Hegseth stampedes through the Pentagon
On April 29, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth announced that he was canceling Defense Department participation in actions generated by the Women, Peace and Security Act of 2017. Hegseth posted on social media that it was 'yet another woke divisive/social justice/Biden initiative that overburdens our commanders and troops — distracting from our core task: WAR-FIGHTING. WPS is a UNITED NATIONS program pushed by feminists and left-wing activists. Politicians fawn over it; troops HATE it.'
Journalist Walter Pincus, who spent 40 years at the Washington Post covering topics ranging from nuclear weapons to politics, wrote in a recent column that Trump and Hegseth's defense strategy is riddled with irrelevant political considerations resulting in a series of strange moves that must surely weaken national security.
In fact, as Pincus points out, what Congress had in mind in the Women, Peace and Security Act was to increase women's participation in preventing and resolving conflict, countering violent extremism and building post-conflict stability around the globe. It is hard to believe that the program was 'pushed by feminists and left-wing activists' when Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem co-sponsored the bill when she was in Congress, and President Trump signed the measure in 2017.
Perhaps reminded of this doctrinal dilemma, Hegseth pivoted in a later tweet, arguing that 'the woke & weak Biden Administration distorted & weaponized the straight-forward & security-focused WPS initiative launched in 2017.' Hegseth said he will try to end WPS programs at the Pentagon in the next budget.
Asked whether he believed Women, Peace and Security to be a diversity, equity and inclusion program, new Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Dan Caine, at his confirmation hearing last month, replied, 'I do not,' adding, 'WPS helped us understand the full challenges that face us.'
Hegseth unveiled another terrifying plan on May 5, when he announced 'General/Flag Officer Reductions' in a memo to senior Pentagon leadership to 'drive innovation and operational excellence unencumbered by unnecessary bureaucratic layers.'
While the military may be top-heavy, it goes without saying that military firings should be based on merit, not political considerations or race-based policies. Hegseth's purge appears to be totally political. 'That's a recipe not just for a politicized military, but an authoritarian military,' Rep. Seth Moulton (D-Mass.), a Marine officer in Iraq and a member of the House Armed Services Committee, told Politico. 'That's the way militaries work in Russia and China and North Korea. And by the way, it's a big part of why those militaries are not as strong and capable as our own.'
Trump's military purge began in February, when the president fired Chairman of the Joint Chiefs CQ Brown — an African American, whom Moulton describes as 'one of the most talented general officers of his generation' — for no articulated reason.
In April, Trump fired the redoubtable Gen. Timothy Haugh, commander of the U.S. Cyber Command. Laura Loomer, a conspiracy theorist who for unclear reasons consistently has the president's ear, urged Trump to fire certain officials due to their perceived lack of personal loyalty. She posted a message on social media saying Haugh had been fired for being 'disloyal' to Trump.
So far, the administration has fired five four-stars, including three women: the first female chief of naval operations, the commandant of the Coast Guard, and Navy three-star Vice Admiral Shoshana Chatfield, former president of the Naval War College, who was the U.S. deputy military representative to NATO's military committee in Brussels. Yet women make up less than 10 percent of general and flag officers.
It is baffling what Hegseth intended to accomplish with the purge. We do know that he has accomplished a decided weakening of national security. The measures were apparently meant to root out diversity, equity and inclusion from the military. Instead, the administration is paring much of the core of our officer cadre, throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
Along with the May 5 memorandum, Hegseth released a two-minute video announcing what he ungrammatically called the 'Less Generals More GIs Policy.' He defensively explained that 'this has not been a slash and burn exercise — nothing could be further from the truth … It's going be done carefully. But it's going to be done expeditiously.'
Hegseth said he sought to remove 'redundant force structure, to optimize and streamline leadership by reducing excess general and flag officer positions.' He proposed a minimum 20 percent reduction of four-star positions across the active military and of general officers in the National Guard, plus an additional minimum 10 percent reduction in general and flag officers under the new unified command plan.
So, who will mind the store? And who will call the shots in a national emergency?
The nation's top generals seem unsure about the implications of Hegseth's moves to reduce the general staff. At a hearing before the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Readiness, Army Vice Chief of Staff Gen. James J. Mingus testified about the flag office, saying, 'We began a general reduction inside the Army several months ago, before this was ever announced … I think it's probably a little too early to tell in terms of what the overall impacts are going to be.'
Air Force Lt. Gen. Adrian L. Spain said, 'It's too soon to say what the exact impact to the Air Force specifically will be with the reductions, but we look forward to seeing the exact language following the announcement.'
Hegseth has proved himself to be a bull in a china shop. It is worrisome, now that he has sent troops to the Southern border, that the military could be used in politically partisan ways. In Trump's first term, Secretary of Defense Mark Esper refused an order to have soldiers shoot Black Lives Matter protesters. Hegseth would be unlikely show as much backbone.
