Dan Driscoll has broken his silence after resigning as Army secretary over friction with Pete Hegseth, insisting they agreed on most issues as the Pentagon slammed the interview outlet.
The former Army secretary sat for his first interview since leaving the Pentagon in September, telling Rolling Stone he clashed with Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on multiple fronts yet rejected the idea that every exchange went badly.
The Independent reported Driscoll’s account of advocating hard inside the building, the White House praise that followed his exit, and the sharp Pentagon rebuttal that followed the magazine piece.
Driscoll, an Iraq War veteran, tech investor, and former adviser to Vice President JD Vance, had sailed through his Senate confirmation in February 2025 and became the youngest person ever to hold the Army secretary post. He and Vance first bonded as contemporaries at Yale Law School.
He described his job in plain terms: push for the leaders he believed were effective. That approach ran into repeated friction once Hegseth took charge and began removing senior officers.
Driscoll refused to detail private talks. He still pushed back on the flat narrative that he and Hegseth fought over everything.
He told the magazine:
"Once he makes a decision, there’s nothing I can do about it. I don’t have to like it,"
He added:
"But I think it’s unfair to describe our relationship so flatly, that every interaction was bad, or that we disagreed on everything."
And:
"If you polled us, we probably agreed on more than 50 percent of things. What’s been reported is all the things we disagree on."
Driscoll said both men held their positions with passion and that he argued as forcefully as he could while remembering Hegseth held final authority.
Early in Hegseth’s tenure, Driscoll approached him with what he called a “gift”: his close friendship with Vance, offered as a channel that could help the Pentagon get what it needed from the White House. Hegseth reacted angrily and told him any White House contact had to go through his office first.
Driscoll cast himself as a modernizer focused on innovation and equipment suited to a 21st-century battlefield. He found common cause with Army leaders who shared that goal, including Gen. Randy George and Gen. Christopher Donahue.
Hegseth removed both men as part of a broader wave of high-profile departures among generals and admirals. The scale of those moves was substantial enough that it reportedly raised concerns for President Donald Trump himself.
That pattern of senior removals has drawn outside political heat as well, including Hegseth’s plan to slash top brass meeting a cool reception from senators watching the Pentagon shake-up.
By late August, Driscoll reached his limit. He went to the Oval Office and told Trump he intended to resign, reportedly explaining that Hegseth had fired the people working toward the modernization objective he cared about most. He left the Pentagon the following month.
When Driscoll stepped down, White House spokeswoman Anna Kelly did not treat the departure as a rebuke of the administration’s direction. She credited him with advancing Trump’s agenda at the Department of the Army.
Kelly said Driscoll had been:
"highly effective in advancing President Trump’s agenda to Make America Strong Again at the Department of the Army by providing outstanding leadership during historic military operations, restoring an emphasis on readiness and lethality, assisting with negotiations between Russia and Ukraine, and more."
She continued:
"The United States Army is more powerful than ever thanks to his work alongside the Commander-in-Chief and Secretary of War,"
Those comments underscored the administration’s public line: readiness and lethality remained the standard even amid personnel turnover.
Separate coverage has examined other pressure points around the Defense secretary’s orbit, from Jennifer Hegseth’s reported hands-on role drawing fresh scrutiny to questions about senior staffing stability.
After The Independent inquired about Driscoll’s remarks, Pentagon chief spokesperson Sean Parnell rejected the magazine’s framing outright. He did not parse individual quotes. He attacked the outlet and defended Hegseth’s record as transformative.
Parnell called Rolling Stone:
"a fake news rag regurgitating months-old false narratives in an attempt to stay relevant to their ever-dwindling audience"
He said the interview:
"is riddled with made-up claims regarding Secretary Hegseth’s historic achievements and transformative leadership."
Parnell then laid out the administration’s own account of priorities since Hegseth arrived:
"Since Day One, Secretary Hegseth has focused on modernization across every branch of our Armed Forces and has moved with urgency to deliver on President Trump’s vision of Peace Through Strength,"
He added:
"From slashing bureaucracy, to untying the hands of our warfighters, to re-energizing our defense industrial base, Secretary Hegseth has been a generational Secretary for the Pentagon. With President Trump and Secretary Hegseth at the helm, our military will remain the greatest fighting force on the planet."
That statement directly contests any suggestion that modernization took a back seat. It puts Hegseth’s tenure inside Trump’s Peace Through Strength frame and treats the Rolling Stone narrative as recycled and false.
Leadership questions around the Pentagon have not been limited to this resignation. Reports of White House interest in personnel moves have surfaced before, and Hegseth has rejected claims of a search to replace his deputy.
Driscoll’s own words present a narrower picture than some coverage implied. He said he lost arguments, accepted the chain of command, and still believed the two men aligned on more than half their issues. He left after the officers tied to his modernization goals were removed.
Parnell’s response insists the opposite public story is the true one: urgent modernization, less bureaucracy, and a sharper warfighter focus under Trump and Hegseth. The White House, for its part, sent Driscoll off with credit for readiness, lethality, and support on Russia-Ukraine talks.
Other lawmakers have kept their own pressure on the Defense secretary. Sen. Tillis has backed impeachment efforts and argued Hegseth should be replaced, while separate criticism has come from the right over war powers and Iran.
None of those later fights change the basic sequence Driscoll described: early outreach to Hegseth using the Vance relationship, a hard stop on freelancing to the White House, successive removals of senior officers, an Oval Office resignation notice in late August, and a September departure followed by the first on-record interview.
What remains unsettled is how much of the Rolling Stone framing rests on disputed characterizations of motive and emphasis. Driscoll declined to litigate every private disagreement. The Pentagon called the piece riddled with invented claims. Readers are left with Driscoll’s own percentages, Kelly’s praise, and Parnell’s categorical defense of Hegseth’s record.
A strong military needs clear civilian leadership, honest debate over modernization, and less interest in magazine narratives that flatten every internal disagreement into permanent warfare. The chain of command still ends with the commander-in-chief’s chosen team.
Strong U.S. gains in household income, poverty reduction and GDP under President Trump have drawn little attention from much of the mainstream media, economists warn, as the November election approaches.
Just the News reported a run of federal figures on jobs, consumer spending, household income and growth that it said have been left out of much legacy coverage, leaving readers with a one-sided picture of the economy.
The gap matters because the same data show record or near-record results on poverty and real income, historically low jobless claims, and a second-quarter growth revision that beat the government’s own early read. Economists Larry Kudlow and Stephen Moore argue Republicans can still win the “affordability” fight heading into November if voters see the broader ledger.
Federal releases, not talking points, supply the core numbers. The Census Bureau, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the Labor Department and the Bureau of Economic Analysis all appear in the cited record.
