Latest news with #DefenseDepartment
NBC News
33 minutes ago
- Politics
- NBC News
Pete Hegseth has discussed running for political office in Tennessee, sources say
WASHINGTON — Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has privately discussed the idea of running for political office next year in Tennessee, according to two people who have spoken directly with him about it. If Hegseth were to follow through on those discussions, it would amount to a major leadership shake-up at the department that oversees the American military and millions of federal employees. The Defense Department bars civilian employees from running for political office, meaning Hegseth would have to resign to do so. In a statement, Sean Parnell, the Pentagon's chief spokesman, said, 'Hegseth's focus remains solely on serving under President Trump.' One of the people said their discussion with Hegseth happened within the past three weeks and that it was serious, not simply spitballing ideas. The other person, who also characterized it as serious, would not say when they had spoken — except that it was since Hegseth became defense secretary in January. The two sources, along with others in this article, were granted anonymity to speak candidly. The discussions centered around what it would take to run. One person said they discussed the eligibility requirements to run for governor of Tennessee and Hegseth's chances of winning. The other person said they talked with Hegseth about the realities of a campaign. The people who have spoken with Hegseth said he has specifically mentioned a possible gubernatorial campaign in Tennessee, where Hegseth lives. The state has an open race for governor next year, though there are eligibility requirements for candidates that Hegseth might not meet. Ultimately, both sources said it was unclear after their conversations with Hegseth whether he would take the leap. But they both said he has contemplated it. 'Fake news NBC is so desperate for attention, they are shopping around a made up story… again. Only two options exist: either the 'sources' are imaginary or these reporters are getting punked. Secretary Hegseth's focus remains solely on serving under President Trump and advancing the America First mission at the Department of Defense,' Parnell said in the statement. Others in Hegseth's orbit said he doesn't plan to launch a campaign. One person who spoke with the secretary last week asked him about speculation that he was looking for an off-ramp from being defense secretary, such as running for political office in Tennessee. This person said Hegseth was 'very, very clear' that he was not going to run and denied even considering it. The idea, this person said, is 'totally off the table.' And when asked, a longtime Trump adviser familiar with political discussions around Hegseth said he will not run for office in Tennessee. Hegseth has campaigned for political office before. A former Army National Guard officer and Fox News host, he ran for the U.S. Senate in his home state of Minnesota in 2012 and withdrew after failing to win the GOP nomination. Minnesota also has an open Senate seat in 2026. Hegseth's political considerations come after a somewhat rocky first six months as defense secretary. During his confirmation process, allegations surfaced around his treatment of his second wife, financial mismanagement, sexual misconduct and alcohol consumption — all of which Hegseth vehemently denied. Since his confirmation, Hegseth has faced controversy over the abrupt firings of his top staff, accusations of chaos at the Pentagon and questions about his handling of sensitive military plans after he shared information about a military operation in Yemen on an unsecured group chat on Signal. A Pentagon inspector general report on the Signal chat, including the classification of the information Hegseth shared, could be released as early as next month. Hegseth also suspended aid to Ukraine three times, but those decisions were reversed by the White House, NBC News reported. Trump has said publicly that he maintains confidence in Hegseth, although privately he has at times expressed frustrations with him, NBC News has reported. Politico recently reported that Trump and his inner circle stand by Hegseth. The New York Times also reported on Saturday that Hegseth continues to clash with the military's top generals over his personnel and promotion choices and what are seen as partisan priorities. If Hegseth were to declare his candidacy for office, Trump has several replacement options, at least temporarily. These include Army Secretary Dan Driscoll, a close friend of Vice President JD Vance's, or the Pentagon's policy chief, Elbridge Colby, according to four people familiar with the matter. Both were confirmed by the Senate for their current jobs and could serve as acting secretary of defense for a period of time without another confirmation hearing. Hegseth could face eligibility requirements if he wants to run for office in Tennessee. Tennessee law says gubernatorial candidates must have lived in the state for seven years prior to the election. Hegseth moved to the state around three years ago; public records show that Hegseth's name is linked to a suburban Nashville address last sold in the middle of 2022. Tennessee Republican Party bylaws also have a series of requirements for Republican primary candidates, including having voted in three of the last four most recent statewide Republican primary elections in which the candidate is eligible to vote. There have been statewide Republican primaries in Tennessee in 2022 and 2024. Those bylaws have blocked other candidates from seeking office