

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
“Secretary Hegseth, you are asking for unlimited money for bombs when people can’t feed their families," said one Democratic senator.
Critics lit into US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth after he demanded on Tuesday that Congress pass President Donald Trump's plan for a $1.5 trillion military budget.
While testifying before the Senate Appropriations Committee, Hegseth once again made a pitch for the president's massive defense spending proposal, going so far as to say that "not funding [the US Department of Defense] at $1.5 trillion is the greatest threat that our nation faces."
Pete Hegseth: Not funding this department at $1.5 trillion is the greatest threat our nation faces. pic.twitter.com/j2AvDMdpzg
— Acyn (@Acyn) July 21, 2026
In a social media post, economist Dean Baker put Trump's proposed budget into context by noting that the additional requested defense spending "is a bit less than $5,000 per household."
Baker also pointed out that the US already has a massive defense budget, writing that "before Bozo the president came in, we did fine on $860 billion," a total that is larger than the combined military budgets of China, Russia, Germany, India, and the UK.
Some Democratic lawmakers signaled their opposition to the $1.5 trillion Pentagon budget request, which would represent an increase of more than 50% of what the US spent on its military in 2025.
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) slammed Hegseth to his face during the hearing and pointed out that the unprecedented defense spending request was coming at a time when many Americans are struggling to afford gasoline and groceries.
"Secretary Hegseth, you are asking for unlimited money for bombs," Gillibrand said, "when people can't feed their families."
GIllibrand: So essentially you're asking for literally $1.5 trillion for a war that President Trump said he already won? Secretary Hegseth, you are asking for unlimited money for bombs when people can't feed their families. pic.twitter.com/MY03ohvj6W
— Molly Ploofkins (@Mollyploofkins) July 21, 2026
In an interview with MeidasTouch chief Washington correspondent Scott MacFarlane, Rep. Yassamin Ansari (D-Ariz.) predicted that Democrats’ response to Hegseth's demand for tens of billions of dollars in supplemental funding for the Iran war on top of the sprawling NDAA “is going to be a ‘hell no.’”
"How many times have we been told this war is over?" Ansari asked. "How many times have we been told that it's not a war?... I'm not giving another dollar to this."
“The response is going to be a ‘Hell No”
Rep Yassamin Ansari (D-AZ) on how Democrats will vote on Pete Hegseth’s request for tens of billions of dollars for war pic.twitter.com/q9IQ9mYVH4
— Scott MacFarlane (@MacFarlaneNews) July 22, 2026
Rep. Salud Carbajal (D-Calif.) announced his opposition to the Hegseth budget in a social media post.
"Trump and Hegseth forced us into a disastrous, illegal war in Iran and now they want $1.5 trillion to keep it going," wrote Carbajal. "The American people want to end forever wars, not to fund them."
"THIS from the administration that said there was no money for food assistance, Medicaid, and healthcare tax credits."
While economists have warned for months that the true cost of President Donald Trump's illegal war on Iran could be trillions of dollars, US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth estimated on Tuesday that it's currently about $37.5 billion.
That figure came from a line of questioning by US Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), as Hegseth appeared before the Senate Appropriations Committee to support Trump's June supplemental funding request, which includes tens of billions for the Pentagon.
Hegseth told Durbin that the $37.5 billion estimate includes what's been spent so far, plus some projected spending through the end of the fiscal year in September—an exchange quickly met with fury by various critics, many of whom pointed out the range of ways that money could have been better spent by an administration allegedly dedicated to combating "waste, fraud, and abuse."
"Imagine all the better things that could have been done with $37.5 billion," Jonathan Cohn, political director for the group Progressive Mass, wrote on Bluesky.
Noting that the Strait of Hormuz "is still closed," progressive writer Alex Cole similarly said, "Imagine what $37.5 billion could've done for veterans, schools, or healthcare."
Congressman James Walkinshaw (D-Va.) specifically noted: "That could cover a full school year of free lunches for 30 million children. Or a full year of childcare for nearly 2 million kids."
"Trump finds money for war while families get excuses," he added, as working people struggle with rising costs of housing, groceries, and gasoline—the price of which has soared due to Iran restricting strait traffic over US attacks.
Trump’s war on Iran has so far cost taxpayers $37.5 BILLION.As if skyrocketing gas prices weren’t enough, Trump also expects us to foot this bill.Trump’s illegal forever war has spiraled out of control.
