Navy Destroyer Deploys Off US and Mexico as Part of Pentagon Border Focus
The Trump administration is taking the unusual step of deploying a Navy warship off the waters of the U.S. as part of its broader crackdown on security and migration along the Mexico border.
The destroyer USS Gravely departed for the deployment on March 15 and will have a Coast Guard law enforcement detachment aboard that will better enable it to conduct missions such as ship seizures and drug interdictions, according to a statement released by U.S. Northern Command over the weekend.
However, Pentagon officials did not offer more details as to why a Navy destroyer, and not a Coast Guard cutter, was chosen for the mission at the Defense Department's first briefing under the Trump administration on Monday.
Read Next: VA Halts Transgender Care for New Veteran Patients as Advocates Warn of Dire Consequences
Sean Parnell, the Pentagon's top spokesman, told reporters that "this deployment directly supports U.S. Northern Command's mission to protect our sovereignty" and that part of the Gravely's mission will be to "secure those water routes in defense of our southern border."
Lt. Gen. Alex Grynkewich, the operations boss for the Joint Staff, who was briefing alongside Parnell, said that the ship will "be involved in the interdiction mission for any of the drugs and whatnot that are heading in."
Grynkewich added that the ship will be closely partnered with the U.S. Coast Guard.
Unlike a Coast Guard cutter, though, a Navy destroyer is a far more heavily armed vessel -- the Gravely can carry 96 missiles, including Tomahawk Land Attack cruise missiles -- and it is moving into the area after Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth recently wouldn't rule out conducting strikes into Mexico.
One defense official, who spoke with Military.com on the condition of anonymity, said Northern Command did notify Mexican counterparts that the ship would be off their coast through internal channels.
Another official suggested that the move was far more about the dramatic visual of a warship operating off the Mexican coast than the need for any of its more advanced weapons and capabilities.
The Trump administration has already utilized military assets for dramatic visuals on several occasions -- only to halt after concerns over cost or efficacy were raised.
Both the administration's efforts to use military flights to deport people it claimed to be in the country illegally and the use of Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, as a detention center have run into issues.
The flights raised questions about cost at a time when the administration was also pushing massive government cuts in the name of efficiency.
Efforts to use the naval base at Guantanamo Bay to house tens of thousands of immigrants have yet to materialize because the tents that service members were directed to set up were not meeting habitability requirements.
President Donald Trump announced plans to use Guantanamo Bay to hold around 30,000 migrants, but last week defense officials said that there were only 60 detainees on the remote military installation in Cuba, none of whom were being housed in the tents service members were recently ordered to set up.
Meanwhile, the Gravely has been back in the U.S. for less than a year.
The ship returned from a storied and dramatic deployment to the Middle East in July. While in the Middle East, the destroyer had its deployment extended twice, for a total of nine months away from home.
The Gravely faced one of the greatest threats that the Navy has publicly acknowledged during the deployment. The ship shot down a missile using its Close-In Weapon System, or CIWS -- a gatling gun system that is one of the vessel's last lines of defense -- after it came within a mile of the destroyer in January 2024.
Officials at the Pentagon and Northern Command wouldn't say how long they planned to have the destroyer patrolling the waters off Mexico.
Northern Command's statement said the ship would operate in international waters, as well as within 12 miles of the U.S. coast.
Related: Trump Wants to Detain 30,000 Migrants at Guantanamo Bay. It Can Hold Only 130 Now.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Insider
12 minutes ago
- Business Insider
Americans are questioning the value of a college degree. Trump is joining the debate.
President Donald Trump wants to tweak a traditionalfeature of the American dream: a college degree. Trump has continued to escalate his battle with Harvard University, threatening to cut off the Ivy League school from federal funding if it does not meet the administration's demands, which include eliminating diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives and cracking down on campus activism. The latest threat against Harvard, however, floated shifting funding to trade schools, an alternative path to a four-year college degree. "I am considering taking Three Billion Dollars of Grant Money away from a very antisemitic Harvard, and giving it to TRADE SCHOOLS all across our land," Trump wrote in a May 26 post on Truth Social. "What a great investment that would be for the USA, and so badly needed!!!" The White House's press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, added onto the president's comments in an interview with Fox News: "Apprenticeships, electricians, plumbers, we need more of those in our country, and less LGBTQ graduate majors from Harvard University. And that's what this administration's position is." Over the past few years, a growing number of Americans have started to question the value of a college degree due to high costs and a tough labor market, making trade schools and apprenticeships a favorable alternative. It marks a shift in the standard American dream, in which a four-year college degree had been viewed as a step to middle-class success. However, Jon Fansmith, assistant vice president of government relations at the American Council on Education, told Business Insider that taking funding away from Harvard and other research institutions isn't the answer to boosting investment in trade schools. "The money that he is talking about withholding from Harvard is money that Congress provided to research agencies to perform advanced scientific and biomedical research," Fansmith said, adding that Harvard earned grant money because "they had the best researchers, the best laboratory facilities, the best understanding of how to advance that science," he continued. "You can't simply take that money and use it for another purpose." Madi Biedermann, deputy assistant secretary for communications at the Department of Education, told BI that "American universities that are committed to their academic mission, protect students on campus, and follow all federal laws will have no problem accessing generous taxpayer support for their programs." 'Two very separate stories' Higher education doesn't have the same draw that it once did. Some Gen Zers previously told BI that despite being taught that college was the primary path to success, they felt they could make a living by directly entering the workforce or going to trade school. Please help BI improve our Business, Tech, and Innovation coverage by sharing a bit about your role — it will help us tailor content that matters most to people like you. What is your job title? (1 of 2) Entry level position Project manager Management Senior management Executive management Student Self-employed Retired Other Continue By providing this information, you agree that Business Insider may use this data to improve your site experience and for targeted advertising. By continuing you agree that you accept the Terms of Service and Privacy Policy . That's why Trump's push to invest more in trade schools is important, Fansmith said — they help Americans get a stable career to support themselves and their families, and the federal government can help support those schools by asking Congress to approve more funding, not redirecting the funding unilaterally. "There are two stories here. One is this administration's attack on Harvard, and the other is, what is the role of trade schools, and is there a need for more support for trade schools? And as much as the president's trying to conflate the two, those are two very separate stories," Fansmith said. While Trump's big spending bill proposes some provisions to expand Pell grant eligibility to short-term programs, it does not detail a significant funding increase for trade schools. The Trump administration's rhetorical focus on trade schools isn't new. Before he won the 2024 election, Linda McMahon, now Trump's education secretary, wrote an opinion piece in The Hill advocating for the expansion of Pell Grant eligibility to workforce training programs. "Our educational system must offer clear and viable pathways to the American Dream aside from four-year degrees," she wrote. Trump also signed an executive order on April 23 to strengthen and expand workforce development and apprenticeships programs, which McMahon called a "significant step in ensuring every American can live their American Dream." Congress' role in rethinking education For years, Democratic lawmakers have been pushing for greater access to postsecondary education options, like free community college, and there has been bipartisan agreement on the need to boost apprenticeships and workforce programs without redirecting funding from higher education institutions. Amid the heightened focus on alternatives to a four-year college degree, the New York Federal Reserve said in a recent report that college still pays off; the median worker with a college degree earns about $80,000 a year, compared to $47,000 for a worker with just a high school diploma. Trump hasn't yet implemented his idea to redirect Harvard's federal funding to trade schools, and it's unclear how, or if, he will attempt to follow through. While he has already withheld billions of dollars from Harvard and other schools across the country for failing to meet his administration's political demands, the moves have been met with lawsuits, and Fansmith said it's likely more legal action would ensue should Trump attempt to move around funding without congressional approval. "We're talking about spending money that Congress said would go to support really critically needed research into things like cancer and Alzheimer's and diabetes, and other things that impact everyday Americans' lives, and give it to trade schools," Fansmith said. "Trade schools are great schools. They have lots of benefits. They deserve a lot of federal support, but not just to make a political point at the expense of Harvard." Jason Altmire, president and CEO of Career Education Colleges and Universities — a group that represents for-profit colleges — said in a statement that Trump's focus on trade schools "is an investment in America's workforce." "The best way to support trade schools is to reduce the regulatory burden facing private career schools while increasing funding that allows students interested in the trades to choose the highest quality school," Altmire said.
Yahoo
27 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Why Viasat Stock Floated Higher Today
It benefited from a growing dispute between President Trump and Elon Musk. If the latter loses federal government business for Starlink, Viasat could potentially poach such clients. 10 stocks we like better than Viasat › Satellite stocks were in vogue in late trading on Thursday, thanks to a rapidly escalating spat between two of the most high-profile individuals in the world. A beneficiary of this was Viasat (NASDAQ: VSAT), which ended up booking a 2.6% gain in its share price on the day. That made it an outperformer in light of the S&P 500 index's 0.5% decline. Earlier in the day, a social media war of words erupted between President Trump and former Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) head Elon Musk. That occurred just after Musk, on his X (formerly Twitter) platform, leveled criticisms against Trump's One Big, Beautiful Bill currently making rather jagged progress through the Senate. In one of several responses on Trump's favored social media platform, Truth Social, the president made what can easily be taken as a direct and unambiguous threat to Musk's various businesses. He wrote that "The easiest way to save money in our budget, billions and billions of dollars, is to terminate Elon's governmental subsidies and contracts." Among Musk's businesses, which of course include Tesla, are SpaceX and Starlink. The latter company counts federal government agencies such as the Departments of Defense and Commerce as its clients. If such revenue sources were indeed to be cut off suddenly, the move would have quite a detrimental effect on Space X. Its loss would surely be rivals' gain; hence the interest in Viasat. The company provides satellite services that rival those of Starlink. Of course, so far there have been tough words but no action in regards to shutting off the federal taps that flow to Musk's business. Personally, I wouldn't trade Viasat or any potential beneficiary on rhetoric alone right now, but this is a rapidly developing story that's worth monitoring for anyone invested in satellite or space stocks presently. Before you buy stock in Viasat, consider this: The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the for investors to buy now… and Viasat wasn't one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years. Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $668,538!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $869,841!* Now, it's worth noting Stock Advisor's total average return is 789% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 172% for the S&P 500. Don't miss out on the latest top 10 list, available when you join . See the 10 stocks » *Stock Advisor returns as of June 2, 2025 Eric Volkman has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Tesla. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. Why Viasat Stock Floated Higher Today was originally published by The Motley Fool Error while retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data
Boston Globe
27 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
My father helped create public media. He'd say we need it now, more than ever
Now the Trump administration is not only trying to end public media but also attempting to claw back more than $1 billion in public media funds that Congress has already approved. Those who support this move Advertisement But there are problems with that argument. First, commercial media executives understand that attention is currency, and Advertisement Second, paid subscriptions are expensive, and many Americans simply can't afford them. Public media is a bargain by comparison. Third, commercial media companies don't have the incentive to operate in the public's best interest; they do have the incentive to convert eyeballs into revenue sources. For example, in youth programming, the focus is often on the commercials, selling toys and sugary snacks to kids. And content for kids on platforms such as YouTube can range from vapid to dangerous at a time when busy parents often use screen time to supplement entertainment or education. For these parents, it has become exhausting to choose what's OK for their children, and even more exhausting to know which platforms are trustworthy. The truth is, at a time when half of kids don't have access to preschool, federally funded, responsible content is a great investment in the next generation. Lastly, the commercial market has also collapsed for news. According to the Advertisement Access to reliable information is crucial in a democracy. As Bill Moyers once Like libraries and schools, public media offers access to knowledge and critical thinking, which is essential for learning and for democracy. The government should strengthen — not undermine — nonprofit educational media, especially now. I hope that my Dad's call for 'public interest' media prevails, rather than the alternative: an expensive wasteland even more vast — and dangerous — than he could have ever imagined.
