Metro: Donald Trump’s warrior image ‘is hiding his war draft dodging past’

Donald Trump’s ‘warrior ethos’ masks his repeated avoidance of military service during the Vietnam War, commentators have suggested.

The US President ‘s record has come under scrutiny after he renamed the Department of Defense as the Department of War to expel ‘wokism’.

He previously claimed the old name was ‘too defensive’ while the new title, last used in 1947, reverted to a time when ‘we won everything’ in wars.   

The move drew criticism from Navy veteran and retired NASA astronaut Captain Mark Kelly, who said: ‘Only someone who avoided the draft would want to rename the Department of Defense to the Department of War.’ 

The historical evidence appears to back up Capt Kelly’s claim that the commander in chief avoided the draft in the 1960s.  

Documents held in US archives show that he received student deferments while in college, followed by a medical exemption after graduating. 

Trump, now 79, was assessed eight times for military service but was never enlisted, and was disqualified as a result of an armed forces physical examination, one of the records shows.

Although the exact reason is not stated, Trump has previously said that a bone spur — either on one or both of his heels — was the reason.  

Another document only deepens the question marks over why he was not called up — referring to birth marks on both of his heels.  

Professor David Dunn, chair in international politics at the University of Birmingham, said: ‘Trump refuses to release his medical records and he’s never had an operation to remove the bone spur, which suggests that it’s spurious.  

‘His former lawyer Michael Cohen testified to Congress that Trump told him, “You think I’m stupid, I wasn’t going to Vietnam.” 

‘The other aspect of this is the contempt Trump has shown to the military, such as his comment about the former Navy pilot John McCain, who was held in a prisoner of war camp, when he said, “I like people who weren’t captured.” 

‘There’s a long history of Trump having a fraught relationship with the military and we can see within this his contempt of the notion of military service.’ 

Then US President Harry Truman established the agency’s name as the Department of Defense in 1949.

Although the current stamp is set out in law, the executive order introduces a ‘secondary title’, according to a White House document.  

The Trump administration wants a ‘warrior ethos’ at the Pentagon and is ‘not interested in woke garbage or political correctness’, according to the Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, whose title has accordingly changed from Secretary of Defense. 

US Presidents who avoided the draft?

Donald Trump, Bill Clinton, Joe Biden and George W. Bush all avoided service in Vietnam. Clinton received educational draft deferments while he was studying in England and W. Bush got a coveted spot in the 147th Texas Air National Guard as a pilot and was not eligible for the draft. Biden received student draft deferments and a ‘1-Y’, meaning he could only be drafted in a national emergency.

Dr Laura Smith, a specialist in American presidential history at the University of Oxford, told Metro: ‘While being labeled a “draft dodger” was once seen as political dynamite, the ability of politicians to become commander in chief regardless of their service seems to have become a trend, one that is likely to continue considering the unpopularity of America’s foreign interventions.

‘Trump justified his recent decision to return to the War label as somehow a return to glory days. However, the Defense Department has existed since the end of WWII – the entirety of the period of America’s existence as the global superpower.

‘The War Department existed from George Washington’s cabinet and oversaw the long period up until the end of the 19th Century, when America did not have the power to engage or effectively challenge Old World powers on the global stage as Britain still ruled the waves.

‘It seems that once again, this executive decision is made upon a rhetorical concept of history, rather than the facts.’

In addition to the rebranding — a costly endeavour involving changing signs and websites worldwide — Trump has promised to bring one-on-one combat to the White House next year in the shape of a UFC event.

For Dunn, there is a disconnect between the warrior image and reality contained in the service record documents. 

‘We have to ask what Trump’s service record tells us about modern politics or modern America more broadly,’ he said.

‘It tells us that someone shown to have dodged the draft can be elected president, that it’s no block to service.

‘It’s about performativity; it seems Americans prefer candidates, or presidents, who are performative rather than substantive.

Then US President Harry Truman established the agency’s name as the Department of Defense in 1949.

Although the current stamp is set out in law, the executive order introduces a ‘secondary title’, according to a White House document.  

The Trump administration wants a ‘warrior ethos’ at the Pentagon and is ‘not interested in woke garbage or political correctness’, according to the Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, whose title has accordingly changed from Secretary of Defense. 