— Public Citizen (@publiccitizen.bsky.social) July 21, 2026 at 5:00 PM
The liberal political group American Bridge 21st Century highlighted how Trump and congressional Republicans have attacked programs for working families while giving more tax cuts to billionaires and waging war on Iran.
"THIS from the administration that said there was no money for food assistance, Medicaid, and healthcare tax credits," the organization said.
Since Trump joined with Israel to start bombing Iran on February 28, most congressional Democrats, legal experts, and other critics have argued that the war—for which the president never secured support from Congress—is not only foolish but also unlawful under both international and US law.
Citing Trump’s attempts to evade limits of the War Powers Act of 1973, Congressman John Larson (D-Conn.) said Monday that he is preparing legal action against the administration and a new bill to cut off funding for the war on Iran, which has killed over 3,000 people according to the Iranian government.
Previous war cost estimates from the US Department of Defense have been met with scrutiny. After Pentagon comptroller Jules "Jay" Hurst offered the $25 billion figure in April, Stephen Semler, a senior fellow at the Center for International Policy, estimated that the government spent at least $71.8 billion during the first two months of the war, or around $1.2 billion per day.
As for the US death toll, at least 17 service members have been killed and many more wounded. The New York Times revealed Monday that the Pentagon hid dozens of American military injuries from Iranian strikes on bases in Jordan last week.
Two Iranian-Americans, a US veteran, and a nurse disrupted Hegseth's Tuesday appearance before the Senate, according to CodePink. In addition to that anti-war group, the protesters were from the National Iranian American Council (NIAC) and Vets About Face DMV.
"Pete Hegseth and this administration will be remembered for the killing of innocent civilians and children. They have protected neither the American people nor our security, only the interests that have lined their pockets,” said Bella of NIAC, who joined the protest, in a statement.
"While Americans struggle to afford their lives, this government always finds billions to bomb our families in Iran, Palestine, Lebanon, and elsewhere," Bella added. "This is a repugnant betrayal of humanity. It is illegal, and the American people will hold them accountable."
“US-Ecuador cooperation on security has been too opaque and too dangerous for Ecuadorians," said a representative for Human Rights Watch.
Human rights advocates are urging Congress to investigate the deepening military relationship between the US and Ecuador, which they say has been marred by severe abuses against civilians, including torture, arbitrary detentions, unexplained drone strikes, and disappearances.
A report out Tuesday from Human Rights Watch documents how the Trump administration's cooperation with the right-wing government of Ecuadorian President Daniel Noboa in response to organized crime in the country has been carried out under a veil of secrecy that has left few safeguards in place to protect human rights.
Dozens of victims, witnesses, lawyers, and others were interviewed for the report, which provides details about four incidents in which ordinary people were subject to abuse allegedly by Ecuadorian forces trained and armed by the United States as part of what the governments have called "Operation Total Extermination."
In one case—which was reported on by Common Dreams after being documented by local outlets in early March—Ecuadorian soldiers partnered with the US and stormed into the rural town of San Martín along the Colombian border in search of facilities owned by an armed group known as the Border Commandos.
Soldiers detained four dairy farmers without evidence of a crime and interrogated them for hours while beating, kicking, and striking them with rifle butts. One of the men said he was taken to the main house on the farm and waterboarded. According to the men, the soldiers doused the house with gasoline and set the property on fire.
Soldiers fired their weapons at another group of villagers who'd come to ask about the workers, which caused them to flee.
The four men were later taken to an unidentified military facility, where they said they were doused with water and electrocuted. Two of the men said soldiers pointed guns at them and threatened to kill them and cut off their fingers unless they confessed where they were keeping drugs and arms.
The men were released hours later without charges, and prosecutors said the soldiers failed to provide sufficient evidence to charge them. Human Rights Watch found they had no criminal records.
Days later, the military returned and dropped munitions on the remnants of the burned property and two others that had been abandoned. Human Rights Watch did not find evidence that the destroyed properties had any connection to armed criminal groups.
In a hearing before the US Senate Armed Services Committee, Gen. Francis L. Donovan described the operation as a "success" and said Ecuadorian forces had acted "professionally." The Trump administration has said US forces were "present" for the operation, but has not disclosed their role in the bombing of the houses or the torture of the farmworkers.
The Human Rights Watch report also details three attacks on fishing boats between January and March off the coast of the Galápagos Islands, which are possessed by Ecuador.
