Connect with us

Politics

Hegseth Cuts Pentagon Work on Preventing Civilian Harm

Published

on

Hegseth Cuts Pentagon Work on Preventing Civilian Harm

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth is moving to terminate Pentagon offices and positions that focus on preventing and responding to civilian harm during U.S. combat operations, according to three defense officials.

Employees at the Pentagon’s Civilian Harm Mitigation and Response office, which deals with policy matters related to limiting the risk to noncombatants across the armed forces, were informed on Monday that their office would be closed, the officials said. They were also told that the Civilian Protection Center of Excellence, which handles training and procedures, would close as well.

The Pentagon is likely to cut all positions at combatant commands around the world, like Central Command and Africa Command, that work to mitigate and assess risks to civilians during airstrikes and other military operations.

It is unclear whether Mr. Hegseth is rescinding the Pentagon’s policy instruction, which requires that possible risks to civilians are considered in combat planning and operations.

The officials spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive policy changes.

Advertisement

If enforced, the decision would eliminate jobs for more than 160 Defense Department employees.

The Office of the Secretary of Defense referred questions about Mr. Hegseth’s decision to close these programs to the Army, which did not immediately respond to a request for comment regarding those developments on Tuesday.

In President Trump’s first week back in office, the Army asked Pentagon leadership to rescind the policy instruction, relieve the service of its responsibility for the Center of Excellence and to ask Congress to abolish the office.

The laws of armed conflict require the protection of civilians in war zones, and senior commanders draft rules of engagement for their forces to comply with them.

Long considered a bedrock of U.S. military culture, those principles are now under threat in the second Trump administration, as Mr. Hegseth repeatedly speaks about wanting to return “warfighting” and a “warrior ethos” to a military he insists has become soft and too bureaucratic.

Advertisement

During his Senate confirmation hearing, Mr. Hegseth answered questions about his past comments, including that “restrictive rules of engagement” briefed to him by a uniformed attorney known as a Judge Advocate General, or JAG, had made it more difficult to defeat enemies, as well as his use of the term “jagoff” to derisively refer to those officers.

Such rules of engagement, which establish guidelines for the use of deadly force in a military operation, are in fact signed by the senior officer in a given combat theater, not by JAG officers.

In a leadership purge at the Pentagon on Feb. 21, Mr. Hegseth fired the top uniformed lawyers for the Army and Air Force. The Navy’s top JAG, a three-star admiral, abruptly retired in December. His deputy, a two-star admiral, remains in place as the acting Navy JAG.

In a post on LinkedIn late Monday night, Matt Isler, a retired Air Force brigadier general who oversaw the combination of aerial surveillance, coalition air power and ground-based weapons in support of ground troops battling Islamic State fighters in Iraq and Syria, pushed back on the new Pentagon leadership’s decision.

“Some have recently argued that Defense Department efforts to mitigate civilian deaths in war inappropriately constrain U.S. forces,” he wrote. “This could not be farther from the truth.”

Advertisement

“Reducing risks of civilian harm focuses combat effects on the enemy, accelerates achievement of campaign objectives, preserves combat power, and protects warfighters,” he added.

Mr. Hegseth’s decision was heavily criticized by civilian harm protection advocates with whom the military worked in close consultation to develop policies.

“Repeal of these lifesaving policies would be a betrayal of the civilians who have borne the brunt of U.S. operations,” said Annie Shiel, the U.S. advocacy director at the Center for Civilians in Conflict. “It would also be a betrayal of the war fighters and veterans Secretary Hegseth says he stands for, who have themselves worked to ensure the U.S. can learn from the grave mistakes and lessons of past wars.”

Eliminating these programs could also halt efforts to provide redress and payments to civilian victims of U.S. combat operations.

Joanna Naples-Mitchell, a human rights lawyer representing 30 families whose loved ones were injured or killed in U.S. combat operations in Iraq, Syria or Afghanistan between 2015 and 2024, said that eliminating these programs would exacerbate the trauma of civilian victims and moral injury among soldiers involved in the incidents.

Advertisement

Ms. Naples-Mitchell, whose clients include the relatives of victims who were the subject of New York Times reporting, said the changes would make the government less efficient.

“Killing innocent people is not only a moral stain,” she said, “but wastes government resources and makes Americans less safe.”

The Defense Department’s civilian protection program was started during the first Trump administration by James N. Mattis, the secretary of defense at the time, in response to a Times report in November 2017 on civilians who were killed during airstrikes in Iraq.

