Category: Discrimination: Veterans

Hegseth has intervened in military promotions for more than a dozen senior officers

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has systematically blocked or delayed promotions for more than a dozen Black and female senior officers across all four military branches, according to nine U.S. officials familiar with the process. Some officers targeted appear to have been singled out because of their race, gender, or perceived alignment with Biden administration policies. Hegseth refused to meet with Army Chief of Staff Gen. Randy George when George requested discussion of the promotion blocks targeting women and Black men, and Hegseth subsequently fired George on Thursday.

Hegseth has cited officers’ past support for COVID-19 vaccines, mask mandates enacted during the Biden administration, affiliation with diversity, equity and inclusion programs, or association with former Joint Chiefs Chairman Mark Milley as reasons for removal from promotion consideration. In recent weeks, Hegseth blocked three Marine officers—two women and a Black man—who were recommended for promotion by Marine Corps leadership and had no open investigations against them. A Navy list of officers selected for one-star admiral promotion has been held up for over a month, with concern that officers may be removed based on race or gender.

The Army’s promotion list included approximately 30 officers for one-star general positions; Hegseth removed four names before it reached the Senate in mid-March, striking two women and two Black officers without documented cause or investigation. Military law requires the president, not the defense secretary, to possess authority to block promotions, and a reason such as an ongoing investigation must be provided if removal occurs before White House transmission. The removed officers had deployed, performed their duties, and were combat-tested, yet Hegseth provided no explanation for their removal.

Defense secretaries typically do not remove officers from promotion lists or reject service branch recommendations, and this intervention violates longstanding military practice and law requiring promotions be based on individual merit. U.S. Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I., ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, called the blocking “disgraceful” and “a complete betrayal of the merit-based promotion system.” A retired senior military officer warned that unexplained intervention in the promotion process will erode officer trust and create the perception that careers can be “politicized in a career-ending manner.”

Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell disputed the reporting as “fake news from anonymous sources” and claimed promotions are based on merit. However, military demographics show active-duty forces are 80 percent male and 74 percent white among officers, while only 9 percent of officers are Black, indicating the concentration of promotion authority in Hegseth’s hands poses significant risk of abuse when applied selectively against officers from underrepresented groups.

(Source: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/hegseth-intervened-military-promotions-dozen-senior-officers-rcna266062)

Hegseth Removes Black, Female Officers from General Promotion List

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth removed four Army officers from a one-star general promotion list without clear legal authority to do so. Two of the officers are Black and two are women from a list of approximately three dozen officers, predominantly white men. Hegseth had pressured Army Secretary Daniel P. Driscoll for months to strike the names, but Driscoll repeatedly refused based on the officers’ exemplary service records until Hegseth unilaterally removed them this month.

One Black officer was targeted for writing a paper nearly 15 years ago analyzing why African American officers historically pursued support roles over combat positions. A female logistics officer faced removal after serving in Afghanistan during the 2021 withdrawal, which Hegseth has condemned as “disastrous and embarrassing.” The reasons for removing the other two officers, a logistics officer and finance specialist, remain unclear. A fifth officer, Colonel Dave Butler, a white male spokesman for former Joint Chiefs Chairman Mark Milley, resigned in February after repeated demands from Hegseth’s office for his removal.

Hegseth’s chief of staff, Ricky Buria, told Driscoll that President Trump would not want to stand next to a Black female officer at military events, according to three officials familiar with the exchange. Buria denied the account, calling it “completely false” and “made up.” Army Secretary Driscoll responded by telling Buria that Trump is “not a racist or sexist” and raised the issue with a White House official who agreed with his assessment, prompting Hegseth’s office to retreat on that particular case.

Hegseth’s personnel overhaul includes dismantling merit-based promotion safeguards, including shuttering the Command Assessment Program that used peer reviews and double-blind interviews to ensure all officers regardless of race or gender could compete fairly. Senior military officials question whether the officers are being singled out because of their race or gender, eroding confidence in a promotion system designed to be apolitical and merit-based. Military lawyers have debated whether Hegseth possesses legal authority to strike individual names from the list, as regulations allow him only to reject or accept the entire list.

Hegseth has fired or sidelined at least two dozen generals and admirals since taking office, including General Charles Q. Brown Jr., the second African American chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Admiral Lisa Franchetti, the first woman to lead the Navy. Currently, the chairman and vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs, all five service chiefs, and nine of the military’s ten combatant commanders are white men, reversing years of diversification efforts under former Defense Secretary Lloyd J. Austin III.

(Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/27/us/hegseth-promotion-list.html)

Trump Defies Fallen Airmen’s Families’ Privacy Request at Transfer

President Trump attended the dignified transfer of six U.S. Air Force airmen killed in a refueling aircraft crash during military operations in Iran, despite families of the deceased explicitly requesting privacy and barring cameras from the ceremony. Fox News correspondent John Roberts reported that the troops’ relatives demanded the transfer remain private, a direct contradiction to Trump’s public participation in the event.

Trump’s decision to attend despite the families’ wishes demonstrates his abuse of power and disregard for the bereaved, using a solemn military ceremony honoring the dead for public appearances. This mirrors prior instances of Trump exploiting fallen soldiers’ images for political gain, including his PAC’s use of a dignified transfer photograph in fundraising materials.

The Republican president’s pattern of defying families’ explicit wishes regarding their fallen loved ones contradicts stated respect for military sacrifice. Previous occasions saw Trump skip dignified transfers entirely to attend personal events, while his administration continues to weaponize military ceremonies for political messaging.

By ignoring the grieving families’ direct request for privacy, Trump prioritized his media visibility over the dignity and autonomy of those mourning their relatives. The airmen’s families sought a respectful, private ceremony to honor their dead, yet Trump’s attendance converted their loss into a public spectacle under his control.

(Source: https://www.yahoo.com/news/videos/slain-troops-families-issue-ban-224742434.html)

Pentagon Restricts Stars and Stripes Military Newspaper Editorial

The Pentagon announced “modernization” changes to Stars and Stripes on March 9, immediately restricting the independent military newspaper’s editorial operations weeks after Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s spokesman called the publication “woke.” The memo prohibits the newspaper from publishing wire service content from organizations like the Associated Press and Reuters, eliminating coverage of war zones including the new conflict in Iran where military readers may be deployed, and bans lighter content such as March Madness coverage and comic strips.

The memo requires Stars and Stripes content to be “consistent with good order and discipline,” military justice language that threatens military staff reporters with court-martial if they publish stories the Defense Department opposes. Editor-in-Chief Erik Slavin stated the Pentagon did not directly communicate the memo to his newsroom, which discovered it three days after implementation on a Defense Department website, leaving staff uncertain about compliance requirements and legal exposure for uniformed journalists.

The Pentagon claims the changes return Stars and Stripes to serving “the warfighter” while denying the newspaper will lose editorial independence. However, the memo redirects the newspaper’s ombudsman to send Congressional information to the Defense Department first rather than directly to legislators, dismantling a Congressional mandate protecting the publication’s autonomy since the 1990s. The Trump administration withdrew the federal regulation underpinning that mandate in January.

Stars and Stripes has operated independently under Congressional mandate since World War II and historically received bipartisan support, including from Trump during his first term. Applicants for Stars and Stripes positions are now being screened based on loyalty to the president’s policy priorities, representing direct assault on institutional independence. Press freedom organizations condemned the memo; PEN America stated service members rely on Stars and Stripes for independent reporting, not material dictated by officials the newspaper should hold accountable.

The Defense Department’s restrictions on Stars and Stripes follow Hegseth’s broader campaign against diversity initiatives across military institutions. In September, Hegseth imposed a policy requiring media outlets to pledge not to gather information without formal authorization from defense officials, forcing established news organizations including NPR to surrender press credentials rather than comply. Hegseth has similarly pressured Scouting America to implement transgender youth restrictions under Pentagon direction, demonstrating systematic institutional control efforts.

(Source: https://www.npr.org/2026/03/14/nx-s1-5748020/pentagon-tightens-controls-over-stars-and-stripes-after-calling-it-woke?utm_term=nprnews&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=npr&utm_medium=social&fbclid=IwdGRleAQizGFleHRuA2FlbQIxMQBzcnRjBmFwcF9pZAo2NjI4NTY4Mzc5AAEej7qKf0rpz1enHZ43OdilQAgGvWjeko5o_ISNz39QoXq-4KFvlQTe_B7X9SU_aem_LmcSZMI9L6Q3yyss_RUeAA)

Trump PAC Fundraises With Fallen Soldiers Photo

President Trump’s political action committee sent a fundraising email featuring an official White House photograph of Trump saluting during a dignified transfer of six fallen US soldiers at Dover Air Force Base on March 7, 2026. The email, sent by Never Surrender, Inc., used this solemn military ceremony honoring the dead to promote a “National Security Briefing Membership,” promising donors access to Trump’s “private national security briefings” and “unfiltered updates on the threats facing America.”

The fundraising pitch falsely marketed exclusive national security information to donors, claiming members would receive “the straight truth on border invasions, foreign adversaries, deep state sabotage, and every danger the fake news hides.” Trump’s message in the email stated, “I’m the strong commander who stares down tyrants, obliterates terrorists, and never backs down,” using the soldiers’ remains as a backdrop for self-promotion and financial solicitation.

Dignified transfers are solemn military traditions conducted when the remains of US service members killed overseas return to the United States. The war with Iran has resulted in 13 service member deaths so far, with Trump previously acknowledging there will likely be more casualties. By using imagery from this ceremony to raise money, Trump weaponized a moment meant to honor the fallen for partisan fundraising purposes.

Democratic officials condemned the abuse of power. Senator Andy Kim of New Jersey criticized the email on social media, and California Governor Gavin Newsom’s press office stated, “Donald Trump is fundraising off of dead soldiers.” The email represents one of multiple fundraising pitches by Trump and his affiliated PACs that have exploited the Iran war for financial gain.

The White House and the Republican National Committee did not respond to requests for comment on the fundraising email. This incident demonstrates how Trump uses the office and official resources, including photographs of fallen service members, to enrich his political committees while making false promises to supporters about access to classified or sensitive information.

(Source: https://www.cnn.com/2026/03/13/politics/trump-fundraise-email-soldier)

Trump Boasts ‘Great Deal’ After Three Service Members Killed

President Trump responded to the deaths of three U.S. service members killed during Operation Epic Fury against Iran by characterizing their loss as part of a transaction that would ultimately benefit the world. When asked about the casualties on Sunday, Trump stated, “We expect casualties with something like this. We have three, but we expect casualties—but in the end it’s going to be a great deal for the world.” U.S. Central Command confirmed the three deaths and noted that several others sustained minor shrapnel injuries and concussions during the ongoing military operation.

Trump’s framing of military deaths as a favorable outcome demonstrates a pattern of reducing human sacrifice to transactional language. His comment equates the lives of fallen service members to a business negotiation, explicitly describing the cost in lives as producing a “great deal”—language that strips dignity from those who died in combat.

CENTCOM withheld the identities of the deceased service members pending next-of-kin notification, emphasizing respect for affected families. Trump’s immediate pivot to boasting about the deal’s value directly contradicts that respectful stance and reveals his core indifference to the human cost of warfare.

(Source: https://www.rawstory.com/trump-us-deaths-great-deal/)

Trump’s $1,776 Warrior Dividends Not from Tariffs

President Trump announced $1,776 “warrior dividend” checks for 1.45 million service members before Christmas, claiming the funds originated from tariff revenue. Defense One reported the next day that the money actually derives from Congressional appropriations under the “One Big Beautiful Bill” Act, specifically from the Basic Allowance for Housing entitlement meant to subsidize off-base housing costs including rent, mortgage, and utilities.

Congress allocated $2.9 billion to the Defense Department for housing supplements, with $2.6 billion designated as a one-time payment to approximately 1.28 million active-duty and 174,000 Reserve component service members ranked O-6 and below. PBS NewsHour’s Lisa Desjardins confirmed the funding source is not tariff revenue and noted the assistance was originally intended to span two years before the Pentagon redirected it into this single payment.

Budget analyst Jessica Riedl from the Brookings Institution criticized the action as “gimmicky” and “likely illegal,” stating the administration announced troop bonuses while quietly extracting funds from housing allowance accounts. The maneuver accomplishes no net increase in military compensation; it reallocates existing housing assistance into a headline-grabbing payment announced with misleading attribution to tariffs.

The administration’s tax-exemption claim may be accurate since supplemental housing allowances have received favorable tax treatment under a 1925 court ruling and 1986 legislation. However, the budgetary mechanism remains deceptive—the funds were never surplus tariff proceeds but pre-existing Congressional appropriations redirected from their original two-year housing support purpose.

(Source: https://www.mediaite.com/politics/trump/the-1776-checks-for-troops-trump-claimed-were-because-of-tariffs-are-actually-congressionally-allocated-housing-allowances/)

Trump Threatens to Fire Military Leaders at Quantico Summit

President Donald Trump threatened to fire military leaders during a mysterious military summit in Quantico, Virginia, while addressing top commanders. Trump stated, “I’m going to be meeting with generals and with admirals… if I don’t like somebody, I’m going to fire them right on the spot.” His comments echo an ongoing trend of increasingly authoritarian rhetoric among Republicans, including calls to eliminate “woke” policies from the military.

Pentagon Chief Pete Hegseth supported Trump’s stance, claiming the Defense Department had deteriorated due to “wokeness,” and announced strict new physical fitness directives and grooming standards. Hegseth warned senior officers that if they disagreed with him, they should resign, embracing a culture of intolerance and intimidating leadership.

This unprecedented gathering involved numerous high-ranking military officials, generating significant security concerns and potential logistical issues due to the volume of personnel brought to Quantico. Experts warned that the costs associated with this event could run into the millions, further raising questions about the wisdom and necessity of such a meeting.

Critics, including Democratic senators, condemned the summit as a misuse of resources, noting that it diverts top military commanders from their essential duties and raises security risks. They expressed concern that bringing so many senior officers together could expose vulnerabilities as adversaries could exploit the situation.

The summit exemplifies the Trump administration’s troubling authoritarian tendencies, seeking to reshape military culture through intimidation and threatening the personal careers of those who challenge his vision. Such actions contribute to a growing sentiment of militarization within politics, highlighting a dangerous shift away from democratic principles.

U.S. Defense Secretary’s Purge Targets Dissenting Military Voices Amid Right-Wing Intimidation

U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has taken drastic measures by relieving several military service members of their duties for posting on social media concerning right-wing figure Charlie Kirk. This action, reportedly motivated by Hegseth’s orders to target military personnel who mocked or approved of Kirk’s killing, raises serious questions about the politicization of the military and the suppression of free speech within its ranks.

Reports indicate that Hegseth instructed staffers to actively seek out and penalize service members perceived to support the condemnation of Kirk’s death. This directive comes amid a broader climate where influential right-wing figures are emboldening a culture of intimidation, leveraging social media to orchestrate witch hunts against those who oppose their views. The ongoing campaign has already resulted in job losses, investigations, and violent threats against those expressing dissent.

High-profile right-wing activists, including Laura Loomer and Chaya Raichik of Libs of TikTok, have been involved in naming individuals who they claim celebrated Kirk’s demise, further inciting harassment and hostility. This disturbing trend is emblematic of the escalating divisiveness in American politics, where even expressions of criticism can lead to dire consequences for military personnel within a hyper-partisan environment.

Former President Donald Trump’s rhetoric has fueled these tensions, as he continues to vilify perceived political opponents. By blaming the so-called “radical left” for violence and destabilization, Trump has contributed to an atmosphere of fear and retribution, threatening action against those he views as culpable in political discord. Such behavior aligns with the authoritarian tendencies observed in his administration, where dissent is marked by serious ramifications.

The ramifications of Hegseth’s actions extend beyond mere personnel changes; they epitomize the militarization of political discourse and the potential undermining of democratic values. As threats of violence permeate the political landscape, moderated and rational debate is increasingly jeopardized, leaving vulnerable voices silenced in the face of right-wing domination.

Air Force Imposes Discriminatory Policy Against Transgender Troops Following Trump’s Agenda

The Air Force has instituted a new policy that eliminates the opportunity for transgender airmen facing discharge to argue their case before a separation board of peers. This directive follows a troubling pattern initiated by the Trump administration that systematically discriminates against transgender service members by mandating separation for those diagnosed with gender dysphoria.

With this new policy, boards, which traditionally function as quasi-legal hearings allowing service members to advocate for their continued service, are stripped of their autonomy and impartiality. Military legal experts are labeling this recent order as unlawful, expressing concerns it could establish a damaging precedent across the entire military.

The memo from the Air Force effectively directs separation boards to recommend discharge solely based on a diagnosis of gender dysphoria, relegating conditions that solely determine a member’s ability to serve to irrelevance. Legal representatives for transgender troops argue this change not only undermines due process but also expels competent individuals based on their gender identity rather than their service record or performance.

Prominent voices within the military, such as Senior Master Sgt. Jamie Hash and master sergeant Logan Ireland, have expressed their dismay at this new directive, which they feel dismisses their honorable service and contributions. The absence of fair hearings that evaluate performance diminishes trust in military leadership and reduces the standards expected in evaluating service members.

The recent guidance has been met with alarm by advocates for LGBTQ+ individuals in the military, who assert that it signals a troubling shift towards prioritizing identity over capability within military ranks. The evolving nature of this policy highlights the precarious position of LGBTQ+ service members and raises critical questions about the integrity of military decision-making under political pressures.

1 2 3 … 9