A nervous nation — seeing Hegseth's obsessive loyalty to Trump and all the weaponizing, the political sturm und drang, the cuts and the dismissals — has to be on edge about how all this will end.
James D. Zirin, author and legal analyst, is a former federal prosecutor in New York's Southern District. He is also the host of the public television talk show and podcast Conversations with Jim Zirin.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
11 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Feds seek to ditch settlement over alleged redlining with North Jersey bank
The Trump administration is asking a judge to drop a 2022 settlement the Justice Department had reached with North Jersey-based Lakeland Bank — which was later absorbed by Provident Bank — over allegations of redlining against Black and Hispanic customers. While Provident Bank said it will continue to provide low-cost mortgages to underserved communities, the motion by the U.S. Justice Department to abandon the settlement has drawn the ire of community advocates and legal experts, who say it would make it easier for banks to engage in redlining. 'It goes without saying it's a good thing when financial institutions are complying with those consent orders, but when you take away the teeth — the actual enforcement — who's to say that they will continue to comply,' said Leila Amirhamzeh, director of community reinvestment for New Jersey Citizen Action, a consumer advocacy four-page motion by the Justice Department, filed May 28 in U.S. District Court, seeks to terminate the consent order the Biden administration negotiated with what was then Lakeland Bank. In the initial complaint, the Justice Department said Lakeland violated the federal Fair Housing Act and Equal Credit Opportunity Act by deliberately avoiding banking with Black and Hispanic customers, particularly in and around Newark. The discrimination in question allegedly took place between 2015 and 2021, according to the Biden administration. To settle the complaint, Lakeland agreed to pay $12 million to subsidize mortgages, home improvement loans and home refinancing loans for Black and Hispanic residents and open two branches in underserved neighborhoods. Lakeland also had to provide $150,000 a year for advertising, outreach and consumer finance education in the Newark area. Newark Mayor and Democratic gubernatorial candidate Ras Baraka wanted one of those new branches to be in his city, and the Greater Toms River Chamber of Commerce also wanted a branch in its area. According to the Provident Bank website, there are currently four locations in Newark and three in Toms River. After acquiring Lakeland, Provident took ownership of the settlement and the mandate to open two branches in underserved areas of New Jersey. The Justice Department in its motion to terminate the order said Lakeland reached substantial commitment to comply with the consent agreement and it is committed to continuing its disbursement of the loan subsidy. Provident spokesperson Keith Buscio told and the USA TODAY Network New Jersey that the bank remains committed to the loan subsidy initiative. He said Provident is not a party to the litigation and referred other questions to the Justice Department. The Justice Department could not immediately be reached for comment. Baraka's office in Newark said it is planning to hold a press conference about the motion by the Justice Department on June 5. Court filings show two attorneys who helped file the initial complaint against Lakeland, Michael Campion and Susan Millenky, withdrew as counsel from the case. Campion was appointed in 2022 to lead the U.S. Attorney's Office's Civil Rights Division that was created to enforce federal civil rights laws in New Jersey. The Fair Housing Act was passed as part of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 to prohibit landlords and mortgage lenders from discriminating based on race, religion, national origin or sex. Nearly 60 years later, racial wealth disparity remains vast. In New Jersey, the median household wealth of white families is $322,500, compared with $17,700 for Black families and $26,100 for Hispanic families, the New Jersey Institute for Social Justice said. In New Jersey, 77.3% of white residents owned a home in 2020. By comparison, 42.8% of Black residents and 32.7% of Hispanic residents were homeowners, according to the Urban Institute, a research group. Critics said the Justice Department's motion to drop the Lakeland settlement is a step by the Trump administration's bid to reverse diversity, equity and inclusion programs. David Troutt, a professor at Rutgers Law School in Newark, said the motion by the Justice Department to terminate the consent decree is part of a larger campaign by the department to rescind investigations and agreements involving anti-Black racism, while beginning investigations into what it deems 'illegal DEI.' 'The Trump administration's withdrawal from a federal consent decree without justification is an extraordinary act of endorsing racist practices and housing market manipulation,' Troutt said. 'For the very government that successfully enforced those borrowers' civil rights to now repudiate them sends a message unlike any we've seen since the federal government first endorsed redlining in the 1930s,' Troutt said. Lakeland isn't the only New Jersey bank that faced scrutiny under the Biden administration. Toms River-based OceanFirst Financial Corp. agreed to pay $14 million to subsidize mortgages, helping settle a lawsuit that alleged the bank violated federal discrimination laws. Since then, it has improved the rating given by federal bank regulators who oversee investments in underserved communities to 'outstanding.' The Justice Department hasn't filed a motion seeking to terminate the consent order with OceanFirst. But two attorneys who represented the U.S. in the initial complaint, Millenky and Nathan Shulock, have filed motions to withdraw from the case, according to the court docket. A combined 22 Provident and Lakeland branches closed in 2024 following the $1.3 billion merger creating a 'super community bank.' Each branch that closed was within roughly three miles of a nearby branch. Activists and opponents warned that the merger would mean fewer banking services would be available for underserved communities, such as people of color, the elderly and disabled. New Jersey Citizen Action applauded Provident for its continued commitment to the terms of the consent order. But the group said the Justice Department should continue to enforce it. 