|
Quotes of the Day:
"The discipline of the written word punishes both stupidity and dishonesty."
– John Steinbeck
"Rebellion is born when rulers forget who they are meant to serve."
– Confucius
"First you fascinate the fools, then you muzzle the intelligent."
– Bertrand Russell
1. Pentagon plan prioritizes homeland over China threat
2. China Uses Military Parade to Cover for Growing Weakness
3. Japan’s Prime Minister to Resign
4. President of Peace, Department of War. A New Name Sends Mixed Signals.
5. Chinese Hackers Pretended to Be a Top U.S. Lawmaker During Trade Talks
6. ‘A million small headaches’: Pentagon officials bemoan Trump’s Department of War rebrand
7. 'Treasonous': GOP Rep Suspects Leak Behind Botched SEAL Mission In North Korea
8. China’s Military Is Now Leading
9. The big threat left out of Xi’s parade: China’s weaponized AI startups
10. Trump signals support for security guarantees for Ukraine, stresses Europe's role
11. Ukraine Hit by War’s Largest Aerial Assault: 805 Drones Strike, 4 People Killed, Government Building Ablaze
12. America Surrenders in the Global Information Wars
13. Major US brands sound alarm over rising anti-American sentiment
14. China, Russia, North Korea and Iran's 'axis of upheaval' reshapes geopolitics
15. Why Trump should win the Nobel Prize (according to world leaders and his friends)
16. Ex-RNC Spokesperson Spots How 'South Park' Could Make A 'Real' Impact On Trump's Base
17. Donald Trump’s Presidency Is Making America Irrelevant
18. West Point alumni group cancels award ceremony for Tom Hanks
1. Pentagon plan prioritizes homeland over China threat
Is our "National War Strategy" now one of retrenchment ?(if this article is accurate).
An ominous warning in the very first paragraph. Is the end near for our silk web of friends, partners, and allies?
We may be in for some difficult times ahead.
Excerpts:
“This is going to be a major shift for the U.S. and its allies on multiple continents,” said one of the people briefed on the draft document. “The old, trusted U.S. promises are being questioned.”
...
Elbridge Colby, the Pentagon’s policy chief, is leading the strategy. He played a key role in writing the 2018 version during Trump’s first term and has been a staunch supporter of a more isolationist American policy. Despite his long track record as a China hawk, Colby aligns with Vice President JD Vance on the desire to disentangle the U.S. from foreign commitments.
Colby’s policy team is also responsible for a forthcoming global posture review, which outlines where U.S. forces are stationed around the globe, and a theater air and missile defense review, which takes stock of U.S. and allies’ air defenses and makes recommendations for where to locate American systems. The Pentagon is expected to release both reviews as soon as next month.
A Pentagon spokesperson declined to comment on the reviews. The White House did not respond to a request for comment.
Pentagon plan prioritizes homeland over China threat
This marks a major departure from the first Trump administration, which emphasized deterring Beijing.
Politico
“This is going to be a major shift for the U.S. and its allies on multiple continents,” said one of the people briefed on the draft document. “The old, trusted U.S. promises are being questioned.”
The report usually comes out at the start of each administration, and Hegseth could still make changes to the plan. But in many ways, the shift is already occurring. The Pentagon has activated thousands of National Guard troops to support law enforcement in Los Angeles and Washington, and dispatched multiple warships and F-35 fighter planes to the Caribbean to interdict the flow of drugs to the U.S.
A U.S. military strike this week allegedly killed 11 suspected members of the Venezuelan Tren de Aragua gang in international waters, a major step in using the military to kill noncombatants.
The Pentagon also has established a militarized zone across the southern border with Mexico that allows troops to detain civilians, a job normally reserved for law enforcement.
The new strategy would largely overturn the focus of the first Trump administration’s 2018 National Defense Strategy, which placed deterring China at the forefront of the Pentagon’s efforts.
“It is increasingly clear that China and Russia want to shape a world consistent with their authoritarian model,” the opening paragraphs of that document said.
The shift “doesn’t seem aligned with President Trump’s hawkish views on China at all,” said a Republican foreign policy expert briefed on the report, who like others was granted anonymity to discuss sensitive issues.
The president has continued to express tough rhetoric toward China, including imposing staggering tariffs on Beijing and accusing Chinese President Xi Jinping of “conspiring against” the U.S. after he met with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un and Russian President Vladimir Putin at a military parade in the country’s capital.
Elbridge Colby, the Pentagon’s policy chief, is leading the strategy. He played a key role in writing the 2018 version during Trump’s first term and has been a staunch supporter of a more isolationist American policy. Despite his long track record as a China hawk, Colby aligns with Vice President JD Vance on the desire to disentangle the U.S. from foreign commitments.
Colby’s policy team is also responsible for a forthcoming global posture review, which outlines where U.S. forces are stationed around the globe, and a theater air and missile defense review, which takes stock of U.S. and allies’ air defenses and makes recommendations for where to locate American systems. The Pentagon is expected to release both reviews as soon as next month.
A Pentagon spokesperson declined to comment on the reviews. The White House did not respond to a request for comment.
The three documents will be intertwined in many ways. Each will emphasize telling allies to take more responsibility for their own security, the people said, while the U.S. consolidates efforts closer to home.
Allies are especially worried about the fallout of the global posture review, given that it could pull U.S. troops away from Europe and the Middle East and cut critical security assistance programs.
A Pentagon official and European diplomat confirmed a Financial Times report that the Pentagon’s Baltic Security Initiative — which grants hundreds of millions of dollars a year to Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia to help build up their defenses and military infrastructure — will lose funding this year.
The diplomat pointed out that money from that initiative has gone to buying American-made weapons and “has received strong support, helping accelerate the development of key capabilities and enabling the acquisition of U.S. systems like HIMARS.”
NATO allies increasingly expect some of the roughly 80,000 U.S. troops in Europe to leave over the next several years. But countries will feel the impacts differently and, in the end, are subject to the whims of Trump.
During a Wednesday visit by Poland’s new president to the White House, Trump said the U.S. would not remove troops from the country. But he acknowledged he’s considering service member reductions elsewhere on the continent.
“If anything,” Trump said, “we’ll put more there.”
Politico
2. China Uses Military Parade to Cover for Growing Weakness
Some practice some good IO here perhaps, though this kind of message never gains traction. But it is one that should be broadcast into China to the Chinese people. If only we had the capability to do so.
Excerpts:
For all its theatrical grandeur, China’s military parade revealed far more than it concealed. Beneath the polished uniforms and choreographed unity lies a regime grappling with internal distrust, outdated weaponry, rising unrest, and a faltering economy. Xi Jinping’s attempts to project strength through symbolism only highlight the disconnect between the party’s narrative and China’s grim realities.
As with the CCP’s distorted retelling of World War II history, the spectacle in Beijing was less a show of confidence than a carefully staged effort to distract from profound institutional decay. The world would do well to see it for what it is.
China Uses Military Parade to Cover for Growing Weakness
https://amac.us/newsline/politics/china-uses-military-parade-to-cover-for-growing-weakness/
Posted on Saturday, September 6, 2025
|
by Ben Solis
|
12 Comments
|
Print
In a historic gathering of authoritarian strongmen this week, Russian President Vladimir Putin, North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian, and more than two dozen other world leaders joined Chinese President Xi Jinping for an elaborate military parade in Beijing. But while the event was visually impressive, it was yet another sign of China’s growing weakness and insecurity.
The official purpose of the parade was to commemorate the 80th anniversary of the end of World War II and the defeat of Imperial Japan. Tens of thousands of soldiers marched along the parade route flanked by tanks and fighter jets overhead in a clear show of force by the communist regime.
To the casual observer, the parade may seem to have vindicated China’s claims that it now rivals or has even overtaken the United States as the world’s leading great power. Xi clearly views himself as the head of a new “axis of evil” of sorts. The parade this week was notably the first time that the current leaders of China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran – the United States’ top four geopolitical rivals – were in the same place at the same time.
But Chinese dissidents and experts with extensive knowledge of the Chinese military interviewed for this column cautioned against trusting superficial impressions. In a regime that limits access to unbiased information, the truth is often far different from what appears on the surface.
The very context of the parade is a testament to this point. Xi proclaimed that it was the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) which was victorious over Japan, while ignoring the central role of Nationalist forces, as well as the United States and its allies, in ending the war. Dr. Yao Zihan, a history and political science professor, called this “the first lie.”
The reality is that the Chinese Nationalist government, which had been engaged in a civil war with the communists, bore the brunt of the fighting in World War II. The communists, while engaging in some guerrilla warfare, mostly preserved their strength for the later resumption of the civil war.
This fantasy world in which the CCP operates extends beyond attempts to rewrite history. During the parade, Xi declared that China is safe, united, and prosperous – just his latest effort to distract from the glaring crises plaguing the Chinese economy and culture.
Dr. Huang Kun, a former advisor to high-ranking Chinese officials who defected to the West, described the parade as “political warfare.” He noted that “every word and image was crafted to impress or instill fear in the West” and aimed at portraying the CCP as “a guarantor of peace and prosperity.”
However, he continued, “The CCP does not represent the people of China.” Far from leading a united country, Xi is leading a society fraying at the seams. “The Chinese people know that Xi and his predecessors did not win free and democratic elections, and are usurpers exploiting China,” he added.
Another former high-ranking official who served in the Chinese military called the parade a “festival of deception for Chinese leaders” and said that CCP leadership is “obsessive in its insecurity” and “has never distrusted the military as much as it does under Xi Jinping.” Throughout Xi’s 13 years in power, nearly 20 percent of China’s generals have been probed or gone missing, while that number was zero for Xi’s two most immediate predecessors.
That same anonymous official also alleged that the People’s Liberation Army’s equipment is still woefully outdated, despite some advancements in technologies like hypersonic missiles. He noted high rates of crashes and catastrophes involving Chinese military equipment due to “unreasonable haste, negligence, and bravado.”
An incident last month is indicative of these failures. On August 11, a China Coast Guard vessel collided with a Chinese Navy guided-missile destroyer in the South China Sea while both were pursuing a Philippine Coast Guard boat. The crash was captured on video and revealed a pattern of dangerous maneuvers by Chinese maritime forces in the region.
Although the CCP has imposed a gag order on most disasters, some, such as the crash of a J-15 jet in March, were impossible to cover up. The China Observer reported that the crash revealed “poor fighter jet quality.” The aforementioned anonymous official said that the crash “accurately captures Lenin’s critique of the Soviet Party: ‘one step forward, two steps back.’”
The Chinese people are also growing more restless even as Xi tightens his grip over the country. The China Dissent Monitor has reported a significant rise in unrest in China over the past two years, with more than 7,000 protests documented from June 2022 to December 2024. Meanwhile, China’s economy is facing a dramatic slowdown in consumer spending and a real estate market collapse.
For all its theatrical grandeur, China’s military parade revealed far more than it concealed. Beneath the polished uniforms and choreographed unity lies a regime grappling with internal distrust, outdated weaponry, rising unrest, and a faltering economy. Xi Jinping’s attempts to project strength through symbolism only highlight the disconnect between the party’s narrative and China’s grim realities.
As with the CCP’s distorted retelling of World War II history, the spectacle in Beijing was less a show of confidence than a carefully staged effort to distract from profound institutional decay. The world would do well to see it for what it is.
Ben Solis is the pen name of an international affairs journalist, historian, and researcher.
3. Japan’s Prime Minister to Resign
Excerpts:
“I have decided to resign, hoping to avoid a situation where the party would be divided,” he said.
The LDP, which has governed Japan for most of its postwar history, lost its majority in the upper house of Japan’s parliament in an election in July, its third defeat in a major vote since Ishiba took office.
The political turmoil in the U.S.’s foremost Asian ally offers another example of a global trend in which mainstream parties have hemorrhaged support to populist upstarts as voters have sought new answers on issues including inflation, immigration and disappointing economic growth.
President Trump’s all-out push to reorder the global trading system is creating further turbulence. On Thursday, Ishiba finally secured what Japan has sought in sometimes testy negotiations for months: a White House executive order lowering punishing tariffs on autos and other Japanese exports.
Japan’s Prime Minister to Resign
Decision comes after mounting pressure over election losses and despite finalizing a trade deal with President Trump
https://www.wsj.com/world/asia/japans-prime-minister-to-resign-4ffaf6e4
By Jason Douglas
Follow and Junko Fukutome
Updated Sept. 7, 2025 6:03 am ET
Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba announces his resignation. Photo: Kyodo News/Associated Press
Quick Summary
-
Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba announced his resignation after facing internal rebellion and recent election setbacks for the LDP.View more
TOKYO—Japan’s prime minister said he would resign, weeks after a bruising election setback and only days after finally securing tariff relief for his country’s prized auto sector from President Trump.
Shigeru Ishiba said at a news conference Sunday that he would quit after less than a year on the post, bowing to a growing rebellion against his leadership from within the ruling Liberal Democratic Party.
“I have decided to resign, hoping to avoid a situation where the party would be divided,” he said.
The LDP, which has governed Japan for most of its postwar history, lost its majority in the upper house of Japan’s parliament in an election in July, its third defeat in a major vote since Ishiba took office.
The political turmoil in the U.S.’s foremost Asian ally offers another example of a global trend in which mainstream parties have hemorrhaged support to populist upstarts as voters have sought new answers on issues including inflation, immigration and disappointing economic growth.
President Trump’s all-out push to reorder the global trading system is creating further turbulence. On Thursday, Ishiba finally secured what Japan has sought in sometimes testy negotiations for months: a White House executive order lowering punishing tariffs on autos and other Japanese exports.