In 2022, after a series of Times investigations that uncovered systemic failures to protect civilians, Defense Secretary Lloyd J. Austin III announced sweeping changes to military doctrine, planning and training aimed at mitigating the risk of civilian harm.

While these programs were heralded as making improvements to U.S. civilian harm policies, they faced criticism for not addressing operations the United States supports through military aid alone, such as Israel’s campaign in Gaza.

Advertisement

The Trump administration also recently rescinded Biden-era limits on counterterrorism drone strikes and commando raids outside conventional war zones, reverting to the looser set of rules the president used in his first term.

Since Mr. Trump took office, the U.S. military has launched several strikes in Iraq, Syria and Somalia, despite his earlier promises to end “endless wars.”

The most recent of those actions targeted Al-Shabaab fighters in Somalia on Saturday, according to a statement released by U.S. Africa Command.

On Feb. 23, U.S. forces launched an attack in northwest Syria that killed the senior leader of a terrorist organization affiliated with Al Qaeda, according to U.S. Central Command, which later released a video of the strike.

On Feb. 12, five ISIS fighters in Iraq were killed in an airstrike enabled by U.S. forces in the country, Central Command said in a statement days later.

Advertisement

Politics

Muslim groups, other leaders demand Abbott rescind CAIR’s ‘terrorist’ designation: ‘Defamatory’

Published

on

Muslim groups, other leaders demand Abbott rescind CAIR’s ‘terrorist’ designation: ‘Defamatory’

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

A group of Muslim and interfaith leaders are urging Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, a Republican, to reverse his proclamation designating the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) as a “foreign terrorist organization.”

Texas’s designation is state-level only. It does not carry the legal force of a federal Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) listing, which only the U.S. State Department can issue. Abbott’s proclamation, therefore, does not trigger federal terrorism penalties or authorities.

The leaders of several Muslim groups held a news conference on Tuesday to denounce the governor’s proclamation, which also labeled CAIR as a “a transnational criminal organization.”

The groups called on the governor to retract his labeling of the civil rights group, calling it defamatory, destructive and dangerous, according to Fox 4.

Advertisement

MUSLIM CIVIL RIGHTS GROUP CAIR SUES TEXAS OVER ABBOTT’S ‘TERRORIST’ DESIGNATION

Muslim and interfaith leaders are urging Texas Gov. Greg Abbott to reverse his proclamation designating CAIR as a terrorist organization. (Brandon Bell/Getty Images)

This comes after CAIR filed a lawsuit against Texas over the governor’s declaration, arguing that it violates both the U.S. Constitution and state law.

CAIR argues the order violates its First Amendment rights and due-process protections, and that Texas overstepped its authority because terrorism designations fall under federal, not state, jurisdiction.

“The governor is attempting to punish the nation’s largest Muslim civil rights and advocacy organization simply because he disagrees with its protected First Amendment rights to criticize a foreign state that is conducting genocide. This is not only contrary to the United States Constitution, but finds no support in any Texas law,” Mustaffa Carroll, the executive director for CAIR Dallas Fort Worth, said at the news conference on Tuesday.

Advertisement

“You know that CAIR has condemned Hamas attacks. You know that CAIR has spent 31 years fighting terrorism and bigotry. You know that the terrorism boogeyman you invoke is nothing more than a tired, formulated playbook to stoke fear of Muslims,” Marium Uddin of the Muslim Legal Defense Fund said on Tuesday.

CAIR filed a lawsuit against Texas over the governor’s declaration, arguing that it violates both the U.S. Constitution and state law. (Ron Jenkins/Getty Images)

Leaders from other faiths, including Jewish voices, also spoke out against Abbott’s label.

“We stand steadfast in solidarity with our comrades in CAIR and in unwavering support in their lawsuit against Abbott’s false and unconstitutional proclamation,” Jewish Voice for Peace’s Deborah Armintor said.

State Rep. Terry Meza, a Democrat, added that the governor’s words “are not just wrong, they’re dangerous. Making comments like this is dangerous to our Muslim community.”

Advertisement

TEXAS GOV ABBOTT DECLARES CAIR, MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD AS TERRORIST GROUPS, PREVENTING LAND PURCHASES

The Muslim groups called on the governor to retract his labeling of CAIR, calling it defamatory, destructive and dangerous. (Antranik Tavitian/Reuters)

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

The lawsuit is ongoing, and it remains unclear whether a court will uphold Abbott’s order or strike it down as exceeding state authority.

