Army hits setback as Hawaii board votes to reject environmental study
HONOLULU — Hawaii's land board rejected the Army's environmental impact statement to retain land on the Big Island used for live-fire training, a vote some Native Hawaiian leaders say reflects a growing distrust of the U.S. military in the islands.
The state Board of Land and Natural Resources voted Friday after members considered voluminous written testimony and listened to hours of oral comments, including from many in the Native Hawaiian community citing environmental destruction and cultural desecration.
The Army calls the Pōhakuloa Training Area the 'premier' combat training grounds in the Pacific theater for all U.S. ground forces, including the Army, Marines, Navy and Air Force.
Space Force telescope proposal on Hawaii volcano meets Maui opposition
Board Chair Dawn Chang later called the vote 'one of the hardest decisions that I have had to make.'
Chang said the decision was based on the adequacy of the environmental review, and not about the merits of whether the Army should not conduct training in Hawaii. No decision has been made on the Army's longterm lease request. The Army's lease for 23,000 acres is set to expire in 2029.
What happens next is up to the Army, Chang said.
The Army, noting that the environmental impact statement was created with community input, said in a statement it was observing a 30-day waiting period. After that, the Army will determine how much land it will seek to retain.
The vote was a 'pleasant surprise' to activists who are concerned that military training in Hawaii harms island aquifers, sensitive wildlife and ancient Hawaiian burials, said Healani Sonoda-Pale, a Native Hawaiian activist. It was unexpected because of the military's economic stronghold on Hawaii, she said.
'Friday's vote is a real shift,' Sonoda-Pale told The Associated Press Monday. 'I think the shift here happened because of the Red Hill spill. The military lost a lot of trust and respect.'
In 2021, jet fuel leaked into the Navy water system serving 93,000 people on and around the Pearl Harbor base. It sickened thousands in military housing and heightened concerns about leaks at the Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility.
The military eventually agreed to drain the tanks, amid state orders and protests from Native Hawaiians and other Hawaii residents worried about the threat posed to Honolulu's water supply. The tanks sit above an aquifer supplying water to 400,000 people in urban Honolulu.
'U.S. Army Hawai'i understands and deeply respects the concerns expressed by community members, cultural practitioners, and environmental advocates regarding the Army's presence and activities at Pōhakuloa Training Area,' Lt. Col. Tim Alvarado, U.S. Army Garrison Pōhakuloa commander, said in a statement. 'We recognize that past actions have caused harm and eroded trust, and we continue to seek a balance with consideration for the cultural and environmental significance of this land.'
The U.S. Army is seeking to return nearly 3,300 acres of leased lands back to the state and retain 19,700 acres to sustain training, the Army statement said.
Hawaii's congressional delegation issued a joint statement saying they 'believe there can be a path forward that accounts for the critical importance of Hawaii's role in our country's national security strategy and fundamentally respects and responds to the needs of the people of Hawaii.'
In a statement, Gov. Josh Green acknowledged the rejected environmental impact statement presents challenges but doesn't end the conversation: 'This is a time for collaboration, not division, as we seek balanced solutions that honor both our heritage and our future.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
35 minutes ago
Trump's military parade: What to know about the Army anniversary event
A massive military parade is set to bring thousands to Washington, D.C., to mark the Army 's 250th birthday on June 14 -- the same day as President Donald Trump's 79th birthday. The Army has estimated more than 6,000 soldiers will participate in the event -- an all-day ordeal that's expected to include a fitness competition, festival and parade complete with tanks and infantry vehicles, helicopter flyovers and parachute jumps. "We will celebrate a spectacular military parade in Washington, D.C., like no other," Trump said on his social media site last week, touting a parade that's "gonna be better and bigger than any parade we've ever had in this country." Here's what to know about the event: When is the military parade? The parade is on June 14 at 6:30 p.m. -- and is a part of a day of events that goes from 8:30 a.m. until around 10 p.m. The day begins with Army senior leaders laying a wreath on Tomb of the Unknown at Arlington National Cemetery. After that, a fitness competition will go from 9:30 a.m. until 12:30 p.m. Then a festival -- open to the public -- will take place on the National Mall from 11 a.m. until 6 p.m. After the parade, there will be a fireworks show over the Tidal Basin at 9:45 p.m. The festival and the parade are free events that are open to the public. Tickets are not required. What is the parade route? The parade route will follow along D.C.'s Constitution Avenue from 23rd to 15th streets and end near the White House, where parachutists with the Army's Golden Knights will jump on to the Ellipse and offer the president a folded flag. The Army is estimating some 200,000 people will be along the parade route. What will spectators see in the military parade? The parade includes 6,700 soldiers, 28 Abrams tanks, 28 Bradley Fighter Vehicles, 28 Stryker vehicles, four Paladin self-propelled howitzers, eight marching bands, 24 horses, two mules and one dog named Doc Holiday, according to the Army. The Army has also added rocket launchers and precision-guided missiles to its birthday show. There will also be 50 aircraft flying overhead -- including World War II-era platforms like the M4 Sherman tank, the Douglas C-47 transport aircraft and the P-51 Mustang fighter. There will be Cobra and Huey helicopters too, according to the Army. Members from every Army division are participating in the parade -- with a vision of telling the history of the Army. The parade will have troops dressed in Revolutionary War garb and then move through the various wars in history, the Army said. As the troops and equipment march through D.C., any aircraft corresponding to that era will fly overhead. What is the expected cost of the parade? The Army said it expects to spend anywhere from $25 million to $45 million on this year's events, although the final tally is expected to be much higher when other costs are factored in. The U.S. Secret Service has designated the event a "national security special event" akin to the Super Bowl or a presidential inauguration, requiring significant security resources. The Department of Homeland Secretary has not released a cost estimate for securing the event. The Army also will be on the hook for any damage done to roads in Maryland and Washington. Are any protests expected? Progressive groups say they'll hold more than 1,500 "No Kings Day" events across the U.S. on Saturday to protest the Trump administration and to counter the military parade. The Women's March is planning its own protests with events set for around the country. When was the last U.S. military parade? On June 8, 1991, the US Park Police estimated 800,000 people crammed on to the National Mall to celebrate the U.S. victory in the Persian Gulf War -- with 200,000 people lining the parade route.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
No Kings: Trump's Un-American Birthday Bash
JUNE 14 IS A SPECIAL DAY. It was officially designated in 1949 as Flag Day—not one of the federal holidays for which anybody gets time off from work, but an honored day to remember the adoption by the Second Continental Congress of the Stars and Stripes as the flag of the United States on June 14, 1777. But Donald Trump has chosen another event from two years earlier as the anniversary on which he is pinning his enormous military parade on the streets of Washington, D.C.: the creation of the U.S. Army by that same Second Continental Congress on June 14, 1775. This would make June 14, 2025 an occasion to celebrate what Trump regards as the indissoluble link between the nation, its capacity for violence, and himself, the indispensable avatar of 'patriotism' and redeemer of American Greatness. There are several problems here, but let's start with an easy one: To be historically accurate, the 250th Army birthday that Trump claims to commemorate is a fake. At best, you can say it fudges the historical record. Back in June 1775, during the very earliest days of what we now know as the American Revolution, the Second Continental Congress—a more or less self-appointed rogue legislature—met in Philadelphia. On June 14, it voted to raise six companies of rifle-armed troops in Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Virginia, which were to march to join the Massachusetts forces then clashing with the British. This was the creation of a revolutionary army appropriately called the Continental Army. Its mission was to defend the thirteen American colonies entering into rebellion against the British Crown. It was not an army of the United States, because the United States did not exist, even theoretically: Independence wouldn't be declared for another year. The next day, June 15, the Congress selected George Washington 'to command all the continental forces raised or to be raised for the defense of American liberty.' When the Virginian formally accepted the appointment the next day, June 16, the population of the Continental Army was one: Washington, the newly minted general, was its only soldier. Keep up with all our coverage of American politics, policy, and culture—yes, including history. Join Bulwark+. Eventually, after roughly eight years of brutal warfare, the Continental Army succeeded in its mission. Washington resigned his commission in December 1783, and the last units mustered out on June 20, 1784. This army, created 250 years ago, was a predecessor of the U.S. Army. And it wasn't the only one: Even as the Continental Army was being dissolved, the Congress, meeting under the Articles of Confederation, created a small new army to patrol the frontier. This, too, could be a considered a predecessor of the U.S. Army. But before there could be a U.S. Army, there needed to be a United States with a national government. One could argue that the United States existed ever since 1776—and indeed, fireworks will attest to the nation's 250th birthday next year, on July 4, 2026. But the existence of the United States was, at best, tenuous during the Revolution and the years of the Confederation period of the 1780s. The United States government itself came into being in stages—with the ratification of the Constitution in 1788, the convening of the first Congress in March 1789, and then the inauguration of the first president, Washington, on April 30, 1789. Even then, with a commander-in-chief finally in place, there was no U.S. Army. Congress did not get around to creating a Department of War until the summer of 1789. Finally, as their last act of business before adjourning for the year, on September 29, 1789 the House and Senate passed a bill creating the U.S. Army—starting by officially absorbing under the new constitutional structure the existing forces created by the Confederation Congress. Share So the idea that June 14, 1775 rather than September 29, 1789 marks the birth of the U.S. Army is a choice—a matter of preference and tradition rather than clear-cut fact. The truth is, U.S. history—like all history—is complicated. There is no straight line linking the nation's origins in tax resistance and revolution to the system we now take for granted. But Trump—who has issued executive orders seeking to seize control of the teaching and commemoration of U.S. history in support of the conviction that America is the greatest nation in history—will hardly allow such complications to interfere with his grandiose MAGA myth-making. It is worth noting that while June 14, 1975, was the bicentennial of the Continental Army's founding, there was no military parade on the streets of the capital that year. But then-President Ford was no Donald Trump. This year Mr. 'I Alone Can Fix It' occupies the White House. And June 14 is Trump's own birthday, and thus a perfect occasion for him to perform his power—a power laced with the rhetoric of violence—on the national and global stage, linking his very person with the symbolism of the Army and the state itself. As Irene Gammel notes in the Conversation: Trump's parade is a show of force. Its sheer scale—bands, vehicles, helicopters—performs strength and legitimacy, marking who belongs and who does not. But the birthday celebration also turns attention back to the man himself, reminding us that authoritarianism is not only about intimidation but also about the persona of the autocrat. Like pretty much everything these days, what was once an ordinary occurrence has now become an extraordinary occasion for Trump to further exercise his power, and thus for those who care about constitutional democracy to take note, and to voice their opposition. Share IN RESPONSE TO TRUMP'S birthday plans, a coalition of opposition groups including Indivisible, 50501, the AFT, and Black Voters Matter will be holding nationwide rallies on June 14—the 'No Kings Nationwide Day of Defiance.' That such demonstrations, on behalf of such elementary democratic sentiments, are currently necessary is a sign of how low American politics has sunk during the Trump era. Trump has made clear that he plans to turn the entire year leading up to next year's 250th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence into a celebration of 'American Greatness.' Back in May 2023, he released a campaign video promising what Politico described as 'a blowout, 12-month-long 'Salute to America 250' celebration [including] a 'Great American State Fair,' featuring pavilions from all 50 states, nationwide high school sporting contests, and the building of Trump's 'National Garden of American Heroes' with statues of important figures in American history.' And in his second week back in office, Trump issued two executive orders centered on the anniversary. The first, 'Celebrating America's 250th Birthday,' announced the intention 'to provide a grand celebration worthy of the momentous occasion.' The second, 'Ending Radical Indoctrination in K-12 Schooling,' mandated the termination of 'radical, anti-American ideologies,' the promotion of policies designed to 'instill a patriotic admiration for our incredible Nation and the values for which we stand,' and the reestablishment of a 'President's Advisory 1776 Commission and Promoting Patriotic Education.' (More on that in a moment.) Trump has also hung a copy of the Declaration in the Oval Office, beyond light-protective glass and light-blocking curtains. He has reveled in showing people this Declaration-as-decoration. 'Do you think Joe Biden would do this? I don't think so,' he told Fox News host Laura Ingraham in March. 'Do you think he knows what it is?' Not that it's clear Trump has any clue what the Declaration is. When Terry Moran of ABC News asked him in April 'What does it mean to you?' Trump's response was a classic: Well, it means exactly what it says. It's a declaration—it's a declaration of unity and love and respect, and it means a lot and it's something very special to—to our country. Despite his professions of love for the Declaration, Trump acts every day more and more like an absolute monarch—and does so without the slightest awareness of the contradiction between his autocratic imperiousness and the values outlined in Declaration, whose purpose was to advance a republican vision of a government without a king or royal family. No less troubling, his followers embrace it all, celebrating the origins of the republic and the symbolism of the Declaration while pledging allegiance to a single man who so obviously knows nothing about the Declaration or the Constitution and who recently stated that he 'does not know' whether or not he is even legally required to abide by the Constitution. It is hard to understand such extreme partisanship and such credulous suspension of disbelief in tyranny. It is as if they have chosen to forget the basic historical truths outlined in this account: The facts of our founding are not partisan. They are a matter of history. The United States is unusual. It is a republic; that is to say, its government was designed to be directed by the will of the people rather than the wishes of a single individual or a narrow class of elites. As the eighteen charges leveled against King George in the Declaration of Independence make clear, our founders considered the British government of the time to be oppressive and unjust. They had no wish to replace the arbitrary government of one tyrant with that of another. The bedrock upon which the American political system is built is the rule of law. The vast difference between tyranny and the rule of law is a central theme of political thinkers back to classical antiquity. The idea that the law is superior to rulers is the cornerstone of English constitutional thought as it developed over the centuries. The concept was transferred to the American colonies. At the infancy of our Republic, the threat was a despotic king who violated the people's rights and overthrew the colonists' longstanding tradition of self- government. After decades of struggle, the colonists succeeded in establishing a more perfect Union founded not upon the capricious whims of a tyrant, but republican laws and institutions founded upon self-evident and eternal truths. It is the sacred duty of every generation of American patriots to defend this priceless inheritance. . . . The principles of equality and consent mean that all are equal before the law. No one is above the law, and no one is privileged to ignore the law, just as no one is outside the law in terms of its protection. In his Lyceum Address, a young Abraham Lincoln warned of two results of a growing disregard for the rule of law: mob rule and tyrannical rule [which both] violate the rule of law. When crimes go unpunished or when good men do nothing, the lawless in spirit will become lawless in practice, leading to violence and demagoguery.' The above passage is taken from 'The 1776 Report' that was hurriedly issued by a right-wing Trump-appointed panel in the final hours of his first term. And yet the luminaries of Hillsdale College, the Claremont Institute, and the Heritage Foundation who write so glowingly about the Declaration and the Constitution and the cause of 'republican liberty' and quote from Jefferson and the Federalists and Lincoln continue to stand by a man who is brazenly contemptuous of the rule of law and utterly lacking in civic virtue, and who has already tried once to overthrow a democratic election because he didn't win. Share AS WE ANTICIPATE TRUMP'S Kim Jong-un–style celebration of this year's Flag Day, it is worth keeping this flag-centered image clearly in view: This is MAGA patriotism in action—the merging of the U.S. flag with the Confederate battle flag and the Trump flag, and the conflation of patriotism with racist reaction, violence, and Trump himself, the megalomaniac who has declared that 'I was saved by God to make America great again.' The Trumpian June 14, 2025 parade and celebration will be the successor to that angry insurrection of January 6, 2021—a celebration of 'patriotism' that is deeply anti-democratic, and of a man who is the most authoritarian president in American history. If you want to see true patriotism this June 14, turn away from Trump's propagandistic spectacle and look instead to those responding across the country with a loud, proud chant of 'No Kings!' And recall this observation, from the first of the Federalist Papers: 'Of those men who have overturned the liberties of republics, the greatest number have begun their career by paying an obsequious court to the people; commencing Demagogues, and ending Tyrants.' Share Jeffrey C. Isaac is completing a book entitled Defending Democracy's Declaration. Scheduled to appear in spring 2026, the book challenges the ways that the MAGA movement is poised to weaponize the 250th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence. The book traces the history of contestation over the Declaration, and explains why and how its rhetoric and symbolism is an indispensable resource for defenders of liberal democracy today. The James H. Rudy Professor of Political Science at Indiana University, Bloomington, he writes regularly on current affairs at his blog, Democracy in Dark Times.
