Hawaii delegation pushes Navy for information on Kaula training plan
Hawaii's congressional delegation is pushing the Navy to provide more information on its plan to more than double bombardment training on a small Hawaiian Island that the state and conservation groups consider a critical bird sanctuary.
Kaula lies about 23 miles southwest of Niihau and is a nesting ground to about 18 species of birds—including the black-footed albatross—and its shores team with monk seals and other marine life. But since 1953 the island also has been used by the Navy for target practice.
The Navy originally used live explosive ordnance, but stopped the practice in the 1980s and began using inert dummy rounds instead. But as tensions simmer with China and the Pentagon increasingly sees the Pacific as its top-priority theater of operations, the military has looked to step up training in Hawaii and across the region.
In 2024 the Navy advanced a proposal to increase its bombing runs at Kaula from 12 a year to as many as 31, and argued that the environmental impacts would be 'less than significant.'
U.S. Sen. Brian Schatz told the Honolulu Star-Advertiser, 'I think every aspect of training in the state of Hawaii needs to be explained and justified, but certainly when you're talking about 500-pound objects hitting the side of a mountain and the answer is 'national security, ' my answer is maybe, but that's not a thorough enough explanation for what's happening to be justified.'
The Navy is making its pitch at a time when the military is facing heightened scrutiny over its use of land and environmental impacts in Hawaii, with the Navy in particular working to repair its public image since the 2021 Red Hill water crisis. On Tuesday all four members of Hawaii's congressional delegation sent a letter to Navy Secretary John Phelan, telling him that 'in Hawaii, there is a significant level of mistrust with the Department of Defense as a whole, and the Navy in particular.'
'Doubling the amount of training at Kaula is a significant step that warrants more information on the environmental impacts to the island, ' the lawmakers wrote. 'The State's seabird sanctuary on Kaula is home to thousands of seabirds, and the island's sea cliffs are a resting place for endangered species like monk seals. Despite these known populations of wildlife, the draft environmental assessment does not contain sufficient analysis that impacts on wildlife would be 'less than significant.' The public deserves a clear, comprehensive, and evidence-based (environmental impact statement ) to demonstrate that the Navy has done its due diligence on the environmental impacts of these trainings.'
The Navy stressed in a draft environmental assessment released in August that it does not seek to resume live explosive training, but rather to increase the frequency of the training it already does on Kaula, which is limited to the small island's southern end.
But officials from both the state and Kauai County, along with local conservationists, argue that the increase in training could disrupt a unique ecosystem. To make matters more complicated, there is an ongoing dispute about whether the island is federal or state land, and local officials have called on training to stop altogether.
In their letter, the members of the congressional delegation called on the Navy to explain in their formal assessment why training at Kaula is critical to national security. The delegation sought to know how a reduction or end to use of Kaula as a range would specifically affect the readiness of military units operating in the Pacific. They also wanted to know why the Navy has 'not already built in more redundancies to address any readiness issues due to a lack of availability of training ranges.'
Moreover, they wanted an explanation of how the Navy had determined that there is 'an irreplaceable need for access to Kaula that cannot be fulfilled by an alternative site.'
The delegation also asked that the Navy provide answers by June 16 as to whether the Navy 'plans to program specific environmental remediation funding, including to address existing and future ordnance clean up.'
They also asked whether the Navy has plans to ensure regular access to the waters around Kaula by local fishermen and whether the Navy will plan for increased environmental impacts on the southern end of the island. And, the delegation asked for an explanation of what readiness demands and restrictions at other training sites 'uniquely warrants this substantive jump in training activity at Kaula.'
The Navy's proposal to increase training was made in the summer of 2024. Since then President Donald Trump won an election and has established a new team at the Pentagon led by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who has vowed to rid the military of 'woke ' programs and has singled out environmental programs that he argues have 'distracted ' the military from combat training and obtaining new weapons systems.
That rhetoric has alarmed several community groups in Hawaii. But Schatz said, 'I'd like to see what they do rather than what they say. Because so far, (the military in Hawaii ) hasn't been different than other administrations. Certainly, the rhetoric is that they are not interested in environmental stewardship, but a lot of these programs are established by law. So they can not like it, but they don't really have the option to not do it.'
The senator said that when it comes to how the military does business in Hawaii, issues around its approach to the environment and local communities are long-standing. He said that 'the institution of the Department of Defense, whichever (political ) party is in charge, has had a hard time with internalizing the idea that they are, in fact, our guests and that they should behave like guests and earn their welcome.'
