US Military

Subterms

    Latest story

    163 Shares63 Views

    Hegseth reportedly plans to cut support to US scouts group for being ‘genderless’

    by

    Scouting America, formerly known as the Boy Scouts of America, has said it is “surprised and disappointed” by a report that the US defense secretary, Pete Hegseth, could sever all military ties to the organization for being “genderless” and failing to “cultivate masculine values”.In a draft memo to Congress obtained by NPR, Hegseth criticized Scouting America, which began admitting girls in 2018, for purportedly attempting to “attack boy-friendly spaces”.“It is no longer a meritocracy which holds its members accountable to meet high standards,” Hegseth wrote.The US military has provided support to the Scouts for more than a century. But in the memo, Hegseth said: “The organization once endorsed by President Theodore Roosevelt no longer supports the future of American boys.”His proposal, which has not yet been sent to Congress, calls for the Pentagon to pull medical and logistical aid to the National Jamboree, a gathering of up to 20,000 Scouts at a remote site in West Virginia about every four years. It also looks to prohibit Scouting troops from meeting at military installations in the US and abroad.In a statement, the Pentagon said it “will not comment on leaked documents that we cannot authenticate and that may be pre-decisional”.Congress requires the Pentagon to support the Jamboree. It lends trucks, ambulances and medical teams free of charge. But Hegseth can withhold that aid  if he determines providing it would be “detrimental to national security”.In the memo he claims Scouting America is fostering “gender confusion” and that it would harm national security to send troops and equipment to the Jamboree as it would divert resources from protecting US territory.Scouting America said in a statement that the organization was proud of its long affiliation with the military and, while it is “disappointed in the potential policy change”, it was committed to continuing its work.“Our nation’s military has walked side-by-side with Scouts for generations,” the group said. Scouting “is and has always been a nonpartisan organization” and works “constructively with every US presidential administration – Republican and Democrat”.Its “American values have not changed”, he said – to “prepare young people for life by instilling in them the values of character, leadership, citizenship, and service”.The partnership has long helped the military’s recruitment efforts. As many as 20% of cadets and midshipmen at the service academies are Eagle Scouts, and those who decide to enlist enjoy advanced military rank and better pay. That would end under Hegseth’s proposed policy changes.As president, Donald Trump is the honorary leader of Scouting America. At the time of the 2017 Jamboree, he praised the group as having “no better citizens” and pointed out that 10 of his cabinet members were former Scouts.Hegseth, who is not a former Boy Scout, in 2018 complained when the group changed its name and admitted girls, saying on Fox News that the organization had been “cratering itself for quite some time”. “This is an institution the left didn’t control. They didn’t want to improve it. They wanted to destroy it or dilute it into something that stood for nothing,” he said.Since taking office, Hegseth has moved to slash DEI programs at the Pentagon, disproportionately removing senior female and African American officers, and frequently suggesting, without evidence, that diversity in all its forms has weakened the organization. More

    More stories

    • 163 Shares67 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘Ignoring minorities is our original sin’: the complex roots of Nigeria’s security crisis