But that wasn’t enough to quiet calls for him to quit. Lawmakers unhappy with his leadership had been expected to try to push him out by forcing a leadership election in a special party vote slated for Monday.
In explaining his decision, Ishiba said the responsibility for the party’s performance ultimately rests with him. He said he stayed on after July’s election to see through tariff negotiations with the U.S.
“Who would seriously negotiate if I were to say, ‘I’m quitting?’ When something like this is happening, you should not even mention such a thing,” he said.
Ishiba’s resignation clears the way for a leadership election to choose a new party president, a process that could take about a month. Ishiba said he would stay on as prime minister until a new party leader is chosen.
Switching LDP leaders isn’t guaranteed to quell Japan’s restive politics. The next leader would need to be confirmed as prime minister by Japan’s parliament, known as the Diet, which isn’t a done deal, as the LDP no longer has an outright majority in either the upper or lower chamber. Such a stalemate could lead to a new national election, or even the elevation of an opposition party leader to prime minister instead.
Japan’s next leader must navigate major challenges, including security threats from China and North Korea. They will also have to manage Japan’s relationship with the U.S. under Trump, who wants America’s Asia Pacific allies to spend much more on defense and whose commitment to defending the region sometimes appears uncertain.
Ishiba acknowledged those challenges in his remarks on Sunday. “The security environments in Europe, the Middle East, and East Asia are closely interconnected,” he said. Japan must continue strengthening its defense capabilities, he added.
The two likeliest contenders for the party crown are Sanae Takaichi, from the LDP’s conservative wing, and the youthful Shinjiro Koizumi, a more moderate figure and the son of a former prime minister. Both are broadly pro-U.S. in outlook, though Takaichi is closer ideologically to President Trump and was an ally of the late Shinzo Abe, the former Japanese prime minister who Trump considered a friend.
Ishiba has long been considered something of a maverick in the LDP. He sought the leadership four times before finally winning the crown less than a year ago after his predecessor, Fumio Kishida, said he wouldn’t seek re-election in the wake of a political funding scandal.
Ishiba, seen here bowing, only became Japan’s leader less than a year ago. Photo: yuichi yamazaki/Agence France-Presse/Getty Images
The executive order signed by Trump on Thursday said U.S. imports of Japanese cars would be lowered to 15% from 27.5%, formalizing what had been negotiated in a bilateral agreement in July. Trump hit all auto imports with a new 25% tariff earlier this year; existing levies on imports from Japan were 2.5%.
The delay in implementing that agreement was a sore point for Tokyo, as powerhouse automakers such as Toyota and Honda were reporting stinging losses while the tariffs stayed at that higher rate.
The executive order also says other imports from Japan with pre-existing tariffs of 15% or higher won’t face any extra duties, while tariffs on most other products will be capped at 15%. That is in line with a Japanese request that new tariffs not be stacked on top of existing ones.
In return, Japan has pledged to buy more American rice, soybeans, aircraft and weapons, and invest $550 billion in the U.S. in strategic sectors such as semiconductors and infrastructure in the next few years.
Write to Jason Douglas at jason.douglas@wsj.com
4. President of Peace, Department of War. A New Name Sends Mixed Signals.
Excerpts:
Only Congress can change department names, so the title is ceremonial until it is codified into law. Mr. Trump had ordered the federal government to recognize it as a “secondary” name, in addition to having “secretary of war” serve as a “secondary title” to secretary of defense.
The measure has drawn the support of some Republicans in Congress. Senator Markwayne Mullin, Republican of Oklahoma and member of the Armed Services Committee, praised Mr. Trump in a social media post for “ENDING wars, not starting them,” and said that the renaming “reflects the seriousness of this national security mission, and a return to our military history.”
Col. Larry Wilkerson, who served as chief of staff to former Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, said that the name change underscored the shift in the military’s approach from defensive to offensive. The new posture could be seen in the deadly strike on a boat that U.S. officials said was carrying Venezuelan drug smugglers. In that operation, Mr. Trump used the military in a way that had no clear legal precedent or basis, according to experts in the laws of war and executive power.
Colonel Wilkerson said the timing of the name change was especially conspicuous after the leaders of China, Russia, India and North Korea met at a summit in China without the United States.
White House Memo
President of Peace, Department of War. A New Name Sends Mixed Signals.
President Trump’s renaming of the Defense Department comes amid his campaign for a Nobel Peace Prize. On Saturday, he wrote on social media that Chicago was “about to find out why it’s called the Department of WAR.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/06/us/politics/trump-department-of-war.html
President Trump signed an executive order on Friday to change the name of the Defense Department to the Department of War. Without congressional approval, the new name will be only ceremonial.Credit...Haiyun Jiang/The New York Times
By Erica L. Green
Reporting from Washington
Sept. 6, 2025
In his campaign for a second term, President Trump promised that he would get and keep the United States out of wars. In his inaugural address, he said he wanted to leave a legacy of “unification.” And after just under eight months in office, he is openly campaigning for a Nobel Peace Prize.
But this week, Mr. Trump sent a conflicting message. The “President of Peace,” as the White House has branded him, signed an executive order to establish a “Department of War.”
The change speaks to the contradictions in Mr. Trump’s presidency and the image he projects to the world, on the one hand seeking the ultimate prize for peace while at the same time promoting a far more aggressive use of U.S. military might.
He even suggested in a social media post on Saturday morning that he would go to “war” with a city in his own country where he has threatened an immigration crackdown. He said Chicago was “about to find out why it’s called the Department of WAR,” along with three helicopter emojis.
Asked on Friday about how he squared his Department of War with his push for peace, Mr. Trump did not see a contradiction.
“I think I’ve gotten peace because of the fact that we’re strong,” he said. (Mr. Trump claims to have solved at least seven wars, a statement that requires context.)
Mr. Trump said he had revived a name used for the nation’s original defense agency until just after World War II because it better reflected the country’s fighting capabilities and sent a message of “victory” to both allies and enemies.
Mr. Trump, who was granted five deferments from being drafted to fight in Vietnam, including for a diagnosis of bone spurs, said that the country had “never fought to win” a war after World War II, when Congress renamed the Department of War the Department of Defense.
Critics say the rebranding exposed the hypocrisy behind Mr. Trump’s promises to bring peace.
“He ran as the supposed antiwar candidate, but has proved to be just the opposite,” said Matt Duss, executive vice president at the liberal Center for International Policy. “This stunt underscores that Trump is more interested in belligerent chest-thumping than genuine peacemaking — with dangerous consequences for American security, global standing and the safety of our armed services.”
Only Congress can change department names, so the title is ceremonial until it is codified into law. Mr. Trump had ordered the federal government to recognize it as a “secondary” name, in addition to having “secretary of war” serve as a “secondary title” to secretary of defense.
The measure has drawn the support of some Republicans in Congress. Senator Markwayne Mullin, Republican of Oklahoma and member of the Armed Services Committee, praised Mr. Trump in a social media post for “ENDING wars, not starting them,” and said that the renaming “reflects the seriousness of this national security mission, and a return to our military history.”
Col. Larry Wilkerson, who served as chief of staff to former Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, said that the name change underscored the shift in the military’s approach from defensive to offensive. The new posture could be seen in the deadly strike on a boat that U.S. officials said was carrying Venezuelan drug smugglers. In that operation, Mr. Trump used the military in a way that had no clear legal precedent or basis, according to experts in the laws of war and executive power.
Colonel Wilkerson said the timing of the name change was especially conspicuous after the leaders of China, Russia, India and North Korea met at a summit in China without the United States.
The United States, he said, was “pontificating about its power at a time when its power is visibly ebbing in front of everyone’s faces.”
The rebranding also comes at a moment when Mr. Trump has said he wants to eliminate wasteful spending in the government, which has already resulted in deep cuts, including at the Pentagon.
William D. Hartung, a senior research fellow at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, where he focuses on the arms industry and U.S. military budget, said that the rebranding would cost at least millions of dollars.
“It runs counter to this notion that they’re efficient, they’re focused on the warfighting, because this is largely a P.R. operation,” Mr. Hartung said.
“It’s chump change for the Pentagon budget,” he added, “but it’s chump change that could do something real somewhere else.”
Asked on Friday whether he had any concerns about how much the rebranding would cost, given that the Pentagon was cutting back costs, Mr. Trump said it wouldn’t be “the most expensive.”
“We know how to rebrand without having to go crazy,” he said, adding that it would mostly involve changing things like stationery. “We don’t have to re-carve a mountain or anything.”
Mr. Trump’s order directs the federal government to recognize the new name and title in “official correspondence, public communications, ceremonial contexts and nonstatutory documents within the executive branch.”
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has already begun transitioning his office and department with new signs.
Eric Schmitt contributed reporting.
Erica L. Green is a White House correspondent for The Times, covering President Trump and his administration.
5. Chinese Hackers Pretended to Be a Top U.S. Lawmaker During Trade Talks
Our description: bad behavior. Chinese description: normal behavior that is all part of unrestricted warfare.
Chinese Hackers Pretended to Be a Top U.S. Lawmaker During Trade Talks
FBI is investigating a scheme to spy on trade groups using fake emails from China committee chair Rep. John Moolenaar
By Joel Schectman
Follow
Sept. 7, 2025 5:30 am ET
Hackers allegedly sent emails that appeared to come from Rep. John Moolenaar. Photo: Kent Nishimura/Getty Images
Quick Summary
-
Emails impersonating Rep. John Moolenaar sought input on China sanctions, potentially deploying spyware.View more
As the Trump administration’s contentious trade talks with China were set to begin in Sweden last July, staffers on the House committee focused on U.S. competition with China began to get puzzling inquiries, according to people familiar with the matter.
Several trade groups, law firms and U.S. government agencies had all received an email appearing to be from the committee’s chairman, Rep. John Moolenaar (R., Mich.), asking for input on proposed sanctions with which the legislators were planning to target Beijing.
“Your insights are essential,” the email read, asking the groups to review a draft of the legislation attached to the message. But why had the chairman sent the message from a nongovernment address?
It turned out to be the latest in a series of alleged cyber espionage campaigns linked to Beijing, people familiar with the matter said, timed to potentially deploy spyware against organizations giving input on President Trump’s trade negotiations.
The FBI and the Capitol Police are investigating the Moolenaar emails, and cyber analysts traced the embedded malware to a hacker group known as APT41—believed to be a contractor for Beijing’s Ministry of State Security.
U. S. and Chinese officials met in late July in Stockholm—just days after the first email was sent—to pursue the type of high-stakes negotiations that spies in both countries were likely eager to obtain an advantage in. The two countries soon after agreed to extend a tariff truce until early November, when Trump and Xi could meet at an Asian economic summit.
The hacking campaign appeared to be aimed at giving Chinese officials an inside look at the recommendations Trump was receiving from outside groups. It couldn’t be determined whether the attackers had successfully breached any of the targets.
A Federal Bureau of Investigation spokeswoman declined to provide details but said the bureau was aware of the incident and was “working with our partners to identify and pursue those responsible.” The Capitol Police declined to comment.
In a statement, Moolenaar said the effort was another example of China’s offensive cyber operations designed to steal American strategy and leverage it. “We will not be intimidated,” he said.
Chinese officials have disputed U.S. hacking allegations, saying such claims are intended to distract from Washington’s own aggressive actions. The Chinese Embassy said the country opposes and combats cyberattacks, adding “we also firmly oppose smearing others without solid evidence.”
The alleged campaign comes as U.S. law-enforcement officials have been surprised by the prolific and creative nature of China’s spying efforts. The FBI revealed last month that a Beijing-linked espionage campaign that hit U.S. telecom companies and swept up Trump’s phone calls actually targeted more than 80 countries and reached across the globe.
China’s potential use of Moolenaar as a lure was particularly galling for the committee staffers given that the lawmaker has been a harsh critic of Beijing. China’s leadership “approaches the United States as an enemy to be harmed rather than as a partner,” he said in January.
The cybersecurity firm Mandiant determined the spyware would allow the hackers to burrow deep into the targeted organizations if any of the recipients had opened the purported draft legislation, according to documents reviewed by The Wall Street Journal.
The Moolenaar impersonation comes as several administration officials have recently faced impostors of their own. The State Department warned diplomats around the world in July that an impostor was using AI to imitate Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s voice in messages sent to foreign officials.
Federal authorities are also investigating an effort to impersonate White House chief of staff Susie Wiles, the Journal reported in May.
The identity of either impostor remains unknown. The FBI issued a warning that month that “malicious actors have impersonated senior U.S. officials” targeting contacts with AI-generated voice messages and texts.
Another alleged impersonation-based hacking attempt also targeted the China committee. In January, staffers on the committee received emails falsely claiming to be from the CEO of Chinese crane manufacturer ZPMC, according to people familiar with the episode. Last year, Moolenaar’s committee published a 50-page report alleging that Beijing could remotely seize control of ZPMC cranes at U.S. ports allowing it to spy on American trade flow or disrupt the movement of goods.
The hacking group linked to the Moolenaar emails is known by the FBI as one of China’s most prolific, pulling off a wave of attacks against Washington. It has also allegedly kept up a lucrative side job of crime. In 2020, authorities charged alleged members of the group with stealing digital videogame money as it scooped up trade secrets and user data for Beijing.
Dakota Cary, an analyst at SentinelOne, a cybersecurity research company that has closely tracked the group, likened China’s use of APT41 to shopping at Costco, saying the hackers were known for high-volume efforts that get the job done but aren’t particularly high end.
