Pentagon Suspends Its Participation in Think Tank Forums
Now, the Pentagon is suspending its participation in all national security events held by think tanks.
In a statement on Thursday, the Pentagon said the move was an attempt 'to ensure the Department of Defense is not lending its name and credibility to organizations, forums and events that run counter to the values of this administration.'
Previous defense secretaries, including Lloyd J. Austin III, Mark T. Esper, Jim Mattis, Ashton B. Carter and Chuck Hagel, routinely flew to security conferences in such places as Munich, Singapore and Halifax to meet with defense partners, allies and even adversaries in some cases. It was almost a rite of passage in disseminating American doctrine and policy points to a wider audience.
But the current man in the job, Pete Hegseth, has not been so keen to mix and mingle in the world of national security. In February, he skipped the Munich Security Conference, which is usually an important event for new defense secretaries. And during his first trip in the role, to Europe for a NATO meeting, he posted photos of his workouts with troops, even as critics complained about his rocky start.
The Pentagon's chief spokesman, Sean Parnell, said in a statement that the Defense Department's Office of Public Affairs would conduct 'a thorough vetting of every event where Defense officials are invited to participate.'
The decision was reported earlier by Politico.
Earlier this month, Mr. Hegseth abruptly canceled the department's participation in the four-day Aspen event, saying the forum's values did not align with the Pentagon's. In that case, a Defense Department spokeswoman, Kingsley Wilson, said that Aspen promoted 'the evil of globalism, disdain for our great country and hatred for the president of the United States.'
John Phelan, the Navy secretary, and Adm. Samuel Paparo, the head of the military's Indo-Pacific Command, had been scheduled to address the gathering. They did not attend.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
20 minutes ago
- Yahoo
US appeals court strikes down SEC rule on 'audit trail' funding
WASHINGTON (Reuters) -A federal appeals court on Friday struck down 2023 regulations adopted by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on funding a comprehensive market surveillance system, finding that Wall Street's top regulator had not provided a sufficient basis for allowing stock exchanges to pass on its costs to their members, court papers showed. The unanimous decision represented another blow to SEC regulations adopted under the previous Biden administration, which faced concerted opposition from industry and Republican lawmakers. It was also a setback for the Consolidated Audit Trail, a repository of investor and transaction data meant to give regulators overarching visibility into U.S. market operations, but which has faced delays and obstacles for more than a decade. The American Securities Association and Citadel Securities, which brought the lawsuit, both hailed the outcome. The ruling "prevents a tax hike on every American investor who buys or sells a share of stock," ASA President Chris Iacovella said in a statement. The SEC did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Over the objections of its Republican members, the SEC in 2023 split the operating costs among buyers, sellers, and exchanges. Officials said at the time this would divide costs evenly but also allow exchanges several years to recoup hundreds of millions already spent. This drew stiff objections from the investment industry, which said it could be left paying an unfairly large share. The two Republicans are now part of the five-member commission's controlling majority. In an opinion for a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for 11th Circuit, Circuit Judge Andrew Brasher said that, because the SEC had not advanced a sufficient justification in deciding how the system's cost would fall on different actors in the marketplace, "we conclude that the 2023 Funding Order is arbitrary and capricious" and therefore in violation of federal laws governing the crafting of regulations. The appeals court sent the rule back to the SEC for further processing in line with the court's decision. The SEC mandated the CAT's creation in 2012 as a response to the "flash crash" of 2010 when major Wall Street indexes temporarily erased nearly $1 trillion in market value in a matter of minutes. Officials say it can allow regulators to spot market manipulation and have cited its data in enforcement actions.
Newsweek
20 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Donald Trump Defends 'Weak Dollar,' Economic Analysts Respond
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. President Donald Trump defended the weakening U.S. dollar during a conversation with reporters Friday. "Well, you know, I'm a person that likes a strong dollar, but a weak dollar makes you a hell of a lot more money," Trump said in a media Q&A. Newsweek spoke with financial experts about the matter. Why It Matters While the U.S. dollar gained ground Friday, it still set for a weekly drop amid ongoing tariff negotiations and The Fed's bank meeting scheduled for next week. This week marks the greatest drop in a month, with the dollar index standing at 97.448. That shows a 1 percent weekly decline, while the euro stayed at $1.1754, close to its four-year high of $1.183. U.S. President Donald Trump speaks to the media as he departs the White House on July 15, 2025 in Washington, DC. U.S. President Donald Trump speaks to the media as he departs the White House on July 15, 2025 in Washington, To Know During Trump's conversation with reporters, he defended the declining value of the U.S. dollar, arguing that there were actually some benefits to the currency losing value. "When we have a strong dollar, one thing happens," Trump said. "It sounds good, but you don't do any tourism.... You can't sell anything. It is good for inflation. That's about it." Trump went on to say the U.S. has wiped out inflation. "I will never say I like a low currency, but you remember the battles I China, with Japan... They always wanted a weak currency. They're trying to get a weak currency now." However, economists have warned that the weakening U.S. dollar is likely to spark a price hike on everyday items while also forcing U.S. travelers to pay more when abroad. "A weaker dollar does have certain benefits—particularly for multinational corporations and U.S. exporters. It makes American goods more competitive abroad and can boost earnings when foreign profits are converted back into dollars," Kevin Thompson, the CEO of 9i Capital Group and the host of the 9innings podcast, told Newsweek. "But let's be clear: the U.S. is a consumer-driven, import-heavy economy. A weaker dollar makes imports more expensive, which can drive inflation. So while there are benefits on the corporate side, it also hurts households by increasing the cost of everyday goods." Thompson also said Trump's comments on inflation were incorrect, as consumers are still facing price increases in many areas. "He's dead wrong," Thompson said. "We're still seeing elevated prices in areas like energy, particularly piped gas, and in household essentials. Food costs continue to climb, especially meat, and many families are seeing higher utility bills. Disinflation doesn't mean prices are falling—it just means they're rising more slowly, but they're still rising." In June, the consumer price index for all urban consumers climbed 0.3 percent, seasonally adjusted. Meanwhile, food was up 3 percent year-over-year, not seasonally adjusted. So far this year, the dollar has dropped more than 10 percent in value relative to foreign currencies from many of America's trading partners. Thompson said the U.S. dollar's weakness stems from a mix of concerns over U.S. fiscal policy. "Continued deficit spending and ballooning debt levels have led to questions about long-term economic stability. Since the dollar is the world's reserve currency, its strength is tied to global trust in our economy," Thompson said. Trump's ongoing tariff negotiations have also signaled alarm amongst some economists, who say that the heightened tariffs could be passed along by importers via higher prices. What People Are Saying Peter Schiff, chief economist and global strategist at wrote on X: "Trump said he wants a strong dollar but he also wants a weaker dollar. He says a strong dollar makes you feel better, but a weak dollar makes you richer. He also claimed he crushed inflation. His policies are highly inflationary. Trump's weak dollar dream will be a nightmare." Alex Beene, a financial literacy instructor for the University of Tennessee at Martin, told Newsweek: "A weaker dollar can have some benefits, namely in the form of cheaper exports which can boost demand for our goods and services internationally. However, the cons can easily outweigh the pros. A weaker dollar equates to higher prices on many items for American consumers, particularly on imports." Kevin Thompson, the CEO of 9i Capital Group and the host of the 9innings podcast, told Newsweek: "Despite no rate cuts yet this year, the dollar has weakened due to shifting interest rate expectations and a broader macroeconomic backdrop. Historically, higher U.S. interest rates attract capital, strengthening the dollar—but even with relatively high rates, the dollar is off to one of its worst starts in decades." What Happens Next For everyday Americans, the declining U.S. dollar could continue to impact their wallets after years of inflationary pressures, experts say. "Inflationary pressures have already left a sizable dent in many Americans' wallets in the years since the pandemic. Further weakening of the dollar could just prolong this effect," Beene said.
USA Today
21 minutes ago
- USA Today
Ivy League colleges face a reckoning after Columbia's Trump deal
Other prestigious universities, from Harvard to Penn, have taken vastly different approaches to dealing with pressure from the White House. WASHINGTON – It's a rough time to be the president of an Ivy League university. Although President Donald Trump graduated from one, he's made it clear he won't tolerate the liberal slant he sees at America's most prestigious colleges – and that he intends to reshape them accordingly. His administration's unprecedented deal with Columbia University in New York City has put many of its Ivy League peers in a tough spot. To shake the target off its back and unpause research funding, Columbia agreed on July 23 to pay fines of more than $220 million (and signed on to a sprawling list of other concessions related to admissions, academics and hiring practices). The accord has unnerved leaders at college campuses across the country. "This has opened up a Pandora's box," said Scott Schneider, an attorney and expert in higher education law. Read more: The details of Columbia's extraordinary $220 million deal with Trump, explained Trump, who has halted billions in research grants to a slew of schools, has said he envisions the Columbia deal as the first of many such agreements. His education secretary, Linda McMahon, called it a blueprint for other institutions to follow. Read more: After $220 million Columbia deal, Trump promises more to come "Columbia's reforms are a roadmap for elite universities that wish to regain the confidence of the American public," she said in a statement. While it's unclear whether the agreement has set a new precedent, the Trump administration is pushing for other colleges to pay similar types of fines, a White House official confirmed to USA TODAY. Some onlookers, including Larry Summers, a former president of Harvard, have lauded the deal. He called it an "excellent template" for resolutions with the administration. But critics such as Brendan Cantwell, a higher education professor at Michigan State University, believe the short-term benefits of conceding to broad demands from the Trump administration are not worth the long-term implications of redefining the relationship between the federal government and higher education. Still, he understands the arguments of people like Summers. When colleges choose to fight, he acknowledged, "individual people are going to be hurt." "And maybe that's an unacceptable cost," he said. Trump's other deal: the University of Pennsylvania Columbia isn't the only Ivy League school to strike a deal with the Trump administration this summer. On July 1, the University of Pennsylvania, the president's alma mater in Philadelphia, entered into an agreement ending a civil rights investigation brought by the U.S. Department of Education. In February, the agency accused Penn of violating Title IX, the primary sex discrimination law governing schools, when it allowed Lia Thomas, a transgender swimmer, to compete in 2022. By March, professors were told their research projects had lost funding. The school's president said $175 million in grants and programs had been jeopardized. As part of the deal, the White House said it would restore Penn's research funding. In return, the university apologized to cisgender athletes who swam against Thomas. The university also agreed to ban transgender women from sports. (Trans women athletes have been banned from competing on women's teams at National Collegiate Athletic Association schools since February, when new rules were imposed, although the NCAA's policy permits trans men to compete in men's sports.) Read more: Lia Thomas, Title IX and $175M — why Penn struck a deal with Trump Weeks after the deal was announced, many Penn faculty members remain in limbo, unsure about which grants have been revived. "Nobody really knows what was cut and what was restored," said Jonathan Zimmerman, a professor who studies the history of education at the university. "It feels like the theater of the absurd." Harvard keeps fighting Harvard, unlike the other Ivy League campuses immersed in similar conflicts, has continued to battle the Trump administration in court. At a key hearing in Boston on July 21, the university's lawyers urged a federal judge to force the White House to restore billions in funding for the school. Harvard has asked the judge to reach a decision by Sept. 3. But the White House's attacks on Harvard have extended far beyond financial issues: The Trump administration has threatened to revoke its tax-exempt status, tried to ban its ability to enroll international students, warned its accreditor, and considered placing a lien on the university's assets. All the while, Trump has hinted he believes Harvard may still be open to striking a deal. Other colleges in limbo Of the eight schools that make up the Ivy League, only two – Dartmouth College in New Hampshire and Yale University in Connecticut – have avoided targeted federal funding freezes. At Cornell, the government paused more than $1 billion. At Brown, it froze $510 million, and at Princeton stopped more than $210 million. Asked whether their university leaders were negotiating with the Trump administration to restore their funding, spokespeople for Brown, Cornell and Princeton declined to comment or did not respond to requests for comment. Additional agreements with those schools (and others) could happen before the start of the year, according to Robert Kelchen, a higher education professor at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville. The Trump administration, plagued by heightened attention to the president's reported ties to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, may be looking for ways to change the narrative, Kelchen said. And some schools might feel incentivized to resolve funding problems before students – and protests – return to campus for the fall. "The whole Epstein thing really has the potential to swamp the administration," he said. "They want victories they can point to." Zachary Schermele is an education reporter for USA TODAY. You can reach him by email at zschermele@ Follow him on X at @ZachSchermele and Bluesky at @
