Editor’s Note: A version of this article appeared on Lisa Stark’s Substack over the weekend, and has garnered sign-on from more than 100 journalists in recent days. The authors are former journalists from ABC News. Lisa Stark was a correspondent and Ian Cameron was a senior and executive producer.

President Donald Trump enjoys playing to the cameras, notably the network television news pool cameras that cover his every public move. But when he departed for New York on Monday, those cameras didn’t go with him. In an unprecedented move, the major television networks that run the television pool—ABC, CBS, CNN, Fox News, and NBC—agreed to cut off coverage of the president after he banned MS NOW, Politico, and CNN from the White House.

Trump announced his ban on Friday. It came after a terrible political week for the president, who is still stuck in his quagmire in Iran, while confronted with skyrocketing diesel and gas prices, and a US Supreme Court rejection of his attempt to curtail mail-in ballots. So, the president did what he does best: tried to change the conversation.

Apparently catching even his own press office by surprise, Trump announced the bans with his usual claim of “fake news” to justify his actions. He also threatened more bans to come. There was just one problem: CNN was the designated pool network for his foray to New York and the United Nations General Assembly this week. With CNN banned from the White House, who would run the pool?

The pool consortium had two options: succumb to the White House and find another network to serve as the pool camera or say, “we’re not playing your game, Mr. President.” Thankfully the networks stood up, citing the public’s “vital interest in receiving accurate, independent information about its government.” Their statement went on to say, “no administration should restrict a news organization because it objects to its reporting.”

We applaud the principled action taken by the networks to halt the pool coverage. Action is always more impactful than words with this president. You can issue statements to condemn the president’s subpoenas of reporters, settle spurious lawsuits, invite him to your dinners in an effort to convince him of the vital role journalists play in our democracy, or feel uncomfortable in the Oval Office when he attacks colleagues, but Trump will still carry on with his authoritarian campaign to intimidate and delegitimize the free press.

We have documented dozens of instances of the Trump administration’s attacks on the press. Some of the most egregious of Trump’s actions are those where he singles out news organizations for doing their jobs. Trump’s FCC tries to take away broadcast licenses from networks whose coverage he doesn’t like. His Justice Department issues subpoenas to journalists who write stories he doesn’t like. And he bans CNN, MS NOW and Politico from reporting from the White House because, as he posted on Truth Social Monday afternoon, “Virtually every story about me, or anything having to do with me, is negative, wrong and, in many cases, DANGEROUS for our Country.”

In reacting to Trump’s media ban of CNN, MS NOW and Politico, FOX News’ Jacqui Heinrich, president of the White House Correspondents’ Association, threw Trump’s words back at him—pointing out that the president described his own action as a “ban on the free press.” As she said in a statement, “The Constitution protects the freedom of the press from government interference. The WHCA stands in defense of our colleagues from CNN, MS NOW, and Politico who are being singled out for doing their jobs.”

Monday, some news organizations, including the Washington Post and the New York Times pledged not to publish photos of Trump’s events in New York City during the day, in “a show of support of the banned outlets.” NPR said it won’t use audio from White House events until further notice.

After Trump’s decision to ban CNN, MS NOW and Politico, we called on the White House Correspondents’ Association and all its members to take decisive action: Tell Trump that until he removes his ban, other news organizations won’t be there either. Present a united front and force the president’s hand. White House reporters need not be at the White House to report on the president and his administration. Journalists have proven with their excellent reporting that they can cover this administration without being in the room where it happens. It won’t be long before the president gets very lonely.

Support Home of the Brave

The White House effort to conjure up an alternative, a YouTube livestream called Trump TV, would offer nothing but a steady diet of Trump-approved news. Trump TV will not supplant the outstanding reporting from credible journalists with legitimate news operations. It won’t satisfy the critical tenets underlying the First Amendment, that of an informed citizenry necessary to a functioning democracy.

Before Trump becomes too lonely, however, his latest attack on press freedom may come to a quick end if the courts act to reinstate the banned news organizations. CNN, MS NOW and Politico filed a lawsuit Monday morning asking for their White House press credentials to be restored immediately. As they rightfully argue, the president’s action is unconstitutional—violating their First Amendment rights. They argue it also violates their Fifth Amendment right to due process. Trump already anticipates he will lose and has promised to appeal.

But even if this latest assault is resolved and credentials are reinstated, this escalation cannot be dismissed and forgotten. Trump’s drumbeat against the press is dangerous and un-American. This will not be his last attack on press freedom. Journalists, news organizations and the public must continue to push back relentlessly. Stand up. Don’t back down. Be united. Nothing less than freedom of the press is at stake.

Ian Cameron is a former ABC News senior and executive producer. Lisa Stark is a former ABC News correspondent.

Share

Trump did a lot of bizarre things from the stage at his all-about-me convention in Dallas. He led the crowd in a recitation of the pledge of allegiance—to himself. He rambled for two hours about transgender athletes and attempted to bribe voters with make-believe $5,000 checks. He stumbled over his words a lot, and looked and sounded very much like an unwell 80-year-old man.

But maybe the most significant thing he said was addressed directly at Republican candidates running in the midterms: “So what I really want you to do is pretend, please, that I’m on the ballot. Just come and vote. It’s so important.” Trump made clear that he wants this election to be a referendum on his second term.

But you have to wonder why. The vast majority of Americans currently believe that this administration’s economic track record to date has been an unmitigated disaster. Trump’s overall approval rating stands in the 30s, and he is underwater on how people feel he’s handling the economy—historically a strong suit for the “businessman” president.

You would think that Congressional Republicans would know people are hurting out there. You would think that they would know how wildly out of touch it looks to follow Trump’s lead in publicly spiking the football about having “the greatest economy in history.”

You would be wrong.

In House races across some of the most highly contested districts this cycle, we’re hearing Republicans double and triple down on their support for Trump’s economic agenda.

For example, Bill Huizenga, running in Michigan’s 4th Congressional district, said of the tariffs, “Is it the right thing to do? Absolutely it is.” Max Miller, running in Ohio’s 7th, said, “The economy is actually doing very well right now.” And Zach Nunn, running in Iowa’s 3rd, said, “I think that tariffs are the best way to go after” other countries. That would be news to the people of Michigan, Ohio, and Iowa, who are currently dealing with crushing inflation, with no end in sight.

Yes, these are incredibly dumb things for Congressional Republicans to say out loud, just weeks away from an election. They’re also an opportunity for those of us who care about democracy. We here at Home of the Brave count ourselves proudly in this camp.

That’s why this week, we’re spending $1.25 million to put up more than 100 new billboards across three states—Michigan, Ohio, and Iowa—hammering this message relentlessly. The billboards say things like “Groceries cost more because of Trump” and “Trump’s tariffs raised prices. Republicans supported it.” You can see them here:

The core message we’re sending with this new campaign is: Trump and the Republican Party are responsible for increased prices. We are focusing on Iowa, Michigan, and Ohio because they are each key battleground states with multiple competitive races for the House, Senate, or governor. And we’re going to keep up the pressure through election day.

Donate to Home of the Brave

Sarah Matthews served as White House deputy press secretary and resigned in protest on January 6, 2021. She is an advisory board member and spokesperson for Home of the Brave, which exists to show Americans the real-world consequences of this administration’s policies, and to highlight what bravery looks like in defense of American democracy.

Check out the Civil Defense Institute here: civildefenseinstitute.org

Subscribe for more episodes of It's Happening Here, a Home of the Brave podcast.

Subscribe now

Editor’s Note: This essay is excerpted from Sarah Longwell’s new book, New York Times bestseller “How to Eat an Elephant: One Voter at a Time.” Sarah is an advisory board member for Home of the Brave, and in her book she lays out a game plan for how the pro-democracy coalition can unite to beat back the authoritarian threat—for good.

As I sit here today, lots of people who care about democracy and the fate of our republic are feeling both cynical and optimistic. Because Donald Trump is currently in a free fall. Public opinion is turning against him and his dark, dystopian vision for the presidency.

But also, the first two years of Trump 2.0 have been wildly destructive. Not beyond the imaginations of those of us who foresaw him as the existential threat he was from the jump, but beyond the imaginations of everyone who wasn’t afflicted with our particular strain of Trump Derangement Syndrome. They said we were overreacting when we warned how much havoc Trump and his sycophants could wreak.

But we were, unfortunately, right. And as far as I’m concerned, we have spent the last decade under-reacting to Trump and the manifest ways he is reshaping America.

Many of our civic guardrails—law firms, media companies, universities, tech companies, big businesses—have acquiesced to Trump’s assault on the country. We are now a nation led by profiteers and cowards. The only way to fight back is for average Americans to turn against this perversion of American democracy with such force that Trump’s entire project is viewed as a catastrophic failure.

This is not a moment for regular order. It has to be bigger than that. Trump needs to be seen for exactly what he is: a corrupt, failed president who turned America’s economy into a smoldering dumpster fire and started pointless wars across the globe while dismantling the pillars of our democratic order, all to satisfy his own fragile ego. We cannot waste our time and energy with short-term thinking. We need to adjust the pro-democracy coalition’s strategy for the long game.

Who is this pro-democracy coalition? Like any coalition big and broad enough to do great things, it is composed of somewhat uncomfortable allies, bound together by the necessity of purpose. The broad-but-imperfect swathe of Americans who count themselves as friends of liberal democracy are the only available counterweight to the illiberal forces in our country that are thrusting us further down this dark road to authoritarianism.

Many of the most effective coalitions in history—the Grand Alliance of World War II, the antislavery coalition, the American Revolutionary coalition—were birthed out of extremely uncomfortable bedfellows having the discipline to prioritize one larger shared goal over their bespoke conflicts. These coalitions are made possible by the existential nature of the threat they face.

There’s a great deal that’s tricky about building such coalitions, but perhaps the most difficult is balancing necessary moral boundaries and firmly held principles with sufficient latitude for conflicting ideas and necessary compromises. My personal red line is those who use violence or violent rhetoric. But your mileage may vary.

I spend a lot of time wrestling with this. Because there are a number of friction points—immigration, social issues, race, Israel and Palestine—where key parts of the pro-democracy coalition are reluctant to compromise firmly held principles in order to be more palatable to the widest possible swathe of Americans.

But what if that’s the wrong way to look at the challenge in front of us? What if instead of an interminable, self-defeating intra-coalition struggle session, we change the conversation to what we’re going to build next? Forget about fighting over the best way to build the coalition and instead focus on what the coalition can come together to build.

Because Trump is in the process of burning it all down—our institutions, our social cohesion, the norms and values that used to sustain us as a country. So we—that is, anyone who loves America and wants to save it before it’s too late—have to provide a vision of what we’re going to build in its place.

I spend a lot of time traveling the country, hearing from ordinary Americans who would count themselves as part of the pro-democracy coalition. I’m not talking about professional political practitioners or other DC types here; I mean regular people who desperately want to do something—anything—to combat the feeling of helplessness that accompanies each fresh headline about authoritarian overreach coming out of this administration.

Often, when I speak to these people, I get a version of the same few questions over and over: What the hell is happening? And what can I do to save the country? Here is my best big-picture advice: Be not afraid.

Trump and his MAGA acolytes are bullies working to intimidate you into silence. They were successful—shockingly, disgracefully successful—at menacing American institutions into submission. Trump’s second term launched with an unprecedented assault on universities, law firms, massive legacy media companies, business leaders, tech titans, and philanthropy. Some fought back, but many caved. And a great many more went quiet. It’s the most pathetic thing I’ve ever seen.

And that, my friend, is where you come in. You can become part of a stalwart bloc of the country that refuses to allow itself to be cowed the way our oligarchs have. You can, and must, speak out. Wherever and whenever you are able.

I went to Minneapolis during ICE’s occupation of that city, after agents had killed Renee Good and Alex Pretti. There I found sixty-year-old ladies standing out in the cold, with long johns and hand warmers, telling me about secret Signal chat networks they had set up to provide mutual aid to their neighbors. They told me about the underground doula network that they set up to help pregnant immigrants who were too scared to leave their homes.

Here at Home of the Brave, we’ve documented the stories of people like Daniel Hernandez, an immigrant who is protecting his employees from ICE’s predations; veterans who are standing in the breach to block Trump’s vainglorious arch; artists and musicians who are refusing to take this administration’s censorship of the arts lying down; peaceful protestors who are facing down masked agents in their communities; and survivors of ICE detention who refuse to stop speaking out about the injustices committed against them.

The point is, everyone can do something. Whatever your version of concrete, peaceful action is, go out there and do it honestly and fearlessly. Because as small and insignificant as you may feel in this moment, I promise that those actions add up and make a real difference for people who you might never even meet. That’s the honest work of a true pro-democracy coalition worthy of its name, and it’s on all of us to do our part.

The words that come to me again and again in this moment are all of the quotations about the destructive force of silence:

From Edmund Burke: “When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle.”

From Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.: “In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.”

From Albert Einstein: “The world will not be destroyed by those who do evil, but by those who watch them without doing anything.”

From Elie Wiesel: “The opposite of love is not hate, it’s indifference.”

This is the answer to the oft-asked question of, “What can I do?” Don’t be silent. Don’t be indifferent. When you speak up, your courage will be contagious. It will build a permission structure for someone else who is nervous and help them speak out, too. It will help someone who has opted out of our shared civic life, because it’s all too dark, to come back in and join the fight.

Every one of us has the power to set an example. It’s only a question of whether—and how—we exercise that power.

Sarah Longwell is an advisory board member of Home of the Brave and author of the New York Times bestseller “How to Eat an Elephant: One Voter at a Time.”

They discuss what U.S. leaders misunderstood about al-Qaeda, the political backlash that helped fuel Trump’s rise, and why defending democracy requires more than a return to the old normal.

Subscribe for more episodes of It’s Happening Here, a Home of the Brave podcast.

Subscribe now

Editor’s Note: This is part two in a series making the comprehensive case that Secretary Pete Hegseth is deficient as a leader, and that his actions undermine the culture and effectiveness of the Armed Forces. Part one addressed Hegseth’s personal conduct, and can be read here.

Here are three recent and disturbing data points coming out of this Pentagon: First, US Army Secretary Dan Driscoll resigned after months of conflict with Pete Hegseth. Second, the Pentagon has reportedly hired a slew of unqualified, partisan internet trolls as special government employees. Third, the USS Abraham Lincoln has become emblematic of the tragic consequences resulting from asking too much of our service members while providing them with too little support.

That is the state of our Defense Department today under the current leadership, and it is a sorry state of affairs.

George Washington said, “Discipline is the soul of an army.” In this, he was not simply talking about rigid obedience to a set of rules, but about living consistently and congruently with the principles and practices that ensure success in life and on the battlefield. In other words, that which gives life, breath, and vitality to the armed forces is adherence to the military culture. On the other hand, negligence and permissiveness result in apathy and weakness. In Hegseth, disguised as valor, there is a blatant disregard for the ethical culture and climate of the armed forces.

What do we mean by culture, ethical culture, and ethical climate? Edgar Schein defined “culture” as, “(a) a pattern of basic assumptions, (b) invented, discovered, or developed by a given group, (c) as it learns to cope with its problems of external adaptation and internal integration, (d) that has worked well enough to be considered valid and, therefore (e) is to be taught to new members as the (f) correct way to perceive, think, and feel in relation to those problems.” In other words, culture consists of the learned behavior patterns, reinforced among the members, that enable an organization to fulfill its mission. Simply put, it is the “way we get things done around here.”

Ethical climate is the shared understanding among members of ethically correct behavior. It clarifies the primary expectation for ethical action (self-interest, care for others, or rules/principle) and prioritizes interests (their own, the group’s, or an outside standard like the law). Ethical culture is the foundation—the values, norms, symbols, and leadership behaviors—that produce and reinforce the climate over time. Climate is the surface reading (what people currently perceive). Culture is the underlying system generating it.

The Ethical Climate of the US Military

Several studies of national militaries indicate a pattern of ethical culture consisting of four or five empirical factors (rules/law, caring, independence, self-interest/instrumental, and sometimes efficiency). A recurring finding is that a stronger “caring” or “rules” climate, especially when reinforced by ethical supervisors, predicts less misconduct and more resistance to unlawful orders. The U.S. military’s typical ethical climate profile is dominated by law and rules and caring, with independence and instrumental/self-interest climates present but less dominant, consistent with an institution built around codified standards (UCMJ, Law of Armed Conflict, core values) and unit cohesion.

Since January 2025, under Hegseth the US military has experienced climate change. First, there has been a shift from an emphasis on principle/law toward instrumental/self-interest and loyalty-as-principle. Secretary Hegseth fired the Army, Navy, and Air Force’s top uniformed lawyers (TJAGs) in his first weeks, without explanation, and later moved his own former personal attorney into a role overseeing a “ruthless” overhaul of the JAG Corps. Hegseth said the law and lawyers should have little influence over the military and its operations and does not want lawyers who act as “roadblocks” to command decisions. Eleven senators on the Armed Services Committee wrote that the firings signal to the JAG Corps that positions depend on political or personal loyalty rather than legal expertise.

Second, the emphasis on rules/law-and-code climate is increasingly under pressure from a “warrior ethos” reframing. At a mandatory gathering of hundreds of flag officers, Hegseth announced directives explicitly repositioning the culture away from what he called “woke garbage” and toward a “warrior ethos,” eliminating identity months, DEI offices, and related programs. The Warrior Ethos, the formal statement embedded in the Soldier’s Creed, states, “I will always place the mission first, I will never accept defeat, I will never quit, and I will never leave a fallen comrade.” It codifies the commitment of soldier-to-mission and soldier-to-comrade and operationalizes the ethics of duty and caring.

However, Hegseth has co-opted and reframed the warrior ethos to mean nothing more than ruthless, dispassionate lethality. Supporters see this as restoring the proper focus, since, according to them, the laws of armed conflict, rules of engagement, and DEI initiatives have hindered lethality. Critics, including legal analysts, argue the JAG firings in particular were meant to set a command climate favoring a more permissive interpretation of the laws of war.

In another clear example, Hegseth acted to reduce protections for civilians on the battlefield. He has not fully funded nor staffed the Civilian Protection Center of Excellence mandated by Congress in 2022. A DOD Inspector General report found that the Civilian Harm Mitigation and Response Action Plan (CHMR-AP) has not been implemented. The CHMR-AP involves embedding protection specialists in the targeting process to mitigate civilian casualties according to US and international law. Senior military leaders supported this plan as fulfilling the moral obligation to protect civilians and ensuring accurate targeting. Hegseth is unable or unwilling to see the benefits to the forces of having guardrails against illegal, unethical, and immoral actions. Benefits include maintaining moral legitimacy, preventing moral injury, and avoiding actions that would provide incentives for recruiting new terrorists.

Third, the emphasis on independent professional and legal judgment has been eroded. Multiple former JAGs and legal scholars argue the changes remove the independent check commanders have relied on before executing questionable orders. Without independent military lawyers, commanders’ recourse becomes comply or resign. Overwhelmingly, experts and scholars agree that the attacks on alleged drug smugglers in the Caribbean and Eastern Pacific are illegal and constitute extrajudicial killings of noncombatants. The Trump administration’s characterization of a “non-international armed conflict” with unspecified gangs and drug cartels gives the impression of politicized legal guidance. The targeting of shipwrecked suspected drug traffickers with a second attack is clearly a violation of international law. Also, the DEA has found that these strikes have not reduced drug smuggling into the US. In addition to legal judgment, he has marginalized medical expertise (testosterone testing, flu shots, and beards) and chaplain religious expertise (displaying rank on uniforms and reducing/consolidating recognized faith groups).

Fourth, self-interest and loyalty have replaced merit-based performance evaluations in promotions and assignments of senior leaders. Hegseth has enacted in a well-documented, widespread purge of dozens of senior military leaders, including the Army Chief of Staff, Gen. Randy George, leaving the DOD with a void of strategic leadership expertise and experience. Hegseth suspected Gen. George—who was supposed to be mediating an ongoing dispute between Hegseth and Secretary of the Army Dan Driscoll, who, as noted, also recently resigned—of leaking information about it. Hegseth fired him without prior notice while Driscoll was on vacation. Hegseth also fired several of Driscoll’s top advisers in what officials characterized as an effort to undermine the Army Secretary’s influence.

The Ethical Culture of the US Military

Since culture drives climate, in what ways is Hegseth facilitating change? One model of ethical culture consists of seven criteria: clarity, congruency, feasibility, supportability, transparency, discussability, and sanctionability (accountability). Clarity means there are clear expectations of what it means to be a member of the Armed Forces and the meaning of acceptable, ethical behavior. Hegseth’s actions and rhetoric are sending mixed messages and creating confusion about expected behavior. In Iran, the US is engaged in what has been described as a whiplash war. In the three months of the war, he has provided three conflicting positions on the supply of munitions, first stating that there was a full supply; then, in April stating resupply would take months or years; then in June stating on Face the Nation that “our stockpiles are great, and they’re only getting stronger” while submitting a $1.5 trillion budget request.

Congruency means leadership behavior, policies, and decisions are consistent with the law, the Code, and the values of the military. The most influential mechanism for shaping culture is the example modeled by the leaders. Throughout this essay, there are examples of Hegseth’s behavior inconsistent with the core values of the Armed Forces. At a congressional hearing, Hegseth’s account of a battlefield incident directly conflicted with statements from surviving soldiers, who told CBS that his version was false and that their position had been essentially undefended. When Rep. Pat Ryan pressed him on the discrepancy, Hegseth did not directly answer and instead dodged the questioning itself.

Feasibility means that the leaders provide the resources necessary for the members to engage in ethical conduct. By firing JAGs and eliminating programs that support DEI, he has reduced access to resources commanders and service members need for guidance and redress. Due to the extended military operation, the US has depleted its supply of Patriot interceptors. On August 1, the commanding general of European Command, notified the Pentagon that he did not have sufficient resources to defend Israel.

Supportability means the leaders of the organization provide physical, mental, and emotional support for the members in the accomplishment of the mission and vision. In December 2025, Hegseth eliminated the Army’s Spiritual Fitness Guide, criticizing it for an absence of an emphasis on God and promoting New Age ideology, such as, “the soldier’s spirit consists of consciousness, creativity, and connection.” This statement shows his ignorance about the common themes of spiritual resilience among various faith groups.

In June, he ordered the removal of rank from display on chaplains’ uniforms, a move that symbolizes marginalizing the chaplain’s role as trusted advisor to the chain of command. In the area of mental health, the DOD released its annual suicide prevention report, which included progress on implementing the “enabling actions” recommended by the Suicide Prevention and Response Independent Review Committee, established by Congress in 2022. The committee’s final report included 127 recommendations. As of November 2025, the DOD had implemented 27 actions, mostly in the “Foster a Supportive Environment” line of effort, completed one of 19 actions in revising suicide prevention training, and completed two of 18 recommendations for addressing barriers to receiving care, such as the stigma of seeking help.

Hegseth has not provided open, honest, transparent communication regarding the activities and performance of the organization. He has not been forthright in communicating the extent of those injured in the war on Iran. Family members have accused him of downplaying the extent of injuries. Also, in September 2025, he enacted a policy requiring media outlets to commit to not reporting information on military operations that was not explicitly and officially authorized in an attempt to limit journalistic freedom. The New York Times sued and in March 2026, the judge ruled the policy unconstitutional and ordered the reinstatement of journalists’ credentials. Within three weeks, the judge subsequently ruled the Pentagon in violation of his original ruling.

An ethical culture provides a safe space for people to discuss difficult issues with respect and empathy and the freedom to dissent. A core element of the military culture is candor. He has suppressed any dissent that does not align with the administration’s political perspective.

Support Home of the Brave

When members violate the standards and expectations of conduct and participation they are confronted and held to account with dignity and respect (sanctionability). A primary culture forming mechanism is the criteria and manner in which leaders reprimand misconduct. He reversed disciplinary action and stopped investigations involving misconduct and unsafe actions. At the same time, he initiated an investigation of Sen. Mark Kelly, following the senator’s appearance in a video with other elected officials that reminded service members of their obligation not to follow illegal orders.

A clear, well-documented case that demonstrates climate change and how elements of culture shape individual behavior is that of current Chief of Naval Operations (CNO), Adm. Daryl Caudle. Soon after Hegseth was nominated, Caudle offered to help him prepare for his confirmation hearing, which was expected to be highly contentious. This offer was a breach of the apolitical norm of the professional military ethic. Soon after Hegseth became Secretary of Defense, in February 2025 without explanation he fired Adm. Lisa Franchetti, the first woman to serve as a service chief, CNO, and on the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Shortly thereafter, a senior officer on Caudle’s staff communicated with Hegseth’s staff, recommending Caudle as CNO.

In this second breach of ethics, the senior officer described Caudle as ideologically aligned with Hegseth, using such terminology as “no one more in line” with Hegseth’s vision, a “warfighter” who wanted to remove “woke barriers” supposedly weakening the force. Simultaneously, the Department of the Navy inspector general was conducting an investigation of Caudle regarding statements he made to sailors about the Sexual Assault Prevention and Response program needing to do more to prepare sailors to avoid situations conducive to assault. The sailors took his comments to imply that he was blaming the victims.

These three incidents signaled to Hegseth that Caudle was supportive of his ideology and would be loyal. After Franchetti was fired, the acting Secretary of the Navy convened a meeting of senior leaders to identify candidates for the CNO position. When the top three candidates were identified and Caudle’s name was not listed, Hegseth responded, “Where’s Caudle?” Although he was not considered to be among the best qualified for the position, Hegseth selected him. Sean Parnell, the chief DOD spokesman, said that Hegseth “interviewed many candidates for the position and ultimately found Adm. Caudle to be the right fit.” The description of “the right fit” seems to be a reference to ideology and politics as selection criteria rather than qualifications and merit, and indicates a significant shift in ethical climate. Since the criteria for selection and promotion is a significant mechanism for shaping ethical climate and culture, without a doubt other officers will take note and pursue a similar pathway.

Share

Pete Hegseth is transforming the ethical climate and culture of the military, and not beneficially. His actions are shifting the operative ethical criterion from principle/law toward loyalty and self-interest. Determining those who are rewarded is now tied to political alignment rather than legal or professional standards. He is weakening the independent climate that historically constrained unlawful orders. If a strong climate of principle/law and caring reinforced by ethical leaders deters misconduct and provides resistance to unlawful orders, then the transformation by Hegseth will result in increased misconduct and the adherence to unlawful orders.

As mentioned in part one of this essay, the essence of leadership is trust. Troops must trust their leaders to model ethical norms and not to order illegal, unethical, or immoral actions. Leaders must trust their troops not to engage in such actions. Citizens must be able to trust the members of the military to provide for their defense in ways consistent with national values, ethical standards, and the law. Hegseth’s transformation of the ethical climate and culture of the military is in reality an erosion of trust. When there is no trust, there is no security and there is no peace.

Now, despite no funding approvals from Congress, the administration has stated that construction will soon begin.

This is wrong. We’re doing something about it.

In collaboration with VoteVets, Home of the Brave produced a video to oppose the administration’s plans to construct the arch. The video features testimonials from Paul Eaton, a former Major General in the United States Army, and Karen Meredith, the Gold Star mother of Ken Ballard, who was killed in the Iraq War. Paul said that the arch “borders on sacrilege” to the brave men and women buried at Arlington. Karen added: “If Trump thinks that we’ll be quiet about this proposed arch, he’s wrong. We need everybody to speak out about this.”

Honoring our troops and preserving the memorials dedicated to their sacrifice should be important to all Americans. The space between the Lincoln Memorial and Arlington National Cemetery is spoken for: it belongs to our veterans and their families.

Veterans are fighting the construction of the arch in federal court right now, and final approval from the National Capital Planning Commission is still pending. We’re speaking up, and people are listening.

That means you can make your voice heard too.

Contact your representatives, submit a public statement before the National Capital Planning Commission vote, and share this video.

Support Home of the Brave

Home of the Brave exists to show Americans the real-world consequences of this administration’s policies, and to highlight what bravery looks like in defense of American democracy.

Subscribe to It’s Happening Here, a Home of the Brave podcast, on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts.

This week, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff put something in writing that should not have needed saying. Gen. Dan Caine told Sen. Elissa Slotkin that the Joint Force “has no plans to send Federal military personnel or Federalized members of the National Guard to polling places during the 2026 elections,” and no plans to seize ballots or voting machines. He added that he has “neither received nor anticipate receiving any unlawful order” about the military’s role in November.

It reads like reassurance. Except when you look closer at how it is built.

Let’s start with “no plans.” Caine is the wrong man to make that promise mean anything. The phrasing all but admits it. Operational plans for a domestic deployment would not originate with him. They would come down the chain—from the President, through the Secretary of Defense, to the Joint Force. Nothing has been transmitted to Caine yet, so his statement is true in the narrowest possible way: He cannot have plans he has not been given. The order that matters would come from Donald Trump through Pete Hegseth.

And which official didn’t answer the Senator? Pete Hegseth.

Sen. Slotkin sent her letter to both of them. The uniformed officer replied at the deadline; the civilian who would actually carry an order from the President let her deadline pass without a word. The one person positioned to say “this will not happen” is the one who said nothing.

Then look at what Caine did promise. His assurance is about polling places. It is not about the blocks around them. Federal troops already deployed in American cities this year, over the objection of the governors and mayors who lead them, and the administration has treated those deployments as a template it can apply anywhere.

Promising not to put soldiers inside the precinct, while saying nothing about the streets leading to it, is not much of a promise. It is the assurance that you will not attack a hospital, while amassing forces on the perimeter and the roads that reach it. The building is technically safe. Everyone trying to get to it is not.

So the letter is not the guardrail it appears to be. It answers a question narrow enough to answer cleanly and leaves the real one open.

I have written before about why this matters. When a president uses the military as an instrument of domestic politics, the damage is not only to the communities where troops appear. It is to the institution itself.

A military that is drawn into partisan disputes, deployed to shape an outcome rather than to answer an emergency, loses the trust that makes it effective and the nonpartisan standing that makes it legitimate. That trust is difficult to build and easy to spend. Veterans understand something that is hard to explain to people who have not served: The value of the uniform depends on its distance from the ballot box, and once that distance closes, it does not reopen on command.

Which brings us to the mail.

This week a whistleblower inside the United States Postal Service warned Congress that the agency is building (in secret, in a hurry, and in apparent defiance of a court order) a new system that could keep millions of Americans from receiving a ballot this November. The account, released by Sen. Richard Blumenthal and represented by Whistleblower Aid, describes the work as “secretive, rushed, chaotic, and fundamentally flawed.” A federal judge has already blocked the underlying rule as an unconstitutional attempt by the federal government to seize authority the Constitution gives to the states. The whistleblower says the work continued anyway.

The mechanics of this scheme deserve attention, because the danger is not confined to whoever the rule was meant to catch.

Under the plan, states must send the Postal Service a list of every voter who should get a mail ballot, and the Postal Service will refuse to deliver to anyone not on it. To check the lists, the system samples batches of ballot envelopes. If it flags a single envelope in a batch—even in error—it can reject the entire batch and send tens of thousands of ballots back to the state. A system built to screen certain voters becomes, through one scanning mistake, a system that fails everyone in the mailing. The whistleblower’s word for the risk was “catastrophic.”

The two stories meet here, falling on the people that my organization, the Vet Voice Foundation, exists to serve.

For millions of Americans, voting by mail is not a convenience. It is the only practical way to participate. For active-duty service members stationed around the world, international mail is slow and unpredictable. Military families move constantly. Veterans living with disabilities rely on absentee voting because it is the most accessible way to cast a ballot, and older veterans often depend on it too. These are the voters federal law was written to protect; the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act exists because our nation determined a long time ago that the people who defend democracy should not have fewer chances to practice it.

Those who volunteer to defend our democracy should never have fewer opportunities to participate in it. A service member who does everything right, who requests a ballot, fills it out, and mails it on time, should not lose that vote to a piece of software rushed into service to satisfy a deadline. A veteran should not have to wonder whether the troops in their city are there to keep order or to shape a result.

Support Home of the Brave

The United States has not yet militarized the upcoming election or completed efforts to break the machinery that delivers its ballots. But both avenues are being tested right now, in the same season, by the same forces trying to rip control of election systems from states and put them increasingly under Federal control. Caine’s letter, in theory, shows the guardrails can still hold when someone is asked to affirm them. But Hegseth’s silence, and the Postal Service’s defiance of a court, show how they can be worked around.

We veterans have a duty to note the difference, and to call it out. We swore an oath to a Constitution that gives elections to the people and the states. That oath does not end when the uniform comes off. It includes the obligation to speak when the vote itself, and the standing of the military sworn to protect it, is put at risk.

Janessa Goldbeck is a Marine Corps veteran and the CEO of Vet Voice Foundation. This article also appeared on VoteVet’s Substack.

Share

They discuss Steve Bannon’s call to deploy ICE at polling places, Trump’s history of invoking emergency powers under false pretenses, and why an administration filled with loyalists poses a greater danger than it did before January 6.

Subscribe to It’s Happening Here, a Home of the Brave podcast, on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts.

By Jon Gundersen

Right now Donald Trump is seeking to make his mark on Washington—literally—in the worst possible way. He’s slapping his face on federal buildings, demolishing whole sections of the White House, and shutting down the streets of the nation’s capital for his pageantry. But by far the most egregious of his vanity projects is the attempt to impose a grotesque, 250-foot-high arch on Memorial Circle just outside Arlington National Cemetery, where more than 400,000 of America’s fallen heroes are buried.

If allowed to go forward, this would be a singular dishonor to those service members, and a further disfigurement of the landscape to serve one man’s fragile ego. That’s why I’m suing to stop it. Earlier this year I joined a lawsuit from Public Citizen to halt the construction of Trump’s arch, along with my fellow veterans Michael Lemmon and Shaun Byrnes, and the architectural historian Calder Roth. As we stated in our filing:

“The planned Arch, by obstructing the symbolic and inspiring view from Arlington National Cemetery to the Lincoln Memorial, would dishonor their military and foreign service and the legacy of their comrades and other veterans buried at Arlington National Cemetery, and would degrade their personal experience when visiting Arlington Cemetery or traveling around Memorial Circle and on the Memorial Avenue Corridor.”

It didn’t used to be this way. Whether it was technological advancement or civil rights victories, the America of my youth was an optimistic, confident country, constantly (though imperfectly) striving to make people’s lives better and more fully realize our founding credo. My generation worked to live up to this legacy, including the millions of us who answered the call to serve in the armed forces and put our lives on the line for the cause of freedom and democracy.

I voluntarily enlisted in the Army in 1966 to serve in Vietnam. I swore an oath to defend not a man or a political cause, but the US Constitution. Some of my comrades died in Vietnam; their names are inscribed on the Vietnam Veterans Memorial. Since 1966 I have served six Republican and six Democratic Presidents. I have always done so proudly.

In 1973, I joined the foreign service. My first senior appointment was under Ronald Reagan. I have always believed in promoting American values and our democracy around the world. I still do. During the height of the Cold War, I held appointments behind the Iron Curtain, including in Moscow starting in 1979. I have seen authoritarianism in action, with its goose-stepping military parades, hero-worship of the dear leader, and climate of fear and intimidation that hangs over everything like a pall. Back then I knew this to be true: All of that pageantry is mere window dressing to hide the fact that the emperor has no clothes.

I was behind the iron curtain when the “Evil Empire” began to collapse. In 1990 I was appointed as Consul General to Ukraine, then still a Republic in the Soviet Union. On December 1, 1991, in the first free elections, over 92 percent of Ukrainians voted for independence. Shortly thereafter I opened the American embassy as the interim Chargé d’Affaires (Acting Ambassador) in 1992. For the first time in living memory, the Ukrainian people were free to choose their own future, to forge their own destiny, unencumbered by the shackles of totalitarianism. It’s no accident that now, all these decades later, Ukraine is being forced to fight a war for its own survival because Vladimir Putin decided it was exercising too much freedom and autonomy.

During my time abroad, I saw firsthand how countries without democracy and a limited understanding of national identity can devolve into one-man rule. While in the USSR, I was struck by the caste and social separation between people of different religions and ethnicities. While far from perfect, the United States has been different. To be an American meant we weren’t defined by our country of origin, our religion, or language—but rather connected by our shared values. Presidents used to affirm this sentiment, like my old boss Reagan’s famous quote, “We Americans are bound together not by common ancestry, but by our common blessing of freedom.”

It didn’t matter where you came from or where you were born as long as you valued loyalty, moral character, compassion, and an instinct to stand up to bullies and preserve the rights of the people around you. If you believed in these values and wanted to protect them, you were an American.

Support Home of the Brave

Sadly, our current President Trump doesn’t share any of these values. You can learn a lot about a leader’s moral character based on the actions of those he surrounds himself with. Do they admire, respect, and seek to emulate him? Those are the kinds of leaders we followed into battle during my service. Or are they bound to him solely by fear, or the desire to benefit from their proximity to power? Trump falls squarely in the latter camp. He is surrounded by acolytes and suck-ups and he doesn’t have to worry about anyone telling him a truth that doesn’t correspond to his own reality. That is not loyalty, it’s cowardice. And it’s the American people who ultimately suffer the consequences.

Call me old-school, but I remember a certain toughness of the American spirit—a quiet confidence that meant leaders didn’t need to go around with chests puffed out, asserting and re-asserting their strength. This was the confidence of a Dwight D. Eisenhower, a John F. Kennedy, a Reagan—all men who didn’t seek to put people down but instead to lift them up. Trump does the opposite. He builds monuments to himself to feel powerful, and seeks to steamroll anyone who stands in his way. That’s not a sign of strength; it’s a sign of weakness. Our national monuments should reflect American values, not egos. That’s why this arch cannot appear at Arlington.

This administration has made it its mission to degrade the fundamental American values that make this country so great: loyalty, moral character, courage, and compassion. This administration is trying to get people to accept a world in which the weak cloak themselves in faux-strength, and the strong are made to look weak. This is Orwellian. I urge people to not let themselves fall into this cycle of nihilism. I may no longer go abroad to fight for democracy but I can do my part as an American to fight for democracy at home. So should you.

Jon Gundersen is a Vietnam veteran, career foreign service officer, and plaintiff in Public Citizen’s lawsuit to block the construction of Trump’s arch at Arlington National Cemetery.

Editor’s Note: This is part one in a two-part series making the comprehensive case that Secretary Pete Hegseth is deficient as a leader, and that his actions undermine the culture and effectiveness of the Armed Forces. Part one addresses Hegseth’s personal conduct. Part two focuses on his influence on people and systems in the Department of Defense, and will be published in the coming weeks.

Civilian control of the military is the foundational principle that the Armed Forces of the United States are ultimately directed by elected civilian leaders accountable to the people, not by military commanders operating on their own authority. It is the mechanism by which a democratic republic ensures that military power serves the nation’s political will and strategic goals, rather than the personal ambitions of individual political or military leaders. The civil-military relationship in the United States is characterized by civilian leaders simultaneously maximizing military subordination and fighting power.

Practically, civilian control means civilians decide policy and ends; the military advises and executes the means. The military stays out of politics. Civilians stay out of purely operational decisions. This relationship protects civilian society from both external enemies and the military itself, as contrasted with non-democratic nations, in which the military is closely integrated with and participates in the political and social system.

In recent history, the most effective Secretaries of Defense from Marshall to Mattis have honored this relationship. However, the current Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth, has defied and corrupted this normative civil-military relationship due to a deficit of ethical leadership and a prevalence of toxic leadership.

Leadership studies have revealed the essence of leadership as influence without authority, based on credibility and trust. We follow those who demonstrate selfless intent for the good of others, integrity in keeping commitments, clearly visible capabilities, and a history of dependable performance. Leadership does not involve threats, intimidation, manipulation, or coercion. It involves mutual engagement on purpose, means, and ends. Ethical leadership demonstrates conduct that is consistent with accepted norms through personal actions, interpersonal relationships, and influencing the conduct of followers.

In other words, an ethical leader demonstrates first moral character and moral interaction, and second moral influence of others. In contrast, counterproductive, toxic leadership involves personal conduct and influence characterized by self-interest, inconsistency with values and norms, suspicion, exploitation for personal gain, sabotage of individual and team performance. The personal conduct of Hegseth provides several examples of a deficit of leadership. Let’s examine what this looks like up-close:

Selfish intent. He is implementing a vision of the military organized around a specific cultural and religious traditionalism rather than pluralism. His personal agenda involves an anti-woke/anti-DEI campaign and the promotion of a Christian nationalist ideology. The DOD established DEI programs to ensure equality and fairness in promotions, selections, and assignments for all races, ethnicities, and genders. However, acting on the false premise that whites and Christians are disenfranchised and discriminated against, Hegseth is promoting favoritism and power among whites, males, and ultra-conservative Christians.

He has established a monthly Christian nationalist prayer service to promote his personal religious ideology. He has eliminated DEI programs which insured merit-based promotions and selections, canceled academic partnerships with institutions of higher education, and canceled the promotions of minorities and women to senior ranks. These actions do not provide leadership support equally and fairly to all members of the military. Ethical leaders simply do not marginalize a significant number of team members and sacrifice operational readiness in pursuit of self-interest.

Values-inconsistent conduct. Hegseth’s personal conduct is inconsistent with the values of the armed forces. He advocated for pardons for service members convicted of war crimes. When questioned by a senator he responded that he evaluates cases individually and focuses on not letting “restrictive rules of engagement” unfairly prosecute warfighters. Instead of keeping his commitment to the law, the UCMJ, and the rules of engagement that provide accountability and guard rails against illegal actions, he prioritizes loyalty to the accused. He has demonstrated disdain for officers of the military JAG Corps, who are responsible for advising and keeping commanders within the law.

Regarding Signalgate, Hegseth shared operational details of a Yemen strike in two Signal chats that included a journalist, his wife, brother, and personal attorney. A Pentagon inspector general later found he put U.S. personnel at risk and violated policy by using a personal device. The Washington Post reported the messages originated from an email marked classified “SECRET,” contradicting the administration’s earlier denials.

In his testimony and supplemental budget request, he misrepresented the cost of the Iran war as being about $37.5 billion although internal estimates are between $80 billion and $100 billion. He defended strikes against alleged drug traffickers in the Caribbean and a follow-up strike that killed survivors clinging to wreckage of a suspected drug boat. These strikes have been questioned as potentially amounting to war crimes.

Lacking strategic skills and capabilities. In testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee on April 30, 2026, Sen. Gary Peters asked Hegseth what he understood was the center of gravity of Iran. Hegseth responded, “Well, the center of gravity, as the President has seen it, and as I see it, and he has talked about for 30 years, is their pursuit of a nuclear weapon and what they could do with that in pursuit as an extension of the radical ideology they have professed since the beginning of their revolution. So the prophetic ideology they profess, alongside the most dangerous weapon in the world would be the center of gravity of the rationality … of this undertaking.”

This is an obvious mistake by someone whose experience is limited to the tactical. According to the great military theorist Carl von Clausewitz, the center of gravity (CoG) is the hub of all power and movement, upon which everything depends—the point against which all energy should be directed. It is “the source of moral or physical strength that provides the freedom of action, and the will to act,” per the DOD’s Joint Publication 5.0.

The CoG is not simply a weakness to exploit, but rather the source of strength, which when attacked would produce the most decisive results. Strategic CoG analysis identifies the enemy’s core capabilities, the requirements for executing those capabilities, and key vulnerabilities of those requirements. Hegseth incorrectly identified Iran’s pursuit of a nuclear weapon paired with its “radical ideology” as the CoG of Iran. An undeveloped, potential source of power does not provide legitimacy, strength, and the freedom and will to act. Destroying Iran’s ability to pursue a nuclear weapon did not degrade its CoG.

In reality, Iran’s CoG, is its ideology of Velayat-e Faqih, literally, “Guardianship of the Jurist.” This is not merely a political arrangement but a theological claim: that God, not the people, is the ultimate sovereign, and that qualified Islamic jurists are His designated stewards of political authority on earth. It is the source from which all institutional power, foreign policy ideology (the “Axis of Resistance”), and domestic authority flow. While the jurists are the earthly authority and interpreters of God’s design, they are not the enforcers. That role has fallen to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).

The IRGC is the military force that executes domestic and foreign policy, according to the dictates of the Supreme Leader. It is the core capability that protects and embodies Iran’s CoG. The IRGC should be the target, not Iran’s nuclear program. Hegseth’s mistake has resulted in a strategy that is ambiguous and therefore has not produced the intended results of Iranian capitulation. It is also the reason that Operation Midnight Hammer in June 2025, which targeted Iran’s nuclear facilities, has had little to no effect. Even today, US forces are bombing a variety of targets with seemingly no clear cohesive strategy.

Hegseth has blown through the DOD budget and the stockpile of Interceptor missiles, forcing him to request supplemental funding of $67.1 billion for the remainder of this fiscal year. This is in addition to $75 billion the DOD received from the budget reconciliation from last year. It seems he does not have to manage a strategy, logistics, matériel, and a budget, since he can simply ask Congress for more money. In his July 21 testimony, he blamed the Biden administration for failing to fund DOD appropriately. However, every strategist knows that you go to war with what you have, not with what you wish you had. These are not the actions of an experienced, expert, strategic leader.

Passive hostility. Not only does he demonstrate deficiency in ethical leadership abilities, Hegseth also demonstrates counterproductive behaviors. When asked directly by lawmakers why he fired Gen. Randy George, Hegseth declined to give a specific answer, instead offering a vague line about it being “very difficult to change the culture of a department … with the same officers that were there,” simultaneously admitting his culture war intent. Refusing a direct answer while acting against the person is a textbook passive-aggressive pattern. He consistently demonstrates a pattern of noxious counterattacks in his testimony before the Senate and House Armed Services Committees.

Shaming, blaming, and excuse making. There is a well-documented, repeated rhetorical pattern across controversies: deny wrongdoing occurred, then attribute the story to malicious insiders or media rather than address the substance. Following the revelation of the second Signal chat, a Washington Examiner article characterized his response as “admit nothing, deny everything, attack the media,” with Hegseth calling reporters “hoaxsters that peddle anonymous sources from leakers with axes to grind.” He said explicitly: “Those folks who are leaking, who have been pushed out of the building, are now attempting to leak and sabotage the president’s agenda.”

On Fox & Friends, Hegseth blamed “disgruntled” former staffers for leaks about the Signal chats, rather than addressing what was actually shared. A former Pentagon spokesperson under a different administration put it bluntly: “The problem here is that Pete Hegseth has taken no accountability. He’s bashed the reporter. He’s called it a hoax. He’s done everything but say, ‘Hey, I made a mistake.’” That same source contrasted it with predecessor Lloyd Austin, who “stood at the podium for an hour and took accountability” after a fatal incident. Hegseth seems to be more concerned about attacking leakers than he is about practicing honesty and transparency and facilitating trust.

Corrosive interpersonal style. A CNN report, drawing on multiple sources, describes Hegseth as “distrustful of officials around him—civilian and military alike—and suspicious about their loyalties” since the start of his tenure, contributing to what the piece characterizes as a climate of internal suspicion. Senior officers described his September 2025 address to hundreds of generals and admirals as unprofessional “grandstanding,” calling it “a massive waste of time.” The scale of churn is itself a data point: more than two dozen senior officers fired, a Navy secretary pushed out after clashing with him, and direct intervention in promotions across branches.

Support Home of the Brave

It is insufficient and unhelpful simply to say that Pete Hegseth is the most unqualified person ever to hold the office of Secretary of Defense (though he is). It is necessary to analyze his personal conduct and the harm he is causing to operational readiness. His self-interested pursuit of a personal agenda, behavior inconsistent with military values, lack of strategic experience and expertise, passive hostility, blaming and excuse-making, and corrosive interpersonal style are proof that he is not the person that should be leading the most powerful military in the history of the world.

Ken Williams is a veteran with over 30 years of service as a chaplain in the U.S. Army. His assignments include the Pentagon Chaplain and Senior Military Fellow of Ethics and Leadership at the National Defense University. He holds a PhD in Leadership and Organizational Change and has taught graduate level courses in ethical leadership in foreign affairs. He is a member of Veterans for Responsible Leadership.

Share

In May 2016, Donald Trump tweeted that the economy gaining just 38,000 jobs was “terrible” and a “bombshell.” Last month, the economy gained zero jobs. In fact, it lost 23,000 jobs.

At the same time, it’s costing Americans more and more to feed their families. The prices of beef and other staples have spiked in recent months. And with the Iran war still raging, and the administration finding novel ways to apply new tariffs, none of this shows any signs of abating.

Let’s call this what it is: a top-down policy engineered by this administration that will ensure that, for the foreseeable future, Americans are going to keep paying more for less.

That’s why today Home of the Brave is putting up more than 300 new billboards across 16 states, highlighting how the Trump administration’s policies have sent prices skyrocketing. This is a $1 million expansion on our broader Sticker Shock Summer campaign, which exists to tell the American people the true story of why prices are so stubbornly high this summer.

The idea is simple: bring this message straight to the people. This is especially important as the administration continues to lie about the effects of its economic policies, and gaslight the country about when prices will come back down.

Trump said recently that prices are “way down” and “dropping fast.” But that doesn’t square with the day-to-day reality of millions of Americans, who are telling pollsters that they feel like the economy is getting worse, and we are living through a major affordability crisis.

Just two months ago, Trump infamously said: “I love the inflation.” We stuck that on a billboard and put them up for millions of Americans to see. It’s just one of the hundreds of billboards we now have up in states across the country.

And we’re going to keep doing this kind of thing, for as long as it takes, because the American people deserve to know the truth about what their government is doing to their pocket books this summer.

If you want to help us keep getting the message out, consider supporting Home of the Brave today:

Subscribe now

Donate

Share

Sarah Matthews is an advisory board member and spokeswoman for Home of the Brave, which exists to show Americans the real-world consequences of this administration’s policies, and to highlight what bravery looks like in defense of American democracy.

Listen now to It’s Happening Here, a Home of the Brave podcast.

By Adam Weiner

I just released a protest album. And it’s really kicking up some dust. I’ve had gigs cancelled on me. I’ve had death threats. I’ve lost fans. Never in my life did I think I would do something like this. There have been days when I’ve asked myself, “What have I done?”

You see, when I started my band Low Cut Connie 15 years ago, it was just about fun and a pure, wild rock ‘n roll energy. It was not about politics. It was not about activism. It was not about ruffling anyone’s feathers.

I amassed a big diverse fanbase: gay and straight, black and white, old and young. And although at times I would speak on issues that I cared about, I was often nervous about it. I had both liberal and conservative fans, and I wanted to keep people at the table while getting messages across through my music.

But over the years, the country has changed, and I have changed. I’ve been traveling the country, playing everywhere and hearing about people’s lives and their struggles. Low Cut Connie has played everywhere from Pride month events, to dive bars, to punk clubs, to county fairs. We co-headlined with rappers, country singers, drag queens, and hardcore punk bands. We entertained every crowd with love, humor, and reckless abandon.

And during all that time, I’ve seen the country at large become less safe, less free, less inclusive, poorer, and more violent. We have descended into a moral vacuum, and—most sadly to me—a place where art does not lead the cultural conversation.

At the end of 2024, 14 years into the band’s touring, we were invited to do a show at the Kennedy Center. It was supposed to be part of what was called the Social Impact Series, highlighting performers who foster “positive social change” and elevate “voices of diversity and inclusion.” I was absolutely honored to be asked to be a part of this series at such an esteemed institution.

But then things changed.

I saw the announcement that the Trump administration was taking over the Kennedy Center. And that there was an intention to install the president as chairman. I immediately called my agents and told them to cancel my show. I knew that the mission of the Social Impact Series would be thwarted, as well as the core ethos of the Kennedy Center. I wanted no part of it. So I cancelled.

In the wake of my cancellation, I received a massive amount of support, but also some small amount of nasty, targeted threatening messages. Soon after, I released a somber protest song called “Livin in the USA,” in which I spoke about ICE, authoritarianism, racism, and a lack of moral character in America. Rolling Stone named it one of the 25 best protest songs against the administration.

This got me in a fair amount of trouble. I received violent threats and show cancellations. A county commissioner in Pennsylvania called my music “propaganda.” Fox News and other conservative media did hit pieces on me. I had to consult with security professionals for my safety.

But my tour went on. I continued to do my shows, including the many free civic events we do in the summer, where I meet and talk with so many different people in states all over the country. I was reminded yet again of how soulful the American spirit can be, despite the daily persecutions and criminality we witness.

There were many people who advised me to stop singing “Livin in the USA” and to stop speaking onstage about diversity and inclusion. But I’m from Philly—you can’t tell me not to do something! So I decided to re-do “Livin in the USA“ as a blaring rock n’ roll song and build a whole protest record around it.

And now, a year later, that record is out in the world, and making quite a splash. We are in the Top 40 on multiple radio charts. We’ve gotten amazing reviews and coverage from Rolling Stone, Pitchfork, NPR, and many more. We also performed on the Jimmy Kimmel Show.

I have indeed lost some fans, and had a couple people walk out of my show at about half the shows on our tour. But I feel absolutely centered in my purpose on this album. And in recent interviews—with Weekend Edition and Rolling Stone, for instance—I have shed any inhibitions I have ever had about speaking about my values and my activism directly and with a clear voice.

I must give a lot of credit to the many dozens of radio stations around the country that got behind this record, even when it has brought some of them complaints and blowback from their listeners and donors. Art must lead the way. Art must retake the lead in the cultural conversation.

This country invented rock ‘n roll, hip hop, jazz, and R&B. Music with soul communicates on a level that no algorithm or tech bro or artificial intelligence or political machinery can ever understand or contain. America created these table-flipping art forms. Rock ‘n roll is a table-flipping art form.

It’s time to flip the table again.

Support Home of the Brave

Adam Weiner is the frontman of the band Low Cut Connie. He lives in Philadelphia.

Share

By Paul LeBlanc

After 27 years in the United States Navy—including three command tours, one of which was a combat tour in Iraq—I learned a lesson every successful military leader eventually learns: Excellence has no demographic profile.

Over nearly three decades, I served alongside sailors and officers from every corner of America. Some of the finest leaders I worked for, and with, were women. Others were Black, Hispanic, Asian American, or members of other communities that, not so long ago, faced barriers to advancement in military service. What distinguished them was never their race, gender, or background. It was their judgment under pressure, their integrity, their competence, and their capacity to inspire others to accomplish difficult missions.

As a commanding officer, I came to value diversity for reasons that had nothing to do with politics and everything to do with leadership. The most effective leadership teams were rarely composed of people who thought alike or shared identical life experiences. They challenged assumptions, identified blind spots, and saw operational and personnel problems from perspectives I would not have considered on my own. Whether we were making decisions in a combat zone, responding to a crisis at sea, or helping a young sailor through personal hardship, better decisions emerged because different voices were at the table.

That experience is why I find recent reports that qualified women and officers of color are being removed from promotion consideration so troubling. And to date, those decisions lack any justification, because there is none. Military organizations communicate through actions as much as through policy. The cumulative message being sent is that advancement may depend less on demonstrated performance than on fitting a preferred image of military leadership.

That message will not be heard only by senior officers. It will be heard most clearly by the youngest Americans entering military service.

People enlist for many reasons. Some seek educational opportunities. Others want to travel, develop technical skills, provide for their families, or escape circumstances that offer few opportunities. Many answer a calling to serve something greater than themselves. These motivations differ, but they share a common belief: that the military offers a chance to build a better future through hard work, discipline, and merit.

Every junior service member also looks upward. They want to see that people like them, those who share their background, their story, or simply their sense of possibility, can rise through the ranks. That is not identity politics. It is human nature. Visible examples of successful leadership reinforce confidence that the institution rewards excellence wherever it is found.

As those examples fade, many young service members inevitably ask a difficult question: Is there really a future for someone like me here? If enough conclude the answer is no, the military will lose precisely the talented people it has invested years and millions of dollars to recruit and train.

I understand that feeling personally.

I entered the Navy before the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” In those years, there was no visible place for someone like me in uniform. Gay service members lived under the constant threat of investigation and a negative discharge. Military investigators actively pursued allegations of homosexuality, and careers would end not for poor performance but because of who they were.

Early in my career, I made a decision. Rather than let those assumptions define me, I would prove them wrong. I would demonstrate, through my performance, leadership, and commitment to my Sailors, that sexual orientation had nothing to do with one’s ability to lead, serve, or sacrifice.

When I was finally able to serve openly, something remarkable happened. Almost nothing changed. My sailors did not care. My fellow officers did not care. The missions and standards remained the same. What did change was that younger service members suddenly had someone to talk to. Over the years, I became a mentor to dozens of officers and enlisted personnel across every branch of the armed forces who simply wanted reassurance that they, too, could build successful military careers without hiding their identities.

Representation does not lower standards. It raises aspirations.

That is why this moment concerns me. The Department of Defense already faces recruiting and retention challenges unlike any in decades. Experienced leaders are difficult and costly to replace. When talented people conclude that advancement depends on resembling those already in power rather than on demonstrating excellence, many will leave, or, worse, not enlist. Readiness suffers long before a position officially becomes vacant.

Support Home of the Brave

Every Secretary of Defense has the right to set priorities and shape policy. But those priorities should strengthen the force, not narrow it. Public attention focused on cultural symbolism or testosterone levels creates the impression that performative politics has become more important than cultivating the broadest possible pool of exceptional leaders.

America does not need a military molded in the image of any one Secretary of Defense. It needs a military that reflects the nation it serves and rewards excellence wherever it is found.

After 27 years in uniform, I remain convinced of one truth: our diversity has never been our weakness. It has always been one of our greatest strategic strengths.

We have a problem, not because America is changing, but because we risk convincing the next generation of exceptional Americans that there is no place for them to lead. If that happens, the loss will not be measured in headlines but in talent, readiness, and the strength of the force itself.

Paul LeBlanc retired from the Navy in 2017 after 27 years as a judge advocate. He is a combat veteran of the Iraq War and a member of Veterans for Responsible Leadership (VFRL).

Share

By John Austin

President Trump recently resurrected tariffs on dozens of countries under a new authority, after his initial round of across-the-board tariffs were invalidated by the US Supreme Court. Whether or not this new round will stick remains to be seen, but the rationale for tariffs seems to have shifted. The administration appears to want to keep using tariffs as a favored tool of economic and political coercion against other nations. This stands in stark contrast to the historic rationale by which the president and other tariff advocates trumpeted their benefits: as a panacea for the US’s supposed ailing manufacturing industry.

The president had long peddled to voters in manufacturing-heavy states like my own state of Michigan a conventional wisdom: that American manufacturing had been laid low by a combination of globalization, indifference to the plight of workers, and unfair foreign competition. But as I illustrate in my new article “American Manufacturing: The Real Story” published by The Milken Institute, in fact, US manufacturing has never been more productive, nor has output ever been higher.

Truth is, America never really “lost” manufacturing, it has just radically changed.

The value-added by manufacturing output has actually tripled since the mid-1970s and the peak in manufacturing sector employment. The US remains a manufacturing powerhouse, second only to China in its share of global output at 16 percent—a number greater than Japan, Germany, and South Korea combined. Moreover, second place is in many ways better than first: China’s industrial workforce is much less productive than its US counterpart. With a value-added of over $141,000 per worker, the United States boasts the world’s most productive manufacturing industry, beating second place South Korea by over $44,000, and China by a whopping $120,000.

A key enabler of this wildly productive and globally competitive manufacturing sector came from the increase in economic interdependence, based on materials and parts that are part of an increasingly tightly knit global network. Rather than retreat from globalized production, US manufacturers adapted to increased competition by tapping the massive efficiencies of cross-border supply chains.

Today it is virtually impossible—and as we are seeing under Trump’s tariffs, also unprofitable—for business and calamitous for consumers to sever US manufacturing from the world. For example, smartphones (a US innovation) draw on more than 40 countries for components and materials. By the same token, there is no longer any such thing as a US-made automobile—parts often cross in and out of the US six or more times before coming together as vehicles ready to drive off the lot.

As a result, tariffs initially touted by the White House as a means of protecting US manufacturing from competition have the opposite effect. Much of the cross-border commercial traffic hit by tariffs are materials, parts, and components rather than finished products. Indeed, 2025 data shows that intermediate goods constitute an even larger portion of US trade than a decade ago, with approximately half of all goods imported into the United States so classified.

These imported components are essential for much of so-called “domestic” production. Advanced economies like the US operate in environments in which manufacturers operate an integrated global “co-production” system, with small competitive edges determining whether individual components are in, say, Mexico, Vietnam, or the US.

The US’s impressive productivity gains in recent decades—the massive amount of wealth per manufacturing worker (wealth that employs more people in other sectors)—reflect the fact that constant competition combined with technological change can keep the manufacturing industry thriving. This progress has been especially concentrated in the Midwest region, where so much of our manufacturing is based.

Today there is a lot of political posturing around the need for a “rebirth” of manufacturing in America. Tariffs and a new protectionism embodied in the Trump administration’s “America First” slogan are but one manifestation. But a real pro-America, pro-manufacturing, pro-growth agenda needs to be fashioned from elements that have worked very well for America in the past.

First, give the private sector the leeway to compete on quality and cost in an increasingly interdependent world—and don’t try to put globalization back in the bottle. Meanwhile, accept there is a legitimate, but limited, role for government. In particular, government needs to provide “public goods,” that in turn fuel innovation and economic growth.

For example, basic research; high-quality universal education, which today means access to higher education for all along with upskilling for workers in transition; infrastructure that includes high-quality transportation and communication; rules of the road that fairly police competition and protects intellectual property; efficient environmental regulation, like taxes on pollutants that minimize direct intervention; and support for the open, rules-based international trade.

Then get out of the way, and let the market do its thing. This is a pretty familiar agenda, but one that has sadly been given short shrift in the teeth of interest group politics, myopic populism, and geopolitical competition. More than any nation we have excelled at creating disruptive innovations and technologies that transform the economy periodically, creating whole new business sectors and good paying jobs in the process. Henry Ford did it when he pioneered mass production, which was copied around the world. We’ve done it many times since—think smartphones, GPS, and mRNA technology. And we are doing it again now as leaders in AI.

This is the real recipe for a striving America, and a thriving manufacturing sector.

Support Home of the Brave

John Austin is the former President of the Michigan State Board of Education, and a Senior Fellow with the Eisenhower Institute, the Brookings Institution and Associate Fellow with the Academy of International Affairs – NRW. This article was adapted from a piece originally published in the Milken Institute Review.

Share

By Patricia Cronin

Last month the Trump administration put up signs outside the Smithsonian’s National Museum of American History warning the public that its exhibits don’t present American history as a shared national inheritance. This comes after a report from the White House’s Domestic Policy Council accused the museum of being insufficiently patriotic, and its director was grilled in a Congressional hearing for all sorts of alleged nefariousness, including “inaccurately” telling the story of the nation’s founders, casting the country in a negative light, and overemphasizing slavery, immigration, and transgender issues.

All of this is sheer lunacy. It’s also a deliberate strategy. Let’s call it what it is: an attempt to write certain people and perspectives out of the story. I know, because I’ve seen this happen before.

Twenty-five years ago, there were no public monuments to marriage equality to speak of. Our existence went unnoticed in the great public art of that era, just as our rights to marry and enjoy full legal equality went unrecognized. Public art mirrors the public sentiment of the day—who we honor, and who we ignore.

All of that is what led me to create Memorial to a Marriage. In 2002, it became the first marriage equality monument in the world: a three-ton homage to the LGBTQ women who have been disregarded for centuries, solidified in marble. This was a decade before the Supreme Court struck down the Defense of Marriage Act, and at the time, national support for marriage equality stood around 32 percent.

The art curator Helen Molesworth wrote that the statue “traffics in love and death, and in the intimate relations between these two structuring poles of human existence.” And art historian Robert Rosenblum called it “so imaginative a leap into an artist’s personal life and so revolutionary a monument in terms of social history that it demands a full scale monograph.”

Seeing this kind of reception for a work so personally meaningful was an honor that sticks with me to this day. It also reminds me that art is—must be—a living work that speaks to the spirit of the times. And when necessary, it must say something substantive to push back against the prevailing injustices in our society.

The original statue sits on my wife’s and my burial plot in Woodlawn Cemetery, but you can see bronze castings in museums across Europe, as well as in the Smithsonian National Portrait Gallery in Washington. As both an artist and a citizen, it’s hard to describe the feeling of knowing that your country’s premier national museum has chosen to showcase your work. I don’t say this to brag; I say it to highlight the positive effects that we as a society can realize when we choose to take the arts seriously, and reward them with the public support they deserve.

That’s why Donald Trump’s executive order on the arts last year broke my heart.

The order, called “Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History,” sought to remove any art deemed to be part of an un-American “ideology” from being displayed by the Smithsonian Institution. If that sounds Orwellian to you, that’s because it is. The state-led effort to determine which art counts as patriotic, and which doesn’t, necessarily opens up a Pandora’s box that can lead only to censorship—whether outright, or of a more subtle (though no less insidious character).

To be blunt, the order targeted any art that didn’t match Trump’s personal politics and worldview. Art like mine.

The subtext of the order was just as important as what was printed in black and white. With this order, the Trump administration telegraphed a message to every museum or arts institution in the United States: Don’t exhibit work that might displease the strongman. Don’t collect it. No research, no scholarship.

In the art world, many institutions rely wholly or in part on federal funding to keep afloat. For decades, we have simply taken it for granted that this support would remain constant, without interference from a petty, authoritarian-minded leader. But under this new order, the implication is clear: If you stick your head up above the parapet, you might not like the consequences. These are mob tactics: Nice art you’ve got there, shame if something were to happen.

Sure enough, that message has had a profound effect on both my freedom of expression and my livelihood.

Since this executive order, I’ve had two solo museum shows canceled—so far. After years working with these directors and curators, all of a sudden I’ve been told versions of: Oh, the director thinks this show doesn’t warrant our attention right now. But all these “not right now” messages from directors and curators have come after Trump’s second inauguration and after his executive order.

This is not a coincidence. This is censorship. Worse, it is a type of censorship that dare not speak its name. Institutions, understandably concerned about their own long-term viability, are being chilled into self-censoring what works they do and don’t exhibit, for fear of retaliation from a retributive, vindictive federal government. That is the real un-Americanism on display; not the works of art branded as such in Trump’s executive order.

Censorship is a form of intimidation. It’s inhumane, it’s disappointing, and it certainly isn’t democratic. When you censor the arts, one of our basic human expressions, you are trying to control the stories, the memories, and the values we set in stone (literally) for future generations.

And the trickle-down effect of censorship from the administration to the museums and their directors will eventually make its way down to the individual artists themselves, prompting them to self-censor in the studio. By stifling artists, the Trump administration is trying to find a way to control the national narrative and how its past, present, and future are presented. And I worry about how much of the American story will never be told because of the art that is never going to be made. That is what chills me to my bones.

But it’s not too late to raise our voices. Twenty-four years ago, I dared to create a work that celebrated LGBTQ love and unapologetically presented our inherent equality and humanity for all the world to see. Roughly a quarter-century later, and support for marriage equality has a clear majority of support. I am not suggesting that my work—or any one work—caused that change in our national character. But I am arguing that art—mine, and so many others’—has a vital, pivotal role to play in helping drive positive change across our society.

Trump’s executive order extols our “consistent progress toward becoming a more perfect Union.” But the order itself stands as a betrayal of that very progress. At the core of art is freedom. We cannot allow that to be taken from us.

Support Home of the Brave

Patricia Cronin is a Distinguished Professor of Art at Brooklyn College of The City University of New York and a New York-based artist whose work addresses sex, class and desire in painting, sculpture, and installation.

Share

Listen now to It’s Happening Here, a Home of the Brave podcast.

By Ashley Vaughan

My name is Ashley Vaughan, and I am a disabled person who uses mobility devices. Resistance has a long history in my family. My grandmother survived the Holocaust, and she believed in fighting against fascism, protecting the vulnerable, and ending genocide. Her story remains a guiding light in my and my family’s life, which is what led me to the protests at Broadview, Illinois.

At 1930 Beach Street in Broadview, there is a boarded up building that is used to inhumanely detain people. The building is made of dark brick, shut off from the outside world. On September 12, 2025, in Franklin Park—just miles away—Silverio Villegas Gonzalez was killed by ICE. That horrific act of violence devastated the local community and sparked protests.

This facility, heavily guarded by local, state, and ICE officials, does not permit individuals to go inside unless pre-ordained. Some clergy, legal representatives, and family members have been allowed to go inside on occasion. Those that do report what they’ve seen, which includes uninhabitable and inhumane conditions. The inside lacks proper basic necessities like sanitation, food and medical care. Advocates and attorneys face significant barriers in communicating with detainees.

Outside of the facility, there are constant protests that family members, religious leaders, and regular civilians like myself partake in. On the evening that Silverio Villegas Gonzalez was murdered, I was protesting at Broadview, and I was assaulted.

I made it known to ICE that I was disabled. Still, while protesting with my mobility cane, I was struck on the forehead by a member of ICE firing so-called “less lethal” rounds from the roof. I fell back, I could not see, and I couldn’t breathe or speak due to the chemical projectiles getting into my eyes, mouth, throat, and lungs. The sting swarmed my body. In a desperate attempt for relief, I reached out for my cane. I then reached for my sign—the sign that had a picture of my Grandma in a Nazi camp—to protect me from the additional shots of “less lethal” rounds by being fired at my body by ICE agents. I tried to get behind the nearby dumpster. This was all captured on camera by bystanders who were filming.

The other protestors helped me get out of the way as ICE continued to close in on us, gave me medical attention, and called an ambulance. We continued to shield ourselves from the attacks, and when the ambulance finally arrived, it could not reach me immediately due to the continued firing and pepper spray. Once I was able to get in the ambulance, the paramedics could not drive away until they were cleared of the pepper spray fumes coming off my body.

If you live in Illinois or in Chicago: there is a federal facility in your community, protected by your local police, and funded by your tax dollars, that operates without transparency to detain immigrants or those who are suspected of being immigrants. Advocates have quite bluntly summed up what’s taking place: People are “being kidnapped off the streets, packed in hold cells, denied food, medical care, and basic necessities, and forced to sign away their legal rights.” This is happening here, in America, right now, in all of our names.

Support Home of the Brave

I went to Broadview to show up for members of the disability community who could not be there. I went there to exercise my First Amendment freedoms as an American and fight for people like my grandmother, people subject to needless violence by the hands of the government and police. Because that’s what this all was: needless. I never expected to be shot at for peacefully protesting. What happened to me is devastating, but it is nothing in comparison to the cruelty inflicted on people inside ICE facilities—torn from their families, deprived of their liberty, and held in inhumane conditions.

We cannot allow ICE to continue these abuses. We must keep pushing for people to be released, and we must close down Broadview and work to end the abuses that are being committed against our friends and neighbors in communities across America. To keep ourselves safe, we must do everything in our power to protect the most vulnerable people among us.

It is our job as citizens and human beings to shine a bright light on the darkness of places like the Broadview detention facility. The wave of state-inflicted violence that has met our peaceful protests only demonstrates the dire need for more of this kind of courage and determination. These things cannot be permitted to take place away from public view, in the shadows, out of sight and out of mind. I went to Broadview because as long as the detention center is operating there, we must each do our part to bear witness against everything it stands for.

History has its eyes on us.

Ashley Vaughan is a Chicago area resident who was harmed by ICE agents while taking part in the peaceful protests at the Broadview detention center.

Share