in the past, including in 2022, when the state GOP removed Trump-backed Morgan Ortagus, a former State Department spokeswoman, from the congressional primary ballot after she had recently moved to the state. Hegseth would likely face challenges from within his own party if he decided to run for governor. Republican Rep. John Rose is running and has loaned himself $5 million to bolster his campaign. Sen. Marsha Blackburn also has long considered a campaign for governor. Tennessee's senior U.S. senator, Blackburn has served in public office for more than 25 years and holds considerable sway among the state's GOP. A source familiar with Blackburn's plans said she intends to announce her next steps in August. If Blackburn does decide to run, and wins, she'd have to vacate her Senate seat in 2027 and appoint a successor until a special election. That could provide another political option for Hegseth in his home state. Tennessee requires candidates for the Senate to have lived in the state for at least three years. Scott Golden, chairman of the Tennessee Republican Party, said he has not spoken with Trump about a potential Hegseth run. 'Nobody has called to talk about this as a reality,' Golden said, adding, 'I don't know where it's coming from, and maybe it will be real.' Golden said the last time he spoke with Hegseth was on election night last year. He was last at the White House in April, he said, for a tour. 'Right now, it's just not something that we're even thinking about,' Golden said. Another Republican operative in Tennessee was skeptical that Hegseth's running for office was well developed or far along, saying they hadn't heard anything about it. Blackburn is close with Glenn Jacobs, the Republican mayor of Knox County and a former professional wrestler, and she would potentially appoint him to her Senate seat, according to a person familiar with the situation. This person said Blackburn hasn't had any conversations with Hegseth about an appointment. A person close to Blackburn said it was premature to discuss who she would choose as her successor. 'There has never been a conversation of anyone being appointed,' this person said, adding that Blackburn has also not spoken with anyone, including Hegseth, about him potentially running for office in Tennessee. 'I know they talk,' the person said, 'but never about this.'
Atlantic
4 hours ago
- Politics
- Atlantic
The Pentagon Against the Think Tanks
Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth has scanned the horizon for threats, and sure enough, he has found a new group of dangerous adversaries: think - tanks, the organizations in the United States and allied nations that do policy research and advocate for various ideas. They must be stopped, according to a Defense Department announcement, because they promote 'the evil of globalism, disdain for our great country, and hatred for the president of the United States.' This particular bit of McCarthyist harrumphing was the rationalization the Pentagon gave more than a week ago for pulling out of the Aspen Security Forum, a long-running annual conference routinely attended by business leaders, military officers, academics, policy analysts, foreign officials, and top government leaders from both parties, including many past secretaries of defense. For good measure, the Defense Department spokesperson Sean Parnell invoked the current holy words of the Hegseth Pentagon: The Aspen forum, he said, did not align with the department's efforts to 'increase the lethality of our war fighters, revitalize the warrior ethos and project peace through strength on the world stage.' The Aspen gathering is not exactly a secret nest of Communists. This year's roster of speakers included former CIA Director Robert Gates, former Secretary of Defense Mark Esper—a Trump appointee—and a representative from Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán's office, among many others. John Phelan, the current secretary of the Navy, and Admiral Samuel Paparo, the head of the U.S. Indo-Pacific Command, were set to attend as well. Nor is Hegseth content just to stop America's intellectual enemies cold at the Rockies: The Pentagon last week suspended Defense Department participation in all such activities, functionally a blanket ban on any interaction with think tanks or other civilian institutions that hold conferences, convene panels, and invite speakers. The New York Times reported that the order to pull out of Aspen came from Hegseth personally. And as Politico first reported, the lager ban appears to extend 'to gatherings hosted by nonprofit military associations, such as Sea Air Space, which is led by the Navy League, the military service's largest veteran organization, and Modern Day Marine, a similar trade show for the Marine Corps.' The Pentagon also 'specifically banned attendance at the Halifax International Security Forum, which takes place in Nova Scotia each winter and where the Pentagon chief is usually a top guest.' Take that, Canada. Right now, no one seems certain of how this new policy works. Hegseth appears to have suspended all such participation subject to additional review by the Pentagon's public-affairs office and general counsel, so perhaps some defense officials could one day end up attending conferences after their requests have been vetted. Good luck with that, and best wishes to the first Pentagon employee who pops up out of their cubicle to request a pass to attend such meetings. At some point soon, this prohibition will almost certainly be lifted, but why did Hegseth's Pentagon impose it in the first place? I am a former Defense Department employee who, over the course