Real median household income rose 2.6 percent to $87,460, the highest level since 1967 when adjusted for inflation. The Census Bureau put the 2025 poverty rate at 10.2 percent, the lowest ever recorded.
In a New York Post opinion piece, Kudlow and Moore put the income figure in plain terms.
"median household incomes jumped to an all-time-high of $87,500 in 2025, while poverty rates fell to an all-time low."
Those are not marginal moves. They are peak readings on the two measures families feel first when they open a bank statement or a benefits letter. A White House that has already moved to end the Biden fuel economy mandate is betting that cost-of-living relief and income gains can travel together.
Gas prices near $4.50 a gallon remain a live pressure point. The income and poverty releases still show households finishing 2025 with more real buying power and fewer Americans below the poverty line than at any prior point in the Census series.
Initial jobless claims for the week ending Sept. 26 came in at 197,000, down 1,000 from the prior week. The four-week average fell to 200,000 from 202,500, the Labor Department said.
July claims hit 187,000, the lowest since September 1969. Layoffs and claims have stayed at historically low levels even while the monthly payroll gain has slowed.
The latest jobs report showed 29,000 positions added in September 2026, below expectations. The unemployment rate stood at 4.2 percent. It was 4.1 percent in September 2024 and about 4.4 percent in September 2025, per BLS figures.
BLS described the labor market in measured language.
"Both measures changed little over the month, with employment across all major industries remaining largely steady."
Construction, manufacturing and financial activities showed little change. Steady employment across major industries is not a boom headline. It is also not the collapse narrative that follows from reading only the softest clips.
President Trump has kept a heavy public schedule while these reports have landed, including the kind of midterm travel pace reflected when Trump says he never gets tired on the road. The claims data give that travel a concrete backdrop: fewer workers filing for unemployment than at almost any point in more than half a century.
Real GDP rose at a 2.2 percent annual rate in the second quarter of 2026 (April, May and June), according to the BEA’s third estimate. That was a clear upgrade from the Commerce Department’s initial 1.5 percent projection.
The bureau’s own language was direct.
"Real gross domestic product (GDP) increased at an annual rate of 2.2 percent in the second quarter of 2026 (April, May, and June), according to the third estimate released today by the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA)."
Consumer spending climbed at a 3.8 percent annual pace after a 0.7 percent rate in the first quarter. Household spending accounts for about 70 percent of the U.S. economy, so the rebound is not a sideshow. It is the main engine shifting into a higher gear.
Growth revisions of this size usually draw wall-to-wall coverage when they point down. The same standard should apply when the third estimate moves the other way and consumers lead the improvement.
Just the News framed the pattern as selective omission: positive indicators on jobs, income, poverty, claims and GDP left out of much mainstream reporting. Readers who rely only on that diet, the outlet said, are fed a narrative of failure.
That is a charge about newsroom choices, not a demand for cheerleading. Census poverty at an all-time low, real median income at a multi-decade high, claims near a 1969 floor, and GDP revised from 1.5 percent to 2.2 percent are not obscure footnotes. They are the official scorekeeping agencies doing their jobs.
Kudlow and Moore tie the same numbers to the political calendar. They say Republicans can win the affordability battle before November because the overall economy, on these measures, is stronger than the dominant storyline admits. Income up, poverty down, spending re-accelerating, and claims subdued give that argument a factual spine.
The administration’s own messaging operation has not been quiet on other fronts, including White House spending on patriotic Trump TV spots that Democrats have already criticized. Paid media and unpaid news coverage are different channels. When the unpaid channel under-weights record income and poverty results, the public square tilts.
Press access fights have run in parallel, including the decision that barred CNN from Air Force One for a Tennessee trip after a court fight over ground access. Separate dispute. Same larger climate: strained relations between a Trump White House and major outlets at the exact moment dry economic releases are putting hard numbers on the table.
Strip away the spin cycle and the sequence is straightforward. Census recorded the lowest poverty rate on record for 2025 and a real median household income of $87,460, up 2.6 percent. BLS and the Labor Department showed unemployment near 4.2 percent, a soft September payroll print of 29,000, and weekly claims at 197,000 with a four-week average of 200,000. BEA lifted second-quarter GDP to a 2.2 percent annual rate and clocked consumer spending at a 3.8 percent pace.
July’s 187,000 claims reading was the lowest since September 1969. Employment across major industries remained largely steady month to month. None of those lines require a partisan decoder ring. They require only that the releases be reported with the same energy applied to weaker prints.
Staffing and operations inside the West Wing have continued through the data cycle, including the recent hire of a young assistant press secretary in the post that Trump filled with 24-year-old Beni Rae Harmony. Personnel moves do not create GDP reports. They do underline that the administration is building out communications capacity while the statistical agencies keep posting results.
Open questions remain inside the public record. The precise expectations the September payroll number missed are not spelled out in the cited account. The exact calendar year tag on the July claims low is not restated in every sentence. The “current” label on the 4.2 percent unemployment rate sits beside a September 2026 jobs figure without a single shared timestamp. Those are gaps in presentation, not holes in the main findings on income, poverty, claims and GDP.
The November election will turn, in part, on whether voters judge costs and paychecks by the loudest cable segment or by the Census, BLS, Labor Department and BEA tables. Kudlow and Moore say the full set of figures gives Republicans a winnable affordability case. The agencies have already published the raw material for that debate.
When income, poverty and growth improve on the official books, burying the upside is not neutrality. It is a choice, and choices have consequences at the ballot box.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth is launching a new Office of Religious Affairs that reports directly to him for first-class chaplain support, critics claim it elevates Christianity in military policy.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced the Office of Religious Affairs during a Wednesday speech at Marine Corps Base Quantico in Virginia, saying the office will deliver “first-class religious support” and answer straight to him.
A Pentagon statement said the office will advocate for military chaplains and religious support “at the highest level of the Department.” It added the office will not “compel religious participation, favor one faith, or diminish the rights of personnel of any faith or lack thereof.”
Hegseth framed the move in spiritual terms. “Our department is, you might say, putting on the full armor of God, because while we wage physical war, we all know the real battle is spiritual,” he told the audience.
"Our department is, you might say, putting on the full armor of God, because while we wage physical war, we all know the real battle is spiritual."
He has already hosted Christian worship services for employees and spoken of the United States as a Christian nation. He has also pushed the military school system toward coursework drawn from conservative and Christian influences. Those steps fit a broader pattern of restoring open faith focus inside the building after years of therapeutic drift.
Breitbart noted the office will coordinate spiritual resources, including faith-based homeschool support for military families and faith-based initiatives aimed at Department-wide suicide reduction. The director has not yet been named.