On January 20, the Fiorella disappeared along with eight crew members who remain missing more than six months later. Two surviving crew members, who'd left the main vessel to set fishing lines, said they suddenly lost contact with the ship while they were waiting to be picked up. As they searched for the vessel, they saw a "column of smoke" off in the distance, but no sign of the Fiorella.
They added that in the days before the ship went missing, they had seen what they thought were surveillance drones flying overhead as well as a gray patrol vessel flying an American flag nearby.
The families of the eight missing sailors have been demanding answers about their whereabouts for months with little response from the Ecuadorian government. The United Nations has issued urgent actions on behalf of the fishermen, calling on Ecuador to immediately search for them.
"The families of the eight individuals whose whereabouts are unknown fear that this is a case of enforced disappearance at the hands of the United States," said Ana Piquer, Americas director at Amnesty International, on Monday. "The US and Ecuadorian authorities must confirm or deny whether state agents from either country were involved, take all necessary steps to ascertain the fate and whereabouts of the victims, and provide reliable evidence showing what happened to them."
In March, two other boats—La Negra Francisca Duarte II and Don Maca—were hit with drones off the Galápagos. In both cases, the shipwrecked men were picked up by a blue and white ship by armed personnel wearing American military attire.
The fishermen were hooded, tied up, and in some cases beaten before being left on a hot metal deck for several hours without food, water, or adequate medical care.
Members of both crews said they saw the alleged US personnel destroy their fishing boats. They were then handed off to Salvadoran authorities and later sent back to Ecuador. Several of the men sustained serious injuries from the drone attacks, including severe burns, hearing loss, vision loss, broken and dislocated bones, and wounds from drone propellers.
Ecuadorian authorities have not confirmed that the attacks took place. According to the captain of La Negra Francisca Duarte II, and later an Ecuadorian port captain, Ecuadorian Coast Guard officers had boarded their ship for a routine inspection and found no evidence of illicit activity, just eight hours before the vessel was struck. No such inspections were reported aboard Don Maca.
The attacks closely resemble the ongoing campaign of extrajudicial boat bombings carried out by the United States, known as "Operation Southern Spear," in which at least 221 people have been killed across more than 60 attacks.
Though 13 of the survivors said they were detained by what appeared to be US personnel, the Department of Defense and Coast Guard denied involvement in all three attacks off the Galápagos.
“US-Ecuador cooperation on security has been too opaque and too dangerous for Ecuadorians,” said Juanita Goebertus, Americas director at Human Rights Watch. “Before more harm is done, the US Congress should demand real answers and effective safeguards.”
“Joint security operations against organized crime," Goebertus added, "should not become a cover for abuses."
The report comes as Trump considers a "wider war" including a ground invasion that could require hundreds of thousands of US troops.
After months of downplaying the number of American casualties from President Donald Trump's war in Iran, The New York Times revealed that the Pentagon once again hid dozens of US military injuries from Iranian strikes on bases in Jordan last week.
As the Times reported on Monday:
In the week leading up to the Iranian attack on Friday that killed two US soldiers and left one service member missing in Jordan, Iran carried out three other strikes against US forces in the country.
Those attacks injured dozens of US service members and damaged several helicopters, according to several US officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss operational matters.
But the Pentagon did not disclose the earlier strikes, nor the casualties and damage they inflicted.
The Pentagon's failure to disclose full information about US casualties is not a new development.
In the early days of the war, Defense Department officials said fewer than a dozen American troops had been injured before abruptly acknowledging that more than 140 had been wounded after Reuters obtained the full figures.
After six American soldiers were killed during the war's opening salvo, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth derided the press's inquiries about the number of casualties, claiming they were only seeking "to make the president look bad."
The Intercept's Nick Turse found in April that US Central Command (CENTCOM) had repeatedly sent outdated and incomplete casualty figures to journalists in what one defense official referred to as a "casualty cover-up."
As of April 1, Turse reported that more than 520 US troops had been injured, including more than 200 sailors being treated for smoke inhalation, without acknowledgment from the government.
Last week—prior to the deaths of two US soldiers in Jordan—CENTCOM said that a total of 414 service members had been injured since the war began, mostly from traumatic brain injuries. In total, 17 US personnel have now been killed, according to official counts.
CENTCOM spokesperson Maj. Emma Thompson said last week that she had no update on how many troops were seriously wounded, but claimed that "almost all" of those injured had returned to duty. She also did not say how many troops had been wounded enough to be evacuated from the region.
