Alaska senator blocks Navy chief confirmation
Sullivan declined to comment. The Pentagon referred queries to the White House, which did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Capt. Adam Clampitt, Navy Secretary John Phelan's spokesperson, did not comment on the hold, but said Phelan 'is focused on maintaining our nation's maritime dominance and nothing will distract him from this critically important mission.'
Sullivan has said that expanding the U.S. military presence around Alaska is critical to deter Russian and Chinese incursions in the region, and he has obtained endorsements for reopening the station from some top military commanders. While Sullivan pushed to include Adak funding in the GOP's recently passed megabill, the law's language says only that $115 million is for 'exploration and development of existing Arctic infrastructure.'
The base was first used as a launching pad for U.S. missions against Japan in World War II. The island later played an important role in the Cold War, boasting a deep-water port, a pair of 7,000 foot runways and B-57 nuclear depth bombs. About 6,000 troops called the island home before the base was closed in 1997.
Caudle appeared well on the way to confirmation — and the vast majority of military promotions are approved without opposition. But all 100 senators must agree to speed up consideration of nominees, which the Senate is trying to do to start its August recess.
Sullivan's objection means that Pentagon and Senate leaders will need to strike a deal with him to continue the process. Sen. Majority Leader John Thune could hold extra procedural votes to get Caudle confirmed. But that move is highly unlikely as he would undercut a fellow Republican with a gripe against the Pentagon.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
an hour ago
After a reference to Trump's impeachments is removed from a history museum, complex questions echo
NEW YORK -- It would seem the most straightforward of notions: A thing takes place, and it goes into the history books or is added to museum exhibits. But whether something even gets remembered and how — particularly when it comes to the history of a country and its leader — is often the furthest thing from simple. The latest example of that came Friday, when the Smithsonian Institution said it had removed a reference to the 2019 and 2021 impeachments of President Donald Trump from a panel in an exhibition about the American presidency. Trump has pressed institutions and agencies under federal oversight, often through the pressure of funding, to focus on the country's achievements and progress and away from things he terms 'divisive.' A Smithsonian spokesperson said the removal of the reference, which had been installed as part of a temporary addition in 2021, came after a review of 'legacy content recently' and the exhibit eventually 'will include all impeachments.' There was no time frame given for when; exhibition renovations can be time- and money-consuming endeavors. In a statement that did not directly address the impeachment references, White House spokesperson Davis Ingle said: 'We are fully supportive of updating displays to highlight American greatness.' But is history intended to highlight or to document — to report what happened, or to serve a desired narrative? The answer, as with most things about the past, can be intensely complex. The Smithsonian's move comes in the wake of Trump administration actions like removing the name of a gay rights activist from a Navy ship, pushing for Republican supporters in Congress to defund the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and getting rid of the leadership at the Kennedy Center. 'Based on what we have been seeing, this is part of a broader effort by the president to influence and shape how history is depicted at museums, national parks, and schools,' said Julian E. Zelizer, a professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University. 'Not only is he pushing a specific narrative of the United States but, in this case, trying to influence how Americans learn about his own role in history.' It's not a new struggle, in the world generally and the political world particularly. There is power in being able to shape how things are remembered, if they are remembered at all — who was there, who took part, who was responsible, what happened to lead up to that point in history. And the human beings who run things have often extended their authority to the stories told about them. In China, for example, references to the June 1989 crackdown on pro-democracy demonstrators in Beijing's Tiananmen Square are forbidden and meticulously regulated by the ruling Communist Party government. In Soviet-era Russia, officials who ran afoul of leaders like Josef Stalin disappeared not only from the government itself but from photographs and history books where they once appeared. Jason Stanley, an expert on authoritarianism, said controlling what and how people learn of their past has long been used as a vital tool to maintain power. Stanley has made his views about the Trump administration clear; he recently left Yale University to join the University of Toronto, citing concerns over the U.S. political situation. 'If they don't control the historical narrative,' he said, 'then they can't create the kind of fake history that props up their politics.' In the United States, presidents and their families have always used their power to shape history and calibrate their own images. Jackie Kennedy insisted on cuts in William Manchester's book on her husband's 1963 assassination, 'The Death of a President.' Ronald Reagan and his wife got a cable TV channel to release a carefully calibrated documentary about him. Those around Franklin D. Roosevelt, including journalists of the era, took pains to mask the impact that paralysis had on his body and his mobility. Trump, though, has taken it to a more intense level — a sitting president encouraging an atmosphere where institutions can feel compelled to choose between him and the truth — whether he calls for it directly or not. 'We are constantly trying to position ourselves in history as citizens, as citizens of the country, citizens of the world,' said Robin Wagner-Pacifici, professor emerita of sociology at the New School for Social Research. 'So part of these exhibits and monuments are also about situating us in time. And without it, it's very hard for us to situate ourselves in history because it seems like we just kind of burst forth from the Earth.' Timothy Naftali, director of the Richard M. Nixon Presidential Library and Museum from 2007 to 2011, presided over its overhaul to offer a more objective presentation of Watergate — one not beholden to the president's loyalists. In an interview Friday, he said he was 'concerned and disappointed' about the Smithsonian decision. Naftali, now a senior researcher at Columbia University, said museum directors 'should have red lines' and that he considered removing the Trump panel to be one of them. While it might seem inconsequential for someone in power to care about a museum's offerings, Wagner-Pacifici says Trump's outlook on history and his role in it — earlier this year, he said the Smithsonian had 'come under the influence of a divisive, race-centered ideology' — shows how important those matters are to people in authority. 'You might say about that person, whoever that person is, their power is so immense and their legitimacy is so stable and so sort of monumental that why would they bother with things like this ... why would they bother to waste their energy and effort on that?' Wagner-Pacifici said. Her conclusion: 'The legitimacy of those in power has to be reconstituted constantly. They can never rest on their laurels.'