When it comes to Kaula, Schatz said the Navy 'should start with a basic explanation of why they feel the need to do this, (and ) that they've thoroughly assessed the environmental impacts. I spend a fair amount of time criticizing Trump, and I will continue to do that where it's appropriate, but I don't think this is a Trump policy problem. I think this is an institutional position of the DOD (Department of Defense ) over many, many decades.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNN
an hour ago
- CNN
Pentagon diverting key anti-drone technology from Ukraine to US forces in the Middle East
The Pentagon notified Congress last week that it will be diverting critical anti-drone technology that had been allocated for Ukraine to US Air Force units in the Middle East, according to correspondence obtained by CNN and people familiar with the matter. The move reflects the US' shifting defense priorities under President Donald Trump – toward the Middle East and the Pacific – and the fact that US stockpiles of some defense components are becoming increasingly stretched. The technology, proximity fuzes for the rockets Ukraine uses to shoot down Russian drones, was redirected from the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative (USAI) to Air Force Central Command on orders from Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, according to the correspondence dated May 29 and sent to the Senate and House Armed Services committees. USAI is a Defense Department funding program that was established in 2014, when Russia first invaded eastern Ukraine and annexed Crimea. It authorizes the US government to buy arms and equipment for Ukraine directly from US weapons manufacturers. The proximity fuzes were originally purchased for Ukraine but were redirected to the Air Force as a 'Secretary of Defense Identified Urgent Issue,' the correspondence says. The notification was first reported by the Wall Street Journal. The Pentagon has in recent months redirected a large amount of equipment and resources to the Middle East, including air defense systems out of the Indo-Pacific Command, amid threats from Iran and the Houthi rebels in Yemen. It is not yet clear what the impact will be of diverting the fuzes away from Ukraine. But the technology has made their rockets more effective against Russian drones, since the fuze sets off an added explosion as the rocket nears the drone. US forces in the Middle East have had to contend with drones, too, however, particularly from Iran-backed groups in Syria and Iraq.
CNN
an hour ago
- CNN
Pentagon diverting key anti-drone technology from Ukraine to US forces in the Middle East
The Pentagon notified Congress last week that it will be diverting critical anti-drone technology that had been allocated for Ukraine to US Air Force units in the Middle East, according to correspondence obtained by CNN and people familiar with the matter. The move reflects the US' shifting defense priorities under President Donald Trump – toward the Middle East and the Pacific – and the fact that US stockpiles of some defense components are becoming increasingly stretched. The technology, proximity fuzes for the rockets Ukraine uses to shoot down Russian drones, was redirected from the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative (USAI) to Air Force Central Command on orders from Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, according to the correspondence dated May 29 and sent to the Senate and House Armed Services committees. USAI is a Defense Department funding program that was established in 2014, when Russia first invaded eastern Ukraine and annexed Crimea. It authorizes the US government to buy arms and equipment for Ukraine directly from US weapons manufacturers. The proximity fuzes were originally purchased for Ukraine but were redirected to the Air Force as a 'Secretary of Defense Identified Urgent Issue,' the correspondence says. The notification was first reported by the Wall Street Journal. The Pentagon has in recent months redirected a large amount of equipment and resources to the Middle East, including air defense systems out of the Indo-Pacific Command, amid threats from Iran and the Houthi rebels in Yemen. It is not yet clear what the impact will be of diverting the fuzes away from Ukraine. But the technology has made their rockets more effective against Russian drones, since the fuze sets off an added explosion as the rocket nears the drone. US forces in the Middle East have had to contend with drones, too, however, particularly from Iran-backed groups in Syria and Iraq.