In addition to the rebranding — a costly endeavour involving changing signs and websites worldwide — Trump has promised to bring one-on-one combat to the White House next year in the shape of a UFC event.

For Dunn, there is a disconnect between the warrior image and reality contained in the service record documents. 

‘We have to ask what Trump’s service record tells us about modern politics or modern America more broadly,’ he said.

‘It tells us that someone shown to have dodged the draft can be elected president, that it’s no block to service.

‘It’s about performativity; it seems Americans prefer candidates, or presidents, who are performative rather than substantive.

‘What we have now with the Department of War is in marked contrast to the fact that Trump is appeasing Vladimir Putin, who is the enemy of human rights, international law and is wanted for war crimes. 

‘It’s sacrificed for the performativity of Trump cos-playing Ronald Reagan and pretending to be this grand statesman on the world stage.’  

Trump had five deferments: four times as a student and once for medical reasons, assumed to be because of one or more bone spurs. 

In 2018, the daughters of New York foot doctor Dr Larry Braunstein said that he had diagnosed the future president with the condition to help him avoid the draft as a ‘favour’ to his property mogul father, Fred Trump. 

The podiatrist is said to have made the diagnosis in the 1960s while he was working out of an office owned by the Trump family.

Trump Jnr, who graduated from New York Military Academy, would say many years later that a doctor provided a ‘very strong letter’ about the condition, but that he could not recall the person’s name.

Bone spurs are bony lumps that grow around joints and can affect movement or put pressure on nerves.

As far as high school went, they did not seem to have stopped Trump playing sports including baseball, football and soccer.

He also studied at Fordham University and the University of Pennsylvania, with the medical disqualification covering him after he graduated.  

Seasoned White House watcher Mike Tappin was in the US in 1968 during the nation’s bloodiest year in Vietnam, when it lost almost 17,000 personnel.  

Trump’s record at the time shows he was only classified as being available for service for four months before being marked 1-Y — which is only given to men deemed to qualify for national service ‘in times of national emergency.’  

In 1972, he was finally marked 4-F, which means not qualified, an amendment that may have been caused by the abolition of the 1-Y category. 

‘Trump graduated in 1968 when the war in Vietnam was at its height, so he should have been eligible for military service as were other men of his age,’ Tappin said.  

‘But of course, the history of American politics shows rich people got out of it. Another famous example of a president who avoided the draft is Bill Clinton. 

‘Senator Tammy Duckworth, a Congressional Medal of Honor holder who was seriously injured in Iraq, publicly called Trump “cadet bone spurs” and a draft dodger.

‘So one could make an argument that Michael Cohen’s words in the Senate were true; Trump did not want to go to Vietnam.’ 

Tappin, honorary fellow at Keele University and co-author of American Politics Today, is among the commentators who believe that Trump’s avoidance of the draft was down to his multi-millionaire father.

‘One can draw the conclusion that his father Fred bought him the deferment,’ he said. 

Tappin also defended Truman’s original emphasis on defence, not war.

‘Trump has said that the Defense Department “went woke”,’ he said.  

‘Truman was anything but woke.

‘He served in the military in the First World War, he was a major, and he was a solid American president. He would be turning in his grave if he knew what Trump has said about his decision.’  

Trump has said in an interview that he had ‘spurs’ in the back of his feet, which at the time ‘prevented me from walking long distances.’  

He has also said that he had a ‘very, very high draft number’ in 1969 which the military draft lottery did not get near to, apparently as it worked in ascending order through a list of eligible men.

In 2019, Trump told Piers Morgan he was ‘never a fan’ of the Vietnam War but would have been happy and honoured to have served. 

US Presidents who avoided the draft?

Donald Trump, Bill Clinton, Joe Biden and George W. Bush all avoided service in Vietnam. Clinton received educational draft deferments while he was studying in England and W. Bush got a coveted spot in the 147th Texas Air National Guard as a pilot and was not eligible for the draft. Biden received student draft deferments and a ‘1-Y’, meaning he could only be drafted in a national emergency.

Dr Laura Smith, a specialist in American presidential history at the University of Oxford, told Metro: ‘While being labeled a “draft dodger” was once seen as political dynamite, the ability of politicians to become commander in chief regardless of their service seems to have become a trend, one that is likely to continue considering the unpopularity of America’s foreign interventions.

