SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
pentagon
'Disgusting': Hegseth Gloats Over Illegal US Assault on Iranian Infrastructure
Pentagon Secretary Pete Hegseth posted a photo of a surveillance tower at an Iranian port collapsing due to US airstrikes.
Jul 17, 2026
US Pentagon Secretary Pete Hegseth late Thursday gloatingly posted a photo of an Iranian tower collapsing due to the Trump administration's massive, illegal assault on the Middle East country's infrastructure, including bridges, railways, and power facilities.
The photo Hegseth posted to social media appeared to show the surveillance tower at Iran’s Chabahar Port enveloped in smoke and crumbling to the ground amid US forces' aggressive bombing campaign. Ryan Costello, policy director at the National Iranian American Council (NIAC), called Hegseth's post "disgusting online revelry in the bombardment of Iran and its infrastructure."
The Associated Press reported that US strikes on bridges and other infrastructure in southern Iran overnight into Friday killed at least eight people.
"The highway and railway bridge strikes appeared aimed at cutting off Bandar Abbas, Iran’s main port, from roads leading into the Islamic Republic’s central region onward to Tehran, the capital," AP noted.
US strikes, authorized by President Donald Trump, also targeted Iranian power infrastructure amid extreme heat.
The latest wave of US attacks came days after Trump threatened to "knock out all of [Iran's] power plants" and bridges "unless they get to the table and negotiate."
Deliberately attacking civilian infrastructure is a war crime. Kenneth Roth, former executive director of Human Rights Watch, said Friday that while "there may be some nominal military use of the bridges," the US attacks "potentially disrupt the movement of goods needed for Iran’s 90 million people."
"Trump doesn't care, but military commanders, who could face prosecution, should," Roth added.
https://t.co/jZlSVRePRC pic.twitter.com/Nj5o0oiphH
— Pete Hegseth (@PeteHegseth) July 17, 2026
NIAC said Friday that "the distinction between military and civilian infrastructure has become increasingly blurred," as "bridges, ports, airports, railways, power networks, and communications facilities sustain civilian life and economic activity, even if they at times are used for military purposes."
"Their destruction produces civilian casualties, isolates communities, interrupts emergency services, restricts food and fuel distribution, and leaves civilians without electricity during extreme summer heat," the group added. "As the campaign expands, the humanitarian consequences are therefore likely to grow even if Washington continues to classify the targets as militarily relevant."
On Thursday, NIAC released a report detailing the "civilian catastrophe" inflicted by the US-Israeli war on Iran, which began in late February. Estimates indicate that the civilian death toll from the war on Iran could be over 2,000—including hundreds of children, a majority of them killed in a US strike on an elementary school in Minab on the first day of the war.
Additionally, millions of Iranians have been displaced by the US-Israeli bombardment and more than 125,000 "civilian units"—including residential housing—have been damaged or destroyed," NIAC observed in its report.
"The evidence compiled in this report, independently corroborated across UN agencies, human rights organizations, and satellite analysis, points to a pattern of harm to civilians, homes, schools, and medical infrastructure that warrants urgent international attention," NIAC said.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'End This Illegal War': Senate Dems Set to Block Trump Military Budget Over Renewed Iran Assault
"Simply throwing more money at an out-of-control military operation is not strategy," said Sen. Tammy Duckworth.
Jul 14, 2026
Senate Democrats appeared set to block President Donald Trump and the Republican Party's sprawling, $1.15 trillion annual military policy bill in a procedural vote scheduled for Tuesday after the White House formally notified lawmakers of an extension of its illegal Iran war.
Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said she would oppose advancing the 2027 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) unless lawmakers agree to attach her amendment prohibiting any of the bill's funds from going toward the war on Iran. Duckworth said in a statement that "simply throwing more money at an out-of-control military operation is not strategy. It’s a recipe for a forever war."
“The Senate cannot authorize $1.14 trillion in defense spending—the largest defense budget ever proposed in our nation’s history—for Donald Trump to continue his illegal and disastrous war that Americans do not want," Duckworth added. "The stakes couldn’t be higher, and I cannot support a defense authorization bill that doesn’t include my amendment to end this illegal war."
The procedural vote on the NDAA is scheduled for 2:40 pm ET, and it needs 60 votes to advance—requiring the support of some Senate Democrats.
Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), who spearheaded earlier efforts to halt Trump's Iran war using the War Powers Act, told reporters on Monday that "it’ll probably be hard to get there this week," referring to the 60-vote threshold needed to advance the NDAA. Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), who is seen as a critical swing vote, said Monday that she's "undecided" on the legislation.
Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) said he would vote no, calling the NDAA "essentially an Iran war authorization bill."
"A totally unprecedented 50% increase in spending to fund the war without any meaningful restraints," Murphy wrote on social media.
Just Foreign Policy, an anti-war advocacy organization, said Monday that no senator who has supported legislative efforts to end the Iran war should back additional funding for the military as long as the illegal conflict continues.
"The ceasefire has collapsed, US bombs are falling on Iran again, and oil prices are climbing... all after Americans were told this war was over," the group wrote in a new petition urging lawmakers to "defend the Constitution, stop the Iran war, and vote NO on the NDAA."
"Congress has additional leverage to force compliance: the power of the purse," the petition continued. "If members block the NDAA... and reject any Iran war supplemental—Trump cannot ignore them."
In addition to the $1.15 trillion NDAA, the Trump administration is pushing for at least $67 billion in supplemental Pentagon funding to "address urgent needs related to" the Iran war, which is now in its fourth month despite the president's insistence in late March that it would be over "within two to three weeks."