The Times report notes that CENTCOM is not required to disclose information about injured US service members publicly. And one military official argued that doing so would provide Iran with free information that would leave the US vulnerable to further attacks.
However, it does speak to the Trump administration's ever-growing secrecy as it threatens to dramatically expand the unpopular conflict.
As the Times noted, the Pentagon has provided little information about the war in recent months, and the last major press briefing on the war took place in early May.
The administration has blown past its initial promises to end its operation against Iran in a matter of weeks and avoid a "forever war." The conflict is now into its fifth month with no end in sight.
The Washington Post and Wall Street Journal reported this weekend that in an effort to break Iran's control of the Strait of Hormuz—where it began to restrict travel in response to the US-Israeli war—Trump is planning a "wider war" that may include a possible ground invasion of Kharg Island and other Iranian territory along the strait.
Experts have estimated that efforts to capture and occupy Iran's coastline would likely require hundreds of thousands of troops.
"What a complete clown show," said one critic of Hegseth's new initiative.
US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on Wednesday elicited instant ridicule after he unveiled a new plan to offer military personnel testosterone injections.
In a video announcement, Hegseth said he was authorizing a screening program to ensure US soldiers "have the right testosterone levels" to perform at their "absolute best."
"It's well established science that, as we age, testosterone levels often drop," the US defense secretary explained. "Under the supervision of our world-class medical professionals, warfighters aged 30 and older are going to be tested annually as part of their periodic health assessment."
The High-T Department of War. pic.twitter.com/hlAUq3j2cD
— Secretary of War Pete Hegseth (@SecWar) July 15, 2026
Personnel who are found lacking in testosterone, Hegseth continued, would get recommendations for hormone injections, though he emphasized that this would be entirely optional.
"This initiative, it's not about artificial enhancement," Hegseth emphasized. "It's about restoring and optimizing your natural capabilities."
Critics on social media responded to Hegseth's new testosterone injection plan with mockery.
Journalist Amanda Katz joked that Hegseth's plan was "literally gender-affirming care" of the kind that Hegseth halted for transgender service members last year.
Rep. Summer Lee (D-Pa.) similarly asked Hegseth if the new program means that "now y’all support gender-affirming care?"
Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) said that the Hegseth initiative "is gender affirming care and it completely debunks all of Republicans’ attacks on trans people."
Fred Wellman, a Democratic candidate for Congress in Missouri and a veteran of the US Army, called Hegseth's initiative "the absolute dumbest thing imaginable for the secretary of defense to be focused on."
"We are literally at war and this idiot is in his office doing two camera make up videos on testosterone," Wellman added. "What a complete clown show. I’m so sorry for our poor service members who have to deal with this ridiculous man."
Attorney Bradley Moss likened the Hegseth plan to the plot of Soldier, a 1998 movie starring Kurt Russell that bombed with both critics and audiences.
Moss added, however, that Hegseth's idea appeared even "stupider" than the movie.
Attorney Will Stancil wondered if Hegseth's testosterone program might finally push some military personnel over the edge.
"Without a hint of sarcasm I think he might get himself fragged eventually," Stancil wrote.
Sources told CNN that warnings were ignored due to "expediency."
US military commanders "bypassed warnings" indicating that their database of strike targets inside Iran was badly out of date shortly before launching a deadly attack on an Iranian primary school in the city of Minab, according to a Tuesday report from CNN.
Three sources told CNN that senior military officials received messages informing them that the intelligence behind the target list had been gathered years ago and "needed to be re-vetted."
Regardless, the proposed Iranian targets were added to a strike list shortly before the US launched an attack on the Shajareh Tayyebeh Elementary School, killing more than 150 schoolchildren along with over a dozen teachers.
Two of CNN's sources said senior commanders ignored the warnings out of "expediency," as they did not want to significantly delay providing target lists during the outset of the war, which Trump illegally launched in February without any authorization from the US Congress.
For months, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has repeatedly dodged questions about the strike on the school, insisting that he didn't want to comment on an ongoing Pentagon investigation.
However, one of CNN's sources said that US military officials "knew within days how the mistake happened," as the school was targeted based on "obviously old info."
CNN noted that old satellite images showed the school once belonged to the same compound as an Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps facility. However, as recently as 2016, images showed "that a fence had been erected to separate the school from the rest of the base, and that a separate entrance to the school had been built."
Rutgers Law School Professor Adil Haque, noting that intelligence on many of the targets was more than a decade old, called the US decision to proceed with attacks "inexcusable."