Chaplains have become a frontline resource for troops facing rising mental-health distress. Hegseth wants them focused more on God and less on self-help and self-care. He ordered chaplains to stop wearing rank insignia on their uniforms and instead be identified by religious symbols so their calling stands clear.
In remarks to chaplains at Quantico he was direct: “Live your calling. Stand firm. Preach truth. Minister to the flock.” He closed with Scripture: “The Lord is on my side; I will not fear. What can man do unto me?”
The Defense Department under Hegseth has also cut the list of officially recognized religious affiliations from more than 200 down to 31. Atheists, Unitarian Universalists, pagans and Wiccans no longer appear. The change streamlines recognition while keeping the chaplain corps centered on actual faith traditions that serve the force.
Rachel Laser, head of Americans United for Separation of Church, condemned the office. Her group has already sued the Pentagon over its worship services. “The Pentagon owes it to the nation’s service members to defend religious freedom,” she said. “Hegseth’s latest announcement violates that promise by elevating Christianity to an even higher role in shaping U.S. military policy.”
Faith-based offices are not new in Washington. They appeared under President George W. Bush and continued in different forms under later administrations. President Donald Trump established a White House Faith Office and ran a similar effort in his first term. What is new is placing religious affairs at the secretary’s own desk inside the Pentagon.
The Washington Examiner reported the office gives chaplains a direct channel to top officials and forms part of Hegseth’s wider reform push that also covers autonomous warfare and military technology.
Shaun Casey, the religion scholar who once led the State Department’s Office of Religion and Global Affairs under Obama, underscored the contrast. That earlier office, he said, “was there to understand what were the political implications of lived religion in the various hot spots around the world.” It did not promote religion or spiritual well-being. Hegseth’s office does the opposite: it backs the chaplains who actually care for troops.
Hegseth has faced steady political heat, including calls from some senators for his removal, yet he keeps pressing structural changes inside the building.
The same direct style showed when he planned a Quantico address aimed at junior troops rather than filtering everything through senior layers.
His broader effort to reshape the upper ranks has also drawn notice, with a plan to thin top brass meeting cool Senate reactions even as he moves forward.
Through it all he has rejected outside speculation about White House second-guessing, pushing back on reports of a search to replace his deputy and keeping the focus on the department’s own priorities.
A Pentagon memo makes clear the new religious affairs director will handle spiritual resources for families and suicide-prevention efforts rooted in faith. That is practical help for people who wear the uniform and the spouses who keep the home front running.
Service members already lean on chaplains when the weight gets heavy. Giving those chaplains a seat at the highest table and telling them to preach truth instead of soft therapy is common sense, not coercion. The department’s own statement bars any forced participation or favoritism. Troops of every background keep their rights; the ones who want real spiritual support finally get an advocate who reports to the secretary.
Critics will keep filing lawsuits and issuing statements. Hegseth is choosing the troops and the chaplains who serve them. That is the right call.
A Biden-appointed Miami judge dismissed charges against a noncitizen voter and struck down the federal ban on noncitizen ballots, drawing fire from Trump officials.
U.S. District Judge David Leibowitz threw out the federal prosecution of Chelsea Michelle Ann Cox after she cast a ballot in Broward County during the 2020 election while not a U.S. citizen. In a 31-page opinion, the Miami judge held that Congress lacked authority to pass the 1996 criminal ban on noncitizen voting in federal elections.
The ruling lands squarely on election integrity. A law that for nearly three decades made it a federal crime for noncitizens to vote has now been declared beyond Congress’s power by a judge put on the bench in 2024. Trump administration officials moved quickly to condemn the decision.
Breitbart News reported that Leibowitz concluded the Constitution leaves voter eligibility to the states. He wrote that the federal statute violates Article I, Article II, and the 17th Amendment. Because the prosecution rested on a law he found Congress never had power to enact, the case against Cox could not continue.
"When you’re prosecuted based on a law that Congress did not have the authority to pass, the prosecution cannot stand,"
Leibowitz stated in the opinion.
Fox News reported that Leibowitz sits on the Southern District of Florida and was nominated by President Joe Biden in 2024. The Senate confirmed him 64-33 in a bipartisan vote that included then-Sen. Marco Rubio. Cox is identified as a Jamaican noncitizen. The judge found a provision of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 unconstitutional as applied to her case.
In the opinion, Leibowitz put the constitutional claim in plain terms.
"The Constitution commits to the States, and the States alone, the general power to set voter qualifications in federal elections,"
he wrote.
Federal prosecutors had argued the opposite. They said Congress’s power over immigration lets it keep noncitizens out of federal elections. They also pointed to the Supreme Court’s 1970 decision in Oregon v. Mitchell, which upheld a federal law lowering the voting age to 18, as proof that Congress can set some voting rules for federal contests. Leibowitz rejected that reading and dismissed the charges.
The 1996 statute, codified at 18 U.S.C. § 611, made noncitizen voting in federal elections a crime punishable by up to a year in prison and fines. For years it stood as a straightforward federal backstop. One district judge has now said that backstop was never valid.
James Percival, general counsel at the Department of Homeland Security under President Trump, blasted the decision on X. He framed the holding as turning a long-settled prohibition into protected conduct.
"A Biden appointed judge in Florida says that federal bans on noncitizen voting are unconstitutional. The thing that never happens is now ‘constitutionally protected activity!'"
Percival wrote.
Sen. Mike Lee also denounced the outcome, writing on X that the ruling will be overturned and accusing activist judges of trying to wipe out laws that bar noncitizens from voting. The backlash fits a wider pattern of conservative alarm over district judges blocking enforcement tools tied to borders and ballots.
Readers tracking similar fights have watched a Biden-appointed judge defy higher-court guidance on immigration status protections in Massachusetts. Different statute, same basic concern: trial judges rewriting national policy from the bench.
Cox’s case began with a concrete allegation. She voted in Broward County in 2020. Prosecutors brought federal charges under the noncitizen voting ban. Leibowitz did not decide the case on disputed facts about her status or her intent. He decided Congress never had the power to create the crime in the first place, so the prosecution ended.
The judge’s theory is structural. Articles I and II and the 17th Amendment describe how electors and senators are chosen and leave the qualifications of voters largely to state law. Leibowitz read those provisions to mean Congress cannot criminalize noncitizen voting in federal elections even when the election chooses federal officers.
Prosecutors answered with the immigration power and with Oregon v. Mitchell. That 1970 case let Congress set 18 as the minimum voting age for federal elections. The government treated it as clear precedent that federal law can adjust who votes for federal offices. Leibowitz held the noncitizen ban went further than the Constitution allows and dismissed the indictment.
Whether the ruling reaches only Cox or aims at the statute more broadly is not fully spelled out in the available accounts. What is clear is the immediate result: a federal noncitizen voting case is gone, and a 1996 criminal prohibition has been declared unconstitutional by a sitting district judge in Florida.