Late last week, Trump formally notified Congress of new "strikes against targets within Iran," insisting the attacks were "consistent with" the War Powers Act.
Critics accused the president, who has never sought congressional authorization for the war, of cynically trying to restart the 1973 law's 60-day clock after declaring the ceasefire with Iran "over." The War Powers Act requires "automatic termination of the use of US forces engaged in hostilities 60 days after the president has reported (or was required to report) on the use of force."
"Any assertion by the Trump administration that he gets 60 more days to act without Congress has no foundation in law," said Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), who on Monday unveiled a new war powers resolution aimed at ending the president's assault on Iran.
"By forcing a new vote to end this war, we make it clear that Congress insists on the removal of troops from the region barring an authorization of force accompanied by a truly viable strategy—both of which have been lacking," Schiff added.
Keep ReadingShow Less
‘Of the Pentagon, by the Congress, and for the War Profiteers’: Ad Blasts Trump Military Budget
“The $1.5 trillion Pentagon budget request represents more than $9,000 per individual taxpayer."
Jul 13, 2026
As the Republican-controlled US Congress advances President Donald Trump's requested $1.5 trillion budget for "rebuilding" a military that's already more powerful than any armed force in human history, a group of former national security officials is urging Americans to challenge "out of control" Pentagon spending.
On Monday, the Eisenhower Media Network published a full-page advertisement in USA Today written by EMN executive director and retired Maj. Gen. Dennis Laich decrying what he called a military budget "of the Pentagon, by the Congress, and for the War Profiteers."
Invoking Thomas Paine's 1776 essay "Common Sense" and former Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower's repeated warnings about the dangers of the then-burgeoning military-industrial complex, the ad asserts that "time and reason strongly suggest that the US 'defense' budget is out of control, unsustainable, and absent of accountability."
"Only the American people can rein it in," Laich argued.
The advertisement notes that the US military budget is already "larger than the next eight nations (most of whom are allies) in the world combined, while American citizens lack healthcare, childcare, and other basic needs."
The ad continues:
The defense industry’s lobbyists team up with US politicians, who receive campaign financing from the industry, to draft the annual National Defense Authorization Act, which sets military policy, the expensive weaponry to be purchased, and the overall military budget. The industry takes the ensuing windfall and puts it toward stock buybacks, which increase the share price, making the rich richer; dividend payments for shareholders; eight-figure annual compensation packages for corporate executives; and the continual political graft (campaign contributions and lobbyists) that keeps the wheel spinning. Incredibly, some contracts stipulate that only the contractor may repair and maintain equipment. The most embarrassing example of this practice is the F-35 stealth fighter, which is grossly over budget, behind schedule, and is only 25% fully mission capable.
"Money talks in America, but few members of Congress choose to talk about the $39 trillion national debt to which military spending is a major contributor," Laich wrote.
"Additionally, the Pentagon cannot tell the American taxpayer where the money went, since it is unable to pass a financial audit as required by law—something every other department of the federal government is able to do," the ad notes. "Now, they are requesting a 50% increase in the defense budget to $1.5 trillion. This is equivalent to your child asking for more money a day after receiving his/her allowance. When you ask what happened to the money he/she received yesterday, the child can’t answer the question, but yougive him/her more money regardless."
Laich accused "uniformed bureaucrats" of lacking "the courage to stand up against a draft dodger and a Rambo-wannabe," an apparent swipe at Trump and, perhaps, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.
Meanwhile, despite having the best-funded and most powerful military on paper, the ad points out that since World War II, "the US has won one war (the first Gulf War), lost four (Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Iran), and tied one (Korea). Iran may be as much an embarrassment as a loss. The United States has failed to achieve its stated objectives in any recent war."
The ad asks, "What football coach could keep his job with a 1-4-1 record?"
"The $1.5 trillion Pentagon budget request represents more than $9,000 per individual taxpayer," EMN said. "If we Americans are tired of seeing our tax dollars spent on endless wars, bombing campaigns, and military excess while our own communities struggle with the costs of healthcare, childcare, education, and infrastructure, then the time has come to do what Thomas Paine asked Americans to do 250 years ago: challenge the assumptions that have become accepted simply because they are old."
"The courage required today is not to defeat an empire abroad, but to confront one at home—the military-industrial-congressional complex—and reclaim a government that serves the American people rather than the interests of perpetual war," the ad concludes.
EMN's advertisement follows an ad released by Hegseth in May touting Trump's $1.5 trillion proposal, which would add nearly $7 trillion to the US national debt over the next decade, according to the nonpartisan watchdog group Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.
A survey conducted in May by ReThink Media and the Costs of War Project at Brown University's Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs revealed that nearly 60% of Americans believe the proposed Pentagon budget is too large, including 40% who say $1.5 trillion is “much too high” to spend on the military.
Last month, US Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) introduced the Slash the Pentagon Act, which would set a hard cap of $750 billion on the amount Congress could authorize for national defense spending in fiscal year 2027.
"As Americans struggle to pay for healthcare, rent, electricity, groceries, and gas... Trump has spent over $100 billion on his expensive, dangerous, and unnecessary war with Iran," Markey said at a Capitol Hill press conference introducing the legislation. “We should invest in our hospitals, schools, affordable housing, and the real security American families need right now—not expensive wars and weapons that make us less safe.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Pentagon Official Admits Musk AI Tool Grok Was Used to Help Fire '2,000 Munitions' at Iran
The Defense Department's chief AI officer said the US military used a Grok model to help "deploy over 2,000 munitions to 2,000 distinct targets" in Iran "within 96 hours."
