A place were I can write...

My simple blog of pictures of travel, friends, activities and the Universe we live in as we go slowly around the Sun.



October 12, 2026

Why?

DHS agents search Rep. Ilhan Omar's home

The raid came after the president announced in January on Truth Social that the Justice Department was investigating Omar.

By Gregory Svirnovskiy

Agents from the Department of Homeland Security raided the home of Minnesota Rep. Ilhan Omar on Monday morning, the Department of Justice confirmed in a statement, once again thrusting a vocal critic of President Donald Trump under the microscope of federal law enforcement.

“Today in the Washington, D.C. area, Homeland Security Investigations executed a judicially authorized search warrant secured by the Department of Justice,” a Justice Department spokesperson said in response to a question about a search at Omar’s home. “This enforcement action is part of an ongoing federal criminal investigation.”

White House Border Czar Tom Homan, appearing Monday morning on Fox Business, also confirmed a search warrant was executed on Omar’s home.

The raid comes after the president announced in January on Truth Social that the Justice Department was investigating Omar, a naturalized U.S. citizen born in Somalia, who he said “left Somalia with NOTHING, and is now reportedly worth more than 44 Million Dollars.”

“Time will tell all,” the president promised.

Omar is far from the first opponent of Trump to come under legal scrutiny since his return to the White House last year. Federal agents raided the home of John Bolton, Trump’s former national security adviser-turned foreign policy critic, in August 2025. Bolton pleaded guilty to mishandling classified documents in June.

Last September, the president publicly implored then-Attorney General Pam Bondi to move faster on criminal charges against California Sen. Adam Schiff, New York Attorney General Letitia James and former FBI Director James Comey, declaring on Truth Social, “they’re all guilty as hell.”

Trump has also floated investigating 2024 election foe Chris Christie for the “Bridgegate” incident that took place while he was governor of New Jersey.

Stupid.....

Bipartisan group of senators demands Trump kill Russian diesel deal

The senators are questioning the legality of the decision, citing Congress’ 2022 ban on Russian energy imports.

By Jalen Beckford

A bipartisan group of senators is calling on President Donald Trump to “immediately reverse course” on his decision to allow Russian diesel imports, accusing the administration of violating federal law and handing Moscow a financial lifeline as it wages war against Ukraine.

“President Trump’s decision to allow Russian diesel imports to the U.S. runs directly counter to that law,” the senators said in a statement released Sunday, citing Congress’ 2022 ban on Russian energy imports. “The Administration has also failed to consult with Congress or submit any explanation to justify its decision as required by statute.”

The rebuke includes four Republicans — Sens. Susan Collins (Maine), Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), Thom Tillis (N.C.) and John Curtis (Utah) — along with Democratic Sens. Jeanne Shaheen (N.H.), Richard Blumenthal (Conn.) and Ron Wyden (Ore.). Shaheen is the top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Trump announced Friday that Russia would supply hundreds of thousands of tons of diesel fuel “to the American and Global Marketplace” following a discussion with Russian President Vladimir Putin. The Treasury Department subsequently issued a general license allowing Russian diesel imports into the U.S. through April 2027.

The move comes as Trump scrambles to try to bring down fuel prices ahead of the midterms, with the Iran war — now in its seventh month — contributing to the surge in costs. In September, the average price of diesel hit a record $6.53 per gallon, according to AAA.

“The United States should not provide Putin with a financial lifeline while Russia continues to kill Ukrainian civilians,” the senators wrote. “The Administration must immediately reverse course.”

Tillis, a Republican who frequently splits with the Trump administration, had already questioned the deal’s legality Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” pointing to the 2022 law’s conditions for lifting the import ban, including a full Russian withdrawal from Ukraine.

“I do believe there’s a legitimate case for saying the president’s not following the law,” Tillis said. “We were very clear that Russia is the aggressor. Russia is the one who can end this war by backing out of territory they occupied.”

The White House, responding to Tillis’ earlier criticism, pointed POLITICO to a Trump Truth Social post declaring “an ENERGY CEASEFIRE in the War between Russia and Ukraine.” The president provided no details or evidence that Moscow had agreed.

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the senators’ joint statement.

The diesel agreement also overshadowed talks between U.S. and Ukrainian negotiators in Miami on Friday. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy warned that easing sanctions without a lasting de-escalation agreement would signal weakness.

Europe slams Trump

‘This deal doesn’t help’: Europe slams Trump’s plan to buy Russian diesel

“Pressure, pressure, pressure on Russia” is the only way to end the war, Lithuania’s foreign minister said.

By Sebastian Starcevic and Chris Lunday

European governments rebuked U.S. President Donald Trump’s plan to import hundreds of thousands of tons of Russian diesel, and vowed to keep isolating Moscow and supporting Ukraine as it heads into a brutal wartime winter.

Trump said over the weekend he would import 300,000 tons of Russian diesel, weeks ahead of U.S. midterm elections in which the Republicans are polling badly and in which energy prices and cost-of-living concerns are expected to play a major role.

But his announcement — which included a claim that Russia and Ukraine had agreed an “energy ceasefire” and a call for Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to step down — drew skepticism and scorn from European capitals and the EU.

“This deal doesn't help neither the price of oil products nor the unity of the transatlantic community,” Lithuanian Foreign Minister Kęstutis Budrys said at a gathering of the bloc’s foreign ministers on Monday morning, adding “it is not the European way.”

Irish Foreign Minister Helen McEntee called Trump’s announcement of a deal with Moscow “concerning,” while German Minister of State for Europe Gunther Krichbaum said every dollar spent on Russian energy funded the purchase of weapons used against Kyiv.

The EU’s top diplomat, Kaja Kallas, reminded Washington that “Russia has started this war. We should not forget this.”

On Monday, Zelenskyy suggested that Washington had other motives for pursuing an energy agreement with Moscow, arguing that the Russian fuel involved would make little difference to global supplies.

Speaking at the Warsaw Security Forum, Zelenskyy said proposed Russian diesel deliveries were insignificant compared with global monthly consumption of roughly 120 million tons.

"I don't think that this will have a tangible impact," Zelenskyy said. "I believe that there are different rationales behind this decision."

Zelenskyy also suggested Washington should consider an alternative arrangement with Kyiv. "Why doesn't America then conclude a diesel deal with Ukraine?" he asked. "Let's propose a diesel deal with Ukraine."