The US Department of Defense has still not released its investigation into the bombing, drawing criticism from Palestinian-American policy analyst Yousef Munayyer, who reacted to the CNN report by describing the US military as being "quick to bomb, slow to investigate."
The slow pace of the investigation has also drawn criticism from Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.), the ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee.
During a May congressional hearing, Smith grilled Adm. Brad Cooper about why the US hasn't taken responsibility for the school strike despite clear evidence that it was at fault.
"In the past, when we’ve had these type of mistakes, they’ve been quickly acknowledged," Smith said, "even if a further investigation is necessary to figure out prevention methods."
Smith also criticized Hegseth for showing a "callous disregard for any sort of rules of engagement or protecting of civilian life" during his tenure as defense secretary.
Last month, President Donald Trump brushed off responsibility for the strike on the school, stating that "mistakes are made" and "war is nasty."
The latest killing came a day after a Democratic senator revealed that "the presence of narcotics on the boat has never been a targeting criteria" in the boat bombings.
The Trump administration killed two more people in a boat bombing in the eastern Pacific Ocean Wednesday, bringing the total number of people killed in the operation human rights experts have condemned as an "extrajudicial killing" spree to at least 207.
"The Trump administration’s lawless killing spree at sea continues," said Brian Finucane, senior adviser at the US program at the International Crisis Group. "The term for premeditated killing outside of armed conflict is murder—and there is no armed conflict here."
As with previous announcements of the lethal boat strikes, at least 63 of which have now been carried out by the US military in an operation the Trump administration has insisted is stopping drugs from reaching the US, US Southern Command presented no evidence Wednesday night when it said the victims were "two male narco-terrorists" and that the boat was "engaged in narco-trafficking operations."
Finucane noted that "even if there were an armed conflict, there’s no indication these supposed 'narco-terrorists' are lawful targets."
President Donald Trump has claimed the US is in an armed conflict with drug cartels in Latin America, and that the Caribbean and eastern Pacific are a legitimate battleground where the conflict has played out. But a number of victims have been identified as fishermen, and families have filed legal complaints against the US over the killings.
After the bombings began in September, Vice President JD Vance all but publicly admitted that the operation would put innocent people at risk, joking at a rally that he "wouldn’t go fishing right now in that area of the world."
The US in the past has treated drug trafficking as a criminal issue, in accordance with international law. A top military lawyer warned the Pentagon last August, just before the operation began, that carrying out the boat bombings could put top officials as well as rank-and-file service members at risk of being held criminally liable.
"Over 200 people killed so far, some who seem likely to have died agonizing deaths by drowning after clinging to wreckage for hours, with no trials, and without a single piece of evidence released to the public of their guilt or of any intent to smuggle drugs to the United States," said Aaron Rechlin-Melnick, a senior fellow at the American Immigration Council.
The latest boat bombing came a day after US Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) revealed a key detail about the "targeting criteria" the military has been using as it's conducted the bombings since last September.
On Tuesday at a hearing where Secretary of State Marco Rubio testified, Kaine noted that "evidence of narcotics on the boat" has not been a prerequisite for US Southern Command to conduct lethal strikes in Operation Southern Spear, despite the fact that the administration has insisted the operation is aimed at stopping drug trafficking boats from reaching the US.
"I've been briefed on Southern Spear since the first operation on September 2 and most recently within the last couple of weeks, and I've asked again and again, 'Have the targeting criteria changed?' 'No they have not,'" said Kaine. "The presence of narcotics on the boat has never been a targeting criteria."
Despite that, Kaine noted, "The administration has always announced, 'This is against narco-traffickers'" when a new strike has been carried out.
Adam Isacson, director for defense oversight at the Washington Office on Latin America, pointed out that Operation Southern Spear comes two decades after human rights groups presented evidence to US military leaders that "their Colombian military partners were carrying out extrajudicial executions" in what became known as the "false positive" killings.
As Human Rights Watch has explained:
Between 2002 and 2008, army brigades across Colombia routinely executed civilians. Under pressure from superiors to show “positive” results and boost body counts in their war against guerrillas, soldiers and officers abducted victims or lured them to remote locations under false pretenses—such as with promises of work—killed them, placed weapons on their lifeless bodies, and then reported them as enemy combatants killed in action. Committed on a large scale for more than half a decade, these “false positive” killings constitute one of the worst episodes of mass atrocity in the Western Hemisphere in recent decades.
"Now," said Isacson, US officials are "carrying out their own extrajudicial executions every few days. No middleman."
Journalist Joseph Bouchard said the boat strikes could be called the United States' "own false positives scandal."
"None of these have been military targets," said Bouchard. "And even then, do we just kill drug traffickers now, without trial? Better name might be the classic 'crimes against humanity.'"
"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.
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."
The on-paper value of the president's Dell stock holdings has soared potentially by millions since he told Americans to "go out and buy a Dell" earlier this month.
Just weeks after President Donald Trump urged Americans to "go out and buy a Dell" and months after he bought millions of dollars worth of stock in the company, the computer giant was awarded a $9.7 billion Pentagon contract.
The Department of Defense confirmed the contract with Dell Federal Systems, the government-focused arm of Dell Technologies, on Wednesday.
Euronews reported:
As part of the Core Enterprise Technology Agreement (CETA), a Pentagon-wide Microsoft licensing and software procurement framework, the company will provide and manage Microsoft software licences, cloud subscriptions and on-premises software licensing across the US military, intelligence agencies and the US Coast Guard.
The contract would have raised scrutiny regardless, given the Dell family’s proximity to Trump in his second term. CEO Michael Dell and his wife, Susan, have pledged $6.25 billion to help fund the so-called “Trump accounts” that were part of the president's 2025 mega budget legislation, a policy that critics have described as a tax shelter for the wealthy.
This tied the Dell family fortune to Trump's political agenda. In recent months, he's also hitched it to his own personal wealth.
Follow this:First, Trump quietly buys up to $5 million of Dell stock.Then, he urges his followers to “go out and buy a Dell.”Today, his Pentagon awards a $9.7 billion deal to Dell. www.bloomberg.com/news/article...
[image or embed]
— Bill Grueskin (@bgrueskin.bsky.social) May 27, 2026 at 7:45 PM
During his frenetic burst of stock trading in the first three months of the year, Trump purchased between $1 million and $5 million in Dell stock on February 10, according to financial disclosure forms, when the stock traded at $126 per share.
Months later, at a Mother's Day event on May 8, he publicly shilled for the company's products—a possible violation of White House ethics policy—and lavished praise upon the Dell family:
They've done such a job, such a job on that. They put up a lot of money, too [for Trump accounts]. Put up $6.25 billion. That's somebody and he started making computers on his bed in college and selling them because they were better than other computers.
And he just—I said, "How did you do that?" He said, "Well, I did it and I just never stopped." He just kept going.
So, go out and buy a Dell, they're great.
After the president's remarks, the value of Dell stocks surged by 14.6% to an all-time high of just under $264 before settling at just over $260 by the end of the day.
The announcement of the lucrative new Pentagon deal on Wednesday has caused the stock’s value to soar, reaching nearly $318 per share as of Thursday morning. The value was $305 per share before the announcement.
In total, the share price of Dell stock has climbed by about 155% since Trump bought it back in Feburary. Depending on how much of it he owns, that means he could have unrealized gains of between $1.55 million to $7.74 million. About 47% of those unrealized gains would have come just in the last month since he used the White House to boost Dell stock.
Acting US Navy Chief Information Officer Barry Tanner has insisted that there was no playing favorites when Dell was selected for the contract.
But Trump, who has increased his net worth by an eye-popping $3 billion since retaking office last year, according to the watchdog Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), has regularly faced accusations of lavish self-dealing.
In fact, a ProPublica report out on Thursday found that his White House adviser, Peter Navarro, personally intervened to push the Pentagon to give a $620 million loan to a startup linked to Donald Trump, Jr., out of dozens of companies that were under consideration.
Dell is also far from the first company to receive a Trump administration contract or other beneficial action after Trump purchased their stock. Earlier this month, NOTUS reported that Trump had bought shares in companies, including Palantir, Axon, and AMD, mere weeks before they were granted government contracts or regulatory relief.
Tommy Vietor, a National Security Council staffer under former President Barack Obama and now the host of the liberal Pod Save America podcast, said on social media that the Dell contract was an example of how “every day there’s another example of insider trading and corruption by Trump himself.”
Noting that Trump’s personal profit from the presidency far exceeds that of anyone else who has held the office, Tim Miller, a journalist and commentator at The Bulwark, said that a contract with such an obvious conflict of interest would be a “front-page story and weekslong scandal for anyone other than Trump.”
The president's eldest son had taken a stake in the rare-earth magnet firm three months before the loan was announced.
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."