Jun 17, 2026
A Pentagon official revealed in a court filing earlier this week that the US military used a version of trillionaire Elon Musk's artificial intelligence tool, Grok, to help carry out attacks on Iran.
Cameron Stanley, the Pentagon's chief digital and AI officer, wrote in a sworn statement to a federal court in Mississippi that the US military "relies on derivatives of [Musk-run xAI's] commercial offerings known as the Grok Gov Model." The model, which is used within the Pentagon's Maven Smart System, "enabled US forces to deploy over 2,000 munitions to 2,000 distinct targets within 96 hours during Operation Epic Fury," the Trump administration's name for the illegal war the president launched against Iran in late February.
Stanley's statement came as part of a lawsuit that the NAACP brought against xAI earlier year, accusing Musk's company of illegally operating dozens of polluting gas turbines for its Colossus 2 data center, which powers Grok.
Defending xAI, Stanley claimed in his statement that if Grok "cannot be deployed, refined, and upgraded" across the Pentagon "due to either limitations in energy supply or limited reserve compute capability, such as those requested by plaintiffs in this matter, the many tools deployed by military and civilian personnel alike which rely on Grok Gov Models would be severely impacted."
The Defense Department acknowledged shortly after launching its assault on Iran that the US military was "leveraging a variety of advanced AI tools" to help "sift through vast amounts of data in seconds so our leaders can cut through the noise and make smarter decisions faster than the enemy can react."
In a March 12 letter to Pentagon Secretary Pete Hegseth, a group of more than 120 House Democrats demanded details on "the role of artificial intelligence... in selecting targets, assessing intelligence, and making legal determinations during Operation Epic Fury."
The lawmakers specifically asked whether AI tools were used to identify an Iranian elementary school as a target. On the first day of the Iran war, the US military bombed a girls' school in southern Iran, killing more than 150 people—mostly young children.
Stanley's statement did not identify any of the "2,000 distinct targets" he said were attacked with the help of the Grok Gov Model.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Social Security Trust Fund and Trump's Outrageous Pentagon Budget
The proposed increase in military spending by Republicans dwarfs the shortfall projected in the Social Security program for 2034. It would be nice if the media would point this out.
Jun 12, 2026
The release of the 2026 Social Security Trustees Report got the usual suspects (a.k.a. “very serious people”) genuflecting about the large projected shortfall. As of 2034, the program is projected to be unable to pay full benefits. This would mean a 22 percent cut in benefits if no additional revenue is added.
There are three points worth making here.
- As an economic matter, the projected depletion of the trust fund and resulting shortfall in the program means nothing;
- The main reason for the projected shortfall is the upward redistribution of income over the last half-century;
- The projected shortfall is far less money than the increase in military spending that Donald Trump is requesting for his 2027 budget.
Trust Fund Accounting
On the first point, the spending to repay the bonds held from the trust fund in 2033 comes from the Treasury. Its impact on the economy would be the same as the spending in 2034, when the trust fund no longer holds any bonds.
There is an issue that the law gives the program a claim to the funds needed to repay the bonds it holds. Social Security does not have a claim to the money needed to pay full benefits once the last bonds are sold and the trust fund is depleted.
This is an important legal point, but from an economic standpoint, it is money from the Treasury in both cases. If the country could afford to pay full benefits in 2033 when the trust fund held bonds. It can afford to pay full benefits after it has sold all its bonds, however the law would need to be changed.
Upward Redistribution Hurt Social Security’s Finances
In 1982, the last time the program had a major overhaul, just 10 percent of wage income went to high wage earners whose income escaped taxation by being over the cap (currently around $185,000) for wages subject to the 12.4 percent Social Security tax. In the last quarter century, close to 17 percent of wage income went over the cap.
This upward redistribution of wage income, coupled with the redistribution from wages to profits in the last quarter century, has substantially reduced the amount of revenue going into the trust fund. It shouldn’t be surprising that the people who engineered the upward redistribution of the last half-century — through trade policy, stronger patent and copyright protections, bank bailouts, and tech policy — now want to reduce people’s Social Security benefits.
Donald Trump’s Increase in Military Spending is Twice the Size of the Shortfall Projected for 2034
The media seem to take pride in reporting huge budget numbers without providing any context that would make them meaningful to their audience. The projected Social Security shortfall is a great example. The usual group of budget hawks is being brought out to tell us that it is a huge program, which we can’t afford, and requires cuts.
Yet, we did not hear the same chorus in response to Donald Trump’s proposed increase in the military budget from $864 billion in the last year of the Biden presidency to $1,500 billion in 2027. Even adjusting for inflation between the two years, the increase would still be close to $590 billion. There was no rationale given for why the country suddenly needs to spend so much more on its military. Trump certainly did not propose this sort of massive increase in spending in his campaign.
The proposed increase in military spending dwarfs the shortfall projected in the Social Security program for 2034.
Adjusting for inflation (assuming 2.5 percent annually), Trump’s requested increase would be just under $700 billion in 2034 dollars. By contrast, the Social Security Trustees project that the program will face a $314 billion shortfall in its annual budget in 2034.
We can argue about what should be considered big and what should be considered small, but there is zero doubt that Trump’s proposed increase in military spending is hugely larger than the projected shortfall in Social Security. If anyone thinks that Social Security poses a big problem for the budget, they must believe that Trump’s military spending poses a much bigger problem, since it is more than twice as large.