Parallel disputes keep surfacing. An Obama-appointed judge blocked a USPS mail-in voting rule twice in the run-up to the midterms, another example of a single chambers decision shaping election administration. Election rules now routinely end up before judges nominated in the last two Democratic administrations.
The timing adds weight. Leibowitz joined the court in 2024. Within a short span he has produced a lengthy opinion that, if left standing, removes a federal criminal tool used against noncitizen voting. States would remain free to set their own qualifications and enforce them. The federal penalty that backed those rules in national elections would not.
For years both parties treated the ban on noncitizen voting as settled law. Congress wrote it into the 1996 immigration reform package. Prosecutors used it. The statutory text is simple: noncitizens may not vote in elections for federal office, and violations carry prison time and fines. Leibowitz says that text exceeds Congress’s authority.
If the holding spreads, federal cases of this type become harder to bring. Local district attorneys and state election officials would carry more of the load. National campaigns that rely on uniform federal criminal deterrents would lose one. That is the practical stake, independent of the constitutional debate.
High-stakes judicial fights are not limited to voting. A federal appeals court ruled an Albany prosecutor was not lawfully appointed and quashed subpoenas in a major political case, another reminder that appointment and jurisdiction fights can erase enforcement work overnight. Procedure and power questions now decide outcomes as often as the underlying facts.
Open questions remain. The precise docket details beyond the CourtListener path, the full procedural motion that produced the dismissal, and whether the government has already filed an appeal are not settled in the current reporting. The opinion date itself is not clearly fixed in the accounts. What is fixed is the holding: Congress, in this judge’s view, cannot bar noncitizens from voting in federal elections.
Percival’s reaction captured the administration’s view. A practice long treated as unlawful is, under this opinion, beyond the reach of federal criminal law. Lee’s prediction that higher courts will reverse the decision reflects the expectation that the fight will not end in the Southern District of Florida.
Biden’s judicial picks continue to pursue these flashpoints. Separate reporting has examined how Biden privately weighed other sensitive legal moves late in his term, part of a broader record in which personnel and process choices still shape live cases. The Leibowitz opinion is the latest concrete product of that personnel pipeline.
Cox walked away from federal charges. The 1996 ban sits under a constitutional cloud in at least one courtroom. States still control their voter rolls, yet the federal criminal safety net that once backed those rolls has been cut in this case. Election officials and prosecutors now wait to see whether the ruling stays local or becomes a template.
When a single district judge can erase a decades-old federal ban on noncitizen voting, voters are entitled to ask who is writing the election rules, and who answers for the result.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s plan to cut 20 percent of the nation’s admirals and generals drew a cool reception from key senators who said they still lacked his detailed rationale.
Hegseth confirmed the reduction Wednesday in a 52-minute speech to active-duty officers at Marine Corps Base Quantico in Virginia, framing the move as basic accountability rather than a political housecleaning. Service branches have been asked to carry out the cuts by Jan. 1 next year, with some positions downgraded instead of eliminated.
The Hill reported that defense-focused lawmakers on both sides of the aisle greeted the announcement with caution, skepticism, or outright criticism, and several Republicans said they had not been briefed on the specifics.
The proposal builds on earlier steps under Hegseth to thin senior ranks and refocus the force on warfighting over bureaucracy. It arrives as the Pentagon continues a wider personnel overhaul that has already removed more than two dozen senior officers and blocked dozens of promotions across the Army, Navy, and Air Force.
Sen. Ted Budd, R-N.C., declined to endorse the cuts when asked whether they were a good move.
Budd told reporters, “No, I certainly want to see his rationale in detail, and I don’t have that yet.”
Sen. Deb Fischer, R-Neb., kept her focus narrow. “We are focused [on] what we are doing today,” she said.
Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Roger Wicker, R-Miss., offered no policy answer at all. Approached for comment Wednesday, he sang lines from Alfred Tennyson’s “Ulysses”: “There lies the port; the vessel puffs her sail; there gloom the dark, broad seas. My mariners, souls that have toiled, and wrought, and thought with me.”
Sen. Mike Rounds, R-S.D., said late Tuesday he had learned of the plan only through news reports and had received no Pentagon briefing. “I don’t know what his plan is,” Rounds said.
One Republican voice struck a more open tone. Sen. Rick Scott, R-Fla., a former Navy radarman and Trump ally, said he had not seen the plan but added that most large organizations grow top-heavy and that efficiency reviews are warranted so the military does not waste money.
That measured posture fits a broader pattern of Senate friction around Hegseth’s tenure, including earlier calls from some Republicans for his replacement.
Hegseth used the Quantico speech to answer critics directly. He told the officers that media outlets call his personnel moves a purge. He calls them something else.
"Now the media calls that a purge. I call it accountability and long overdue, and frankly, the bare minimum. As usual, what the media levels as an accusation, I wear as an accomplishment."
He tied the cuts to culture change. “You see, you can’t change a culture with the same people who enabled it. Personnel is policy at every single level,” Hegseth said. He also told the junior leaders that last year’s Quantico speech had not been aimed at the top brass but at “the backbone of our force, the current and future leaders on the front lines.”
Breitbart reported that Hegseth described the 20 percent reduction as a mix of firings and fewer reserved slots, and presented it as accountability for senior officers who resisted his push away from what he calls a woke, weak force.
The address continued Hegseth’s habit of speaking past the highest ranks. He has previously staged a Quantico talk aimed at junior troops rather than top brass, underscoring his preference for direct outreach to the force.
The new target doubles an earlier goal. A year after Hegseth oversaw a 10 percent reduction in general officers, he is now pressing for another deep cut in admiral and general billets.
The New York Post reported that the reductions are part of an anti-bureaucracy push meant to finish by Jan. 1 across the Air Force, Army, and Navy, and that Hegseth has already purged more than two dozen top officials while calling for “less generals, more GIs.”
Just the News noted that the 20 percent cut covers Army, Navy, Air Force, and joint-pool positions reserved for generals and admirals, that Hegseth approved the reductions earlier, and that billets set by federal law can simply remain unfilled without new nominations to Congress.
Those mechanics matter. Cutting slots and downgrading future jobs is not the same as mass firings on the spot, yet the effect on the senior bench is still large. Hegseth’s office did not respond to a request for comment from The Hill.
Personnel fights around the secretary have also reached his inner circle, with fresh attention on reported hands-on involvement by Jennifer Hegseth at the Pentagon.
Senate Armed Services ranking member Jack Reed, D-R.I., criticized the plan late Tuesday, before the formal announcement. Reed said the cuts would “add further disruption and confusion to the military forces,” that Hegseth “offered no framework for his decision,” and that the approach “seemed to be arbitrary” and would “cause harm rather than help” the military.
