Top Hegseth aide Justin Fulcher resigns from Pentagon after 6 months of service: ‘Incredibly inspiring'
Justin Fulcher told Fox News Digital he formally resigned on Thursday evening, describing the decision as entirely his own.
Advertisement
Fulcher said he had originally planned to serve six months in government and, having reached that point, chose to move on 'amicably.' He also emphasized what he described as the 'great work' being done by Hegseth 'for our troops and country.'
'The Department of Defense is grateful to Justin Fulcher for his work on behalf of President [Donald] Trump and Secretary Hegseth. We wish him well in his future endeavors,' chief Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell said in a statement.
In addition to advising Hegseth on personnel and policy, Fulcher played a role in several defense initiatives during his tenure, he told Fox News Digital.
3 Justin Fulcher was a top advisor to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.
@JustinFulcher / X
Advertisement
Fulcher said he contributed to reviews of major acquisition programs aimed at strengthening lethality and the US industrial base, and helped streamline software procurement timelines 'from years to months,' modernizing key IT systems across the department.
He also said he supported Hegseth in high-level meetings across the Indo-Pacific, including the Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore, and participated in efforts that redirected nearly $50 billion from non-lethal line items into readiness and more impactful defense programs.
Fulcher praised the 'dedicated men and women of the Department of Defense,' cited progress in 'revitalizing the warrior ethos' and 'rebuilding the military,' and thanked both Hegseth and Trump for their leadership. 'Still, this is just the beginning,' Fulcher added.
3 Fulcher was part of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's inner circle.
REUTERS
Advertisement
Fulcher, who had served as a senior advisor to Hegseth since April, announced his departure Saturday afternoon in a message posted to X.
'As planned, I've completed 6 months of service in government to my country,' he wrote, calling the experience 'incredibly inspiring.'
'None of this could have happened without Secretary Hegseth's decisive leadership or President Trump's continued confidence in our team,' he wrote. 'I will continue to champion American warfighters in all future endeavors.'
Fulcher joined the DoD earlier this year as part of Hegseth's inner circle, a cohort of loyal advisers appointed after Hegseth took the helm at the Pentagon in Trump's second term.
Advertisement
3 Fulcher claimed he only planned to serve six months.
Jen Golbeck/SOPA Images/Shutterstock
His departure comes amid a broader reshuffling of senior personnel inside Hegseth's office.
At least six aides have left since January, though defense officials have downplayed the moves as standard transitions.
It's unclear what Fulcher's next step will be, though his statement suggests he intends to remain active in national security circles.
The Pentagon has not yet named a replacement.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Miami Herald
23 minutes ago
- Miami Herald
Federal Reserve official gives green light to July rate cut
Is tariff inflation lagging, only to then burst and slip away? Or is it here to stay? Don't miss the move: Subscribe to TheStreet's free daily newsletter Just ask Federal Reserve Governor Christopher J. Waller. Waller, a Trump appointee, surprised some Fed watchers late last month. He opined the Federal Open Markets Committee should cut the Federal Funds Rate at its July 29-30 meeting, citing slower-than-expected inflation data that wasn't going to be as hot as expected. Related: JPMorgan drops blunt forecast on future interest rate cuts Waller doubled down on that position July 17, saying the latest data, including the June CPI figure at 2.7% and other recent economic numbers, show it's definitely time for the Fed's first rate cut in 2025. But will the rest of Fed leadership vote for it? Image source: Bloomberg/Getty Images The tariffs, which President Donald Trump announced on "Liberation Day'' in April, now face an Aug. 1 deadline. They are the highest in nine decades, ranging from 10% to 50% on imported goods and services. An interest rate cut has been the mantra of President Trump for months, saying the current rates are holding back the American economy from robust growth. The Federal Reserve Board has one job: comply with the dual congressional mandate to maintain 2% inflation and keep unemployment rates stable with steady GDP growth. It uses interest rates as a tool to manage that balance. The Federal Open Meeting Committee (FOMC) is the Fed's 12-member policymaking panel headed by Fed Chair Jerome Powell. Related: Trump deflects reports on firing Fed Chair Powell 'soon' The FOMC has been holding the Federal Funds Rate steady at 4.25% to 4.50% in anticipation of inflation from President Trump's tariffs and trade wars. The Federal Funds Rate is the price the Fed charges U.S. banks to borrow money overnight. This, in turn, sets the pace for short-term costs of borrowing money, such as through credit cards and auto and student loans. The 10-year Treasury Bond yield is the benchmark for longer-term interest rates like the 30-year fixed mortgage, currently hovering around 6.8%. The market expectations for how the Fed will set rates in the future influence long-term rates. The