military

Grand jury shuts down Trump's latest revenge prosecution in 'remarkable rebuke': NYT

The New York Times reports a Washington D.C. grand jury has again refused to acquiesce to President Donald Trump’s quest to prosecute his political foes, with the paper calling the rejection “a remarkable rebuke” from ordinary citizens.

The Times reports: “Federal prosecutors in Washington sought and failed on Tuesday to secure an indictment against six Democratic lawmakers who posted a video last fall that enraged President Trump by reminding active-duty members of the military and intelligence community that they were obligated to refuse illegal orders, four people familiar with the matter said.”

The Times additionally reports it was already remarkable that the U.S. attorney’s office in Washington — led by Trump ally Jeanine Pirro — even authorized prosecutors to approach a grand jury with an indictment of the six members of Congress, all of whom had served in the military or the nation’s spy agencies.

It is rare for grand jurors to snub prosecutors’ indictment requests, considering prosecutors get to dominate the jury with one-sided arguments leading up to their decision. However, the Times reports it has happened with increased frequency with Trump’s Justice Department “as his appointees push ahead with questionable cases.”

It is doubly surprising considering the president of the United States accused Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.) and the other legislators of seditious conspiracy and said they could potentially be put to death. The U.S. Department of Defense later announced that it was launching an investigation into Kelly for participating in the video warning active-duty troops to not follow illegal orders from Trump and also threatened to court martial the NASA astronaut.

But the jury apparently disagreed on all counts and refused to indict any of the legislators incriminated by Trump.

Trump’s targets also Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.) and four colleagues in the House: Jason Crow (D-Colo.) Maggie Goodlander, (D-N.H.), Chrissy Houlahan (D-Pa.) and Chris Deluzio (D-Pa).

Kelly is already suing the Pentagon over its attempts to punish him.

From Your Site Articles

Related Articles Around the Web

How much Trump's military deployments to US cities is costing you

President Donald Trump's deployments of U.S. military personnel to various American cities throughout 2025 came at a hefty cost to U.S. taxpayers, according to a new report.

The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated on Wednesday that taxpayers had to fork over more than $496 million last year alone for Trump's deployments in just a small handful of cities. Punchbowl News founder Jake Sherman reported that the nearly half a billion-dollar cost broke down to tens of millions of dollars per month.

"Continuing the deployments at their end-of-2025 size would cost about $93 million per month, and looking ahead, deploying 1,000 National Guard personnel to a U.S. city in 2026 would cost $18 million to $21 million per month, depending largely on local cost-of-living differences," the CBO estimate read, according to Sherman.

Last year, Trump deployed National Guard troops to Chicago, Illinois; Los Angeles, California; Memphis, Tennessee; New Orleans, Louisiana and Washington D.C. Troops in D.C. spent most of their time picking up trash and cleaning up public parks.

In November, a gunman shot two members of the West Virginia National Guard outside of the Farragut West Metro station, killing one and critically injuring another. The shooter was found to be an Afghani national who drove to D.C. from Washington state to carry out the attack.

From Your Site Articles

Related Articles Around the Web

Trump's threats to NATO allies are 'utterly perverse' to military officers: Naval expert

The men and women of the armed forces are likely reeling in response to President Donald Trump's threats to attack NATO allies over Greenland, according to one longtime military expert.

In a Monday essay for the Atlantic, Tom Nichols — the former chairman of the Strategy and Policy Department at the U.S. Naval War College — wrote that officers typically follow the commander-in-chief's orders without question, given that civilian leadership of the U.S. military is a core tenet of the American system. However, Nichols noted that many officers are likely having a crisis of conscience now that Trump may commit military forces to Greenland despite the autonomous island territory already belonging to the Kingdom of Denmark – a key NATO ally.

"[T]hese will be orders that force U.S. military minds to step into a horrifying mirror universe where the United States is the aggressor against NATO, a coalition that includes countries that have been our friends for centuries," he wrote. "Should Trump pursue this scheme of conquest, the military’s training will have to be shattered and reassembled into a destructive version of itself, as if doctors were asked to take lifesaving medicines, reconstitute them as poisonous isomers, and then administer them to patients."

Nichols pointed out that while a president could order senior offices to draw up war plans to invade Greenland, it could be seen as merely one more "war game" for officers to plan for, though he observed that war games typically involve crafting plans for nonexistent nations with made-up names. But when the planning involves the hypothetical invasion of a longtime ally, Nichols argued that this may be a bridge too far for many officers — including though who served alongside members of the Danish military during the War on Terror.

"[A]fter years of experience with American military officers, I believe that even these hypothetical instructions will sound utterly perverse to men and women who have served with the Danes and other NATO allies," he wrote. "Denmark not only was our ally during the world wars of the 20th century, but also, as my colleague Isaac Stanley-Becker has written, joined our fight against the Taliban after 9/11 and suffered significant casualties for a small nation. Their soldiers bled and died on the same battlefields as Americans."

The former Naval War College professor wrote that while officers are routinely prepared for countless different wartime scenarios, one case they never considered was the commander-in-chief being a "megalomaniac" who threatens hostility against a key ally because he didn't win the Nobel Peace Prize. He also cautioned that should the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the Pentagon carry out potential orders from Trump to take Greenland by force, it could lead to a "global catastrophe."

"It is not up to the armed forces to put a stop to Trump’s ghastly ideas," Nichols wrote. "... Americans, and their elected representatives, must take this burden away from the armed forces — now."

Click here to read Nichols' full essay in the Atlantic (gift link).

From Your Site Articles

Related Articles Around the Web

Military newspaper hires screened for loyalty to Trump's 'policy priorities'

Editor's Note: This story has been updated to include a disclosure.

Stars and Stripes, a US military news publication funded in part by the government, is intended to have editorial independence, but according to the Washington Post, new hire applicants are now being asked what they will do in order to forward Donald Trump's "policy priorities."

The publication first began in 1861 at the dawn of the Civil War, but did not begin continuous publication until World War II, providing news for military members and veterans about the military. Across all platforms, it currently has an audience of roughly 1.4 million. The Department of Defense provides part of the funding for it, and its employees are considered Pentagon staffers, but despite that, efforts have been made over the decades to ensure its editorial freedom, including action from Congress.

As the Post reported on Wednesday, however, applicants looking to work for the historic publication have been asked a new question, one that has triggered alarm and concern from media watchdogs and current staff members about Stars and Stripes' ability to remain independent.

“How would you advance the President’s Executive Orders and policy priorities in this role?" the question reads. "Identify one or two relevant Executive Orders or policy initiatives that are significant to you, and explain how you would help implement them if hired.”

This marks the latest example of a persistent trend over the last year, with the Trump administration attempting to exert control — in this case, ideological control — over agencies, departments and programs once deemed independent.

Jacqueline Smith, ombudsman for Stars and Stripes, told the Post that the outlet's leadership had not been made aware of the question's addition to the hiring process. Smith's position is mandated by Congress as a means to ensure the paper's independence. An inquiry into the matter revealed that the question was being posed to applicants using USAJobs.com, the government's official online jobs portal. The Office of Personnel Management, led by Project 2025 architect Russ Vought, was responsible for adding the question.

“Asking prospective employees how they would support the administration’s policies is antithetical to Stripes’ journalistic and federally mandated mission,” Smith said. “Journalistically, it’s against ethics, because reporters or any staff member — editors, photographers — should be impartial.”

“Regarding our recruiting, the federal government’s platform wasn’t designed with Stars and Stripes in mind,” Erik Slavin, editor-in-chief for Stars and Stripes, explained to the Post. “We pride ourselves on objectivity. We’ve reinforced our commitment to scrupulous balance and accuracy. We do not shy away from holding military officials accountable when a story calls for it.”

Max Lederer, the newspaper’s publisher, added that no applicants had so far brought up the question to leadership, noting that it appears to be an optional part of the process that does not disqualify applicants who ignore it.

Disclosure: AlterNet Publisher & Editor-in-Chief Roxanne Cooper served as Stars & Stripes' Director of Advertising and Marketing at their Tokyo facility from 2002-2003 and at their Washington, DC headquarters from 2003-2004.

From Your Site Articles

Related Articles Around the Web

Trump's aggression is 'stretching the military thin': conservative

Former RAND Corporation senior political scientist Jennifer Kavanagh warns in an op-ed for the American Conservative that President Donald Trump is endangering the U.S. homeland by splashing a thin military all over the globe.

When Trump made good on this commitment to raid and arrest Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro and then “run” the nation and its oil industry, Kavanagh said he increased the U.S. military presence without pulling it back from other wasteful assignments.

The military presence in Latin America now includes at least “10,000 personnel, dozens of fighter aircraft, and more than 10 percent of the U.S. Navy,” said Kavanagh, a senior fellow and military analysis director at Defense Priorities. But she pointed out that Trump still has at least 80,000 forces in Europe, costing “tens of billions per year.”

Plus, the U.S. military has increased its presence and involvement in the Middle East since Trump returned to the White House, complete with aircraft, warships and the defense of Israel and multiple campaigns in Iran.

Meanwhile, Kavanagh said the United States hasn’t pulled anything out of Asia.

“Despite widespread speculation that Trump seeks a grand bargain over Taiwan, his administration has not given any sign that it plans to back away from its efforts to deter China from seizing the island by force,” Kavanagh said, adding that Trump represents “yet another manifestation of the same old American pattern: the addition of new military commitments without shedding old ones.”

Add to this Trump’s threats of military action against Colombia, Cuba and Mexico and Kavanaugh says Trump is “stretching the military thin” in a manner that should worry people.

“The United States should be more careful and judicious with its use of military force close to home than it is elsewhere. After all, if a military intervention goes wrong (as so many U.S. efforts have) it will be much harder for Washington to seal the U.S. homeland off from the consequences,” Kavanaugh said. “If Venezuela ends up being the next Libya, for example, regional instability will rise, drug flows and violence will increase, and opportunities for Chinese involvement could grow. These outcomes will undermine Trump’s broader domestic and foreign policy agendas while also doing direct harm to U.S. interests.”

Read Kavanagh's American Conservative report at this link.

From Your Site Articles

Related Articles Around the Web

Trump wants his name on new fleet of battleships that would have 'zero tactical use'

President Donald Trump's ongoing efforts to cement his legacy by adding his name to U.S. government property has now spread to the Navy, according to a new report.

According to a Monday article in the Wall Street Journal, the president is now planning to announce a new fleet of "Trump-class" battleships for the Navy's "golden fleet." Trump's plan comes on the heels of the Navy's recent announcement that it will be building a series of frigates, with the first — dubbed the "U.S.S. Defiant" — scheduled to be on the open water by 2028.

"The self-aggrandizement spree continues," observed New York Times Chief White House Correspondent Peter Baker on X.

The company HII Ingalls Shipbuilding is in charge of construction of the "golden fleet," with the first of the new ships being built in Pascagoula, Mississippi. The Pascagoula shipyard is the current home of the U.S. Coast Guard's Legend-class Legend-class National Security Cutter (a ship roughly the same size as a frigate).

As the Journal reported, the U.S. Navy currently has 287 ships in its inventory, which include aircraft carriers, destroyers, cruisers, amphibious ships and submarines. The new battleships would replace the current fleet of Arleigh Burke-class destroyers, which Trump has frequently (and unfavorably) compared to ships in other countries' naval fleets.

Former Rear Admiral Mark Montgomery — who is now the senior director at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies — told the Journal that the "golden fleet" was "exactly what we don't need" and estimated the cost of each ship to be roughly $5 billion. He noted that the new ships would have "zero tactical use" as they lack a vertical launch system and would not be equipped with the Aegis ballistic defense system.

"We do not need ships that are not optimized to provide lethality against the Chinese threat," Montgomery said. "... That is not what these are focused on — they are focused on the president’s visual that a battleship is a cool-looking ship."

Trump's pending announcement of the new fleet of battleships named for him comes after last week's news that the president's hand-picked board of the Kennedy Center voted to add his name to the facility (even though officially changing the name requires an act of Congress). Rep. April McClain Delaney (D-Md.) recently introduced legislation aiming to stop Trump from adding his name to federal property, though its passage is unlikely given that Republicans control both chambers of Congress.

Click here to read the Journal's full report (subscription required).

From Your Site Articles

Related Articles Around the Web

Military lawyer fired after defying Trump order

A U.S. Army Reserve lawyer was fired from his temporary judicial post in Virginia earlier this month.

Military.com reported that Christopher Day was appointed to serve on one of the immigration courts that President Donald Trump's administration has flooded with deportation claims this year.

In the past few months, a number of immigration court judges in liberal areas of the country were dismissed and about 600 new ones installed by the Department of Defense, Bloomberg reported. Among those included Day, who was on the "bench" for less than a month.

"It’s unclear why Day was fired," the report said. "Day did not comment when contacted by the AP, and a Justice Department spokeswoman declined to discuss personnel matters."

However, federal data showed that Day ruled on an asylum case that flies in the face of the Trump administration's goals.

"Of the 11 cases he concluded in November, he granted asylum or some other type of relief allowing the migrant to remain in the United States a total of six times," the report said, citing federal data analyzed by the non-profit Mobile Pathways.

The report comes amid a decision from the U.S. Supreme Court on Friday in which justices turned down a request to immediately stop free-speech lawsuits by fired immigration judges.

There has also been an ongoing debate about following "unlawful orders." In a video released by former military and intelligence members who also serve in elected office, any member of the military can refuse to follow an order if it is against the law.

Trump and his allies flew into a rage claiming that officials were doing the opposite, telling soldiers to refuse "lawful orders." The president is at work targeting Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.).

“Retired Captain Kelly is currently under investigation for serious allegations of misconduct,” a Department of Defense official said.

Read the full report.

From Your Site Articles

Related Articles Around the Web

Pentagon now wants to cut Mark Kelly’s pension in 'downshift' from call for court-martial

CNN reports the Pentagon is now looking at reducing the military rank and pension pay of Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz) over a video he participated in that urged troops to disregard illegal orders.

“It certainly is a downshift from yesterday when they were saying a court martial was in order,” said CNN Chief National Affairs Correspondent Jeff Zeleny.

“They are losing in the independent judiciary, but inside the administration is a place where administration officials win because they control the rules,” Zeleny explained, adding the martial justice system is a “more favorable venue” for the commander-in-chief.

“It also shows that this White House is going to use institutions and agencies that have historically had independence and turn them into a means to punish political foes of the president,” noted CNN Political analyst Zolan Kanno-Youngs.

Independent Veterans of America Founder Paul Rieckhoff blasted Trump’s attack.

“What Trump wants to say is if ‘I can come after him, I can come after anyone.’” Rieckhoff said. “This is crossing the Rubicon. This is going to a space we've never gone before. The idea that you can drag him back onto active duty and threaten him with a court martial, which I don't think he has any grounds to do. But the fact that he's threatening to do it is breaking glass that's never been broken before in the modern military.”

CNN Correspondent Priscilla Alvarez pointed out that “veterans are also voters” who react harshly to authority figures going after military or government workers’ pensions. Alvarez added that Kelly is already putting out fundraising emails over the threat.

Zeleny said Kelly may be a candidate for president in 2028: “This is a fight that Kelly seems quite eager to be leaning into and not backing down at all.”

From Your Site Articles

Related Articles Around the Web

Morning Joe blasts 'stupid' GOP for accidentally making Democrats the 'party of vets'

“Morning Joe” host Joe Scarborough on Tuesday did not hold back, using the word “stupid” four times in a rant about the Pentagon’s decision to investigate Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.) for appearing in a video urging service members not to follow illegal orders.

“How stupid do you have to — like, I have Republicans saying, ‘I can't believe how dumb we are.’ We continue to throw a fit over the president's right to issue illegal orders, and we're putting military heroes from the Democratic Party constantly on television, thereby branding the Democratic Party as a party of veterans, of CIA agents, of all the things that Republicans don't want Americans to know about the Democratic Party,” Scarborough said.

Show co-host Willie Geist pointed out that Kelly “not only has a long career of service in the United States Navy, but also has been to space four times.”

“He's an airman and an astronaut, and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth … is calling Mark Kelly seditious for telling people in his military to defy illegal orders. Is that the ground he wants to stand on?”

“No, it's not, and it's not the ground the Republicans want to stand on. They're making fools of themselves, pretending the American people are so stupid they don't see the word ‘illegal’ in that video,” said Scarborough. “And let me tell you, we're talking about a president who, going back to 2016, said in a debate when the moderators said ‘Donald Trump, you can't order your troops to do that. That's illegal.’ His quote was, ‘they will do what I tell them to do. They will not disobey me.’

Scarborough then made a reference to Trump asking his advisors to shoot Black Lives Matter protesters “in the legs” during his first term, but leaders told him they could not.

“He fired all of those people who told him ‘no,’ Scarborough said. “And of course, now, he's saying he wants to use American cities as training grounds for the military, which is illegal.”

Co-host Mika Brzezinski said Democrats’ video and the Trump administration’s reaction to it is “highlighting the problem” the nation is facing with a lawless president. But Scarborough was too busy slamming the White House over its PR fumble.

“There has to be somebody in the White House that understands how stupid this is, because a lot of Republicans understand how stupid this is. That Pete Hegseth is going up against a war hero and an astronaut for simply telling troops the most basic of things. This is basic civics, and that is follow lawful orders. Don't follow illegal orders. … and then Donald Trump saying he should be lynched.”

From Your Site Articles

Related Articles Around the Web

'Horribly wrong': Veterans angered by Trump admin's 'unlawful' use of the military

The Guardian reports veterans are condemning President Donald Trump’s politicization of the military, particularly after Trump accused Democratic lawmakers of “sedition, punishable by death.”

A small group of Democrats with military backgrounds recently reminded soldiers in a public service announcement video that they are not mandated to break U.S. law at the order of their leaders. This prompted Trump to accuse the Democrats of “sedition.”

“Seditious behavior, punishable by death!” Trump said in a post on Truth Social. “Each one of these traitors to our Country should be arrested and put on trial.” He also reposted a message from another user reading: “Hang them George Washington would!”

But the president’s comments infuriated the military’s legal community.

“He uses sedition and treason very broadly and inappropriately,” said David Frakt, a retired air force officer and attorney in the judge advocate general (JAG) corps, the military justice branch. “The irony is that if anyone committed sedition or treason, it was the people that he urged to overthrow the government on January 6 [2021] – and you know, he pardoned all of those people and calls them patriots and martyrs and all the rest.”

Don Christensen, a retired air force colonel and former chief prosecutor of the air force, told the Guardian that Trump’s comments on sedition are “horribly wrong.”

Christensen also condemned Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), a former air force attorney, for not condemning the president’s comments and for sending a letter to the lawmakers asking what orders they believe were unlawful.

“Graham knows everything [Trump is] saying is wrong because Lindsey Graham was an attorney, and he’s given briefings to the troops when he was an attorney about unlawful orders and the obligation not to follow them, and he knows what the law is,” Christensen said. “He should be full-throated out there saying what the president is doing is wrong.”

Trump, who has gotten multiple deferments from military service, is also under fire for sending the U.S. military into American cities for unclear reasons. And U.S. allies say he is ducking international law by murdering boaters in the Caribbean and the Pacific without proof of wrongdoing.

Sinking these boats is “murder, not combat,” said Frakt. “Adherence to the law is taking a back seat.”

Coretta Johnson Gray, a former air force attorney noted that one of the first acts of incoming secretary of defense Pete Hegseth was to fire or demote legal advisors to the service branches, which she said raises concerns that the JAG corps are becoming politicized. She also expressed alarm that military lawyers are quitting the service.

“It’s important to have good people who have integrity in these positions, because if you get rid of everybody who could even question, you really got a problem,” said Gray, adding that she urges active-duty senior leadership to publicly reaffirm their oath to the Constitution and their political neutrality. “

“You don’t want the American people to think … the military is going to change based on [who’s in charge],” she said.

Read the full Guardian article at this link.

From Your Site Articles

Related Articles Around the Web

'Should know better': Retired Lt. Gen slams Graham for repeating Trump sedition claims

Lt. Gen. Mark Hertling blasted Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C) on the Friday edition of “Morning Joe” for haranguing congressional Democrats who urged military service members to “refuse illegal orders.”

Graham sent letters to Democratic lawmakers with backgrounds in the military or intelligence community who were featured in a viral video urging service members to refuse illegal orders.

"This administration is pitting our uniformed military and intelligence community professionals against American citizens," the congressional Democrats said in the video posted Tuesday. “The threats to our Constitution aren't just coming from aboard, but from right here right at home. Our laws are clear. You can refuse illegal orders. No one has to carry out orders that violate the law or our Constitution."

Trump reposted the video, complaining "SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH!" He earlier called for the Democrats involved to be hanged.

Graham then sent his own letter, saying: “I am disturbed by your video encouraging service members and Intelligence Community professionals to refuse ‘unlawful orders’ is an understatement. In that regard, could you please provide clarity on what orders, issued by President Trump or those in his chain of command, you consider illegal?"

But Hertling accused Graham of deliberately conflating the message, which was no more than an urge for military members to obey U.S. law.

“It is especially troubling to me that Sen. Graham is the one that's making a big fuss about this, because he's a lawyer. He was a JAG lawyer in the US Air Force Reserve. He spent snippets of time with me in Iraq when I was there for longer deployments, and he was part of the legal team in the headquarters in Baghdad,” Hertling said. “So, he should know better. He is an officer.”

“Well, yeah, Lindsey knows better,” said “Morning Joe” host Joe Scarborough. “That's what's so pathetic about it. It's sad. I know Lindsey and I've known Lindsey for a long time. He's been a friend. But Lindsey knows better. These Republicans on capitol hill know better.”

- YouTube youtu.be

From Your Site Articles

Related Articles Around the Web