Hegseth, Pete

Subterms

    More stories

    • 138 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      What Thom Tillis’s Surrender to Trump Says About the Trump G.O.P.

      by

      Few Republican senators give a better floor speech than Thom Tillis of North Carolina does. He’s the Daniel Day-Lewis of moral outrage. He delivered a doozy last month, challenging President Trump’s revisionist history of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and calling Vladimir Putin “a liar, a murderer” and “the greatest threat to democracy in my lifetime.”But Tulsi Gabbard is apparently no threat at all. Although she has been something of a Putin apologist, Tillis fell in line with 51 of his Republican colleagues in the Senate and voted to confirm her as director of national intelligence. Afterward, on Facebook, he proclaimed his pride in supporting her.He made impassioned remarks in the Senate about his disagreement with Trump’s pardons of Jan. 6 rioters who bloodied law enforcement officers.But the following month, he voted to confirm Kash Patel, who has peddled the kinds of fictions that fueled that violence, as director of the F.B.I.Courage, capitulation — Tillis pinballs dizzyingly between the two. As he gears up for a 2026 campaign for a third term in the Senate, he seems to be at war with himself. And perhaps more poignantly than any other Republican on Capitol Hill, Tillis, 64, illustrates how hard it is to be principled, independent or any of those other bygone adjectives in Trump’s Republican Party.That’s a compliment. For most Republicans in Congress, there’s no battle between conscience and supplication. They dropped to their knees years ago. There’s no tension between what they say and what they do. They praise Trump with their every word, including the conjunctions.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 100 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Hegseth Closes Pentagon Office Focused on Future Wars

      by

      Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth ordered the shuttering of the Office of Net Assessment, a small, often secretive and sometimes opaque office that for more than 50 years has helped the Pentagon’s most senior leaders think about the future of war.The office costs about $10 million to $20 million a year — a fraction of the Pentagon’s $850 billion annual budget — but its work and staff of about a dozen civilians and military officers has often had an outsize impact on how the Pentagon prepares for possible conflicts.In a short note posted on Thursday, the Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell suggested that the office would be restructured and then reopened with a new focus on the country’s most “pressing national security challenges.” He did not explain how the office’s new mission would differ from its previous approach.For most of its history, the Office of Net Assessment was run by Andy Marshall, its founder, who pioneered an innovative and somewhat mysterious approach to comparing the strength of U.S. forces with that of its potential enemies. The office also developed inventive ways of fighting adversaries. Jim Baker, a retired Air Force colonel, succeeded Mr. Marshall in 2015.The office’s influence often depended on the defense secretary’s priorities and personal relationship with its director. In the early 2000s, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld relied heavily on Mr. Marshall to develop ways of fighting that relied on speed, precision munitions and rapidly improving surveillance capabilities to quickly defeat adversaries.More recently, the office focused on developing concepts for a possible war with China. It championed a concept called Air-Sea Battle, which envisioned an initial “blinding campaign” by stealthy U.S. bombers and submarines that would knock out China’s long-range surveillance radar followed by a larger naval assault.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 150 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Fort Liberty Set to Be Renamed Fort Bragg, Fulfilling a Trump Promise

      by

      In 2020, Congress pushed past the president’s veto of a military policy bill to rename the base, which was originally named for a Confederate general.The Trump administration will officially reinstate the name of an Army base in North Carolina on Friday to Fort Bragg, which was originally named for an incompetent Confederate general who owned enslaved people.The base’s name was changed to Fort Liberty in June 2023 as part of the U.S. military’s examination of its history with race. But President Trump campaigned on a promise to restore the old name.The official ceremony at the military base on Friday will cement a political victory for Mr. Trump, who suffered a legislative defeat in 2020 when Congress pushed past his veto of a bill with a provision to rename nine Army bases that had honored treasonous Confederate generals who fought against the United States to preserve slavery and white supremacy.The original naming of those bases was part of a movement to glorify the Confederacy and advance the Lost Cause myth that the Civil War was fought over “states’ rights” and not slavery.The reversion of Fort Liberty to Fort Bragg is part of a larger effort by Mr. Trump to purge the military of top officers, diversity initiatives, transgender service members and other things that he said had made the armed forces “woke.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 75 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Trump, Again, Chooses Loyalty Over Leadership