Atlantic
an hour ago
- Atlantic
When Pete Hegseth's Pentagon Tenure Started Going Sideways
Things were going fine for Pete Hegseth, right up until a chance encounter with the world's richest man. His pursuit of Donald Trump's agenda at the Pentagon had made him a star among the president's advisers. The former Fox News host had moved swiftly to roll back diversity initiatives in the military and to expand U.S. troops' role in halting immigration at the southern border. His willingness to challenge Republican orthodoxy on foreign policy and punch back at critics was seen as an asset as Trump began his second term. But then, in mid-March, Hegseth bumped into Elon Musk in a White House hallway, and extended an ill-fated invitation to the tech titan for an exclusive military briefing. 'Up until then, DOD had been the golden child,' one person familiar with Hegseth's office told us. When Trump learned about the proposed briefing the night before it was scheduled to take place, he was displeased. Although Hegseth denied a New York Time s report that the March 21 meeting would focus on plans for potential war with Beijing, Trump told others that any presentation on China would be inappropriate for Musk, who has extensive business interests there, according to people familiar with the president's reaction. The very idea that top officers would brief the businessman in the Tank—the secure Pentagon conference room where the military brass assembles for visits by the commander in chief—added to an unwelcome perception that Musk wielded outsize government power. In a call hours after the Times story appeared, Trump made clear to Hegseth that the briefing was 'a bad look' for the administration, according to individuals with knowledge of the call. When Hegseth visited the White House the next day to debut the Air Force's newest fighter jet, Trump again conveyed his displeasure. 'This is crazy and stupid,' Trump said of the briefing, one of these people told us. 'Why would we even do this?' Jonathan Lemire: Why Trump is standing by Hegseth, for now Trump reserved most of his ire for Musk and did not express anger toward Hegseth personally, White House officials told us. Yet the Musk episode, and Trump's response to Hegseth, details of which have not been previously reported, represented a turning point for the new Pentagon chief, according to people familiar with his tenure who spoke with us on the condition of anonymity. Since then, a series of embarrassing revelations, including Hegseth's disclosure of military attack plans on the messaging app Signal, have fueled turmoil and suspicion at the Pentagon's highest levels. They have also intensified public scrutiny of Hegseth's judgment and deepened questions about his ability to deliver on the president's military priorities, including pushing back against China and demonstrating American strength, which the president believes was eroded by his predecessor. 'Things were heading in the right direction,' the person familiar with Hegseth's office added. 'But then the leaks and Signalgate just really fucked up Pete.' Hegseth oversees a workforce of more than 3 million, and a budget of close to $1 trillion, without a chief of staff. His shrunken circle of close aides lacks extensive Pentagon experience. Key military commanders are preparing to retire without replacements in sight. Sidelined aides have aired details of unseemly feuds at the department's senior levels, and a series of unflattering media reports have fueled what numerous officials describe as Hegseth's fixation on stopping leaks. White House officials say that Trump continues to support Hegseth—the defense chief's job is '100 percent safe,' one told us. This official also noted that in addition to having Trump's affection, Hegseth is personally liked by both Vice President J. D. Vance and White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles. White House Deputy Press Secretary Anna Kelly told us that the entire administration remains 'fully behind Secretary Hegseth's mission to prioritize our warfighters, eliminate terrorists, and restore common sense at the DOD.' But scores of congressional Democrats have called on Hegseth to resign. One Republican, Representative Don Bacon of Nebraska, has suggested that he be fired. Musk's Pentagon visit originated from a conversation in Musk's sparsely furnished office that followed their impromptu meeting in a White House hallway, when Hegseth suggested that Musk come over to the Pentagon to talk with senior military leaders. The defense chief later authorized the meeting to be held in the Tank. Several people told us that Hegseth's invitation came at a moment when the Defense Department, like other agencies across the government, was facing the prospect of cuts by Musk's Department of Government Efficiency. While Hegseth has touted DOGE's steps to reduce the number of federal contractors and other personnel, DOD was not driving the process. The invitation represented a chance for Pentagon leaders to help steer DOGE's direction in cutting one of the world's largest bureaucracies. (A representative for Musk did not respond to multiple requests for comment.) Tom Nichols: Pete Hegseth's patriotic duty is to resign Just three days after Musk's Pentagon visit, Hegseth's judgment again came into question when Jeffrey Goldberg, the editor in chief of The Atlantic, revealed that he had been added to a high-level Signal chat about plans to bomb Houthi militants in Yemen. Although then–National Security Adviser Michael Waltz had inadvertently invited Goldberg to the thread, it was Hegseth who escalated the exchange by posting details of an imminent attack on Houthi targets, including the precise times when U.S. jets would be flying over their targets in Yemen. Current and former officials have said that such advance attack information would typically be highly classified