And, as noted earlier, we are already paying the money for Social Security; it is just coming out of a different pocket. The proposed increase in military spending, at 1.6 percent of GDP, will be newly committed funds coming from the Treasury, which will impose substantial demands on the economy. Any honest person who says funding Social Security poses a serious budget problem must believe that Trump’s military spending poses a far bigger problem.
Keep ReadingShow Less
In 'Troubling Escalation' Against Free Press, Pentagon Bans Reporters From Public Affairs Office
"Banning journalists from the press office in the Pentagon, where they worked professionally in previous administrations, is simply a sign that current DOD leadership fears accountability," said one reporter.
Jun 02, 2026
The Trump administration's "asinine attempts to silence objective journalism just hit a new low," said one press freedom advocate late Monday after the Pentagon announced that the US Department of Defense would mark its press office as a classified area, banning journalists from the space where they've previously talked openly with DOD officials.
Reporters on the military are currently largely banned from the building altogether as litigation is ongoing over the administration's requirement that journalists have an escort to move about the Pentagon, but the new policy means that should they be able to return, they would be even more limited in their access to public affairs officers whose job it is to keep the press and public informed.
"For multiple administrations, Pentagon reporters have used the press office to meet with public affairs officers and have open conversations about what America's armed services are doing in order to keep the public informed," said Ben Grazda, an advocacy manager for Reporters Without Borders North America.
Calling Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth "petulant" and pointing to his unsuccessful demand that journalists sign "loyalty pledges," Grazda added that "journalists will continue their tenacious reporting and hold the Pentagon accountable for the money, operations, and lives they impact every day."
The Washington Post reported that Pentagon speechwriters will be moved into the public affairs office, which will be equipped with the Secret Internet Protocol Router Network, or SIPRNet, which is used to transmit classified information.
“This is the most transparent war department in history. No amount of spin from the Fake News media will change that. The Pentagon Press Office has been redesignated as a Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility due to speechwriters from the Office of the Secretary of War sharing the facility," said Jose Valdez, the acting Defense Department press secretary, on social media on Monday, referring to Hegseth by the title he prefers.
Despite Valdez's claims, journalists referred to the decision as "Orwellian" and noted that Hegseth is further curtailing press access to the Pentagon as the US is mediating talks to end the war the US and Israel started against Iran in February.
The policy was also announced as The New York Times reported that Hegseth had blocked the promotions of nine Navy officers who had been selected by senior Navy admirals, appearing to "violate the rules governing a promotion system that is supposed to be apolitical and merit-based."
"Banning journalists from the press office in the Pentagon, where they worked professionally in previous administrations, is simply a sign that current DOD leadership fears accountability," said Times reporter Trip Gabriel.
The decision to close the press office to members of the press comes eight months after hundreds of journalists walked out of the Pentagon in protest of a new policy barring them from seeking information that the Trump administration had not authorized for release.
That policy was struck down by a federal court earlier this year, but the government has appealed the ruling.
The National Press Club called the Pentagon's newest policy "a remarkable and troubling escalation in the Defense Department’s ongoing effort to restrict independent reporting."
"This move does not occur in isolation," said Mark Schoeff Jr., a reporter at CQ Roll Call and president of the organization. "It follows a troubling pattern of escalating restrictions on Pentagon coverage, including efforts to limit journalists to pre-approved information, revoke credentials for routine reporting practices, and physically remove reporters from long-standing workspaces and access without an escort."
"Calling a press workspace ‘classified’ does not make the government more transparent," said Schoeff. "It creates yet another obstacle between journalists and the information Americans have a right to know, especially at a moment when the public needs clear, unfiltered information about the US military."
"Independent reporting on the US military is not optional," he added. "When journalists are pushed farther from the institutions they cover, the American people are left with less information, less transparency, and less oversight. Any effort to restrict that access should alarm everyone who values a free and informed society."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'The Call Came From the White House': Trump Aide Secured $620 Million Pentagon Loan for Firm Tied to Don Jr.
The president's eldest son had taken a stake in the rare-earth magnet firm three months before the loan was announced.
May 28, 2026
Three months after Donald Trump Jr.'s venture capital firm took a stake in a small North Carolina rare-earth magnet firm, a Pentagon department tasked with boosting rare-earth manufacturing for national defense purposes expedited a request for a loan worth hundreds of millions of dollars to the company—a transaction that one government ethics expert said at the time gave the appearance of "conflicts of interest."
On Thursday, new details of how the $620 million loan was secured were reported by ProPublica—and only added to concerns that the money was given to Vulcan Elements last year to benefit its new investor, President Donald Trump's eldest son.
According to ProPublica, although Trump Jr., the Pentagon, and Vulcan Elements said Trump Jr. was not involved in the loan deal and the company did not benefit from political favoritism, his close friend—White House trade and manufacturing counselor Peter Navarro—personally made the call to the Pentagon's Office of Strategic Capital last fall, asking them to quickly approve the loan.
The message to staffers in the office at the time was: "The call came from the White House: We have to get this done," one Pentagon employee told ProPublica.
Vetting of companies that the department is considering for funding usually takes months, but the staff "worked late nights and with little sleep to get the loan through in a matter of weeks," the investigative outlet reported.
The $620 million loan dramatically increased Vulcan's valuation, which was estimated to be about $200 million around the time that 1789 Capital, Trump Jr.'s venture capital firm, invested.
Three months after the company took a stake, Vulcan was valued at an estimated $2 billion.
"While your family pays higher prices, companies connected to the Trump family get giant government contracts," said Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) in response to the new reporting. "Congress must investigate: Is this corruption at the highest level? We need answers NOW."
