• President Trump fired the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Friday night.
• His public removal coincided with the defense secretary's firing of five other top officers.
• Several lawmakers, including military veterans, expressed alarm.

The White House ousted the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Air Force Gen. Charles Q. Brown Jr., which was followed by a string of firings in the Pentagon's most senior ranks that alarmed lawmakers.

In a press release posted Friday night, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth also removed the chief of naval operations and the Air Force vice chief of staff, Adm. Lisa Franchetti and Gen. James Slife, respectively, as well as the top military lawyers for the Army, Navy, and Air Force.

The removals of confirmed leaders deepen the turmoil at the Pentagon, which faces deep cuts to its civilian workforce and budget shifts that Trump officials say are to align with the new administration's priorities. Nearly 5,400 probationary employees within the DoD may face job termination next week, part of a larger slew of cuts that could total around 55,000 civilian military employees.

Friday night firings

In his Truth Social announcement, President Donald Trump did not provide a reason for the removal of the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who serves as the president's top military advisor, nor did he explain the move to replace Brown with a retired general.

Brown is a fighter pilot, and only the second African American to hold the chairman position. After the police killing of George Floyd in 2020, Brown spoke out publicly about his personal experiences facing racial discrimination as an airman. Before his most recent role, Brown was Chief of Staff of the US Air Force, making him the first African-American service chief.

Trump said that he would nominate retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Dan Caine to take on the role of chairman of the joint chiefs. This is a position that would need to be confirmed by the GOP-led Senate.

Brown wasn't the only trailblazing military officer among the leaders terminated Friday. Franchetti was the first woman to lead the Navy and the first-ever female military leader to be part of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Prior to his confirmation, Hegseth had called for the removal of both Brown and Franchetti.

She is the most recent female leader to be sacked as the new administration shakes up the government. Shortly after taking office, Trump officials relieved Coast Guard leader Adm. Linda F. Fagan, the first woman to lead a branch of the US armed forces.

Lawmakers sound the alarm

Hegseth's press release on the DoD leadership changes also asked for nominations for the Judge Advocates General for the Army, Navy and Air Force, positions responsible for advising military commanders on whether orders are lawful.

These moves alarmed some lawmakers like Colorado Democrat Rep. Jason Crow, a former Army Ranger, who noted their crucial role in applying the law to orders.

"Under President Trump, we are putting in place new leadership that will focus our military on its core mission of deterring, fighting and winning wars," the press release read.

Ranking Member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Democratic Sen. Jack Reed of Rhode Island said in a statement Friday night that the dismissals appear to be "part of a broader, premeditated campaign" by Trump and Hegseth to "purge talented officers for politically charged reasons, which would undermine the professionalism of our military."

Other veterans in Congress criticized the unprecedented mass firings of top military officers.

"What Trump and Hegseth are doing is un-American, unpatriotic," wrote Rep. Seth Moulton, a Democrat from Massachusetts and a former Marine officer. "It's [the] definition of politicizing our military, and we should expect to see loyalty oaths (not to the Constitution) and worse coming soon."

"In case anyone is wondering ... this isn't normal," Illinois Sen. Tammy Duckworth, a former Army National Guard soldier, said. "No, this is the work of a wanna-be dictator. By firing our top military leaders and installing his own personal yes-men, Trump is making America less safe."

• Pentagon leadership plans to pull 8%, or $50 billion, from various projects to fund Trump's priorities.
• Exempt programs include nuclear modernization, missile defense, and Virginia-class submarines.
• The memo has triggered confusion about its implications for the Navy's crucial shipbuilding effort.

A $50 billion funding shift ordered by President Donald Trump's new defense secretary makes attack submarines a priority but raises questions for the rest of the Navy.

Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth intends to pull roughly 8% of the Biden administration's fiscal year 2026 budget from existing programs and shift them to Trump's recently designated priorities. The plan has led to confusion about what this could mean for a critical area needed to confront China: Navy shipbuilding.

Only 17 Pentagon program areas would be exempted, per a memo by Hegseth, including "Southwest Border Activities," Virginia-class attack submarines, and "executable" surface ships.

Building Navy warships takes years and requires consistent funding to private shipbuilders who employ the skilled technicians and industrial processes needed to build advanced warships. The directive leaves it unclear if the new administration wants to continue building aircraft carriers, ballistic missile submarines, frigates, amphibious assault ships, and other vessels.

"The Secretary of Defense is injecting a colossal amount of confusion and churn and uncertainty into the budgeting process," Bryan McGrath, a defense and national security consultant and retired Navy commander, told Business Insider in an interview on Thursday.

Details of the plans were reported this week, and Hegseth said publicly that the budget shifts are "refocusing" on "top line stuff" and eliminating "woke" projects.

For Navy shipbuilding — a roughly $40 billion industrial effort every year — Virginia-class attack subs are the only bright spot. But Virginia-class submarines are facing yearslong construction delays along with many other warship classes that are essential to building a larger and more modern fleet.

Attack subs and budget questions

Virginia-class submarines were the only Navy vessels specifically identified as a priority in the memo.

The Virginia-class attack subs Trump's Pentagon is shielding have long been seen as a critical capability for countering China, a US rival with a substantial surface fleet and long-range missiles that can threaten US ships.

US submarines are difficult to track and are less threatened by Chinese ballistic missiles, Tom Shugart, an adjunct senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security and retired Navy submarine officer, said in a call with BI on Thursday.

The memo did not mention plans for the new Columbia-class subs, an important part of the already underway nuclear modernization process.

The ballistic missile subs, known as SSBNs or "boomers," will carry Trident II missiles armed with nuclear warheads. These subs are harder to target and destroy compared to silo-based intercontinental ballistic missiles or bombers, helping to preserve US second-strike capabilities.

The Columbia-class submarines are likely to be included within the "nuclear modernization" category, Shugart said, as they are perhaps the most important part of nuclear modernization.

For surface vessels, only ships identified as "executable surface ships" are free from budget cuts — raising questions about what "executable" means. Multiple Navy shipbuilding programs are plagued by production delays, such as new Constellation-class frigates and the Ford-class aircraft carriers Trump recently called out in a discussion of waste and fraud. Uncertain budgets are a factor that has driven ship delays and rising costs.

Shipbuilding is measured in years. Shipyard workers began construction on the second Ford-class carrier in 2015. It's finally slated to join the fleet later this year.

Shugart and McGrath expressed confusion about what could qualify as an "executable surface ship." The term could include ships like the Arleigh Burke-class destroyers, which shipyards are actively manufacturing with firm designs and timelines.

It likely "means surface ships that are buildable with the industrial base as we have it today," said Shugart. Warships like the new class of frigate that aren't on hot production lines could be in trouble.

It does not say "surface combatants;" it says "surface ships," Shugart noted. "I'm not sure what that means with respect to aircraft carriers," he said. "It may also apply to surface auxiliaries, like oilers and tankers."

The Navy declined to comment on the priorities memo released by the Office of the Secretary of Defense, which didn't respond to BI's request on Friday for clarity on what an "executable" ship means or the confusion the memo has caused.

Dramatic financial "refocusing" risks difficult battles with Congress, suggesting the money may come from elsewhere.

McGrath said that the Pentagon leadership's planned reallocations appear poised to reduce readiness in more mundane yet critical areas of military funding, including money for spare parts, equipment maintenance, and servicemember quality of life; the Navy spends $14.5 billion annually to maintain its ships.

That approach could include things like barracks renovations, improved food, and the availability of decent childcare for parents in uniform, all factors that can affect troop morale and retention rates. Readiness woes could be exacerbated by cuts to the Navy's workforce of civilian experts who repair ships.

"That money is almost certainly going to be offered up for some portion of it," said McGrath. "Because when you take core readiness, shipbuilding, submarines and weapons, munitions, and you say 'You can't cut from those things,' there's just not a lot of fat there to go after."

Proposed budget moves are likely to be reviewed by the secretary of defense's office first, McGrath noted, and in some cases may be reallocated back to where they came from in the first place, making cut identification a crushing drill for the hard-working staff officers in the Pentagon.