      by

      In an era that demands stable, experienced leadership, President Trump’s decision Friday to remove Gen. Charles Q. Brown as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff — alongside other military firings and a series of contentious cabinet appointments — underscored once again an alarming preference for loyalty over expertise. This shift doesn’t just undermine the future of policy and governance; it destabilizes the very foundation of the institutions that have long safeguarded America’s democracy and substitutes politics for professionalism.The ousting of General Brown, a leader celebrated for his strategic acumen, deep experience and steady guidance, in favor of a less-tested and seemingly more compliant figure raises urgent questions: Will the new Joint Chiefs chairman dare to give Mr. Trump honest advice that he doesn’t want to hear? How will the president try to exert power over the Joint Chiefs, who have historically been essential sources of expertise and seasoned counsel? How would a politicized change in Joint Chiefs leadership affect complex discussions about geopolitical priorities, from tensions in Eastern Europe and the Middle East to the South China Sea?Friday’s purge at the Pentagon isn’t an isolated maneuver — it’s indicative of an administration intent on reshaping itself around the president’s personal network. Consider what we now know of who will serve as Mr. Trump’s cabinet. These selections follow a perilous trend where qualifications take a back seat to fealty, and where the echo of agreement becomes more valuable than evidence-based expertise.Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s most notable qualification for his job was his tenure as a Fox News political commentator, a credential that has frequently eclipsed any engagement with the complex realities of defense strategy for the president. Mr. Hegseth’s confirmation hearing raised serious concerns about excessive drinking and how he treats women. To date, his leadership suggests a Pentagon more attuned to the president’s political playbook than the sobering calculus of global military engagement. His recent remarks on retreating from Ukraine, for instance, sent allies in Europe reeling, and the administration scrambling to walk them back.Then there’s Robert F. Kennedy Jr., named to lead the Department of Health and Human Services. Mr. Kennedy has been a vocal skeptic of vaccines, promoting misinformation that undermines public health. His appointment to H.H.S. doesn’t just defy logic; it represents an affront to the foundational principles of the department he now oversees, which is already shelving some campaigns for flu shots and other vaccines. In this context, science is sidelined in favor of fringe theories, jeopardizing the nation’s ability to effectively manage current and future health challenges.Similarly, Tulsi Gabbard’s appointment as the country’s top intelligence officer raises multiple red flags. Beyond her military background and support of Mr. Trump’s agenda, what are Ms. Gabbard’s qualifications to oversee the president’s intel briefings and to coordinate the various branches of the intelligence community? Her foreign policy views frequently conflict with established U.S. approaches, and she has demonstrated sympathy for and defended authoritarian figures such as Bashar al-Assad, the former Syrian dictator, and President Vladimir Putin of Russia.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Hegseth Fires Military’s Top JAG Lawyers in Pursuit of ‘Warrior Ethos’

      by

      The defense secretary has repeatedly derided the military lawyers for war crime prosecutions and battlefield rules of engagement.Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s decision to fire the top lawyers for the Army, Navy and Air Force represents an opening salvo in his push to remake the military into a force that is more aggressive on the battlefield and potentially less hindered by the laws of armed conflict.Mr. Hegseth, in the Pentagon and during his meetings with troops last week in Europe, has spoken repeatedly about the need to restore a “warrior ethos” to a military that he insists has become soft, social-justice obsessed and more bureaucratic over the past two decades.His decision to replace the military’s judge advocate generals — typically three-star military officers — offers a sense of how he defines the ethos that he has vowed to instill.The dismissals came as part of a broader push by Mr. Hegseth and President Trump, who late Friday also fired Gen. Charles Q. Brown, the country’s top military officer, as well as the first woman to lead the Navy and the vice chief of staff of the Air Force.By comparison, the three fired judge advocate generals, also known as “JAGs,” are far less prominent. Inside the Pentagon and on battlefields around the world, military lawyers aren’t decision makers. Their job is to provide independent legal advice to senior military officers so that they do not run afoul of U.S. law or the laws of armed conflict.Senior Pentagon officials said that Mr. Hegseth has had no contact with any of the three fired uniform military lawyers since taking office. None of the three — Lt. Gen. Joseph B. Berger III, Air Force Lt. Gen. Charles Plummer and Rear Adm. Lia M. Reynolds — were even named in the Pentagon statement announcing their dismissal from decades of military service.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Trump Fires Joint Chiefs Chairman Amid Flurry of Dismissals at Pentagon

      by

      President Trump fired the country’s senior military officer on Friday after weeks of turmoil at the Pentagon, injecting politics into selecting the nation’s top military leader.Gen. Charles Q. Brown Jr., a four-star fighter pilot known as C.Q. who became only the second African American to hold the chairman’s job, is to be replaced by a retired three-star Air Force general, Dan Caine, who endeared himself to the president when they met in Iraq six years ago.“Today, I am honored to announce that I am nominating Air Force Lieutenant General Dan ‘Razin’ Caine to be the next Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,” Mr. Trump said in a message on Truth Social. “General Caine is an accomplished pilot, national security expert, successful entrepreneur, and a ‘warfighter’ with significant interagency and special operations experience.”Joint Chiefs chairmen traditionally remain in place as administrations change, regardless of the president’s political party. But current White House and Pentagon officials said they wanted to appoint their own top leaders.Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth also indicated, in a statement about General Brown and General Caine, that Adm. Lisa Franchetti, the first woman to lead the Navy, was being fired, as was the vice chief of the Air Force, General James C. Slife.“I am also requesting nominations for the positions of chief of naval operations and Air Force vice chief of staff,” Mr. Hegseth said. “The incumbents in these important roles, Adm. Lisa Franchetti and Gen. James Slife, respectively, have had distinguished careers. We thank them for their service and dedication to our country.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 113 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Pete Hegseth Fires Adm. Lisa Franchetti, Navy’s Top Officer

      by

      Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said on Friday that he was firing Admiral Lisa Franchetti, the first female officer to rise to the Navy’s top job of Chief of Naval Operations, and would be looking for her replacement.The announcement came in a statement emailed to reporters Friday night, shortly after President Trump said he was firing Gen. Charles Q. Brown Jr., the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.Mr. Hegseth said in his statement that he would also replace Gen. James C. Slife, the Air Force’s vice chief of staff, as well as the top uniformed lawyers for the Army, Navy and Air Force.Both Admiral Franchetti and General Slife “have had distinguished careers,” Mr. Hegseth said, adding “We thank them for their service and dedication to our country.”“Under President Trump, we are putting in place new leadership that will focus our military on its core mission of deterring, fighting and winning wars,” he added.According to her official biography, Admiral Franchetti received her commission in 1985 through the Naval Reserve Officer Training Corps program at Northwestern University, just seven years after the Navy ended its prohibition on women serving on ships at sea.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 100 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Trump Team Leaves Behind an Alliance in Crisis

      by

      European leaders felt certain about one thing after a whirlwind tour by Trump officials — they were entering a new world where it was harder to depend on the United States.Many critical issues were left uncertain — including the fate of Ukraine — at the end of Europe’s first encounter with an angry and impatient Trump administration. But one thing was clear: An epochal breach appears to be opening in the Western alliance.After three years of war that forged a new unity within NATO, the Trump administration has made clear it is planning to focus its attention elsewhere: in Asia, Latin America, the Arctic and anywhere President Trump believes the United States can obtain critical mineral rights.European officials who emerged from a meeting with Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said they now expect that tens of thousands of American troops will be pulled out of Europe — the only question is how many, and how fast.And they fear that in one-on-one negotiations with President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia, Mr. Trump is on his way to agreeing to terms that could ultimately put Moscow in a position to own a fifth of Ukraine and to prepare to take the rest in a few years’ time. Mr. Putin’s ultimate goal, they believe, is to break up the NATO alliance.Those fears spilled out on the stage of the Munich Security Conference on Saturday morning, when President Volodymyr Zelensky declared that “Ukraine will never accept deals made behind our backs.” He then called optimistically for the creation of an “army of Europe,” one that includes his now battle-hardened Ukrainian forces. He was advocating, in essence, a military alternative to NATO, a force that would make its own decisions without the influence — or the military control — of the United States.Mr. Zelensky predicted that Mr. Putin would soon seek to manipulate Mr. Trump, speculating that the Russian leader would invite the new American president to the celebration of the 80th anniversary of the defeat of Nazi Germany. “Putin will try to get the U.S. president standing on Red Square on May 9 this year,” he told a jammed hall of European diplomats and defense and intelligence officials, “not as a respected leader but as a prop in his own performance.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More