He also revealed that Kyiv had not been informed beforehand of Trump's announcement that he had secured an energy ceasefire. "No, we did not know about that," Zelenskyy said. "We've learned that from the media as well."

On their way into their meeting, the EU's foreign ministers remained united in their insistence that increasing pressure on Moscow was the only way forward.

“Obviously our position has not changed — pressure on Russia, sanctions, support to Ukraine, Russia’s isolation is the way to peace,” Latvian Foreign Minister Baiba Braže said.

The British Foreign Office’s minister of state Stephen Doughty said London was “not planning to follow suit with” purchasing Russian energy and would ratchet up “economic pressure” on Moscow.

“Pressure, pressure, pressure on Russia,” Lithuania’s Budrys said.

What ceasefire?

Trump’s claim that Ukraine and Russia had agreed to an “energy ceasefire” drew confusion from Kyiv and its allies over the weekend, with Zelenskyy saying the truce and its terms were “news” to him but that he would support it nonetheless — provided Moscow followed suit.

Just hours after Trump’s announcement, however, Russian bombs fell on Ukrainian power plants, causing widespread blackouts.

Kyiv is bracing for its fifth winter since Russia launched its full-scale invasion in February 2022, which Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk said last month could prove “tragically critical” for Ukraine due to Russia’s near-constant strikes on infrastructure.

At the opening session of the Warsaw Security Forum on Monday, Tusk slammed "anyone who is trying to introduce any symmetries, who suggests it is Ukraine responsible for the war," saying doing so "gives a valuable present, gift, to the aggressor, to Putin."

Kallas said any ceasefire shouldn’t “only apply to the refineries, where Ukraine has one and Russia has plenty,” adding that would “definitely [be] in the benefit of the Russians.”

She also called on Washington to join Brussels and London in imposing harsh sanctions on Russia. “Of course the U.S. is our biggest ally,” she said, “but our message is clear: If we want to end this war, the only way we can do this is putting more pressure on Russia.”

Ukraine’s financial needs are set to come up at a meeting of European heads of state and government on Thursday in Brussels. The IMF estimated that Kyiv will face a financing gap of $30 billion to $35 billion next year.

"Ukraine will be front and center at this week's European Council," European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said in a statement Sunday night after a phone call with Zelenskyy, adding the war was entering a "new, grimmer phase."

Judge orders immediate halt

Judge orders immediate halt to taxpayer-funded pro-Trump ads

A U.S. district judge ordered DHS to cancel ads set to run Sunday night — and barred the administration from resuming the campaign.

By Kyle Cheney

A federal judge has ordered the Trump administration to immediately pull a slate of taxpayer-funded pro-Trump ads that have been running on national television for two weeks.

U.S. District Judge Jennifer Rochon issued the restraining order Sunday evening, ordering the Department of Homeland Security to cancel the remainder of the $20 million ad buy — including those slated to run Sunday night — and barring the White House and other Trump administration agencies from resuming the campaign.

“Defendants are enjoined from using, disbursing, or transferring funds appropriated to the Department of Homeland Security to develop, create, disseminate, place, distribute, publish, or air the challenged advertisements,” wrote Rochon, a Biden appointee based in Manhattan.

Her order requires the administration to immediately inform contractor LMD Media, which carried out the ad buy, to abide by the ruling as well.

Rochon’s order came despite a last-minute attempt by the Trump administration to defuse the issue by vowing to end the ad campaign after Sunday. The Department of Homeland Security informed Rochon late Saturday that there were “no plans” to continue the pro-Trump ads, which were funded via the Customs and Border Patrol budget.

In the late Saturday filing, the Justice Department sidestepped questions about the legality of the ads — and whether they run afoul of restrictions on using taxpayer funds for political advantage.

The ads had drawn bipartisan condemnation for their overtly political tenor, mirroring Trump 2024 campaign ads but indicating they were paid for by the federal government. The Democratic National Committee and Common Cause filed separate lawsuits seeking to stop the ads.

On Saturday night, the Trump administration responded to Common Cause’s demand for an immediate halt, saying it was no longer necessary. The filing, which included declarations from a senior CBP budget official and an Office of Management and Budget program associate director shed more light on the timeline behind the ad buy.

According to the CBP official, Holly Mehringer, the agency issued a $20 million purchase order to LMD on Sept. 20 under “a previously awarded blanket agreement.” The funds were drawn from an appropriation facilitated by the Working Families Tax Cut Act, which permitted CBP to fund activities “commemorating efforts and events related to border security.”

About $19 million of the total has been spent on a national ad campaign slated to run through Sunday on Fox, CNN, MSNOW and Newsmax as well as CBS, ABC and ESPN.

Amid backlash over the ad campaign, Trump announced plans to end the taxpayer-funded ad buy and replace it with ads funded by his political committee MAGA Inc. Trump, however, does not intend to reimburse the federal government for the initial $20 million run, officials told POLITICO last week.

Common Cause responded to the Justice Department on Sunday, saying the promise to halt the ads “soon” — without defending their legality — was insufficient.

“Defendants say there is nothing for this Court to do because the Defendants will stop airing the ads soon — presumably by the time Defendants believe the Court can rule on the motion,” the group wrote. “That attempt to run out the clock does not cut against issuing a [restraining order].”

Common Cause also emphasized that the Justice Department ignored Rochon’s request for details about Trump’s and the White House’s role in the ad campaign.

Rochon had scheduled a Tuesday hearing on the matter. But she canceled the hearing Sunday, saying the weekend filings had provided her enough information to rule.

Corruption messaging

Democrats are making corruption messaging a pocketbook issue

Running against corruption is not new. But Democrats have turned the familiar attack into a broader message tied to voters’ economic pain.

By Erin Doherty, Jason Beeferman and Samuel Benson

Democrats may be discovering the political power of calling something rigged.

They’re leaning hard into anti-corruption messaging in the final weeks of the campaign as new research suggests that linking corruption to Americans’ economic struggles can boost Democrats into the home stretch.

Messaging from Democrats that tied corruption to housing, health care and the cost of living increased voter support for Democratic congressional candidates by about 3 percentage points, according to a national survey last month conducted by Blue Rose Research and Democratic-aligned Winning Jobs Narrative Action, which was obtained by POLITICO.