“They were just everywhere,” he said.
Write to Joel Schectman at joel.schectman@wsj.com
6. ‘A million small headaches’: Pentagon officials bemoan Trump’s Department of War rebrand
So here one of the million small headaches:
I received a message from Constant Contact (which I use to email the 1147 people on my National Security and Korean News and Commentary distro list). They informed me that the message I sent out yesterday contained a domain name that is on the Spamhaus DBL blocked domain list. That domain is "war[.]gov" (written that way so I do not get blocked) which is the new domain name for the DOW of DoW. They told me that my reputation will be harmed if I send out emails containing that domain name. They said I would have to contact Spamhaus DBL and request the domain be removed from the list otherwise any email I try to send out would be blocked in the future. I asked to speak to someone with common sense but they were not available.
Apparently "war[.]gov" must have belonged to someone else in the past and someone at DOW or DoW must have procured it. But little did they know it was on the block domain spam list.
‘A million small headaches’: Pentagon officials bemoan Trump’s Department of War rebrand
Politico
“This is purely for domestic political audiences,” said a former defense official. “Not only will this cost millions of dollars, it will have absolutely zero impact on Chinese or Russian calculations. Worse, it will be used by our enemies to portray the United States as warmongering and a threat to international stability.”
This article is based on interviews with more than half a dozen current and former defense officials, many of whom have insight into the broader sentiment in the department. The people were granted anonymity to discuss a sensitive issue.
POLITICO reported Thursday that the Trump administration planned to change the Defense Department’s name to the Department of War to present a more aggressive image of its military to the world.
“We won World War I, we won World War II, we won everything before that and in between, and then we decided to go woke, and we changed the name to DOD. So, we’re going Department of War,” Trump said at an Oval Office press conference on Friday announcing the move.
A formal name change would likely require an act of Congress, although a person familiar with the deliberations said the White House was looking for ways to avoid a congressional vote.
The White House said in a fact sheet that Trump’s executive order authorizes Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to refer to himself as “Secretary of War” in all official communications and to recommend actions that will ensure that the name change sticks across the department. It also said the Department of War can serve as a secondary name, which may allow Hegseth to implement the action but help avoid changes to the law.
A Defense Department official, who asked to be referred to as a “War Department” official, said the costs of the move are expected to fluctuate as it is implemented.
That didn’t assuage some employees. “I see there being a million small headaches and annoyances if this actually happens,” said a defense official. “It’ll eat up time and effort.”
A War Department existed from U.S. independence until 1947, when the Truman administration split the Army and Air Force into separate military branches and joined them with the then-independent Navy to form a new agency. An act of Congress two years later coined it the Department of Defense.
“We know how to rebrand without having to go crazy,” Trump said Friday in response to questions about the potential cost of the move. The president said he was unsure whether he needed congressional approval for the name change, but would press ahead.
Some Republicans, including Florida Sen. Rick Scott and Sen. Mike Lee of Utah, already are sponsoring legislation to change the name.
But the proposal took fire from the top Senate Republican overseeing Pentagon spending, Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). The former Senate majority leader reupped his criticism that Trump’s 2026 Pentagon budget request lags inflation.
“If we call it the Dept. of War, we’d better equip the military to actually prevent and win wars,” McConnell said on X. “Can’t preserve American primacy if we’re unwilling to spend substantially more on our military than Carter or Biden. ‘Peace through strength’ requires investment, not just rebranding.”
Democrats were quick to highlight the irony of the action by a president who appears to covet a Nobel Peace Prize and has pledged to end wars in Gaza and Ukraine. They also accused the White House of trying to distract from actual issues.
“It is a very dangerous environment,” Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), the top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said Friday on MSNBC. “For the president and the secretary of Defense to spend time and energy [on a] distraction from what we need to do — to focus on the readiness of our troops who are serving — [is] nothing more than an effort to distract from other issues that are going on in the country.”
Hegseth, who has pushed for a more lethal, “warfighter ethos” in the ranks, said the decision will “set the tone for the country.”
But the seemingly ad hoc rollout of the name change has caused confusion within the building. One Pentagon official, who independently decided to squat on the Department of War LinkedIn page to prevent a foreign adversary or Trump administration critic from taking it over, openly asked on the social network to whom he should hand the page.
The Pentagon rebranded its X account as the “Department of War,” replete with a different seal for the avatar, but the page’s banner still had the old DOD logo. The Pentagon on Friday afternoon redirected users from defense.gov to war.gov, which was temporarily down.
It took the Defense Department weeks to scrub agency websites that contained references to diversity, equity and inclusion after the Trump administration demanded it be removed, said another defense official. Officials are imagining a longer-term headache this time around.
“That was just taking down photos,” the person said. “The seal will have to change and thus anything with it.”
The change is bound to flummox the many universities, nonprofits and contractors that rely on the Defense Department for funding — and potentially pose a huge messaging challenge.
“On a tactical level, it would mean having to rebrand a mountain of contracting, marketing, business development materials, you name it, both digital and otherwise, that specifically cite the Department of Defense or DOD,” said a defense industry consultant.
“More strategically, even philosophically, it could raise new questions about what it means to be supporting the Department of War, which likely sends a more belligerent message to our allies and adversaries alike.”
Connor O’Brien and Daniella Cheslow contributed reporting for this story.
Politico
7. 'Treasonous': GOP Rep Suspects Leak Behind Botched SEAL Mission In North Korea
I doubt any of the "2 dozen" who leaked information to the NYT were SEALs or IC officials who had anything directly to do with the ALLEGED mission. My guess is that the leaks are coming from those who were included in the subsequent investigation. Again my guess is the investigation that was ordered by the Biden/Austin team exposed the alleged op to a number of people to include members of the house and senate intel and possibly armed services committees. Then again I am amazed that it was kept secret for this long. If it ever even happened. The NY Times said they interviewed two dozen people. That is an incredible number of people who decided to expose this and they can and should be tracked down - again, if there was ever such an op that took place.
So, assuming the alleged mission took place,why is this leaking and why now? And it is amazing it was kept secret for so long since obviously a good number of people were aware of this.
But also imagine if this was all an elaborate ruse to expose the press? But I cannot imagine who could pull that off.
'Treasonous': GOP Rep Suspects Leak Behind Botched SEAL Mission In North Korea
The Daily Caller
Former U.S. Navy SEAL officer and Republican Montana Rep. Ryan Zinke said Friday on CNN’s “The Lead with Jake Tapper” that he suspects there was a leak behind the botched SEAL mission in North Korea.
The New York Times published a story Friday revealing details of how a 2019 SEAL Team 6 Red Squadron operation to plant an electronic device in North Korea went wrong. While discussing the report, CNN’s Jake Tapper asked Zinke for his response, noting that Congress did not receive any information about the operation beforehand, according to the NYT. (RELATED: North Korea Built Secret Missile Base On Chinese Border Capable Of Striking US)
“Deeply, deeply disturbing. World War II, loose lips sink ships. To disclose this type of operation, the leak had to come from somewhere. The details are too great,” Zinke said. “So this is treasonous to disclose because what it does is that there’s no doubt been multiple operations since then, and there probably will be.”
WATCH:
“But when you disclose details of an operation like this, it puts at risk every SEAL, every warrior, every special operations, every soldier, sailor, airman, or Marine on future operations. It incurs greater risk,” Zinke added. “I think it was irresponsible for [The] New York Times to publish such an article. And what I’m hoping is, is they go back to the source, and they find the source, and they prosecute it.”
According to the New York Times, the operation sought to plant an electronic device in North Korea to allow the U.S. to intercept the communications of North Korean leader Kim Jong Un. At the time, tensions between the two countries had escalated after nuclear talks collapsed during a February 2019 summit in Hanoi, Vietnam.
The SEAL team had allegedly prepped for months, but a North Korean boat appeared after they reached the country’s shore, prompting the SEALs to open fire and kill those on board, the NYT reported.
In addition to alleging that Congress had not been briefed before or after, the outlet also claimed President Donald Trump would have had to sign off on the mission directly due to its risks. Trump, during a press briefing Friday, denied having any knowledge of the operation.
“I don’t know anything about it, no. I’d have to — I could look, but I know nothing about that,” Trump said.
At the time of the 2019 summit, Trump abruptly ended the meeting and opted not to reach an agreement with Kim, saying that North Korea wanted all sanctions lifted in exchange for denuclearizing only part of the areas the U.S. had demanded. After the talks collapsed, Trump became the first sitting U.S. president to set foot in North Korea during a face-to-face meeting with Kim.
All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.
The Daily Caller
8. China’s Military Is Now Leading
Is a parade a measure of combat effectiveness?
Excerpts:
Anderson and Press offer various suggestions for how the United States can correct this growing imbalance, though none seem particularly promising. Ultimately, they suggest that a more fundamental rethink of U.S. strategy could be in order. Washington should consider moving from a mindset of military dominance to one of being a supporting player in the region.
“That a distant great power is the dominant military actor in East Asia may not be a long-term equilibrium, given the economic and technical might of other Asian countries,” the authors conclude. This is an understatement, especially when one considers how strange the world would look if the U.S. and Chinese roles were reversed. If China was the predominant power in the Western hemisphere, permanently garrisoning 70,000 troops in Canada and an aircraft carrier battle group in Cuba, that would indeed look very far from a “long-term equilibrium.”
To address the deteriorating military balance in East Asia, the United States could massively expand its presence there, yet there seems little prospect of it. China has been modernizing its military for over 30 years now, without a substantial U.S. response. Why would we expect that to change now? And even if Washington could overcome its inertia, which Asian country would agree to host all these forces, and which would offer the U.S. a guarantee that it would allow its territory to be used in a war against China?
Finally, if those barriers were overcome, China would almost certainly respond with increased military spending of its own. And as the military parade in Beijing reminded the world this week, an arms race would now play to Beijing’s strengths, not to Washington’s. A new equilibrium is indeed taking shape; U.S. military strategy and foreign policy must follow.
China’s Military Is Now Leading
Wednesday’s parade proved the regional military balance has irrevocably changed.
September 3, 2025, 12:42 AM
By Sam Roggeveen, director of the International Security Program at the Lowy Institute.
Foreign Policy · Sam Roggeveen
It is now widely accepted that the story Western countries once told themselves about China’s technological development—it is a mere imitator of Western technology; it steals intellectual property; its successes result from wasteful public subsidies—is inadequate. This story still has some elements of truth, but it is much less true than it used to be. China is today an innovator and technological leader in robotics, electric vehicles, nuclear reactors, solar energy, drones, high-speed rail, and AI.
If confirmation were needed, the Sept. 3 military parade through Beijing confirms that we must add military technology to this list. It is no longer enough to say that China’s military, the People’s Liberation Army (PLA), is catching up or that it is copying foreign military equipment designs. China is now innovating, and it is leading. In the process, the regional military balance that has for decades favored the United States and its partners is being irrevocably changed.
Soldiers in formal dress uniforms and holding guns march in formation, in incredibly straight columns, with a large crowd behind them.
Soldiers rehearse prior to the military parade in Beijing on Sept. 3.Kevin Frayer/Getty Images
The Victory Day Parade, marking the 80th anniversary of “the Chinese people’s war of resistance against Japanese aggression and the world anti-fascist war,” was a showcase for China’s contemporary military might and a peek into its future. China used to be reluctant to display its latest military equipment, but the shroud was lifted—if selectively—for this event.
Among the highlights was the display of aircraft that will serve aboard China’s growing fleet of aircraft carriers, which numbers three ships at present but is likely to be joined in coming years by at least one nuclear-powered supercarrier, just as large and capable as the U.S. Navy’s new Gerald Ford class. Four new types of “loyal wingman” drones were unveiled—stealthy unpiloted planes designed to fly alongside crewed aircraft and be tasked by them. And at least four previously unseen anti-ship and ground-attack missile systems were on display, as well as a new uncrewed submarine and new torpedoes.
The parade provided just the latest revelations in a frantic year for observers of China’s military-industrial complex. Just after Christmas in 2024, grainy video and photos began to appear on social media of two new stealthy combat aircraft in test flights. A few weeks later, Naval News reported that China was constructing a unique type of powered barge with extendable road bridges that could allow vehicle-carrying ships to unload their cargo at an unprepared coastal site. Subsequent photos of the barges in testing confirmed that they would be ideally suited to putting heavy armor ashore in an invasion of Taiwan.
Then, in late January, the Financial Times published commercial satellite photos showing that China was constructing a new military command center outside Beijing that is at least 10 times the size of the Pentagon. In May, Pakistan and India staged an aerial battle involving 125 aircraft over disputed Kashmir; Pakistan’s air force used Chinese equipment that appeared, on limited evidence, to have performed credibly.
China shows every indication of wanting a fully home-grown military-industrial complex. And China’s leadership has publicly stated its ambition to build a worldwide first-class military by the middle of the century. Of course, that requires more than just technology, and the recent rash of senior officer purges suggests that there are serious corruption and performance problems in the PLA.
But on the technological front, at least, there has long been ample evidence of ambition. China began its modernization in the early 1990s, and since then, the PLA has undergone arguably the most rapid technological transformation of any military force since World War II. The revelations since December 2024 only reinforce this trend and should prompt the question of whether China’s ambitions are still being underestimated.
The bigger question is, what does China want with all that military power?
A soldier stands at attention in front of a military vehicle holding missiles. The soldier faces away from the camera, looking up at the missiles.
The YJ-19, China’s first operational hypersonic cruise missile, is seen during the military parade in Beijing on Sept. 3. Greg Baker/AFP via Getty Images
Large green camouflage vehicles with box-like units atop them are lined up in a row on the pavement of an open square.
Rocket artillery units are on display during the parade in Beijing on Sept. 3. Greg Baker/AFP via Getty Images
One possibility is that it is building a force to directly challenge the United States with a truly global military posture. Distant Australia got a taste of China’s new capabilities in February when the PLA Navy sent a flotilla of warships to circumnavigate the continent. It sent a message that China’s military power now has new reach.
Yet if there is a broad conclusion to be drawn from the revelations of the past nine months, it is that China is not solely or even primarily focused on projecting its military power around the Pacific, much less the world. Much of the new equipment we are seeing is not explicitly designed for that purpose.
Of course, such equipment can be put to many uses. And there is no question that over the last few decades, China has substantially grown its capacity to use military power over long distances. It is building a formidable fleet of strategic airlifters, allowing it to fly personnel and equipment around the globe quickly. More recently, it has begun to grow its aerial refueling fleet; such a fleet has long been a key attribute of the United States’ ability to project air power globally. And China now has dozens of “blue water” warships designed to operate in the open ocean (as opposed to “brown water” coastal vessels), including aircraft carriers and replenishment ships to keep the fleet at sea.
But then, consider that China has not added to the single overseas base it opened in Djibouti in 2017; it is years away from fielding a bomber with intercontinental range; and it has nothing like the global alliance network of the United States. The new fighter aircraft, landing barges, drones, and missile systems that have emerged this year don’t suggest an overwhelming focus on global power projection either. They will primarily strengthen China’s position in its neighborhood.
Read More
- What to watch for during Modi’s first trip to China since 2018.
The focus should therefore be on China’s regional ambitions rather than its global presence. That is particularly bad news for Taiwan, because the military balance there is clearly swinging further in Beijing’s favor. A recent paper in the most respected academic journal in strategic studies, International Security, examined the trend lines and offered some alarming conclusions for Taipei and for those in Washington who argue that the United States has a vital interest in defending Taiwan. In “Access Denied? The Sino-American Contest for Military Primacy in Asia,” Nicholas Anderson and Daryl Press argue that the lynchpin of U.S. military power in Asia—its combat aircraft based in Japan and Guam—would suffer catastrophic losses in a Chinese invasion of Taiwan.
The paper develops a model of the damage that would be done to U.S. air bases by China’s large (and still growing) stocks of short- and medium-range missiles in the first 30 days of such a war. It concludes that even in the most favorable scenario, the United States would lose 45% of its force in that first month. And it is worth emphasizing that the paper looks only at the effects of Chinese missiles fired from land bases; it does not consider the effect of additional strikes from China’s air force and navy.
Anderson and Press offer various suggestions for how the United States can correct this growing imbalance, though none seem particularly promising. Ultimately, they suggest that a more fundamental rethink of U.S. strategy could be in order. Washington should consider moving from a mindset of military dominance to one of being a supporting player in the region.
“That a distant great power is the dominant military actor in East Asia may not be a long-term equilibrium, given the economic and technical might of other Asian countries,” the authors conclude. This is an understatement, especially when one considers how strange the world would look if the U.S. and Chinese roles were reversed. If China was the predominant power in the Western hemisphere, permanently garrisoning 70,000 troops in Canada and an aircraft carrier battle group in Cuba, that would indeed look very far from a “long-term equilibrium.”
People hold up phones to take photos of planes flying over the tiled rooftops of a temple.
Y-20 planes fly over the Temple of Heaven during the military parade in Beijing on Sept. 3. Wang Zhao/AFP via Getty Images
To address the deteriorating military balance in East Asia, the United States could massively expand its presence there, yet there seems little prospect of it. China has been modernizing its military for over 30 years now, without a substantial U.S. response. Why would we expect that to change now? And even if Washington could overcome its inertia, which Asian country would agree to host all these forces, and which would offer the U.S. a guarantee that it would allow its territory to be used in a war against China?
Finally, if those barriers were overcome, China would almost certainly respond with increased military spending of its own. And as the military parade in Beijing reminded the world this week, an arms race would now play to Beijing’s strengths, not to Washington’s. A new equilibrium is indeed taking shape; U.S. military strategy and foreign policy must follow.
This post appeared in FP's The Reading List newsletter. Sign up here.
9. The big threat left out of Xi’s parade: China’s weaponized AI startups
Ha. How do you parade AI? Or maybe the whole parade in Beijing was an AI generated deep fake and we just did not know it?
But seriously, AI is a threat that we must face. (and win the AI war).
Excerpt:
While China has traditionally used just a handful of government-selected companies to build its military gear, a separate paper from the U.K’s Centre for Emerging Technology and Security notes that AI companies enjoy more leeway in building products, finding funding, and hiring workers than do other companies.
“China’s AI funding structure still provides opportunities for smaller companies to benefit from financial incentives. This suggests a more dynamic and layered approach to state-led AI development, which shapes the wider environment for China’s AI firms rather than mandating direct control through state ownership or funding.”
DeepSeek is an example of a company that flew under the radar of Chinese authorities until it was launched. That’s significant because when U.S. business and national security leaders discuss AI competition with China, they frequently point to the robustness and profitability of the U.S. tech startup space and its support for entrepreneurs as a key advantage over China’s government-controlled system. But in reality, the AI portion of the Chinese tech ecosystem is beginning to more closely resemble the United States.
More importantly, national security leaders are increasingly recognizing that artificial intelligence is more important than any singular weapon, as it holds the promise of making a military or weapon far more effective, at little to no cost.
The big threat left out of Xi’s parade: China’s weaponized AI startups
After militarizing civilian ships, China’s doing the same with dual-use AI companies.
By Patrick Tucker
Science & Technology Editor
September 4, 2025
defenseone.com · Patrick Tucker
China’s massive military parade this week featured a who’s who of well-dressed dictators, a fleet of laser-armed trucks, new hypersonic weapons, beach landing craft and, of course, thousands of uniformed troops marching in intricately coordinated unison. But it left out what might be China’s most important new military asset: a growing ecosystem of small and nimble dual-use AI companies working with the Chinese military.
A new report from the Center for Security and Emerging Technology draws attention to China’s growing appetite for AI-related tech, not just from a handful of big, surveillable state-backed enterprises but from a growing cadre of relatively young outfits emerging from universities and private labs. Those partnerships make it harder for the United States to track what new weapons China is developing and prevent U.S. investors or technology collaborators from helping them.
A significant portion of the technology, like software for piloting drone swarms or advanced navigation systems, have both a civilian and military purpose—much like Chinese flagged fishing and “research” vessels, non-military ships that many U.S. military and national security leaders describe as China’s “maritime militia.”
Much of the technology listed in the report has clear applications for potentially improving the military value of a non-military ship. This includes contracts for semantic modeling software, which uses sensed data and AI to help ships understand where they are without having to rely on GPS. The capability is of limited value to commercial vessels, but high value to ships engaged in military operations.
A company called Beijing SOUVI Information Technology received contracts for drone control systems and intelligent sensing software that could allow a single operator with little training to steer a swarm of drones. It could also allow a Chinese navy operator to operate merchant vessels performing a coordinated operation with the Chinese military.
There is precedent for Chinese civilian ships conducting coordinated military maneuvers, such as in July 2023, when a group of Chinese fishing vessels effectively created a blockade around a reef in the Philippines, escorted by the Chinese navy. China’s fleet of so-called merchant craft are also working with the Chinese coast guard and navy in exercises, harassing local fishermen and potentially sabotaging undersea infrastructure from the Philippines to the seas of South America.
Another company, called JOUAV, markets vertical takeoff and landing drones and AI software to fuse data from advanced thermal sensors. A non-military trained crew aboard a fishing vessel could easily deploy those to pick out other ships at night or in poor weather well beyond the horizon, turning the civilian ship into an ISR node.
One of the report’s key findings is China’s growing use of smaller “nontraditional vendors,” or NTVs. While the country’s AI tech buying is still focused primarily on large, state-owned companies and research institutions, CSET found a list of small firms, mostly founded after 2010 and marketing commercial technology with military applications, which do not report state ownership ties on their websites. These include companies like iFlytek, which makes speech translation apps; PIESAT, which sells AI-enabled geospatial data useful for live location mapping; and JOUAV. It’s a portrait of a startup ecosystem that bears many similarities to Silicon Valley.
But while the Pentagon has spent years working to improve its ability to acquire dual-use technology and partner with startups that aren’t traditional defense contractors, CSET’s research indicates China’s reason for doing so is very different: “The vast majority of NTVs and research institutions in the dataset are not subject to U.S. sanctions.” In other words, China is working to trick consumers around the world into buying products and services that help the Chinese military grow stronger.
The tech that these firms are selling to the Chinese military runs the gamut from geospatial intelligence to training to drones, such as the Reaper-like Tengden TB-001 “Twin-Tailed Scorpion,” one of “the first known cases in which a non-[state-owned enterprise] supplied the PLA with a complete military end-use system.” Other products have a more clear dual-use purpose. For instance: helping commercial ships use sea robots more effectively to navigate and find fish, or effectively coordinate military-style maneuvers, such as blockading, with other militia boats.
One of the recent awards CSET tracked to PIESAT was for an “unmanned aerial vehicle virtual simulation training system,” which could serve either explicit military purposes by enabling drone operations, or more ambiguous purposes in assisting “research” vessels such as the ones increasingly showing up near Taiwan.
While China has traditionally used just a handful of government-selected companies to build its military gear, a separate paper from the U.K’s Centre for Emerging Technology and Security notes that AI companies enjoy more leeway in building products, finding funding, and hiring workers than do other companies.
“China’s AI funding structure still provides opportunities for smaller companies to benefit from financial incentives. This suggests a more dynamic and layered approach to state-led AI development, which shapes the wider environment for China’s AI firms rather than mandating direct control through state ownership or funding.”
DeepSeek is an example of a company that flew under the radar of Chinese authorities until it was launched. That’s significant because when U.S. business and national security leaders discuss AI competition with China, they frequently point to the robustness and profitability of the U.S. tech startup space and its support for entrepreneurs as a key advantage over China’s government-controlled system. But in reality, the AI portion of the Chinese tech ecosystem is beginning to more closely resemble the United States.
More importantly, national security leaders are increasingly recognizing that artificial intelligence is more important than any singular weapon, as it holds the promise of making a military or weapon far more effective, at little to no cost.
defenseone.com · Patrick Tucker
10. Trump signals support for security guarantees for Ukraine, stresses Europe's role
Trump signals support for security guarantees for Ukraine, stresses Europe's role
https://kyivindependent.com/trump-pledges-support-for-ukraines-security-guarantees-but-stresses-europes-role/?utm
flip.it · Martin Fornusek, · September 6, 2025
U.S. President Donald Trump signalled on Sept. 5 that Washington would assist with providing security guarantees for Kyiv but emphasized Europe's leading role in the effort.
"We'll work that out. We'll help them. Look, we want to save a lot of lives," Trump told journalists at the White House when asked about potential security guarantees.
"Europe will be first in by far, and they want to be first, and they want to see it end."
The statement echoes Trump's earlier declarations about the U.S. backing for European-led efforts to safeguard Ukraine against future Russian aggression in case of a ceasefire.. The U.S. president did not provide details on what the U.S. assistance would entail.
The remarks follow a Sept. 4 summit of the Coalition of the Willing, where President Volodymyr Zelensky and European leaders discussed plans for a multinational reassurance force and commitments of weapons, logistics, and training to shield Ukraine from renewed Russian attacks.
After the summit, French President Emmanuel Macron said that 26 countries are ready to send troops or contribute other support as part of guarantees, but only after a ceasefire.
While Trump has ruled out the participation of U.S. troops in the reassurance force, the U.S. has reportedly signalled readiness to provide intelligence and air defense support.
Moscow has repeatedly rejected the presence of peacekeepers from NATO countries on Ukrainian territory, saying such troops would be "legitimate targets for destruction."
Despite initially pledging to broker peace between Russia and Ukraine in 24 hours, Trump's months-long efforts to end the war have failed to bring any tangible progress.
During the press briefing at the White House, Trump acknowledged that the Russia-Ukraine war "turned out to be one that's a little bit more difficult" to solve. Nevertheless, he expressed optimism that the conflict would come to an end.
"It'll end all of a sudden. It's going to come together. You watch," Trump said.
Behind Ukraine’s manpower crisis lies a bleak new battlefield reality for infantry
Editor’s Note: In accordance with the security protocols of the Ukrainian military, soldiers featured in this story are identified by first names and callsigns only. DONETSK OBLAST – Since he first volunteered to take up arms and defend his country in January this year, 54-year-old Ukrainian infantryman Ruslan “Kalyna” has only been on one combat mission. One 146-day combat mission. The trees were still bare and the air bitterly cold when Ruslan, an ex-convict soldier in Ukraine’s 93rd Mechan
The Kyiv IndependentFrancis Farrell
flip.it · Martin Fornusek, · September 6, 2025
11. Ukraine Hit by War’s Largest Aerial Assault: 805 Drones Strike, 4 People Killed, Government Building Ablaze
Ukraine Hit by War’s Largest Aerial Assault: 805 Drones Strike, 4 People Killed, Government Building Ablaze
The assault set the Cabinet of Ministers building on fire in the first confirmed strike on a government headquarters since the start of the war.
https://www.kyivpost.com/post/59604
by Alisa Orlova | Sept. 7, 2025, 9:11 am
Сlouds of black smoke could be seen billowing up from the area of the Verkhovna Rada and Cabinet of Ministers. Photo: Stash Luczkiw, Kyiv Post.
