Pentagon Abruptly Pulls Out of Annual Aspen Conference
This year appeared to be no exception, with John Phelan, the Navy secretary, and Adm. Samuel Paparo, the head of the military's Indo-Pacific Command, among the speakers scheduled to address the gathering that begins on Tuesday.
But on Monday morning, the Pentagon abruptly canceled its participation in the four-day event, saying the forum's values did not align with the Pentagon's.
'Senior representatives of the Department of Defense will no longer be participating in an event that promotes the evil of globalism, disdain for our great country and hatred for the president of the United States,' Kingsley Wilson, a Pentagon spokeswoman, said in a statement.
Sean Parnell, the chief Pentagon spokesman, said in a separate statement: 'The department will remain strong in its focus to increase the lethality of our war fighters, revitalize the warrior ethos and project peace through strength on the world stage. It is clear the A.S.F. is not in alignment with these goals.'
It was unclear what precipitated the Pentagon's decision to withdrawal its speakers, all of whom had been approved to participate. Mrs. Wilson declined to comment on the timing of the decision.
'It is unfortunate that the Pentagon has chosen not to participate, but our invitations remain open,' the security forum said in a statement. 'For more than a decade, the Aspen Security Forum has welcomed senior officials — Republican and Democrat, civilian and military — as well as senior foreign officials and experts, who bring experience and diverse perspectives on matters of national security.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNET
16 minutes ago
- CNET
What Are 'Trump Accounts'? Breaking Down the Big Beautiful Bill's Newborn Savings Accounts
These new investment savings account will be started for every newborn automatically over the next few years. Getty Images Amid the divisiveness surrounding the passage of President Donald Trump's "One Big Beautiful" spending bill, one portion of the legislation seems like it would be agreeable to pretty much everyone: a new type of investment savings account for newborns, which the federal government will seed with money upfront. That sounds like a win for most folks, but are these accounts all they're cracked up to be? And how will they actually work? Most of the conversations and conflicts surrounding the Big Beautiful Bill, which Trump signed into law on July 4, largely ignored these accounts, focusing on the potential damages from sweeping Medicaid cuts and the bolstering of immigration enforcement funding. As polarizing as those elements of the bill were, these new savings accounts, which congressional Republicans attempted to brand as "Trump accounts," had bipartisan support. In the past, prominent Democrats like Hillary Clinton and Sen. Cory Booker have suggested similar ideas to help parents begin building up savings for their children. These aren't going to be free money that new parents can use right away, as there are a number of rules about what can be done with the money. Additionally, the policy will only be in place for a few years unless extended. With all that in mind, keep reading for all the details you'll need to know about the so-called "Trump accounts" and what they mean for your family. For more, find out what recent political moves might mean for your student loan payments. Who's eligible for these new accounts? You can open one of these accounts in your child's name as soon as they're born, and so long as you, your spouse and the child have valid Social Security numbers. If the child's parents aren't married, only the parent opening the account and the child need Social Security numbers. As the policy currently stands, these accounts can only be opened for children born between Jan. 1, 2025, and Dec. 31, 2028. It's another example of a common theme highlighted by critics of the Big Beautiful Bill: benefits set to end around the time Trump will leave the White House and drawbacks kicking in once someone new is in office. Whatever the political machinations behind the timeline might be, just keep them in mind if you have a kid later than the start of 2029, since the policy might not be extended. What do the "Trump accounts" do? These accounts allow parents to contribute up to $5,000 a year towards a fund their child will have access to later in life. As investment accounts -- think a 401(k) for your new baby as opposed to a standard savings account -- they have the potential to accrue a lot more value over the years through capital gains and dividends, but they could also lose value depending on how markets move. Other entities, such as the parents' employers, can also contribute to these accounts, up to $2,500 a year. One of the most publicized and desirable aspects of these accounts is that, once one is opened for a new child, the federal government will seed it with $1,000 to get things rolling. This is why the savings accounts have gotten a thumbs-up from some experts, even if parents never add anything else to the account. "Someone is giving me $1,000 for my kid? That's a no-brainer. Who turns away free money?" Jaime Eckels of Plante Moran Financial Advisors said in an interview with CNBC. "From there, you'll have to decide what additional savings you'll have for your child." It's unlikely, however, that a significant number of Americans will be able to use these accounts to their fullest, since, as the Urban Institute noted, one-third don't currently have over $2,000 in savings or have surplus income high enough to make stock investments. Still though, you'll probably be happier to have that $1,000 from the government even if you aren't able to save much on your own. The Milken Institute estimated that the minimum seed from the government could grow to as much as $8,000 for your child over the course of 20 years. How can I open one of these accounts? You should be able to open one at any bank or participating financial institution. If no one gets around to it, the government will open one for the child automatically the first time you file a tax return with the new baby claimed as a dependent. When can money be withdrawn from one of these accounts? The holder of the account (that is, your child) can't withdraw any funds from them until they are at least 18 years old. Funds withdrawn from the account will be subject to the standard capital gains tax, and an additional 10% penalty until they're 59 and a half or older, similar to withdrawals from a 401(k) account. However, there are a number of notable life expenses that the money can be used for penalty-free, including higher-education costs and expenses incurred due to things like disability, domestic violence or natural disasters. Up to $10,000 can be withdrawn penalty-free to be put towards the purchase of a home, and $5,000 can be withdrawn to cover the costs of having a baby. For more, keep an eye on inflation with CNET's daily tariff impact tracker.
CNN
17 minutes ago
- CNN
Analysis: It wasn't a ‘woke' decision to change the Washington football team's name. It was a business call
When President Donald Trump reopened a long-closed conversation about the name of the Washington NFL team, he and others implied that liberal thinking forced the venerable franchise to change its name from Redskins to Commanders in 2022. It wasn't 'wokeness' that led to that moment. It was capitalism. Corporate sponsors made the decision, not politicians or fans. On July 2, 2020, after the murder of George Floyd in late May and the resulting national conversation on race and racism, FedEx – the title sponsor of the team's stadium at the time – called on the franchise to change its name. Nike removed Redskins apparel from its website on the same day. The next day, the league and the organization announced that they were reviewing the team's name. Soon, Amazon, Target and Walmart also removed Redskins merchandise from their stores and websites. At a time of heightened corporate sensitivity to racism, the franchise suddenly saw the possibility of millions of dollars in revenue being lost due to the Redskins name. After years of controversy, the organization's then-leadership finally saw the financial writing on the wall and gave up a fight they had promised to wage forever. On July 13, the team announced it was retiring its name and logo and would go by the name Washington Football Team for the time being. Less than two years later, after a contest to rename the team, it became the Commanders. None of this came about quickly, or without a fight. This was a conversation, and a decision, years in the making. Protests occasionally popped up around Washington Redskins games in the 1990s and early part of the 21st century, but there was no evidence of a groundswell to change the name. In 2013, the National Congress of American Indians, representing 1.2 million people in its member tribes, announced that it opposed the moniker. The team consistently replied by saying it was honoring the achievements of Native Americans by keeping the name. As evidence, then-team president Bruce Allen said that three high schools with a majority Native American student body used the name. The team and its supporters mentioned a 2004 poll by the Annenberg Public Policy Center that found that a majority of Native Americans were not offended by the name. Then again, the use of public polling methods to measure a small, diverse population also came into question and was criticized by experts. More than a decade ago, Sports Illustrated's Peter King led the way, as did a few other sports journalists, including myself, publicly stating that we would no longer use the name – a name that each of us had said thousands of times in our careers covering the NFL. 'Try explaining and defending the nickname to a child,' I wrote in 2013. 'It's impossible.' Back then, NFL commissioner Roger Goodell was still defending the team's name, but he said in radio interviews that he wanted to 'listen' on the issue. 'We'll always listen, and we'll always be open,' he said on ESPN Radio August 1, 2013, when asked to compare his defense of the Washington team name with his comments on Philadelphia Eagle Riley Cooper's racist slur at the time, which were anything but a defense: 'Obviously wrong … insensitive and unacceptable,' Goodell said of Cooper's language. Goodell went farther a month later while speaking to a Washington radio station: 'Ultimately it is Dan (Snyder's) decision, but it is something I want all of us to go out and make sure we are listening to our fans, listening to people that have a different view, and making sure we continue to do what is right. We want to make sure the team represents the strong tradition and history that it has for so many years. … If we are offending one person we need to be listening and making sure we are doing the right things to address that.' As the battle reached a crescendo, a federal judge in Northern Virginia ordered the cancellation of the team's federal trademark registrations in 2015 because the team's name was viewed as 'disparaging' to Native Americans. It was the team's biggest legal and public relations loss to that point. That decision came two years after then-owner Dan Snyder told USA Today sports reporter Erik Brady that he would 'NEVER' change the Redskins' name. 'We'll never change the name. It's that simple. NEVER — you can use caps.' Seven years later, the name was gone.
New York Times
17 minutes ago
- New York Times
NFLPA president Jalen Reeves-Maybin: Vote on interim leader to be held in ‘near future'
Following a week marked by increased scrutiny and two high-profile resignations from the NFL Players Association leadership, union president Jalen Reeves-Maybin issued a statement reaffirming the organization's commitment to its members and clarifying its next steps. 'The players who make up the NFLPA are bound not only by our shared experiences on and off the field, but by our shared commitment to the success and well-being of our members,' the statement said. 'While our union has been tested of late, we remain committed to the values of integrity, accountability, and progress in serving the best interests of our membership.' Statement from NFLPA President Jalen Reeves-Maybin. — NFLPA (@NFLPA) July 22, 2025 On Thursday, Lloyd Howell Jr. resigned from his role as executive director of the NFLPA amid criticism over his leadership, as uncovered in reports by ESPN, Pro Football Talk and 'Pablo Torre Finds Out.' Findings included the NFLPA reaching a confidentiality agreement with the NFL to hide information about an arbitration decision involving potential collusion around guaranteed contracts, concerns about a potential conflict of interest involving Howell's consulting work for a private equity group approved by the league to pursue minority ownership stakes, and Howell's use of union money to fund two trips to strip clubs, for which he was reprimanded. Howell served as executive director for two years. Advertisement 'The NFLPA Executive Committee and Board of Player Representatives are in the process of selecting an interim executive director,' said Reeves-Maybin in the statement. 'In recent days, the Board passed a resolution in accordance with the NFLPA Constitution to allow for the eventual vote of such an interim leader and agreed to processes and terms to select a candidate. We are conducting ongoing due diligence and will hold a vote in the near future as soon as that process is complete.' Three days after Howell's resignation, former NFLPA chief strategy officer JC Tretter also resigned from the organization. At the time, Tretter was considered one of two favorites to take over as interim executive director. The other was Don Davis, who several league sources have shared has had a strong push from players. Like Howell, Tretter faced scrutiny over his actions while with the NFLPA, including comments he made in 2023, when he was still union president, in which he suggested that players could fake injuries as a contract-negotiation tactic. The comments resurfaced in the wake of another arbitration ruling that came to light this month. In the ruling, arbitrator Sidney Moreland determined Tretter's comments violated the collective bargaining agreement. Reeves-Maybin was voted onto the NFLPA executive committee in 2022 and elected as president in 2024. A former NFL linebacker, he spent his first five seasons with the Detroit Lions, spent a year with the Houston Texans and returns to the Lions for his final two seasons from 2023-24. Reeves-Maybin concluded his statement by saying: 'In the meantime, I am in close contact with the NFLPA Executive Leadership Team to ensure good governance practices and continued union business until an interim executive director is elected.' (Top photo of Jalen Reeves-Maybin ahead of Super Bowl LIX in New Orleans in February: (Kirby Lee / Imagn Images)