Generally speaking, "it's a terrible way to run a railroad," he said.

• Trump's government cuts are impacting military veterans, causing job losses and uncertainty.
• Military veterans make up 30% of the federal workforce.
• Military veteran employees fear further cuts, especially those with disabilities.

Military veterans say they're feeling a mix of confusion, desperation, and fear about sweeping cuts to the federal government.

One disabled veteran who was laid off this month from the US Department of Agriculture said she's making ends meet with a disability stipend. She worries the Veterans Affairs benefit could be cut, too. Her husband is unemployed while he is pursuing a specialized military job.

"It's just a really hard situation to be in," she told Business Insider.

Another veteran said that her recent layoff from another section of the USDA crushed her dream of a lifetime of public service. "I was really excited to be a federal employee," she told BI. "I wanted to be a civil servant."

These former servicemembers and three others spoke to BI on the condition of anonymity to protect their current jobs or to avoid career reprisals should they seek government work in the future. BI has verified their identities.

President Donald Trump's Department of Government Efficiency, an operation led by Elon Musk, has laid off thousands of government workers in the last several weeks. The cuts may be disproportionately impacting veterans.

According to the US Office of Personnel Management, military veterans made up about 30% of federal employees in 2021, and many of those had service-related disabilities.

"It's a middle finger to our heroes and the law and their lives of service," Sen. Tammy Duckworth told reporters during a press call Wednesday. The congresswoman is a retired Illinois Army National Guard lieutenant colonel who was left disabled after a rocket-propelled grenade hit her helicopter in Iraq.

Veterans have served "honorably, reliably, and with dignity," the Democratic senator continued. "They do not deserve this treatment."

'I joined because I wanted to serve'

The veteran with dreams of lifelong public service was fired last week from her work as a soil tester for the USDA.

She's worried her now-former employer, the Natural Resources Conservation Service, could be disbanded. The agency was created after the 1930s Dust Bowl era to halt further soil erosion and prevent another such catastrophe.

"Without soil, we don't have crops; we don't have stability for buildings," the woman said.

Roughly 6% of the US population identify as veterans, according to the US Census. The federal government's hiring process gives veterans who were discharged under honorable conditions priority over other job applicants.

Now those veteran employees are in the crosshairs as the DOGE commission slashes agencies — including USAID, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and likely soon the military — purging operations it considers a waste of government resources.

Musk hopes to cut at least $2 trillion in waste.

"Being in the military has really given me an appreciation for service," the former USDA soil employee told BI. "I joined because I wanted to serve. When I went to the [Military Entrance Processing Station], I said, 'I don't care what job you put me in, whatever job you put me in is what my country needs me to do.'"

She said that her termination letter cited poor performance as the cause for separation.

However, employee performance review documents shared with Business Insider highlight the veteran's performance as a reliable go-getter. Over the past week, employees throughout the government have cited performance-driven terminations that they maintain are disconnected from their performance reviews.

'We don't know who or what to believe'

Other agency staffers still unaffected by cuts are fearful of what may come and unsure of how to prepare.

One military veteran at the US Department of Commerce expressed concern for an older colleague, an Army veteran with 100% service-connected disability rating from the VA.

"We are worried that people with disabilities and/or reasonable accommodations will be targeted," the Commerce employee, who asked for anonymity out of concern they could be targeted for speaking publicly, told BI in an email. Reasonable accommodations allow an employee with a disability to modify their hours, working space, or responsibilities.

Veterans Affairs leadership has said no reductions to benefits are planned, but several veterans said they fear that could change. According to a 2023 Bureau of Labor Statistics report, over 31% of employed veterans with a service-related disability worked in the public sector.

"Some days we hear that veteran's preference will protect us, and other days we hear veterans [and veteran health benefits] could be targeted in a future wave of attacks," they said, adding, "We don't know who or what to believe."

Others are concerned about the fate of disabled veterans in government roles. "People need to realize it's hard for disabled veterans sometimes to get employment in the civilian sector," said a third USDA probationary employee and disabled veteran who was fired last Thursday.

"They don't get as much respect in the civilian sector as they do within the government," she said.

The White House did not provide comment to BI on the impact of the ongoing cuts on the military veteran community.

'Nobody knows what's going on'

Another veteran who works in peer support at the Veteran Crisis Line told BI she knows of around a dozen colleagues on probationary status who were laid off.

She said she and her coworkers serve as a sort of bridge between emergency hotline responders and longer-term follow-on care, which can sometimes require dayslong waits for an appointment.

"Nobody knows what's going on," she said, calling the uncertainty "nerve-racking."

Axing the probationary employees from the crisis line has tanked morale, she said.

"It's a very hard job and not a lot of people can do it, or want to do it," she said, adding that "it's got a high burnout rate, so when you find people that are at the VCL and stay and want to stay, those are diamond-in-the-rough kind of people."

"I do think that there is waste or places that they can cut," she said of fat-trimming measures happening in the federal government. "But generally, it's the administrative stuff at the top, not us."

"Over here, we're actually doing the work," she added. "Some of those jobs we need … who's going to pick up that slack?"

Sam Fellman and Alice Tecotzky contributed to this reporting.

• Trump criticized the USS Gerald R. Ford aircraft carrier's costly tech issues this week.
• The Ford-class carrier faced delays and cost overruns during development due to new tech integration.
• Trump has previously questioned the Ford's technology, at times advocating for traditional systems.

President Donald Trump criticized the technologies aboard the new US Navy supercarrier USS Gerald R. Ford on Wednesday in a discussion of waste, reviving complaints about the aircraft carrier's engineering.

In remarks following the swearing-in of the new Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, Trump deviated unexpectedly into carrier catapults and elevators, among other topics.

"Look at the Gerald Ford, the aircraft carrier," Trump said. "It was supposed to cost $3 billion. It ends up costing like $18 billion."

USS Gerald Ford is the world's largest aircraft carrier and the first ship of the new Ford-class carriers.

The $13 billion vessel set sail on its first deployment in 2022 after years of delays and soaring costs, which stemmed from technological integration challenges.

"We had 23 new technologies on that ship, which quite frankly increased the risk of delivery and cost — of delivery on time and cost right from the get-go," former Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Michael Gilday said in 2021, acknowledging the technology troubles.

Issues included the electromagnetic aircraft launch system (EMALS) and the advanced weapons elevators.

These systems now appear to work sufficiently. The carrier was able to complete a successful extended deployment in early 2024 that took it to the Eastern Mediterranean in the fall of 2023, just after the October 7 Hamas attack on Israel.

But the president still has concerns about the technology.

Trump knocked the ship's "electric catapults" as faulty on Wednesday, telling listeners that they "don't work." He has previously said the EMALS is too complicated and that sailors have to be Albert Einstein to work the system. He has pushed for steam catapults, which is what the Nimitz-class carriers use.

The new EMALS technology hasn't been without problems. In 2020, the catapults failed inexplicably, hamstringing flight operations for the better part of a week.

Naval Air Systems announced in the summer of 2022 that the EMALS and advanced arresting gear on the Ford had facilitated 10,000 aircraft launches and recoveries, indicating a shift away from earlier tech woes.

Trump's concerns extend beyond the EMALS though.

"And they have all magnetic elevators," Trump continued in his remarks Wednesday on the Ford's technology. "They lift up 25 planes at a time, 20 planes at a time," he said, seemingly referring to the massive elevators designed to move military aircraft. The Ford has three aircraft elevators and 11 advanced weapons elevators, dedicated to moving heavy ordnance like bombs and missiles.

The weapons elevators, which rely on electromagnetic motors instead of cables and pulleys, were a problem during his first term in office. The shipbuilder resolved the issues prior to delivering the carrier to the Navy.

Trump has had a lot to say about the Ford over the years. Privately, he's also expressed concerns about the way it looks.

The Navy has one Ford-class carrier in service, one being readied for later delivery, two under construction, and two in planning. It's unclear if the White House intends to make changes to naval engineering and construction efforts.