Politico
an hour ago
- Politico
Why ‘Hellcats' could be the answer to Democrats troubles
When Rep. Mikie Sherrill won the New Jersey gubernatorial primary on Tuesday, the 'Hellcats' group chat of aspiring female congresswomen lit up in celebration. All four women in the 'Hellcats' chat — named after the first female Marines who served in World War I — have military experience and are running for Congress in 2026. Sherrill, as a former Navy helicopter pilot, offers some much-needed inspiration for the party's next generation of candidates. Democrats, looking to turn around their struggling brand and retake the House in 2026, point to Sherrill and presumptive Virginia Democratic gubernatorial nominee Abigail Spanberger, a former congresswoman and CIA officer, as reasons the party will do well. Sherril and Spanberger are held up as the model for how the party might turn the tables — running moderate, former veterans and national security officials in tough districts who can say they 'have put their country ahead of their party,' said Dan Sena, who served as the executive director of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee in 2018. 'Candidates with records of service showed in 2018 their ability to win in the most challenging districts and states in the country,' Sena added. 'This cycle, the same dynamics are playing out with those kinds of candidates.' Democrats say these House candidates can point to their political aspirations as an extension of their public service that began in the military or national security realm, and bristle at Republicans claiming MAGA is equivalent to patriotism. 'Right now, especially as this administration continues to create more chaos and dismantle our democracy, you're seeing veterans continuing to answer the call to serve their country,' said JoAnna Mendoza, a retired US Marine who served in combat, now running to challenge Rep. Juan Ciscomani (R-Ariz.). Mendoza is a member of the 'Hellcats' group chat, along with Rebecca Bennett, a former Navy officer who is taking on Rep. Tom Kean (R-N.J.), Maura Sullivan, a former Marine looking to replace Rep. Chris Pappas (D-N.H.) and Cait Conley, an Army veteran and former National Security Council official, who is up against Rep. Mike Lawler (R-N.Y.). Democrats say these candidates bring in necessary enthusiasm that translates to fundraising. In Pennsylvania, Ryan Croswell, a Marine and federal prosecutor who resigned when President Donald Trump pressured him to drop charges against New York Mayor Eric Adams, raised more than $215,000 in the first 48 hours after announcing his campaign on Monday, one of the biggest launch hauls that the party has seen this cycle. Spanberger posted a selfie on X just minutes after her one-time Washington roommate Sherrill won her primary race in New Jersey on Tuesday. The pair is using their profiles as a springboard to higher office, after many of them helped Democrats flip the House in 2018. In Michigan, former CIA analyst Sen. Elissa Slotkin fought off GOP Rep. Mike Rogers, himself an Army veteran, in a state that Kamala Harris lost in 2024. New Jersey Sen. Andy Kim, a former Department of State adviser on Afghanistan, easily won his election for the seat once held by former Sen. Bob Menendez, who was convicted of federal corruption charges. 'Patriotism is a value that the Democrats shouldn't be afraid to talk about,' said Jared Leopold, a former communications director for the Democratic Governors Association. 'It is a productive conversation for Democrats to lead on as an entry point to the kitchen table issues of the day.' Democratic candidates with national security backgrounds mitigate one of the party's biggest liabilities — a perception that Democrats are weak. Democratic-run focus groups held after the 2024 election found voters across the spectrum saw the party as overly focused on the elite and too cautious. Voters regularly cite Republicans as the party they trust with national security issues in public polling, and the GOP bench of veterans elected to office runs deep. But serving in the military or for the administration in a national security capacity 'inoculates them from attacks that they're not tough,' said Amanda Litman, co-founder of Run For Something, a group that recruits young people to run for office. 'It helps them ward off that opposition without having to say it out loud,' Litman continued. 'Former Navy helicopter pilot, prosecutor — those are inherently tough, so that means women candidates don't have to posture, they can just be, because it's baked into their resumes.' Of course, Republicans have, at times, effectively turned it against them. Former Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry, for instance, highlighted his military experience but also faced 'swift boat' attacks. More recently, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz's military record came under scrutiny when he was elevated to the vice presidential nomination. Bennett, who is also a current member of the Air National Guard, believes her dual identity as a veteran and mother gives her a unique appeal to voters, and a natural way to discuss financial strains like high daycare costs. 'I truly led in some of the most challenging environments that exist in this world,' she said. 'And, I'm a mom too, and I fundamentally understand the issues and challenges that families are facing.'
