subject to a dishonorable charge, stripping him of his rank and military benefits," the Post added. Currently, The Associated Press said, Teixeira "remains in the Air National Guard in an unpaid status."

What happened

The Pentagon said Tuesday that more than 820 LGBTQ veterans kicked out of the military under the now-defunct "don't ask, don't tell" policy had been upgraded to honorable discharges following a yearlong review ordered by Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin. About 96% of the roughly 13,500 service members affected by the policy, in place from 1994 to 2011, have now received honorable discharges, the Defense Department said.

Who said what

The U.S. military "will continue to honor the service and the sacrifice of all our troops — including the brave Americans who raised their hands to serve but were turned away because of whom they love," Austin said in a statement.

"Don't ask, don't tell" was former President Bill Clinton's compromise fix for "nearly eight decades of discrimination against LGBTQ members of the armed forces," The Washington Post said. "Up to that point, more than 100,000 people had been kicked out of the military because of their sexual orientation," and Clinton's policy meant gay people could serve, "but only if they kept their sexuality a secret."

What next?

Veterans Affairs Department spokesperson Terrence Hayes said the government is contacting the veterans upgraded to honorable discharges and "will work with each individual to ensure they are getting the full suite of health care and benefits they deserve." The Pentagon has "no formal plans to look into additional cases," The New York Times said, but officials said "anyone who was discharged because of their sexual orientation was still eligible to apply for a review to potentially have their status upgraded."

'Yes, militarize space'

Rich Lowry at National Review

The Pentagon is reportedly working on improving its ability to wage war in space, says Rich Lowry. "It's about time." The "romantic nonsense" about keeping space "pristine" is dangerous. "Even if we wanted to keep space weapons-free, space is already a domain central to modern military operations." The Pentagon depends on communications and "reconnaissance provided by space." And one day space-based weapons could "intercept nuclear weapons." Dominating this "contested domain" is crucial to "deter and win wars." 

Read more

'Your total tax burden would probably go up under Trump. Yes, up.'

Catherine Rampell in The Washington Post

Donald Trump vows to extend his 2017 personal income-tax cuts, but poor and middle-class Americans would see their tax burdens rise under another Trump presidency, says Catherine Rampell. "Only the highest-earners come out ahead." That's because Trump also wants to impose a universal 10% tariff on "all products from every country" — plus 60% on Chinese-made goods. These import taxes get passed on to consumers "in the form of higher prices," which burdens lower-income households most.  

Read more

'Can Nikki Haley do the right thing?'

A.B. Stoddard at The Bulwark

Nikki Haley has a big decision to make, says A.B. Stoddard. Will the runner-up in the race for the Republican presidential nomination embrace Donald Trump's "planned autocracy" or "separate herself from the GOP and risk ending her political career"? If she endorses the party's presumptive nominee, she'll essentially be telling "disaffected Republicans" that the "former president's quest for unchecked power is acceptable." Withholding support would be a "patriotic gesture" but could mean "instant MAGA banishment." Her decision could decide the election.

Read more

'Texas Gov. Greg Abbott's pardon of man who killed protester undermines trust in the justice system'

Los Angeles Times editorial board

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott's (R) pardon of "convicted murderer" Daniel Perry threatens the "integrity and independence of the justice system," says the Los Angeles Times editorial board. Perry drove up Black Lives Matter protesters in Austin and fatally shot a white protester, Air Force veteran Garrett Foster, who was legally carrying a military-style rifle. Perry admitted Foster didn't point his gun, and jurors rejected his self-defense claim. Abbott's partisan pardon substitutes "his own judgment" for the jury's.

Read more

'Idaho Republican legislators wouldn't fix abortion law. It's up to the Supreme Court.'

Idaho Statesman editorial board

Doctors warn that Idaho's "strict abortion ban is jeopardizing medical care when the health of the mother is at risk," says the Idaho Statesman editorial board. Women have had to "carry nonviable fetuses" or fly out of state for care. Idaho Republicans are "burying their heads in the sand and refusing to fix it." During Supreme Court oral arguments, it appeared there might be enough justices willing to "fix it for them — and for all of us."

Read more

'A defense budget of $1 trillion is looming. Here's how to stop it.'

Stephen Semler in The Hill

Joe Biden and Donald Trump abandoned "fiscal discipline on military spending" during the 2020 campaign, and it has surged $146 billion since then, says Stephen Semler. Lawmakers favoring "more sensible" military spending should know "public opinion is on their side," but it will take a "mass movement to overcome the arms industry's hold over Congress." They can rally support by offering a "peace dividend," rolling back the Pentagon's budget and returning the savings to taxpayers with rebates.

Read more

'The road to stagflation is paved with Bidenomics'

National Review editorial board

"Democrats wanted to spike the football last year, celebrating 'Bidenomics' when growth numbers were looking good," says the National Review editorial board. But the economic expansion slowed to 1.6% in the first quarter, while the Federal Reserve's preferred inflation measure remained stubbornly high at 3.7% year over year, nearly double its 2% target. This is what happens when the government's irresponsible deficit spending "pushes up borrowing costs for businesses" and people buying cars and homes.