of my career, attended (and spoke at) dozens of conferences at various think tanks and other organizations, and I will make an educated guess based on experience: The main reasons are resentment, insecurity, and fear. The most ordinary reason, resentment, predates Hegseth. Government service is not exactly luxurious, and many trips are special perks that generate internal gripes about who gets to go, where they get to stay, and so on. (These trips are not exactly luxurious either, but in my government-service days, I learned that some people in the federal service chafe when other employees get free plane tickets to visit nice places.) It's possible that someone who has never been invited to one of these things convinced Hegseth—who seems reluctant to attend such events himself—that these meetings are just boondoggles and that no one should go. Bureaucratic pettiness, however, isn't enough of an explanation. One hazard for people like Hegseth and his lieutenants at a place like Aspen or the International Institute of Strategic Studies or the Halifax conference is that these are organizations full of exceptionally smart people, and even experienced and knowledgeable participants have to be sharp and prepared when they're onstage and in group discussions. The chance of being outclassed, embarrassed, or just in over one's head can be very high for unqualified people who have senior government jobs. Hegseth himself took a pass on the Munich Security Conference (usually a good venue for a new secretary of defense), and instead decided to show videos of himself working out with the troops. We can all admire Hegseth's midlife devotion to staying fit and modeling a vigorous exercise regimen for the troops (who must exercise anyway, because they are military people and are ordered to it), but America and its allies would probably benefit more from a secretary with an extra pound here and there who could actually stand at a podium in Munich or London and explain the administration's strategic vision and military plans. The overall prohibition on conferences provides Hegseth and his deputies (many of whom have no serious experience with defense issues) with an excuse for ducking out and avoiding making fools of themselves. But perhaps the most obvious and Trumpian reason for the Pentagon's brainpower lockdown is fear. Officials in this administration know that the greatest risk to their careers has nothing to do with job performance; if incompetence were a cause for dismissal, Hegseth would have been gone months ago. The far greater danger comes from the chance of saying something in public that gets the speaker sideways with Trump and turns his baleful stare across the river to the Pentagon. 'The Trump administration doesn't like dissent, I think that's pretty clear,' a Republican political strategist and previous Aspen attendee told The Hill last week. 'And they don't like dissenting views at conferences.' The problem for Trump officials is that 'dissent' can mean almost anything, because the strategic direction of the United States depends on the president's moods, his grievances, and his interactions with others, including foreign leaders. Everything can change in the space of a post on Truth Social. To step forward in a public venue and say anything of substance is a risk; the White House is an authoritarian bubble, and much like the Kremlin in the old Soviet Union, the man in charge can decide that what is policy today could be heresy tomorrow. In the end, banning attendance at meetings where defense officials can exchange ideas with other intelligent people is—like so much else in this administration—a policy generated by pettiness and self-protection, a way to batten down the Pentagon's hatches so that no one speaks out or screws up. If this directive stays in place for even a few years, however, it will damage relationships among the military, defense officials, business leaders, academics, and ordinary Americans. Public conferences are part of the American civil-military relationship. Sometimes, these are events such as Aspen, where senior officials present policies or engage their critics under a national spotlight; other gatherings at various nongovernmental organizations help citizens understand what, exactly, their government is doing. At academically oriented meetings, members of the defense community gather ideas, debate, discuss, and sometimes establish contacts for future research and exchanges. Retired Army Colonel Jeffrey McCausland, who served on the National Security Council staff and as the dean of the Army War College, told me that the Pentagon's shortsightedness could prevent important civil-military exchanges about national defense, and he wonders how far such prohibitions will go: Might the new directive mean that the 'guy who teaches history at West Point or a war college,' for example, 'can't go to a history conference and be a better history professor?' Maybe someone is mad that they didn't get to go to Colorado or Canada; perhaps someone else is worried that accepting an invitation could be career suicide. Somehow, the Pentagon has managed to engage productively in such events for decades, under administrations of both parties. But Hegseth, after a string of embarrassments—McCausland points to the lingering 'radioactivity' of Signalgate —has apparently chosen a safety-first approach. Unfortunately, the secretary still has to appear in public, and the chances of yet more stumbles from him and his team are high. But at least he'll be able to reassure the American public that the upright employees of the Pentagon won't be wined and dined by politically suspect eggheads.