president is calling for a hefty slash of 3%, saying it will benefit Americans looking to buy homes with lower mortgages and reduce interest on the trillions of dollars in the U.S. deficit. In addition, he believes it will kickstart the overall economy in tandem with the new tax reconciliation act once known as the One Big Beautiful Bill. He's also been calling Powell a rotating list of personal and professional nasty and vulgar names as well as threatening to fire him (which are likely illegal but still caused some wonky fireworks over D.C. this week.) The Trump administration and its allies say the tariffs impact will be transitory, meaning it will represent a one-time hit to prices but not multiply and ripple through permanently. And while past tariffs in modern U.S. history have proven to shock prices in the short term, they tend to settle back down over the long run, according to some economists. "I believe we should cut the policy rate at our meeting in two weeks," Waller said in a speech in New York June 17. He called for a Fed's policy rate of 3%, or 125-150 basis points lower than the current rate of 4.25%-4.5%. Waller advocated returning the Fed's policy settings to "neutral," meaning interest rates at a level that neither speeds up nor slows down business activity, The New York Times reported. "With inflation near target and the upside risks to inflation limited, we should not wait until the labor market deteriorates before we cut the policy rate," he said. More Federal Reserve: Fed interest rate cut decision resets forecasts for the rest of this yearFederal Reserve prepares strong message on long-term interest ratesFed official revamps interest-rate cut forecast for this year Waller has in the past defended his analysis as "not political." Earlier that day, former Fed governor Kevin Warsh said in a CNBC interview that the central bank was in need of a "regime change." Warsh was quick to say the independence of the Fed is essential, but just as quickly advocated for significant monetary policy adjustments. If Waller and Warsh sound vaguely familiar, their names have been circulating as President Trump's possible replacement for Powell when the chair's term expires in May 2026. The third name on that list appears to be Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent. Powell has said he will not resign before the end of his term and emphasizes he is focusing on maintaining the Fed's dual mandate. Given the warming inflation seen in this week's CPI numbers for June, the unimpressive jobs numbers, and the unknown impact of the tariffs, Fed watchers expect the current rates will maintain their "wait-and-see" hold at the September FOMC meeting. The widely watched CME Group FedWatch Tool forecasts a Federal Funds Rate cut at 4.7% later this month. Related: June inflation numbers reset Fed interest rate cut expectations The Arena Media Brands, LLC THESTREET is a registered trademark of TheStreet, Inc.
Axios
an hour ago
- Axios
Trump comes for American lore with pop agenda
In his second term, President Trump is making a habit of taking action on topics plucked from America's popular imagination that had previously been non-existent in Washington's policy playbook. Why it matters: Trump's voracious appetite for generating attention and marketing his policies has bred ideas that inject the power of the presidency into deep recesses of American life and culture. Driving the news: This past week, Trump announced that Coca-Cola had agreed to use real cane sugar in Coke. For decades, high-fructose corn syrup has sweetened the drink. (The company hasn't confirmed his claim.) The topic has been steadily gaining attention in the U.S., with interest in Mexican Coke — which uses cane sugar — rising for years, according to Google Trends. The big picture: We all know "kitchen-table issues," the topics shaped by decades of campaign trail debates. But these are "group-chat issues" — stuff you'd text your friends about that doesn't usually get picked apart by policy wonks. Alcatraz: Trump stunned the country by announcing this spring that the notorious prison island — closed for more than 60 years — would be reopened. The move is inspired "more by symbolism than necessity," Axios' Marc Caputo reported. The penny: The administration took action on the ultimate pocketbook issue by announcing plans to discontinue the 1-cent coin. While the move makes economic cents — pennies now cost more to make than they're worth — the bigger impact could the cultural ripple of an extinct piece of American iconography. Gulf of America: Trump caught Americans off guard when he edited U.S. maps on his first week in office. The seemingly superficial move led to profound fallout over press freedom and geopolitics. JFK files: He indulged a decades-long national fascination about the JFK assassination by releasing 63,000 pages of records — a topic that had largely been left to amateur sleuths and conspiracy theorists. While the records added color to the understanding of the event, there were no bombshells. Reality check: Trump finds himself on the other side of a group-chat issue with his posture on the Jeffrey Epstein case. He is fighting against the populist current demanding more information and transparency around Epstein's sex trafficking operation, while disavowing his supporters who continue to press him. Zoom in: On some lesser-noticed, Seinfeldian issues, Trump addressed everyman gripes with the stroke of a pen.