The Navy did not provide comment on the president's remarks, and there was no immediate response from the White House.

Trump recently signaled his intent to have the Department of Government Efficiency look into wasteful spending in the military, adding Wednesday that when "you look at the kind of waste, fraud, and abuse that this country is going through … we have to straighten it out." His national security advisor, Mike Waltz, criticized US shipbuilding over the weekend as an "absolute mess."

Correction: February 13, 2025 — An earlier version of this story indicated that some of President Trump's comments were made on Thursday. All of the comments were made on Wednesday.

• A new watchdog report says Navy SEAL candidates face health risks from contaminated water during training in California.
• It says Naval Special Warfare Command has ignored local bacteria-related beach closure advisories.
• Nearly 1,200 gastrointestinal illness cases were reported among trainees from 2019 to 2023.

Navy SEAL candidates have been swimming in waters off Southern California with high levels of fecal matter, according to a new Pentagon watchdog report.

And they've been doing it while beaches are closed to the public to prevent exposure to the hazard, the report said. Naval Special Warfare Command did not respond to Business Insider's request for comment.

A Department of Defense Inspector General report released last week said that "Navy SEAL candidate exposure to contaminated water occurred because [Naval Special Warfare Command] did not follow San Diego County's Beach and Bay Water Quality Program's beach closure postings."

"As a result of Navy SEAL candidate exposure to contaminated water during training, candidates are presented with increased health risks," the report said.

Between January 2019 and May 2023, the Navy diagnosed almost 1,200 cases of acute gastrointestinal illnesses amongst SEAL and Special Warfare Combat Crewman candidates training at Coronado. AGI can include a range of symptoms like nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea.

Nearly 40% of those cases were diagnosed within a week of exposure to ocean water that exceeded state limits, the report said.

Acute gastrointestinal illnesses can be brought on by exposure to bacteria, including enterococcus bacteria that originates in the intestinal tracts of animals and humans and often indicates fecal waste contamination.

Investigators found dangerous levels of enterococcus on beaches on both ends of Coronado in around 75% of water samples collected last year.

Naval Special Warfare relies on local water quality reports provided by San Diego County to identify bacterial presence in waters during training, the report says. It does not conduct self-testing.

When the county water test results indicate dangerously high levels of fecal presence, local beaches are shut down until further testing indicates safer levels of bacteria. But most of the time, when the local beaches are closed, SEAL training doesn't stop.

Sources of fecal bacteria can include wastewater treatment plant runoff, leaking septic systems, and discharged sewage.

California lawmakers have previously highlighted problems with San Diego's South Bay International Wastewater Treatment Plant to Congress, according to The Coronado News, which investigated how millions of gallons of sewage flows from nearby Mexico into the Pacific Ocean.

"Unhealthy levels of pollution are present not only in the ocean, but sewage that washes up on land, dries up and sends dangerous levels of hydrogen sulfide into the air around people's homes," congressional Rep. Scott Peters told House lawmakers last year.

"Coronado, in my district, is home to the Naval Special Warfare Command where Navy SEALs train in waters polluted with human feces," he said.

Responding to the new IG report, the Naval Inspector General agreed that SEAL candidate safety is paramount but said that "Naval Special Warfare cannot easily cancel or relocate 75 percent of its water training activities."

• Trump has said he wants to again put the Panama Canal under US control, causing a stir.
• The US has a history of intervention in Panama. In 1989, the military invaded it.
• The successful invasion signaled to neighboring countries that the US disregarded state sovereignty.

President Donald Trump has taken a strong interest in seeing the US retake control of the strategic Panama Canal amid growing concerns over Chinese influence.

Trump has signaled that all options are on the table in his Panamanian pursuit and said earlier this month that the US is "going to take it back," or "something very powerful is going to happen."

It's unclear what that might be, but the US has a long history of political and military intervention in Panama, including an invasion nearly 40 years ago that culminated in a dictator being driven out of an embassy with deafening rock music. Operation Just Cause, a 1989 military intervention, saw 26,000 American troops pour into the country.

The lead-up to the invasion

Originally, American interest in controlling the Canal Zone was less about economics and more about naval warships, said Alan McPherson, a professor of US-Latin American relations at Temple University. While the US more or less accepted handing control of the canal over to Panama, it maintained a consistent presence of troops there.

"You could call it whatever you want," McPherson said of the longtime American presence and interest in the canal. "But it was always this imperial enclave."

Weeks before Operation Just Cause launched in late 1989, Panamanian Defense Forces harassed four US troops stationed there, killing one and injuring another. The skirmish wasn't the reason the US invaded, but it fueled tensions.

American officials began to worry that Panama's dictator might be heading toward an alliance with Soviet Russia. The Bush administration wanted to oust dictator Manuel Noriega from power in favor of a democratically elected leader.

Noriega had benefited the US for years before, having served as a secret CIA informant on other regional drug traffickers. He'd grown increasingly powerful, and the Cold War-era American officials feared Noriega would eventually find Communist Soviet Russia to be a better ally than the Americans.

But the idea of a military invasion to push out a dictator didn't appeal to all US government officials.

"What's really interesting is that the United States government was not united on taking out Noriega," McPherson said. "Noriega definitely was a drug dealer, but he was more of like a protector than an actual mover of drugs," he said. His role in the drug trade allowed Panama to function as a facilitator for drug movement by other regional powers, like the Colombians or Cubans.

Because of his deep familiarity with drug networks and proven track record as an informant for other criminals, the CIA and DEA didn't actually want to dismantle Noriega's position, McPherson said. "They opposed any plans for Operation Just Cause."

The US had paid Noriega for information on other networks like the Cubans for decades, said Robert Harding, professor Latin American politics at Valdosta State University, but US officials grew increasingly worried that as Noriega's grip on power held strong he would inch closer to supporting the Russians instead.

Operation Just Cause

In describing Just Cause, Harding says the US "used a hammer to kill a fly."

"The Panamanian Defense Force was only about 3000 [strong] or so. All they had were machine guns and maybe mortars and rocket launchers," he said.

"But we went in there with the stealth fighters and with the helicopter gunships and just completely obliterated not just the [Panamanian Defense Forces], but sections of the city of Panama," he said, sharing that during his visits to Panama, locals have recounted stories to him about the destruction, including seeing mangled bodies in the street during the American bombardment.

A couple of other factors were at play for invading with such overwhelming force, Harding noted, including inklings of "Vietnam syndrome," in part an aversion to military intervention without the tremendous use of force.

Marines and the Army annihilated parts of the city. Navy SEALs kneecapped any possible escape for Noriega by blowing up his yacht and "disabling" his private jet. And to drive Noriega out of his refuge at the Vatican Embassy, US troops played loud, non-stop rock music. The playlist is now available online.

Major military operations lasted only five days, according to the Army, culminating in Noriega's surrender to Americans on January 3, 1990. Eventually, Noriega tired of hearing American rock, including Guns 'n Roses and Van Halen's classic, "Panama."

The aftermath

While the mission was a resounding strategic success and Noriega's removal paved the way for Panamanian democracy, McPherson said the invasion left the international community feeling uneasy.

"It flies against national sovereign, the principle of national sovereignty," McPherson said. "That nations should be able to have whatever kind of leader they want… and dictators can't just be taken out of power at the whim of a foreign power."

"It degrades the value of national sovereignty," he said. "And so that's the sort of legal and political problem with it."

Washington, however, embraced a different lesson from the Panama invasion and applied it to future military operations and warfighting campaigns, including the Global War on Terror.

• The National Guard, rooted in colonial militias, serves state needs under governors.
• Active-duty and reserve forces operate under federal command. Sometimes the National Guard can too.
• Different laws govern when a president "federalize" the Guard, with special circumstances.

The US military fights wars abroad, but it also keeps busy back home. There are different types of forces, though, and rules on what they can and can't do on domestic soil can be confusing.