      by

      “If they explain Nigeria to you and you understand it, they didn’t explain it well enough”. So goes the maxim for trying to parse Nigeria’s labyrinthine political dynamics. A security crisis has engulfed the country, catching the attention of the US president in the process. With the help of our West Africa correspondent, Eromo Egbejule, I’ll try to get to the bottom of what is happening. The marginalisation of Nigeria’s minoritiesView image in fullscreenOn Friday, more than 300 schoolchildren were kidnapped from a Catholic school in the country’s north-central Niger State. That was just the latest example of escalating violence, as the country has been plagued by crises including the killings of hundreds in Benue State and a recent live-streamed terrorist attack on worshippers at a church in Kwara State. Earlier this month, Donald Trump threatened to invade, citing an ongoing ‘‘Christian genocide”, while Trinidadian hip-hop star Nicki Minaj spoke at a UN event in New York spotlighting Christian persecution.After Minaj’s address at the UN, Rolling Stone published an article claiming that “Nicki’s claims of extremism against Nigerian Christians … aren’t backed by any data.” The article has not been received well by many Nigerians online, who have argued that westerners are weighing in with unwarranted authority. “To start, there is religious persecution in Nigeria,” Eromo says.“The dominant Islamic class, entrenched by the 18th-century Fulani scholar Usman dan Fodio, proposed a much stricter version of Islam, which is what influenced the implementation of Sharia Law in 12 states after Nigeria returned to democracy, from 1999 to the early 2000s. And so some of those who haven’t adhered to that have been killed and displaced.”This not only affects Christians – Muslim groups are also impacted if they are not seen as Muslim proper. In the north there are Sunni groups attacking Shia groups, who are viewed as heretics by extremists such as Boko Haram.The country’s middle belt, a site of much of this violence, has “a predominance of minorities”. “Many Nigerian crises are essentially about the marginalisation of political, ethnic and religious minorities. Such minorities feel whatever little resources they have left are being taken away by the majority or state-backed minorities,” Eromo says. “It’s just that the most colourful manifestation of this marginalisation is between Christians and Muslims, and most minorities in the middle belt are Christian.” While there are significant Muslim casualties, this does not undermine the reality of religious persecution against Christians in Nigerian states such as Benue and Kaduna; but it should be seen as one aspect in a broader quagmire of domination.The herder-farmer conflictView image in fullscreenNigeria’s security crisis differs significantly by region. The most notable thus far has been Boko Haram’s insurgency in the north-east, but it is the herder-farmer conflict, which has been especially prominent in the middle belt, that has largely been extrapolated into a narrative of “Christian genocide”. There is little cattle ranching in Nigeria, due to a resistance in uptake of ranches and the prevalence of nomadic cattle herds. The Fulani herdsmen historically had a more symbiotic relationship with non-Fulani farmers, but this has become strained by resource competition and exploitation by criminal groups.Climate change, desertification and deforestation have all exacerbated the problem, as Fulani herdsmen travel farther south. And there is the rapid development of former herding trails. “Abuja used to be part of the big grazing roads in the 1960s, but now it is the capital, there’s malls and complexes where you used to take your cows through.” What this has left is a series of grievances and conflicts, and with a lack of functioning state policing to calm the problems, the result is large graveyards. These herdsmen and militias also have access to more complicated and sophisticated weaponry, with conflicts in the Sahel region fuelling the proliferation of unsecured weapon stockpiles. This has led to an asymmetric conflict with Christian farmers, who often only have machetes.A centralised power with little federal oversightView image in fullscreenEromo says that Nigeria has repeatedly failed to get to grips with insurgent violence because of a centralised government. “Abuja has all of the power, and there’s a lot of ungoverned, or under governed, spaces.” He also points to the lack of state police. He says that “Nigeria’s big problem” is “ignoring the minorities and focusing on regime security. It’s Nigeria’s original sin.”skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionEromo continues: “Intelligence sharing is terrible. And so in all of these forests across the middle belt, north-east and into the north-west, there’s space for non-state actors to take over and to plan.” Indeed it was in Sambisa forest that the kidnapped Chibok schoolgirls were held by Boko Haram. “So you have ideological criminals who are persecuting the religious, political and ethnic minorities. Then you have commercial criminals looking for money. There’s just so many groups – which is why the catch-all term is ‘bandits’.” The problem is also obfuscated by non-herder Fulani-speaking criminals exploiting resource conflicts and stereotypes.***‘Data is a luxury in Nigeria’View image in fullscreenThere are significant blind spots in the country’s data collection, hence calls for a unified national database. “Data is a luxury in Nigeria,” Eromo says. “There’s never enough data, no one even truly knows the true size of the economy, it’s just inshallah and vibes. Nigeria is so big, there’s forests where there’s no network, so sometimes you hear of atrocities 10 days later when a person escapes. Nigeria doesn’t even know how many people it has, we see an estimated 220 million, it could be less, it could be more. It’s been a problem spanning more than 100 years, since the first British census of Nigeria in 1921.”So the real extent of the persecution is not clear. “What if the people on the ground are seeing things that the rest of us don’t see?” Eromo says. “We have to tread carefully.”Religious persecution also cannot always be neatly divided from other motives. For example, Eromo tells me that the targeted abduction of Nigerian priests amounts to religious persecution. But priests are “economically important in small communities” and attract a higher ransom from church attendants as well as the Christian diaspora. “Some Imams have also been targeted, but people are more likely to pay for a priest.”***Where now for Nigeria?View image in fullscreenThere is no singular resolution for a country whose problems are too intricate and myriad to ever be done justice in this analysis. Is American intervention the answer? Certainly not. But I am loth to criticise the Nigerians who have echoed calls for US intervention. At the very least, perhaps such international embarrassment might wake up the Nigerian government. The narrative might be isolated from nuance, but that is understandably not the concern of victims and survivors. Why would Nigeria’s ignored minorities not embrace a moment of global attention? More

