Citing "defense sources," the Times (U.K.) claimed in a report Monday that President-elect Donald Trump plans to issue an executive order booting transvestites out of the military on day one. A spokeswoman for the Trump-Vance transition team told Blaze News that the unnamed sources in the report whose claims have now been repeated by activists and other publications don't know what they're talking about.
The Times' sources alleged that Trump is not only planning to oust those transvestic service members presently enlisted with medical discharges, stating they are unfit to serve, but is planning on altogether banning transvestites from joining the military.
"These people will be forced out at a time when the military can't recruit enough people," said an unnamed source supposedly familiar with Trump's plans. "Only the Marine Corps is hitting its numbers for recruitment, and some people who will be affected are in very senior positions."
'These unnamed sources are speculating.'
According to the Times, several sources said that Trump's order will be "wider-ranging" than actions taken in his first term and that even troops in the military for decades could be removed from their posts.
Karoline Leavitt said in a statement to Blaze News, "These unnamed sources are speculating and have no idea what they are actually talking about."
"No decisions on this issue have been made," continued Leavitt. "No policy should ever be deemed official unless it comes directly from President Trump or his authorized spokespeople."
While the unnamed sources in the Times report might be of the unreliable variety cited by the Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg, Trump has taken similar actions in the past and promised on the campaign trail to do as much upon taking office.
In July 2017, Trump announced that "the United States Government will not accept or allow Transgender individuals to serve in any capacity in the U.S. Military." Trump added, "Our military must be focused on decisive and overwhelming victory and cannot be burdened with the tremendous medical costs and disruption that transgender in the military would entail."
Trump's concerns were reinforced in a Feb. 22, 2018, Pentagon memo from then-Secretary of Defense James Mattis, which stated that in "the Department's best military judgment, the Department of Defense concludes that there are substantial risks associated with allowing the accession and retention of individuals with a history or diagnosis of gender dysphoria and require or have already undertaken a course of treatment to change their gender."
In 2019, the Trump Department of Defense established a policy permitting "transgender" troops to serve so long as they didn't attempt to masquerade as members of the opposite sex or invade their spaces. Accordingly, the could claim to be "transgender" but would have to use the pronouns, uniforms, barracks, and restroom facilities corresponding with their sex.
After taking office, President Joe Biden reversed the Trump policy, stating, "America's strength is found in its diversity."
In the years since, medical transvestites in the military have been provided with sex-change and cosmetic surgeries at taxpayers' expense, the opportunity to sit out deployments, and exemptions from uniform and fitness standards.
Feb. 1, 2023, documents obtained last year by independent journalist Jordan Schachtel of the Dossier, entitled "Care of Service Members Who Identify as Transgender," revealed that the Pentagon funds transvestites' so-called care, including "speech/voice therapy, cross-sex hormone therapy, laser hair removal, voice feminization surgery, facial contouring, body contouring, breast/chest surgery (colloquially referred to as 'upper' surgery), and genital reassignment/confirmation surgery ('lower' surgery)."
'[The DOD] committed a Bud Light.'
Blaze News previously reported that whereas mentally ill recruits, individuals found to be on medications, women with abnormal uterine bleeding, men with deformed genitals, those with chronic anxiety, those who have committed self-harm, and those who have met in the past with psychiatrists are routinely barred from joining the armed forces, similar prohibitions appear to have been relaxed under the current administration for those claiming to be "transgender."
Trump pledged to a crowd in New Hampshire in August 2023 that he would "restore the Trump ban on transgenders in the military" and promised to "ban the Department of Veteran Affairs from wasting a single cent to fund transgender surgeries or sex-change procedures."
Rachel Branaman, an LGBT activist who heads the Modern Military Association of America, told the Times, "Should a trans ban be implemented from day one of the Trump administration, it would undermine the readiness of the military and create an even greater recruitment and retention crisis, not to mention signaling vulnerability to America's adversaries."
"Abruptly discharging 15,000-plus service members, especially given that the military's recruiting targets fell short by 41,000 recruits last year, adds administrative burdens to war fighting units, harms unit cohesion, and aggravates critical skill gaps," continued Branaman. "There would be a significant financial cost, as well as a loss of experience and leadership that will take possibly 20 years and billions of dollars to replace."
If confirmed by the U.S. Senate, Pete Hegseth, Trump's pick to run the DOD, appears open to making quality, not diversity, the top priority at the Pentagon.
"I think we're at a 's*** or get off the pot' moment. We are at a tipping point for total institutional corruption, and Trump has a chance to reverse that," Hegseth recently told the "Shawn Ryan Show." "[The DOD] committed a Bud Light. In search of a non-traditional constituency, they offended their core constituency."
Hegseth added, "The Army that I enlisted in, that I swore an oath in 2001 and was commissioned in 2003, looks a lot different than the Army of today because we're focused on a lot of the wrong things."
