Pentagon abruptly withdraws from Aspen Security Forum
Why it matters: The bipartisan national security forum has attracted Republican and Democratic administration officials for years. But Pentagon spokesperson Kingsley Wilson labeled said the event "promotes the evil of globalism, disdain for our great country, and hatred for the President of the United States," per Just the News, which first reported on the move.
The Aspen Institute's forum is among the most high-profile and exclusive on the national security and foreign policy circuits.
Driving the news: Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth shared a screenshot on X of Just the News' headline that stated "Pentagon pulls all military speakers from 'globalist' Aspen Security Forum" with the comment: "Correct."
Chief Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell said in an emailed statement Monday evening that senior Defense Department officials "will no longer be participating at the Aspen Security Forum because their values do not align with the values of the DoD."
He added, "The Department will remain strong in its focus to increase the lethality of our warfighters, revitalize the warrior ethos, and project Peace Through Strength on the world stage. It is clear the ASF is not in alignment with these goals."
Wilson told Just The News that the Defense Department "has no interest in legitimizing an organization that has invited former officials who have been the architects of chaos abroad and failure at home."
Context: The Aspen Security Forum brings experts from across the globe together to debate what it calls the "most important security challenges facing the world."
Several people who served in the first Trump administration are slated to speak at the summit: Former Defense Secretary Mark Esper, ex-Energy Secretary Dan Brouillette and Rob Joyce, who served as special assistant to the president and cybersecurity coordinator on the National Security Council.
Other ASF speakers include Biden national security adviser Jake Sullivan, Obama administration Defense Secretary Robert Gates and former CIA chief and retired Army Gen. David Petraeus and ex-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who both served in the George W. Bush administration.
What they're saying: "For more than a decade, the Aspen Security Forum has welcomed senior officials — Republican and Democrat, civilian and military—as well as senior foreign officials and experts, who bring experience and diverse perspectives on matters of national security," per a statement posted to the group's website.
"This year, we extended invitations to senior Trump administration officials, including several cabinet-level leaders. Today the Department of Defense gave their speakers guidance that they 'will no longer be participating,'" it added.
"We will miss the participation of the Pentagon, but our invitations remain open."
What to expect: Anja Manuel, the Aspen Strategy Group executive director, told Axios last week that European defense officials would join foreign policy officials and others in what's shaping up to be a "hugely international" event this year.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
12 minutes ago
- New York Post
Letitia James' political crusade against Donald Trump was an abomination of the law
New York Attorney General Letitia James is going to need a bigger fish or a smaller trophy wall. For months, James has paraded her victory over President Donald Trump in her civil judgment of half a trillion dollars. It did not matter that many of us denounced the judgment as grotesque and raw lawfare. Now, however, the appellate court has replaced that mounted Marlin with a mere minnow. It threw out the financial penalty as unconstitutional and unwarranted. Advertisement Even that downsized catch may have to be pulled down, since Trump can appeal the decision to leave the injunctive relief — including limits on doing business in New York — in place. The problem is that this over-stuffed guppy has cost the people of New York tens of millions of dollars in staff, security and other costs. It was all just the cost of doing business with James, who ran on the pledge to bag Trump on something — anything! — if elected. For James, it was worth it. For her base, the case was never about the merits or the law. James offered lawfare against political opponents, and New York Democrats elected her with a gleeful malice. Advertisement They were thrilled as James suggested that she was going to seize Trump buildings after the judgment and sought a massive bond. Notably, even the judges who sided with James on her ability to bring this case were critical of her ethics or judgment in running on bagging an individual on unnamed crimes or civil actions. They simply chose not to do anything about it. That blindness was broken by Judge David Friedman, who, on the appeal, offered an unblinking account of how James abused the legal system. Advertisement 'Plainly, her ultimate goal was not 'market hygiene' . . . but political hygiene, ending with the derailment of President Trump's political career and the destruction of his real estate business. The voters have obviously rendered a verdict on his political career. This bench today unanimously derails the effort to destroy his business.' The five appeals court judges fractured on the rationale for their opinions. Two of the judges — Dianne T. Renwick and Peter H. Moulton — correctly found that 'the court's disgorgement order, which directs that defendants pay nearly half a billion dollars to the State of New York, is an excessive fine that violates the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution.' The rest of the judges found other reasons to negate the damages while preserving the fraud judgment. In the end, James could not get a single vote on appeal to support Judge Arthur Engoron's ridiculous fine. Engoron, like James, will continue to enjoy the status of a folk hero in New York. But he will go down in history as a judge who yielded to the demands of the mob rather than the law. Advertisement Yet nothing will change. With the exception of Judge Friedman, the mild rebukes of the appellate court of James show how Trump remains persona non grata, a disfavored figure who is entitled to no consideration, let alone sympathy, in New York. The most courage that Judge Moulton could summon was to say, 'One can reasonably question whether a candidate running for the top law enforcement position in statewide government should make such pointed statements.' I suppose one could also reasonably question whether a judge faced with blatant, open targeting of a political opponent should do more than a judicial shrug. Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University and the author of the best-selling book 'The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.'
USA Today
12 minutes ago
- USA Today
California Supreme Court halts Republican redistricting lawsuit
LOS ANGELES – The California State Supreme Court denied a challenge from Republican state lawmakers to block Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom's proposal to redistrict California's congressional map. An Aug. 20 order from six of the seven justices said that Sens. Tony Strickland and Suzette Martinez Valladares along with Assemblymembers Tri Ta and Kathryn Sanchez "failed to meet their burden of establishing a basis for relief." The order showed no dissents but said that Justice Carol Corrigan, the only Republican appointee on the court, was absent and did not participate. The lawsuit, filed Monday, Aug. 18, challenged the bills to put the proposal to a vote in a Nov. 4 special election on California State Constitutional grounds, claiming that the initiative did not meet the 30-day threshold between being introduced in the chambers and the legislature voting on them. Legislative records show that lawmakers used the so-called "gut-and-amend" method on two previously unrelated bills in the State Assembly and Senate to create the Election Rigging Response Act. The original bills were introduced more than 30 days ago. The bills would require a two-thirds majority in both houses to pass and would put the proposed maps, which aim to flip five Republican held seats in the House of Representatives, to a vote in a Nov. 4 special election. California has an independent redistricting commission that is designed to limit partisan influence on the map-drawing process, but Newsom said the measure would allow a new process to draw maps that would go into effect for House elections in 2026, 2028 and 2030, before ceding power back to the commission to draw maps ahead of 2032. California currently has 43 congressional seats held by Democrats and nine by Republicans. The creation of five new Democratic-friendly districts could sway California's delegation to a 48-5 advantage for Democrats. Martinez Valladares, the Santa Clarita Senator, told USA TODAY in an Aug. 21 statement that the legislators would continue to fight the redistricting push. "California voters chose district lines drawn in the open, not engineered by politicians to serve themselves or their partisan agenda. All voters deserve fair, transparent elections and we will never give up fighting for that," she said. Contributing: Joey Garrison, USA TODAY
USA Today
12 minutes ago
- USA Today
'Absurd': Amy Klobuchar slams deepfake of her criticizing Sydney Sweeney campaign
Sen. Amy Klobuchar said she was surprised when she heard her voice in a clip on X criticizing Sydney Sweeney's American Eagle ad campaign, which aims to sell the company's jeans with the likeness of the actresses' "great genes." The tone and pitch sounded like her, but they weren't her words, Klobuchar wrote in an Aug. 20 New York Times opinion piece. That's when the Minnesota Democratic senator realized it was a deepfake, a digitally altered video or audio recording that uses a person's voice or image, created by artificial intelligence. "A realistic deepfake — an A.I.-generated video that shows someone doing or saying something they never did — can circle the globe and land in the phones of millions while the truth is still stuck on a landline," Klobuchar wrote in the piece, titled "What I Didn't Say About Sydney Sweeney." She called the so-called video of her "a vulgar and absurd critique." Klobuchar has called for AI regulation on the national level – an idea that's not just supported by Democrats. In 2024, she and Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, introduced a Senate bill to ban actual and artificial intelligence- generated posts of intimate imagery and deepfakes, and to require online platforms to "promptly remove such depictions upon receiving notice of their existence." President Donald Trump in May signed the TAKE IT DOWN Act, a law meant to outlaw deepfakes and revenge pornography. Now, companies must have a process for people to report deepfakes and nonconsensual intimate images, including revenge pornography, within 48 hours of being notified. Still, the push has its critics. That includes Republican Reps. Thomas Massie, R-Kentucky, and Eric Burlison, R-Missouri, as well as advocates concerned about how the move could limit national free speech protections. In her opinion piece, Klobuchar accused X of not following the stipulations of the new law. She said the platform didn't take down the deepfake video of her – or label it as a false depiction of her quickly enough. Now, Klobuchar wrote that she's looking for even more policy change to make social media companies remove deepfakes, with some exceptions for free speech protections. Her proposed bill is cosponsored by Sens. Chris Coons, D-Delaware, and Thom Tillis, R-North Carolina, and Marsha Blackburn, R-Tennessee. "That bill was only the first step," she wrote in her op-ed. Taylor Swift explicit AI photos: Are they illegical? Klobuchar accuses X of not taking down video Klobuchar credited tech giants TikTok and Meta for taking the proper precautions to protect her and warn the public that it wasn't actually her speaking in the video. But she slammed X for not following the stipulations of the new law. "X refused to take it down or label it, even though its policy says users are prohibited from sharing 'inauthentic content on X that may deceive people,' including 'manipulated or out-of-context media that may result in widespread confusion on public issues,' she wrote in the opinion piece. "They must at least include labeling requirements for content that is substantially generated by A.I." X did not immediately respond to an inquiry from USA TODAY for a response on Klobucher's comments. What are the repercussions of deepfakes? Reputations are at risk when deepfakes are posted and allowed to linger online, Klobuchar warned in the Times. Deepfakes of other prominent figures, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Trump White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles and even pop star Taylor Swift, have also been posted online and attracted attention to the issue. Deepfakes have also been used by young people as a bullying tactic. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security has also cited an increasing threat of deepfake identities. In her op-ed, Klobuchar cited a January 2022 study to show that "people who see this type of content develop lasting negative views of the person in the video, even when they know it is fake." "There is no way to quantify the chaos that could take place without legal checks," Klobuchar wrote later in the piece. "Imagine a deepfake of a bank C.E.O. that triggers a bank run, a deepfake of an influencer telling children to use drugs or a deepfake of a U.S. president starting a war that triggers attacks on our troops. The possibilities are endless." Contact Kayla Jimenez at kjimenez@ Follow her on X at @kaylajjimenez.