‘Trump justified his recent decision to return to the War label as somehow a return to glory days. However, the Defense Department has existed since the end of WWII – the entirety of the period of America’s existence as the global superpower.

‘The War Department existed from George Washington’s cabinet and oversaw the long period up until the end of the 19th Century, when America did not have the power to engage or effectively challenge Old World powers on the global stage as Britain still ruled the waves.

‘It seems that once again, this executive decision is made upon a rhetorical concept of history, rather than the facts.’

Slingshot News: ‘Largely A Thousand Miles Of Ocean’: Trump Embarrasses Himself, Shows That He’s Clueless About Ukraine’s Geography During Press Briefing

Donald Trump held a press briefing at the White House several weeks ago announcing military deployment in Washington, D.C. During his gaggle with the press, Trump ignorantly claimed that Ukraine is “largely a thousand miles of ocean.” Ukraine is bordered by the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov, neither of which is ocean.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/largely-a-thousand-miles-of-ocean-trump-embarrasses-himself-shows-that-he-s-clueless-about-ukraine-s-geography-during-press-briefing/vi-AA1Mwhq1

Slingshot News: ‘Not When I’m In Charge’: Donald Trump Makes A Fool Of Himself, Believes He Has China Cornered During Press Conference

During a press conference at the White House several weeks ago announcing his police takeover of Washington, D.C., Donald Trump stated that China will never beat the U.S. in trade for as long as he’s president. Meanwhile, Trump is always chickening out with 90-day tariff pauses.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/not-when-i-m-in-charge-donald-trump-makes-a-fool-of-himself-believes-he-has-china-cornered-during-press-conference/vi-AA1Mw0qd

MSNBC: Lawrence: One honest thing Trump said about Epstein’s survivors is ‘I haven’t thought about it’ [Video]

MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell details how “Donald Trump wants you to believe he was the only close friend of Jeffrey Epstein’s who did not contribute to his birthday book” as Donald Trump dehumanized the survivors of Jeffrey Epstein when he said he hadn’t thought about meeting with them.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/lawrence-one-honest-thing-trump-said-about-epstein-s-survivors-is-i-haven-t-thought-about-it/vi-AA1Memf2

CNN: Trump claims he can do anything he wants with the military. Here’s what the law says

Having rebranded the Department of Defense as the Department of War, the president is going on offense with the US military.

Donald Trump has foisted National Guard troops on Washington, DC, and Los Angeles. Other cities are on edge, particularly after he posted an apparently artificially generated image of himself dressed up like Robert Duvall’s surfing cavalry commander in “Apocalypse Now,” a meme that seemed to suggest he was threatening war on the city of Chicago.

Trump later clarified that the US would not go to war on Chicago, but he’s clearly comfortable joking about it. And he’s of the opinion his authority over the military is absolute.

“Not that I don’t have the right to do anything I want to do. I’m the president of the United States,” he said at a Cabinet meeting in August, when he was asked about the prospect of Chicagoans engaging in nonviolent resistance against the US military.

He’s reorienting the US military to focus on drug traffickers as terrorists and told Congress to expect more military strikes after the US destroyed a boat in the Caribbean last week.

All of this projects the kind of strongman decisiveness Trump admires.

A lot of it might also be illegal.

A ‘violation of the Posse Comitatus Act’

US District Judge Charles Breyer ruled this month that Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth committed a “a serious violation of the Posse Comitatus Act” when they deployed federalized troops to Los Angeles over the objections of the state’s governor and mayor.

The Posse Comitatus Act was passed by Congress in 1878 as Southern states worked to oust federal troops and end Reconstruction. Questions over how and whether troops can be used to enforce laws goes back to the pre-Civil War period, when federal marshals sought help from citizens and militiamen in recovering fugitive slaves and putting down the protests of abolitionists, according to the Congressional Research Service.

It is not clear why Trump has not yet, as he has promised, called up the National Guard to patrol in Chicago, but he may be waiting for the Supreme Court, which has been extremely deferential to his claims of authority, to weigh in on a preliminary basis.

Trump has more authority to deploy the military inside Washington, DC, which the Constitution says Congress controls. But Congress has ceded some authority to locally elected officials in recent decades. DC’s Attorney General Brian Schwalb has sued the Trump administration over the deployment.

Testing the War Powers Act

Trump’s strike on a boat in the Caribbean is also on murky legal ground.