Read more

'Sending armed troops to quash peaceful campus protests is a dangerous idea'

Los Angeles Times editorial board

Some congressional Republicans are calling for deploying the National Guard to stop the "wave of protests against Israel's U.S.-funded war in Gaza on college campuses," says the Los Angeles Times editorial board. But that's a "terrible idea, with a deadly history." The Ohio National Guard "killed four unarmed students and wounded nine others at a rally against the Vietnam War at Kent State University in 1970." And that wasn't the last time "armed responses to nonviolent activities" cost lives. 

Read more

What happened

The Pentagon will rush $300 million worth of military aid to Ukraine, mostly for badly needed ammunition, the White House said Tuesday. The money for the aid package came from "unanticipated cost savings" in contracts to replace munitions sent to Ukraine, national security adviser Jake Sullivan said.

Who said what

This "one time good deal" is "not a sustainable way to support Ukraine," said Pentagon press secretary Maj. Gen. Patrick Ryder. This ammunition will sustain Ukraine for only "a couple of weeks," Sullivan said, urging the House to approve a $95 billion security package with $60 billion for Ukraine. Kyiv's artillery shortfall is "costing terrain. It's costing lives."

What next?

House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) has not said if he will hold a vote on the Senate-approved Ukraine-Israel aid package. House Democrats tried to force a vote Tuesday by launching a long-shot discharge petition. "The Ukrainians are not running out of courage and tenacity," CIA Director William Burns told Congress. "They're running out of ammunition. And we're running out of time to help them."

'The Speaker's deal is an antidote'

The Wall Street Journal editorial board

House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) negotiated a spending deal offering Republicans a chance to show they can govern, says The Wall Street Journal editorial board. It would hold fiscal 2024 discretionary spending at $1.59 trillion, "a minor victory by itself" because Senate Democrats "intended to bust that cap" by $14 billion. House Freedom Caucus members denounced "the deal as a sellout," but pitching fits without offering a constructive alternative is a sickness. This deal's "an antidote."

Read more

'It is hard to see why Trump could move any further ahead'

Jonathan V. Last in The Bulwark

Donald Trump might be approaching his "high-water mark" in the polls, says Jonathan V. Last in The Bulwark. The former president "is finishing a primary campaign that was mostly a coronation," with his Republican rivals "barely" criticizing him. After this "juggernaut of winning," he'll enter the general election campaign "yet to take a punch." When President Joe Biden starts "hitting Trump where he is softest, and Trump is in everyone's face," he'll lose some support.

Read more

'Austin has a distinguished military record, but he has broken national-security protocol'

Fred Kaplan at Slate

Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin "should go," says Fred Kaplan at Slate. His failure to tell the White House for days he had been hospitalized on Jan. 1 was "no minor lapse." Even his "stand-in" was briefly in the dark. U.S. forces are "on high alert in the Middle East" due to the Israel-Hamas war. If President Joe Biden wanted to "take offensive action, his orders" would go through Austin. Biden needs to know where he is.

Read more

'Beijing's promotion of antisemitism is not only about its Middle East policy'

Josh Rogin in The Washington Post

Online antisemitism "skyrocketed" in China after Hamas' Oct. 7 attack on Israel, says Josh Rogin in The Washington Post. Despite Beijing's denials, it's unlikely so much hateful content would be on "China's tightly controlled internet" without government approval. It fits with China's "largely pro-Palestinian position" and fuels "the old conspiracy theory that Western democracies are secretly run by a small cabal of Jews," not elections, to "convince its domestic audience that China's system is superior."

Read more

The Pentagon confirmed Sunday that Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin was hospitalized Jan. 1 after experiencing "severe pain" from complications of a Dec. 22 elective surgery. But officials struggled to explain why the White House, senior Pentagon officials and congressional leaders were not told of his hospitalization for days. 

This opacity about the whereabouts and condition of the Pentagon chief "elicited bewilderment and frustration across the Biden administration" and Congress, The Washington Post reported. Several Republicans angrily called for more information.

Austin's chief of staff, Kelly Magsamen, "was unable" to inform the White House or Deputy Defense Secretary Kathleen Hicks about Austin's illness or hospitalization until Dec. 4 because she was sick herself, reportedly with the flu, Pentagon press secretary Maj. Gen. Pat Ryder said Sunday. He declined to elaborate on why another Austin aide — or Joint Chiefs chair Gen. C.Q. Brown, informed Jan. 2 — didn't spread the news.

Hicks, on vacation in Puerto Rico, assumed some of Austin's duties on Jan. 2 but wasn't told why — "temporary transfers of authority are not unusual and are often done without detailed explanations," The Associated Press reported. Austin, who is still recovering at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, resumed operational control of the Pentagon on the evening of Jan. 5, not long after Congress and then the public were informed of his hospitalization.

President Joe Biden, who was told about Austin's health problems on Jan. 4, spoke with his defense chief late Jan. 6 and wished him a speedy recovery, a White House spokesperson said Sunday, adding that the president maintains "full confidence" in Austin. Biden and Austin have a good relationship dating back more than a decade, and Biden generally values Austin's discretion and lack of knife-fighting through the press, Politico reported.

Austin, 70, had no definite legal obligation to tell his boss or Congress he was in the hospital, former Senate staffer and retired Gen. Arnold Punaro told The Wall Street Journal, "but there is a very long history and precedent that something of this nature would be immediately notified and it isn't even a close call." 