    • 138 Shares67 Views

      in US Politics

      Mark Kelly: call for troops to disobey illegal orders is ‘non-controversial’

      by

      Senator Mark Kelly said it was “non-controversial” for him and other congressional Democrats to implore military personnel to disobey “illegal orders” from the Trump administration – hitting back at accusations of “serious allegations of misconduct” leveled against him by the Pentagon.“I said something that was pretty simple and non-controversial – and that was that members of the military should follow the law,” the Arizona Democrat senator, a former US navy officer and astronaut who flew on four separate space shuttle missions between 2001 and 2011, told MS Now on Monday night.Kelly then alluded to how the president went on social media to say Kelly and the others had engaged in “seditious behavior, punishable by death” – while also republishing another user’s post containing the phrase “hang them”.“And in response to that, Donald Trump said I should be executed, I should be hanged, I should be prosecuted,” Kelly said to political talkshow host Rachel Maddow.He added: “If this is meant to intimidate me and other members of Congress from doing our jobs and holding this administration accountable, it won’t work. I’ve given too much to this country to be silenced by bullies who care more about their own power than protecting the constitution.”Kelly’s remarks came after the Pentagon announced it was launching an investigation into the senator after Trump protested that Kelly and the other five Democratic lawmakers “should be in jail right now” for releasing a video advising service members that “threats to our constitution” are coming “from right here at home”. The video also said military members can “refuse illegal orders”.On Tuesday, Fox News reported that the FBI had contacted US Capitol police in Washington DC to schedule interviews with the six Democrats in question.The Pentagon warned that it could recall Kelly to active duty to be court-martialed and cited a federal law that bans military retirees against interfering “with the loyalty, morale, or good order and discipline of the armed forces”.In a statement of his own, the US defense secretary, Pete Hegseth, argued that the video at the center of the controversy was “despicable, reckless, and false”.“Encouraging our warriors to ignore the orders of their commanders undermines every aspect of ‘good order and discipline,’” Hegseth said.Trump weighed in with his own point of view, calling the senators’ statement “seditious behaviour at the highest level” and for an example to be set. “Their words cannot be allowed to stand – We won’t have a Country anymore!!! punishable by DEATH!”Active military members in the US – whose oath is to the constitution rather than the president – can face execution for the crime of sedition. Civilians, meanwhile, can be fined and imprisoned for up to 20 years if found to have engaged in seditious conspiracy.Meanwhile, the US Manual for Courts-Martial states that military requirements to obey orders do not apply “to a patently illegal order, such as one that directs the commission of a crime” – while also prohibiting “contemptuous speech”.The dispute between the Trump administration and Kelly – whose wife, Gabrielle Giffords, narrowly survived an attempted assassination in 2011 while she was meeting her congressional constituents – comes amid claims from Democrats that the Pentagon has issued illegal orders. Democrats allege that the purported illegal orders include sending military personnel to the seal the US-Mexico border and in carrying out deadly strikes on so-called fast boats in the Pacific and the Caribbean that the administration claims were carrying illegal narcotics.Elizabeth Beaumont of Middle Tennessee State University’s Free Speech Center told the Associated Press that US military regulations “have been used to restrict political expression as well as other activities”.The dispute also hits a nerve on the use of “sedition” after Trump supporters were accused of precisely that by carrying out a deadly attack on the US Capitol on 6 January 2021 – when the first of his two non-consecutive presidential terms in ended in defeat to Joe Biden.Some of the mob members even called for the hanging of Mike Pence, Trump’s vice-president at the time, who oversaw a congressional session certifying Biden’s victory in the 2020 election.Trump then granted presidential clemency to more than 1,500 Capitol attackers shortly after his second term began in January.In his remarks on Monday to MS Now about Trump and the video, Kelly said “sending a mob to round me and the other folks up … says a lot more about him than it says about me. He doesn’t want accountability.”Retired air force officer and Nebraska Republican congressman Don Bacon offered some measure of calm to the political mud-slinging, calling the Democrats’ video “unnecessary and foolish” but also drawing attention to the Pentagon’s response with an insult over its formal Department of Defense name.“Amateur hour once again at the Department of Dense,” Bacon wrote on X.Bacon added that Kelly and his fellow Democrats in the video “said don’t follow illegal orders – that is the law by the way”.“Good luck prosecuting someone who is quoting the law,” Bacon continued. “The administration should have just pointed out how dumb it was. The threats looked dumber.” More