After Vietnam, Congress overrode Richard Nixon’s veto to pass another law, the War Powers Act of 1973, which requires presidents to notify Congress within 48 hours of a military strike. And Trump did do that, at least his third such notification since taking office in January. Trump also sent notifications to Congress about his strike against an Iranian nuclear facility and Houthi rebels who were attacking shipping routes.

The Reiss Center at New York University maintains a database of War Powers Act notifications going back to the 1970s.

Cartels as terrorist organizations

In the notification about the Caribbean strike, Trump’s administration argued that it has declared drug cartels are terrorist organizations and that he operated within his constitutional authority to protect the country when he ordered the strike.

Strikes against terrorists have been authorized under the catchall vote that authorized the use of military force against Islamic terrorists after the 9/11 terror attacks.

But Congress, which the Constitution puts in charge of declaring war, has not authorized the use of military force against Venezuelan drug cartels.

Lack of explanation from the White House

Over the weekend, CNN’s Katie Bo Lillis, Natasha Bertrand and Zachary Cohen reported that the Pentagon abruptly canceled classified briefings to key House and Senate committees with oversight of the military, which means lawmaker have been unable to get the legal justification for the strike.

Many Americans might celebrate the idea of a military strike to take out drug dealers, and the administration is clearly primed to lean on the idea that the cartels are terrorists.

Here’s a key quote from CNN’s report:

“The strike was the obvious result of designating them a terrorist organization,” said one person familiar with the Pentagon’s thinking. “If there was a boat full of al Qaeda fighters smuggling explosives towards the US, would anyone even ask this question?”

Few details

It’s not yet clear which military unit was responsible for the strike, what intelligence suggested there were drugs onboard, who was on the boat or what the boat was carrying.

“The attack on the smuggling vessel in the Caribbean was so extraordinary because there was no reported attempt to stop the boat or detain its crew,” wrote Brian Finucane, a former State Department legal advisor now at International Crisis Group for the website Just Security. “Instead, the use of lethal force was used in the first resort.”

Secretary of State Marco Rubio said the US could have interdicted the boat and made a legal case against those onboard, but it decided instead to blow up the boat. The notice to Congress makes clear the administration will continue with other strikes.

War crime? Vance doesn’t ‘give a sh*t’

“The decision to blow up the boat and kill everyone onboard when interdiction and detention was a clearly available option is manifestly illegal and immoral,” Oona Hathaway, a law professor and director of the Center for Global Legal Challenges at Yale Law School, told me in an email.

The view of the administration could be best summarized by Vice President JD Vance stating that using the military to go after cartels is “the highest and best use of our military.”

When a user on X replied that the extrajudicial killing of civilians without presenting evidence is, by definition, a war crime, Vance, himself a Yale-educated lawyer, said this:

“I don’t give a sh*t what you call it.”

That’s not an acceptable response even for some Republicans.

“Did he ever read To Kill a Mockingbird?” wrote Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky in his own post on X. “Did he ever wonder what might happen if the accused were immediately executed without trial or representation?? What a despicable and thoughtless sentiment it is to glorify killing someone without a trial.”

Congress has power it likely won’t use

Congress has the power to stop Trump’s campaign against boats in the Caribbean. The War Powers Act allows lawmakers in the House and Senate to demand the president seek approval before continuing a campaign longer than 60 days. But that seems unlikely to occur at the moment.

After the strike against Iran earlier this year, Paul was the only Republican senator to side with Democrats and demand Trump seek approval for any future Iran strikes.

During his first term, seven Republicans voted with Senate Democrats to hem in Trump’s ability to strike against Iran after he ordered the killing of Iranian commander Qasem Soleimani. But there were not enough votes to overcome Trump’s veto that year.

Trump’s authority to use military force without congressional approval of the Caribbean operation technically expires after 60 days after he reports on the use of force, although he can extend it by an additional 30 days, although he could also declare a new operation is underway.

The use of these kinds of tactics has likely been in the works for some time.

In February, Trump designated drug cartels, including Venezuela’s Tren de Aragua, as foreign terror organizations. In April, CNN reported the CIA was reviewing whether it had authority to use lethal force against drug cartels.

But the military strike against the alleged cartel boat happened as part of a broader campaign against Venezuela, including positioning US ships, aircraft and a submarine in the Caribbean, according to a CNN report.