Officials attributed Austin's lack of transparency on his hospitalization to his intense privacy and small, tight circle of advisers. "You want a defense chief who's discreet, who's not going to jam the president," a senior official told the Post. "But in rare cases like this one, where more transparency was warranted, it served him poorly."

'Removing the unserious Santos'

Jonah Goldberg in The Dispatch

Some politicians were queasy about removing Rep. George Santos from Congress, says Jonah Goldberg in The Dispatch. They worried booting a representative who hadn't been convicted of a crime for the first time since the Civil War set a bad precedent. Yes, it violated a norm. But Santos (R-N.Y.) is a "shameless fraud" who scoffs at "norms of conduct." Removing him "is a small first step" toward remedying a bigger problem: "Congress' refusal to take itself seriously."

Read more

'The dangers posed by the deployment of AI-enabled weapons'

Michael T. Klare at The Nation

Even some tech leaders want to "slow the pace" of advanced artificial intelligence research, says Michael T. Klare at The Nation. A dispute over the safety of "more capable" ChatGPT versions fueled the "recent boardroom drama" at OpenAI. But the Pentagon appears unhindered by second thoughts. It is hurrying to develop "AI-enabled autonomous" drones, ships, and tanks, despite warnings from other countries, including U.S. allies, about the risk that "killer robots" could "go rogue" and target civilians.

Read more

'Biden is trying to deny low-income students options'

Washington Examiner editorial board

Congress must act fast to prevent President Joe Biden from reducing higher education alternatives for American students, says the Washington Examiner editorial board. Otherwise, a Biden Education Department regulation will "deny for-profit institutions federal financial aid" unless they "prove they are helping enough students find 'gainful employment,'" something most traditional, non-profit universities can't do. This would help the left accomplish its longtime goal to "kill for-profit colleges," even though that would limit low-income students' options.

Read more

'Dour headlines have abounded about the poor state of the podcast industry'

Scott Nover at Slate

Don't worry, podcasts aren't doomed, says Scott Nover at Slate. It might look that way, given the "constant stream of layoffs and show cancellations" at Spotify and "other prominent shops across the industry." But podcasting remains "a growing media sector for listeners and advertisers." The industry is just "moving away from expensive, reporting-intensive shows and prioritizing lower-cost" shows featuring interviews and celebrities, a lot like "Netflix's bucking of prestige dramas for comedy specials" and reality competitions.

Read more

The Senate approved about 425 military promotions Tuesday night after Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.) abruptly dropped his 10-month-long blanket hold on elevating high-ranking nominees. "We didn't get the win that we wanted," Tuberville said after a Senate Republican lunch. "We got all we could get." 

Tuberville had been blocking military promotions since February in a bid to force the Pentagon to change its policy of giving military personnel time off and travel expenses if they needed to go out of state for abortion services or some fertility treatments. 

"In the end, this was all pointless," President Joe Biden said in a statement. "Sen. Tuberville, and the Republicans who stood with him, needlessly hurt hundreds of service members and military families and threatened our national security — all to push a partisan agenda." 

Tuberville refused to release his hold even as fellow Senate Republicans started openly criticizing his tactics and military leaders said he was disrupting the lives of promising officers and their families and harming military readiness. "Behind closed doors, Republicans have complained that Tuberville's blockade was hurting them politically as well, given the harm to the military and the focus on abortion, which has been a losing issue at the polls," The Washington Post reported.

What got Tuberville to finally relent, he said, was a push by Senate Democrats to breach his blockade with a resolution that would allow confirming large groups of military nominees at one time for the remainder of the term. Tuberville said after his lunch with GOP colleagues that "all of us are against a rule change in the Senate."

The resolution "had the Republican votes necessary to pass," the Post reported, though The Wall Street Journal said it's "unknown" if nine Republicans were on board. Either way, the Democrats' workaround "was key to moving Tuberville — even if it won't receive a floor vote," Politico reported. "The threat, in the end, was enough." 

"I am glad this pointless and gravely damaging ordeal has finally, finally ended," Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said after the promotions were approved. "The senior senator from Alabama has nothing to show for his 10 months of delay … except for the damage he did to our military readiness and the pain he caused to military families." Schumer is expected to hold time-consuming individual votes for the 11 four-star nominees Tuberville is still blocking.

It's been nearly a year since first-term Alabama Republican Sen. Tommy Tuberville launched what has become perhaps the defining feature of his short time in office so far: a blanket hold on hundreds of military nominations and promotions which require Senate approval in order to advance. In spite of his campaign promise to "support a strong and robust military" with the "tools and resources" it requires, Tuberville's use of the Senate's hold process has effectively kept major swaths of the country's armed forces in limbo, angering constituents and colleagues on both sides of the aisle.

With the Senate's "reputation for collegiality [...] on the ropes" according to ABC News's Tal Axelrod, Tuberville's nearly year-long obstructionism — ostensibly in protest over the Pentagon's policy of covering costs associated with military personnel forced to travel out of state to obtain an abortion — may finally be coming to an end. In a "dear colleagues" letter to Senate Democrats sent Sunday evening, Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) announced plans to "swiftly confirm the hundreds of highly qualified and dedicated military leaders being held up by Senator Tuberville before the end of the year." The move, made possible by a party-line vote in the Democrat-controlled Senate Rule Committee earlier this month, would circumvent Tuberville's "extreme and unprecedented obstruction" which has "eroded centuries of Senate norms and injected extreme partisanship into what has long been a bipartisan process," Schumer wrote. 