Russia launched its largest overnight strikes on Ukraine, sending 805 drones and 13 missiles across the country, Ukraine’s Air Force said Sunday, Sept. 7.
The assault killed at least four people, including a woman and an infant in Kyiv, injured dozens, and set the Cabinet of Ministers building on fire in the first confirmed strike on a government headquarters since the start of the war.
Ukraine’s air defenses intercepted or disabled 751 targets, including 747 Shahed-type drones and four Iskander-K cruise missiles, according to the military.
But missiles and drones still hit 37 locations nationwide, igniting fires and destroying residential and administrative buildings.
In Kyiv’s Sviatoshyn district, a nine-story apartment block was partially destroyed between the 4th and 8th floors, killing a 32-year-old woman and her 2-month-old son, officials said. Eighteen others were injured.
A 16-story high-rise, two more apartment blocks, cars, and warehouses also caught fire after being struck by debris.
Mayor Vitali Klitschko said rescuers and medics worked through the night. “Among the dead are a mother and her baby. This is the price of Russia’s terror,” he said.
Debris also hit the Cabinet of Ministers building in the Pechersk district, setting the upper floors ablaze. Just before dawn, a Kyiv Post reporter heard the distinct whizzing of missiles overhead in the center of the capital, followed by a loud explosion.
Within several minutes, as the sun was rising, clouds of black smoke could be seen billowing up from the area of the Verkhovna Rada and Cabinet of Ministers, not far from where President Volodymyr Zelensky usually resides.
Сlouds of black smoke could be seen billowing up from the area of the Verkhovna Rada and Cabinet of Ministers. Photo: Kyiv Post.
Prime Minister Yulia Svyrydenko confirmed the damage, calling it the first attack on a government building during the full-scale war.
“We will rebuild the buildings. But lives lost cannot be returned,” Svyrydenko said. “The world must respond not only with words but with actions. Ukraine needs more sanctions against Russia’s oil and gas and more weapons to stop the terror.”
In the Fastiv district, Kyiv region, a private house and a stable were damaged. Seven horses were killed, according to Ukrinform.
The strike extended far beyond the capital. In Odesa, three people were injured as fires broke out in a high-rise apartment block, a warehouse, and the city’s Sports Palace. In Dnipro and Kryvyi Rih, four people were injured when missiles and drones damaged infrastructure, businesses, and homes.
The scale of the attack highlights Russia’s growing reliance on drones in its air campaign. Ukrainian officials have warned that Moscow is attempting to overwhelm air defenses while striking both symbolic and civilian targets.
Ukraine has repeatedly appealed to Western partners for additional air defense systems, particularly more US-made Patriot batteries, as well as long-range weapons to strike Russian launch sites.
The strike came after several heavy Russian attacks in recent days. On Aug. 28, missiles and drones hit Kyiv, killing 25 people, including four children, and damaging civilian residential and diplomatic buildings.
On Aug. 30, Russia struck Zaporizhzhia, Dnipro, and Pavlohrad, leaving one person dead and 24 injured. On Aug. 31, drones hit power facilities in Chornomorsk, Odesa region, cutting electricity for nearly 30,000 people and injuring one.
On Sept. 3, Russia launched at Ukraine 526 aerial targets, including 502 Shahed drones, 16 Kalibr cruise missiles from the Black Sea and eight Kh-101 cruise missiles from strategic bombers. Explosions were reported in the Khmelnytsky, Kirovohrad, Ivano-Frankivsk, and Kyiv regions.
Alisa Orlova
Alisa is the Head of News and a correspondent at Kyiv Post, where she leads the newsroom’s coverage of breaking events and global developments. With over seven years of experience in TV journalism, Alisa has reported on international and Ukrainian politics, making complex stories easier to understand. Back in September 2022, Alisa joined the Kyiv Post team.
12. America Surrenders in the Global Information Wars
There is no more "I" in DME.
Why are we doing this to ourselves? The information instrument of national power is a critical component of national security.
Excerpts:
From the American point of view, foreign broadcasters and organizations that fight foreign propaganda are a bargain. They cost very little in comparison with the billions we spend on defense. They have the potential to produce huge benefits. So why cut them?
In the absence of logical explanations, alternate theories abound. Some believe there is a plan to privatize VOA. Others think the explanation is simpler. Some MAGA acolytes, including Russell Vought of OMB, simply don’t believe that the U.S. should have any kind of soft power. Others like and admire Russian President Vladimir Putin’s regime. In December 2021, for example, Darren Beattie posted on X that “Nato is a much greater threat to American liberty than Putin ever was.” Perhaps Beattie, Lake, and Benz simply share the same deep dislike of independent journalists such as Hu Xijin and Margarita Simonyan, and feel the same enthusiasm for destroying them.
The Trump administration has temporarily given this clique power. But even now, it is important to remember that they don’t represent the majority of Americans, nor do they represent a majority in Congress. In the coming months, the House and the Senate can, with a little effort and just the barest hint of bravery, resist this unilateral disarmament and put America back at the center of the fight against authoritarian propaganda. Instead of allowing the Chinese and Russians to gain ground, Congress can both restore funding and push back against the administration’s budgetary games, the rescissions that could restrict Congress’s ability to legislate about this, or anything else, in the future.
They can also back the people and the programs that legislators, including Republicans in both chambers, have long said they believe in. As Judge Lamberth wrote, when ruling on the case of RFE/RL, “Congress has found that ‘it is the policy of the United States to promote the right of freedom of opinion and expression’ and that ‘open communication of information and ideas among the peoples of the world contributes to international peace and stability.” Following its own logic, Congress can rededicate America to the real fight, against real censorship, once again.
America Surrenders in the Global Information Wars
The U.S. is reorienting its foreign policy to protect governments that manipulate and suppress information.
By Anne Applebaum
The Atlantic · Anne Applebaum · September 5, 2025
Every day, some 2 billion people around the world use privacy-protection tools supported by the Open Technology Fund. When people in China escape their government’s firewalls and censorship software—now so dense that the system has been called the “locknet”—or when users in Cuba or Myanmar evade cruder internet blocks, they can access material written in their own languages and read stories they would otherwise never see. Both the access and some of the information are available because the U.S. government has for decades backed a constellation of programs—the technology fund, independent foreign-language broadcasters, counterpropaganda campaigns—designed to give people in repressive countries access to evidence-based news.
The information that people in the autocratic world receive from this network is wide ranging, based on reporting, and very different from what they are told by state media in their own country. If they live in Iran, for example, they might have learned from Radio Farda (backed by U.S. funding, broadcast in Persian) that their government did not, as it had claimed, capture an Israeli pilot during June’s bombing campaign, and they might even have heard, in their own language, American explanations of the campaign instead. If they live in Siberia, they could hear from Radio Liberty (U.S.-backed, staffed by Russian-speaking journalists) precise information about the poor condition of their local roads, including one highway that is 89 miles long but so muddy and full of potholes that traversing it takes 36 hours. If they are Uyghurs living in China, they could have heard, at least before the end of May, reporting in Uyghur from Radio Free Asia (also U.S.-backed, producing reports in nine languages), the broadcaster that originally informed the world about internment camps for members of the persecuted minority.
Tom Nichols: They’re cheering for Trump in Moscow—again
But for how much longer will this information flow? Right now, all of America’s foreign broadcasters, which also include Voice of America, Radio Free Europe, and a handful of others, are in grave danger. At the end of February, President Donald Trump appointed Kari Lake as senior adviser to the U.S. Agency for Global Media, which oversees them. Lake is an ideologue and former local-TV anchor who failed to be elected governor of Arizona, and then failed to be elected as a senator from Arizona. With no experience in international broadcasting or foreign policy, she put the entire staff of VOA on administrative leave and announced plans to cut the funding of all of the organizations under the USAGM umbrella; she did so with venomous relish, hypocritically accusing chronically underfunded broadcasters of wastefulness, tarring journalists as foreign agents. She began firing contract employees, in some cases giving visa holders who had worked for years on behalf of the U.S. government 30 days to leave the country.
All of the organizations contend that Lake’s actions are illegal, and all of them are now engaged in extensive lawsuits, even as they are already cutting budgets, programs, and journalists. They have won some initial cases. In March, U.S. District Court Judge Royce Lamberth ordered the administration to keep Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty open, “in keeping with Congress’s longstanding determination” that “the continued operation of RFE/RL is in the public interest.” Last month, the same judge, a Ronald Reagan appointee, found that Lake did not actually have the right to fire Michael Abramowitz, the director of Voice of America. That power belongs to a bipartisan, Senate-confirmed board—whose members Trump removed in January. Congress, not Lake, also has the legal right to decide whether or not to fund the broadcasters and can decide to do so, overriding the president and his Office of Management and Budget, which pushed hard to eliminate the outlets. Indeed, the House Appropriations Committee has already put funding for foreign broadcasting in next year’s budget—although of course the administration is challenging Congress’s power of the purse as well.
Even if they remain open, all of the foreign broadcasters will remain in peril under an administration that is bent on destroying them, and they know it. When reporting this article, I interviewed multiple people who asked not to be quoted: Nobody wants to say or do anything that will make the situation worse. These are mission-driven people who have gone to work every day in the belief that they are promoting America, as well as a set of American ideals—free speech, the rule of law, democracy.
They have long had bipartisan support. Since the creation of Radio Free Europe in 1950, Democrats, Republicans, senators, representatives, and every president from Harry Truman to Joe Biden all believed in the importance of helping people in closed societies gain access to evidence-based information, and not just for their own sake. Better-informed Russians or Iranians would be less likely to go to war with us, less likely to invade other countries, more likely to resist the whims of their dictators. Even Donald Trump in his first term as president—despite the best efforts of some of his appointees—continued to support independent foreign media, anti-censorship technology, and assistance for activists who fight censorship all over the world.
But that era is over. Without openly saying so, the United States is reorienting its foreign policy to protect governments that manipulate and censor information, both inside their own countries and around the world. Our own national security could suffer.
“Promoting censorship” is not how the administration describes its foreign policy, of course. In a speech in Riyadh earlier this year, Trump promised Saudi Arabia and other Middle Eastern monarchies that America would stop “giving you lectures on how to live and how to govern your own affairs.” That made it sound like the administration would be somehow neutral.
But in a world of intense ideological competition, there is no such thing as neutrality. Since Trump’s election, China has not stopped spending billions of dollars broadcasting autocratic propaganda, buying space on television networks around the world, and training international journalists. Russia has not stopped using social media and deceptive websites to weaken and divide the U.S. and Europe, to prop up dictatorships in Africa, or to lie about the war in Ukraine.
Everywhere American voices disappear, other powers will fill the gap. An extensive Wall Street Journal investigation found that in Thailand, for example, a regular VOA slot on the Thai state broadcaster has already been replaced by a Chinese outlet. An Indonesian news channel that hosts a weekly program for the country’s Chinese diaspora no longer features reports in Mandarin from VOA after the cuts; it has replaced them with China’s state-run television too. The Journal found that China is rushing to expand media services in Africa, and cited in particular Ethiopia and Nigeria; a former USAGM employee told me that this was happening just as U.S. broadcasters were planning to expand in Ethiopia. RFA’s Cantonese-language service went off the air July 1, on the anniversary of the handover of Hong Kong from the U.K. to China.
The losses from cuts to RFE/RL inside Russia will be just as great. Already, cuts to the outlet forced Systema, RFE/RL’s Russian investigative unit, to halt some of its work on corruption and organized crime, especially bad timing at a moment when this kind of information could help democratic governments track down companies that are evading sanctions. Programs exposing covert influence campaigns, counting war deaths, and producing material in minority languages aimed at Tatarstan, Bashkiria, and the North Caucasus have already been reduced or suspended. Russian state media will control the airwaves in all of those places instead.
Read: The voice of America will sound like Trump
In Iran, the impact could be even more acute. A few days after the Israeli and American bombing raids in Iran, I spoke with Saeid Golkar, a U.S.-based political scientist who follows Iranian social media. He told me Iranians were hearing from the regime that “we won this war; Israel has been defeated.” Those who don’t have access to alternative media were being bombarded with the same narrative: We are winning. At one point the Trump administration, belatedly realizing that it had a problem with messaging in Iran, scrambled to find recently sidelined Farsi-speaking VOA journalists and asked them to come back to work.
Americans have never supported foreign autocrats who hide information from citizens, nor did Trump’s electorate vote for censorship. On the contrary, Trump’s MAGA movement has repeatedly portrayed itself as the victim of censorship, sometimes conjuring up fake statistics or stories to prove it. (One famous example: that “22 million tweets” were suppressed by the Biden administration during the 2020 presidential campaign, which would have been shocking had it actually happened). Yet now that they are in place, MAGA policies amount to unilateral disarmament in the ongoing narrative war between the autocratic and democratic worlds..
Renée DiResta: My encounter with the fantasy-industrial complex
Consider the fate of the Global Engagement Center, a small State Department office, also the product of a bipartisan effort and initially designed, well before the 2016 election, as a response to online terrorist and extremist campaigns. For the past several years, the GEC dedicated itself to identifying and revealing covert Russian and Chinese propaganda, most recently in Africa and Latin America. The GEC never played any role inside the United States and never aspired to do so. Nevertheless, the organization became the focus of a series of far-right conspiracy theories, amplified on X, which dishonestly described the GEC as an institution promoting “censorship.”