Trump may have campaigned as a president who would end wars, but he’s governing like a president who is very comfortable using his military.

https://www.cnn.com/2025/09/10/politics/venezuela-trump-military-strike-war-powers-explainer

Wall Street Journal: Did a Boat Strike in Caribbean Exceed Trump’s Authority to Use Military Force?

President Trump was operating within his constitutional powers as commander in chief when he ordered the U.S. military to destroy a vessel in the Caribbean, administration officials said, describing the drugs it was allegedly smuggling as an imminent national security threat.

But that claim was sharply disputed by legal experts and some lawmakers, who said that Trump exceeded his legal authority by using lethal military force against a target that posed no direct danger to the U.S. and doing so without congressional authorization.

The disagreement since Trump announced the deadly attack Tuesday underscored how much of a departure it represents from decades of U.S. counternarcotics operations—and raised questions about whether drug smugglers can be treated as legitimate military targets.

“Every boatload of any form of drug that poisons the American people is an imminent threat. And at the DOD, our job is to defeat imminent threats,” Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth told reporters Thursday during a visit to an Army base in Georgia. “A drug cartel is no different than al Qaeda, and they will be treated as such.”

Trump administration officials said Tuesday’s strike, which killed 11 people on the boat, was just the opening salvo in an expanded campaign to dismantle the drug cartels they say pose a major threat to Americans.

But in importing tactics from the post-9/11 war against terrorist groups to use against drug cartels, some former officials said, Trump is trampling on longstanding limits on presidential use of force and asserting legal authorities that don’t exist.

The casualties “weren’t engaged in anything like a direct attack on the United States” and weren’t afforded a trial to determine their guilt, said Frank Kendall, who served as the secretary of the Air Force during the Biden administration and holds a law degree. “Frankly, I can’t see how this can be considered anything other than a nonjudicial killing outside the boundaries of domestic and international law.”

Unlike the interdictions which are usually conducted by the U.S. Coast Guard, the strike was carried out without warning shots, and no effort was made to detain the ship, apprehend its crew, or confirm the drugs on board. “Instead of interdicting it, on the president’s orders they blew it up,” Secretary of State Marco Rubio said in Mexico City on Wednesday.

Trump said U.S. forces “positively identified” the crew before the attack as members of Venezuelan crime syndicate Tren de Aragua, calling them “narcoterrorists.” Tren de Aragua is among the Latin American cartels and gangs that Trump has designated as foreign terrorist organizations since February.

The White House has provided no further information on the operation against the boat or detailed the legal arguments that it claims support it. Nor have officials disclosed where the strike took place, the identities of the casualties or the weapons used.

Some Trump administration officials suggest that by designating the drug cartels as foreign terrorist organizations, the Pentagon has the leeway to treat the groups as it would foreign terrorists. As commander in chief, Trump has the power to order military action against imminent threats without congressional authorization, they said.

The strike “was taken in defense of vital U.S. national interests and in the collective self-defense of other nations,” White House spokeswoman Anna Kelly said, adding that the strike occurred in international waters and “was fully consistent with the law of armed conflict.”

But Geoffrey Corn, a retired lieutenant colonel who was the Army’s senior adviser on the law of war, said: “I don’t think there is any way to legitimately characterize a drug ship heading from Venezuela, arguably to Trinidad, as an actual or imminent armed attack against the United States, justifying this military response.”

Corn, a law professor at Texas Tech University, noted that critics have condemned U.S. drone strikes since 2001 against militants in Afghanistan, Iraq and other countries as extrajudicial killings, but those strikes were legitimate, he said, because the U.S. was engaged in an armed conflict under the laws of war against al Qaeda and other terrorist groups.

Brian Finucane, a former State Department lawyer who is now at the International Crisis Group, said that designation of drug cartels as terrorist groups doesn’t authorize the use of military force against them. Rather it enables the U.S. to levy sanctions and pursue criminal prosecutions against individuals who support the groups.

Nor can military action be justified under the law Congress passed authorizing the use of force against al Qaeda and related terrorist groups following the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, experts said.

For the military to use force, “there needs to be a legitimate claim of self-defense in international waters, an action that is necessary and proportional in response to an armed attack or imminent armed attack,” said Juan Gonzalez, who served as the National Security Council’s senior director for Western Hemisphere affairs during the Biden administration. “That clearly didn’t happen.”

