Secretaries Of War, Navy Talk Bringing Back Manufacturing Jobs, Covid Objectors, And Combat Readiness
Secretary of War Pete Hegseth and Navy Secretary John Phelan spoke of the dire national security need to revive U.S. manufacturing.Secretary of War Pete Hegseth and Navy Secretary John Phelan spoke of the dire national security need to revive U.S. manufacturing.Why Trump’s National Archivist Nomination Is The Most Important Job You’ve Never Heard Of
The archivist of the United States has become responsible for overseeing the digital infrastructure of the entire federal government.Hegseth announces more lethal boat strikes to eradicate drug traffickers
The Trump administration performed strikes in international waters in the eastern Pacific on Monday to stop several boats carrying illegal narcotics, according to Secretary of War Pete Hegseth.
'We will track them, we will network them, and then, we will hunt and kill them.'
He announced on Tuesday the results of "three lethal kinetic strikes on four vessels," claiming that they were operated by "Designated Terrorist Organizations."
In January, President Donald Trump designated international cartels as foreign terrorist organizations for flooding the U.S. with "deadly drugs, violent criminals, and vicious gangs."
Monday's strikes killed 14 narco-terrorists, Hegseth said. No U.S. forces were harmed.
"Eight male narco-terrorists were aboard the vessels during the first strike. Four male narco-terrorists were aboard the vessel during the second strike. Three male narco-terrorists were aboard the vessel during the third strike," he explained. "The Department has spent over TWO DECADES defending other homelands. Now, we're defending our own. These narco-terrorists have killed more Americans than Al-Qaeda, and they will be treated the same. We will track them, we will network them, and then, we will hunt and kill them."
Hegseth noted that there was one survivor.
"Regarding the survivor, USSOUTHCOM immediately initiated Search and Rescue (SAR) standard protocols; Mexican SAR authorities accepted the case and assumed responsibility for coordinating the rescue," he added.
RELATED: 'We will stop you cold': Trump announces successful strike against 'narcoterrorist' vessel
Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum on Tuesday condemned the most recent strikes.
"We do not agree with these attacks, with how they are carried out," Sheinbaum stated. "We want all international treaties to be complied with."
RELATED: Trump’s Caribbean ‘drug wars’ are forging a new Monroe Doctrine
A separate strike was carried out at President Donald Trump's direction in the Caribbean Sea last week against a vessel reportedly operated by Tren de Aragua.
"The vessel was known by our intelligence to be involved in illicit narcotics smuggling, was transiting along a known narco-trafficking route, and carrying narcotics," Hegseth stated on Friday. "Six male narco-terrorists were aboard the vessel during the strike, which was conducted in international waters — and was the first strike at night. All six terrorists were killed, and no U.S. forces were harmed in this strike."
The U.S. has performed more than a dozen strikes since September. At least 57 people have been killed, according to the Associated Press.
— (@)
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Pentagon doesn't bend to liberal reporters, takes their press badges
The Department of War has implemented new rules regarding news-gathering at the Pentagon such that now, according to Secretary Pete Hegseth, the building "has the same rules as every U.S. military installation."
These rules, which reflect the fact acknowledged by the New York Times that "members of the news media do not possess a legal right to access the Pentagon" and that "legally, the press has no greater right of access than the public," prompted apoplexy among scores of liberal news outlets.
'It's like college move-out day.'
After the Pentagon Press Association characterized the rules as a form of intimidation, the Associated Press, the Atlantic, CNN, Fox News, the New York Times, Politico, Reuters, Task & Purpose, the Wall Street Journal, and the Washington Post announced that they were not going to sign an agreement signaling comprehension of the new policy by the 5 p.m. Tuesday deadline.
If the liberal reporters loath to sign a form indicating they "have received, read, and understand" the new rules thought that the Department of War was going to buckle in the face of their protest, they were greatly mistaken.
The Pentagon Press Association said in a statement that on Wednesday — a day after Hegseth gave select publications a virtual wave goodbye — the Department of War "confiscated the badges of the Pentagon reporters from virtually every major media organization in America."