Schumer's optimistic pledge to act before the new year notwithstanding, is Tuberville's stranglehold on military promotions truly nearing its end? 

What the commentators said

While Senate Republicans may be frustrated with Tuberville, they "certainly didn’t want it to come to this," Politico reported, pointing out that the resolution which passed the Rules Committee this month will require at least nine GOP defections to to meet the 60-vote threshold to confirm the pending promotions. Not only are Republicans anxious not to "circumvent the power of an individual senator" but they "don't want to side against anti-abortion advocates" who have applauded Tuberville's stand. 

Schumer's end-of-year deadline comes as Senate Republicans work behind the scenes to convince their colleague to relent on his hold, even as they publicly denounce this month's Rules Committee decision. Predicting to conservative broadcaster Hugh Hewitt last week that "this issue will get resolved," Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) stressed that "I don’t think the right resolution is a rules change." Instead, Cruz claimed, Republicans "in relatively short order" would find a middle path that "allows the military promotions that need to happen to go forward, but that also allows Tommy to continue to fight, and fight valiantly for the unborn."

One such proposal by Tuberville is to use the annual National Defense Authorization Act which funds the military to negate the current reproductive health policy, prompting Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.), the ranking Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee to tell Politico "screw him. He lost, and he’s trying to tear down this country because he disagrees with the policy." Any proposal to avoid a Senate showdown and prompt him to lift his hold "would require others to bend, not a concession on his part," The Wall Street Journal reported. Moreover, the paper noted, a number of conservative groups have "aired ads and erected billboards praising him back home." And perhaps most important in this era of Republican politics, "both [former President Donald] Trump and former Vice President Mike Pence have lauded him" for his stance. 

What next? 

While Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) has called the push for a 60-vote threshold to overcome Tuberville's hold a "heavy lift among Republicans," fellow conservative Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) is reportedly "ready to consider" the resolution — a testament to the efforts of rule co-sponsor Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, the Arizona Democrat-turned-Independent who has lead the effort to "defuse" the situation, according to Politico. Sinema herself told the publication that she's not looking to impose "a timeline" on the bill that would "create partisan fights." But with the clock ticking toward Schumer's self-imposed New Year deadline, time is running out for behind-the-scenes negotiations aimed at staving off a potentially contentious floor vote. 

Lawmakers should "expect long days and nights, and potentially weekends in December," Schumer predicted in his letter to colleagues, promising further scheduling details this week. 

'Let more immigrants come humanely and legally'

David J. Bier in The New York Times

President Biden has maintained some of Donald Trump's "most extreme" border policies, says David J. Bier in The New York Times, but Republicans still attack him as the "Open Border President." Actually, Biden's predecessor released a slightly higher percentage of "border crossers," and deported far fewer. Biden will never "appease his critics," so he should stop trying. "Instead he should stake his legacy" on "legalizing immigration" so more people can come in "humanely and legally."

Read more

'Tuberville is looking like an unguided torpedo'

The Wall Street Journal editorial board

Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.) is going about his fight against Pentagon abortion policy all wrong, says The Wall Street Journal editorial board. The policy of reimbursing personnel for abortion travel "is legally dubious under federal prohibitions for public financing of abortion." But "blocking promotions in bulk" risks driving valuable officers to retire early out of frustration. Other GOP senators are right to be worried about the "growing political and strategic risks of Sen. Tuberville's counterproductive stand."

Read more

'Robbing the Republicans of anti-climate talking points'

Liza Featherstone in The New Republic

The United Auto Workers might have just ended the "culture war on electric vehicles," says Liza Featherstone in The New Republic. By forcing the Big Three automakers to agree to big pay increases, the UAW's "extraordinarily effective" strike ensured that "the transition to electric vehicles will protect good," high-wage jobs for American workers. That robbed the Republicans of one of the main "anti-climate talking points" they use to argue green energy will bring "economic disaster."

Read more

'A founder who twisted idealism into fraud'

Lora Kelley in The Atlantic

Disgraced FTX founder Sam Bankman-Fried's fraud conviction confirmed the lie in his narrative — "that he was a good guy, funneling his riches" into making "the world a better place," says Lora Kelley in The Atlantic. This kind of storytelling sells well in the tech world. So don't expect Silicon Valley to have learned its lesson from the nerdy, one-time crypto king's implosion. Tech investors are suckers for "big characters" who make even bigger promises. 

Read more

The Senate on Thursday worked around Sen. Tommy Tuberville's (R-Ala.) blanket blockade of high-level military promotions to confirm three top officers, including the first woman elevated to the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Bipartisan frustration is publicly surfacing over Tuberville's monthslong hold, which is leaving another 376 admirals and generals in the lurch and key military positions vacant. 

"We are going to look back at this episode and just be stunned at what a national-security suicide mission this became," Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska) said Wednesday night, during an extraordinary public rebuke of Tuberville by five Republican colleagues.