ProPublica also reported that a week before the Vulcan loan was made public, Trump Jr. had Navarro as a guest on his streaming show, "Triggered with Don Jr.," and urged his nearly 2 million subscribers to purchase Navarro's book.
The outlet noted that Trump and his family have been accused of corruption and self-dealing numerous times; a drone parts manufacturer that Trump Jr. owns a stake in is also being considered for a Pentagon loan, and the family has added billions of dollars to their fortunes through World Liberty Financial, a cryptocurrency firm founded by the president's two eldest sons.
"The Vulcan loan represents the first time the awarding of a contract from a federal agency has been directly linked to White House intervention," reported ProPublica.
A Pentagon spokesperson maintained in a statement to the outlet that "no company receives preferential treatment" and that "outside affiliations, investors, or political connections play absolutely no role in the department’s funding decisions.”
But progressive advocate Melanie D'Arrigo said the numerous financial benefits enjoyed by Trump's family during his presidency are not the result of "coincidence."
"It's all corruption," she said.
Democratic lawmakers earlier this year pushed to subpoena Trump Jr., seeking answers about how the company he was tied to secured its funding, but Republicans in the US House blocked the effort.
“If there is nothing to hide,” said Rep. Maxine Dexter (D-Ore.) in March, “then why won’t Donald Trump Jr. explain to this committee why, just months after becoming a partner, his firm’s financial stake grew substantially following the single largest loan ever issued by the Pentagon’s Office of Strategic Capital? This is the oligarchy on full display."
Keep ReadingShow Less
The Desperate, Toxic, and Pathetic Crusade of Pete Hegseth
While Hegseth’s rhetoric on the post-9/11 wars often reflects mainstream Republican talking points, his zeal indicated something deeper.
May 25, 2026
Earlier this year, President Donald Trump surveyed his top military brass on the prospect of making war in Iran. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Dan Caine urged caution, presciently predicting that a ramped-up campaign against Iran could lead its leaders to close the Strait of Hormuz. However, Pete Hegseth, Trump’s self-styled “Secretary of War,” jumped at the prospect of such a conflict.
“Pete, I think you were the first one to speak up,” Trump recently recalled at a press event. “And you said, ‘Let’s do it, because you can’t let them have a nuclear weapon.’”
Americans join the military for any number of reasons: to serve their country, gain economic stability, or simply join a community. For Hegseth, a thirst for martial victory and a desire for a masculine metamorphosis seemed to surpass all else.
Much to Hegseth’s chagrin, however, his career as an Army officer corresponded to a series of distinctly failed military campaigns. After graduating from Princeton in 2003, he deployed to two doomed military locales—Afghanistan and Iraq—and then relentlessly defended the Pentagon’s occupation of parts of those places in essays, speeches, and, ultimately, as a weekend host on Fox News. While Hegseth’s rhetoric on those wars long reflected mainstream Republican talking points—papering over chaos and death in the Middle East and beyond with pledges that stable democracies were close at hand—his zeal indicated something deeper: a desperation, it seemed, to wring some sort of personal validation from his time in uniform.
“The rank and file, and even some of the officers, have accepted the gravity of the war’s failures,” Adam Weinstein, a Marine Corps veteran and deputy director for Middle East policy at the Quincy Institute, a nonpartisan think tank focused on peace and diplomacy, told me, speaking of Iraq and Afghanistan. “There’s a deep sense of sacrifice and loss for nothing. And that can lead to fatalistic beliefs, it can lead to Islamophobia. In its healthier form, it can lead to questioning the principles of interventionism and the U.S. foreign policy establishment.”
Hegseth, for his part, chose to totally avoid any personal or geopolitical reckoning. Once the Global War on Terror became politically untenable to defend, he cast about for excuses that wouldn’t implicate his own career in the military. Rather than zero in on tactical or intelligence failures, his rhetoric took a dark turn, increasingly inflected by Islamophobia, misogyny, and a distinctly toxic version of masculinity.
As his profile rose, Hegseth argued ever more forcefully that the Pentagon was weak-willed, insufficiently lethal, and overrun by incompetent and cowardly leaders, many of them women or minorities who (in his eyes) had been unfairly promoted. His proposed remedy was as blunt and dense as his diagnosis: America simply needed to fight harder in the Middle East until the mission was accomplished and “Islamic extremism” was eliminated. As one of his former co-workers told me, “I never got the feeling that he wanted to abandon the Middle East.”
I asked Weinstein if, during his own 2012 deployment to Afghanistan, he saw Islamophobia bubbling below the surface. “It was right on the surface,” he responded. “But what do you think the World War II generation was saying about the Japanese? Dehumanization is a natural outgrowth of war.”
“If You Want Something, You Go After It”
As a boy growing up in Minnesota, Hegseth appeared to be a perfect version of the American male. He was religious, athletic, well-spoken, and remarkably handsome. He was ashamed, however, of his self-perceived softness. “I didn’t get in fights as a kid and shied from confrontation because, frankly, I was scared of it,” he wrote in his 2016 book In the Arena, Good Citizens, a Great Republic, and How One Speech Can Reinvigorate America . In it, he went on to hail his father, Brian, for his “integrity” and “Scandinavian work ethic,” before evincing thinly veiled resentment for not having been reared effectively in the masculine art of aggression. “My father was—and is—an incredible man,” he reflected, “but confrontation isn’t necessarily his forte.”
Military service, Hegseth figured, would imbue him with some much needed and previously missing manliness. It was also his best path to class mobility and prestige. When it came time for college, he applied to West Point, America’s most prestigious service academy, and Princeton, where he was gunning for a ROTC scholarship. He got into both schools and chose the latter, touching down on its verdant New Jersey campus in 1999.