The findings align with a shift in how Democrats are talking about corruption — and help explain why that message has exploded on the campaign trail. From Sen. Jon Ossoff in Georgia to James Talarico in Texas and Abdul El-Sayed in Michigan, Democrats have zeroed in on a common argument: Washington is rigged to benefit the wealthy at the expense of everyday Americans.

“We have a corruption crisis in this country, and it is leading to an affordability crisis,” Iowa Democratic state Rep. Josh Turek said during his Senate debate against Rep. Ashley Hinson last week.

It’s a message that is reverberating across campaigns. In a recent presentation delivered to Democratic groups on Capitol Hill, longtime Democratic strategist Jesse Ferguson offered a succinct playbook: “Corruption is why your costs are high,” according to the presentation viewed by POLITICO.

His presentation also encouraged Democrats to lead with the acknowledgement that costs are high and then go into corruption, acknowledge that it happens across parties and avoid making President Donald Trump the sole focus of their attacks. “Trump works as an example of corruption that raises costs, not as the whole case,” the presentation said.

Since April, Democratic candidates and outside groups in House and Senate races have spent roughly $104 million on advertising mentioning corruption, according to ad tracking firm AdImpact. Republicans, meanwhile, have spent $36 million across House and Senate campaigns over the same period.

“It’s not just like, ‘oh, look at what’s happening with the ballroom,’ or ‘boy, Donald Trump’s made a lot of money on crypto,’” Democratic strategist Chris Meagher said. “You have to be able to tie it to the impact on people’s lives.”

“The narrative works best when it’s an outsider candidate who is linking a rigged economy to a rigged political system,” longtime Democratic pollster Celinda Lake said of the anti-corruption messaging.

Running against corruption is not new. But as Democrats looked for a way out of the political wilderness after 2024, they began turning a familiar attack — anti-corruption — into a broader message tied to voters’ economic pain. What once was an attack largely focused on Trump has become a more expansive argument for candidates trying to connect it to why Americans are struggling financially, potentially providing a blueprint for the party beyond November.

“Democrats used to talk about corruption as a crime. Now corruption is the explanation for costs,” Ferguson, the Democratic strategist, said.

The issue — and messaging around it — is also coming to the fore in a cycle when anger over the suppression of Epstein files hit a fever pitch and public pressure to ban Congress from trading stocks continues to mount.

And it’s not just the research by Blue Rose that shows the potential potency of that message.

In another recent survey from the Democratic group Navigator Research, obtained by POLITICO, the vast majority of Americans — both Democrats and Republicans — say corruption is driving up their costs. That same survey of registered voters, conducted in August, found majorities, including roughly a quarter of Republicans, say Trump is bringing more corruption to Washington than fixing it.

And new results from the nonpartisan Center Square’s Voter Voice Poll, conducted this month by Noble Predictive Insights and shared first with POLITICO, show 10% of voters ranking government corruption as the second most important issue facing Americans, tied with the economy and jobs, and only behind inflation and price increases.

In some instances, Democrats have wrested the word “rigged” away from Trump who has used it in the context of unproven election fraud and turned it into a mobilizing political talking point. That’s a departure from March 2024 when Democrats criticized then Rep. Katie Porter for accusing special interests of spending money to “rig” the California Senate race after she lost in the state’s primary. But now some Democrats are embracing that language as a way to rail against what they see as a corrupt system.

“They’re rigging the rules to benefit their wealthy donors and corporate special interests,” former Ohio Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown said in a message to supporters announcing the launch of his campaign to return to office.

But the corruption resonates across parties. Republicans who spoke with POLITICO said Democrats do not own the issue — voters everywhere are animated by it. While polling shows that voters in both major parties believe the government is corrupt, Republicans accuse Democrats of lacking credibility on the issue.

“Americans have been disgusted by the level of self-serving corruption that spread like herpes through the slimy politicians who run the Democrat Party, and now they’re suddenly changing their tune because it’s an election year,” National Republican Congressional Committee spokesperson Mike Marinella said in a statement. “Voters see through the facade, and they know Republicans are cleaning up the rot left behind by Democrat leaders.”

On the Senate side, National Republican Senatorial Committee spokesperson Bernadette Breslin pointed POLITICO to a poll in Minnesota — a rare offensive opportunity for Senate Republicans this cycle — that shows there are just about as many voters who blame Democratic Gov. Tim Walz for widespread fraud of federally-funded government programs in the state as there are who blame the criminals. Walz’s lieutenant governor, Peggy Flanagan, is running for Senate against Republican Michele Tafoya, and corruption under Democratic rule is a key theme for Republicans in the race.

“The overwhelming majority of Minnesotans blame the Walz-Flanagan administration — and the criminals it aided and abetted — for plundering their hard-earned taxpayer dollars,” Breslin said. “They’ll vote for Michele Tafoya to right the ship this November.”

Steve Pierce, executive director at Winning Jobs Narrative Action, said one of the biggest shifts for Democrats this cycle on corruption has been a move away from a message largely rooted in concerns over democratic norms, which have struggled to break through in a way that moves voters in past cycles.

“You’ve seen Democrats, rather than connecting corruption to democracy, connecting it to affordability, connecting it to the top concern that voters have,” said Pierce. “It’s connecting it in a way that’s meaningful to voters around the things that they are thinking about every day.”

The anti-corruption message has played out across the country, and as an explanation for frustration against different economic pain points, including rising electric bills and local data center projects.

A recent memo on data centers from House Majority PAC, the main super PAC working to elect House Democrats, noted the “message environment in the 2026 election cycle has been dominated by costs, with an important secondary theme around corruption that began to emerge last year.” The group’s spokesperson, CJ Warnke, told POLITICO that “every single poll and every single focus group shows affordability to be voters’ number one issue, and they specifically point to corrupt politicians as being responsible for driving up prices.”

Next month’s midterms will offer the clearest test yet of whether Democrats can turn this message into votes. But Democratic operatives increasingly see anti-corruption messaging as more than just a short-term political weapon — as long as they try to do something about it if they win control next year.

“I think the thing for Democrats, if they do want to keep it on the radar heading into 2028, and I think they should because I think it is a really potent issue for them, they are going to have to also deliver on it,” said Pierce.