Late last year, congressional Republicans refused to renew its funding. When announcing the organization’s final closure, the State Department declared that the GEC “spent millions of dollars to actively silence and censor the voices of Americans”—a statement that not only provided no evidence but also represented an extraordinary example of the department smearing its own employees. On Donald Trump Jr.’s podcast, Darren Beattie, the acting under secretary of state for public diplomacy and the person who shaped this policy, boasted about how he had killed off the GEC, a “censorship operation within the State Department.”
In truth, the only real beneficiaries of the GEC’s closure were the foreign dictators conducting covert propaganda campaigns. In the weeks before the organization ceased operations, employees were preparing an exposure of a Chinese information operation in Europe and other regions. Three people familiar with this plan, who requested anonymity to avoid jeopardizing current and former colleagues at the State Department, told me that it was presented to Beattie, who stopped work on the exposure. “Far from spiking a single plan, we were proud to spike the entire GEC,” Beattie said in a statement today. “Indeed, not only was GEC’s infamous censorship activity profoundly misaligned with this Administration’s pro-free speech position, it was woefully and embarrassingly ineffective on its own terms. We prefer to advance our public diplomacy objectives by telling the truth to our adversaries, rather than censor our own citizens.” Beattie did not explain how exposing Chinese propaganda campaigns would restrict Americans’ freedom of expression.
Further consequences continue to reverberate. On August 29, the State Department leadership also gave official notice to staff that it was terminating more than two dozen agreements that the GEC had reached with countries around the world. These agreements had been designed to create common language and tactics to push back against Russian, Chinese, Iranian, and terrorist influence campaigns overseas. In the cable sent to staff, the State Department insisted that the agreements “infringed upon free speech enshrined in the U.S. Constitution” and stated that “the best way to counter disinformation is free speech.” But this is a strange argument to use in this context, given that the GEC was literally a vehicle for free speech: Its main function in the past several years was to publicly identify manipulation and promote transparency. Also, as one former State senior official pointed out to me, the department’s arguments make no sense, given that the administration is seeking to dismantle America’s foreign broadcasters. If we want more free speech, why are we suppressing our own voice?
Even more mysterious, in this sense, are the assaults on the National Endowment for Democracy and its sister organizations, which include the International Republican Institute, affiliated with the Republican Party, and the National Democratic Institute, affiliated with the Democrats. These organizations were not, before November, of special concern to Trump. All of them were founded in 1983, inspired by Ronald Reagan’s call for new institutions to “foster the infrastructure of democracy—the system of a free press, unions, political parties, universities—which allows people to choose their own way, to develop their own culture, to reconcile their own differences through peaceful means.”
Until now they have also played important roles in countering authoritarian propaganda and fighting censorship around the world. NED makes small grants to groups that monitor elections, promote free speech, fight kleptocracy, and counter authoritarian propaganda. For example, NED once funded the Asia Fact Check Lab, which exposes and explains Chinese information operations. The IRI has among other things polled more than 1.5 million people in more than 100 countries in recent decades, helping provide reliable information about the public’s views, often in places that don’t have many other sources. The NDI’s Open Government Partnership was one of many programs designed to fight corruption.
The endowment has so far successfully fought attempts to cut its funding in court, winning an unambiguous legal ruling, with which the administration complied, to preserve in full this year’s funding. NED also enjoys deep support across Congress, and has an organizational structure designed to protect it from political attack: It is run not by the U.S. government but by an independent, bipartisan board, which allows it to keep its distance from partisan politics. I was on that board from 2016 until 2024 and can attest that the conspiracy theories are wrong. The endowment’s board members are not secret intelligence officers but former civil servants, members of Congress, academics, and regional experts. Nobody pays them for the work they do, pro bono, on NED’s behalf.
The same kinds of unpaid boards run NDI and IRI, organizations that have historically worked with center-left and center-right political parties around the world and played special roles in connecting members of Congress with their foreign counterparts—in other words, spreading the American message around the world. Both have deep links to their respective parties; notably, the IRI board includes Senators Mitt Romney, Lindsey Graham, Joni Ernst, Tom Cotton, and Dan Sullivan. And yet all of these organizations also became targets after a small number of accounts on X began attacking them. (One of the accounts belongs to Mike Benz, who also invented the “Biden censored 22 million tweets” mythology, so there is a certain logic to his role.) Among other things, the accounts falsely accuse the organizations of being CIA fronts—exactly the kind of lie that Russian propagandists tell.
None of these organizations, and certainly not the foreign broadcasters, has ever been offered a good-faith explanation for why they continue to be monitored, audited, and threatened with closure. “The only kind of communication we’ve gotten from USAGM, even at a staff level, is around terminations and reactivation of our grant agreement,” one agency insider told me on the condition of anonymity. “There’s no engagement on the work or the substance or the capabilities of the organization whatsoever.” Yet the work has never been more urgent. In the areas of censorship technology alone, cuts could begin to have immediate impact if not reversed. If funding for their virtual-private-network initiatives is not renewed, for example, the OTF will have to cut off access for tens of millions of users in China, Russia, Cuba, and Iran next November.
Chinese and Russian propagandists aren’t hiding how pleased they are by cuts to the organizations that challenge them and their narratives all over the world. Hu Xijin, the former editor of Global Times, a Chinese state-backed publication, wrote on social media that the “Chinese people are happy to see the U.S. anti-China ideological fortress breached from within.” Margarita Simonyan, the editor in chief of RT, the Russian state news station, echoed this view on a Russian talk show: “Today is a holiday for me and my colleagues at RT and Sputnik,” she said soon after cuts to RFE/RL and VOA were announced. The show’s host responded by gloating about fired Russian employees who “will now fight for the right to work as cleaners and floor cleaners.” The host continued, “By the way, I am addressing you, independent journalists: Die, you animals, because you are lying, vile, disgusting traitors to the Motherland. Die in a ditch.”
From the June 2024 issue: The new propaganda war
Lying, vile, disgusting traitors to the Motherland—the extremity of this language is a clue to why these organizations matter. Officials in Russia, China, Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, and other dictatorships hate independent journalism and civic engagement for good reasons. Real information exposes crime and corruption. Active citizens inspire people to hope for something better. Inside Russia, they could help convince the public that the war in Ukraine is a shocking waste of human life. Inside Iran, they could inspire people to fight against a regime that’s destroying their economy and carrying out a paranoid search for political enemies. More than 800 executions have already taken place this year, a huge increase over last year’s pace.
From the American point of view, foreign broadcasters and organizations that fight foreign propaganda are a bargain. They cost very little in comparison with the billions we spend on defense. They have the potential to produce huge benefits. So why cut them?
In the absence of logical explanations, alternate theories abound. Some believe there is a plan to privatize VOA. Others think the explanation is simpler. Some MAGA acolytes, including Russell Vought of OMB, simply don’t believe that the U.S. should have any kind of soft power. Others like and admire Russian President Vladimir Putin’s regime. In December 2021, for example, Darren Beattie posted on X that “Nato is a much greater threat to American liberty than Putin ever was.” Perhaps Beattie, Lake, and Benz simply share the same deep dislike of independent journalists such as Hu Xijin and Margarita Simonyan, and feel the same enthusiasm for destroying them.
The Trump administration has temporarily given this clique power. But even now, it is important to remember that they don’t represent the majority of Americans, nor do they represent a majority in Congress. In the coming months, the House and the Senate can, with a little effort and just the barest hint of bravery, resist this unilateral disarmament and put America back at the center of the fight against authoritarian propaganda. Instead of allowing the Chinese and Russians to gain ground, Congress can both restore funding and push back against the administration’s budgetary games, the rescissions that could restrict Congress’s ability to legislate about this, or anything else, in the future.
They can also back the people and the programs that legislators, including Republicans in both chambers, have long said they believe in. As Judge Lamberth wrote, when ruling on the case of RFE/RL, “Congress has found that ‘it is the policy of the United States to promote the right of freedom of opinion and expression’ and that ‘open communication of information and ideas among the peoples of the world contributes to international peace and stability.” Following its own logic, Congress can rededicate America to the real fight, against real censorship, once again.
*Illustration Sources: Jorg Greuel / Getty; CSA-Archive / Getty; Colors Hunter / Getty; Talaj / Getty.
The Atlantic · Anne Applebaum · September 5, 2025
13. Major US brands sound alarm over rising anti-American sentiment
Our reverse Cold War - remember when Coke, Pepsi, Levis, and McDonald's were desired in foreign markets (especially by oppressed people living under dictatorships). Symbols of America were sought after.
Major US brands sound alarm over rising anti-American sentiment
Newsweek · Hugh Cameron · September 6, 2025
A number of companies, including many of the country's most quintessentially American brands, have warned that growing anti-Americanism as a result of President Donald Trump's tariffs could end up hurting their success overseas.
Experts believe that the trend, if it translates into a broad-based shift in consumer behavior, could prove to be a significant headwind for the companies while taking a significant toll on the broader U.S. economy.
Why It Matters
Anti-Americanism has been on the rise globally, driven largely by the trade policies of the current administration that impacted countries' views as a critical threat to their exports and international trade more generally.
Calls to boycott the American economy have gained traction in Canada since early this year—also sparked by Trump's "51st state" remarks—and have already impacted tourism to the U.S. and the sale of American products. These have recently spread to India as a result of the 50 percent duties placed on its goods, with lawmakers and activists urging less dependence on American multinationals and a greater emphasis on economic self-sufficiency.
A McDonald's flag below an American flag in the Queens borough of New York City on January 30, 2025. A McDonald's flag below an American flag in the Queens borough of New York City on January 30, 2025. Anthony Behar/Sipa via AP Images
What To Know
According to business intelligence firm Morning Consult, Trump's tariff announcements in early April coincided with a "staggering upswing" in global anti-American sentiment, which it said had already resulted in "steep drops in purchasing consideration" for some U.S. companies overseas, "suggesting that worsening views of America are rapidly taking a toll on some brands' health."
In July, ahead of the reimposition of Trump's "reciprocal" tariffs, it said that "anti-Americanism" could pose a significant risk to brands given the combination of potential price impacts and "sharply negative sentiment toward the United States" on consumer shopping habits.
A number of companies have noted this trend. David Gibbs, CEO of KFC and Taco Bell parent Yum Brands, told analysts in late April that the company was closely monitoring the issue and its impact on consumer behavior, but added that there had not been an observable impact on its sales.
However, California-based Beyond Meat, known for its plant-based meat substitutes, said in March that it had concerns over a shift in global consumer behavior as a result of growing opposition to the U.S. In an annual report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the company listed this as one of the "risk factors" it would be monitoring going forward.
"There is no assurance that we would be able to pass on any cost increases, in full or at all, to our customers, and/or we could lose customers in countries such as Canada due to anti-American sentiment, any of which could materially affect our revenue, gross margin and results of operations," the filing read.
In May, McDonald's similarly noted an increase in "anti-American sentiment" but said that there had been no change in global perceptions of the company's brand or its sales as a result.
"What we have seen in our survey work is that there has been an increase in people in various markets saying that they are going to be cutting back their purchase of American brands," CEO Chris Kempczinski said. "And we've seen an uptick in anti-American sentiment—call it 8- to 10-point increase in anti-American sentiment—most pronounced in Northern Europe and Canada."
This week, Kempczinski again warned that global consumers appear to be increasingly avoiding American brands as a result of negative perceptions of the country.
"The aura around America has dimmed a bit," he told CNBC, adding that the company would be leaning more into its local appeal—"our locality"—rather than its "Americanness."
Brown-Forman, the parent company of Jack Daniel's, recently reported a 62 percent year-over-year decline in Canadian sales in its first quarter. During a subsequent earnings call, executives blamed it on the trade dispute between Canada and the U.S., as well as the ongoing moratorium on American spirit sales across several Canadian provinces.
In a regulatory filing last week, denim brand Levi's listed "rising anti-Americanism as a consequence of the Trump tariffs and governmental policies" among the risks it was facing this year. The company added that this could result in consumers "possibly shifting away from U.S. products and brands."
Jill Klein, a professor of marketing at Melbourne Business School, told Newsweek that her research into "international animosity" and its effects on consumer behavior suggests that the growing tide of anti-American sentiment is "likely to have a substantial impact on U.S. companies."
Usha Haley, W. Frank Barton distinguished chair in international business at Wichita State University, said that the risk was highest in "identity categories."
"Brands that signal Americanness such as jeans, whiskey and tech are most exposed to substitution toward local and European options when anti-U.S. sentiment spikes," she said.
What People Are Saying
Alan Bradshaw, professor of marketing at Royal Holloway, University of London, told Newsweek: "Perhaps one thing that we can expect is that those brands who have heavily leveraged their American identity—think Hershey's, Coca-Cola, Levi's, Hummer, Budweiser, Nike—are now particularly exposed and we may start to see these brands move towards a different type of imagery. However, these are huge brands with well established 'Customer Based Brand Equity.' This means that they have invested huge amounts in building brand iconicity based on Americana over the decades and changing course would be very costly and not necessarily a good idea."
Usha Haley of Wichita State University told Newsweek: "Consumers' backlash tends to harden into non-market barriers—such as retaliatory tariffs, local-content rules, public-procurement preferences, labeling, standards friction, data-localization and targeted inspections.
"Heavily regulated, tariff-sensitive products are especially vulnerable when sentiment and policy move together."
Steve H. Hanke, professor of applied economics at Johns Hopkins University and former senior economist on President Ronald Reagan's Council of Economic Advisers, told Newsweek: "It is very hard to make a sweeping statement about the bottom-line impact of rising anti-Americanism on American brands. What we do know is that for some specific American brands, the impact will be nontrivial."