    • 150 Shares50 Views

      in US Politics

      Pentagon investigating US senator over call for troops to refuse illegal orders

      by

      The Pentagon says it is investigating the Arizona senator Mark Kelly for possible breaches of military law after the federal lawmaker joined a handful of other Democrats in a video calling for US troops to refuse unlawful orders.It is extraordinary for the Pentagon to directly threaten a sitting member of Congress with investigation. Until Donald Trump’s second presidency, the institution in charge of the US military had usually strived to appear apolitical.In a statement on Monday on social media announcing the investigation into Kelly, a veteran, the Pentagon cited a federal law that allows retired service members to be recalled to active duty on orders of the defense secretary for possible court martial or other measures. Kelly served in the US navy as a fighter pilot before going on to become an astronaut. He retired at the rank of captain.The Pentagon’s statement suggested that Kelly’s statements in the video interfered with the “loyalty, morale, or good order and discipline of the armed forces” by citing the federal law that prohibits such actions.“A thorough review of these allegations has been initiated to determine further actions, which may include recall to active duty for court-martial proceedings or administrative measures,” the statement said.In the video that was posted last Tuesday, Kelly was one of six lawmakers who served in the military or intelligence community to speak “directly to members of the military”.Kelly told troops “you can refuse illegal orders” – and other lawmakers said that they needed troops to “stand up for our laws … our constitution.”A statement on Monday from Pete Hegseth, Trump’s defense secretary, said Kelly was the only video participant who remained subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).“The video … was despicable, reckless and false,” said the statement from Hegseth, whose defense department has rebranded itself the war department. “Encouraging our warriors to ignore the orders of their commanders undermines every aspect of ‘good order and discipline’.“Kelly’s conduct brings discredit upon the armed forces and will be addressed appropriately.”A statement issued by Kelly said he learned of the investigation into him when the Pentagon posted about it on social media.“If this is meant to intimidate me and other members of Congress from doing our jobs and holding this administration accountable, it won’t work,” Kelly’s statement said. “I’ve given too much to this country to be silenced by bullies who care more about their own power than protecting the constitution.”Kelly’s statement alluded to having experienced combat during his military career as well as having served as an astronaut for the US space agency, Nasa.“I had a missile blow up next to my jet and flew through anti-aircraft fire to drop bombs on enemy targets,” his statement said. “At Nasa, I launched on a rocket, commanded the space shuttle, and was part of the recovery mission that brought home the bodies of my astronaut classmates who died” during the 2003 Columbia space shuttle explosion.“I did all of this in service to this country that I love and has given me so much.”The US Manual for Courts-Martial states that the military requirement to obey orders “does not apply to a patently illegal order, such as one that directs the commission of a crime”.Nonetheless, Trump reacted furiously to the video in question, writing on his Truth Social platform that Kelly and the others had engaged in “SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH”. The president also reposted another Truth Social user who wrote, in part, “HANG THEM”.Active military members in the US – whose oath is to the constitution rather than the president – can indeed face execution for the crime of sedition. Civilians, meanwhile, can be fined and imprisoned for up to 20 years if found to have engaged in seditious conspiracy.Generally, Republican allies of Trump have supported his response while his philosophical opponents have condemned it.Kelly has since said Trump’s accusation of sedition made him fearful of his family’s safety, especially after his wife, Gabrielle Giffords, narrowly survived an attempted assassination while she was in Congress and meeting constituents in 2011.“This kind of language is dangerous, and it’s wrong,” Kelly said on Friday on MS NOW’s Morning Joe, when he also alluded to a number of instances of deadly political violence across the US in recent months.On Sunday’s edition of Face the Nation, Kelly added: “We’ve heard very little, basically crickets, from Republicans in the United States Congress about what the president has said about hanging members of Congress.” More

    • 200 Shares88 Views

      in US Politics

      The ‘war on terror’ has killed millions. Trump is reviving it in Venezuela | Daniel Mendiola

