'Stupid as hell': Don Bacon blasts Hegseth on military base names
"I think they're trying to be too cute by Hegseth on this, saying, 'Well it's Bragg, but it's a different Bragg," Bacon said July 18, referring to the now twice-renamed Army base in North Carolina. "To me, it looks stupid as hell."
More: Fort Who? Republicans join House Dems to bar Hegseth's military base name changes
Bacon co-sponsored the original bipartisan push to prohibit U.S. base names honoring Confederate figures, which became law in January 2021.
Although President Donald Trump vetoed the bill, lawmakers overrode him and forced the Pentagon to find new names that didn't honor Confederates.
In 2022 the Biden-era Defense Department implemented recommendations of a bipartisan Naming Commission, renaming posts to honor figures such as five-star general and former President Dwight Eisenhower.
But Hegseth reversed those changes by again renaming the bases - this time for U.S. servicemembers whose surnames matched those of their earlier Confederate namesakes.
The House Armed Services Committee-approved draft defense policy bill for fiscal 2026 would protect the Naming Commission's recommendations by barring the Pentagon from using official funds for base name changes.
Bacon, who represents Omaha, and fellow Republican Rep. Derek Schmidt of Kansas joined Democrats in a dramatic late-night vote to approve the amendment, which was authored by Rep. Marilyn Strickland, D-Washington. The Senate Armed Services Committee passed a limited-but-similar measure in its version of the bill to block renaming of bases in Virginia.
"Congress has made it clear where we stood," Bacon said, adding the re-renamings "fly in the face of what Congress intended."
In February, Hegseth reversed Fort Liberty's name to Fort Bragg by naming it for Pfc. Roland Bragg, who was awarded the Silver Star for his service in World War II. In March, Fort Benning followed, shedding its short-lived Fort Moore moniker for Cpl. Fred Benning, who received the Distinguished Service Cross during World War I.
Trump in June then announced that all of the Army's base names would change to honor soldiers who shared names with their former Confederate namesakes.
He and Hegseth have argued that the original names boost soldier morale and only changed due to so-called "wokeness" in the military. The defense secretary has also said the old names provide a "generational link" between veterans and modern troops.
Bacon contends that Republicans shouldn't support the names, which were originally proposed by segregationist Jim Crow-era Southern Democrats during World War I and World War II.
The name of Fort Benning, for example, was suggested by the United Daughters of the Confederacy, an organization that sought to rewrite history textbooks and erect monuments that honored the Confederacy and downplayed slavery's centrality to the Civil War.
And perhaps Bacon's support has personal roots as well - the congressman's great-great-great grandfather, a Virginia-born abolitionist, moved to Illinois and fought for the U.S. Army during the Civil War, Bacon noted.
The practical effect of the amendment remains to be seen, according to a defense official. The House and Senate will have to iron out the discrepancy between their approaches to base names before the chambers agree to a final version.
More: Trump visits Fort Bragg. The base has been renamed twice in 2 years. Why?
Meanwhile, the process of renaming the bases may be completed before the law takes effect, the official said.
If that occurs, Bacon - who is retiring from Congress in 2026 - said he believes a future Democratic president is "going to change them all back."
Contributing: Tom Vanden Brook and Cybele Mayes-Osterman, USA TODAY.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NBC News
2 hours ago
- NBC News
A MAGA bot network on X is divided over the Trump-Epstein backlash
A previously unreported network of hundreds of accounts on X is using artificial intelligence to automatically reply to conservatives with positive messages about people in the Trump administration, researchers say. But with the MAGA movement split over the administration's handling of files involving deceased sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, the accounts' messaging has broken, offering contradictory statements on the issue and revealing the LLM-fueled nature of the accounts. The network, tracked for NBC News by both the social media analytics company Alethea and researchers at Clemson University, consists of more than 400 identified bot accounts, though the number could be far larger, the researchers say. Its accounts offer consistent praise for key Trump figures, particularly support for Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt. As often is the case with bot accounts, those viewed by NBC News tended to have only a few dozen followers, and their posts rarely get many views. But a large audience does not appear to be the point. Their effectiveness, if they have any, is in the hope that they contribute to a partisan echo chamber, and that en masse they can 'massage perceptions,' said Darren Linvill, the director of Clemson University's Media Forensics Hub, which studies online disinformation campaigns. 'They're not really there to get engagement. They're there to just be occasionally seen in those replies,' Linvill told NBC News. The researchers declined to share specifics on how they identified the accounts, but noted they shared a number of distinct trends. All were created, seemingly in batches, around three specific days last year. They frequently punctuate their posts with hashtags, often ones that are irrelevant to the conversation. They post almost exclusively by replying to other users, often to people who pay X for verification and by repeating similarly worded sentiments over and over in short succession. At times, they will respond to someone's post by repeating it back to them verbatim. It's unclear who is behind the network, or which of the multiple AI chatbots that are widely accessible to the public was used to power it. The bots have posted support for conservative figures since 2024, including supporting Trump and other Republicans on the ballot in the lead-up to the election, and then afterward posting that they were excited for Trump to take office. Though they would occasionally mix their messages — some have professed affection for MSNBC host Rachel Maddow, for instance — their messaging was consistently in favor of MAGA figures until the recent Epstein files controversy. A core constituency of Trump supporters voted for him on the belief that Trump, a former friend of Epstein's, would expose a list of supposed rich and powerful clients and bring justice to Epstein's victims. It's only since earlier this month, when Attorney General Pam Bondi announced she would not release additional Epstein files, that the accounts' messaging has become so split, with some accounts telling different users opposite opinions almost concurrently. During the same minute last Saturday morning, for example, one account in the network both cautioned a MAGA supporter from judging Bondi too harshly and told another that Bondi or FBI Director Kash Patel and Deputy Director Dan Bongino should resign over the scandal.
