Pentagon acting Inspector General Steven Stebbins will review Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s use of the Signal app to discuss a Yemen military strike, including whether it violated DoD policies and classification rules. The review, prompted by Senatorial request, also examines other officials’ use of the app for official communication. The investigation follows the inadvertent inclusion of a journalist in a Signal group chat detailing the strike’s timing. Concerns center on the potential compromise of classified information and non-compliance with records retention laws, despite administration claims no such information was shared.
Read More
Phil Hegseth, brother of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, serves as a senior advisor and DHS liaison at the Pentagon, a position raising concerns about potential nepotism. His role includes significant responsibilities, such as accompanying the Secretary on trips, including a recent Indo-Pacific tour, and interacting with high-profile individuals. While interagency liaisons are common, the placement of a cabinet member’s family member in such a senior role is unusual. Questions remain regarding Phil Hegseth’s qualifications and whether his hiring complies with federal nepotism laws.
Read More
Elon Musk was scheduled for a Pentagon briefing, the purpose of which was initially undisclosed but later denied by both Pentagon officials and President Trump as being related to China. The briefing, potentially concerning highly classified war plans against China, would represent a significant expansion of Musk’s advisory role. Despite official denials, concerns remain given the sensitivity of the information and Musk’s extensive business dealings with China. The potential disclosure of such plans could severely compromise US military strategy.
Read More
Following a New York Times report alleging a Pentagon briefing on China war plans for Elon Musk, both the Pentagon and Secretary Hegseth denied the report, clarifying the meeting focused on innovation and efficient production. Despite this, concerns remain regarding potential conflicts of interest given Musk’s extensive business dealings in China and existing contracts with the Pentagon. Former President Trump echoed these concerns, emphasizing the sensitive nature of military strategies and the inappropriateness of sharing such information with a businessman operating in China. The meeting ultimately addressed a broader range of topics, including but not limited to China.
Read More
Following a New York Times report detailing a planned Pentagon briefing with Elon Musk regarding potential U.S. war plans against China, both the Pentagon and President Trump denied the report’s accuracy, calling it “pure propaganda.” Musk himself condemned the leak on X, vowing to prosecute those responsible for disseminating what he deemed maliciously false information. The leak highlighted concerns about Musk’s growing influence in U.S. defense policy given his business dealings with both the U.S. and China. The briefing, had it occurred as reported, would have further emphasized Musk’s expanding influence through SpaceX contracts and political connections.
Read More
Elon Musk’s Friday Pentagon visit, initially reported as a top-secret briefing on China war plans by the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times, was refuted by both Musk and Secretary of Defense Hegseth. Musk denounced the NYT report as “pure propaganda” and threatened legal action against Pentagon leakers. Hegseth clarified the meeting’s focus as innovation and efficiency in production, while President Trump echoed this denial. The conflicting reports highlight Musk’s complex relationship with both the U.S. and Chinese governments, given his business interests and SpaceX’s substantial defense contracts.
Read More
Musk’s access to highly classified US war plans concerning a potential conflict with China is deeply unsettling. The sheer audacity of granting such sensitive information to a private citizen, let alone one with Elon Musk’s controversial history and extensive business ties to China, raises serious national security concerns. This decision completely bypasses standard vetting procedures, raising questions about the integrity of our security processes and the judgment of those involved.
The lack of a proper background check is particularly alarming, given well-documented concerns regarding Musk’s past substance use. This raises significant questions about the competence and potential vulnerabilities within the government’s security apparatus.… Continue reading
The recent removal of a Pentagon webpage celebrating Pfc. Ira Hayes, a Pima Indian and one of the six Marines famously photographed raising the flag at Iwo Jima, has sparked outrage and accusations of a “DEI purge.” This action, seemingly driven by an overly broad interpretation of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives, has erased a significant piece of American history and military heritage.
The webpage, previously dedicated to honoring Hayes’s contributions and sacrifices, highlighted Native American involvement in the military and beyond. Its removal is being interpreted by many as a deliberate attempt to whitewash history, diminishing the contributions of people of color and perpetuating a skewed narrative of American history.… Continue reading
The US Department of Defense webpage honoring Medal of Honor recipient Maj. Gen. Charles Calvin Rogers was temporarily removed and its URL altered to include “DEI,” prompting public outcry. The page’s removal occurred during an automated process, according to the department. Following the controversy, the webpage was restored to its original form, with the added “DEI” removed from the URL. This incident coincided with the Trump administration’s ongoing efforts to roll back diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives within the federal government.
Read More
A federal judge has ruled that the Pentagon selectively used studies to justify its ban on transgender service members. This decision highlights concerns about the methodology and motivations behind the policy. The judge’s finding suggests a deliberate effort to support a predetermined conclusion, rather than a fair and impartial assessment of the evidence. It calls into question the integrity of the process used to formulate the policy and raises serious questions about the fairness and equity of the military’s approach to transgender individuals.
The sheer volume of questionable choices made in supporting this ban is staggering. The selective use of data appears to be a deliberate tactic, cherry-picking information that bolsters a pre-existing bias against transgender individuals while ignoring or downplaying contradictory evidence.… Continue reading
John Q. Hosedrinker 
Matt Underwood