      by

      For the last two months, US forces have amassed outside Venezuela and carried out a series of lethal strikes on civilian boats. The Trump White House has ordered these actions in the name of fighting “narco-terrorists” – a label apparently applicable to anyone suspected of participating in drug trafficking near Latin American coastlines. More than 80 people have already been killed in these pre-emptive strikes, and war hawks are calling for expanded military action to depose the Venezuelan president, Nicolás Maduro.Watching this play out, I am reminded of a passage from the geographer Stuart Elden’s award-winning 2009 book, Terror and Territory. In discussing how to study the “war on terror”, Elden observed that it did not make sense to study terrorism as something unique to non-state actors.“States clearly operate in ways that terrify,” Elden said. “The terrorism of non-state actors is a very small proportion of terrorism taken as a whole, with states having killed far more than those who oppose them.”A large body of research supports this claim.Researchers with Brown University’s Costs of War project, for example, have found that US-led interventions in the “war on terror” from 2001 to 2023 killed over 400,000 civilians in direct war violence. They also show evidence that when considering indirect deaths – for example, people in war zones dying from treatable medical conditions after clean water or medical infrastructure was destroyed – death toll estimates rise to at least 3.5m. Moreover, even beyond direct war zones, a recent study in the Lancet found that sanctions during the same period were also extremely deadly, causing as many as 500,000 excess deaths per year from 2010 to 2021.In short, we have already spent decades terrorizing civilian populations around the world in the name of fighting terror. This is well known, and yet the Trump White House is reinvigorating the “war on terror” anyway. Still more, it is trying to do it with even less oversight on the president’s license to kill than has been exercised in the past.While on the surface Trump’s second term has been characterized by a disorienting barrage of executive orders and culture war polemics, the administration has in fact been running a cohesive authoritarian playbook aimed at conferring near limitless powers to the presidency. These concerted efforts have played out in numerous policy arenas from immigration, to higher education, to economics, to even determining who is a citizen.Consistent with this pattern, Trump is asserting the same unchecked authority over the violent capacities of the US military.As I have written previously, a key tactic of the Trump White House has been eviscerating the oversight of the courts, making it impossible to impede the executive branch from continuing to break the law, even when it gets caught red-handed. However, another frequent strategy – perhaps less visible, though equally anathema to a system of limited government – has been to simply sidestep oversight by asserting that, even when law in theory places limits on presidential power, the exercise of this power is still “unquestioned”; according to this thinking, the executive branch apparently has the prerogative to interpret what those limits are.Of course, in a serious constitutional system, this would be preposterous. In practice, there would be no limits to presidential powers, rendering the constitution moot. Nonetheless, this is exactly the type of power that Trump is asserting over the military, both at home and abroad.The court case related to Trump’s efforts to suppress protests in Chicago using troops sheds critical light on how this strategy works. Federal law allows a president to deploy troops domestically if there is a “rebellion” that is making it impossible to “execute the laws of the United States”. Accordingly, some lower court judges have reasonably blocked the deployment of troops, finding that the administration has been unable to prove that these conditions were met. Just look at the facts: protests had on average only been about 50 people at a time, and they have clearly not made law enforcement impossible since ICE – the federal agency being protested – has vastly increased arrests during this time.True to form, however, Trump’s lawyers have argued that these details are irrelevant. In their view, there is actually no need to prove a rebellion is happening because the president has the authority to define rebellion anyway. In other words, the law might impose limits on how the president can use the military, but the president gets to decide what those limits are.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionWhile lower courts have so far prevented this nakedly authoritarian legal theory from taking hold, the argument itself is still massively consequential: first, because an extremely Trump-friendly supreme court will hear the case soon and could very well endorse these claims; and second, because this is essentially the same logic that the Trump administration has used to justify killing civilians off the Latin American coast. Indeed, just as the Trump administration is asserting the exclusive right to define “rebellion” regardless of the facts on the ground – thus eliminating any real limits on the power to deploy troops domestically – the Trump White House is similarly asserting the unencumbered right to define “terrorist”, along with the corresponding right to take deadly action with virtually no outside oversight.In public statements, Trump has defended treating drug smugglers as terrorists by citing the harm done by drug overdoses, in effect suggesting that drug traffickers are directly killing US citizens. Ignoring the fact that Venezuela doesn’t produce fentanyl, the main driver of overdoses in the US, Trump has even gone so far as to float the mathematically impossible claim that each boat strike has saved 25,000 lives. Of course, officials have provided zero public evidence that the boats attacked were carrying drugs at all, much less tried to explain how blowing up boats would have any impact at all on drug abuse in the US.But again, why would they? The whole point of the argument is that such facts don’t matter because Trump simply has the unchecked authority to use lethal force. In fact, the justice department has suggested that officials do not even have to publicly list which foreign organizations are classified as killable terrorists, much less provide evidence to support this designation.Ultimately, Trump’s actions in and around Venezuela are best understood as a new phase in the “war on terror” – an ongoing tragedy that has already had deadly consequences for millions – though now with even fewer guardrails. The bottom line: Venezuela is not just some chess piece in an abstract game of geopolitics, and we are doing a disservice to humanity if we let war hawks in government and media spin it this way. We are talking about real people, and as very recent history shows, countless lives are at stake.

      Daniel Mendiola is a professor of Latin American history and migration studies at Vassar College More