USA Today
5 hours ago
- USA Today
Senate confirms Trump's pick to oversee higher ed, a man tied to for-profit colleges
The Senate confirmed President Donald Trump's pick to oversee higher education policy, a man with deep ties to the for-profit college industry, by a 50-to-45 vote on August 1. Senate Majority John Thune filed cloture on Kent's nomination earlier in the week. And the education committee had already advanced Kent on a 12-11 vote without a hearing in late May. The undersecretary at the Department of Education oversees billions in federal financial aid and is charged with ensuring America's colleges provide a quality education. Education Secretary Linda McMahon had previously told USA TODAY that Kent is a 'natural leader' whose experience and concern for students 'make him the ideal selection for under secretary of education." He had won the support of several prominent university trade groups who are opposed to Trump's attacks on universities, but said they supported Kent's nomination. His confirmation comes as the Trump administration seeks to reshape higher education and has launched numerous investigations into high profile universities. Kent had already been working at the agency on the administration's initiatives like K-12 school choice. But prior to working in the government, Kent had a long history working for or close to for-profit colleges. From 2008 to the end of 2015, Kent worked for Education Affiliates, a for-profit college company. When he left, he was a vice president of legislative and regulatory affairs. In 2015, the Department of Justice announced the company had agreed to a $13 million settlement to settle accusations it had gamed the federal financial aid system. The company told USA TODAY Kent was not involved in the settlement or the allegations of fraud. Critics, including student advocacy groups and teacher unions, had called on the Senate education committee to put Kent through a public hearing to answer questions about his time working for the company. And one of the original whistleblowers tied to that case, Dorothy Thomas, expressed concern about someone from the company's leadership holding the under secretary position. Kent had also worked for Career Education Colleges and Universities, a for-profit college trade group. He developed a reputation for deep policy knowledge while speaking against regulations geared toward the for-profit college industry. That group's CEO, Jason Altmire, said Kent was not driven by partisan politics and would bring an unbiased view to the under secretary position. He then went to work for Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin's administration as a deputy secretary of education. Youngkin, in a prepared statement, said Kent improved how Virginia manages colleges and made them more accountable to students and families through increased transparency. Chair of the Virginia Senate's education committee, Democrat Ghazala Hashmi, told USA TODAY Kent had tried to destabilize accreditation in the state and he was aligned with efforts to dismantle consumer protections. In a departing message to the commonwealth, Kent said he was proud of reducing costs while pushing for free speech and accountability at Virginia's colleges. Chris Quintana is an investigative reporter at USA TODAY. He can be reached at cquintana@ or via Signal at 202-308-9021. He is on X at @CQuintanaDC
Politico
5 hours ago
- Politico
No nominees deal
The Senate will try to break an impasse Friday to advance three spending bills in hopes of showing progress after days of discord. A separate holdup over presidential nominations, meanwhile, could come down to direct talks between Democrats and the White House. A patchwork of objections from senators on both sides of the aisle have held up the spending legislation for days and foiled a plan for what some had hoped would be a four-bill package. But members expressed new optimism Friday that a second, more limited attempt could move forward. It's one of two pieces of major business Republican leaders are hoping to wrap up before the Senate starts its traditional summer recess. In addition to the spending bills — where they are keen to show some progress ahead of the Sept. 30 government shutdown deadline — they also want to confirm a broad tranche of President Donald Trump's nominees. The nominee conversations appear more dicey, senators said, and Senate Majority Leader John Thune said Friday that he has put Trump officials 'into conversation directly' with Minority Leader Chuck Schumer's team. Top White House staffers were also in the Capitol on Thursday night after Thune met with Trump at the White House. 'This is how this is ultimately going to get resolved,' Thune said. Meanwhile, GOP senators said leaders are running traps on a possible deal that would advance the smaller package of spending bills. Under the pending proposal, leaders would seek unanimous consent to tie together the fiscal 2026 spending bills funding the Veterans Affairs and Agriculture departments, as well as military construction projects and the FDA. A third spending bill, funding Congress itself, could be voted on separately. Senate Appropriations Chair Susan Collins said Friday morning she expects a unanimous consent request on some constellation of those three bills. The Maine Republican is eager to show progress on bipartisan spending bills before the Senate leaves for its lengthy August recess. Upon their return, members will have only a handful of session days to make further progress ahead of the shutdown deadline. Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) has made clear he will object to including Legislative Branch funding in the package and wants the chance to vote against the $7.1 billion bill. It's the smallest of the 12 annual appropriations bills, but Kennedy maintains it still costs too much. 'They agreed to my proposal,' he told reporters Friday. 'They're going to have one vote on [Military Construction–VA] and [Agriculture-FDA] together and separate vote on [Legislative Branch] so I can vote no. Then they'll marry them up later if all three pass, as they probably will.' Coming to a nominations deal could be much trickier, given Trump's determination to get all of his 150-plus pending nominees confirmed quickly. Trump on Thursday said on Truth Social that the Senate 'must stay in Session, taking no recess' until all of the nominees are confirmed. Even if senators stay in Washington, that goal will be all but impossible to meet absent Democratic cooperation. Democrats under Schumer are exploring whether to quickly confirm a smaller subset of nominees in exchange for other concessions, such as the release of government funding they claim has been illegally 'impounded' by the Trump administration. Hailey Fuchs contributed to this report.