NBC News
4 hours ago
- NBC News
Bipartisan government funding is at risk of dying in Trump's Washington
WASHINGTON — For many years, final decisions over how much the U.S. government spends, and how, have required sign-off from leaders of both parties, no matter who controlled the White House or Capitol Hill or the level of polarization. Now, that last vestige of the bipartisan funding process is at risk of dying after a one-two punch by President Donald Trump and the Republican-led Congress. The 'appropriations' process, whereby both parties pass detailed funding bills for various federal agencies every year, has been in a slow decline for decades. But recent moves by the Trump-era GOP to disrupt past funding agreements have accelerated that decline — and, in the view of Democrats and even some weary Republicans, undermined Congress' power of the purse in deference to the White House. First, Republicans passed a $300 billion hike in military spending and immigration enforcement as part of Trump's megabill; and second, they cut $9 billion in domestic money and foreign aid under a rarely used 'rescission' process, allowing the GOP to cancel already approved bipartisan spending with a party-line vote. A Sept. 30 deadline to fund the government or risk a shutdown will test whether a bipartisan deal is still possible, particularly as Trump's top budget aide publicly calls for a more partisan approach. House Republicans have undermined the bipartisan path for years by slamming the resulting deals as 'swamp' creations by a 'uniparty' that is addicted to spending. Now, GOP lawmakers in both chambers are going it alone, suggesting they'll bring more rescissions packages to undo past bipartisan spending agreements because the existing process is failing. 'We don't have an appropriations process. It's broken. It's been broken for a while,' said Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., who sits on the Senate Appropriations Committee. He said Congress will likely fall back on continuing resolutions, which largely maintain the status quo, and rescission packages for the remainder of Trump's presidency. Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin, D-Ill., a senior appropriator, said the once-respected government funding process has 'disappeared,' calling the latest rescissions package 'a step backwards.' 'It's basically saying: No matter what you decide on, the president is going to be able to change the bill, even for money that's been appropriated,' Durbin said. Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., and Appropriations Chair Susan Collins, R-Maine, insist the process is alive and well. They will test that theory this week as Thune plans to bring at least one — if not more — appropriations bills to the Senate floor. He has argued that the $9 billion cut hits a tiny portion of the federal budget and shouldn't dissuade Democrats from working toward a deal. 'I would hope, at least for the functioning of our government, that they would be willing to work with us on some things,' Thune said Wednesday on Fox News. 'They haven't been so far.' But even some GOP proponents of the bill admit it adds to the challenges. 'The rescission package — of course, I understand that could complicate things,' said Rep. Robert Aderholt of Alabama, a senior Republican on the House Appropriations Committee. Vought weighs in Just after the Senate overcame objections in both parties to approve the $9 billion spending-cut bill requested by Trump, a comment from White House budget director Russell Vought dropped like a bomb on Capitol Hill. 'The appropriations process has to be less bipartisan,' Vought told reporters at a Christian Science Monitor breakfast Thursday. 'It's not going to keep me up at night, and I think will lead to better results, by having the appropriations process be a little bit partisan.' He added that more rescission packages would be coming. The backlash was fierce. Senate Republicans responsible for crafting the government funding bills were taken aback by his candor. 'Mr. Vought's lack of respect and apparent lack of understanding of how Congress operates is baffling, because he's served in government before,' Collins told NBC News. Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, said Vought 'disrespects' the appropriations process in Congress with his 'dismissive' comments. 'I think he thinks that we are irrelevant,' she said. And Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., on Thursday called on Trump to 'fire Russell Vought immediately, before he destroys our democracy and runs the country into the ground.' The series of clashes escalates tensions leading up to the fall deadline, with top Democrats warning ahead of the vote that they would have little incentive to provide the 60 votes to cut a deal. 'It is absurd to expect Democrats to play along with funding the government if Republicans are just going to renege on a bipartisan agreement by concocting rescissions packages behind closed doors that can pass with only their votes,' Schumer warned in a recent speech. The debate over the demise of individual lawmakers getting to dictate where federal funding is allocated came to a head during a recent meeting of the Senate Appropriations Committee, with many senators arguing that the work they were doing in that moment may just be overridden by congressional leadership and the president. 'The one thing we all agree on is the appropriations process is broken,' former Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., lamented, describing how during his 18 years leading the GOP conference he helped oversee a shift away from government funding levels being decided by committees and instead being negotiated by only the highest levels of leadership and the White House. 