    • 138 Shares65 Views

      in US Politics

      US senator slams Republicans’ silence on Trump’s violent threats to Democrats

      by

      Senator Mark Kelly on Sunday urged congressional Republicans to publicly reject Trump’s threats against him and five other Democratic lawmakers who stated that military personnel are not obligated to follow illegal commands.“We’ve heard very little, basically crickets, from Republicans in the United States Congress about what the president has said about hanging members of Congress,” Kelly, of Arizona, said on CBS’s Face the Nation.Kelly noted that both Donald Trump and Republican legislators had previously asked Democrats to moderate their language after the fatal shooting of conservative activist Charlie Kirk in September, asking: “What happened to that?”“His words carry tremendous weight, more so than anybody else in the country, and he should be aware of that, and because of what he says, there is now increased threats against us,” Kelly said of Trump’s accusations.Earlier in the week, Kelly and five other Democratic members of Congress released a video on X directed toward active-duty military and intelligence workers, stating: “Our laws are clear. You can refuse illegal orders.” All six participants have backgrounds in military or intelligence service. Kelly spent 25 years in the navy.Trump reacted on social media on Thursday, writing that the lawmakers should be arrested and tried for “seditious behavior”. In another post, he declared “SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH!” and reposted a message saying “HANG THEM, GEORGE WASHINGTON WOULD!”In response, House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries, Democratic whip Katherine Clark, and Democratic caucus chair Pete Aguilar issued a joint statement condemning Trump’s remarks, emphasizing that “political violence has no place in America.”Kelly reiterated on Sunday that the president is “trying to intimidate us” and added: “I’m not going to be intimidated.”Minnesota Democrat Amy Klobuchar, in an interview on Meet the Press on Sunday, condemned Trump’s “dangerous” posts. “What is dangerous is the president of the United States threatening these members of Congress with death. Literally, saying that they should be executed,” Klobuchar said.Vice-president JD Vance also weighed in on Sunday, posting on X: “If the president hasn’t issued illegal orders, then members of Congress telling the military to defy the president is by definition illegal.” More

    • 188 Shares106 Views

      in US Politics

      Democrats condemn Trump after he says they should be punished ‘by death’ over video post

      by

      Democrats expressed outrage after Donald Trump accused a group of Democratic lawmakers of being “traitors” and said that they should be arrested and punished “by death” after they posted a video in which they told active service members they should refuse illegal orders.The video, released on Tuesday, features six Democratic lawmakers who have previously served in the military or in intelligence roles, including senators Elissa Slotkin and Mark Kelly, and representatives Maggie Goodlander, Chris Deluzio, Chrissy Houlahan and Jason Crow.“Like us, you all swore an oath to protect and defend this constitution,” the lawmakers said in the 90-second video. “And right now, the threats to our constitution aren’t just coming from abroad, but from right here at home. Our laws are clear, you can refuse illegal orders, you can refuse illegal orders, you must refuse illegal orders. No one has to carry out orders that violate the law or our constitution.”That seemed to prompt a furious response from the US president.On Thursday morning, Trump wrote on Truth Social: “It’s called SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL. Each one of these traitors to our Country should be ARRESTED AND PUT ON TRIAL.”In another post, he wrote: “This is really bad, and Dangerous to our Country. Their words cannot be allowed to stand. SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR FROM TRAITORS!!! LOCK THEM UP??? President DJT.” In a third post, he added: “SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH!” He also reposted a statement that said: “HANG THEM GEORGE WASHINGTON WOULD !!”Following Trump’s statements on Thursday, House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries, Democratic whip Katherine Clark and Democratic caucus chair Pete Aguilar released a joint statement condemning the remarks.“Political violence has no place in America,” they wrote. “Representatives Jason Crow, Chris DeLuzio, Maggie Goodlander and Chrissy Houlahan and Senators Mark Kelly and Elissa Slotkin all served our country with tremendous patriotism and distinction. We unequivocally condemn Donald Trump’s disgusting and dangerous death threats against members of Congress, and call on House Republicans to forcefully do the same.”The Democratic leaders also said that they had been in contact with the House sergeant at arms and the United States Capitol police “to ensure the safety of these members and their families”.“Donald Trump must immediately delete these unhinged social media posts and recant his violent rhetoric before he gets someone killed,” the statement added.The lawmakers who appeared in the video also released a statement.“We are veterans and national security professionals who love this country and swore an oath to protect and defend the constitution of the United States,” they said. “That oath lasts a lifetime, and we intend to keep it. No threat, intimidation, or call for violence will deter us from that sacred obligation.”“What’s most telling is that the president considers it punishable by death for us to restate the law,” they continued. “Our service members should know that we have their backs as they fulfill their oath to the constitution and obligation to follow only lawful orders. It is not only the right thing to do, but also our duty.”They added: “Every American must unite and condemn the president’s calls for our murder and political violence. This is a time for moral clarity.”Chuck Schumer, the Democratic Senate minority leader, also condemned Trump’s remarks and posted on X: “Let’s be crystal clear: the President of the United States is calling for the execution of elected officials.”skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionHe added: “This is an outright THREAT. Every Senator, every Representative, every American – regardless of party – should condemn this immediately and without qualification.”Mike Johnson, the Republican House speaker, defended Trump’s claim that the Democrats had engaged in “sedition”, describing the video as “wildly inappropriate”, adding: “It is very dangerous, you have leading members of Congress telling troops to disobey orders, I think that’s unprecedented in American history.”Johnson also reportedly told the Independent that in what he read of Trump’s posts, Trump was “defining the crime of sedition”.“But obviously attorneys have to parse the language and determine all that. What I’m saying, what I will say unequivocally, that was a wildly inappropriate thing for so-called leaders in Congress to do to encourage young troops to disobey orders,” Johnson added.During a White House press conference on Thursday afternoon, when asked by a reporter, “Does the president want to execute members of Congress?”, Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, responded: “No.”“Let’s be clear about what the president is responding to,” Leavitt said. “You have sitting members of the US Congress who conspired together to orchestrate a video message to members of the US military, to active duty service members encouraging them to defy the president’s lawful orders.She said: “The sanctity of our military rests on the chain of command, and if that chain of command is broken, it can lead to people getting killed, it can lead to chaos, and that’s what these members of Congress … are essentially encouraging.” More