In deciding on Princeton, Hegseth launched himself on a path eerily paralleling that of another Minnesota native of a previous era, novelist F. Scott Fitzgerald. Both of them were working-class lads who attended Princeton, where they bristled at the elitism while craving its validation. Both developed a writing voice on campus and then joined the Army. Both also struggled with the bottle and with women, though Fitzgerald, unlike Hegseth, was somewhat reflective about his vices. He initially called his first novel The Romantic Egotist (later, This Side of Paradise). It followed a handsome, middle-class Princeton man whose greed and social ambition inhibited his ability to find true love. Hegseth himself expressed a similar ambition in a 2015 interview: “If you want something, you go after it—you’re willing to sleep a little less, put up with more, put up with a little insanity and do things you don’t want to do.”
In a widely read 1927 essay on his alma mater, Fitzgerald asserted that Princeton men “resent any attempt at analysis.” Hegseth also did his best to make such analysis impossible. At Princeton, he was deemed a man with “many faces,” loudly endorsing the Iraq war and attacking feminist groups on campus (even if, in quieter moments, he showed a capacity for nuance and kindness).
One of his former professors has pointed out that Hegseth’s current persona and his Princeton one “don’t fit.” Part of the disconnect stems from the fact that his puffed-up, bellicose military posturing in the Trump era doesn’t match either his Ivy League education or his actual service record. Hegseth came away from the war in Iraq with a Bronze Star that, it’s worth noting, was issued “without valor.” (It was, in short, a lesser version of the medal that, according to the Washington Post, was “issued somewhat liberally” during the War on Terror years. Some enlisted personnel joked that such a decoration was little more than a “participation trophy” for needy officers.)
Hegseth’s award citation was indeed dry and formulaic, chock-full of the soaring platitudes then used by the White House to sell the American public on the disastrous war in Iraq. It asserted (in what was, historically speaking, a fantasy) that he had “contributed immeasurably to the success of building a free and democratic nation for the citizens of Iraq.”
In reality, the supposed heroes of Hegseth’s war were generally not pedigreed Army National Guard officers like him, but door-busting, ass-kicking Green Berets and Navy SEALs. This was largely thanks to movies like American Sniper and Zero Dark Thirty that lionized their contributions.
After returning home, Hegseth made inroads with such operators via his advocacy work at a series of astro-turf veterans groups, including the “Concerned Veterans of America” (backed by the billionaire Koch brothers), which advocates for the privatization of the Veterans Administration. As part of his duties, he embarked on a 10-city “Defend Freedom” tour in 2014. Such events featured Madison Rising, billed as “America’s most patriotic rock band,” as well as speeches from decorated military heroes and family members.
On that tour, Hegseth connected with Karen Vaughn, a Gold Star mother whose son, Aaron, a SEAL Team Six member, had been killed in Afghanistan. Vaughn told me that she supports Hegseth mostly because he listens to those who have experienced conflict up close. “His friends are the people who fought these wars,” she said. “They are not the people who sat around white linen tablecloths with glasses of wine discussing them.”
Vaughn later introduced Hegseth to Eddie Gallagher, a SEAL who ignited a simmering debate over the military’s rules of engagement when he was accused of killing civilians and fatally stabbing a wounded captive. Hegseth used the case of Gallagher and two others accused of grisly war crimes against civilians in an attempt to move the Overton window on what should be deemed acceptable rules of wartime engagement. “These are men who went into the most dangerous places on earth with a job to defend us and made tough calls on a moment’s notice,” he brashly asserted. “They’re not war criminals, they’re warriors.” Ultimately, President Trump agreed with him and reversed Gallagher’s demotion after he was acquitted of the most serious charges, while pardoning other troops who had been convicted of war crimes.
It was through this work that Hegseth earned serious credibility among that badass class of warfighters and ultimately came to embody the essential Trumpian soldier archetype of this moment: White, male, and god-fearing.
The Jerusalem Cross Secretary of War
According to 2019 Department of Defense data, approximately 70% of active-duty service members were Christian (and that undoubtedly hasn’t changed in the era of Donald Trump). It’s the people who look, talk, and pray like Hegseth who also seem most receptive to opposing women serving in combat roles and in favor of Islamophobic war rhetoric. “If we’re going to send our boys to fight—and it should be boys,” he wrote in his memoirs, “we need to unleash them to win. [America needs] them to be the most ruthless.”
But the United States had already sent too many boys into harm’s way in disastrous wars and its citizens were becoming exhausted by conflict. By 2013, as Hegseth’s star was rising, 53% of polled Americans already saw the Iraq war as a mistake. That same year, Hegseth first ventured to Jerusalem, where, in a piece penned for the National Review, he hailed “Israel’s sense of purpose.” Unlike other nations, Hegseth observed, Israel maintained “an ever-present understanding that the fragile peace they enjoy and their nation itself are preserved only through intentional, purposeful, and courageous action.”
Here was a nation that could satisfy Hegseth’s unquenched thirst for military dominance in the Arab world. And unlike the United States, which sought technocratic rationales for war, Israel had the advantage of framing everything in biblical terms. “I find myself envious,” Hegseth concluded, “of the gravity and substance of the Israelis’ task.”
He repeatedly visited Israel in the years that followed, something that helped rejuvenate his faith in both God and war. In Israel, Hegseth consulted with conservative political figures and soldiers of the Israeli Defense Forces; visited military bunkers on that country’s northern border; and toured Hebron, a Palestinian city in the West Bank that Israel has targeted with attacks and settlements. He also produced a series of on-the-ground, pro-Israel documentaries for Fox News’s streaming service, including “Battle in the Holy Land,” “Battle in Bethlehem,” and “Life of Jesus.” While filming one of those projects, he first spotted a Jerusalem Cross, a symbol once used by the medieval crusaders, and had it tattooed on his chest “to show that my religion is front and center in my life.”
Hegseth’s skin would come to perfectly illustrate his signature version of hyper-aggressive Christian masculinity. His collage of body ink today includes an American flag, an assault rifle, and the words “Deus Vult” or “God wills it”—a motto from the Crusades that has been adopted by White supremacists and was seen at the deadly 2017 march in Charlottesville, Virginia. Hegseth also inked the word “kafir,” meaning “infidel” or “non-believer,” on his right bicep.
By 2016, he had come to see Israel’s success as inexorably bound to that of the United States. That January, when President Barack Obama ratified a historic nuclear deal with Iran, Hegseth saw a cowardly capitulation to a country that, he argued then, “would wipe both Israel and America off the map if it could.” During a visit to Israel that year, he pledged to an audience that the United States was forever prepared to “lock arms and shields with all of you in defense of freedom and western civilization.”
It’s this history, as much as anything, that helps explain America’s current war with Iran. In Secretary of War Hegseth, America now has a man with a bone-deep desire for national revenge, one largely animated by his poorly disguised sense of embarrassment at, and personal emasculation over, the utter failures of the wars he fought in.
These are, of course, profoundly flimsy, deeply egotistical excuses for sending American troops into harm’s way yet again. Not surprisingly, then, there have even been a series of public rejections and defections by former Trump administration figures frustrated by the conflict with Iran. The most notable of these is Joe Kent, a former counterterrorism official in the Trump administration who resigned his post, citing “no imminent threat to our nation” from that country. Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and CIA Director John Ratcliffe have also tacitly acknowledged that the war in Iran was not launched by an actual threat index.
As Hegseth has made clear in his words and deeds, the latest American war is largely animated by emotional factors, plus (as reporting has shown) intense pressure from Israel. Now being in charge of the Pentagon, and with a renewed opportunity to pummel the Middle East, he has dropped all institutional pretense to compassion or caution. “We are punching them while they’re down,” he recently told reporters, “which is exactly how it should be.” In practice, this has meant a brutal bombing campaign in conjunction with Israel that targeted, among many other things, a girl’s primary school and oil tankers in the Strait of Hormuz, acts that respectively killed children and polluted the region. Hegseth also pledged not to offer quarter to enemy combatants in violation of international law.
He certainly hopes that faith and masculine posturing alone can secure success. Absent tangible intelligence, he has taken a page out of Israel’s book by injecting religiosity across the ranks, recently promising on CBS News that “the providence of our almighty God is there protecting those troops, and we’re committed to this mission.” Asked directly if he views this conflict as a religious one, Hegseth said, “Obviously, we’re fighting religious fanatics who seek a nuclear capability in order for some religious Armageddon.”
To bolster such an atmosphere, he has hosted Pentagon prayer services involving fiery Christian nationalist pastors and a Grammy-award-winning religious singer. His department’s promotional videos have displayed Bible verses alongside military footage. Watchdogs further claimed that U.S. commanders have counseled troops that the war is fulling biblical prophecies around Armageddon. Hegseth’s fusion of strength, religion, and violence was encapsulated in a poster allegedly displayed at a U.S. military installation in recent days. It featured Jesus Christ firing a mortar round.
Hegseth’s 2024 book, The War on Warriors, further sketches out his theory for reinvigorating the military’s masculine ethos, often through half-assed aphorisms that could fit on a Ford F-350 bumper. Sprinkled in are mythical tales, most of which have Hegseth or another aggrieved White guy at their center. The military has become so warped and woke, he writes, that it has diluted standards to allow women in combat while simultaneously kicking out “good soldiers for having naked women tattooed on their arms.” In Hegseth’s eyes, of course, women should only be on the front lines if they’re naked and in ink.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Cries 'Virtual Treason' as US News Outlets Detail Iran War Intel Assessments
New reporting on classified US intelligence findings undercuts the Trump administration's repeated claims that it has obliterated Iran militarily.
May 13, 2026
US President Donald Trump on Tuesday accused news outlets of committing "virtual treason" by reporting on classified American intelligence agency assessments showing that Iran has retained significant missile capabilities, contradicting triumphant White House claims that the Middle East country's forces have been utterly decimated.
The New York Times reported Tuesday that the Trump administration's "public portrayal of a shattered Iranian military is sharply at odds with what US intelligence agencies are telling policymakers behind closed doors, according to classified assessments from early this month that show Iran has regained access to most of its missile sites, launchers, and underground facilities."
"Most alarming to some senior officials is evidence that Iran has restored operational access to 30 of the 33 missile sites it maintains along the Strait of Hormuz, which could threaten American warships and oil tankers transiting the narrow waterway," the newspaper added.
The Times reporting came on the heels of a Washington Post story last week detailing "a confidential CIA analysis delivered to administration policymakers" concluding that Iran "can survive the US naval blockade for at least three to four months before facing more severe economic hardship."
The Post also reported that the US intelligence community "found that Tehran retains significant ballistic missile capabilities despite weeks of intense US and Israeli bombardment."