The past few months alone have seen a lot of activity. Active-duty troops are transporting migrants as part of new White House deportation measures, with others deployed to the US-Mexico border. Their counterparts in the National Guard are also active at the border. Other Guard units have helped battle wildfires and assisted with hurricane recovery.

What's the difference between active duty, Guard, and reserve?

The National Guard traces its roots all the way back to colonial America.

"The best way to think of the Guard is as a classic citizen-soldier," Rachel VanLandingham, a national security expert and professor at Southwestern Law School, said. Those state militias have transformed over 250 years into individual state National Guards, with around 430,000 members collectively across the nation.

The Guard is made up of regular community members such as teachers, bankers, social workers, and so on who can be called up to respond to emergencies at the discretion of their state governors. "When there's a need, they're gonna put on a uniform," VanLandingham said. "But they specifically belong to the state."

There are generally two categories of people who join the National Guard, said Katherine Kuzminski, who oversees the Center for a New American Security's military, veterans, and society program.

Most National Guard troops are either pursuing a civilian career but still want to serve or were once on active duty but are now part-timers.

Like the reserves and active forces, National Guard troops go through basic training with follow-on specialized job training. They hold specific military jobs, which can include anything from truck mechanic or pilot to infantryman or admin specialist.

Because active troops are assigned to military bases that are usually far removed from heavily populated areas, leading to less overlap with civilians, most Americans rarely engage with active troops, and are more likely to know someone who's in the Guard or the Reserve.

Similar to the Guard, reserve forces are the part time equivalent of the active-duty force. Many reservists are also former full-time troops who were once on active duty. Reservists frequently belong to units based outside their home states, meaning they might travel monthly to "drill," performing routine duties to stay fresh in uniform.

Both Guard troops and reservists are usually obligated to serve one weekend a month in uniform and then at least two consecutive weeks yearly to maintain military skillsets.

Active-duty service members enlist for a specific number of years, with options to extend. They live on or near the military base to which they are assigned. Most active service members work normal workdays but are expected to undergo long training exercises, perform overnight duties, and are often on call 24/7.

Who do they answer to?

The most important differences between Guard, reserve, and active-duty forces are in their chains of command and legal authorities.

First, the chain of command for all reservists and active troops is entirely through the Department of Defense, up to the service secretaries and the president. States have no control over reserve forces.

Each of the armed services under the Department of Defense has its own reserve component, but only the Army and Air Force have National Guards. States have not historically needed naval forces, Kuzminski said, so the Department of the Navy (which includes the Marine Corps) doesn't have a National Guard component. Right now, there isn't a Space Force National Guard either.

Reservists also have the option to "activate," which means that they can become active duty for a set period of time, either deploying abroad or reporting daily to a base stateside for set periods of time. "Activating" can be a popular choice for reservists seeking stability amid economic uncertainty in their civilian work or who are simply eager to deploy and serve.

National Guard control is different and a little confusing.

Most of the time, the National Guard operates under the purview of their state's governor, VanLandingham said. When called by the governor, Guard troops most often are responding to natural disasters or emergencies, like those in North Carolina who responded to Hurricane Helene last year or those in California who activated in response to the recent fires. National Guard troops were also deployed to the Capitol on January 6, 2021, amid riotous efforts to contest the election.

"Guardsmen belong to a service, but their chain of command goes to their governor," Kuzminski said.

Where are the limits?

A president or governor can request to "federalize" their guard troops, putting them on loan to the nation. When the Guard is federalized, those troops swap to operate under different laws that govern the rest of the DoD, known as Title 10.

Federalized Guard troops were vital for the Global War on Terror, said Kuzminski. Hundreds of thousands deployed over the years.

But federal adherence to the legalese that governs Guard operations has made headlines in recent years. During President Donald Trump's first term, he brought in unfederalized, out-of-state Guard troops to Washington, DC, a non-state jurisdiction, to quell protests. Some experts said the move jeopardized laws preventing the unconstitutional use of troops at home.

Governors can activate their National Guard troops to serve in certain domestic law enforcement roles at home, but all of the key constitutional guarantees still matter, VanLandingham said. "It's not like different rules apply."

The Posse Comitatus Act bars federal troops from participating in this role though. To circumvent Posse Comitatus, presidents can lean on the Insurrection Act. Trump has repeatedly floated the idea of using the military at home more recently, leading some legal experts to say the Insurrection Act is overdue for reform.

• Military units pause training amid compliance reviews with Trump's directives.
• The pause is also affecting some courses that train troops to help victims of assault.
• Military sexual assault rates persist, though some services report a decline.

President Donald Trump's executive orders targeting government diversity, equity, and inclusion activities and "gender ideology" appear to be throwing a wrench into some military sexual assault prevention education programs.

Some units have paused their sexual assault prevention and response, known as SAPR, training efforts amid ongoing reviews of program compliance with Trump's orders.

In response to the orders, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) sent out memos on implementing the president's orders, each referencing relevant training.

Destiny Sibert, a Navy spokeswoman, told Business Insider Thursday that "in compliance with OPM guidance, Commander, Navy Installations Command (CNIC), which oversees the Navy SAPR program, has temporarily paused training for SAPR staff." A review of the curriculum is underway to "ensure compliance with recent executive orders," she said.

Sibert added that the "necessary revisions will be completed and updated materials will be provided to the sexual assault response workforce soonest."

The SAPR training pause does not extend to support services provided to sexual assault victims, Sibert said. "CNIC and the Navy SAPR program are committed to providing quality care, advocacy and support to the Navy community."

A spokesperson for the Marine Corps, which falls under the Department of the Navy, told Business Insider that "as of February 4, SAPR-related training was temporarily paused to review and ensure compliance with Executive Orders and directives." Training is expected to resume this week.

Neither the White House nor the Army and the Air Force responded to Business Insider's request for comment by time of publication.

What is SAPR?

Sexual Assault Prevention and Response (SAPR) was created in 2005 to be "DoD's single point of accountability for sexual assault prevention and response policy and program oversight," according to the program's website. The mission is to prevent assault by educating troops, and to provide support to victims.

US military personnel are required to receive sexual assault prevention training every year. The training is geared toward various rank blocks— for example, junior enlisted troops receive different education than senior enlisted troops or officers. These annual sexual assault prevention trainings normally last around one hour.

US military sexual consent education is often the first time that junior service members receive formal instruction on what constitutes consent, as most states lack consent education in K-12 grade school curricula, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a sexual health and reproductive rights research and policy organization.

The people who teach service members about consent are usually other uniformed personnel who have attended a short course to become a "uniformed victim advocate." The UVA position is most often a collateral duty for troops who are also expected to assist victims of sexual assault in the wake of an assault.

Such assistance can include liaising with commanders, mental health professionals, and legal services to advocate on behalf of the victim.

Military sexual assault rates have remained a persistent problem within the armed forces, though reports last year indicated that rates may be on the decline for the first time in years for some, but not all, military services. Many military assaults are never reported.

• The US Army Black Hawk that collided with an American Airlines flight was training on a familiar flight path.
• The 12th Aviation Battalion frequently navigates Washington DC airspace for VIP transport.
• Pilots were flying with night vision goggles and are trained to deal with those challenges.

The US Army crew of a UH-60 Black Hawk helicopter that fatally collided with an American Airlines passenger jet on Wednesday was on a routine training flight on a well-known flight path at the time of the incident, an Army official said Thursday.

Jonathan Koziol, a retired Army chief warrant officer aviator with nearly three decades of military flight experience, said during a media roundtable this flight would have likely been deemed "low risk," not medium or high risk.

Such designations are required elements of pre-flight risk assessments and briefings to military mission approval authorities and take into account variables like weather, mission type, and potential hazards. Koziol, the Headquarters Department of the Army Aviation Directorate Chief of Staff, was not involved in flight operation or oversight.

Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth said earlier in the day that the flight was "routine" and conducted along a "standard" corridor. The flight was along Route 4, a commonly used flight path, and "should not have been a problem," Koziol said.

Crews from the Army's 12th Aviation Battalion, based in Ft. Belvoir, Virginia, are well acquainted with Washington, DC and the surrounding areas, said Koziol. Much of this unit's mission includes ferrying government and military VIPs throughout the National Capital Region (NCR) and being ready to move officials during crises.

Speaking of the Black Hawk's flight path, Koziol said "this is a relatively easy corridor to fly because you're flying down the center of the river."

He said that the dark river flight path, with urban lights on either side to act as informal guardrails, makes the task simple for pilots. The battalion's Black Hawk was also equipped with an in-flight map, meaning the pilots could track their position throughout the flight.

"You have the darkness of the river, and you have the lights on either side of you and obviously the rotating beacon on Reagan National to point out the airfield and all the traffic on it for them to know exactly where they're at," he said.

There are several routes for helicopters in the NCR which government aircraft traverse daily and includes airspace that is off-limits to non-approved aircraft, including areas near the Pentagon, White House, National Mall, and Naval Observatory.

Each flight requires coordination with surrounding air traffic control, including the Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport, which assigns each flight a four-digit tracking number to chart its movements. Within the aviation unit, flights are meticulously planned for and managed, Koziol said.

Koziol said the Black Hawk pilots were training with night vision goggles, which can cut down a wearer's peripheral vision and impact depth perception. Soldiers train regularly with these capabilities to limit the impact.

"They are helpful at night, obviously, and in an urban environment, they're still useful," Koziol said. City lights can make seeing with night vision more difficult, but flying over the river where the Black Hawk was shouldn't have posed any problems with light, he said.

All three crew members, two pilots and a crew chief, were experienced aviators, he said. Both pilots had at least 1500 combined flight hours between them. One pilot served as the flight commander and instructor, overseeing an annual training requirement for the second pilot, who held 500 hours and had previously served as a flight commander.

The cause of Wednesday's deadly crash, in which there were no survivors, is unknown and under investigation.

• A Black Hawk helicopter collided with an American Airlines flight during training.
• The Black Hawk, a versatile military aircraft, is used for various operations.
• The Black Hawk has millions of flight hours logged and is known as a "workhorse" aircraft.

The US Army UH-60 Black Hawk helicopter that collided with an American Airlines flight Wednesday evening is one of the most popular and recognizable helicopters in the US military, with variants of the aircraft serving in a range of roles.

Here's what you need to know about the Black Hawk.

What are Black Hawks used for?

The Black Hawk, which is made by Lockheed subsidiary Sikorsky Aircraft, is known as a military "workhorse" because of its versatility. It's used for battlefield medical evacuations, search and rescue operations, troop and cargo movement, and special operations, including high-profile missions by Army special operations.

The Army has been flying the aircraft since 1979.

The aircraft was famously a feature of the 2001 film Black Hawk Down, based on a book of the same name that detailed US actions during the 1993 Battle of Mogadishu.

The US Navy's SEAL Team 6 also used two specially modified Black Hawks, one of which crashed and had to be destroyed, during their 2011 mission to kill 9/11 mastermind Osama Bin Laden.

What are its specifications?

According to Lockheed, the medium-sized aircraft can hold up to 12 fully-kitted troops — and more without gear — and can be reconfigured to fly passengers or injured troops.

Black Hawks usually have a three-person crew, including a pilot, co-pilot, and crew chief. They have an external hook capable of lifting up to 8,000 pounds, and their top speed is around 170 mph.

The Black Hawk helicopter does not have any dedicated weapons systems, but it is equipped with mounts for machine guns and miniguns. It can also be outfitted with rockets and missiles, among other weaponry.

Who makes the Black Hawk?

According to Lockheed, which now owns original developer Sikorsky, the company has built over 5,000 Black Hawks for three dozen nations since the program's inception.

The aircraft is named after the chief of the Native American Sauk tribe and has accumulated over 15 million flight hours.

Various versions of the aircraft have been released over the past four decades. Lockheed is working on even more advanced versions with more powerful engines that the company says could one day allow it to hover or fly autonomously. The Army has been looking into partnerships that could lead to that degree of autonomy.

What's the Black Hawk's safety record?

Given its extensive use by the US military and numerous overseas operators, there have been a number of Black Hawk crashes over the years, including many incidents that have been fatal due to either human error or mechanical issues.

Last year, an Israeli Black Hawk crashed during operations in Gaza. And in 2023, three separate Black Hawk crashes resulted in the death of 16 American service members. Those accidents included one midair collision, one ground crash, and another into the sea.

In mid-2023, Military.com, citing Army data, reported 60 training-related deaths over the past decade.

What happened just outside DC?

Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth said the American Airlines flight and its crew were undergoing annual proficiency training. The helicopter was part of the 12th Aviation Battalion out of Fort Belvoir, Va.

The 12th Aviation Battalion has a unique mission, ferrying VIP military leaders and government officials throughout the National Capital Region.

"It was a fairly experienced crew," Hegseth said in his statement, adding that the crew had night vision goggles, though it's unclear if the night vision goggles were being used at the time of the crash.

US military pilots routinely train with night vision devices, part of larger military mandates that troops of all ranks perform certain proficiency training as part of their annual requirements. Military pilots are expected to be able to land in areas where a well-lit runway or bright aircraft lights could pose tactical risks, like attracting fire, and must train to perform in ultra-dark conditions.

Night-vision goggles sometimes limit depth perception and peripheral vision, and they can be difficult for new users to acclimate to.

For residents in DC and northern Virginia, it's not uncommon to see Black Hawk helicopters flying up and down I-395 or around the Beltway area.

For one impressive shot of the Pentagon, DoD media officials coordinated a trip with the 12th Aviation Battalion in 2023. Planning for the aerial photography included a detailed flight plan coordinated with the Federal Aviation Administration and in-air communications with air-traffic controllers at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport to deconflict airspace. These are routine 12th Aviation Battalion flight procedures.

The 12th Aviation Battalion helicopter collided with an American Airlines flight inbound to Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport Wednesday evening. All crew members and passengers are presumed dead. The current death toll is at least 67.

The cause of the collision is under investigation.

• An internal US Navy email told service members not to use the Chinese AI app DeepSeek.
• The memo is a reminder of the Navy policy against using open-source AI for official work.
• DeepSeek recently surpassed ChatGPT as the Apple App Store's top free app.

The US Navy told some service members they shouldn't use AI apps, including the Chinese startup DeepSeek's app.

A Navy memo sent last week said DeepSeek's artificial intelligence should not be used "in any capacity" because of "potential security and ethical concerns associated with the model's origin and usage."

News of the memo was earlier reported by CNBC.

A Navy official told Business Insider that the email was distributed to fewer than 40 personnel and notified them that DeepSeek fit into 2023 Department of the Navy guidance telling service members not to use AI tools. Various open-source AI tools are publicly available, including popular ones like OpenAI's ChatGPT.

The 2023 guidance said that using commercial generative AI models posed a "unique security risk" with the potential for "data compromise."

The official said the email was intended for a smaller audience within the Navy but was circulated more broadly. They called it "the forwarding effect."

A Navy spokesperson said the memo aimed to remind service members of its AI policy and was not part of a new ban.

"The internal correspondence was a reminder to colleagues of standing Navy guidance against the use of any publicly accessible, open-source AI programs or systems for official work," the spokesperson said. "DeepSeek was mentioned as the most recent example of how the standing guidance applies."

DeepSeek has made headlines as an apparently low-cost alternative to American-made AI tools like ChatGPT and briefly sparked a sudden, sharp downturn in US markets this week. The Chinese AI company was started in 2023, and its app recently surpassed ChatGPT as the Apple App Store's top free app and remained in the No. 1 spot as of Wednesday.

• Trump and others have floated sending US special operations forces to Mexico to combat cartels.
• Experts told Business Insider that intervention in Mexico could create instability.
• SOF missions like foreign internal defense could be prudent, but only to augment nonmilitary approaches.

Trump world is kicking around the idea of sending special operations forces into Mexico to combat drug cartels. There's a risk these operations could make things worse, experts said.

While designating Mexican cartels as "foreign terrorist organizations" on Monday, President Donald Trump was asked by reporters whether he would consider sending US special operations personnel to Mexico.

"Could happen," the president said, noting that "stranger things have happened."

Experts on the cartels and warfare said that sending any military troops into Mexico risks stirring instability, which could then spill over the border into US territory.

"I don't think that the American people have the stomach for what's going to happen if we start messing around down there," a senior active-duty special operator told Business Insider, speaking on condition of anonymity because he wasn't authorized to speak to the media.

"Just throwing any military mechanism at this problem for the purpose of just killing cartel leaders is not going to change anything," he said. "It's only going to make things worse."

Trump floated the idea of military intervention in Mexico in his first term, but his team now appears to be considering the idea more seriously.

"How much should we invade Mexico?" a transition team member told Rolling Stone in November 2024 for a report on Trump's musings about combating cartels in Mexico. "That is the question."

Trump's new national security advisor, Mike Waltz, a former Green Beret, has pushed the idea of using special operators. And Trump's "border czar," Tom Homan, has said that special operations forces could be used to take the cartels out, or "take them off the face of the Earth."

Direct action raids — hard-hitting missions US special operations is known for and which Trump appears inclined to pursue — on Mexican soil would bring disastrous consequences, especially if conducted without an invitation from Mexico, the operator and other experts BI spoke with warned. But other, less kinetic missions, like training foreign troops or improving foreign internal defense, could prove worthwhile, they said.

Such missions have long been the bread and butter of forces like the Army's Green Berets. With Trump's formal designation of cartels as foreign terrorist organizations, those kinds of missions could augment other government efforts to more effectively stem the flow of drugs into the US, sources told BI.

An idea that keeps coming up

The idea of using special operators to combat cartels in Mexico has gained traction among leading Republicans, particularly military veterans. Before Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, a former naval officer, ended his bid for the White House, he told CNN that if elected president, he would deploy US special operations forces into Mexico "on day one."

In 2023, Waltz, then a congressional representative from Florida, and Dan Crenshaw, a Texas congressman and former Navy SEAL, introduced new Authorization of Military Force legislation aimed at Mexican cartels. Such legislation is notably not often quickly reversed — both of the AUMFs that allowed the Global War on Terror to balloon in scope are still in place.

Wanting to send special operations forces into Mexico is understandable, said Bruce Hoffman, a senior fellow for counterterrorism and homeland security at the Council on Foreign Relations. Other measures have failed to curb the flow of drugs into the US, though some of the efforts at home appear to be working, as deaths from fentanyl overdoses are finally on the decline.

But special operations is much smaller than conventional military forces, he said, and isn't designed to solve every problem that might warrant military intervention.

"Despite the public imagination, SOF is not on a regular basis engaged in the kinds of operations that people often imagine, that are depicted in Hollywood," Hoffman said.

"They're engaged in less glamorous things like training indigenous forces, gathering intelligence, psychological operations, [and] civil affairs," he said.

Bolstering Mexico's internal defenses could be a worthwhile endeavor, the active-duty special operator told BI, but prioritizing military intervention over non-violent approaches, like empowering the State and Treasury departments to apply pressure on the financial institutions used by cartels, would be foolhardy.

The dangers of getting it wrong

Violence against cartels could trigger a humanitarian crisis and spur more immigration to the US, said Guadalupe Correa-Cabrera, a professor at George Mason University who has extensively studied cartels.

Mexican civilians caught in the crossfire would likely flee communities, which could create a refugee crisis, she said. "They are going to apply for asylum in a desperate situation," she said, calling the idea of immediate military intervention illogical.

It's not as simple as killing top leaders either. Complicating the grip cartels have on Mexican society is their seemingly infinite complexity, she said.

"We're not talking about businesses that operate vertically, like El Chapo and El Mayo, and all these guys that provide orders to everyone," she said, referring to two infamous drug kingpins. Most cartels operate with less centralized command structures and are splintered into smaller cells. Some of these focus on drug movements and production, while others focus on kidnapping, extortion, and human smuggling.

If the goal is to limit the reach of the cartels and the violence and the destruction that comes with them, "you are going to get the exact opposite effect" if you start killing leaders, said Carolyn Gallaher, a professor at American University who studies cartels, in an interview with BI.

Top leaders can be easily replaced by others zealously vying for power, creating an even more complex battlefield for American troops and Mexican civilians.

"When you start fighting an army that is not behaving like a regular military, you are basically in the middle of civilian life," Gallaher said. "And you don't have an accurate way to differentiate between civilian and soldier."

Doug Livermore, vice president of the Special Operations Association of America and a senior Green Beret officer in the National Guard who has written about narcoterrorism, said special operations is just one tool in the vast US government toolbox, and can't be the main effort.

"A military approach by itself will not be sufficient. It will not solve the problem," Livermore told BI.

He suggested a broader approach involving US special operations-provided intelligence or efforts to bolster internal security. However, Livermore said rampant corruption in Mexico's government agencies could complicate these efforts.

He also recommended a closer examination and targeting of China's role in the US drug crisis, pointing to the supply of chemical and financial support to cartels.

It's unclear what endstates the Trump administration desires to achieve to define success, said the SOF operator. Lacking such parameters could lead to another quagmire. It seems likely, however, that any effective operation to dismantle them will take years, he said.

"It's not done in a short amount of time; it takes consistent effort and partnership," the operator said. "It's going to take a generation or two; it's not going to be done in four years."

• DARPA seeks to modify red blood cells to enhance troop performance.
• The Red Blood Cell Factory program aims to insert biologically active components in cells.
• The agency says this research could one day lead to longer-lasting meds and blood-cell drug delivery systems.

The Defense Advanced Research Project Agency, the Pentagon's top research arm, wants to know if red blood cells can be modified in novel ways to protect troops and help them manage extreme battlefield environments.

The DARPA program, known as "Red Blood Cell Factory," is looking for researchers and is interested in inserting "biologically active components" or "cargoes" in red blood cells. The hope is that modified cells would bring with them special enhancements, "thus allowing recipients, such as warfighters, to operate more effectively in dangerous or extreme environments."

Red blood cells could act like a truck, carrying "cargo" or special protections, to all parts of the body, since they already circulate oxygen everywhere, Christopher Bettinger, a professor of biomedical engineering overseeing the program, told Business Insider.

"What if we could add in additional cargo … inside of that disc," Bettinger said, referring to the shape of red blood cells, "that could then confer these interesting benefits … protective capabilities that we're trying to sort of imbue to our warfighters?"

What could these modifications do?

DARPA does not expect the researchers to experiment on people or animals, just on bags of blood. The research is foundational, Bettinger said, but could allow scientists to identify how red blood cell modification could evolve over time.

The research could impact the way troops battle diseases that reproduce in red blood cells such as malaria, for example, Bettinger hypothesized.

"Imagine an alternative world where we have a warfighter that has a red blood cell that's accessorized with a compound that can sort of defeat malaria," Bettinger said. In this scenario, a red blood cell could be "accessorized" with a countermeasure.

"It's kind of like an automatic drug delivery system," he said, "that could then protect the warfighter from the harmful effects of subsequent infection and sort of replication of the parasite."

It could also be possible to modify the red blood cells in ways that would allow medications to last longer without a service member having to ingest them daily — instead, relying on doses that protect a person for weeks or months instead of just 24 hours.

Another potential use of modified cells could be stopping a hemorrhage from trauma, including battlefield wounds.

"Trauma induces a kind of host of biological responses, one of which is rupturing of red blood cells," Bettinger said. DARPA's research efforts could ascertain from its blood research whether a catastrophic injury that would normally mean death from blood loss instead sees blood automatically coagulate.

A path to a more capable warfighter

"Each red blood cell stays in the blood for about four months, and it accesses pretty much every organ in the body," said Samir Mitragotri, a professor of bioengineering at Harvard. Their prevalence and relatively long lifetime are partly why red blood cells are such an attractive target for scientists.

Part of the challenge, Mitragotri said, is that the cells can't be so radically changed that the body no longer recognizes them as red blood cells, thus prompting quicker bodily digestion.

Such advances in bioengineering could be a game-changer in fields like infectious disease treatment and oncology, said Mitragotri, illnesses which require long periods of drug treatment. Though the science is still emerging, it's "a very promising area," he said.

The Department of Defense has long been interested in learning how biomedical engineering could benefit troops.

For years, the US military has been looking into the benefits of biofeedback technologies to better understand mental and physical health. And there's also been research into potential physical enhancements through various lines of effort.

In 2019, for instance, the Army released a "Cyborg Soldier 2050" report detailing how the military is thinking about a future where troops could benefit from things like neural and optical enhancements, though the report acknowledged ethical and legal concerns surrounding such possibilities.

US rivals like China are, as the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies noted in a new report, also exploring this space, but with less concern for ethical considerations.

The Chinese People's Liberation Army "has long recognized the strategic importance of biotechnology, engaging in extensive collaborations with Chinese biotechnology behemoths," the report said. "These and other partnerships have yielded research with potential military applications, including efforts to enhance Chinese soldiers' physical and cognitive abilities."

• Mark Milley's Pentagon portrait was removed shortly after Trump took office.
• Milley was hired by Trump as a top military advisor only to later fall out of favor.
• The former chairman of the Joint Chiefs served under Biden, retired in 2023, and received a preemptive pardon.

The Pentagon portrait of former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley was suddenly removed Monday shortly after President Donald Trump took office.

The portrait had been displayed in the Pentagon for less than two weeks before being taken down. The painting previously hung in a corridor filled with portraits of past chairmen.

When asked why Milley's portrait was taken down, Pentagon officials declined to comment on the matter. Voice of America's Carla Babb talked to the painters who patched up the holes where the portrait had been hanging. She reported they said they were doing as told and had not been given a reason.

Trump hired Milley for his position as chairman, though Milley later fell out of favor.

There had been clashes behind the scenes, such as a shouting match with Trump over nationwide racial justice protests in 2020. But the rift became more noticeable after Milley apologized for appearing in a photo op with Trump after the forceful clearing of protesters in DC. That rift has only gotten wider with time, especially as Milley's concerns about Trump have come out in reports and books.

Trump has expressed irritation with Milley's characterizations of his administration and the president himself in discussions with reporters, criticized Milley for US failures in Afghanistan, calling him a "loser," and has called for the former top general to be "tried for treason" in response to his efforts to ensure nuclear and geopolitical stability after the events of January 6, 2021.

The Joint Chiefs of Staff do not have command of troops, unlike military combatant commanders. The job is an advisory role for the highest levels of US leadership, including the president.

Milley continued to serve as Chairman under President Joe Biden and retired in October 2023. In discussions with investigative journalist Bob Woodward, Milley has called Trump a "fascist" and expressed concern he could be court-martialed.

In the final hours of the Biden Administration, Milley was granted a preemptive pardon by Biden, who said in a statement that the pardon, and Milley's acceptance, doesn't indicate any wrongdoing or guilt by Milley.

Biden's statement said that "our nation owes these public servants a debt of gratitude for their tireless commitment to our country."

• Pete Hegseth faced intense questioning over his comments about women in combat roles.
• Hegseth walked back his opposition but said he'd order a review of gender-neutral standards.
• The military does not have a quota for women in combat roles as Hegseth had suggested.

President-elect Donald Trump's pick to lead the Pentagon, Pete Hegseth, walked back his outspoken opposition to women serving in the US military's combat jobs as he faced intense questioning from lawmakers on Tuesday.

Hegseth, an Army veteran of Iraq and Fox News host, had built a large following with blunt commentary that criticized female troops and claimed standards had been lowered to help them. But in the Senate hearing, he signaled he wouldn't attempt to ban women from combat roles, a backtrack that may have been necessary to get enough votes.

Sen. Joni Ernst, an Iowa Republican and Iraq veteran whose support has been seen as pivotal, asked if Hegseth supports women continuing to serve in combat roles.

"Yes, exactly the way that you caveated it," Hegseth said. "Yes, women will have access to ground combat roles, given the standards remain high, and we'll have a review to ensure the standards have not been eroded in any one of these cases."

Hegseth said that if he's confirmed by the GOP-led Senate, he would initiate a review of gender-neutral standards within the Pentagon for combat jobs held by female service members.

Hegseth had been a vociferous critic of the 2015 lifting of combat exclusions for women.

"I'm straight-up just saying we should not have women in combat roles," Hegseth said in an interview after Trump's re-election in November. Combat roles include jobs in the infantry, artillery, and special operations, among others.

"They're gonna change the standards, they're gonna push the quotas," he continued during the interview. "They pushed that under Obama in a way that had nothing, zero to do with efficiency… with lethality," he said.

The military does not have a quota requirement for women who fill combat roles and Hegseth's claims to the contrary provoked a confrontation before the Senate Armed Services Committee.

"Commanders do not have to have a quota for women in the infantry," Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, a New York Democrat, said during questioning. "That does not exist."

According to Military.com, almost 700 female Marines currently serve in infantry jobs, over 700 serve in the Navy's submarine forces and nearly 4,000 in the Army hold combat-related jobs. Roughly 98% of the Army's armor and infantry jobs were held by men as of 2020.

Since opening ground combat jobs to women in 2015, critics have contended that women who passed notoriously grueling training is a result of lowered physical standards, putting combat missions at-risk of catastrophe.

Ground combat roles were opened to female service members only after years of war in Iraq and Afghanistan in which women routinely found themselves in a grey zone, operating outside the wire at a time when restrictions on women in combat at times burdened units with bureaucratic red tape.

In the hearing, Hegseth emphasized his focus would be on the Defense Department's warrior ethos and making troops and the arms they carry even deadlier, implying that his earlier opposition to women stemmed from concern over fair and rigorous standards.

"Our standards will be high, and they will be equal — not equitable, that is a very different word," Hegseth said in his opening statement. "When President Trump chose me for this position, the primary charge he gave me was to bring the warrior culture back to the Department of Defense."

Since women began attending sought-after training schools, allegations have popped up about unequal treatment. Military news site Air Force Times reported in 2021 concerns from a female student at the Air Force's special operations course who questioned whether course standards were lowered for her.

The US Army has repeatedly said it did not lower standards for female soldiers at Ranger School, over 100 of whom now wear its coveted tab on their sleeve.

• The secretary of defense nominee pledged to re-recruit troops discharged over COVID-19 vaccine refusal.
• Over 8,400 troops were separated due to the vaccine mandate, which has now been rescinded.
• Hegseth said discharged troops should receive back pay, restored ranks, and an apology.

President-elect Donald Trump's pick for secretary of defense, Pete Hegseth, pledged Tuesday to re-recruit troops forced out of the military for refusing to receive the COVID-19 vaccine, and said they would receive back pay, restored ranks, and an apology.

"Service members who were kicked out because of the experimental vaccine," Hegseth told lawmakers, "they will be apologized to. They will be reinstituted with pay and rank."

Hegseth, if confirmed by the Senate, would build on the groundwork laid by Trump, who told supporters last summer he would "rehire every patriot who was fired from the military," because of the vaccine mandate.

Over 8,400 troops were separated from the services after refusing to receive the vaccine following a lawful order from Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin in 2021. The Pentagon argued that the vaccines, similar to over a dozen others servicemembers receive, were crucial to military readiness.

The Pentagon reversed course and dropped the vaccine mandate in 2023 following a decision by Congress. At that time, it stopped separating troops who had not received the shot. Roughly 99% of the active-duty Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force had been vaccinated and around 98% of the Army. Guard and Reserve rates were lower but over 90%.

Sen. Jim Banks, a Republican from Indiana, asked if Hegseth Tuesday if he would commit to "recruit these folks back" with back pay.

"I will commit to this because the Commander in Chief has committed to this," Hegseth replied. "Not only will they be reinstated, they will receive an apology, back pay, and rank that they lost because they were forced out due to an experimental vaccine."

Top military brass considered the possibility of providing back pay to troops after the vaccine mandate was repealed in early 2023, but Hegseth's remarks Tuesday drive home the incoming administration's intent to re-recruit separated troops back into the military. It is the first such indication since Trump won reelection in November.

Such a change could affect the Marine Corps, the DoD's smallest service, the most — of the roughly 8,400 troops discharged, 3,717 were Marines. For the other services, 2,041 were discharged from the Navy, 1,841 from the Army, and 834 from the Air Force.

Republicans have long criticized these separations, arguing they were unnecessary and detrimental amid US military recruitment struggles. The military, however, maintained that the mandate was a lawful order essential to readiness and the well-being of the force.

• The Air Force and Space Force must grow over the next two decades to counter emerging threats.
• China's rapid military advancements pose a significant challenge.
• The US is boosting cyber defenses and AI, with "machine speed" being necessary for some decisions.

Winning wars 25 years from now will hinge on achieving an edge in artificial intelligence and the ability to make certain decisions at inhuman speeds, the US Air Force's top civilian official said Monday.

Future war will be "highly automated, highly autonomous, action at long range, precision," and space will be a "decisive theater," Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall said. "Response times to bring effects to bear are very short."

Advances in technology, including the proliferation of sensor technology and machine learning, have led to the ability to execute complex kill chains on faster timelines. Maintaining a competitive edge demands change and further innovation.

"We're going to be in a world," Kendall said, "where decisions will not be made at human speed; they're going to be made at machine speed." Meeting that challenge will mean transforming the Department of the Air Force through AI to shield troops from a range of threats and prepare for higher-level combat.

Kendall's remarks on Monday at a Center for Strategic and International Studies event looking at Air Force plans for the future align with Air Force leadership visions for 2050.

A December 2024 report titled The Department of the Air Force in 2050 says that the "areas of conflict that move at speeds vastly exceeding human decision time constants, such as cyber warfare and electronic warfare, are likely to be dominated by AI technologies that assess events happening at unimaginably fast speeds and unimaginably small dimensions."

"These technologies will be used to make crucial decisions with no possibility of human intervention," the report says. "Victory or defeat in the air or in space at the human scale is likely to be determined by which combatant has fielded the most advanced AI technology in the areas most crucial to achieving victory."

The Air Force secretary has previously said that he doesn't think people who say that AI is "going to determine who's the winner in the next battlefield" are "all that far off."

What Air Force leadership says is needed for future fights

"China is doing everything it can to exploit the opportunities that emerging technologies are providing to field forces designed to defeat the United States in the Western Pacific, especially in space and in the air," the Air Force plans for 2050 say.

The Air Force and Space Force have expressed concern over the pace at which China has been developing military space capabilities, including a network of hundreds of military satellites that may assist in targeting troops, among other challenges.

"The joint force will not be able to go anywhere and do anything unless we can protect it from targetings in space," Kendall explained Monday.

A more powerful Space Force is a must to combat China's growing abilities, Kendall said. "We have to go from having a merchant marine [force] to essentially having a Navy," the secretary said, comparing where the force is today and where it needs to eventually be to civilian cargo mariners and armed naval forces.

The Space Force was established during the first Trump administration and remains in the early stages of development. But strengthening US technological capabilities doesn't stop there.

The US needs to boost defense against cyber-attacks while also increasing offensive capabilities, Kendall said, adding that he expects more developments on both fronts this year. That sentiment comes on the heels of a recent alarming hack of US telecommunications systems and the US treasury, allegedly by Chinese hackers.

Autonomous vehicles and aircraft are also expected to become more prolific and play a greater role in future wars. "The only open questions about autonomy are how fast it will mature and what form it will take," the Air Force said in its report on 2050.

"The direction is quite clear at this point," it said. "By 2050, we can reasonably expect autonomous vehicle operation to be the norm, in all domains."

The Air Force has already begun experimenting with AI-assisted flight navigation for some of its jets in anticipation of a space attack that could cripple satellite-based GPS communication. It is also developing uncrewed collaborative combat aircraft and experimenting with AI-piloted fighter aircraft, key developments amid Beijing's investment in its own air forces, which is gradually eroding American air supremacy.

Autonomous military platforms and other variants of AI rely so heavily on chip technology, which the Biden Administration has put new restrictions on.

"To enhance US national security and economic strength, it is essential that we do not offshore this critical technology and that the world's AI runs on American rails," read the White House announcement.

But one of the hardest challenges in the decades to come will be how American troops and machines work together at war, Kendall said. "We're gonna have to figure out how to manage this in a way which is cost effective, which is consistent with our values, which is militarily competitive."

And, he said, "I think that's gonna be a tough problem to resolve."

• NATO pit elite divers against new sensors to protect undersea cables from sabotage.
• Foreign adversaries have increasingly targeted undersea cables and underwater infrastructure.
• The training marks another shift in how NATO countries are preparing for future warfare.

NATO sent special operations divers to test new systems designed to help shield critical underwater infrastructure from damage and sabotage, growing problems.

Underwater cables and pipelines providing internet connectivity and energy have been damaged in a string of alarming incidents in recent years, with accusations of sabotage being thrown around about several just in the past couple of months.

These incidents highlight the vulnerability of these lines, but the NATO alliance is looking for answers.

Last fall, elite special operations divers from within the NATO alliance practiced bypassing underwater electronic detection sensors as part of an effort to boost protection for critical underwater infrastructure. NATO shared footage this week of the November training event — Exercise Bold Machina 2024 in La Spezia, Italy — as well as commentary from leadership.

The 13-nation event was the first of its kind, said US Navy Capt. Kurt Muhler, the maritime development director at the NATO Special Operations Headquarters, and was designed to test new sensors that could be used to defend against underwater sabotage attempts. This exercise, which Defense News first reported on, also tested allied special operations divers and their abilities to operate in increasingly transparent battlespaces.

Divers on offensive operations may not always be able to rely on dark, opaque waters to conceal their movements, Muhler, who has held SEAL team leadership positions, said, citing increased advancements in underwater detection system technologies.

"It's not knowing if somebody knows, or if you're being detected," Muhler told Defense News last fall. "It is understanding that there is a system that has the capability to detect you, but that you know nothing about it and don't know exactly what the capability is."

Undersea cables, pipelines, and other critical underwater infrastructure are at risk

The joint exercise in Italy came as damage to critical underwater infrastructure has become increasingly worrisome to Western officials who are scrambling to deter more damage to cables from vessels often quietly linked to Russian and Chinese governments.

Several underwater cables have been damaged in the past two months, including one telecommunications line linking Finland and Germany and another connecting Finland and Estonia.

Finnish officials said that they found a 60-mile seabed trail suggesting a tanker linked to Russia might be responsible for cutting cables. And around the same time, cables linking Germany and Finland and Sweden and Estonia were damaged with a Chinese vessel detected nearby when the damage occurred.

Such damage has spurred British defense officials to create a new joint operation with 10 European countries throughout the Baltic Sea area, using artificial intelligence to monitor potential threats from ships.

Undersea cables are critical components of international telecommunication infrastructure and the global economy — around 745,000 miles of cables span global seabeds and help transmit 95% of international data, including around $10 trillion in financial transactions daily.

NATO officials highlighted growing threats to cables from Russia last year, noting surveillance activity from Russian units specializing in undersea sabotage. But the barrier to entry for sabotage isn't particularly high. Russia has submarine units known to specialize in underwater sabotage, but cables have also been damaged by commercial vessels simply dragging their anchors along the sea floor.

And the concerns about the risk of underwater cable and infrastructure damage are not limited to European waters. Damage just last week to cables off the coast of Taiwan left that island's officials suspecting intentional damage from China.

"The underwater domain is hard both to protect and hard to attack," said Alberto Tremori, a NATO Centre for Maritime Research and Experimentation scientist who helped oversee the November NATO exercise. "It's not easy to protect because it's a complex environment, it's a vast environment."