“They have to be able to show up to get caught trying,” he said.

Moving military forces

Trump’s NATO envoy calls for moving military forces east as US reviews troops in Europe

Matthew Whitaker called for an overhaul of NATO’s bases and military infrastructure to move forces eastward as America reviews its troop presence in Europe.

By Chris Lunday

NATO must modernize its military infrastructure to move forces and equipment from Western to Eastern Europe “where we would expect any future conflict,” U.S. Ambassador to NATO Matthew Whitaker said Monday.

Speaking on a panel at the Warsaw Security Forum, Whitaker’s comments came as Washington reviews its military presence on the continent — with the ambassador saying that Europe ranks fourth among Washington’s strategic priorities, behind homeland security, the Western Hemisphere and the Pacific.

He pointed to outdated military bases, fuel supply chains and agreements governing the stationing of American troops in Europe as areas requiring attention under the ongoing U.S. force posture and basing review.

He emphasized the importance of military mobility and “moving things from the west to the east,” citing discussions with EU Defense Commissioner Andrius Kubilius. European officials warn that Russia could be ready to attack a NATO country by the end of the decade.

Whitaker did not announce any decisions to relocate or withdraw American forces. He nevertheless made clear that Washington is reassessing its global commitments to avoid spreading its military resources too thin.

“Superpowers and great global powers have mostly had challenges when they get overextended,” Whitaker said, adding that U.S. President Donald Trump wants allies to become “capable and not dependent.”

“The United States isn’t stepping back. We’re just asking you to step forward,” he said.

Whitaker also criticized countries that are falling short of their defense-spending commitments.

He said he had recently delivered a “very strong message” to political leaders in Czechia. The country’s defense spending for this year is approximately 1.8% of GDP, falling short of NATO’s current 2% benchmark.

European governments must continue strengthening their armed forces, he argued, warning that the continent still lacks many of the capabilities it needs to defend itself.

Kubilius, meanwhile, stressed the need to reduce Europe’s military dependence on Washington, highlighting EU efforts to develop its own drone defenses, satellite communications and surveillance capabilities.

Polish presidential adviser Marcin Przydacz, also on the panel, urged Western European allies to accelerate defense spending while emphasizing that NATO, rather than the EU, must remain responsible for Europe’s collective defense.

Not super intelligent....

Trump says anyone who does not refer to AI as ‘super intelligence’ is ‘THE ENEMY

The threat comes a week after Trump signed an executive order renaming AI to “super intelligence.”

By Ashley Ahn

President Donald Trump said Thursday that the White House will consider anyone who does not adopt his preferred term of “super intelligence” as “the enemy,” escalating his campaign to rebrand artificial intelligence amid calls to erect more guardrails.

“The White House considers anyone that uses the term, ‘Artificial Intelligence,’ as opposed to the highly accepted new and more accurate term, ‘Super Intelligence,’ THE ENEMY!” Trump said on Truth Social.

The renaming of AI to “super intelligence” is part of a rebranding effort by the president to cast a more positive light on the rapidly developing technology. The technology has encountered intense scrutiny by lawmakers and experts about whether it has the appropriate guardrails to address safety and security concerns, particularly as instances of rogue agents accessing government websites have cropped up in different parts of the world.

Trump has largely brushed off calls to rein in AI development, meeting with billionaire executives at the White House to vouch for the rapidly developing technology as an overall positive for the world, as well as necessary for economic growth and national security.

He has argued that “super intelligence” is a better portrayal of the technology’s capabilities and has gotten some of the industry’s executives to use the term.

The White House has also updated its website on AI, removing all mentions of AI and replacing them with SI, short for “super intelligence.” (Though the website’s domain remains ai.gov.) It has also replaced a description of its “AI Action Plan” on the homepage with a reference to Trump’s executive order renaming AI to “super intelligence.”

Elon Musk — the tech titan who’s had a hot-and-cold relationship with the president — said Sunday on X that he will rename his AI company, SpaceXAI, to SpaceXSI. Trump on Thursday also presented Musk and Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang with National Medals of Science, the government’s highest award for achievement in science and engineering.

Trump has sought to rebrand several things throughout his presidency, including calling the Gulf of Mexico the Gulf of America and Lake Ontario as Lake America. His administration sought to block the Associated Press from parts of the White House for not adopting his preferred name for the southern gulf.

It is a "Fuck you"

Europeans back Zelenskyy after Trump calls for new Ukrainian leader

Several European countries reiterated their support for Ukraine’s president following a spat between Washington and Kyiv.

By Clea Caulcutt

The United Kingdom, Germany and Poland have reaffirmed their support for Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy after U.S. President Donald Trump said the country needed a new leader.

Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk wrote on X that he was “absolutely convinced” nobody could break Ukraine and its president in their “fight against Russian aggression.”

“I have assured [Zelenskyy] that he can count on Poland’s and Europe’s full solidarity with the Ukrainian nation,” he added.

German Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul also reaffirmed his country’s support for Zelenskyy Sunday, while calling for greater pressure on Moscow to return to peace talks.

“We need continued consistency and clarity on the side of Ukraine,” he told Reuters at a meeting of the governing Christian Democrats.

The show of support comes after Zelenskyy and Trump traded barbs Saturday following Washington’s decision to ease diesel sanctions on Russia. “I think it’s time for Ukraine to get a new president,” Trump told reporters at the White House as he criticized Ukrainian strikes on Russian oil facilities.

On Sunday, the Ukrainian president stated on social media that his country would be prepared to stop attacking Russian oil refineries “if Russia stops striking our energy infrastructure.”

The U.K. also reiterated its support for Kyiv following Trump’s remarks. “We stand with Ukraine. We stand with President Zelenskyy,” British Defense Secretary Wes Streeting told the BBC Sunday morning, adding that Ukrainians alone should decide who leads their country.

Streeting said Russian President Vladimir Putin started the war and could end it, and added that Britain’s priority would be to seek reconciliation between Kyiv and Washington.

On Saturday, British Prime Minister Andy Burnham spoke with Zelenskyy and reiterated Britain’s “complete solidarity,” Downing Street said. Burnham acknowledged that “the last 24 hours had been difficult for Ukraine” and pledged to strengthen sanctions, according to the statement.