'I concluded our failure to pass our bills empower every president, regardless of party, because I've been in those discussions at the end, the big four and the guy with the pen, and that makes all of our requests irrelevant,' McConnell said. Collins has repeatedly blamed the decline of the process on Schumer's refusal to put appropriations bills on the Senate floor. That has also been a slow-moving trend: McConnell and former Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., also short-circuited the process on the floor when in charge. Rising partisanship has weakened committees broadly and placed more power in the hands of leadership. In the context of government funding, that led to 'omnibus' spending bills and continuing resolutions — or CRs — negotiated by party leaders and jammed through Congress, often with an impending deadline to pressure holdouts to fall in line quickly. But House Republicans raised hell, torching the massive bills negotiated behind closed doors as a betrayal to their constituents. In recent years, they have successfully steered their leadership away from that approach. And it leaves few options going forward. 'What the math tells us' Durbin, who is retiring after a 30-year Senate career, reminisced about when the process was at the peak of its powers — last century. The last time Congress completed it through 'regular order' was in the 1990s. 'There was a time when we called 12 appropriation bills to the floor, open for amendment! Can you imagine that?' Durbin said. 'I remember. And you had to do your job in the committee. You had to have a subcommittee lined up on a bipartisan basis, a full committee lined up on a bipartisan basis. And the committee stood together. And you could find enough to support it to pass something. That, I think, really reflected the best of the Senate.' He attributed the change to the growing discord between the parties and the declining 'reputation of the Appropriations Committee,' although he credited Collins and Vice Chair Patty Murray, D-Wash., with trying to restore the bipartisan spirit of the panel. Collins, notably, is on an island as the only GOP senator who voted against both attempts to rewrite government funding — in the megabill and rescissions package. Collins is also up for re-election next year in a Democratic-leaning state that Trump lost in 2024. Sarah Binder, a political scientist at George Washington University and the Brookings Institution, said the megabill's changes to GOP spending priorities 'undermines the rough parity between defense and nondefense discretionary spending that until recently made bipartisan deals possible.' She added, 'The Trump OMB's aggressive impoundments of enacted appropriations severely threatens Congress' power of the purse and with it the authority and expertise of and oversight by appropriators.' Yet even as Republicans find new ways to go around the Senate's 60-vote threshold, Thune has promised he won't abolish the filibuster. He distanced himself from Vought's remarks. 'Well, that runs contrary to what the math tells us around here,' he said. 'So, we need 60 on approps bills. And it's going to take 60 to fund the government.' The path to a new funding law is murky, at best. And Collins, for now, maintains confidence in the bipartisan appropriations process. When asked if she has any concerns about its future, Collins told NBC News, 'None whatsoever.'
The Herald Scotland
9 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
Trump: Epstein grand jury records unlikely to satisfy critics
"Nothing will be good enough for the troublemakers and radical left lunatics making the request," the president wrote. "It will always be more, more, more. MAGA!" More: $10 billion lawsuit. More documents coming. Here's the latest on Trump and Epstein. Trump previously accused the Biden administration of hiding a list of Epstein clients. The Department of Justice teased that more files would be coming out, but then on July 7, Attorney General Pam Bondi said there was no client list and no further disclosure was needed. That led to a wave of backlash from Trump's MAGA base. "No one believes there is not a client list," Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Georgia, a close Trump ally, posted on X July 8. On July 18, federal prosecutors asked a federal court in Manhattan to unseal grand jury transcripts in the criminal cases against Epstein and his former associate Ghislaine Maxwell. Epstein's federal sex-trafficking case was still pending when he was found dead in a jail cell in 2019. "Based on the ridiculous amount of publicity given to Jeffrey Epstein, I have asked Attorney General Pam Bondi to produce any and all pertinent Grand Jury testimony, subject to Court approval," Trump wrote on social media. Rep. Thomas Massie, a Kentucky Republican who filed legislation to release all the government's Epstein records, wrote in social media post that Trump's move indicates the pressure campaign is "working." "But we want all the files," Massie added. It could take time for the courts to release any records, and the grand jury documents are just a portion of the unreleased files. "What about videos, photographs and other recordings?" Democratic Rep. Daniel Goldman, a former prosecutor, wrote on social media in response to Bondi saying she'd seek the release of grand jury testimony. "What about FBI... (witness interviews)? What about texts and emails?" Contributing: Zac Anderson, Aysha Bagchi, Joey Garrison.