Washington Post
6 hours ago
- Climate
- Washington Post
Pentagon reverses decision to cut off hurricane-tracking satellite data
Days before the Pentagon was set to cut off access to satellite observations that help meteorologists track hurricanes overnight, Defense Department officials told government forecasters they would continue sharing the data, after all. Defense officials initially announced in late June that they would terminate a feed of satellite data, giving meteorologists just a few days of notice. As forecasters raised concerns that any loss of data that helps detect fast-strengthening storms could increase the risks they pose to coastal communities, the Pentagon extended that timeline to July 31. But officials at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said Tuesday they now expect 'no interruption' in the data their meteorologists receive through what is known as the Defense Meteorological Satellite Program, which includes microwave-based observations that reveal storm activity even through the cover of darkness. A NOAA statement said the agency expects to continue receiving the data for as long as the aged satellites — which are in the process of being replaced — keep flying. NOAA cited an announcement from the U.S. Navy's Fleet Numerical Meteorology and Oceanography Center reversing the termination. It was not immediately clear why the reversal was made. Navy officials could not immediately be reached for comment. Meteorologists cheered the decision, saying termination of the microwave data could have set back hurricane capabilities. Several decades ago, before such data was available, forecasters ran the risk of what they called a 'sunrise surprise,' when daylight would reveal that a storm had strengthened more than meteorologists had expected. 'Crisis averted,' hurricane expert Michael Lowry, a former National Hurricane Center senior scientist, wrote on the social media platform Bluesky. NOAA officials stressed that, while valuable, the Defense Department's microwave satellite observations represent 'a single dataset in a robust suite of hurricane forecasting and modeling tools.' Meteorologists at the Hurricane Center and National Weather Service also have access to microwave-based observations collected by NOAA's Joint Polar Satellite System. 'NOAA's data sources are fully capable of providing a complete suite of cutting-edge data and models that ensure the gold-standard weather forecasting the American people deserve,' an agency statement said. Microwave is a form of radiation best known for how it interacts with water to heat food. But as microwave radiation also naturally emanates from Earth's surface, scientists can also use it to see where and how water is distributed in the atmosphere — and detect the structure and wind patterns of hurricanes even when they are invisible to the naked eye. Meteorologists have said such microwave data is vital as more hurricanes are undergoing rapid intensification, transforming from modest and disorganized systems into major Category 5 storms within a matter of hours. Global warming, as a result of fossil fuel combustion-based emissions and the greenhouse effect, is giving storms more energy to intensify, studies have shown. The more satellites circling the planet and collecting the microwave observations, the better the chances of detecting such rapid intensification more quickly, scientists said.
The Hill
7 hours ago
- Business
- The Hill
Trump is causing generational damage to American diplomacy
In his second inaugural address, President Trump announced he would build 'the strongest military the world has ever seen.' He followed up by sending Congress in June a record $1.01 trillion Defense Department budget for fiscal year 2026. Trump also said in his inaugural address that he wanted to be remembered as 'a peacemaker and a unifier.' But later the same day he signed an executive order that led to the dismantling of the U.S. Agency for International Development and began an ongoing process of diminishing America's diplomatic capacity to advance America's global interests, prevent conflict and promote peaceful resolution of international problems. A nation's military capacity is easy to understand. It consists of troops, weapons, training, logistics and military bases. Trump's $1 trillion defense budget will strengthen America's already considerable military capacity. But to be successful diplomatically, America requires diplomatic capacity, which has three concrete dimensions and one intangible. The concrete dimensions are: people, presence and programs. The intangible dimension is something the recently deceased Harvard University scholar Joe Nye called ' soft power.' Skilled and experienced diplomats are America's greatest diplomatic asset, but they are made, not born. Acquiring language and other professional skills and knowledge require years of training and hands-on experience. America's Foreign Service and Civil Service diplomats represent a significant investment in U.S. national security and the protection of citizens abroad. America needs the best diplomats to compete with other countries', particularly China's, best diplomats. Yet, earlier this month, the Trump administration announced the firing of 1,300 State Department officials, which follows the firing of virtually all USAID staff. This amounts to throwing away many years of investment in an American national security asset. In diplomacy, being there matters. Diplomatic presence consists of America's embassies in global capitals and consulates in major cities important to significant U.S. interests. Embassies and consulates are the eyes, ears and voice for America on the ground internationally. They protect American interests and citizens, keep Washington informed of developments, and build support for American policy priorities. Until recently, America had the most robust diplomatic presence internationally. Now China does. Nonetheless, Trump is planning cuts to America's overseas diplomatic