October 09, 2026

Wanted to modernize the military

Dan Driscoll wanted to modernize the military. Hegseth forced him out

Story by Kevin Maurer

IT WAS JUST BEFORE 2 a.m. on Jan. 3, 2026.

Low-flying helicopters carrying Delta Force operators skimmed the Caribbean headed for the South American coast. The mission: Capture Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro from his compound in Caracas.

As the helicopters approached the Venezuelan capital, American cyberattacks blinded local radar systems around Caracas, and plunged the city of more than 3 million people into sudden darkness. Overhead, Navy and Air Force fighters bombed air defenses and key military command facilities.

At the compound, Delta Force operators slipped down ropes and breached the door with explosives. Under fire, the assault team rushed through the complex, killing more than 30 Cuban guards before capturing both Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores. In less than 30 minutes, the Delta operators delivered Maduro to the waiting helicopters, which returned to the USS Iwo Jima in international waters without a single American fatality.

"If you look at the Venezuela raid, it is incredible what occurred there," former Army Secretary Dan Driscoll tells me with justifiable pride in his first interview since resigning in August. "In human history, there are very few militaries that could have pulled that off."

Unfortunately, the Venezuela raid also provided the wrong lessons for the Trump administration. Smooth, low-cost victories are hardly ever the norm for any military operation. Since that high point, the Pentagon has been stressed by the war with Iran. The Islamic Republic's use of inexpensive drones to smash American bases in the Middle East has depleted the nation's arsenal of interceptors. Rising fuel prices have compounded the costs. There are reports of low morale within the ranks, and the open-ended nature of the conflict has made the war extremely unpopular at home.

Driscoll foretold most of this before resigning. Special-operations-style strikes - which fit into the Pentagon's framework mastered in Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan - Driscoll warns, are not the path to victory on modern battlefields dominated by cheap drones and AI.

"That kind of massive force and violence is a very different exercise than doing something exquisite," Driscoll says. "It doesn't mean you don't need a soldier who's tough, who's fit, who's capable of, in their scariest moment of their life, maintaining their cool and continuing to push forward to the objective and keep their colleagues safe. You need all of that, too, but that is not sufficient anymore."

Even in the face of the failures in the Iran war, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, a former Fox News host who deployed twice to combat in Iraq and Afghanistan, is instead obsessed with the military's window dressing. Physical fitness, grooming standards, and mandatory annual testosterone-deficiency screening instead of investing in leaders and technology suited for the evolving kind of battlefield that a former senior Ukrainian commander dubbed a "zone of continuous death."

"We're not going to talk about modernization or transformation or experimentation?" a former Army official who worked with both Driscoll and Hegseth says about the Pentagon's priorities. "We're going to talk about standards and fitness. Nobody disagrees that's important, but tell our guys on the ground when we don't have anything to intercept the next Shahed [Iranian drone] coming at them that we're going to launch some standards up at [it]. You know what I mean?"

"When you're an American soldier, you go to work every day, and step back like 20 or 30 years with tech."

In 2025, Driscoll came in as an innovator looking to rejigger the military. From the start, his doctrine of rapid innovation and real-time procurement aimed to build an Army for the 21st century by focusing on emerging technology, streamlining duties, and refining the budget to invest in weapons and programs that could handle a fight like the one in Ukraine. But the disconnect between Hegseth's juvenile fantasies and Driscoll's futuristic visions led to many of the generals leading the Army's modernization effort being replaced. The ousters prompted a showdown in the Oval Office in late August, when Driscoll informed the president that he had reached what he considered an untenable situation at the Pentagon and felt he needed to resign, according to news reports and a former Pentagon official briefed on the meeting. When the president asked why he was resigning, Driscoll explained that he had intended to modernize and transform the Army and that Hegseth had fired everyone working toward that goal.

I met Driscoll in September over Zoom. Only a few days after leaving his post, he was at a conference and set up in a cabin. Driscoll is earnest and affable with a bright smile and easygoing demeanor. He gets excited the more he talks about his modernization efforts and partnership with Gen. Randy George, the former chief of staff of the Army, but as we unpacked his tenure atop the Army, he showed keen political sense when pressed on his private conversations with his former boss or the Trump administration.

But what is clear is he saw what needed to be done. And it cost him his job.

‘The Amazon for War'

It was the Army's 250th Birthday Parade, a daylong event along Constitution Avenue commemorating the founding of the Continental Army on June 14, 1775. Roughly 6,600 active-duty soldiers came to Washington in June 2025 to march, beginning with colonial reenactors, progressing through the World War II and Vietnam eras, and culminating in modern hardware and robotics.

Together for much of the festivities, Driscoll and George watched the parade from the grandstand. "All that stuff rolling across the parade looks a lot like it did back in the Nineties," George recalls telling Driscoll.

Driscoll, who also remembers the conversation, says he had another revelation.

"When you're an American soldier, you would get to work every day, and you basically step back like 20 or 30 years with tech," Driscoll tells me. "President Trump came into his second term with a military that had been very poorl­y prepared for modern war."

"The way to fix the brokenness of the system is to allow market forces in," Driscoll says.

Like Hegseth, Driscoll was a combat veteran of the global war on terror who left the Army as a junior officer and moved into politics. He grew up outside of Boone, North Carolina, and earned a business degree from UNC-Chapel Hill in 2007. Driscoll was commissioned as an Armor officer that same year, and went on to lead a Cavalry Scout platoon in the 10th Mountain Division, deploying to Baghdad in 2009. He earned an Army Commendation Medal, a Ranger tab, and a Combat Action Badge, and left active duty as a first lieutenant in 2011.

From there, he went to Yale Law School - with Vice President JD Vance - graduating in 2014, then spent the next decade in investment banking and private equity. He launched an unsuccessful campaign for North Carolina's 11th Congressional District seat before joining Trump's 2024 presidential campaign as one of Vance's senior advisers. Following Trump's election, he was appointed, and the Senate confirmed him as the 26th secretary of the Army on Feb. 25, 2025 - the youngest person ever to hold the job.

"I was surprised at how talented the generals who were in positions of leadership were when I got there," Driscoll tells me when I ask him what he expected after being confirmed.

