Politics
Trump’s Frustration With Generals Led to Picking Dan Caine for Joint Chiefs Chairman
By late last week, President Trump had decided to fire Gen. Charles Q. Brown Jr., the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and replace him with one of two very different candidates, according to two administration officials.
One was Gen. Michael E. Kurilla, a hard-charging Army four-star general who oversees U.S. military operations in the Middle East, one of the Pentagon’s highest-profile assignments.
The other was a little-known retired three-star Air Force officer, Dan Caine, with an unorthodox career path that included time as a fighter pilot, the top military liaison to the C.I.A. and an Air National Guard officer who founded a regional airline in Texas.
Mr. Trump and General Caine met for an hour at the White House on Feb. 14. The president largely made up his mind during a meeting with Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on Thursday, aides said.
And in a message on social media the next evening, Mr. Trump announced that he had picked General Caine, calling him “an accomplished pilot, national security expert, successful entrepreneur, and a ‘warfighter’ with significant interagency and special operations experience.”
The decision, part of an extraordinary purge at the Pentagon, resulted from intense deliberations over the past two weeks that were tightly held within a small group of senior administration officials, including Mr. Hegseth, Vice President JD Vance and Michael Waltz, the national security adviser, the officials said, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal discussions.
In Mr. Trump’s first term, he initially seemed to seek a close association with the military’s senior leaders, whom he frequently referred to as “my generals.” That soon gave way to frustration with them as he came to regard them as disloyal.
The president’s deep skepticism prompted him to pass over the more obvious choices, like General Kurilla, to replace General Brown and to pluck General Caine from relative obscurity. His choice, people familiar with his thinking said, was based in part on General Caine’s lack of clear association with the Biden administration and in part on a brief encounter with the general in Iraq six years ago that left Mr. Trump convinced he had the kind of can-do attitude the president sees as making the ideal military officer.
In recent years, Mr. Trump has publicly praised General Caine for telling him during that visit to Iraq that the Islamic State could be defeated far more quickly than more senior advisers had suggested.
Now their rekindled relationship will be tested not only by national security challenges like the war in Ukraine and a rising military threat from China, but also by whether General Caine can live up to Mr. Trump’s expectations of loyalty without politicizing the deliberately apolitical job of providing his best military advice to the commander in chief.
Mr. Trump has fixated on the position of the Joint Chiefs chairman since 2019, when he picked Gen. Mark A. Milley, General Brown’s predecessor. It was a decision the president came to regret.
The president saw General Milley as a grandstander and a traitor. General Milley had publicly apologized for walking with Mr. Trump across Lafayette Square for a photo op after the area had been cleared of peaceful demonstrators following the death of George Floyd in May 2020. The president had asked General Milley why he was not proud that he had accompanied “your president,” and it rankled Mr. Trump that the general swore allegiance to the Constitution, not to him. Their relationship was never the same.
“Trump likes his generals up until the point he doesn’t anymore,” John R. Bolton, the national security adviser in Mr. Trump’s first term, said in an interview.
After Mr. Trump was elected to a second term, word soon spread that he would replace General Brown, a decorated F-16 fighter pilot who in October 2023 became only the second African-American to serve as chairman.
After Mr. Hegseth was narrowly confirmed as defense secretary last month, that likelihood became a near certainty, administration officials said. Mr. Hegseth had previously said General Brown should be fired because of what he called a “woke” focus on diversity, equity and inclusion programs in the military. Mr. Hegseth also questioned whether the general was promoted because of his race, despite his 40 years of service.
Several weeks ago, the search for a new chairman began in earnest, administration officials. Adm. Samuel J. Paparo Jr., the head of U.S. forces in the Indo-Pacific, was briefly considered, among several other initial candidates.
But the list of finalists quickly shortened to General Kurilla and General Caine.
On paper and in conventional thinking, General Kurilla seemed to have the leg up. He was meeting regularly with Mr. Trump and other top national security aides to discuss military priorities in the Middle East. Moreover, General Kurilla, whose tenure at Central Command is expected to wrap up in the next few months, had expressed interest in the job, several current and former military officials said. In the end, General Kurilla seemed too similar to the officers whom Mr. Trump had soured on, aides said.
General Caine, on the other hand, had retired at the end of December after completing the final job in his military career — as the Pentagon’s liaison to the C.I.A. — and joined Shield Capital, a firm in Burlingame, Calif., specializing in cybersecurity and artificial intelligence.
General Caine, 56, who graduated from the Virginia Military Institute in 1990 with a degree in economics, became an F-16 pilot — as his father had been — and was the lead aviator assigned to protect Washington on Sept. 11, 2001, after Qaeda hijackers slammed commercial jets into the Pentagon and the World Trade Center.
His career after that followed an unusual trajectory, as he parlayed one opportunity into another, picking up valuable new skills at each stop as well broadening his vast network of contacts. He was a White House fellow at the Agriculture Department and a counterterrorism specialist on the White House’s Homeland Security Council under President George W. Bush. He served in several highly secretive intelligence and special operations assignments, some in the United States and some overseas, all rare for an Air National Guard officer.
As a part-time Guard officer, General Caine was a co-founder of RISE Air, a regional airline, and managed other private businesses, according to his LinkedIn page and interviews with friends and former colleagues. In his C.I.A. job, he was keenly interested in the intersection of technology and national security, and kept close tabs on American companies that sold cutting-edge technology to Ukraine in its fight against Russia.
But what put him on Mr. Trump’s radar was the president’s short visit to Al Asad air base in western Iraq in late December 2018. In a briefing there, General Caine told the president that the Islamic State was not so tough and could be defeated in a week, not the two years that senior advisers predicted, Mr. Trump recounted in 2019.
And at a Conservative Political Action Conference meeting last year, Mr. Trump said that General Caine put on a Make America Great Again hat while meeting with him in Iraq.
The details of these accounts have shifted over time in Mr. Trump’s frequent retelling of the stories. But Mr. Bolton, who accompanied Mr. Trump on the trip to Iraq, said that General Caine and another senior general briefed the president on a plan to defeat the last remnants of the Islamic State in two to four weeks, not one week. And at no time, he said, did General Caine ever put on a MAGA hat. “No way,” Mr. Bolton said.
In his social media message, Mr. Trump also noted General Caine’s nickname, “Razin,” recalling Mr. Trump’s obsession with former Defense Secretary Jim Mattis’s nickname, “Mad Dog,” a moniker Mr. Mattis hated.
General Caine’s nickname embodied the kind of hell-raiser warrior straight out of central casting that Mr. Trump was looking for in his top general, officials said. He fulfilled a fantasy vision the president has of what generals do, they added.
In his post on Friday, Mr. Trump again praised General Caine’s counterterrorism skills. “During my first term, Razin was instrumental in the complete annihilation of the ISIS caliphate,” the president said. “It was done in record setting time, a matter of weeks. Many so-called military ‘geniuses’ said it would take years to defeat ISIS. General Caine, on the other hand, said it could be done quickly, and he delivered.”
Mr. Trump revealed another reason for his unconventional choice. He said that General Caine had been passed over for promotion by President Joseph R. Biden Jr., a claim that Biden officials said on Sunday they could not address. Aides say that in Mr. Trump’s mind, that perceived snub was a great endorsement, proof that General Caine has no specific loyalty to the previous administration. To Mr. Trump, who views most senior officers as incompetent and politically correct, it also suggests that General Caine has a different mind-set.
Friends and former colleagues say that General Caine, an intensely focused but low-key, self-effacing officer despite his nickname, has been uncomfortable with Mr. Trump’s characterization of his role in defeating the Islamic State. Friends who have known him for decades say they have no idea what his political affiliation is, explaining that the general does not talk about politics. General Caine did not respond to emails requesting comment on Sunday.
But when the White House called a couple of weeks ago as he was preparing to move to Dallas from Washington, friends of General Caine say, he did not hesitate to accept the meetings with Mr. Trump and his top aides, and ultimately the job — out of duty to the country.
Which raises perhaps the most important question for General Caine as he prepares to return to active duty as soon as this week, and get ready for what is expected to be a tough Senate confirmation hearing: Will he give his best unvarnished military advice to Mr. Trump, or tell the president what he wants to hear?
“He was always direct and candid in the interagency, which is no small feat,” Gen. Kenneth F. McKenzie Jr., a former head of Central Command who dealt frequently with General Caine in his C.I.A. job, said on Sunday. “I never saw him as a yes-man.”
Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island, the senior Democrat on the Armed Services Committee, said in an interview on Sunday that he would press General Caine in his hearing on that central point: “Will he have the ability to speak truth to power?”
Jonathan Swan, Maggie Haberman and Helene Cooper contributed reporting.
Politics
Inside Trump’s Swift Construction of a White House Helipad
President Trump, a former real estate mogul who knows a few things about construction projects, says there is “no harder zoning thing to get” than a helipad. But he is building one at the White House, and building it fast.
Such projects usually require a developer to navigate a complex web of zoning laws, airspace regulations and environmental impact studies, while negotiating with town councils and fighting off community pushback. Construction at the White House can often face additional hurdles.
But Mr. Trump has encountered no such difficulties as he quickly proceeds with construction of a black granite helipad on the South Lawn. He has not asked Congress or any review panel, such as the Commission of Fine Arts, to approve the project.
Past presidents have involved Congress and review panels in changes to the White House grounds, though Mr. Trump has asserted that he has the right to undertake major construction projects, such as a new 90,000-square-foot ballroom, without congressional approval. That project is currently the subject of litigation.
A White House spokesman said in an email that “operational upgrades to the White House grounds, such as the helipad installation, do not require commission reviews.”
Work on the helipad — which will be 100 feet in diameter and feature a presidential seal — started last month, shortly after a makeshift stadium built to host an Ultimate Fighting Championship fight significantly damaged the South Lawn.
Dana White, the U.F.C. president, said that his organization had set aside $700,000 to repair the lawn after the June 14 event. But Mr. Trump instead decided to forge ahead immediately with a helipad he had long wanted.
Why Trump is building a helipad
The helipad would allow Mr. Trump to use the latest generation of Sikorsky helicopters as Marine One on White House grounds — a move multiple administrations had avoided because the new, more powerful helicopters were likely to damage the South Lawn during landing.
The Navy began the search in 2010 for helicopters to replace the two models that have been used to transport the president and vice president for more than four decades — the VH-3D and the VH-60N. It purchased 23 VH-92A helicopters, including two test aircraft, at about $215 million apiece, with a total cost estimated at $5 billion, according to the Government Accountability Office.
The new helicopters are produced by Sikorsky, a subsidiary of Lockheed Martin, which is building the helipad as a donation. They joined the fleet between 2014 and 2021 and underwent a period of testing. The new generation of helicopters has occasionally been known to scorch the grass with engine exhaust while landing — an issue found during a training session in September 2018.
President Joseph R. Biden Jr. was the first president to fly on a VH-92A, on his way to the Democratic National Convention in Chicago in August 2024. But no new helicopter has yet transported a president to and from the South Lawn.
Marine One landed on the South Lawn grass for decades, and portable aluminum pads were rolled out to catch the wheels.
Mr. Trump said the new helicopters were “more powerful than the old ones. And when you land on the grass, it’s not that the grass gets discolored, it gets ripped out.”
The VH-92A has two engines with more than three times the capacity of those of the VH-3D, the current Marine One model, pushing more heat to the ground.
Lockheed Martin, a major defense contractor, is paying for the helipad project, which Mr. Trump estimated would cost between $5 million and $6 million.
“They didn’t tell us how powerful these helicopters were, and they felt a little bit guilty,” Mr. Trump said.
According to a spokesperson for Lockheed Martin, the company has a “long history of supporting projects in both the Washington, D.C., area and across the country. This specific contribution was made to the National Park Service. Our engagement with the federal government is guided by rigorous ethics and compliance standards and conducted in full accordance with all applicable laws and regulations.”
More red tape for a Mar-a-Lago helipad
Mr. Trump is also trying to build a helipad at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Palm Beach, Fla. But that project is moving much more slowly than the one at the White House.
The Mar-a-Lago project has been the subject of local historic preservation commission review, multiple public hearings, negotiations with town lawyers and votes by the Town Council.
Because Mar-a-Lago is a historic property, any changes there must be approved by the Palm Beach Landmarks Preservation Commission, said Joanne O’Connor, the town attorney for Palm Beach.
Mr. Trump had installed a helipad at the resort during his first administration, but it was dismantled after he left office.
The town is allowing Mr. Trump to build a new helipad at Mar-a-Lago but has placed limits on its use after his presidency. Any helicopter trips to or from Mar-a-Lago after he leaves office can be carried out only if approved by the Secret Service and in the event of an emergency, Ms. O’Connor said. The helipad cannot be used, for instance, to facilitate a golf outing.
“The concern was balancing the health, safety and welfare of the president with the interests of the town residents and the quiet enjoyment of their residential property,” Ms. O’Connor said.
No such review is taking place for the changes Mr. Trump is making at the White House.
Mr. Trump spoke recently about the difficulty most people encounter when trying to have helipads approved at their properties.
“I always was lucky, I always got helipads,” he said in remarks from the Oval Office. “Other people don’t. Very hard to get. The hardest thing to get is a helipad, OK?”
The South Lawn’s future
The helipad would significantly reshape the South Lawn, which has historically hosted events and ceremonies, including the annual White House Easter Egg Roll.
A White House official said events on the South Lawn would not be affected by the new helipad and would continue as usual.
“It can be used for other things when helicopters aren’t landing,” Mr. Trump said this month. “You can have other things out there like events. You could have news conferences literally on it because it’s the right size. So by doing this, we solved the problem, and we’ll be able to finally retire 45-year-old helicopters.”
Previous administrations have prioritized preservation of the White House property over permanent changes to the South Lawn. During the Biden administration, building a helipad was not high on the president’s priority list, said Andrew Bates, who served as a White House spokesman.
Politics
Todd Blanche roasts Adam Schiff in heated hearing: ‘You’re a lawyer, you know the rules’
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche came out swinging against Sen. Adam Schiff on Wednesday, denying allegations of self-dealing and intentional refusal-to-recuse in President Donald Trump’s cases, while accusing the California Democrat of lying.
Schiff sparred with Blanche over several legal matters he said prove the nominee is unfit for the job of America’s top law enforcement officer, citing what he described as serious conflicts of interest. Blanche denied the allegations while telling Schiff he was misstating ethics rules and botching key timelines.
Schiff pressed Blanche on whether he met with Justice Department ethics lawyers about his prior representation of Trump in the Stormy Daniels, Mar-a-Lago classified documents, and Jan. 6 cases.
TRUMP’S AG NOMINEE RACKS UP MASSIVE SUPPORT AHEAD OF CONFIRMATION HEARING: ‘REAL RESULTS’
Sen. Adam Schiff, left, and acting Attorney General Todd Blanche. (Al Drago/Getty Images; Eric Lee/Getty Images)
Blanche affirmed and said he has recused himself from future litigation or Justice Department business involving any of those suits. But Schiff countered that Blanche reportedly told a crowd at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) that there was no conflict of interest in the Justice Department firing prosecutors linked to Jan. 6 or other cases.
Blanche soon fired back when Schiff criticized him for moving to vacate Jan. 6-related convictions for 12 members of far-right groups.
“I was the acting attorney general – so yes, my department moved to dismiss,” he said, adding that there was no reason for him to recuse himself when Schiff pressed him further.
BIDEN SPECIAL COUNSEL’S ‘RUNAWAY TRAIN’ SCOOPED UP SENSITIVE LAWMAKER INFO: ‘ABUSE OF POWER’
“From the Proud Boys matter?” Blanche responded with a puzzled look.
“You’re a lawyer, you know the rules,” Blanche told the Massachusetts-born graduate of Harvard Law.
OBAMA JUDGE HANDS PROGRESSIVES A WIN OVER ANTI-TRUMP ’86 47′ MESSAGE AMID RISING THREATS
“There are rules that say when I have to recuse and that’s not one of them,” Blanche said.
“There are rules,” Schiff agreed. “And when you’re told to recuse yourself from investigations that you handle for the president…” – “I always do,” Blanche cut in – “you’re supposed to recuse yourself,” Schiff finished.
Schiff noted that the second volume of special counsel Jack Smith’s report on Trump has not been released and said the Justice Department has opposed making it available.
Blanche denied having anything to do with the decision and pointed out it is not the Justice Department, but a federal judge in Miami, that has prohibited its release.
“If you went into court asking them to release it, it would be released by now,” Schiff argued.
Blanche shot back: “What you’re saying happens not to be true – I did not do that.”
“You can’t accuse me of violating my ethical rules and then lie about what I did,” he continued,
Schiff asked Blanche at length what allegedly evolved in his professional life that led him to be under such criticisms.
“What I don’t understand, Todd Blanche, is what happened to the Todd Blanche who was a prosecutor in the Southern District of New York? What happened to the prosecutor people had respect for,” he said.
“What happened to the prosecutor who said that there wouldn’t be a whiff of political partisanship and then prosecutes the president’s enemies over seashells cases, over making a video stating the plain law in the Constitution?” Schiff said – appearing to reference investigations into former FBI Director Jim Comey’s “8647” post that critics said amounted to a threat on Trump’s life.
“I think Robert Caro had it right when he said that power doesn’t corrupt as much as it reveals. I suspect it has just revealed who you are and who you are as someone willing to sacrifice everything you once believed in for that title, for that position of attorney general,” Schiff claimed.
“I am still here. I am the same exact person I was when I was a federal prosecutor in the SDNY,” Blanche replied.
The exchange led to further criticism of Schiff, including from the Trump-appointed prosecutor in his home region:
SIGN UP TO GET THE POLITICS NEWSLETTER
“Facts are not Senator Schiff’s strong suit,” claimed First Assistant U.S. Attorney for Central California Bill Essayli.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
Former Alabama federal prosecutor Jay Town called the exchange “excellent.”
“What [Blanche] is essentially saying is that the Justice Department has gone back to the fundamentals of increasing prosecutions and lowering crime nationwide, unlike the Garland DOJ targeting parents, Catholics, etc.”
Fox News Digital reached out to Schiff for comment.
Politics
Trump seeks prime-time spotlight for election claims, sparking concerns he’ll intervene
WASHINGTON — President Trump appeared poised to question the security of U.S. elections with a planned prime-time speech Thursday night, eliciting fears from Democrats and voting rights advocates that he is planning yet another play for federal control over voting in November’s midterms.
The exact reason for the speech has not been disclosed by the White House, with Trump only characterizing it to reporters this week as “really, really big news.” He confirmed it would have to do with “free and fair elections.”
The Washington Post reported, citing sources, that Trump planned to argue that there are vulnerabilities in the nation’s election infrastructure and claim that China had accessed U.S. voter data. The White House declined to confirm any such details Wednesday.
The announcement of the speech set off concerns among the president’s political opponents, as well as elections experts and voting rights advocates, that Trump could again escalate claims that the nation’s voting system is vulnerable to domestic fraud and foreign attacks.
He has previously said that Republicans should “nationalize” election administration, a job that falls to the states under the Constitution, and has pressured his party to tighten federal voting rules.
“We don’t know anything about what he might say … or what he might try to do with his very limited powers, as the president, over elections,” said David Becker, executive director of the nonpartisan Center for Election Innovation and Research. “I expect we’re going to hear a lot of rehashed and debunked claims.”
The president could potentially use new claims to argue that the nation is facing an emergency in upcoming elections that necessitates further federal intervention into voting, Rep. Joseph Morelle of New York, the ranking Democrat on the House Administration Committee, which has oversight of elections, said in an interview with The Times.
“This is going to be the rationale for declaring a national emergency,” Morelle said. “It’s transparent that he is creating the emergency and he’s creating the evidence out of whole cloth to suggest there is an emergency.”
Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), the top Democrat on the Senate Rules Committee, which oversees federal elections, told The Times on Wednesday that Trump was using a known playbook to “[sow] doubt about the outcome before a single vote has been cast.”
“All signs show that tomorrow’s speech will be more of the same: debunked conspiracy theories offered up not because they’re true, but because chaos and doubt are the only cards he has left to play,” Padilla said.
The speech, which Trump announced on social media Monday, comes four months ahead of midterm elections that will determine whether his party retains legislative control in Washington.
White House spokesperson Karoline Leavitt dismissed news reports about what Trump might say in the 6 p.m. PDT speech as speculation, and said “nobody knows yet what President Trump will ultimately say.”
The address also comes as Trump’s ceasefire with Iran has fallen apart, renewing expectations for increased gas prices, and his approval rating on the economy has steadily dropped. On Tuesday, it also became public that Trump had paid $5.6 million to the writer E. Jean Carroll, as ordered by a jury that in 2023 found Trump liable for sexually abusing and defaming her.
“What we’re going to be talking about Thursday is, it doesn’t get bigger,” Trump told reporters who asked Tuesday about the speech. “Because without free and fair elections you don’t have a country.”
Trump has spread baseless claims of widespread election fraud for years. But his prioritization of his claims about the voting system — even as much of the nation’s attention is on cost-of-living issues — has been on particularly clear display in recent days.
He has aggressively lobbied reluctant Republican senators to pass his voter ID legislation, refusing to sign a bipartisan housing bill over it; he fired all remaining members of the bipartisan U.S. Elections Assistance Commission; and his Justice Department said it would send election monitors to six states.
Since the midterm primaries began, Trump has also sown doubt about election security — chiefly in California, where he suggested Democrats had cheated or attempted to in the gubernatorial and Los Angeles mayoral primaries.
Georgia Democratic Sen. Jon Ossoff, whose state was often at the center of Trump’s 2020 fraud claims, said the president’s speech posed a threat to voting rights.
“I expect him to use whatever he puts out there on Thursday as a pretext, either for some attempted unconstitutional use of federal power to interfere in the election,” Ossoff said Tuesday on MS Now, “or to give his proxies and loyalists in state and local jurisdictions some cover for whatever they might attempt, or to lay the groundwork for challenging the result.”
Any effort to federalize or take over elections would face serious legal obstacles, said Nahal Kazemi, a Chapman University law professor. Although Congress can pass laws regarding election administration, as it did with the Voting Rights Act, the executive branch doesn’t play a role in running elections.
“You run into essentially a brick wall that is the Constitution, which makes very plain that states run elections,” Kazemi said.
When it comes to concerns about foreign interference, experts say there is little evidence of other countries attempting to hack systems or change votes. Instead, foreign actors have largely operated via disinformation campaigns, as the U.S. determined had occurred in the 2016 and 2020 elections.
“Of the information that is available to us now, there’s no reason to be alarmed about the possibility that a foreign adversary is going to take over election systems,” said Kazemi, who has studied foreign election interference.
One of the things that helps make American elections generally secure, she said, is that they are not centralized but are run by thousands of counties. Hacking into so many voting systems would be extraordinarily difficult for a foreign adversary, she said.
Jenny Farrell, executive director of the League of Women Voters of California, said California “takes elections security extremely seriously” and has one of the most secure systems in the country, subject to strict voter verification measures and intense chain of custody and auditing procedures.
Democrats have worked with elections experts in recent months on attempts to assure the public that U.S. elections are safe and secure. They have also tried to counter claims by Trump that mail ballots and voting machines are unreliable.
A slew of 2020 election reviews, including by Trump’s first administration, concluded that Trump lost and Biden won. Election experts say there is no evidence that widespread fraud determined the outcome of the election.
A judge also found that claims pushed by Trump and his attorneys that the company Dominion Voting Systems manipulated votes cast through its machines in favor of Biden were untrue.
-
Maryland2 minutes agoWashington Nationals 1st-round pick from Potomac Md. signs contract – WTOP News
-
Michigan8 minutes agoMichigan AG Dana Nessel visits Kalamazoo to address rising energy prices
-
Massachusetts14 minutes agoSpringfield attorney named to 2026 Massachusetts Super Lawyers list
-
Minnesota20 minutes agoHundreds of Canada wildfires prompt US air quality alerts as smoke spreads south
-
Mississippi26 minutes agoMississippi homeowners blame a noisy data center plant for sleepless nights. The mayor’s advice? “Consider selling.”
-
Missouri32 minutes agoMissouri health officials report 80 current cases of cyclosporiasis
-
Montana38 minutes agoYe & French Montana Sued Over Sample of Paparazzi Fight Video: ‘Don’t Take No Photos!’
-
Nebraska44 minutes agoTwelfth Nebraska county temporarily bans data centers