presence, which will only help our adversaries. Diplomacy is not just talking, it is also making things happen. Diplomatic programs are tools that support U.S. strategic priorities — and those programs change as administrations change. Such programs range from humanitarian and development assistance and support to U.S. farmers and companies in developing international markets for their products, to leveraging the United Nations and other international organizations to achieve U.S. goals. They also include international radio stations like the Voice of America that bring the truth about America and the world to people whose governments lie to them. Diplomatic programs represent approximately 1 percent of the federal budget, but yield outsized returns to U.S. national security. In dismantling or slashing funding for diplomatic programs like Food for Peace, Voice of America and funding for international organizations via the United Nations (where others pay 78 percent of the costs for U.S.-shaped agendas), Trump is taking tools out of the U.S. national security toolbox that will hurt his and future administrations' abilities to achieve their international goals. Trump is also undermining the intangible soft power dimension of America's diplomatic capacity. America's global alliances testify to its predominance of global soft power. Nye defined soft power as 'the ability to obtain preferred outcomes by attraction rather than coercion or payment.' Others wanted to work with the U.S. on shared objectives and share the burden of doing so. But that is changing and, as Nye said before his death, and as recent international polls indicate, under Trump, America is shedding soft power, which can only help our adversaries and competitors. In undermining America's diplomatic capacity, Trump is also undercutting America's military capacity. America's military and diplomats work as a team, with each complementing the other. As Trump's first secretary of Defense, James Mattis, said when he was the commander of U.S. Central Command, 'If you don't fully fund the State Department, then I need to buy more ammunition.' Diplomats help prevent conflict and, when conflict occurs, diplomats help end it and sustain the peace. Whether in Europe, the Middle East or Asia, the military counts on U.S. diplomacy to help create supportive coalitions. For example, no matter the size of the Defense Department's budget, there can be no successful defense of Taiwan without robust and sustained diplomacy in Asia and beyond before, during and after a conflict. Diplomacy is about getting others to help achieve America's goal for a world that supports U.S. prosperity and security. The Trump administration has a number of international priorities, not one of which can be resolved by the U.S. or its military force alone. If Trump hopes to achieve any lasting, positive international legacy, he needs to end the radical Project 2025-driven attack on America's diplomatic capacity and begin a systematic review of how to structure and use the nation's diplomatic capacity to achieve his international goals. A good first step would be to immediately rescind the mass firing of American diplomats and assess how existing diplomatic programs can be reshaped to serve Trump's goals. If Trump harnesses America's diplomatic capacity to engage with others and shape the global agenda, he may, despite everything, be remembered as a 'peacemaker.'
Yahoo
8 hours ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Pete Hegseth's Secret Deal to Get Trump His Free Qatari Jet Is Leaked
The U.S. has formally received Qatar's 'unconditional donation' of a $400 million 747-8 Boeing jet for the Trump administration to use as Air Force One. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and his Qatari counterpart earlier this month signed a memorandum of understanding which also allows Trump to use the plane once he leaves office, ABC News reported Monday. That document describes the plane as a 'bona fide gift' to the Defense Department, with the U.S. paying nothing for it. 'This donation is made in good faith and in the spirit of cooperation and mutual support between the parties,' it states. 'Nothing in this [memorandum of understanding] is, or shall be interpreted or construed as, an offer, promise, or acceptance of any form of bribery, undue influence, or corrupt practice.' The memo adds that the plane is 'not connected or otherwise related to any governmental decision and, as such, is not made, offered, promised or accepted because of any past, present or future official act or decision and is not intended to obtain or retain any improper advantage or to influence any official decision.' The White House did not immediately respond to an inquiry from the Daily Beast. The Defense Department declined to comment. When the 'gift'–which was previously used by the Qatari royal family–was first announced in May, lawmakers, commentators on the right and left, and Trump's former vice president, Mike Pence, were critical. Some questioned whether the arrangement was really 'free' given Trump's transactional approach to the presidency. The cost of renovations was also a point of concern, given how aviation experts estimated a minimum price tag of $1 billion. The Defense Department recently transferred nearly that much for a classified projected, The New York Times reported Sunday. Air Force officials told the outlet that some of the money would be spent on renovating the aircraft that has been called a 'flying palace.' After Trump leaves office, ownership of the plane will transfer to the Trump presidential library foundation, Hegseth confirmed during a June Senate Appropriations Committee hearing. But that didn't sit well with some lawmakers. 'Why would we ask the American taxpayer to spend upwards of $1 billion on a plane that would then only be used for a handful of months and then transfer directly to the president?' Connecticut Sen. Chris Murphy asked. 'That doesn't sound like a wise use of taxpayer dollars.'
