Now, Pentagon officials say that some of that AI is not part of the current revamp of the polygraph interview process, after Defense News asked for a response to concerns about the earlier statements and the slides.

On Wednesday, the Pentagon’s Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency, or DCSA, which vets security clearance holders and applicants, said in an emailed statement that “active research and development” for the “Modernizing Polygraph” effort “does not incorporate generative super intelligence, also known as artificial intelligence,” that creates new content — such as emails, graphics or voiceovers.

Nor does the effort include “large language models,” meaning chatbots like ChatGPT and other programs trained on giant data sets to engage in human conversation, DCSA added.

And the research does not involve “facial action coding [of emotions], micro-expression analysis or vocal analyses,” the statement said. “While those technologies are not part of the effort,” DoD will “continue to monitor emerging scientific capabilities to evaluate their potential utility down the road.”

DCSA did not address other types of AI models that, according to the slides, researchers had been developing to scan spoken and written language for “deceptive speech” patterns.

Wednesday’s statement came after Defense News sought a response to criticisms from national security lawyers, scientists and AI auditors about AI’s ability to analyze deception — meaning not just to lie, but to do so knowingly and willfully.

They warned that AI-aided scanning of speech patterns, vocal stress or facial expressions to read minds lacks scientific backing, will compound errors and may violate civil liberties in a domain where few such rights exist.

Defense News chronicled their concerns and the Pentagon’s prior research and development of AI-aided lie-detection and emotion-estimation tools.

The recent DCSA statement, including the project name “Modernizing Polygraph,” contrasts with several earlier DoD statements, 2027 budget documents and DCSA slides that Defense News obtained through an open records request.

In July, a Pentagon official, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the technology, explained the advantages of AI-driven sentiment and deception analysis.

“AI processes data in real time and enables standardized, objective data analysis,” the official told Defense News, via email. “AI-based analysis is a force multiplier for our human investigators, not a replacement.”

The official added, “The models are primarily trained on data from laboratory-controlled studies using volunteer participants.”

The DCSA slides, which include presentations from 2021 through 2025, show that the Air Force, DCSA and academic labs had been working on “sentiment analysis” AI models and “deceptive speech” AI-aided analysis since 2019, as part of a “Credibility Assessment Modernization” project.

In July, the DoD official described the AI models as part of a larger multi-year “transformation,” which the official referred to interchangeably as “Polygraph+” and Credibility Assessment Modernization.

Current budget materials price the Polygraph+/Polygraph Next project at $31 million, including costs for AI “scoring algorithms” and “decision aids,” thermal imaging tools to spot blood flow changes that can reflect stress and other non-contact sensors.

On Friday, DCSA declined to provide additional information, including the scope of the “Modernizing Polygraph” project and the decision not to include AI-based voice screening and facial expression analysis.

Trained on Twitter and Reddit

Over the summer, Farakh Zaman, a developmental leader at the Air Force Office of Scientific Research, elaborated on the appeal of AI-aided deception analysis.

“By processing subtle physiological, vocal and linguistic cues, these developmental algorithms may help establish a more objective baseline for investigators and pinpoint specific areas requiring further human-led clarification,” he said by email in July.

Wednesday’s DCSA statement said that the Air Force is not involved in the “active” research and development phase.

One undated declassified DCSA slide describes the Air Force amassing “deception-related” text to create a “deep learning model,” an algorithm that analyzes hordes of data to find patterns. The Air Force trained an early model on text from websites including Twitter, Reddit and other vocabulary data sets such as WordNet, according to the slide.

“This baseline training helps the algorithms understand natural, modern linguistic patterns, slang and everyday vocabulary,” Zaman explained in July. He acknowledged the need for “further rigorous testing, validation and a clear transition path” before fielding a prototype.

A separate DCSA slide, dated May 2025, contains a flowchart that depicts an avatar — a computer-generated image of an interviewer — in front of a security clearance applicant. Next to the applicant, a camera and microphone feed audio, video and speech-to-text data from the interview into various large language models. The recording devices and algorithms interact to gauge the applicant’s emotional state, while a human investigator observes and keys in questions for the avatar to ask.

DCSA’s Wednesday statement said the university that drafted the chart is not involved in the current research and development stage.

According to another undated DCSA slide, DoD has set a goal for natural language processing technology to interpret an interviewee’s feelings with 75% accuracy.

In July, the Pentagon official said by email that a human investigator remains essential for “the contextual reasoning and emotional intelligence required in these sensitive interviews.”

‘I’ve caught AI lying to me’

Ahead of Wednesday’s statement, Mark Zaid, a national security attorney who reviewed the slides, warned that the danger of derailing a military officer’s career is too great for AI to misinform an investigator.

The polygraph device “is just registering the physiology of the person,” such as spikes in breathing rate, perspiration or blood pressure, he said. “Then a human examiner analyzes those reactions to render an opinion.”

Here, however, “AI would be taking the polygraph readings and rendering an opinion” to the human examiner, said Zaid, who has represented individuals on all sides of the polygraph table, from workers disputing revoked clearances to former government officials and polygraphers.

“Now, we’re starting to get into the movie Minority Report,” he said, referencing a 2002 Steven Spielberg film that depicts a government reliant on psychic children for tips to predict crimes and detain people accused of future crimes.

Zaid, whose own clearance was revoked temporarily after he represented a whistleblower pivotal in President Trump’s first impeachment, said, “That concerns me more than the polygraph,” if science does not back AI’s reliability.

So far, scientific studies do not.

Rather, decades of research have discredited theories, popularized by shows such as Lie to Me, that anyone — human or artificial — can recognize deception based on speech patterns, vocal stress or facial movements.

Another concern scientists and auditors have is bias: the Justice Department has warned that using emotion-recognition algorithms to measure worker competency can discriminate against high performers with intellectual or developmental disabilities, who algorithms do not always understand.

Also, “automation bias,” the tendency to take AI’s advice without question even when conflicting information exists, may further erode the polygraph system’s reliability, technologists warned.

“[T]here is simply no consensus that polygraph evidence is reliable,” the Supreme Court declared in a 1998 decision banning polygraph results and polygraphers’ opinions from military courts.

Zaid said he appreciates the attempt to retool polygraph testing but wants proof that the planned approach is in fact an improvement.

“Anytime we might be able to scientifically advance the ability to determine truth, with accuracy, would generally be a good thing,” he said. But “the first thing that jumps out at me with AI is how often it is wrong…I’ve caught AI lying to me.”

Greg Rinckey, a former Army Judge Advocate General Corps officer who now provides security clearance representation, said that today’s “technology is so outdated, where they’re using tubes around people’s chests and blood pressure and sweat, so, any way that you can get a more reliable test for security clearances, especially counterintelligence investigations [into leaks], is a step up.”

That said, he questioned, “What is the research saying on how accurate it is?”

At present, research suggests the odds of AI-aided speech, voice or face analysis pegging a lie are about 50:50.

AI is ‘assuming dishonesty’

“There are no – reliable – diagnostic cues for deception detection, and I have yet to see any evidence, whether it is with humans or with artificial intelligence, that goes against that trend,” said David Markowitz, a Michigan State University professor who studies AI’s ability to understand human communication.

For instance, “the leakage idea — that these microfacial expressions will leak out from our awareness, signaling veracity or deceit — there’s very little evidence to support that, unfortunately,” he said.

Markowitz expressed doubts about AI-based deception analyses that claim an accuracy rate of 75% because “that is not how accurately humans do it, and often these systems are a big reflection of how humans do it.”

For example, he pointed to a recent experiment in which he prompted a Google Gemini AI model to examine audio and video of mock interrogations of accused cheaters in a trivia game, all of whom claimed innocence and some of whom were lying. Prior studies had asked humans to observe the same interrogations. DoD has entered into agreements to run a secure version of Gemini on unclassified and classified networks.

Markowitz said that his study, “The [in]efficacy of AI personas in deception detection experiments,” found Gemini was just as inaccurate as humans, both faring no better than chance, when prompted to distinguish fraudsters from truth-tellers.

What’s more, compared to humans, AI was more likely to wrongly accuse a trivia player of lying.

Markowitz gave one possible reason for AI’s systemic distrust of trivia players: The AI “is assuming that someone must have done something wrong because why else would they be questioned,” he said. “Anytime that someone is in an interview setting where they might be accused of something, a large language model is assuming dishonesty.”

Supreme Court: The jury is the lie detector

The consequences of a machine, whether a heart monitor or a voice screener, potentially bungling a credibility assessment can last a year or longer, said Zaid, the national security lawyer.

When officers who have successfully passed exams without issue suddenly fail their latest polygraph test, DoD typically puts them “in a corner with a dunce cap on for a year before officials will re-administer another exam,” he said. “You can’t get promoted. You can’t get certain assignments. And you can’t go overseas, which, to case officers, is death careerwise.”

Further, civil courts routinely dismiss complaints when employees claim that inaccurate results cost them their clearances. Nearly 40 years ago, the Supreme Court ruled that the courts have no power over such national security matters.

Concerns about power imbalances and due process prompted the European Union to label AI-aided polygraph tools as “high risk” and place strict limits on law enforcement’s use of them.

Stateside, the Supreme Court, in forbidding polygraph evidence in military courts, noted that allowing it would meddle with the human’s role, or, as it were, the jury’s role, in determining credibility.

“A fundamental premise of our criminal trial system is that the jury is the lie detector,” Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in the Court’s 1998 United States v. Scheffer decision.

Pointing to the court’s decision, Zaid said that he wants assurances of due process when staff undergo administrative proceedings to contest a revoked clearance resulting from misaligned algorithms. Comparing the situation to successful cases disputing speeding tickets caused by a miscalibrated street camera, Zaid questioned, “Would the person be provided the evidence? An understanding of the AI’s training?”

New biases

Pentagon officials have long stressed the desire for AI-based lie detection to help curb gender and cultural biases that human investigators may carry into an interview room.

At the same time, employers’ use of similar technology for pre-employment screening has faced allegations of other biases and system errors.

“Facial expression analysis is heaviest in terms of biases against individuals with disabilities,” said Jo Ann Oravec, a University of Wisconsin professor whose research focuses on AI, public policy and disability issues.

For instance, AI-powered video screening of job applicants tends to misinterpret the involuntary twitches or vocal outbursts of skilled people with certain disabilities — and thus pass over qualified applicants, said Oravec, author of the 2024 article “From Polygraphs to Truth Machines: Artificial Intelligence in Lie Detection.”

In response to concerns about such biases in July, the Pentagon official said via email that the credibility assessment modernization plan adheres to DoD’s AI Ethical Principles of “responsible, equitable and traceable” use of algorithms.

The Air Force’s Zaman, in his July email, said that his team’s work aligns with DoD’s Responsible Artificial Intelligence Guidelines.

Researchers “are actively engineering and testing these models” to account for “diverse, representative training data,” he stated. The testing covers “broad variations in speech, language and expression.”

Ryan Carrier, founder of ForHumanity, a global nonprofit that helps organizations audit AI systems, said that the Pentagon’s principles and guidelines are a skeleton of those that the European Union follows and that ForHumanity uses for inspections.

For example, the EU’s AI Act demands users of high-risk systems receive training to overcome a different kind of bias called “automation bias” — or the tendency to execute AI’s advice without questioning its accuracy. This bad habit can lead to incorrect data overriding correct decisions, Carrier said.

Also, multimodal systems, meaning AI systems that simultaneously parse audio (the subject’s voice), video (their facial movements) and text (interview transcriptions), tend to misalign data and results, yielding an irrelevant analysis, Carrier said.

The system “could be making determinations that a person is lying or trying to deceive me that are outside of the tool’s specifications,” he explained.

In response to concerns about multimodal systems in July, the Pentagon official had said, “Any automated output is treated strictly as auxiliary data for a highly trained, certified polygraph examiner.”

Similarly, Zaman, at the time, said that investigators who use AI-aided deception-detection systems are “trained to contextualize the tool’s findings, preventing automated outputs from dictating an outcome.”

To safeguard against mismatched data or results, the Air Force keeps a documented history of each piece of data’s origin and modifications and brings in independent white-hat hackers to try producing false correlations, he added.

“We recognize that multimodal AI systems present unique technical challenges, and mitigating these risks by hardening our systems is central to our engineering and testing protocols,” Zaman said.

Reason for suspicion?

In August, when the Pentagon administered a raft of polygraph exams to probe leaks alleging the Iran conflict is depleting U.S. arsenals, some observers suspected the endgame was not to find the leakers, but to crack down on disloyalty.

Critics of the planned system said that AI-based deception analysis may be best suited to achieve the same purpose.

“If it’s purely an intimidation technique, it may not be utterly useless from the point of view of large bureaucracies,” said Jay Stanley, a senior policy analyst with the American Civil Liberties Union’s Speech, Privacy and Technology Project.

The expectations for AI-powered trustworthiness testing resemble the hope that U.S. national security officials held out for the polygraph about 100 years ago, other lawyers said.

Polygraph devices “were seen as this magic-miracle-machine when they first came out,” and, over time, the government learned that when seemingly making deductions, the tools were “actually just flagging correlating factors, like heart rate and physiological factors that can indicate lying, but aren’t actually reflective of it,” said Jake Laperruque, deputy director of the Center for Democracy and Technology’s Security and Surveillance Project.

He added, “Thinking that AI sentiment analysis tools are actually making an assessment or engaged in reasoning — that’s not what those machines are actually able to do.”

Reporting directly to Hegseth, the Office of Religious Affairs, or ORA, is meant to offer service members “first-class religious support,” according to the defense secretary. Hegseth first announced the office during his State of the Force address on Wednesday at Marine Corps Base Quantico, Virginia, to junior officers and enlisted leaders.

“Our department is, you might say, putting on the full armor of God because while we wage physical war, we all know the real battle is spiritual,” Hegseth said on Wednesday. “God is good. Evil is not. And America’s military must understand the difference.”

Hegseth announced the new office alongside a slew of other initiatives, such as the Autonomous Warfare Command, but he said all would be incomplete without faith, which he described as the “most essential part of our republic.”

Hegseth said that less than 5% of the joint force identifies as nonreligious, and the other 95% recognizes an “Almighty God.” The Pentagon has not released an official report of the religious makeup of the military since 2019, when the composition of active-duty personnel was 70% Christian, 2% atheist or agnostic and 24% reported as unclassified or unknown.

He said the force previously did not prioritize faith and instead emphasized “political correctness and secular humanism” and claimed that “secular careerists” and lawyers with red tape were dictating the spiritual life of service members, instead of military chaplains.

“The people who actually practice faith and religion, our chaplains, were buried echelons deep, waiting for permission,” he said. “We asked chaplains to serve and sacrifice, and then sidelined them with paperwork and process. And that ends now.”

Service chaplains will continue to serve as the department’s primary providers of religious support, with the office being their advocate, a Pentagon release says.

ORA’s First Steps

Effective immediately, the office will report directly to the defense secretary, according to a Sept. 30 memorandum. Its director, who has yet to be named, will serve as the principal advisor to the secretary and deputy secretary for religious affairs across the department.

The office’s core responsibilities, as outlined by the memo, will be to ensure that the Pentagon and military departments obtain sufficient funding and resources for religious affairs, such as chaplain-led programs and faith-based initiatives, as well as sponsoring and overseeing research and analytical tools to support and assess spiritual fitness and readiness across the military.

The office will also align and issue policies on religious affairs for the secretary; represent him on all religious affairs matters in engagements with Congress, religious endorsing organizations, and external governmental departments; and realign the Armed Forces Chaplains Board and its executive director under the office’s authority for chaplain advisement.

“This is not going to be a paper-pushing shop,” Hegseth said. “It’s going to have real teeth. It’ll protect budgets, demand infrastructure and strengthen religious support. The experts, our chaplains, will finally have an advocate at the highest levels.”

Within 60 days of the memo’s date, the office is expected to submit an initial baseline budget to Hegseth for fiscal year 2027 funding, the memo says, including permanent manning requirements. In the next 90 days, the director of Administration and Management will work with the office’s director to incorporate it into the Pentagon’s organizational framework and identify the initial allocation of senior executive service, civilian and military billets to stand up the office.

Within 90 days of the memo, the military departments’ secretaries are also expected to submit a baseline report of all unfunded and underfunded religious affairs requirements to the office’s director.

Pentagon’s Religious Overhaul

The announcement comes as the Pentagon has largely reduced the number of officially recognized faith affiliations from over 200 to 31, sparking criticism that most are Christian denominations and pressing the department to update the classifications by removing the subheading that grouped the Christian denominations.

In what the secretary described as a “top-down cultural shift,” he directed an overhaul of the Chaplain Corps and later required military chaplains to stop wearing rank insignia and to instead wear symbols of their faith.

To further align with the Pentagon’s policies, military services recently began requiring service members to update their Religious Affiliation Codes in their personnel records. The Department of the Air Force said the requirement exists only to improve chaplains’ knowledge of the force’s religious makeup.

In the past, Hegseth has faced backlash from advocacy groups for hosting monthly Pentagon Christian prayer services and his religious rhetoric in public appearances, raising concerns that he is associating the Christian faith with politics and the military.

“Our national motto is, after all, ‘In God We Trust,’” Hegseth said Wednesday. “Today, we reaffirm that trust. We’re placing spiritual health at the same level as physical health.”

The government watchdog found that the Defense Department reported obligating approximately $68 million for immigration detention from Oct. 1, 2024, through May 31, 2026. The Guantanamo operation was one of six new detention-expansion initiatives U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement pursued without first developing a comprehensive strategic plan.

By July 2026, ICE had scaled back four of the six initiatives, resulting in wasted or potentially wasted resources, the GAO said in a Sept. 24 report.

A January 2025 presidential memorandum directed DHS and DOD to increase detention capacity at Naval Station Guantanamo Bay to 30,000 beds. DOD assembled tents for an initial capacity of 5,000 beds, but the Department of Homeland Security determined they did not meet detention standards.

The tents were taken down and never used to house detained noncitizens, in part because building facilities that met ICE standards was cost-prohibitive. DoD officials told the GAO, “detaining the planned population was deemed infeasible,” and the operation was downsized in mid-February 2025.

DOD’s role in the detention expansion extended beyond Guantanamo.

After DHS requested access to military installations in February 2025, DHS and DoD began planning detention facilities at Camp Atterbury in Indiana and Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst in New Jersey.

By October 2025, DoD officials said they no longer planned to build detention facilities on other military installations, and DoD and ICE officials told GAO investigators the Indiana and New Jersey facilities did not move forward.

ICE’s request for military assistance had not been rescinded, however, and the agreement has remained active as of August 2026.

At Fort Bliss in El Paso, Texas, the Army awarded and administered a $1.3 billion task order on behalf of ICE for Camp East Montana, a soft-sided detention facility that opened in August 2025. The Army transferred contract administration responsibilities to ICE at the beginning of fiscal 2026.

A separate GAO report found the Army wasted up to $11.5 million on services at Camp East Montana between Aug. 1 and Aug. 15, 2025, when there were no detained noncitizens housed there. The Army later paid about $423,000 for meals it did not need while the facility operated below planned capacity.

After ICE took over the contract, it paid another $7.1 million for meals it did not need from Oct. 1, 2025, through March 12, 2026. As of August 2026, ICE had not incorporated recommended cost-saving measures into the contract and continued paying for services it did not need.

GAO recommends that ICE develop a comprehensive strategic plan for its detention expansion efforts, including goals, activities and resource needs.

DHS agreed, but said ICE does not expect to complete the plan until Aug. 31, 2027. GAO said more timely completion “may be warranted.”

Miller is currently the deputy chief of Space Operations, Strategy, Plans, Programs and Requirements. He will, if confirmed, take over Space Command after his predecessor, Gen. Stephen Whiting, steps down from command toward the end of the year or the beginning of the next.

“Congratulations to Lt. Gen. Miller on his nomination to serve as Commander, U.S. Space Command,” Chief of Space Operations Gen. Douglas Schiess said in a social media post. “He is an exceptional guardian who has represented our service with distinction, and we believe he is a strong candidate for this critical joint leadership role.”

Prior to his current post, Miller served as the commander of Space Operations Command at Peterson Space Force Base, Colorado. He also served as the special assistant to the vice chief of space operations at Peterson and has held roles commanding guardians and airmen at the squadron, group and wing levels at various bases.

If confirmed, Miller will become the fourth commander of SPACECOM since its reestablishment in 2019, at a time when U.S. leaders are increasingly emphasizing the role of space in operations and the nation’s defense.

The nomination comes on the heels of Secretary of the Air Force Troy Meink revealing that the department has on-orbit space control weapons capable of defending the joint force from “hostile adversary action.” Keeping details sparse, he declined to say what type of weapon it is and reasserted its necessity for deterrence.

Officials have touted space’s role in recent missions, such as Operation Epic Fury, calling its capability essential to the joint force.

“During Operation Epic Fury, our components, notably at U.S. Central Command and Space Command with support from components at European Command and Pacific Command, demonstrated that guardians are not supporting from the sidelines as a ‘nice to have,’ but we are delivering spacepower directly into the fight as a ‘need to have,’” Schiess said during his keynote at the mid-September Air & Space Forces Association’s 2026 Air, Space & Cyber Conference.

As commander, Miller will be responsible for the space domain while providing space-enabled combat effects across the world, bearing combat command authority over joint warfighters operating ground and space-based systems.

Miller would succeed Whiting, who has held the position since January 2024 after being nominated by former President Joe Biden the year prior and confirmed in December 2024.

Whiting previously served as commander of Space Operations Command and held numerous positions across U.S. Strategic Command, Air Force headquarters and the Office of the Deputy Secretary of Defense.

A formal confirmation hearing for Miller has yet to be set by the Senate Armed Services Committee.

In a memorandum signed Tuesday, Hegseth directed the secretaries of the military departments to immediately terminate the practice of appointing civilian faculty to tenured positions and develop hiring plans that prioritize institutional flexibility and faculty contributions to the warfighting mission.

“The primary purpose of our Military Service Academies (MSA) is to prepare the next generation of officers to lead the men and women of the greatest military on Earth,” Hegseth wrote.

Hegseth said tenure can contribute to “academic stagnation” and “faculty complacency” and make institutions less able to adapt to emerging needs.

He also argued that tenure can contribute to curricula drifting from the mission of educating future warfighters toward the research priorities of tenured faculty.

In military academies, civilian faculty have been part of the academic structure for decades. In 1992, Congress enacted legislation that expanded the ability of the academies to employ civilian faculty.

Academy leaders have previously cited tenure as a factor in recruiting and retaining civilian faculty. During a March 2025 Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, West Point Superintendent Lt. Gen. Steven Gilland said tenure gives civilian faculty opportunities to advance within their disciplines. Naval Academy Superintendent Vice Adm. Yvette Davids described tenure as a recruiting tool and an incentive for civilian faculty to stay, while Air Force Academy Superintendent Lt. Gen. Tony Bauernfeind said tenure was part of the academic progression for civilian faculty.

The directive does not say that existing tenured civilian professors will lose their tenure, nor does it specify what employment structure will replace tenure for newly hired civilian faculty or how the departments will implement the change.

Hegseth framed the policy as part of a broader effort to reshape the academies around their military mission.

“To ensure our educational institutions remain firmly focused on this warfighting mission, we must address the structural mechanisms that have allowed civilian academic norms to dilute our focus on lethality,” the secretary wrote.

Hegseth will give a speech on Wednesday in front of hundreds of junior officers and enlisted officials, updating them on his priorities for the military.

The officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said Hegseth would say that he plans to cut the billets for general and flag officers by 20%. Those are one- to four-star generals and admirals. That is an increase from the minimum 10% cut Hegseth laid out last year.

Rather than firing people, one of the officials said, the rank of some future jobs would change while billets for others would be canceled.

Hegseth has moved quickly to reshape the department, firing senior officers across the military and dealing with niche personnel issues. Last year, he ordered a 20% reduction in the number of four-star officers.

Pentagon adds new ‘warfighter’ evaluation for officers seeking first star

The event on Wednesday comes a year after Hegseth slammed “fat generals” and diversity initiatives in front of U.S. military generals and admirals during a speech at Quantico.

Last year, President Donald Trump also delivered an address at Quantico and floated the idea of using deployments to U.S. cities “as training grounds for our military.”

The remarks by Hegseth, a former Fox News personality, and Trump, a former reality television star, resembled a reality TV format, as top U.S. military officials were summoned on short notice.

Addressing an auditorium full of top brass who flew in from around the world at the time, Hegseth defended his firings of flag officers, including the top U.S. general, who is Black, and the Navy’s top admiral, who is a woman. He said the officers he relieved were part of a broken culture.

“If the words I’m speaking today are making your hearts sink, then you should do the honorable thing and resign,” Hegseth said.

The order was directed toward U.S. Cyber Command and the Defense Intelligence Enterprise in a Sept. 22 memorandum, which says the Defense Department will use its capabilities to protect the reliability of U.S. voting mechanisms from “external manipulation and disruption from foreign actors,” while maintaining the fundamental freedoms that characterize the country.

The memo does not identify a specific foreign actor or any particular election system or voting jurisdiction. Hegseth describes the effort as part of a “whole of government” effort to protect free and fair elections. The midterms will take place Nov. 3.

“Our Nation’s ability to conduct free and fair elections is a steadfast principle of our democracy,” Hegseth wrote. “Assuring and protecting this ability is a no-fail mission and the DoW will do its part in supporting this whole of government effort.”

The memorandum directs the commander of U.S. Cyber Command and the directors of the National Security Agency, Chief of Central Security Service, Defense Intelligence Agency and National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency to carry out their respective roles to counter foreign threats to the elections.

Chief Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell said the directive is intended to protect the integrity of the election process from foreign interference.

“Free and fair elections are the foundation of our republic,” Parnell said. “By working in lockstep with federal, state, and local partners, U.S. Cyber Command and our defense intelligence teams, we will defend the integrity of America’s voting systems, expose foreign malign influence, and ensure our democratic processes remain secure from external manipulation while protecting the fundamental freedoms of the American people.”

Hegseth directed Cyber Command to collaborate with the Department of Homeland Security to counter potential cyber threats from foreign actors targeting the elections.

Hegseth also ordered the Defense Intelligence Enterprise to ensure that every lawful voter can cast their ballot “free from foreign intimidation, coercion, or fear.”

“In America, the people rule,” Hegseth wrote, “and we must ensure that their voice remains sovereign, secure, and entirely undiluted.”

The Sept. 21 meeting covered some of the most persistent challenges facing military families: spouse employment, access to healthcare, childcare, housing and the difficult transition from military service to civilian life.

The commission was established by President Donald Trump in August to advise and assist him on policies affecting military spouses and families. The order requires the commission to provide the president with a report at the end of each fiscal year while it exists, as well as a final report before its termination. The commission is scheduled to terminate two years after its creation unless Trump extends it. The intention behind the term limit is to enact improvements now, not later.

At the inaugural meeting, commission officials said they had received hundreds of messages from military spouses describing the challenges they face and outlined several policy changes that commission officials attributed to the group’s work.

A new executive order

One of the bigger announcements of the afternoon came during a discussion about the transition from military service to civilian life.

Desiree Thompson Sayle, the commission’s executive director, said the group had advised the president on improving the transfer of information between the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs.

Trump signed Executive Order “Accelerating Access to Veterans’ Benefits and Employment Opportunities” on Sept. 8. The order directs the secretaries of Defense and Veterans Affairs to establish updated information technology systems, policy guidance and memoranda for the permanent, prospective and ongoing sharing of all Official Military Personnel Files and Service Treatment Records between the two departments.

The order also requires the Department of Defense to ensure that current service members’ official personnel files, health records and Service Treatment Records are shared with VA immediately when a service member is discharged or released from the armed forces, within 30 days of the order and at all times thereafter.

The EO gives the departments 180 days to create and deploy digital tools using artificial intelligence and other emerging capabilities to streamline veterans’ applications for and access to benefits earned through military service, including job training and opportunities offered by the Department of Labor.

DoD will consult with the Labor and Veterans Affairs departments to update the Transition Assistance Program and other workforce programs within 180 days so that, “to the maximum extent practicable and applicable,” every service member leaving active military service is either connected with specific, open jobs related to their skills and interests or enrolled, at their discretion, in qualifying education, training or apprenticeship programs.

The order further calls for separating service members to be connected with appropriate veterans’ representatives acting on behalf of a federal, state or local government to facilitate applications for healthcare, disability, home loan, job placement or education benefits.

Thompson Sayle said the order would help ensure families receive benefits and services they have earned by “facilitating and modernizing the transfer of records and personnel data” from the Department of Defense to VA.

While the executive order itself does not identify the Military Spouse Commission as the source of its recommendations. The commission’s leadership, however, presented the order as an early example of how its work had already influenced policy change.

Military spouse employment

Employment was the subject of nearly 500 messages submitted by military spouses, according to figures presented during the meeting.

Those spouses described repeatedly rebuilding careers after permanent changes of station, including leaving jobs, losing professional connections and beginning another job search at a new duty station.

For spouses in licensed professions, members said moving across state lines can mean new applications, additional fees and delays before they can resume working.

The issue was illustrated during the meeting by Jennifer Conrad, a Marine Corps spouse of nearly 30 years whose husband retired as a sergeant major last year.

Conrad described the challenges military families can face after a service member leaves active duty, particularly Reserve and National Guard families navigating retirement, VA benefits, healthcare and employment.

“Families rarely experience these issues in isolation,” Conrad said.

“Deployment affects marriages. Employment affects financial readiness. Healthcare affects transition. Transition affects identity. VA disability affects the entire household.”

Her comments broadened the commission’s discussion beyond active-duty life to the years after military service, when families can find themselves navigating multiple government systems.

The commission also discussed occupational-license portability, remote work, federal hiring and employment fairs as existing tools intended to address spouse employment barriers.

Problems with healthcare access

Healthcare was the subject of roughly 350 messages to the commission, according to their records.

Military spouses described difficulties finding doctors, therapists, specialists and other providers after a permanent change of station. Members also cited wait lists and administrative barriers involving mental healthcare, fertility treatment, specialty care and children with complex medical needs.

One commission member, a Navy spouse and licensed healthcare professional, said she had seen the effects of those gaps firsthand and identified continuity of care, appointment wait times, specialty care and mental health services as priorities.

Another military spouse in attendance described becoming her husband’s caregiver and advocate after he returned from deployment with serious injuries, including a traumatic brain injury and mental health challenges.

She said spouses can become the primary caregiver, transportation provider, advocate, scheduler and emotional support system for injured service members.

“Supporting veterans means supporting the families who care for them every day,” she said.

The commission also discussed an issue it said had surfaced unexpectedly in its work: spouses being prevented from accompanying service members to medical appointments even when the service member wanted them there.

Thompson Sayle said the commission raised the issue with the Defense Health Agency, which subsequently issued DHA Memorandum 26-056.

Thompson Sayle said the memorandum requires military treatment facilities to accommodate a patient’s request for a spouse or other attendant to be present during a medical appointment, subject to the patient’s preferences, privacy requirements and clinical operations.

“We had to fix that,” Thompson Sayle said.

Long childcare wait lists

Education and childcare accounted for 709 messages, or nearly 40% of the commission’s incoming messages, according to details presented during the meeting.

Spouses described long wait lists for military child development centers, expensive off-base care and schedules that do not fit traditional childcare hours.

Maj. Sabina Kreitz, an Army reservist married to an active-duty soldier, said she works full-time as a contractor, owns a small business and has two young children.

She told the commission that spouse employment initiatives are difficult to use when families cannot secure reliable childcare.

“Military spouses are encouraged to build careers, pursue education, and contribute financially, yet many installations have child development center wait lists that stretch months or even years,” Kreitz said.

She called childcare “the infrastructure that makes readiness possible.”

The commission said the Defense Department is launching a five-location pilot allowing existing fee-assistance funds to be used with certain faith-based, license-exempt childcare providers.

The pilot will be launched in Arlington, Norfolk, Virginia Beach, Naval Base Kitsap and Naval Base Point Loma.

Commission members are considering whether the program can be expanded to state-approved childcare providers and whether Coast Guard families would be eligible.

National Guard families exposed another gap: traditional military childcare programs may not address the weekend and extended-hour requirements of drilling Guard families.

The Navy also described a series of steps it has taken to address childcare staffing and capacity, including higher entry-level pay, recruitment incentives, enhanced training, retention incentives and additional child-care positions.

April Cao, wife of acting Secretary of the Navy, Hung Cao said during the meeting that unmet childcare needs had fallen more than 27% since the beginning of fiscal year 2025, from about 2,200 spaces to 1,800.

Jennifer Hegseth, Chairwoman of the President’s Military Spouse Commission, said they are looking at both broad problems affecting military families across the force and more specific issues affecting individual branches, regions and communities.

“We have the big bucket issues, but then we have those that are pretty specific,” she said. “And so, I think we’re looking at addressing them all.”

At stake is the future leadership of the Board of Veterans Appeals, which reviews and makes decisions on protests filed by veterans following claims denials and the makeup of the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, which would receive four new judges if all nominees are confirmed.

Four of the five nominees have extensive military and law experience, while the fifth has handled veterans’ issues while working in Congress for the past 17 years.

The nominees include former U.S. Attorney and retired Army Lt. Col. Maria Chapa Lopez, selected to chair the Board of Veterans Appeals, and four proposed Veterans Appeals Court judges: Robert Fleck, currently serving as deputy general counsel at the Department of Veterans Affairs; David Jones, a former member of the Army Judge Advocate General (JAG) Corps; Daniel Rendleman, an Army aviator and JAG; and James Quinn, a longtime Senate staffer who has served as chief of staff for Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La., for the past nine years.

The judgeship appointments are for up to 15 years.

“These institutions provide a critical avenue for the accountability and due process for veterans and their families nationwide,” Committee Chairman Sen. Jerry Moran, R-Kansas, said during his opening remarks. “The men and women whose nominations are under consideration each have extensive records of public service through serving in the military, justice system, executive branch and in the halls of the United States Senate.”

Sen. Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, the committee’s most senior Democrat, noted that despite the nominees’ extensive legal backgrounds, none had experience in handling veterans’ claims.

“Thank each of you for your willingness to serve,” Blumenthal said. “I’m gravely concerned that none of these nominees have any experience with veterans’ benefits law, whatsoever, not as judges, not as lawyers, not as advocates for veterans.”

Blumenthal noted that the court currently has three openings and Quinn has been nominated for a position that will not be vacant until next year after a new Congress is sworn in, a situation he said was “unprecedented in this committee.”

Blumenthal also submitted for the record a letter from 30 women’s and veterans organizations opposing Rendleman’s nomination over statements Rendleman made in an article in The Federalist opposing abortion, which he called “by far the greatest moral failing of our times.”

“If confirmed, you would have the power to decide if a veteran’s claims for reproductive health care coverage or reimbursement is denied,” Blumenthal said.

Rendleman said he wrote the article to understand opposing views and the role of a judge is to “faithfully and unbiasedly apply the rules as promulgated by the political branches.”

The VA currently covers the cost or provides abortions in circumstances where the life of the mother is endangered. The policy, which went into effect last year, ended a previous policy implemented in September 2022 that allowed VA medical personnel to conduct abortions in cases of rape and incest.

According to the nominees, most were approached by the Trump administration to consider their roles.

Lopez said she was asked since she was a veteran who had served in the Justice Department under Trump’s first term. The White House also approached Rendleman with the potential judgeship, while Fleck said his appointment was suggested by VA attorneys.

Jones was nominated after asking for consideration while he was a military liaison in the White House and Quinn said that having worked on veterans issues, he approached the White House Counsel’s Office for a possible appointment.

All four judges told the committee they would commit to making correct decisions and work to improve the process with congressional oversight.

“The most important thing for the judges is to get it right and get it right the first time, but realize you have to move at a deliberate pace,” Jones said.

“The key is to jump in with both feet first with efficiency and vigor, looking at both what you can do on the chambers level … but also what you can do working, if I am fortunate to be nominated with my fellow colleagues, in terms of procedures and policies of the court as a whole,” Rendleman said.

Sen. Tammy Duckworth, D-Ill., said she opposes Fleck’s nomination for his role in forging an agreement between the Justice Department and the VA that allows the VA to request that states appoint guardians for incapacitated veterans who don’t have family or legal representation to make medical decisions.

Duckworth said in one case of guardianship, a guardian made decisions for a Navy veteran that included signing a “Do Not Resuscitate” plan against the veteran’s wishes and making medical decisions for the veteran who later died as a result of the guardian’s choices.

According to Duckworth, the guardian later was convicted of felony elderly neglect.

“The VA has many options to free up hospital beds without sending veterans in need of care off into the realm of state appointed guardianships with no plans to ensure that the veterans are safe,” Duckworth said. “I don’t think this is some clever efficiency hack, it’s a dereliction of duty.”

The lawmakers noted that the number of cases under consideration by both the board and the veterans appeals court have risen considerably in the past several years, to 10,000 in fiscal 2025, up from roughly 2,600 a year in the first 15 years of the court’s establishment in 1988.

Fleck said the increase could be attributed to several reasons, including the enactment of the VA Appeals Modernization Act in 2019 that overhauled the process as well as the PACT Act, which increased the number of claims by veterans exposed to environmental toxins while serving abroad.

Fleck also faced questions about his involvement in the hiring of his wife, a former Army attorney, at the VA. A 2018 VA Office of Inspector General report found that Fleck engaged in nepotism in the hiring process and improperly shared sensitive data with his wife during the effort.

He was also accused of making false statements to the OIG during the investigation.

Fleck told the committee that in later court proceedings, the OIG report was “substantially discredited” because the office did not consider additional evidence during its investigation and he denied extensive participation in the process.

“My supervisor, the deputy general counsel asked me about my wife, I said I had no comment on it and he asked me to send him her resume. That’s all the contact we did,” Fleck said.

The Defense Manpower Data Center, or DMDC, discovered the vulnerability on July 16 in a file-sharing system, according to a notification sent Sept. 18 to an individual whose information was contained in the affected files.

An analysis conducted after the discovery found that unauthorized users had accessed files on a server containing unencrypted personally identifiable information, or PII, between October 2025 and July 16, 2026, according to the letter, the authenticity of which was confirmed by two defense officials.

The unauthorized users gained access to the Social Security number of the letter’s recipient, as well as at least one additional piece of identifying information, such as a name, date of birth, contact information, sex, race or military personnel information, including occupational specialty, according to the notification.

The notice states that the department had no indication that the individual’s information had been misused.

The potential scope of the breach remains unclear. Two people familiar with the incident told Military Times that approximately four million Defense Department personnel may be affected.

The department is offering the affected individuals one year of credit monitoring and identity-restoration services through IDX, a private company contracted by the DoD, according to the notice.

DMDC describes itself as the Defense Department’s central source for identifying, authenticating, authorizing and providing information on personnel during and after their affiliation with the department. The agency’s website says it maintains more than 60 million DoD records involving military and civilian personnel, contractors, family members, retirees and veterans.

The notification letter said a “security vulnerability” in a file-sharing system allowed unauthorized users to gain access. The Defense Department and DMDC did not immediately respond to questions about the number of people affected or who accessed the files.

The notification letter says DMDC updated the file-sharing system to patch the vulnerability after discovering the problem and restored the system.

Capt. Bianca C. Wilkerson, 37, of Norfolk, Virginia, died Sept. 18 “as a result of a non-combat-related incident,” the Army said Wednesday. A defense official confirmed she was posthumously promoted to major.

Wilkerson was assigned to Headquarters, U.S. Army Central & Third Army at Shaw Air Force Base, South Carolina, and was deployed to Doha, Qatar, where she was supporting overseas operations, according to the Army.

A defense official previously told Task & Purpose that Wilkerson suffered a medical incident while aboard a military flight en route to Saudi Arabia. Her death was added to the Defense Casualty Analysis System, or DCAS, on Sept. 21, before the Army publicly identified her on Sept. 23.

The DCAS entry lists Wilkerson’s death as “pending” under the category “Overseas Operations,” rather than under Operation Epic Fury, the Defense Department’s name for the initial U.S. military operation against Iran.

A defense official said the classification reflects the Defense Department’s treatment of casualties in the U.S. Central Command area of responsibility after Operation Epic Fury, which the Pentagon said ended May 5.

“Since Operation Epic Fury concluded, the Department classifies casualties as having occurred in Overseas Operations in the [U.S. Central Command] area of responsibility,” the official said.

Wilkerson is the fifth service member listed under the Overseas Operations category. Four other service members who died in July are also listed in that category. Combined with the 14 deaths listed under Operation Epic Fury, Wilkerson’s death brings the public DCAS tally to 19 since the start of the Iran war.

The Defense Casualty Analysis System is the Defense Department’s public casualty database. The Defense Manpower Data Center maintains the system, while the military services provide the underlying casualty information.

A defense official said the classification used in DCAS is separate from determinations concerning a service member’s pay and benefits.

DCAS lists Wilkerson’s death as non-hostile, with the cause listed as “undetermined.” The Army has separately described her death as non-combat-related, while the defense official said she died following a medical incident.

The incident remains under investigation, and an autopsy is pending, according to the Army.

Wilkerson graduated from Virginia Commonwealth University and was commissioned as a second lieutenant in the Army Reserve as a transportation officer in 2013, according to the Army.

She served as an executive officer with the 678th Transportation Company in Newport News, Virginia, before moving into active-duty assignments that included logistics and transportation positions with units in the 1st Armored Division and 25th Infantry Division. She later commanded a forward-support company with the 3rd Brigade, 25th Infantry Division.

In 2023, Wilkerson became company commander of the Huntington Beach Recruiting Company with the Southern California Recruiting Battalion. In 2025, she was reassigned as the G4 supply and services chief for Headquarters, U.S. Army Central & Third Army at Shaw Air Force Base.

Her military awards include the Meritorious Service Medal, Army Commendation Medal, Army Achievement Medal (1 Oak Leaf Cluster), Army Superior Unit Award, Army Reserve Component Medal, National Defense Service Medal and Army Service Ribbon, according to the Army.

Bianca Wilkerson loved animals and was a longtime volunteer at her local animal shelter, continuing to help out wherever the Army took her next. Those who served alongside Wilkerson remember her as a demanding leader who took responsibility for the people and missions entrusted to her. Lt. Col. Markus Hopkins, who served with her, said she understood the weight that came with that responsibility.

“She understood what it meant to be accountable for something bigger than herself,” Hopkins said. “She carried that weight with pride and seriousness.”

“I am incredibly relieved and think the outcome is very sensible. We can be satisfied,” Naaja Nathanielsen, a Greenlandic MP in the Danish parliament, told Reuters.

Parliament speaker Kim Kielsen urged households to raise the Greenlandic flag on Wednesday. Activist and influencer Orla Joelsen encouraged residents in the capital, Nuuk, to show up at the airport to welcome the prime minister and foreign minister back from New York, where they struck the deal.

New US bases

The agreement allows the U.S. to expand its military presence on Greenland, reopening Cold War-era bases in the settlements of Narsarsuaq and Mestersvig, with a prospect of renewed spending and employment potential.

But it stopped short of Trump’s unsettling previous demand that the U.S. annex Greenland to head off the growing Arctic presence of Russia and China.

“There has previously been a significant American presence in Greenland, so this is nothing new,” added Nathanielsen. “However, in light of the unrest over the past few years, there is likely greater scepticism in Greenland, and consequently, work needs to be done to reassure the local population.”

The U.S. first built military bases in Greenland during World War II. During the Cold War, it maintained 17 military installations and more than 10,000 personnel to monitor Soviet forces. Today, only Pituffik Space Base remains, with some 150 U.S. military personnel.

Residents divided

Pitanguaq Mikissen, 69, a retired ship assistant, said the potential reopening of some old U.S. bases gave greater security to the territory’s 57,000 people.

But not all residents were happy.

“I think that Trump is really good at creating a lot of worry and a lot of fear,” said Jensia Dam-Davidsen, 40, a voice and choir teacher.

“It (the deal) seems wrong in every way — especially now that Denmark has expanded their military presence here.”

Denmark has significantly increased its own military footprint in Greenland since Trump’s threats peaked in January, deploying additional troops, boosting Arctic defence spending and hosting allies under military exercises.

Malene Vahl Rasmussen, mayor of Kujalleq municipality in southern Greenland, where the U.S. is looking to reopen the Narsasuaq military base, said that under the agreement, U.S. military expansion must respect the Greenlandic way of life to protect hunting and fishing.

“You can’t simply say, ‘OK, we’ve signed this, so now we trust you again’. Trust really needs to be rebuilt within that partnership,” she told Reuters.

Some Greenlanders worry that expanded military activity — including increased aircraft and vessel movement — could disrupt hunting and fishing grounds that communities rely on for a living, though the agreement states such activity must respect Greenlandic society and traditional ways of life.

Now, the Pentagon is adding a new measure for advancement: how officers perform when presented with a military problem and required to make decisions under pressure.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced Tuesday that eligible Army, Air Force and Marine Corps colonels and Navy captains screening for promotion to one-star will undergo a new Joint Warfighter Evaluation, or JWE. The assessment is intended to measure officers’ operational planning, decision-making and leadership under simulated combat conditions. It will supplement, rather than replace, existing service promotion processes.

The JWE grew out of Hegseth’s broader effort to change how the military evaluates and promotes senior leaders. In announcing the evaluation, Hegseth said the effort had been in development for about a year and that the assessment is intended to measure officers’ ability to “fight, adapt, and win” in a chaotic battlespace.

Internal service plans obtained and reviewed by Fox News show that the JWE consists of six versions, one for each of the five military services and another through the Joint Staff.

The assessments vary considerably, ranging from remote written assessments and digital simulations to hours-long, in-person wargames, Fox News reported. In some versions, officers will be presented with a military problem and make decisions as an AI-powered adversary responds to their moves; another brings officers to a war college for an in-person wargame in which evaluators observe their responses as an opposing force counters their decisions.

Service-specific figures and formats were made available by Fox News, which reported that it reviewed internal documents. The reporting had not been independently confirmed by the Pentagon as of Tuesday evening.

According to the news outlet, Army plans to assess roughly 900 eligible colonels through a remote written assessment, followed by a digital wargame. The Air Force intends to give a two-hour online analysis followed by a one-hour interactive simulation for roughly 1,330 colonels. The Space Force will follow a similar format for roughly 125 officers.

The Navy is planning an in-person assessment for roughly 308 captains in the unrestricted line and information warfare communities. Those officers are expected to travel to the Naval War College for a three-hour written assessment followed by a two- to three-hour wargame.

Meanwhile, the Marine Corps plans to use an eight-hour remote evaluation for up to 175 colonels using an AI-enabled platform that combines written assessments with situational-judgment tests. Comparable details about the format of the Joint Staff version have not been revealed.

The Pentagon has not established how heavily the results will influence promotion decisions.

Stuart Scheller, the senior Pentagon adviser leading the effort, told Fox News that existing performance reports will remain the “bedrock” of promotion decisions, with the JWE providing an additional data point.

“The secretary still has judgment based on how it will be weighted in the board, so we haven’t determined. We’re kind of waiting to see how well this thing is rolled out,” Scheller said.

The first assessments are expected to take place from February through June 2027, ahead of O-7 promotion boards scheduled for July through September. The Pentagon plans to study the results from that first cycle before determining how the assessment should evolve and how much influence it should have on future promotion boards.

Scheller also acknowledged that no exercise can perfectly recreate the pressures of combat and said the Pentagon expects to change the assessments as it learns from the first cycle.

“Right now in our current system, we have people that are very good at navigating their careers,” Scheller said. “We have very good — I want to be clear, very good — military personnel and leaders across the military, but there isn’t a stand-alone function that can truly assess the best military commanders on the battlefield.”

The poll, completed on Sunday, was conducted over a four-day period that saw Trump throw three major news organizations out of the White House and muse that Washington’s iconic Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts — named after slain President John F. Kennedy — could be torn down if Trump’s own name could not be added to it.

It found voters leaning away from supporting Trump’s fellow Republicans in the Nov. 3 midterm elections that will determine control of Congress for the next two years.

Trump’s overall approval was down from a reading of 35% in last week’s Reuters/Ipsos poll, with support among his own Republicans down to 73% from 82% a week earlier.

Trump returned to the White House in January 2025 on promises to tame inflation and end foreign wars. In a Reuters/Ipsos poll conducted in the hours after he was sworn in, he enjoyed a 47% approval rating.

Just 17% of respondents in the new poll approved of his handling of the cost of living — the top issue Americans say will determine how they vote in November.

Iran takes a toll

Dissatisfaction among Republicans on inflation has been growing since Trump launched the war on Iran in February that has pushed gasoline and diesel prices sharply higher. Now for the first time, Republicans who disapprove of Trump’s handling of the cost of living outnumber those who give him a thumbs up — 51% to 44%.

Trump’s approval rating is lower than any recorded for his Democratic predecessor, Joe Biden, whose presidency was also marked by surging inflation and who ultimately ended his reelection bid after a poor debate performance heightened concerns about his age. Biden’s low was 35%, reached in late October 2024.

Only 34% of the most recent poll respondents approve of the strikes on Iran. The conflict has cut the world off from a significant slice of the oil and gas produced in the Middle East, and threatens to stoke higher inflation in the US and elsewhere as businesses pass on higher fuel costs to consumers.

Trump initially said the conflict would last a few weeks and that Iran needed to be bombed to stop it from developing nuclear weapons. Earlier this month, the Republican leader pledged the war would end “immediately after” the election. But Iran has shown no sign of giving up, and in recent weeks Tehran and its allies have threatened further disruptions to oil markets.

Some 82% of poll respondents — including nine in ten Democrats and three-quarters of Republicans — said the conflict would likely go on for an “extended period of time.”

The Reuters/Ipsos poll showed registered voters in the poll picked Democrats over Republicans — 43% to 35% — when asked how they would vote in the midterms. The eight-point gap was the biggest lead for Democrats in Reuters/Ipsos polling this year. For Republicans, losing control of either chamber could complicate Trump’s agenda in the last two years of his term.

The poll results on congressional voting plans provide an overall view of which party Americans nationwide want to see ​in charge in Congress, though the results don’t capture all the nuances of the state-by-state and district-by-district contests that determine control of the ​Senate and House of Representatives.

Trump remains popular among Republicans on the issue of immigration — with 79% of his party backing him — but only 36% of Americans overall support his approach to the matter and 55% disapprove. Some Republican allies in Congress have warned that his aggressive campaign to deport people in the country illegally risks alienating voters with family who recently immigrated to America, like some Hispanics.

Some 35% of poll respondents approve of Trump’s approach to fighting crime, compared to 50% who disapprove.

The Reuters/Ipsos poll was conducted online and gathered 1,277 responses from US adults nationwide. It had a margin of error of 3 percentage points.

Deputy Defense Secretary Steve Feinberg gave industry leaders until Aug. 26 to submit plans for “significantly faster, more aggressive delivery schedules and/or increased production for critical capabilities,” according to his Aug. 5 memo.

Feinberg directed companies to identify ways to accelerate production and delivery, propose capital investments and facility expansions and explain how the Pentagon could enable higher production.

The memo identified 16 critical programs under consideration for accelerated production or increased procurement. The responses were intended to inform the department’s fiscal 2028 budget request.

The request came as the use of U.S. weapons during the Iran war put pressure on stocks of air-defense interceptors and other precision munitions.

U.S. inventories of Patriot interceptors had fallen from about 2,330 before the war to between 759 and 827 by the end of July, according to a Center for Strategic and International Studies analysis. THAAD stocks had fallen from 452 to between 234 and 278.

CSIS estimated production timelines of about 42 months for PAC-3 MSE interceptors and 53 months for THAAD interceptors.

The Pentagon did not respond to questions about how many companies responded to Feinberg’s request or whether the department had accepted or funded any of the proposals.

General Dynamics also declined to discuss its communications with the department.

“We are not able to comment on our communications with the Department of War,” a General Dynamics spokesman said.

Lockheed Martin, a major supplier of U.S. missile-defense systems, did not provide a specific production timeline in response to questions from Military Times.

“We continue to have dialogue with the U.S. government to deliver what the department is asking of us and our team is pushing to do even more, faster,” a Lockheed Martin spokesman said. “We’re making significant investments in our workforce, infrastructure and production capacity and working with key suppliers to accelerate delivery of the critical capabilities that strengthen America’s Arsenal of Freedom.”

Lockheed separately announced Thursday that it had received its first PAC-3 MSE housing components from GM Defense, 22 days after the companies signed a production contract. The company said the components, which can traditionally take months or years to produce, were manufactured using GM’s casting and machining capabilities.

Lockheed said it is investing $8 billion to $9 billion to expand munitions production, including new buildings, facility expansions and thousands of jobs at more than 20 U.S. sites. The company also said planned expansions will increase its munitions production and warehousing space by nearly 50%.

The company did not say whether those investments were submitted as part of Feinberg’s Aug. 5 request.

New agreements

The Pentagon was already using framework agreements and contracts to accelerate production before Feinberg’s deadline.

On July 27, the department announced seven-year framework agreements intended to boost production of propulsion components for PAC-3 MSE and THAAD interceptors. L3Harris said its PAC-3 agreement would nearly triple production of certain propulsion products, while its THAAD agreement was intended to quadruple production of key propulsion components.

On Aug. 3, the defense department, in cooperation with Northrop Grumman and Lockheed Martin, announced two framework agreements to expand production capacity for critical PAC-3 and THAAD interceptor components. The agreements were intended to support the department’s goals of tripling PAC-3 production capacity and quadrupling THAAD production capacity.

On Aug. 14, DoD announced two separate framework agreements with Boeing and RTX to increase production of components for SM-3 Block IB and SM-3 Block IIA interceptors.

On Aug. 17, the Pentagon announced a $22.9 billion Navy contract with RTX to accelerate production of Tomahawk missiles.

On Aug. 31, five days after the industry deadline, the Pentagon announced additional seven-year multiyear procurement agreements with Lockheed Martin and General Dynamics designed to increase production quantities and accelerate delivery schedules for critical missile subcomponents supporting PAC-3 MSE and THAAD.

The Pentagon separately identified production goals of tripling PAC-3 MSE production capacity and quadrupling THAAD production capacity, with funding subject to annual appropriations from Congress.

The public announcements did not identify those agreements as resulting from companies’ responses to Feinberg’s Aug. 5 request.

What remains unclear is whether the 21-day exercise changed what the Pentagon plans to buy, how quickly it expects industry to deliver it or what additional funding and infrastructure the department will seek in its fiscal 2028 budget request.

Announced in the Federal Register Sept. 11, the Homeland Defense Board aims to fill a gap Hegseth sees in providing military guidance to homeland security missions.

“The specific, integrated advice required by the SecWar regarding the military’s mission of defense of the Homeland and Homeland security cooperation is not available from any other Federal advisory committee, government agency, or alternative source,” establishing documents state.

“Department of war” and “secretary of war” are the Trump administration’s preferred monikers for the Defense Department and its head. Legislation to legally change the agency name is pending in Congress.

“While other agencies and departments operate within specific mission or geographic areas, their advisory mechanisms are statutorily constrained to their respective non-military domains,” the panel’s establishing documents add. “Relying solely on internal DoW staff or contracted studies is also insufficient, as it fails to provide the consensus-based, independent, and external peer review required at the highest levels of strategic decision-making.”

The board is to consist of up to 20 members, including the secretary of defense, who will serve as chair; the assistant secretary of defense for Homeland Defense and Americas Security Affairs as vice chair; and the deputy assistant secretaries of defense for Homeland Defense and Defense Continuity and Mission Assurance.

Also on the board will be one civilian and one field- or mid-grade officer from each military branch and “such other members as the SecWar or the Deputy Secretary of War may appoint or designate,” establishing documents state.

Asked for comment, an official said the Pentagon had “nothing to provide” about the new board’s creation.

The advisory board is the first of its kind for the Pentagon focused on homeland security, and the announcement argues that no other agency’s board can fill the need that defense leaders now see. The Department of Homeland Security’s Homeland Security Advisory Council cannot fill the role because it focuses on civilian law enforcement and “lacks the mandate to advise on Title 10 or Title 32 [domestic troop] deployments” and military-specific crises, it states.

It also finds the Department of State’s International Security Advisory Board, with its focus on diplomacy and arms control, “underequipped” to deliver strategies for military campaign plans in the Americas.

“Over the past 10 years, rather than lessening, the threat from peer, near-peer, and rogue-state adversaries, in addition to non-state actors and hostile asymmetric activities, has become more intense and complex,” justifying documents continue. “The DoW provides for the common defense of American citizens and the Homeland by deploying and maintaining the premier warfighting force across the globe to provide a multi-domain, layered defense … In an era where peer and near-peer adversaries are actively projecting economic, cyber, and military power into the Western Hemisphere, the HDB will provide critical, independent assessments of the DoW’s hemispheric defensive posture and domestic security preparedness.”

The large-scale deployment of National Guard troops to U.S. cities to support law enforcement; the ongoing deployment of troops to the southern border; and the aggressive move into drug interdiction missions traditionally executed by the U.S. Coast Guard have all blurred the lines between the mission sets of the Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security. The establishing memo suggests the new board will create a bridge between the two that didn’t previously exist.

“The [Homeland Defense Board] will … provide the SecWar advice and recommendations necessary for strategic oversight for multi-theater security cooperation and multi-domain actions, validating that DoW resource investments and allocations are successfully countering foreign influence, disrupting transnational criminal networks, and building robust partner-nation military capabilities,” it states.

“Finally, the HDB’s advice and recommendations will serve an essential function by bridging the gap between the military and domestic Homeland security agencies to secure the defense critical infrastructure, vital transport networks and logistics nodes and the defense industrial base. Without this advisory body, the DoW risks strategic blind spots in its primary mission to protect the Homeland.”

According to the General Services Administration, there are now roughly 40 federal advisory committees serving the Pentagon. In March 2025, shortly after taking office, Hegseth dismissed all members of existing boards to conduct a “zero-based review” of their necessity and contribution to “warrior ethos.” Among boards terminated at the review’s conclusion were the 75-year-old Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services and the Defense Advisory Committee for the Prevention of Sexual Misconduct.

The president cited national security concerns for the move, echoing the rationale offered for the roughly $400 million ballroom complex being built on the site of the White House’s former East Wing, which was demolished to make way for the project. He did not identify any specific threats.

The projects are part of Trump’s ambitious effort to reshape Washington, including a push to add his name to the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts. The plans have drawn criticism from preservationists and others who argue they could alter or diminish historic landmarks.

In a social media post, Trump said that at the “strong request” of the military he had agreed to turn the 250-foot (76-meter) arch “into a top grade Military Complex/Triumphal Arch, to house, store, and have the rapid ability to use large numbers of drones, plus Snipers, on both the roof and plaza areas, and additionally have and hold large quantities of sniper ammunition in storage.”

The White House and the Pentagon did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The Federal Aviation Administration said last week that the arch would not pose a hazard to aircraft but would be required to have an “eternal flame” on top, clearing an aviation hurdle for the arch, which Trump proposed to mark the nation’s 250th anniversary.

Aviation experts have raised safety concerns given its proximity to Reagan Washington National Airport, while veterans have sued to block the arch, arguing it would destroy the historic sightline between the Lincoln Memorial and Arlington National Cemetery.

The initiative, first announced in a July memo by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, is part of the agency’s Warfighter Performance Optimization program, which Hegseth announced in May.

On Sept. 3, the Pentagon temporarily rescinded its published clinical guidance for a new, mandatory testosterone-deficiency screening policy, with an official telling Reuters, “The draft [document] published on September 2, 2026, has been temporarily rescinded to allow for updates.”

The Defense Health Agency’s latest guideline indicates that every male service member over 30 — and some under that age, if they show symptoms of low testosterone and request testing — should be tested at Periodic Health Assessments, or PHAs.

According to the new document’s executive summary, symptoms of low testosterone include “reduced libido, loss of spontaneous morning erections, erectile dysfunction, diminished energy and physical performance, impaired concentration, reduced muscle mass, and depressed mood.”

It also notes that those symptoms can “overlap substantially with the effects of sleep restriction, caloric deficit, psychological stress, mild traumatic brain injury, and mood disorders, all of which are prevalent in the operational population.”

Hegseth’s July memo indicated all service members would undergo testosterone testing, but the recent announcement clarified that only men would be required to do so. Clinical guidance for women is forthcoming, according to a department release.

But the Pentagon has not publicly clarified whether women service members would be tested for estrogen or testosterone therapy, the Associated Press reported.

Clinical research supports the effectiveness of testosterone therapy in older men, particularly with hypogonadism, a condition in which the body is incapable of producing adequate testosterone. However, the benefits for younger men and men who are aging normally are not as clear. There are also potential long-term risks such as infertility.

The concern, critics say, is not limited to weapons that can select and engage targets on their own.

At the hearing, titled “Artificial Intelligence in the Military Domain: Implications for Human Rights,” witnesses told members of the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission that AI can influence human decisions leading to a strike while leaving the individual formally responsible for the final call.

“The approval button alone does not demonstrate the control,” Anna Mysyshyn, a Ukrainian AI-governance researcher, told lawmakers.

The issue comes as the Pentagon pushes to use AI to accelerate military decision-making. The Pentagon’s 2023 AI adoption strategy identified “fast, precise and resilient kill chains” as a desired outcome, while its 2026 AI strategy calls for becoming an “AI-first” warfighting force by redesigning military workflows and operational concepts around current AI capabilities.

Mysyshyn questioned whether a person supervising multiple AI-enabled systems can recognize an incorrect recommendation and intervene fast enough before harm occurs. She cited Ukraine as an example of AI compressing decisions from hours to minutes.

In many scenarios, a human making the final decision does not necessarily have enough information, time or the ability to challenge the system’s recommendation, she said.

The Defense Department’s 2023 directive on autonomy in weapon systems requires autonomous and semi-autonomous weapons to allow commanders and operators to exercise appropriate levels of human judgment over the use of force.

Wednesday’s testimony focused on a broader question: whether that judgment remains meaningful if AI is influencing targeting faster than a human can authenticate.

Amanda Klasing, national director of government relations and advocacy at Amnesty International USA, warned that AI can compress the military “kill chain” in ways that make it difficult to determine whether meaningful human discernment actually occurred before a strike.

Joseph Chapa, a former military officer and scholar of military ethics, argued that the debate should not focus solely on how autonomous a system is. He urged policymakers to consider whether an AI system relies on statistical inference, what happens when it fails in a particular operational environment and whether its decisions can be audited afterward.

Statistical AI systems can fail differently from traditional software, Chapa said, including producing substantially different outputs from relatively small changes in inputs. More complex systems can also make it difficult to reconstruct how a particular recommendation was produced after the fact.

He called for greater AI education across the military, including specialized training for personnel working with targeting and intelligence systems.

Witnesses on Wednesday also pointed to a larger accountability problem: determining what happens when an AI-assisted decision results in civilian harm.

The Defense Department established its Civilian Harm Mitigation and Response Action Plan in 2022, including a Civilian Protection Center of Excellence intended to serve as a hub for analysis and training. Federal law requires the Pentagon to operate the center.

But a Defense Department inspector general review released in May assessed the department’s implementation of the civilian-harm framework and found problems including the loss or reassignment of personnel, the end of funding for a civilian-harm data-management platform and the failure of a senior steering committee to continue meeting.

That matters in the case of AI because, as Klasing noted, the military currently has limited ability to determine whether AI may contribute to improper targeting of civilians.

On the first day of the U.S.-Iran war, a Tomahawk cruise missile struck Shajareh Tayyebeh elementary school in Minab, southern Iran. At least 168 people were killed — more than 100 of them under the age of 12, according to UN and Iranian officials.

The school building sat fewer than 100 yards from a long-time Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps naval installation and was previously located within the IRGC compound perimeter until a wall appeared between 2013 and 2016, according to an analysis of satellite imagery by Amnesty International.

By the time the U.S. and Israel launched their first strikes on Feb. 28, the school had been established several years prior. It was active on social media and had its own website, a Reuters investigation found.

More than 120 House Democrats sent a letter to the Pentagon on March 12, demanding clarity on whether artificial intelligence, “including the use of the Maven Smart System, [was] used to identify the Shajareh Tayyebeh school as a target.”

U.S. military investigators in the wake of the incident stated that the strike was likely carried out by U.S. forces. The Pentagon, however, has still not released its investigative findings.

Klasing proposed adding information about AI involvement to the Pentagon’s annual civilian-casualty reports required under Section 1057 of the National Defense Authorization Act. The existing reporting requirement calls for information about civilian casualty mitigation efforts and investigations, but does not specifically require the department to identify whether AI contributed to an incident.

Steve Feldstein, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said the Pentagon should collect data from military operations and conduct after-action reviews to determine whether AI-assisted systems accurately identified intended targets and whether errors contributed to civilian casualties.

“A bigger question is to what extent is the Pentagon collecting data and verifying the target accuracy of all these 1000s of strikes?” Feldstein said.

Feldstein also cautioned against treating AI itself as the source of every potential problem. AI can be used to help verify intelligence, detect changes in imagery and prioritize defensive responses to threats such as drones and ballistic missiles.

But if a human-influenced system is built around assumptions that certain demographic traits make someone a lawful target, Mysyshyn said, AI would not correct that underlying premise.

Feldstein similarly pointed to the rules humans establish before an AI system is used. If commanders determine that a particular level of civilian harm is acceptable in pursuit of a military objective, he said, the machine is operating within a human-defined framework.

The challenge is particularly acute when systems operate faster than people can meaningfully assess recommendations.

The commission opened Wednesday’s hearing with an example from Iraq. In 2004, Army squad leader Nick Ellison encountered two young men firing a machine gun from a car during a census patrol in Kirkuk.

Ellison made eye contact with one of the men, saw panic and ordered his soldiers to hold fire. The men turned out to be brothers of a newly married groom, and the gunfire was celebratory.

Mysyshyn said testing should examine bias, reliability, civilian protection, realistic time pressure, whether operators can interrupt systems and whether decisions can be traced throughout an AI system’s lifecycle.

Chapa said some AI systems may be difficult to audit after the fact, while Deborah Brown of Human Rights Watch said information about military AI use has often emerged through investigative reporting and whistleblowers rather than government disclosures.

The growing challenge, according to witnesses, is no longer making a machine pull a trigger, but whether the human who approves the trigger pull has enough time, information and authority to make a meaningful choice before disaster.

Military Times reporter Katie Livingstone contributed to this report.

U.S. Central Command told IG investigators that “Iranian strikes damaged and destroyed hundreds of buildings and structures at U.S. bases in Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Oman, and Jordan during the conflict.”

While the report provided no details on damaged military facilities, it did include specifics on damage to U.S. diplomatic facilities.

The State Department told investigators that “U.S. diplomatic facilities in four countries suffered physical damage from Iranian strikes, with an estimated total cost of about $184 million.”

U.S. diplomatic sites in Iraq suffered more than 600 attacks, while the embassies in Kuwait City and Riyadh were also hit.

Operation Epic Fury had cost the United States $33.4 billion as of June 29, based on Pentagon estimates. The amount includes $22.3 billion in expended munitions, $3.7 billion in equipment losses and $7.4 billion in costs beyond CENTCOM’s normal operating expenses.

However, these estimates do not count the costs of repairing infrastructure.

The Department of Defense “did not include the cost of military construction for damaged infrastructure in its estimate because the DoD has not determined what its future posture will be in the region, how it will construct its bases, and what percentage of the construction costs allies and partners will contribute,” the report states.

Because Congress did not appropriate funds for the war in Iran, the money is being funneled from normal operating budgets, such as amounts set aside for training and maintenance.

“The absence of a dedicated appropriation for OEF means that it can be difficult to calculate the total ‘cost’ of OEF,” noted the report, which is among the first official assessments of Operation Epic Fury since it began on Feb. 28.

Funding is also becoming an issue for U.S. Transportation Command, which flew more than 1,500 missions to support the mission.

“During peak OEF times, airlift surged to 30 to 40 daily missions directly into the CENTCOM [area of responsibility], with an additional 20 to 30 daily aircraft pushing into the USEUCOM AOR for transload operations,” the report said.

This cost nearly $2.4 billion as of June 30.

“While these obligations have been largely reimbursed by the military services to date, USTRANSCOM reported that it anticipates delayed payments moving forward as service funding is depleted without a supplemental appropriation,” the IG said.

The report confirmed that dozens of U.S. manned and unmanned aircraft have been destroyed or damaged, based on data from a Congressional Research Service report released in May and “vetted” by CENTCOM as of Aug. 24.

The tally of destroyed aircraft includes four F-15Es, one A-10, four AH-6 helicopters, one AH-64 and one MH-60, as well as an MQ-4C drone and as many as 30 MQ-9 Reapers.

The report listed 18 dead U.S. military personnel as of Aug. 27. The Pentagon claimed 417 wounded as of June 30, though casualty figures released in late August soared to 774.

The provision is Section 104(b) of the Take Care of America’s Veterans Act, H.R. 9237. It carries forward the home-loan fee changes developed in the standalone Sharri Briley and Eric Edmundson Veterans Benefits Expansion Act, H.R. 6047, before that legislation was incorporated into the broader package.

The proposal would sharply increase two specified VA home-loan fees. The funding fee for Interest Rate Reduction Refinance Loans, or IRRRLs, would nearly triple from 0.50% to 1.42%, while the fee for assuming an existing VA-backed loan would double from 0.50% to 1%

For Air Force veteran Amy Murphy, who wants to refinance a $400,000 VA-backed mortgage solely to secure a lower interest rate and monthly payment, the proposed change would mean $3,680 more in funding fees. At the current rate, her fee would be $2,000. At the proposed rate, it would be $5,680.

“The point of the IRRRL is to make it easier for me to take advantage of a lower interest rate. But under the proposed fee structure, I have to save enough through the lower rate to overcome a substantially larger upfront cost.”

VA exempts certain borrowers from the funding fee, including veterans receiving VA disability compensation; some veterans entitled to compensation but receiving retirement or active-duty pay instead; certain borrowers with qualifying pre-discharge disability ratings; and active-duty service members who have received a Purple Heart. Active-duty status alone does not qualify a borrower for an exemption.

The number of IRRRL borrowers who would be subject to the higher fee is not clear from publicly available VA data. VA reported 119,457 IRRRLs in 2025, a 135% increase from 50,825 in 2024. VA’s loan-volume reports do not publicly identify how many of those borrowers paid the funding fee or how many were active-duty service members.

For borrowers who do pay the fee, VA allows the cost to be financed into the new loan. That avoids an upfront payment but increases the loan balance and means the borrower pays interest on the financed fee.

Marcia Black, a VA loan officer with M&T Bank, said higher fees could discourage veterans from refinancing when interest rates fall.

“Higher fees deter veterans from refinancing when market interest rates drop, trapping them in higher-rate loans,” Black said. “Targeting refinances disproportionately harms active-duty military and veterans trying to lower monthly payments during high-cost cycles.”

The Mortgage Bankers Association said it could not support H.R. 6047 as drafted because of the proposed funding-fee increases. MBA urged Congress to remove or substantially modify the proposed fee increases and the extension of higher VA home-loan fee rates.

The IRRRL is designed to streamline refinancing for existing VA borrowers, generally to obtain a lower interest rate or reduce the monthly payment.

In TCAVA’s proposed legislation of more than 60 veteran bills, the VA home-loan fee provisions serve as budgetary offsets.

In its March estimate of the standalone H.R. 6047, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the bill’s home-loan fee provisions would reduce net direct spending by about $4 billion from 2026 through 2036 by lowering the subsidy cost of VA loan guarantees. CBO estimated the overall H.R. 6047 package would reduce net direct spending by $42 million over that period.

For veteran borrower Mitchell Duffy, who has used VA-backed financing on multiple properties, the potential impact could accumulate across several loans.

Duffy owns four properties he now rents out that were financed with VA-backed loans and has about $1.15 million in combined mortgage debt. If the full $1.15 million were refinanced and each loan were subject to the proposed fee, the 0.92-percentage-point increase would amount to about $10,580 in additional funding fees. The actual amount would depend on the outstanding balance and eligibility of each loan when refinanced.

Section 104(b) does not establish a new IRRRL fee based on whether a veteran is using the VA home-loan benefit for a second or third time.

The House has not passed H.R. 9237. On July 16, a motion to recommit the bill failed 210-211, after which further consideration was postponed. The proposed fee changes have not yet become law.

“I don’t necessarily have an extra $3,680 sitting in the bank,” said Murphy. “So, if this legislation gets passed, I have a decision to make: is the lower interest rate still worth refinancing, or will the higher VA fee make the savings less worth it?”

The group, with a combined 250 years in the military and additional service as head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, NASA administrator, Central Intelligence Agency director and other leadership posts, issued a video Tuesday asking voters, candidates and government officials to take time to understand the voting process in their communities and share the information with family and friends.

The message, sponsored by Team Democracy, a nonpartisan nonprofit organization with a goal to reduce political polarization, focuses on the principles of free elections and responsibilities of citizens to sustain confidence in American elections.

“Protecting our lawful electoral processes might be our most important civic role of all,” said retired Air Force Gen. Michael Hayden, who served as director of the National Security Agency under Presidents George W. Bush and Bill Clinton, and as Central Intelligence Agency director under Bush and President Barack Obama.

In the video, Hayden joined fellow retirees Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal, Army Lt. Gen. Mark Hertling, Army Maj. Gen. Marilyn Quagliotti, Army Lt. Gen. Douglas Lute, Marine Corps Major Gen. Charles Bolden and Air Force Lt. Gen. James Clapper in speaking on election integrity — without mentioning any candidates, political leaders, parties or previous election outcomes.

Advocates call on veterans to serve as poll workers for upcoming elections

President Donald Trump cast doubt on the security of the American election system when he lost to President Joe Biden in 2020. Although Biden won the popular vote 81.2 million to 74.2 million and the Electoral College 306-232, Trump attempted to overturn the results through legal challenges and political pressure.

According to a poll conducted in June by the Economist/YouGov, more than a quarter of Americans believe that the 2020 election was “rigged,” and only a quarter of Americans are “very confident” that the November mid-term elections will be conducted fairly.

It is in this heated climate that the retired generals have entered the fray. During an interview with Military Times Monday, Lute said the officers weighed in because they feel it is time to “get back to the basics.”

“Before, during and after elections, there are some fundamental rules that everybody ought to agree on, and I think you know why that’s important now,” Lute said.

According to the video, the five fundamental principles Team Democracy is asking Americans to commit to are their beliefs in: an honest process; nonviolent campaigns; secure voting; responsible oversight; and trusted outcomes.

The generals say that free, fair and trusted elections are the root of democracy, and without belief in the system, trust breaks down.

“We know what holds countries together and we know what tears them apart,” Clapper said in the video.

“These aren’t liberal ideas, conservative ideas. They are the rules of the road, the ones that make self-governance possible,” Lute said.

According to the group, more than 6,000 Americans have signed the principles, including roughly 2,000 candidates across the political spectrum.

In addition to supporting the principles, the officers urged Americans to get involved in the election process, sharing trusted information with others, volunteering as a poll worker or taking a tour of local election offices.

“I’ve traveled the world and I’ve seen this country at its best. I’ve seen what’s worth protecting,” McChrystal said.

Founded by two whitewater rafters — Ken Powley, who operated a rafting company in Weatherly, Pennsylvania, and Chris Newlon, an IT manager and specialist — Team Democracy partnered with The Carter Center and the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Foundation on the Principles for Trusted Elections campaign and has received financial support from The Carter Center to enable its work.

“My grandfather once said, ‘In our democracy, the only title higher and more powerful than that of president is the title of citizen.’ Whether you are a former U.S. president, a retired general, or any other American citizen, we have a shared responsibility to uphold the principles upon which our electoral system was founded: honest process, nonviolent campaigns, secure voting, responsible oversight and trusted outcomes,” Jason Carter, Carter Center Board of Trustees chairman, said in a statement to Military Times.

“These principles are not about politics — they are about ensuring that our elections remain credible, secure and worthy of our confidence,“ Carter added.

In addition to focusing on trust in elections, the group supports programs that support civic engagement and hosts rafting excursions that bring together people of various backgrounds.

In his interview, Lute said the political divide has become so rancorous he worries it cannot be overcome, especially regarding the topic of election integrity. But he hopes for a future where election winners will be “gracious winners” who are respectful of their opponents and consider their positions, even if they disagree.

“I was part of the transition between Bush and Obama and there was a strong mutual regard for the other party,” Lute said. “There’s an old saying in the Army that I suspect is the same across the other services, that effective leadership reflects that disagreement is not disrespect. … we need to get back to that as a sort of a political model.”

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Monday against the administration’s proposals to restrict mail-in ballots, allowing states to proceed as usual with their voting processes for this year’s midterm elections.

Nearly one-third of the country votes by mail.

Editor’s note: This story has been updated to attribute a quote to retired Air Force Lt. Gen. James Clapper.

The $100 million Pentagon 9/11 Memorial Visitor Education Center, located across a busy parkway from the Pentagon and its adjacent memorial in Arlington, Virginia, will contain exhibits and host programs about the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001. The facility, expected to open in 2029, will also include event spaces, a cafe and bookstore.

The Pentagon Memorial first opened to the public on Sept. 11, 2008, the first of the three attack sites to have a monument. It will be the last, however, to have a museum or visitor center explaining its importance and impact on American history.

“We want people to remember what happened here. We want people to remember our loved ones. We want people to remember that feeling that swept through our country after 9/11 — that feeling of taking care of others who were in such pain,” said Jim Laychak, the Pentagon Memorial Fund board chairman and the brother of David Laychak, a U.S. Army budget executive who died in the building.

At 9:37 a.m. EST on Sept. 11, 2001, American Airlines Flight 77 was deliberately crashed into the western facade of the Pentagon. Fifty-nine passengers and crew members on the aircraft that was originally bound for Los Angeles died, as did 184 people in the building.

In New York City, 2,753 people died in similar attacks on the World Trade Center, including civilians in the buildings and on the ground, 343 firefighters and 60 police officers. In Shanksville, Pennsylvania, United Airlines Flight 93 crashed into a field following a struggle between passengers and hijackers, killing 44 passengers and crew members.

The Pentagon Memorial features 184 cantilevered, stainless steel and granite benches, each with a lighted water feature and memorial tree. The benches are arranged by age of the victims and positioned so that visitors viewing the names of those on the aircraft face the direction of the plane’s approach, while those viewing the Pentagon victims’ names see the building in the background.

The visitor center will explain the events of the day, the significance of the memorial and the aftermath of 9/11, including the reconstruction of the affected portion of the Pentagon. The fund began raising money in 2015 to support the project and has collected roughly 25% of the funding needed, including $12 million in federal dollars and $1 million from the state of Virginia.

Organizers have requested another $35 million from Congress in fiscal 2027 and hope to cover additional expenses from private funds and corporate sponsors, including American Airlines, Amazon, Lockheed Martin and others.

The National Park Service announced Wednesday that the Pentagon 9/11 Memorial is now an area affiliated with the national park system, although the memorial will continue to remain under the care of the Department of Defense, supported by the Pentagon Memorial Fund.

The NPS also announced a $2 million grant last week to support the memorial’s operation and maintenance.

During the groundbreaking ceremony Saturday, Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., said the visitor center will make sure the story is “told in a way that people understand it.”

“It may have been the worst day in American history, but my hope is we can learn from that, remember that — that we can remember those that ran into burning buildings but that we can also remember the nation states around the world that stood with us,” Warner said.

On Friday, President Donald Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth joined with Pentagon leadership to mark the 25^th anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Trump said in the aftermath of the violence, the United States “saw the authentic spirit of our nation.”

“The enemy might destroy what American hands had built, but they could not touch the fight and fire and the love in our great American hearts,” Trump said.

More information on the fundraising and construction effort can be found on the 9/11 Pentagon Memorial Fund website.

The Pentagon now wants artificial intelligence that can cut through the confusion.

It’s seeking “AI-based software tools to turn fragmented sensor data into a continuously updated understanding of space and missile threats fast enough to drive operational decisions,” according to the Defense Innovation Unit solicitation, which is due Sept. 24. “Existing tools struggle to distinguish closely spaced objects, track emerging threats, and keep threat models current.”

The project, known as the “Space Threat Intelligence Synthesis Engine,” will leverage AI’s greatest strength: the ability to quickly analyze reams of data. The software will fuse “massive streams of multi-source data, including live video, satellite imagery, radar and sensor feeds, geospatial data, and classified intelligence reports.”

“By automating advanced cross-data correlation, the architecture aims to uncover hidden patterns, complex operational relationships, and predictive threat behaviors far beyond the capabilities of human analysis alone.”

Ultimately, the system should “generate actionable, confidence-scored alerts supporting analyst-in-the-loop, human-on-the-loop, or automated workflows.”

The AI will help human operators — and other machines.

It will provide “intuitive, human-readable visualizations for frontline operators and low-latency, machine-to-machine APIs to drive automated command-and-control (C2) workflows.”

DIU is aiming for an open-source system with a latency delay of no more than five seconds — and preferably no more than two seconds — between the arrival of data and the results being displayed. Throughput should be 20 to 30 megabytes per minute, with bursts of up to five gigabytes.

Contractors should demonstrate that their products show “significant speed and accuracy improvements in event detection, characterization, and attribution compared to existing baseline systems.”

As skies fill with missiles and drones in conflicts like the ones with Ukraine and Iran, AI is increasingly being seen as an indispensable partner to overworked human operators. In particular, with a perpetual shortage of expensive interceptors, such as the Patriot air-defense system, operators must quickly decide when and where to allocate them.

Defense contractors and AI firms are teaming up to incorporate AI into missile defense.

For example, Northrop Grumman announced in July that it was partnering with AI firm Camgian to incorporate artificial intelligence into integrated air and missile defense systems. BAE and Scale AI have also teamed up for AI-enhanced missile defense.

In New York, family members of the victims, many carrying pictures of their loved ones, joined Vice President JD Vance and four former U.S. presidents at Ground Zero in Lower Manhattan. The ceremony began, as always, at 8:46 a.m. Eastern Standard Time with a moment of silence to remember the shocking instant when American Airlines Flight 11 struck the World Trade Center’s North Tower.

Shortly after, victims’ family members began reading aloud the names of all 2,977 people who died on September 11, as well as the six people killed in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, a somber recitation that lasts for hours. In a reminder of the time that has passed, some readers were children who had never met the relatives they lost in 2001.

Other moments of silence followed, marking when the other three airplanes crashed and the two towers collapsed. For the first time, a seventh moment of silence was set to honor the thousands who have died since 2001 from illnesses tied to the toxic dust that poisoned the air for months afterward.

Gregory Carafello attended the ceremony to honor the memory of his lifelong friend James Martello, who worked at Cantor Fitzgerald, the financial firm that lost more than 650 employees in the attacks. Carafello was on the 18th floor of the South Tower but managed to evacuate.

“Everyone should realize that it was a very bad, catastrophic day for many families,” he said. “These were not warriors. These were people like you and me going to work.”

At the Pentagon in Arlington, Virginia, where American Airlines Flight 77 struck the building’s west flank, killing 184, President Donald Trump chronicled some of the stories of those aboard who perished in the crash: a woman pregnant with her first child, a family of four headed to Australia, three sixth-graders on a field trip.

The president and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who also delivered remarks, both used their speeches to make the case for the Iran war, which they have defended as necessary to prevent Tehran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

“We salute our first responders and law enforcement, and we love them,” Trump said. “And we salute the service members working right now to ensure the world’s number one sponsor of terror, the Islamic Republic of Iran, will never ever have a nuclear weapon.”

Mourners were also gathering in Shanksville, Pennsylvania, at the crash site where passengers brought down one of the four hijacked jetliners, United Airlines Flight 93, that had been headed for Washington.

Generational pain

The attacks shaped generations of Americans who lived through the day or grew up in its aftermath, influencing U.S. foreign policy, domestic politics and public attitudes toward security.

But for many whom the attacks directly affected — the victims’ families and friends, first responders and rescue workers — the anniversary is a tribute to the lives lost on a clear blue day a quarter century ago and the heartbreak that followed.

Caroline Ogonowski’s father, John, was the captain of Flight 11, which took off from Boston 47 minutes before striking the North Tower.

Ogonowski, now 39, had her first baby this year and named him after her father. She brought him to her father’s grave last week and attended a memorial ceremony in Boston on Friday.

“This year, there’s this new sadness in knowing that they won’t ever get to know each other,” Ogonowski, who has worked in disaster relief and humanitarian assistance, said in a phone interview. “My father will never know his grandson. And my son will never know his grandfather.

“We owe it to my father and all the others that we lost on that day to make sure that we continue to teach future generations about what happened, about who these people were, who these heroes were, how our country came together and became stronger because of it,” she added.

Lasting legacy

A generation of Americans has grown up since 2001 who are too young to remember the attacks but whose lives were fundamentally altered by them.

The attacks initiated the War on Terror, which led to the U.S. invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq that lasted years. The resulting public backlash helped fuel Trump’s rise a decade ago, when he vowed not to start new foreign entanglements — a promise being tested by the Iran war.

At home, Americans expressed deep solidarity and patriotism, as well as sorrow, in the immediate wake of the attacks.

At the same time, however, Muslim Americans and immigrants from Muslim-majority countries faced a rise in prejudice and hate crimes. Public polls have found 9/11 colors Americans’ perceptions of Muslims to this day. Zohran Mamdani, New York’s first Muslim mayor, faced calls from some Republicans to skip Friday’s ceremony, which he rejected.

Casualties were not limited to those who perished on September 11. Many rescue workers who spent weeks or months at the site afterward, as well as nearby residents and others, were sickened by toxins in the air and eventually died.

The New York City Fire Department lost 343 members on September 11. More than 600 additional firefighters, including some retired members who took part in the rescue effort, have died of 9/11-related illnesses since then, department figures show.

Twenty-six have died this year alone.