Connect with us

News

What to know about Dan Caine, the nation's newly-confirmed top military adviser

Published

on

What to know about Dan Caine, the nation's newly-confirmed top military adviser

Dan Caine, now chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testifies during his Senate Armed Services Committee confirmation hearing on April 1.

Nathan Posner/Anadolu via Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Nathan Posner/Anadolu via Getty Images

Retired Air Force Lt. Gen. John Dan “Razin” Caine is officially the chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff after the Senate confirmed him in the middle of the night.

The 60-25 vote happened just after 2 a.m. on Friday before the Senate adjourned for two weeks.

And it came a little over six weeks after President Trump abruptly fired Caine’s predecessor, Air Force Gen. Charles Q. Brown Jr., as part of a larger shakeup at the Pentagon that had many Democrats concerned. Republicans, on the other hand, pushed for Caine to be confirmed quickly.

Advertisement

“The Chinese Communist Party continues an expansive military buildup, and our adversaries continue to band together against the United States,” Sen. Roger Wicker, R-Miss., chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said in a statement on Wednesday. “President Trump should have the expertise of the highest-ranking military officer in place without any delays.”

Caine’s confirmation makes him the nation’s highest-ranking military officer, principal military adviser to the president, secretary of defense and National Security Council.

Caine is a career fighter jet pilot who patrolled the skies above Washington, D.C., immediately after the 9/11 attacks, served in the Middle East during the fight against the Islamic State and then worked at the CIA.

Despite his 34 years of military experience, Caine had not served in any of the roles legally required to become Joint Chiefs chair. The president, however, can waive those requirements if he “determines such action is necessary in the national interest.”

Caine was not well known before his nomination in February. Several officials on Capitol Hill and the Pentagon, granted anonymity as they were not authorized to speak publicly on the matter, told NPR at the time that they had to Google his name.

Advertisement

At his confirmation hearing earlier this month, Caine said he hoped to earn senators’ trust “and the trust of the American people.”

“If confirmed, I’ll continue the traditions and standards of my oath of office and my commission as a nonpartisan leader who will always strive to do the right thing,” he said.

Caine’s career spanned the CIA, the National Guard and the Air Force 

Caine served most recently as the associate director for military affairs at the CIA, a position he held from November 2021 until his retirement in December 2024. 

Caine had to be reinstated to active service and promoted to four-star general to become chair, the Washington Post reports. 

In 1990, Caine was commissioned through an ROTC program at the Virginia Military Institute in Lexington, Va. While on active duty, Caine primarily served as an F-16 fighter pilot, flying more than 150 combat hours, according to his military biography.

Advertisement

On Sept. 11, 2001, he was one of the pilots who protected the skies above Washington following the terrorist attacks. It marked the first time that fighter jets were deployed over the nation’s capital.

“I remember telling the wingman that I was going to fly with that day, ‘Don’t shoot anybody. I’ll make the decision,’ because I was very mindful that if we made a mistake or if we got it wrong or if we missed somebody and we did not shoot, the consequences of that could be catastrophic,” he said in a 2023 CIA video. “Not only for the people on the ground, but for the country as a whole.”

From 2009 to 2016, Caine also served in the National Guard. He was deputy commander in the U.S. campaign against ISIS in Iraq and Syria between May 2018 and September 2019, according to his military biography.

The biography also describes him as a “serial entrepreneur and investor.”

According to his LinkedIn profile, Caine serves on the advisory board of several venture capital firms, as well as the defense and space exploration company Voyager.

Advertisement

Trump has been talking up Caine since at least 2019

In 2019, at the Conservative Political Action Conference, Trump shared his first meeting with Caine in Iraq, where the general introduced himself by his nickname “Razin.”

“‘Raisin, like the fruit?’ He goes, ‘Yes, sir, Razin.’ ‘What’s your last name?’ ‘Caine. Razin Caine.’ I said, ‘You got to be kidding me,’ ” Trump recalled.

According to Trump, the general suggested the Islamic State could be defeated in a week. “One week? I was told two years,” Trump said he asked. Caine explained that the issue was that his orders come from D.C. rather than being informed by the field.

“You’re the first one to ask us our opinion,” Caine told Trump, as the president recalled. “So I went back and I said, ‘I’m going to get back to you soon, Razin. I think you’re great,’” Trump said. “I like you, Razin Caine.”

Trump referred to this encounter in Iraq again at last year’s CPAC. But in this retelling, Caine asserted that the Islamic State could be defeated in four weeks, not one.

Advertisement

Trump then recalled the general saying, “‘I love you, sir. I think you’re great, sir. I’ll kill for you, sir.’ “

Some U.S. officials who were not authorized to speak publicly, and are familiar with the exchange, say that remark never happened.

Trump also claimed that Caine wore a “Make America Great Again” hat when they first met, a story Caine has since disputed. 

“For 34 years, I’ve upheld my oath of office and my commitment to my commission, and I have never worn any political merchandise,” he said during his hearing.

Advertisement

Caine says he won’t be a yes man

Caine was nominated days after Trump fired Brown, the previous Joint Chiefs chairman who was picked by former President Joe Biden in 2023. The job has traditionally had a four-year term. 

Brown was accused of supporting a “woke” agenda by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. In his book The War on Warriors, Hegseth questioned whether Brown, who is Black, got the job because of his race.

At the time, Hegseth went on Fox News Sunday and said Brown was “an honorable man,” but “not the right man for the moment.”

“The president respects leaders who untie the hands of warfighters in a very dangerous world,” Hegseth said. “I think Dan Caine is the man to meet the moment.”

Hegseth went on to fire several other top Pentagon officials, including Adm. Lisa Franchetti, chief of naval operations (and the first woman to lead the Navy); Gen. Jim Slife, vice chief of the Air Force; and the judge advocates general for the military services. 

Advertisement

Critics — including Democratic lawmakers and retired military officials — decried the firings as destabilizing and unjustified, noting they seemed to target officers who had supported diversity, equity and inclusion efforts. 

The shakeup stoked wider fears of politicization of the Department of Defense, which came up at Caine’s confirmation hearing.

When asked whether he would “stand up and push back” if Trump ever asked him to use the military to do something unconstitutional, Caine answered affirmatively.

“I think that’s the duty and job that I have, yes,” he said. 

A version of this story originally published in February.

Advertisement

News

Video: Man on Roof Faces Off with ICE Agents for Hours in Minnesota

Published

on

Video: Man on Roof Faces Off with ICE Agents for Hours in Minnesota

new video loaded: Man on Roof Faces Off with ICE Agents for Hours in Minnesota

transcript

transcript

Man on Roof Faces Off with ICE Agents for Hours in Minnesota

A man clung to a partially built roof for hours in frigid temperatures during a standoff with immigration agents in Chanhassen, Minn., a suburb of Minneapolis. The confrontation was part of the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown in the state to remove what it calls “vicious criminals.”

“What a [expletive] embarrassment.” “Look at this guy.” “What’s with all the fascists?” “The Lord is with you.” “Where’s the bad hombre? What did this guy do?” “He’s out here working to support his [expletive] family.” “Gestapo agents.” “Oh yeah, shake your head, tough guy.” “This is where you get the worst of the worst right here, hard-working builders.” “Crossing the border is not a crime. Coming illegally to the United States is not a crime, according to you.” “C’mon, get out of here.” “Take him to a different hospital.”

Advertisement
A man clung to a partially built roof for hours in frigid temperatures during a standoff with immigration agents in Chanhassen, Minn., a suburb of Minneapolis. The confrontation was part of the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown in the state to remove what it calls “vicious criminals.”

By Ernesto Londoño, Jackeline Luna and Daniel Fetherston

December 17, 2025

Continue Reading

News

Trump’s BBC lawsuit: A botched report, BritBox, and porn

Published

on

Trump’s BBC lawsuit: A botched report, BritBox, and porn

Journalists report outside BBC Broadcasting House in London. In a new lawsuit, President Trump is seeking $10 billion from the BBC for defamation.

Kirsty Wigglesworth/AP/AP


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Kirsty Wigglesworth/AP/AP

Not content with an apology and the resignation of two top BBC executives, President Trump filed a $10 billion defamation lawsuit Monday against the BBC in his continued strategy to take the press to court.

Beyond the legal attack on yet another media outlet, the litigation represents an audacious move against a national institution of a trusted ally. It hinges on an edit presented in a documentary of the president’s words on a fateful day. Oddly enough, it also hinges on the appeal of a niche streaming service to people in Florida, and the use of a technological innovation embraced by porn devotees.

A sloppy edit

At the heart of Trump’s case stands an episode of the BBC television documentary program Panorama that compresses comments Trump made to his supporters on Jan. 6, 2021, before they laid siege to the U.S. Capitol.

Advertisement

The episode seamlessly links Trump’s call for people to walk up to the Capitol with his exhortation nearly 55 minutes later: “And we fight, we fight like hell, and if you don’t fight like hell you don’t have a country anymore.”

Trump’s attorneys argue that the presentation gives viewers the impression that the president incited the violence that followed. They said his remarks had been doctored, not edited, and noted the omission of his statement that protesters would be “marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.”

As NPR and other news organizations have documented, many defendants in the Jan. 6 attack on Congress said they believed they had been explicitly urged by Trump to block the certification of President-elect Joe Biden’s victory.

Trump’s lawsuit calls the documentary “a false, defamatory, deceptive, disparaging, inflammatory, and malicious depiction of President Trump.”

The lawsuit alleges that the depiction was “fabricated” and aired “in a brazen attempt to interfere in and influence the Election to President Trump’s detriment.”

Advertisement

While the BBC has not filed a formal response to the lawsuit, the public broadcaster has reiterated that it will defend itself in court.

A Nov. 13 letter to Trump’s legal team on behalf of the BBC from Charles Tobin, a leading U.S. First Amendment attorney, argued that the broadcaster has demonstrated contrition by apologizing, withdrawing the broadcast, and accepting the executives’ resignations.

Tobin also noted, on behalf of the BBC, that Trump had already been indicted by a grand jury on four criminal counts stemming from his efforts to overturn the 2020 election, including his conduct on Jan. 6, 2021, on the Capitol grounds.

The appeal of BritBox

For all the current consternation about the documentary, it didn’t get much attention at the time. The BBC aired the documentary twice on the eve of the 2024 elections — but never broadcast it directly in Florida.

That matters because the lawsuit was filed in Florida, where Trump alleges that the program was intended to discourage voters from voting for him.

Advertisement

Yet Tobin notes, Trump won Florida in 2024 by a “commanding 13-point margin, improving over his 2020 and 2016 performances in the state.”

Trump failed to make the case that Floridians were influenced by the documentary, Tobin wrote. He said the BBC did not broadcast the program in Florida through U.S. channels. (The BBC has distribution deals with PBS and NPR and their member stations for television and radio programs, respectively, but not to air Panorama.)

It was “geographically restricted” to U.K. viewers, Tobin wrote.

Hence the argument in Trump’s lawsuit that American viewers have other ways to watch it. The first is BritBox, a BBC streaming service that draws more on British mysteries set at seaside locales than BBC coverage of American politics.

Back in March, then-BBC Director General Tim Davie testified before the House of Commons that BritBox had more than 4 million subscribers in the U.S. (The BBC did not break down how many subscribers it has in Florida or how often Panorama documentaries are viewed by subscribers in the U.S. or the state, in response to questions posed by NPR for this story.)

Advertisement

“The Panorama Documentary was available to BritBox subscribers in Florida and was in fact viewed by these subscribers through BritBox and other means provided by the BBC,” Trump’s lawsuit states.

NPR searched for Panorama documentaries on the BritBox streaming service through the Amazon Prime platform, one of its primary distributors. The sole available episode dates from 2000. Trump does not mention podcasts. Panorama is streamed on BBC Sounds. Its episodes do not appear to be available in the U.S. on such mainstream podcast distributors in the U.S. such as Apple Podcasts, Spotify or Pocket Casts, according to a review by NPR.

Software that enables anonymous browsing – of porn

Another way Trump’s lawsuit suggests people in the U.S. could watch that particular episode of Panorama, if they were so inclined, is through a Virtual Private Network, or VPN.

Trump’s suit says millions of Florida citizens use VPNs to view content from foreign streamers that would otherwise be restricted. And the BBC iPlayer is among the most popular streaming services accessed by viewers using a VPN, Trump’s lawsuit asserts.

In response to questions from NPR, the BBC declined to break down figures for how many people in the U.S. access the BBC iPlayer through VPNs.

Advertisement

Demand for such software did shoot up in 2024 and early 2025. Yet, according to analysts — and even to materials cited by the president’s team in his own case — the reason appears to have less to do with foreign television shows and more to do with online pornography.

Under a new law, Florida began requiring age verification checks for visitors to pornographic websites, notes Paul Bischoff, editor of Comparitech, a site that reviews personal cybersecurity software.

“People use VPNs to get around those age verification and site blocks,” Bischoff says. “The reason is obvious.”

An article in the Tampa Free Press cited by Trump’s lawsuit to help propel the idea of a sharp growth of interest in the BBC actually undercuts the idea in its very first sentence – by focusing on that law.

“Demand for Virtual Private Networks (VPNs) has skyrocketed in Florida following the implementation of a new law requiring age verification for access to adult websites,” the first paragraph states. “This dramatic increase reflects a widespread effort by Floridians to bypass the restrictions and access adult content.”

Advertisement

Several legal observers anticipate possible settlement

Several First Amendment attorneys tell NPR they believe Trump’s lawsuit will result in a settlement of some kind, in part because there’s new precedent. In the past year, the parent companies of ABC News and CBS News have each paid $16 million to settle cases filed by Trump that many legal observers considered specious.

“The facts benefit Trump and defendants may be concerned about reputational harm,” says Carl Tobias, a professor of law at the University of Richmond who specializes in free speech issues. “The BBC also has admitted it could have done better and essentially apologized.”

Some of Trump’s previous lawsuits against the media have failed. He is currently also suing the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Des Moines Register and its former pollster, and the board of the Pulitzer Prize.

Continue Reading

News

Video: Prosecutors Charge Nick Reiner With Murdering His Parents

Published

on

Video: Prosecutors Charge Nick Reiner With Murdering His Parents

new video loaded: Prosecutors Charge Nick Reiner With Murdering His Parents

transcript

transcript

Prosecutors Charge Nick Reiner With Murdering His Parents

Los Angeles prosecutors charged Nick Reiner with two counts of first-degree murder in the deaths of his parents, the director Rob Reiner and Michele Singer Reiner.

Our office will be filing charges against Nick Reiner, who is accused of killing his parents, actor-director Rob Reiner and photographer-producer Michele Singer Reiner. These charges will be two counts of first-degree murder, with a special circumstance of multiple murders. He also faces a special allegation that he personally used a dangerous and deadly weapon, that being a knife. These charges carry a maximum sentence of life in prison without the possibility parole or the death penalty. No decision at this point has been made with respect to the death penalty.

Advertisement
Los Angeles prosecutors charged Nick Reiner with two counts of first-degree murder in the deaths of his parents, the director Rob Reiner and Michele Singer Reiner.

By Shawn Paik

December 16, 2025

Continue Reading

Trending