The attack was the U.S. military’s first publicly acknowledged airstrike in Central or South America since the U.S. invasion of Panama in 1989. The White House released a grainy black-and-white video that showed the destruction of a small boat, which it celebrated as a blunt warning for drug traffickers throughout the region.

Trump administration officials have offered conflicting accounts of the episode. On Tuesday, Rubio said the drugs the vessel was carrying “were probably headed to Trinidad or some other country in the Caribbean” and could “contribute to the instability these countries are facing,” differing from Trump’s statement that the vessel was “heading to the United States.” On Wednesday, Rubio suggested that the shipment was “eventually” headed to the U.S.

No state in the region has publicly appealed for the U.S. to take military action against the cartels as an act of collective self-defense, Corn said.

On Thursday, two Venezuelan F-16 jet fighters flew near one of the U.S. Navy warships that have been positioned near the county. The Pentagon criticized the apparent show of force as a “highly provocative move” and warned Venezuela not to interfere with its “counter narco-terror operations.”

In the past, some U.S. counternarcotics strikes have ended in tragedy. In 2001, Peruvian and U.S. counterdrug agents mistook a small plane carrying American missionaries over the Peruvian Amazon as belonging to drug traffickers. The Peruvian Air Force shot down the plane, killing a 35-year-old woman and her infant daughter.

The U.S. has limited intelligence on small drug boats leaving Venezuela, from which the Drug Enforcement Administration was expelled in 2005 under then-President Hugo Chávez, said Mike Vigil, a former DEA director of international operations.

“The United States doesn’t really have the capability to develop good intelligence about these embarkations,” he said. “You don’t just send a missile and destroy a boat. It is the equivalent of a police officer walking up to a drug trafficker on the street and shooting him.”

In Quito, Ecuador, on Thursday, Rubio announced the designation of two more criminal groups—the Ecuadorean Los Choneros and Los Lobos—as foreign terrorist organizations. He said U.S. partners in the region would participate in operations to use lethal force against drug cartels.

A senior Mexican naval officer with decades of service and experience boarding drug vessels said actions like the one taken Tuesday by the U.S. would never be allowed by its Mexican counterpart, which has been trained in interdiction procedures by the U.S. Coast Guard.

“There is never a direct attack unless you are attacked,” he said. “As commander of the ship, I would get into serious trouble. I could be accused of murder.”

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/did-a-boat-strike-in-caribbean-exceed-trump-s-authority-to-use-military-force/ar-AA1LU02a

Mirror US: Trump warned Pentagon name change makes US a ‘laughing stock’ to both allies and enemies

The President aims to lean into ‘warrior ethos’ after having campaigned on promises of ‘uniting forces to end the endless foreign wars’

The Trump administration is moving forward with plans to rename the Department of Defense to the Department of War after President Donald Trump first floated the idea on Monday, according to a Fox News report. A White House official confirmed the plan to The Mirror US on Thursday.

The decision marks a stark U-turn from the president’s campaign promises in 2024 to pursue peace, and from his frequent criticisms of former President Joe Biden for driving the U.S. “closer to World War III than anybody can imagine.”

“As President Trump said, our military should be focused on offense – not just defense – which is why he has prioritized warfighters at the Pentagon instead of DEI and woke ideology. Stay tuned!” White House spokeswoman Anna Kelly told Reuters this week, referring to programs aimed at increasing diversity, equity and inclusion. The Trump administration has not revealed the reasons it believes the department’s name constitutes “woke ideology.” It comes after a lip reader revealed the chilling 3-word promise that Donald Trump whispered into Vladimir Putin’s ear at their Alaska summit.

The move follows a string of similar name-changing decisions by the Trump administration as a measure of projecting the president’s stance on specific policy issues. In January, Trump issued an executive order to rename the Gulf of Mexico to the “Gulf of America”. He also referred to his controversial July domestic spending bill as the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which in recent days his administration has attempted to rebrand as the “working families tax cut.”

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has also ordered the renaming of certain military vessels that previously bore the names of civil rights leaders, such as the USNS Harvey Milk. Last month, he renamed his conference room the “W.A.R. Room.” Hegseth has often proven to be concerned with the outward appearance of elements of his department, having even ordered a makeup studio to be installed inside the Pentagon and dictated which colors of nail polish are acceptable to be worn by Army soldiers.