Adm. Lisa Franchetti was confirmed as Navy chief of staff and Gen. David Allvin was elevated to head of the Air Force in 95-1 votes. The Senate also confirmed Lt. Gen. Christopher Mahoney, 85-0, as the No. 2 Marine Corps officer, under Commandant Gen. Eric Smith, currently hospitalized after suffering apparent cardiac arrest on Sunday. The promotion of Franchetti and Allvin gives the Joint Chiefs its first full slate of Senate-confirmed officers since July.

Wednesday night's public pillorying from his own party "was brutal for the senator from Alabama," but "it was a relatively small number of Tuberville's GOP colleagues taking this stand," Aaron Blake wrote at The Washington Post. Republicans probably need to up the pressure more broadly — or help Democrats sidestep Tuberville and promote most or all of the remaining military officers in one bloc. 

Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.) and Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (I-Ariz.) are spearheading a motion to temporarily suspend Senate rules for this narrow group of military officers, but it needs 60 votes to pass, meaning at least nine Republicans would need to sign on. Lots of Senate Republicans agree Tuberville's hold needs to end, but it's unclear if nine will back the Democrats' motion. Republicans agreed Thursday to hold a special conference next week to specifically discuss the Tuberville situation, Punchbowl News reported. 

Tuberville's staff is clearly "worried that at least nine Republicans might join with Democrats" to pass the resolution, because his communications director emailed anti-abortion groups urging them to primary any Republican "squishes" who vote for the measure, Politico reported. Tuberville said he had no part in the email, and no plans to lift the hold. "I've been doing this for nine months and all of a sudden they're mad?" he told the Post.

The Senate voted 83 to 11 on Wednesday to confirm Air Force Gen. Charles Q. Brown Jr. as the next chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, putting him in line to be the highest-ranking U.S. military officer when Gen. Mark Milley's four-year term ends Sept. 30. Brown, 60, became the first Black officer to lead a military service when he was confirmed as Air Force chief of staff in 2020, and he will be only the second Black Joint Chiefs chairman, after Army Gen. Colin Powell. 

Brown's confirmation, and the expected votes Thursday to promote Gen. Randy George as head of the Army and Gen. Eric Smith to lead the Marines, sidestepped a monthslong blockade of military promotions by Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.). Tuberville said he will continue his blockade until the Pentagon ends a policy of supporting female service members who have to go out of state to get an abortion. The Pentagon, Democrats and some Republicans have slammed Tuberville's blanket hold for undermining military readiness. 

Tuberville was one of the 11 Republican senators who voted against Brown's promotion, but he still portrayed it as a win because it showcased that Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) can bring up individual officers for promotion.

For decades, the Senate confirmed noncontroversial senior military promotions in large blocks. Holding individual votes on the more than 300 high-level nominations blocked by Tuberville would take months, even if the Senate did little else. The number of officers ensnared in Tuberville's hold will rise to about 650 by the end of the year, the Pentagon said.

White House national security spokesperson Jack Kirby said that confirming Brown, George and Smith was good for the three generals, the military and the country, but "it doesn't fix the problem or provide a path forward for the 316 other general and flag officers that are held up by this ridiculous hold." Not confirming senior officers also blocks junior officers from advancing and affects pay, retirement and future assignments, driving future leaders out of the military.

A Marine Corps F-35B Lighting II fighter jet is missing in South Carolina after a "mishap" Sunday that caused the pilot to eject over Charleston, Joint Base Charleston said. The unidentified pilot parachuted into a North Charleston neighborhood at about 2 p.m. on Sunday and was in stable condition at a local hospital, a spokesperson for the base said. 

"If you have any information that may help our recovery teams locate the F-35, please call the Base Defense Operations Center," Joint Base Charleston said on X, formerly Twitter. "Based on the jet's last-known position and in coordination with the FAA, we are focusing our attention north of JB Charleston, around Lake Moultrie and Lake Marion." The FAA referred any question to the military. A South Carolina Law Enforcement Division helicopter joined the search, The Associated Press reported. 

The F-35, made by Lockheed Martin, is one of the most advanced and expensive fighter jets in the world. The F-35B has a list price of about $90 million, but upgrades have inflated the cost of the over-budget program. An F-35A — "the cheapest of the three models" in production — that crashed in Utah last year was valued at $166 million, The Wall Street Journal reported. 

About a dozen F-35s have been destroyed in crashes since they entered service in 2015, the Journal reported. "The aircraft are equipped with transponders and beacons, and several have been recovered from hostile environments," including from a depth of more than 12,000 feet in the South China Sea last year and from the floor of the Mediterranean in 2021. Lake Moultrie and Lake Marion "each have an average depth of less than 20 feet and are around 75 feet at their deepest point," the Journal noted.

The “most important whistleblower of our times”, Daniel Ellsberg was the military analyst who smuggled hundreds of pages of top secret material about US actions in Vietnam out of his office at the Rand Corporation, and shared them with a reporter from The New York Times, said The Guardian.

Published in 1971, the so-called Pentagon Papers (an assessment of US decision-making in Indochina since 1940 commissioned by the defence secretary Robert McNamara) made it clear that almost everything the American public had been told about the Vietnam War was false – from its origins to contemporary views about its winnability. Ellsberg’s leaks did not end the war, but they set in chain a series of events that led to the resignation of President Nixon.

The immoral war

A former hawk, Ellsberg had grown concerned about the direction of US foreign policy while conducting research in Vietnam for the state department in the mid-1960s. When he was asked to work on McNamara’s report, he became convinced that continuing a conflict that had already killed tens of thousands of Americans, and millions of Vietnamese, Laotians and Cambodians, was not only a mistake but also immoral. In the autumn of 1969, he started smuggling the papers out of Rand’s offices in Santa Monica, California, aided by his colleague Anthony Russo. Russo’s girlfriend then gave him after-hours access to her advertising agency’s office, where, over eight months, he used its Xerox machine to copy the 7,000 pages.

Ellsberg tried to persuade anti-war members of congress to act on McNamara’s report, said The Washington Post; when that failed, he made contact with Neil Sheehan, a New York Times war reporter whom he had met in Saigon. The NYT began publishing excerpts on 13 June 1971. Three days later, the government obtained an injunction banning further publication. But by then, Ellsberg had leaked the papers to other media outlets – and The Washington Post decided to risk all by publishing them. Citing their First Amendment rights, the papers then fought their case all the way to the supreme court, and won.

Having been charged with espionage, Ellsberg and Russo were still facing up to 115 years in jail. But when their trial began in 1973, the judge threw out the charges, citing gross government misconduct. There was evidence of illegal wiretapping, and that government agents had broken into the office of Ellsberg’s psychiatrist in search of dirt on him. This, it turned out, was the work of a secret unit that Nixon had set up in 1971 to plug leaks, the Plumbers. It then emerged that the Plumbers had also been behind the break-in at the Democratic National Committee HQ in the Watergate building – the scandal that led to Nixon’s downfall in 1974. The war finally ended in 1975.

The most dangerous man in America

Born in 1931, Daniel Ellsberg was brought up in a middle-class family in Detroit, said The Daily Telegraph. His mother wanted him to be a pianist, and made him practise for eight hours a day. Then, when he was 15, she and his sister were killed in a car crash in which he was severely injured. Nevertheless, he did well enough at his studies to win a scholarship to Harvard. He undertook postgraduate work at Cambridge and Harvard; then, after military service in the marines, he joined the Rand Corporation as a military analyst, and became sought-after in policy circles. McNamara recruited him to work on his report in 1967. In 1971, Henry Kissinger branded Ellsberg “the most dangerous man in America”, and some persisted in viewing him as a traitor.

But he claimed never to have regretted leaking the Pentagon Papers, and spent the rest of his life campaigning for peace, and standing up for whistleblowers, including Edward Snowden and Julian Assange.

The Pentagon leaks “are staggering in scale and range”, said Kim Sengupta in The Independent.

The contents of more than 100 pages of highly classified CIA and US military documents, apparently leaked online by Jack Teixeira, a 21-year old Air National Guardsman, were sprayed across the world’s media last week. The Ukraine War was the common link in “a web of intrigue involving governments, politicians and diplomats, intelligence agencies and the military, mercenaries and arms dealers”.

Among other things, the leaks appear to reveal that the United States has been routinely spying on allies such as South Korea – which, it seems, has been grappling with US requests that it send weapons to Ukraine. Egypt, by contrast, had sought to supply Moscow with rockets, until the US intervened. British special forces, the documents suggest, have been operating on the ground in Ukraine, along with those from France and Latvia.

“America’s allies are quietly exasperated, as well they should be,” said Kori Schake in the FT. And serious damage will have been done to US intelligence networks. But the real worry is the effect that the leaks might have on Ukraine’s war effort. The documents contained thorough assessments of Ukrainian forces and their vulnerabilities, detailing supplies of ammunition and air defence missiles, including the specific dates on which these are projected to run out. The Pentagon can only hope that the intelligence isn’t useful enough to allow Moscow to “torpedo” Ukraine’s plans for a spring offensive. Given the US’s role in “creating this vulnerability”, it should be sending more weapons and helping Ukraine to make new plans. “Increasing its assistance is the least it should do.”

There has been a lot of “performative outrage” that the Americans have been spying on their allies, including Ukraine, said Mark Galeotti in The Spectator. “But what did anyone expect? Everyone spies on everyone else.” And among intelligence professionals, there is no doubt a sense that, but for the grace of God, there go all of us. “After all, everyone and everything leaks, whether because someone incautiously takes classified materials home and leaves them on the train, or talks too freely over drinks.” Nevertheless, this is a serious embarrassment for the US, not just for its scale but for its source: that it wasn’t a committed whistleblower or a deep-cover Russian mole behind this breach, but a naive IT expert barely out of his teens, trying to impress his fellow gun enthusiasts on a gaming chat site. “Move over, George Smiley.”

A bulldog puppy who chewed his owner’s toe to the bone may have saved his leg, reported Wales Online. David Lindsay was taking a nap on his sofa when he woke up to find that his seven-month-old puppy had been nibbling on his foot, so much so that his toe had been fractured and was covered in blood. When he was taken to hospital, he discovered that he had been unable to feel the chewing because he had blocked arteries in both legs. He might have lost both legs unless the problem was identified, he was told by medics. “You’ve got to laugh about it,” said Lindsay. “He’s done me a favour by chewing my toe.”

Bear breaks into car and necks 69 cans of drink

A thirsty bear broke into a car in British Columbia and necked 69 cans of fizzy drinks. Sharon Rosel said that after her dog woke her up in the early hours, she looked outside to see a bear had shattered one of her car windows and was helping itself to the cans of soda she had purchased for her business. “He was drinking massive amounts of soda,” Rosel told CBC News. Observing the mess made of her car, she said: “Of course, white leather interior goes really good with orange Crush.”

US says alien mothership may have sent probes to Earth

A Pentagon official has speculated that recent sightings in US airspace could actually be alien probes from a mothership sent to study Earth. In a new academic paper, Sean Kirkpatrick, head of the Pentagon’s All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office, claimed that the objects, which appear to defy all physics, could be “probes” from an extra-terrestrial “parent craft”. The development suggests that the Pentagon is open to scientific debate of the origins of UFOs, said Politico.

For more odd news stories, sign up to the weekly Tall Tales newsletter.

A 21-year-old US airman is due to appear in court today in connection with the leak of highly classified military documents about the Ukraine war and other national security issues.

The leak is “probably the military’s largest in at least a decade”, said The Washington Post, and has “revealed secrets about everything from gaps in Ukrainian air defenses to the specifics of how the United States spies on its allies and partners”.

But how – and why – did a 21-year-old come to be the alleged culprit?

‘Showing off to friends’

The FBI arrested Teixeira yesterday, 90 minutes after The New York Times identified him as the administrator of the online group, Thug Shaker Central, where the cache of leaked intelligence documents first appeared.

The photos of documents posted online had included a “trail of clues”, said The Washington Post, with “items in the background that included Gorilla Glue, a Boston Red Sox hat, and hunting magazines”.

Members of the Discord group told The New York Times that Teixeira wasn’t trying to advance Russian or Ukrainian interests through his leaks but that he had a deep distrust of the US government. They added that the leaks were “a little bit of showing off to friends”, Forbes reported.

Some members showed the Washington Post footage of Teixeira “shouting racist and antisemitic slurs before firing a rifle”, said the Post. Racist jokes were also shared in the Discord group. But, said a friend, it was hard to assess Teixeira’s true feelings given “how many layers of irony that server was in”.

An AP source quoted in The Guardian said Teixeira had denounced the US military “since it was run by the elite politicians” and “expressed regret” that he ever joined.

‘Beware the quiet man’

A profile of Teixeira on Steam, a website popular with gamers, included a famous but unattributed quote: “Beware the quiet man. For while others speak, he watched. And while others act, he plans. And when they finally rest… he strikes.”

How did such a character gain access to sensitive files? There are “several possible explanations”, said the New York Post. It quoted a Pentagon spokesman saying that even in his “low position”, Teixeira’s job may have required clearance that would have allowed him access to sensitive material.

According to military records, Teixeira was stationed at the Otis Air National Guard Base in Massachusetts, home of the 102nd Intelligence Wing. The New York Post added that it’s “possible” that Teixeira’s work with the wing required him to have access to the “sensitive channels”.

A US official told The Washington Post that Teixeira had access to highly classified military intelligence through a Defense Department computer network, known as the Joint Worldwide Intelligence Communications System, which would have allowed him to read and potentially print classified documents.

As the Pentagon faced a deluge of questions, a spokesperson said the military often entrusts young people with classified information. However, observed The Times, if the allegations against him are proved, that faith in Teixeira was “misplaced”.

‘Stunning incompetence’

“The incompetence is stunning,” Marc Thiessen, a former speechwriter for George W Bush, told Fox News. Senator Tim Scott added that the leak is a “massive, catastrophic occurrence that should never have happened”. Earlier this week, MPs warned that British lives have been put at risk, noted The Times.

However, Forbes said that officials have “downplayed the significance of the leak”, with an aide for Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy describing it as nothing more than “dust in the eyes”. Joe Biden insisted he’s not aware of any information “that is of great consequence”. Nevertheless, the leaks have “still roiled the Pentagon”, added the news site.

The arrest “exposes” a “larger classified documents problem”, wrote Zachary B. Wolf for CNN.

If the “many earlier and ongoing scandals” regarding classified information “aren’t a wakeup call that the US government has a problem, maybe the arrest of Jack Teixeira will do the trick”, he wrote.

Wolf noted that “a very large universe” of people have access to “Top Secret data”, with more than 2.8 million people enjoying security clearance as of October 2017 – more than 1.6 million with access to either Confidential or Secret information and nearly 1.2 million with access to Top Secret information.

The release of classified US defence department documents that reveal how the war in Ukraine is really playing out as well as security secrets relating to the US’s allies has been described as America’s most serious intelligence leak in a decade.

CNN reported that the Biden administration is “scrambling to assess and contain the fallout” from the release of top secret Pentagon files that “has rattled US officials, members of Congress and key allies in recent days”.

What do they contain?

Believed to number around 100 photographed pages in total, the documents analysed so far range from battlefield assessments of Ukraine’s war effort to intelligence on US allies and proof the Pentagon has penetrated Russian intelligence. Others reportedly focus on defence issues in the Middle East and Indo-Pacific region.