Sen. Elissa Slotkin, D-Mich., a former CIA analyst, labeled Hegseth’s broader personnel drive a “purge.” She said she had heard from people inside the department about low morale and about promising officers who are women or people of color fearing they will always be viewed as diversity hires no matter how well they perform. Slotkin also claimed private Republican frustration exists but rarely turns into public pushback.
Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., called the method “very draconian” and said Hegseth had failed to come to Congress, “which he is obligated to do.” Blumenthal further charged that the secretary is “putting political loyalty above merit” and that there is “no evidence that he’s conducted any kind of systematic or intelligent or strategic oversight” of either the numbers or the individuals chosen.
Rep. Chrissy Houlahan, D-Pa., an Air Force veteran on the House Armed Services Committee, argued that shrinking general-officer posts gives the secretary more lasting sway over who rises. In a post on X she wrote that service members “have dedicated their lives to protecting our nation and we owe it to them to have a SecDef that respects their careers, honors their service and applies their expertise to the challenges facing us today.”
Separate from the billet cuts, Reuters reported that Hegseth is also ending civilian tenured faculty appointments at the service academies to refocus those schools on warfighting, and that the Quantico speech was aimed heavily at junior service members as he continues reshaping senior leadership.
Critics have tried other pressure points as well, from legal fights over Iran operations to questions about White House confidence in his team, including earlier episodes in which Hegseth rejected claims of a search to replace his deputy.
Hegseth’s case rests on a simple claim: a military that grew thick at the top cannot fix its culture with the same leadership bench that allowed mission drift. Taxpayers fund the force. Warfighters carry the risk. Senior billets exist to serve both, not to protect themselves.
Democrats counter that the process looks arbitrary, harms morale, and skirts Congress. Several Republicans answer that they are still waiting for the written rationale and the billet list. Those are fair oversight questions. They are not an argument for freezing a top-heavy structure in place.
The services now have a deadline. Jan. 1 will show whether the cuts land as disciplined streamlining or as another round of political trench warfare. Congress can demand the plan in writing. It should also remember why the plan exists: fewer layers, clearer standards, and a force built for combat rather than bureaucracy.
When leaders treat every accountability drive as a scandal, the only thing that grows is the brass.
Pennsylvania health officials reported a fifth measles-associated death this week, deepening a national outbreak that has already become the country’s worst measles year since 1991.
The latest victim was from Lancaster County and was unvaccinated, the Pennsylvania Department of Health said Wednesday, according to New York Post reporting. State officials gave no further details on the person’s age, sex, or medical course.
Lancaster County Coroner Dr. Stephen Diamantoni said his office did not handle the death and that state officials have not shared details with him. The silence leaves basic questions unanswered even as case counts climb.
Pennsylvania has now recorded 943 measles illnesses across 39 counties this year. State officials say these are the first measles-associated deaths reported in Pennsylvania in 35 years.
The human toll is already clear. Earlier deaths include an 18-year-old from Mifflin County in the center of the state, a 40-year-old woman from rural Jefferson County in western Pennsylvania, and two infants from Lancaster County in the southeast.
Officials said none of the prior decedents were vaccinated. The two infants were too young for measles shots under current recommendations, leaving them dependent on the immunity of everyone around them.
That pattern matters. Measles spreads fast in under-vaccinated communities. Public health agencies have long treated about 95% coverage as the line that keeps outbreaks from taking hold. Reporting on the current surge says U.S. vaccination coverage has fallen below that mark.
The United States eliminated domestic measles spread in 2000 by keeping vaccination rates high. That achievement is now under strain. The country has seen eight reported measles-associated deaths in the last two years, more than the combined total reported over the previous three decades.
This year is on track as the worst for measles since 1991. International health officials are scheduled to meet in November to decide whether the United States and Mexico have lost their measles-free status.
Losing that designation would mark a sharp reversal after a generation of control. It would also signal that routine childhood protection has slipped in enough places to let an old virus run again.
Measles is not a mild nuisance. It can lead to pneumonia, brain swelling, lifelong complications, and death, risks that fall hardest on infants and people who cannot be vaccinated for medical reasons. The Pennsylvania cluster shows those risks in plain numbers: hundreds of illnesses, multiple counties, and five deaths after a 35-year gap.
Parents who skip or delay shots often cite personal belief waivers, access problems, or distrust of official messaging. Whatever the motive, the clinical result is the same when coverage drops and the virus finds an opening.
Federal health policy has been in flux this year, including moves such as a Trump executive order on the CDC childhood vaccine schedule, that readers following national health rules already watch closely. Clear guidance and credible data remain the practical tools that keep rare diseases rare.
The latest Pennsylvania case also exposes a coordination gap. A county coroner saying he neither handled the death nor received details from the state is not how a mature disease-response system should look to the public.
Families and local clinicians need timely facts: where exposure happened, who else is at risk, and what protection steps still work. Vague notices after the fact do not stop transmission.
Lancaster County now appears in the record for both the newest death and the two infant deaths. Mifflin and Jefferson counties have buried young adults. Thirty-nine counties have reported illness. That is no longer a single-pocket problem.
Related administration health efforts, from food-ingredient changes to broader prevention goals tied to Kennedy’s health push on additives and consumer products, show Washington is willing to revise old playbooks. Outbreak control still rises or falls on whether communities keep measles immunity high enough that one imported case does not become hundreds.
The arithmetic is not mysterious. When vaccination rates sit under the level needed to block sustained spread, measles returns. When it returns, some unvaccinated patients die. Infants too young for the shot pay part of that price.
Pennsylvania’s 943 cases and five measles-associated deaths are the concrete result. The national count of eight deaths in two years, topping three prior decades combined, is the wider warning.
November’s international review of measles-free status for the United States and Mexico will turn on real transmission data, not press releases. States that want to keep the virus out need honest uptake numbers, fast local reporting, and fewer fog machines when a death occurs.
Five deaths after 35 quiet years is the kind of record that should focus every health department on results, measured immunity, rapid contact work, and straight talk to parents, instead of another cycle of spin.
The Trump administration is moving to put a citizenship and work-authorization question on next year’s Form 1040 while tightening who can claim the full value of major tax credits, a push critics call deterrence and the Treasury calls necessary.
The Internal Revenue Service released a draft of Form 1040 this month that asks filers a plain Yes-or-No question about legal status. Newsmax reported the administration is considering the change for next year’s federal return.
The draft question reads: “At the time you file your return, are you, and your spouse if filing jointly, a U.S. citizen, U.S. national, or an alien lawfully authorized to work in the U.S.?” Filers would check Yes or No. The IRS also released a draft of a separate form that asks whether a person meets the “qualified alien” definition under a 1996 law.
Separately, the Treasury Department is advancing proposed rules that could cut the full value of four credits for some immigrants who are legally allowed to live and work here. The credits are the earned-income tax credit, the child tax credit, the adoption tax credit, and the American Opportunity tax credit.
Treasury’s plan would treat the refundable portion of those credits as a “federal public benefit” under the 1996 law’s eligibility rules, rather than the rules Congress wrote for the credits themselves. That 1996 definition of “qualified alien” leaves out some people who hold work authorization and Social Security numbers, including DACA recipients, people on work or student visas, and some with temporary protected status. Green-card holders generally meet the definition.
Under current tax law, three of the four credits are already limited to people with work-authorized Social Security numbers. The adoption credit has been available to a broader group. The new proposal would pull the adoption credit under the tighter 1996 standard as well.
Refundable credits work like this in practice: if a filer qualifies for a $1,000 refundable credit and owes $200 in tax, the remaining $800 is paid out. Treating that payout as a federal public benefit is how Treasury would bring the 1996 eligibility screen into play.
A Treasury representative said the Form 1040 question would give the IRS “important and necessary information” so tax benefits go to eligible recipients. The administration’s stated aim, as carried in Tuesday reporting, is to help ensure benefits go to people eligible under the law. The same representative did not address further questions about the proposed change.
That focus on eligibility fits a broader pattern of Trump-era enforcement priorities, including DHS pushback against efforts to abolish ICE and pressure on lawmakers to back anti-fraud work.
Nina Olson, a former IRS official who leads the Center for Taxpayer Rights, rejected the operational case for the new question.
Olson said:
"The IRS doesn’t need this information to administer the tax law."
She added:
"The only reason you have that attestation is to deter people."
Margot Crandall-Hollick, a researcher at the Tax Policy Center, framed the Treasury credit rules as aimed at lawful workers, not people here illegally.
Crandall-Hollick said:
"This isn’t about undocumented immigrants, no matter how much they advertise it as such."
She continued:
"This is about going after people who are allowed to be here and allowed to work here."
Those claims sit beside a basic fact the same reporting notes: the IRS has not routinely asked taxpayers about immigration status and has generally encouraged U.S. residents to file. People without valid Social Security numbers can still file using an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number.
Federal law tightly limits access to tax return information. Several courts have blocked the IRS from sharing bulk taxpayer data with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Last year, the IRS still provided ICE with addresses on file for about 47,000 people.
That history is why a new status question on the main individual return raises enforcement questions even when the form itself is still only a draft. The package does not settle whether answers could be used for detention or removal; it does show renewed attention to the line between tax administration and immigration enforcement.
Reporting also states that illegal immigrants pay tens of billions of dollars each year in federal income and payroll taxes, plus local taxes. The policy fight is not whether money is collected. It is who may claim the refundable upside of credits Congress designed with eligibility limits, and whether the IRS should collect a clear attestation on citizenship and work authorization when benefits are on the line. Readers tracking other Trump rollbacks of Biden-era rules, from fuel-economy mandates to related vehicle standards, will recognize the same emphasis on rewriting inherited administrative baselines.
The Form 1040 change is under consideration for next year’s return. The IRS draft went out this month. Absolute calendar dates for the draft release, the Tuesday New York Times account of the administration’s rationale, and the full Treasury rulemaking schedule are not fixed in the available record. The statutory citation for the 1996 law is described by its “qualified alien” and “federal public benefit” terms, not by section number.
What is fixed is the mechanism: a Yes/No citizenship and work-authorization line on the main return; a separate draft form on “qualified alien” status; and a Treasury theory that would reclassify refundable credit dollars so the 1996 eligibility screen applies, including to the adoption credit.
White House messaging fights and legislative follow-through on enforcement bodies have run on a parallel track, from patriotic administration ad spending to Senate pressure after a House vote on Trump’s anti-fraud division. The tax draft is another concrete lever: verify status, limit benefits to people the law treats as eligible, and stop treating refundable credits as open-ended.
Taxpayers already face a thicket of identity and income rules. Asking whether a filer is a citizen, a national, or an alien lawfully authorized to work is a direct eligibility screen, not a mystery. The same goes for applying a long-standing public-benefit definition to refundable outlays the Treasury now wants to police more tightly.
Lawful benefits belong to people who qualify under the law, and a government that refuses to ask the status question cannot pretend it is serious about that line.
Seven Arizona State hockey players asked President Michael Crow to sideline coach Greg Powers after a preseason workout left teammate Matthew Mayich in a coma, disputing the school’s own review.
Arizona State University is investigating a grueling August 20 outdoor team workout that left sophomore hockey player Matthew Mayich incapacitated, on life support, and in a coma after he collapsed from exertional heat stroke.
Seven anonymous Sun Devils teammates have now sent a 26-page letter to ASU president Michael Crow seeking administrative leave for head coach Greg Powers and his staff. The players say the university’s initial review got the hydration timeline, monitoring failures, and emergency response wrong, and they fear retaliation if they keep quiet.
Fox News reported that the coaches remain in their jobs even as the program prepares to open its 2026, 27 season Friday against Lindenwood. Mayich, an Ontario native previously with the Ottawa 67’s and selected 170th overall by the St. Louis Blues in the 2023 NHL Draft, showed early signs of trouble that the letter says no one properly addressed.
The workout stretched about 75 minutes in Arizona’s triple-digit August heat and included bear crawls, buddy carries, and a medicine-ball task. Players described Mayich as someone who already spent most of his off time in an air-conditioned apartment because the heat was too much for him. Prior outdoor sessions, they said, usually lasted roughly 15 minutes before the team went back inside.
According to the letter, Mayich displayed distress well before he went down. He struggled during the bear crawl and could not complete the buddy carry. At a talk before the final event he was leaning on a teammate and having trouble standing, in front of the coaches, a trainer, and the ex-U.S. Army Green Beret running the session.
The players wrote that no one stepped in.
The letter states:
"Matthew showed signs of distress earlier, in the bear crawl and the buddy carry, well before the medicine ball task during which he collapsed. At the talk before the final event he was struggling to stand and leaning on a teammate, in front of Ziesel, the coaches, and the trainer. No one at ASU properly monitored him during the workout and no one intervened."
The New York Post reported that the session was led by ex-Green Beret Tim Ziesel at Sun Angel Stadium. Players claim Ziesel later admitted he forgot they needed a water break and remarked that he did not drink water during combat missions.
Hydration is the sharpest clash between the university’s review and the players’ account. ASU’s initial review placed a water break about 20 minutes into the workout. The players say the only break came roughly 40 minutes in, lasted a few seconds, and reached only about eight athletes before coaches ordered them back out.
The letter puts it plainly:
"The first of us to finish had a few seconds at the bottles before being ordered back while others, including Matthew, were still crawling. This was the only water break."
After Mayich collapsed, teammates say he remained in direct sunlight for several minutes before being carried into shade. Cooling measures were limited to towels, bottled water, and a garden hose. Breitbart noted that no cold-water immersion tub was available on the field despite university policy, and that Mayich was left with no chance of recovery.
Young athletes collapsing under extreme conditions is not abstract. A North Carolina middle school football player died three days after cardiac arrest at practice, another reminder that delayed response and ignored warning signs carry permanent costs.
The university’s own initial review found that Mayich did not receive proper hydration and received inadequate medical care after collapsing. Yet Powers and the assistant coaches who were on the field that morning have not been removed.
Players say Powers downplayed the emergency as a “little heat stroke” and claimed the team was “closer to making the Frozen Four because of the workout.” They also wrote that he never seemed to grasp how serious Mayich’s condition was.
The letter to Crow drives the point home:
"The head coach and his assistant coaches were all on the field on August 20, all remain in their positions, and together they decide our playing time, scholarship levels, and roster status. No one has separate us from them since that morning. We should not have to choose between telling the truth about August 20 and keeping what we have worked our whole lives for."
Powers was asked about the incident earlier this month and declined to speak, citing the “difficult time” it has been for the program. Family attorney Rob Carey has publicly pressed athletic officials for accountability. Crow has received the demand for administrative leave and an outside investigation; whether either request is granted remains unanswered.
Sudden, preventable losses keep landing on families who expected basic safety. Readers will recall the Massachusetts trooper killed by a wrong-way drunk driver after a bar served nine drinks, another case where systems failed ordinary people who deserved better oversight.
ASU launched a formal investigation after the collapse. The coaches who ran the session still control scholarships and playing time. Mayich remains the central human cost of a 75-minute outdoor grind in Arizona heat that players say ignored visible distress, delayed water, and offered only improvised cooling once he went down.
The letter asks for protection from retaliation, administrative leave for the staff, and investigators who do not answer to the same athletic department that conducted the first review. Those requests sit with Crow as the Sun Devils prepare to take the ice.
When a university’s own review already flags bad hydration and weak medical care, leaving the same staff in charge of the next workout is not leadership. It is a choice, and the players living with the consequences are done pretending otherwise.
President Donald Trump has canceled Joe Biden’s stricter auto fuel economy standards, calling them a costly electric vehicle mandate that will now give way to lower prices and freer factories.
Trump announced the reversal on Saturday, saying he had approved new fuel economy standards that terminate what he labeled Biden and former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg’s “EV Mandate.” The move undoes Biden-era Corporate Average Fuel Economy rules that pushed automakers toward higher mileage targets and heavier electric vehicle pressure.
In a Truth Social post highlighted in Breitbart reporting, Trump cast the change as a direct win for workers and buyers.
"BIG DAY FOR AMERICAN AUTO WORKERS AND CAR BUYERS! I have just approved new Fuel Economy Standards that TERMINATE Sleepy Joe Biden and Pete Boot-EDGE-EDGE’s ridiculous EV Mandate. The Dumocrats cost our Great Auto Manufacturers $Billions, forced Americans into cars they never wanted, and wasted Billions on Chargers that were never built."
He added that the new standards would strip waste from American car building, deliver lower prices, and save families thousands on a new vehicle. Trump said manufacturers from General Motors to Ford to Stellantis had called him wanting to build in the United States and now could do so.
The action fulfills a 2024 campaign promise to rescind policies that encouraged or incentivized electric vehicles. It also continues a pattern of rolling back Biden-era industrial mandates, including earlier moves that ended the Biden EV push with fuel standards aimed at cutting car prices.
CAFE standards date to 1975 and set the average fuel economy vehicles must meet to be sold. They have been revised for decades. In his first term, Trump cut an Obama-era requirement of a five percent annual efficiency increase down to 1.5 percent.
Biden reversed those first-term reductions after taking office. His administration put in place stricter rules aimed at promoting electric vehicles. CNBC reporting cited in the coverage said automakers would have had to raise the fuel efficiency of passenger cars and light trucks to roughly 50 miles per gallon by 2031.
Weaker standards, that same CNBC account noted, let automakers produce more pickup trucks and SUVs. Those models are far more profitable than smaller cars even though they get worse gas mileage. Final numeric details of Trump’s new standards remain pending, but the direction is clear: the forced march toward the prior target is over.
The New York Post reported that Trump proposed cutting the 2031 requirement to 34 miles per gallon, down from Biden’s 50 mpg mark. Ford and Stellantis chief executives joined the president and praised the decision to loosen limits on gas-powered vehicles.
Ford CEO Jim Farley put the industry case in plain terms.
"This is a win for customers and common sense."
Trump told reporters the prior rules had been ridiculously burdensome. The Post account also noted the change builds on earlier legislation that repealed penalties and blocked California’s gas-car ban, with automakers shifting investment back toward conventional vehicles.
The Washington Examiner reported that the Department of Transportation is canceling the Biden CAFE rules to reset the standards. The administration says the shift will save Americans about $1,000 on a new vehicle. Biden’s 2024 rules had required roughly 2 percent annual fuel-economy increases and pushed fleet averages toward that 50 mpg level by the 2031 model year.
Trump argued the old approach forced expensive technology into cars people did not want.
"Nobody wanted to do it, and it was ridiculous, very expensive... these policies forced automakers to build cars using expensive technologies that drove up costs, drove up prices, and made the car much worse."
That cost argument lands with buyers who already face high vehicle prices. It also lands with plants and workers who watched investment chase mandates instead of demand. Trump wrote that more than $100 billion is being invested by manufacturers in U.S. automobile production, with plants and jobs returning to the Midwest and the South.
General Motors has signaled it still plans to offer electric models. Tesla keeps a loyal base. The difference is that the federal thumb is no longer pressing the entire industry toward one technology path on a political timetable. Shoppers regain room to choose trucks, SUVs, hybrids, or electrics without a Washington quota hanging over the lot.
That same preference for practical governance over ideological projects has shown up elsewhere, from border enforcement fights to cases where Trump DHS officials confronted Squad Democrats pushing to abolish ICE.
For years the standards became a political football. Obama raised the annual climb. Trump slowed it. Biden jacked the targets back up and folded in electric-vehicle pressure. Each swing left manufacturers rewriting product plans and spending capital on compliance rather than what customers actually ordered.
Trump’s Saturday announcement cuts that cycle short. He framed the prior approach as waste that produced cars he called “Environmental Monsters” and chargers that never got built. The new posture is simpler: build what sells, price it so families can buy it, and keep the factories here.
Democrats spent years treating climate policy as an emergency that justified higher costs and thinner choice. Biden repeatedly called climate change an existential threat and used the regulatory state to steer the auto market. The result was rules that treated pickup buyers and working families as obstacles. Voters rejected that bargain. The new standards reflect the rejection.
Congressional Democrats have kept looking for fresh fights even after clear public verdicts, including the recent episode in which the House killed Al Green’s Trump impeachment resolution while 147 Democrats tried to keep it alive. The fuel-economy fight follows the same pattern: a mandate imposed from above, then a correction when the costs hit home.
Automakers had little room to ignore the old targets. Missing CAFE averages meant penalties and product mix restrictions. Looser rules let them put capital into profitable lines and domestic capacity instead of chasing a political mpg number. That is why CEOs from Ford and Stellantis stood with the change and why Trump could say the manufacturers wanted to build here again.
The open questions are ordinary regulatory ones. Exact final mpg tables are still pending. The precise rule text and effective dates will matter to compliance teams. But the policy signal is already out: the federal government will no longer treat gas-powered trucks and SUVs as problems to be regulated out of the market.
The people who live with these rules are not Washington modelers. They are families comparing monthly payments, dealers trying to stock what moves, and line workers whose shifts depend on plants staying open. When standards force smaller, pricier, less practical vehicles, those people pay first.
Trump’s post tied the old rules to billions in manufacturer costs and billions more spent on chargers that never appeared. Whether every dollar figure holds up in later audits, the direction of the complaint matches what dealers and buyers already saw on the lot: fewer of the vehicles people wanted, more pressure toward models that needed subsidies and infrastructure that lagged.
Restoring choice does not ban electric cars. It stops the government from pretending every household wants one on the same schedule. Tesla’s base remains. GM can keep offering EVs. The rest of the industry can again match metal to demand. That is how markets are supposed to work.
Other Trump-era accountability fights have put the same pressure on Democrats who resist practical enforcement, including the push that left Senate Democrats facing calls to back an anti-fraud division after a bipartisan House vote. Energy and auto policy now join that list.
Lower sticker prices, more trucks and SUVs if buyers want them, and factories free to invest without a 50 mpg political ceiling are the near-term stakes. The longer stake is whether industrial policy answers to voters and customers or to activists who never had to make the payment.
Washington spent years trying to regulate Americans into cars they did not ask for. The new standards put the keys back where they belong, with the people who drive and the workers who build.
President Trump approved new fuel economy standards that he says will end the Biden-era EV mandate and save families thousands on new cars, while bringing auto plants and jobs back home.
On Saturday, President Trump said he had just signed off on the standards and framed the move as a direct break from the prior administration’s electric-vehicle push. Just the News reported his announcement and the statements that followed.
Trump cast the change as relief for both auto workers and buyers who had been pushed toward vehicles many never wanted. He tied the old rules to billions in manufacturer costs and unused charging infrastructure.
In posts describing the decision, Trump wrote that the new standards terminate what he called the previous EV mandate.
"BIG DAY FOR AMERICAN AUTO WORKERS AND CAR BUYERS! I have just approved new Fuel Economy Standards that TERMINATE Sleepy Joe Biden and Pete Boot-EDGE-EDGE's ridiculous EV Mandate. The Dumocrats cost our Great Auto Manufacturers $Billions, forced Americans into cars they never wanted, and wasted Billions on Chargers that were never built,"
He argued the shift strips waste out of U.S. car production and delivers lower sticker prices.
"These new Standards will take the waste out of building cars in America. That means LOWER PRICES, saving families thousands on a new, beautiful, and safe car, Far better than the Environmental Monsters that we were building heretofore. Every Manufacturer, from General Motors to Ford to Stellantis, has called me wanting to build here, and now they can!"
Trump also pointed to fresh capital flowing into domestic auto production under his watch. He said more than $100 billion is already being invested in American autos, with plants and jobs returning to Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, South Carolina, and across the country.
The Washington Examiner covered the same announcement, noting Trump’s order undoes Biden-era policy that had burdened manufacturers and consumers while pouring money into chargers that went unused.
That reporting aligns with Trump’s claim that the earlier approach forced unwanted cars onto the market and drained industry resources. The new standards, in his telling, clear the way for General Motors, Ford, Stellantis, and others to expand U.S. production without the same regulatory weight.
Similar administration moves that put American workers first have drawn strong public notice, including when the Trump administration pulled 28,000 trucker licenses from non-citizens and turned to veterans to fill those seats.
Breitbart reported that the prior CAFE rules had targeted roughly 50 mpg by 2031 and that the rollback should favor profitable pickup trucks and SUVs while giving buyers more choice. The outlet noted EV demand has lagged, and weaker standards reverse a policy back-and-forth that had left manufacturers guessing.
Trump presented the change as the start of a broader comeback for domestic auto making rather than a one-day announcement. He said the investment already underway is “just the beginning.”
Trump named Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, and South Carolina as places where plants are coming back and jobs are returning. Those states have long anchored American vehicle production, and his message put workers and buyers ahead of the prior green timeline.
The same focus on concrete results for Americans appears in other recent orders, such as the decision that deported more than 25,000 people to third countries since the administration took office.
No independent regulatory text, docket number, or agency filing was detailed in the initial reporting. Trump’s statements remain the clearest public account of what the new fuel economy standards contain and what they replace.
He has treated the EV mandate as a costly experiment that raised prices and limited choice. The new standards, he said, reverse that by letting manufacturers build cars people will actually buy at prices families can afford.
Supporters of the earlier rules had sold aggressive electric-vehicle targets as the path to cleaner air and industrial leadership. Trump’s account is that those targets instead produced expensive vehicles, unfinished chargers, and pressure on companies that still make most of their money on trucks and SUVs.
Readers watching official actions that reset prior priorities also followed the administration’s move to cap 2027 refugee admissions at 17,500 while reserving most slots for South African Afrikaners.
Trump’s auto announcement fits the same pattern: an executive decision that discards a Biden-era framework and replaces it with one he says serves workers and consumers first. He named the manufacturers that contacted him and the states he expects to gain plants and payrolls.
Whether the promised price cuts and plant openings materialize will be measured in showroom tags and hiring numbers. For now the president has put the claim in plain terms, lower prices, less waste, and American factories back in the game.
Other high-profile steps, from a sweeping Greenland military deal to pressure on Senate Democrats over an anti-fraud division, have kept the same emphasis on results over ideology.
Car buyers and auto workers were told for years that electric mandates were inevitable. Trump’s new fuel economy standards reject that premise and bet on choice, cost, and domestic production instead.