Takeshi Niinami, chairman and CEO of Suntory Holdings, whose brands include Jim Beam and Maker's Mark, told Bloomberg TV in April that the current tariff situation had reduced countries' "appetite" to invest in the U.S.
"If this continues, I don't think [the U.S. economy will be] very attractive. So we have to find other places, other countries like India, Indonesia. So we have to have a bigger portfolio of investment."
What Happens Next
This week, a federal appeals court ruled that the majority of Trump's tariffs were illegally imposed, and an unjustified use of presidential emergency powers. The ruling does not take effect until October 14, and the administration has filed a petition with the U.S. Supreme Court to review the decision.
Hugh Cameron is Newsweek U.S. news reporter based in London, U.K. with a focus on covering American economic and business news. Hugh joined Newsweek in 2024, having worked at Alliance News Ltd where he specialised in global and regional business developments, economic news, and market trends. He graduated from the University of Warwick with a bachelor's degree in politics in 2022, and from the University of Cambridge with a master's degree in international relations in 2023. Languages: English. You can get in touch with Hugh by emailing h.cameron@newsweek.com
Newsweek · Hugh Cameron · September 6, 2025
14. China, Russia, North Korea and Iran's 'axis of upheaval' reshapes geopolitics
A view from our ally, Australia.
Have we retreated from the rules based international order?
Excerpts:
"When the US began retreating and also disrupting the rules-based international trade system, I think that naturally created an opening for China to step in," said Yang, from the International Crisis Group.
"We are definitely seeing a very gradual reshaping of the global order. But there's no clear picture of what kind of world order we're heading into."
Hiim, from the Norwegian Institute for Defence Studies, said China is a "very different superpower".
"The decline of democracy, and the increasing prevalence of authoritarianism has been a trend over the past five to 10 years. Having a major authoritarian country like China that you can turn to definitely makes life easier for autocrats, right?
"So it's a bit of a bleak picture."
China, Russia, North Korea and Iran's 'axis of upheaval' reshapes geopolitics
ABC.net.au · Karishma Vyas · September 6, 2025
China's largest-ever military parade on Wednesday was meant to commemorate the 80th anniversary of the end of World War II. Instead, experts say it marked the beginning of a new world order.
Flanked by the leaders of some of the world's most sanctioned nations, Chinese President Xi Jinping led what some analysts have dubbed an "axis of upheaval", bringing together Russian President Vladimir Putin, North Korea's Kim Jong Un and Iran's President Masoud Pezeshkian in a historic gathering.
With 10,000 troops and hundreds of advanced weapons rolling across Tiananmen Square, the parade was an expensive and elaborate two finger salute to the United States, witnessed by a gallery of global leaders who have long been cajoled, bullied and humiliated by America.
Xi Jinping brought together Vladimir Putin, Kim Jong Un and Masoud Pezeshkian in a historic gathering. (Reuters: Sputnik/Alexander Kazakov/Pool)
'A new crossroads'
"We must continue to take a clear stand against hegemonism and power politics, and practise true multilateralism," Xi said on Monday, in a thinly veiled take down of President Donald Trump.
"Global governance has reached a new crossroads."
Across the Pacific, the message hit a nerve.
"Please give my warmest regards to Vladimir Putin, and Kim Jong Un, as you conspire against the United States of America," Trump wrote on social media as the parade was underway.
It was a moment of fleeting clarity for the leader of the free world, as Trump otherwise struggled to grasp the realpolitik playing out in front of him.
"All of these leaders are currently on the receiving end of aggression from the United States," said William Yang, senior northeast Asia analyst with the International Crisis Group.
"This behaviour is only pushing these countries together to potentially form a very powerful league of resistance against the US."
LoadingHow to lose friends and alienate people
Trump's trade war with his friends and foes alike is only the latest example of the US blowing up long-standing alliances in favour of "America First".
Take India. For decades, the US cultivated close ties with New Delhi, viewing it as a strategic counterweight to China's growing influence in Asia.
But no number of bear hugs between Trump and prime minister Narendra Modi could prevent the US from slapping 50 per cent tariffs on Indian goods, or from US officials publicly berating New Delhi from buying Russian oil.
This week Modi was seen holding hands with President Putin before cosying up to President Xi at the Shanghai Cooperation Organization Summit in Tianjin.
"The Trump administration has provided China with several major diplomatic gifts," said Henrik Stålhane Hiim, a professor at the Norwegian Institute for Defence Studies.
"The obvious one, which everyone talks about now, is Narendra Modi travelling to China for the first time in seven years."
With 10,000 troops and hundreds of advanced weapons rolling across Tiananmen Square, the parade was an expensive and elaborate two finger salute to the United States. (AP: Sergei Bobylev, Sputnik, Kremlin Pool Photo via AP)
A very different superpower
India isn't the only country feeling the warm embrace of an ascendant China. The world's second-largest economy buys around 90 per cent of Iran's sanctioned oil exports, and continues to source rare earth metals, medical devices and electric vehicles from Myanmar's military regime.
This week Xi signed an agreement to build the Power of Siberia 2 gas pipeline with Putin, who is wanted by the International Criminal Court for illegally deporting hundreds of children from Ukraine.
"When the US began retreating and also disrupting the rules-based international trade system, I think that naturally created an opening for China to step in," said Yang, from the International Crisis Group.
"We are definitely seeing a very gradual reshaping of the global order. But there's no clear picture of what kind of world order we're heading into."
Hiim, from the Norwegian Institute for Defence Studies, said China is a "very different superpower".
"The decline of democracy, and the increasing prevalence of authoritarianism has been a trend over the past five to 10 years. Having a major authoritarian country like China that you can turn to definitely makes life easier for autocrats, right?
"So it's a bit of a bleak picture."
Posted 6h ago6 hours agoSat 6 Sep 2025 at 7:00pm, updated 5h ago5 hours agoSat 6 Sep 2025 at 7:51pm
ABC.net.au · Karishma Vyas · September 6, 2025
15. Why Trump should win the Nobel Prize (according to world leaders and his friends)
An initial report card?
Why Trump should win the Nobel Prize (according to world leaders and his friends)
The president has jockeyed to win the prize in October, though he said he doesn’t think he will.
Politico
A wide range of people can nominate someone to win what’s arguably the world’s most famous award, from heads of sovereign states to university professors. But actually winning it is a different thing: the award is picked by the Norwegian Nobel Committee — composed of five members picked by the Norwegian Parliament — and is set to be announced next month.
Trump is now downplaying his odds. “I have nothing to say about it,” Trump told CBS News on Wednesday when asked whether he’s seeking the honor. “All I can do is put out wars,” adding, “I don’t seek attention. I just want to save lives.”
Whether the calls are part of an attempt to flatter the president to curry favor with the U.S., or borne out of a genuine belief he should receive the award, they are now piling up. Here’s a list of all the reasons world leaders are citing for Trump to win.
‘Operation Warp Speed’
Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla said Wednesday the mRNA vaccines developed during the pandemic as part of “Operation Warp Speed” — Trump’s first term effort to quickly produce and distribute Covid-19 vaccines — were a “profound public health achievement” that “would typically be worthy of the Nobel Peace Prize.” Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.), a physician who has previously clashed with Trump, indicated his agreement on X Wednesday.
The Trump administration has moved away from supporting this same vaccine development in his second term. Vaccine skeptic Robert F. Kennedy Jr. leads the Health and Human Services Department, which has rolled back recommendations on Covid shots and cut millions of dollars in funding for mRNA vaccines.
Brokering the Abraham Accords
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu formally nominated Trump for the prize in July, writing in the letter that he had a significant role in bringing about “dramatic change” in the Middle East. He credited the president with brokering the Abraham Accords, signed in 2020.
“These groundbreaking agreements established formal diplomatic relations between Israel and several Arab nations — including the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, and Morocco,” he said. “These breakthroughs reshaped the Middle East and marked a historic advance toward peace, security and regional stability.”
Top UAE officials have publicly warned this week that the Abraham Accords could be unwound if Israel annexes the Palestinian-run West Bank.
Pakistan-India relations
The Pakistani government nominated Trump for the award in response to his role in deescalating brewing conflict between the two nations on the brink of war.
“At a moment of heightened regional turbulence, President Trump demonstrated great strategic foresight and stellar statesmanship through robust diplomatic engagement with both Islamabad and New Delhi which deescalated a rapidly deteriorating situation, ultimately securing a ceasefire and averting a broader conflict between the two nuclear states that would have had catastrophic consequences for millions in the region and beyond,” the government wrote on X in June.
They also thanked Trump for offering to help stabilize the Kashmir region, an area which has long been the source of dispute between India and Pakistan.
Indian officials publicly said America had no role in the mediation. The New York Times reported last month that Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s refusal to nominate Trump for the prize has hurt their relationship, but a White House spokesperson told the Times that the two world leaders have “a respectful relationship” and “remain in close communication.”
In the Oval Office on Friday, Trump said he’ll “always be friends with Modi” when asked if he’s ready to reset relations with the country. “India and the United States have a special relationship,” he added. “There’s nothing to worry about. We just have moments on occasion.”
Cambodia and Thailand’s border conflict
Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Manet lauded Trump’s “extraordinary statesmanship” in brokering a ceasefire deal between Cambodia and Thailand, nominating him for the prize in August.
“This timely intervention, which averted a potentially devastating conflict, was vital in preventing a great loss of lives and paved the way towards the restoration of peace,” the Cambodian leader wrote in the letter.
Trump had intervened in the conflict between the two nations, threatening to cut off trade until they resolved the issue.
“Both Parties are looking for an immediate Ceasefire and Peace,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. “They are also looking to get back to the ‘Trading Table’ with the United States, which we think is inappropriate to do until such time as the fighting STOPS.”
A transit corridor as part of an Armenia-Azerbaijan peace agreement
Both nations said they would nominate Trump for the prize after he brokered a deal for peace between the two nations. As part of the agreement, the countries agreed they would stop fighting, and give the U.S. development rights to a transit corridor in the region.
“It’s a long time. Thirty-five years — they fought and now they’re friends, and they’re going to be friends for a long time,” Trump said at the signing ceremony at the White House.
His work in Africa
At a meeting with five African leaders at the White House in July, several of them said the president “deserves” the Nobel Peace Prize after Rwanda and the Congo signed a peace deal in Washington.
“Today, the violence and destruction comes to an end, and the entire region begins a new chapter of hope and opportunity, harmony, prosperity and peace,” Trump said at the meeting.
16. Ex-RNC Spokesperson Spots How 'South Park' Could Make A 'Real' Impact On Trump's Base
I send this with some trepidation. I am not sending this to make any kind of partisan statement. I am sending this to illustrate how the diverse nature of the information environment (or operations in the information environment) can have effects that might seem counterintuitive. Who would think that South Park might be an information platform that could actually change people's minds? Stories and satire can be very powerful tools.
Ex-RNC Spokesperson Spots How 'South Park' Could Make A 'Real' Impact On Trump's Base
huffpost.com · September 6, 2025
LOADINGERROR LOADING
Ex-Republican National Committee spokesperson Tim Miller on Friday argued that recent episodes of “South Park” — which have brutally clowned Donald Trump — are influencing MAGA-friendly comedians and pointed to a “trickle down” effect on those in the so-called “manosphere.”
“The ‘South Park’ and the ‘Tim Dillons’ starting to poke fun at these guys, I think could have a real political impact because it might pop the bubble of invincibility that Trump has had with some part of his base,” said Miller, a writer-at-large at the anti-Trump conservative site The Bulwark, in an interview with MSNBC’s Nicolle Wallace.
Miller argued that the likes of Tim Dillon and Andrew Schulz — who are part of the online “manosphere” community of hyper-masculine, anti-establishment comedians and podcasters — are “starting to get pretty skeptical” about the administration and “want to be outsiders.”
Since the Season 27 premiere of “South Park,” Dillon — who interviewed Vice President JD Vance just before last year’s election — has described the administration as “an auction” up for bids from other countries and declared that Trump deploying National Guard troops to D.C. “should scare everybody.”
Schulz — who featured Trump on his podcast in October 2024 — has turned into Trump’s “loudest former-fan-turned-critic in this universe,” Vox’s Christian Paz reported Wednesday, and recently told Democrats that they have an opportunity to remind voters that the president is a “liar.”
“Comedians don’t want to be talking heads and mouthpieces for the administration like a Charlie Kirk might. They want to be contrarian and Trump’s giving them a lot to work,” Miller said.
Earlier on MSNBC, Miller noted that “South Park” can also give people a “backbone” to speak out against the administration.
“And that’s like the most frustrating part about all this, is you would think that ‘South Park’ would be showing the way, that there’s not the risk here that all these people say there is — that you can speak out against Trump, especially if you come from a place of power and privilege,” Miller said.
He used the example of billionaire tech executives who went to the White House to “slobber over” Trump at dinner.
″[It’s] as if the richest people in the history of the world could not survive and keep their dignity intact at the same time,” he said.
PowerOurJournalism
Your SupportFuelsOur Mission
Your SupportFuelsOur Mission
Your membership fuels reporting that informs, inspires, and holds power accountable. Stand with us in this work – become a member now.
Join, Read, Impact
We remain committed to providing you with the unflinching, fact-based journalism everyone deserves.
Thank you again for your support along the way. We’re truly grateful for readers like you! Your initial support helped get us here and bolstered our newsroom, which kept us strong during uncertain times. Now as we continue, we need your help more than ever. We hope you will join us once again.
We remain committed to providing you with the unflinching, fact-based journalism everyone deserves.
Thank you again for your support along the way. We’re truly grateful for readers like you! Your initial support helped get us here and bolstered our newsroom, which kept us strong during uncertain times. Now as we continue, we need your help more than ever. We hope you will join us once again.
Support HuffPost
Already contributed? Log in to hide these messages.
H/T: The Bulwark
huffpost.com · September 6, 2025
17. Donald Trump’s Presidency Is Making America Irrelevant
A brutal critique. Is it valid?
Excerpts:
But I digress. Cities and states are also stepping up to promulgate their own policies on AI because Trump, listening to his money guys, is embracing the approach that no regulation is the right regulation. And they’re also doing the same in other policy areas where the federal government’s approaches are dangerous—from climate to immigration to policing.
In other words, Donald Trump is once again, doing the impossible.
He has taken what once was seen as the most powerful office in the world and he has made it increasingly irrelevant. Foreign leaders and those here at home alike have concluded that the only way to live with Trump is to learn to live without him, to never count on him—to do as his wives and kids have done. Unfortunately, the result is to weaken and shrink the presidency, the executive branch of the U.S. government, the institutions on which we depend and the stature of the United States worldwide.
Donald Trump’s Presidency Is Making America Irrelevant
thedailybeast.com
IGNORANCE IS BLISS
Foreign leaders—along with those here at home—have concluded that the only way to live with Trump is to learn to live without him.
David Rothkopf
Updated Sep. 5 2025 6:08PM EDT / Published Sep. 5 2025 3:58PM EDT
Opinion
Photo Illustration by Thomas Levinson/The Daily Beast/Getty
In his never-ending efforts to test the extent of the power of his presidency, Donald Trump is unintentionally proving its limitations.
Despite—or perhaps as a result of—his pathological appetite to be the center of every conversation, America’s narcissist-in-chief is defining the best way of dealing with his over-reach: Ignoring him.
Tune out his pronouncements. Sidestep his power grabs. Proceed without him. Discount him and his army of slavering flunkeys as credible players.
Each passing day reveals new examples of how this strategy is working.
The leaders of Ukraine and the EU may flatter Trump; they may go through the motions of working with him. But they know better. They know that while he pretends to “seek peace,” he is daily reading Kremlin-issued talking points and advancing Russian interests. They see that Trump has made it clear he is no friend of democracy or the alliance established in the wake of World War II by the United States.
Military aircraft conduct a flyover as President Donald Trump welcomes Polish President Karol Nawrocki to the White House on September 3, 2025 in Washington, D.C. Alex Wong/Getty Images
So, the plan of Zelensky and his European partners is clear. Get what help you can from the United States. But don’t count on it. Instead, make plans to ensure Ukraine is supported with or without the US—that European peacekeepers are up to the job of preserving Ukraine’s security when the time comes whether the US ponies up real support for the effort or, more likely, it does not.
While paying lip service to negotiations with the US, our allies around the world are increasingly seeking new trade partners as Trump tries to flex his muscle with new and nonsensical tariffs. Time and again, the big winner here is China.
Russian President Vladimir Putin shakes hands with Chinese President Xi Jinping during a meeting at the Grand Kremlin Palace in Moscow on May 8, 2025. Contributor/Getty Images
Chinese President Xi Jinping’s Shanghai summit revealed just how potent and potentially geopolitically significant the desire of many countries not to be bullied by Trump has become. It’s a big blow to American power and, thanks to Trump, the US appears to be losing global influence fast.
Take India. Whereas once Trump thought he and Narendra Modi—nationalists with little use for democracy— were kindred spirits, the relationship broke down when Modi publicly rejected Trump’s Nobel-prize-seeking lie that he ended the conflict between India and Pakistan.
Trump then imposed punitive tariffs because his feelings were hurt. Modi went to China. Early Friday morning, Trump revealed he got the message when he posted on social media a lament: “Looks like we’ve lost India and Russia to deepest, darkest, China. May they have a long and prosperous future together.”
And the strategy of tuning Trump out is not just being embraced beyond our borders. Slowly but surely, we are starting to learn what “soft secession” really is as states and cities and other independent actors are stepping in to say, if the federal government has lost its mind, we’ll find a way to do without them.
For example, as we heard during RFK, Jr.’s debacle of a congressional hearing (for sure that worm died of starvation, nothing is working inside the head of our top health official), if the US government is not going to protect the health of our people, states are stepping up and saying, “We’ll do it ourselves.”
RFK Jr. has already established himself as the most dangerous, least honest, least competent cabinet secretary in U.S. history, argues David Rothkopf. Pictured above: RFK Jr. arrives to testify before the Senate Finance Committee on September 4, 2025 in Washington, D.C. Andrew Harnik/Getty Images
The hearing also revealed, yet again, why independent groups of doctors have concluded that they can no longer trust Trump’s administration on vaccines—and so they are going to make their own independent recommendations. They have no choice really. Kennedy has gutted the credibility of what was the world’s most respected public health apparatus. It’s not just his policies, ignorance and obvious and demented biases; it’s also that he is such a terrible spokesperson for, well, anything.
But I digress. Cities and states are also stepping up to promulgate their own policies on AI because Trump, listening to his money guys, is embracing the approach that no regulation is the right regulation. And they’re also doing the same in other policy areas where the federal government’s approaches are dangerous—from climate to immigration to policing.
In other words, Donald Trump is once again, doing the impossible.
He has taken what once was seen as the most powerful office in the world and he has made it increasingly irrelevant. Foreign leaders and those here at home alike have concluded that the only way to live with Trump is to learn to live without him, to never count on him—to do as his wives and kids have done. Unfortunately, the result is to weaken and shrink the presidency, the executive branch of the U.S. government, the institutions on which we depend and the stature of the United States worldwide.
Got a tip? Send it to The Daily Beast here.
18. West Point alumni group cancels award ceremony for Tom Hanks
Should these actions really be disqualifying for this award to someone who is a great American?
Excerpts:
In 2020, Hanks participated in a campaign fundraiser with Joe Biden, who went on to defeat Donald Trump for the presidency that year in an election marred by Trump’s baseless claims of election fraud. Months later, after a pro-Trump mob smashed its way into Congress on Jan. 6, 2021, in a failed attempt to stop the certification of Biden’s victory, Hanks hosted a televised event called “Celebrating America” that was organized by the Biden Inaugural Committee. Hanks noted then that the United States had seen “deep divisions and a troubling rancor” over recent years.
Hanks assisted Biden again one year into his presidency, narrating a video touting the value of perseverance as the U.S. economy rallied and the covid-19 pandemic subsided. “We are stronger than we were a year ago today,” Hanks said then.
Hanks received the Presidential Medal of Freedom for his acting and advocacy from President Barack Obama in 2016. He also has poked fun at Trump supporters while portraying one in “Saturday Night Live” skits, once in 2016 and again in 2025.
West Point alumni group cancels award ceremony for Tom Hanks
The decision follows a series of political controversies involving the Trump administration that have rattled the prestigious military institution.
September 6, 2025 at 11:13 a.m. EDTToday at 11:13 a.m. EDT
6 min
Summary
1,479
Actor Tom Hanks, who starred in “Saving Private Ryan” and other films depicting U.S. service members and who has for decades advocated for military veterans, was to receive a prestigious award from the West Point alumni association this month. (Jesse Dittmar/For The Washington Post)
By Dan Lamothe
The alumni association at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point has canceled an award ceremony for actor and veterans advocate Tom Hanks, citing a desire for the Army service academy to focus on preparing future officers for war after several political controversies involving the Trump administration shook the institution this year.
Retired Army Col. Mark Bieger, president and chief executive officer of the West Point Association of Graduates, disclosed the decision in an email to faculty circulated Friday. A copy of Bieger’s message was reviewed and verified by The Washington Post.
Hanks, 69, was to receive the prestigious Sylvanus Thayer Award, which recognizes an “outstanding citizen” who did not attend West Point and has a distinguished record of service that exemplifies the academy’s ideals: “Duty, Honor, Country.” A ceremony and parade were scheduled for Sept. 25.
Bieger wrote that the alumni association, in coordination with the academy, “will not be holding the Thayer Award ceremony” as originally scheduled and apologized for the cancellation. The email did not say whether Hanks’s award has been revoked or if it will be presented in some other format.
Follow Trump’s second term
Follow
“This decision allows the Academy to continue its focus on its core mission of preparing cadets to lead, fight, and win as officers in the world’s most lethal force, the United States Army,” wrote Bieger, who earned a Silver Star for combat valor in Iraq.
Bieger did not respond to requests for comment. Officials with West Point referred questions to the alumni association. A spokesperson for Hanks could not be reached for comment.
The decision marks a dramatic shift from June, when the association announced Hanks as its 2025 Thayer recipient. The alumni group cited his work acting in several movies portraying U.S. service members, including “Saving Private Ryan,” “Forrest Gump” and “Greyhound.” It also credited his producing of “Band of Brothers” and “The Pacific,” both World War II-themed miniseries, and his extensive advocacy for veterans.
Hanks, the announcement noted, was a leading proponent for creation of the World War II Memorial in D.C.; supported efforts to build a national memorial for President Dwight D. Eisenhower, a celebrated Army general before entering politics; and served as national chairman for a massive fundraising campaign to establish what is now the National WWII Museum in New Orleans.
“Tom Hanks has done more for the positive portrayal of the American service member, more for the caring of the American veteran, their caregivers and their family, and more for the American space program and all branches of government than many other Americans,” Robert McDonald, a former secretary of veterans affairs and the alumni association’s board chairman, said in the June announcement.
Hanks, in the same announcement, called it “humbling and meaningful” to be recognized by the institution. Other recipients have included presidents, defense secretaries, diplomats, senators and journalists.
But the planned celebration appears to have run headlong into Trump-era politics.
President Joe Biden, with actor Tom Hanks and his wife, the actress and musician Rita Wilson, at the White House in 2023. (Demetrius Freeman/The Washington Post)
In 2020, Hanks participated in a campaign fundraiser with Joe Biden, who went on to defeat Donald Trump for the presidency that year in an election marred by Trump’s baseless claims of election fraud. Months later, after a pro-Trump mob smashed its way into Congress on Jan. 6, 2021, in a failed attempt to stop the certification of Biden’s victory, Hanks hosted a televised event called “Celebrating America” that was organized by the Biden Inaugural Committee. Hanks noted then that the United States had seen “deep divisions and a troubling rancor” over recent years.
Hanks assisted Biden again one year into his presidency, narrating a video touting the value of perseverance as the U.S. economy rallied and the covid-19 pandemic subsided. “We are stronger than we were a year ago today,” Hanks said then.
Hanks received the Presidential Medal of Freedom for his acting and advocacy from President Barack Obama in 2016. He also has poked fun at Trump supporters while portraying one in “Saturday Night Live” skits, once in 2016 and again in 2025.
The award ceremony’s cancellation follows a number of changes at West Point, long considered one of the most prestigious universities in the country, and other military services academies since Trump’s return to power.
In January, Trump issued an executive order calling for a rollback of programs promoting diversity, equity and inclusion in the armed forces, saying leaders, curriculums and instructors at all of the U.S. service academies should be scrutinized. Other changes followed, including the cancellation of some classes and the disbanding of numerous “affinity groups” for cadets, such as the National Society of Black Engineers and Latin Cultural Club.
More recently, Army Secretary Dan Driscoll directed West Point to revoke the appointment of Jen Easterly, a cybersecurity expert and West Point graduate who had served in the presidential administrations of Biden and George W. Bush, a Republican whom Trump has attacked in the past.
Easterly’s dismissal from the school’s social sciences department followed complaints from far-right activist Laura Loomer, an unofficial adviser to Trump who has exhibited an unusual level of influence on personnel matters in the president’s second term.
West Point also recently rehung a 20-foot portrait of Gen. Robert E. Lee, a West Point graduate who fought to preserve slavery for the Confederacy, in its library, a move first reported by the New York Times. The artwork, featuring a slave guiding Lee’s horse in the background, was put in storage in 2022 at the direction of a congressionally mandated commission that examined what to do with images, symbols, names, monuments and other items that commemorate the Confederacy.
Jason Dempsey, an Army veteran who graduated from West Point and taught there as an active-duty officer, questioned how the ceremony for Hanks would detract from the current focus on lethality. He said that he has heard “zero public outcry” about Hanks receiving the award and that he believes a “vast majority” of alumni and current cadets support him receiving it.
Dempsey, who now studies civil military affairs for the Center for a New American Security, said it appears to him that the alumni association is taking ownership of an issue that would have made some leaders at West Point uncomfortable in the current political environment.
“It is the perfect example,” Dempsey said, “of someone being good for the military but not perfectly aligned with current partisan priorities.”
Beth Reinhard and Aaron Schaffer contributed to this report.
What readers are saying
The comments express strong disapproval of the decision to cancel the award ceremony for Tom Hanks at West Point, highlighting his significant contributions to veterans and the military. Many commenters view the cancellation as a result of political pressure, particularly from... Show more
This summary is AI-generated. AI can make mistakes and this summary is not a replacement for reading the comments.
Comments 1,479
By Dan Lamothe
Dan Lamothe joined The Washington Post in 2014 to cover the U.S. military. He has written about the Armed Forces since 2008, traveling extensively, embedding with five branches of service and covering combat in Afghanistan.follow on X@danlamothe
De Oppresso Liber,
David Maxwell
Vice President, Center for Asia Pacific Strategy
Senior Fellow, Global Peace Foundation
Editor, Small Wars Journal
Twitter: @davidmaxwell161
Phone: 202-573-8647
email: david.maxwell161@gmail.com
| 