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Massachusetts Gov. Maura Healey (D) appears to be auditioning for a job in a possible Harris administration. Things aren't going too well.
In a Sunday interview on ABC News, Healey was asked to explain one of the various falsehoods that the network initially let Kamala Harris get away with in last week's presidential debate. It quickly became clear that while Healey was heavy on rhetoric, she was short on answers.
During the debate, Harris dodged the question of whether she bore any responsibility for the botched Afghanistan withdrawal during which 13 American service members were slain and many more were left behind.
Before attempting to shift blame onto President Donald, Harris said:
I agreed with President Biden's decision to pull out of Afghanistan. Four presidents said they would, and Joe Biden did. And as a result, America's taxpayers are not paying the $300 million a day we were paying for that endless war. And as of today, there is not one member of the United States military who is in active duty in a combat zone in any war zone around the world, the first time this century.
Martha Raddatz, co-anchor of "This Week," asked Healey about Harris' remarks, particularly her suggestion that there are no active-duty service members in a combat zone anywhere around the world.
"Our fact-checkers found that to be false," said Raddatz. "And I have a lot of experience in that area."
Raddatz was likely referring to her time reporting from Iraq as a national security correspondent and her extensive sources inside the Pentagon.
"There are currently 900 U.S. military personnel in Syria, 2,500 U.S. troops in Iraq. All have been under regular threat from drones and missiles for months," said Raddatz. "We also have action in the Red Sea. We also — every single day the Navy SEALs, Delta Forces, special operators can be part of any sort of deadly raid."
'Did she not know about these people in Syria and in Iraq?'
"So why would she make that claim?" asked Raddatz, undoubtedly aware that Harris' remarks came just days after seven American troops were wounded in a deadly raid in Western Iraq.
Healey desperately tried to evade the question, saying, "What I think what's important here, Martha, is that Kamala Harris, in contrast to Donald Trump, demonstrated herself to be commander in chief."
"We are in a world where there are all sorts of conflicts," Healey continued, apparently referring to the Russia-Ukraine war and the latest Hamas-Israel war that kicked off while Harris was vice president. "It's all the more reason we need somebody who's serious and who supports the military."
Raddatz prevented Healey from retreating to the comfort of well-worn talking points, saying, "Governor, excuse me, but she said, 'There is not one member of the United States military who is in active duty in a combat zone.' That is not true."
"You say she demonstrated her ability to be commander in chief, but did she not know about these people in Syria and in Iraq? Why would she say that?" added Raddatz.
Healey tried passing off the falsehood as a "comment in a debate" and an attempt to make a "broader point," which the Massachusetts governor proved unwilling to share or unable to make up.
'She doesn't even recognize that our own troops are getting hurt.'
Growing visibly flustered, the governor desperately returned to well-worn albeit debunked talking points. Extra to claiming that "Donald Trump stands with Vladimir Putin," Healey repeated the baseless "suckers and losers" smear first advanced by the Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg.
Healey continued her verbal flailing until Raddatz abandoned the effort.
Service members currently in war zones and veterans' families have criticized Harris over her false claim.
Brad Illerbrunner, whose son, Chief Warrant Officer Garrent Illerbrunner of the U.S. Army's 82nd Airborne Division, was critically injured on Christmas Day, told the New York Post that Harris' lie "really [hit] below the belt. ... She doesn't even recognize that our own troops are getting hurt."
"We're still in war zones," said Illerbrunner, adding that the vice president was "trying to snow the public."
"If you're in Jordan in the middle of nowhere to fight ISIS, and you're getting attacked by Iranian drones and rockets on a daily basis, you're in a war zone," added Illerbrunner.
Three American soldiers were killed in Jordan by an Iranian proxy in January.
Footage has also appeared online of service members reacting to Harris' remarks while stationed abroad.
The Biden-Harris Pentagon has attempted to give Harris cover, noting in a statement obtained by the Wall Street Journal that "just because a service member is in one of these locations does not mean they are engaged in war. The U.S. is not currently engaged in a war and does not have troops fighting in active war zones anywhere in the world."
This, however, is a deception.
Although Congress hasn't declared a war since 1942, hundreds of thousands of U.S. service members have been killed in war zones in the years since. The technical wording appealed to here by the Pentagon and Harris would mean those who perished in Afghanistan, Iraq, Korea, and Vietnam don't count.
Mark Montgomery, a retired rear admiral, recently told Fox News Digital that despite the government quietly shutting down designations of war zones, one need only "ask: 'Is anyone getting combat-related hazardous duty pay?'"
"The answer is yes," added Montgomery.
Robert Greenway, a U.S. Special Forces combat veteran and former senior director for the National Security Council, said that the comment "is especially egregious, as she is the current VP and should know that we recently conducted a raid in Syria, killing a senior ISIS commander. Several U.S. troops had to be medically evacuated after another raid against ISIS in Syria."