Though restoring the name would require congressional action, the White House is reportedly exploring alternative methods to enact the change, according to the Wall Street Journal.

The decision to rename the Pentagon comes amid a broader push by Trump, Hegseth and their coalition to restore a “warrior ethos” to the federal government and America as a whole. It has included a purge of top military leaders whose views do not align with the president’s agenda.

“As Department of War, we won everything. We won everything,” Trump said last month, referring to the War Department established by Congress in 1789 to oversee the Army, Navy and Marine Corps. “I think we’re going to have to go back to that.”

The administration has also sought to ban transgender individuals from voluntarily joining the military and remove those who are currently serving on the basis of a claim that they are medically unfit. The claim has been described by civil rights groups as false and a representation of illegal discrimination, according to Reuters.

“This is so stupid and it’s going to make us a laughing stock in front of both our allies and our enemies,” one user wrote on X on Thursday.

Posturing the top defense department in the nation in a more aggressive and offensive direction is at odds with promises and statements made by Trump during his 2024 presidential campaign.

Trump lobbed frequent criticisms at Biden for the fact that, during his presidency, Russia invaded Ukraine and the conflict between Israel and Hamas was ignited. “(Biden) will drive us into World War III, and we’re closer to World War III than anybody can imagine,” Trump said, according to CNN.

Last August, while endorsing anti-war former Democratic Rep. Tusli Gabbard at a National Guard conference in Detroit, Trump claimed both Democrats and Independents would vote for him because of his plan to end wars. “We’re uniting forces to end the endless foreign wars,” he said of Gabbard’s endorsement. “When I’m back in the White House, we will expel the warmongers, the profiteers … and we will restore world peace.”

“I am confident that his first task will be to do the work to walk us back from the brink of war,” Gabbard said. “We cannot be prosperous unless we are at peace.”

His decision in June to launch a missile attack on Iran’s nuclear enrichment facilities threw several of his most ardent, right-wing supporters into opposition, urging the president and his allies not to engage in foreign conflicts.

Trump, who claimed that he would solve the Russia-Ukraine war before taking office on Jan. 20,” had made little headway by early September in brokering peace between the two nations. He has also dubiously claimed that he has personally ended a handful of global wars during his second term.

“We will measure our success not only by the battles we win, but also by the wars that we end, and perhaps most importantly, the wars we never get into,” Trump said during his inaugural address. “My proudest legacy will be that of a peacemaker and unifier. That’s what I want to be: a peacemaker and a unifier.”

It comes after Ukraine warned that Putin has a hit list of FIVE countries that he wants to invade next.

https://www.themirror.com/news/us-news/trump-warned-pentagon-name-change-1372151

Columbus Ledger-Enquirer: Trump Targets ‘Un-American’ Books at Military Academies

Former U.S. military academy faculty are alleging that Trump-era political pressure has influenced curriculum changes, leading to course cancellations and book removals. Topics deemed “un-American” including diversity and critical race theory, have been especially targeted under Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. West Point has canceled gender and race history classes, ended its sociology major, and barred works by controversial authors James Baldwin and Toni Morrison.

Historian Ruth Ben-Ghait wrote, “A small purge was orchestrated, to make sure the Naval Academy fell into line when Trump got back into office and the real purges could take place.”

Ben-Ghait added, “It was a loyalty test for the Naval Academy, and they passed it, but Trump and Hegseth will surely be back for more.”

Identity-focused student groups have been disbanded, and the U.S. Naval Academy reportedly removed hundreds of diversity-related books. Faculty, including Dr. Graham Parsons and Brian Johns (R-CO), warned the purge undermines graduates’ critical thinking.

Administrators removed selected humanities courses and abolished several student clubs, according to reported faculty accounts. A speech policy now requires approval for publications and media, though a civilian law professor has reportedly challenged it as unconstitutional.

Parsons said, “These were brazen demands to indoctrinate, not educate.” Following Parson’s departure, Hegseth said, “You will not be missed Professor Parsons.”