His first big effort was empowering the Army Transformation Initiative, or ATI, a modernization plan started by George focused on stripping away administrative bloat, investing in emerging technology, and purging outdated equipment. One of Driscoll's first wins was allowing soldiers to fix their own gear instead of relying on defense contractors. It earned him rare bipartisan support from Sen. Elizabeth Warren.

"All that I had to do was basically come in and say this is worth the headache," Driscoll says. "What are the things that we need to start to buy, and what are the things that we need to start to scale?"

That question became Driscoll's North Star as he worked to fix a slow procurement system. By the time the Army got equipment, it was outdated or no longer needed, Driscoll tells me. A good example was Humvees, the workhorse utility truck. The Army figured it needed about 50,000 for the whole force, but they had more than double because Congress kept funding production lines past official military requests.

"You basically have a system that optimizes the things that don't actually have anything to do with soldier lethality," Driscoll tells me. "And instead you have entrenched players providing subpar technology and equipment."

"People don't sign up to do spreadsheets. They sign up to go do soldier things." 

The fix, as he describes it, was letting market forces decide what gets bought. The Army assembled experts and invited representatives from all 350 local, state, and federal law-enforcement agencies the Army works with to describe their problems firsthand, then aggregated them into a single marketplace in August 2025. It was in effect an "Amazon for war," as Driscoll calls it.

"I desperately believe that the quickest way to fix a lot of the brokenness of the system is to allow classic capitalistic market forces in, where if you have a private business, you are forced to compete for each and every dollar from your customer, each and every day the business exists," Driscoll says. "And so what that does is that healthy competition makes the products better. In this instance, the customer is the American soldier who has to go fight for our nation, and the cost of inadequacy could be their lives."

Under Driscoll, the Army created a single marketplace for counter-drone systems. Think sensors, jammers, interceptors. Driscoll had plans to expand the marketplace to tents, boots, electronics - the unglamorous gear that used to take years to buy through legacy contracting. Driscoll also focused on scale. He championed opening the counter-drone marketplace to international allies - including the U.K., Australia, Poland, and South Korea.

ATI also focused on getting soldiers back to soldiering. Line companies and battalions spend only 13 percent of their time on training. The remaining 87 percent goes to what one defense official called "dumb admin." Under Driscoll, the Army built tools to handle the tasks of dull paperwork.

"People don't sign up to do spreadsheets," David Fitzgerald, a former undersecretary of the Army who spearheaded modernization efforts under Driscoll, tells me. "They sign up to go do soldier things."

From the start, Driscoll says, Trump and Hegseth backed his plans, giving him cover as he cut $48 billion over a five-year period from the budget. They never forced him to sacrifice the "warfighter" for a program because of politics.

"Not a single time," Driscoll tells me.

BUT CARING FOR the warfighter also meant preparing them for the new kind of war Driscoll witnessed in Ukraine.

The Eastern Flank Deterrence Initiative (EFDI) - nicknamed "the Global Killing Machine" by Army officers - started taking shape in December 2024, the month Gen. Christopher Donahue took command of NATO's Allied Land Command. It gained momentum after Driscoll became Army secretary. EFDI integrates drones and interceptors, Patriot batteries, and satellite intelligence into a single AI-enabled network. The goal was to replicate it across NATO, the Pacific, and eventually the whole U.S. military. By 2026, it had moved from concept to being part of major multinational exercises in Germany, where the best Ukrainian drone pilots trained with and against American and NATO soldiers.

Pete Hegseth wanted an Instagram-ready Army instead of a modern one.

Witnessing Ukraine adapt while the U.S. lumbered was painful. "In some ways, it was humiliating seeing how quickly a nation could change when it needed to," Driscoll says. "When you would see what Ukraine's budget was and how small it was relative to ours and how, despite that, they had better weapons of war, it was a wake-up call."

Ukraine's advances in cheap, mass-produced drones were changing the modern battlefield. After 20 years of fighting insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan, American soldiers were unprepared for drone swarms and electronic tracking. In May 2025, Driscoll created the Unmanned Assault Battalion - a "drones first" experimental unit made up of 600 soldiers. Based in Italy, the battalion ran its own drone labs, tested electronic-warfare tactics, and worked with Ukrainian advisers.

All of these efforts put the Army at the forefront of modernization, Fitzgerald tells me. At the Army level, Driscoll, George, and Donahue drove the innovation. All three men with combat experience recognized how war had changed, and forged a key and unique partnership inside the Pentagon.

With the Army's transition underway, George was set to retire in the summer of 2027. Driscoll wanted Donahue to take over when George stepped down in order to keep momentum and scale his EFDI vision to the whole force.

But Hegseth had other plans.

The Purge

Hegseth's stated goal was to restore the "warrior culture" to the Defense Department and refocus the Pentagon on lethality, meritocracy, and readiness. Under that mandate, Driscoll's tenure should have meshed. But from the very start, the two were at odds.

While Driscoll and his team went to work streamlining administrative overhead and modernizing the force to be more lethal, Hegseth's platform focused on physical-readiness standards, traditional discipline, and high-profile media engagements.

Hegseth wanted an Instagram-ready Army instead of a modern one.

An Army officer who served in the Pentagon and spoke under anonymity out of fear of retaliation traces the friction to the defense secretary's own confirmation. Hegseth barely squeaked through the Senate in 2025, in part over concerns about excessive drinking and a sexual-assault allegation. Nowhere on his résumé as a TV host and junior officer did he show the aptitude to lead an organization as vast as the Defense Department. Driscoll, by contrast, sailed through his hearing on Feb. 25 with no protest.

Soon after his confirmation, Driscoll went to Hegseth with what he thought was a gift: his friendship with the vice president and an offer to use his connections to help the Pentagon. But Hegseth blew up at him, according to two sources briefed on the incident, telling Driscoll that he needed to go through his office before reaching out to the White House, creating a tension between the two men.

"All the guys who had guts and were willing to speak the truth about what we needed to do, they got rid of."

In response to a detailed list of questions, Sean Parnell, the Pentagon's chief spokesperson, calls Rolling Stone "fake news" and claims this story is "riddled with made-up claims" about Hegseth's leadership. "Since day one, Secretary Hegseth has focused on modernization across every branch of our armed forces," says Parnell, who is Hegseth's pick to replace Driscoll. "Secretary Hegseth has been a generational secretary for the Pentagon."

From day one, though, multiple sources say, Hegseth has been more show than substance. He "produces" his day-to-day inside the Pentagon like a TV show, the Army officer who worked at the Pentagon under Driscoll and Hegseth tells me. His press conferences are timed to when the president is likely watching television, and he's created a social media operation - first reported by The Bulwark - built to manufacture the appearance of organic support for his policies and push back on his many scandals.

Since taking office, Hegseth has fired or blocked the promotions of roughly 10 percent of the military's top-ranking officers, with at least 20 senior military and civilian officials forced out, including the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, the chief of naval operations, the Army and Air Force chiefs of staff, the judge advocates general of both the Army and Air Force, the head of Southern Command, the NSA director, the Defense Intelligence Agency chief, and both the Army and Navy secretaries, according to reports by The New York Times, CBS News, and NBC News. Black and female officers have been removed from promotion lists at a disproportionate rate, according to news reports. The U.S. military currently has no active four-star women.

"All the guys who had guts and were willing to speak the truth about where we needed to go and what we needed to do, they got rid of, right?" a former senior Army officer tells me. "Because they want people that are compliant and loyal, not people who think. They're culture warriors. They care about culture. And it's only their culture, which is compliance and loyalty above your duty."

The Army was the last service Hegseth purged. Gen. Jim Mingus was forced into retirement in February. Then, in April, Hegseth called George and told him he was out.

George remembers his own firing the way people remember car accidents, mostly about how fast it happened.

"I was right down the hall," George tells me. "It was a 15-second call."

When I ask him why it happened, George says he still doesn't know. "I wasn't his guy," George tells me. "I don't really know - I was never really given a reason."

Hegseth's decision to force George into early retirement created a public rift. During an April Defense Appropriations subcommittee hearing, Driscoll praised George as an "amazing, transformative leader" and told lawmakers that he loved him, and even went to his home when he found out about the resignation to support him. Then, in June 2026, Donahue was forced into retirement. Another future-focused leader with combat experience sent packing.

"I think [Driscoll] sacrificed any potential he had [for] a good working relationship with Pete to try to protect those guys," the former Army official says, "because it was the right thing to do for the Army."

I ask Driscoll about the forced retirements and his relationship with Hegseth.

"Once he makes a decision, there's nothing I can do about it," Driscoll tells me. "I don't have to like it. But I think it's unfair to describe our relationship so flatly - that every interaction was bad, or that we disagreed on everything. If you polled us, we probably agreed on more than 50 percent of things. What's been reported is all the things we disagree on."

Forced into retirement in June, Donahue held a final ceremony in August at Fort Bragg, inside the Delta Force compound. Driscoll was there. So was George, and by multiple accounts, the mood ran somewhere between a wake and a quiet act of defiance, including attendees referring to Hegseth as "No Tab Pete" because he failed to earn his Ranger qualification during his time in the Army. (The derogatory nickname among service members and Pentagon insiders was made public by The Daily Beast.) Lost on no one present was the fact that Hegseth has none of the qualifications of the commanders he spent the year removing from their posts.

After Fort Bragg, Driscoll went directly to the White House, where he resigned. He wouldn't talk about the exact reasons he left, nor would he disclose what he said to Trump or Hegseth.

"I'll never talk about our private conversations," he tells me, "but we were both very passionate about our positions, and I would advocate as strongly as I possibly could - knowing I'm talking to my boss, and the final decision-maker."

The White House declined to comment on the meeting, but provided Rolling Stone with a statement praising Driscoll for "advancing President Trump's agenda to Make America Strong Again," and for "providing outstanding leadership during historic military operations."

White House spokesperson Anna Kelly adds that "President Trump has full confidence in Secretary Hegseth and the entire Department of War."

Underneath the insecurity and personal friction with Driscoll is Hegseth's mistrust of any general who had served under the previous administration's leadership - Gen. Mark Milley, in particular, the senior Army officer said. George had worked for Lloyd Austin. To Hegseth, that lineage was disqualifying.

"You're a one-trick pony, you kind of bang the DEI drum, and it makes good headlines," the former Army official says. "But the problem is, you're in an active-shooting war, and there's got to be a little more depth to it."

I asked the senior Army officer whether Hegseth's hostility toward men like Donahue, a former Delta Force commander; George, a Ranger-qualified infantry officer who commanded troops in Iraq and Afghanistan; and Driscoll, who'd earned his Ranger tab, unlike Hegseth, was really about insecurity.

"I think it's a combination of insecurity and fear," the senior Army official tells me.

Hegseth has never addressed George's firing or Donahue's forced retirement publicly. Pressed for comment, the Pentagon said that general officers serve at the discretion of civilian leadership. But it's one thing to fire an officer for a battlefield failure. It's another to fire the Army's best warfighters, offer no explanation beyond a stated wish to build a "warfighting culture," and expect the men and women serving under them not to notice the contradiction.

I put the contradiction to Driscoll. Hegseth argues the system doesn't produce forward-thinking leaders anymore, doesn't build tough warriors - but George exists. Donahue exists. It doesn't track that the system is so broken it requires firing the very men who prove it works.

"I viewed my role as to advocate as hard as I could for leaders who I thought were good," Driscoll tells me. "My job was to push as hard as I possibly could for people and then accept the results when it didn't go the way that I thought it should. And that's OK. That's the system functioning as it was designed."

Driscoll later adds that if he were tasked with solving the hardest problem in the world, he would get American soldiers to help. "The system creates our best leaders. Our responsibility is just to get out of their way," he says.

After Driscoll's departure, the U.S. Army announced plans to roll back many of his initiatives. Acting Chief of Staff Gen. Christopher LaNeve ordered the Unmanned Assault Battalion to return to being a standard airborne infantry unit.

But the former senior Army officer who worked on the program tells me that, before his retirement, Donahue advocated not only for preserving the unit, but also expanding it to other brigade combat teams.

When I asked the former senior Army officer to explain the decision, he couldn't.

"Nobody can, and neither can they," he tells me. "And nobody believes them when they say it."

Speaking to hundreds of U.S. troops at Marine Corps Base Quantico in September, Hegseth unveiled six new initiatives, including the creation of a headquarters for autonomous and drone warfare that would overhaul the Pentagon's strategy and seems to mirror Driscoll's plans. Hegseth also doubled down on his culture-war rhetoric, declaring that "fatties, t--s, beardos, weirdos, wimps, [and] radicals" are not welcome in the U.S. Armed Forces.

For his part, Driscoll is doing his best to be a politician, and is careful when pressed on this pivot away from his vision. Army secretaries are temporary is his explanation.

"I was a custodian of the seat for 18 months," he says. "The average secretary of the Army serves about 27. In the 251-year history of the Army, you are but a speck."

Nevertheless, that speck was trying to drag the Army into the future. A future where Hegseth's focus on the culture war, instead of the modern battlefield, leaves the nation vulnerable.

"We will never really know until the next war," the Army officer who worked at the Pentagon warns, "but it's going to be measured in American lives - in our sons and daughters coming home in body bags."

Needs to go

Second Maine Senate debate takes testy turn: 3 takeaways

Story by Julia Mueller

Republican Sen. Susan Collins and Democrat Troy Jackson squared off Thursday in the second Maine Senate debate of the week, sparring over the Iran war and high prices as their battleground race barrels toward Election Day. 

The hourlong debate, hosted by WMTW, turned testy at times as the rivals defended their records and re-upped many of their night-one talking points about abortion, immigration and the economy. Collins stressed that she’s often at odds with her party, while Jackson highlighted her alignment with President Trump. 

The stakes were high for both candidates to avoid on-stage gaffes and snag strong clips that could move the needle of the close race. Decision Desk HQ’s polling averages show Jackson, who became the party’s pick after their initial nominee withdrew this summer, leading the five-term incumbent by just over a point in the blue-leaning Pine Tree State. 

Here are three takeaways from the latest debate, with two more showdowns scheduled later this month:

Senate hopefuls battle over Iran war: ‘You owe me an apology’

The rivals clashed over remarks on the Iran war and its economic impacts on Mainers struggling under high prices. 

As the candidates debated how to address record-high heating oil prices, moderator Jon Chrisos pressed Collins over her Senate votes on Trump’s military moves in Iran. 

She stressed that she has “voted nine times to end this war” under the War Powers Act. A live fact-check from PolitiFact, though, called her claim “selective counting,” pointing to five times Collins voted against such resolutions. 

“She could use her leverage to stop this war. But instead, they're making money,”  Jackson argued during the debate. “I mean, Senator Collins and her husband [are] making money, more, off of this war, and so is a whole bunch of other people, and that's why this doesn't, doesn't stop.” 

Collins hit back sharply. 

“That is absolutely outrageous, and you owe me an apology,” the senator said. 

“No, you owe me an apology,” Jackson replied. 

Jackson did not offer specific evidence for his claim that Collins was profiting from the war.

PolitiFact noted that the senator’s husband, Thomas Daffron, owns stock in Boeing and RTX, both defense contractors for the U.S. Military, according to reporting from The Maine Independent. A spokesperson told the outlet last month that Collins has “never bought, sold or owned” any individual stock shares as senator, and that her husband’s investments “are made exclusively by a third-party advisor without his consultation.” 

Jackson pointed to the war — which is deeply unpopular among midterm voters — at multiple points in the night, stressing that “we have to get out of Iran” to bring down fuel prices, and raising concerns that “people will freeze to death this winter because they can't afford to heat their home.”

Collins, though, cast doubt on the Iran war as the main driver of high electric rates in Maine, casting blame on moves from the state Legislature, where Jackson served as Senate president. 

“It's just not accurate to say that it's the Iran war that has caused Maine to have the fourth highest electric bills in the country. If it were the Iran War, why wouldn't New Hampshire and other states have the same level of electric bills that Maine has?” Collins asked. 

Collins defends seeking sixth term

Thirty years ago, Collins pledged she would only serve for two terms if elected to the Senate. Now, she’s going for a sixth six-year term. 

“What I learned is how much more effective I could be as the seventh ranked person in the Senate versus 99th, which is what I was when I first started out,” Collins said, when asked on the debate stage about what changed her mind.

Touting some of her more recent legislative achievements, including becoming the first Maine senator to chair the powerful Appropriations Committee, she said “I couldn’t have done this in the early years in the Senate.” 

Collins was reelected in 2014 by nearly 40 points, but won her 2020 bid by a comparatively slim 9 points. She’s now considered one of the most vulnerable senators in the 2026 cycle. 

But Jackson also faced questions about what was behind his bid. After running unsuccessfully for governor this cycle, the Democrat was named as his party’s replacement nominee after Graham Platner, a progressive oyster farmer who won the initial primary, withdrew amid sexual misconduct allegations. 

“Why should voters see this as your own campaign and not something that you inherited?” Chrisos asked. 

“Well, it isn't my own campaign. I mean, it's the people across Maine,” Jackson replied. “This is not about Troy Jackson. It's not about Graham Platner. What it is about is Donald Trump and Susan Collins and the band that are making life so much harder in the state.”

Collins, Jackson respond to controversial reports

Both candidates responded to recent reports that have raised questions about both candidates’ financial moves in the run-up to Election Day. 

Collins denied recent reporting that accused her of receiving illegal campaign contributions, calling the claims “absolutely false.” 

ProPublica reported in September that, after a former CEO of defense contractor Navatak made a 2019 donation to a Collins super PAC, Collins used her position on the Appropriations Committee to award military contracts to the company. 

Martin Kao pleaded guilty in 2022 to making illegal campaign contributions. The FBI at the time found nothing implicating Collins or her campaign — but Chrisos questioned what Collins would say to voters who think the report raises questions about her campaign financing. 

“Well, they don't, and these allegations are absolutely false, and they've been proven false. But Troy and Chuck Schumer keep running false ads to try to convince you otherwise,” Collins said. 

She said that the University of Maine had come to her with a proposal for research with Navatek, and that Kao is “in jail today, where he belongs.” 

Jackson, too, responded to new reporting about donations to a PAC he was involved in during his service in the Maine Legislature. 

The Washington Post reported that, up until two years ago, the Democrat used a PAC that accepted funds from tobacco, pharmaceutical and other big companies and affiliated PACs — though he openly rejects corporate PAC money in the Senate race.

Asked what he’d say to voters who think his role in the PAC raises questions, Jackson said that the PAC “is a group of people.”

“I didn’t make decisions on who or what, when we were going to take money,” he said.