'When you actually terminate these consent orders, there's no deterrence, and it's basically telling financial institutions that the Department of Justice is going to be taking a hands-off approach to fair lending issues, to redlining,' New Jersey Citizen Action's Amirhamzeh said. Daniel Munoz covers business, consumer affairs, labor and the economy for and The Record. Email: munozd@ Twitter:@danielmunoz100 and Facebook Michael L. Diamond is a business reporter for the Asbury Park Press. He has been writing about the New Jersey economy and health care industry since 1999. He can be reached at mdiamond@ This article originally appeared on Feds seek to drop Lakeland Bank settlement over alleged redlining
Los Angeles Times
11 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Trump formally asks Congress to claw back approved spending targeted by DOGE
WASHINGTON — The White House on Tuesday officially asked Congress to claw back $9.4 billion in already approved spending, taking funding away from programs targeted by Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency. It's a process known as 'rescission,' which requires President Donald Trump to get approval from Congress to return money that had previously been appropriated. Trump's aides say the funding cuts target programs that promote liberal ideologies. The request, if it passes the House and Senate, would formally enshrine many of the spending cuts and freezes sought by DOGE. It comes at a time when Musk is extremely unhappy with the tax cut and spending plan making its way through Congress, calling it on Tuesday a 'disgusting abomination' for increasing the federal deficit. White House budget director Russ Vought said more rescission packages and other efforts to cut spending could follow if the current effort succeeds. ' Here's what to know about the rescissions request: The request to Congress is unlikely to meaningfully change the troublesome increase in the U.S. national debt. Tax revenues have been insufficient to cover the growing costs of Social Security, Medicare and other programs. The Congressional Budget Office estimates the government is on track to spend roughly $7 trillion this year, with the rescission request equaling just 0.1% of that total. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters at Tuesday's briefing that Vought would continue to cut spending, hinting that there could be additional efforts to return funds. 'He has tools at his disposal to produce even more savings,' Leavitt said. Vought said he can send up additional rescissions at the end of the fiscal year in September 'and if Congress does not act on it, that funding expires.' 'It's one of the reasons why we are not putting all of our expectations in a typical rescissions process,' he added. A spokesperson for the White House Office of Management and Budget, speaking on condition of anonymity to preview some of the items that would lose funding, said that $8.3 billion was being cut from the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development. NPR and PBS would also lose federal funding, as would the U.S. President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, also known as PEPFAR. The spokesperson listed specific programs that the Trump administration considered wasteful, including $750,000 to reduce xenophobia in Venezuela, $67,000 for feeding insect powder to children in Madagascar and $3 million for circumcision, vasectomies and condoms in Zambia. House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., complimented the planned cuts and pledged to pass them. 'This rescissions package reflects many of DOGE's findings and is one of the many legislative tools Republicans are using to restore fiscal sanity,' Johnson said. 'Congress will continue working closely with the White House to codify these recommendations, and the House will bring the package to the floor as quickly as possible.' Members of the House Freedom Caucus, among the chamber's most conservative lawmakers, said they would like to see additional rescission packages from the administration. 'We will support as many more rescissions packages the White House can send us in the coming weeks and months,' the group said in a press release. Sen. Susan Collins, chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, gave the package a less optimistic greeting. 'Despite this fast track, the Senate Appropriations Committee will carefully review the rescissions package and examine the potential consequences of these rescissions on global health, national security, emergency communications in rural communities, and public radio and television stations,' the Maine lawmaker said in a statement. Boak writes for the Associated Press.
Wall Street Journal
12 minutes ago
- Wall Street Journal
Ukraine's Drone Strike Is a Warning—for the U.S.
By now Americans know about Ukraine's remarkable drone strike on Sunday that damaged as many as 40 aircraft deep inside Russia as strategic bombers sat like ducks in a row on military bases. One urgent lesson beyond that conflict is that the U.S. homeland is far more vulnerable than most Americans realize. The details about Ukraine's daring operation are few, but Kyiv managed to sneak cheap drones across the border and use them to destroy costly Russian military assets. The bang for Ukraine's buck was considerable. You don't have to be a fan of thrillers to imagine a similar scenario in the United States.