These changes have raised concerns over a cultural shift in military education. Faculty noted similar censorship trends pre-dating the Trump administration, such as canceling a fascism lecture after conservative objections.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-targets-un-american-books-at-military-academies/ss-AA1LZkKW

Associated Press: Legal aid group sues to preemptively block U.S. from deporting a dozen Honduran children

A legal aid group has sued to preemptively block any efforts by the U.S. government to deport a dozen Honduran children, saying it had “credible” information that such plans were quietly in the works.

The Arizona-based Florence Immigrant & Refugee Rights Project (FIRRP) on Friday added Honduran children to a lawsuit filed last weekend that resulted in a judge temporarily blocking the deportation of dozens of migrant children to their native Guatemala.

In a statement, the organization said it had received reports that the U.S. government will “imminently move forward with a plan to illegally remove Honduran children in government custody as soon as this weekend, in direct violation of their right to seek protection in the United States and despite ongoing litigation that blocked similar attempted extra-legal removals for children from Guatemala.”

FIRRP did not immediately provide The Associated Press with details about what information it had received about the possible deportation of Honduran children. The amendment to the organization’s lawsuit is sealed in federal court. The Homeland Security Department did not immediately respond to email requests for comment on Friday and Saturday.

The Justice Department on Saturday provided what is perhaps its most detailed account of a chaotic Labor Day weekend involving the attempted deportation of 76 Guatemalan children. Its timeline was part of a request to lift a temporary hold on their removal.

Over Labor Day weekend, the Trump administration attempted to remove Guatemalan children who had come to the U.S. alone and were living in shelters or with foster care families in the U.S.

Advocates who represent migrant children in court filed lawsuits across the country seeking to stop the government from removing the children, and on Sunday a federal judge stepped in to order that the kids stay in the U.S. for at least two weeks.

The government initially identified 457 Guatemalan children for possible deportation, according to Saturday’s filing. None could have a pending asylum screening or claim, resulting in the removal of 91. They had to have parents or legal guardians in Guatemala and be at least 10 years old.

In the end, 327 children were found eligible for deportation, including 76 who boarded planes early Sunday in what the government described as a first phase, according to a statement by Angie Salazar, acting director of the U.S. Health and Human Services Department’s Office of Refugee Resettlement. All 76 were at least 14 years old and “self-reported” that they had a parent or legal guardian in Guatemala but none in the United States.

The Justice Department said no planes took off, despite a comment by one of its attorneys in court Sunday that one may have but returned.

Children who cross the border alone are generally transferred to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, which falls under the Health and Human Services Department. The children usually live in a network of shelters across the country that are overseen by the resettlement office until they are eventually released to a sponsor — usually a relative

Children began crossing the border alone in large numbers in 2014, peaking at 152,060 in the 2022 fiscal year. July’s arrest tally translates to an annual clip of 5,712 arrests, reflecting how illegal crossings have dropped to their lowest levels in six decades.

Guatemalans accounted for 32% of residents at government-run holding facilities last year, followed by Hondurans, Mexicans and El Salvadorans. A 2008 law requires children to appear before an immigration judge with an opportunity to pursue asylum, unless they are from Canada and Mexico. The vast majority are released from shelters to parents, legal guardians or immediate family while their cases wind through court.

Justice Department lawyers said federal law allows the Department of Health and Human Services to “repatriate” or “reunite” children by taking them out of the U.S., as long as the child hasn’t been a victim of “severe” human trafficking, is not at risk for becoming so if he or she is returned to their native country and does not face a “a credible fear” of persecution there. The child also cannot be “repatriated” if he or she has a pending asylum claim.

The FIRRP lawsuit was amended to include 12 children from Honduras who have expressed to the Florence Project that they do not want to return to Honduras, as well as four additional children from Guatemala who have come into government custody in Arizona since the suit was initially filed last week.

Some children have parents who are already in the United States.

The lawsuit demands that the government allow the children their legal right to present their cases to an immigration judge, to have access to legal counsel and to be placed in the least restrictive setting that is in the best interest of the child.

https://apnews.com/article/immigration-children-trump-deportations-guatemala-honduras-70c0912b3ee8c1038e793974b7141d67

Slingshot News: ‘It’s The American Flag’: Trump’s Mental Decline Shows Up Again When He Mistakes The Flag For A Blanket During Oval Office Signing

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/it-s-the-american-flag-trump-s-mental-decline-shows-up-again-when-he-mistakes-the-flag-for-a-blanket-during-oval-office-signing/vi-AA1M0pf6