San Francisco Chronicle
an hour ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
The U.S. is losing its biotech edge over China — and that's bad news for the Bay Area
From gene therapies to cancer breakthroughs, California has been the driving force behind America's biotechnology industry. But today, that edge is slipping. A National Security Commission on Emerging Biotechnology report to Congress in April stated that the U.S. is dangerously close to falling behind China in biotechnology innovation, and called for urgent investment and strategic coordination to maintain global leadership. Genentech's founding in 1976 in South San Francisco marked the start of the modern biotech era, and, ever since, California has been at the forefront of countless scientific discoveries and medical innovations. However, recent funding cuts and an overreliance on China for manufacturing pipelines leave our nation vulnerable. As the report urges, the U.S. must prioritize biotechnology at the national level or risk relying on China to use this strategic power for good. In 2011, the Chinese government declared biotechnology a ' strategic emerging industry ' and has since committed billions to secure dominance in areas like synthetic biology, gene editing and biomanufacturing. In 2024 alone, China conducted over 7,100 clinical drug trials, surpassing the United States and accounting for nearly 40% of global trial activity. Despite U.S. tariffs under the Trump administration designed to counter China's economic influence, China's gross domestic product has remained strong, fueling even greater investment in strategic sectors like biotechnology. By contrast, the U.S. continues to lose ground, constrained by outdated regulatory frameworks and a lack of coordinated federal strategy. While China is building a biotech empire with deliberate, state-backed coordination, the U.S. is stuck playing defense with shrinking budgets. U.S. federal support for biomedical research is slipping, with the budget for the National Institutes of Health facing a 40% cut in the coming year. For a region like the Bay Area, home to some of the world's most promising biotech startups and research institutions, these cuts have a direct toll, including the termination of $314 million in funding that was to be used to train the next generation of biomedical and health researchers. Major institutions like UCSF, Stanford and UC Berkeley are now bracing for delayed projects, staffing freezes and reductions in early-career fellowships that are vital to sustaining long-term innovation. On a national level, promising studies have been halted midstream, leaving research gaps in breakthrough treatments for cancer, Alzheimer's disease and other major infectious diseases that impact millions of Americans. When U.S. investment in domestic biotech falters, it slows innovation at home and creates an opening for global competitors to step in. China's government is strategically positioning its biotech sector to fill the gap left by stalled American research. Just last month, U.S. pharmaceutical firms signed 14 licensing deals with Chinese biotech companies worth up to $18.3 billion, underscoring our growing dependence on China's rapidly maturing R&D capabilities. This shift carries significant implications for California. It is home to over 16,500 life sciences companies and establishments, more than any other state, according to the California Biotechnology Foundation. The state directly employs more than 466,000 workers and generates more than $414 billion in annual economic output. In 2023, California led the nation in venture capital investment, raising over $34 billion for life science companies. Further, California accounted for 40% of all U.S. life sciences patents filed in 2023, and more bioscience patents are issued to California researchers than to those in any other state. Losing ground to China isn't just an economic risk; it's also a national security threat that could reshape who controls the future of health care. While the U.S. system is built on competition and patient outcomes, China's state-controlled model prioritizes strategic control and global influence. In America, ethical safeguards, transparency and regulatory review shape medical progress. In China, the government's control allows for faster approvals but also looser oversight, creating the risk of untested or misused science. The National Security Commission on Emerging Biotechnology warned that China's biotech advances could be weaponized — from battlefield-ready biologics to more nefarious applications. As a scientist working in biotechnology in the Bay Area, I understand that California plays a central role in this global race. From early-stage research in university labs to large-scale manufacturing by leading biotech firms, the state's infrastructure, talent and capital drive America's competitiveness. The Bay Area remains one of the most dense and productive biotech ecosystems in the world, thanks to its concentration of top-tier research institutions, world-class hospitals, a culture of entrepreneurship and the ability to attract the world's best and brightest to its academic and industrial ecosystem. But even here, the warning signs are hard to ignore. Federal NIH cuts have already disrupted major research projects at UC campuses, impacting our ability to attract talented students to our graduate and postdoctoral research programs, while venture capital is increasingly eyeing faster-moving regulatory environments abroad, preferring to license in late-stage assets from China instead of funding early-stage research at home. If Washington fails to prioritize a national biotech strategy, California's innovation engine could slow just as competitors abroad gain momentum. The state's economic future, public health leadership and ability to attract global talent are all at stake. China is no longer a distant biotech challenger and is actively reshaping the industry with its speed, regulatory agility and cost-efficiency, shifting the innovation center of gravity away from the U.S. The National Security Commission on Emerging Biotechnology has made clear that this is not just a matter of competition, but a strategic threat with long-term consequences for public health and national security. If America is to remain a global leader in biotechnology, we must urgently invest in our domestic research ecosystem and rebuild the infrastructure that has powered decades of discovery or be forced to surrender it to a rival that plays by different rules. Ash Jogalekar is a scientist and science writer based in the Bay Area. He is a scientist in residence at the Oppenheimer Project and works on emerging threats and technology risks in areas like biotechnology and AI.
