Latest news with #politicization
Washington Post
15 hours ago
- Politics
- Washington Post
Trump risks blinding himself by politicizing Iran intelligence
President Donald Trump's quick declaration a week ago that U.S. airstrikes had totally obliterated Iran's nuclear program might have been a typically Trumpian, made-for-the-cameras declaration of victory — but it now appears to have been at best premature. Worse than his getting ahead of the facts, though, is how the president reacted as initial assessments of them emerged. When news reports revealed that a preliminary Defense Intelligence Agency assessment contradicted some of his claims, the president's response made this another week in which Trump politicized intelligence-gathering.
Forbes
2 days ago
- Business
- Forbes
State Resolution Backs Federal Remedy For Politicized Debanking
Louisiana Senate, where lawmakers recently passed a resolution in support of federal efforts to end ... More political debanking. The problem of non-criminal 'debanking,' in which financial institutions deny service to a client for what are perceived to be political reasons, continues to garner the attention of lawmakers and the media. During a June 25 Senate Banking Committee hearing in which Federal Reserve chair Jay Powell fielded questions, Senator Tim Scott (R-S.C.), the committee chairman, thanked Powell for upholding his 'commitment to remove reputational risk from bank examination at the Fed.' That move, Senator Scott added, 'is a necessary first step toward ending the politicization of bank supervision.' Following that hearing, Senator Scott took to X to provide additional commentary on the matter. 'Debanking federally legal businesses is un-American, and I'm glad the @federalreserve followed through on their commitment to remove reputational risk from bank examination,' Scott posted, adding that he will 'continue pushing to end the politicization of bank supervision.' Recent developments suggest that additional state regulation is not the optimal remedy to politicized debanking when it is existing federal regulations that are the root cause. Furthermore, additional attention to the matter appears to be resulting in voluntary corrective action. 'Financial firms are warming to customers they once shunned under progressive pressure, addressing conservative states lamenting the lack of 'fair access' to banks, and more recently, trying to avoid the wrath of a president bent on settling scores,' noted a June 5 Semafor article on Bank of America's recent decision to again offer their services to CoreCivic, the second largest private operator of prisons and detention centers in the US. That article was published two days after Citigroup announced it would resume doing business with gun makers and that it would 'conduct employee training to root out any political bias.' On June 10, one week after that Citigroup announcement, the Louisiana Legislature passed the nation's first state resolution expressing support for efforts by the White House and Congress to end unjustified and politically motivated debanking. The language of that resolution acknowledges that banks are not to blame for unjustified debanking, explaining that 'the complexity of federal laws and regulations and the broad discretion of regulators have allowed federal regulators to weaponize banks for far too long.' The Louisiana resolution goes on to explain that 'if a regulator decides a bank is not adequately managing risk, does not have a good enough system in place to detect and deter financial crimes, or is closing accounts too slowly, the bank can face significant monetary penalties and costly lawsuits, and potentially criminal charges.' Texas lawmakers filed a similar resolution this year, but it did not pass before the conclusion of their biennial regular session in early June. Rather than seeking to thwart debanking through new state legislation or regulation, a resolution like the one passed in Louisiana that expresses support for a federal remedy is 'a better use of state legislators' time,' says James Erwin, director of innovation policy at Americans for Tax Reform. 'At the end of the day,' Erwin adds, 'this is a problem for federal regulators.' If lawmakers in other states want to join Louisiana in urging their congressional delegation to end political debanking, Senator Tim Scott has a bill, the FIRM Act, that they can get behind. The FIRM Act removes reputational risk from the jurisdiction of regulators. Erwin says the FIRM Act, if enacted, would 'stop overzealous regulators from leveraging their authority to unjustly harm legitimate industries and individuals.' Political Debanking, Like AI Regulation, Requires Federal Remedy After House approval of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) and his colleagues are aiming to pass their version by July 4. Both the House-passed version of OBBBA and the Senate draft include provisions blocking states from regulating artificial intelligence (AI). Despite some GOP blowback, White House officials and other preemption backers argue that a regulatory framework for AI must be established on a national basis. Likewise, many of those seeking to end political debanking contend that only a federal level reform can remedy the matter. 'While stopping political debanking is critical, it's ultimately an interstate issue that Congress must lead on—which is why Senator Tim Scott's FIRM Act is so important to prevent federal regulators from weaponizing the financial system,' says Vance Ginn, president of Ginn Economic Consulting who previously served in the White House Office of Management and Budget. Governor Greg Abbott (R-Texas) recently announced he is calling the Texas House and Senate back for a special legislative session that will begin July 21. While the Texas resolution similar to the one recently signed by Governor Landry did not pass earlier this year, the special session presents opportunity to get it done this year. 'Louisiana got it right by passing a resolution defending financial freedom,' adds Ginn, who is also a staff economist at Americans for Tax Reform and who previously worked for the Texas Public Policy Foundation. 'Texas should have followed suit by passing Sen. Tan Parker's resolution, but since it died, Gov. Abbott should add it to the forthcoming July 21 special session. No American should lose access to banking because of their lawful business or personal beliefs.' A 50-state patchwork of variable and contradictory state regulations aimed at ending political debanking would come with adverse economic effects. That would also be the case for a 50-state patchwork of state AI regulations. That goes to explain, even if it's confusing to some in Congress, why Republicans who typically support pushing most decisions down to the states believe that, when it comes to regulation of AI and ending political debanking, the federal level is the proper venue for reform.
Washington Post
15-06-2025
- Politics
- Washington Post
It wasn't just the parade: This week, Trump politicized the military
No one needed President Donald Trump's military parade, which just happened to take place on his birthday, to know that the United States' fearsome armed forces deserve respect. Ostentatious muscle-flexing does not make America appear confident — particularly when there are questions about whom, exactly, it is meant to honor. But if the parade had been the only spectacular interaction the president had with U.S. service members over the past week, the nation would have reason for relief. Instead, this was the week that Trump politicized the military, challenging the core principles of civilian-military relations.
CNN
14-06-2025
- Politics
- CNN
As the Army celebrates its 250th birthday, officials say the military's apolitical nature is at risk
As the US Army prepares for its 250th birthday celebration with a major parade of military hardware in Washington, DC, which just happens to coincide with President Donald Trump's birthday, former officials are growing increasingly concerned about how the military is being pulled into the political arena, multiple former and current officials told CNN. The parade, which will feature several million pounds of military hardware including tanks, Bradley and Stryker fighting vehicles, and culminate in a speech from Trump, comes at a tense moment. This week, roughly 4,000 National Guardsmen were mobilized in Los Angeles, along with a full battalion of US Marines in response to civil unrest. Thousands of National Guardsmen have also been mobilized in Texas. And on Tuesday, uniformed US soldiers were seen on-camera cheering the president as he delivered a political speech at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, reminiscent of those he delivered on the campaign trail – an event which serves as a microcosm of the concerns around a larger trend of the politicization of the military. Current and former military officials told CNN that the event at Fort Bragg is being viewed within some corners of the Army as a public relations fail, since the military has strict regulations regarding political activity and is typically hyper-sensitive to any perception it is taking a political stance. Multiple officials said the Army had little control over the event; once the president is involved, they said, the White House takes over. And a defense official with direct knowledge of the event emphasized it was not the Army's intention for the troops to appear political. Sometimes, they said, the situation is out of their hands. 'I would say I never want to see a political piece of paraphernalia on a military installation, period,' the official said, adding that it's 'not the military that's trying to be political, it's people trying to use the military – which tends to poll very positively – for political gain.' Current and former officials speaking to CNN had varied levels of concern regarding the trajectory the military is on in regard to being seen as political. Some, for example, maintained that Saturday's parade was about celebrating the Army, while others acknowledged heartburn among leaders that while the Army may see it as celebrating the service, the public could associate the parade, which has been a goal of Trump's since his first term, with a celebration of his presidency. One current defense official remarked that it's not so much a matter of reminding soldiers what their 'left and right limits' are with political activity, because 'we don't know what the left and right limits even are, anymore.' 'The actions that were once rightfully criticized or rightfully labeled as partisan activity, or not appropriate, are now celebrated,' the official said. The official also pointed to multiple instances in the Biden administration and under Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin that they felt were political, emphasizing that the issue of politicizing the military has been building for years. Indeed, there have been a number of political events or social media posts over the last several years involving the military and service members that have drawn criticism. In 2022, President Joe Biden was criticized for having two Marines flank him during a speech in Philadelphia, in which he spoke about the threats to 'equality and democracy' posed by former President Donald Trump. Various political hopefuls have released campaign imagery and videos that appear to violate DOD policy. In 2020, the Army Reserve said it would discipline the supervisor of two Army Reserve soldiers who appeared in uniform during a Democratic National Convention video. Trump's address at Fort Bragg this week was far from the first time a political leader from any party has delivered a speech to or around US service members, but many officials who spoke to CNN were struck by the outwardly partisan behavior of many of the soldiers on-camera behind Trump. The Pentagon has strict regulations for political activity in uniform, stating that active-duty service members 'will not engage in partisan political activities and all military personnel will avoid the inference that their political activities imply or appear to imply DOD sponsorship, approval or endorsement of a political candidate, campaign or cause.' On Tuesday, the soldiers at Fort Bragg booed and cheered along with Trump's remarks, booing the media, former President Joe Biden, California Gov. Gavin Newsom, and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass. Social media posts from the event on Tuesday viewed by CNN also showed photos of 'Make America Great Again' hats and necklaces being sold by vendors, and in some photos, soldiers donned the gear while in uniform. The same official said the soldiers, many of them young and relatively inexperienced, were caught up in the moment – enjoying the day of celebration and excited to be so close to the commander in chief – and that there were people in the crowd trying to get the soldiers to cheer at certain moments of Trump's speech. Col. Mary Ricks, spokeswoman for the 18th Airborne Corps and Fort Bragg, said in a statement that the event 'was planned in cooperation with America 250, a nonpartisan organization created to support the U.S. Semi quincentennial Commission established by Congress in 2016.' 'The Army remains committed to its core values and apolitical service to the nation,' Ricks said. Still, current and former officials voiced concern that the event could contribute to damaging public trust in the military as an institution, which is crucial to military leaders; it feeds into their ability to recruit new service members, and to get funding for various efforts and projects. 'It's a slippery slope when you use very aggressive rhetoric against a political opponent and use the backdrop of military personnel …. using them as a validation for your political agenda, that's where people get upset,' a former senior Defense Department official said. Trump's speech at Fort Bragg came just a couple of weeks after he delivered the commencement address at the US Military Academy at West Point, wearing a bright red MAGA hat amid the sea of grey and white West Point uniforms. One recently retired Army general officer told CNN that the West Point and Fort Bragg addresses show 'a complete disregard for the centuries old civ-mil non-partisan interaction with the military.' The former senior DOD official told CNN that while Trump's language at Fort Bragg was more aggressive against his political opponents than other presidents have done, political leaders have 'always pushed their agendas in front of the troops.' 'It always made us a little anxious,' the official said, 'but they all do it.' 'Should the Army put out something that says hey, we maintain order and discipline, and in according with regulation X, we refrain from blah blah blah? Yeah,' a defense official said. 'We should. But we aren't going to.'
CBC
13-06-2025
- Politics
- CBC
Trump's military parade is costing millions and, potentially, something more valuable, critics say
Social Sharing Donald Trump's long-desired military parade was only confirmed six weeks ago, but it now arrives in a week that has raised alarm among military experts and Democrats over the politicization of American troops. According to The Associated Press, Saturday's parade in Washington will feature synchronized flyovers of military aircraft, along with the processions of tanks, historical re-enactments and marching soldiers Singer Lee Greenwood, famed for God Bless the U.S.A., is on tap to perform during the nationally televised ceremony, and Trump will address the crowd from a custom viewing stand. At one point, it is expected he will be handed an American flag by a parachutist. The event is expected to conclude with fireworks, weather permitting. The display comes just days after Trump deployed 700 marines and 4,000 of California's National Guard troops to respond to protests in Los Angeles that emerged over his administration's raids targeting unauthorized residents. Gary Barthel, a former U.S. Marine Corps officer and managing partner of the Military Law Center in California, called the response to the L.A. protests a "gross overstep" that threatens the constitutional right of assembly, speaking with CBC News this week. Barthel said that the protests "do not fit the legal description of an insurrection that would require the military to be activated to support local law enforcement." While Trump might ultimately prevail in what the Pentagon envisions as a 60-day deployment in L.A. — a legal battle is currently playing out — it is the first time a U.S. president has called in the National Guard to a state without the permission of its governor in 60 years. WATCH l Administration hasn't justified military response for L.A., analyst says: Sending military to L.A. a 'gross overstep' by Trump administration: Ex-marine | Hanomansing Tonight 3 days ago Duration 6:45 Gary Barthel, a former U.S. Marine Corps officer calls the Trump administration's move to mobilize the National Guard and the marines to Los Angeles in response to anti-ICE protests 'illegal' and a 'gross overstep.' Democrats insulted at Fort Bragg More seriously, to some, was a Trump speech given earlier this week at the U.S. army military installation at Fort Bragg, N.C. Reports emerged that boos were heard among the troops after Trump made references to the media, as well as Democratic politicians such as former president Joe Biden, California Gov. Gavin Newsom and L.A. Mayor Karen Bass. Tom Nichols, retired professor at the U.S. Naval War College, expressed dismay in Atlantic magazine, where he is a columnist, and on MSNBC, that senior military officials haven't spoken out about the politicized display. "We pride ourselves on an apolitical, non-partisan military that serves the constitution ... we don't have a military that is out there hooting and nodding and laughing and ridiculing a former commander-in-chief, a sitting governor, a mayor of a major city. That's playing with political fire," Nichols told MSNBC's Morning Joe program. Trump at one point asked the assembled, "Do you think this crowd would have showed up for Biden? I don't think so." But according to which obtained internal 82nd Airborne Division communications, the event was highly choreographed — with more than a wink to political preferences. "If soldiers have political views that are in opposition to the current administration and they don't want to be in the audience then they need to speak with their leadership and get swapped out," one note to troops read, according to the website founded in 1999 to deliver news for the U.S. service member and veteran community. Parade to cost government at least $25M In addition, the site reported, a pop-up shop selling Trump merchandise was on site. The parade was initially conceived as a July 4 event, but Trump found occasion this year to add it onto a long-planned celebration of the 250th anniversary of the U.S. Army that coincides with Flag Day and his own 79th birthday. "No event can fully capture our gratitude for those who have worn the uniform, but this grand parade will ensure our veterans and active-duty service members are recognized with the respect and magnificence they deserve," White House spokesperson Anna Kelly said in a statement. Private donations from companies like Lockheed Martin, Amazon and UFC are helping defray some of the costs, but the government is expected to spend $25 million to $45 million US, according to AP. "If it was really about celebrating military families, we could put $30 million toward helping them offset the cost of their child care, food assistance and tuition," said Illinois Sen. Tammy Duckworth, who lost both legs in combat in 2004. Several Democrats have pointed out what they say is hypocrisy coming from Trump and Republicans, who have supported widespread cuts across several federal agencies including the Pentagon and Veterans Affairs. "In a moment of crisis for all of our veterans, the VA's system of health care and benefits has been disastrously and disgracefully put on the chopping block by the Trump administration," Democratic Sen. Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut said at a news conference in March. In addition, the deployment of troops in Los Angeles could cost $134 million, a Pentagon official told lawmakers on Capitol Hill this week. When Trump activated the National Guard just hours after protests began, it was the first time it was activated without a governor's permission since 1965, when President Lyndon B. Johnson sent troops into Alabama, according to the Brennan Center for Justice. Democrats have pointed out the irony between the two examples — Johnson was, in effect, protecting the right of assembly for civil rights protesters, while Trump's move was intended to stamp out protests. The White House justified the response as necessary because of the threat of widespread violence. While there has been sporadic looting and destruction of property and several vehicles, L.A. has seen much more dangerous, deadly demonstrations. At this point, the only known lengthy hospitalization was suffered by a journalist shot by a rubber bullet, which often have metal in their core, and likely came from law enforcement. Will peaceful protesters be met with 'big force'? Trump also delivered a stark warning for the Washington parade. "We're going to celebrate big on Saturday," he said this week. "If any protesters want to come out, they will be met with very big force." WATCH l Trump's weekend warning: Trump says protestors disrupting Flag Day to be met with 'very heavy force' 21 hours ago Duration 1:17 Trump did not distinguish between peaceful protesters and troublemakers committing violence, though the White House press secretary later took umbrage at the suggestion the president doesn't support the First Amendment, which spells out the right to peaceful assembly. Trump first made noises about a military parade in his first term, having been wowed by a 2017 Bastille Day celebration while in France. Parades in the U.S. outside of wartime are unusual. Washington hosted a victory parade in 1991 after the first Persian Gulf War. It included 8,000 troops, tanks, Patriot missiles but also representatives of the international coalition that had been led by the U.S. in that battle. According to the weather forecast, it may literally rain on Trump's parade. The White House has said it will go on rain or shine, but an army official said this week that if lightning occurs, it would have to be at least delayed for the safety of the tens of thousands expected to attend.