    • 213 Shares95 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump news at a glance: in a U-turn, president tells Republicans to vote to release Epstein files

      by

      Donald Trump has told his fellow Republicans in Congress to vote for the release of files related to the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, in a sudden reversal of his earlier position.The US president’s post on his Truth Social website came after the House speaker, Mike Johnson, said previously that he believed a vote on releasing justice department documents in the Epstein case should help put to rest allegations “that he [Trump] has something to do with it”.Late on Sunday, Trump wrote on his social media platform: “House Republicans should vote to release the Epstein files because we have nothing to hide.“And it’s time to move on from this Democrat Hoax perpetrated by Radical Left Lunatics in order to deflect from the Great Success of the Republican Party,” he added.Trump’s surprise reversal on releasing Epstein filesThe White House has struggled to contain suspicion within Trump’s usually loyal Make America Great Again (Maga) base that the administration is hiding details of Epstein’s crimes to protect the rich elite with whom the financier associated, including Trump.Despite continued releases of files by Republicans this year, including a cache of more than 20,000 pages that were published last week, pressure has grown to disclose more information from Epstein’s estate, as well as FBI investigation documents.The US House of Representatives is expected to vote on the legislation regarding the release of more Epstein files this week, possibly as soon as Tuesday.Read the full storyUN security council votes to endorse Trump’s Gaza planThe resolution, passed by a vote of 13-0 with abstentions by China and Russia, charted “a new course in the Middle East for Israelis and Palestinians and all the people of the region alike”, the US envoy to the UN, Mike Waltz, told the council chamber.The price of passing a resolution was vague language which left many issues uncertain. It gives overall oversight authority to a “board of peace” chaired by Trump, but of uncertain membership.Read the full storyUS will label supposed Venezuelan drug cartel ‘headed by Maduro’ as terrorist organizationThe US has said it will designate a putative Venezuelan drug cartel allegedly led by Nicolás Maduro as a foreign terrorist organization, as the Trump administration sent more mixed messages over its crusade against Venezuela’s authoritarian leader.The move to target the already proscribed group, the Cartel de los Soles (Cartel of the Suns), was announced by Marco Rubio on Sunday.Read the full storyUS judge finds evidence of ‘government misconduct’ in federal case against ComeyA US judge on Monday found evidence of “government misconduct” in how a prosecutor aligned with Donald Trump secured criminal charges against former FBI director James Comey and ordered that grand jury materials be turned over to Comey’s defense team.Last week, prosecutors were ordered to produce a trove of materials from the investigation, with the court saying it was concerned that the US justice department’s position on Comey had been to “indict first and investigate later”.Read the full storyTrump has ‘blurred’ line between military and politics, ex-officers warnWith months of escalation between US cities and the Trump administration amid the deployment of national guard troops, former military officials released a report on Monday about the risks of politicizing the country’s armed forces.The report warns that increasing domestic military deployments, such as using national guard troops for immigration enforcement in the US, and removing senior military officers and legal advisers have made the armed forces appear to serve partisan agendas.Read the full storyCharlotte, North Carolina, reels as 81 people arrested in immigration raidsMany communities in Charlotte, North Carolina, were reeling after federal Customs and Border Protection teams descended on the city at the weekend and arrested at least 81 people – while normally-thriving immigrant enclaves and business districts came to a standstill. Federal agents were deployed in what the Department of Homeland Security, the parent agency of Customs and Border Protection and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), calls Operation Charlotte’s Web, sparking protests.Read the full storyTrump signals he may soon meet with Zohran MamdaniThe president told reporters that New York City’s mayor-elect “would like to meet with us”, adding, “we’ll work something out” despite trading sharp words for each other previously.“He would like to come to Washington and meet, and we’ll work something out,” Trump said late on Sunday, referring to Mamdani, the 34-year-old Democratic socialist and former state assemblymember who won the New York City mayoral election earlier this month. “We want to see everything work out well for New York.”Read the full storyNew international student enrollments in US plunge this year, data showsThe number of international students enrolling in US colleges and universities plunged this year as the Trump administration’s aggressive immigration crackdown on higher education began to bite, data released on Monday reveals.Read the full storySupreme court to review Trump policy of limiting asylum claims at borderThe US supreme court agreed on Monday to hear a defense by the Trump administration of the government’s authority to limit the processing of asylum claims at ports of entry along the US-Mexico border.The court took up the administration’s appeal of a lower court’s determination that the “metering” policy, under which US immigration officials could stop asylum seekers at the border and decline to process their claims, violated federal law.Read the full storyWhat else happened today:

      In the underworld of accelerationist neo-Nazis, where talk of attacks against western governments are commonplace, the spread of illegal weapons manuals and tradecraft on drone warfare are proliferating. Experts say, in some cases, that classes are being taught online with the input of leadership from proscribed terrorist groups with links to Russian intelligence.

      A powerful atmospheric river weather system has mostly moved through California but not before causing at least six deaths and dousing much of the state.

      Eswatini has confirmed for the first time that it had received more than $5m from the United Statesto accept dozens of people expelled under Washington’s aggressive mass deportation drive.

      Lawyers for Lisa Cook, the Federal Reserve governor, called Trump administration allegations of mortgage fraud against her “baseless” on Monday and accused the administration of “cherry-picking” discrepancies to bolster their claims.
      Catching up? Here’s what happened Sunday 16 November.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotion More

    • 125 Shares124 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump has ‘blurred’ line between military and politics, ex-officers warn

      by

      With months of escalation between US cities and the Trump administration amid the deployment of national guard troops, former military officials released a report on Monday about the risks of politicizing the nation’s armed forces.The report warns that increasing domestic military deployments, such as using national guard troops for immigration enforcement in the US, and removing senior military officers and legal advisers have made the armed forces appear to serve partisan agendas.“The use of troops, bases, and ceremonies in partisan settings has blurred the line between military service and political messaging, eroding morale and public trust in the military’s apolitical character,” the report reads.The report, The Perils of Politicizing the US Military, was authored by six former service secretaries and retired four-star admirals and generals, including former army secretary Louis Caldera, former air force secretary Deborah Lee James, former navy secretary Sean O’Keefe, retired navy admiral Steve Abbot, retired coast guard admiral Thad Allen, and retired army general George Casey.The white paper comes as the Trump administration continues to battle the courts over deploying the national guard in Portland. In Washington DC, where the president has more control over the guard than in states, troops were ordered to remain there through at least February.After sending troops to the nation’s capital, Trump sent others to Chicago and threatened to send more to other Democratic-run cities such as San Francisco and New York.Meanwhile, months of upheaval at the defense department have been a hallmark of Pete Hegseth’s tenure. Last month, Hegseth, the US defense secretary, abruptly fired the navy chief of staff. In May, he ordered the military to cut 20% of its four-star generals and admirals, while Hegseth and Trump have fired more than half a dozen top generals since January.The Trump administration has also fired the only two women serving as four-star officers. In February, Hegseth also fired air force general CQ Brown Jr, the chair of the joint chiefs of staff and the second Black man to serve in that role.Monday’s report warns about the consequences of such efforts, most acutely the “erosion of the armed forces’ apolitical character”.“When service members, senior leaders, or military symbols are perceived as aligned with political agendas, the public begins to see the institution as partisan rather than national – and once eroded, that trust is difficult to rebuild,” reads the report. “This loss of trust makes it harder to recruit across the political spectrum, harder to retain talent, and harder to reassure allies and deter adversaries abroad.”Jack Reed, the top Democrat on the Senate armed services committee, urged members of Congress last month to put a halt to Trump’s efforts to deploy national guard troops in US cities without the consent of local leaders, as well as to consider the implications such actions will have for trust in the military.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotion“Congress has the Constitutional authority and moral obligation to stop this,” Reed said in a statement. “We are not powerless. We control the purse. We have oversight authority. We can pass legislation. And we must act now.”Reed called on lawmakers to pass legislation that requires the administration to publicly explain to and notify Congress when it removes senior generals or admirals, as well as measures that would “establish clear standards requiring congressional approval for domestic military deployments except in genuine emergencies”.The report by former military leaders outlines similar recommendations to Congress, calling on lawmakers to require “clear justification and post-action review of significant domestic deployments and high-level personnel changes”. More