Analysis of 20 documents by the BBC related to the war in Ukraine “tell of the casualties suffered on both sides, the military vulnerabilities of each and, crucially, what their relative strengths are likely to be when Ukraine decides to launch its much-anticipated spring offensive”, said diplomatic correspondent Paul Adams.

As well as revealing that Ukraine’s air defences may be close to collapse, the documents show that “nearly every Russian security service appears penetrated by the United States in some way”, said The New York Times (NYT). As a result, the US is able to obtain daily real-time warnings on the timing of Moscow’s strikes and even its specific targets.

Other files reveal the “low confidence” the US has in the casualty estimates on both sides in the war, while also seeming to confirm a long-held suspicion that the US has been spying on close allies, including South Korea and Israel.

“This is bad news for everyone,” a European official told the Financial Times (FT). “It’s bad news for the Ukrainians, it’s bad news for the Americans because everyone sees how they operate, and it’s bad news for the allies more generally because we see that the Ukrainians are running out of ammunition, which is not the best message you want in the air.”

Time magazine sounded a note of caution, however, saying “it’s important to keep in mind that not all of the information may be reliable”, with some documents appearing altered to, for example, overstate American estimates of Ukrainian casualties and minimise estimates of Russian troops killed.

Who was responsible for the leak?

So far “little is known about who may have been responsible for the leak or how some of the nation’s most tightly guarded secrets ended up on social media sites”, said CNN.

First reported in mainstream media by The New York Times last week, some of the documents dated to January “could have been posted online even earlier, although it is unclear exactly when”, said Aric Toler, from open-source investigations site Bellingcat.

“While it has as yet not been possible to uncover the original source of these apparent leaks”, he said, an investigation by Bellingcat had been able to trace the spread of the documents back over a variety of internet forums. These included 4Chan and the Discord platform for gamers, before they began appearing on pro-Russian Telegram channels where they were picked up by major outlets.

Kremlin supporters have suggested it could be a deliberate ploy by the CIA to demoralise Russians by showing how badly the war in Ukraine is going. However, a more plausible theory is that it is a Russian hack designed to embarrass Washington, as one US official suggested to Reuters on Friday.

“The truth may be more worrying for the US and its allies,” wrote Julian Borger, world affairs editor for The Guardian – that it is just “another example of how carelessly Washington handles its secrets”.

According to The Washington Post, many of the leaked documents appear to have been put together for top military leaders, including General Mark Milley, chairman of the US joint chiefs of staff, but were also available to other US personnel and contractors with the right security clearances.

What will the consequences be?

Whoever is responsible, the fallout from what The Economist called “America’s most serious intelligence leak in a decade” will be deep and long-lasting.

A lot of the detail here is familiar and some of the documents are as much as six weeks old, “but the implications are huge”, agreed the BBC’s Paul Adams.

The leak has “already complicated relations with allied countries and raised doubts about America’s ability to keep its secrets”, said the NYT. In another report by the paper, a senior intelligence official described it as “a nightmare for the Five Eyes” – the five countries that share intelligence information: the US, Britain, Australia, New Zealand and Canada.

More significantly, it also has “the potential to do real damage to Ukraine’s war effort by exposing which Russian agencies the United States knows the most about, giving Moscow a potential opportunity to cut off the sources of information”, the paper added.

A source close to Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy told CNN that Ukraine has already altered some of its military plans because of the leak.

The FT said that it has “sown chaos and paranoia among Washington’s national security apparatus ahead of a critical moment in the Ukraine war”, with Kyiv’s forces expected to launch a counter-offensive against Moscow soon. In addition the release “could jeopardise not only information critical to American policymaking, but also potentially the safety of individuals who provide intelligence”.

China has said it is looking into reports that one of its surveillance balloons has been spotted in US airspace.

Urging calm, the Chinese foreign ministry’s spokesperson Mao Ning said Beijing was committed to international law but did not immediately deny reports that the balloon belonged to China.

“China is a responsible country and has always strictly abided by international laws, and China has no intention to violate the territory and airspace of any sovereign countries,” Mao said. “As for the balloon, as I’ve mentioned just now, we are looking into and verifying the situation and hope that both sides can handle this together calmly and carefully.”

The Pentagon said it is tracking what it called a “suspected Chinese surveillance balloon”, the BBC said, which has been seen flying over sensitive sites in the US in recent days. It was most recently seen above the western state of Montana, close to Malmstrom Air Force Base, which is one of the US’s three nuclear missile silo fields.

It also sailed over the Aleutian Islands, off the coast of Alaska, and above Canada, Sky News reported. “Military and defence leaders have considered shooting the balloon out of the sky but decided against it due to the safety risk from falling debris,” the broadcaster said.

Antony Blinken, the US secretary of state, is due to arrive in China next Friday and, if the visit goes ahead, would become the highest ranking US official to visit the country since the Covid-19 pandemic began. But doubts have been raised about the trip due to the incident.

In her briefing today, Mao said it was important not to speculate about the object and its provenance, which may not have a bearing on Blinken’s proposed visit.

“What I want to emphasise is that before we have a clear understanding of the facts, speculation and sensationalising will be unhelpful to the proper handling of the issue. As for Blinken’s visit to China, I have no information,” Mao said.