The governor’s decree bars CAIR from buying land in the Lone Star State under a new statute aimed at curbing purchases tied to “foreign adversaries.”

Advertisement

Abbott’s order also extended the “terrorist” label to the Muslim Brotherhood, despite the federal government never classifying either group that way.

Continue Reading

Politics

Sinclair Broadcast Group makes bid for Scripps TV stations

Published

on

Sinclair Broadcast Group makes bid for Scripps TV stations

Sinclair Broadcast Group has made an unsolicited bid to buy rival station owner E.W. Scripps just a week after disclosing it had acquired shares of the company’s stock.

Sinclair filed a statement Monday with the Securities and Exchange Commission saying it will offer Scripps $7 per share, consisting of $2.72 in cash and $4.28 in combined company common stock. The price is a 200% premium over the 30-day average for Scripps shares as of Nov. 6.

Sinclair revealed on Nov. 17 that it gained a stake in Scripps through the acquisition of publicly traded shares. Scripps, which operates 61 TV stations and owns the ION network, is valued at around $393 million.

The Cincinnati-based Scripps said in a statement saying the company’s board of directors “will carefully review and evaluate any proposals, including the unsolicited Sinclair offer.”

The statement added that the board will “act in the business interest of the company, all of its shareholders as well as its employees and the many communities it serves across the United States.”

Advertisement

The company’s stock was up around 7.5% on the news of the Sinclair offer, closing at $4.43 a share Monday afternoon.

A takeover of Scripps would be culturally jarring for the local newsrooms at its stations. The company was founded in 1878 with a chain of daily newspapers that defined itself through journalistic independence. The company’s longtime motto is “Give light.”

The Baltimore-area Sinclair is known for the conservative politics of its owners, led by David D. Smith, who have had their views amplified through the company’s local TV news coverage over the years.

Sinclair most recently tried to flex its muscle when it pulled “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” off its ABC-affiliated stations in September after the late-night host made comments about the political affiliation of the man accused of killing right-wing political activist Charlie Kirk.

Sinclair demanded that Kimmel make “a meaningful donation” to Kirk’s organization Turning Point USA in addition to an apology. None was offered, and after a week, Sinclair put the program back on its air with zero concessions from ABC.

Advertisement

Regardless of political leanings, all major TV station ownership groups have urged the Federal Communications Commission to lift the limit on how much of the country their outlets can cover.

TV station owners are limited to reaching 39% of the country, which companies say puts them at a disadvantage in competing against tech giants that have no such restriction in their media endeavors.

While consumer advocates believe consolidation will reduce the diversity of voices in communities, TV executives have argued that it’s no longer economically viable to have multiple station owners in a single market, often covering the same major stories.

Consolidation would also give TV station owners more clout in their negotiations for carriage fees they receive from cable and satellite providers. Such fees are vital as TV stations have struggled to maintain ad revenues due to a decline in ratings and more consumers turning to streaming video platforms.

Sinclair’s attempt to buy Scripps comes after its failed effort to acquire Tegna Inc., which agreed to a $6.2-billion deal to merge with Nexstar Media Group. The deal will require regulatory approval as it would give Nexstar’s stations the ability to reach 80% of the U.S.

Advertisement

Station owners calling for consolidation have been hopeful they had an ally in Trump-appointed FCC Chairman Brendan Carr.

But a social media post suggested that President Trump may be wary of consolidation, saying it could give greater influence to broadcast networks NBC and ABC. The president has been highly critical of the news coverage of both networks, even threatening to go after their TV station licenses.

Continue Reading

Politics

Video: Judge Dismisses Cases Against James Comey and Letitia James

Published

on

Video: Judge Dismisses Cases Against James Comey and Letitia James

new video loaded: Judge Dismisses Cases Against James Comey and Letitia James

transcript

transcript

Judge Dismisses Cases Against James Comey and Letitia James

A federal judge threw out criminal charges against the former F.B.I. director James Comey and New York’s attorney general, Letitia James, on Monday.

“I’m grateful that the court ended the case against me. The president of the United States cannot use the Department of Justice to target his political enemies.” “We’ll be taking all available legal action….” “We are filing a lawsuit against Donald Trump…”

Advertisement
A federal judge threw out criminal charges against the former F.B.I. director James Comey and New York’s attorney general, Letitia James, on Monday.

By Shawn Paik

November 25, 2025

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending