Politics
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.
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.
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.”
“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.
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.
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.
new video loaded: Jan. 6 Rioter Hired by Pentagon
transcript
transcript
Jan. 6 Rioter Hired by Pentagon
Elias Irizarry, who pleaded guilty to climbing through a broken window at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, now works for an office responsible for uncovering and defending against terrorism plots at the Pentagon.
-
“Full pardon or commutation?” “Full pardon.”
By Alisa Shodiyev Kaff
June 4, 2026
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
Democrats splintered over a resolution seeking to block the U.S. from assisting Israel’s war against Hezbollah, an Iranian-backed terrorist group, on Thursday.
The measure, offered by progressive Rep. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., would require President Donald Trump to withdraw U.S. forces from Lebanon. For months, Israel and Hezbollah, a U.S.-designated terrorist group and Iranian proxy, have been at war in southern Lebanon, but the United States has not joined the conflict.
A bipartisan coalition of lawmakers, including House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., rejected the measure. Critics argued the resolution could aid Hezbollah and potentially hamstring U.S. military operations in the country.
Tlaib’s resolution failed 92-324, with more than half of House Democrats joining nearly all Republicans to vote it down.
The Lebanon war powers resolution divided Democrats, with House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., joining Republicans in rejecting the measure. (Aaron Schwartz/Bloomberg)
REP RASHIDA TLAIB MOVES TO BLOCK US OPERATIONS IN LEBANON BUT IGNORES HEZBOLLAH
Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., an Israel critic, was the lone Republican to support Tlaib’s measure. Meanwhile, Reps. Derek Tran, D-Calif., and Betty McCollum, D-Minn., voted present.
House Democratic leaders said shortly before the vote they would oppose Tlaib’s resolution and work with the progressive lawmaker on a narrower measure exempting some U.S. military operations in the country. Their statement also denounced Hezbollah as a “violent terrorist organization” and a “sworn enemy of the United States.”
Tlaib, who has accused Israel of committing “ethnic cleansing” in Lebanon, did not mention Hezbollah in her resolution. She and other proponents of the measure also avoided discussing the Iranian proxy force during heated floor debate over the measure.
Republicans highlighted the omission and accused the legislation’s supporters of serving as “proxies for Hezbollah.”
“Apparently they don’t want to see Israel killing Hezbollah, even though it’s Hezbollah that is killing Israeli children, Israeli adults, Israeli elders,” House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Brian Mast, R-Fla., said Wednesday, referring to his Democratic colleagues.
Tlaib asserted that her resolution would only affect U.S. forces actively engaged in hostilities. Republicans, however, disputed that claim and suggested it would hurt U.S. efforts to counter Hezbollah.
“It doesn’t say anything about [whether] you can keep the Marines that are in the embassy,” Mast said, referring to the U.S. embassy in Beirut. “That’s a pretty big oversight. It doesn’t say anything about whether we can keep United States armed forces that are training missions with the LAF [Lebanese Armed Forces]. Again, pretty big oversight.”
Rep. Rashida Tlaib, a Democrat from Michigan, attempted to bar U.S. forces from joining Israel’s war in Lebanon. (Tierney L. Cross/Bloomberg)
RASHIDA TLAIB HIT WITH HOUSE CENSURE THREAT, ACCUSED OF ‘CELEBRATING TERRORISM’ IN PRO-PALESTINIAN SPEECH
The debate turned personal when Rep. Max Miller, R-Ohio, a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, linked Tlaib to Hezbollah.
“Hezbollah is a terrorist organization … and its members are butchers that you like to hang out with to a certain extent,” the Ohio lawmaker said, referring to Tlaib.
A shouting match between the two then broke out, with Tlaib demanding that Miller’s remarks be stricken from the record.
The presiding chair ultimately complied with her request, but Miller doubled down on his remarks.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
“Yes, I said it. I own it, and I stand by it,” Mast said on behalf of Miller on the floor.
Tlaib’s failed war powers resolution comes as Iran has sought to tie Israel’s invasion of Lebanon to its ceasefire negotiations with the United States.
Hezbollah, which has long helped Iran project power in the region, rejected a ceasefire agreement between Israel and Lebanon’s government Thursday.
WASHINGTON — Initial efforts in the Senate failed Thursday to block the $1.8-billion fund that the Trump administration has sought to establish to pay people who claim the government wronged them, though further attempts were likely to come Thursday afternoon.
Republicans narrowly voted down a Democratic amendment to ban the payout fund and then Democrats killed a Republican amendment, which would have prohibited the use of federal money for the fund but would have sent $1.7 billion to the Justice Department’s fraud division.
It was the second effort in Congress to rebuke President Trump in two days, following the House vote Wednesday to rein in Trump’s war powers in Iran.
The dueling amendments were proposed by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.). They were attached to the reconciliation bill that would fund Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Border Patrol, a high priority for Republicans.
The votes came as the Senate began a “vote-a-rama,” during which lawmakers were expected to propose a stream of amendments to the immigration bill on various topics.
The Trump administration’s plan for the payment fund — widely seen as a way for Trump to compensate his political allies, including those who participated in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol — set off particular ire from some GOP lawmakers.
The plan has fueled growing unrest within parts of Trump’s party over his governance, compounded by the president’s endorsement of primary challengers to Sens. John Cornyn (R-Texas) and Bill Cassidy (R-La.), as well as Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), which angered some Republican senators.
Cassidy, who lost his primary and has since voiced strong opposition to Trump’s $1.8-billion fund, became a key player in the Thursday votes, voting down Schumer’s amendment but supporting Tillis’.
On Wednesday, Cassidy joined with Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) to argue in a court filing that the $1.8-billion fund circumvents Congress’ authority and violates the Constitution’s spending and appropriations clauses.
“It is an unconstitutional attempt to spend the People’s money without Congressional approval,” Cassidy and Booker wrote in an amicus brief filed in the federal court case challenging the fund.
The fund was created by the Justice Department to settle a lawsuit brought by Trump against the Internal Revenue Service over the leak of his tax returns. Trump and his sons agreed to drop their personal lawsuit against the government in exchange for the creation of the $1.776-billion fund. Critics immediately questioned the plan, and it drew a rare backlash from Republicans.
In late May, GOP senators derailed plans to vote on the immigration bill over their displeasure with the payout fund and with Trump’s desire to use taxpayer funds for his planned White House ballroom. Senate Republicans removed the ballroom funding from the immigration package Wednesday, another setback for Trump.
The Trump administration sought to back away from its plans for the fund this week, following bipartisan outcry and a federal court ruling that temporarily blocked any payouts from the fund. Acting Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche said Tuesday the administration would end its plans to move ahead with the concept.
But Trump on Wednesday told reporters he didn’t know whether the fund was dead, calling it “a beautiful thing.”
After Schumer proposed the first amendment to ban the fund Thursday morning, the Senate came to a standstill as three key Republican senators deliberated. Schumer framed his effort to ban the fund Thursday as a way to force a referendum on Trump’s plan.
The amendment “offers Republicans a choice: Do you support Donald Trump’s $2 billion taxpayer-funded slush fund, or do you want to protect the American people and their paychecks?” Schumer said on the Senate floor before the vote.
Sen. Bernie Moreno (R-Ohio) urged Republicans to reject the amendment, saying Democrats were planning to “play so many games” on Thursday during the marathon session.
“We are going to fund immigration enforcement and border patrol, and I urge my Republican colleagues to stay united on that singular mission,” Moreno said.
The amendment failed after Cassidy voted against it. Republican Sens. Susan Collins of Maine, Jon Husted of Ohio and Dan Sullivan of Alaska voted in favor.
Schumer’s amendment was uniformly supported by Democrats, including California Sens. Adam Schiff and Alex Padilla.
Tillis, who also voted against Schumer’s amendment, immediately proposed his amendment. Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Oregon) urged Democrats to oppose it, saying that the proposal would create “a new slush fund” by giving the money to the Justice Department.
“We heard over the last 48 hours that the acting attorney general said that this fund’s not moving forward. All this amendment does is codify what I believe the policy of the DOJ is,” Tillis said on the floor before voting began on his amendment. “This [fund] is unpopular, this administration has said they’re not moving forward with it; this is an opportunity for us to put it to bed.”
Responded Merkley: “Taking one slush fund and eliminating it and then creating a new slush fund still under control of the attorney general is not the way to go. The way to go is to get rid of these slush funds altogether.”
Trump has faced a recent string of failures, including the House vote Wednesday, a court ruling to remove his name from the Kennedy Center and a record-low approval rating among Americans as concern rises about economic issues, gas prices and Trump’s war with Iran.
On Wednesday, Trump lashed out against the four Republicans who backed the House war powers resolution, calling it “an unpatriotic thing” to do and calling the vote “meaningless.”
“They’re GRANDSTANDERS! They should be ashamed of themselves. MAGA!!! President DJT,” Trump wrote.
Times staff writer Ana Ceballos, in Washington, contributed to this report.
-
Los Angeles, Ca26 minutes ago'Top Gun: Maverick' actor identified as victim stabbed to death in Tarzana
-
Detroit, MI48 minutes agoStorm chances return, which could impact Motor City Pride, graduations this weekend across Metro Detroit
-
San Francisco, CA56 minutes agoHilton campaigns in San Francisco as California primary votes still being counted
-
Dallas, TX1 hour agoCrews cover up AT&T branding as stadium becomes
-
Miami, FL1 hour agoMiami leaders gather for FIFA World Cup Host Committee Gala
-
Boston, MA1 hour agoPackage fire outside Boston’s Museum of African American History under investigation
-
Denver, CO1 hour agoRockies beat reporter Patrick Saunders to leave Denver Post
-
Seattle, WA1 hour agoSeattle granted NFL Franchise on this day 52 years ago