"Iran retains about 75% of its prewar inventories of mobile launchers and about 70% of its prewar stockpiles of missiles," according to the Post, which cited an unnamed US official. "The official said there is evidence that the regime has been able to recover and reopen almost all of its underground storage facilities, repair some damaged missiles, and even assemble some new missiles that were nearly complete when the war began."
In a Truth Social post late Tuesday afternoon, Trump—who has claimed that Iran has "nothing left in a military sense"—fumed that "when the Fake News says that the Iranian enemy is doing well, Militarily, against us, it’s virtual TREASON in that it is such a false, and even preposterous, statement."
"They are aiding and abetting the enemy!" the president continued, declaring that Iran has "no Navy, their Air Force is gone, all Technology is gone, their 'leaders' are no longer with us, and the Country is an Economic Disaster."
On top of intelligence assessments showing that Iran has maintained substantial military capabilities in the face of the US-Israeli onslaught, reports indicate that Iran has inflicted more damage on American military bases and other equipment than the Trump administration has publicly disclosed.
"American military bases and other equipment in the Persian Gulf region suffered extensive damage from Iranian strikes that is far worse than publicly acknowledged and is expected to cost billions of dollars to repair," NBC News reported late last month, citing three unnamed US officials, two congressional aides, and another person familiar with the damage.
A recent Washington Post analysis of satellite imagery found that "Iranian airstrikes have damaged or destroyed at least 228 structures or pieces of equipment at US military sites across the Middle East since the war began, hitting hangars, barracks, fuel depots, aircraft, and key radar, communications, and air defense equipment," an amount of destruction "far larger than what has been publicly acknowledged by the US government."
Phil Gordon, a foreign policy scholar at the Brookings Institution, wrote Wednesday that, "10 weeks in, the strategic failure is undeniable" for the Trump administration in Iran.
"The risk now is that having missed the opportunity to declare victory after the first few weeks, Trump can't accept defeat and humiliation so will keep looking for the next quick fix, thereby likely only making things worse," Gordon warned.
The Trump administration has lashed out publicly at news outlets for reporting on assessments that run counter to the Pentagon's rosy narrative of the illegal war's trajectory. Pete Hegseth, the Pentagon secretary, has condemned American media outlets as "unpatriotic" and warned reporters to "think twice" before publishing classified information.
Earlier this week, The Wall Street Journal revealed that the US Justice Department subpoenaed the newspaper's journalists in March for records related to coverage of the Iran war.
“This is the latest attack in the Trump administration’s war on press freedom," Katie Fallow, deputy litigation director at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, said in response to news of the subpoenas. "Time and again, the administration has shown itself willing to disregard the First Amendment and long-standing limits on the use of government power to go after news outlets that publish embarrassing or critical information about the government."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Expert Puts True Cost of Trump's Iran War at $72 Billion—Nearly 3 Times Higher Than Pentagon Said
"The $25 billion war cost given by Pentagon Secretary Hegseth and acting Comptroller Hurst before Congress was a lie. It was a denial of the Iran war’s spiraling costs."
May 06, 2026
The Pentagon's official estimate of the direct financial cost of the US war on Iran is a nearly threefold undercount of the actual price tag of the war, according to an expert analysis published Wednesday.
Stephen Semler, a senior fellow at the Center for International Policy, produced the new cost estimate for the Popular Information newsletter. Accounting for armament use, troop deployments, and other factors, Semler estimated that the US government spent $71.8 billion on the Iran war over the course of 60 days—an average of $1.2 billion per day.
"Like the estimates from Pentagon leadership and unnamed officials, this figure refers only to direct war costs—near-term expenses for military operations, munitions, and the like—and not indirect costs, which include broader economic impacts, interest on the national debt, and longer-term expenses like veterans’ care," explained Semler, who argued that the Pentagon's $25 billion cost estimate suffers from "incomplete accounting of damaged or destroyed military assets, the exclusion of costs outside the department (including billions of dollars in State Department-funded military aid to Israel), and a flawed method for tracking munition expenditures."
Semler, who detailed his methodology in a separate post, accused top Pentagon officials of attempting to deliberately mislead lawmakers and the American public about the true cost of the war, which is historically unpopular.
"The $25 billion war cost given by Pentagon Secretary [Pete] Hegseth and acting Comptroller [Jules] Hurst before Congress was a lie," Semler wrote Wednesday. "It was a denial of the Iran war’s spiraling costs, one of several foreseen consequences of the Trump administration’s decision to go to war. The closing of the Strait of Hormuz is another predictable consequence."
Semler's analysis was released days after unnamed Trump administration officials told CBS News that they believe the actual US cost of the Iran war is roughly double the estimate offered under oath by Pentagon leaders.
"US officials familiar with internal assessments suggested the war's price tag is closer to $50 billion so far," CBS News reported. "Much of the gap is accounted for by munitions that have been used and need to be replaced. For instance, the Pentagon has lost 24 MQ-9 Reaper drones—sophisticated unmanned aircraft that can cost $30 million or more apiece—underscoring how quickly the financial toll has mounted. Taken together, the higher estimate reflects not only the tempo of operations but also the often unseen costs of attrition, as material lost in the field reshapes the ledger."
Ongoing efforts to calculate the costs of US-Israeli war—which has killed thousands, displaced millions, sent global energy markets into chaos, and sparked fears of a worldwide food crisis—come as Trump continues to threaten Iran with an even more aggressive bombing campaign, which would send the conflict's price tag soaring further.
In a Truth Social post early Wednesday, Trump said that if Iran doesn't agree to US terms to end the war, "the bombing starts, and it will be, sadly, at a much higher level and intensity than it was before."
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More Stories
Most Popular
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy