Navy SEALs Face Discipline Over Racist Memes Targeting Black Sailor
Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content.
Two members of Navy SEAL Team 4 are facing disciplinary action after a military investigation revealed they had circulated racist memes targeting a Black sailor in their platoon.
The memes, which were shared in a group chat, included images depicting the sailor as a monkey and as a chained slave aboard a slave ship, according to visuals reviewed by The Associated Press.
"This was a very shocking case of explicit and repeated racist memes directed at our client in a platoon-wide text thread," said the sailor's attorney, Timothy Parlatore.
The Pentagon is seen in this aerial view in Washington, Jan. 26, 2020.
The Pentagon is seen in this aerial view in Washington, Jan. 26, 2020.
Associated Press
The two enlisted SEALs responsible for creating and spreading the images will face non-judicial punishment and receive punitive letters in their files—sanctions that can end careers or lead to demotions and pay loss. Several of their platoon and team leaders are also being disciplined for leadership failures, as they did not adequately respond to the targeted sailor's repeated concerns. Administrative actions, including letters of reprimand, could impact whether these leaders remain in the SEALs.
According to a defense official who spoke on condition of anonymity, the racist behavior began in 2022 and continued for years. The targeted sailor reported the abuse this year but had already lost his SEAL qualifications and Trident last year. He alleged that the revocation was the result of persistent racist treatment. However, following the investigation by Naval Special Warfare Group 2—which oversees SEAL Team 4—his SEAL qualifications are now being reinstated. Officials concluded that the decision to strip him of his Trident was flawed.
Naval Special Warfare Command issued a statement confirming it had investigated "serious allegations of unprofessional conduct within one of our commands," and emphasized that "accountability actions are ongoing."
The statement added, "We are dedicated to fostering a climate of dignity and respect, and after conducting a thorough and fair investigation, we will hold anyone found responsible of misconduct accountable."
Parlatore commended Rear Adm. Jamie Sands, head of Naval Special Warfare, and his team for taking swift corrective action.
"They moved quickly to investigate, reverse the negative repercussions that our client received, and move to hold people accountable," he said.
This latest incident underscores persistent racial issues within elite commando forces, which remain significantly less diverse than the broader U.S. military. Efforts to build more inclusive units could face new hurdles, however, as the Trump administration and the Pentagon move to dismantle diversity and inclusion initiatives (DEI) across the military, potentially exacerbating the challenges faced by minority service members in these predominantly white units.
This article contains reporting by The Associated Press.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
8 hours ago
- The Hill
Debanking innocent Americans should be illegal
Republican and Democratic leaders agree: Closing the bank accounts of Americans for no apparent reason is wrong. In recent years, major banks have begun the quiet, calculated and often callous closing of bank accounts belonging to honest, law-abiding Americans — typically without warning, cause or recourse. The practice is called debanking. And, to put it plainly, it just ain't right. According to members of the Senate Committee on Banking, Bank of America 'was the subject of 988 improper closure complaints and 584 improper account denial complaints.' JPMorgan Chase 'was the subject of 1,423 improper closure complaints and 443 improper account denial complaints,' and in 2021, Chase closed the account of retired former National Security Adviser Gen. Michael Flynn's nonprofit, citing 'reputational risk.' Wells Fargo 'was the subject of 1,053 improper closure complaints and 350 improper account denial complaints'; it has faced allegations of closing long-standing customer accounts in 'high-risk' categories, like firearms dealers. Citigroup 'was the subject of 742 improper closure complaints and 96 improper account denial complaints,' including closing personal and business accounts of Armenian Americans. Most people are unaware of this practice until it touches them directly. Bank failures and employee embezzlements get far more attention from the media and policymakers. But to those affected, debanking is as devastating as being caught in a bank robbery crossfire — and the consequences can be permanent. To put things in context, we are not talking about fraudsters, drug lords or terror financiers. Debanking is being used against men and women whose only crime is running a small business, engaging in lawful commerce or having views or associations that run counter to traditional orthodoxy, such as adult content creators. Some are foreign nationals. Others are part of religious nonprofits. Some are just on the conservative side of the political spectrum. It has been happening to regular people — people like the owner of a barbershop in a historically Black neighborhood who manages an informal savings club. To his neighbors, the owner is a lifeline. But to the bank, he is a suspicious actor whose account gets frozen after depositing a large sum of money. There's no warning and no conversation — just an ATM terminal denying him access to his own funds. Or it could be a cybersecurity expert whose firm defends against hackers and cybercriminals. Because she interacts with cyberthreats, the bank froze her account, assuming she was the criminal. Maybe it's the owner of a bakery whose teenage son sells inert replicas of firearms online as collectibles. Because of his hobby, the bank closed down the mother's account. Perhaps the next victim is a retired Marine and Civil War re-enactor who was told his bank account was closed because of his 'military paraphernalia.' These are not anomalies. They are becoming more commonplace as banks are increasingly guided — or misguided — by the concept of reputational risk, driven by the fear of being associated with certain businesses like adult entertainment, cannabis, firearms, crypto or fringe political groups. Understandably, no bank wants to be grilled by a hostile Senate committee or slapped with a billion-dollar fine for missing a bad actor. Nor do they want to be accused of helping to finance terrorism or violent organizations. So they overreach. To avoid risk, they 'de-risk' certain people, not based on their behavior but on categories and algorithms. This is not compliance. It is digital profiling. Earlier this year, the chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.), introduced the Financial Integrity and Regulation Management Act, which expressly prohibits federal regulators from using 'reputational risk' as a justification for examining or penalizing banks. In rare bipartisan agreement, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) also highlighted thousands of complaints collected in recent years from people who could not open accounts or had them abruptly closed. 'Big banks are relying on black-box algorithms and middlemen companies, and shutting down accounts without doing careful due diligence,' she said, citing Muslims, cannabis businesses and recently incarcerated people as victims. Beyond the personal harm, the societal impact of debanking is enormous. In a digital economy, it widens the gap between the unbanked and the rest of the world, and forces good people into underground economies that cut them off from full economic participation. Banks are meant to be neutral custodians of commerce, not referees of righteousness. To be sure, banks have a duty to fight illicit finance. But that duty should not include disenfranchising individuals based on vague reputational concerns. Federal watchdogs should clarify what 'reputational risk' means, and there must be much more transparency. Congress should also encourage banks to practice diligent risk analysis, not blanket exclusion. Regulators should reward, not penalize, banks that create culturally competent, innovation-friendly frameworks. Every American deserves to know why their financial life has been upended. Vague form letters are not acceptable. A bank should not be allowed to destroy someone's livelihood without a process for redress. Reasons must be specific, reviewable and appealable. Most Americans who have had their accounts closed are not money launderers, cybercriminals, militia leaders or threats to national security. They are citizens. Taxpayers. Workers. Innovators. Parents. Patriots. They are being punished not for what they've done, but for how they are perceived. Without question, banks must guard against criminality. But they should do so with discernment, discretion and decency. Otherwise, they are not protecting consumers. They are prosecuting them. And in America, that just ain't right. Adonis Hoffman writes on business law and policy. He served in senior legal roles at the FCC and in the U.S. House of Representatives.
USA Today
10 hours ago
- USA Today
Pam Bondi drops case against doctor accused of destroying COVID-19 vaccines
Attorney General Pam Bondi on July 12 dropped a case against a Utah doctor accused of falsifying COVID-19 vaccination certificates and destroying more than $28,000 worth of government-provided COVID-19 vaccines. Bondi, in a statement posted on X, said Michael Kirk Moore Jr., of Salt Lake County, Utah did not deserve the jail time he was facing. Moore was indicted by a federal grand jury in 2023, and his trial had begun earlier this month. "Dr. Moore gave his patients a choice when the federal government refused to do so. He did not deserve the years in prison he was facing. It ends today," Bondi said. COVID-19 vaccine skeptics have been embraced by the Trump administration. The Pentagon, for example, has sought to re-enlist servicemembers who were ousted for refusing to be vaccinated during the pandemic. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who for decades has sown doubt about the safety of vaccines contrary to evidence and research by scientists, wrote on X in April: "Dr. Moore deserves a medal for his courage and his commitment to healing!" According to a 2023 statement from the U.S. Attorney's Office in Utah, Moore allegedly ran the false certifications out of a plastic surgery center. His activities allegedly included administering saline shots to minors, at the request of their parents, so the children would think they were receiving COVID-19 vaccines, the statement said. Marjorie Taylor Greene, a U.S. lawmaker from Georgia and staunch Trump supporter, had championed dropping the case against Moore, who she called a hero in a statement on Saturday. "We can never again allow our government to turn tyrannical under our watch," she said in a post on X. The latest move by Bondi comes amid scrutiny of her firings of senior Justice Department officials who worked on investigations into Trump, stoking accusations of political retribution in a department whose mission is to enforce U.S. laws. (Reporting by Phil Stewart and Barghav Acharya; Editing by Don Durfee and Alistair Bell)
a day ago
A court called off a key 9/11 suspect's plea deal. Here's where the case stands
NEW YORK -- The United States' long legal case against accused Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed remains in limbo after an appeals court this week scrapped a plea deal that the government had negotiated but had later withdrawn. Essentially, the ruling leaves the case on track for trial before a military commission. It is unclear when that might happen. Here's what to know about the case and how it got here: Mohammed is accused of developing and directing al-Qaida's plot to crash hijacked airliners into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001. Another of the hijacked planes flew into a field in Pennsylvania. In all, nearly 3,000 people were killed in one of the deadliest attacks ever on the United States. Mohammed was arrested in 2003 in Pakistan and eventually taken to the U.S. military base at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. At the time, it was where the U.S. held hundreds of men captured in President George W. Bush's 'war on terror.' Military prosecutors filed charges in 2008 against Mohammed and some co-defendants. After an Obama-era plan to try them in a civilian court in New York collapsed, the case remained with the military commission. The case dragged on through years of legal and logistical challenges. A major point of contention has been how much the evidence and case have been tainted by the men's torture while in CIA custody during the first years after their capture. Mohammed was waterboarded 183 times. Military prosecutors and defense lawyers began plea talks several years ago. Last year, Mohammed and two others agreed to plead guilty, under an agreement that would have led to life in prison instead of a potential death penalty. The deal also would have required the men to answer questions posed by Sept. 11 victims' relatives. Military prosecutors called the arrangement 'the best path to finality and justice.' Some 9/11 families also saw the deal as the best hope for bringing the painful case to a conclusion and getting some answers from the defendants. But other victims' relatives said a trial was the right way to get justice and information, and some saw the plea deal as capitulation. Republican lawmakers also criticized the agreement, negotiated during Democratic President Joe Biden's administration. Then-Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin soon rescinded the deal, saying that victims' relatives, U.S. troops and the American public ' deserve the opportunity ' to see military commission trials play out. Defense attorneys and the government wrangled in various courts over whether Austin was legally able to scrap the deal. It was on-again, off-again for months. A panel of appeals judges put it on hold in January and then, on Friday, issued 2-1 ruling saying that Austin had the authority to rescind the agreement. The order bars the military judge from taking any guilty pleas under the now-undone deal. It is not clear whether defense lawyers plan to appeal. A message seeking comment was sent Saturday to Mohammed's attorneys. Without a plea deal, the case would once again be back in the pretrial stage within the military commission system, with the legal and logistical complications that it has faced. Questions about whether the men's torture would prevent the use of evidence, including statements they made, are yet to be resolved.