"Several service members were wounded in Iraq when Al Asad Airbase was attacked by Iranian-sponsored terrorists less than a month ago, and our ships are under near-daily attack in the Red Sea," he told Fox News Digital.
Harris did not limit herself to falsehoods about the military during the debate.
The Democratic candidate also repeated the "fine people" hoax; claimed that Trump would be implementing the Heritage Foundation's Project 2025; claimed that Trump would ratify a national abortion ban; recycled the "bloodbath" smear; and claimed law enforcement officers died on Jan. 6, 2021, in reference to the Capitol riot.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
American military veterans continue to seek accountability and answers regarding the Biden-Harris administration's disastrous and deadly withdrawal from Afghanistan.
While some veterans may have previously suspected the Democratic administration was doing its best to ignore their concerns, John Kirby, the White House National Security Council communications adviser, appears to have accidentally confirmed on Wednesday that that's the case.
Kirby reportedly sent a message intended for White House staffers to a Fox News Digital reporter, stating there was "no use in responding" to veterans' concerns about the Afghan withdrawal and its portrayal by the White House.
The House Foreign Affairs Committee released a report Monday titled "Willful Blindness: An Assessment of the Biden-Harris Administration's Withdrawal from Afghanistan and the Chaos that Followed."
Committee Chairman Michael McCaul (R-Texas) said in a statement:
Our investigation reveals the Biden-Harris administration had the information and opportunity to take necessary steps to plan for the inevitable collapse of the Afghan government, so we could safely evacuate U.S. personnel, American citizens, green card holders, and our brave Afghan allies. At each step of the way, however, the administration picked optics over security.
According to McCaul, the report makes clear that the Biden-Harris administration's botch job "placed U.S. servicemembers and U.S. State Department personnel in mortal danger" and led to the American and Afghan deaths and injuries at Abbey Gate.
During Monday's White House press briefing, Kirby responded to the report, saying it "comes, of course, two years after their first report, and this one says little or nothing new."
'Absolutely despicable.'
Kirby further characterized the report as "one-sided," then defended the Biden-Harris administration's actions, going so far as to suggest "there was no handover of U.S. equipment to the Taliban."
Kirby also alleged "there was no deception, lying, or lack of transparency by this administration either during or after the withdrawal."
The White House's apparent unwillingness to accept responsibility or to at the very least take the report seriously enraged Florida Republican Rep. Cory Mills and other veterans.
Mills, for instance, emphasized on X, "It’s time the Biden-Harris administration takes responsibility for abandoning thousands of Americans and allies, for handing over billions in U.S. military weapons and cash to the Taliban, for leaving women and children to suffer under Taliban rule, and for the 13 brave heroes who sacrificed two lives, the one they were living and the life they could have lived."
Fox News Digital indicated that it contacted the White House, referencing several veterans' critiques of Kirby's remarks — including the suggestions that he was merely providing "cover" for or "deflecting" from the administration's ruinous withdrawal.
The email chain was reportedly forwarded to White House staffers on the National Security Council. Then, thinking he was only responding to White House staffers on the chain, Kirby replied, "Obviously no use in responding. A 'handful' of vets indeed and all of one stripe."
Having later realized what he had done, Kirby wrote back to the reporter, stating, "Clearly, I didn't realize you were on the chain."
"This is how the Biden-Harris administration talks about the well-founded concerns of our nation’s veterans?" Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) asked on X. "Just days after the anniversary of the deadly Afghanistan withdrawal. On the anniversary of 9/11. Our Gold Star families deserve better."
Senior Trump adviser Jason Miller wrote, "Shame!"
House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.) stressed, "Nobody at the White House should ever speak this way about our veterans seeking accountability for the Gold Star families the Biden-Harris Administration created with their reckless decisions. Absolutely despicable."
Texas Rep. Ronny Jackson (R) suggested Kirby "is a DISGRACE!!" and should immediately resign.
California Rep. Darrell Issa (R) wrote, "This White House has nothing but contempt for veterans who call them out."
Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman McCaul said in a statement obtained by the New York Post that Kirby's comments were "appalling, but sadly not surprising."
"The Biden-Harris administration has consistently disregarded our veterans, servicemembers, and Gold Star families over their botched withdrawal from Afghanistan," added McCaul.
The Post indicated that the White House had not responded to its request for comment.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Military officials and leftists in Washington have long bemoaned the overwhelming presence of white people in the U.S. military. Now that race obsessives have gotten their way and far fewer recruits from the disfavored group are enlisting, officials are beginning to fret.
According to Military.com, the U.S. Army fell 10,000 short of its 65,000 enlistment target in 2023. This drop was largely driven by a significant drop in the number of white recruits.
In 2018, 44,042 new Army recruits — 56.4% of the total — were white. Over the years, that number has plummeted, hitting 25,070 or 44% of the overall recruits in 2023, down 6% from the previous year. This demographic group has seen a uniquely dramatic decline when compared to other racial groups.
Overall recruiting totals have remained relatively flat for black and Hispanic recruits, but as white recruits have turned out in smaller numbers, the proportions of black and Hispanic recruits in the pool have increased from 20% to 24% and from 17% to 24%, respectively.
Military.com indicated it encountered even more damning data speaking to a dramatic "shift in demographics" but that Army officials wrote it off as a "system coding error."
Army officials told Military.com that there is not one single cause for this decline but indicated obesity and the poor quality of the public education system might have been factors. While these factors might explain a drop in recruitment across the board, they wouldn't explain a racially specific drop in proportion of 12.4 points over a five-year period.
An Army official suggested the decline may have also been political, driven by conservatives' critiques of the Biden administration and its politicization of the military. The official, paraphrased by Military.com, credited conservative lawmakers and right-wing media in particular with souring their "overwhelmingly white audience" against the military over its identity politics and with prompting would-be recruits in the mix to "abando[n] their warfighting priorities."
"There's a level of prestige in parts of conservative America with service that has degraded. Now, you can say you don't want to join, for whatever reason, or bad-mouth the service without any cultural guilt associated for the first time in those areas," said the official.
Besides taking issue with the Pentagon's radical LGBT activism, abortion promotion, and its sweeping accusations of extremism, the erosion of such guilt among white people and conservatives might also have something to do with the military's apparent animus toward them.
A 2011 report ordered by Congress claimed the military was too white and too male.
The Pentagon released a manual blasting "healthy, white, heterosexual, Christian" men for having "unearned advantages of social privilege."
The former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Army Gen. Mark Milley, complained in 2021 that the military was not diverse enough, stressing, "We must get better." He also defended the Pentagon's embrace of critical race theory, stating, "I want to understand white rage."
A battalion commander reportedly stressed in 2021, "If you're a white male, you are part of the problem."
It appears that in remedying a perceived problem, the Army created a real problem at a time of great international instability.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
'I tasked in no uncertain terms to the services that they will treat each of the members with the dignity that they deserve,' War Undersecretary Anthony Tata told The Federalist.
We would do well to consider how our choices in Vietnam affected our military and society in ways still felt today.
Congressional hearings have not checked Pentagon policies that include giving soldiers' kids transgender meds without their parents' knowledge.
This is my small story of a thoughtful and patriotic gesture by one of our greatest entertainers, Toby Keith.
If you live near D.C., consider a visit to the Vietnam Memorial Wall next week to witness the reading of the names of the fallen and to honor them.
thefederalist.com
www.theblaze.com
Will Ukraine’s daring special ops insurgency SABOTAGE Putin’s illegal invasion?
While Putin is being celebrated by some members of the right, Mark Levin believes they’re absolutely misguided.
And according to him, those who do support Putin might as well have supported the KGB.
“Putin’s KGB colonel — and he was a vile, vicious, murdering colonel when he was the KGB colonel,” Levin says.
“He’s no better than all the rest of the bastards who slaughter people.”
However, while many see Russia as the superpower obliterating the much smaller underdog that is Ukraine, Ukraine is apparently wreaking “havoc in Russia.”
In early August, a team of Ukrainian commandos stormed the Russian side of the Dnipro River and took 16 men, including a senior officer, prisoner. While it’s believed to have major implications for Ukraine’s counteroffensive, it’s not the first time this has happened.
Kiev’s men have been waging a 10-month secret campaign for control over the watery front lines, which is proving to be vital for a Ukrainian win.
In an investigative piece by the Daily Mail, it is said that while “nobody expects the battle for the Dnipro to end the war in Ukraine,” it could, however, “prove to be the beginning of the end. Not just for Russia’s invasion, but for Putin’s occupation of Crimea and perhaps even for Putin himself.”
“And of course,” Levin notes, “they’re doing all this without an air force. And imagine what they could do with an air force.”
“They’ve been waiting for these F-16s forever. Poland wanted to give them their F-16s, Romania wanted to give them their F-16s. Not a lot in number but enough to at least help,” he adds.
When the Ukrainians were offered the jets of other countries that claimed they would then buy their own from the United States, Biden refused.
Now, Biden is talking about selling Ukraine some.
“But it takes six months to train up a pilot,” Levin says, noting that if we weren’t responding so late, “the Ukrainians can actually defeat the Russians in Ukraine and push them back.”
“There are people who do not want the Ukrainians to win. They don’t mind if they keep fighting and dying; they just don’t want them to win. And that turns my stomach,” he adds.
Want more from Mark Levin?
To enjoy more of "the Great One" — Mark Levin as you've never seen him before — subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.