swine flu

Retired Gen. Mark Hertling was chatting with The Bulwark's Ben Parker on Thursday for the "Command Post" podcast about reports that Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth's staff broke one of the World War II globes used by former General and President Dwight D. Eisenhower. He has a guess about who did it.

The Washington Post reported that in February Hegseth decided he wanted one of the Eisenhower globes to show off to guests in his office. Instead of waiting for trained curators known for handling the deliberate process of moving priceless artifacts, the staff tried to move it themselves. The end result was not merely a scratch but a large hole in Antarctica.

"It's been safe in the Pentagon for 80 years but didn't last one day with Pete Hegseth before they broke it," Parker joked.

"It's careless and this is a historical and important artifact. It's something that I think would be, certainly if it was in the secretary of defense's office he could point to if his visitors came and said, this was President Gen. Eisenhower's globe during World War II. And it would be an oh, wow, moment for anyone who saw it. But again, these kinds of artifacts are taken care of by historians. Great care is taken when you move those," said Hertling.

He said he had a similar story, though nothing was broken. While working in Europe at the Noncommissioned Officer Academy (NCOA), he found desks Gen. George Patton used, as well as one used by German Field Marshal Erwin Rommel.

A high-level official back in the U.S. decided that they wanted one of the desks in their office. Hertling said that he and everyone in the office did whatever they could to put barriers in the way, even getting the German government involved, saying it would be raiding their historic artifacts. Ultimately, the official forgot about it or moved on. But trying to transport something so valuable across the world and leave it in someone's office was probably not the best way to preserve an artifact.

"I can probably bet that the guys who were told to go move it were a couple of lieutenant colonels in Hegseth's outer office who are doing nothing but posting trash on X all day long and attacking people," he said. "I bet it's the same guy. I'm going to see if Kalshi would take me up on that bet."

Parker said that the 'symbolism of Hegseth destroying a piece of military history simply to decorate his office and didn't want to consult with people whose job it is to handle these things with care is kind a..." as he trailed off.

Hertling compared it to Trump tearing down the East Wing of the White House, the giant arch being built and his ripping out historic cherry blossoms.

He explained that these kinds of symbols are part of the history and tradition of the United States and that it's worth looking back.

"You want to portray the standards, first of all. You want to portray the professionalism of the force, but you also want to use examples of others that used the military in the right way," Hertling added. "Who lived by the values, who did what was right for the country, who stood up for the Constitution."

A longtime lawmaker and former diplomat flagged how illegal a recent move at the State Department is this week.

The Washington Sun reported Thursday that the State Department has begun asking career diplomats up for promotion whether they voted for President Donald Trump in 2016, 2020 and 2024.

Washington Sun reporter Eric Katz explained that "federal law prohibits politically based hiring for career staff."

According to the report, "Top officials in the State Department made clear that only candidates who voted for President Donald Trump would be eligible for the mid-to-upper level foreign service roles. They also told candidates that their campaign donation history would be examined and any donation to Democrats would be disqualifying."

The report comes on the heels of another revelation that the State Department is trying to shove out the top career staff, leaving a huge void of experience and longtime foreign relationships.

According to some, senior State Department officials are outright asking longtime employees to retire. Others "have been reassigned other top career staff into the Administration Bureau, what employees consider to be a 'purgatory' where employees’ careers 'go to die.'"

Sen. Jeanne Shaheen said that the Senate Foreign Relations Committee has been following the allegations.

“These are critical national security positions and individuals should be chosen for their experience and ability, not their political loyalty. We are working with the House and other relevant committees to thoroughly investigate all such claims," she said.

Former Rep. Tom Malinowski (D-N.J.), who also served as a diplomat and assistant secretary of state for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, posted on X that all of this is illegal.

"Asking career officers how they voted is not just wrong — it violates the Hatch Act. Those doing it may be investigated by the U.S. Office of Special Counsel, fired, and/or fined," said Malinowski. "There is no statute of limitations — so the next administration can go after them."

One of the biggest problems with the Hatch Act, however, is that it outlines possible penalties but does not impose one automatic punishment, such as firing, for every violation. If a Trump appointee has already left the administration, firing them isn't a punishment. A civil fine, however, could be. The president could not pardon a Hatch Act violation as it is classified as civil administrative infraction, explained the Brookins Institute.

Malinowski said that any future administration could impose a penalty for a Hatch Act violation on a Trump appointee, but the firing from office likely wouldn't matter if they were already gone. A civil fine could be issued, but the maximum is $1,000; however, it outlines that the penalty is "adjusted for inflation." The Hatch Act was first passed into law in 1939. The Bureau of Labor Statistics offers a CPI Inflation Calculator.

President Donald Trump's handpicked Republican in a must-win North Carolina's Senate race is facing an embarrassing controversy after a local GOP organization tried to photoshop a Confederate flag off one of their photos from a campaign event.

Michael Whatley, who is the former Republican National Committee chairman, showed up at the Henderson County Republican Party headquarters on October 12, where photos shared by the local party showed the flag prominently displayed in the room.

According to The Daily Beast, one of the photos captured a woman smiling while holding a sign for Whatley,y which read, "Protect Our Families." The county GOP shared the photo on Facebook with the caption "Proud Supporter."

However, they later deleted the post and shared a photoshopped version without the Confederate flag.

The attempt to clean up the image only brought more attention to it, as other photographs and video from the gathering show Whatley walking past the flag and smiling as he moved through the room.

It's unclear how much Whatley or his team was involved, and the Henderson County GOP removed the image from its Facebook page.

The Anti-Defamation League notes that the Confederate flag is embraced by white supremacists, although some supporters of it argue that it is a symbol of Southern heritage. The Confederacy fought the Union in part to preserve slavery as a practice.

The latest embarrassment comes as Whatley is among many MAGA candidates fighting for power in a very tough election campaign against former Democratic Gov. Roy Cooper.

An Elon University poll released earlier this week has the Democrat leading Whatley 52% to 39% among likely voters. And with a margin of error of 4.9 percentage points for likely voters, that spells bad news for the Trump pick.

Whatley was also caught in a different controversy last month when a registered sex offender delivered an opening prayer at a separate campaign gathering in New Bern. His campaign denied organizing the event or inviting the guests, but the Daily Beast reported that promotional materials and Whatley's own remarks seemed to contradict that explanation.

Trump campaigned for Whatley this week but at one moment seemingly miscommunicated his support.

"It's crazy, you're going to send him to Washington to represent you," Trump told supporters, referring to Cooper.

Now, the altered photo has created another attack line for Democrats, with Whatley already lagging behind in the polls.

President Donald Trump’s nephew is continuing on in his social media tirade against his uncle and his uncle’s administration. Fred C. Trump III announced his endorsement of Dr. Annie Andrews, a physician running against Sen. Darline Graham. The president has publicly attacked Andrews on Truth Social by using an anti-transgender slur while campaigning for her Republican opponent. Dr. Andrews is not transgender.

In a recent post to X, Fred endorsed Annie Andrews, writing, “My uncle is in South Carolina tonight, stumping for $7 diesel Darline, which gives me the opportunity again to give a shout out to Dr. Annie Andrews, for Senator. Annie began her campaign as a long shot, and here she is, neck and neck with the Trumpublican lying machine. Please, get out there and vote."

In a separate post, he slammed his uncle, claiming he doesn’t have any guts, writing, "My uncle said of Ohio Senator John Husted: 'His a——, s——, it’s like a pile of muscle.' Husted’s chickens—— response to [Ohio gubernatorial candidate Vivek] Ramaswamy’s sick and venal ad? 'I would not have run it.' My uncle loves Husted’s a——. Too bad his backbone did not make the cut. Vote Amy Acton. Vote Sherrod Brown."

Earlier this month, in a Truth Social post, Trump referred to Andrews three times with a slur against transgendered individuals. Trump wrote, “And South Carolina must show, in the upcoming Election, that it is not for her.” Andrews, in a statement centering inclusivity, said she will “work with anyone to put South Carolina first.”

She said, per NBC News, “As a mom and a pediatrician, I’m in this race to fight for my patients, my three kids, and South Carolina,” Andrews said, adding that “lowering costs and making life better for families across our state is going to take all of us working together. If you care more about your bills than the politics in Washington, this campaign is for you.”

Fred Trump has made no qualms about not aligning with his uncle. His 2024 memoir All in the Family: The Trumps and How We Got This Way details the Trump family's power and internal dysfunction. In his book, he says his uncle advised him to cease care of his nonverbal and wheelchair bound son, telling him to "just let him die" due to the cost of care. President Trump denied the allegations, and others in the book, calling them "completely fabricated" and "total fake news of the highest order," though Fred maintains that they're "real stories."

Republican Sen. Kevin Cramer sent a blistering message directed at President Donald Trump's approach to Russia after his special envoy praised Vladimir Putin as a humanitarian, saying he would choose death over hearing such praise from someone acting on his behalf.

“All I can say is, if I'm ever captured by Vladimir Putin, I'd rather die in a prison in Russia than have somebody on my behalf refer to Vladimir Putin as a humanitarian,” the North Dakota Republican said in a statement.

Cramer's remarks appear to be an indirect message to Trump, as Steve Witkoff, Trump's longtime friend and special envoy, represented the president when he praised Putin, and Trump later defended his remarks.

The moment that led to bipartisan backlash was when Witkoff went to Russia to secure the release of American Stephen Hubbard, 74, who had been held in prison for more than four years.

Witkoff thanked the Russian leader for freeing Hubbard and called him a humanitarian, even as Russia continued to wage war against Ukraine, targeting civilian infrastructure.

“You are a humanitarian also, sir, and I salute that,” Witkoff told Putin.

Trump later defended the compliment when reporters questioned him about Witkoff’s highly criticized description of the Russian leader.

“I guess you could say for that particular purpose,” Trump said, referring to Putin's decision to release Hubbard, who the US says was held illegally.

Cramer also said of Witkoff’s comments, “Humanitarian wouldn’t be one of the first ten million words I’d think of to describe Vladimir Putin. He is anything but a humanitarian.”

The GOP senator also noted Witkoff has a “different job” as a diplomat than he does, seemingly noticing the need for diplomacy, and added that Putin is “as bad as it gets.”

He, however, praised the release of the American prisoner as a “big deal.”

Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., slammed Witkoff's choice of words, saying: “What an embarrassing and outrageous thing to say,” Tillis wrote on social media.

The controversy comes as Trump’s relationship with Russia has come under scrutiny with the Russian diesel deal and allegations that the US government slowed Starlink, leaving Ukraine’s airspace vulnerable to attacks.

Trump claims his administration had not given anything in exchange for Hubbard's release and suggested that the sanctions could have derailed the negotiations.

The president has blamed Ukraine’s Volodymyr Zelenskyy for the ongoing war, claiming that he refuses to make a deal to end the bloodshed.

With election day approaching, homeowners across the country have signs on their lawns or property endorsing their chosen candidates. But is it legal? It depends on where you live, according to The News Observer.

A North Carolina homeowner association (HOA) has interesting laws regarding whether political signs are acceptable or should be banned. First, it’s important to know what defines a political sign. In North Carolina, state laws define political signs as “a sign that attempts to influence the outcome of an election, including supporting or opposing an issue on the election ballot.” Per law firm Ward and Smith, HOAs can restrict political signs under state law, but not all flags or banners with political messages count as political signs, especially outside election season.

Political signs in North Carolina can be banned, but there are boundaries. Ward and Smith note that HOAs with rules registered before Oct. 1, 2005 must specifically mention “political signs” to restrict them. Rules registered after that date must include a bold, capitalized notice on the first page stating that the rules regulate or prohibit political signs. The HOA’s rules must clearly explain the restrictions. If they don’t mention political signs, the HOA can create rules to regulate them.

Rules also vary depending on which city residents live in. For example, in Charlotte, signs can’t be placed within 11 feet of the edge of the pavement, in medians, in traffic islands, on sidewalks and in specific locations. But in Raleigh, the rules are dependent upon the zoning of the property.

Law Firm Carolinas, which has four offices spread throughout the state of North Carolina, notes that there are broader rules. They note: “In North Carolina, the right to fly a United States or state of North Carolina flag in a planned community or condominium is protected by statute unless the declaration of covenants contains certain key phrases,” according to the law firm.

Most states leave it up to HOAs to determine the rules. Cedar Management Group, which provides HOA Management Services in North Carolina, South Carolina, and Eastern Tennessee, reports that HOAs have this blueprint to maintain the community’s overall appearance and character. Homeowners should check their HOA’s CC&Rs (Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions), as it is a legally binding document, for rules on political yard signs. Violating these rules could lead to fines or other penalties. The rules, however, must be fair across the board and not show favor or bias to any one homeowner.

Political commentator and national security expert Marcy Wheeler pointed to three recent instances in which President Donald Trump has lashed out at the media and issued new threats.

Writing on Thursday, Wheeler pointed to a letter sent by new White House Counsel Will Scharf to Politico complaining about its owner. The letter was first reported by Marc Caputo.

Scharf alleged articles published between Oct. 14 and Oct. 17 were "demonstrably false and defamatory" and part of a conspiracy to "manufacture a narrative of dysfunction and infighting in the White House."

He went on to demand the stories be retracted and corrections be issued "or face the consequences."

Caputo’s report closed with a comment from one of Trump's aides about Politico's owner being a foreign-owned right-wing billionaire.

Wheeler thinks these attacks are all part of the White House paving the road toward inevitable excuses and finger-pointing that will come from an electoral bloodbath.

The three articles Scharf complained about cover internal power struggles between White House chief of staff Susie Wiles and some in the administration. The White House has issued some on-the-record denials about the reports.

Scharf cited three articles in which Politico reported a power struggle targeting Susie Wiles for which the White House issued some form of on-the-record denials.

One was an Oct. 15 report, “Trump’s ice maiden is under fire,” which appeared in "Playbook," Politico's morning newsletter. Trump called it "fake news." The second Playbook report revealed a "freakout" in the White House over Politico's previous story. According to the source there, Trump "blew up" about it, calling it "unbelievably stupid and false." The third was a report titled “Susie Wiles helped set up Fox interview ahead of press secretary’s exit." Politico has issued a correction about the last story. The report insinuates that ex-press secretary Katie Zacharia was set up in her interview with Sean Hannity. In fact, it was Zacharia who set up her own interview with the Fox host.

A correction on the report now reads: "CORRECTION: An earlier version of this report, including its headline, mischaracterized the role White House chief of staff Susie Wiles played in then-press secretary Katie Zacharia’s interview with Sean Hannity on Fox News. POLITICO’s follow-up reporting indicates she did not play a direct role in setting up the interview.

White House chief of staff Susie Wiles 'offered positive reinforcement' for Katie Zacharia to appear on Sean Hannity’s Fox News show last week, according to a senior White House official."

Wheeler, for her part, said Trump doesn't appear ready to use the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) laws he has been known to ignore. So, while Politico might be panicking about a legal fight, she doubts it will go further than pool access.

One of the White House's challenges has been finding the people leaking to the press. A previous story revealed that Wiles and FBI Director Kash Patel were trying to hunt down the person who leaked that a Qatari-gifted jet wasn't equipped to handle international travel close to Iran. Trump had to secretly hide in a food cart to sneak onto the older presidential plane. It was never known why that switch needed to be so clandestine or what the plane lacked.

The White House argued that it was a colossal breach of national security. It never found the leaker.

For Wheeler, the issue is that, to her, the White House counsel is attempting to suppress reports about making Wiles the scapegoat for the bloodbath.

"As the first cited article lays out (and cites four people who are getting calls from Trump about replacing Wiles; it should be noted that Trump always solicits advice from Hannity), Trump is testing whether to replace Wiles with people that include Stephen Miller, who (along with Boris Epshteyn) is reportedly close to Scharf," she wrote.

The second Politico report says Trump aide Natalie Harp, who typically surrounds Trump with news that keeps him happy and calm, printed the first one. That second report denied that Trump or anyone at the White House read the first report. But Scharf's letter made it clear that in fact they had.

How else would "Scharf have come to complain about it and the follow-up, you dummies? This threat from Scharf is, quite literally, a legal freak-out," asked Wheeler.

Wheeler thinks the leaker is likely someone like Miller and that it's part of his power play to score the chief of staff gig. In the mean time, the White House Counsel is doing "something legally and logically stupid to punish Politico for reporting what is really going on," she closed.

President Donald Trump's State Department is facing allegations of giving career diplomats political loyalty, including asking whether they voted for Trump in recent elections, in what appears to be an illegal scheme.

Mid-and-upper-level Foreign Service personnel were reportedly asked about their political loyalty, which could violate federal protections that bar political affiliation from influencing decisions about career personnel.

According to The Washington Sun, candidates were asked who they voted for in the 2016, 2020 and 2024 elections.

Top State Department officials reportedly told them only candidates who voted for Trump would be eligible for mid-to-upper-level foreign service roles. They also told candidates that their campaign donation history would be investigated and anyone who gave money to Democrats would be disqualified.

The report states six officials, current and former, were interviewed with knowledge of the alleged scheme and three had spoken directly with people who were asked the questions.

Unlike political appointees, career diplomats serve across administrations regardless of whether the president is Republican or Democrat or which party controls the Congress.

Democrats are planning to investigate the alleged crime after the report made its way to Congress.

Sen. Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said that they were aware of the allegations and have been watching closely.

“The Committee has been following allegations that the Trump Administration is making political affiliation a factor in employment for some time now,” he said per the report, continuing:

“These are critical national security positions, and individuals should be chosen for their experience and ability, not their political loyalty. We are working with the House and other relevant committees to thoroughly investigate all such claims.”

The State Department is yet to release a statement reacting to the allegations.

However, a spokesperson defended the department's emphasis on “fidelity,” describing the standard as a commitment to the Constitution, lawful conduct, and implementing the president's foreign policy.

“Fidelity means upholding the Constitution and the law and executing policy with loyalty to the American people and their interests,” the spokesperson said.

The spokesperson denied that it was a political test, adding it’s “not about partisan behavior,” and said Secretary of State Marco Rubio was rewarding employees who delivered results.

But the questions come after the department changed the performance evaluations last year to measure how aligned employees are with administration priorities.

The department recently conducted a massive overhaul of staff, with about a quarter losing their jobs. It is unclear if these changes were directly related to the allegations of loyalty tests.

Max Stier, president of the nonpartisan Partnership for Public Service, called the alleged loyalty-test screening an “appalling and flagrant disregard of federal law.”