Trump meets with candidates for four-star general in break with tradition, White House acknowledges
A White House spokesperson said the Republican president has the meetings because he wants to make sure the U.S. military retains its superiority and its leaders focus on fighting wars.
'Donald Trump wants to ensure our military is the greatest and most lethal fighting force in history, which is why he meets with four-star-general nominees directly to ensure they are war fighters first — not bureaucrats,' assistant press secretary Anna Kelly said.
The meetings, however, are a departure from past practice, and knowledge of them has raised concerns about politicization of the military's top ranks. Trump has not always respected the long-standing tradition of walling off the military from partisan politics.
In June, Trump took the rare step of mobilizing the National Guard and then the Marines, sending hundreds of them into Los Angeles over the objections of California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat with whom the president has feuded politically.
Trump followed up with a campaign-style rally at Fort Bragg in North Carolina, where uniformed soldiers cheered as he criticized former President Joe Biden, Newsom and other Democrats — raising concerns that Trump was using the military as a political prop.
Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., an Army veteran and member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, called the meetings 'very welcome reform.'
'I've long advocated for presidents to meet with 4-star nominees. President Trump's most important responsibility is commander-in-chief,' Cotton wrote in a post on X. 'The military-service chiefs and combatant commanders are hugely consequential jobs' and 'I commend President Trump and Secretary Hegseth for treating these jobs with the seriousness they deserve.'
The New York Times, which first reported on the practice, said it had been initiated by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
11 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Rep. Nancy Mace kicks off South Carolina GOP gubernatorial bid. She says she's 'Trump in high heels'
WASHINGTON (AP) — Republican Rep. Nancy Mace of South Carolina is running for governor, entering a GOP primary in which competition for President Donald Trump's endorsement — and the backing of his base of supporters — is expected to be fierce. Mace, who last year won her third term representing South Carolina's 1st District, made her run official during a launch event Monday at The Citadel military college in Charleston. Mace told The Associated Press on Sunday she plans a multi-pronged platform aimed in part at shoring up the state's criminal justice system, ending South Carolina's income tax, protecting women and children, expanding school choice and vocational education and improving the state's energy options. Official filing for South Carolina's 2026 elections doesn't open until March, but several other Republicans have already entered the state's first truly open governor's race in 16 years, including Attorney General Alan Wilson, Lt. Gov. Pamela Evette and Rep. Ralph Norman. Both Wilson and Evette have touted their own connections to the Republican president, but Mace — calling herself 'Trump in high heels' — said she is best positioned to carry out his agenda in South Carolina, where he has remained popular since his 2016 state primary win helped cement his status as the GOP presidential nominee. Saying she plans to seek his support, Mace pointed to her defense of Trump in an interview that resulted in ABC News agreeing to pay $15 million toward his presidential library to settle a defamation lawsuit. She also noted that she called Donald Trump early this year as part of an effort to persuade GOP holdouts to support Rep. Mike Johnson to become House speaker. 'No one will work harder to get his attention and his endorsement,' she said. 'No one else in this race can say they've been there for the president like I have, as much as I have and worked as hard as I have to get the president his agenda delivered to him in the White House.' Mace has largely supported Trump, working for his 2016 campaign but levying criticism against him following the Jan. 6, 2021, violence at the U.S. Capitol, which spurred Trump to back a GOP challenger in her 2022 race. Mace defeated that opponent, won reelection and was endorsed by Trump in her 2024 campaign. A month after she told the AP in January that she was 'seriously considering' a run, Mace went what she called 'scorched earth," using a nearly hour-long speech on the U.S. House floor in February to accuse her ex-fiancé of physically abusing her, recording sex acts with her and others without their consent, and conspiring with business associates in acts of rape and sexual misconduct. Mace's ex-fiancé said he 'categorically' denied the accusations, and another man Mace mentioned has sued her for defamation, arguing the accusations were a 'dangerous mix of falsehoods and baseless accusations.' 'I want every South Carolinian to watch me as I fight for my rights as a victim," Mace said, asked if she worried about litigation related to the speech. "I want them to know I will fight just as hard for them as I am fighting for myself.' Mace, 47, was the first woman to graduate from The Citadel, the state's military college, where her father then served as commandant of cadets. After briefly serving in the state House, in 2020 she became the first Republican woman elected to represent South Carolina in Congress, flipping the 1st District after one term with a Democratic representative. "I'm going to draw the line, and I'm going to hold it for South Carolina, and I'm going to put her people first," Mace said. ___ Kinnard can be reached at
CNN
13 minutes ago
- CNN
Chief Justice John Roberts enabled Texas' gambit to gerrymander the state for the GOP
The brazen partisan redistricting underway in Texas, with Republicans attempting to entrench themselves in office and Democrats weighing a counter-offensive in blue states, was greenlit by the US Supreme Court six years ago. Chief Justice John Roberts, in an opinion for a 5-4 court, declared that federal judges could not review extreme partisan gerrymanders to determine if they violated constitutional rights. Roberts' opinion reversed cases that would have allowed such districts – drawn to advantage one political party over another irrespective of voters' interests – to be challenged as violations of the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech and association and the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of equal protection. The justices split among the familiar ideological lines, with the five conservatives ruling against partisan gerrymanders and the four liberals dissenting. 'Of all times to abandon the Court's duty to declare the law, this was not the one,' dissenting justices warned in 2019, 'The practices challenged in these cases imperil our system of government. Part of the Court's role in that system is to defend its foundations. None is more important than free and fair elections.' That decision in Rucho v. Common Cause has generated a new era of partisan rivalry with vast repercussions for American democracy. The decision resonates as profoundly as the Roberts Court's decision last year in Trump v. United States, which granted presidents substantial immunity from criminal prosecution (also delivered among partisan lines). Trump has taken the 2024 ruling as a blank check, tearing through democratic norms. The gerrymandering case also lifted a federal guardrail. Lawsuits challenging extreme partisan gerrymanders can still be brought before state court judges. But state laws vary widely in their protections for redistricting practices and state judges differ in their ability to police the thorny political process. Roberts may have failed to foresee the consequences in 2019 and then in 2024. Or, alternatively, perhaps he understood and simply believed the effects were not properly the concern of the federal judiciary. In his opinion, Roberts acknowledged the apparent unfairness of gerrymandered districts. 'Excessive partisanship in districting leads to results that reasonably seem unjust,' he wrote. But, he said, 'the fact that such gerrymandering is 'incompatible with democratic principles,' … does not mean that the solution lies with the federal judiciary.' The chief justice said no constitutional authority exists for judges to oversee the politics of redistricting, nor are there standards for their decisions, that is, to know when state lawmakers have gone too far in what is an inherently political process. Roberts wrote: ''How much is too much?' At what point does permissible partisanship become unconstitutional?' The current redistricting controversy arises from Trump's pressure on fellow Republicans to generate as many GOP-controlled districts as possible before the 2026 midterm elections for the US House of Representatives. Right now, the focus is on Texas where legislators broke from the usual cycle of post-census redistricting that happens every 10 years and suddenly proposed a new map intended to push several Democrats out of office and buttress the chances that Republicans keep their majority, now hanging by a thread, in Congress. The audacious Texas effort has prompted liberals to consider a counterattack in Democratic-controlled states such as California to create new maps that could boost their numbers. But politicians' effort to draw lines to their advantage have never been free of controversy. The paired cases before the justices six years ago involved extreme gerrymanders by Republicans in North Carolina and by Democrats in Maryland. Roberts was joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, whose vote was crucial. A year earlier, Kavanaugh had succeeded Justice Anthony Kennedy, who had previously left the door open to federal court challenges to partisan gerrymanders. Justice Elena Kagan, taking the lead for dissenters, insisted workable standards existed and had been used by lower US court judges. 'For the first time ever, this Court refuses to remedy a constitutional violation because it thinks the task beyond judicial capabilities. And not just any constitutional violation,' she wrote, pointing up the stakes. 'The partisan gerrymanders in these cases deprived citizens of the most fundamental of their constitutional rights: the rights to participate equally in the political process, to join with others to advance political beliefs, and to choose their political representatives,' Kagan added. She was joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who remains on the bench, and Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who died in 2020, and Stephen Breyer, who retired in 2022. Echoing a line from redistricting precedent that appears apt as Texas legislators divide voters for predetermined results, Kagan wrote that a core principle of government is 'that the voters should choose their representatives, not the other way around.'
14 minutes ago
Majority of US adults are stressed about grocery costs, an AP-NORC poll finds
NEW YORK -- The vast majority of U.S. adults are at least somewhat stressed about the cost of groceries, a new poll finds, as prices continue to rise and concerns about the impact of President Donald Trump's tariffs remain widespread. About half of all Americans say the cost of groceries is a 'major' source of stress in their life right now, while 33% say it's a 'minor' source of stress, according to the poll from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research. Only 14% say it's not a source of stress, underscoring the pervasive anxiety most Americans continue to feel about the cost of everyday essentials. Other financial stressors — like the cost of housing or the amount of money in their bank accounts — are also broadly felt, but they weigh more heavily on younger Americans, who are less likely than older adults to have significant savings or own property. The survey also found that about 4 in 10 Americans under age 45 say they've used what are known as 'buy now, pay later' services when spending on entertainment or restaurant meals or when paying for essentials like groceries or medical care. Adam Bush, 19, based in Portland, New York, is one of those younger Americans who has used pay-later services for things like groceries or entertainment. Bush works as a welder, fabricating parts for trucks for Toyota, and makes under $50,000 per year. 'I just keep watching the prices go up, so I'm looking for the cheapest possible stuff,' he said. 'Hot pockets and TV dinners.' Groceries are one of the most far-reaching financial stressors, affecting the young and old alike, the poll finds. While Americans over age 60 are less likely than younger people to feel major financial anxiety about housing, their savings, child care, or credit card debt, they are just as worried about the cost of groceries. Esther Bland, 78, who lives in Buckley, Washington, said groceries are a 'minor' source of stress — but only because her local food banks fill the gap. Bland relies on her Social Security and disability payments each month to cover her rent and other expenses — such as veterinary care for her dogs — in retirement, after decades working in an office processing product orders. 'I have no savings,' she said. 'I'm not sure what's going on politically when it comes to the food banks, but if I lost that, groceries would absolutely be a major source of stress.' Bland's monthly income mainly goes toward her electric, water and cable bills, she said, as well as care of her dogs and other household needs. 'Soap, paper towels, toilet paper. I buy gas at Costco, but we haven't seen $3 a gallon here in a long time,' she said. 'I stay home a lot. I only put about 50 miles on my car a week.' According to the poll, 64% of the lowest-income Americans — those who have a household income of less than $30,000 a year — say the cost of groceries is a 'major' stressor. That's compared with about 4 in 10 Americans who have a household income of $100,000 or more. But even within that higher-income group, only about 2 in 10 say grocery costs aren't a worry at all. Housing is another substantial source of worry for U.S. adults — along with their savings, their income and the cost of health care. About half of U.S. adults say housing is a 'major' source of stress, according to the poll, while about 4 in 10 say that about the amount of money they get paid, the amount of money they have saved and the cost of health care. About 3 in 10 say credit card debt is a 'major' source of stress, while about 2 in 10 say that about the cost of child care and student debt. But some groups are feeling much more anxiety about their finances than others. Women, for instance, are more likely than men to report high levels of stress about their income, savings, the cost of groceries and the cost of health care. Hispanic adults are also particularly concerned about housing costs and both credit card and student debt. About two-thirds of Hispanic adults say the cost of housing is a 'major' source of stress, compared with about half of Black adults and about 4 in 10 white adults. Some people are making changes to their lifestyle as a result of high costs. Shandal LeSure, 43, who works as a receptionist for a rehabilitation hospital in Chattanooga, Tennessee, and makes between $85,000 and $100,000 a year, said she's started shopping for groceries at less expensive stores. 'It's an adjustment,' she said. 'Sometimes the quality isn't as good.' As they stretch limited budgets, about 3 in 10 U.S. adults overall say they've used 'buy now, pay later' services such as Afterpay or Klarna to purchase groceries, entertainment, restaurant meals or meal delivery, or medical or dental care, according to the poll. Bland, the Washington state retiree, said she's paid for pet surgery with a pay-later plan. Younger Americans are much likelier than older people to have used pay-later plans for entertainment, groceries or restaurant meals, but there's no age gap on medical care. Black and Hispanic people are also especially likely to adopt the plans. An increasing share of 'buy now, pay later' customers are having trouble repaying their loans, according to recent disclosures from the lenders. The loans are marketed as a safer alternative to traditional credit cards, but there are risks, including a lack of federal oversight. Some consumer watchdogs also say the plans lead consumers to overextend themselves financially. LeSure said she's used pay-later services for things like new clothes, while she balances debt payments for a car loan, student loans and medical bills. She's also turned to them to cover hotel costs after being evicted. 'That's been able to help me stretch my dollar,' she said. ___ Sanders reported from Washington. ___ The AP-NORC poll of 1,437 adults was conducted July 10-14, using a sample drawn from NORC's probability-based AmeriSpeak Panel, which is designed to be representative of the U.S. population. The margin of sampling error for adults overall is plus or minus 3.6 percentage points. ___ The Associated Press receives support from the Charles Schwab Foundation for educational and explanatory reporting to improve financial literacy. The independent foundation is separate from Charles Schwab and Co. Inc. The AP is solely responsible for its journalism.