because of the danger its disclosure could pose to pilots. A cascade of other revelations followed, including stories detailing the unusual role that Hegseth's wife, Jennifer, has played in his work at the Pentagon, where she has attended meetings with foreign officials and issued orders related to her husband's media appearances. News reports also revealed that Hegseth gave his younger brother a senior Pentagon role and authorized the installation of a makeup studio at a cost of thousands of dollars. Current and former officials told us that Hegseth has since threatened to polygraph numerous senior officials, including the acting chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. He has also overturned decades of tradition in the military's relationship with the press, ousting media outlets from their long-standing Pentagon workspaces in favor of Trump-friendly voices and ending reporters' access to most of the building. When The Atlantic interviewed Trump in the Oval Office in late April, the president said he'd had 'a talk' with Hegseth about the various embarrassing reports, predicting, 'I think he's gonna get it together.' Yet the Musk and Signal episodes reveal what some individuals familiar with Hegseth's tenure described to us as his tendency to use his position heading the world's most advanced military as a 'flex.' He attempts to impress others with his access to sensitive information and his power to direct American forces, even if it means a little indiscretion along the way, they said. 'He's got this $180,000 Ferrari. That's the Pentagon for him,' another person familiar with Hegseth's office told us. 'And he likes to show it off.' Hegseth created further controversy after he elevated Ricky Buria, a Marine who'd been serving as a military aide when Hegseth took office, to a senior role and sought to name him as chief of staff. Buria often made demands of more senior officers, and his sudden promotion to a senior political position rubbed many in the rank-conscious military the wrong way. Trump personally blocked Buria from the chief-of-staff job because of his ties to Lloyd Austin, Joe Biden's Pentagon chief, White House officials told us. People familiar with Pentagon staffing told us that the White House had explored hiring at least four replacements for Joe Kasper, who had abruptly left the chief-of-staff job in April to take a new role in the department, but that none had worked out. The chief Pentagon spokesperson, Sean Parnell, said in a statement that personnel changes are a 'natural and necessary feature of any highly effective organization.' 'Americans outside the beltway don't care about 'palace intrigue' or sensationalized mainstream media gossip,' Parnell said. 'They care about action.' In response to suggestions from the White House, the Pentagon has in recent weeks begun to slowly expand its media engagement beyond MAGA-friendly outlets, taking reporters from several mainstream print-news organizations on Hegseth's travels to Latin America and Asia. Kingsley Wilson, Hegseth's Pentagon press secretary, told us that Hegseth's travels have involved bringing along journalists from 'a wide range of outlets.' Hegseth, however, has stuck to a rote playbook in responding to unfavorable news: attempt to discredit the media, then pivot to his efforts to rebuild the military and restore the 'warrior ethos' he says was lost under Democratic leaders. 'This is what the media does,' he told reporters during a family Easter event at the White House, children in party attire looking on from behind. He gestured at the journalists assembled before him, calling them 'hoaxsters.' 'They try to slash and burn people and ruin their reputations. It's not going to work with me.' Jason Dempsey: Hegseth has all the wrong enemies Trump has stood by his Pentagon chief, suggesting that he admires the combative approach Hegseth takes in attacking administration detractors. He is a 'tough cookie' who 'went through a lot,' the president said late last month. Trump also spent significant political capital pushing through Hegseth's nomination—Vance had to cast the tiebreaking vote after the Senate deadlocked on confirmation at 50–50—and is reluctant to abandon him now, especially because it might look like giving the media a scalp. That support will be tested next week, when Hegseth begins a series of hearings on Capitol Hill convened to address the administration's budget requests. Hegseth is sure to face difficult questions from Democrats, including on his handling of sensitive information, the upheaval in the Pentagon's upper ranks, and his firing of senior military officials. Those officers include the second-ever Black chairman of the Joint Chiefs and the first female Navy chief, both of whom Hegseth previously suggested were promoted because of their race and gender, respectively. Top Republicans, meanwhile, are unhappy with an administration spending proposal that they say doesn't include enough money for defense. Many at the Pentagon question how long the president's backing for their boss will last. During his first term, Trump cycled through four defense secretaries and four national security advisers. He also voiced support for Waltz until the former national security adviser was pushed aside last month and asked to take a less powerful role, at the United Nations. Although the president appears to appreciate Hegseth's pugnacious public style, he may require more from his defense secretary over time, as the administration faces pressure to deliver on a set of complex and interlocking goals, including fixing a byzantine military-procurement system, reviving a diminished defense industry, and strengthening America's response to China's military rise. Fighters endear themselves to Trump, one person told us, 'but you can't have a one-dimensional game. At a certain point, it's going to get old.'