The PPA claimed further that "Oct. 15, 2025, is a dark day for press freedom that raises concerns about a weakening U.S. commitment to transparency in governance, to public accountability at the Pentagon, and to free speech for all."
RELATED: While the lights are off, let’s rewire the government
Footage shows shows a gaggle of reporters who apparently turned in their press credentials and vacated their Pentagon workspaces exiting the building, many wearing looks of self-satisfaction.
A reporter from an independent outlet that covers the military told the Columbia Journalism Review, "It's like college move-out day."
Nancy Youssef, a reporter for the Atlantic who has occupied space at the Pentagon since 2007, told the Associated Press, "It's sad, but I'm also really proud of the press corps that we stuck together."
One America News Network did not stick together with the liberal media outfits. It reportedly signed the form recognizing the new rules.
Hegseth indicated that the new rules rejected by the liberal media were, in essence, that reporters can no longer roam freely through the halls of the Pentagon; members of the press must wear visible badges; and the "credentialed press [is] no longer permitted to solicit criminal acts."
The lengthy document detailing the new rules in full states that:
- credentialed members of the press who are American citizens can access the Pentagon 24 hours a day;
- reporters must ensure their press credentials are visible and worn above the waist while in the Pentagon;
- reporters cannot roam around various locations within the Pentagon without an escort from an authorized War Department official;
- while members of the press are not required to submit their writings to the War Department for approval, DOW information "must be approved for public release by an appropriate authorizing official before it is released by any military member, DoW civilian employee or contract employee"; and
- reporters could have their credentials revoked or not renewed if they "solicit government employees to violate the law by providing confidential government information."
Liberal outlets cry about Pentagon's new media rules — Hegseth bids them farewell
The Department of War has implemented new rules concerning press privileges and news-gathering at the Pentagon.
Even though the policy concerning reporter access is far less restrictive than an earlier version — the draft of which was floated last month — liberal publications have thrown fits and refused to acknowledge the new rules in exchange for press credentials.
'Pentagon access is a privilege, not a right.'
Chief Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell emphasized last week that reporters and publications do not have to agree with the new "common-sense media procedures" but "just to acknowledge that they understand what our policy is."
Despite acknowledging that press credentials are conditioned on an understanding of the rules, not an agreement with them, the Pentagon Press Association characterized the rules as a form of intimidation, going so far as to suggest that they dishonor American military families.
War Secretary Pete Hegseth used an emoji to wave goodbye on Monday to the Atlantic, the New York Times, and the Washington Post when they pushed the PPA's framing and pronounced on X that they were not going to sign the agreement by the 5 p.m. Tuesday deadline.
Matt Murray, the Post's executive editor, who received Hegseth's pixelated adios, stated, "The proposed restrictions undercut First Amendment protections by placing unnecessary constraints on gathering and publishing information."
Jeffrey Goldberg, the Atlantic's editor in chief, who has pushed his weight in fake news, and NYT Washington bureau chief Richard Stevenson similarly complained that the rules violated their teams' First Amendment rights.
The Associated Press, Breaking Defense, CNN, Newsmax, Reuters, Task & Purpose, and the Wall Street Journal are among the other publications that have indicated they will not agree to the new policy by deadline.
After bidding the liberal publications farewell, Hegseth noted for edification of "DUMMIES" in the media that the new rules are, in essence, that reporters can no longer roam free through the halls of the Pentagon; members of the press must wear visible badges; and the "credentialed press [is] no longer permitted to solicit criminal acts."
RELATED: Hegseth restores warrior ethos after years of woke Pentagon rot
Hegseth added that "Pentagon access is a privilege, not a right." Blaze News reached out to the Pentagon for clarity about that statement.
Pentagon press secretary Kingsley Wilson noted that "despite good faith negotiations with representatives of the Pentagon Press Association, reporters would rather clutch their pearls on social media than stop trying to get warfighters and DOW civilians to commit a crime by violating Department-wide policy."
"We stand by our media policy," continued Wilson. "It's now up to them whether they'd like to report from the Pentagon or their newsroom."
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Trump set to re-establish Defense Department's 'warrior ethos' by restoring original name
President Donald Trump intends to restore the original name of the Department of Defense.
Trump is expected to sign an executive order on Friday that will designate the Department of War as the DOD's secondary title, according to a White House fact sheet obtained by Fox News Digital. The change will also name Pete Hegseth the secretary of war.
'Call the endless WARS what they are. And maybe then, we'll finally put an end to this cycle.'
Further, the order seeks to make the alteration permanent by instructing Hegseth to propose legislative and executive actions. The Trump administration plans to update public-facing websites and the Pentagon's office signage, a White House official told Fox News Digital.
The Department of War title was used for the United States' military agency until 1949.
"We won WWI, and we won WWII, not with the Department of Defense, but with a War Department, with the Department of War," Hegseth told "Fox & Friends" on Wednesday. "As the president has said, we're not just defense, we're offense."
RELATED: Tim Kaine trying to weasel a ban on Hegseth changing base names into the military budget
"We've re-established at the Department the warrior ethos. We want warriors, folks that understand how to exact lethality on the enemy," he continued. "We don't want endless contingencies and just playing defense. We think words and names and titles matter. So we're working with the White House and the president on it. Stand by."
Trump told reporters last week that the name change was imminent.
"We're just going to do it," Trump declared. "I'm sure Congress will go along if we need that. I don't think we even need that."
RELATED: Congress must kill DEI before it kills our military readiness
Blaze Media co-founder Glenn Beck reacted to Trump's plans to change the agency's name.
"Renaming the Department of Defense to the Department of War would remind both the world and OURSELVES what our tax dollars are funding: Bombs will be dropped. Our children will die. I think that's what Trump is trying to do. Call the endless WARS what they are. And maybe then, we'll finally put an end to this cycle," Beck wrote in a post on social media.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
The Department of War would remind America what’s really at stake
President Donald Trump made headlines this week by signaling a rebrand of the Defense Department — restoring its original name, the Department of War.
At first, I was skeptical. “Defense” suggests restraint, a principle I consider vital to U.S. foreign policy. “War” suggests aggression. But for the first 158 years of the republic, that was the honest name: the Department of War.
A Department of War recognizes the truth: The military exists to fight and, if necessary, to win decisively.
The founders never intended a permanent standing army. When conflict came — the Revolution, the War of 1812, the trenches of France, the beaches of Normandy — the nation called men to arms, fought, and then sent them home. Each campaign was temporary, targeted, and necessary.
From ‘war’ to ‘military-industrial complex’
Everything changed in 1947. President Harry Truman — facing the new reality of nuclear weapons, global tension, and two world wars within 20 years — established a full-time military and rebranded the Department of War as the Department of Defense. Americans resisted; we had never wanted a permanent army. But Truman convinced the country it was necessary.
Was the name change an early form of political correctness? A way to soften America’s image as a global aggressor? Or was it simply practical? Regardless, the move created a permanent, professional military. But it also set the stage for something Truman’s successor, President Dwight “Ike” Eisenhower famously warned about: the military-industrial complex.
Ike, the five-star general who commanded Allied forces in World War II and stormed Normandy, delivered a harrowing warning during his farewell address: The military-industrial complex would grow powerful. Left unchecked, it could influence policy and push the nation toward unnecessary wars.
And that’s exactly what happened. The Department of Defense, with its full-time and permanent army, began spending like there was no tomorrow. Weapons were developed, deployed, and sometimes used simply to justify their existence.
Peace through strength
When Donald Trump said this week, “I don’t want to be defense only. We want defense, but we want offense too,” some people freaked out. They called him a warmonger. He isn’t. Trump is channeling a principle older than him: peace through strength. Ronald Reagan preached it; Trump is taking it a step further.
Just this week, Trump also suggested limiting nuclear missiles — hardly the considerations of a warmonger — echoing Reagan, who wanted to remove missiles from silos while keeping them deployable on planes.
The seemingly contradictory move of Trump calling for a Department of War sends a clear message: He wants Americans to recognize that our military exists not just for defense, but to project power when necessary.
Trump has pointed to something critically important: The best way to prevent war is to have a leader who knows exactly who he is and what he will do. Trump signals strength, deterrence, and resolve. You want to negotiate? Great. You don’t? Then we’ll finish the fight decisively.
That’s why the world listens to us. That’s why nations come to the table — not because Trump is reckless, but because he means what he says and says what he means. Peace under weakness invites aggression. Peace under strength commands respect.
Trump is the most anti-war president we’ve had since Jimmy Carter. But unlike Carter, Trump isn’t weak. Carter’s indecision emboldened enemies and made the world less safe. Trump’s strength makes the country stronger. He believes in peace as much as any president. But he knows peace requires readiness for war.
Names matter
When we think of “defense,” we imagine cybersecurity, spy programs, and missile shields. But when we think of “war,” we recall its harsh reality: death, destruction, and national survival. Trump is reminding us what the Department of Defense is really for: war. Not nation-building, not diplomacy disguised as military action, not endless training missions. War — full stop.
RELATED: Trump makes a bold push for global competitors to abandon nukes: 'The power is too great'
Names matter. Words matter. They shape identity and character. A Department of Defense implies passivity, a posture of reaction. A Department of War recognizes the truth: The military exists to fight and, if necessary, to win decisively.
So yes, I’ve changed my mind. I’m for the rebranding to the Department of War. It shows strength to the world. It reminds Americans, internally and externally, of the reality we face. The Department of Defense can no longer be a euphemism. Our military exists for war — not without deterrence, but not without strength either. And we need to stop deluding ourselves.
Want more from Glenn Beck? Get Glenn's FREE email newsletter with his latest insights, top stories, show prep, and more delivered to your inbox.
Feds waste billions keeping ancient tech on life support
The federal government’s bloated, outdated information systems have finally come under scrutiny. On his first day in office, President Trump signed a series of executive orders to cut waste and boost efficiency. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has reinforced that mandate, spending his first 100 days reviewing the Pentagon “from top to bottom to ensure that we're getting more, faster, better, and more efficient.”
Earlier this month, Hegseth announced that in partnership with the Department of Government Efficiency, officials had uncovered $5.1 billion in savings — “and that's just the beginning.” That’s a good start. But if the DOGE hopes to prove its worth, it must confront the federal government’s disastrous record on IT spending and performance.
Companies should not have to wade through red tape at every agency — or even within the same agency — to deploy new solutions.
It can’t happen fast enough. A staggering 80% of the annual $100 billion IT spending goes to maintaining decades-old systems. According to the Government Accountability Office, “The older the systems are, the more the upkeep costs — and older systems are more vulnerable to hackers.”
Not only is outdated software expensive to maintain, but it also poses a significant vulnerability for our government — and that is particularly dangerous when it comes to national defense.
The Trump administration should make it a top priority to modernize federal IT infrastructure while also addressing how we got such a dysfunctional IT infrastructure in the first place.
Targeting outdated regulations
In today’s AI world, government agencies cannot adapt to the most innovative and efficient technology when burdened with regulations often written before the internet even existed.
The Department of Defense is a prime example. The U.S. military buys IT systems in a ridiculously bureaucratic fashion. It takes years and millions of dollars for a company — regardless of size — to get its software approved just to pitch a product to the department. When time and money are of the essence, the only firms that can wade through the red tape are big, entrenched companies with lawyers and lobbyists to throw at outdated rules.
RELATED: How DEI took a sledgehammer to the US military’s war ethos
This procurement model directly clashes with how the private sector works. In the business world, innovators attract investment quickly. The Pentagon, by contrast, consistently favors large, well-connected firms over smaller companies and startups. Promising new technologies get ignored.
It’s the defense contractor model over the SpaceX model — and we’re paying the price.
Streamlining the regulators
Fixing the rules isn’t enough. We need to fix the people who enforce them. Right now, overlapping Defense Department bureaucracies oversee the procurement and deployment of new technology. A single point of contact — with one set of rules — would reduce red tape and create a unified standard for the department to follow.
That standard should reach beyond the Defense Department. Companies shouldn’t have to navigate a maze of conflicting rules across agencies — or even within the same agency — just to deploy new solutions. Procurement reform, including better training and clearer rules, must be a core part of the DOGE’s mission.
Last year’s National Defense Authorization Act made some progress, but much more still needs to be done.
Falling behind on technological modernization in defense is not just an economic disadvantage but a threat to national security. As the DOGE takes a much-needed axe to inflated government spending, let’s make sure we also cut burdensome regulations that hinder innovation and improvement. We must unleash the power of American innovation to equip our military with the finest tools — otherwise, our enemies will beat us to it.
Hegseth blocks Democrats’ smear tactics in fiery Senate showdown: 'I won't fall for it'
Department of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee on Wednesday regarding the department's fiscal year 2026 budget request — his fourth hearing this month.
Hegseth faced heated exchanges during the hearing as Democratic lawmakers pressed him with hypothetical scenarios aimed at portraying President Donald Trump's administration as overreaching and authoritarian.
'It's all meant to attempt to smear the commander in chief, and I won't fall for it.'
Democrats grilled Hegseth on the Trump administration's strategy amid the escalating tension between Israel and Iran, the deployment of troops in Los Angeles, and the termination of "qualified" military leaders.
Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.) questioned Hegseth's leadership abilities, claiming the DOD "has been consumed by high turnover and disarray" since the secretary's confirmation.
RELATED: Pete Hegseth defends deployment of troops in response to anti-ICE riots
Hegseth countered Reed's critique by highlighting global instability under the prior administration, citing the disastrous Afghanistan withdrawal, the outbreak of war in Ukraine, and the October 7, 2023, Hamas attack.
"That was a view of weakness and chaos unleashed by the Biden administration under the previous defense secretary," Hegseth said, referring to former Sec. Lloyd Austin. "So, if a few changes have to be made in the first portion of my term in order to get it right, I think that's pretty acceptable to establish deterrence and rebuild our military and restore the warrior ethos."
Several Democratic leaders decried Trump's decision to send National Guard troops to Los Angeles amid the anti-immigration enforcement protests that turned destructive and violent.
"What he's doing may well be illegal," declared Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.). "I want to ask you about contingency plans for the use of active duty military in other cities. Do you have such contingency plans?"
Blumenthal noted that he was "deeply disturbed and alarmed" by Trump's move.
Hegseth retorted, "Senator, I would just say, we share the president's view that, as you characterized it, we are 'deeply disturbed and alarmed' that [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] officers are being attacked while doing their job in any city in America."
Senator Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii) also questioned Hegseth about the deployed troops, pressing the secretary with outlandish hypotheticals.
"You claim lethality is your top priority. Do you plan to unleash this lethal force against U.S. citizens and civilians in L.A. and other cities?" Hirono asked.
Hegseth rejected the senator's characterization.
"I would like to have a professional response," Hirono snapped.
"Given this regime's dangerous policy of mobilizing troops inside the U.S., the politicizing of the military is a legitimate concern," she continued. "If ordered by the president — I'm going to ask you once again — to shoot peaceful protesters in the legs, would you carry out such an order from the president?"
Hegseth replied, "I reject the premise of your question and the characterization that I would be given or are given unlawful orders. It's all meant to attempt to smear the commander in chief, and I won't fall for it."
RELATED: President Trump has constitutional and statutory authority to use the National Guard domestically
Sen. Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.) used his time to defend Hegseth after Sen. Gary Peters (D-Mich.) claimed that the secretary would never be "held accountable" for allegedly disclosing military actions over the messaging application Signal.
Mullin fired back, "I wonder who was held accountable for the disastrous withdrawal out of Afghanistan, where 13 soldiers died and left thousands of Americans behind underneath Secretary Austin's lead?"
"Did one person get held accountable during that time?" Mullins questioned.
The senator defended Hegseth's record at the DOD after Democrats proclaimed that the department had been plagued with turmoil under his leadership.
Mullin noted that the DOD had the "lowest morale measured in our military history" and "absolutely disastrous" retention rates under Austin.
"You had recruitments that wasn't even meeting lowered standards that you guys lowered," Mullin told his fellow lawmakers. "Now, we have the highest morale that's been measured in decades in the military. We have recruiting numbers that are exceeding expectations."
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Today's top stories
www.theblaze.com